As you begin looking at the film, The Hunger Games, I want you to keep in mind that the way we perceive film and books is entirely different. It seems like an obvious fact, but this is usually cause for open criticism and concern when books are made into film.
ADAPTATION THEORY is pretty diverse in terms of how we could define it. We're going to look at several ideas, but for the sake of keeping us all sane, let's set this idea to work with:
A film can interpret a text in three ways:
1) Literal (everything in the book goes into the film exactly as it was written)
2) Interpretive (things in the book can be changed to match the conventions of film)
3) Abstractive (having taken the central idea or theme but changed elements so that the resemblance is minimal)
Let's think about a film. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is probably a good definition of #2. Though it follows the majority of the text to the T, it interprets many elements and removes some to accomodate for the needs of film versus literature. In the book, Harry is on the playground with Dudley when he is attacked by Dementors. He attempts the spell twice before the third try is successful. In the film, he tries once and it happens in a walkway tunnel after the playground (and he spits vapor, not a full patronus).
Seems simple and unimportant right? It's not exactly what we'd call earth shattering in terms of changing the meaning of the film, but it does change our understanding of both the character and the situation. In the book, though afraid and struggling, Harry succeeds in the end. In the film, Harry fails, but even the process of trying helps him though he is, ultimately, not the one who saves himself or Dudley. The locus (the center or location) of power and courage is vastly different. In the book we perceive the strength, determination, and courage of Harry. In the film, we perceive the fear and stress of the moment. We may also find his actions courageous and implicative of power…but we're not going to spend much time there.
However, if the film had mirrored the book exactly, would it have worked? The question with adaptation is always whether or not it will give the viewer the same idea or feeling as the book. Edgar Allen Poe has said that the purpose of a story is to sustain a single emotion or feeling. If we label a film and a book as the same, is there not a responsibility to carry over that information and identity? Is the edited and unedited version of a movie or song the same? However, can you actually communicate in the same way in both mediums? What's ultimately the better option--tell the story as is and risk miscommunication (nevermind the length) or change elements of the story to sustain the intention and feel of the book?
Directions:
I want you to look at the quote below and the film clip that matches. Express or explain to me what you think the changes or similarities do for the reader/viewer. Has the film accomplished the goal of communicating what the book does? If not, what do the changes do?
Page 260 (about two pages before chapter 20) to the end of Chapter 20; Chapter 22 (290-302) Here's the thing…the order of events and how information comes to light…completely re-arranged in the film. Guess what? No mention of Gale either. In fact…Gale kind of disappears from the film. R | |