Theoretical Approaches to Film Adaptation

Conclusion

The historical high/low cultural debate, combined with a theoretical heritage based in the application of structuralism and formalism, has had a tendency to see the relationship between film adaptations and literature as hierarchical. Traditionally, these analyses focus on form and privilege the novel over the film. The heritage in which Karen Kline's conceptions of translation, plurality and transformation approaches to the critical evaluation of film adaptation seem to be based on this understanding of hierarchy.

Conversely, a Neo-Aristotelian approach attempts to overcome the form-content dichotomy to instead consider narrative aspects in evaluating both the film and novel. This approach tends to understand the relationship between literary and cinematic texts as each providing an alternative discourse with the common goal of presenting a story.

Additionally, it is important to note that no matter which type of an approach a critic uses to evaluate an adaptation, it would seem impossible to produce a completely subjective interpretation. Joy Boyum, building on Loise M. Rosenblatt's reader-response theory, acknowledges the "enormous role of prior experience and expectations in shaping responses to adaptations" (xi). Viewers bring in a set of social, personal, and aesthetic assumptions and expectations in their evaluations, which has an influence on the perception and appreciation a viewer has of a particular text. It is important to keep this in mind when reviewing critical discourse concerning film adaptation.

Literature has provided Hollywood with inspiration from the onset of cinema. Popular novels are adapted time and again to the big screen; A Christmas Carol has been filmed fourteen times since 1908; Oliver twist, nine times since 1909; Tale of Two Cities, seven times since 1911 (Axelrod, 204). Box office commercial success indicates the popularity of such films: Gone with the Wind grossed over $77 million dollars; The Sound of Music grossed over $79 million dollars; The Godfather grossed over $86 million dollars (Axelrod, 206). Considering this popularity, it is no surprise that critical discourse concerning adaptations of novels to film has long been a significant issue. Karen Kline argues that "a film cannot be all things to all people" and "the critical paradigm might be best understood as a filter or lens in which shapes the critic's perspective"(81). Understanding the influence of assumptions behind contemporary paradigms that are used to evaluate film adaptations is an important aspect to appreciating and understanding these critiques. The particular "lens" in which a reader/viewer selects to observe a film adaptation, provides the "possibilities and limitations" in considering the success or failure of the film.

These critical paradigms effect the understanding of the relationship between film and literature, provide the criteria in which to make a comparison on, and are based upon certain assumptions that influence evaluations. It is the selection of one critical paradigm over another that allows the possibility of different interpretations of the same film adaptation. Keeping these factors in mind when reading or creating a critique of a film based on literature can provide a more in-depth analysis and allows a broader understanding of the point of view which is expressed.