"Have you read the novel Beloved by Toni Morrison?"

-- "No, but I've seen the movie"

The frequent admission that one has viewed a particular film rather than having read the novel upon which it is based (or vice-versa) makes, according to Mark Axelrod, "an implicit statement on the relationship between cinematic and literary forms" (201). On the one hand this statement seems to suggests there is an equitable relationship between what is read in a novel and what is viewed through a film; conversely an evaluation which posits the superiority of one text over the other implies a disparity between each medium. This dichotomy leads to questioning the relationship between novels and film. Does a relationship between film and literature exist and if so, what is it based upon? How can a reader/viewer evaluate an adaptation as a success or failure? What criteria are comparisons based upon? What assumptions exist about literature and film that may influence an evaluation? How is it that contradictory evaluations of the same film exist?

According to Karen Kline, the selection of one of several paradigms common to contemporary criticism contributes to the "limits and possibilities of discourse" that surrounds film adaptation (70). Kline argues that assumptions inherent to the "translation", "pluralist" and "transformation" approaches to film adaptation place restrictions on the "commentary that result" from the use of each one. It is the selection of one type of approach over another which provides the basis of comparison and influences the outcome of evaluations. Upon reflection, it would appear that evaluations based on these paradigms tend to focus on textual forms rather than content. Alternatively, Neo-Aristotelian theory based on assessments of narrative elements seems to provide a more flexible method for evaluating film adaptations.

This site will consider the historical cultural debate surrounding film and literature, along with the theoretical foundation of the translation, pluralist and transformation approaches. Additionally, the Neo-Aristotelian approach will be analyzed as an alternative basis for the evaluation of film adaptations. Using excerpts of critical evaluations based on the film adaptation of Jane Smiley's Pulitzer Prize-winning A Thousand Acres, this site attempts to highlight the importance of understanding how assumptions behind contemporary approaches to film adaptations influence the assessment of the effectiveness of the migration of a story from one form to another.