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.

The Will Ferrell Experiment

In The Art of Watching Films, Dennis Petrie and Joseph Boggs claim that “One of the most difficult prejudices to overcome is that which leads us to dismiss certain categories of films,” and we certainly can acknowledge the veracity of at least half of that claim. We make decisions about what we like and dislike oftentimes based on limited experiences, and we then allow ourselves to be guided almost entirely by those snap judgments. One person catches twenty minutes of an old black and white film as an adolescent and then categorically rejects black and white films from his future movie choices. Another is forced to endure an annual television viewing of The Sound of Music with her family and, having heard “Do-Re-Mi” a few hundred too many times, refuses to ever see a musical again. We make similar judgments about actors, directors, and styles of film. But are we really ensuring that we don’t waste time watching movies we know we’ll hate, or are we limiting our opportunities to experience different worldviews, potentially great art, or even just some great entertainment? When we limit ourselves based on the film prejudices we’ve developed throughout our lives, what are we missing out on?

Once upon a time, I hated Will Ferrell. Well, “hate” is a strong word, but I certainly did not appreciate his style of humor. "He's stupid," I thought. (Real mature attitude there, teach.) I refused to watch any movie he played a major role in. Then one day, I decided to give him another chance. I was bored and has time to kill. I couldn’t find anything that grabbed my attention at the video store, so I rent a copy of Elf. 

That was eight years ago, and to this day, Elf remains part of my annual Christmas movie marathon. In fact, I usually watch it at least twice every holiday season. After that, I was open to viewing more Will Ferrell films, and Stranger Than Fiction joined my list of all-time favorite movies as well. What if I had continued to let my prejudice dictate my movie choices? I would have missed out on some of my favorite entertainment, not to mention a profoundly intellectual and philosophical insight into two of my favorite mediums of entertainment—film and literature. Now when I catch myself dismissing a movie because of a particular actor, I refer to my Will Ferrell experiment as a reminder that my original assumptions may not be correct. In fact, I have to tell myself this every time I see that Rene Zellwegger in a film. (She's sooooo annoying!) I haven't given up on her, but she has failed to win me over yet.

Consider you own film prejudices. Before watching Stranger Than Fiction, what did you expect from the film? What did you expect the experience of watching the film to be like? How well did you expect to enjoy the movie? Did your preconceived beliefs about the film change after watching it? Why or why not?

Like literature, music, or any art other form, some movies are created with the primary purpose of entertainment while others are meant to be more artistic and profound. But every film has the potential to be both entertaining and enlightening if we are willing to suspend our personal prejudices and approach it analytically. Some people believe that analysis voids our ability to enjoy a book, a song, or even a movie, but the opposite is actually true. Analysis deepens our appreciation and allows us to sharpen our judgments. With this understanding, contrast your personal opinion with your analysis of Stranger Than Fiction. In what ways is your personal opinion of the movie different from your professional opinion of it? In other words, how well did the film measure up to your individual standards vs. how well it stood up under artistic scrutiny?

Not Another Award-Winning Movie?

A Trailer for Every Academy Award Winning Movie Ever -- powered by Cracked.com

Describe your initial reaction to the trailer.  Did you like it? Dislike it? Agree? Disagree? Was it funny? A waste of your time? Would you repost it on facebook because it was so incredibly awesome?

Now analyze your response to the parody.  If you like it, why? If you felt it was a complete waste of your time, why? If you found it funny, what made it so?

Finally, what elements of the trailer resonate truths that are congruent with your own beliefs about the film industry? The “Award-Winning Movie Trailer” operates under the assumption that the “best” films all follow the same predictable storytelling patterns, that creating an award-winning movie is really more about following a formula. (Keep this in mind later when we watch Adaptation.) It satirizes academy award-winning movies in a similar way as movies like Scary Movie, Not another Teen Movie, and Dance Flick satirize their more serious counterparts by mocking the formula. What formulas do you see at work in the types of films you choose to watch? Do they follow the pattern outlined in this video? Do you prefer films that stick to tried and true patterns or those that stretch the boundaries of audience expectation? 

Color Vs. Black & White

In theory, everything is clearer in black and white. Most people try to reduce important issues this way. Two sides. Pro/Con. Black/White. But when we analyze any issue, we see that it has much more depth and breadth, that the issue is full of gray areas and certainly some colorful sides we might never have imagined upon first glance.

While Clerks is a black and white film, it is certainly populated by a colorful cast of characters who present issues that are anything but strictly black and white. Why film such a colorful cast and their controversial, sometimes offensive discussions in black and white? Wouldn't color film stock better illustrate the various shades and hues of these characters' lives?

In class, we have discussed personal prejudices against black and white films, and we have read what the experts think about it. While Kevin Smith made the decision to use black and white film stock based on the limitations of his budget, arguments can still be made about what the lack of color adds to or takes away from the film. Based on what you now know about visual design and cinematic use of color discuss the benefits or detriments of Smith's choice to use black and white film stock in light of its contribution to one or more narrative element (plot, character development, or theme).

Prevalent Themes in Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream

Darren Aronofsy's film adaptation of Requiem for a Dream deals with the destructive nature of addiction. It is easy to identify a theme here, some may even be tempted to say the theme. But other themes worthy of deeper investigation and discussion are present in the film as well, including the unattainability of the American dream and (if viewed in light of Aronofsky's entire body of work) obsession as catalyst for insanity.

Choose one of the film's theme to analyze. Articulate that theme as something more than the broad ideas listed above. Remember that a theme is something more than a moral or maxim for living; it is a complex argument about some idea that a literary work expresses subtly through its many nuances of character, plot, symbolism, etc. Examine how the film conveys that theme through its use of literary and cinematic conventions and how that theme is handled in comparison or contrast to other works of film and/or literature.

For Better or Worse: The Profound Impact of Art

Art is often created for the purpose of promoting social change. Other times, it causes change accidentally or in ways not intended by the artist. Consider, for example, Upton Sinclair's famous novel The Jungle. Sinclair meant for the novel to serve as social criticism, highlighting the plight of the American working class. Because his novel forced the American public to view uncensored the abject living and working conditions of the country's poverty-stricken citizens, then president Roosevelt authorized inspections which led to changes that eventually evolved into what is known today as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While not exactly the kind of change Sinclair had in mind when he self-published his novel over a century ago, this one artistic work caused change that still affects us in profound ways today.

It is highly doubtful that director Zack Snyder had such lofty intentions for his film 300. The controversies that arose in discussions about the film certainly didn't seem to indicate any postive changes for the US. In interviews, Snyder consistently denied any political agenda in light of current events and US relations with the Middle East. While his own political views likely influenced the creation of the film (in the way that our beliefs influence everything we do), we must either choose to take him at his word or not. Regardless of his intentions, the film definitely caused quite a stir around the world in light of the US occupation of multiple Middle Eastern countries including Iran. This particular work of art took on a life of its own. After all, once a film is released, the director cannot control how it will be interpreted by its many audiences. 300 certainly proved this. The film was praised for its high visual impact and special effects and criticized for such disparate reasons as mimicking the style of video games and being racist war propaganda. Somewhere in the middle of all that brouhaha Snyder's controversial film was contributing to serious political turmoil by poisoning the minds of Iranians against the US.

In the article "300 Sparks an Outcry in Iran" featured in Time magazine just a few days after the film's release, Azadeh Moaven describes the political unrest 300 caused half a world away from its release in the US for the citizens of a country already in conflict with the United States. Imagine you were native-born citizen of Iran, Iraq, or even Afghanistan and you became aware of the monstrous portrayals of Persians in this American film. How would you react?

Conduct some internet research and find other films that have had a significant impact on US society. Considering the two examples discussed as well as others you know of or discovered through research examples of how narratives, both film and literature, have impacted the political climate of the US, how sensitive do you think directors should be to the social and political ramifications of the work they produce?

Stranger Than...Allegory?

Allegory is a form of symbolism in which all elements of a story are symbolic. Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" is one of the most famous allegories that investigates the nature of knowledge and why many people choose to remain ignorant.

After reading Plato's allegory and conducting some online research to better understand this concept and how it is applied to literary works, explain how Stranger Than Fiction can be interpreted allegorically in light of the timeless debate of free will versus fate, defined as "the development of events beyond a person's control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power."