In these couple of weeks of class, we have had the chance to read several interesting works and evaluate their adaptations.
We all are aware that Gregory Maguire sold the rights of his novel and gave full creative reign to the producers of the musical. On the other hand, Arthur Miller was more involved in making the adaptation to his play. Similarly... We never got to have our discussion on 300, so I did a little research on my own. Did any of you notice how closely the movie followed the graphic novel? In fact, Frank Miller not only was the author and illustrator of 300 but also helped produced the movie!
So my questions are:
1. How important is it for the originator to be involved in on the making of the adaptation?
2. Does this involvement make the adaptation better or worse?
and...
3. Is it ok for the originator to NOT be involved (much like Maguire)?
18 comments:
It's hard to say whether or not it's "OK" or "good/bad" for authors to be involved or not involved. In some sense, I think that it's really up to the authors; if they don't want to be as involved, like Maguire, and they want to just let the adaptation become it's own work, I don't think there's anything inherently "wrong" with that. It comes down to a matter of personal preference and intellectual property rights.
On the other hand, if an author does choose to be involved, like the Millers you mentioned, then that's fine, too. When the author is more involved, the adaptation becomes more of an extension of their original project; a complement, of sorts. If the author is not as involved, an adaptation is just that: an adaptation, loosely/closely-based on the original, depending on how the new "authors" (filmmakers, producers, writers, etc.) want to approach it.
I think I personally appreciate it when the original author is more involved, because it's difficult to divorce the original work from the new one (as I've sort of had to do with "Wicked", because the book and musical were so different).
Of course, some originators CAN'T be involved; J.R.R. Tolkien, or C.S. Lewis, or countless other dead authors who only "have a say", so to speak, vicariously through wills or whatever their living relatives feel they would prefer/is appropriate.
So we have gathered that the more the author helps create the different piece of art (movie, musical, play, etc.) the more like the actual novel its like. But the way my brain works, as I'm pretty sure that anyone's brain that really gets into books works just like this, I see the book taking place as an ongoing picture. So in a way I'd much rather the author hand over the rights to the work and let someone else take a go at attempting to create something that I haven't already seen in my head. Personally, I like seeing how someone else sees the story in their brains. It is definitely ok for the author to not be involved, just as long as there is something that acknowledges the author as the "creator" of that thought.
I too was struck by how similar both The Crucible and especially 300 were. While I appreciated how similar The Crucible in visual and in written form are, I;m not sure that I feel the same about 300. As a graphic novel, 300 already had it's own very specific visual language, while the crucible, as a written play, needed that type of physical, visual translation. I really like 300 the movie and having seen the film first and then going backwards to the graphic novel, I didn't enjoy the novel as much. I think it is much more difficult to work backwards from 3 dimensional to 2 dimensional, from dynamic to static images. Perhaps had I been exposed to the novel first, I would be able to enjoy them both equally, but as it was I couldn't quite get there. In this case, I think it would have been advantageous for Miller to have been less involved in the film(as long as it came out as good but in a different way) so it could have been something completely different, then for someone like me who went from movie to book, the book would have had new and interesting elements to offer, making it more dynamic conceptually if not visually.
I think it's important for the original author to be involved if the director wants the adaptation to be just like the original work. From watching Wicked on stage and then The Crucible, I feel like it just depends on the piece of work whether it will work better if it's identical to the original or, like Wicked, very different. Dark novels, such as Wicked, turn out just fine when the original author isn't involved. The director is able to change as many parts as he may think necessary while not having to worry about the original author disliking these changes and asking him not to change those parts. However, The Crucible turned out great with the original author involved. I feel like this goes back to the date the original work was done. Wicked was more recent and doesn't have a lot of history incorporated in it. Hence, people are okay with the changes. The Crucible, on the other hand, is based on a true historical event. People have come to like the original play, and making changes to it may cause a fuss. A lot of us preferred the musical of Wicked rather than the book, which could be another reason why we may think it's okay for the original author not to be part of the adaptation.
@edifani: I agree, it's more difficult to work backwards from an adaptation to an original than to move forwards. It's sort of strange to say, but I prefer the movie to the graphic novel of 300. It just felt more epic.
Back on topic, though: @Claudia, I think you have an interesting point. As we all saw from Wicked, one purpose/possible outcome of an adaptation is the opportunity to see someone else's interpretation, which can spark some great conversation (after all, this entire class is based on that!) But people often get angry when something isn't translated "the way they pictured it", or something is left out that seemed crucial, etc. Does this imply some sort of responsibility to the original? It's hard to say, because of course everyone's interpretation is different, so there can't be one "right" interpretation (except, perhaps, the author's).
@Perla: I'm interested, do you think Wicked was made better because it was less "dark"? If so, what do you mean by "better"? You seem to imply that because it was lightened up it was a successful adaptation.
@edifani: I agree, it's more difficult to work backwards from an adaptation to an original than to move forwards. It's sort of strange to say, but I prefer the movie to the graphic novel of 300. It just felt more epic.
Back on topic, though: @Claudia, I think you have an interesting point. As we all saw from Wicked, one purpose/possible outcome of an adaptation is the opportunity to see someone else's interpretation, which can spark some great conversation (after all, this entire class is based on that!) But people often get angry when something isn't translated "the way they pictured it", or something is left out that seemed crucial, etc. Does this imply some sort of responsibility to the original? It's hard to say, because of course everyone's interpretation is different, so there can't be one "right" interpretation (except, perhaps, the author's).
@Perla: I'm interested, do you think Wicked was made better because it was less "dark"? If so, what do you mean by "better"? You seem to imply that because it was lightened up it was a successful adaptation.
I think our personal preferences play a major part in determining whether we like a piece because the original author/creator is involved or not. And it also depends on how the translated work turns out. Some adaptations become to far removed from the original for certain tastes, (of course a few of the HP movies come to mind) and some, like the musical version of Wicked, are so far removed from the original work that we're fine with how it turned out. In one case, the audience might mind that the author wasn't as involved, while in the other case, the lack of involvement allowed for a complete extension of creative license that turned a book full of dark themes into a Broadway hit.
@Perla: I agree that the history behind The Crucible had a lot to do with the adaptation remaining the same. However, 300 is also based on a historical event, which Frank Miller's graphic novel is based on. Do you think there was more freedom for the graphic novel and movie adaptations of 300 because the history of the story isn't as recent as the Salem witch trials?
@Sara, you make a good point! It's hard to say whose interpretation is right, but since the original work came from the author (etc.) I think the main points should be true. The characters, the plot, the climax. The audience also has to realize that a movie, or play, is only "based" on the book. Whether it is loosely based or very similar is up to the director and the author because he had to sell the rights to the piece him or herself.
@sarah: I think making Wicked less "dark" played a huge role in making the musical better. I'm not sure how much I would have enjoyed the play if it had started of with a baby biting a finger off, and then ended with the death of Elphaba. Of course, everyone has the right to their own opinion but I, personally, liked the changes that were made to Wicked in the musical. Elphaba's life wasn't as devastating and she wasn't seen as a bad mother.
By better, I mean I enjoyed the musical a lot more than the book. I found certain parts of the book a little difficult to read, as I am sure many of you did too. By saying that the adaptation of Wicked was better I'm not trying to infer that the book was bad, just that I preferred the musical. It may have been a successful adaptation if it had been as dark as the book, but I don't think I might have enjoyed it as much as I did. It's a successful adaptation because altogether the actors, the music, the setting, the translation from the original work, the director, etc. were great.
@Rachelle: Yes, I think there was a lot more freedom with 300 than The Crucible. You can definitely see this freedom when the Persians bring in the monsters to fight, when the Spartans come across a tree covered by bodies, and other similar scenes. The Spartans have have been known as heroes since this war, and for many many years people passed this story on making changes as they pleased, aggrandizing the Spartans and defaming the Persians. The Crucible only a little over 300 years old occurred during a time of domestication, when records were kept, and information of the hanged was taken and saved. Aside from that there were actual survivors that could tell the story as it was without having to speculate.
If the author is ok with relinquishing creative control then so be it. Though the wicked's were both very different, i liked them both as individual pieces. In my opinion, when the author is not involved in the adaptation, it should be a true reinvention. It allows room for new creativity that might not be there when the original author is involved because they already have a creative vision. The only thing I think might be a good idea when significantly changes are made is a name change to keep die hard fans from getting too upset with the alterations.
I think that if the author wants his work to be portrayed as accurately as possible, that he or she should be willing to put in the extra work to be involved in the making of the adaptation. I mean it seems as though we have the proof right here that when an author stays involved in the making of the adaptation, that it stays so much more true to the original. As Kristie stated, look at 300 and The Crucible! On both of those projects, the author was closely involved with the translation, and they were so much more true to the original than was Wicked, for example. I suppose that my overall take on it is that if an author wants their work's intent, tone, characterization, and even plot line in Wicked's case, to be maintained, they MUST be involved in every translation of their original work.
I agree with so many of you who have said that a person's opinion of both the original and the adaption create their perception of their "good/bad" quality. I think that there are pros and cons to the creator being a part of the adaption process. Their involvement could lead to an overall lessening of the uniqueness of the adaption. As Claudia and others mentioned, not having the creator's involvement allows the audience to see a new perspective. On the other hand having the creator involved allows the work to add to the original rather than be a "different" story. This can either work for or against the work, if you liked the original then having the adaption be "different" might cause you to rate it as a "bad" adaption; however, if you didn't like the original (which appears to be the case with many of us in regards to Wicked) a "different" adaption is well received. So I think that the involvement of the originator is important in certain settings and not in others. I wonder if the reason Maguire opted out of participating in the musical was that he saw it as an adaption of his work similar to the type of adaption that his work was from the "original" Wizard of Oz story. He clearly did not feel the need to "stick" to the story so to speak that he based Wicked off of, so perhaps he felt it would only be fair to allow the same freedom to the creators of the musical.
I agree with many of the posts, that it is largely a matter of preference. It's interesting that when an original author is involved in the adaptation that the audience has certain expectations. So what if Maguire was involved in the radically different musical of 'Wicked'? Would the audience feel betrayed that the author changed his own work?
I often think this in light of the new Star Wars where Lucas was responsible for changing his own legacy.
Using the three novels that we've read as a basis, I think that when the author is involved more closely with the adaptation, the adaptation stays truer to the original. I kinda see this as a bad thing for the creator. If the audience knows that the book and the movie are very closely related to each other, why bother spending time to do both (read the novel and see the film)? I'm the type of person who does like doing both in order to compare and contrast them. However, I also know that I sometimes get frustrated when I feel that I've already "seen" something; I almost feel as if I could be doing something better with my time. I think that if I were a writer, I would want people to read my book first and foremost, then go and see the movie. Unfortunately, I think that today's society is much more likely to see the movie and skip the book (sad as that may be). This could be somewhat detrimental to an author's ego and self-esteem. In Maguire's case, I feel that it is pretty evident that his novel and the musical are VERY different. It is because of this that may draw people to his book; they want to know what these great differences are.
Of course, the movie versions of 300 and The Crucible were not direct adaptions of their written counterparts. There were added scenes, dialogue, and setting, as well as other changed elements. I am glad that I got to experience both forms of each of these. Personally, I prefer the graphic novel of 300 and the movie of The Crucible. I am like almost everyone else when I say that I preferred the musical over Maguire's novel. I am very grateful that Maguire did not have hardly any influence over the musical. If he had, I do not think that it would be as successful.
I don't feel that the author being more involved would create either a better or worse adaptation. The point of an adaptation is to translate the work, either certain ideas or the actual media form. I think if the author gives up the reigns on their work than it allows someone else with maybe completely different perceptions of the work's meaning to take over, so in a sense I can see that the author giving up the rights to his work will result in a more drastic change. Yet, the author playing a major role in the adaptation might provide an alternate plot or include scenes/dialogue that had been kept out. Either way, your getting a new outlook and it probably depends on personal opinion as to which adaptation you like better, the author's or someone else.
Personally, I would think that a stranger to the creation of the original work would result in more abstract or interesting interpretations, whereas the author might be wrapped around a central idea that he would very much want to keep in the adaptation. Alot of importance is being put on who is associated in the process, but really the only thing that matters is the substance and quality of the work and if it touched the reader/audience.
I think it is important to have the originator to be involved in the adaptation, not necessarily to be the one who creates the adaptation but to give in some pointers and suggestions. I think that Wicked is proof that without the original writer, the adaptation could turn out completely different and only be generally based on the first work. The involvement of the originator, I believe, makes the adaptation better. Who better to know the work than the creator himself?? This is evident in 300. The movie was spot on with the graphic novel, and I think it was flawless as a film. Of course it will be this way with Frank Miller being one who really involved himself into the making of the film. I think it is lazy and ridiculous for the original creator to not be part of the adaptation. Without advice from the original author, the original piece could be damaged.
I believe that the author’s level of involvement creates neither a better or worse adaptation (as Aubs said). The author’s involvement or lack thereof isn’t likely to greatly impact the quality of the adaptation. The quality of the film adaptation has to do with many factors: the skill with which the screenplay is written, the directing, the sound, the editing, etc. The author could very well be involved in creating a crap adaptation of their own work.
Edifani, I liked what you said about seeing each work as an individual piece. In the case of Wicked, I know that I have strong positive feeling about the musical (I love it!), but I also have a lot of respect for Gregory Maguire’s book, because even though it is not to my taste, I feel that it is really a very well-written novel. It is not uncommon for me to like both an original and it’s adaptation for completely different reasons—Howl’s Moving Castle is probably my best example of that; the movie and book are barely recognizable as the same story (even more so than the Wicked discrepancies), yet I really like them both. They are just filed separately in my head.
Perla, you made a good point about the historical records regarding the real Salem trials, but keeping true to history and to the original play, to me, seem to be a result of the meaning Arthur miller was attempting to create. The parallels he tried to emphasize would have been less powerful if he had fancifully molded history to suit his needs, regardless of how recent the event was—and the fudging of certain dates and names occurred anyway (most of which were necessary to maintain a decent narrative arc). 300, on the other hand, was about heroes and impossible odds. Monsters fit in that flavor of story. The straight facts (as far as they are known), could still have make a good graphic novel, or movie, but the straight facts were not as important to the purpose of the story that was told.
Post a Comment