Reconciliation of film adaptations and literature

Research Problem

The problem of my research is the existence of a conflict between film lovers and literature
lovers because film adaptations are regarded as unsatisfactory and disrespectful by literature
lovers, and works of literature are regarded as boring, insufficient, and time-consuming by film
lovers.

Research Objectives

The objectives of my research are to explain why the film adaptation conflict between film
lovers and literature lovers should end without a winner and with peace, both without being
superior to each other and realizing each of the literature and films have their unique features.

Literature Review

The topics that my research is related to are film adaptations and literature’s struggle to get an
edge over each other and the pros and cons of them.

Importance and contributions of the study

My research can contribute to educating people who love books and movies more about how
adaptations work. By explaining misunderstandings and unfair opinions, it can be a useful guide
for people to understand the good and not-so-good parts of both books and movies. It's like a
helpful tool that can show everyone the strong and weak points of both ways of telling stories.

By creating a balanced and suitable environment for following novels and adaptations, this
research can encourage directors and novelists to collaborate for the future of literature.

Film adaptations of literature are regarded as disrespectful by literature lovers. In my opinion,

and as far as i learned from the “Introduction to Visual and Cultural Studies” course given by
“Asst. Prof. Dr. Jason Mark Ward” there is no reason for that prejudice they have.
“Because novel and film are both organic-in the sense that aesthetic judgments are based on
total ensembles which include both formal and thematic conventions-we may expect to find that
differences in form and theme are inseparable from differences in media.”

(Bluestone, 1957, p. 2).

“The clichéd response that ‘the book was better’ really means that our phantasy of the book
was better than the director’s” (Stam & Raengo, 2005, p. 15).

There are things that prejudiced literature lovers or in my opinion, also known as “adaptation
haters” have to realize about adaptations and their capabilities of the things that books are not
capable of like transposing characters and their emotions to the audience and remaining popular.

Around 80-85% of all Academy Award winners are adaptations

(Brady, 1994, p. xi, Jaffe-Young, 1999, p. 1).

Pros of the films do not make them superior to the novels because not all adaptations are
qualified or “close” adaptations as how Desmond Hawkes called it.

“A film is a close adaptation when most of the narrative elements in the literary text are kept in
the film, few elements are dropped, and not many elements are added. For example, Harry
Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001), directed by Chris Columbus, is a close adaptation partly
because J. K. Rowling, the best-selling author of the Harry Potter series, knew that she had a
loyal readership, and so in selling the film rights, she stipulated that the film stay close to the
Potter text, even insisting on her approval of the director and actors.” (Hawkes, 2006, p. 44).

Not all adaptations are “close” ones and this is the fact that creates antipathy against them and
makes adaptations look unsatisfactory even though they could have been “close” if they were
prepared and adapted rigorously.

“The distinction between. the character who comes to us through, a screen of language and the
character who comes to,us in visual images may account, perhaps, for the persistent disclaimers
of film commentators like Michael Orme and Thomas Craven. Protesting De Mille's butchering
of Four Frightened People by E. Arnot Robinson, Orme reflects, "you cannot transpose any one
character from page to screen and hope to present him entirely as the novelist created him or as
the novelist's public knew him .... who can really recall having seen a screen performance which
really and truly portrayed his favorite character as he knew it?” (Bluestone,1957, pp. 23-24).
There are also things that film lovers must admit like the impossibility of adapting a novel into a
film with all the details. Films can not be as long as the novel and unnecessary details should be
deleted by “screenwriters” who get novels into a shape to be able to be adapted into films.

“Usually deleted are characters’ observations, thoughts, interior monologues, dreams, reveries,
and memories” (Jaffe-Young, 1999, p. 1).

The unsuccessful adaptations that cause antipathy against films are called “loose” adaptations.

“A film is a loose adaptation when most of the story elements in the literary text are dropped
from the film and most elements in the film are substituted or added. A loose adaptation uses the
literary text as a point of departure.

To Have and Have Not (1944), directed by Howard Hawks, is an example of a loose adaptation
of Hemingway's novel because the film keeps just the title and the main character's name.”

(Hawkes, 2006, p .44).

In conclusion, adaptations fail to live up to our expectations because of misconceptions about the
creative process. Yet, they open up new channels into the source text and help to keep it relevant
and alive. To sum up, film adaptations and literature have their uniquenesses in their style, and
film adaptations shouldn't be victimized by not considering “close” adaptations and giving
references of only “loose” adaptations in history.

Research Method

With the help of quotations and other resources related to my content, I am going to conduct my
explanatory research by putting them together and demonstrating why adaptations shouldn’t be
hated.

I am going to be working alone on this research proposal report.

Research Calendar

The time period I expect for this research is between January 1st, 2024, and January 7th, 2024.

References are added in “APA in-text citation” format.