The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Bêthberry · 03-23-2008, 09:26 AM

A new day means a new approach . . .

First, let me reiterate my assumption that this question of faithfulness is best discussed in terms of literary adaptation. Certainly StW's complaint against the Downs' community faults their/our recourse to the Book. History is a much broader canvas and as the example of LoA demonstrates, the source material itself--Lawrence's book Seven Pillars of Wisdom--can be questioned by recourse to other historical documents. History is written largely and mainly by the victors and a little research will turn up a variety of points of view. A book, however, usually has but one author and in the case of film adaptations the adaptation is dependent upon legal right to do so. Such a legal control does not exist with the larger canvas "history", although those who lived any history filmed will of course claim the right to discuss authenticity, fidelity, faithfulness--whatever word they wish to use.

For my points, I assumed that StW's use of "source material" was a mere synonym for "book" rather than an opening up of the question to any source material. That point I think is too large for the issue here, which after all devolves upon how three films adapted a three part book. This has nothing to do with any unfair intent of redefining Sauron's point to stuff it into my point, but is a legitimate interpretation of the issue at hand.

As Nerwen points out, definitions of successful movies can vary. And, indeed, change over time. WoO barely made a profit in its initial screenings; indeed, it became the well loved movie it is largely as a result of its anual screening on television. And, as I will show with some of the links following, even appeals to popularity or majority rules will show inconsistent choices.

First of all, The British newspaper The Guardian some two years ago held a vote on Greatest Film Adaptations. Here's an analysis of the results: from paper to celluloid

And here's The Big Fifty readers chose from. Note that LotR did not make the cut to this top fifty. (That exclusion can of course be discussed.)

What is intriguing about this exploration of film culture (based on newspaper readers) from The Guardian is that choice of top adaptation was not dependent upon the prime point which StW implies, success as in awards and profits.

Another point to note is that fidelity of adaptation is not a pecadillo of the Downs community, but has been a topic of discussion in film going back to such early stalwarts as Griffith. While the topic can often be described in terms of book purists rightly (or wrongly) bemoaning the loss of what makes the book grand, the subject is open to many more questions, not merely the essentialist one of "a film is different from a book." Indeed, there are studies which categorically reject that argument.

Here's a link to D. Cartmmell's highbrow studyAdaptations: from text to screen, from screen to edit.

Here's a link to StW's favourite source: the Wikipedia on Film Adapation

Here'a a link to Brian McFarlane's Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation.

It could be argued that fidelity or faithfulness depends to some extent on how the director and producers see the target audience for the film: do they want to capture the book market only or do they go for 'virgin' viewers? But that's just one criterion to consider.

To say that faithfulness to book has nothing to do with popularity or success of a movie is a claim that overlooks many discussions of the issue, especially when even the definition of quality in movies can be so variously argued, as Nerwen again points out. Indeed, the grand thing about the topic of adaptation is that it can be viewed from so many different angles, no one of which is the absolutely correct one.

03-23-2008, 09:26 AM	#26
Bêthberry Cryptic Aura Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 5,989	A new day means a new approach . . . First, let me reiterate my assumption that this question of faithfulness is best discussed in terms of literary adaptation. Certainly StW's complaint against the Downs' community faults their/our recourse to the Book. History is a much broader canvas and as the example of LoA demonstrates, the source material itself--Lawrence's book Seven Pillars of Wisdom--can be questioned by recourse to other historical documents. History is written largely and mainly by the victors and a little research will turn up a variety of points of view. A book, however, usually has but one author and in the case of film adaptations the adaptation is dependent upon legal right to do so. Such a legal control does not exist with the larger canvas "history", although those who lived any history filmed will of course claim the right to discuss authenticity, fidelity, faithfulness--whatever word they wish to use. For my points, I assumed that StW's use of "source material" was a mere synonym for "book" rather than an opening up of the question to any source material. That point I think is too large for the issue here, which after all devolves upon how three films adapted a three part book. This has nothing to do with any unfair intent of redefining Sauron's point to stuff it into my point, but is a legitimate interpretation of the issue at hand. As Nerwen points out, definitions of successful movies can vary. And, indeed, change over time. WoO barely made a profit in its initial screenings; indeed, it became the well loved movie it is largely as a result of its anual screening on television. And, as I will show with some of the links following, even appeals to popularity or majority rules will show inconsistent choices. First of all, The British newspaper The Guardian some two years ago held a vote on Greatest Film Adaptations. Here's an analysis of the results: from paper to celluloid And here's The Big Fifty readers chose from. Note that LotR did not make the cut to this top fifty. (That exclusion can of course be discussed.) What is intriguing about this exploration of film culture (based on newspaper readers) from The Guardian is that choice of top adaptation was not dependent upon the prime point which StW implies, success as in awards and profits. Another point to note is that fidelity of adaptation is not a pecadillo of the Downs community, but has been a topic of discussion in film going back to such early stalwarts as Griffith. While the topic can often be described in terms of book purists rightly (or wrongly) bemoaning the loss of what makes the book grand, the subject is open to many more questions, not merely the essentialist one of "a film is different from a book." Indeed, there are studies which categorically reject that argument. Here's a link to D. Cartmmell's highbrow studyAdaptations: from text to screen, from screen to edit. Here's a link to StW's favourite source: the Wikipedia on Film Adapation Here'a a link to Brian McFarlane's Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation. It could be argued that fidelity or faithfulness depends to some extent on how the director and producers see the target audience for the film: do they want to capture the book market only or do they go for 'virgin' viewers? But that's just one criterion to consider. To say that faithfulness to book has nothing to do with popularity or success of a movie is a claim that overlooks many discussions of the issue, especially when even the definition of quality in movies can be so variously argued, as Nerwen again points out. Indeed, the grand thing about the topic of adaptation is that it can be viewed from so many different angles, no one of which is the absolutely correct one. __________________ I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.