Transmutation Among the Arts
Further Theories on Adaptation – Brian McFarlane
-seeing and telling, two ways of seeing
It is interesting to analyse early examples of ‘convergence’ between art-forms with regard to the film and the novel.
Novel pre-empting Film
There are authors who broke with the representational novels of the earlier nineteenth century by “showing how the events unfold dramatically rather than recounting them.” (p5).
They employed what can be described as cinematic techniques in their work, Eisenstein commenting on how Dickens’ anticipation of the frame composition and the closeup. Bluestone states that “Griffith found in Dickens hints for every one of his major innovations.” (p6),
So too Henry James’ writing anticipated cinema in the way he was able to decompose a scene, “altering point of view so as to focus more sharply on various aspects of an object, for exploring a visual field by fragmenting it rather than by presenting it scenographically.” (p5) Henry James used the technique of ‘restricted consciousness…limiting the point of view from which actions and objects are observed.” (p6).
Much criticism of this adaptation process is flawed in focusing mainly on thematic interests and the formal narrative patterns of both forms, rather than ‘questions of enunciation’, the range of ‘functional equivalents’ available to the two differing media.
Relations Between Film and Literature
The question of the relationship between the adapted form and the source material is vital. Some writers have proposed categories of adaptation to shift the focus away from pure issues of ‘fidelity to the original’ – and look more deeply at the true potential in the adaptation process. Geoffrey Wagner proposed “a) transposition, in which a novel is given directly on the screen with a minimum of apparent inteference, b) commentary, where an original is taken and either purposely or inadvertently altered in some respect…when there has been a different intention on the part of the film-maker, rather than infidelity or outright violation, and c) analogy, which must represent a fairly considerable departure for the sake of making another work of art.”
Another comparable categorization system was proposed by Michael Klein and Gillian Parker, “first, fidelity to the main thrust of the narrative, second, the approach which retains the core of the structure of the narrative while significantly reinterpreting or, in some cases, deconstructing the source text; and third, regarding the source merely as raw material, as simply the occasion for an original work.” (p11)
Adaptation and Narrative
McFarlane concludes that what films and novels have in common is their propensity for narrative. But the way in which this ‘narrative’ functions in the two different media must be understood, and also what can and cannot be transferred from one narrative medium to the other. McFarlane distinguishes between the verb ‘transfer’ and ‘adapt’; some narrative elements in novels can be transferred to film, while some elements must find visual equivalences in the film medium.
Narrative and Narration Distinctions
McFarlane discusses the many categories used to define modes of presentation of narrative in the different media. This is essentially the story matter, and the manner of its delivery. While applying here to film and novel, the film category can easily be supplanted by the realm of graphic design for my own purposes of understanding possibilities for adaptation in my own work.
The distinction between narration and narrative can also be described as that between story and discourse, the modern French poetics version of histoire and discours, and the Russian Formalist distinction between fabula (story as chronological sequence) and suzet (the plot as shaped by the storyteller).
I prefer McFarlane’s own terminology in that it feels more applicable to the realm of graphic design and its hybrid form. Originating with the linguist Emile Benveniste, there is the enunciated, the ‘utterance’ (l’enonce) manifested in a stretch of text. This is the sequence, the sum of the parts that construct the narrative function. Enunciation differs in referring to how this utterance is mediated. In literature enunciation is affected by person and tense, while in film this can be achieved via mise-en-scene and montage. This is exactly what I described as my interest in adapting the intangible, the ‘tone’. It is the sound of the story, rather than the construct of the story. McFarlane concludes there are two considerations to the adaptation process; transferring the narrative (the elements of the story), and adapting the enunciation,
-seeing and telling, two ways of seeing
It is interesting to analyse early examples of ‘convergence’ between art-forms with regard to the film and the novel.
Novel pre-empting Film
There are authors who broke with the representational novels of the earlier nineteenth century by “showing how the events unfold dramatically rather than recounting them.” (p5).
They employed what can be described as cinematic techniques in their work, Eisenstein commenting on how Dickens’ anticipation of the frame composition and the closeup. Bluestone states that “Griffith found in Dickens hints for every one of his major innovations.” (p6),
So too Henry James’ writing anticipated cinema in the way he was able to decompose a scene, “altering point of view so as to focus more sharply on various aspects of an object, for exploring a visual field by fragmenting it rather than by presenting it scenographically.” (p5) Henry James used the technique of ‘restricted consciousness…limiting the point of view from which actions and objects are observed.” (p6).
Much criticism of this adaptation process is flawed in focusing mainly on thematic interests and the formal narrative patterns of both forms, rather than ‘questions of enunciation’, the range of ‘functional equivalents’ available to the two differing media.
Relations Between Film and Literature
The question of the relationship between the adapted form and the source material is vital. Some writers have proposed categories of adaptation to shift the focus away from pure issues of ‘fidelity to the original’ – and look more deeply at the true potential in the adaptation process. Geoffrey Wagner proposed “a) transposition, in which a novel is given directly on the screen with a minimum of apparent inteference, b) commentary, where an original is taken and either purposely or inadvertently altered in some respect…when there has been a different intention on the part of the film-maker, rather than infidelity or outright violation, and c) analogy, which must represent a fairly considerable departure for the sake of making another work of art.”
Another comparable categorization system was proposed by Michael Klein and Gillian Parker, “first, fidelity to the main thrust of the narrative, second, the approach which retains the core of the structure of the narrative while significantly reinterpreting or, in some cases, deconstructing the source text; and third, regarding the source merely as raw material, as simply the occasion for an original work.” (p11)
Adaptation and Narrative
McFarlane concludes that what films and novels have in common is their propensity for narrative. But the way in which this ‘narrative’ functions in the two different media must be understood, and also what can and cannot be transferred from one narrative medium to the other. McFarlane distinguishes between the verb ‘transfer’ and ‘adapt’; some narrative elements in novels can be transferred to film, while some elements must find visual equivalences in the film medium.
Narrative and Narration Distinctions
McFarlane discusses the many categories used to define modes of presentation of narrative in the different media. This is essentially the story matter, and the manner of its delivery. While applying here to film and novel, the film category can easily be supplanted by the realm of graphic design for my own purposes of understanding possibilities for adaptation in my own work.
The distinction between narration and narrative can also be described as that between story and discourse, the modern French poetics version of histoire and discours, and the Russian Formalist distinction between fabula (story as chronological sequence) and suzet (the plot as shaped by the storyteller).
I prefer McFarlane’s own terminology in that it feels more applicable to the realm of graphic design and its hybrid form. Originating with the linguist Emile Benveniste, there is the enunciated, the ‘utterance’ (l’enonce) manifested in a stretch of text. This is the sequence, the sum of the parts that construct the narrative function. Enunciation differs in referring to how this utterance is mediated. In literature enunciation is affected by person and tense, while in film this can be achieved via mise-en-scene and montage. This is exactly what I described as my interest in adapting the intangible, the ‘tone’. It is the sound of the story, rather than the construct of the story. McFarlane concludes there are two considerations to the adaptation process; transferring the narrative (the elements of the story), and adapting the enunciation,
0 Comments:
Post a Comment<< Home