Go to Page 3
Go To Page 4
The Director's Path
In Part 1 we took a close look at differences involved between the film and book medium. Such differences tend to complicate film adaptations, together with the limitations and restrictions imposed on film. The limitations mentioned included limitations of time, space, speech and dialogue, audience, cast, budget, technology and reality amongst others.
The Storyboard
The Phantom of the Opera, by Gaston Leroux is about Christine, who at the age of six loses her mother and finds herself in Paris. Her childhood friend Raoul will become her lover. Throughout her life she has heard tales about the 'Angel of Music' who gives girls a heavenly voice. When she manages to get chosen for the Paris Opera she hears an unearthly voice that promises to teach her to sing. This is no other than Erik, a wretched and disfigured man who lives literally beneath the theatre, and knows all its corners and vaults like the back of his hand. Christine is so taken in by Erik's voice, musical knowledge and kindness that she falls for him, forsaking Raoul. He too has fallen in love with her and does everything he can to make sure that she gets the part for the Faust production. One day she tears Erik's masks away and sees the disfigured face of her mentor. Raoul has long been suspecting who this mentor was. A desperate Erik kidnaps Christine and Raoul comes to her rescue. Erik tries to kill Raoul by setting off explosives. In the end he releases Christine and bids her to marry the man she loves, Raoul. This is a very fast forward short summary of the book. It's essence is a Quasimodo tale of a deformed and unloved figure who actually captures a girl's heart, through his voice, and finally cherished and respected for his understanding of the fact that Christine is young and deserves to be with the young viscount Raoul. His is actually a sacrifice for the girl he loves, his desire for her to lead a comfortable and happy life which he could not offer her. A sad lover's tale.
Now here's what various film directors made out of it.
(1) The ruined forsaken theatre suddenly is returned to its former glamour.
(2) Erik's face is disfigured by acid accidentally falling onto his face (The fact that he was disfigured from birth did not suit the directors' purpose.)
(3) Scenes of underground caves and streams. (Instead of the theatre vaults)
(4) Candles upon candles. (Instead of explosive dynamite)
(5) Erik's only deformation is his face.
(6) The falling chandelier (An impossibly large chandelier falling on the audience)
(7) Scenes and performances from the theatre.
(8) Giving chase.
(9) Erik's falling from the roof of the theatre.
(10) Erik's and Raoul's Duel.
(11) Close up of Erik's horrible face
(12) Violent scenes
These 10 pictures appear in all the trailers to different versions of the Phantom of the Opera movie.
The Film as a Telegram
The film cannot directly visualize thoughts or concepts and reduces narration, subplots and dialogue. A film is a linear sequence of pictures. Even when a montage goes from present to past, to future, it is still one celluloid line on a reel from start to finish. A book can switch backwards, forwards in any direction, can use multiple subplots at once, can base description on a narrative, on direct speech. The film works in contrary fashion. It is normally a dare devil cold cutting of the book's meandering narrative into one concise storyline, a heartless editor. This one matter of fact story line will obviously not encapsulate all the rich and juicy corners of a book, but will concentrate on an aspect chosen by the director. Michael Hastings, screenwriter for Henry James's 'The American', had to make many difficult choices when adapting that work. As he notes in an interview, "Film is visual brevity.... If the novel is a poem, the film is a telegram."
Does this telegram capture the essential heart of the book? Critics will never forgive a director that fails to capture the very essence of the book. The director and the cast find themselves under the line of fire and critics know no mercy.
This can be seen in Stephen Holden’s review for the New York Times with regards to the 2012 version of Bel Ami. Guy De Monpassant's book is about betrayal and complete lack of respect for one's friend and benefactor. It explores the dark instincts of mankind. Directed by Declan Donnellan and Nick Ormerod, the film dedicates a lot of screen time to numerous bed scenes, hoping to cash on the sexual appeal of such scenes. However this failed to amuse the critics.
Here are some of the comments found in the above mentioned review. 'Robert Pattisson seems as if he was practicing in a mirror', 'To watch Christina Ricci, Uma Thurman and Kristin Scott Thomas melt under his icy ministrations is to roll your eyes in disbelief. Its character development and social observation that it plays like a lavishly illustrated outline that leaves you to fill in the blanks.'
Check out the rest of the review here.
Why go down Book Alley?
Considering all these difficulties the obvious question to ask is why do filmmakers tackle literary adaptations? A filmmaker could work on a screenplay exclusively written for the film medium, but literature affords a vast library of possible screen plays. The more popular the work, the more acclaimed it is by literary authorities the more magnetic it becomes. However a classic is like the Bible, which has also been put to the screen. Such a work is sacred, untouchable. Now in rides the filmmaker who will not only dare touch it and flaunt its sacred nature, but he will also have to make changes and imprint his vision of the work. Undaunted many a filmmaker traced his or her steps down this alley which invariably led to his or her downfall or claim to success.
An average paperback will feature anything from around 20,000 to 40,000 words. Novels tend to hover around the 90,000 to 125, 000 word mark, Just to put one in the picture 60,000 words is about 240 pages depending on typeface and point size. That is a lot of text to edit. 90 minutes gives an absurd maximum of 6400 words. Furthermore, this would mean that there is a dialogue from start to finish. No action, no music, no film.
Book writers have found their inspiration in their or other people's personal experience, historical events or accounts, legend, science, crime etc. Like film, some novelists have drawn on other books too. They readily embrace Hamlet like dilemmas or a Faust selling his soul to the devil, for example 'Finnegan's Wake' by James Joyce is inspired by Charles Ludwige Dodgson's 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland,' whilst 'Wide Sargasso Sea,' by Jean Rhys is a prequel to Charlotte Bronte's 'Jane Eyre.' Michelangelo, Donatello, and Raffaello all sculpted their versions of Roman and Greek masterpieces, so why should film be an exception?
Challenge
An obvious challenge for a filmmaker, such adaptations are attractive in themselves, like a sport competition that the filmmaker sets out to win. This would explain why filmmakers also attempt film versions of books that have previously been put to screen. If someone made a version of Macbeth, then the next filmmaker will try to compete with a new version, which will try to be better or different. The filmmaker also hopes to give a fresh picture to a well known tale by offering new perspectives and approach to the traditional and accepted concept of the tale.
The Hall of Fame
Any musician would like to be the next Mozart or Beethoven, any guitarist the next Jimmy Hendrix, any band the next Beatles and any entertainer the next Michael Jackson and earn a place in the Hall of Fame. A filmmaker would also like to join the ranks of Akira Kurosawa, F.F. Coppola, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick etc. These in turn had all aspired to be the next Shakespeare or Dickens or Goethe. The larger the masterpiece it is, the stronger the challenge, the better chance a director has of finding himself amongst the greatest in the history of cinematography. The posters for the adaptations below are good examples of how a director and actors can join the hall of the great.
Such a film is art with a capital 'A.' No one can question the craftsmanship of Botticelli's 'Birth of Venus,' just as no one will argue against Fyodor Dostoyevski's 'Crime and Punishment or Emily Bronte's 'Wuthering Heights' as two of the world's finest literary achievements. If the work in question is one of the best that the literary world has to offer then it is feasible to believe that the film adaptation will follow suit. One may attack a film for failing to capture the novel's essence, for a drab visualization, but no one can refute the fact that it is a great work that rightfully deserves its inclusion into the world of cinema.
The Dark Side of Man.
Many a director has delved into man's innermost pits of darkness. Likewise, many a literary work will come with its unconventional baggage of violence, pornography, rape, greed, lust and all the hideous dark machinery at play with mankind's existence. Such material will find sanctuary under the word Art and comes in handy for a director willing to explore such themes, for a work of art is a codename for license to kill. For example if a given director decides to make a film about underage prostitution, then the director would be vilified for exposing personal inhibitions, for indiscretion and for scandalizing the public, but if the film is a rendition of Vladimir Nabokov's book 'Lolita,' then it is Art. Not only is such a theme acceptable under the circumstances, but it is acclaimed as a great film. In such a way the film itself becomes a masterpiece.
"Lolita is not a sex film; it's about characters, relationships, and the consequences of imprudent actions. And those who seek to brand the picture as immoral have missed the point. Both Humbert and Lolita are eventually destroyed—what could be more moral? The only real controversy I can see surrounding this film is why there was ever a controversy in the first place."James Berardinelli quote from his review on Adrian Lyne's 1997 production.
Maturity
Owing to the complexities and legalities concerning film adaptations, not all directors can afford such luxury. No producer will hand down the job to just any director. The producer must have faith in the right candidate, that the candidate has the proper qualifications, experience, craftsmanship, sensitivity and perspective to accomplish the task. A director with a string of successful films. The film adaptation should be the cherry on the cake with regards to his career. This happens when the director feels mature enough to make a move from the more trivalent flirtations with film to the pedestal of the artist supreme. It would be ridiculous to try to film Jane Austen's 'Pride and Prejudice,' for my debut. It would be an immature choice considering the numerous versions of the story already produced. (Simon Langston 1996 ; Robert Z. Leonard 1940 ; Cycil Coke 1980 ; Joe Wright 2005 just to mention a few) It would be also very difficult to market. Just imagine Mario Cordina's 'Pride And Prejudice' coming out at the box office together with Lars Von Trier's 'Northanger Abbey' or Quentin Tarantino's 'Persuasion.'
The Story
Novels are great because they are written by great story tellers and because the story survives the tide of time and remains relevant after the author and his generation have long passed away. Homer's Odessey and the Illiad will never stop being relevant and so will its film adaptation. A good novel is man's closest step to immortality, so for it's visual mirror.
Heritage
Novels are man's heritage. Different film adaptations keep the book relevant for present generations. It makes Dante breathe his 'Inferno' once more and makes Victor Hugos' 'Les Miserables' come alive, it reinvents and refreshes the musty books which would otherwise be left in some musty corner of a library. It also helps to create interest around classic books with all the rich content that they have to offer. The role of the director in such a case is to bear the torch of our inheritance to an audience that would otherwise not reach out for it.
Acting Roles
Try to find a budding opera soprano who would not like to take on Mimi's role. It is obvious that every actor would love to be Hamlet and spout the famous 'Be or not to be,' monologue and no actress would decline the role of Juliet or Lady Macbeth. Apart from the prestige that comes with the role, the film tends to immortalize these actors and actresses. Jack Nicholson is the face of Randle Murphy in 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,' whilst Demi Moore is the face of Hester Prynne. Who is the face behind James Bond? Is it Sean Connery or Daniel Craig? Roger Moore or Timothy Dalton? From a practical viewpoint it is easier to tease celebrity commitment to such roles and the role does not have to be explained to them. On the other hand such roles are more demanding and should incite actors and actresses to perform at their very best. As a director must rely on his cast's acting skills, such motivation is much appreciated.
Marketing Potential.
Probably this does not really need further comment. It is a widely acclaimed known title. Consider two film titles like 'The Long Voyage' or 'Night And Day.' No extraordinary titles and they will not ring as attractively as 'Silence of the Lambs' or 'A Requiem for a Dream.' Now change the title to An Adaptation of Charles Dicken's Short story 'The Long Voyage', or An Adaptation of Virginia Wolf's novel 'Night And Day.' Obviously these are not amongst the best known books by both authors but they still hold considerable advertising power. More popular titles like 'Oliver Twist' or 'To The Lighthouse' should be obvious crowd pullers.
Brian McFarlane; Clarendon Press, 1996, Oxford Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation. "Whatever it is that makes film-goers want to see adaptations of novels, and film-makers to produce them, and whatever hazards lie in the path for both, there is no denying the facts. For instance, Morris Beja reports that, since the inception of the Academy Awards in 1927-8, 'more than threefourths of the awards for "best picture" have gone to adaptations . . . [and that] the all-time box-office successes favour novels even more'. Given that the novel and the film have been the most popular narrative modes of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries respectively, it is perhaps not surprising that film-makers have sought to exploit the kinds of response excited by the novel and have seen in it a source of ready-made material, in the crude sense of pre-tested stories and characters, without too much concern for how much of the original's popularity is intransigently tied to its verbal mode."
CONTINUED in Part 3
No comments:
Post a Comment