WUTHERING HEIGHTS
What makes a ‘good
adaptation’? Is it the rigorous following of plot, faithful representation of
characters’ personality and physiognomy or something else?
According to its
dictionary meaning “to adapt” is to adjust, to alter, to make suitable. When considering this definition it is necessary to remark that an adaptation
is not a copy of the already existing work (in another medium). Adaptation is a
creative process; some might even say that it is more difficult to adapt a
scenario than to produce one.
Because of the time limit, film must exclude much of the content, nevertheless, has to grasp the atmosphere.
Because of the time limit, film must exclude much of the content, nevertheless, has to grasp the atmosphere.
I will try to clarify whether the directors of two adaptations of Emily
Bronte’s Wuthering Heights (William
Wyler’s [1939] version and Peter Kosminsky’s [1992] version) succeeded in creating a ‘good
adaptation’. I will try to discuss on the matter of three kinds of fidelity
when adaptation is concerned: the fidelity of plot, the fidelity of characters,
and the fidelity of, what will be named, ‘soul’.
FIDELITY OF PLOT
The fidelity of the
plot or the narrative is something that every book reader and movie viewer
notices first. It is more than obvious that a student who wants to avoid
reading Wuthering Heights and watches
Wyler’s movie instead will most probably fail the exam. The Wyler’s movie, in
fact, covers only half of the book, and even the covered half is not without
deficiencies (Hindley’s wife does not give birth, neither does Catherine). As
it is stated in the The Encyclopedia of
Novels into Film: “The William Wyler adaptation of Wuthering Heights captures much of the romantic aura of the novel
while leaving much of the plot and the more disturbing imagery behind.”[1]
On the other hand,
Kosminsky’s version covers the entire novel, the first and the second
generation of characters, both the romantic and the villainous side of
Heathcliff.
The viewer can
judge the quality of the movie simply by the degree of fidelity concerning the
plot. The more faithful the plot is the better the movie is. Is this criterion
just, in this case at least? According to my opinion, and according to the
ratings on Internet Movie Database and Rotten Tomatoes, this can hardly be the righteous
and the sole criterion. Namely, the 1939 movie’s ratings are much higher than
the ratings of the 1992 movie.
Manifestly, there
is something else that makes a good adaptation. I will try to investigate what
that is, whether it is the fidelity of characters or the fidelity of “soul”.
FIDELITY OF CHARACTERS
Do directors of the
two adaptations of Wuthering
Heights
The recognition of Wyler’s Heathcliff is valid, as well as the one of
Kosminsky. The viewer is successfully presented with the character in both
movies. Wyler’s Heatcliff is completely aligned with his version of the novel.
He presents a tragical love story and represents Heathcliff as a victim of unjust
an inhumane class structure. While Wyler represents
Heathcliff as a 'Byronic romantic lead' “Kosminsky and scriptwriter Anne Devlin imply that none of the other
adaptations had the courage to reflect in full Heathcliff’s villainy as Brontë
displayed it in the second half of the novel. This is surely a valuable
principle on which to base their adaptation, not because of its fidelity, but
because of the attempt to break away from the partial, sentimental readings of
the novel of the previous sixty years. Sadly, Kosminsky’s film is only this,
failing to simply tell the story with an adequate rhythm and enough clarity.”[2] Wyler obviously failed in providing the viewer with allegiance; most
probably he did not even want to represent Heathcliff faithfully. On the other
side, Kosminsky tried to achieve allegiance. However, it is nearly impossible
to present all Heatcliff’s mood changes in such a short period which is
required for a movie, at least in my opinion.
Considering all of
the above, if we are to judge which adaptation is better according to the
fidelity of characters, excluding the quality of actors’ performances, we will
have to say that both adaptations failed.
FIDELITY OF “SOUL”
The author of The Theory of Adaption asks what exactly
constitutes that transferred and transmuted “content” and provides the reader
with notions of the ‘spirit’, ‘tone’, ‘style’ ‘the story’.[3]
In the notion of “soul” I will include Hutcheon’s ideas as well as symbols and
themes covered in the novel.
Hutcheon also
states that “Themes are perhaps the easiest story elements to see as adaptable across
media and even genres framing contexts.”[4]
This is true, and in transferring themes both adaptation pretty much succeed.
Themes such as love, destructiveness of love, and the problem of social class
are present in both movies.In presenting the
motifs of moors, symbolism of windows and the overall tone of the book and the
atmosphere Wyler’s movie are much more successful. Kosminsky’s moors seem too
artificial and the attempt to transfer the symbolism of windows, which is very
prominent in the novel, seems futile.
Wyler interpreted
the novel as a tragic love story and presented Heathcliff as a romantic Byronic
figure and a victim of fatal love while Kosminsky decided to include the
diabolical and abysmal aspect of the novel. Even though Wyler’s version can be
characterized as a ‘better’ movie it can hardly be described as a successful
adaptation because, as stated in the Encyclopedia the film resembles more of a
“variation on a theme from Emily Brontë than a full adaptation of the novel." [5]
[1, 5] New York
[2] Martin, S. What
does Heathcliff Look Like? Performance in Peter Kosminsky’s Version of Emily
Brontë’s Wuthering Heights , in: Books
in Motion: Adaptation, Intertextuality, Authorship, Amsterdam
[3,4] New York
No comments:
Post a Comment