I am interested in discussing the many ways in which Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein has been adapted over the years. In comparison to the "original text" the many adaptations have deviated so much so that the genre in which the book previously belonged to is now completely stretched and skewed. I am most interested in the adaptation of the monster as a character and how he went from an intelligent outsider to a mindless and terrifying monster. -Shealyn Bissell
Hey guys, Everyone has seen Disney's "The Little Mermaid," right? Well it turns out that it is based off a short tale, also called "The Little Mermaid," but by the Danish author Hans Christian Anderson. Disney's animated film adaptation really altered the original story and if you want to see what I mean, click the link bellow to read Anderson's tale of "The Little Mermaid." This fairy tale was published around 1830's and Disney's film was produced in 1989. http://hca.gilead.org.il/li_merma.html
Several of Philip K. Dick's novels have been made into movies- two of the most well known are Blade Runner (from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) and A Scanner Darkly (from the book of the same name). I have yet to see and read Blade Runner, but I have seen A Scanner Darkly (however, haven't read it) and really enjoyed it.
Spielberg's adaptation of Schindler's List (aka Schindler's Ark) by Thomas Keneally, while an excellent film, loses much of the novel's development of the main character Oskar Schindler in its transition to the screen. The film focuses on his brave and honorable actions during WWII, but lacks the novel's introduction and description of his less-than-saintly lifestyle. It is a good example of then difficulty filmmakers face when adapting novels in which character development is driven by third-person narration.
Hey, So mine has a really roundabout way of fitting into this category. I find it interesting when novels are adapted to Broadway shows. A well-known example of this would be Wicked, which has its roots in the Wizard of Oz story. However, looking further back there are other examples of this. Show Boat was a novel written in 1926 by Edna Ferber. It was adapted to Broadway in 1927 as America's first musical and was revived many times after. This then spawned three filmic adaptations (1929, 1936, and 1951).
One great example of an oft-adapted novel is Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera. It was first adapted as a silent film in 1925, then as a Broadway musical by Andrew Lloyd Weber in the 1980's, then as a musical movie in 2004. An interesting comparison in the two aforementioned filmic versions of the novel is the directors' emphases on the Phantom's facial deformities. In the 1925 version, the Phantom is pictured as more monster than man: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa3bHKWZoJg Compare that unmasking scene to the 2004 adaptation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RaCIYCE4PA In this version, he looks like a really attractive burn victim. The director of the latter version may have toned down the monstrous appearance of the Phantom to make him more relatable to the audience and therefore more likely to receive the audience's sympathy, whereas the 1925 version's director may have attempted to play up the shock value of the unmasking. -Charlotte Floyd
The film "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is a surprisingly successful adaptation of Hunter S. Thompson’s novel of the same name. While most film adaptations fail to coincide with the imaginations of the readers, this adaptation utilizes a variety of methods which encapsulate and portray the characters of the novel- “Raoul Duke” and “Dr. Gonzo”- in an agreeable fashion. Voice-over narration and dynamic acting are used to explore the inner monologue and quirky mannerisms of the protagonist. Also, bizarre cinematography and other visual effects are used to portray the uses of psychedelic drugs by the characters.
While the usual drawbacks that are present in film adaptations of novels (i.e., cut and/or abridged scenes, limited visual representations) are present in "Fear and Loathing", the film is nevertheless a competent adaptation of the novel.
A brief scene from the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9Kx_t6ko1k
The one adaptation that sticks out to me is The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Having started out as a radio production that was put on for BBC radio, it progressed into a tv series, a video game, a book, and eventually into a movie. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Original_radio_series)
The interesting choices are much like what we have discussed in class, from the lighting that is used to shape the movie/tv show causing possible alternating interpretations from the original piece of work. From the radio show to book, the amount of detail added allows for much more ability to delve into the setting. From the book to movie, much is cut out. The dilluting of characters, cutting of scenes, etc.
Though not originally a work of fiction Jack the Ripper is a figure that has transcended his minimal historical impact to become a specter with largely fictional attributes. Jack the Ripper has been so prominantlyfeatured in fiction there is a wikipedia page dedicated to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_the_Ripper_fiction
Stand out film adaptations on the list are: The film adaptation of Alan Moore's graphic novel "From Hell". The wildly fun film "Time After Time" wherin H.G Wells chases Jack the Ripper ( who has recently absconded with his time machine) to 1970's San Francisco. The classic Star Trek episode "Wolf in the Fold" which puts a unique spin on Jack's identity.
Speaking of adaptations, this weekend I watched Sin City, which is an outstanding work. Now, many critics feel that it is extremely two dimensional and lacks depth, but I disagree. The fact that it is so simple makes it that much more interesting because you can easily see the techniques at work. I mean take a look at the color scheme used, it is simply amazing. I feel as if this is one of the few films I've seen that takes the text and puts it almost identically on screen. I recently read one of the graphic novels which is part to this series, it was just like watching the movie. Now, although many would say this lacked growth when it was a film, I feel as if the piece itself could not have been adapted in any other way. I mean taking the story and placing it in a different color scheme would have ruined it, since Frank Miller created a distinct world that could only be recreated in the same way.
The first thing I think about when considering film adaptations, is the number of times I've heard it said: "I prefer the original because...". I usually take it as a dismissal of the work which overlooks the value of the re-creation by focusing on the paradox of translating from a literary to visual mode of narration. While it's true that time constraints force filmmakers to abridge the work, there are still usually a few main aspects or tropes that indicate the influence of the original text. The editing of these stories in their adapted versions, draws attention to the particular themes raised in the abridged version, thus carving particular significance from extant material. Personally, I find adaptation very helpful to understanding themes or concepts raised in the original text that are only accessible through the context of the re-imagined work. In this way, adaptation challenges our understanding of an existing work by supplementing our previous knowledge of the text with a new perspective. Therefore, I find that the main purpose of adaptation is to create a context that allows us to revisit themes from original work.
I think what can be most interesting about adaptation is the way things can be taken and created from the base of an original story. Adaptation does not mean that the story must remain 100% true to the original, and I think that's a big part of the beauty of adaptation. It's cool to read a story and have some familiar elements, but taken on a completely new and different ride so to speak.
When I think of the most recent adaptation I have seen, I think of the film The Lovely Bones based on the book by Alice Sebold. The book was an extraordinary piece that became a bestseller instantly. The novel follows the life of a teenage girl named Susie Salmon, who after being raped and murdered watches her family continue their lives after her death and how her family never gives up hunting down her murderer. While the novel evoked the deepest of emotions and really captured the minds of its readers with its riveting descriptions. Unfortunately the film adaptation was a flop, and was unable to real capture the intensity and emotion the book was able to stimulate. The film failed to fully convey Susies turmoil as she struggles to cope with life between the worlds of life and death until she had been relieved of murderer being discovered and justice being served. Some adaptations fail to detail all that a novel, or other piece of work is able to deliver more emotions than what is seen on the screen and does not always meet the expectations of what the viewer has envisioned the story to be in their minds. While some can i feel it is a difficult job and must be done with a strong knowledge of the text and how to go above and beyond that in the film.
Yeah definitely know what you mean about The Lovely Bones...I don't understand why sometimes in adaptations pieces of the plot that are genuinely significant get left out- in the case of this book, the mother's affair is left out of the film. It changes huge elements of a plot when details that maybe seem minor to screenwriters and directors are cut.
I am interested in discussing the many ways in which Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein has been adapted over the years. In comparison to the "original text" the many adaptations have deviated so much so that the genre in which the book previously belonged to is now completely stretched and skewed. I am most interested in the adaptation of the monster as a character and how he went from an intelligent outsider to a mindless and terrifying monster.
ReplyDelete-Shealyn Bissell
Hey guys,
ReplyDeleteEveryone has seen Disney's "The Little Mermaid," right? Well it turns out that it is based off a short tale, also called "The Little Mermaid," but by the Danish author Hans Christian Anderson. Disney's animated film adaptation really altered the original story and if you want to see what I mean, click the link bellow to read Anderson's tale of "The Little Mermaid." This fairy tale was published around 1830's and Disney's film was produced in 1989.
http://hca.gilead.org.il/li_merma.html
Several of Philip K. Dick's novels have been made into movies- two of the most well known are Blade Runner (from Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) and A Scanner Darkly (from the book of the same name). I have yet to see and read Blade Runner, but I have seen A Scanner Darkly (however, haven't read it) and really enjoyed it.
ReplyDeleteSpielberg's adaptation of Schindler's List (aka Schindler's Ark) by Thomas Keneally, while an excellent film, loses much of the novel's development of the main character Oskar Schindler in its transition to the screen. The film focuses on his brave and honorable actions during WWII, but lacks the novel's introduction and description of his less-than-saintly lifestyle. It is a good example of then difficulty filmmakers face when adapting novels in which character development is driven by third-person narration.
ReplyDeleteAryeh Cohen
Hey,
ReplyDeleteSo mine has a really roundabout way of fitting into this category. I find it interesting when novels are adapted to Broadway shows. A well-known example of this would be Wicked, which has its roots in the Wizard of Oz story. However, looking further back there are other examples of this. Show Boat was a novel written in 1926 by Edna Ferber. It was adapted to Broadway in 1927 as America's first musical and was revived many times after. This then spawned three filmic adaptations (1929, 1936, and 1951).
One great example of an oft-adapted novel is Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera. It was first adapted as a silent film in 1925, then as a Broadway musical by Andrew Lloyd Weber in the 1980's, then as a musical movie in 2004. An interesting comparison in the two aforementioned filmic versions of the novel is the directors' emphases on the Phantom's facial deformities. In the 1925 version, the Phantom is pictured as more monster than man:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa3bHKWZoJg
Compare that unmasking scene to the 2004 adaptation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RaCIYCE4PA
In this version, he looks like a really attractive burn victim. The director of the latter version may have toned down the monstrous appearance of the Phantom to make him more relatable to the audience and therefore more likely to receive the audience's sympathy, whereas the 1925 version's director may have attempted to play up the shock value of the unmasking.
-Charlotte Floyd
The film "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" is a surprisingly successful adaptation of Hunter S. Thompson’s novel of the same name. While most film adaptations fail to coincide with the imaginations of the readers, this adaptation utilizes a variety of methods which encapsulate and portray the characters of the novel- “Raoul Duke” and “Dr. Gonzo”- in an agreeable fashion. Voice-over narration and dynamic acting are used to explore the inner monologue and quirky mannerisms of the protagonist. Also, bizarre cinematography and other visual effects are used to portray the uses of psychedelic drugs by the characters.
ReplyDeleteWhile the usual drawbacks that are present in film adaptations of novels (i.e., cut and/or abridged scenes, limited visual representations) are present in "Fear and Loathing", the film is nevertheless a competent adaptation of the novel.
A brief scene from the film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9Kx_t6ko1k
-Cole Casey
The one adaptation that sticks out to me is The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Having started out as a radio production that was put on for BBC radio, it progressed into a tv series, a video game, a book, and eventually into a movie. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Original_radio_series)
ReplyDeleteThe interesting choices are much like what we have discussed in class, from the lighting that is used to shape the movie/tv show causing possible alternating interpretations from the original piece of work. From the radio show to book, the amount of detail added allows for much more ability to delve into the setting. From the book to movie, much is cut out. The dilluting of characters, cutting of scenes, etc.
-Jonathon A Zinda (JAZ)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThough not originally a work of fiction Jack the Ripper is a figure that has transcended his minimal historical impact to become a specter with largely fictional attributes. Jack the Ripper has been so prominantlyfeatured in fiction there is a wikipedia page dedicated to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_the_Ripper_fiction
ReplyDeleteStand out film adaptations on the list are: The film adaptation of Alan Moore's graphic novel "From Hell". The wildly fun film "Time After Time" wherin H.G Wells chases Jack the Ripper ( who has recently absconded with his time machine) to 1970's San Francisco. The classic Star Trek episode "Wolf in the Fold" which puts a unique spin on Jack's identity.
Speaking of adaptations, this weekend I watched Sin City, which is an outstanding work. Now, many critics feel that it is extremely two dimensional and lacks depth, but I disagree. The fact that it is so simple makes it that much more interesting because you can easily see the techniques at work. I mean take a look at the color scheme used, it is simply amazing. I feel as if this is one of the few films I've seen that takes the text and puts it almost identically on screen. I recently read one of the graphic novels which is part to this series, it was just like watching the movie. Now, although many would say this lacked growth when it was a film, I feel as if the piece itself could not have been adapted in any other way. I mean taking the story and placing it in a different color scheme would have ruined it, since Frank Miller created a distinct world that could only be recreated in the same way.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I think about when considering film adaptations, is the number of times I've heard it said: "I prefer the original because...". I usually take it as a dismissal of the work which overlooks the value of the re-creation by focusing on the paradox of translating from a literary to visual mode of narration. While it's true that time constraints force filmmakers to abridge the work, there are still usually a few main aspects or tropes that indicate the influence of the original text.
ReplyDeleteThe editing of these stories in their adapted versions, draws attention to the particular themes raised in the abridged version, thus carving particular significance from extant material.
Personally, I find adaptation very helpful to understanding themes or concepts raised in the original text that are only accessible through the context of the re-imagined work. In this way, adaptation challenges our understanding of an existing work by supplementing our previous knowledge of the text with a new perspective. Therefore, I find that the main purpose of adaptation is to create a context that allows us to revisit themes from original work.
I think what can be most interesting about adaptation is the way things can be taken and created from the base of an original story. Adaptation does not mean that the story must remain 100% true to the original, and I think that's a big part of the beauty of adaptation. It's cool to read a story and have some familiar elements, but taken on a completely new and different ride so to speak.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of the most recent adaptation I have seen, I think of the film The Lovely Bones based on the book by Alice Sebold. The book was an extraordinary piece that became a bestseller instantly. The novel follows the life of a teenage girl named Susie Salmon, who after being raped and murdered watches her family continue their lives after her death and how her family never gives up hunting down her murderer. While the novel evoked the deepest of emotions and really captured the minds of its readers with its riveting descriptions. Unfortunately the film adaptation was a flop, and was unable to real capture the intensity and emotion the book was able to stimulate. The film failed to fully convey Susies turmoil as she struggles to cope with life between the worlds of life and death until she had been relieved of murderer being discovered and justice being served. Some adaptations fail to detail all that a novel, or other piece of work is able to deliver more emotions than what is seen on the screen and does not always meet the expectations of what the viewer has envisioned the story to be in their minds. While some can i feel it is a difficult job and must be done with a strong knowledge of the text and how to go above and beyond that in the film.
ReplyDeleteYeah definitely know what you mean about The Lovely Bones...I don't understand why sometimes in adaptations pieces of the plot that are genuinely significant get left out- in the case of this book, the mother's affair is left out of the film. It changes huge elements of a plot when details that maybe seem minor to screenwriters and directors are cut.
ReplyDelete