The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe

In order to be an effective translation, a film must portray the same message as the book and it must build upon similar plot development and similar character relationships. First and foremost, the movie version of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe will need to posses excellent cinematography in order to accurately portray the whimsical nature of the film's characters and setting. Additionally, various central themes are prominent in the book that should be carried over into the film version. For example, the importance of trust and friendship is an evident motif. Mr. Tumnus, who felt loyalty toward Lucy, did not turn her in to the White Witch. Although he was eventually punished for this deed, as he realized he would be; in the long run, because by doing so, he freed Narnia it from the reign of the White Witch, saving the conclusion of the book and generating a "happy ending" for all. Also, in going along with said theme, the fact that the children forgave Edmund after he had betrayed them terribly, was vital. At the end of the battle, Edmund broke the White Witch's wand, allowing his "side" to win the battle. In this, Edmund's character experienced a complete turnaround, as did the direction of the plot. Obviously in addition to portraying more specific messages, the film's plot must follow the path of the novel by revealing that the children found the world of Narnia through the wardrobe; and consequently they meet a variety of characters along who ultimately effect the conclusion. Similarly, the ongoing struggle between good and evil, as depicted by Aslan's side vs. the side of the White Witch, must also be blatantly obvious to the viewer.

In order to make The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe appealing to both an adult and child audience, various changes would need to be made. Children are drawn to the book for it's simpler appeals, such as the nature of the fantasy world and the abundance of animalesque characters. Adults, on the other hand, appreciate the underlying Christian allegory of the plot, and they can find deeper significance in the themes. A more mature audience is also better able to discover the symbolism, as well as appreciate the violence and excitement in battle scenes, and the intricate nature of the setting and characters. Therefore, it is necessary for a film director and screenplay to strike a balance between all the aforementioned characteristics. The scenes must be portrayed as deep enough for an adult audience, however, they cannot be made too intense that children are frightened by its impact. At various points in the plot would this potentially be a problem; for example, when the Witch's wolves visit the Beaver's house to find it empty, when the White Witch becomes furious at Edmund, and when Aslan is tied up and killed. In all of these scenes, it would be a taxing process, trying to portray the violent nature of the encounters while keeping it "PG." Similarly, in the scene which describes the White Witch's minions in battle, the author himself says that he must refrain from describing the creatures too in depth because adults would not approve of their children reading about it. Because Aslan's death is a poignant scene and it's imperative to the plot, obviously it must be portrayed but as in the novel, the film should not show it too intently or gruesomely. And even the death of the White Witch should not be shown, or at least, its details should be kept to a minimum.

Radical Film Translation of Great Expectations

Overall, in producing their radical translation of Great Expectations, it's evident that the screenwriter took the central concepts of the novel and tweaked them to be more appealing to modern day audiences. Because Dicken's 19th century England is worlds apart from society today, it is hard for readers to relate to the problems of the characters in the novel. Therefore, in translating, the screenwriter deemed it necessary to take a radical approach, to make their film successful. Although, they still worked to maintain the integrity of the plot and the novel's conflicts, despite the fact that they twisted much else. Scenes and characters were omitted, as well as character's names and settings altered. The protagonist, instead of being called Pip like Dicken's originally wrote, is now known as "Finn," and the setting is Florida and New York, rather then a town in England and London. Also, Herbert is removed from the plot, which I found to be a detriment; being as Herbert served as "Pip's" voice of consciousness and helped to make evident the theme of social class struggles. Similarly, Orlick was removed from the plot of the film, but instead of harming the film, it instead made it more simplistic and easier for the average viewer to follow. Despite the fact that the characters have different names, different occupations, and different issues, the viewer is still capable of gaining much the same impression of them when they watch the movie, as they would when/if they read the book. The screenwriters changes improve it, because they follow Cahir's criteria for a successful film translation. Overall, the movie still expressed the same points that Dicken's made; leaving the viewer with the same impression and emotions regarding situations and characters. Although, the screenplay was also able to establish the film Great Expectations as an independent work, which put the icing on the proverbial cake.

Evaluative Criteria

In translating a novel to a film, the screenwriter must pay particular attention to details. If I were to develop criteria for analyzing and critiquing a film by its accuracy in staying true to the novel, I would use three different evaluative criteria to determine if a movie was a successful translation of the book it was based upon. First and foremost, fully developed characters are key. In a novel, the author spends great deal of time, and takes great care, in utilizing description, because the reader must use visualization to create the character in their head. But in the film, not as much of a development is used sometimes because the viewer can visibly see the character. Instead, movies depend on dialogue to portray the characters, but it's necessary for the screenwriter to craftily use dialogue to allow the viewer to feel a strong sense of the character. Likewise, it is essential for the film to include other clever cues that develop the charactes personas. More minorly, the proper actors are too a catalyst by which this can be achieved. The second criteria is that the tone of the film should directly reflect that of book. Although, the screenwriter and dirctor use different devices in film to portray such, because it is a visible and auditory experience. For example, if the novel had a dark mood, the movie should be film noir; using appropriate lighting, settings, music, etc. Lastly, the movie should engage the viewer in such a way to make the viewer want to read the book for the first time, or reread the book if they have done so previously. This effect could be caused by a successful and engaging plot, flawlessly intertwined with complex cinematic elements. Thereby, the viewer would become engaged in the story, creating a bond with the characters. A successful movie translation will leave them longing for more, which may induce them to pick up the book. Proper translation is a film's sole key to success.

Adaptation

Normally, I prefer novels to films but in the case of The Orchid Thief, I feel differently. Although, perhaps that can be attributed to the fact that we only read the article, and not the entire novel which is obviously more detailed. The film, overall, was far more eccentric and unexpected then the article as a result of Hollywoodization. This made me realize how necessary that aspect of screenwriting is to the survival of the film. Adaptation was insightful, humorous, and over the top. I was immediately drawn in with the photo montage preceeding the film, which was seemingly irrelevent to the article. But perhaps the most interesting aspect of the film was Charlie Kaufman's solution to his writers block quandary, which was to write himself into the story, allowing the viewer to follow him through the process of writing the very movie you're watching. His character is self-loathing, insecure, and awkward, which creates for a variety of very interesting scenes and encounters. His neuroses ultimately lead the path of his entire life, until he undergoes some sort of transformation near the end. Similarly, Susan Orleans, the author, who is detached, emotionless, and unpassionate, and Florida horticulturist, John Laroche, who is eccentric, passionate, and remarkably brilliant, are haunted by their own downfalls and oddities, and their affair is unexpected because of how opposite their personalities seem to be. Overall, I saw Adaptation to be a commentary on enjoying life and taking things in stride, while also allowing passions to rule much of the course of ones life. I really appreciated Kaufman's ability to package such a deep, intellectually stimulating movie, into a light package. This crafty style made it enjoyable for viewers of all ahem, mental capacities (cough Mikey and Frank). It's a film one could see over and over again, divulging deeper into the minutea of each character and scene with further viewings, and never become sick of. The unconventional nature of Adaptation made it a film to be remembered and I applaud Kaufman's wit.

...It was also a nice contrast to Great Expectations, which can be less than thrilling.