Looking Beyond Fidelity: Creative Liberties and Narrative Innovation in Film Adaptations

FEATUREDCULTURE

Sharyl

6/18/20249 min read

photo of white staircase
photo of white staircase

Introduction

When one hears the term “adaptation”, it is common to envision it as a seamless process of translating what is in a source text, such as a book, into a different media form, like a stage play, a film or television series. However, re-presenting a story with utmost fidelity is a near impossible task as new mediums inherently require different narrative techniques and creative choices. Despite this, there is still the common notion that fidelity is a key aspect of what makes an adaptation “good” in the conventional sense. One recent example of a television series that has garnered flack for deviating from its source text is Netflix’s Regency romance show, Bridgerton, which is based on

Julia Quinn’s famed book series. The second half of the show’s third season was just released this week, and fans have already expressed divided opinions online regarding one major alteration made by the producers. This change involves the gender swap of Francesca Bridgerton’s second love interest, Michael Stirling, into Michaela Stirling. While the full impact of this revision on the narrative trajectory of Francesca’s romantic relationships remains to be seen, many have expressed their dismay towards the showrunners’ creative liberties in refashioning Quinn’s original narrative. The controversy surrounding Bridgerton’s tweaks thus highlights that arguments over fidelity in adaptations still maintain key importance. With this in mind, this paper seeks to broaden the perspective of what adaptations can offer beyond following its source text. To do so, I will examine three distinct adaptations to analyse how they promote new debates about creativity and contribute to sociopolitical issues.

What is an “adaptation” and why is fidelity so important?

As described above, an adaptation generally refers to the act of transforming a work of art from one medium to another. The most common example is film adaptations, but other forms include stage plays based on novels, video games inspired by books, and even books adapted into other books. Though one can argue that adaptations are as valid of an art form as any other, there have often been subject to longstanding criticism for their perceived inferiority compared to source texts. In Adaptation Theory and Criticism, English professor Gordon E. Slethaug traces the cause of this criticism to modernism’s influence and the historical association between adaptations and popular culture. One of modernism’s central figures was the poet T. S. Eliot, who believed that all works of art have traces of preceding works, and that creators must possess complete knowledge of the history and literature of their culture in order to produce work that elevates the status of art. Modernism as a movement upheld that art should simultaneously showcase influences from past works and demonstrate originality. Conversely, adaptations were generally viewed as incapable of fulfilling this dual expectation, being seen as “a “mere” updating or mutation of an original and therefore falling short of artistic genius” (Slethaug 15).

Its association with the rise of popular culture in the twentieth-century also pushed the status of adaptations further away from the high art ideals of modernism. Popular culture films were criticised for prioritising “seamless worlds, linear narratives, a stable hierarchy of characters, humanist ideology, and tidy resolutions” over the narrative depth in source texts for commercial profit (Slethaug 17). As such, this downgrade ushered in the belief that an adaptation’s fidelity to its source is the main measure of its quality. Scholars such as Timothy Corrigan provides a prime example of this through his six-question fidelity test. His questions probe into whether the setting and plot, the nuance of characters, themes and ideas, historical and cultural context, and mode of communication of the source text are all preserved in the adaptation. While it is debatable whether an adaptation can fulfill every requirement, the detailed questioning underscores the rigorous scrutiny adaptations face in proving their worth to the audience. These questions ultimately reveal a binary relationship between the source and the adaptation, which positions the source as central and the adaptation as marginal.

Today, there is a slightly more accepting perception of adaptations that take creative liberties

with its source text. A good example of this is Hank Green and Bernie Su’s The Lizzie Bennet Diaries (2012), a web series adaptation of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice (1813) which has been praised by scholars for making the classic story more accessible. The adaptation which reimagines Elizabeth Bennet as an communications undergraduate posting vlogs was released episode by episode on YouTube, and steadily garnered a dedicated viewership. Similarly, Greta

Gerwig’s Little Women (2019) has been lauded for modernising Louisa May Alcott’s novel of the same name whilst retaining its historical context. The Oscar-nominated film made the underlying commentaries of feminism in nineteenth-century America more pronounced by tweaking the script, and also shined a light on the competitiveness of the era’s literary market through extensive scenes of Jo’s publishing process. However, such praises for creative liberties in adaptations remains as the exception rather than the norm. Netflix’s adaptation of Austen’s Persuasion (1817), released in 2022, adopts a similar video blog style as Green and Su’s The Lizzie Bennet Diaries, but has received overwhelmingly negative reviews for its handling of Austen’s narrative. Ultimately, fidelity to the source material still heavily influences an adaptation’s reception, but it should not be the sole basis by which its value is judged. To prove this, the subsequent sections will examine three distinct film adaptations to explore how they navigate the balance between staying true to their source texts and introducing innovative elements.

Examining Sociopolitical Topics Missing in the Source Text: Gurinder Chadha’s Bride and Prejudice (2004)

Amongst her six published novels, Austen’s Pride and Prejudice stands out as her most renowned work. Published in 1813, the novel is often credited with pioneering the

“misunderstandings” trope between lovers. Additionally, the novel is full of social commentary regarding class structures and mercenary marriages in eighteenth-century England. There have been over 17 film adaptations of the novel, with countless miniseries, web series, stage plays, and contemporary novels inspired by the tale.

Amidst the array of adaptations, Gurinder Chadha’s Bride and Prejudice (2004) stands out

for numerous reasons. Firstly, the film immediately distinguishes itself through a twofold spatial and temporal transposition of Austen’s classic tale – it is set in Amritsar, India, and updates the narrative to our contemporary age. Secondly, it blends two highly marketable genres, Bollywood films and Austen stories, making the general love story more accessible for viewers unfamiliar with the classic. Chadha’s film skillfully retains the essence of Austen’s satire of love and marriage while shifting the thematic focus from class dynamics to a critique of the lingering effects of colonialism. This is achieved by underscoring the practice of mercenary marriages still prevalent in certain areas of contemporary India, drawing a poignant parallel between today’s society and the social norms of eighteenth-century England. This juxtaposition encourages viewers to reflect on whether our modern world has truly evolved beyond the historical issues explored in Austen’s novel. Another intriguing aspect is the film’s theme of colonialism, introduced through scenes set in India, America, and Britain, and having Lalita (Elizabeth Bennet) and Darcy debate on the ethics of building his hotel chain in India. This cultural critique injects a new perspective to Austen adaptations and her works more broadly, as one common contention is that her novels do not explicitly address Britain’s colonial legacy.

In essence, Chadha’s rendition of Austen’s Pride and Prejudice provides a compelling South Asian perspective on the theme of mercenary marriages and explores global cultural dynamics absent in the original work. By doing so, it highlights the potential for adaptations to enrich the original narrative, thereby democraticising the exchange between source and adaptation.

Upholding National Efforts: John Rawlins’ Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror (1942)

Arthur Conan Doyle’s character, Sherlock Holmes, is one of the most legendary fictional detectives in popular culture. Known for his sharp intellect, deductive reasoning skills, and partnership with Dr. John Watson, Holmes is a key figure in the detective fiction genre which was incepted in the nineteenth-century. Though often characterised as the arbiter of reason, Holmes’ true motivation for engaging in detective work is arguably more complex. In Doyle’s stories such as The Sign of Four (1890), Holmes is presented as an archetype of a bohemian character and makes clear that his choice to solve crimes is driven by the thrill it affords him. For Holmes, solving cases offers the same exhilaration that his cocaine bottle provides, thereby becoming a means to attain the same mental stimulation. Moreover, he only pursues cases that intrigue him, meaning that Holmes’ detective work is, in actuality, driven by personal interests instead of a desire to do good for the world.

Contrasting Doyle’s original portrayal, John Rawlins’ adaptation, Sherlock Holmes and the

Voice of Terror (1942), reshapes Holmes into an icon of resolve and rationality during wartime.

Released during World War Two, the film depicts Holmes working with British forces to fight

Nazis from Germany, with the goal of protecting Britain’s security. The adaptation transforms Holmes from a thrill-seeking detective into a patriotic figure embodying logic and rationality, removing all depictions of cocaine. Instead, Holmes is refashioned into a character with an unwavering dedication to protect his homeland, even to the point of sacrificing his comrades for

Britain’s safety. Holmes’ emotional detachment, present in Doyle’s original narratives, is made even more salient to emphasise his focus as a citizen to protect his land. In doing so, this transformation reshapes Holmes into the ideal for viewers to emulate, reflecting the need for steadfast and rational figures in the face of conflict. The film’s opening scene also outwardly establishes that Holmes’ “timelessness” makes him “a comforting solution to the problems of all times”. As such, the film strategically utilises the character of Holmes, an iconic Victorian-era figure of heroism and embodiment of Britain’s strength, to bolster Britain’s war propaganda efforts and send the message that chaos can be overcome through logical reasoning.

Paying Homage to the Source Text’s Creator: Bharat Nalluri’s The Man Who Invented Christmas (2017)

The inception of Christmas celebrations can be traced back to the fourth-century in Rome during the reign of Constantine, but it is the Victorians who are credited with “inventing” many of the holiday traditions practiced today. During Queen Victoria’s reign in the nineteenth-century, she presented herself as a ruler for the middle classes and popularised the consumerism of Christmas through the tradition of gift giving. Additionally, her foreign husband, Prince Albert, was the one who introduced the Christmas tree to England. The Victorians are thus seen as pioneering commercial Christmas as a family event, turning it into a Victorian and often bourgeois-associated festival.

One literary figure who significantly contributed to shaping the huge cultural event that Christmas is today is Victorian author Charles Dickens. Renowned as the most popular and influential Victorian novelist, Dickens is celebrated for skillfully blending comedy, social criticism, and sentimentality in his works. His story, A Christmas Carol (1843), was produced specifically for the Christmas season during a period where the holiday was rapidly becoming a commercialised family celebration. The tale follows Ebenezer Scrooge, a shrewd businessman visited by three ghosts who confront him with the consequences of his current display of selfishness. Each spirit reveals scenes of the bleak future that awaits Scrooge if he does not change his ways, underscoring the importance of practicing compassion towards others. The narrative also depicts sentimental scenes of family gatherings, such as the Cratchits’ joyful dinner discussions despite their meagre circumstances which starkly contrast with Scrooge’s lonely existence despite his considerable wealth. These experiences ultimately inspire Scrooge to undergo a profound transformation in attitude and behaviour, leading him to embrace kindness and make amends with those he has wronged. Dickens’ A Christmas Carol was crucial in establishing Christmas as the family-centric holiday it is today, and its enduring popularity makes it the signature Christmas story as it has never been out of print since its release over 180 years ago.

Numerous adaptations of Dickens’ iconic story have been made over the years, such as

Ronald Neame’s Scrooge (1970), Walt Disney’s The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992), and Richard

Donner’s Scrooged (1988). Bharat Nalluri’s film adaptation of Dickens’ novel, The Man Who Invented Christmas (2017), stands out amongst the rest due to its back-projection approach to the classic tale. In simple terms, a back-projection is an adaptation that presents an author’s work in a outwardly autobiographical narrative. Such adaptations depict elements of fictional material, ranging from plotlines to dialogue, back into the presented narrative. Though back-projections are an intriguing genre experiment, viewers who are not well-versed in the author’s story may mistakenly believe that these adaptations are autobiographically inspired. In the case of Nalluri’s adaptation, the film pays homage to Dickens’ longstanding influence by creating a loose story of his struggles in penning the story. The film also displays a keen awareness of Dickens’ personal life by referencing his experience in the workhouse during his childhood living in poverty. Additionally, the movie incorporates Dickens’ remark about feeling that his characters were so real that he could interact with them, by depicting scenes of Dickens arguing with the three ghosts in the story. Concluding with a text epilogue that details the tremendous success of A Christmas Carol, Nalluri’s adaptation intertwines Dickens’ personal history with his timeless narrative to celebrate his profound impact in an innovative manner.

Concluding Thoughts

In A Theory of Adaptation, English professor Linda Hutcheon posits that adapting literary works brings some level of enjoyment due to the “comfort of ritual combined with the piquancy of surprise” (Hutcheon 4). Her observation encapsulates the delicate balance adaptations must strike between maintaining fidelity to the source and introducing innovative elements that captivate audiences. Though fidelity still remains a valued benchmark till today, there is a need for viewers to look beyond it when evaluating adaptations. The three examples discussed in this paper all exemplify the potential for film adaptations to enrich and expand upon their source material by introducing new perspectives and themes. As such, future research projects should explore the broader implications of creative adaptations, such as gender bend narratives, in shaping and reflecting contemporary social norms and values.

Works Cited

Hutcheon, Linda. “Beginning To Theorise Adaptation.” A Theory of Adaptation, Routledge, 2006,

pp. 4.

Slethaug, Gordon E. "Modernism/postmodernism and origin/intertextual play in adaptation theory." Adaptation Theory and Criticism: Postmodern Literature and Cinema in the USA, edited by Gordon E. Slethaug, Bloomsbury Academic, 2014. pp.13–32.