Adaptations are sneaky. They creep up on us and we don’t even notice. That’s because the definition we’ve always believed in is wrong. ‘Adaptation’ is not merely text made into a film; it is any non-cinematic narrative translated to cinematic language. By this definition, Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean are suddenly not so original. The former is an adaptation of a series of toys into a comicbook, a cartoon and later into films. [1] The blockbuster starring Johnny Depp is based on a water-based ride in Disneyland, created in 1967. [2]
Film adaptations are often criticised because they don’t follow the source text word-by-word or they make changes that seem strange. Yet the examples I mention were box office hits; many people thought they were good and enjoyable despite the fact that they are, in fact, adaptations. It’s true that many people probably didn’t know that, but maybe it’s time we paid more attention to the media we consume?
There is a science behind adaptations; studies have created endless categories and subcategories to help us understand how cultural texts are related. I’ll base my presentation on the taxonomy created by Thomas Leitch in 2007. [3]
Films that we usually consider adaptations are called celebrations. I won’t elaborate on them other than they are very faithful to their source texts (‘faithful’ being the keyword, as an adaptation doesn’t have to be faithful to be good).
Before you ask: yes, a remake is also an adaptation. The trend is to update and expand previous films, adapt them to modern times. Yet sometimes it’s to the contrary; for example, the newest Robocop (2014) is even more conservative than its predecessor. [4]
The most common approach to film adaptation is adjustment. The source text is changed to fit various requirements, like the length of the film or the period it’s set in, or simply to tell a better story. That is the case with Game of Thrones, where the story and the name of Robb Stark’s wife were changed. Similarly, even though Les Misérables (2012) is an adaptation of a musical, adjustments were made to make it look less theatrical and more realistic.
A photo from the staging of the musical clearly shows that it’s a theatre production.
The film was not a televised theatre performance but a feature film adaptation of it.
We also need to be aware that the aforementioned aspects are not the only ones that influence film adaptations. Things like budget, actor’s myth, film convention, direction style etc. will affect the final result. The type of adjustment where multiple factors function indirectly as co-authors of the film is called superimposition. Actor’s myth is casting a person in similar roles over their career. This is perfectly visible in Total Recall (1990). The film is loosely based on Philip K. Dick’s short story We Can Remember It For You For You Wholesale. The protagonist is an office worker; yet can you imagine Arnold Schwarzenegger cooped up behind a small desk? That is why his character became a construction worker. Arguably, Arnold did end up behind a desk, only it was much bigger ;)
Also, his name was changed too. Quail sounded too soft to fit someone like the former governor of California, so Quaid it is. The same goes for the wife of the protagonist. In the film, she was played by Sharon Stone, so her character inevitably became much more sexualised.
Film convention is a very important factor too. Can you imagine Tim Burton filming anything without making it, well, Burton-esque? The same goes for direction style. AI, an adaptation of a short story by Brian Aldiss, Super-Toys Last All Summer Long, was shaping up to be Kubrick’s best film. Unfortunately he died mid-directing and Spielberg took over. The differences between their styles are very noticeable. Even something as small as acting choices can be considered superimposition and thus a form of adaptation. Andrew Lincoln who plays Rick on The Walking Dead said that he based his performance on the main character from Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. [5]
You might argue that a film is not a adaptation; it was only inspired by some other work. According to Leitch there are no inspirations. A film that follows a similar plot to another is called adaptation by analogy. A good example for that is The Diary of Bridget Jones which bears a lot of similarities to Pride and Prejudice (1995), on top of being based on the book by Helen Fielding (which can be treated as a rewriting of Pride and Prejudice itself). An argument in favour of that is that Colin Firth stars in both films.
Another type of adaptation is colonisation. It means that the source text is emptied of its meaning and filled with a new one. That was the case with The Seven Samurai (1954), which were the base for The Magnificent Seven (1960). It's the same with porn versions of known texts of culture, for example: Doctor Jekyll and Sister Hyde, Frankenhooker, Saving Ryan’s Privates or The Invasion of the Body Snatchers (this one didn't even require a change of title).
As I said at the beginning, film adaptations are often criticised on principle. What people fail to understand is that novel (I use this example as it is the most common base for adaptation) is a completely different medium than film. It’s not true that the latter can’t convey the information that novel can through description; it does that but in different ways. Cinematic language is completely different from novel’s. At the same time, it isn’t only audio-visual, therefore it provides more codes that need to be interpreted. Furthermore, it only has two hours or so to show the audience what in the book takes hundreds of pages, so certain changes must be made. That was the case with The Series of Unfortunate Events, where three books were compressed into one film. Another argument against cinema is its overspecification. According to some, the level of detail leaves nothing to the viewer’s imagination. Yet, some types of description are unattainable through the film medium, despite seeming visually rich. [6]
Therefore, using the criterion of fidelity to define a film’s value is useless. The only ‘faithful’ remake would be a rerelease of the original source text. Lastly, people often claim that the source texts are more original than adaptations. This is not true, as every creation uses intertexts whether consciously or not, therefore neither the source nor its adaptation can be the ultimate original. [7]
To sum up, some changes we could do without. Some have to be made to accomodate the different medium that is film. Whether an adaptation is good in the end, I leave to the viewer’s judgement.
[1] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_(toy_line). [Last accesssed: 20 March 2016]
[2] Available at:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirates_of_the_Caribbean_(attraction). [Last accessed: 19 March 2016].
[3] Thomas Leitch, Film Adaptation and Its Discontents: From Gone with the Wind to The Passion of the Christ. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007.
[4] Keith Orejel. “What Robocop Tells Us about the Neoliberal City, Then and Now” in Tropics of Meta, 24 March 2014. Available at: http://tropicsofmeta.com/2014/03/24/what-robocop-tells-us-about-the-neoliberal-city-then-and-now/. [Last accessed: 24 March 2016].
[5] Available at:http://walkingdead.wikia.com/wiki/Andrew_Lincoln. [Last accessed: 18 March 2016].
[6] Avalable at:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events#Film. [Last accessed: 24 March 2016].
[7] Thomas Leitch, “Twelve Fallacies in Contemporary Adaptation Theory” in Criticism, Volume 45, Number 2, Spring 2003, p. 149-171.
Comments
Jack Nickolson's Joker was more like clown/jester and Heath Ledger's was insane type.
The worst for me are changes is historical facts that causes a lot of damage in knowledge of people. I know that plot of movie is important and some facts are hard to present but later people remember some untrue situations.
That being said, I'm absolutely with you about changes to historical facts. Truth is subjective but facts are objective. Maybe it'd be better to omit them altogether instead of presenting false information, which people readily absorb.
You're right, of course, about many studios making adaptations just for money :( It's hard to pitch an original idea in mainstream cinema; it's far more profitable to remake something people know & love already. They're already invested in the story.
To be truthful, I'm also not really a great movie fan, so it might be that.
I perhaps made a mistake limiting the definition of adaptation to only films, but it's the most popular medium and I wanted to focus on that. There are adaptations within literature, art etc. as well and people seem to have less problems with those. I wonder why, although it's probably precisely because film is the most popular medium and the most people have an access to it.
Having said that I do not mind adaptations being bad (not following book word by word). I look at them as if they are kind of an "essence of the book", presented in a form of movie with directors take on it. Making it a whole new thing.
As with fanfiction, for me it's super interesting what the directors can come up with, what other possibilities for the story/characters they will give us and whether it would change my view of the original text. A lot of the adaptations these days tend to aim for the 'true story', like Dracula, popular fairy tales or historical figures/events. I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with this trend, even though I like the 'humanisation' of mythical/legendary characters; it makes their actions much more understandable and relatable to us.
Harry Potter is a rather faithful adaptation, I think, although many people bemoan the lack of some scenes that they thought were very important to the characterisation/plot, like the background on the Horcruxes and Tom Riddle’s family or the fact that Neville could have been the Chosen One as well as Harry.
However, I agree with you that we were growing up with this story and books mixed with the films at some point, which I think made it a bit of a cultural phenomenon. We're experiencing it now with The Game of Thrones as well.
I'm also not sure I can agree with you about 'knowing the whole story' only through reading the book. What about short stories which are adapted into films? Some of them wouldn't take up 1,5hrs.
I had no idea that Pirates of the Carribean franchise is based on a Disneyland ride. I knew that this ride exists, but I thought that it was created after the film had been made. Thank you for this!
Novel to screen adaptation is always a very controversial subject, because what you imagine is way less objective than what you see. On screen you see the story shown as imagined by creators of a movie and in most cases it differs from what you expected. I think that this is the reason most people say that books are way better than their adaptations - the movies simply don't fit what they imagined and for some fans it is almost unbearable. For example I have read a series of books by Zygmunt Miłoszewski, fist of them being "Uwikłani". The main character is Teodor Szacki, a cold, very professional and bitter district attorney in his early forties. He is very tall, extremely skinny and has completely white hair. In a movie adaptation his character is played by... Maja Ostaszewska. Come on! I haven't seen the movie, maybe it is good, but for me it is absolutely unacceptable to change something so crucial as the main characters sex! Imagine Hulk, Captain America and Iron Man as women - oh wait, we come back to colonisation;)
People often claim that books are always better than films based on them, but I don't believe it's true. There are adaptations I prefer to the original (The Chronicles of Narnia would be a perfect example, I hated those books so much, and the films - although not perfect - are still better). There are adaptations that made me love the book - like LoTR or Game of Thrones. And sometimes the director gets to grasp the atmosphere of the book that he creates a masterpiece out of a masterpiece - like in The Road.
What’s most important in faithful and well made adaptations – I think people behind them should be fans of the book or any other source behind it, have deep understanding and appreciation for it. Because even if the movie is not faithful, it shows if it’s made with love for it’s roots.
We have to enjoy with good books and good movies, there is no need to dramatize only because the hero in the historical romance about the victory over Nazi Germany Hitler's bodyguard had blue eyes, blonde hair and was muscular enough to be considered as a member of Hitler's private army, while in the movie we've got Tom Cruise as Hitler's bodyguard and Dannie De Vito as Hitler.
But on the other hand, some people could still feel intrigued by a bad adaptation.
As to what Paulina said - yes, things are often simplified because they need to sell well :( It kills a lot of stories.
I think my reaction would be similar to yours, if someone changed a crucial element of the story. I imagine people must have flipped out when Elementary (modern Sherlock & female Watson) aired. On the other hand, it offers a lot of different ideas to consider (However, it unfortunately strenghtens the heteronormativity as well, since fans have always specualted about Holmes/Watson relationship. If Watson becomes a woman, everything is okay and justifiable.)
I actually had to ask my expert-in-adaptation-theory best friend about sex changes & colonisation :D She said she's it's a very interesting theory. I suppose even if the storyline stayed the same, a lot would change: the social perception of men and women, their own motivations etc. So, in a way it might be colonisation ;)
Also sometimes adaptations tend to attract viewers to read/watch the originals which is also a very good "side effect" of that kind of treatment.
I guess that the most famous film adaptations are Harry Potter and The Lord of The Rings - both of them were critically acclaimed and loved by millions of fans - even if they did't tell exactly the same stories as the originals (i mean that many elements were just left unfilmed). So i guess that it is the case of how will the director create the mood and add his own attitude to the whole project.