Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
in general, why would you look for or expect--or even really want---a "faithful" adaptation of a novel into cinema?
the forms are entirely different: they do not and cannot do the same things.
|
This is at the core of the matter. The forms are inherently different. No matter how "faithful" an adaptation, the two products will still stand as vastly different.
Without getting too technical, the reason behind this is based in the function of language. A film tends to simplify things by showing you scenes, whereas in literature, the multiplicity of meaning is rooted in our individual interpretation of words and the values we place on them. There are thousands of words you cannot record on film, especially when you consider utterance as being distinct from symbol. Linguist Ferdinand de Saussure's idea of the
sign (sign = signified|signifier) helps us see the relationship between form (
signified) and concept (
signifier). Consider the variances between the
signifiers of film and literature. In film, a
signified tree is revealed as a
signifier by the filming an actual tree. In literature, the
signifier is written as "tree," which brings up all sorts of connotations to various readers. Even in this simple example, we see a disparity in a most common object.
Such is the machine at work when we see the processes that go into filming literature.