Hi Everyone!
One of the things I want to explore this semester is how a person who "translates" a work from one artistic medium to another uses his or her creative license. Often the translator takes some license and changes parts of the original story. Also, adding visual or audio stimuli often changes meaning on some level even when the story isn't changed much. But a lot of times he or she has to be creative in order to figure out how to portray something that works well in one form of art to another. For example, how does someone compress a novel onto the stage where there are space and time constraints?
For my post this week, you can elaborate on how you have seen creativity in some kind of adaptation. Or talk about some adaptation you really loved or really hated. : )
As for me, I really love both the novel and musical adaptation of Les Misérables. Although they cut out a lot for the musical (like the history of sewers in France!), I felt like it caught the essence of the story. The production used a rotating stage for quick set changes and to show motion. The music itself is absolutely beautiful, and it's through-composed with very little dialogue. If you have seen it, feel free to talk about what you thought too!
Anyway, thanks for taking this class! I'm excited for the semester!
Laura
18 comments:
Hi, all!
Great post, Laura. I just wanted to add a little something to your example of Les Miserables. They also made it into a film (which I thought was absolutely horrible), so you all can bring that up as well if you want. :)
Hello!
One adaptation that I know that many people are probably thinking it, but HARRY POTTER (haha). I like the adaptation of the recent book, The Deathly Hallows. Even though it was only half the book, I think it worked really well in putting in details and following the plot. Another great adaptation was the Lion King musical that I saw in London. The musical was very different from the film, but in a good way. It was creative and very cultural. They added in a lot of African music and dances that gave me a more mature perspective on the film.
I read a novel this last semester called "Pedro Paramo." It was part of my Magic and the Reel class. The translation from the book to the film was TERRIBLE. I really hated it because the film was firstly, poorly made and secondly the film did not follow the book at all! That's always disappointing. I don't think there's anything wrong with making different changes (take the Lion King for example) but if the story doesn't make any correlation with the original, then it is not successful.
I have always been intrigued by the topic of translation, whether translating from one language to another or from one medium to another.
One story that we probably all have seen an adaption of is Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet". All thought I have not read Shakespeare's entire work I have read pieces and find it interesting just how much the adaptions veer from the original work. I very much enjoyed the film West Side Story which was a 1961 adaption that was based off of Romeo and Juliet but set in a completely different period.
I have always wondered whether the amount of "artistic license" that is available is correlated with the recency of the original work. For instance, using Candace's example of the seventh Harry Potter book which was written very recently, is it possible that the audience or author might restrict the amount of artistic license that is taken? Whereas Shakespeare is long dead and his audience, though dedicated, is small. Perhaps there would be fewer to argue with a very liberal adaption of his work... aka, Gnomeo and Juliet. (A comedic version of Romeo and Juliet where the characters are yard gnomes, a bit liberal you think? :)
Like Candace, I immediately thought of the most recent Harry Potter film: "HP and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1". This was my favorite HP film, for a few reasons:
- in terms of translating the book into a film, I felt that the filmmakers did a good job covering all of the important parts of the plot without making it feel rushed, as other HP films have felt to me in the past. I understand that this is in part due to the fact that they are splitting the book into two films, which obviously would not have been possible/practical to do with every preceding film, but they really seemed to have the pacing down. I never had a "They forgot that part!" moment, or a "Hey, I don't remember this . . . " moment.
- I also enjoyed how the film was a sort of in-depth character portrayal of Harry, Ron and Hermione. The scenes while camping did not feel boring or drawn out (as they sometimes did in the book, so there's something I felt they did better than the book!). Because the film chose to spend so much time with the characters in the wilderness, I really got a sense of the tension between the friends, as well as the deep love. Watching them feel hopeless and alone made me as an audience member empathize with how very different their adventures are in the final installment. Far away from the comfort and familiarity of Hogwarts, the only people they can trust are each other.
As I've been writing about a film adaptation I enjoyed, one came to mind that I did not enjoy as much: "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian". While I did like the film as a film, there were certain things that they changed from the book that got on my nerves, and made the story feel quite different. The chief one that comes to mind (granted, it's been a long time since I've read the book/seen the film) is the ad-hoc love story between Caspian and Susan. COMPLETELY made up, and by having their kiss be one of the focal points of the final scene I felt that it was distracting from the real story.
Interesting that you bring up Shakespeare, Priscilla; there are probably hundreds of adaptations of Romeo and Juliet. I saw one a couple of years ago that took place in modern day Afghanistan. Romeo was a white soldier, and Juliet was as Afghan girl. Mercutio was also female, a casting choice I'm not quite sure I understood; they seemed to imply that there was some sort of unrequited love between Mercutio and Romeo, but it was very subtle.
Concerning artistic license, I'm curious: What, Priscilla, do you mean by the audience restricting the artistic license? And I wonder as well how involved J.K. Rowling was in the making of the HP films. I've read that she was often on set, perhaps as a sort of advisor? It would be interesting to do some more research. And you bring up the good point that one artist (Shakespeare) is long dead, so it seems less controversial to take artistic liberties with his work, whereas Rowling is very much alive and I would assume there would be more fear of offending her by making drastic changes. Although I suppose that all depends on how much she signs off to the filmmakers.
Another interesting thought on Rowling and HP: it must have been strange to have her books being made into films while she was still writing more in the series; I wonder how much/if the films influenced her later writing? Would this be a bad thing, or good, or both? With the explosion of the films taking place while she was still writing, it's as if the books and films have simply fused into one, huge, interconnected franchise.
An adaptation I love is Untold Scandal, a Korean film based off the epistolary novel Dangerous Liaisons by Laclos. The novel has been translated into many films in different variations, some time period films, and others, like Cruel Intentions, are more modern. Untold Scandal is very close to the novel in plot and dialogue (even though it is in Korean.) The film portrays traditional clothing and culture from the Josean dynasty.
I think that translating mediums has become far too liberal thanks to all of the greed in Hollywood. It seems as though they take far too many liberties with not only the characters, the plotline, but the ending!!! Which is one of my BIGGEST pet peeves! This perhaps isn't the best example, but it's the first one that popped into my head :) I love Nicholas Sparks books, particularly "The Rescue", but another one that caught my eye a while back was "Dear John". I definitely enjoyed the book. I found the characters to be the most intruguing part, especially the development of the female lead. But the ending in the book somehow got to me; I was just really bothered by the fact that they never ended up together! Yes, I am a happy ending fan! I feel as though we live in such an imperfect world, that at least our fictional indulgences should be blessed with happily ever afters. Anyways, to get back to my point, when I went to go see the movie "Dear John" I had mixed feelings. At the beginning of the movie I was frustrated with the characters, because they were just SO different from the book! In the book Amanda Seyfried's character was so dynamic, and passionate about her volunteer work, and making a difference, and in the movie they made her seem like just an average college girl, which in my opinion completely changed the tone of the book. I also strongly disliked their character choices for "Adam", although I thought "John" was fairly well cast. All of that being said however, I did prefer the ending that they chose in the movie. I believe that it was more true to the character's natures, and as stated above, yes I am a sucker for happy endings :). In summary, I suppose that my opinion is that nothing beats a well written book; you can just be so much more expressive using the written word, but in some cases, such as this one, an alteration or two can sometimes make a medium easier to take in. And like I said, I may have prefer the ending that Hollywood gave "Dear John", but the reality is that it is not the same book that Nicholas Sparks wrote.
Well, so reading all the comments I recognize some movies and haven't seen others. I loved the HP books so much better than the movies because of the craziness I came up with in my own head....this last one I feel was horrendous just due to the dragging on of the plot and then the sudden ending of Part 1.
Last year I read the Kite Runner a book of two Afghani best friends who grow up together despite their different social class. The book goes through the pain and trials they have to go through and it was one of those books that I couldn't stop thinking about. So, of course I had to rent the movie and I found that the movie was indeed true to the book yet not so graphic due to ratings. There wasn't much room for personal translation and I loved that it brought the book and my own imaginary scenes to life without any frills or tricks. There's a time to pursue creative altering of media and there's a time to stay true to the message of the original author because its the honesty and grit that makes it great.
To touch on something we all have or are reading... I just finished Frank Miller's 300 and Thermopylae B.C. When I had seen the movie 300 I couldn't imagine many of the most powerful scenes to be true historically, as Tara puts it I thought the majority was "Hollywood". Yet, I was so fascinated to read that many of the parts that I found so moving and motivational were indeed as the Spartans had responded. In particular when Leonidas kicked Xerxe's messengers down the well, the rough upbringing of Spartan boys as soldiers, and many of the the clever remarks Leonidas makes in the face of death and Xerxes army. I thought most of this was fabricated for modern audiences and was pleasantly surprised to see that the Spartans for the most part were true to their on-screen image. This really gave me a new respect for the movie because as I've said creativity is great but not when the true message or foundational facts are lost.
The books were great, interesting and I found myself flying through the pages...I'm excited for the other readings to come! And I'm also looking forward to the movie to see what other small details I'll be able to recognize as true.
I have to bring this one up... Twilight... Yes, I have fallen victim to that which is called "Team Edward."
I have not seen the third installment, so my judgments are solely based on the first two movies. I started reading the books a good two years before the movies started hitting Hollywood. I fell in love with all the magic, mystery and forbidden love.
I completely fell in love with Edward. I had created this image of him in my mind, and though Robert Pattinson was a great Edward Cullen, he fell short of my expectations.
From taking the book and making it into a movie, I was left disappointed. I was glad in that it revived my excitement about Edward and Bella, but the movies deprived me of the romance I experienced while reading the books.
What really bothered me was how the movie went about revealing Edward as a vampire. The scene in the movie lacked mystery and excitement. "I know what you are" and "Say it... Out loud" will forever plague my mind.
I could go on for forever, but I guess the fact that I haven't seen the third movie says it all.
I received a copy of the novel and the soundtrack to Les Miserables for Christmas. Even though I have never seen it performed on stage, I really enjoyed the music (and was surprised at the ease with which I could follow the plot through listening to the music even without the visual stimuli). I am only about a quarter of the way through the novel right now, but I have really enjoyed it so far. I agree with Laura and feel that, from what I have read so far, that the musical does seem to do justice to the "essence" of the story. I do, however, really like some of the more in-depth character and background information that can be found in the novel. It does a lot for the strength of my attachment to certain characters (I really, really like Monseigneur Bienvenu in the novel, while I had only thought of him as a random kind stranger from the soundtrack.) At other points, details in the novel give me more than I have a taste for—the several pages about Waterloo come to mind (here I preferred the expressive, yet mercifully brief mention during “Master of the House” instead).
When novels or stories are translated to movies, I tend to prefer the book over the movie. Harry Potter is one of those instances, but since it’s been discussed pretty extensively I’ll only say that I agree that the seventh one was the best book to film translation. There are a few movies that I prefer over the books though. Stardust, by Neil Gaiman was really hard for me to get through, especially after seeing the movie first. The movie has very few similarities with the book; character names, and the basic quest plot line stayed the same, but aside from that Hollywood completely took over. Because I wasn’t partial to the book, I think this use of liberal “creative license” to adapt a story with plenty of potential into a movie that captured that potential was completely warranted.
That said, I think personal opinions and modern culture greatly influence how we feel about translated works. Shakespeare is a great example! My favorite is the Twelfth Night; I enjoy the play as well as the film, but I also really like the adaption of this work in the movie “She’s the Man”. In this case, I feel like the translation of Shakespeare’s work (something many people dread reading) into a relatable, modern story, allows the original story to reach a wider audience.
So I usually either watched the movie or read the novel. However, sometimes after watching a movie, I do get a little curious to read the book. Reading the book and then watching the movie has always been a disappointment for me, because a lot of the time the parts that I think are essential to the plot are left out. After reading The Lovely Bones I was persuaded into watching the movie, which ended up ruining the book for me. There is a part in the book where the mom runs away and ends up having a romance with another man. This part is left out of the movie and it makes the viewer have a different perspective of the mom. Of course, I understand everything can't fit into 120 minutes of movie time, but it really bugs me when the personality of a character is changed up.
Anyways, enough about that. Last semester I took a drama class in which we read great plays, like Twelfth Night, The Country Wife, Happy Days, & The Cherry Orchard. I was actually able to see two of these performances, Happy Days, which is a very confusing play about a lady who is stuck in a pile of dirt, and The Cherry Orchard, about a family that has to sell a very significant family cherry orchard for financial reasons. Actually being able to watch these performances was a great experience because I was able to see the way a different group of people translated the plays in comparison to the way my fellow classmates and I did. I was able to experience a similar translation to ours with The Cherry Orchard and completely different point of view with Happy Days.
I tend to go out of my way not to see the film adaptations of books that I really enjoyed. Of course , I've read all the Harry Potter books and seen the movies, but in general I'm usually really nervous about watching adaptations unless I've heard great things about them because I don't want the movie to ruin the images I created in my mind while reading the books. Like Candace and Sarah I think the most recent Harry Potter movie was pretty true to the book(though it had been a while since I’d read it), but for me that didn’t make it the best movie, my favorite is still number 3. When watching an adaptation from book to film, I always try to make a clear distinction between the two. A good book will not necessarily make a good movie no matter how precisely the book is followed. Similarly, a mediocre book can be the inspiration for a great movie. The criterion for judging what makes a great movie and book can be very different. The Road for example, is a great book which was made into a movie fairly recently. I have so far though refused to see the movie because the reason I liked the book so much was the quality of the writing, the actual words chosen by the author. This is something that won’t easily transfer into a visual language. The movie might be a great movie for other reasons (cinematography, acting, ect.) but if I see it and like it, it won’t be for the same reasons, so in a way it is an entirely different object rather than just a different version of the same thing.
So I might be the geekiest geek out there for mentioning this, but a few years ago they made a movie based on a young adult book called Ella Enchanted. Did anyone else read the book then see the movie? I can hardly stand watching the movie because they changed so much it just infuriates me! They left the smallest amount of similarities then took off in an almost opposite direction. The book follows Ella, as the movie does, and while the characters remain essentually the same, the trials that Ella faces in her journeys, even how she meets Char is completely corrupted and changed. I want to know how far is too far? Is if fair to say that something is based on this or that just because the barest of similarities exist? How much can you change and still retain the integrety of the original piece?
I don't know maybe I just have issues with books being translated into movies in general. When I read I already see the images like a movie running behind my eyes. I will sit for hours reading without ever really seeing the words on the page, so by the time the movie comes out I feel like I've already seen it and the second showing just isn't up to par.
I enjoy both books and films very much and sometimes i think it is hard to capture all aspects of a book in a movie. I like priscilla also am intrigued by the idea of translation from one medium to another. I enjoy seeing how people transfer ideas from one medium to the next. But i do not like when something is translated and it looses its essence and i think that that can happen often when things that are not very mainstream are made into big hollywood productions.
A book that i really enjoyed reading was "A Series of Unfortunate Events" It was a series of books that was then later turned into one movie. I loved the books and couldn't get enough of them so when the movie came out i was skeptical but at the same time excited to see how it would turn out and how they would interpret the movie. Although i appreciated the movie from an artistic perspective i did not like the way that they took several books and clumped it into one movie. They left out a lot of essential parts in order to make the movie shorter and added some random things so that it would all flow together. I was not happy with the movie overall but i did appreciate them for trying.
On the other hand another recent translation that i really enjoyed was tyler perrys recent rendition of "for colored girls". It was originally a play on Broadway and when i was 17 i was in a production that was put on by my mothers theater company in DC. I was not sure how the movie would turn out since the play is very abstract in the sense that it is a bunch of poems that piece together and there are several characters but they do not interact. In order to make the movie he had to connect the characters and add in a lot more writing but he kept all the poems and the cinematography was very good. It also helped that he cast an all-star cast in the movie and the acting skills made the movie even more enjoyable.
I have learned not always to get my hopes up for art that is being translated because it may not always turn out the way you want it to. But i have learned to appreciate the art of translation because it is something that can be really good or really bad and either way its interesting.
I found it very interesting to read all the comments. Sarah in particular made an interesting point about how movies might affect the later writing of an author.
I have to say that I don't agree with many of the opinions expressed on this page. I used to feel the same way, frustrated when movies changed large amounts of the original material.I still get annoyed with Tim Burton taking other artist's work and making them all Tim Burtony. But, in recent years I've revised my opinion, largely because of my film maker sister.
She convinced me that film should never try to copy books because they are different mediums,(much like edifani stated in her post.)Being inspired by another work does not mean one must stick rigidly to the original. If movies try to express the exact same thing as the book, they are not doing anything new. Also they may end up falling short of the book and not being very good as films.
A good example was the movie, "Where the Wild Things Are." Many people did not like the movie because they saw it with the book in mind. However, the movie as a movie, I found very interesting. Cinematically, it was amazing. Another good example is "Oh Brother Where Art Thou." A wonderful movie in its own right. Seeing that it is inspired by the Odyssey just adds more depth to the story, although they take many liberties.
Overall it may be an issue of naming. When a movie adopts the same name, we bring our expectations of what that name meant in the past. Maybe, sometimes we need to be ready to drop those expectations and just enjoy the movie.
First of all, I feel very left out with all of the HP7 talk. I've read all of the books and want to see the movie, I just haven't managed to find the time. On another Harry Potter note, when it comes to translating the books to the screen, that's a lot to translate! Most people only have the patience to watch a movie for about two hours, and filmmakers take that into consideration. The Order of the Phoenix (HP5) was the longest book, but the shortest movie. Obviously things were taken out. People involved in movies want to make the most intriguing movie possible, so they keep the most intriguing plot points. The 5th book was my least favorite, but I enjoyed the movie. Probably because a lot of "unnecessary" elements were cut out, and you I could focus on the important aspects of the plot. So I feel that this translation was successful. (Although, I wish they could have kept the plot element of the Prefects. I found that very critical to the character development).
Just to mix it up a bit, I wanted to talk about a movie to musical translation that I did not particularly enjoy. I LOVED the Disney movie The Little Mermaid growing up, and I was so excited when I heard that they were turning it into a musical! I had the opportunity to go and see it on Broadway in 2008. Of course I knew that songs such as "Part of Your World" and "Under the Sea" would be in the show, but I was excited to see what else would be the same, as well as what else would be new.
Overall, I was not impressed. The singing and songs were great, but I was not impressed with the acting (this has nothing to do with the translation aspect). I think the primary thing that I was unhappy with though was the fact that they weren't swimming! I know that sounds kinda dumb because that would be practically impossible, but part of the director and/or translator's job is to make you feel like you're "Under the Sea", and this did not happen. This is one translation that should have been left alone.
Lyndsey-If you're a geek, I'm a geek too. Ella Enchanted was one of my favorite books back in the day. And because I loved the book so much I had to see the movie. Bad idea. The movie has so little to do with the book it is ridiculous. They took the names of the characters and one or two other elements and still had the nerve to call it by the same name. If it had actually been a good movie despite all of this, I could have let it go, but it was just a bad movie.
I totally agree with hm. Truly original creative concepts are few and far between, but that's ok because we have a world of already existing places, people, idea, paintings, plays, songs, and books to be inspired by. Artists and inventors of all types are constantly borrowing from each other to create new work. For a filmmaker to be inspired by a book is a perfectly normal thing. A good movie is a good movie, no matter what the book it was based on was like. I agree that maybe a lot of people would be appeased by changing the name of the adaptation while still paying homage to the creator of the original piece.
edifani=Emma No more confusion. :)
I know this blog is old and "dead", but I just had a thought today that I wanted to share, and it relates to this post. There is one translation that I absolutely loved: the translation of the book into the film of "Atonement".
I was intrigued when I saw trailers for the movie, and when I learned it was based on a book, I bought and read it. In short, it was an amazing piece of work; beautifully-written, a compelling, emotional story, and very human characters. It quickly earned a spot in my "top favorite books" list, and whenever somebody asks for book recommendations, it's one of the first I mention.
When I saw the film, I wasn't disappointed in the least bit; I thought the characters were well-cast and perfectly fit how I'd pictured them in the book; every performance was powerful, and to my knowledge they did not leave out any important plot points. They changed the ending a bit to make it more easily-translatable into film form (without summarizing the entire ending, they basically condensed the last few chapters and cut out some of the details, but I felt that they really got to the heart of the ending).
I suppose the only thing I'd say the film was missing was the beautiful language that author Ian McEwan uses in his book; however, I don't think this is a fault of the film, it's just a reality of what a film can accomplish vs. what a book can accomplish.
Way back when I first saw the movie, I wrote a post on my blog about what I thought, and I'll end here with the line I ended that post with:
The book "Atonement" reminded me why I love books; the film reminded me why I love films.
I wish we were reading/watching that one this semester!
Post a Comment