Can a film adapttaion be good even if it deviates from the work it was based on?
Some people believe that in order for a film adaptation to be “good,” it must be faithful to the original work. Some filmmakers adhere to this philosophy. Kenneth Branagh, whose film adaptations of several of Shakespeare’s play have aimed for a strict adherence to the original work, is an excellent example. However, many experts strongly disagree. William Goldman says, “There has never in the history of the world been a movie that’s really been like the book.” Deborah Cartmell and Imelda Whelehan make a similar argument in The Cambridge Companion to Literature on Screen: “Explicit in all these works is a desire to free our notion of film adaptations from this dependency on literature so that adaptations are not derided as sycophantic, derivative, and therefore inferior to their literary counterparts.” In fact, most people will typically argue that “the book is better” when discussing film adaptations. In considering this debate more analytically, now with a better understanding of the artistic differences between these mediums and the limitations of each, which camp are you in?
A series of questions arises from this debate that can help us consider this question in more depth and thereby help us defend our individual positions. First, of course, should fidelity to the original work be the foremost concern of a film adaptation? Is an accurate depiction of an original story whether fiction or nonfiction more important than the artistic and interpretive retelling of that story? Does translating a story from one medium into another necessitate change to the story itself? How much of a story’s integrity can be maintained when retelling it in a new medium? Should this even be a concern at all? In responding to these questions, consider the film Adaptation as well as other film adaptations that you have viewed.
Fidelity to the original work should not necessarily be the foremost concern of a film adaptation. It should be high on the priorities list though. The director of the film should have as much artistic freedom as the author of the book. However, the director should stick to the plot of the film. As an audience member, when I go see a movie that is supposed to be an adaptation, I get mad because they messed up the plot and changed it. The artistic and interpretive retelling of the story is more important than the depiction of the original story. The director should have artistic freedom also because he is just as much an artist as the author of the book. If the director feels like taking the story in a direction but can’t because it’s different than what the book does, the movie could suffer because his artistic abilities were cramped. When translating the story from one medium into another medium does change the story. In a book, the author can give us some insight into the minds of those in the book. In a film, it is hard to see into what the character is thinking unless the director used narration which could potentially reduce the realness of the film.
ReplyDeleteThe fidelity to the original work should not be the foremost concern of a film adaption. We discussed in class that producers might take the overall effectiveness of the movie and make a remake of it. When sticking to a film, the plot is not the only thing people take from the movie, but emotions as well. When reading the original Sleeping Beauty short story, the plots only had few similarities. Each story was much different, but they each told a story of a princess who falls into a deep sleep and is woken by her true love. The Disney version of Sleeping Beauty did not follow the original plot, but you could see t he artistic twist the producer had, as well as his interpretive retelling of the story. I think it is very interesting seeing how each director or producers depiction of each story. I think that’s what makes remakes interesting. This could go either way in the box office. The people who love the book may not love the changes a producer will make in a film adaption, or they could love the changes.
ReplyDeleteI think some of the integrity should be should be maintained when retelling the story. For me, I would not have wanted to see the Twilight movies if I wasn’t in love with the books. I had high hopes for those movies because the books were so good. I don’t think I am the only person who sets certain movies to higher standards.
Before I took this class I would have thought the film had to resemble the book in order to get the same message across to the audience. But now that I know some of the ways to analyze films, the fidelity of the book is not the most important issue. I believe directors can get the same points across to the audience without following every little detail of the book and sometimes more difficult problems arise than the original fidelity of the film.
ReplyDeleteIn this world there is no two people that are exactly the same, so when a director makes a film out of an author’s novel of course they are not going to see eye to eye on the depiction of the overall message. In some instances, such as The Harry Potter books, directors have to condense the material in order to keep the audience interested and not drag out the film. By doing this some minor aspects are cut, but directors do not loose sight of the overall message they are portraying to the film viewer. Often, authors right books in the literary first person point of view and recall information about a person’s past by looking into their thoughts. In the Kite Runner, the protagonist, Amir, recalls how his life was changed in the streets of Kabul, while he was a young teenager. In this film adaptation, the director had to run across the problems of portraying the story since it is very hard to show the first person point of view on the film screen. Also, the director had to use different techniques to express Amir’s thoughts and flashbacks without actually learning about them from him since a film is occurring in the present and not the past. While a director is producing a film adaptation, he is being pressured to follow society’s standards and the MPAA’s guidelines. A perfect example to this is Sleeping Beauty, the director left out the part of the princess being raped in her sleep because this would not be acceptable in a children’s movie and would be considered taboo to the public.
In my opinion, a director will see differently than the original author of the novel because no two minds are the same. Even if a director wanted to portray the exact fidelity of the film, it will not be the same because of the amount of material, point of views, flashbacks, and community standards. While producing a film adaptation, the director should be somewhat faithful to the author and follow the overall theme of the story to keep the people who have read the novel interested. The words film adaptation in my mind say it all, no matter what story is being made into a movie it has to adapt to the techniques and artistic methods of the big screen.
In my opinion, the fidelity of a film to its original work is very important. I also think that the director of the movie should do his or her best to create a vivid image of what they interpret every scene of the book to be. However, since everyone interprets what they read differently than one another, what the director thinks of the book could be completely different than the opinions of the many viewers. So, I suppose that I kind of sit on the fence between the two “camps” in this situation. I do enjoy a film that closely follows my interpretation of what I have previously read or learned about the subject, but I do not think that if it does not completely follow what I understood, that the film is not “good”. I do not think that an accurate depiction of a story through a film is more important than the artistic and interpretive retelling of the story because I read a book and watch a movie for two completely different reasons. I read so that I can make my own interpretation of the story, but I watch films for the artistic display of the film, and to see how the director feels about the story. When a director translates a story into a movie, it does not necessarily mean they are going to change what the story is about. But, it may change what I thought the story was about, after seeing it through the director’s eyes. After learning about the 300 Spartans in a previous semester of Western Civilization, and then rewatching the film, I saw two completely different stories in my opinion. However, I enjoyed both stories, and possibly enjoyed the film a little more due to the vivid color and graphics that the director used. But, the integrity of the story can be maintained after changing it into a different medium, such as in the novel I am reading now, A Clockwork Orange.
ReplyDeleteAfter taking this class I now realize that in order for a director to use his artistic ability that landed him his job in the first place, that strictly sticking to fidelity of the original artwork would simply allow him to only “update” the old film for modern viewers. In my mind I’m thinking, what director would want to just update the film and not be able to change up some of the details slightly to show off his/her talents with film as their media. The author created something from nothing but a tale in many cases and had much freedom to compile the story, so why shouldn’t the director? Take Kleenex for example, there are many other brands that provide a soft supple tissue and people appreciate it, but they still know them as the universal name “Kleenex.” Just because there is a storyline, doesn’t mean that the director should hit every part of the original storyline, just stick close to the plot. With that being said, I think that artistic creations are better than factual information when it comes to doing a film adaptation. Many people want to see a new twist on a movie when it comes to reviewing old films. In terms of keeping integrity of films, I believe it is all up to the director. If the director wants to change up the whole plot, characters, and setting, so be it. Viewers will appreciate it or refuse to watch it and the only person taking a direct hit from it would be the directors pocketbook. Don’t get me wrong, I love to watch recreations of the original story, but even then I like to get a new depiction of what the characters look like in today’s world. If the director decides to stray away to much however, he could be forgetting some of the minor details that made the popular book the great tale it was. I don't believe in restricting directors, but i think directors should use some sense and look at what trends are popular amongst the audience and create a film that suites thier current needs.
ReplyDeleteThe foremost concern of a film adaptation should be what the director hopes to accomplish. Fidelity to the original work can be important is some cases, but its not a necessity. The artistic and interpretative retelling of the story is much more important than an accurate depiction. After reading sleeping beauty and watching the film, I am very pleased the director steered clear of an exact depiction of the original work. I couldn’t imagine answering to a child who asks why their favorite characters were eaten or why the prince has two girlfriends. Children grow up with the dream of being a prince or princess and living happily ever after. I wonder how society would be if children grew up watching films or reading books where things like this happened. In extreme cases translating a story from one medium to another can drastically change the story itself. Although the films usually try to follow the same structure and basis, overly drastic changes can dramatically change the story. Almost so dramatically that the film/story is unrecognizable after reading or watching the original film/story. In many times the audience voices their opinion about the film or story being better that the other but if a director nails what he/she is trying to capture it can help lower the debate and ruckus. The integrity of a story can be maintained if the film adaptation is a hit. Directors unfortunately need to be careful when making a film adaptation, because of the risk of a flop. Many die hard book fans will quickly turn down a film if it steers away from the original work. No matter what an audience is going to compare the adaptation and judge which is better.
ReplyDeleteFidelity in a film is important in my opinion on certain occasions depending on the point that you are trying to get across. For example don’t try to make a film about ones journeys to the center of the earth when the book is about how to take a trip to the moon. The overall appeal I think has to be there if this is going to be an adaptation. You see this in the adaptation of Snow White, and in Willy Wonka. You see that neither of these two follow the adaptation but they carry the overall theme of the movie. The transferring the mediums I still think that the integrity of the story can be maintained. There are many things that can be done to capture how the author wants you to feel about one certain thing or another. There is ways to use the camera through filters and lighting to get the viewer to capture the appeal of the book. I feel that there should be more attempts to adapt books into film, thus being able to capture a larger audience and get them to want to read the work to see the difference in the two and get their interest to maybe read more about the works that the author writes. If the film is good enough then one could get the feel of the characters coming alive and seeing how their favorite character make act look and even how they have an effect in the work as a whole. You can see how the voice on the page of a book can become a character on the screen.
ReplyDeleteFidelity to the original work should not always be the greatest concern of a film adaptation. In some cases characters are sometimes cut or meshed together due to budget and time constraints. In my opinion this can sometimes hurt the film and can cause certain portions of the book to be shaved altogether, consequently loosing some of the "best parts" of the story(most any Disney cartoon as an example). In other cases, a more artistic directorial approach creates an emotionally, or visually engaging film, becoming a work of art on its own merit. Fidelity to the book can also harm a film. In many books chapters are devoted to simply explaining the environment and personalities. In film things don't need to be fully depicted for the viewer to get a sense of the mood or environment, therefore certain scenes/chapters are omitted . If the two mediums were exactly the same in every way would we not disregard one or the other. More often than not the book is better than the film only because the reader is more engaged "inside their own imagination". Occasionally, however, there is a film that is more appealing than the book, Lord of the Rings for example. The novel trilogy was written in a more complex phrasing and could be difficult for people of all skill levels to read while getting the true impact of the story. Through film the entire audience is allowed to peek into the lives of the characters without struggling over the use of a dictionary or map. I believe that art is art for art's sake. We all have our own opinions, views, tastes etc., and that each work should be seen on its own merit. I mean aren't we all inspired by something whether it be the rain, music, color, movies,or literature.
ReplyDeleteFilm adaptations can be good even if it deviates from the original work as long as the story remains intact. I do not believe strict fidelity to the original work is necessary but it should have the same meaning and context. If it is labeled with the same name than I believe the screenwriters should aim to adapt the film as close as possible without giving up their artistic views. I realize changing from one medium to another has challenges and some details may need to be changed. The integrity of the story from one medium to the next can be done telling the same story using different artistic techniques. The integrity of the storyline is important because deviating from it can change the impact of how it is received by the audience. The ending of the 1969 and 2010 versions of “True Grit” is an example of how changing the storyline can alter how the audience perceives the film. In the original 1969 John Wayne version of “True Grit,” Mattie is bitten by a snake but she fully recovers. In the 2010 Jeff Bridges version of “True Grit,” Mattie is bitten by a snake but has her arm amputated. This changed the moral of the story for the audience. Mattie paid the price of her arm for revenge against her father’s killer in 2010. In the 1969 version she was able to enact her revenge without sacrificing anything. I can also relate to the people who argue that “the book is better.” Many times I have seen a movie that was an adaptation of an awesome novel and have left the movie theater bitterly disappointed. I read the book “Water for Elephants” by Sara Gruen but when I saw the movie, it left out the entire beginning of the book when he was in the nursing home. I believe the films often leave out important situations. I believe the film “Adaptation” changes the original context of the book “The Orchid Thief”. The screen writer might have had a better chance of making this book into a documentary film instead of aiming for a top selling box office hit movie. People who read the book because of their love for nature may have taken offense to this film not keeping the same original content not to mention exaggerating it into something new.
ReplyDeleteThere should be a certain loyalty to the original work in all adaptations. Treading too far from the original path may skew the original work until the only way you could relate each other is if it's "inspired by" or it just utilizes the same universe. That said, tackling a different angle to the story as it switches mediums can lead to a more interesting plot or even make more a better viewing experience. One of the more frequent ways of doing this is modernization. While the only one that comes to mind for me at the moment is Romeo + Juliet, I am confident that there have been some successful films that have used this technique.
ReplyDeleteStill, it is a slippery slope. The efforts (or lack thereof) of a filmmaker can easily be construed as less of an attempt to make an adaptation and appease fans and more of a way to make some quick cash. An easy way to spot this is the use of "fanservice". That is, adding extra sex scenes, giving more exposure to a character that those of the fanbase love (even if they're not even supposed to be there), creating more love plots than the original work, or other cheap attempts to catch the viewers' eyes. One good example of an adaptation that tried to shell out fanservice in order to get people to like it was Silent Hill. In general, it's hard to receive the movie personally as it changes so much from the original game (the protagonist is a female, it is based more on American hack-n-slash horror rather than the psychological horror of the game, et cetera). Anyone familiar with the entire series will roll their eyes at the blatant fanservice when two iconic enemies are haphazardly thrown into the movie: Pyarmid Head (beefy guy with a metal thing on his head) and Bubble-Headed Nurses (sexy nurses but zombies or something). This would not be so much of a problem if the movie wasn't basing its plot off the first game but rather the second game that these two appeared. The reason why it seems more of a ploy to make money is because every enemy in the games is based off of one of the characters. In the first Silent Hill it was some girl who dies at the end, in the second Silent Hill it was the different protagonist who is not even in the film. When heavy fanservice and hardly excusable plot changes such as this are used in adaptations, it's hard to tell if they read, played, watched, or even researched the original work.
On the other side of the coin, sometimes changes make it more interesting to watch. The life and death of Jesus is a well known tale among most people. Even those not in the Christian denomination can summarize it. Thus, an adaptation of the Bible that was straight and true might be great for some people, but others wouldn't be that entertained watching the story they already know be told the same way it has been told. That is what makes the movie Jesus Christ Superstar a good example of an adaptation that isn't word-for-word accurate but it's what is "not canon" that makes it interesting. Those who are usually unimpressed by Christianity-based films even enjoy the movie as it is put in a way that is entertaining and catchy for those who like musicals.
(continued in next post)
In Adaptation, Charlie Kaufman was in a rut on how to give this "boring story about flowers" some quality of watchability. While this effort is not to be met with scorn by default (if anything, it's a kindness), the formula that followed was too cliche. The drugs, the violence, the sex, the scandal was heaped together too compact and done too many times that it wasn't entertaining. Much like how the Jesus story has been told so many times it was predictable on its own, now these quick ploys that are supposed to spice up the movie only make it predictable. In the movie they were used so heavily to show the transition from Charlie's writing to Donald's, so it makes sense as a plot device in this movie.
ReplyDeleteOf course adaptations will never be completely accurate because the purpose of an adaptation is to change it in some way, be it medium or in the story. With that said, many originals need to be given some sort of pep so that those who didn't like or have any experience with the original may enjoy it. But a filmmaker has to make a choice, do they want to appease the old fans and be true to the story or do they want to go by some formula and try to expand that audience. When you can manage to do both, for me, that is when you have a solid adaptation. Otherwise, you leave a group feeling forsaken and have brought in a new group who was coaxed in to being a fan through, essentially, lies.
Before looking at film adaptations in an analytical manner, I was one of the cliché, opinionated types that favored the written literature. I found myself leaving the theater always saying, “Eh, the book was better…”; however, now after becoming more educated on the things that films cannot portray, I am beginning to rethink my disappointed mindset. While some viewers tend to think that the film should reflect the original work, I think on the contrary. Some written works cannot be portrayed perfectly to the written version on screen. Take Adaptation, for example. The film was based on the book The Orchid Thief, which is a non-fiction work. If Adaptation were to paint the big screen with the book’s events, the movie would have been more of a documentary than anything else. Instead, the writer Charlie Kaufman adapted this movie to include the storyline of The Orchid Thief, but paired it with more of an appealing and dramatic sequence of events to make a more interesting film.
ReplyDeleteI do not necessarily think that depicting the original story is as important as creating a wonderful, artistic film. Charlie Kaufman took an idea from a book, and transformed it into a film version while adding many different elements. The original book was strictly about flowers; Charlie added characters, lust, action, scandal, and drama—all components of a successful film that attracts viewers.
Changing the medium of a work does mean that some aspects of the original will not uphold, but the core of story should withstand the change. Charlie Kaufman incorporated many different aspects into the film, but he still remained true to the original plot line that follows Susan Orlean and John Laroche through their escapades while orchid hunting. The film sheds light on orchids, which is the core of the book, yet many other aspects were added and subtracted to the film. In my opinion, when a film has remained true to the central focus of the book but adds, subtracts, or changes certain elements necessary to adapt it to the big screen, it has successfully transformed mediums.
In my opinion no the movie does not have to stay true to the original work because we live in a new age and not everyone has the time to sit and read a book it is alot easeier to sit for an hour and a half and watch a movie compared to sit read a book that will take a whole day, of not doing anything except laying in bed or laying on the couch and eating snack foods andread a book stoping only to go to the bathroom or back to the refridgerator to get more "poggy bait". Some people have full time jobs and other productive things to do. No, i do not think that the film has to stay true to the original work because its a new version of point of veiw. when you hear a song on the radio driving to a concert the same artist who you are going to see changes the same song you just heard on the radio. this is what i think makes movies and all other works of art interesting.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteReposted due to a few confusing typos.
DeleteYou have made a very good point: watching a movie with a fixed time IS less time consuming than reading a book, generally speaking! Though, this does not really hold up as an excuse for a movie to be inaccurate as you are not forced to read the novel beforehand. Unless, of course, you meant it had to be literal and end up just being a book flipping pages on your TV screen. It would have made more sense to expound upon your point on how adding new content to a movie makes it more interesting for those who have seen/read what it is based off of.
Also I am intensely interested in learning what this "poggy bait" is.
I believe that film adaptations often have to change not so much the story of the novel, but how it is told. Take, for example, a novel such as The Lord of the Rings. In three novels Tolkien spend page after page describing everything in the environment in extreme detail to give the readers a sense of where they are. The film adaptation, however, has the advantage of visuals. This allows the stress other parts of the story that may not have been covered as thoroughly in the books such as the combat. Let be honest, in a movie like The Lord of the Rings the visuals are great, but if the directors spent as much time on showing you the environment as Tolkien spent on describing it the allure would wear off fast. Even with this stressing of different factors, the original story must be preserved and held to as strictly as possible to avoid a sense of bait and switch for the viewers. My all time favorite series of books, The Sword of Truth by Terry Goodkind is a good example of this. The books were made into a mini-series which excited me quite a lot. When I watched them, however, I was immediately disappointed in the way it turned out. They had taken the characters and removed any semblance of the overarching storyline of the books as well as the sense of purpose those characters depended on to be developed and replaced it with general, non linear, run of the mill episodes. This completely ruined the idea of a Sword of Truth Series and instead gave a half decent replacement. As far as nonfiction stories go I would say it depends on how the story is presented. Is it being presented as a historical film, or a film based on historical events. When adapting a film, as much of the stories original integrity should be maintained as possible while still creating a movie that fulfills its purpose. In the case of Adaptation, a movie version of The Orchid Thief was being produce as what seemed to be a film made for entertainment. As the book was described, keeping the integrity of the story and making it entertain to watch at the same time would have been impossible. In this case, the film should be advertised as loosely based on the novel, and the writers should be allowed room to creativity to meet the purpose of the film. If the purpose, however, is to portray the art of the story on film, then creativity should be checked and the stories integrity allowed to show. All in all I believe that the intent of the film and the story itself are the determining factors in deciding how much integrity survives.
ReplyDeleteThe fidelity of a film to its original work is very important in my opinion. The director should try to be true to the original work although, sometimes this is not easy to do. The director of the film should have the same freedom as the author of the book but, should have limits to only amend minor details of the film as he sees fit. In the novel by Stephen King, The Green Mile, John Coffee was on death row and then cures the warden’s wife of cancer. In the film adaptation, Frank Darabont, does the novel countless justice by portraying the plot well to that of the novel. The plot of the film should stay equivalent to the original work. Many times the film adaptation is not as prevalent as the novel. Some readers may feel that the novel was more detailed and involved thus, making them more astounded with the novel. The familiarity of the plot with that of the original work is important because it could result in changing the view of the audience. If the film strays away from the essential plot or spirit, the audience may be dissatisfied.
ReplyDeleteFidelity to the original work should be the foremost concern of a film adaptation. This is important because if the people that have read a book, they expect the movie adaptation to follow the book. It the movie does not follow the book, people become disappointed. An accurate Depiction of an original story whether it is fiction or nonfiction is not more important than the artistic and interpretive retelling of the certain story. If the film is good and follows the main story line, it should not matter. The translating of a story from one medium into another does somewhat necessitate change to the story itself. This is because one medium cannot include every single thing of the other medium. There is much of a story’s integrity that can be maintained when retelling it in a new medium. This should be a concern because it is not about what the directors like; it is about what the people like and the film critics like.
ReplyDelete