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? Should film adaptations strictly adhere to the original work, or should the director have the artistic freedom to reimagine the story to create a completely new, unique narrative?
To help you decide, consider the following questions:
· Should fidelity to the original work be the foremost concern of a film adaptation?
· Should fidelity to the original work even be a concern at all?
· 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?
Finally, consider Spike Jonze’s film Adaptation. What camp do you think Jonze is in? How does his film comment on the complexities of film adaptation? What connection does he argue between the process of film adaptation and evolution, and how does this support his views on adapting other works into films?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBefore watching the film, Adaptation, I’ve always thought that staying as true to the original work as possible leads to the best outcome in an adaptation. Come to find out after watching Adaptation I now believe that it is not always true especially in the situation Spike Jonze was in making this film. While favoring sticking with the original work as much as possible in some circumstances it would be almost impossible to either make a film long enough or in most cases make the film short enough in order to not bore the audience. In a director’s stand point the major points of the original work, such as; relationships, murders, and characters roles should not be changed in the film. Instead what could be changed to make the film makers put their artistic touch to make it their own work to a certain extant is to change the minors things in the film, such as; taking out a person that only had one or two parts in the novel with no significant value to the buildup of the films end. With the way Jonze brought this adaptation together he does not follow a strict outline that would follow the original work of the The Orchid Thief. This was, in my eyes, needed in order to keep the attention of the audience. Without the add in of Charlie Kaufman’s personal troubles in writing the film, Susan Orlean’s affair with John Laroche, and Charlie’s twin brother Donald’s death in a car wreck after being shot by Laroche; this film would be nothing more than simply a documentary about the beautifully endangered orchid. Jonze connects that evolution is needed in the process of a film adaptation. He shows this in the beginning when Charlie wonders how he got here and throughout the film with the change in Charlie’s attitude toward life and screen writing. Charlie’s attitude make a complete one eighty once Donald tells him in the swamp while being chased by Orlean and Laroche, “You are what you love, not what loves you.” I believe those words took away all the weight that had been hanging on Charlie’s shoulders over the year ever since seeing his brother get laughed at in high school. He showed this change when yelling at Orlean and finally doing what he should have done in the beginning, kissed Amelia Kavan. Jonze brought an evolution to adaptation films in doing this by putting the actual screen writer into the film with some his problems in writing the film resulting in Charlie Kaufman writing about himself, writing about himself, writing about himself; which brought the original work, The Orchid Thief, and added an affair, a man trying to find himself, and many other things all while still bring the major point of the endangered orchid.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more with Cody. Staying true to the work, is what I believe would be the best idea. However, when you ponder this thought over, not every story can be exact to the novel. Therefore, you have to have some sort of sizzle to have a rising action. The book Orchard Thief could not have been transformed into a movie better than Adaptation.
DeleteEven with the plot that was included with Charlie Kaufman’s brother and Susan Orleans’s affair, I still did not like this movie. One cannot transform a book with that level of knowledge into a comedy, drama, or any other genre of a movie. The movie did show irony, in the fact that Charlie never would have spoken to anybody the way he did after Donald died. It’s like you mentioned in class, Donald was not real. But throughout the whole movie he seemed real; other characters were talking to him. The irony comes in at the end; maybe Donald was not really alive and was a figment of Charlie’s imagination. Either way, once Donald was killed, Charlie finally broke out of his nervous shell.
The movie did reiterate the book, as in the fact that it showed flashbacks and provided information about the flowers. With every flashback we learned more and more about John and Susan, and it felt like with every new flashback her passion grew stronger towards him. I do find it neat that he brought the actual screenwriter, Charlie Kaufman, into the story and the plot. It did make things a little more interesting, in the fact that we never see the screenwriter in any movie.
I know this film wasn't exactly a favorite with the class, but I think it's pretty cool that the film changed your mind.
DeleteWhen endeavoring to write an adaptation, the writer should retell the work as closely as possible. Otherwise, an original work should be composed. In the case of Charlie Kaufman, he agreed to adapt a screenplay from a book that probably should have been adapted to a documentary short instead of a motion picture. Charlie even admits to his agent that there isn’t much to work with and is advised by his agent to spice it up with typical Hollywood clichés like car chases and murder in order to make a motion picture. Charlie rejects this notion—as any writer with integrity would—and continues to struggle with his adaptation.
ReplyDeleteI think a screenplay should follow its original work closely. As Cody remarked, he changed his mind about this after seeing the film because The Orchid Thief didn’t offer much for a writer to adapt from. After watching the film, I stand by my assertion that an adaptation should mimic the original work as closely as possible, and that some written works should not be adapted.
One problem a screenplay cannot overcome is length and depth. Many novels are very long and detailed, and some things must be cut in order to keep the film within 2-3 hours, but that doesn’t mean the screenwriter has the right to invent a new story. A talented screenwriter and an experienced director should be able to overcome point of view, tense, philosophical reflection, and summarizing when translating a novel to film. Peter Jackson made Lord of the Rings into three films in order to include as much of Tolkien’s novel as possible. Although hard core fans of the book acknowledge the omission of some parts, they also concede that no other director could have brought the book to life any better than Jackson did.
The integrity of the original work should be of paramount concern otherwise, what’s the point of adapting it? Adding characters or events to non-fiction is like lying. In an interview, Ben Affleck admitted that the tarmac scene in Argo was fabricated for the sake of dramatization. In my opinion, the film would have been fine without it. I was interested in a factual account, since I was too young to remember the Iran hostage crisis. Learning that the tarmac scene was made up made me feel tricked.
Spike Jonze definitely had his work cut out for him, as did Charlie Kaufman. I had a little trouble following the past to present tense parts of the film, but I thought it was an efficient way to fill in the characters’ backstory, especially when telling the audience how Laroche came to be toothless, divorced, and without his beloved nursery. That had a lot of impact for me, and instead of feeling contempt for him, I felt a little sorry for him.
Since I haven’t read the book, I don’t know how closely the film followed it. Jonze showed how little respect screenwriters get in the opening scene from the set of Being John Malkovich. He also showed how debilitating writer’s block can be. He showed that sometimes a writer has to do whatever it takes to sell to Hollywood—even if the finished work doesn’t resemble the original written work. If I were Charlie Kaufman, I would choose my projects more carefully so that I could be sure to accept a project that I could be faithful to.
Jonze shows that adapting a novel to a screenplay is not for the faint of heart. Charlie lost hair, gained weight, and was tormented by his insecurity as a writer. When he finally realizes he has no choice but to take artistic license with the screenplay and adlib the ending, he evolves as a writer and as a person. He gives up a little of his writing integrity, but he moves forward with the project instead of getting nothing accomplished. Taking this risk, along with losing his brother, helps him to see he can’t grow as a person (evolve) without trying new things (adapting), like changing his writing and telling his friend that he loves her.
What about modern retellings of Shakespeare plays or the way Disney has altered Western fairy tales? Should these adaptations not have been made because they deviate so much from the original texts?
DeleteMaybe not. Charlie Kaufman was asked to write murder, car chases, etc. into a book that contained nothing of the sort. Modern retellings of Shakespeare or Western fairy tales DO follow their original stories for the most part. They are merely updated to fit current language and social contexts. I am not that big of a fan of Wm Shakespeare for the same reason I am not that big of a fan of Stephen King--they write tragedies. Although, one of my favorite King films is "Dolores Claiborne." It was a tragedy, but there was poetic justice in the end. I felt it was more balanced than, say, "The Mist."
DeleteStaying true to the original work should always be the primary goal of adaptation. The point of adaptation is to experience a story in a different way. However, books and movies are two very different mediums. There are things that can happen in books that just don’t translate well to film. For example, third person omniscient is a great tool for story telling in books but in order to use it in a movie, there must be constant internal dialogue, which seems irregular and forced.
ReplyDeletePeople typically say that the book is better than the movie. In my opinion, this is a very ignorant statement. In order for the movie to have the amount of detail that there is in a book, adaptations would have to be ten hours long, and every bit of every scene would have to be narrated. In my opinion, the fact that we can experience any story from a book in two hours is a miraculous gift.
I like what Mom wrote about Charlie sacrificing some of his writing integrity in order to move forward with his project and put it behind him. I think “adaptation” was a clever title because the movie is supposedly an adaptation of The Orchid Thief, but after watching the movie, it’s clear that the title refers to Charlie adapting to Hollywood’s standards, instead of evolving as a writer by creating a masterpiece film out of this crummy book.
The bottom line of film adaption is this: if a writer has to distort the book to a degree that changes the story in order to make an adaptation, it’s not really an adaptation. I’ve never read The Orchid Thief, but I don’t think it’s about a screenplay writer that can’t seem to write an adaptation of The Orchid Thief. For this reason I do not believe calling Adaptation an adaptation is correct.
Not being much of a reader when looking over your comment two points in particular, people saying the book is better than the movie being ignorant and the fact that we can experience any story from a book in two hours is a miraculous gift, stood out to me over the rest. These are very bold points and I couldn't agree more with you on your opinions.
DeleteI'm with Cody. Your comment that "the fact that we can experience any story from a book in two hours is a miraculous gift" is, in my opinion, true and beautifully expressed. I don't think it is true of every film adaptation experience, but Harry Potter is a great example that I often rely on. I don't need to read the Harry Potter series. I think it is important to be knowledgeable about the story, but watching the films will allow me to accomplish that goal in far less time than reading the books.
DeleteI personally don't believe that an adaptation has to be completely faithful to the original work in order to be successful or maintain the spirit of it.
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible for an audience to be satisfied with a film adaptation if they are expecting it to be exactly like the book. Literary works leave much to the imagination. When we read the words, we get to fill in the spaces with what we imagine the setting and characters to look like. We each have a different, preconceived idea about how a certain character should speak or how a specific scene should play out so when we take those ideas into the theater with us, it is hard to enjoy the film. A film adaptation can only be successful to us if we keep an open mind to other interpretations of the same work.
There are also a lot of obstacles that filmmakers have to overcome when they make a film adaptation. Some novels are 500 or more pages that have to be fit into approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes. Filmmakers have to cut some things out in order to meet this time constraint and keep the audiences from getting confused. Other works aren't made to be films (like Susan Orlean's "The Orchid Thief"). These stories need to have other elements added in to draw audiences in and to keep them entertained.
I don’t think that Spike Jonze's "Adaption" is really based on "The Orchid Thief" so it is hard to compare the two. I haven't read the book, but from what I gathered from the movie it sounds very factual and informative. This work seems better fitted for the basis of a documentary. "Adaptation" explores the challenges that many screenwriters face in trying to stay true to themselves and at the same time trying to meet Hollywood standards.
I believe that in a film adaptation we should always try our very best to stay as true as possible to the original work but, in this film, we see that this is the perfect example of veering away from the original work. I normally find it very disappointing when I have read a book then followed it by seeing the film that left so much out. To be realistic however, it would be almost impossible to make the films exactly like the novel. Most films would then be entirely too long. Although I believe that the film should be as close to the original work as possible, I also see how it is also okay to not always have it exactly the same where it would also be nearly impossible to make so.
ReplyDeleteI find that Jonze had what would be one of the harder novels to make an adaptation of. I could not put myself in his shoes and make a movie about flowers. It would be entirely too hard to make the film long enough. He found it necessary to make his own story inside of the story itself which I completely agree for the specific instance. With that being said, I believe that Jonze would feel differently about the nature of a film adaptation. Jonze, I feel, would be more willing for film adaptation to stray away form the original work especially if it is to make the film or story more interesting. Jonze compares a film adaption to evolution because in a way it is starting from nothing, like a blank slate. Evolution states and shows that we and the world have started from nothing and eventually form from cells to monkeys to humans. A film adaptation in a way starts from nothing too. Although with an adaption we do have the book to base it off of we still make the film from nothing and turn it into something wonderful and what the writer wants.
In my beliefs, film fidelity should be the upmost concern of directors and screenwriters. I, personally, am very disappointed whenever I go see a movie of a book I have read and it is nothing like the book. Although staying true to a work's depiction of characters and scenes is extremely pivotal to me in a film, if an accurate interpretation of the story line does not exist, the story is useless in my opinion. If a director cannot find an actor or actress who can portray the story while depicting the characters in the original work, obviously some level of appearance of a character has to change.
ReplyDeleteChanging a story is not completely necessary when transforming mediums. Yes, changing the story itself might make the medium seem to flow more naturally but you then lose pieces of the story by transforming it. When transforming a story into a different medium, maintaining the full integrity is feasible. I really like what Jack Martin has to say about film adaptation, "In my opinion, the fact that we can experience any story from a book in two hours is a miraculous gift." For this reason, I am convinced that the task of maintaining integrity is a hard task, but it is possible.
Spike Jonze's camp choice is more than likely to make a film his own with his own freedom to alter the story line. For example, Charlie in "Adaptation" was having such a hard time making an adaptation for the book,"The Orchid Thief", because there really was no story to make a film for that particular book. Charlie then used his imagination to create a story to go along with the book to make the movie worth seeing.
The film makes it a point to single out certain troubles encountered when adapting a piece of literature. For instance, Charlie was told time and time again that voiceovers are the easy way out to show a character's feelings. In a book it is simple to show a character's emotions because it is in the narration. In a film it is more difficult to do this because it must be shown mainly through actions.
Jonze affixes evolution to adaptation of literature to film in a very competent way. By adding evolution into his film "Adaptation", Jonze is showing that what an original work starts out as evolves into a masterpiece of an adaptation through linked ideas added piece by piece. This supports his views on adapting other films because in Jonze's film, Charlie's ideas for the film adaptation evolve piece by piece into a completely new story. The story always has it's base beginning, whether it be from a book, a play, or even a word of mouth tale but they always seem to evolve into something new by the end.
ReplyDeleteDirectors and screenwriters should stay as true as they possibly can with a movie about a book. If people read the book the only reason they usually want to go see the movie for is because the book was so good. Whenever I go see a movie about a book and it has absolutely nothing to do with the book it is very disappointing. I do not think the whole entire movie should have detail after detail after detail in the movie because then that would make the movie eight hours long. So when screenwriters take out little things it doesn’t bother me that bad because I personally do not want to go and see a movie for that long.
Staying true to the story is one of the most important things, I believe. The original work is what started the whole process in making a movie. So sticking to what the book has to say is very important. When screenwriters are retelling that story in a different view, they should still stick to the importance of that book. In Frankenstein’s book there is a page in the book about when the monster comes to life. However, in the movie it is one of the biggest scenes but one of the best. By putting that in the movie it made it more popular but it did not stick to what actually happened in the story.
Jonze’s had by far one of the hardest novels to make an adaptation out of. I believe Jonze was in a place where he had to get the screenplay done but couldn’t because for starters it was about flowers. Jonze did a better job about making this an adaptation than anyone else could have because he made the story about the people who were in it, the author, and himself, and had an amazing ending. This movie shows that all books cannot be made out of movies. No matter how good the book may be, the story line just doesn’t work.
I have the same feeling of disappointment when I go into the theater expecting one thing and seeing another. When I become that invested in a book, it is hard for any type of adaptation to live up to it.
DeleteHowever, when I take a step back and evaluate the film as a separate piece of work I usually find that I am still taking way the same message from the movie that I did from the novel. If the book was used as an inspiration for the movie, but not as a blueprint then I don't think it needs to follow the same structure or story line.
For example, Homer's "The Odyssey" was used as inspiration for "Oh Brother Where Art Thou". Someone who has never heard of "The Odyssey" would have no clue that it was the basis for this movie, but they would still take away the same message from watching the film as they would from reading the epic.
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. 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. Adaptation however, does a poor job of staying true to both the book and the adaptation of the book. This was done in a way to entertain people, not to get the story across to them with any truth.
ReplyDeleteDo you imagine the big fans of The Orchid Thief were disappointed when they went to see the film?
ReplyDelete