the issue of adaptation from another medium
like the remake, the adaptation film is another one where making it is walking on eggshells. the end result could either put the film into greater glory or greater infamy. since adaptations are quite common in the film world, there is a lot to work with it, a lot of look at and a lot of things that can be concluded.
the basic idea that needs to be addressed is the nature of adaptation. adaptation is a translation from one medium into the next. for our purposes, it is the translation of a work in one medium - either a book, a series of books, graphic novels/comic books, television series - into another (or film in this case). since adaptation is a form of translation, there are some things that can understood right away. for starters, the goal of translation is to be understood in a situation where there are differences, usually in language. but often, translations (even the really good ones) can sacrifice nuances of language for the sake of being understood. much of the time, a good translation will try to emphasize the original even in the adopted language. but being the natural pattern seekers and analyzers that we are, we notice the difference between dante's original and the various english translations of la comedia
likewise, medium translation suffers the same dilemma: how can i convey my idea into this new medium? it's not quite apparent but there are differences in the medium itself that will automatically lead to discrepenacies. let's use book --> film as our main example. both mediums depend on time to convey its point and both can take as long or as short as it wants to make that point. but the book depends on the reader's imagination whereas the film stimulates it visually and aurally (even silence is an aural stimulation =] ). also because the book depends on the reader's imagination, description is essential and often can be the best part of a book. a film trying to describe something prosiacally when it can be done visually is redundant, tedious, repetitive and boring. so already there's going to be a discrepenacy between the two realms.
going further, the next question "what kind of film should i be making?" like translation, the translator (writer and/or director) will inject, consciously or unconsciously, their own tastes and sensibilities into a work, even while immensely respecting the original work. in fact, this is how c.s. lewis liked to approach literature in general where you look at the thing itself, not biographical fluff (i.e. what was the author thinking?). if you gearing for a film for a mass audience, the translation discrepenacy can either be minute or ghastly different. even the mass audience's short attention span, less emphasis on thinking and more emphasis on dazzle and spectacle, making milan kundera's the unbearable lightness of being in a mainstream film would be an utter disaster. but when phillip kaufman (with his writing partner jean-claude carrière) did it, they respected as much as possible the book's underlining philosophical outlook and infused into the main narrative/character acting. the result was the best you could do with an "unfilmable book."
there are some adaptations that i enjoy just as much as the book. those include peter jackson's cinematic wagnerian effort to adapt j.r.r. tolkien's the lord of the rings. although i know several people were quite upset with the loss of certain stories (tom bombadill and the scourging of the shire being the key ones), i felt that those were merited given all the other pluses to the film. even the theatrical cut does a good job in telling story, although i hold that the extended cuts are closer to the book and also helps further justify the changes of the story (i.e. faramir's motives for taking the ring to gondor is understood better in the extended cut). other ones include the chronicle of narnia: the lion, the witch and the wardrobe, various shakespeare adaptations (including akira kurosawa's 1985 ran, based on king lear) as well as the aforementioned the unbearable lightness of being.
there are even some adaptations that i enjoy even better than the book. for instance, stanley kubrick was a master of adaptation and made stephen king's the shining better and more interesting than the original novel (although stanley held a lot of regard for stephen king's writing... hence using it in the first place =] ). in addition he helped clarify anthony burgess' a clockwork orange (even if the author hated both book and film =] ). high fidelity (originally written by nick hornby 1995, dir. stephen frears 2000) is another one and it's not because of the change of location (novel in london, film in chicago). the four screenwriters (all friends from chicago: d.v. devincentis, steve pink, scott rosenberg and john cusack) were able to make the characters interesting and the story less dry/prissy. of course the casting really made the difference. and finally - and i know i'm going to get flamed for this one - to kill a mockingbird (originally written by harper lee 1960, dir. robert mulligan 1962). this is a sentiment that i share with my maternal grandfather (memory eternal since 1990). the novel was fixated on the south and everything was symbolic of growing up in the south. the film just focused on the childhood and growing up in general. yes you have tom robinson's trial in there but the film places it because it is an event in "scout"'s life and you do learn something from it. i think if it were adapted five years or ten years (and most certainly now), the trial will be the central focus of the film. so in short, that film was more pleasing because it just told a really good story about growing up without getting weighed down by the allegory.
based on the reliability of natural memory blockers, i can't think of a bad adaptation (although i know perfectly well that they are there).
oh and i give a lot of credit to jean-luc godard on a lot of this stuff, especially through his film le mépris [contempt] made in 1963 and based on the 1954 novel il disprezzo by alberto moravia. and even more so, to robert stam's commentary found on the criterion release.
the basic idea that needs to be addressed is the nature of adaptation. adaptation is a translation from one medium into the next. for our purposes, it is the translation of a work in one medium - either a book, a series of books, graphic novels/comic books, television series - into another (or film in this case). since adaptation is a form of translation, there are some things that can understood right away. for starters, the goal of translation is to be understood in a situation where there are differences, usually in language. but often, translations (even the really good ones) can sacrifice nuances of language for the sake of being understood. much of the time, a good translation will try to emphasize the original even in the adopted language. but being the natural pattern seekers and analyzers that we are, we notice the difference between dante's original and the various english translations of la comedia
likewise, medium translation suffers the same dilemma: how can i convey my idea into this new medium? it's not quite apparent but there are differences in the medium itself that will automatically lead to discrepenacies. let's use book --> film as our main example. both mediums depend on time to convey its point and both can take as long or as short as it wants to make that point. but the book depends on the reader's imagination whereas the film stimulates it visually and aurally (even silence is an aural stimulation =] ). also because the book depends on the reader's imagination, description is essential and often can be the best part of a book. a film trying to describe something prosiacally when it can be done visually is redundant, tedious, repetitive and boring. so already there's going to be a discrepenacy between the two realms.
going further, the next question "what kind of film should i be making?" like translation, the translator (writer and/or director) will inject, consciously or unconsciously, their own tastes and sensibilities into a work, even while immensely respecting the original work. in fact, this is how c.s. lewis liked to approach literature in general where you look at the thing itself, not biographical fluff (i.e. what was the author thinking?). if you gearing for a film for a mass audience, the translation discrepenacy can either be minute or ghastly different. even the mass audience's short attention span, less emphasis on thinking and more emphasis on dazzle and spectacle, making milan kundera's the unbearable lightness of being in a mainstream film would be an utter disaster. but when phillip kaufman (with his writing partner jean-claude carrière) did it, they respected as much as possible the book's underlining philosophical outlook and infused into the main narrative/character acting. the result was the best you could do with an "unfilmable book."
there are some adaptations that i enjoy just as much as the book. those include peter jackson's cinematic wagnerian effort to adapt j.r.r. tolkien's the lord of the rings. although i know several people were quite upset with the loss of certain stories (tom bombadill and the scourging of the shire being the key ones), i felt that those were merited given all the other pluses to the film. even the theatrical cut does a good job in telling story, although i hold that the extended cuts are closer to the book and also helps further justify the changes of the story (i.e. faramir's motives for taking the ring to gondor is understood better in the extended cut). other ones include the chronicle of narnia: the lion, the witch and the wardrobe, various shakespeare adaptations (including akira kurosawa's 1985 ran, based on king lear) as well as the aforementioned the unbearable lightness of being.
there are even some adaptations that i enjoy even better than the book. for instance, stanley kubrick was a master of adaptation and made stephen king's the shining better and more interesting than the original novel (although stanley held a lot of regard for stephen king's writing... hence using it in the first place =] ). in addition he helped clarify anthony burgess' a clockwork orange (even if the author hated both book and film =] ). high fidelity (originally written by nick hornby 1995, dir. stephen frears 2000) is another one and it's not because of the change of location (novel in london, film in chicago). the four screenwriters (all friends from chicago: d.v. devincentis, steve pink, scott rosenberg and john cusack) were able to make the characters interesting and the story less dry/prissy. of course the casting really made the difference. and finally - and i know i'm going to get flamed for this one - to kill a mockingbird (originally written by harper lee 1960, dir. robert mulligan 1962). this is a sentiment that i share with my maternal grandfather (memory eternal since 1990). the novel was fixated on the south and everything was symbolic of growing up in the south. the film just focused on the childhood and growing up in general. yes you have tom robinson's trial in there but the film places it because it is an event in "scout"'s life and you do learn something from it. i think if it were adapted five years or ten years (and most certainly now), the trial will be the central focus of the film. so in short, that film was more pleasing because it just told a really good story about growing up without getting weighed down by the allegory.
based on the reliability of natural memory blockers, i can't think of a bad adaptation (although i know perfectly well that they are there).
oh and i give a lot of credit to jean-luc godard on a lot of this stuff, especially through his film le mépris [contempt] made in 1963 and based on the 1954 novel il disprezzo by alberto moravia. and even more so, to robert stam's commentary found on the criterion release.
posted by djproject at 11:48
4 Comments:
What do you think about Cronenberg's Naked Lunch. I've yet to read the novel. I've read bits of it though...enough to sort get a wiff of Burrough's style. All aside, you've definitely got some interesting ideas.
Hi, and what about Cahiers du cinema, the French review ? no references ?
to rob, yes i've seen naked lunch but not read it.
to anon, this blog bears no relation whatsoever with the french magazine of the same name.
I'd argue that The Wizard of Oz (1939) is actually much much better than the book. The book (which I recently re-read) isn't really all that great and is very episodic - feeling almost random at points - whereas the movie is not only coherent but loaded with rich layers of symbolism and even some very curious subtexts (poppies vs. snow, "some people do go both ways).
Post a Comment
<< Home