| By
Luci Cummings
Do
film and television adaptations of novels enhance or detract from
the original texts? Novelist Pat Barker and broadcasters and critics
Peter Kemp and Mark Lawson tackled this question as part of the
Oxford Literary Festival.
Lecturer
and critic David Grylls asked the panel three main questions:
- Is
there such a thing as a 'faithful' adaptation of a book?
- Are
there things that television and film can do that a book can't?
- How
do popular fashions affect adaptations?
The
panel agreed that fidelity can be interpreted in many senses, ranging
from sticking to the storyline to communicating the spirit of the
novel. Recent adaptations such as 'Master and Commander' and 'About
Schmidt' were cited as examples of sympathetic but somewhat freehanded
adaptations.
Pat
Barker highlighted just how far a novel can become unrecognisable,
illustrated by the American-based film 'Stanley and Iris', adapted
from her British-set novel 'Union Street'.
The
panel discussed the differences between novels and film and television
at some length. The arguments balanced the limitations of visual
media (time and commercial pressures) with their strengths (immediacy
and impact).
The
panel agreed that both the written word and visual media have great
potential for subtlety, but that it was often underused.
This
was followed by a discussion on the influence of trends upon adaptation.
Peter Kemp pointed out that this means more than just hair and costume.
Political and social preoccupations such as feminism and religion
mean that adaptations of the same book can have vastly differing
messages at different times.
The
standpoints of the author versus the broadcasters made this an interesting
and engaging debate. It challenged the view that all adaptations
are necessarily inferior to the original texts. But as Mark Lawson
pointed out, audiences are diverse, and it is impossible to please
everyone.
For
more information visit the
Back
to reviews >>>
|
