A Theory of Adaptation

One of Hutcheon’s points that stood out to me as I was reading the article was located on page 10. She stated, “Therefore, adapters are first interpreters then creators.” This stuck with me when thinking of favored movies, shows, and books. Using Lord of the Rings for an example, we can see how Peter Jackson is an interpreter when translating from book to film. Because Tolkien’s work was heavily descriptive, and not so emotionally centered many of the character’s emotions, and motivations had to be heavily interpreted when filming.  Now to continue with this point, Hutcheon pointed out that different interpreters would find different meaning from the same source. This would lead to varying adaptations. The analogy Hutcheon uses from E.H. Gombrich illustrates this very well. “If an artist stands before a landscape with a pencil in hand, he or she will ‘look for those aspects which can be rendered in lines’; if it is a paint brush that the hand holds, the artist’s vision will be in term of masses, not lines (1961: 65)” (page 11). In a word, because we all come from very different backgrounds, and see the world in our own unique way, we all interpret the same thing differently. Thus leading us to perhaps like or dislike certain adaptations. 

1.     Can an adapter really capture the “spirit of a work?” Because to me anything adapted is going to be a watered down, or altered version of the original.

2.     Can anything be adapted? If so, is what are key elements of a work that are sacred? (Meaning how altered can a adaptation become before becoming a completely different story.