Adaptations have accompanied us since the beginning of the cinema. For decades, artists have been trying to transfer works of culture between different means of expression and fields of art. This all in order to tell a story anew, using new tools unreachable for the original form and to share this story with a new audience.
An even older concept than adaptation is inspiration. This one has actually been with us since the beginning of mankind. Subsequent stories and works of art draw from their predecessors. One time they rework a motif, another time they draw from multiple sources combining a brand new story from minor elements.
What is a good adaptation? Is such an inspiration or adaptation and processing of stories we have known for hundreds of years a sign of the stagnation of our culture? Are we stuck in place and no longer able to enrich it with something new?
Dune – a perfect adaptation
Now in theaters we can watch the second part of the adaptation of Frank Herbet’s book called Dune. Denis Villeneuve’s latest work is a faithful adaptation. So, is there nothing new waiting for a person who knows the book?
Actually, quite the opposite. Despite the vast similarities, thanks to seemingly subtle changes, the director has significantly enriched the story. At other places he gently shifted its meaning. Frank Herbert, after writing Dune, was frustrated that the ending of his work did not evoke the feelings he had hoped for. Villeneuve, in creating his film adaptation, already knew the author’s intentions. By modifying a few plots, making subtle changes to a few characters and replacing a few details in the ending, he managed to achieve the effect that the original author had hoped for. In addition, a few other changes came from the directors’s personal thoughts and perspective on the original. It made the story more dense, the plots have a better impact on the viewer and some of the themes are better suited to a modern audience.
What I described above is an example of an excellent adaptation. The director approaches the original with tremendous respect. He has a great understanding of Frank Herbet’s intentions and is aware of the importance of the story he created. However, this understanding and individual perspective allows him to interfere with the story. The changes he makes do not take anything away from the story. They make it richer, improve it. In addition, they show the point of view of the creator of the adaptation, his sensitivity, his opinions on the issues raised and his vision of this world.
What is an inspiration and did George Lucas stole ideas from Frank Herbert?
Significantly earlier there was a movie production which also drew a lot from Herbert’s literary work. We are talking, of course, about Star Wars. It is not, however, an adaptation. In this case, George Lucas modified the story presented in the book. He took out many themes and retold them in his own, quite different way.
Both of these worlds have many similarities. We are talking about the obvious ones. There are so many that at the time of the release of Star Wars, it was considered by some to be a copycat of Dune. So should we consider Lucas’ legendary work a mere rip-off?
No. Culture has inspired itself more or less for millennia. If we would analyze the most popular stories today, we would find out that most of them are slightly modified myths known already to the ancient Greeks. However, they differ in certain nuances. Seemingly insignificant, the consequences of which, however, make the overtone of the work quite different. Ultimately, when we delve into two similar works it turns out that we can draw from the two completely different experiences. This is also the case with Dune and Star Wars. Despite many resemblances, their messages and the vibe within which they operate are completely different. Herbert’s creation is a philosophical work that serves as a kind of warning. It is, in a nutshell, a critique of messianism. It shows us what blindly following a leader can result in and how faith can be used to manipulate. The story created by Lucas is the complete opposite. It also includes messianic themes but focuses on showing their optimistic side. It is a story about hope, believing in oneself, changing one’s destiny and reconciling with one’s past. It is also a story about creating bonds, friendship and not trusting stereotypes. By the way, including in references from Lucas’ other inspirations. Behind the different themes, of course, also goes a completely different style.
So it should be treated more as something beautiful. As art that creates the ground for something new to grow on.
Birth of fantasy and cyberpunk – Importance of inspiration
After all, this is how many extremely fascinating and world-expanding genres were created. Tolkien did not create fantasy, but he established it in our culture. He designed the model now associated with high fantasy. A mythical world based on the Middle Ages. His Middle-Earth inhabited by humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, orcs and goblins is the base of most current cultural works operating in this genre. For example, the hugely popular and expansive world of Dungeons & Dragons.
Themes of a dystopian, cybernetic future have appeared in culture before. However, it was not until Mike Pondsmith’s Cyberpunk RPG system that the genre was established. The genre took its name after Pondsmith’s work and became one of the most intriguing. He inspired a huge number of many creations treating in this style. All of them use the warning of a frightening, cybernetically-obsessed future as a vehicle for philosophical themes. It was within this genre that such film series as the Matrix and Blade Runner were created.
The beauty of adaptation
As for adaptations, as I mentioned earlier, it lets us rediscover well-known stories. It allows it to be shown in a different way with emphasis on other elements. There are situations where adaptations modify some elements of the original and improve them. This is the case with Villenueve’s Dune. The same can be said about the Invincible series. The author of the original – Robert Kirkman – is involved in its production. He is making sure that the essence of the story is faithfully transferred, but also he improves some elements. After all, there are cases where the adaptation turned out to be much better than the source material. Godfather, Blade Runner or Fight Club are just examples of the multitude of such works. A new filmmaker with a new perspective on the story allowed in these examples to take the best out of them and improve the flaws. As a result we received iconic works of art.
Adaptations also give us a chance to see the same story and the same characters in different editions. As a result, we get to know them anew each time and can fall in love with the presented world all over again. Perhaps the most perfect example of this is the character of Batman. Each successive vision is characterized by the style of the creators behind them and emphasizes different elements. Adaptations differ dramatically from each other and show in how many ways this character can be portrayed. There are many such an examples. With each successive adaptation we draw something new from these films.
When director doesn’t understand the source material
Sometimes, however, the author does not understand the material he takes on. As an example, consider the work of Zack Snyder. He has created many adaptations. Most of them are quite strongly… well, controversial, to say at least. He was responsible for the highly acclaimed 300 and the relatively well-received Watchmen. The first film, however, is a frame-by-frame transfer of the comic book to the screen. The second production is also a pretty faithful adaptation, which, however, lost heavily in comparison to the original. Unlike a fairly straightforward comic book about Spartans, Watchmen required an understanding of the message, which was lacking in Zack’s cinematic spectacle.
The lack of understanding of the source material, however, can be seen the strongest in his screen adaptations of DC comics characters. The problem, of course, relates to his approach to the idea of the superhero overall. It also applies to his lack of understanding of the idea of heroism which manifests itself in interviews. I’ll focus here on his vision of two DC’s most popular characters.
Batman depicted in Zack’s films looks like pulled from the frame of a comic book. By the imposed stylistics, he has a costume perfectly replicated from the pages. He operates using gadgets and vehicles similar to the ones from the comic book stories. At first glance, everything is in place. So why don’t we feel that it’s the same character? In the original comics, the world’s greatest detective is a character full of depth. A hero who has experienced trauma but is trying to fight it. He is full of sadness and grief however he teaches us how to overcome it. It shows us that even the darkest parts of ourselves can be transformed into good. Bruce Wayne promised himself that no child would feel what he felt when he saw his parents murdered years ago. He fights crime but never takes a life because it conflicts with the idea of his mission. In Snyder’s movies, on the other hand, he is a rash, anger-driven brute. There is nothing left from his analytical and rational approach. Bruce Wayne in this version is driven by illogical and sudden impulses. In addition, he kills, which, as I mentioned above, conflicts with the basic idea of the character. This ultimately takes away from the uniqueness of the character and turns him into just another murderous creature. It is also worth mentioning that the director did not justify this in any way. Snyder did not change other elements of the world presented, such as the fact that Batman cooperates with the police. So we have a picture of a nonsensical world, full of incongruities. All this in favor of the artificially created brutality.
A similar situation applies to Superman, who was the central figure of the artist’s films. Here, too, the character has all the powers and visual appeal of a comic book hero. However, the compatibility ends there. The comic book Superman is a hero who, first of all, stands up for human life and is aware of its importance. He is a defender of every living being. Despite his powers, he is the most down-to-earth hero, walking among people. He saves them not only physically, but is also aware of the importance of feeling safe and treating everyone with equality. Stories with him often emphasize mental health and dealing with everyday problems. He is a beacon of hope and optimism in his world, a man of tomorrow. Snyders version presented for the first time in Man of Steel has none of these qualities. Zack presented the protagonist with a always-gloomy look, tormented, with a messiah syndrome. In every scene the director tries to show him as a martyr. In addition, Superman here destroys buildings during the fight without regard for the lives of the victims. With all this, Snyder keeps trying to make us believe that this is the same symbol of hope that we see in the comics. As a result, neither the character’s optimistic idea is believable, nor are his dilemmas expanded or explored over the course of the film.
What’s the most important things in adaptations and inspirations
First, I showed how different visions and changes are important. Then, I brought up an example where these changes plunged the end result. So what is the correct direction in which adaptation should go?
Well, a well-made adaptation is characterized by a specific and defined vision of the artist behind it. In the case of films, the director should know specifically what he wants to convey and what of the things he likes in the original he wants to transfer to the screen. He should not be ashamed of his clarified opinion and perspective on the source material. It is also important that when creating even the craziest deviations from the original, he should modify the rest of the story and the world presented to match his decisions. This will ensure that the end result will still be a coherent picture.
What is most important is that the director understands the source material. It is important that he grasps the message contained in it, even if he wants to approach it differently or to make some commentary. When adapting, even with significant changes, the director should draw out the idea and basis on which the story is based. Because if we take away what is the essence of the story then adaptation loses its meaning and the resulting work does not resemble the original in any way.
However, there is another side of the coin. The audience. We too, when encountering adaptations, must remember that it is someone else’s vision and that we should approach this vision and its creator with respect. The new version will not take away from the original. It is worth keeping an open mind and accepting with curiosity any changes and bold decisions of the author. If we don’t like them, we are still left with the source material. But each new vision is a chance to get a fresh and interesting work of art. Adaptations should be treated as a separate entity and judged from that perspective. Let’s enjoy and celebrate both adaptations and inspirations, supporting each new attempt to transform our beloved stories.
ART HUB 
Leave a comment