loss of Our born ioe Reenta smectic. relation ‘i PUN, Hite E nada Merate Kind of “bad abject ” BB pointed out long ago, we feel the loss of our own. is B . Fre novel, with the result that che adaptation itself becomes a kind of “bad FSB To peeps Robert Stam Beyond Fidelity: The Dialogics of Adaptation ‘The language of criticism dealing with the film adaptation of novels has terms such 1%, of ‘The Chimera of Fidelity fail (ealice, what wr apse oo 2% Gapyiah © 200by Rabe Sam. (oD—gwiek Uthe, > : a a Se eee ( {Githful? To the biographical author? To the textual implied author? TH into Movies) on the subject of the “natur: im medium: [Movies are good at action, they're not good at reflective thought or con- Or is the adapter-filmmaker to be true to the style ‘out Tos naraive pont cl view! Ore cing Sees Hf \o'4u0f 2 ‘i te-culturallyroptel WMMMEY’ 4 ject. The film tecalque themelveacem vo stand inthe way of E Sheebvelopment of crcl. seems to be saying that films cannot be intelligent or reflective— d this is from someone who claims to be a “fan” of the movies. De- te her self-proclaimed populism, Kael shares with certain literary elit- ists the assumption that the cinema inevitably lacks the depth and dig- saity of literature. But apart from her factitious hierarchizing of Avvariation on the theme De faithful not so mt [the events presented. Yet I am in no way arguing the superioritic resource, opening the way to « multitempors, polythythmi ‘The novelistic character also potentially sure or fragmentation within the film ada their very nature. Their essence is to have no essence, to be open to all cultural forms. Cinema can literally include painting, poetry, and music, counterpoint. Godard’ Possion not only includes music (Ravel, Mozart, "Ferre, Beethoven, and Faurél, but is conceived musically, and not onlyation, plagiarism, and allusi fr tense, participates in a double intertextuality, on the J » other cinemati ater" Genette’s second type of transtextuality, refers6 The Dialogs of Adaptation s, 30 any novel can generate any number of adapta- tions. Why should we assume that one director—for example, John E Huston—has said everything that needs to be said about tion” (Vachel Lin Tiney, q “music of light” (abel ance), and "architecture In movement” (elie Fauré}-merely call attention to the synthetic multiplicity of signifiers @ available to the cinema. the upper-class liberal del Mone salon, he supplemented te novel by0]d uy Burpua Addy &. i» BB SOquONEP 24 WOYM 4 i pus soucreur 94 WoHM ‘op ‘wry aq, “ALOR 3 polumiind s,20j0q 2» i ‘azuedusry9 © Aq pooeidar 51 jo1red s,208n5 pue ‘oxdg eA >9IC] 4q paced 2opFeE oq s2UHO50q AsoBeiord 8,90 ;aq se “eaHHoIooz pur jeuO¥ss}oud ta0q suOTERHIO} Suen are a1ayp ($961) 2osn1> uosurqoy 1ouesnarT wy] “oeds Ut ZoSUOR F souiosaq ye uo ,,t22u0rd, 249 -Uonoy 2ou2}28 OMT JoAoU stp sum} A 20m aaniea19, Jo osuas ayy ur utaod « ‘soprums a1do ¢oaou ays yo 2000 [9 pue noputs# aipotiad om Jo asuas ayp wr ada ‘9438 uy sourSTp oTuO‘01 “onoereyp Jo su0U Jo orsioagns sit ‘sanemeU 0} qoeardds pant ‘aInAysoN s;zeanTy Jo verp se Yous aarveszeu pasradstp = yo suoR -avap si 20} tun sny aarenoty AfawIREIxe Seu Az0A0G OPO iL isp 050C] sa Jo vod Jo opmord Zapdanos a one +f SG, 3 “pasn u29q jou0o says atp plos ou asoKs eH SOU pur s9UTeU ,sro9ezeGD ayp Jo May B {yuo 1424 prepor ‘asou aoznos 243 woyy pauyeias Sem 2[ ‘rrouuyy aup yo a9em 24h u]“BOOSEST TESBOWCODT TanorSrU0G 30} syuako OpsTFaAOU aBuEYD uBYyO sfonou Jo suONEYdepE Lp vorndory fs A ©am 82pF a OTH a pds uaa passe 70 SiG M0 wopuege Ae OUUTON 8 01 yoerdde amp Bupdope Aq a ‘asraxopour & uayya “227 -Booazsnar sey 10%; feat wana Syezatun, enpot uoxurwooqy) (pea yo sade 9YL oF apmauyy "ypURNE HALIM 235 "6 = “tad 12z61 ‘orang F fsatun eurper santana) ays ouptouy ayy ‘cay urn 395 “| sdiON “paw atp Fuowre s90u3325 ARE. FP AP ‘sour09j2m osfe ang undo" OVUT soyPs AfUO 0G eK WHEE: aonoelg ul uoneidepy” ea HE Sonpond yi so eau seoyy op aro ane