1

Brian McFarlane
Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation

“Adapting literary works to film is, without a doubt, a creative undertaking, but the task
requires a kind of selective interpretation, along with the ability to recreate and sustain an
established mood” (6; qt. from DeWitt Bodeen). “…for much of the time the film is a
conscientious visual transliteration of the original” (6)
“As to audiences, whatever their complaints about this or that violation of the original, they
have continued to want to see what the books 'look like'. Constantly creating their own mental
images of the world of a novel and its people, they are interested in comparing their images with
those created by the film-maker. But, as Christian Metz says, the reader 'will not always find his
film, since what he has before him in the actual film is now somebody else's phantasy” (6)
“At every level from newspaper reviews to longer essays in critical anthologies and journals, the
adducing of fidelity to the original novel as a major criterion for judging the film adaptation is
pervasive….Fidelity criticism depends on a notion of the text as having and rendering up to the
(intelligent) reader a single, correct 'meaning' which the film- maker has either adhered to or in
some sense violated or tampered with” (8)
“…the fidelity of the adapted film in letter and spirit to its literary source has unquestionably
dominated the discourse on adaptation” (10; qt. from Christopher Orr).
What relationship should a film have to the original source? Should it be "faithful"? Can it be?
To what?' (9, qt. from Morris Beja) – Travers’s opinion on adaptations is similar.
As for another approach next to fidelity, “Within this critical context [i.e. of intertextuality], the
issue is not whether the adapted film is faithful to its source, but rather how the choice of a
specific source and how the approach to that source serve the film's ideology.” (10; qt. from
Christopher Orr).
“Geoffrey Wagner suggests three possible categories which are open to the film-maker and to
the critic assessing his adaptation: he calls these (a) transposition, 'in which a novel is given
directly on the screen with a minimum of apparent interference'; 28 (b) commentary, 'where an
original is taken and either purposely or inadvertently altered in some respect . . . when there has
been a different intention on the part of the film-maker, rather than infidelity or outright
violation'; and (c) analogy, which must represent a fairly considerable departure for the sake of
making another work of art'” (10-11)
“Dudley Andrew also reduces the modes of relation between the film and its source novel to
three, which correspond roughly (but in reverse order of adherence to the original) to Wagner's
categories: 'Borrowing, intersection, and fidelity of transformation'. And there is a third
comparable classification system put forward by Michael Klein and Gillian Parker: first, 'fidelity
to the main thrust of the narrative'; second, the approach which 'retains the core of the structure
of the narrative while significantly reinterpreting or, in some cases, deconstructing the source
 2

text'; and, third, regarding 'the source merely as raw material, as simply the occasion for an
original work'.” (11)
“Film tells us continuous stories; it "says" things that could be conveyed also in the language of
words; yet it says them differently.” (12; qt. from Christian Metz)
Terminology
The process of transposition from novel to film
Cinema as a narrative entertainment
 Narrative = “a series of events, causally linked, involving a continuing set of characters
which influence and are influenced by the course of events” (12)
Roland Barthes distinguishes two main groups of narrative functions: “To distributional
functions, Barthes gives the name of functions proper; integrational functions he calls indices.
The former refer [sic] to actions and events; they are 'horizontal' in nature, and they are strung
together linearly throughout the text; they have to do with 'operations'; they refer to a
functionality of doing. Indices denotes a 'more or less diffuse concept which is nevertheless
necessary to the meaning of the story'. This concept embraces, for instance, psychological
information relating to characters, data regarding their identity, notations of atmosphere and
representations of place. Indices are 'vertical' in nature, influencing our reading of narrative in a
pervasive rather than a linear way; they do not refer to operations but to a functionality of being.
 'transfer' denotes “the process whereby certain narrative elements of novels are revealed
as amenable to display in film” (12) “In broad terms, this involves a distinction between
narrative (which can be transferred) and enunciation (which cannot, involving as it does
quite separate systems of signification)” (23)
“Novel and film can share the same story, the same 'raw materials', but are distinguished by
means of different plot strategies which alter sequence, highlight different emphases, which--in a
word-- defamiliarize the story” (23)
“In moving from novel to film, we are moving from a purely representational mode to 'an order
of the operable', to use Barthes's distinction:
i. differences between two 'language' systems, one of which works wholly symbolically,
the other through an interaction of codes, including codes of execution;
ii. tense: film cannot present action in the past as novels chiefly do; and
iii. film's spatial (as well as temporal) orientation which gives it a physical presence
denied to the novel's linearity.” (29)

 'adaptation' refers “to the processes by which other novelistic elements must find quite
different equivalences in the film medium, when such equivalences are sought or are
available at all.” (12)
Dudley Andrew: adaptation is “the matching of the cinematic sign system to a prior achievement
in some other system” (21)
 3

The “distinction between narrative and narration finds rough parallels in that between story
and discourse. The latter pair--histoire and discours in modern French poetic--derives from the
Russian Formalist distinction of the 1920s 'between fabula--the story-material as pure
chronological sequence--and suzet, the plot as arranged and edited by the shaping of a story-
teller, i.e. the finished narrative work as we experience it in a text; no longer pure story but a
selective narrative act'” (20).
“To say that a film is based on a novel is to draw attention to one--and, for many people, a
crucial--element of its intertextuality, but it can never be the only one. Conditions within the
film industry and the prevailing cultural and social climate at the time of the film's making
(especially when the film version does not follow hot upon the novel's publication) are two
major determinants in shaping any film, adaptation or not. Among the former (i.e. conditions
within the industry) one might 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 genre
conventions, or the prevailing parameters of cinematic practice. As to the latter (i.e. the climate
of the times) it is difficult to set up a regular methodology for investigating how far cultural
conditions (e.g. the exigencies of wartime or changing sexual mores) might lead to a shift in
emphasis in a film as compared with the novel on which it is based.” (21-22)
 Enunciated = 'utterance' as manifested in 'a stretch of text'; a coherent set of events
enacted in a series of syntagmatic units, as the sum of its narrative functions. (20)
 Enunciation = characterizes the process that creates, releases, shapes the 'utterance'. It
refers to the ways in which the utterance is mediated, and, as such, obviously shares
common ground with narration, suzet, and discourse. (20)
The film may lack literary marks of enunciation such as person and tense.
Kinds of Narration and their Cinematic Potential
“The distinctions to be drawn between various narrational modes as they appear in the novel are
difficult to sustain in film narrative.” (15)
(a) The subjective cinema: the first-person narration of the original is reduced. “, 'The
subjective perception--what the characters themselves see and how they experience it--is
integrated with an objective presentation of these individual points of view and what they
signify inside the same narrative movement and the continuous action.'”(15)
(b) Oral narration or voice-over: “Those words spoken in voice-over accompany images
which necessarily take on an objective life of their own. One no longer has the sense of
everything's being filtered through the consciousness of the protagonist-speaker” (15)
(c) The omniscient novel: “The narrative in such a novel is conveyed through two kinds of
discourses: those attributed to various characters in direct speech ( Colin MacCabe's
'object language' and that of the narrative (I should prefer 'narrating') prose, the
apparently authoritative 'metalanguage' which surrounds them” (17).
 4

The mode of restricted consciousness

“Neither first-person nor omniscient narration is, of its nature, amenable to cinematic narrative.
Both seem always to know too much, or at least to know more than we feel is known in advance
by the more directly experienced film narrative; and this sense of foreknowledge is no doubt
intimately connected to the characteristic past-tense rendering of the prose narrative as opposed
to the perceptual immediacy of the film.” (19)
Character functions
To Propp, 'Function is understood as an act of character, defined from the point of view of its
significance for the course of the action.' (24)
Freud: “An action by the ego is as it should be if it satisfies simultaneously the demands of the
id, of the super-ego and of reality” (25)

Two signifying systems

“The novel draws on a wholly verbal sign system, the film variously, and sometimes
simultaneously, on visual, aural, and verbal signifiers. Even the apparently overlapping verbal
signs (the words on the novel's page, the written or printed words used in the film, e.g. letters,
street signs, newspaper headlines), while they may give the same information, function
differently in each case. In the examples given, the letter, the street sign, and the newspaper
headline will each resemble their real-life referents in ways that are customarily beyond the
novel's capacity for iconic representation” (26)

The novel's linearity and the film's spatiality

Viewing time (and, thus sequentiality) is controlled much more rigorously than reading time,
frame-following-frame is not analogous to the word-following-word experience of the novel…
We do not ordinarily view a film frame by frame as we read a novel word by word (27).

Extra-cinematic codes (29):

a. language codes (involving response to particular accents or tones of voice and what these
might mean socially or temperamentally);
b. visual codes (response to these goes beyond mere 'seeing' to include the interpretative and the
selective);
c. non-linguistic sound codes (comprising both musical and other aural codes);
d. cultural codes (involving all that information which has to do with how people live, or lived, at
particular times and places).
 5

Toby Miller and Robert Stam (eds.)

A Companion to Film Theory

“[a] film is difficult to explain because it is easy to understand” (Christian Metz)

“Honest criticism and sensitive appreciation is directed not upon the poet but upon the poetry.” (T. S. Eliot)

Toby Miller: Introduction (1-8)

“Audience concerns include psychological, sociological, educational, consumer, criminological,
and political promises and anxieties. Textual ranking involves authorship, genre, form, style,
and representational politics.” (2)
“A feminist film anthology certainly focuses on issues of representation and production that are
shared by many women, but it also attends to differences of race, history, class, sexuality, and
nation, alongside and as part of theoretical difference (Carson, Dittmar, and Welsch 1994), while
a black film anthology will divide between spectatorial and aesthetic dimensions (Diawara
1993), and a queer anthology will identify links between social oppression and film and video
practice (Gever, Greyson, and Parmar 1993; Holmlund and Fuchs 1997)” (2)

James Naremore: Authorship (9-24)

“Motion pictures and television are often described as collaborative media, but their modes of
production are hierarchical, involving a mixture of industrialized, theatrical, and artisanal
practices.” (9)
In books about classic Hollywood, the term author has been applied to writers (Anita Loos,
Raymond Chandler), photographers (John Alton, Gordon Willis), composers (Max Steiner,
Bernard Herrmann), choreographers (Busby Berkeley, Michael Kidd), and stars (the Marx
Brothers, Bette Davis). “For the most part, however, film authorship is associated with
directors, who are said to play the most important role in the production process” (9)

Auteurism
= it was generated by what Raymond Williams terms a “cultural formation” – “a loose
confederation of intellectuals and critics who had roughly similar objectives…, and who
developed a body of polemical writing to justify their opinions… It originated in Paris during the
1950s, at a moment when France was becoming increasingly Americanized, and in many
respects it imitated … the “historical” avant-garde of the 1910s and ’20.s” (10) “Although the
movement was in every sense youthful, impetuous, and romantic (some would say adolescent), it
was often dedicated to antique virtues, and to praising the work of directors who were entering
their twilight years.” (13) “Auteurism profoundly affected Hollywood’s view of its own past, and
in the process greatly enhanced the reputation of directors like Hawks and Hitchcock, who were
making their late films at the height of the movement…Equally important, it influenced the
spread of college film societies, inspired a new generation of academics to write about film, and
contributed to the growth of film studies as an academic discipline.” (16-17)
The residual “auteur theory” in its various manifestations still affects our view of film history,
and it still has lessons to teach us:
 6

1. The author is just as real (or as illusory and fetishized) as the money and the mechanical
apparatus behind the cinema.
2. The study of authors is useful because it enables us to differentiate films more precisely –
They imposed a style upon their films.
3. It is very important to know who is speaking. Readers or viewers always decode
messages by positing a source, and the source has a political meaning.

The Death (and Survival) of the Author

“Prior to the 1920s, the study of literature in the United States was essentially a branch of
intellectual biography… to shape the morality and taste of young gentlemen, and by the idea that
art was something in the “real” world, existing prior to language.” (18)
The overwhelming majority of introductory classes on media “language” taught in the
universities are still based on New-Critical precepts. → David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson’s
Film Art argues that films should be evaluated according to internal criteria such as unity,
coherence, complexity, originality, and intensity.
“The Vietnam era gave way to the Reagan-Thatcher years. Hollywood learned to profit from
blockbusters; the media were increasingly consolidated and globalized; and social protest
fragmented along generational, ethnic, and gender lines.” (20)
“[I]n the age of the computer, the media are able to generate “hypertexts” – apparently
authorless – words, sounds, and images manipulated by the reader/viewer according to
structural conventions and a repertoire of older styles.” (21)

Sarah Berry-Flint: Genre (25-44)

 Film genres are ways of grouping movies by style and story. (25)
 “In practical terms, genres are vehicles for the circulation of films in industrial, critical,
and popular discourses.” (26)
 “Genres are socially organized sets of relations between texts that function to enable
certain relations between texts and viewers. Because they organize the framework of
expectations within which reading takes place, they help to enable the possibility of
communication; the blurring of certain genres, therefore, can be seen as a political move
to discourage certain forms of communication” (41)
“Western genre theory is often traced back to Aristotle’s Poetics and its influence on eighteenth-
century European classicism, when genres were seen as ideal types of artistic expression to
be emulated and refined… With the nineteenth-century Romantic movement, many artists and
writers came to see classical genres as an over-regulation of both representation and
reception…By the time of cinema’s arrival in the 1890s, genres had become even more
discredited through association with mass-market publishing” and genres were associated with
popular culture (25). “In 1969, however, British writer Lawrence Alloway argued for a radically
different approach to film criticism…” (26)
 7

Early Genre Study

“In the US and Europe, early film categories were primarily derived from other popular forms
such as melodrama, religious and occult spectacle, journalistic and pictorial photography, the
Wild West show, the travel or scientific lecture, and the dime novel” (28)
“In melodrama two themes are important: the triumph of moral virtue over villainy, and the
consequent idealizing of the moral views assumed to be held by the audience. In the
melodrama of the brutal thriller we come as close as it is normally possible for art to come to
the pure self-righteousness of the lynching mob. We should have to say, then, that all forms of
melodrama, the detective story in particular, were advance propaganda for the police state, in so
far as that represents the regularizing of mob violence, if it were possible to take them seriously.
But it seems not to be possible” (36; qt. from Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism)

Genres and ideology

In the1980s, genre theory was marked by two very contradictory definitions of genre – as social
ritual (a “reflection of society perspective,”) and ideological (a production of culture perspective|
serving the interests of the ruling class) tool.” (36)
“Stringer argues that while American genres are gender-coded as “male action or ‘doing’
genres (the Western, war films) and female ‘suffering’ genres (melodrama, the woman’s film)”,
the Hong Kong action films of John Woo “collapse these two paradigms of masculinity into
one. They combine simultaneously doing and suffering heroes” (39)
“As film theorists have pointed out, popular genre definitions are often made according to films’
presumed effect: horror, suspense, “thrillers,” “weepies,” or “tear-jerkers”” (39-40)

Andre Gaudreault and Francois Jost: Enunciation and Narration (45-63)

Films differ from novels in that a film can show an action rather than tell it.
Double narrative in films = in such cases where the soundtrack allows us to hear the words of a
narrator. While one tells one story in an overt manner, as in a living voice, the grand image-
maker does now show himself. (46)
Enunciation has several meanings. In the broadest sense, it signifies “the relations between
what is said and the different sources that produce statements: the protagonists of discourse
[sender and receiver], the situation of communication.” (46)

Lucy Fisher: Film Editing (64-83)

“Of all the technical properties of film, the most general and indispensable is editing.”
(Siegfried Kracauer: Theory of film)

= “The process of selecting, assembling, and arranging motion picture shots and corresponding
sound tracks in coherent sequence and flowing continuity” (64)
= or film text itself
= David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson conceive editing in a double sense as: “1. In
filmmaking, the task of selecting and joining camera takes [and] 2. In the finished film, the set of
techniques that govern the relations among shots” (64)
 8

Editing affects human psyche: “for Munsterberg, film works by “overcoming the forms of the
outer world, namely, space, time, and causality, and by adjusting the events to the forms of the
inner world, namely, attention, memory, imagination, and emotion”” (71)

Warren Buckland: Film Semiotics (84-104)

Film semiotics “construct hypotheses and models, founded on the hierarchy between underlying
(latent, nonobservable) reality and surface (manifest, observable) reality” (85) Film semiotics
defines film’s specificity - its uniqueness in terms of its underlying reality, rather than its
immediately perceptible qualities. The role of theory is to make visible this invisible reality by
constructing a model of it.” (88) Film semioticians suggest that film is a coded medium like
natural language and possesses a specific, autonomous, underlying system as does natural
language.

Gregory Currie: Cognitivism (105-122)

“cognitivists have questioned the semiotic assumption that film can be understood as, or in any
interesting way akin to, a language, arguing that there is a fundamental difference between the
ways in which words and sentences on the one hand, and images on the other are processed…the
visual processing and interpretation of cinematic images is done in much the same way as the
visual processing of objects in the real world. For example, the cues that indicate to us such
things as shape, object identity, depth, relative size, the occlusion of one object by another when
we look at objects in the real world are also the cues we use to determine those features of what
is represented in a cinematic image” (109).
“filmic meaning must be in some way dependent on the ways in which an audience is apt to
respond to it and cannot be considered as something intrinsic to the work. This raises the
question: to what extent is cinematic meaning a construction of the viewer rather than
something the viewer finds in the work? David Bordwell, a founder of cognitivism, has said
that audiences construct meaning…For Bordwell, everyone, from the unreflective casual
movie-watcher to the self-conscious, professional interpreter whose work we read in
academic journals, is a constructor of meaning.” (112)
“Empathy/simulation theory is … well placed to validate the cognitivist’s insistence on one kind
of realism in cinema: that to some extent we respond to the cinema as we do to reality” (115)

Richard Allen: Psychoanalytic Film Theory (123-145)

“The psychoanalytic concepts used in film studies are based on the work of French theorist
Jacques Lacan, who, in turn, built upon Sigmund Freud’s pioneering work on the unconscious,
sexuality, and subject formation.” (146-147)
The kinship between cinema and irrationality is suggested by two distinct aspects of the
cinema: the distinctive visual properties of the medium (i.e., 1. it stresses the affinity of film to
irrational thought and dream. 2. the cinema mobilizes the most primitive desires of the spectator
by telling stories of everyday romance that take on mythic proportions and by casting the human
 9

being, in the figure of the star, as a transcendent, god-like creature), 1 and the character and
quality of mass cultural narratives.
“Cognitive film theorists point out that psychoanalytic theory overlooks the pre-conscious and
conscious aspects of the spectator’s cognitive and emotional engagement with narrative film
(Bordwell 1985). … Feminists argue that the idea of the spectator as a transcendent, omnipotent
figure is a patriarchal one (Penley 1989).” (131)

E. Deidre Pribram: Spectatorship and Subjectivity (146-164)

“The study of spectatorship is an attempt to understand why we choose to sit in the movie theater
seat or on the living-room sofa captivated by a screen. What is it that makes the experience so
pleasurable, desirable, meaningful ~ given that viewing subjects position themselves as filmic or
televisual spectators voluntarily, in very large numbers, and with frequent repetition? What are
the relationships between individual and filmic process: how are we linked to screen, narrative,
character? Who exactly is the subject seated before the screen, involved in an activity which has
been described as everything from passive absorption to active production of the text?” (146)

Julia Erhart: Laura Mulvey Meets Catherine Tramell Meets the She-Man: Counter-
History, Reclamation, and Incongruity in Lesbian, Gay, and Queer Film and Media
Criticism (165-181)
“queer” promoted itself as a term “beyond labels,” as a term that included lesbians, queers of
color, bisexuals, cross-dressers, transgendered people, and sexual others of all stripes, in addition
to gay white men” (173)
“Initially an effect of more than 25 years of institutional censorship that forbade even the vaguest
references to “sex perversion” (let alone depictions of it), pre-l96Os, US-produced
representations of homosexuality fared much the same as homosexuality itself before the gay
liberation movements - as a closeted and little seen thing. In contrast, the queer pulse of film and
media studies today is strong and vibrant” (165)
“Pam Cook, Claire Johnston, and in particular an early essay by Laura Mulvey established
several basic premises: first, that there exists a relationship between power, objectification, and
looking that neatly divides up along sexual lines, with men being the agent of the look and
women the object viewed; second, that the mechanisms of cinema foster such relationships;
third, that psychoanalysis helps delineate and indeed undo such mechanisms; and fourth, that the

1
The starting point for modern feminist psychoanalytic film theory is Laura Mulvey’s essay “Visual Pleasure and
Narrative Cinema”. It is her psychoanalytic diagnosis of the subjection of women in cinema, which predicated
upon a call for the abandonment of the pleasures of cinema, which forcefully suggests that those pleasures held their
lure. She suggests that films tend to fetishize the image of woman (as in von Sternberg films), or punish the woman
(as in certain Hitchcock films).
“The contribution of feminist film theory based in psychoanalysis is its attempt to explain - with the hopes of
dismantling - the exclusion of women from the dominant discourses and institutions of socio-cultural life as the
function of male needs and drives for power” (150)
Metz also argues that the cinema promotes scopophilia in the form of voyeurism that always, he suggests, includes
sadism. Scopophilia describes a sexual pleasure derived from looking. Voyeurism can be distinguished from
scopophilia on the grounds that the pleasure of the voyeur is derived from looking at a person who is unaware of the
voyeur’s presence. Scopophilia describes a sexual pleasure derived from looking.
 10

mode of analysis needed to bring about change must engage at the level of the signifier, i.e. the
text.” (170)
“Though not articulated from an explicitly gay or lesbian point of view, two essays carved out a
space for such spectators, Dyer’s 1982 essay on the male pin-up (see Dyer 1992), and de
Lauretis’s 1984 chapter, in Alice Doesn’t, entitled “Desire and Narrative.” Without challenging
Mulvey’s findings… Dyer examined the consequences of objectifying men (rather than women),
detailing the configuration of the look in the case of the male “pin-up.” De Lauretis, in turn,
added to Mulvey’s observation of the sexedness of narrative, the idea that narrative was
heterosexed, detailing how narrative nearly always involves the movement of a male hero
through female-gendered space… Following these initial formulations, lesbian and gay theorists
began to qualify how feminist film theory’s notions of looking, desire, and identification would
manifest themselves in lesbian or gay contexts” (171)
Teresa de Lauretis’s 1991 essay “Film and the Visible,” is one of several which functioned to
update the psychoanalytic vocabulary from a lesbian, gay, or queer perspective.
“In the area of film and media studies, a good deal of effort initially went into determining what
the term “queer” referred to, as critics attempted to decide what exactly a queer image or
narrative looked like. Typically “queer” was defined oppositionally, that is, as representation that
possessed qualities of being non-, contra-, or anti-straight (Doty 1993; Benshoff 1997; Evans and
Gamman 1995; Burston and Richardson 1995; Robertson 1996). “Queer” was representation that
“makes heterosexuality strange” (Nataf 1995: 59). “Queer” continued to signify images that were
deemed homosexual, but stood also for non-homosexual imagery that fell outside of hegemonic
representation, such as representations of s/m sexuality, intergenerational sex, or interspecies
sex. Whereas the earlier categories “lesbian” and “gay” were suited to analyzing discrete lesbian
and gay images from (respectively) lesbian and gay films like Desert Hearts and Boys in the
Band, a queer approach helped analyze images that appealed to both lesbians and gay men (not
to mention bisexuals and transgendered people). … In addition to trying to figure queer content,
queer researchers initially attempted to clarify where exactly queerness (as the status of being
queer was designated) could be found. Three relatively uncontroversial areas emerged: first,
queerness could appear in scripts by lesbian, gay, or queer authors; second, it could be conveyed
to a scene via a lesbian, gay, or queer director; or third, it could be seen in performances of actors
who were lesbian, gay, or queer (Benshoff 1997: 13-1 6).” (174-175)
David James: Is There Class in this Text?: The Repression of Class in Film and Cultural
Studies (182-201)
“The same era that saw gender and ethnic identity politics make their momentous ideological
advances also saw the “feminization of poverty” (continued increases in female-headed
households beyond the 1980 figure, when women comprised 66 percent of all adults officially
classified as poor); the flight of the new black middle class and the further decline of living
standards in urban African-American communities (by 1984, while a quarter of all children lived
in poverty, twice that proportion of black children did); and the increase of sweatshop
exploitation of both illegal and legal immigrants.” (183-184)
 11

The founders of British cultural studies - Richard Hoggart, Raymond Williams, and E. P.
Thompson - were committed to working-class politics.

Douglas Kellner: Culture Industries (202-220)

Janet Wasko: The Political Economy of Film (221-233)

Henry Jenkins: The Work of Theory in the Age of Digital Transformation (234-261)

Tom O’Regan: Cultural Exchange (262-294)

Faye Ginsburg: Shooting Back: From Ethnographic Film to Indigenous Production/

Ethnography of Media (295-322)

Ismail Xavier: Historical Allegory (333-362)

Ira Bhaskar: “Historical Poetics,” Narrative, and Interpretation (387-412)