What should adaptations aim for?

[caucasoididiot]

The other night I was re-watching Orson Welles' 1962 adaptation of The Trial and comparing it with a 1992 BBC adaptation I also have. While that comparison alone is interesting, it got me to thinking about the whole institution of adaptations between media. Usually this would be a case of a novel being filmed, but there are plenty of other kinds of artistic cross-pollenation to which it might apply. I chose this section of the board because it seems to me that film has largely become the "literature" of the present day.

For a start, both films are called The Trial rather than Der Prozess. Translation already involves some element of re-interpretation; I'm sure we've all had fun playing around with the humorous results you can get from Babelfish. The BBC version, however, seems to try very hard to create an image that Kafka might have pictured in his own head. It was shot in Prague, and the city's streets and tenements are as much a player in the piece as are the actors. It follows teh novel quite closely, and I have heard that many more of the book's sequences were shot but lost for time.

Welles' Trial, on the other hand, shows the imprint of his own vision. It is set in a surreal, post-war Eurmerica reminiscent of Alphaville and is filled with powerful noir imagery. Welles isn't afraid to add embellishments like computers or "ovular" marks, but they do feel consistent with Kafka. One that I do dislike a bit is the ending; I gather it's a commentary on the nuclear Sword of Damocles, but I always find myself saying, "'Like a dog,' Mr. Welles, what happened to 'like a dog'?"

I'm wondering what other people think of these two approaches. Should adaptations seek to be true to the original or to be self-contained creations in the spirit of the original? Or are these two separate endeavors, each with its own validity?

It seems to me that both require skill. Poorly done, the first would probably come off like a watered down "classics illustrated" comic. What's more, if the original is well known viewers will probably already have mental pictures that the film won't fit ("That's not what an orc looks like, Mr. Jackson!"). The latter leaves the interpreter more freedom of action and thus scope for success. Blade Runner comes to mind here, taking many liberties with Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? but being a better movie than it was a novel, in my own opinion. On the other hand, the film Sayounara ruins the story of Michener's novel by trying to lighten and prettify it, one of myriads to which this has been done.

Views?

[Mighty Jack]

Just be good.

I know I sound like a simpleton but I don't get too tied up in knots over such things. I like Sayonara for what it is, is it the novel no, but is the novel the movie?

A painting can't be a movie which can't be a book which can't be a song. They can draw from one another but each has their own uniqueness. I wont damn a movie for not being a painting or a song or a book. I'll just rate the movie for being a movie and whether I like it as a movie.

So I guess my answer would be, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that I enjoy it.

I like what Michael Connelly said when asked about the changes Clint Eastwood made to his novel "Blood Work" --- He said, "I took their money so it was their turn to tell the story". The book is still the book, the movie is a movie. If I don't like the movie I can still read the book or I can like them both for what they are, in and of themselves.

Phew, that was more windy than I meant it to be.

[afriendlychicken]

This is a tough question. Movies like A Clockwork Orange, Remains Of The Day, most films made from E. M. Forster novels tend to remain true to the original source material. Then there are films that change some aspects like The Trial, Kurosawa's adaptations of Shakespeare and Dostoevsky, the failed War Of The World films. Then there are others that are just inspired by the book and almost keep nothing of the original(most hollywood films), Apocalypse Now, I Robot, a lot of Shakespeare (although Bergman's Smiles Of A Summer Night is a great example of this), the Look Who's Talking films etc. etc.

I don't see a problem with any of them as long the film-makers capture the essence of the original source. I haven't read The Trial but I have seen the Orson Welles movie. Being that he had done the only great version of War Of The Worlds and The Magnificent Ambersons, I would trust he, at least, caught the essence of Kafka. The Look Who's Talking films on the other hand...I wonder if they had even read the Olaf Stapledon novel.

I disagree with you on Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? I found the book much better. It's an underpopulated world in the book which makes sense for them to produce replicants then the overpopulated world in Blade Runner. (I have the same problem with A. I. In the Aldiss story, the only way to have children is through a government lottery, so they produce robot children for the parents who really want a child. Spielberg screws it up by making the parents already have a child. Then what's the point of having a robot child? Think Mr. Spielberg!) The whole idea of what is and isn't real, and why we should care or even bother caring, comes through stronger in the book. That being said, Blade Runner is one of the few (along with 2001) American Science Fiction films I really like.

Edit: Or are they American? I know it's who produces the film that counts for where it's from, but Kubrick was already living in England when he made 2001, and Ridley Scott is English. Come to think of it, I love Terry Gilliam's Brazil, and he's a Monty Python alumnus....but he's an American... and then there's the problem of Godard, Truffaut and Tarkovsky making great SF Films!!!...and Truffaut's film is in English.... Arrrrrrrrgh!!! ;D

[Torgo]

Feb 28, 2010 18:00:59 GMT -5 Mighty Jack said:

Just be good.

Took the words out of my mouth.

I don't care what a movie is as long as I like it.

[caucasoididiot]

Feb 28, 2010 18:00:59 GMT -5 Mighty Jack said:

Just be good.

I know I sound like a simpleton but I don't get too tied up in knots over such things. I like Sayonara for what it is, is it the novel no, but is the novel the movie?

Simple, but I wouldn't say it sounds like a simpleton. It sounds like a good "Hippocratic Oath" for artists. And you're dead on about how a novel and movie are inherently different animals, but as for Sayounara, I'll return to it in a bit.

Feb 28, 2010 20:07:14 GMT -5 afriendlychicken said:

I don't see a problem with any of them as long the film-makers capture the essence of the original source. I haven't read The Trial but I have seen the Orson Welles movie. Being that he had done the only great version of War Of The Worlds and The Magnificent Ambersons, I would trust he, at least, caught the essence of Kafka. The Look Who's Talking films on the other hand...I wonder if they had even read the Olaf Stapledon novel.

I think that's about how I'd put it too. I watched the BBC version again last night, and I'm inclining to the view that the two films are both faithful adaptations of the novel but faithful in different ways. I'm not suggesting for a moment that Welles didn't get Kafka, he certainly did, and that's why his additions mesh well with the original. I miss the final line, but I see the allusion he wanted that crowded it out; it's no show-stopper for me.

The Trial is an interesting subject because Kafka never actually edited a final draft, and so there's wiggle room even in the original. You also have the issue with filming a novel that a LOT has to be cut (unless you're doing a mini-series). I had forgotten that it was Harold Pinter who did the BBC screenplay, by the way. There are particular scenes in each that I prefer over the other, the same for certain inclusions and deletions, but I really like both.

Kurosawa's Shakespeare adaptations are further great examples of re-imaginings that work for me. By the way, chicken, have you read both versions of A Clockwork Orange? The British edition has an extra final chapter. As for the Look Who's Talking films being based on Stapledon, all I can say is, "Wha~?" I never caught them, but what I've heard of them would have never given me an inkling. Wow.


As for Sayounara, to me it feels like a case of the film-makers either not getting the original or -- if they did -- electing to commodify it. I'll lay out a spoiler-light version of my reasoning here and append some key detail at the end of the post. Anyway, the thumbnail setup (for anyone who hasn't seen it) is that a S.H. MiG-killer just back from Korea is detailed to "talk sense" to a young enlisted man who insists on marrying a Japanese, even though at that time such marriages weren't recognized and he wouldn't be able to take her to the States. The kid remains adamant, and it's the pilot who shifts and finds himself invoved with a Japanese Takarazauka star, despite the fact that it puts much of what he is at risk.

The movie is no train wreck, it has some nice performances and some beautiful sequences. It started to go wrong for me when I saw the kid, however. I'd have to check, but I think it was Red Buttons. Nothing against him, but he just seemed too old for the role. The movie also chose to transform the hovel in which they all end up living into a villa that Akio Toyota would envy. It's beautiful, but aside from being totally implausible it sort of muddles the pilot's choice, being a distinct step up from the BOQ. Another fascinating aspect of the novel is that the pilot and actress don't share a common language. Now that one I'll have to give them, pretty much of necessity the movie makes her fluent in English. But the ending completely stands the novel on its head, turning it into a pretty standard-issue romance of the day. Now, the two approaches to adaptation that I initially laid out aren't exclusive: they're the poles of a spectrum and all actual cases will fall somewhere in between. It may well be that the original ending was simply too dark for mid-'50s Hollywood, but if an adaptation is going to change something that essential my own preference would be to just go with a clean slate, even if the changed version works on it's own terms. Of course, everyone will likely have a different sense of just where that tipping point lies.


As to American vs non-American SF, even in print a lot of my favorite writers are European. I've often thought that Čapek's War with the Newts could be the basis for a great movie, but I'm sure I'd hate the adaptation. (^_^)


OK, the spoilers are below:






The suicide of the EM and his wife is way too prettified in the movie, for my taste. There's sort of a rosy, tear-jerker glow around a scene which is deliberately quite gritty in the novel. The movie then has the pilot rushing after his beloved and a conventional "happy ever after" ending. The book's final chapters are instead the pilot's reversion to the habits of his former life, though it's now hollow. He ends by covering for the racist officer who hounded the kids to death because it's what's expected of him. Michener sort of sets you up to ask, "What could be worse than dying like that?" on the kid's death, and then gradually answering, "Continuing to live like the pilot."

[afriendlychicken]

Mar 1, 2010 10:05:06 GMT -5 @caucasoididiot said:

The Trial is an interesting subject because Kafka never actually edited a final draft, and so there's wiggle room even in the original.

Kurosawa's Shakespeare adaptations are further great examples of re-imaginings that work for me. By the way, chicken, have you read both versions of A Clockwork Orange? The British edition has an extra final chapter. As for the Look Who's Talking films being based on Stapledon, all I can say is, "Wha~?" I never caught them, but what I've heard of them would have never given me an inkling. Wow.

But the ending completely stands the novel on its head, turning it into a pretty standard-issue romance of the day.

As to American vs non-American SF, even in print a lot of my favorite writers are European. I've often thought that Čapek's War with the Newts could be the basis for a great movie, but I'm sure I'd hate the adaptation. (^_^)

First, Kafka didn't finish editing the story? That would cause some differences in interpretations. I understand about the ending of the Welles film. It seems to end very abruptly and supposedly some viewers thought it was an atomic explosion(?) for some reason. I guess they think a mushroom cloud is only caused by large bombs.

I love the Kurosawa Shakespeare adaptations, especially Throne Of Blood. I find it easier to understand Shakespeare when it's done in another language! My english not so good I guess? I did like the Olivier films and Welles' Othello(this isn't on dvd!), although I had problems understanding Branagh's Henry V and Hamlet.

I read A Clockwork Orange in the middle 90's. Thankfully, I bought the first American version that included the last (21) chapter. The story goes that even though Kubrick lived in England, he received the book from a friend in America and it didn't include that last chapter. In all honesty, I think Kubrick was smart to end his movie ambiguously. I just can't see the movie ending with a 'mature' Alex. I'm always surprised that Burgess didn't like the film. It's about 97% accurate to what he wrote. What, besides the ending, bothered him?

The Look Who's Talking films were, supposedly, based on Odd John. Nope, I just don't see it.

I have never seen the Sayonara film even though I've been watching TCM for 13 years. I just looked it up and found out it stars Marlon Brando. No wonder I've never seen it. The most over-rated actor ever! As for the ending, I guess it needed a Fritz Lang. He would have kept it dark.

I'm the same way on SF. Arthur C. Clarke, Brian W. Aldiss, J. G. Ballard, H. G. Wells, George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Alastair Reynolds are all British and I love them. I do love quite a few American authors with Gene Wolfe being my favorite, but there's something about the English perspective.

I agree on War Of The Newts. Is there a genre that does a worse job of translating novels into movies then SF? Brian Aldiss mentioned the difference between SF in the written form and SF films are becoming like the differences between Astronomy and astrology. Think about that? Scary.

[Mighty Jack]

The issues you have with Sayonarra really come down to personal taste. I still enjoy the movie for what it is. So it takes liberties, a lot of films do. I could pick away at Casablanca (and God knows it has big holes) until I ruin a great movie for myself. I could let some of the incongruities in Citizen Kane gnaw at me, or spoil my enjoyment of Kurosawa for his westernizations (as a few have) and that's a personal choice.

For me, film is primarily a visceral experience. If I become invested in the characters and their story, the philosophy of the piece.... then the lapses in logic become a non-issue. For other people things like that eat away at them. And I’m not passing judgment either way, but we all watch movies differently with a different set of expectations and wants.

Sayonara isn’t the book, there are things that aren’t accurate…. I still love it. Coraline didn’t follow the book, I still thought it was an excellent movie. Jaws didn’t follow the book, it gutted many of the character issues, but It’s still a classic film. Wanted is one of the worse adaptations of a comic you could ever ask for –angered a lot of fans- but you know, the movie was a silly but entertaining trifle that I dug. I’ll quote Trace when people got upset at MST for riffing on This Island Earth. We didn’t paint a Mustache on THE Mona Lisa, you can still go watch the original.

I don’t think we can say what an adaptation should or shouldn’t do and I think the direction this thread has taken illustrates why. Because it ultimately boils down to whether we enjoyed it or were moved or found some artistic value. We will forgive a multiple of sins if we enjoy it, and damn it for its liberties if we didn’t.

[afriendlychicken]

Mar 1, 2010 19:29:29 GMT -5 Mighty Jack said:

The issues you have with Sayonarra really come down to personal taste. I still enjoy the movie for what it is. So it takes liberties, a lot of films do. I could pick away at Casablanca (and God knows it has big holes) until I ruin a great movie for myself. I could let some of the incongruities in Citizen Kane gnaw at me, or spoil my enjoyment of Kurosawa for his westernizations (as a few have) and that's a personal choice.

For me, film is primarily a visceral experience. If I become invested in the characters and their story, the philosophy of the piece.... then the lapses in logic become a non-issue. For other people things like that eat away at them. And I’m not passing judgment either way, but we all watch movies differently with a different set of expectations and wants.

Sayonara isn’t the book, there are things that aren’t accurate…. I still love it. Coraline didn’t follow the book, I still thought it was an excellent movie. Jaws didn’t follow the book, it gutted many of the character issues, but It’s still a classic film. Wanted is one of the worse adaptations of a comic you could ever ask for –angered a lot of fans- but you know, the movie was a silly but entertaining trifle that I dug. I’ll quote Trace when people got upset at MST for riffing on This Island Earth. We didn’t paint a Mustache on THE Mona Lisa, you can still go watch the original.

I don’t think we can say what an adaptation should or shouldn’t do and I think the direction this thread has taken illustrates why. Because it ultimately boils down to whether we enjoyed it or were moved or found some artistic value. We will forgive a multiple of sins if we enjoy it, and damn it for its liberties if we didn’t.

You are absolutely right. Nothing is perfect and no translation could ever hope to be. And it is taste. I don't tend to follow actors anyway, I follow directors. He just happens to have acted in films of director's I don't follow except for Bertolucci. Brando's a great actor. I did have my tongue firmly in my cheek when I wrote that. He's just not to 'my' taste(My mom dislikes him much more then I do). I think it's environment. New York people don't seem 'real' if you grew up in Hawai'i. So the question is what is realistic acting? Whatever it happens to be for each individual viewer. (BTW, I believe I did see Sayonara. I just don't have a memory of it. I'll keep an eye out for it on TCM. The one place where I'll watch anything that's shown.)

Whenever a person doesn't like something they tend to nitpick it to death unaware of the fact that what they like can also be torn apart in the same way. Isn't that great!!?? We should all be humbled at some point in our lives and realize it's all in the perspective.

I wouldn't want life any other way. Thanks T? P? MJ?

And there are movies I've liked much better then the book. Jaws is a great example and a few of the films I mentioned in my first post. I've always liked Shakespeare better in movies. Or, at least they're usually easier to understand. And leave Casablanca, Citizen Kane and Kurosawa alone!

[caucasoididiot]

Mar 1, 2010 18:43:28 GMT -5 afriendlychicken said:

I understand about the ending of the Welles film. It seems to end very abruptly and supposedly some viewers thought it was an atomic explosion(?) for some reason. I guess they think a mushroom cloud is only caused by large bombs.

The book ending is actually not that diffierent, at the risk of a spoiler it's the knife. This time I got the impression that the very final image actually is footage of a test burst, so that was my guess as to why Welles made that change.

By the way, I'm not saying someone else can't like a movie because I felt it lost the main thrust of the book. Had I never read the book I wouldn't have had those expectations, and under those circumstances I might have liked it fine.

Odd John, eh? Can't wait to see Star Maker. (^_^)

[Mighty Jack]

I wanted to add, that I think I understand what you’re getting at with Sayonara – What you wrote makes me think of Anna Kerenina. I like Garbo’s film version, even though it not what Tolstoy intended. I like it for what it is, not for what it failed to either understand or chose to ignore. It’s a good romantic tragedy… but the source Anna isn’t a good romantic figure, she’s selfish and is destroyed by her selfishness. She represents everything that Tolstoy views as bad in Russia, her downward spiral is a result of satisfying her own wants above all else (also, when reading his books, you can’t separate Tolstoy from his Catholicism any more than you can Dostoevsky. In a nutshell you could say they are two sides of the same coin religiously. Dostoevsky addresses grace, Tolstoy is about works).

The key to Anna is the character of Levin, he is the contrast (and he is Tolstoy himself) Without him you lose the bigger picture of the novel. And yet, when film or TV includes him in their adaptations, critics complain and wonder why the director/screenwriter didn’t focus on Anna alone. They see Levin as merely a bothersome subplot that muddies up the story. Now is that because the critic never read the book or doesn’t get it, or that film can’t be a book and can’t hope to mirror what the book did? Why did Kurosawa banish key figures and plot lines from the source material when he filmed Throne of Blood? He felt it was necessary to cut certain things in order to get to the heart of what he felt was important.

Likewise when he made the historical “Kagemushu” he changed history, again, because it served the moral of the story he was trying to tell.

So with Anna, I like the Garbo film for what it is. I like the book for what it is. I haven’t seen the mini series or whatever it was, that included Levin so I can’t say whether I would have agreed with the critic. But it is interesting to note that I liked and felt sorry for Garbo’s Anna. I couldn’t stand Tolstoy’s Anna as a person. I guess you could say that the film failed in adapting Tolstoy, I couldn’t argue with that.

Mar 1, 2010 20:20:32 GMT -5 afriendlychicken said:

Whenever a person doesn't like something they tend to nitpick it to death unaware of the fact that what they like can also be torn apart in the same way. Isn't that great!!?? We should all be humbled at some point in our lives and realize it's all in the perspective.

I'm around a lot of online comic book geeks and they are among the nitpickiest people in the world. It gets wearying because for me the superhero flicks are just fun escapsim that take me back to my youth.

On the other hand - If my boyhood fav Iron Man had been turned into a girl shy techno-phobe, I guess I would have whined and nitpicked too.

[caucasoididiot]

Unfortunately the only Dostoevsky I've read is The Idiot, but I think get you. Yes, my reaction is subjective, but I don't think arbitrary. What bothers me about the changes in Sayounara is that it loses what makes the novel distinctive, so however well done it may be it still feels like a wasted opportunity unless something comparable takes its place. I suppose it would be a little like going to see Astaire and finding him talking about golf instead of dancing; he'd need to be damned insightful about golf not to make it feel like a letdown.

Is this making any sense? There's a lot of beer under the bridge at this point. By the way, I can see how my earlier post looked like an attack on your preferences, MJ, and I didn't mean it that way.

[Mighty Jack]

Oh no, I'm/it's cool - no offense was taken. Now if you had shouted.. “You stupid fat bastard, you’re killing us with your Pollyanna routine!” that, I might have taken as an attack.

[caucasoididiot]

We're safe then, I'd only ever shout that at Ebert. (^_^)

[inlovewithcrow]

It's a great question, and I haven't the experience (or perhaps even wit) to begin to answer it. I took a very plot-driven story I'd written and tried to adapt it into a screenplay myself, but I found it difficult.

Some books adapt well. I always think of Silence of the Lambs, a good book, and a good, faithfull adaptation. Some don't, as obviously the script to Adaptation explores.

I have one strong preference. When books or plays have beloved characters, keep the character intact. If you need to externalize internalization from the book, do so, but don't change the nature of the character. I can work up a great deal of hatred for filmmakers when this advice is not followed.

[afriendlychicken]

Mar 1, 2010 21:14:05 GMT -5 @caucasoididiot said:

Mar 1, 2010 18:43:28 GMT -5 afriendlychicken said:

I understand about the ending of the Welles film. It seems to end very abruptly and supposedly some viewers thought it was an atomic explosion(?) for some reason. I guess they think a mushroom cloud is only caused by large bombs.

The book ending is actually not that diffierent, at the risk of a spoiler it's the knife. This time I got the impression that the very final image actually is footage of a test burst, so that was my guess as to why Welles made that change.

By the way, I'm not saying someone else can't like a movie because I felt it lost the main thrust of the book. Had I never read the book I wouldn't have had those expectations, and under those circumstances I might have liked it fine.

Odd John, eh? Can't wait to see Star Maker. (^_^)

They'll use the title for the fourth version of A Star Is Born.

Mar 2, 2010 2:20:35 GMT -5 @caucasoididiot said:

We're safe then, I'd only ever shout that at Ebert. (^_^)

Poor Mr. Ebert, he's taken a beating recently. He's forgotten one of the golden rules of life: Never talk religion or politics...especially when you're suppose to be a movie critic. It's all in the perspective.