As an English major and an everlasting lover of books, I have often heard from friends, from strangers on the internet, and even from myself the comment ―the book was better‖ to refer to movie adaptations of beloved texts. As soon as a minor difference is spotted in the movie adaptation, it is already considered ―wrong‖ and ―bad‖. My perception has greatly changed throughout the years of study of literature, and especially due to the studies necessary for the writing of this dissertation. In this section, I will present Hutcheon‘s and Sanders‘ key ideas about adaptation and appropriation read through the lenses of my working questions.
The choice of Hutcheon and Sanders as the scholars I will focus on is due to their relevance in the studies of adaptation and appropriation. In 2006, Canadian scholar Linda Hutcheon published her to-be celebrated book A Theory of Adaptation (2006), whose chapters are divided into questions to be answered – such as, ―What (Forms)‖, ―Who? Why?
(Adapters)‖, and ―Where? When? (Contexts)‖. British scholar Julie Sanders, on the other hand, shows a different approach in her well-known Adaptation and Appropriation (2006).
She historicizes adaptation and appropriation and devotes chapters to specific genres (fairy tale and folklore), authors (William Shakespeare), and time periods (nineteenth century).
Sanders also defines appropriation – which Hutcheon does not: ―Appropriation carries out the same sustained engagement as adaptation but frequently adopts a posture of critique, even assault.‖ (SANDERS, 2006, p. 4). Although apparently similar, adaptations and appropriations have important differences. An adaptation maintains the title of the source text, making its connection with the adapted work clear. An example would be the movie Romeo and Juliet (2013), directed by Carlo Carlei. An appropriation, on the other hand, has more freedom in changing characters and settings since it does not formally announce its relationship with any previous work. An example would be the movie West Side Story (1961), directed by Robert Wise, an appropriation of Shakespeare‘s Romeo and Juliet. Both Hutcheon and Sanders devote themselves to innumerous case studies throughout their respective books, including many adaptations and appropriations of Shakespeare‘s Romeo and Juliet.
One of these adaptations mentioned is Franco Zeffirelli‘s movie Romeo and Juliet (1968), which greatly popularized the story among a younger audience. The original trailer for the movie has a narrator whose first sentence is: ―The world‘s most enduring love story is the motion picture to be seen forever: Romeo and Juliet.‖ The trailer, then, proceeds to show random scenes from the movie, which include almost as many spoilers as the prologue to the play. The narrator describes the movie thus: ―Romeo and Juliet, starring Leonard Whiting and
Olivia Hussey, as the star-crossed lovers whose devotion ignites the greatest romantic drama ever lived.‖. It is expected that the spectators know Shakespeare‘s play and its plot already, but also that they are entertained with a fresh and young version of the play. After all, Zeffirelli‘s decision to cast a 17- and a 15-year-old was quite different than director George Cukor‘s who had cast a 43- and a 34-year-old for his 1936 movie adaptation of the play.
Linda Hutcheon uses the former movie as a good example of an updated adaptation:
Most often adaptations are not back-dated but rather are updated to shorten the gap between works created earlier and contemporary audiences: in adapting Shakespeare‘s Romeo and Juliet, Franco Zeffirelli made his lovers‘ affection more physical and cut out parts that slowed down the action to satisfy what he perceived as the demands of his film audience in 1968. (HUTCHEON, 2006, p. 146).
Adaptations, as the name suggests, transpose a work of art from one genre to another, or from one time period to another. In the process of adapting, newer versions can add social commentary that do not even exist in the source material. Julie Sanders explains it thoroughly in the following paragraph:
Adaptation is frequently involved in offering commentary on a sourcetext. This is achieved most often by offering a revised point of view from the ‗original‘, adding hypothetical motivation, or voicing the silenced and marginalized. Yet adaptation can also constitute a simpler attempt to make texts ‗relevant‘ or easily comprehensible to new audiences and readerships via the process of proximation and updating. (SANDERS, 2006, p. 19).
Considering adaptations of Romeo and Juliet, it is worth mentioning the short movie Still a Rose (2015) – to be analyzed in the third chapter of this dissertation –, which brings an LGBTQ+ representation to the most famous couple of all time. This type of change made when adapting is also one of the reasons artists engage in adaptations
Linda Hutcheon also wrote about the importance of seeing adaptations as adaptations instead of copies of the source material that must stay faithful to its every detail. In the Preface to the First Edition of her book, she discusses the double status of adaptations, as well as how she intends to work with them:
That curious double fact of the popularity and yet consistent scorning of adaptation is where A Theory of Adaptation begins its study of adaptations as adaptations; that is, not only as autonomous works. Instead, they are examined as deliberate, announced, and extended revisitations of prior works. (HUTCHEON, 2006, p. XVI, my emphasis).
As I have noticed both from acquaintances and myself, there is sometimes a judgment towards adaptations and appropriations, as if they would turn a sacred work into something banal, such as when one of Shakespeare‘s plays is turned into a movie or inspires a soap opera. If the adaptation ―stays faithful‖ to the source material, then we may receive it with
open arms. The topic of fidelity is tackled by Linda Hutcheon in the opening pages of her book: ―[…] an adaptation is likely to be greeted as minor and subsidiary and certainly never as good as the ‗original‘.‖ (HUTCHEON, 2006, p. XIV). She also states that addressing this subject was the first aim of her book:
The first [aim of the book] was to tackle head-on the subtle and not so subtle denigration of adaptation in our (late-Romantic, capitalist) culture that still tends to value the ―original,‖
despite the ubiquity and longevity of adaptations as a mode of retelling our favorite stories.
(HUTCHEON, 2006, p. XX).
Since the beginning of the valorization of originality during the Romantic Movement, adaptations have tended to be seen as lesser works when compared to brand new ones, so states the scholar: ―It is the (post-) Romantic valuing of the original creation and of the originating creative genius that is clearly one source of the denigration of adapters and adaptations.‖ (HUTCHEON, 2006, p. 4).
I would also add that the nostalgia that we may feel for either the source text or our favorite adaptation may prevent us from exploring new adaptations and appropriations. We approach the new movie, song, or musical already with a bias. Hutcheon also commented on this: ―It is probably easier for an adapter to forge a relationship with an audience that is not overly burdened with affection or nostalgia for the adapted text.‖ (HUTCHEON, 2006, p.
120).
On the other hand, Julie Sanders also highlights ―postmodernism‘s beloved idea of belatedness‖ (SANDERS, 2006, p. 157), which considers the fact that nothing totally new can be created in the twenty-first century anymore: ―We come too late to do anything unique‖
(SANDERS, 2006, p. 157). She points out the word ―after‖ being used by many critics to indicate that simply because a piece of art comes after another, it is not as good. Sanders, however, rightfully defends adaptations and appropriations from these comments: ―Coming
‗after‘ can mean finding new angles and new routes into something, new perspectives on the familiar, and these new angles, routes and perspectives in turn identify entirely novel possibilities.‖ (SANDERS, 2006, p. 158). She concludes her thought by stating the importance of these new works, even though they may be frowned upon: ―Adaptation and appropriation need to be brought out of the shadows in this respect. They are not merely belated practices and processes; they are creative and influential in their own right.‖
(SANDERS, 2006, p. 160).
In a chapter from her book, in which she defines what appropriation is, Sanders again defends adaptations and appropriations from those that view them through negative lenses:
We need to view literary adaptation and appropriation from this more positive vantage point, seeing it as creating new cultural and aesthetic possibilities that stand alongside the texts which have inspired them, enriching rather than ‗robbing‘ them. (SANDERS, 2006, p.
41).
Linda Hutcheon also mentions this prejudice that many have by using an example of yet another movie adaptation of Romeo and Juliet:
[…] it does seem to be more or less acceptable to adapt Romeo and Juliet into a respected high art form, like an opera or a ballet, but not to make it into a movie, especially an updated one like Baz Luhrmann‘s (1996) William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet. If an adaptation is perceived as ―lowering‖ a story (according to some imagined hierarchy of medium or genre), response is likely to be negative. (HUTCHEON, 2006, p. 3).
Perhaps in 2006, when this book was first published, and in 2013, when its second edition came out, this was still true. However, in 2022, the 1990‘s are seen as a far, nostalgic, pre-9/11, pre-covid past and its movies already belong to the classics, such as Clueless (1995) and 10 things I hate about you (1999). Baz Luhrmann, too, is no longer the 34-year-old he was when he directed the movie, but a respected almost 60-year-old. Additionally, movies are now – and perhaps also then – seen as a high art form when well-made.
Still concerning movies, there is a common situation that occurs to movie lovers who are also readers: they watch a movie that sparks in them the will to know more about the story and its characters, so they read the book. Linda Hutcheon also wrote about this phenomenon:
―[…] we may actually read or see that so-called original after we have experienced the adaptation, thereby challenging the authority of any notion of priority.‖ (HUTCHEON, 2006, p. XV). In fact, this has happened to me – and certainly to many others – in relation to Shakespeare. I was first introduced to Romeo and Juliet at school at the age of thirteen through the Franco Zeffirelli movie adaptation. Had I been directly introduced to the Shakespearean play, I might not have fallen in love with it due to its difficult language structure for a middle schooler. For my thirteen-year-old self, the 138 minutes of the movie were not enough, and I quickly bought my own copies of the play. For my classmates, however, the adaptation was satisfactory enough.
Adaptations and appropriations also have this power of maintaining the canon present in the contemporary world. People born in the 2000‘s may not have read Romeo and Juliet or watched its 20th century adaptations, but they may have watched the 2013 movie adaptation with one of the most beloved actresses of their generation, Hailee Steinfeld, as Juliet. Julie Sanders wrote about this phenomenon in the introduction to her book: ―Adaptation both appears to require and to perpetuate the existence of a canon, although it may in turn
contribute to its ongoing reformulation and expansion.‖ (SANDERS, 2006, p. 8) and ―[…]
adaptation becomes a veritable marker of canonical status.‖ (SANDERS, 2006, p. 9).
Therefore, adaptations and appropriations are an ally in keeping the public‘s interest in Shakespeare, for instance.
What qualifies a ‗good‘ adaptation, then? Linda Hutcheon answers this question partly in the section ―Knowing and Unknowing Audiences‖ from her book: ―For an adaptation to be successful in its own right, it must be so for both knowing and unknowing audiences.‖
(HUTCHEON, 2006, p. 120). The knowing audience represents those who are familiar with the source, whereas for the unknowing audience the adaptation will be experienced as any other work would. This is, indeed, a challenge for the creators of the new work, since
―knowing audiences have expectations – and demands.‖ (HUTCHEON, 2006, p. 122).
Although the unknowing audiences do not have expectations concerning fidelity, they are still not captivated by the work and are still to be hooked. Hence, each type of audience is a challenge in itself. Julie Sanders, when faced with the same question opening this paragraph, touched on the aspect of fidelity:
Intellectual or scholarly examinations of this kind are not aimed at identifying ‗good‘ or
‗bad‘ adaptations. On what grounds, after all, could such a judgment be made? Fidelity to the original? As I hope this volume indicates, it is usually at the very point of infidelity that the most creative acts of adaptation and appropriation take place. (SANDERS, 2006, p. 20).
Sanders, then, proceeds to mention Baz Luhrmann‘s 1996 William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet as a good example of infidelity in adapting that created an updated version of the play of enormous success, and which has its own beauty and social criticism. The scholar also points out how Shakespeare‘s works are prone to such adaptations: ―Shakespeare‘s oeuvre has proven to be a particularly rich seam to mine for such proximations.‖ (SANDERS, 2006, p. 20).
Based on the readings of both books and on my personal experience, I tend to agree with most aspects highlighted by both scholars. For instance, their thoughts on fidelity and how it may work in many cases, especially when the author of the source text is still alive and can take part in the adaptation of their work. However, they state that updating and making creative changes to a material can give space to those who were silenced when the work was first created, as explained by Julie Sanders: ―there is frequently heartfelt political commitment standing behind acts of literary appropriation or ‗revision‘.‖ (SANDERS, 2006, p. 7). Old and new fans must find ways to rejoice in the new adaptation. I would also add that when changing the values presented in a source text, they should be updated instead of backdated –
the latter is the case of some adaptations of Romeo and Juliet that tame the leading female character to make her conform to the expectations for women of the adapters‘ contemporary society.
In a chapter entitled ―‗Here‘s a strange alteration‘: Shakespearean Appropriations‖, Sanders devotes herself to an overall analysis of why Shakespeare is so adapted and to examining case studies. She introduces him as ―the playwright whose oeuvre functions in a remarkably similar way to the communal, shared, transcultural, and transhistorical art forms of myth and fairy tale.‖ (SANDERS, 2006, p. 45). Shakespeare‘s Romeo and Juliet, for instance, serves as a myth of romantic love in our culture, sometimes even being perceived as a fairy tale, which I will discuss in the third chapter of this dissertation. Nevertheless, the scholar also admits that there is an economic reason for his popularity: ―Shakespeare is helpfully outside the copyright law, making him safe as well as interesting to adapt.‖
(SANDERS, 2006, p. 48). Another economic reason is the attention a new work gets if associated with Shakespeare.
In conclusion, adaptations and appropriations serve the purpose of maintaining the canon alive while also bringing updated social commentary to it. Adapted texts bring old stories and characters to new times and different places, adding new facets to them. In this context, Julie Sanders wrote about a way in which we can perceive adaptations: ―Perhaps a useful way of beginning to think about adaptation is a form of collaboration across time and sometimes across culture or language.‖ (SANDERS, 2006, p. 47). Alike to an experienced traveler, the character of Juliet conquers new characteristics in each different century and place she visits. In the mind of scholars, she carries the luggage of all the Juliets she has been.
For some, she will be Lavinia from the Restoration play while others may see her as the young child from Mary Cowden Clarke‘s story. In the mind of the public, she will be the popular representations and references to her. Whether we like it or not, Juliet does not belong solely to Shakespeare anymore – in fact, she never did, for she lived long before the Bard was born. Instead, Juliet is a patchwork-character. Nonetheless, some characteristics attributed to her image may feel ―wrong‖ to Shakespearean fans, such as those gained in the process of the domestication she suffered in the twentieth and twenty first centuries. This happens because Juliet is still absorbing characteristics from different cultures in her voyage.
In adaptations and appropriations, the silenced ones are oftentimes able to gain a voice when a story is updated. Juliet, however, cannot be considered a silenced voice since she is the female lead of Shakespeare‘s play and has an undeniable presence and attitude in the
story. Nonetheless, in many adaptations and appropriations to be discussed in the following sections and chapter, she has suffered a process of domestication, being, hence, a ―distorted voice‖. My goal in discussing adaptations and appropriations is not to elect the best one, neither to judge them in terms of quality, but rather to analyze their representation of Juliet and how it dialogues with the time and age of the adaptation.
Hereafter, I will dedicate myself to the analysis of adaptations of Shakespeare‘s Romeo and Juliet from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century. The first adaptation to be analyzed will be the Restoration play The History and Fall of Caius Marius (1679), by Thomas Otway. And we will analyze the historical background of Restoration England and how it affected theater productions.