Theoretical Approaches to Film Adaptation

Pluralist Theory

Like the translation approach, the pluralist approach also retains the idea of a connection between form and content in film adaptation, however instead focuses on the film's ability to retain the "spirit" of the original text (Andrew, 1984, 12). The basis for a pluralist approach concentrates on the film as retaining a degree of autonomy, however evaluates its ability to convey the mood, tone, and values of the original novel (Boyum 1985, Kline 1995). The film is understood to be an interpretation of the novel.

This technique assumes that differences will be inherent between the two mediums. Based on what Seymour Chatman describes as kernels, elements that cannot be omitted without dramatically changing the story, and satellites, which are minor events used for embellishment, the success of the adaptation depends on finding the right balance in each medium (Berger, 36). Within the pluralist approach, "moderation is a virtue in textual changes from one artistic form to another" (Kline, 72). The underlying assumptions inherent within the pluralist approach provide a filter through which evaluations of adaptations can be made.

The following reviews of the film A Thousand Acres,based on Jane Smiley's novel, provide criticism of the film for attempting to adhere too much to the "letter" of the text which results in the inability to retain the "spirit" of the novel.

James Berardinelli argues:
"A Thousand Acres has a choppy feel, almost certainly the result of the book-to-screen transition, and the pre-epilogue ending happens with surprising suddenness. Subplots get shortchanged and characters seemingly disappear without warning. Arguably, the complexity of the storyline may be too ambitious for 100-plus minute running time."

James Sanford observes:
"...A Thousand Acres works so hard to pack as much of the book into an hour and 45 minutes that it feels like the highlights tape pulled from several months of a daytime soap-opera...You'll barely have time to weep over one crisis before an even worse one pops up."

Alex Fung acknowledges:
"The problem is that it's simply *too* faithful -- seemingly hampered by the unnecessary inclination to touch upon every major plot point…"