by Hank Brockett
11/15/01
On the heels of ‘Harry Potter,’ two NIU experts point out literary adaptations that work.
Visiting English professor Joe Bonomo lists his favorites, (in no particular order) and why they work:
“Apocalypse Now” (1979). Joseph Conrad's Modernist inward-journeying novella, “Heart of Darkness,” was updated to the Vietnam War by director Francis Ford Coppola. The result is stunning, and essentially maintains Conrad’s atmospheric portrait of self, consciousness and horror.
“The Night of the Hunter” (1955). Davis Grubb's under-appreciated novel is a haunting, lyric Modern Gothic tale of good and evil. Charles Laughton's film is a B&W minor classic with Expressionistic touches, a visual allegory that respects Grubb's poetic vision.
“William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet” (1996). Shakespeare's classic play has as much to do with speed, haste and irrational impulses as with fate, and Baz Luhrmann’s rapidly paced film conveys the characters’ feelings of claustrophobia.
“The Age of Innocence” (1993). Martin Scorsese slows his usually fast camera for this adaptation of Edith Wharton’s quiet, domestic novel. Scorsese uses tasteful voice-overs and special attention to period detail to finesse Wharton's novel of irony and manners into a rich, visual experience.
“A Clockwork Orange” (1971). Stanley Kubrick's stark adaptation of Anthony Burgess’ novel infamously translated and dramatized Burgess’ dystopian futuristic vision. The art direction and the intensity of the actors’ performances combine for a compelling aural and visual rendering of experimental literary language.
For animals, it means developing defenses against the most dangerous of hunters. For womanizers, maybe it means changing the tried-and-true pick-up line after a slap to the face. And for children, it certainly means noticing what works in parental begging.
But for the cinematic and literary worlds, adaptation means much more than making a movie based on the Harry Potter phenomenon. In this case, it means surviving in the juggernaut’s wake.
The arrival of “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” in theaters Friday marks more than the culmination of fanatical interest in the 11-year-old magician. After four best-selling books read by everyone from third-graders to third-year law students, the diminutive Potter and the potential profit-providing poofs from his magic wand represent one of the closest realizations between the often-conflicting arts of literature and cinema.
Surviving on film
At first glance, movies may seem like 2001’s natural progression for things from the literary world. “Harry Potter” could become the opening-weekend box office champion of all time once all the tickets are totaled Sunday. The “Lord of the Rings” trilogy hits the screen Dec. 19 with a rabid following counting down the days. And the “Godfather” trilogy, one of the most critically acclaimed cinematic stories of all time and based on the Mario Puzo novels, couldn’t refuse its place on the DVD best-sellers list this fall.
Each acclaimed adaptation, though, must transcend disastrous translations — at least from the fan perspective. The 1995 Demi Moore version of Nathanial Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter” drew gasps of horror in its “loose” adaptation of the high school literary standard. So the built-in audience that helps green-light a project can sometimes implode upon the production.
Visiting Joe Bonomo said many literary adaptations fail on screen for a number of reasons. But the consistent hurdle seldom passed comes from trying to visualize the complex first-person thoughts that work so well in great literature.
“How do you film the interior life of a person? I’m not sure you can,” said Bonomo, who currently teaches Literature and Film in the English department. “Even if someone offers voice-over narration, it’s still not the world as being processed and perceived by that person.”
Magical appeal
News reports indicate that Potter’s number one fan, author J.K. Rowling, beamed after seeing her creation visualized at an England premiere showing. That’s a far cry from the infamous stories surrounding the likes of vampire scribe Ann Rice and beat writer Jack Kerouac. Legend has it Kerouac grew physically ill after stepping onto the set of his “Subterraneans” adaptation.
The only threats for “Potter” stomachs, a day away from realization, remain either nervousness or too much buttered popcorn. Market Square Cinemas, 2160 Sycamore Road, offered up pre-sale tickets a week in advance to help control the imagined mobs. And the biggest problem for fans like Rich Comer might be just getting into the theaters packed with ravenous kids and transfixed adults.
“I’m definitely getting a little giddy about it,” said the junior English major who first was turned on to the series last year by his father. “I think it’s very witty and extremely funny.”
The universal appeal that crosses oceans, age boundaries and gender lines results from a well-told tale appealing to the adolescent in us all, said English professor Robert Self, who will teach the Literature and Film course this spring.
“The book deals with issues that are emotionally and ethically and intellectually real for adolescents,” said Self.
Issues so personal, though, that imagined looks and actions might not correlate with director Chris Columbus’ (“Mrs. Doubtfire,” “Home Alone”) vision. The disconnection of perception and reality stems from possible character confusion but above all a lack of time to develop the characters like literature can.
“Fiction takes us into a world that’s thicker, fatter than the world of film because of time,” said Self. “Books are a speaking voice, speaking to you privately, personally. When watching a film, something else happens. The speaking voice gives way to an inquisitive eye.”
Or about seven million sets of inquisitive eyes during a three-day weekend.
Post-Potter
While box office and fan results remain uncertain, we do know a few things. One, there will be many more Potter movies and quite possibly seven in all (assuming Rowling wants easy additions to her coffers). And two, the increased interest in literature-to-film adaptations means plenty of attention for bookish thoughts.
Bonomo’s class continues to discuss the translation of the written word to the visual palette — and the other way around.
“Can you do a zoom shot in language?” asked Bonomo. “I’m not sure. One of the things sophisticated film can do is push authors to experiment with trying to capture life with all its complexity.”
Self, meanwhile, looks at the late-2001 literary-minded film renaissance (even while mentioning that a list of early film classics includes Jules Verne’s “From the Earth to the Moon” adaptation) with a giddy spark seen in Potter fans’ eyes.
“It’s an English major’s dream,” said Self. “We’re all going to debate and we’re all going to become literary critics for a while.”
“The Dead,” John Huston's adaptation of James Joyce's short story
“The Age of Innocence,” Martin Scorsese's adaptation of Edith Wharton's novel
“Solaris,” Andrei Tarkovski's adaptation of Stanislaw Lem's novel
“Short Cuts,” Robert Altman's adaptation of Raymond Carver's short stories
“The Natural,” Barry Levinson's adaptation of Bernard Malamud's
“The Innocents,” Jack Clayton's adaptation of Henry James' “Turn of the Screw”