Definitions of film adaptation include the transfer of one material to another.

Film
adaptation is defined as "the process of changing or transforming material from one medium
(novel, stage play, short story, real-life story, etc.) into another ( i.e. Film or TV)" (Frensham,
2003). In the same vein, Valerio (2006) describe it as the process of adapting a piece of
literature (short story/novels/stage plays) into the audio-visual medium (film/tv).
What poses as a challenge in the process of adaptation is actually how close the adapted
material must resemble the information from the chosen source. In actuality, the precise
reproduction of the novel's content comes near to impossible. "This degree of fidelity is what
determines the three types of adaptations: the loose, the faithful and the literal" (Giannetti,
1982).
With regard to loose adaptations, the general idea, figure, or plot structure is taken into
account. Afterwards it is developed relative to the filmmakers' own interpretation of the story.
Giannetti (1982) stated that "loose adaptations can be likened to Shakespeare's treatment of a
story from Plutarchor Bandello, or to the ancient Greek dramatists who often drew upon a
common mythology" ( p.329)
"Faithful adaptations, as the phrase implies, attempt to recreate the literary source in
filmic terms, keeping it as close to the spirit of the original as possible" (Giannetti, 1982). These
are the screenplays that consider the mainplot of the novel and its main characters and retain
such elements in the film.
The literal adaptation of a novel was done in 1924 by Erich von Stroheimin his film
Greed based in Frank Norris's novel McTeague. It has a length of sixteen hours but was reduced
into two hours which ended up with a final product that is totally incoherent. From that time
on, "few directors are foolish enough to attempt to put everything in a novel into a film.”)

Factors influencing the adaptation of novels

A. Commercial Consideration
The popularity of a novel and the public's familiarity of it affect the decision of a filmmaker
in choosing to adapt a novel or not. It is more profitable for the producer to transform into film
a best-selling novel regardless of its "cinematic potential".
However, filmmakers must be mindful of the changes they will make inthe story. "Creative
tampering with the basic plot should be kept to a minimum, and the most important characters
should be left unchanged and carefully cast"(Boggs and Petrie, 2000).
On the other hand, Hollywood scriptwriter John Hill asserts that Hollywood invests more
on the mediocre, not very well established and written novel because "the studio execs and
producers decide things for career is treasons- which in a tough, corporate world, means for
defensive reasons, not for bold instinctive pro-active reasons like creative vision.
"Film adaptation of novels is motivated by "corporate business-type decisions" not by the
creative and aesthetic factors of the source. Producers or studio execs would argue that it is
safer to invest in a movie that is adapted froma novel since there will be initial potential
audience who also patronized theoriginal source or the novel. There will be "pre-sold tickets
and pre-audience awareness" of the adapted movie since it was already marketed before as
aliterary piece. Therefore, it is not that risky to invest in a movie which story was being
gambled on first by other business entity unlike the case of the original screenplay, which will
be released for the first time, "where there's no business precedent and no pre-sold tickets or
pre-audience awareness.

B. Cinematic potential of Novels

The degree of "adaptability" of a novel to film depends upon the novelistic style of the
writer. For instance, Ernest Heming Way and Henry James differ in their style of writing, which
influences the potential of their novels to be transformed into films. Randall Stewart and
Dorothy Bethurun give a comparative analysis of their styles wherein Hemingway's style is
more adaptable to film than James' since Iteming way uses "rhythms of speech and aims to
give a sensuous and emotional rendering of experience": while James focuses mainly on
"literary convolutions as well as intellectual analysis of experience"(Boggs and Petrie,2000).

Change in medium
Adapting into a film involves two media which have their own "distinctive techniques,
conventions, consciousness and viewpoint" (Boggs and Petrie,2000). Every medium possesses
its unique strong and weak elements, thus, adjustments in the story and subject matter are
required (Boggs and Petrie,2000; Phillips, 1999). Hence, it is necessary to the understanding
of film adaptation of a novel that one would have an idea of the distinction between the two
media.
In terms of what novels and films offer their audiences, the former appeals to the
imagination while the latter comes directly to our senses. Phillips(1999) points out that since
novels are printed, the readers need to "visualize and sub vocalize" what they see in the pages
while films directly feed the visuals andsounds in the story. According to Naremore (1997 ),
the dependence of novels towords make it a "single-track" medium. On the other hand, films
offer more thanthe written and verbal aspect and include "theatrical performance, music,
soundeffects, and moving photographic images". While reading a novel requires the reader to
mentally picture for him/herself what he/she is reading, watching a film helps us to see and
hear the story through the moving objects and sound effects.

Change in creative talents

Aside from changes in medium, a change in creative artists usually happens in
adaptation – from the novelist to screenwriter/director. Due to the limitations of the new
medium, the alteration in the emphasis of the story or in thecharacters cannot be avoided.
Therefore, the novelist has to give up his/her control over the story to the director or the actor
(Boggs and Petrie, 2000).
Films are usually written works before evolving into movies. These worksare, more
often than not, crafted by professional writers that are adept in story-telling. The process of
adapting films is intricate in the sense that a scriptwriter must have adequate skills in discerning
which parts to emphasize and whichparts to eliminate. “Ideally, the adaptation should remain
faithful to the original work, conveying the same feeling, atmosphere, plot, and characterization
even though scenes, characters, and conflicts have been modified.” The output, in the end, must
be feasible enough to be produced (Blum, 1995).
Since the process of film adaptation is relative to the film production team,specifically
the director, screenwriter and film producer, there are other means inwhich a written work can
be treated before being converted into a film. The story can deviate from its original form and
not follow the chronological sequencing.

Types of Contemporary Film Adaptation

1. Curatorial: the curatorial adaptation will aim at celebrating or glorifying the original
text. Leitch mentions Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet and the BBC adaptations.
Examples:
• Hamlet (1996, dir. Kenneth Branagh) – Leitch's own example.
• BBC Shakespeare Collection (1978–1985) – also Leitch’s example.
• Pride and Prejudice (1995 BBC miniseries) – extremely faithful to Austen.
• Great Expectations (1946, David Lean) – largely preserves Dickens’ narrative
structure.
2. Adjustment: the adjustment sort of adaptation will, as in translation, modify the text,
compress it, develop or move elements, etc.
Examples:
• The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001–2003) – compresses characters and timelines.
• Harry Potter series – condenses many subplots.
• A Room with a View (1985) – slight rearrangements, but close to Forster.
• The Hunger Games (2012) – some events rearranged or pared down.

3. Neoclassic imitation: Leitch may be here the closest to the ideal ins and outs of
adaptation, defining it as rearranging the elements from the source-text in personal and
original ways.
Examples:
• O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) – a playful, rearranged reimagining of The
Odyssey.
• West Side Story (1961 or 2021) – re-patterns Romeo and Juliet in a wholly new
musical form.
• 10 Things I Hate About You (1999) – a fresh structural imitation of The Taming of
the Shrew.
• Clueless (1995) – reorganizes Emma into a wholly new narrative shape.

4. Revisions: these films are all about anachronistically updating the text with a
vengeance, such as adding electricity, cars or phones in a Shakespeare adaptation.
Examples:
• Romeo + Juliet (1996, Baz Luhrmann) – guns, cars, TVs while retaining
Shakespearean dialogue.
• Coriolanus (2011, Ralph Fiennes) – modern warfare and media.
• Richard III (1995) – fascist 1930s aesthetic applied to Shakespeare.
• The Tempest (2010) – updated gender and social dynamics.

5. Colonization: the film is seen as a composite third work between textual and filmic
elements and origins: Leitch gives Bollywood Bride and Prejudice as an example
Examples:
• Bride and Prejudice (2004) – Leitch's example; Bollywood + Austen.
• Ran (1985) – feudal Japan fused with Shakespeare’s King Lear.
• The Lion King (1994) – African setting + Hamlet archetypes.
• Maqbool (2003) – Indian gangster noir + Macbeth.

6. (Meta)commentary or Deconstruction: when the issue at stake is creation or adaptation

itself, and when the film chooses to show or display how it dealt with the text, what it
meant to emphasize or not.
Examples:
• Adaptation. (2002) – the quintessential meta-adaptation.
• Stranger Than Fiction (2006) – interrogates authorship and narrative control.
• The French Lieutenant’s Woman (1981) – film alternates between adaptation and
commentary.
• Hamlet (2000, Almereyda) – explicitly foregrounds media and representation.
7. Parody and Pastiche: for instance, the numerous imaginary and indeed often grotesque
sequels to Frankenstein.

• Young Frankenstein (1974) – affectionate parody of Frankenstein.

• Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) – parody of Austen.
• Scary Movie series – parodying horror films.
• Shaun of the Dead (2004) – comedic pastiche of zombie cinema.

8. Secondary, tertiary or quaternary imitations: imaginary sequels to the initial adaptation

of the text {Frankenstein will be a relevant example once more) in which the original
source-text ends up being diluted and forgotten in sequels to the first film, and to the
film only.
Examples:
• The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) → then further sequels drifting from Mary Shelley.
• The Mummy series (1999 → sequels) – far removed from the original literary
mythology.
• Universal Monsters crossovers – e.g., Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943).
• Planet of the Apes sequels (original series) – depart from the novel by book 2.

9. Allusion: to other books, other films, other cultural referents.

Examples:
• Midnight in Paris (2011) – constant literary allusions (Hemingway, Fitzgerald, etc.).
• Kill Bill (2003–2004) – extensive allusions to martial-arts cinema, manga, westerns.
• Inception (2010) – architectural and mythic allusions (Ariadne, labyrinths).
• The Matrix (1999) – allusions to Baudrillard, cyberpunk fiction, and religion.