Welcome back to this month’s discussion thread for subscribers. Today, I wanted to talk a little about the concept of adaptation and ask your thoughts about it.
c. 1600, "action of adapting (something to something else)," from French adaptation, from Late Latin adaptationem (nominative adaptatio), noun of action from past-participle stem of adaptare "to adjust," from ad "to" (see ad-) + aptare "to join," from aptus "fitted" (see apt).
The meaning "condition of being adapted, state of being fitted to circumstances or relations" is from 1670s. The sense of "modification of a thing to suit new conditions" is from 1790. The biological sense of "variations in a living thing to suit changed conditions" is by 1859, in Darwin's writings.
Often, when we think of adaptation, we think book —> film. How does the filmmaker interpret the language of a novel or dramatic text?
However, beyond this interesting artistic transformation to varying degrees of success that are often framed within the adaptation’s trueness to the original, there are other kinds of adaptations that are not as concerned with this likeness. Instead, they are potentially responding, subverting, updating, or generally playing with the original text in a variety of ways. Some of this may have to do with “variations…to suit changed conditions,” just like in the case of natural selection. Some of it, however, is also individual artistic choice.
Let’s consider Shakespearean texts for moment. Any production is an adaptation of the original. One must choose costume, set design, intonation, facial expressions, and more. Film productions are often referred to by the filmmaker’s name: “Zeffirelli’s Romeo & Juliet” or “Polanski’s Macbeth,” for example.
But some create a much different experience we can still - or perhaps even moreso - call adaptation. Consider O, the high school basketball version of Othello, or Ten Things I Hate About You, again an American high school version of The Taming of the Shrew. And of course there’s Jerome Robbins and Leonard Bernstein’s adaptation of Romeo & Juliet into West Side Story. Some might call these adaptations and others would say they are responses or art inspired by XYZ.
Jane Austen novels also have adaptation versions as well as varying degrees of adherence to the originals. Other books like Little Women or Frankenstein have also sparked vast amounts of adaptations. Living was a film I recently enjoyed that takes a Tolstoy story adapted into a Kurasawa film then more recently adapted by Kazuo Ishiguro into a new film in 2022.
There are probably millions of examples of adaptations. Here are a few others:
Filmmaker Ang Lee has intriguing and creatively interpreted adaptations of Zhang Eileen’s Lust, Caution and Yann Martel’s Life of Pi
Bradley Cooper’s adaptation of the original film A Star is Born was influenced by his personal interpretation related to his trouble with drug addiction
Frank Darabont’s The Shawshank Redemption based on the novella by Stephen King (Darabont and King worked on several projects together and Darabont was aided by King’s Dollar Baby initiative, helping him achieve success by purchasing his short story rights for just a dollar)
David Mazzucchelli and Paul Karasik’s adaptation of Paul Auster’s City of Glass into a graphic novel
The novel I’m about to serialize here - An Interpreter in Vienna - plays with Graham Greene’s The Third Man, which he wrote as a novella but with the intention of adaptation into a film by Carol Reed. My response doesn’t go as far as adaptation but plays with the history of spies and changing territorial control in Vienna as well as the way this history might manifest itself in everyday culture today.
In addition to the film being viewed by the protagonist within my novel, it seems to haunt many passages. The 1949 film about post-war Allie-occupied divided Vienna runs continuously in the city and there are several tours one can take related to the film. One might say it has become a part of the city’s identity. I was interested in this concept as well as the way this point in history might have influenced the culture and society of the Vienna I inhabited for four years.
Then there’s the film Adaptation from 2002, which I adore! I love the concept: filmmaker Kaufman wrote the screenplay after difficulty adapting Susan Orlean's 1998 nonfiction book The Orchid Thiefin real life. So many layers of text and persona are created…we are left with both wisdom and laughs.
There’s a lot of theorizing about adaptation and I’ll link in at the bottom a few places to check it out if you’re interested.
Let’s consider some questions in addition to the guiding question - ARE ADAPTATIONS NEW TEXTS? —
Is it fair to the original author or creator if one adapts without permission (even after death)?
To what extent should an adaptation reflect the original work? (i.e. consider film adaptations of Frankenstein, or those that stray greatly from the original: Young Frankenstein, or even films like Poor Things and Edward Scissorhands. And can another novel - Frankenstein in Baghdad - be considered an adaptation of the original? Or is it a response?)
Do non-adherent adaptations make a new kind of art or simply a tangential experience?
Why is an adaptation not plagiarism? Or is it?
What is your favorite cross-medium adaptation? Which changes in mediums offer the most possibilities?
If you could adapt any text, what would it be and how would you do it?
In what (new) ways might an author or artist manifest an adaptation?
Choose one or choose them all. Feel free to move into tangents or ask your own questions and to share your work or other examples that might relate to the topic.
Cattrysse, Patrick, and Thomas Leitch. “A Dialogue on Adaptation.” Literature/Film Quarterly 46, no. 3 (2018). https://www.jstor.org/stable/48678578.
Johnson, David T. “Criticism, Crisis, and Adaptation.” Literature/Film Quarterly 37, no. 1 (2009): 2–4. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43797500.
Johnson, David T., and Richard Linklater. “Directors on Adaptation: A Conversation with Richard Linklater.” Literature/Film Quarterly 35, no. 1 (2007): 338–41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43797327.
Semenza, Greg Colón. “Radical Reflexivity in Cinematic Adaptation: Second Thoughts on Reality, Originality, and Authority.” Literature/Film Quarterly 41, no. 2 (2013): 143–53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43798943.
Coates, Paul. “Reframing ‘Persona’ and Adaptation.” Film Criticism 36, no. 3 (2012): 28–44. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24777834.
Elliott, Kamilla. “Rethinking Formal-Cultural and Textual-Contextual Divides in Adaptation Studies.” Literature/Film Quarterly 42, no. 4 (2014): 576–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43798997.
Olney, Ian. “Texts, Technologies, and Intertextualities: Film Adaptation in a Postmodern World.” Literature/Film Quarterly 38, no. 3 (2010): 166–70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43797653.
If you want to go a little deeper with the contextual theorizing, check out this quote from 2010 in Literature/Film Quarterly:
"Until fairly recently, discourse in the field of adaptation studies mostly revolved around the question of fidelity: film adaptations were evaluated based upon how faithful they were to their source texts. An adaptation that hewed closely to its literary parent was assessed favorably; an adaptation that strayed was judged harshly. This view was informed by a tacit belief in literatures innate superiority to film; film could ultimately never be more than an adjunct to literature because literature came first and because literature was art whereas film was mass culture. The postmodern condition, though, poses a significant challenge to this belief. To begin with, if we accept Baudrillard’s theory of contemporary hyperreality, in which the image 'has no relation to any reality whatsoever [...] [but] is its own pure simulacrum' (6), the distinction traditionally made between an 'original' and a 'copy' is no longer viable."
It also goes on to discuss Barthes' "Death of the Author" in this context.
Olney, Ian. “Texts, Technologies, and Intertextualities: Film Adaptation in a Postmodern World.” Literature/Film Quarterly 38, no. 3 (2010): 166–70. jstor.org/stable/43797653.
I think that all of the questions you pose are true because this subject is so nebulous. Once an idea is expressed as a piece of art it is in the public domain, and once experienced by others can potentially be plagiarised, adapted, referenced, absorbed subconsciously by a new creator or paid homage. Authors, for example, may react in a variety of ways when they have a book adapted for screen if they are not adapting it themselves. Cinema history tells us that some are happy with the results, some not. When I hear that an original work that I admire has been adapted I always have a sense of trepidation, and it's the same with remakes of favourite movies. I don't know why, because the original cannot be harmed by the process, and sometimes the results can be good.
Thanks for this very interesting discussion, Kate!
Interesting questions, Kate! I'd agree with moving the debate away from "fidelity" to an original. I think Borges' story about Pierre Menard, Author of the Quijote shows that after a certain lapse of time, even copying becomes a new creation. As long as plagiarism and copyright infringements don't come into, I think any book or film is for to copy or adapt, and then has to stand on its own merits.
I watch quite a lot of ballet which has its own accretion of versions layered upon the classic choreography of, say, Marius Petipa, as well as major new adaptations. Subtle differences, individual variations within a broad set of rules often make for very satisfying performances. Artistry doesn't always come from doing something new but doing something well.
My favourite cross-medium adaptation is probably ekphrastic poetry. There's no competition between the media - neither has anything to fear from the other.
A really interesting question, Kathleen. From my experience of reading* and seeing adaptations, and writing them in effect in my 'experiments in style' series, I would say the following.
1. They are new entities in their own right.
2. In their role as adaptations they can shed light on the original. For example, a modern dress version of Julie's Caesar made it really clear what was going on to someone who hadn't read or seen the play before. For example, Casca consults his mobile phone before telling Brutus "No. I am promised forth"
3. Writing an adaptation or, branching out, a parody, can help one writer apprechow another writer achieved an effect.
4. Which brings me on to a question I've oft pondered: does parody muddy the waters a bit, given that it applies another Writer's style to an original text? I have two books of parody in which most of the stories are original, but writer in the style of Woolfe, Hemingway, Chandler and others.
* I am currently working on an article that discusses several little known (I believe) or acknowledged adaptations.
This is all very interesting. As a medievalist, it strikes me that this discussion would be baffling to medieval writers. Almost all texts had sources, and it was all about adaptation. Chaucer took Boccaccio’s texts, put them through the Chaucerian treatment, and made them his own.
I think this is a really intriguing line of thought. In my opinion, adaptations are "new" in that they are a reimagining of the original. I recall something my father told me as a child, "Imitation is the highest form of flattery." If the work is in the public domain, so long as the original artist and work are properly credited I don't see an issue. If the artist is living and copyright laws apply then yes, permission is needed. I think that some adaptations have improved upon the original while others leave something to be desired. When done correctly, my favorite is book to film or book to tv series. I think that the time constraints of film make it challenging for some stories to be adapted well. With the advent of streaming services producing their own content, this has been somewhat resolved by turning longer works of written material into seasonal content.
Hey Kate. This is deep for 6:42am for me, haha. I'm enjoying reading all the comments here.
Is it fair to the original author or creator if one adapts without permission (even after death)?
1. Tough. Can't give a solid answer and I don't know specifics on when this has or hasn't occurred and landed anyone in trouble. I can't help but think of films, where adaptations from books presumably must require having the rights from the owner of the source material.
2. Shouldn't have to reflect, in my opinion. It is whatever and however the artist interprets the original work and they should be able to be free with their expression.
3. Perhaps depends on proximity to the source material. Often, I would say it's a new kind of art.
4. I don't think it's plagiarism. Obviously there should be a credit of "inspired by" or "based on the work of" etc so as not to claim complete original inspiration for the work.
5. Adaptation itself is incredible. Makes me want to re-watch, has been forever. The new Dune films are clearly now up there, too. Murakami's Drive My Car is a really interesting adaptation, because it goes from being a really short story into a 3hr ish film!
6. Oof, so hard. Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun, probably. A relatively recent read, but one I think about most days. I couldn't possibly do it. It would need to be a TV series rather than film. If the GoT creators manage to pull of the soon-to-be-released Three Body Problem, then they would be potential candidates for making it happen.
Plato tells us, in the Republic, that adaptation should be discouraged and even outright banned because it creates a lie of the original. It's not exactly what you are talking about, because he's talking about God's, but I was reminded of this idea. However, art is different, I suppose. I think about copyright a lot, not about the law, but about the ownership of ideas. We humans are plaigarists just by existing because everything we think comes from the external world, from what we see and hear. Has anyone actually had an original idea since Plato? So yeah, I think an adaptation should be allowed to stand on its own. Like A Star is Born. I've watched each version and enjoyed them all, but the most recent is my favourite.
Great series of questions: I think adaptations can be true art. My favorite adaptation mode is making an original photograph of a well known painting. We love an artist named Vic Muniz who does this a lot. He creates an original installation that is a riff on a famous painting, then photographs it, destroys the installation, and offers a limited series for sale. Check out the link below and the way he created this one.
There's a lot to think/talk about here. I'd say adaptations are new texts - but of course there's a variety in how much something diverges from the original. The only things I've adapted to playscripts/screenplays are my own texts - apart from a fairytale that I helped expand for a play. I wanted to adapt another novel (Briefing for a Descent into Hell) but to be honest I was glad when I found out I couldn't do it from the estate of the author, as it was proving difficult (I would still return to that idea though, as it would be fun to do and a good film :) ).
I have written one short story with elements of Romeo and Juliet - the setting and some of the basic plot, but its much more a response - I changed one half of the ending (a lot more than that too)! Of course, adaptation can be plagiarism if incorrectly done.
I saw Dune: part 2 yesterday, though, which is a testament to the value of adaptation. What a piece of art that film is! I find some novelisations of films are a lot less 'artistic' than films of novels, but there's definitely room for artistry there, Some of the novelisations of Star Wars films offer much more depth than the films - and with better structures!
As well as the Lessing I mentioned above, I'd love to write a sequel to 1984 (2050), which would somewhat be adapting the epilogue. Anyway that's a lot of my rambling thoughts on the topic...
There's no doubt that a good story will be told and re-told in many forms. How many novels, films, etc have been developed from stories in the Bible and other religious texts I wonder? I think, there is a moral question for contemporary writers, though, as you point out. If we write a piece that we know is heavily influenced by something already in the public realm we should reference it somewhere. Not exactly the same as what you're raising in this conversation, Kathleen, but related I think, and what really gets me mad, are films that begin with a screenshot stating, 'Based on a true story'; this has become so ubiquitous I feel it's a promotional ploy.
Wow. What a great post and a lot of interesting questions! Here are some thoughts I have.
1. I believe adaptations qualify as new texts but they also constitute paratexts. In that sense they function as stand alone works but they also possess a direct relationship to the source text, informing the discourse surrounding it and influencing audience perception of it among other things.
2. I do think an adaptation deserves to be judged and interpreted as a work in and of itself first and foremost. Far too many evaluations rely on fidelity criticism. Hence, an adaptation really isnt obliged to be all that faithful to a source text. Its main concern should be that it works on its own terms.
3. I think that adapting without permission is fair years after an author's death. At a certain point, copyright should expire and others should be allowed to transform and derive the work.
4. There are a number of works I would love to adapt into film or TV. The Master and Margarita for example would make for a great TV miniseries for streaking or premium cable. One of the greatest 20th century novels ever written and would make for riveting surreal horror TV.
Alright, so last night I wrote a comment, well hen-pecked on my Ipad and then accidentally swiped and lost it all. Then I wrote it again, made it to the end and clicked post and was rewarded with an error message. But not this time!!! Thanks for the post DKW!! You had me at Adaptation...I have been on a PoMo movie kick lately, in fact I just watched "Living in Oblivion" last night and can't wait to rewatch "Adaptation"; I will also be rewatching "Blade Runner" which is, of course, an adaptation of Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" (1968)--a novel I convinced my son when he was 9 to read, little did he now the sheep only appeared once and had a great fall. I am thinking about question six and what I can take an adapt to my own, I have not decided yet but I have a few ideas kicking around on the white board. Now do I want to respond, subvert, update or play with...hmmmmm...definitely going to subvert!!! Thanks again.
Splendid topic! I used Adaptation in one of my recent classes. Love that film. As to your questions, doing anything with copyrighted work without permission, bad idea. Public domain, you don't need permission. So the whole permission thing for me is more about the legality of it than whether one should or should not do it, then even WITH permission, is it OK to resurrect James Dean digitally and shoot a movie using his digital likeness and AI-synthesised voice? Can James Dean II get an Oscar? Does he give a speech, does he have rights? Who benefits financially? Getting off-topic, sorry. But coming back to James Dean, or Rebel without a Cause: would a "remake" with a digital JD adapted for today's audience count as an adaptation? Or would it be more like an abomination? I think the project is dead in the water now.
As others have said, there was a time when I was very attached to the original and any adaptation was met with suspicion and treated as the inferior version. This is not me anymore. I gave myself permission to love or hate any original or adaptation based on its own merits and I feel this is the way. Comparing both with each other is futile.
All adaptations are non-adherent, to varying degrees, by their very nature, and legally they do not fulfil the requirements for plagiarism as there is no hidden agenda. (Article IV, Section B of the Moritz College of Law Honor Code defines plagiarism as "knowingly copying or imitating the ideas or expressions of another and representing them as one's own.)
My favourite medium for adaptations ... it depends! Miniseries on TV can be better than an adaptation that crams three books into one 3h movie. I think the missed opportunities are within interactive media, an area we will see develop rapidly in the coming years, holistic adaptations/entertainment that bridge all walls and media.
If I could adapt any text... so many choices, maybe I would start with a fresh take on Dr. Faustus by Christopher Marlowe, maybe for a stage like The Sphere in Vegas. That answers the last question as well. ;)
Challenging topic! From a purely artistic point of view (picking up on John Halbrooks's comment), we could all be medievalists, repurposing everything without worrying about lines between mine and thine. Emerson wrote, "Our debt to tradition through reading and conversation is so massive, our protest or private addition so rare and insignificant, -- and this commonly on the ground of other reading or hearing, --that, in a large sense, one would say there is no pure originality. All minds quote." The legal and economic question of ownership stumps me every time, though it matters to writers and artists to own a thing of value and be paid for it. There I'm lost.
It’s a challenging question this as it could be argued that there are limited number of plots so we all might be reusing them all the time. Is a remake of a song a new song? Great thought provoking stuff as ever.
Thanks for this amazing journey through all kinds of text! And it’s matched very well with your great questions!
My fave double film adaptation consists of “Cotton Comes to Harlem” and “Come Back, Charleston Blue ,” both based on hard-boiled crime novels written by Chester Himes. The two showcases for detectives Coffin Ed Johnson and Gravedigger Jones (powerful acted by Raymond St. Jacques & Godfrey Cambridge respectively) were and are cinema classics.
Last year, I reviewed, on the Stack, Bread and Puppet Theater’s “Inflammatory Earthling Rants (With Help from Kropotkin).” The titular philosopher’s words and ideas about mutual aid were incorporated into the performance of music, dance, chants, and soapbox oratory all straight from the old political pageants that were contemporary to his time, themselves adaptations of speeches and labor and other political events. The Theater ends each show with a visceral manifestation (adaptation) of their performance - and troupe name: free sourdough bread slices for the audience. Delicious with garlic aioli.
If I could adapt any text, I think I would pick a short story and turn it into a short musical performance
From something I posted on Notes:
If you want to go a little deeper with the contextual theorizing, check out this quote from 2010 in Literature/Film Quarterly:
"Until fairly recently, discourse in the field of adaptation studies mostly revolved around the question of fidelity: film adaptations were evaluated based upon how faithful they were to their source texts. An adaptation that hewed closely to its literary parent was assessed favorably; an adaptation that strayed was judged harshly. This view was informed by a tacit belief in literatures innate superiority to film; film could ultimately never be more than an adjunct to literature because literature came first and because literature was art whereas film was mass culture. The postmodern condition, though, poses a significant challenge to this belief. To begin with, if we accept Baudrillard’s theory of contemporary hyperreality, in which the image 'has no relation to any reality whatsoever [...] [but] is its own pure simulacrum' (6), the distinction traditionally made between an 'original' and a 'copy' is no longer viable."
It also goes on to discuss Barthes' "Death of the Author" in this context.
Olney, Ian. “Texts, Technologies, and Intertextualities: Film Adaptation in a Postmodern World.” Literature/Film Quarterly 38, no. 3 (2010): 166–70. jstor.org/stable/43797653.
I think that all of the questions you pose are true because this subject is so nebulous. Once an idea is expressed as a piece of art it is in the public domain, and once experienced by others can potentially be plagiarised, adapted, referenced, absorbed subconsciously by a new creator or paid homage. Authors, for example, may react in a variety of ways when they have a book adapted for screen if they are not adapting it themselves. Cinema history tells us that some are happy with the results, some not. When I hear that an original work that I admire has been adapted I always have a sense of trepidation, and it's the same with remakes of favourite movies. I don't know why, because the original cannot be harmed by the process, and sometimes the results can be good.
Thanks for this very interesting discussion, Kate!
Interesting questions, Kate! I'd agree with moving the debate away from "fidelity" to an original. I think Borges' story about Pierre Menard, Author of the Quijote shows that after a certain lapse of time, even copying becomes a new creation. As long as plagiarism and copyright infringements don't come into, I think any book or film is for to copy or adapt, and then has to stand on its own merits.
I watch quite a lot of ballet which has its own accretion of versions layered upon the classic choreography of, say, Marius Petipa, as well as major new adaptations. Subtle differences, individual variations within a broad set of rules often make for very satisfying performances. Artistry doesn't always come from doing something new but doing something well.
My favourite cross-medium adaptation is probably ekphrastic poetry. There's no competition between the media - neither has anything to fear from the other.
A really interesting question, Kathleen. From my experience of reading* and seeing adaptations, and writing them in effect in my 'experiments in style' series, I would say the following.
1. They are new entities in their own right.
2. In their role as adaptations they can shed light on the original. For example, a modern dress version of Julie's Caesar made it really clear what was going on to someone who hadn't read or seen the play before. For example, Casca consults his mobile phone before telling Brutus "No. I am promised forth"
3. Writing an adaptation or, branching out, a parody, can help one writer apprechow another writer achieved an effect.
4. Which brings me on to a question I've oft pondered: does parody muddy the waters a bit, given that it applies another Writer's style to an original text? I have two books of parody in which most of the stories are original, but writer in the style of Woolfe, Hemingway, Chandler and others.
* I am currently working on an article that discusses several little known (I believe) or acknowledged adaptations.
This is all very interesting. As a medievalist, it strikes me that this discussion would be baffling to medieval writers. Almost all texts had sources, and it was all about adaptation. Chaucer took Boccaccio’s texts, put them through the Chaucerian treatment, and made them his own.
I think this is a really intriguing line of thought. In my opinion, adaptations are "new" in that they are a reimagining of the original. I recall something my father told me as a child, "Imitation is the highest form of flattery." If the work is in the public domain, so long as the original artist and work are properly credited I don't see an issue. If the artist is living and copyright laws apply then yes, permission is needed. I think that some adaptations have improved upon the original while others leave something to be desired. When done correctly, my favorite is book to film or book to tv series. I think that the time constraints of film make it challenging for some stories to be adapted well. With the advent of streaming services producing their own content, this has been somewhat resolved by turning longer works of written material into seasonal content.
Hey Kate. This is deep for 6:42am for me, haha. I'm enjoying reading all the comments here.
Is it fair to the original author or creator if one adapts without permission (even after death)?
1. Tough. Can't give a solid answer and I don't know specifics on when this has or hasn't occurred and landed anyone in trouble. I can't help but think of films, where adaptations from books presumably must require having the rights from the owner of the source material.
2. Shouldn't have to reflect, in my opinion. It is whatever and however the artist interprets the original work and they should be able to be free with their expression.
3. Perhaps depends on proximity to the source material. Often, I would say it's a new kind of art.
4. I don't think it's plagiarism. Obviously there should be a credit of "inspired by" or "based on the work of" etc so as not to claim complete original inspiration for the work.
5. Adaptation itself is incredible. Makes me want to re-watch, has been forever. The new Dune films are clearly now up there, too. Murakami's Drive My Car is a really interesting adaptation, because it goes from being a really short story into a 3hr ish film!
6. Oof, so hard. Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun, probably. A relatively recent read, but one I think about most days. I couldn't possibly do it. It would need to be a TV series rather than film. If the GoT creators manage to pull of the soon-to-be-released Three Body Problem, then they would be potential candidates for making it happen.
7. See opening point about 6:42am 😆
Plato tells us, in the Republic, that adaptation should be discouraged and even outright banned because it creates a lie of the original. It's not exactly what you are talking about, because he's talking about God's, but I was reminded of this idea. However, art is different, I suppose. I think about copyright a lot, not about the law, but about the ownership of ideas. We humans are plaigarists just by existing because everything we think comes from the external world, from what we see and hear. Has anyone actually had an original idea since Plato? So yeah, I think an adaptation should be allowed to stand on its own. Like A Star is Born. I've watched each version and enjoyed them all, but the most recent is my favourite.
Great series of questions: I think adaptations can be true art. My favorite adaptation mode is making an original photograph of a well known painting. We love an artist named Vic Muniz who does this a lot. He creates an original installation that is a riff on a famous painting, then photographs it, destroys the installation, and offers a limited series for sale. Check out the link below and the way he created this one.
https://high.org/collection/khyber-pass-self-portrait-as-an-oriental-after-rembrandt-from-the-pictures-of-junk-series/
They aren't necessarily "new" texts if they reuse an old plot, but they still stand apart from the original versions.
There's a lot to think/talk about here. I'd say adaptations are new texts - but of course there's a variety in how much something diverges from the original. The only things I've adapted to playscripts/screenplays are my own texts - apart from a fairytale that I helped expand for a play. I wanted to adapt another novel (Briefing for a Descent into Hell) but to be honest I was glad when I found out I couldn't do it from the estate of the author, as it was proving difficult (I would still return to that idea though, as it would be fun to do and a good film :) ).
I have written one short story with elements of Romeo and Juliet - the setting and some of the basic plot, but its much more a response - I changed one half of the ending (a lot more than that too)! Of course, adaptation can be plagiarism if incorrectly done.
I saw Dune: part 2 yesterday, though, which is a testament to the value of adaptation. What a piece of art that film is! I find some novelisations of films are a lot less 'artistic' than films of novels, but there's definitely room for artistry there, Some of the novelisations of Star Wars films offer much more depth than the films - and with better structures!
As well as the Lessing I mentioned above, I'd love to write a sequel to 1984 (2050), which would somewhat be adapting the epilogue. Anyway that's a lot of my rambling thoughts on the topic...
There's no doubt that a good story will be told and re-told in many forms. How many novels, films, etc have been developed from stories in the Bible and other religious texts I wonder? I think, there is a moral question for contemporary writers, though, as you point out. If we write a piece that we know is heavily influenced by something already in the public realm we should reference it somewhere. Not exactly the same as what you're raising in this conversation, Kathleen, but related I think, and what really gets me mad, are films that begin with a screenshot stating, 'Based on a true story'; this has become so ubiquitous I feel it's a promotional ploy.
Wow. What a great post and a lot of interesting questions! Here are some thoughts I have.
1. I believe adaptations qualify as new texts but they also constitute paratexts. In that sense they function as stand alone works but they also possess a direct relationship to the source text, informing the discourse surrounding it and influencing audience perception of it among other things.
2. I do think an adaptation deserves to be judged and interpreted as a work in and of itself first and foremost. Far too many evaluations rely on fidelity criticism. Hence, an adaptation really isnt obliged to be all that faithful to a source text. Its main concern should be that it works on its own terms.
3. I think that adapting without permission is fair years after an author's death. At a certain point, copyright should expire and others should be allowed to transform and derive the work.
4. There are a number of works I would love to adapt into film or TV. The Master and Margarita for example would make for a great TV miniseries for streaking or premium cable. One of the greatest 20th century novels ever written and would make for riveting surreal horror TV.
Alright, so last night I wrote a comment, well hen-pecked on my Ipad and then accidentally swiped and lost it all. Then I wrote it again, made it to the end and clicked post and was rewarded with an error message. But not this time!!! Thanks for the post DKW!! You had me at Adaptation...I have been on a PoMo movie kick lately, in fact I just watched "Living in Oblivion" last night and can't wait to rewatch "Adaptation"; I will also be rewatching "Blade Runner" which is, of course, an adaptation of Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" (1968)--a novel I convinced my son when he was 9 to read, little did he now the sheep only appeared once and had a great fall. I am thinking about question six and what I can take an adapt to my own, I have not decided yet but I have a few ideas kicking around on the white board. Now do I want to respond, subvert, update or play with...hmmmmm...definitely going to subvert!!! Thanks again.
Splendid topic! I used Adaptation in one of my recent classes. Love that film. As to your questions, doing anything with copyrighted work without permission, bad idea. Public domain, you don't need permission. So the whole permission thing for me is more about the legality of it than whether one should or should not do it, then even WITH permission, is it OK to resurrect James Dean digitally and shoot a movie using his digital likeness and AI-synthesised voice? Can James Dean II get an Oscar? Does he give a speech, does he have rights? Who benefits financially? Getting off-topic, sorry. But coming back to James Dean, or Rebel without a Cause: would a "remake" with a digital JD adapted for today's audience count as an adaptation? Or would it be more like an abomination? I think the project is dead in the water now.
As others have said, there was a time when I was very attached to the original and any adaptation was met with suspicion and treated as the inferior version. This is not me anymore. I gave myself permission to love or hate any original or adaptation based on its own merits and I feel this is the way. Comparing both with each other is futile.
All adaptations are non-adherent, to varying degrees, by their very nature, and legally they do not fulfil the requirements for plagiarism as there is no hidden agenda. (Article IV, Section B of the Moritz College of Law Honor Code defines plagiarism as "knowingly copying or imitating the ideas or expressions of another and representing them as one's own.)
My favourite medium for adaptations ... it depends! Miniseries on TV can be better than an adaptation that crams three books into one 3h movie. I think the missed opportunities are within interactive media, an area we will see develop rapidly in the coming years, holistic adaptations/entertainment that bridge all walls and media.
If I could adapt any text... so many choices, maybe I would start with a fresh take on Dr. Faustus by Christopher Marlowe, maybe for a stage like The Sphere in Vegas. That answers the last question as well. ;)
Challenging topic! From a purely artistic point of view (picking up on John Halbrooks's comment), we could all be medievalists, repurposing everything without worrying about lines between mine and thine. Emerson wrote, "Our debt to tradition through reading and conversation is so massive, our protest or private addition so rare and insignificant, -- and this commonly on the ground of other reading or hearing, --that, in a large sense, one would say there is no pure originality. All minds quote." The legal and economic question of ownership stumps me every time, though it matters to writers and artists to own a thing of value and be paid for it. There I'm lost.
https://emersoncentral.com/texts/letters-social-aims/quotation-and-originality/
It’s a challenging question this as it could be argued that there are limited number of plots so we all might be reusing them all the time. Is a remake of a song a new song? Great thought provoking stuff as ever.
Thanks for this amazing journey through all kinds of text! And it’s matched very well with your great questions!
My fave double film adaptation consists of “Cotton Comes to Harlem” and “Come Back, Charleston Blue ,” both based on hard-boiled crime novels written by Chester Himes. The two showcases for detectives Coffin Ed Johnson and Gravedigger Jones (powerful acted by Raymond St. Jacques & Godfrey Cambridge respectively) were and are cinema classics.
Last year, I reviewed, on the Stack, Bread and Puppet Theater’s “Inflammatory Earthling Rants (With Help from Kropotkin).” The titular philosopher’s words and ideas about mutual aid were incorporated into the performance of music, dance, chants, and soapbox oratory all straight from the old political pageants that were contemporary to his time, themselves adaptations of speeches and labor and other political events. The Theater ends each show with a visceral manifestation (adaptation) of their performance - and troupe name: free sourdough bread slices for the audience. Delicious with garlic aioli.
If I could adapt any text, I think I would pick a short story and turn it into a short musical performance
Much gratitude for this piece.