Friday, July 20, 2018

Origin Of Cinematic Representation of Litrature (Adaptation pt 3)




Hello friends here I am back with continuation  post of adaptations, here I am explaining you the remain points so please stay with me and like and comment for my post bcoz it will help me to improve and more beneficially represent the information to you.

The next points are given below:

4) Adaptation is a Process of Transposition, Creation and Reception
There are three dimensions to looking at adaptations: a) as a formal entity or a product (transposition - shift of medium / genre), b) as a process of interpretation and (re-) creation, or c) as a process of reception. Adaptation is simultaneously a process and a product. Financially, it is better to produce an adaptation of an original work, according to Hutcheon, because the original work has already proven itself successful. Adapted works are popular among all because they are “proven” and already have a culture and fan base that are likely to be interested in the adaptation. However, literature has always been inspiring filmmakers to make films. The reasons for film adaptations of literary works are as follows.  First, there is the bestseller argument that the filmmaking is an expensive and very risky business.  But when the film is based on some famous novel having good sale, then, there seems a guarantee that the adaptation will be noticed by a number of people.  One of the major reasons why films are based on books is simply that the best story is often found between the covers of a novel.
Adaptation may be seen as a product or a process, the product oriented perspective treats it as a translation (in various senses), or as a paraphrase. The product oriented perspective is dependent on a particular interpretation. As a process, it is a combination of imitation (mimesis) and creativity. Unsuccessful adaptations often fail (commercially) due to a lack of creativity on behalf of the adapters. There is a process of both imitating and creating something entirely new, but in order to create a successful adaptation, one must make the text one’s own.
Thus, screen adaptation brings in some changes retaining only the story or the idea.  The writer’s job is over with the creation of the work of art but it is the director’s part to enliven that fiction. Therefore, according to the need of the story, he may add or delete some parts like songs, scenes and dialogues including the role of the characters from major to minor and vice versa. There may raise a question whether the work of art is superior or its adaptations for the screen.  Actually, they are complementary to each other.  Many times, a movie or serial is prepared on a popular novel and it also gets popularity like the original novel.  Many times, the director fails to achieve the sublimity of the source and the movie proves to be a failure though the novel is great.  However, a novel gets popularity when it is screened and as a result of the popularity of the movie, the concerned novel suddenly comes into limelight.  Basically, screen adaptation, a sort of translation of the literary text into a different medium, is a recreation of the text of the director’s point of view.
5) Is Adaptation a Secondary or Derivative Art?
Nevertheless, in both academic criticism and journalistic reviewing, contemporary popular adaptations are most often put down as secondary and derivative. Naremore, a film critic, scholar of English and Comparative Literature at Indiana University, enumerated that adaptation is “belated, middlebrow, or culturally inferior”. Hutcheon looks at adaptations as a secondary work from the original. Adaptation always exists in a secondary relationship with the original, but despite their supposed inferiority, adaptations are universal. Adaptations have dominated their own media. The most heavily awarded films are adaptations. Hutcheon suggests that the pleasure of adaptation from the perspective of the consumer comes from a simple repetition of a beloved story with variation.

6) Fidelity and Adaptation
Besides, the fidelity in adaptation is very crucial requirement in the process of creativity.  Popular classical works, may be dramas or novels, have been well-known to the people.  The film director must remain fidel to the literary art.  For the sake of increasing impact on the viewers, the film director sometimes has to deviate from the original story, plot, message or the character.  This is normally done either by addition or by deletion of the old ideas about the incidents.  In this respect, R. K. Narayan’s novel The Guide (1958) is basically set in the South Indian atmosphere in a fictitious town Malgudi.  Dev Anand produced a Hindi film Guide (1965) on the novel.  The film Guide was directed by Vijay Anand who set the entire film in Udaipur and North Indian places.  However, the end of the movie does not resemble to its original source.  The protagonist’s death presented in the film brings a sort of reward for the villagers.  Vijay Anand has always maintained that he was never interested in merely copying any work of art from one medium to another unless there was scope for value addition and to be fair to him.  He has transformed Guide into a rich and unforgettable cinematic experience.  In fact, he has deviated it from the original novel.  However, his film can also be treated as an important creative art.  It meant the films based on literary works must be judged primarily on the basis of whether they are faithful to nearly all of their storyline and mood of the book. The issues of fidelity can overlook the probabilities of witnessing cinematic adaptations as intertextual works.  Moreover, the film represents the filmmaker’s subjective understanding of the literary source.


Please Subscribe,Share this to your friends Like And Comments. In next most i will Share the remain Points Soon.

To Be Continued..

No comments:

Post a Comment

An Adaptation "The film Romeo + Juliet" (1996)

Introduction Drama is "The film Romeo + Juliet (1996), an adaptation, a piece of writing that tells a story and is performed on ...