The Art of Adaption

Firstly, let us begin with a clear definition of what adaption actually means. According to the Oxford English Dictionary it actually has a plurality of meanings and applications, but most allude to the process of change due to an alternative purpose, function or environment. This general definition when applied in a media context becomes “an altered or amended version of a text,” or more specifically “the presentation of one art form through another medium.” Of importance in these definitions is the simple act of difference, meaning that for an adaption to occur it must be formulated differently to the original version.

Adaption is not a new process. Humans have been adapting texts from different forms for thousands of years: it is the process of creating paintings, and visual art based on histories and spoken legends; it is the translation of poetry into prose; of the stage to the screen; and of course it is the novel or similar literary source into television and film. While the process may not be new, it is still an area of great contention, as when content undergoes adaption it becomes subject to a variety of factors that will affect the resulting production. These forces may range from issues related to the nature of the source text, or the actual reason for the adaption, even the particular medium and market will play a role in influencing the outcome. The most distinct example of this is in the adaption of a large text, such as a novel, full of nuance and internal character development, which must undergo a process of compression to fit single film format.

What do the theorists have to say?

Within media studies there has already been a long standing discussion under the title of Theory of Adaption, which concerns the impact and processes of the act of adapting texts of various sources to the screen. There are actually a number of factors that should be taken into consideration when considering the process of adaption. Firstly has always been the issue of comparison – how can two texts be compared when they belong to two fundamentally different genres. Although, for instance, a novel and a film may share common narrative traits, they do not share conventional traits that are the basis for delivering their narratives. In an effort to alleviate this difficulty many theorists simply argued that the adaption could not be compared to the original. Foremost among these was George Bluestone who argued that “it is insufficiently recognised that the end products of novel and film represent different aesthetic genera, as different form each other as ballet is from architecture.” An interesting view that extended upon this idea was that even subsequent adaptions should be understood to hold a direct relationship with the original, not with each other. That their aim is not to develop and improve upon the adaptions or the original, but to sustain its presence in the zeitgeist. An interesting concept, but as noted further into the discussion, not one that is always maintained by directors and writers.

Most theorists have agreed that there is a fundamental difference in the mediums. As such the question becomes – how could two such different texts be actually compared? Linda Seger attempts to explain that it is not only the difference in the medium, but in the experience also:

The experience of reading a novel is quite different from watching a film. And it’s exactly this difference that fights translation into film. When we read a novel, time is on our side. It is not just a chronological experience, where someone else determines our pacing, but a reflective experience.

The act of reading and the act of viewing are two different experiences. Seger argues that pacing is a huge component that must be considered. As she points out “a good scene in a film advances the action, reveals character, explores the theme, and builds an image. In a novel, one scene or an entire chapter may concentrate on only one of those areas.” This argument then helps sustain the original view of adaption theory that comparison cannot be made between two texts of differing mediums. Sarah Cardwell further reinforces this sentiment by blatantly stating that “an adaption from literature to the screen necessarily brings into being a separate, autonomous artwork that should be interpreted and evaluated as such.” This seems fairly straightforward – when a new version is created in a new medium it should be honoured as a unique and separate text.

Alas, how do we then handle Shakespeare adaptions when Shakespeare’s own work was an adaption of historical story and not always in a new medium? Can this be entirely considered original work if it is an adaption of a previous story in the same medium? Macbeth for instance is an adaption of a Scottish folk-tale so that appears fine – it has been adapted from folk-tale to drama. However, King Lear published in 1608 was based upon a full-text play King Leir that had been published and performed in 1605 – yet we do not refer to this as an adaption. But we do consider every variation since as being an adaption. However, this is theatre that is performed, it is not comparing ballet to architecture, but instead is comparing two similar types of dance. For if adaption is the “process of adapting one original, culturally defined ‘standard whole’ in another medium” then King Lear is not an adaption as it is not translated into another medium. So where does this leave it within the framework of adaption theory?

A better model for adaption then is to consider the idea that recognises:

A later adaption may draw upon any earlier adaptions, as well as upon the primary source text. In a sense, this understanding of adaption draws upon the model of genetic adaption for its inspiration, in terms of its increased historicity and its recognition of the role that each and every adaption, as well as the source text, has played in the formation of the most recent adaption.

This better accounts for the adaptions of Shakespeare. However, it does not address the largest accusation leveled against adaptions, and that is the issue of accuracy. Accuracy in criticism appears to range from the issue of historical accuracy all the way through “being true” to the original text. Interestingly in media theory the concern of fidelity has been well and truly debunked. Scholars Jorgen Bruhn, Anne Gjelsvik and Eirik Frisvold Hannsen suggest that the issue of accuracy within film adaptions has largely been disregarded as a concern due to the fact it can be considered the least “interesting and productive instrument with which to confront adaptions.” Instead what becomes important is the simple measure of similarity and differences created by the particular context of the adaption. That adaption should be considered only as a cultural product; that “adaption is viewing within a more comprehensive understanding of the cultural and textual networks into which any textual phenomena is understood” Then if fidelity lacks importance and context is everything, Shakespeare was merely reflecting a contextual point of view unique to his own adaption’s creation of King Lear. How well can this sentiment be applied?

Adaption and fairy tales

One of the best examples of how adaptions can reflect the context in which they are created is the development of the fairy tale. Although this strictly will not always reflect the true concept of adaption, as not all have been created in a new medium; however, there is a trajectory from the original oral stories to the 21st century cinema. Fairy tale is a loose label that separates it from legends and folk lore, however there is a lot of overlap. The oldest known fairy tale is considered ‘The Doomed Prince’ circa 1300BC, appearing in Egypt. Many Greek and Celtic legends have also appeared as fairy tales at a later date. Around this period many oral stories began to be collected, an earliest example of this was the Gesta Romanorum, which was a collection of Roman and Oriental sources. How this is related to the discussion is that this text was used as a source of lessons composed in Latin to be given by preachers. We know that fairy tales were used for a myriad of reasons, yet this was one of the first steps in changing the purpose, and to a degree elements of the stories, to suit the new context. The first printed version of this was in 1473 and became a source for many writers, including Shakespeare.

The next adaption occurred in a similar form, this does not fit adaption as it is analysed above, but it was at least a translation between languages. In French society Madame d’Aulnoy and Charles Perrault took up the fairy tale form in their literary salons, they used this form as a mode for contemporary satire, again reflecting a changing cultural context. At this time the fairy tale was not aimed at children, however by creating a satirical form Perrault developed strongly moral stories that were direct and applicable to children. Thus began the adoption of fairy tales into children’s literature. This progression continued with the work of the Grimm Brothers. Although they did take a redactive approach and transcribed the tales with attribution to the sources. It was their works that instated the fairy tale firmly into the UK nursery. In many cases the integration of fairy tales into the nursery reinforced the moral role of the fairy tale and reflected strongly the dominance of the Christian ethos, even though many of these stories were originally from non-Christian cultures. As such the fairy tale as part of children’s literature began to be used as a way to reinforce expected cultural and societal norms.

Since then fairy tales have risen and fallen in popularity. Early versions of fairy tales appeared quickly with the advent of the motion picture. One of the earliest films made, and the earliest fairy tale film was a rendition of Perrault’s ‘Cinderella’ in 1899 in France. In America it was the Walt Disney Company that began to screen short silent versions of fairy tales in animation form. However, it was not until Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1937 that full length feature adaptions of fairy tales began to emerge, with Walt Disney at the forefront. Where the earlier short renditions of the fairy tales were relatively brief but fairly true to the original source, the feature length versions were strong deviations from the original story.

There had already been conjecture and debate surrounding the suitability of the original fairy tale stories, especially those of the Grimm Brothers, for children. However, Walt Disney is an interesting examination of how adaption can truly be demonstrated – from written fairy tales to cinematic feature film. These films are also strongly altered to meet the needs of a number of different factors – cultural context and target audience being the foremost. The target audience is fairly obvious; there are a number of strongly violent and adult themes in the original versions of the Grimm Brothers’ tales (or the even earlier versions, which are often even more disturbing), and it is naïve to consider that a newly rising “family friendly” company would desire to show such graphic imagery on screen.

For instance, if accuracy to the original form is necessary then the original source for ‘Sleeping Beauty’ would never have made it onto screen, and for good reason. ‘Sleeping Beauty’ is an alteration of the story ‘Sun, Moon, and Talia,’ which is a much darker tale that incorporates rape, adultery and attempted cannibalism all of which are accepted by Talia. Not a story that anyone would wish perpetrated into the modern world. Perrault’s version is, expectedly, less harsh but still disturbing with the prince still raping Sleeping Beauty, but he is unmarried and humour is injected into the story to appeal to his audience of the French nobility. The Grimm Brothers’ version is ‘Brier Rose’ and rather than the rape and child birth focuses on the happy union of the prince who kisses her awake. A much simpler version of the story, but a more modernised and acceptable version.

Now, although the Disney version is purported to be based on the Perrault story, it is clear from this simple discussion that it was the Grimm Brothers’ tale that was used. Yet the claim would have been made as Perrault was perceived as more child-friendly while the Grimm Brothers’ tales had negative connotations of gore and violence. The big cultural change is in fact the removal of the Christian moralising of the tale, although “good conquers evil” this is not actual a moral standpoint. The film stresses family values and presents a female lead that fitted into the stereotype of the female Hollywood leads of the time (1950s) – blond, blue-eyed and slim. She is a passive character who must wait to be rescued by the prince. There is an emphasis on the importance of true love, rather than the acceptance of prearranged marriage that is common in earlier stories, which is a reflection of the attitudes of American society. Adaption is a process and comparing each of the versions of what we know as the ‘Sleeping Beauty’ story tend to highlight this key concept that an adaption will reflect the cultural values and norms of the period in which it is created. But let us return to Shakespeare.

A Case Study: Romeo and Juliet

Adaption theory argues that each adaption should be analysed independently from others. The focus should be on what an analysis of the similarities and differences can reveal about the process of adaption that was engaged in. Here are three versions of a very famous tale, each a unique adaption from the original source material, which is William Shakespeare’s 1599 famous play, The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet: Jerome Robbins and Robert Wise’s 1961 West Side Story, Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 Romeo + Juliet, and the 2011 animated film Gnomeo & Juliet.

When applying this theory it would be represented as a relationship of A (Shakespeare) to B (West Side), then A to C (R+J), and then A to D (G&J). However, where this principle becomes difficult is in the assumption that each is an unique interpretation based only on the original work and not influenced by the milieu of the classic tale. The next step is that each variation is analysed according to the similarities and differences it shares with the original source material. With a story such as Romeo and Juliet’s tragic love tale there is so much present in the original narrative that is derivative of other work, of traditional legends and folk tales, it makes it difficult to identify if an adaption has been deliberately made or connected by association.

For example, West Side Story is considered a famous adaption into a musical, inspired by the original play. However, when the basic premise was formed during 1947 the only really common elements were in the feud between the families. The thematic focus is on racial and cultural differences and was exceptionally relevant to the time period in American when it was conceptualised. There are more differences than similarities, but when viewed the resonance to the original play is so strong that the inspiration shines through. Other cinematic variants of Romeo and Juliet had already been present, but most focused on an attempt to present an Elizabethan version of Shakespeare. West Side Story fulfills the role of adaption theory as it is an adaption based on a single source, it reflects the period in which it was produced and showcases changing cultural values.

Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet released in 1996, thirty five years later, but equally “staged” in the sense that it is a cinematically alternative interpretation of the dramatic version. It incorporates both original elements from the source material, but also elements that are more authentic such as a connection to the Italian context of Shakespeare’s setting. However, again the film is heavily adapted to meet the modern audience – it has guns, cars, overt drug use – but still maintains those elements from the original that resonate such as the purity of young love. Luhrmann decided the elements to change based on a careful analysis of the Elizabethan stage, however, he does claim that he “wanted to address Shakespeare in a filmic way rather than be shackled by all these rules and beliefs that are really spurious notions.” Regardless of this choice to make a difference Luhrmann still maintained the original core theme, which concerned the issue of passing on generational hatred.

Gnomeo & Juliet was released in 2011 and represents the concept of the remix. It fits with the tradition of taking classic tales and transforming them into a children’s story, while also being a pastiche. Remixing fits with the contemporary concept that there is no such thing as an original idea, as such the film incorporates cultural references, including direct conversation with Shakespeare about the end of Romeo and Juliet. Unlike the other two versions that conformed to the A to B and A to C formation of adaption theory, Gnomeo & Juliet deviates from this form, making it a more difficult analysis. The director Kelly Asbury states that in preparation “I watched the play, I watched Baz Luhrmann’s version a lot, I watched [Franco] Zeffirelli’s version. I saw all of the different interpretations of Romeo and Juliet and how they’ve been reinterpreted in different ways and the cleverness of some, and what I thought worked and what I thought didn’t.” Each adaption is a strong reflection of the period it was produced in and, equally is a reflection of the process of the adaption. Where Luhrmann clearly draws on his background in theatre, and even opera, his focus on the original source is very clear. The work of Robbins and Wise equally reflects that although true to the original, the story of racial and cultural division in America was a more dominant focus for the directors. In turn Asbury was immersed in the source and the adaptions, which is clearly reflected in the remix pastiche form that the animation presented.

Author Lucas Worcester offered a final thought:

One of the main things to recognise about adaptions is that, adapting a media text is not necessarily down grading the quality of the original work. Each adaptation is unique in its own rights and provides various new ways to interpret a classic text or idea. Just because a text reflects a traditional idea, does not mean it is diminished in value.

Shakespeare is arguably the best known playwright, yet in his own way he was an adaptor also. He brought his own vision and flair to the works he adapted. It can be argued that each new adaption of Shakespeare’s canon is a matter of honouring these great works, to keep him not of an age but for all time. It can easily be argued that his plays can be performed anywhere in any form and they will still be recognisable as Shakespeare. Do these adaptions diminish his works? I would say no. Are they accurate, do they uphold fidelity? No, but does that matter when, to paraphrase the great playwright – is not all the world a stage?

The issue of real life adaptions

Now all of that rhetoric is pleasing, however, there is an area of adaption that does need some distinct consideration and possibly some criticism. The greatest accusation of course against adaptions is the issue of accuracy in relation to film based on either real people’s lives or real events. It is here that the question of accuracy and fidelity holds more weight. Part of the issue is the introduction of the question of ethics and truth. As when addressing the question of original versus adaption, historical fiction is particularly interesting due to its need for a double reference to not only the existing artefacts or sources, and to the actual past itself. Cardwell provides an interesting example when considering the creation of dramatic recreations. For instance when a documentary filmmaker creates a film on the life of Queen Elizabeth they would use a variety of sources that are directly referenced in the film. In contrast a dramatic recreation provides no indication of primary and secondary sources, it necessarily adds dialogue where no historical account existed, and would often be necessarily expressed in a modern, accessible tongue. As such this is no longer a “truthful” account of the life and times of Elizabeth. Does this matter?

Some argue that it does not, that instead fiction is a free-for-all and as long as an author or filmmaker can find someone to produce their work there are no actual rules about taking liberaties with the truth. In fact writer Meg Rosoff goes so far as to summarise her argument into fifteen words: “Do what you like, only do it well – and don’t expect the relatives to approve.” A relevant sentiment, but this then underplays the importance of the source material. Other critics argue that history is real life – that it is meaningful, insightful and important. That necessarily they must pare down the complexities of the real world into “easy to approach” narrative arcs, which is not a reflection of real life.

Author Tasha Robinson provides the example of the popular Disney film Pocahontas, which was initially advertised as an educational film reflective of American history. It is of course hugely inaccurate and goes as far to attempt to white wash a true story of murder, rape and abuse. Met with great outrage a Disney representative attempted to dismiss the concerns with an attitude that as this was for children and it was an entertainment it should not have been taken so seriously.

Of course, it can be argued that in a postmodern world there is no such thing as a definitive truth. That the issue of fidelity is moot since film fundamentally is about manipulation and illusion, not truth and reality. Even though film can be considered unstable as a form of historical preservation, it is a powerful medium that makes an impact. It is this power that concerns many viewers. If a medium with such reach and impact deliberately misconstrues important truths this can be perceived as detrimental to society as a whole. There is no easy answer to this concern, but perhaps it is like most things and requires a modicum of common sense – that we do not simply accept something as truth without questioning it further.

The adapter as auteur

The final discussion to have concerns the accusation leveled at directors and writers of adaption films – that by choosing to use a source material already well developed they are not true artists. An auteur is perceived as a director that influences their films so strongly that they are considered the true “author” of that film. Often such directors are ones that have engaged in writing their own screenplays or have utilised the works of no-name authors allowing them great artistic control over the production. Interestingly there is often some doubt in the ability of adaptors to reach auteurship, yet three unquestioned auteurs who were adaptors are Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick and Walt Disney.

Hitchcock is often overlooked as an adaptor due to the signature traits of his work. To establish himself as an auteur he needed to take authorship from the writers, and his films were often retooled as a Hitchcock original that “promised not the literary values of their properties but the reliable generic thrills, set pieces and ironic yet reassuringly familiar markers of the Hitchcock universe.” Walt Disney, of course, built an empire upon the adaption of fairy tales into film, making significant changes to the works to clearly create a unique “style” that is still recognisable as being “Disney.” This also aligns with the particular contemporary ideas of there being no truth or reality that belong to a single viewpoint. It then makes sense that those directors who are able to place their thumb print on their work are creating a unique work.

Ultimately it appears that modern adaption theory has a valid point, which is that when an adaption occurs between mediums a unique artwork is created. Returning to the original definition of adaption that it is “the presentation of one art form through another medium.” It is easy to see how open ended such a definition leaves opportunities for filmmakers to create their own interpretations, to develop their own art, and to leave their mark upon tales that are already enmeshed in our zeitgeist of storytelling. Equally this leaves a viewer in an ambiguous place where they are being asked to ignore the history of literature and experiences they have already undertaken with a particular story line and remove this from their viewing of the “new” film. This is frankly an impossible undertaking, which leaves the new understanding of adaption theory, which is the importance of context – that by acknowledging the new work has been produced to reflect a particular set of forces and factors, this is what helps make it a new and unique undertaking. This is what helps make adaption an art.

What do you think? .