I am Joe's philosophical ponderings.

Whether intentional or not, art reflects the morals, beliefs, and values of those that create it. By analyzing films through various perspectives (or theoretical lenses), we can discover what beliefs about humanity a work of art espouses. In class, you looked at Fight Club through a specific theoretical lens and attempted, with the help of your classmates, to analyze the film with a specific goal in mind. Some of you looked at the film through a gender studies lens in order to discover what messages the film sends about masculinity and feminity, or what it means to be a man versus a woman. Some examined the film for its emotional impact, uncovering how various elements of the film worked together to create specific emotional effects. Yet others analyzed the film from the theoretical perspective of a humanist for some moral, philosophical, or social statement. Now, we turn our attention to the film’s politics.

Dennis Petrie and Joseph Boggs aregue in The Art of Watching Films that "all movies are ultimately statements about the struggle for power between economic classes" (356). Both the novel and the film Fight Club showcase a world in which extreme tensions exist between capitalism and socialism and between materialism and naturalism. From a Marxist perspective, this tension becomes even more prevalent. Consider the novel and the film adaptation in light of Karl Marx’s theories about society, economics and politics. To what extent does the novel advocate capitalism? To what extent does it advocate socialism? Which characters represent which extremes? And can we draw definite conclusions about the message the author sends on this issue? To help you better answer these questions, refer to "The Film as political Statement" discussion on pp. 355-356 of your textbook.

Finally, what is your position on this issue? Do you agree with the overarching message the film sends? Why or why not?

A Question of Fidelity

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.