The article, "On the Origin of Adaptations: Rethinking Fidelity Discourse and 'Success' -- Biologically," written by Gary R. Bortolotti and Linda Hutcheon criticizes the habit of using fidelity as the defining characteristic in deciding if an adaptation is a success or a failure. Bortolotti and Hutcheon posit a new system of evaluation by borrowing from the discipline of evolutionary biology. Namely, the success of an adaptation is to be judged by it's efficiency in perpetuating narrative. In evolutionary terms adaptations are predicated on survival of the fittest -the strongest narratives are the ones that adapt to their environments and replicate: by changing for different mediums, time periods, and societies they better insure the chances that the narrative will survive.
The article begins with the claim from the movie Adaptation that, "adaptation is a profound process, which means you try and figure out how to thrive in the world" (443). While the authors acknowledge that the context of the film might give the impression of this being an ironic statement, in truth the opposite is true: adaptation really is pivotal to the continued survival of a narrative. The manifest problem with adaptation theory, according to Bortolotti and Hutcheon is the tendency of critics to judge adaptations as good or bad based upon the level of fidelity they maintain with the source text. Altering a source text is not a bad thing -- it is necessary. Bortolotti and Hutcheon both describe transformation of source texts as, "a common and persistent way that humans have always told and retold stories" (444). Critic Thomas Leitch agrees with this judgment and states, "every text offers itself as an invitation to be re-written" (16).
But if re-writing a source text is a necessary and beneficial thing then what system of judgment should be used to replace the fidelity criterion? Bortolotti and Hutcheon suggest embracing the scientific framework of post-Darwin biology to judge adaptations. Biologically changing or mutating is necessary for a the survival of a species: creatures who cannot adapt to new environments or circumstances will die out. As stated in the article both stories and organisms share the common need to, "replicate and change" (446). The question arises, then, on how much change can be made before a story is no longer an adaptation. When does it become its own story rather than the re-telling of a source text. Critics Hutcheon and Bortolotti claim that adaptations may change many things and still maintain their status as an adaptation as long the core narrative remains in tact.
Storytelling is a way of expressing one’s imagination through fanciful adventures and serve a variety of purposes. One important reason is to capture a special moment and endure it but mostly because it unites us and of course entertains us. In Yann Martel’s Life of Pi, and Tim Burton’s The Big Fish, storytelling is seen as more important than the truth. Throughout the novel Life of Pi, and the film The Big Fish, it can be argued that the truth is intertwined with the lies in each story to form a new kind of truth. An example of this would be when Pi retells his story to the two Japanese men in a way in which he makes the animals human and introduces a different version of the truth. Both the film and movie also share a unique way of story telling because what they both share is a common moral “quest” which involves the main character, who is usually the hero, must overcome challenges in order to achieve a goal or reward at the end.
The Storytelling Animal is an expository non-fiction book by Jonathan Gottschall analyzing the history of stories and human’s attraction to them. It was published in 2012 and thus contains many up-to-date references and comparisons. I believe Gottschall’s main objective in writing this book is to bring us all to the conclusion that he has reached in his research. Throughout the entirety of his book, Gottschall effectively pulls us back to main ideas he wants us to understand and accept, that we are innately storytelling animals, that are addicted to stories ourselves, have always been and will always be, by using topics that build upon one another, using relatable examples, and supporting arguments with research and studies.
Arnheim’s body of theory suggests that the necessity of human intervention to implement plot, tropes, and culturally legible symbols raises a film to a higher level than a mere copy of reality, and that this interpretation and expression of meaning is “a question of feeling” or intuition on the part of the filmmaker. (“Film Theory and Criticism” 283) One consequence of effective directorial intervention is that differences in speed, stops and starts, and what would otherwise be jarring gaps in continuity can be accepted by viewers, because if the essentials of reality are present, th...
Seger, Linda. "Introduction: Turning Fact and Fiction into Film." The Art of Adaptation: Turning Fact and Fiction into Film. New York: H. Holt and, 1992. 1-10. Print.
No society remains immobile, even if some human beings resist changes. Advances in technology and the emergence of new beliefs allow people to have a broader imagination. Thus, numerous new interpretations of ancient works, whether they are plays, folktales, or poems, permeate around the world. These renditions re-tell the original stories in contexts that adjust to the modern world. What was considered serious in the past becomes mockery nowadays.
The act of storytelling goes hand-in-hand with human existence. The evolution of man from that of a single celled organism into the complex structure that we now know today in and of itself is a story. A story that is written in the genetic code of our Deoxyribonucleic Acid or DNA. That DNA is broken down into the amino acid building blocks A, C, T, and G. Four amino acids written like four notes in a bass cleft staff, "what could be simpler?" With that evolution of man, evolved the art of storytelling; from simple stories of the hunt told around the fire to the written works of authors that we now read in books today. The pinnacle of the integrated story is the novel by Richard Powers titled The Gold Bug Variations.
Many time in our lives, we have seen the transformation of novels into movies. Some of them are equal to the novel, few are superior, and most are inferior. Why is this? Why is it that a story that was surely to be one of the best written stories ever, could turn out to be Hollywood flops? One reason is that in many transformations, the main characters are changed, some the way they look, others the way they act. On top of this, scenes are cut out and plot is even changed. In this essay, I will discuss some of the changes made to the characters of the Maltese Falcon as they make their transformation to the ?big screen.?
One notable difference between William Shakespeare’s The Tempest and Julie Taymor’s film version of the play is the altered scenes that made quite a difference between the play and the movie version. This difference has the effects of creating a different point of view by altering the scenes affected the movie and how Taymor felt was necessary by either by keeping or deleting certain parts from the play. I use “Altered Scene” in the way of how Julia Taymor recreates her own point of view for the movie and the direction she took in order to make the audience can relate to the modern day film. I am analyzing the way that the altered scenes changes to make a strong impression on the audiences different from the play. This paper will demonstrate
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter is one of the most respected and admired novels of all time. Often criticized for lacking substance and using more elaborate camera work, freely adapted films usually do not follow the original plot line. Following this cliché, Roland Joffe’s version of The Scarlet Letter received an overwhelmingly negative reception. Unrealistic plots and actions are added to the films for added drama; for example, Hester is about to be killed up on the scaffold, when Algonquin members arrive and rescue her. After close analysis, it becomes evident of the amount of work that is put into each, but one must ask, why has the director adapted their own style of depicting the story? How has the story of Hester Prynne been modified? Regarding works, major differences and similarities between the characterization, visual imagery, symbolism, narration and plot, shows how free adaptation is the correct term used.
Transformations are altering certain thematic concerns of the original text, yet still retaining much of the storyline. The process of transformation requires some conscious decisions which shape and re-shape the meaning, and must be justified in order to execute them. . This is explored in ‘BBC’s Shakespeare Re-told: Much ado about Nothing”, an adaptation of Shakespeare’s original playwright “Much ado about Nothing”
Literature is a one track medium, invoking "unfixed" images that is, many specific details are supplied by the reader. On the other hand, film is a five track medium of fixed, specific images and sounds. Invariably, this fixed experience does not exactly mirror that invoked by the literary source material. Therefore, we cannot view an adaptation as a literal transposing, but should instead consider it as a kind of translation.
...writing and the transformations in our literary world create brand new roles for the reader and writer. Perhaps in the future the computer alone will be capable of taking on a role as an author as the idea of artificial intelligence becomes more and more developed. And even though the new roles may be hard to adapt to at first, as I found while reading “Disappearing Rain,” there is no denying that people are going to have to adjust to the new writing spaces available by changing the way they write and read.
When adapting a novel, there are three different ways directors can translate that into a film. They may take on the literal, traditional or radical interpretation of their adaptation of the novel; in Joe Wright’s 2005 Pride and Prejudice, he takes on the traditional interpretation. This translation demonstrates the same ideas, central conflicts, and characters as those of Austen’s novel 1813 novel, Pride and Prejudice. Linda Costanzo Cahir, the author of Literature into Film, gives sufficient evidence to prove that this adaptation is in fact a traditional one.
In the simplest form, there is a basic structural pattern to narratives, as expressed through Tzvetan Todorov’s explanation of narrative movement between two equilibriums. A narrative begins in a stable position until something causes disequilibrium, however, by the end of the story, the equilibrium is re-established, though it is different than the beginning (O’Shaughnessy 1999: 268). Joseph Cam...
s the creative genius behind countless literary masterpieces, William Shakespeare has contributed to the world of literature through his relatable characters, intriguing plots, and relevant themes. With such conducive forces, Shakespeare is inevitably the most film adapted author of all time, as over 831 film adaptations credit his works as a basis for the storyline. A film adaptation is known to be a derivative work, as it is the execution of a written work through a feature film. Although several filmmakers choose to define their works as Shakespearean film adaptations, they fail to realize that several films fall into the comparative category of film interpretations. Film interpretations are defined to be a more conceptualized version of a written work. The variation of the two categories is highly evident in the motion picture versions of the Shakespearean plays Antony & Cleopatra and Twelfth Night. The elements of speech, setting, theme, and use of disguise effectively highlight the difference between an adaptation and an interpretation. When comparing Twelfth Night and Antony & Cleopatra to their respective films, one identifies that as Antony & Cleopatra’s adaptation is more “word for word,” it keeps the true essence of the written work, versus the interpretation of Twelfth Night, which does not capture the Shakespearean touch overall.