MADISON ROGERS

Great film adaptations create positive outcomes for their original book forms– these outcomes include increased recognition and publishing revenue and can also potentially expand opportunities for more content. On the other hand, some adaptations fail to live up to the expectations of dedicated fans of the book. Adaptations not only rethink narratives, but they also influence cultural perceptions and respect for the original texts. Analyzing the differences between the book and the adaptations allows us to gain insight as to how story lines evolve, including the ways in which sensitive themes are approached. This essay hopes to shed light on the dynamic of book-to-film adaptations through exploring the challenges writers and directors face when addressing sensitive themes, especially while building their own creative expression and maintaining thematic integrity in response to audience reception.

When it comes to book-to-film adaptations, there is a certain level of cooperation between the publishing and film stages, whether intentional or not. The process of translation and transmutation of a story from the page to the screen tends to have a ripple effect on audience perception, which then determines the possibility of the story developing any further. This dynamic of reliance and reaction goes on in an endless cycle of building a book’s community, attempting to widen the audience, and either failing due to missing integral factors or succeeding by portraying them correctly (and hopefully building onto them). Often this series of events can be predicted from ground zero– the initial point of interaction between fans and the story. One of the most regulated areas of the film production process when dealing with an existing story are the sensitive or graphic themes; when potential viewing is insurmountable, sensitive themes must be dealt with carefully so as not to result in legal trouble. This proposes the question of whether it is possible to maintain thematic integrity and build upon creative expression when adapting books to film, even after censorship.

Censorship in the film industry has a large role in reshaping the original content of a story and is often the reason that so many beloved stories are presented differently– whether it be for better or worse. While the history of film censorship has changed dramatically since the Hays Code [1] of the MPPDA (Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America) from 1930 to 1968, regulating film content (and thus, accurate adaptations of books) is now done through the MPAA rating system (Motion Picture Association of America). Richard Maltby says of the Hays Code’s influence that “they are credited with no intention other than the repression of meaning,” and notes that “censorship has been one of the mechanisms by which Hollywood has been blamed for what it was not, rather than blamed, endorsed, or simply acknowledged for what it was” (Maltby 3). This context is key when viewing post-Hays adaptations as either good or bad, as history often finds ways to repeat itself. On the other hand, the MPAA system allows for a more detailed and optional format for deciding to engage in viewership. Creating more personal jurisdiction among viewers allows for more creative jurisdiction for filmmakers, too, which creates more opportunities to build upon stories in more explorative ways than before. The categories of ratings for films are G, for general audiences, PG, for parental guidance suggested, PG-13, for parents urged to be cautious, R, restricted, and NC-17, must be 17 years of age or older. So, while the rating system is, for the most part, up to viewer discretion, filmmakers take on the responsibility of properly rating their films, therefore committing to those respective guidelines.

These guidelines are where adapting books for film can get murky. While publishing agencies make the choice to sell the rights to filmmakers for adaptation, and authors can acquire copyrights for their work, it does not guarantee that they will have a strong influence over the outcome of the adaptation. Therefore, oftentimes, a different script writer will be assigned to take on that role. Even if an author has a role in the film-making process, it is not guaranteed that their original audience will be satisfied because of changes made to adhere to the new medium and MPAA rating. While it’s important not to misinterpret the original message, “the aim of the translator is not to find the equivalent of a given word, but to reproduce the sense, the feeling, the content of the whole” (Rusnack 141). With that in mind, sometimes certain themes can become lost or deemed too sensitive for the wider audience, prompting filmmakers to risk upsetting devoted fans of the book because it does not meet their expectations– possibly tarnishing the consumer-producer relationship for the publishing industry from that point on.

A notable example of thematic depth being changed in the film-making process is in the adaptation of A Clockwork Orange, a book by Anthony Burgess highlighting ultra violence and the nature of evil in the vein of free will. This much is true for the original novel, too, but controversial changes made to make the film more palatable are still debated amongst viewers. For example, some say that changing victims to being older and consenting (film version) versus drug-manipulated and underage (novel version) was a necessary and merciful change, while others say that it detracts from the story’s portrayal of the horrifically evil choices made by humans. Another controversial change was the beating of an innocent elderly person (novel version) versus a promiscuous woman (film version). This distinction was also made for more palatable viewing since the social climate of the 1970s would find the latter somehow more deserving of mistreatment than a presumably innocent elderly man. These changes made by Stanley Kubrick, the film’s director, are not rooted in creative expression, but rather within the aim of people-pleasing.

What is interesting here is that, while the film largely drew widespread popularity to the story, the notoriety stemmed from the negative response the public had due to its outrageous nature. Burgess stated in an interview with Italian press in 1974 that he was frustrated with being continually asked to defend the film’s violence (Edwards). This emphasizes the notion that, although his book contains the same violence, the changes made to alleviate the violence in the film changed the way that the original message registers. So, if the original details of the book were kept while adapting, perhaps the audience would have been more receptive to the themes of morality and free will instead of seeing the story as a showcase of pure violence for the sake of a shock.

This is also seen in the 2013 film The Great Gatsby, an adaptation of the renowned novel of the same name by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald’s intended message with the novel was to bring the dark truths about the rich to light through spectating their moral decay against a glamorous backdrop. In contrast to the novel’s unsavory message about infidelity, corruption, and overall criticism of the elite class, the film skipped over many of the details that initially let the reader in on this meaning by focusing more on the romance and lavish extravagance of the high-class. Melodi Haghanipour argues the same in her essay: “All the characters have become more impersonal due to the fact that Luhrmann puts more effort into the visuals of the movie” (Haghanipour 6). With that in mind, the 2013 film was given a PG-13 rating likely due to the omitting of a lot of suggestive imagery of the novel, not allowing the audience to witness the emotional journey and chronological culmination of the ultimate downfall in the end.

When a book is adapted for the screen, it is marketed much more vastly than it was before, with producers hoping to rein in more sales; from there, the original publisher will see increased sales from fans of the film who want more content. As aforementioned, quality adaptations have arisen through changes made to reach larger audiences and, therefore, certain MPAA age ratings–like children. This supports the idea that making ratings-based changes from the original text can also be successful strategizing but doing this while staying loyal to the creative artistry of the book is a challenging feat. An example of this is Henry Selick’s film adaptation of Coraline from the original book by Neil Gaiman. The book is a unique case as it is labeled and marketed as a horror story for children. As it was adapted, Selick, with some influence from Gaiman, decided to change the overall tone of the story to be more whimsical yet eerie while omitting some of the darker imagery and fears explored in the book. Because of its PG rating and mostly child audience, changing some of the graphic elements and opting for a more psychological approach to fear, such as being alone and allowing the audience to gain a gradual understanding of the hidden malice makes the content more digestible for all audiences. This is especially true for young children, being that they can process information quicker and easier when it’s presented to them in a visual , rather than literary, form. Overall, this is an example of a successful adaptation that made censor-based changes without straying from the original message and while further popularizing the book.

The influence of film adaptations extends beyond the immediate audience, impacting publishing trends and market dynamics. Because adaptations like Coraline have led to increased interest in horror and fantasy genres– especially targeted for children– publishers are encouraged to focus on stories that engage with such themes. Moreover, publishers play a critical role in supporting adaptations by strategizing with film releases to strengthen the outreach of these stories to boost book sales, and in between these market goals lies creative collaboration– as Dan Sinykin expresses it, “They challenge the notion that we can attribute a published work of fiction to a single individual” (Sinykin 10). So, while adaptations are allowed and encouraged to present new ideas and thematic framework, the most successful of them tend to honor the message of their respective novels by maintaining a level of collaboration with the author in some capacity. While literal collaboration may not even be possible in many cases (see examples “A Clockwork Orange” and “The Great Gatsby”), honoring the legacy of an author by making conscious choices to keep their intended message present is just as notable. After all, an expectant audience awaits behind any book-to-film adaptation– and it’s practically guaranteed that they will see each change whether it be a shortcoming or not. If not for the author or the industry, it is important to consider the effects of omitting or keeping what might be seen as “unsavory” for the sake of the audience– they are almost always the reason an adaptation is possible, anyway.

[1] The Hays Code was a set of regulations the U.S government put on film studios to control the content for a strict depiction of conservative lifestyles as the standard. Wikipedia contributors. “Hays Code.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 22 Nov. 2024. Web. 24 Nov. 2024.

Works Cited

Bazin, André. Andre Bazin on Adaptation: Cinema’s Literary Imagination, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520976252

Burgess, Anthony. A Clockwork Orange. Penguin Books, 2011

Edwards, Anna. “The Clockwork Collection: Burgess on Kubrick’s ‘Damned Nuisance’ Movie.” The International Anthony Burgess Foundation, 28 May 2021, www.anthonyburgess.org/blog-posts/the-clockwork-collection-burgess-and-kubricks-damned-nuisance-movie/.

Fitzgerald, F. Scott (Francis Scott), 1896-1940. The Great Gatsby. New York: Scribner, 1925.

Gaiman, Neil. Coraline. New York: Harper Perennial, 2006.

Haghanipour, Melodi. “The Great Gatsby – novel into a movie.” 2016. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:974143/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Haynes, Mollie. “Film, TV and Theatre Adaptations of Books Attract More Revenue, Viewers and Critical Acclaim.” Publishers Association, The Publishers Association Limited, 10 July 2018, www.publishers.org.uk/film-tv-and-theatre-adaptations-of-books-attract-more-revenue-viewers-and-critical-acclaim/.

Maltby, Richard. “‘To Prevent the Prevalent Type of Book’: Censorship and Adaptation in Hollywood, 1924-1934.” American Quarterly, vol. 44, no. 4, 1992, pp. 554–83. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2713215.

MacCabe, Colin, et al. True to the Spirit: Film Adaptation and the Question of Fidelity. Oxford University Press, 2011.

Motion Picture Association of America. The Motion Picture Production Code. December 1956.

Rusnak, Marcin. “Blessings and curses of the silver screen: Film adaptations of Coraline and Stardust by Neil Gaiman.” Alternate Life-Worlds in Literary Fiction (2011): 139.

Sinykin, Dan. Big Fiction: How Conglomeration Changed the Publishing Industry and American Literature. Columbia University Press, 2023.

Wikipedia contributors. “Hays Code.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 22 Nov. 2024. Web. 24 Nov. 2024.