Adaptations will be discussed throughout this essay, but will open with a discussion of particularly why it is so popular amongst film studios (to adapt) and the possible drawbacks it has to offer by drawing upon various different film titles and theorists. This essay strives to compare the various adaptations of William Goldings famous novel Lord of the Flies. There have been lots of different versions of the text that have been submitted into the mainstream consciousness. This essay will specifically look at direct adaptations like the 1963 version directed by Peter Brook, the 1990 version directed by Harry Hook; as well as briefly mentioning somewhat more indirect variations, specifically the episode of The Simpsons, Das Bus (season nine, episode fourteen) and will look at the first season of the 2001 television series Lost. This essay will explore the idea that a piece of adapted media’s worth is usually determined through its fidelity and not through its individual creative merits - can a film (or any form of media) still be regarded as a creative piece of art if it is using a pre-existing piece of text? It will also branch out and look at the artistic changes that were made during the adapting of Lord of the Flies, and their subsequent creative consequences.
The current definition of adaptation used by the majority of the public, is when a film or television series is created and it is explicitly based on a book. But, a more accurate definition would be any piece of text that is based explicitly on a pre-existing text, so this is much more inclusive. Whether they strictly follow their chosen source material or interpreting concepts extracted from the original work, adaptations are certainly additions or interpretations of the original story (Van Vugt, 2011) Adaptation has ingrained itself in our medias culture, with popular novels being converted into films every day. Since the dawn of cinema, the notion of adapting literary works has firmly rooted itself within the business of filmmaking. Dating back to the 1900s, famous titles like Romeo and Juliet are seen straight off the bat. There are scores of reasons that filmmakers during the silent period of film turned to literary works to fuel their films plots; for example, the stories were already well known, so they were not tied down by the need to explain everything through dialogue; adaptations were also viewed as a way to effectively bring great literary works to the masses; some filmmakers were under the impression that the association between literature (which was often revered as great, intellectual works of art) and film (which wasn’t respected by critics as complex pieces of art at the time) would elevate the status of film (Cartmell, 2012) These reasons for adapting, minus the latter as films reputation in the eyes of artistic critics have changed dramatically, are still somewhat applicable to modern day adaptations. Filmmakers are able to reduce the risk of a film failing by producing a well known piece of text in the form of a film. Essentially, there is a ready made audience and a specific target to market if a studio is adapting, for example, a well known book series. Look at the Harry Potter franchise, it has been a great success, both critically as well as financially. The last installment in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part Two broke UK box offices at its time of release in 2011, making £23 million in its first weekend (BBC 2011). Money acts as a huge motivation for studios being keen to adapt popular texts, as they are able to cash in on popular commodities. The legal framework means that literary copyright also only applies to the literal copying of words, so this allows filmmakers to take the basis of a text and manipulate it. This is particularly useful in the situation of a popular piece of text that has aspects that fans are not happy with. Take the Hunger Games trilogy for example. After the success of the first two films, satisfied fans took to various social media platforms to express their delight, specifically Catching Fire (the second installment), being hailed as being faithful to the book - then strongly lobby for the third film (Mockingjay), to be a completely different reimagining from the book, which left a lot of fans disappointed with the end to the trilogy.
Of course this choice to potentially deviate from the source text opens itself up to a lot of criticisms. If films, in general, do not faithfully adhere to the existing text, this can make fans of the original piece angry. In the case of films that are the product of an adaptation of a piece of literature, there is a constant battle of book versus film. “In most studies of reflexive adaptations of literature, however, the films are said to be secondary to a different category of antecedent "reality," which is the source text and, often, its own superior reflexivity …” (Colon, 2013, p. 143) The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising is an excellent example of a source text has been pitted against its film counterpart that was received with overwhelming negativity. It was released in the United States and Canada on October 5, 2007. The film grossed $3,745,315 in 3,141 theaters in its opening weekend, ranking #5 at the box office in the United States and Canada. The Seeker had one of the poorest starts for a fantasy film. The reason for its abject reception was because of the high bar set by the previously discussed Harry Potter franchise. Many reviewers took to comparing The Seeker to Harry Potter as a disappointing relative, which is what the changes ironically strived to avoid. The films disregard for its source materials left fans angered by the whole experience.
Having explored the history and definitions of adaptations, this essay will now apply what has already been discussed, as well as new theories, to the many variations of Goldings Lord of the Flies. A brief history of the source text is that it was published in 1954, being Golding's first novel. Initially, it was not received particularly well - it sold fewer than 3,000 copies in the United States during 1955 before eventually going out of print. But, by the early 1960’s it quickly became required reading in many places of education. It is known for its controversial themes of human nature, specifically the conflict between the need of order and justice versus the descent into savagery. There have been arguments that say that Lord of the Flies is an allegory of the breakdown of society due to a fatal flaw in human nature (Fitzgerald and Krayser, 2002) There are five characters in the books that represent these two pillars of humanity - Ralph and Piggy are the figureheads of society and order; Jack and Roger are the savage characters that allow themselves to regress to a barbaric state of hunting and murder; Simon is a character who, in death, represents the boys loss of innocence and truth. He is killed during the feast that Jack’s tribe is hosting and during a frenzied dance, they kill him when they mistake him for the “beast” as he emerges from the forest during the night. This act kickstarts the bloodlust of Jacks tribe as towards the end of the book (and the films) when Piggy and Ralph are trying to reason with the tribe, Piggy is murdered deliberately, whereas Simons death can be interpreted as an accident. There is one thing that is pivotal in the source text that is completely omitted from both the 1963 and 1990 film version, which is the importance of the conch. Whilst the conch does appear in both films, it is not shown getting smashed, which is an important motif in the books as the destruction of society. The 1963 version was ultimately more well received than its 1990 counterpart. This could be because of the films fidelity to the source text. This statement brings up the idea that Thomas Leitch proposed which is that “Fidelity makes sense as a criterion of value only when we can be certain that the model is more valuable than the copy.” (Leitch, 2007, p. 6) As previously discussed, films are often regarded as secondary to its source text. So the fact that the 1963 version of Lord of the Flies was received with almost universally positive reviews, brings up an interesting question - did it do better because demonstrated a closer representation of the source material than the 1990 version? But, looking at adaptations from the perspective of fidelity has been shown as too limiting. More and more critics have started to believe that literature as art did not want closure, that it was not easily wrapped up within one specific approach (of fidelity). Literature opens itself up a to a huge number of communicative possibilities through which it could speak to the audience. Meanings within literature can be considered as events that took place in the readers imagination. Therefore it is necessary to remember that filmmakers had to be seen as readers with their own rights, and each adaptation – as a result of individual reading processes (Marciniak [year unavailable])
The 1990 version, directed by Harry Hook, underwent quite a lot of creative changes. The boys are changed to American Military Schoolboys rather than British Schoolboys. This can be justified though as it means that the boys knowledge of survival skills that they demonstrate (hunting/building shelters/creating fires etc.) are somewhat more plausible if they have a military education. Another interesting change that the 1990 version applied to Golding's novel was that during the murder of Simon, Piggy and Ralph are explicitly shown to be looking on in horror as the tribe murders the young boy. In the novel however, it is implied that Piggy and Ralph partake in the killing of Simon. This could be because Hook wanted Ralph and Piggy to remain characters that the audience could identify and root for - if the film had shown these characters taking part in killing Simon, they would have instantly become less sympathetic characters that the audience would not have been able to relate with quite as easily. Whatever bond had been created between the viewers and the characters would have been tainted. Although the film went through many more changes, nonetheless it remained a moderate box office success and received fairly average reviews from the critics. As previously stated, the 1963 version was much more widely received as a much more faithful (therefore supposedly acceptable) adaptation. Brook, the director, was nominated for the ‘Golden Palm’ at the 1963 Cannes Film Festival as a result of his version of Lord of the Flies (Cannes Festival 1963) Brooks made the creative decision to try and stay faithful to the source material.
But it’s not just direct adaptations that matter in media today. The ever popular television series The Simpsons, famous for it’s consistent pop culture references, tried it’s hand at a Lord of the Flies themed episode titled Das Bus (a pop culture reference in itself). With an expansive history, parody has proven itself a popular mode of adaptation: “Critical intertextualities crown form exists in parody.” (Gray, 2006, p. 43) This applies to many of The Simpsons episodes. Another popular version that was seen by the masses was the television series Lost, the first season of which could almost be considered a modern day imagining of Lord of the Flies, with adults instead of children. It follows many of the themes, plot points and character archetypes in Golding's novel. It even references the novel at various points in the show. Strangely, despite its similarities to Golding's novel, Lost never seemed to suffer any of the fidelity issues that Brooks and Hooks films were subjected to. Is this because it went through enough changes, whilst only holding the core ideals of the novel, that it broke through the label of an adaption and into the assumption that it is an original piece of work (despite the show being conceived by the head of ABC Lloyd Braun based on his desire for a television show that was a cross between Lord of the Flies and various other survival stories).
In conclusion, the question of fidelity in relation to adaptations has been applied to so many adapted films that the value of the film seems to be determined only by its reflection of its source material and not as an independent piece of art. It is important to remember that filmmakers are readers of these source texts too and their adaptation as a result of their individual reading of the material - because everyone's reading of these texts will be entirely unique. To answer the question stated in the introduction (can an adapted piece of media still be considered a piece of original, creative art when using a pre-existing text?), the answer is yes, because it is a still a piece of media that goes through the creative process whilst being created - choices are made and these choices are distinctive to that particular adaptation.
Reference List.
BBC., 2011. Entertainment and Arts, [online], [viewed 16 December 2013] available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14183632
CANNES FESTIVAL., 1963. Nominations. [online] [viewed 16 December 2013] available from: http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/3116/year/1963.html
CARTMELL, D., ed. 2012. A Companion to Literature, Film and Adaptation. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
COLON, G., 2012. Radical Reflexivity in Cinematic Adaptation: Second Thoughts on Reality, Originality, and Authority. International Bibliography of Theatre & Dance Vol. 41 Issue 2, p143-153, 11p
FITZGERALD, J and KRAYSER, J., 2002. Golding’s Lord of the Flies: Pride as original sin. Denton: University of North Texas.
GRAY, J., 2006. Watching with The Simpsons: Television, Parody, and Intertextuality. [online] Routeledge [viewed 16 December 2013]. Available from : http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lNTqZmW_HiQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
LEITCH, T., 2007. Film adaptation and its discontents: from Gone with the Wind to The Passion of the Christ. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
MARCINIAK, M., [year unavailable]. The appeal of literature-to-film adaptations. [publication location and publishers unavailable].
VAN VUGT, N., 2011. Film adaptation, Alternative cinema and Lynchain moments of transposition. Canada: McMaster University.
No comments:
Post a Comment