Lindsey Coven

February 15, 2010

Film Theory 201

Project 1

The Morality and Function of Film Adaptations

For Béla Balázs, no one art could claim to grasp the reality of an event (Andrew). Rather than mimic reality, art has the capability to bring new meaning to our world through its evolving techniques. “To imitate the world is a mechanical process; to transform the world so that it becomes a thing of beauty is the purpose of art,” (Munsterberg, 2002, p. 115). Similarly to the theories of Bazin, Balázs found nothing wrong with the concept of adapting art from another medium, whether it is literature, theatre, or a true-life story, as long as the artist reshaped the work by means of the cinematic language. He believed that any filmic “masterpiece is a work whose subject ideally suits its own medium…transformation of this work will inevitably produce a less satisfactory result” (Andrew, 1976, p. 87-88).

Balázs still recognized film as “photographed theater,” only competing in the domain of subject matter. He did, however, distinguish some main differences between the two art forms. For him, the main function of cinema was its art. Whereas theater always maintains its actions in the setting of a stage, film varies distance and angle between scenes by way of the camera. Theatre only allows the spectator to view the action from one dormant angle. Technology enabled film to have greater depth, with the creations of montage, the close-up, transitions and the canted angle. The arrangement of actors on different plains gave film a third dimension (Sadoul, 1946, p. 257). Balázs realized that the transforming cultural world in which we live needed more than just words to be satisfied – society needed a “visibly expressive world” (Andrew, 1976, p. 86). Film’s utmost responsibility, he said, was to grow and change until it got to its proper strength; and that it should find a new direction from the other arts as they had done before, which was possible since the new art form had its very own language.

The aesthetic values of the filmic technique were also very important to him: he viewed the camera as the source of meaning for the spectator, becoming a microscope able to reveal the “hidden world of nature and the psyche” (Andrew, 1976, p. 100). The close-up, a method only possible in cinema, has widened the human vision of life and perception. He was especially fascinated with the close-up’s ability to show the quality of a facial gesture. Asheim noted that films of today use the camera’s abilities to “depict the sensational…dramatize events…increase beauty, and heighten the emotional effect,” (1951, p. 338). As a Marxist, Balázs agreed that “the root of all art is man,” and “for what makes objects expressive are the human expressions projected on them” (Braudy, 2009, p. 275). The concept of physiognomy explored the face in ways that literature and theatre had never done before. For him, a cinematic truth revealed human drama and interaction.

As Andrew recognized the student’s need and interest in film, so too did Munsterberg explain that film is a means of education and instruction. Although Munsterberg considered film’s chief task to be of entertainment, he expands on Balázs’ view of film as a new medium. For Munsterberg, film offered a new approach to beauty, one that should not be measured in theatrical terms, but rather in its own way. Eventually the two forms would be in different realms, and he thought that the latter would have far more advantages: first, was the reduction of expenses since one actor could now entertain masses of audiences at the same time. Second was the significant fact that film democratized theater; now everyone had access to the best. Film is faster in its ability to change scenes and settings, both great for the spectator’s imagination. Film also focuses our attention better than theater through its close-up shots and so-called “technical cleverness.” Psychological and mental interpretations are now involved in the process as film can transfer between past, present, and future. The camera imitates the human mind and eye, making the film experience very captivating for the viewer.

Hischak proves that some works are more adaptable than others, while Seger explains the reasons why. Focusing on theatrical transitions to film and television, Hischak investigates the following popular adaptations: Angels in America, Annie, Bye Bye Birdie, Chicago, Fiddler on the Roof, Funny Girl, Grease, Gypsy, Hair, The Music Man, The Sound of Music, South Pacific, West Side Story, and The Wiz.

The successful versions were acclaimed for their versatility of cast, production values, realistic settings, musical additions, and authenticity to their original versions. In 1992, Seger noted that eighty-five percent of Academy Award best pictures were adaptations (1992, p. xi). This last asset is last on purpose: ultimately, the only person claiming the success of the adaptation is the audience member, who may not have even seen the original (Geraghty, 2008, p. 3) (Cartmell and Whelehan, 1999, p. 15). “The major question is not “Is it art?” but “Will it Sell?” (Asheim, 1951, p. 292). For example, the film adaptation of Joshua Logan’s South Pacific (1958) was, “a film best enjoyed by those who have never experienced a first-class stage production of the musical,” (Hischak, 2005, p. 247). Interestingly, this audience needs film to be simplified and more explicit from its antecedent forms, and this simplification can drastically change the original piece of work. However, according to Asheim, the audience is “incapable of understanding material aimed higher than the “fourteen-year old mind,” (1951, p. 293). Pronunciation must be coherent since no words aid the viewer, names must be changed, and concepts must be modernized to assure the spectator’s smooth and satisfactory comprehension. He believes that “such changes usually serve to keep the film version closer to the intent of the original, from the standpoint of audience reaction,” (295). Similarly, “simplified dialogue…does not change the novelist’s meaning, even though it may alter his style,” (297). Transitions like the dissolve between scenes is a necessary addition to film because it “acts as a filmic substitute for explanatory passages in the book,” (303). He likes to think of film as an “escape” for the common audience member (335). Ultimately, Asheim considers the spectator’s intellectual capacity to be more important than the authenticity of the adaptation, because for him, “the film is deliberately designed to make no demands upon the spectator that require more than passive acceptance of the material presented,” (304). Although Asheim does have a point about the average adult’s IQ, I disagree with him when he says, “those who wish to be entertained do not wish to think,” (335). I know that I am often entertained simply because my mind is stimulated – I like to work my way through a mystery and get excited when something that is at first ambiguous suddenly becomes clear at the end of a film.

Similarly, I noticed that when Rent the movie came out, the raving fans were the ones who had never seen the original Broadway show. To me, someone who had seen the original cast in 1997, the film did not and never could compare to the play. I also found that adaptations work when the subject matter is still relevant today: I found the movie version of West Side Story, along with the current show, to not be as dated as I thought it would be.

Hischak’s failed adaptation examples were those that poorly adjusted their scripts or roles, that cut songs or scenes, that left out important stage stars, that misplaced comedy, that ran too long, or that simply made no logical or geographical sense, ultimately leaving some production studios bankrupt.

Seger explains why so many film adaptations are the failures and successes of cinema. She also wrongs the common assumptions that, “all you have to do is film the book,” and “this was immensely popular, it’s bound to be a blockbuster,” (1992, p. 1). She acknowledges that adaptation implies change but that in order to change accordingly, the director must follow certain steps. First, he must figure out how to fit the original material into different time parameters. Next, he must understand the commercial factor of the film industry in order to satisfy his new audience. Then, he must use his adaptation not as a second version, but rather as a “new original.” Pichel provides an example of a film adaptation that was more successful than its original due to the fact that it was made as though it were an original itself – it must tell “essentially the same story as the earlier film but with a totally different emphasis and perspective,” (1952, p. 390). Lastly, the filmmaker must choose which aspects of the original he deems necessary and significant enough to reappear in the film.

However, in understanding the differences between the mediums of film, literature, theatre, and real life, Seger explains why the three original forms resist the more modern one.

There is great difference between reading a novel and watching a film. Reading is a reflective experience (14), allowing the reader to go back and reread if confused, but film can go through, in three minutes, what takes a book hundreds of pages to say (16). Whereas a novel involves a reliable narrator to lead the reader through a story, film is more straightforward with less dependability.

Seger claims that the audience-stage relationship cannot be obtained by any other medium than theatre, going as far as calling the experience, “hypnotic absorption,” (35). Apparently theatre is more “thematic” on human conditions (something which Balázs would enjoy) than is film. In theatre, the space and accompanying performance is all that matters (37). Although film can have a wider range of space, spectators of the theatre go into shows with greater imagination and understand that the set is made for the play. Theatre is much more dependent on dialogue, using longer monologues for its characters than a film ever would (39-40). In addition, film uses montage as “a substitution of the stage process called the “transformation scene,” in which the set and the scene are changed without a lowering of the curtain,” (Sadoul, 1946, p. 249). The theatre world even tried to use montage by creating revolving sets (259). Plays that work well as film adaptations are those that imply story lines and whose themes can be easily expressed as images rather than through words. “The drama and the photoplay are two coordinated arts, each perfectly valuable in itself. The one cannot replace the other, and the shortcomings of the one as against the other reflect only the fact that the one has a history of fifteen years while the other one of five thousand,” (Munsterberg, 2002, p. 113).

Finally, the true-life story defies film form because these stories are too detailed to remain focused. In order to have a great adaptation, Seger suggests several guidelines when picking a story (53): one with a climax to follow, with sympathetic main characters, that covers a short period of time, with drama and relationships, and lastly, one that can be told visually.

Other theorists, like Robert Stam argue for the interdependency of mediums through adaptation (Cartmell and Whelehan, 1999, p. 5). He places emphasis, “not on what cinema lacks in relation to print but rather on its multitrack qualities; the linguistic energy of literary writing turns into the audio-visual-kinetic-performance energy of the adaptation,” (Geraghty, 2008, p. 2). He calls it a process of “recycling,” in which mediums always reference one another. Sometimes novelists even write their stories in the hopes that they will eventually become films (Seger, 1992.) In terms of narration, Moreno even asserts, “film has been trying in various ways to take over the techniques of subjective narration of the novel,” (342). In doing so, the viewer becomes more of an active participant in the film experience, an idea that Balázs hoped for in film’s ability to reach human perception. Julian Schnabel’s The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is a great example of the kind of narration Moreno describes (342): the camera is partially put in the place of the protagonist; for the beginning of this film, only Mr. Bauby’s voice, rather than his image, is presented. In its own new way, film adapts the subjective narration of literature into a process of “retrospect,” (343-344). Mr. Bauby is often having flashbacks to his strange childhood. Through this unique form of narration, “the motion picture acquires a dimension in depth – the psychological dimension,” (346). Moreno explains that the ultimate goal of this subjectivity is to allow the spectator to relate to the protagonist, to feel what he or she is feeling on the screen (352). Schnabel did an excellent job of portraying Mr. Bauby’s “locked-in syndrome” – I was just as horrified to see his reflection in the mirror as he was – I also felt just as trapped. Clearly, the differences between artistic mediums make it very difficult for the director to vision what his or her remake will look like. However, the advantages that film has over literature, theatre, and real life stories exhibit that such benefits can go a long way in the industry. “A new aesthetic cocoon is broken; where will the butterfly’s wings carry him?” (Munsterberg, 2002, p. 63).

I believe that if Balázs were alive today to see film adaptations, he would have very mixed feelings. He would be proud and awed by film’s technological advances but would be disappointed in the way technology is used more so to make investments than to improve upon itself. He would dislike the adaptations that fail to dignify their originals, but would be impressed by the risks and ultimate successes so many filmmakers have achieved. “Film, as an art form, must acquire a clear consciousness of its nature and of its means. Only then will it be able to borrow from the other arts whatever may conform with its essence,” (Moreno, 1953, p. 358).

Works Cited

Andrew, J. Dudley. The Major Film Theories An Introduction. London: Oxford UP,

1976. Print.

Asheim, Lester. "From Book to Film: Mass Appeals." Hollywood Quarterly 5.4 (1951):

334-49. JSTOR. Web. 5 Feb. 2010.

Asheim, Lester. "From Book to Film: Simplification." Hollywood Quarterly 5.3 (1951):

289-304. JSTOR. Web. 5 Feb. 2010.

Braudy, Leo, and Marshall Cohen, eds. Film Theory & Criticism. 7th ed. New York:

Oxford UP, 2009. Print.

Cartmell, Deborah, and Imelda Whelehan, eds. Adaptations From Text to Screen, Screen

to Text. New York: Routledge, 1999. Print.

Geraghty, Christine. Now a Major Motion Picture Film Adaptations of Literature and

Drama. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008. Print.

Hischak, Thomas S. American Plays and Musicals on Screen 650 Stage Productions and

Their Film and Television Adaptations. Vol. 1. Jefferson, North Carolina:

Mcfarland &, 2005. Print.

Moreno, Julio L. "Subjective Cinema: And the Problem of Film in the First Person." The

Quarterly of Film Radio and Television 7.4 (1953): 341-58. JSTOR. Web. 10 Feb.

2010.

Munsterberg, Hugo. The Photoplay. New York: Routledge, 2002. Print.

Pichel, Irving. "Revivals, Reissues, Remakes, and "A Place in the Sun"" The Quarterly of

Film Radio and Television 6.4 (1952): 388-93. JSTOR. Web. 7 Feb. 2010.

Sadoul, Georges. "Early Film Production in England The Origin of Montage, Close-ups,

and Chase Sequence." Hollywood Quarterly 1.3 (1946): 249-59. JSTOR. Web. 10

Feb. 2010.

Seger, Linda. The Art of Adaptation: Turning Fact and Fiction into Film. New York:

Owl, 1992. Print.