Literature & Film: Translating Between Media & Its Difficulties

Since the early days of film theory the scholars were concerned primarily with confirming that cinema is an art. This concern with the status of film as an art continued well in to the middle of twentieth century. There was inhibition to confer sculpture the aesthetical legitimacy of an art form even during the era of Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. As James Monaco amusingly observes in his book that the scholars at that time argued that sculptures can not be an art, but it is more surprising to know that later, particular films were conferred the status of art even though initially all those films were cast out as rubbish.

At the beginning of this new art form the primary question raised by the scholars was whether this art would be able to capture the esteemed position of the literary art form.

Echoing Keith Cohen, it can be assumed that spawn of artistic hybrids characterized the preceding century. The zeitgeist of this period of 'Contre decadence' was to transform considerably following the First World War, but the act of drawing on one art for the enrichment of another – an accomplishment that Europe had become accustomed with since Wagner's generations – was repeated over and over and has come to be an essential characteristic of the twentieth century art. Hence it is not unanticipated when George Melies, one of the pioneer filmmakers becomes vocal about the ability of cinema to amalgamate various arts in proper proportion: "dramatic art, drawing, painting, sculpture, architecture, mechanics, manual labor."

Since the day the era of silent films ended and the age of talkies emerged, the discussion about literature and films gathered new momentum. A prerequisite of literature is literacy but film does not require such a provision. The increase in the number of cinema-halls all over the world & particularly India affirms this fact. Being an audiovisual media, it has an advantage of having a profound effect on the spectators. One may point out a negative element, that this medium does not give the chance to think like literature does. But film, like literature and other forms of art has gone through diverse changes. In Andre Malro's opinion spectators started to regard film as the revelation of ideology from the day film has been conceptualized as the combination of numerous shots. Now films do not only depend on narrativity or plots. Nevertheless even today film is greatly indebted to literature. It has been witnessed that some literary works have gained popularity after being adapted in celluloid likewise certain films have been popular chiefly because those films were based on popular novels or stories. All over the world & particularly in developing country where half of the world's illiterate population reside, film can be one of the most effective tools to bring-forth great literature to the mass.

But is it possible to interpret a literary work impeccably on celluloid? A major problem of making a film based on a popular literature is that most of the people who have already read the work become irritated if the filmmaker takes too much creative freedom in depicting the story on film. But change is needed in various aspects, as the medium is entirely different. Does that mean, to remain loyal to a work of literature one should represent it on celluloid word by word! But that is neither the ideal nor possible. Eminent film scholar and dramatist Bela Balazs opines, if a filmmaker is a real artist then he will use the literature as his raw material – he will utilize it in accordance with his own medium. One must remember that this raw material is not any sacred thing that must be preserved. In his own words; "nearly every artistically serious and intelligent adaptation is a re-interpretation of that material." John Houston, the famous director of such films like Moby Dick, The Maltese Falcon, while talking about adapting literature on screen said, "I do not seek to interpret, to put my stamp on the material. I try to be as faithful to the original material as I can. ...In fact it is the fascination that I feel for the original that makes me want to make in to a film." On the contrary Ingmar Bergman remarked in his introduction to his own screenplays, "Film has nothing to do with literature; the character and substance of the two art forms usually in conflict. ...It is mainly because of this difference between film and literature that we should avoid making films out of books. ...I only want to make films – films about conditions, tensions, pictures, rhythms and characters, which are in one way or another important to me. ...I am a film maker, not an author." Then from where does he get his raw material? " It often begins with an image; a face suddenly and strongly illuminated; a rising hand; a village square at daybreak where some old women are sitting on a bench and are separated by a bag of apples...all these images are caught up like sparkling fish in my net, or more exactly I'm caught myself in a net of which, fortunately I do not yet know the texture." Norman Miler echoed Bergmen when he said, "Film and literature are as far apart as say, cave painting and song."

But most of the distinguished filmmakers have at least once or twice made films based on literature. Even Sergei Eisenstein who was at first sternly against the literature based film, later commented in his famous book Film Form, " I consider that besides mastering the elements of filmic diction, the technique of the frame, and the story of montage, we have another credit to the list – the value of profound ties with the traditions and methodology of literature."

But in fact literature and films are complementary to each other and not adversaries. When a film is an adaptation of a literary work, it must be noticed whether that film has been able to successfully incorporate the main theme and express the inherent conviction. As Bela Balazs explains that, there can be no doubt that it is possible to take the subject, the story, the plot of a novel turn in to a play or a film and yet produce perfect works of art in each case – the form being in each case adequate to the content. How is this possible? It is possible because, while the subject or story of both works is identical yet their aesthetical treatment allied with the medium is nevertheless different. It is this difference in treatment that ought to be effectively expressed in the changed from resulting from the adaptation.