‘Adaptation’, the Film, the Process and the Dialogue: CAESURAE, SPRING 2016

‘Adaptation’, the Film, the Process and the Dialogue

C. Yamini Krishna, Rajarajeshwari Ashok, Vishnu Vijayakumar

PhD Scholars, Film Studies Department,
English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad (EFLU)

“It is a journey of evolution, Adaptation.

The journey we all take. A journey that unites each one of us” ¬– Charlie Kauffman, from the film
Adaptation (2002)

Abstract: Many studies in adaptation have been concerned with the ideas of ‘fidelity’ and
‘specificity’; some scholars (like Brian McFarlane) argue that the idea of fidelity is not a helpful
criterion for enquiry, but it keeps coming back. In this context, the screenwriter’s perspective on the
process of adaptation is invaluable. The film Adaptation (2002) makes the process of adaptation
explicit and through the narrative deals with several important dilemmas in adaptation. This paper
reads the film Adaptation (2002) for its view on the adaptation process; it goes forward to examine
‘adaptation’ as a transformative life process. It also deals with the idea of mediated transformation
taking the case of the book (The Orchid Thief) and the film inspired from it (‘Adaptation’). In this
context it discusses the ideas of ‘real text’, ‘hypertextuality’and ‘intermediality’.
Keywords: Adaptation, Mediated Transformation, Hypertextuality, Self-referential film.

Introduction
Studies in Adaptation are primarily concerned with examining the transformation of a text
from one medium to another, particularly in the case of literary text to film and vice versa.
Brian Mc Farlane draws attention to the abiding interest in studying adaptation:

The fact is that filmgoers simply are interested in how filmmakers have gone about
the business and art of transposition from one medium to another- and that this
transposition and the processes involved constitute a phenomenon of continuing
interest to a large number of people (McFarlane 18, emphasis in original)
For such an endeavour, the perspective of the film crew (the screenwriter, director etc.) is
very valuable. The film Adaptation (2002), which narrativizes the process of adapting a

1
‘Adaptation’, the Film, the Process and the Dialogue: CAESURAE, SPRING 2016

literary text to the screenplay of the film and makes an explicit comment on it, thus demands
a close reading.

Through this paper we attempt to read the film Adaptation (2002) for its comment on
the adaptation process. Through reading the film we also traverse through some important
arguments pertaining to the adaptation process

The film Adaptation (2002) is a story of the struggle of a Hollywood screenwriter Charlie
Kauffman in adapting the book The Orchid Thief by Susan Orlean into a film script. Charlie
Kauffman aims at staying true to the book, which is about orchids. He doesn’t want to make
it a traditional Hollywood script with its thrills, instead wants to keep it closer to the book.
The book is about the encounter of Susan Orlean with the orchid thief John Laroche who
steals orchids from the reserved forests. Susan who works for The New Yorker meets Laroche
in an attempt to write a feature on him; through a series of interactions she herself joins the
search for the ghost orchid. The book is about Laroche’s passion for orchids and her search to
feel passionately about something. The book presents a very tough challenge for the screen
writer and he struggles with translating it. Charlie’s twin brother Donald Kauffman is an
aspiring script writer who is attempting to write a racy Hollywood script. Charlie doesn’t
approve of Donald’s methods and calls them clichéd. Charlie doesn’t share a very amicable
relationship with his brother Donald. While Donald is forthcoming and seeks Charlie help for
his script writing endeavours, Charlie doesn’t reciprocate the same. The failure at translating
the book to screen also takes toll on Charlie’s confidence. Donald suggests to Charlie to go
for script writing classes, which Charlie doesn’t approve of initially but in a desperate attempt
he also takes the classes. Charlie asks for help from Donald who suggests to him to meet the
author Susan Orlean which he says would help him with the work. But Charlie’s inhibitions
do not allow him to meet the author. Donald accidentally finds pornographic pictures of
Susan Orlean in Laroche’s website and both Charlie and Donald go in search of Susan to find
out what was missing in the book. Charlie and Donald see Susan and Laroche doing drugs
and involved in intercourse. Susan and Laroche notice Charlie and try to capture him as they
do not want their affair to become public. The chase ends in the death of Donald Kauffman
and Laroche. Charlie comes to terms with the trauma of the loss of his brother and completes
the script. The film ends on a positive note with Charlie regaining his confidence after
completing the script.

2
‘Adaptation’, the Film, the Process and the Dialogue: CAESURAE, SPRING 2016

This paper first starts with reading the film for its take on adaptation process,
progresses with looking at adaptation as a life process, guided by the film and then moves
beyond the film to analyse the relationship between the film and the non-fiction book ‘The
Orchid Thief’ on which it is based to study the transformation of the literary text by the film.

Fidelity

The question of ‘in what way’ is the film inspired by the book, almost seems to be the
beginning point to study the relationship between film and a literary text. ‘The most common
discussions and debates about film adaptation seem generally to focus on the notions of
specificity and fidelity’ (Corrigan 31). Fidelity is based on the idea that there is an original
text, which the adaptation has to be true to. Historically this idea comes from the association
of film with working class and as a ‘lower’ art and literature as high art. Film by adapting
literary texts was aiming at gaining respectability and acceptability among the educated and
the aristocratic classes. Association with literature would help to culturally uplift film from
the moral and social suspicions on film (Corrigan 31).

The idea that there is ‘the original text’ which is pure and has to be adhered to evokes
a variety of responses from scholars. McFarlane argues that ‘fidelity’ is a ‘wholly
inappropriate and unhelpful criterion’ for evaluating the film. He argues that every reading of
a text is different, an ‘individual act of cognition and interpretation’ and no two readings will
have the same experience. In such a case talking of fidelity is a futile exercise (McFarlane
15). Roland Barthes and Umberto Eco’s idea of text as an “open work” is important in this
context; they argue that each text is open and is susceptible to many possibly antagonistic but
equally valid interpretations (qtd. in Hudelet 258)

The film Adaptation (2002) begins with the idea of a ‘true text’ which has to be
adhered to. The attempt of the screen writer Charlie Kauffman is to stay true to the book The
Orchid thief. In his first meeting with the producer, he says,

It’s a great book…..plus, her musings on Florida and orchid poaching…I’d want to remain
true to that. I’d wanna let the movie exist rather than be artificially plot driven… I just don’t
want to ruin it by making a Hollywood thing. (Adaptation 4-6)
reflecting the idea of the high text which has to be lived up to. Also this dialogue refers to the
notion of film being a low art form as compared to literature. This idea is invoked at different
junctures of the film:“It’s someone else’s material. I have a responsibility to Susan. Anyway I
wanted to grow as a writer. I wanted to do something simple” (Adaptation 48-50:00) This again is

3
‘Adaptation’, the Film, the Process and the Dialogue: CAESURAE, SPRING 2016

indicative of the high status of the literary writing as compared to Hollywood screen writing
and that the author is the owner of the text and all the adaptations have responsibility towards
the author.

Deborah Cartmell argues that the early twentieth century anxiety about the fear
concerning the death of the author posed by film adaptation is relevant even today. She points
out to Andre’ Bazin who in his essay ‘Adaptation, or the Cinema as Digest’ explains the
anxiety of adaptation and the rise of auteur theory with the illogical need of attributing the
work of art to a single artist. Thus literature by adaptation to film was losing its attribution to
a single artist. Much of the adaptations still face ‘fidelity criticism’ (Cartmell 6)

Stam points out that the idea of the original has undergone a lot of transformation with the
digital revolution. It is now impossible to talk about the hierarchy of the ‘original’ and the
‘copy’. He argues that parallel can be drawn between belief in essential “realism” of the film
image and the belief of possible “fidelity” of the adapted film to the text (qtd. in Hudelet
258).

Specificity

Another important idea in the context of film adaptations is that different representational
practises such as film and literature have individual material and formal structures that
distinguish and differentiate them from other practises (Corrigan 31). This idea works on the
premise that certain aspects are more suited for a particular medium, it addresses the question
of what aspects of the text are translatable to the screen.

We can read this question of specificity in the film Adaptation (2002) in the attempts
to translate the details of the book to the screenplay. Charlie Kauffman tries to translate the
book to screen by attempting to write several different ways to begin the film, he begins at
four billion and forty years in Hollywood, with Darwin writing the Origin of species, by
trying to establish the themes. In his meeting with the agent Kauffman confesses his
difficulties with the adaptation and says : “I don’t know how to adapt this…It is sprawling New
Yorker stuff. The book has no story...” (Adaptation). This brings us to the question of what
constitutes a Hollywood screenplay. The film has a very interesting ironical comment on it.
Charlie Kauffman is attempting to digress from the typical Hollywood screenplay but ends up
conforming to it. The film has several satirical references to Hollywood script writing.

Hollywood script writing

4
‘Adaptation’, the Film, the Process and the Dialogue: CAESURAE, SPRING 2016

The difference between the Hollywood script writing and high art is established through the
differences in approaches of the two twin brothers, Charlie Kauffman and Donald Kauffman.
While Charlie is attempting to stay true to the literary text, Donald attends formulaic script
writing workshops incorporates clichés in his screenplay and attempts to make a racy
Hollywood movie.

The episode of Charlie attending the ‘Robert McKnee’s Story Seminar’ and his
interaction with the script writing Guru McKnee gives some pointers to Hollywood script
writing priorities:

1. Using voiceover narration to explain the thoughts of the character is not acceptable
2. A protagonist cannot be without desire
3. A screenplay without conflict or crisis is absolutely boring
4. Real life is not slow but filled with momentous happenings, so should the film.
5. Drama is what makes a film
6. The last act is the most important part of the script. The ending is what decides the hit.
7. The characters must change and the change must come from them.

The conflict between the high literary writing and Hollywood screenplay is again
foregrounded in the conversation between the script writing guru McKnee and Charlie, where
McKnee advises Charlie to woo the audience with the ending.

The search for the conflict

The film takes the premise of the need for conflict or crisis in the screenplay and the
adaptation process is centred on it. Charlie Kauffman while attempting to break away from
the golden rules of Hollywood screenplay conforms to each one of them. The film begins as a
critique of the ‘drama centric’ ‘racy’ Hollywood story telling but ends up asserting that the
Hollywood film has certain rules which need to be adhered to.

The “lack of story” is an allusion to the inability to find the conflict in the book of
Susan Orlean. The film Adaptation (2002) points out to several attempts by the script writer
Charlie Kauffman to find this conflict. The conflict in Susan Orlean’s book, which is her
inability to be able to passionately pursue anything, is inadequate for the screenplay. Susan in
her interactions with Laroche finds this obsession towards the ghost orchid which she pursues
throughout the book but fails to find it. Charlie wants to capture this disappointment, which
he calls as closer to life high art on screen but this is too trivial for the filmic medium. This
internal struggle of Susan doesn’t translate well onto the screen and hence Charlie struggles
to adapt it.

5
‘Adaptation’, the Film, the Process and the Dialogue: CAESURAE, SPRING 2016

Charlie attempts to bring out the conflict in the book by tracing the journey of the flower; he
tries to dramatize it unsuccessfully. This inability to find the conflict leads Charlie to look for
it outside the book, “It’s not in the book, Charlie”(Adaptation), Donald tells him and both the
brothers take off in search of the conflict for the screenplay. From here the film Adaptation
(2002)itself becomes a Hollywood chase film. Both the brothers lurk around Laroche’s house
to find Susan Orlean and Laroche doing drugs and having an affair. They get to know of their
involvement in the usage of the orchids to make drugs. Charlie Kauffman finally finds the
conflict, drama for his film; the entire story now holds a potential to be rethought as a drug
mystery. Susan Orlean fearing her exposure to the world chases Charlie Kauffman into the
reserve forest in attempt to kill him. The elaborate chase scene ends with the death of Laroche
and Donald Kauffman.

Charlie Kauffman, while hiding to save his life, confronts his own internal conflict.
He confesses it to his brother Donald, a childhood incident which had left a lasting mark on
his personality, an incident which left him impaired in interaction with people. “I spent my
whole life paralyzed worrying about what people think of me…” (Adaptation), he says. The
conflict is finally found in Charlie’s own psyche, much outside the book.

The whole episode of finding the conflict for the film takes us back to the question of
fidelity and specificity. Why should there be a specific conflict for the film? Can the work
then be called an adaptation at all? Diane Lake writes

So it’s important to understand that the most literal screen interpretation of a book that
one could imagine still wouldn’t be the book itself. The book tells a story, the film
based on that book tells a story. Yes, it’s the job of the screenwriter to bring to life on
screen, but the very act of telling the story of the book on film will change the book. If
an adaptor were to worry about being absolutely faithful to the book, scene for scene,
the resulting film would –I assure you- be a bomb (Lake 409)
She further asserts that the job of the screen writer to find new ways to tell the essence of the
story.

The adaptor reads with an eye not to represent what is already in the book, not to
translate it scene for scene, but to uncover the soul, if you will, of the book and to
think about how to bring the “soul” to life through visual story telling (Lake 409)
Charlie Kauffman succeeds in adapting the book, he resolves the conflict - the conflict of
whether to stay true to the text or to adapt it to the medium- and the search for ‘the conflict’
for the film. He finds the answer in himself. “Who am I kidding? This is not Susan Orlean’s

6
‘Adaptation’, the Film, the Process and the Dialogue: CAESURAE, SPRING 2016

story. We open at Charlie Kauffman” and “it ends with Kauffman driving home after his
lunch with Amelia. Thinking he knows how to finish the script” (Adaptation)

Adaptation, as a life process

The film uses the struggle of the screenwriter to drive a metaphor for adaptation as a life
process. It establishes adaptation as central to existence, a process which connects all the
living beings. The usage of the evolution, Darwin’s writing of Origin of Species, Charlie’ own
journey to confront his fears and comingto terms with it, serve as allegories for the life
process of adaptation. The film draws an allegory between textual transformation and self-
transformation. Susan Orlean and the novel The Orchid Thief represent the literary medium,
which is kept on high pedestal and McKnee and Donald represent the filmic medium which is
below the literary medium. The text and the adaptor (Charlie Kauffman) are extremely rigid
to change, they resist it. So much so that the process of adaptation seems impossible; but the
transformation happens. The film thus tells us the story of the novel and Charlie Kauffman
both of who transform in interaction with each other. In his interactions with the text, Charlie
confronts the change which he has been evading, the text transforms him. The resolution of
his internal conflict, his confession of love to Emilia, the completion of the script, all act as
markers to this transformation. The film alternates and interweaves the textual
transformation and the life transformation. At the hypo-diegetic level it is also the story of
transformation of Susan Orlean, a transformation in her self-image from someone who is
apathetic to someone who discovers passion.

The character of Donald Kauffman can be interpreted as an alter-ego of Charlie

Kauffman. Donald is all that Charlie is not. Donald wants to be a successful Hollywood script
writer whereas Charlie wants to write a literary screenplay, Donald is an extrovert and
Charlie is an introvert. Donald is confident and Charlie in nervous. Donald helps Charlie
confront his fears and dies after Charlie has addressed his internal conflict. Charlie then
becomes a confident, outgoing, successful Hollywood script writer, the new Donald.

The film thus is a comment on the inevitable change in life, the adaptation process. In the
words of Susan Orlean, from the film

7
‘Adaptation’, the Film, the Process and the Dialogue: CAESURAE, SPRING 2016

What I came to understand that change is not a choice. Not for a species of plant, not
for me. It happens and you are different (Adaptation 79)
While change itself is inevitable it is not a dispassionate neutral process. It is an embodied
intense process with fears, struggles and tribulations.

Another important aspect of the film that makes the ideas of transformation more interesting
is its self-referentiality. Charlie Kauffman, the screen writer becomes a character in his own
film; the text has transformed to incorporate him, also transforming him by representing him
on the screen.

Self-referentiality

In the debates of “fidelity” and “truth”, the self-referential cinema is not a new phenomenon.
Self-referential films, instead of trying to adapt a book, make their relationship with the text
visible. Films like Looking for Richard (1996) and the current film Adaptation (2002) are
examples of self-referential cinema. Self-referential cinema further complicates this idea of
the ‘real’. Hudelet (257) talks of self referentiality in the context of blurring of the real and
the cinematic in digital film making. With the usage of digital footage sometimes combined
with celluloid footage, the “realism” of celluloid film is replaced by “hyperreality” of the
digital image (Hudelet 257).

The film Adaptation (2002) begins with the thoughts of Charlie Kauffman in the set
of BeingJohn Malkovich (1999), the ‘hyperreal’ moment occurs with the digital images of the
film sets with the director, actors and crew are merged with the celluloid film. The character
of Charlie Kauffman, the screen writer is played by Nicholas Cage in the film Adaptation
(2002). The film title ‘Adaptation’ is an epitome of self-referential cinema. The film
Adaptation (2002) also credits the twin brother character Donald Kauffman as the screenplay
writer of the film. The diegetic narration thus begins at the level of titles itself. It can also be
argued that the overarching theme of transformation is made to flow outside the diegesis by
the screenwriter of the film becoming the character and the character of the film becoming
the screenwriter, the filmic medium thus alters the self (the screenwriter).

Self-referentiality is an intelligent play on the idea of ‘the real’. By making

screenwriter, the author of the novel a part of the narrative of the film, by usage of hyperreal
moments, it questions the binaries of real and unreal. Some scholars argue that ‘Just as one
believes that film is an indexical image of the real, one can believe that a film adaptation
ought to be, or could be, an indexical image of “the reality” of the text’ (Hudelet 259).

8
‘Adaptation’, the Film, the Process and the Dialogue: CAESURAE, SPRING 2016

By the Book

The film Adaptation (2002) in negotiating between the ‘textual reality’ and the ‘filmic reality’
uses certain filmic devices as markers of ‘the text’, these keep the dialogue between the two
media ongoing. The devices used in the film are as follows:

The Book: The film constantly shows the script writer Charlie Kauffman reading the book.
The physical book, the lines of the text in the book act as a device to shift the diegetic focus
from the ‘textual reality’, as presented by the book and the ‘cinematic reality’ which the
viewers are witnessing on the screen.

The Text: The film uses the exact passages from the book at several critical junctures. For
example the audience witness the hypo-diegetic narrative i.e., through the narrative voice of
Susan Orlean as read by Charlie Kauffman, when she talks of her inability to passionately
pursue anything or in her failed pursuit of the ghost orchid. The text here is auricularized and
is heard as the voice of Susan Orlean.

The Orchids: The film right from the beginning maintains a dialogue with the text through
the theme of Orchids. In the screenplay Orchids thus become a constant reminder of ‘the
text’, in the missionary zeal of Charlie Kauffman to keep the film about flowers, in the
moments of frustration that flowers cannot be dramatized, in connecting his own life to
Orchids, through the passages of sexual descriptions of the Orchids from Orlean’s books,
through the visuals of the Orchid show, the film tries to be loyal to the text, in keeping the
film about flowers, about the inability of making a film about flowers.

Mediated Transformation:

A close look at the book The Orchid Thief and the film Adaptation (2002) problematizes the
idea of ‘the original text’ even further, the theme of mediated transformation extends much
beyond the diegesis. The question of ‘the adaptation’ from a source text to a derivative text
becomes irrelevant and the focus then shifts to understanding what sort of a relationship these
two texts hold.In the film Adaptation (2002), the narrative is carried much beyond the
diegesis. The name of the author of the book, Susan Orlean is used as is and the character
Donald Kauffman also gets nominated along with Charlie Kauffman for an Oscar for the best
adaptation. The film also affects the further prints of the book. The book The Orchid Thief
now carries an interview of Susan Orlean, interviewed by Susan Orlean answering the
questions which a curious viewer might ask. The play of the alter-ego of Charlie Kauffman as

9
‘Adaptation’, the Film, the Process and the Dialogue: CAESURAE, SPRING 2016

Donald Kauffman gets extended here as Susan Orlean, the author being interviewed by Susan
Orlean, the journalist.

Susan presents an interesting story about her filmic character in the book, “I waited a
day …..called him (producer) and said ‘It’s not what I expected but it’s terrific, and please
just change my name” (Orlean 20). But later, she explains her reasons for her agreement to be
a part of the film

I realized that if the book-my book- was going to be featured predominantly in a

movie but the author of the book in the movie was going to be named something other
than Susan Orlean it would confuse people and eventually annoy me. I wouldn’t like
the authorship of The Orchid Thief attributed to, Oh, Mary Smith or Jane Brown or
some pseudonymous nonperson. Also, all the other people who were incorporated into
the script agreed to allow their real names to be used. I decided finally, that the best
way to look at the whole circumstance was as an adventure, a big virtual reality
experiment. (Orlean 20)
This statement indicates that Susan Orlean changed her mind to agree to be a
character of the film. The film thus transforms the author, and the text (book). The text too by
usage of filmic references has been transformed. Thus the author, the screen writer and both
the texts (the book and the screenplay) have been transformed in the process of adaptation.
Both the writers re-negotiate their selves as a result of the adaptation process.

The use of Leitch’s argument gives an interesting view to further analyse the
relationship between the two texts. Leitch (128) notes, the primary motive of fidelity is
financial, rather than aesthetic. He points out “Because a well-known literary property has
considerable power to presell spin-offs like adaptations and sequels even to viewers who have
never read the property” (Leitch 128). As pointed out by Leitch, literary property has
considerable sale value even among those who have never read the text, the opposite also
holds true. The sale value of the literary text is multiplied several times because of the film. It
is not unlikely that audience might become curious to read the bookafter watching the film.
Through Susan Orlean’s explicit reference to the film, the narrative of the film and the book
merge seamlessly much beyond the diegesis. It can also be argued that the filmic reference in
the book and the presence of a published book in the narrative become ‘hyperreal’ moments
for the film Adaptation (2002).

In the context of understanding the relationship between different inspired texts the
question of ‘hyperreality’ becomes very important. For example, in the case of the Harry
Potter series the narrative is split between several media, with the author herself writing

10
‘Adaptation’, the Film, the Process and the Dialogue: CAESURAE, SPRING 2016

stories on the web, revealing newer extensions of the text for theatre, providing newer details
about ‘the text’ which were not a part of the text, the question of what is ‘real’ becomes
extremely complex and problematic. Should the question of ‘fidelity’ and ‘specificity’ enter
the new discipline of Transmedia studies, ‘A transmedia story represents integration of
entertainment experiences across the range of media platforms. A story like Heroes or Lost
might spread from television into comics, the web, alternate reality or videogames, toys, and
other commodities, etc., ’ (Jenkins). Can adaptation from literary text to film then also be
looked at as the first step towards media convergence? The question of adaptation of the text
to several different media opens up a wide area of research. The economic considerations
(Leitch 24) behind the adaptation also call for a closer scrutiny.

Susan Orlean has an interesting comment on the question of ‘real’ in her book. She
poses a question to herself, “Does he (Charlie Kauffman) look like Nicholas Cage?” and
responds “No, he looks like Charlie Kauffman. You don’t get it, do you? Movies are movies.
Life is life. They aren’t the same thing” (Orlean 24). Orlean thus further extends the elaborate
play between the book and the film.

Conclusion:

The film Adaptation (2002) looks at the process of adaptation as a metaphor for change in
life, as a transformative process which connects all the different life forms in the world. The
film presents adaptation as an inevitable process for every living being. It draws parallels
between the adaptation of a literary text to film and transformation of the screenwriter. The
screenwriter is changed in the process of adapting the text. The film presents the idea of ‘the
original’ as forever transforming. In the words of Charlie Kauffman in Adaptation (2002),
“Do I have an original thought in my head? My bald head”, aligning with Leitch’s idea that
‘texts remain alive only to the extent that they can be rewritten and that to experience a text in
all its power requires each reader to rewrite it’ (Leitch 26). These ideas are very important
because the idea of original doesn’t remain valid, what we now work with are two
transformed texts.

The analysis of the interrelationship between the book The Orchid Thief and the film
presents an interesting case for mediated transformation. Both the texts i.e., the book and the
film and their writers are transformed by the interaction between the texts. The adaptation
process which the film presents thus extends much beyond the diegesis.

11
‘Adaptation’, the Film, the Process and the Dialogue: CAESURAE, SPRING 2016

Another important aspect which the film points towards is the economic reasons
behind the process of adaptation. In the context of media convergence, the discussion on
interrelationship between texts holds scope for a much complex analysis, examining the
economic and ideological aspects much beyond the ideas of ‘the original’ and ‘the adapted’.

WORKS CITED

Cartmell, Deborah. “100+ years of Adaptations, or, Adaptation as the art form of Democracy”. A
companion to literature, film and adaptation. Ed. Deborah Cartmell. West Sussex: Wiley-
Blackwell, 2012. 1-14. Digital
Corrigan, Timothy. “Literature on screen, a history: in the gap”. The Cambridge companion to
literature on screen Eds. Deborah Cartmell., and Imelda Whelehan. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2007. 29-44. Digital.
Hudelet, Ariane. “Austen and Sterne: Beyond Heritage”. A companion to literature, film and
adaptation. Ed. Deborah Cartmell. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. 256-272. Digital
Jenkins, Henry. “Transmedia storytelling and entertainment: A new syllabus”. Henryjenkins.org. 28
Aug 2013. Web. 29 Dec 2015. < http://henryjenkins.org/2013/08/transmedia-storytelling-and-
entertainment-a-new-syllabus.html>
Lake, Diane. “Adapting the unadaptable”. A companion to literature, film and adaptation. Ed.
Deborah Cartmell. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. 408-416. Digital
Leitch, Thomas. Film adaptation and its discontents: from Gone with the Wind to The Passion of the
Christ. JHU Press, 2009. Digital
McFarlane, Brian. “Reading Film and Literature”. The Cambridge companion to literature on screen
Eds. Deborah Cartmell., and Imelda Whelehan. New York: Cambridge University Press,
2007. 15-29. Digital.
Orlean, Susan. The Orchid Thief: A True Story of Beauty and Obsession. Ballantine Books. 2011.
Digital.

Filmography:
Adaptation. Dir. Spike Jonze. Screenplay by Charlie Kauffman and Donald Kauffman. Columbia
Pictures. 2002. Film
Being John Malkovich. Dir. Spike Jonze. Screenplay by Charlie Kauffman. Universal Pictures. 1999
Heroes. NBC. 2007-10. Television series

12
‘Adaptation’, the Film, the Process and the Dialogue: CAESURAE, SPRING 2016

Looking for Richard. Dir. Al Pacino. Screenplay by Al Pacino and William Shakespeare. 20 th century
Fox. 1996. Film
Lost. ABC. 2004-07. Television series.

Acknowledgements
A version of this paper was presented in “A Day Traversing Literary and Cinematic Terrains”
organized on 28 November, 2015 at Hyderabad by Dr. Nikhila H and Dr. Tharakeshwar V.B The
article has benefitted from the discussion and suggestions at the gathering.

13