Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation

Brian McFarlane; Clarendon Press, !!", #$ford

Part I Bac%&rounds, Issues, and a Ne' A&enda

BACKGROUNDS

Conrad, (riffith, and )*eein&)

Commentators in the field are fond of +uotin& ,oseph Conrad)s famous statement of his novelistic intention: )My tas% 'hich I am tryin& to achieve is, -y the po'ers of the 'ritten 'ord, to ma%e you hear, to ma%e you feel.it is, -efore all, to ma%e to see)/ This remar% of 0!1 is echoed, consciously 22222222222222222222
,oseph Conrad, Preface to The Nigger of the Narcissus 3 ,/ M/ 4ent and *ons: 5ondon, !678, 7/

.9.

or other'ise, si$teen years later -y 4/ :/ (riffith, 'hose cinematic intention is recorded as: )The tas% I am tryin& to achieve is a-ove all to ma%e you see)/; (eor&e Bluestone)s all.-ut.pioneerin& 'or% in the film.literature field, Novels into Film, dra's attention to the similarity of the remar%s at the start of his study of )The T'o :ays of *eein&) , claimin& that )-et'een the percept of the visual ima&e and the concept of the mental ima&e lies the root difference -et'een the t'o media<)/9 In this 'ay he ac%no'led&es the connectin& lin% of )seein&) in his use of the 'ord )ima&e)/ At the same time, he points to the fundamental difference -et'een the 'ay ima&es are produced in the t'o media and ho' they are received/ Finally, thou&h, he claims that )conceptual ima&es evo%ed -y ver-al stimuli can scarcely -e distin&uished in the end from those evo%ed -y non.ver-al stimuli),6 and, in this respect, he shares common &round 'ith several other 'riters concerned to esta-lish lin%s -et'een the t'o media/ By this, I mean those commentaries 'hich address themselves to crucial chan&es in the 3mainly =n&lish8 novel to'ards the end of the nineteenth century; chan&es 'hich led to a stress on sho'in& rather than on tellin& and 'hich, as a result, reduced the element of authorial intervention in its more overt manifestations/ T'o of the most impressive of such accounts, -oth of them concerned 'ith on&oin& processes of transmutation amon& the arts, nota-ly -et'een literature and film, are Alan *pie&el Fiction and the Camera Eye7 and >eith Cohen Film and Fiction/" *pie&el)s avo'ed purpose is to investi&ate )the common -ody of thou&ht and feelin& that unites film form 'ith the modern novel),1 ta%in& as his startin&.point Flau-ert, 'hom he sees as the first &reat nineteenth. century e$emplar of )concreti?ed form), a form dependent on supplyin& a &reat deal of visual information/ @is line of en+uiry leads him to ,ames ,oyce 'ho, li%e Flau-ert, respects )the inte&rity of the seen o-Aect and / / / &ives it palpa-le presence apart from the presence of the o-server)/0 This line is pursued -y 'ay of @enry ,ames 'ho attempts )a -alanced distri-ution of emphasis in the renderin& of 'hat is loo%ed at, 'ho is loo%in&, and 'hat the loo%er ma%es of 'hat she Bi/e/ Maisie in What Maisie KnewC sees),! and -y 'ay of the Conrad..(riffith comparison/ *pie&el presses this comparison harder than Bluestone, stressin& that thou&h -oth may have aimed at the same point..a con&ruence of ima&e and concept..they did so from opposite directions/ :hereas (riffith used his ima&es to tell a story, as means to understandin&, Conrad 3*pie&el claims8 'anted the reader to 22222222222222222222
; 9 Duoted in 5e'is ,aco-s, The Rise of the American Film 3@arcourt, Brace: Ne' Eor%, !9!8, !/ (eor&e Bluestone/ Novels into Film 3Fniversity of California Press: Ber%eley and 5os An&eles, !718, / 6 I-id/ 61/ 7 Alan *pie&el, Fiction and the Camera Eye: isual Consciousness in Film and the Modern Novel 3Fniversity Press of Gir&inia: Charlottesville, !1"8/ " >eith Cohen, Film and Fiction: The !ynamics of E"change 3Eale Fniversity Press: Ne' @aven, !1!8/ 1 *pie&el, Fiction and the Camera Eye, p/ $iii/ 0 I-id/ "9/ ! I-id/ 77/

.6.

)))seeH in and throu&h and finally past his lan&ua&e and his narrative concept to the hard, clear -edroc% of ima&es)/ I #ne effect of this stress on the physical surfaces and -ehaviours of o-Aects and fi&ures is to de. emphasi?e the author)s personal narratin& voice so that 'e learn to read the ostensi-ly unmediated visual lan&ua&e of the later nineteenth.century novel in a 'ay that anticipates the vie'er)s e$perience of film 'hich necessarily presents those physical surfaces/ Conrad and ,ames further anticipate the cinema in their capacity for )decomposin&) a scene, for alterin& point of vie' so as to focus more sharply on various aspects of an o-Aect, for e$plorin& a visual field -y fra&mentin& it rather than -y presentin& it sceno&raphically 3i/e/ as if it 'ere a scene from a sta&e presentation8/ Cohen, concerned 'ith the )process of conver&ence) -et'een art.forms, also sees Conrad and ,ames as si&nificant in a comparison of novels and film/ These authors he sees as -rea%in& 'ith the representational novels of the earlier nineteenth century and usherin& in a ne' emphasis on )sho'in& ho' the events unfold dramatically rather than recountin& them)/ The analo&y 'ith film)s narrative procedures 'ill -e clear and there seems no dou-t that film, in turn, has -een hi&hly influential on the modern novel/ Cohen uses passa&es from Proust and Gir&inia :oolf to su&&est ho' the modern novel, influenced -y techni+ues of =isensteinian monta&e cinema, dra's attention to its encodin& processes in 'ays that the Gictorian novel tends not to/

4ic%ens, (riffith, and *tory.Tellin&

The other comparison that trails throu&h the 'ritin& a-out film and literature is that -et'een (riffith and 4ic%ens, 'ho 'as said to -e the director)s favourite novelist/ The most famous account is, of course, that of =isenstein, 'ho compares their )spontaneous childli%e s%ill for story.tellin&), ; a +uality he finds in American cinema at lar&e, their capacity for vivifyin& )-it) characters, the visual po'er of each, their immense popular success, and a-ove all their renderin& of parallel action, for 'hich (riffith cited 4ic%ens as his source/ #n the face of it, there no' seems nothin& so remar%a-le in these formulations to Austify their -ein& so fre+uently paraded as e$amples of the ties that -ind cinema and the Gictorian novel/ In fact =isenstein)s discussion of 4ic%ens)s )cinematic techni+ues), includin& anticipation of such phenomena as frame composition and the close.up, is really not far removed from those many 'or%s 'hich tal% a-out film lan&ua&e, stri%in& similar analo&ical poses, 'ithout &ivin& ade+uate consideration to the +ualitative differences enAoined -y the t'o media/ 5ater commentators have readily em-raced =isenstein)s account: 22222222222222222222
I ; I-id/ pp/ $i.$ii/ Cohen, Film and Fiction, 7 *er&ei =isenstein, Film Form, ed/ and trans/ ,an 5eyda 3 @arcourt, Brace: Ne' Eor%, !6!8, !"/

.7.

Bluestone, for instance, states -oldly that: )(riffith found in 4ic%ens hints for every one of his maAor innovations), 9 and Cohen, &oin& further, points to )the more or less -latant appropriation of the themes and content of the nineteenth.century -our&eois novel)/ 6 @o'ever, in spite of the fre+uency of reference to the 4ic%ens..(riffith connection, and apart from the historical importance of parallel editin& in the development of film narrative, the influence of 4ic%ens has perhaps -een overestimated and under.scrutini?ed/ #ne &ets the impression that critics steeped in a literary culture have fallen on the 4ic%ens.(riffith comparison 'ith a certain relief, perhaps as a 'ay of ar&uin& the cinema)s respecta-ility/ They have tended to concentrate on the thematic interests and the lar&e, formal narrative patterns and strate&ies the t'o &reat narrative.ma%ers shared, rather than to address themselves, as a film.oriented 'riter mi&ht, to detailed +uestions of enunciation, of possi-le parallels and disparities -et'een the t'o different si&nifyin& systems, of the ran&e of )functional e+uivalents) 7 availa-le to each 'ithin the parameters of the classical style as evinced in each medium/ As film came to replace in popularity the representational novel of the earlier nineteenth century, it did so throu&h the application of techni+ues practised -y 'riters at the latter end of the century/ Conrad 'ith his insistence on ma%in& the reader )see) and ,ames 'ith his techni+ue of )restricted consciousness), -oth playin& do'n o-vious authorial mediation in favour of limitin& the point of vie' from 'hich actions and o-Aects are o-served, provide dear e$amples/ In this 'ay they may -e said to have -ro%en 'ith the tradition of )transparency) in relation to the novel)s referential 'orld so that the mode and an&le of vision 'ere as much a part of the novel)s content as 'hat 'as vie'ed/ The comparisons 'ith cinematic techni+ue are clear -ut, parado$ically, the modern novel has not sho'n itself very adapta-le to film/ @o'ever persuasively it may -e demonstrated that the li%es of ,oyce, Faul%ner, and @emin&'ay have dra'n on cinematic techni+ues, the fact is that the cinema has -een more at home 'ith novels from..or descended from..an earlier period/ *imilarly, certain modern plays, such as !eath of a #alesman, E$uus, or M% &utterfly, 'hich seem to o'e somethin& to cinematic techni+ues, have lost a &ood deal of their fluid representations of time and space 'hen transferred to the screen/

Adaptation: The Phenomenon

As soon as the cinema -e&an to see itself as a narrative entertainment, the idea of ransac%in& the novel..that already esta-lished repository of narrative fiction..for source material &ot under'ay, and the process has continued 22222222222222222222
9 6 7 !078, Bluestone, Novels into Film, ;/ Cohen, Film and Fiction, 6/ 4avid Bord'ell term, in The Classical 'ollywood Cinema 3 Joutled&e and >e&an Paul: 5ondon, 9/

.".

more or less una-ated for ninety years/ Film.ma%ers) reasons for this continuin& phenomenon appear to move -et'een the poles of crass commercialism and hi&h.minded respect for literary 'or%s/ No dou-t there is the lure of a pre.sold title, the e$pectation that respecta-ility or popularity achieved in one medium mi&ht infect the 'or% created in another/ The notion of a potentially lucrative )property) has clearly -een at least one maAor influence in the filmin& of novels, and perhaps film.ma%ers, as Frederic Japhael scathin&ly claims, )li%e %no'n +uantities / / / they 'ould sooner -uy the ri&hts of an e$pensive -oo% than develop an ori&inal su-Aect)/ " Nevertheless most of the film.ma%ers on record profess loftier attitudes than these/ 4e:itt Bodeen, co.author of the screenplay for Peter Fstinov &illy &udd 3 !";8, claims that: )Adaptin& literary 'or%s to film is, 'ithout a dou-t, a creative underta%in&, -ut the tas% re+uires a %ind of selective interpretation, alon& 'ith the a-ility to recreate and sustain an esta-lished mood)/ 1 That is, the adaptor should see himself as o'in& alle&iance to the source 'or%/ 4espite Peter Bo&danovich)s disclaimer a-out filmin& @enry ,ames !aisy Miller 3)I don)t thin% it)s a &reat classic story/ I don)t treat it 'ith that %ind of reverence) 08, for much of the time the film is a conscientious visual transliteration of the ori&inal/ #ne does not find film.ma%ers assertin& a -old approach to their source material, any more than announcin& crude financial motives/ As to audiences, 'hatever their complaints a-out this or that violation of the ori&inal, they have continued to 'ant to see 'hat the -oo%s )loo% li%e)/ Constantly creatin& their o'n mental ima&es of the 'orld of a novel and its people, they are interested in comparin& their ima&es 'ith those created -y the film.ma%er/ But, as Christian Met? says, the reader )'ill not al'ays find his film, since 'hat he has -efore him in the actual film is no' some-ody else)s phantasy)/ ! 4espite the uncertainty of &ratification, of findin& audiovisual ima&es that 'ill coincide 'ith their conceptual ima&es, reader. vie'ers persist in providin& audiences for )some-ody else)s phantasy)/ There is also a curious sense that the ver-al account of the people, places, and ideas that ma%e up much of the appeal of novels is simply one renderin& of a set of e$istents 'hich mi&ht Aust as easily -e rendered in another/ In this re&ard, one is reminded of Anthony Bur&ess)s cynical vie' that )=very -est.sellin& novel has to -e turned into a film, the assumption -ein& that the -oo% itself 'hets an appetite for the true fulfilment..the ver-al shado' turned into li&ht, the 'ord made flesh/);I And perhaps there is a parallel 'ith that late 22222222222222222222
" Frederic Japhael, H)Introduction)H, Two for the Road 3,onathan Cape: 5ondon, !"18/ 1 4e:itt Bodeen, H)The Adaptin& Art)H, Films in Review, 6K" 3,une.,uly !"98, 96!/ 0 ,an 4a'son, H)The Continental 4ivide: Filmin& @enry ,ames)H, #ight and #ound, 69K 3:inter !19. 68, 6; repr/ in part as )An Intervie' 'ith Peter Bo&danovich) in (/ Peary and J/ *hat?%in 3eds/8, The Classic American Novel and the Movies 3Frederic% Fn&ar Pu-lishin&: Ne' Eor%, !118/ ! Christian Met?, The (maginary #ignifier 3Indiana Fniversity Press: Bloomin&dale, !118, ;/ ;I Anthony Bur&ess, H)#n the @opelessness of Turnin& (ood Boo%s into Films)H, New )or* Times, ;I Apr !17, p/ 7/

.1.

nineteenth.century phenomenon, descri-ed -y Michael Chanan in The !ream that Kic*s, of illustrated editions of literary 'or%s and illustrated ma&a?ines in 'hich &reat novels first appeared as serials/ There is, it seems, an ur&e to have ver-al concepts -odied forth in perceptual concreteness/ :hatever it is that ma%es film.&oers 'ant to see adaptations of novels, and film.ma%ers to produce them, and 'hatever ha?ards lie in the path for -oth, there is no denyin& the facts/ For instance, Morris BeAa reports that, since the inception of the Academy A'ards in !;1.0, )more than threefourths of the a'ards for H-est pictureH have &one to adaptations / / / Band thatC the all.time -o$.office successes favour novels even more)/; (iven that the novel and the film have -een the most popular narrative modes of the nineteenth and t'entieth centuries respectively, it is perhaps not surprisin& that film.ma%ers have sou&ht to e$ploit the %inds of response e$cited -y the novel and have seen in it a source of ready.made material, in the crude sense of pre.tested stories and characters, 'ithout too much concern for ho' much of the ori&inal)s popularity is intransi&ently tied to its ver-al mode/

The 4iscourse on Adaptation

On being faithful Is it really ),amesian)< Is it )true to 5a'rence)< 4oes it )capture the spirit of 4ic%ens)< At every level from ne'spaper revie's to lon&er essays in critical antholo&ies and Aournals, the adducin& of fidelity to the ori&inal novel as a maAor criterion for Aud&in& the film adaptation is pervasive/ No critical line is in &reater need of re.e$amination..and devaluation/ 4iscussion of adaptation has -een -edevilled -y the fidelity issue, no dou-t ascri-a-le in part to the novel)s comin& first, in part to the in&rained sense of literature)s &reater respecta-ility in traditional critical circles/ As lon& a&o as the mid. !6Is ,ames A&ee complained of a de-ilitatin& reverence in even such superior transpositions to the screen as 4avid 5ean +reat E",ectations/ It seemed to him that the really serious.minded film.&oer)s idea of art 'ould -e )a &ood faithful adaptation of Adam Bede in sepia, 'ith the entire te$t read offscreen -y @er-ert Marshall)/;; @o'ever, voices such as A&ee)s, +uerulously insistin& that the cinema ma%e its o'n art and to hell 'ith tasteful alle&iance, have &enerally cried in the 'ilderness/ Fidelity criticism depends on a notion of the te$t as havin& and renderin& up to the 3intelli&ent8 reader a sin&le, correct )meanin&) 'hich the filmma%er has either adhered to or in some sense violated or tampered 'ith/ There 'ill often -e a distinction -et'een -ein& faithful to the )letter), an 22222222222222222222
; ;; Morris BeAa, Film and -iterature 3 5on&man: Ne' Eor%, !1!8, 10/ Agee on Film 3Mc4o'ell #-lons%y: Ne' Eor%, !708, ; "/

.0.

approach 'hich the more sophisticated 'riter may su&&est is no 'ay to ensure a )successful) adaptation, and to the )spirit) or )essence) of the 'or%/ The latter is of course very much more difficult to determine since it involves not merely a parallelism -et'een novel and film -ut -et'een t'o or more readin&s of a novel, since any &iven film version is a-le only to aim at reproducin& the film.ma%er)s readin& of the ori&inal and to hope that it 'ill coincide 'ith that of many other readersKvie'ers/ *ince such coincidence is unli%ely, the fidelity approach seems a doomed enterprise and fidelity criticism unilluminatin&/ That is, the critic 'ho +ui--les at failures of fidelity is really sayin& no more than: )This readin& of the ori&inal does not tally 'ith mine in these and these 'ays/) Fe' 'riters on adaptation have specifically +uestioned the possi-ility of fidelity; thou&h some have claimed not to em-race it, they still re&ard it as a via-le choice for the film.ma%er and a criterion for the critic/ BeAa is one e$ception/ In as%in& 'hether there are )&uidin& principles) for film.ma%ers adaptin& literature, he as%s: ):hat relationship should a film have to the ori&inal source< *hould it -e HfaithfulH< Can it -e< To 'hat<);9 :hen BeAa as%s )To 'hat) should a film.ma%er -e faithful in adaptin& a novel, one is led to recall those efforts at fidelity to times and places remote from present.day life/ In )period) films, one often senses e$haustive attempts to create an impression of fidelity to, say 4ic%ens)s 5ondon or to ,ane Austen)s villa&e life, the result of 'hich, so far from ensurin& fidelity to the te$t, is to produce a distractin& +uaintness/ :hat 'as a contemporary 'or% for the author, 'ho could ta%e a &ood deal relatin& to time and place for &ranted, as re+uirin& little or no scene.settin& for his readers, has -ecome a period piece for the film.ma%er/ As early as !;0, M/ :illson 4isher pic%ed up the scent of this misplaced fidelity in 'ritin& a-out a version of Ro.inson Crusoe: )Mr :etherell Bdirector, producer, 'riter and starC 'ent all the 'ay to To-a&o to shoot the ri&ht %inds of cree%s and caves, -ut he should have travelled not 'est'ards, -ut -ac%'ards, to reach Hthe islandH, and then he 'ould have arrived 'ith the ri&ht sort of lu&&a&e/L;6 4isher is not spea%in& a&ainst fidelity to the ori&inal as such -ut a&ainst a misconstrued notion of ho' it mi&ht -e achieved/ A more recent e$ample is Peter Bo&danovich)s use of the thermal -aths se+uence in his film of !aisy Miller/ )The mi$ed -athin& is authentically of the period), he claims in an intervie' 'ith ,an 4a'son/;7 Authentically of the period, perhaps, -ut not so of @enry ,ames, so that it is only a tan&ential, possi-ly irrelevant fidelity that is arrived at/ The issue of fidelity is a comple$ one -ut it is not too &ross a simplification to su&&est that critics have encoura&ed film.ma%ers to see it as a desira-le &oal in the adaptation of literary 'or%s/ As Christopher #rr has noted: )The concern 22222222222222222222
;9 ;6 ;7 BeAa, Film and -iterature/ 0I/ M/ :illson 4isher, H)Classics into Films)H, Fortnightly Review, N* ;6 3 4ec !;08, 10!/ 4a'son, )The Continental 4ivide) , 6/

.!.

'ith the fidelity of the adapted film in letter and spirit to its literary source has un+uestiona-ly dominated the discourse on adaptation/);" The issue is inevita-ly raised in each of the succeedin& Case.*tudies, and is the o-Aect of a *pecial Focus in the study of !aisy Miller, 'hich offers revealin& insi&hts into the limits of fidelity, especially from the film.ma%er)s point of vie'/ Obscuring other issues The insistence on fidelity has led to a suppression of potentially more re'ardin& approaches to the phenomenon of adaptation/ It tends to i&nore the idea of adaptation as an e$ample of conver&ence amon& the arts, perhaps a desira-le..even inevita-le..process in a rich culture; it fails to ta%e into serious account 'hat may -e transferred from novel to film as distinct from 'hat 'ill re+uire more comple$ processes of adaptation; and it mar&inali?es those production determinants 'hich have nothin& to do 'ith the novel -ut may -e po'erfully influential upon the film/ A'areness of such issues 'ould -e more useful than those many accounts of ho' films )reduce) &reat novels/ Modern critical notions of interte$tuality represent a more sophisticated approach, in relation to adaptation, to the idea of the ori&inal novel as a )resource)/ As Christopher #rr remar%s: ):ithin this critical conte$t Bi/e/ of interte$tualityC, the issue is not 'hether the adapted film is faithful to its source, -ut rather ho' the choice of a specific source and ho' the approach to that source serve the film)s ideolo&y/);1 :hen, for instance, M(M filmed ,ames @ilton !6 -estseller, Random 'arvest, in the follo'in& year, its ima&es of an unchan&in& =n&land had as much to do 'ith @olly'ood antiisolationism 'ith re&ard to :orld :ar II as 'ith findin& visual e+uivalents for anythin& in @ilton/ The film -elon&s to a rich conte$t created -y notions of @olly'ood)s =n&land, -y M(M)s reputation for presti&ious literary adaptation and for a &lossy )house style), -y the &enre of romantic melodrama 3cf/ Re.ecca, !6I, This A.ove All, !6;8, and -y the idea of the star vehicle/ @ilton)s popular -ut, in truth, undistin&uished romance is -ut one element of the film)s interte$tuality/ *ome 'riters have proposed strate&ies 'hich see% to cate&ori?e adaptations so that fidelity to the ori&inal loses some of its privile&ed position/ (eoffrey :a&ner su&&ests three possi-le cate&ories 'hich are open to the film.ma%er and to the critic assessin& his adaptation: he calls these 3 a 8 transposition, )in 'hich a novel is &iven directly on the screen 'ith a minimum of apparent interference);;0 3 - 8 commentary, )'here an ori&inal is ta%en and either purposely or inadvertently altered in some respect / / / 'hen there has 22222222222222222222
;" Christopher #rr, H)The 4iscourse on Adaptation)H, Wide Angle, "K; 3 !068, ;1 I-id/ ;0 (eoffrey :a&ner, The Novel and the Cinema 3Fairlei&h 4ic%inson Fniversity Press: Jutherford, N,, !178, ;;;/

. I.

-een a different intention on the part of the film.ma%er, rather than infidelity or outri&ht violation);;! and 3 c 8 analo&y, 'hich must represent a fairly considera-le departure for the sa%e of ma%in& another 'or% of art)/9I The critic, he implies, 'ill need to understand 'hich %ind of adaptation he is dealin& 'ith if his commentary on an individual film is to -e valua-le/ 4udley Andre' also reduces the modes of relation -et'een the film and its source novel to three, 'hich correspond rou&hly 3-ut in reverse order of adherence to the ori&inal8 to :a&ner)s cate&ories: )Borro'in&, intersection, and fidelity of transformation)/9 And there is a third compara-le classification system put for'ard -y Michael >lein and (illian Par%er: first, )fidelity to the main thrust of the narrative); second, the approach 'hich )retains the core of the structure of the narrative 'hile si&nificantly reinterpretin& or, in some cases, deconstructin& the source te$t); and, third, re&ardin& )the source merely as ra' material, as simply the occasion for an ori&inal 'or%)/9; The parallel 'ith :a&ner)s cate&ories is clear/ There is nothin& definitive a-out these attempts at classification -ut at least they represent some heartenin& challen&es to the primacy of fidelity as a critical criterion/ Further, they imply that, unless the %ind of adaptation is identified, critical evaluation may 'ell -e 'ide of the mar%/ The faithful adaptation 3e/&/ !aisy Miller or ,ames Ivory 'oward/s End, !!;8 can certainly -e intelli&ent and attractive, -ut is not necessarily to -e preferred to the film 'hich sees the ori&inal as )ra' material) to -e re'or%ed, as @itchcoc% so persistently did, from, say, #a.otage 3 !9"8 to The &irds 3 !"98/ :ho, indeed, ever thin%s of @itchcoc% as primarily an adaptor of other people)s fictions< At a further e$treme, it is possi-le to thin% of a film as providin& a commentary on a literary te$t, as :elles does on three *ha%espearian plays in Chimes at Midnight 3 !""8, or as (us Gan *ant does in My 0wn 1rivate (daho 3 !!;8, dra'in& on -oth *ha%espeare and :elles/ There are many %inds of relations 'hich may e$ist -et'een film and literature, and fidelity is only one.. and rarely the most e$citin&/ REDEFINING ISSUES AND A NEW A ROAC!

The Centrality of Narrative

The more one considers the phenomenon of adaptation of novel into film the 'hole history of the reliance on the novel as source material for the fiction film..the more one is dra'n to consider the central importance of 22222222222222222222
;! I-id/ ;;6/ 9I I-id/ ;;"/ 9 4udley Andre', )The :ell.:orn Muse: Adaptation in Film @istory and Theory) , in *yndy Con&er and ,anice J/ :elsch 3eds/8, Narrative #trategies 3 :est Illinois Fniversity Press: Macom-, Ill/, !0I8, I/ 9; Michael >lein and (illian Par%er 3eds/8, The English Novel and the Movies 3 Frederic% Fn&ar Pu-lishin&: Ne' Eor%, !0 8, !. I/

narrative to -oth/ :hatever the cinema)s sources..as an invention, as a leisure pursuit, or as a means of e$pression..and 'hatever uncertainties a-out its development attend its earliest years, its hu&e and dura-le popularity is o'ed to 'hat it most o-viously shares 'ith the novel/ That is, its capacity for narrative/ By the time of =d'in Porter The +reat Train Ro..ery 3 !I98, in 'hich scenes set in different locations are spliced to&ether to tell a story, the cinema)s future as a narrative art 'as settled, and no su-se+uent development of its techni+ues has threatened the supremacy of that function/ Christian Met?, discussin& film narrativity, 'rites: )Film tells us continuous stories; it HsaysH thin&s that could -e conveyed also in the lan&ua&e of 'ords; yet it says them differently/ There is a reason for the possi-ility as 'ell as for the necessity of adaptations/)99 @e &oes on to consider the )demand) for the feature.len&th fiction film, )'hich 'as only one of the many conceiva-le &enres),96 -ut 'hich has dominated film production/ )The -asic formula, 'hich has never chan&ed, is the one that consists in ma%in& a lar&e continuous unit that tells a story and callin& it a HmovieH/ H(oin& to the moviesH is &oin& to see this type of story/)97 :hatever other uses the cinema mi&ht have found, it is, as Met? su&&ests, as a story.teller that it found its &reatest po'er and its lar&est audience/ Its em-our&eoisement inevita-ly led it a'ay from tric% sho's, the recordin& of music halls acts and the li%e, to'ards that narrative representationalism 'hich had reached a pea% in the classic nineteenth. century novel/ If film did not &ro' out of the latter, it &re' to'ards it; and 'hat novels and films most stri%in&ly have in common is the potential and propensity for narrative/ And narrative, at certain levels, is undenia-ly not only the chief factor novels and the films -ased on them have in common -ut is the chief transfera-le element/ If one descri-es a narrative as a series of events, causally lin%ed, involvin& a continuin& set of characters 'hich influence and are influenced -y the course of events, one reali?es that such a description mi&ht apply e+ually to a narrative displayed in a literary te$t and to one in a filmic te$t/ Nevertheless, much of the dissatisfaction 'hich accompanies the 'ritin& a-out films adapted from novels tends to sprin& from perceptions of )tamperin&) 'ith the ori&inal narrative/ :ords li%e )tamperin&) and )interference), and even )violation), &ive the 'hole process an air of deeply sinister molestation, perhaps sprin&in& from the vie'er)s th'arted e$pectations relatin& to -oth character and event/ *uch dissatisfactions resonate 'ith a comple$ set of misapprehensions a-out the 'or%in&s of narrative in the t'o media, a-out the irreduci-le differences -et'een the t'o, and from a failure to distin&uish 'hat can from 'hat cannot -e transferred/ 22222222222222222222
99 Christian Met?, Film -anguage: A #emiotics of the Cinema , trans/ Michael Taylor 3 #$ford Fniversity Press: Ne' Eor%, !168, 66/ 96 I-id/ 97 I-id/ 67/

. ;.

To -e&in 'ith the last point: there is a distinction to -e made -et'een 'hat may -e transferred from one narrative medium to another and 'hat necessarily re+uires adaptation proper/ Throu&hout the rest of this study, )transfer) 'ill -e used to denote the process 'here-y certain narrative elements of novels are revealed as amena-le to display in film, 'hereas the 'idely used term )adaptation) 'ill refer to the processes -y 'hich other novelistic elements must find +uite different e+uivalences in the film medium, 'hen such e+uivalences are sou&ht or are availa-le at all/

Narrative Functions: Novel and Film

Joland Barthes has defined the essence of a narrative function as )the seed that it so's in the narrative, plantin& an element that 'ill come to fruition later..either on the same BnarrativeC level or else'here, on another level),9" &oin& on to claim that, )A narrative is never made up of anythin& other than functions: in differin& de&rees, everythin& in it si&nifies/) @e distin&uishes t'o main &roups of narrative functions: distri-utional and inte&rational and, thou&h he is not concerned 'ith cinema in this discussion, this distinction is valua-le in sortin& out 'hat may -e transferred 3i/e/ from novel to film8 from that 'hich may only -e adapted/ To distri-utional functions, Barthes &ives the name of functions proper ; inte&rational functions he calls indices/ The former refer to actions and events; they are )hori?ontal) in nature, and they are strun& to&ether linearly throu&hout the te$t; they have to do 'ith )operations); they refer to a functionality of doin&/ Indices denotes a )more or less diffuse concept 'hich is nevertheless necessary to the meanin& of the story)/91 This concept em-races, for instance, psycholo&ical information relatin& to characters, data re&ardin& their identity, notations of atmosphere and representations of place/ Indices are )vertical) in nature, influencin& our readin& of narrative in a pervasive rather than a linear 'ay; they do not refer to operations -ut to a functionality of -ein&/ The most important %inds of transfer possi-le from novel to film are located in the cate&ory of functions proper, rather than that of indices, thou&h some elements of the latter 'ill also -e seen to -e 3partly8 transfera-le/ Barthes further su-divides functions to include cardinal functions 3or nuclei8 and catalysers/ Cardinal functions are the )hin&e.points) of narrative: that is, the actions they refer to open up alternatives of conse+uence to the development of the story; they create )ris%y) moments in the narrative and it is crucial to narrativity 3)the processes throu&h 'hich the reader / / / constructs the meanin& of the te$t)908 that the reader reco&ni?es the possi-ility of 22222222222222222222
9" Joland Barthes, )Introduction to the *tructural Analysis of Narratives) 3 !""8, in (mage2Music2Te"t, trans/ *tephen @eath 3 FontanaKCollins: (las&o', !118/ 0!/ 91 I-id/ !;/ 90 #rr, )The 4iscourse on Adaptation) , 19/

. 9.

such alternative conse+uences/ The lin%in& to&ether of cardinal functions provides the irreduci-le -are -ones of the narrative, and this lin%in&, this )tie -et'een t'o cardinal functions, is invested 'ith a dou-le functionality, at once chronolo&ical and lo&ical)/9! These cardinal functions, or, in *eymour Chatman)s terms, %ernels 3)narrative moments that &ive rise to cru$es in the direction ta%en -y events)6I8, are, as I shall sho', transfera-le: 'hen a maAor cardinal function is deleted or altered in the film version of a novel 3e/&/ to provide a happy rather than a som-re endin&8, this is apt to occasion critical outra&e and popular disaffection/ The film.ma%er -ent on )faithful) adaptation must, as a -asis for such an enterprise, see% to preserve the maAor cardinal functions/ @o'ever, even if the latter are preserved in the filmin& process, they can -e )deformed) -y varyin& the catalysers 'hich surround them/ Catalysers 3in Chatman)s term, satellites8 'or% in 'ays 'hich are complementary to and supportive of the cardinal functions/ They denote small actions 3e/&/ the layin& of the ta-le for a meal 'hich may in turn &ive rise to action of cardinal importance to the story8; their role is to root the cardinal functions in a particular %ind of reality, to enrich the te$ture of those functions: )their functionality is attenuated, unilateral, parasitic: it is a +uestion of a purely chronolo&ical functionality), 6 in Barthes)s 'ords/ Fnli%e the )ris%y moments) created -y cardinal functions, the catalysers )lay out areas of safety, rests, lu$uries);6; they account for the moment.to. moment minutiae of narrative/ In so far as these functions, 'hether cardinal or catalysin&, are not dependent on lan&ua&e, in the sense that they denote aspects of story content 3actions and happenin&s8 'hich may -e displayed ver-ally or audio.visually, they are directly transfera-le from one medium to the other/ Amon& the inte&rational functions, 'hich Barthes su-divides into indices proper and informants, only the latter may -e directly transferred/ :hereas the former relate to concepts such as character and atmosphere, are more diffuse than the functions proper, and are therefore more -roadly open to adaptation rather than to the comparative directness of transfer, informants )are pure data 'ith immediate si&nification)/69 They include )ready.made %no'led&e) such as the names, a&es, and professions of characters, certain details of the physical settin&, and, in these senses and in their o'n 'ays, share the authenticatin& and individuatin& functions performed in other respects -y catalysers, and they are often amena-le to transfer from one medium to another/ :hat Barthes desi&nates as cardinal functions and catalysers consti. 22222222222222222222
9! Barthes, )Introduction to the *tructural Analysis of Narratives) , !6/ 6I *eymour Chatman, #tory and !iscourse: Narrative #tructure in Fiction and Film 3 Cornell Fniversity Press: Ithaca, NE, !108, 79/ 6 Barthes, )Introduction to the *tructural Analysis of Narratives) , !6/ 6; I-id/ !7/ 69 I-id/ !"/

. 6.

tutes the formal content of narrative 'hich may -e considered independently of 'hat Chatman calls )its manifestin& su-stance) 3e/&/ novel or film8, and informants, in their o-Aective name.a-ility, help to em-ed this formal content in a reali?ed 'orld, &ivin& specificity to its a-straction/ Perhaps informants may -e seen as a first, small step to'ards mimesis in novel and film, the full mimetic process relyin& heavily on the functionin& of the indices proper, to 'hich I shall return shortly/ I should note at this point that Barthes has su-se+uently modified the structural ta$onomy set up here 'ith his desi&nation of the five narrative codes 'hich structure all classical narrative in *KM, his readin& of Bal?ac *arrasine/ For my purposes, the earlier distinction -et'een distri-utional and inte&rational functions, 'ith the metaphors implied in their characteri?ation, provides a more accessi-le and usa-le ta$onomy in esta-lishin& 'hat may -e transferred from a lon&, comple$ 'or% in one medium to a lon&, comple$ 'or% in another/ Barthes 'as not, of course, concerned 'ith cinematic narrative 'hen he 'rote his )*tructural Analysis) essay, -ut, in Jo-in :ood)s 'ords, )the critic has the ri&ht to appropriate 'hatever)sKhe needs from 'herever it can -e found, and use it for purposes some'hat different from the ori&inal ones)/66

>inds of Narration and their Cinematic Potential

The distinctions to -e dra'n -et'een various narrational modes as they appear in the novel are difficult to sustain in film narrative/ The novels chosen as case.studies in this -oo% e$hi-it nota-ly different approaches to the +uestion of narrative point of vie': for e$ample, first.person, omnis. cient, a mi$ture of -oth, the use of )restricted consciousness)/ @o'ever, these different approaches are considera-ly elided in the narrational procedures adopted -y the films, a matter to -e investi&ated in detail in Part II of this study/ It is sufficient to dra' attention at this point to the varyin& amena-ility to cinematic practice of these %inds of literary narration/ "he first#$erson narration There is only a precarious analo&y -et'een the attempts at first.person narration offered -y films and the novel)s first.person narration, comprisin& the individual discourses of each character surrounded -y a continuin& 3&enerally past.tense8 discourse 'hich is attri-uted to a %no'n and named narrator 'ho may or may not -e an active participant in the events of the novel/ These attempts 'ill usually -e one of t'o %inds/ 22222222222222222222
66 Jo-in :ood, )Notes for a Jeadin& of I :al%ed 'ith a Mom-ie) , CineAction3 , 9.6 3 :inter !0"8, !/

. 7.

3a8 "he sub%ecti&e cine'a The su-Aective cinema on the scale of The -ady in the -a*e 3 !6"8 has scarcely -een tried since, in mainstream film.ma%in& at least, and has the status of a curiosity rather than of a maAor contri-ution to screen practice/ #f its more locali?ed manifestations 3e/&/ the point. of.vie' shot or succession of shots8, screen narration has clearly made much use, as in Alan Brid&es) film version of Je-ecca :est)s novella The Return of the #oldier 3 !0;8, in 'hich the first. person narration of the ori&inal is reduced to allo'in& the novel)s narrator a preponderance of point. of.vie' shots/ @o'ever, a )preponderance) is -y no means e+uivalent to the continuin& shapin&, analysin&, directin& consciousness of a first.person narrator/ Further, as Thomas =lsaesser has noted, )The su-Aective perception ..'hat the characters themselves see and ho' they e$perience it.. is inte&rated 'ith an o-Aective presentation of these individual points of vie' and 'hat they si&nify inside the same narrative movement and the continuous action/)67 :hile cinema may -e more a&ile and fle$i-le in chan&in& the physical point of vie' from 'hich an event or o-Aect is seen, it is much less amena-le to the presentation of a consistent psycholo&ical vie'point derived from one character/ 3-8 Oral narration or &oice#o&er The device of oral narration, or voice.over, may serve important narrative functions in film 3e/&/ reinforcin& a sense of past tense8 -ut, -y virtual necessity, it cannot -e more than intermittent as distinct from the continuin& nature of the novelistic first.person narration/ 3:oody Allen Radio !ays 3 !018 is one of the fe' films that 'ould -e incomprehensi-le 'ithout its voice.over/8 In usual film practice, the narratin& voice.over may -e dropped for se+uences at a time: in fact, a sustained, non.die&etic oral accompaniment to visually presented action is scarcely feasi-le in relation to the feature films 'ith 'hich this study 3li%e most cinema audiences8 is concerned/ Those 'ords spo%en in voice.over accompany ima&es 'hich necessarily ta%e on an o-Aective life of their o'n/ #ne no lon&er has the sense of everythin&)s -ein& filtered throu&h the consciousness of the prota&onist.spea%er: even in a film such as 4avid 5ean +reat E",ectations, 'hich &oes to unusual len&ths to retain the novel)s )first.person) approach, the &rotes+ues 'ho people Pip)s 'orld are no lon&er presented to the vie'er as an individual)s su-Aective impressions/ #ne no' sees everythin& the camera )sees), not Aust 'hat impressed itself on the hero.narrator)s ima&inative responsiveness/ In relation to those films 'hich employ the voice. over techni+ue, one)s sense of the character to 'hom it is attri-uted is more li%ely to -e the product of his involvement in the action directly presented than of his occasional comment upon it, 'hereas this is fre+uently not the case in the first.person novel/ 22222222222222222222
67 Thomas =lsaesser, )Film and the Novel: Jeality and Jealism of the Cinema) , Twentieth Century #tudies/ ! 3 *ept !198, " /

. ".

"he o'niscient no&el The narrative in such a novel is conveyed throu&h t'o %inds of discourses: those attri-uted to various characters in direct speech 3Colin MacCa-e)s )o-Aect lan&ua&e)6"8 and that of the narrative 3I should prefer )narratin&)8 prose, the apparently authoritative )metalan&ua&e) 'hich surrounds them/ It is this latter 'hich &uides our readin& of the direct speech of the characters/ MacCa-e &oes on to construct an analo&y -et'een these t'o %inds of discourse as they appear in the novel and in the film: The narrative prose achieves its position of dominance -ecause it is in the position of %no'led&e and this function of %no'led&e is ta%en up in the cinema -y the narration of events/ Throu&h the %no'led&e 'e &ain from the narrative 'e can split the discourses of the various characters from their situation and compare 'hat is said in those discourses 'ith 'hat has -een revealed to us throu&h narration/ The camera sho's us 'hat happens..it tells the truth a&ainst 'hich 'e can measure the discourses/61 )The camera sho's us 'hat happens / / /)/ 4avid Bord'ell has ta%en issue 'ith MacCa-e)s hierarchy of discourses, -oth for its oversimplification of the classic realist novel and for the 'ay in 'hich it )reduceBsC the ran&e of filmic narration)/ @e particularly challen&es MacCa-e)s )privile&in& of camera 'or% / / / over other film techni+ues), claimin& that )all materials of cinema function narrationally..not only camera -ut speech, &esture, 'ritten lan&ua&e, music, color, optical processes, li&htin&, costume, even offscreen space and offscreen sound)/60 There is a certain captiousness in Bord'ell)s response since, it seems to me at least, MacCa-e)s use of )the camera) is a shorthand 'ay of referrin& to all those narrational materials 'hich the camera can sho' or imply: that is, all from Bord'ell)s list e$cept those 'hich relate to soundtrac%, 'hich can, of course, initiate a tension 'ith the visual ima&e/ Clearly, certain functions of the narratin& prose, such as esta-lishin& settin& and physical appearance of characters, can -e achieved throu&h the film)s mise. en.scNne/ #ther functions, such as those 'hich ena-le us, throu&h the 'riter)s tone, to evaluate a character)s speech, seem less immediately amena-le to the camera)s eye/ The camera in this sense -ecomes the narrator -y, for instance, focusin& on such aspects of mise.en.scNne as the 'ay actors loo%, move, &esture, or are costumed, or on the 'ays in 'hich they are positioned in a scene or on ho' they are photo&raphed: in these 'ays the camera may catch a )truth) 'hich comments on and +ualifies 'hat the characters actually say/ It is, ho'ever, too simple to su&&est that the mise.en.scNne, or its deployment -y the cinematic codes 3nota-ly that of monta&e8, can effortlessly 22222222222222222222
6" !168, 61 60 Colin MacCa-e, )Jealism and the Cinema: Notes on *ome Brechtian Theses) , #creen 7K; 3 *ummer I/ I-id/ 4avid Bord'ell, Narration in the Fiction Film 3 Methuen: 5ondon, !078, ;I/

. 1.

appropriate the role of the omniscient, inaudi-le narrator, or that the camera 3to interpret MacCa-e more narro'ly8, -y )sho'Bin&C 'hat happens), replaces such a narrator/ For one thin& 3and a very o-vious one8 the camera here used metonymically to denote its operator and 'hoever is tellin& him 'hat to aim it at, and ho'..is outside the total discourse of the film, 'hereas the omniscient narrator is ine$trica-ly a part of the novel)s/ #r perhaps it is truer to say that the omniscient narration is ine$trica-ly part of the novel)s total discourse, as much so as the spo%en 'ords of the characters/ 3@o'ever, 'hereas the latter..the spo%en 'ords..can, if a film.ma%er 'ants them to, -e rendered 'ord for 'ord -y the characters in the film, clearly no such possi-ility e$ists for the narration: for that narrational prose to 'hich, in most novels, 'e allo' a privile&ed position of %no'led&e a-out characters, periods, places; %no'led&e 'hich may in fact -e concealed from characters in the novel/8 By e$ercisin& control over the mise.en.scNne and soundtrac% or throu&h the manipulations of editin&, the film.ma%er can adapt some of the functions of this narrational prose/ The latter may indicate adver-ially the tone of voice in 'hich a remar% is made -y a character; the camera, on the other hand, may re&ister a similar effect throu&h attention to the actor)s facial e$pression or posture 3i/e/ aspects of the mise.en.scNne8, or -y cuttin& so as to reveal a response to such a remar% 3i/e/ throu&h monta&e8 'hich 'ill &uide the vie'er)s perception of the remar%, as 'ell as throu&h the actor)s vocal inflection 3i/e/ throu&h sound.trac%8/ In re&ard to renderin& on film the descriptive functions of narratin& prose, relatin& to places, o-Aects, activities, there is perhaps a stron&er possi-ility of the ne' 3cinematic8 reality at once displacin& the earlier 3ver-ally created8 reality; in matters relatin& to character and to the psycholo&ical action involvin& characters, the situation is more comple$/ There is, in film, no such instantly apparent, instantly availa-le commentary on the action unfoldin& as the novel)s narratin& prose ha-itually offers/ In the omniscient novel, in 'hich this prose is not )suspect) in the sense of -elon&in& to a first.person narrator, the continuin& mediation -et'een the reader and the action of the novel is, -y virtue of its privile&ed status as )%no'led&e), the reader)s &uarantee of the )truth) of the proceedin&s/ In a sense, all films are omniscient: even 'hen they employ a voice.over techni+ue as a means of simulatin& the first person novelistic approach, the vie'er is a'are, as indicated earlier, of a level of o-Aectivity in 'hat is sho'n, 'hich may include 'hat the prota&onist sees -ut cannot help includin& a &reat deal else as 'ell/ "he 'o(e of )restricte( consciousness) In -road terms, it appears that neither first.person nor omniscient narration is, of its nature, amena-le to cinematic narrative/ Both seem al'ays to %no' too much, or at least to %no' more than 'e feel is %no'n in advance -y the . 0.

more directly e$perienced film narrative; and this sense of fore%no'led&e is no dou-t intimately connected to the characteristic past.tense renderin& of the prose narrative as opposed to the perceptual immediacy of the film/ The novelistic form of the restricted consciousness 3as in !aisy Miller8 perhaps appro$imates most closely to the cinematic narrative mode/ Cohen, in discussin& the techni+ues of Conrad and ,ames, and ma%in& comparisons 'ith impressionist painters, 'rites: The indirect approach of these novelists BConrad and Ford Mado$ FordC is not fully comprehensi-le 'ithout reference to their unconventional handlin& of point of vie'/ / / / The reader, one mi&ht say, is constantly forced to pass throu&h several fore&rounds -efore he can ma%e out clearly 'hat is loomin& in the -ac%&round/ / / / The same -asic mechanism is operative 'ith ,ames)s )central reflectors) throu&h 'hom all or nearly all of the action ta%es place/6! *uch )central reflectors)..for e$ample, *trether in The Am.assadors, :inter-oume in !aisy Miller ..provide a point of identification for the reader, not necessarily in the affective sense -ut as a more or less consistently placed vanta&e.point from 'hich to o-serve the action of the narrative/ #ne is conscious al'ays that there is a more comprehensive point of vie' than that availa-le to such prota&onists; that there is, as it 'ere, a narrator loo%in& over their shoulder, in the 'ay that the camera may vie' an action over the shoulder of a character in the fore&round of a shot, &ivin& the vie'er -oth the character)s point of vie' and a sli&htly 'ider point of vie' 'hich includes the character/ The ,amesian concept of the )centre of consciousness), -y no means to -e confused 'ith narrational omniscience or the latter)s o-literation -y first.person narration, is perhaps the nearest that film may come in the direction of either first. or third.person narration/ Its use 'ill -e e$amined in more detail in the case.study of !aisy Miller/

A Note on Terminolo&y
The fore&oin& distinctions considered under the headin&s of )Narrative Functions) and )>inds of Narration) may -e summari?ed as those -et'een a series of events se+uentially and conse+uentially arran&ed and the modes 3more easily distin&uisha-le in literary terms8 of their presentation/ This distinction -et'een narrative and narration finds rou&h parallels in that -et'een story and discourse/ The latter pair.. histoire and discours in modern French poetic..derives from the Jussian Formalist distinction of the !;Is )-et'een fa-ula ..the story.material as pure chronolo&ical se+uence..and su?et, the plot as arran&ed and edited -y the shapin& of a story.teller, i/e/ the finished narrative 'or% as 'e e$perience it in a te$t; no lon&er pure story -ut 22222222222222222222
6! Cohen, Film and Fiction, 97/

. !.

a selective narrative act),7I in Jo&er Fo'ler)s 'ords/ @istoire and discours he &oes on to define as )story.matter and its manner of delivery)/7 In the proliferatin& terminolo&y of film theory, a further parallel fre+uently su-sumes the cate&ories referred to a-ove in discussions of enunciated and enunciation/ #f these terms, ori&inatin& 'ith the lin&uist Omile Benveniste, the former desi&nates the )utterance) 3l)PnoncP8 as manifested in )a stretch of te$t)7; 34avid Bord'ell)s phrase8, as a coherent set of events enacted in a series of synta&matic units, as the sum of its narrative functions/ The latter, the enunciation 3l)Pnonciation8, characteri?es the process that creates, releases, shapes 3I am a'are of &ropin& for e$actly the ri&ht 'ord8 the )utterance)/ =nunciation, that is, refers to the 'ays in 'hich the utterance is mediated, and, as such, o-viously shares common &round 'ith narration, su?et, and discourse/ Neither film nor novel is )transparent), ho'ever much either see%s to suppress si&ns of its enunciation, such )suppression) -ein& much more mar%ed in the case of film/ Film may lac% those literary mar%s of enunciation such as person and tense, -ut in the 'ays in 'hich, for e$ample, shots are an&led and framed and related to each other 3i/e/ in matters relatin& to mise.en.scNne and monta&e8 the enunciatory processes are inscri-ed/ The institutional codes and their often hi&hly individual deployment -y different film.ma%ers can either minimi?e or fore&round the processes of cinematic enunciation -ut they cannot eradicate them, even 'hen, as Met? 'rites, )films &ive us the feelin& that 'e are 'itnessin& almost a real spectacle)/79 Film enunciation, in relation to the transposition of novels to the screen, is a matter of adaptation proper, not of transfer/ In the case.studies offered -elo', it 'ill -e considered in relation to ho' far the films concerned e$hi-it the interaction of cinema.specific and e$tra.cinematic codes, and to 'hat e$tent they provide..or see% to provide..e+uivalences for the enunciatory procedures of the novels on 'hich they are -ased/ An essential function of this study 'ill -e to distin&uish -et'een: i/ those elements of the ori&inal novel 'hich are transfera-le -ecause not tied to one or other semiotic system..that is, essentially, narrative ; and ii/ those 'hich involve intricate processes of adaptation -ecause their effects are closely tied to the semiotic system in 'hich they are manifested..that is, enunciation/ I have preferred )enunciation), finally, to )narration) -ecause the latter is too often attached, in a limitin& 'ay, to matters of person and tense/ By enunciation, I mean the 'hole e$pressive apparatus that &overns the presentation and reception..of the narrative/ 22222222222222222222
7I 7 7; 79 Jo&er Fo'ler, -inguistic and the Novel 3 Methuen: 5ondon, !118, 10.!/ I-id/ 1!/ Bord'ell, Narration in the Fiction Film, ; / Met?, (maginary #ignifier, 6/

.;I.

:hat is Fnderstood -y Adaptation

The )distinctive feature) of adaptation, asserts 4udley Andre', is )the matchin& of the cinematic si&n system to a prior achievement in some other system)/ @e claims that )=very representational film adapts a prior conception / / / B-ut thatC Adaptation delimits representation -y insistin& on the cultural status of the model / / / in a stron& sense adaptation is the appropriation of a meanin& from a prior te$t)/76 The )matchin&) and the )appropriation) referred to are in the interests of replacin& one illusion of reality -y another/ :hatever claims of fidelity and authenticity are made -y film.ma%ers, 'hat these essentially amount to are the effacement of the memory derived from readin& the novel -y another e$perience..an audio.visual.ver-al one.'hich 'ill seem, as little as possi-le, to Aar 'ith that collective memory/ It see%s, 'ith one concreti?ed response to a 'ritten 'or%, to coincide 'ith a &reat multiplicity of responses to the ori&inal/ Its aim is to offer a perceptual e$perience that corresponds 'ith one arrived at conceptually/ The %inds of complaints directed at film adaptations of classic or popular novels, across a 'ide ran&e of critical levels, indicate ho' rarely the )appropriation of meanin& from a prior te$t) is fully achieved..even 'hen it is sou&ht/ Fnderlyin& the processes su&&ested here, in the manufacture of the more or less faithful film version at least, are those of transferrin& the novel)s narrative -asis and of adaptin& those aspects of its enunciation 'hich are held to -e important to retain, -ut 'hich resist transfer, so as to achieve, throu&h +uite different means of si&nification and reception, affective responses that evo%e the vie'er)s memory of the ori&inal te$t 'ithout doin& violence to it/ The precedin& para&raph of course su&&ests 3'ron&ly8 that the film adaptation 'ill reach only vie'ers 'ho are familiar 'ith the novel/ The very fact that this is not the case ou&ht to -e a deterrent to the fidelity.see%in& critics, indicatin& that there is a varyin&, -ut lar&e, se&ment of the audience to 'hom an adaptation is of no more conse+uence or interest as such than any other film/ The stress on fidelity to the ori&inal undervalues other aspects of the film)s interte$tuality/ By this, I mean those non.literary, non.novelistic influences at 'or% on any film, 'hether or not it is -ased on a novel/ To say that a film is -ased on a novel is to dra' attention to one..and, for many people, a crucial..element of its interte$tuality, -ut it can never -e the only one/ Conditions 'ithin the film industry and the prevailin& cultural and social climate at the time of the film)s ma%in& 3especially 'hen the film version does not follo' hot upon the novel)s pu-lication8 are t'o maAor determinants in shapin& any film, adaptation or not/ Amon& the former 3i/e/ conditions 'ithin the industry8 one mi&ht include the effect of certain star personae, or, in the days of the studios) dominance, a particular studio)s )house style), or a director)s predilections or &enre conventions, or the pre. 22222222222222222222
76 Andre', H):ell.:orn Muse)H, !/

.; .

vailin& parameters of cinematic practice/ As to the latter 3i/e/ the climate of the times8 it is difficult to set up a re&ular methodolo&y for investi&atin& ho' far cultural conditions 3e/&/ the e$i&encies of 'artime or chan&in& se$ual mores8 mi&ht lead to a shift in emphasis in a film as compared 'ith the novel on 'hich it is -ased/ @o'ever, it is necessary to ma%e allo'ance in individual cases of adaptation for the nature of such influences, and this matter 'ill -e loo%ed at more closely in the *pecial Focus section of the chapter on Ca,e Fear/ Perhaps, indeed, it is Aust -ecause +uestions of narrativity can -e formali?ed that so much attention is paid to the ori&inal te$t)s contri-ution to the film/ And certainly, in raisin& the issue of interte$tuality, I am not denyin& ho' po'erfully formative the source 'or% is in shapin& the response of many people to the film version/ Conse+uently t'o lines of investi&ation seem 'orth'hile: 3 a 8 in the transposition process, Aust 'hat is it possi-le to transfer or adapt from novel to film; and 3 - 8 'hat %ey factors other than the source novel have e$ercised an influence on the film version of the novel< For those 'ho %no' andKor value the novel, the process of narrativity in re&ard to the film version 'ill necessarily differ from that of the spectator unfamiliar 'ith it: in either case, a true readin& of the film 'ill depend on a response to ho' the cinematic codes and aspects of the mise.en.scNne 'or% to create this particular version of the te$t/

:hat >ind of Adaptation<

:hile the fidelity criterion may seem mis&uided in any circumstances, it is also true that many film. ma%ers are on record as -ein& reverently disposed to'ards reproducin& the ori&inal novel on film/ It is e+ually clear, ho'ever, that many adaptations have chosen paths other than that of the literalminded visuali?ation of the ori&inal or even of )spiritual fidelity), ma%in& +uite o-vious departures from the ori&inal/ *uch departures may -e seen in the li&ht of offerin& a commentary on or, in more e$treme cases, a deconstruction 3)-rin&Bin&C to li&ht the internal contradictions in seemin&ly perfectly coherent systems of thou&ht)778 of the ori&inal/ :hile I do not 'ish to propose a hierarchy of valua-leness amon& such approaches, it does seem important in evaluatin& the film version of a novel to try to assess the %ind of adaptation the film aims to -e/ *uch an assessment 'ould at least preclude the critical refle$ that ta%es a film to tas% for not -ein& somethin& it does not aim to -e/ (iven the precariousness of the concept of fidelity in relation to novels made from films, it seems 'iser to drop terms li%e )violation), )distortion), )travesty), and those others 'hich, li%e them, imply the primacy of the printed te$t/ 22222222222222222222
77 ,ohn *turroc%, H)Introduction)H to *turroc% 3ed/8, #tructuralism and #ince 3 #$ford Fniversity Press: #$ford, !1!8, 6/

.;;.

AGENDA FOR FUR"!ER S"UD* Nothin& is li%ely to stop the interest of the &eneral film.vie'er in comparin& films 'ith their source novels, usually to the film)s disadvanta&e/ The aim of the present study is to use such concepts and methods as permit the most o-Aective and systematic appraisal of 'hat has happened in the process of transposition from one te$t to another/ (iven the prevalence of the process, and &iven that interpretations and memories of the source novel are po'erful determinin& elements in the film)s interte$tuality, there is little value in merely sayin& that the film should stand autonomously/ *o it should, -ut it is also valua-le to consider the %inds of transmutation that have ta%en place, to distin&uish 'hat the film.ma%er has sou&ht to retain from the ori&inal and the %inds of use to 'hich he has put it/

Transfer and Adaptation Proper

This distinction, ela-orated earlier in this chapter, is central to the procedures of the follo'in& case. studies and, I -elieve, to any systematic study of 'hat happens in the transposin& of novel into film/

Transfer
In considerin& 'hat can -e transferred from novel to film, one -e&ins to lay the theoretical -asis for a study of the phenomenon of turnin& novels into films as 'ell as a -asis for 'hat has -een transferred in any particular case 3i/e/ ho' far the film.ma%er has chosen to transfer 'hat is possi-le to do so8/ In -road terms, this involves a distinction -et'een narrative 3'hich can -e transferred8 and enunciation 3'hich cannot, involvin& as it does +uite separate systems of si&nification8/ *ome potentially valua-le strate&ies for considerin& the idea of transfer are outlined -elo'/ "he stor+,$lot (istinction Terence @a'%es, dra'in& on Gi%tor *h%lovs%y)s 'or% on the nature of narrative, ma%es the follo'in& distinction: )H*toryH is simply the -asic succession of events, the ra' material 'hich confronts the artist/ Plot represents the distinctive 'ay in 'hich the HstoryH is made stran&e, creatively deformed and defamiliari?ed/)7" Novel and film can share the same story, the same )ra' materials), -ut are distin&uished -y means of different plot strate&ies 'hich alter se+uence, hi&hli&ht different emphases, 'hich..in a 'ord.defamiliari?e the story/ In this respect, of course, the use of t'o separate systems of si&nification 'ill also play a crucial distin&uishin& role/ 22222222222222222222
7" Terence @a'%es, #tructuralism and #emiotics 3 Methuen: 5ondon, !118, "7.."/

.;9.

"he (istinction bet-een )(istributional) an( )integrational) functions As discussed earlier, Barthes)s )distri-utional functions), those 'hich he desi&nates as )functions proper), are those most directly suscepti-le to transfer to film/ This classification is further su-divided into cardinal functions, those narrative actions 'hich open up alternatives 'ith direct conse+uences for the su-se+uent development of the story 3)the ris%y moments of a narrative) in Barthes)s term8, supported, &iven a richer te$ture, -y elements characteri?ed -y a different order of functionality/ This )different order) may -e either )lesser) 3in the case of catalysers8 or )vertically functionin&) 3in the case of distri-utional functions8 as opposed to the essential hori?ontality of the cardinal functions/ The first level of )fidelity) in relation to the film version of a novel could -e determined -y the e$tent to 'hich the film.ma%er has chosen to transfer the cardinal functions of the precursor narrative/

Identification of character functions and fields of action

If 'e ta%e G/ Propp)s notion )that the all.important and unifyin& element is found / / / in the characters) functions, the part they play in the plot),71 that these functions70 are distri-uted amon& a limited num-er of )spheres of action),7! and that the )discerni-le and repeated structures 'hich, if they are characteristic of so deeply rooted a form of narrative e$pression, may / / / have implications for all narrative"I 3i/e/ not Aust for fol%.tales8, then 'e may see a further 'ay of systemati?in& 'hat happens in the transposition of novel into film/ No dou-t the character functions are more clearly displayed in a Jussian fol%.tale than in a comple$ nineteenth.century =n&lish novel or a feature. len&th film; nevertheless, some of Propp)s formulations point to underlyin&, transfera-le components of narrative/ 3Barthes)s concept of cardinal functions is partly -ased on Propp)s 'or%, as Barthes ac%no'led&es/" 8 To Propp, )Function is understood as an act of character, defined from the point of vie' of its si&nificance for the course of the action/)"; It is not that he fails to allo' for other narrative elements as havin& their roles to play; he, in fact, pays special attention to the +uestion of motivations, 'hich )often add to a tale a completely distinctive, vivid colourin&);"9 -ut he finds those elements other than character functions and their connectives )less precise and definite)/"6 22222222222222222222
71 Terence @a'%es, "0/ 70 G/ Propp, Mor,hology of the Fol*tale 3 !;18, trans/ 5aurence *cott 3Fniversity of Te$as: Austin, !"08, ;;."9/ 7! I-id/ 1!/ "I I-id/ ; / " Barthes, H)Introduction to the *tructural Analysis of Narratives)H, !;/ "; Propp, Mor,hology of the Fol*tale, ; / "9 I-id/ 17/ "6 I-id/ 69/

.;6.

I am su&&estin& here that, in considerin& 'hat %ind of adaptation has -een made, one mi&ht isolate the chief character functions of the ori&inal and o-serve ho' far these are retained in the film version/ 3Peter :ollen)s Proppian analysis of @itchcoc% North .y Northwest"7 su&&ests that a sophisticated narrative is suscepti-le to procedures and cate&ori?ations derived from the study of much simpler modes/8 By o-servin& these functions, distri-uted amon& seven )spheres of action) 3named for their performers.)villain), )helper), etc/8, one could determine 'hether the film.ma%er has aimed to preserve the underlyin& structure of the ori&inal or radically to re'or% it/ *uch a study 'ould &ive a firmer -asis for comparison -y sortin& out 'hat functions are crucial to the narrative: i/e/ to the plot 'hich or&ani?es the ra' materials of the story/ I(entification of '+thic an(,or $s+chological $atterns In relation to those myths 'hich encapsulate in narrative form certain universal aspects of human e$perience, 5Pvi.*trauss has claimed that )the mythical value of the myth is preserved even throu&h the 'orst translation / / / BFnli%e poetry, itsC su-stance does not lie in its style, its ori&inal music, or its synta$, -ut in the story it tells)/"" By e$tension, then, it is not too much to e$pect that the mythic elements at 'or% in a novel seem li%ely to -e transfera-le to the screen since their life is independent of 'hatever manifestation they are found in, resistant as they are to even )the 'orst translation)/ Intimately connected 'ith the idea of myth, such Freudian concepts as the #edipus comple$ so profoundly underlie human e$perience, and, therefore, the narrative renderin&s of that e$perience, that their nature remains unchan&ed throu&h varyin& representations/ The denotative material 'hich provides the vehicle for these patterns may chan&e from novel to film 'ithout affectin& the connotations of the mythic and psycholo&ical motifs themselves/ It is clear that these patterns e$ercise a po'erfully or&ani?in& effect on narratives: one could propose, for e$ample, that the Freudian notion that: )An action -y the e&o is as it should -e if it satisfies simultaneously the demands of the id, of the super.e&o and of reality)"1 provides a 'ay of classifyin& the narrative elements and their motivations in a story..'hether on pa&e or screen/ :hat the approaches outlined a-ove have in common are: a/ they all refer to elements 'hich e$ist at )deep levels) of the te$t; -/ they address narrative elements 'hich are not tied to a particular mode of e$pression 3i/e/ those 'hich may -e found at 'or% in ver-al or other si&n systems8; and 22222222222222222222
"7 "" "1 Peter :ollen, H)North -y North.:est: A Morpholo&ical Analysis)H, Film Form, 3 !1"8, ;I.96/ Claude 5Pvi.*trauss, #tructural Anthro,ology 3 Pen&uin Boo%s: @armonds'orth, !1;8, ; I/ 4avid *tafford.Clar%, What Freud /Really/ #aid 3 Pen&uin Boo%s: @armonds'orth, !"18, ;/

.;7.

c/ all are suscepti-le to that more or less o-Aective treatment that eludes less sta-le elements 3e/&/ character motivation or atmosphere8/ They relate to the level of narrative, to areas in 'hich transfer from one medium to another is possi-le, and to isolate them is to clear the 'ay for e$amination of those elements that resist transfer and call for adaptation proper/

Adaptation Proper
Those elements of the novel 'hich re+uire adaptation proper may -e loosely &rouped as 3in Barthes)s term8 indices, as the si&nifiers of narrativity, and as the 'ritin&, or, more comprehensively, as enunciation, to use the term no' commonly employed in film theory/ The film version of a novel may retain all the maAor cardinal functions of a novel, all its chief character functions, its most important psycholo&ical patterns, and yet, at -oth micro. and macrolevels or articulation, set up in the vie'er ac+uainted 'ith the novel +uite different responses/ The e$tent to 'hich this is so can -e determined -y ho' far the film.ma%er has sou&ht to create his o'n 'or% in those areas 'here transfer is not possi-le/ @e can, of course, put his o'n stamp on the 'or% -y omittin& or reorderin& those narrative elements 'hich are transfera-le or -y inventin& ne' ones of his o'n: my point is that, even if he has chosen to adhere to the novel in these respects, he can still ma%e a film that offers a mar%edly different affective andKor intellectual e$perience/ *ome %ey differences 'hich need to -e considered in relation to areas of adaptation proper are summari?ed -elo'/ =ssentially they refer to distinctions -et'een enunciatory modes/ "-o signif+ing s+ste's The full treatment of such a topic is of course -eyond the scope of this study; at this point I 'ant merely to dra' attention to some matters centrally important here/ The novel dra's on a 'holly ver-al si&n system, the film variously, and sometimes simultaneously, on visual, aural, and ver-al si&nifiers/ =ven the apparently overlappin& ver-al si&ns 3the 'ords on the novel)s pa&e, the 'ritten or printed 'ords used in the film, e/&/ letters, street si&ns, ne'spaper headlines8, 'hile they may &ive the same information, function differently in each case/ In the e$amples &iven, the letter, the street si&n, and the ne'spaper headline 'ill each resem-le their real.life referents in 'ays that are customarily -eyond the novel)s capacity for iconic representation/ And this semi.e$ception to the rule of difference -et'een the t'o systems points to a maAor distinction -et'een them: the ver-al si&n, 'ith its .;".

lo' iconicity and hi&h sym-olic function, 'or%s conceptually, 'hereas the cinematic si&n, 'ith its hi&h iconicity and uncertain sym-olic function, 'or%s directly, sensuously, perceptually/ *uch a distinction is all -ut a$iomatic -ut failure to concede its pervasive importance leads to a &ood deal of impressionistic, dissatisfied, and unsatisfyin& comparison of novel and film/ Comparisons of this %ind &ro' out of a sense of the film.ma%er)s havin& failed to find satisfactory visual representations of %ey ver-al si&ns 3e/&/ those relatin& to places or persons8, and of a sense that, -ecause of its hi&h iconicity, the cinema has left no scope for that ima&inative activity necessary to the reader)s visuali?ation of 'hat he reads/ In the study of adaptation, one may consider to 'hat e$tent the film. ma%er has pic%ed up visual su&&estions from the novel in his representation of %ey ver-al si&ns.. and ho' the visual representation affects one)s )readin&) of the film te$t/ "he no&el)s linearit+ an( the fil')s s$atialit+ :e construct meanin& from a novel -y ta%in& in 'ords and &roups of 'ords se+uentially as they appear on the pa&e/ In order, say, to &rasp a scene, a physical settin&, 'e have no choice -ut to follo' linearly that arran&ement of ar-itrary sym-ols set out, for the most part, in hori?ontal ro's 'hich enAoin the linearity of the e$perience/ The relentless linearity associated 'ith the usual readin& of a novel favours the &radual accretion of information a-out action, characters, atmosphere, ideas, and this mode of presentation, of itself, contri-utes to the impression received/ At firstK&lance, it may seem that the relentless movement of film throu&h the proAector offers an analo&y to this situation/ 3And, of course, classic narrative cinema is posited on a po'erful, for'ard.thrustin& linearity, the product of causality and motivation/8 @o'ever, thou&h vie'in& time 3and, thus se+uentiality8 is controlled much more ri&orously than readin& time, frame.follo'in&. frame is not analo&ous to the 'ord.follo'in&.'ord e$perience of the novel/ There are at least t'o si&nificant differences to -e noted: 3i8 the frame instantly, and at any &iven moment, provides information of at least visual comple$ity 3sometimes increased -y the input of aural and ver-al si&nifiers8 -eyond that of any &iven 'ord -ecause of the spatial impact of the frame; and 3ii8 the frame is never re&istered as a discrete entity in the 'ay that a 'ord is/ :e do not ordinarily vie' a film frame -y frame as 'e read a novel 'ord -y 'ord/ The fact that 'e are al'ays -ein& e$posed to the multiplicity of si&nifiers contained 'ithin the space of a frame or series of frames has implication for the adaptation of ver-al material; for e$ample, as it relates to the representation of characters and settin&s/ :hat 'e receive as information from the mise.en.scNne may -e less suscepti-le to the film.ma%er)s control 3-ecause of the stron&ly spatial orientation of film and -ecause of the simultaneous .;1.

-om-ardment -y several %inds of claims on our attention8 than 'hat 'e receive from the linear presentation of 'ords on the pa&e/ 4ic%ens, for instance, may force us to )see) Miss @avisham in the interior of *atis @ouse in the order he has chosen in +reat E",ectations; as 'e 'atch her visual representation in 4avid 5ean)s film 'e may -e struc% first, not -y the yello'.'hiteness of her apparel, -ut -y the sense of her physical presence)s -ein& d'arfed -y the decayin& &randeur of the room/ In the form 'hich stresses spatiality rather than linearity, the eye may not al'ays choose to see ne$t 'hat, in any particular frame, the film.ma%er 'ants it to fasten on/ The challen&e to the film.ma%er)s control of the mise.en.scNne is o-vious/ Cinematic enunciation has t'o other approaches, specific to its medium, relatin& to the disposition of space and, hence, to the &eneration of aspects of narrative in 'ays closed to the novel/ They are: 3i8 Noel Burch)s theory of a dialectic -et'een on.screen and off.screen space 3he identifies si$ )se&ments) of off.screen space, four determined -y the -orders of the frame, the others )an off.screen space -ehind the camera) and )the space e$istin& -ehind the set or some o-Aect in it)"08; and 3ii8 Jaymond Bellour)s proposal of alternation"! 3e/&/ -et'een lon& shot and close.up, -et'een seein& and -ein& seen8 as a %ey cinematic practice, operatin& on levels of -oth code and die&esis/ Both of these concepts advert to enunciatory techni+ues peculiar to the unfoldin& of cinematic narrative, and -oth 'ill -e considered in relation to particular case.studies in this -oo%/ Neither has any real e+uivalent in the ver-al narrative, e$cept in the much -roader sense of alternation offered -y a novel)s movin& -et'een t'o maAor strands of narrative/ The )spacelessness) of the novel)s linear procedures precludes the settin& up of spatial tension achieved -y 3i8 and the spatial mo-ility re+uired -y 3ii8/ Co(es If film, unli%e ver-al lan&ua&e, has no voca-ulary 3its ima&es, unli%e 'ords, are non.finite8, it also lac%s a structurin& synta$, instead of 'hich it has conventions in relation to the operation of its codes/ In so far as these codes ena-le us to )read) film narratives, in so far as 'e learn to ascri-e meanin&s to them 3e/&/ to assume that )fade outKfade in), as an editin& procedure, denotes a maAor lapse of time8, it is throu&h fre+uent e$posure to their deployment in a particular 'ay, 'ithout there -ein& any &uarantee that they 'ill al'ays -e used in this 'ay/ There is, for instance, nothin& correspondin& to the comparatively fi$ed usa&e of full.stop and comma as punctuational si&ns denotin& the lon&est and shortest pauses respectively, or to those rules 'hich si&nify tenses, in the 'ritten 'or%/ 22222222222222222222
"0 Noel Burch, The Theory of Film 1ractice 3 Cinema T'oK *ec%er and :ar-ur&: 5ondon, !198, ;I/ "! ,anet Ber&strom/ H)Alternation, *e&mentation, @ypnosis: Intervie' 'ith Jaymond Bellour)H, Camera 0.scura, 9.6 3 !1!8, 1".0/

.;0.

Further, in )readin&) a film, 'e must understand other, e$tra.cinematic codes as 'ell/ These include: a/ lan&ua&e codes 3involvin& response to particular accents or tones of voice and 'hat these mi&ht mean socially or temperamentally8; -/ visual codes 3response to these &oes -eyond mere )seein&) to include the interpretative and the selective8; c/ non.lin&uistic sound codes 3comprisin& -oth musical and other aural codes8; d/ cultural codes 3involvin& all that information 'hich has to do 'ith ho' people live, or lived, at particular times and places8/ In a sense, the cinematic codes may -e seen as inte&ratin& the precedin& four in 'ays that no other art.form does/ :hen 'e 'itness a film, 'e share 'ith the film)s ma%er a -asic assumption that 'e %no' the codes: i/e/ a &eneral cinematic code 'hich, as Christian Met? has sho'n, can -e -ro%en do'n into su-codes, such as those to do 'ith editin&, or those to do 'ith particular &enres, and the e$tra.cinematic codes referred to a-ove/ Failure to reco&ni?e..or, at least, to pay ade+uate attention to..the differences -et'een the operation of these codes in film and the novel)s reliance on the 'ritten representation of lan&ua&e codes has -een a %ey element in accountin& for the fu??y impressionism of so much 'ritin& a-out adaptation/ Stories tol( an( stories $resente( In movin& from novel to film, 'e are movin& from a purely representational mode to )an order of the opera-le),1I to use Barthes)s distinction 3'hich has not, to my %no'led&e, -een pursued in film studies -ut 'hich offers a -road statement of intermedial disparity8/ This distinction relates partly to earlier points a-out: i/ differences -et'een t'o )lan&ua&e) systems, one of 'hich 'or%s 'holly sym-olically, the other throu&h an interaction of codes, includin& codes of e$ecution; ii/ tense: film cannot present action in the past as novels chiefly do; and iii/ film)s spatial 3as 'ell as temporal8 orientation 'hich &ives it a physical presence denied to the novel)s linearity/ Another aspect of the distinction -et'een tellin& and presentin& is located in the 'ay in 'hich the novel)s metalan&ua&e 3the vehicle of its tellin&8 is replaced, at least in part, -y the film)s mise.en. scNne/ In a sense, the film)s story does not have to -e told -ecause it is presented/ A&ainst the &ains in immediacy, the loss of the narrational voice may, ho'ever, -e felt as the chief casualty of the novel)s enunciation/ 22222222222222222222
1I Barthes, H)Introduction to the *tructural Analysis of Narratives)H, 0I/

.;!.

The enunciatory matters discussed a-ove refer to crucially important novelistic elements 'hich offer challen&es to the film.ma%er, especially if he does not 'ish the e$perience of his film to shatter a pre.e$istin& reality 3i/e/ of the novel8 -ut, rather, to displace it/ .9I.