The Authorship And Ownership In Pride And Prejudice

Preface We need to remember... that a film version of a novel is an independent text and should not be judged...by how faithful it is to the `original`: what constitutes as an original anyway? (Webster 1993 p.148)

With Roger Webster`s proclamation in mind, this document will attempt to explore the ownership and authorship of film adaptations, using the case study of Jane Austen`s early nineteenth century classic novel `Pride and Prejudice.` Investigation will take place into two of the screen adaptations of Austen`s novel; the BBC`s 1995 series and the 2005 British Heritage film, both of the same name. Using qualitative research, discussion will adhere to the debate of which individual`s artistic input has made the adaptation`s ultimate success; should the public maintain approbation for Austen`s original text or should we now raise a toast to the creativity of the elite screen directors? Webster raises the concept of screen adaptations being judged on their fidelity to the original source, in this case, the original literature. He is discouraged by the judgemental attitudes of critics, arguing that instead of being marked on their portrayal of the text, screen adaptations should be classified as `independent` talent. With the focus of Webster`s argument, this essay aims to research autership, authorship and ownership and will attempt to discover the extent of which screen adaptations should be viewed as autonomous art forms. The BBC`s adaptation of `Pride and Prejudice` was adapted by Andrew Davies and directed by Simon Langton. The six part series starred Colin Firth as male protagonist Mr Darcy and Jennifer Ehle as female protagonist Elizabeth Bennett and caused an uproar of triumph when released in September 1995. The fact that all six series collect to over two hundred and seventy minutes of viewing indicates lowered pressure for Davies; saving him the heavy task of having to condense the original literature. It is apparent that it`s loyalties to the novel was the series secret to success, with the gain of over ten million viewers and the praise of critics such as James Berardinelli: Without the pressure to trim subplots and condense scenes, screenwriter Andrew Davies has allowed the full texture of Austen`s novel to emerge. (Berardinelli.1995.) This evidence of the series` renowned loyalty thus allows the screen to blossom with direct reference to Austen`s meticulous language and the portrayal of her intensive plots and subplots of love, marriage, social security and moral correctness. This essay will explore if the film`s faithfulness can be classed as a true portrayal of Austen`s work or whether it should be classified in Webster`s `independent text` declaration. The 2005 British Heritage film adaptation of `Pride and Prejudice` is screen written by Deborah Moggach and directed by Joe Wright. The romantic drama stars Matthew Macfadyen as Mr Darcy, Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet and Judie Dench as snobbish caricature Lady Catherine de Bough. Contrasting with the intertextual relationship shown in the BBC adaptation, the film lasts two hours and nine minutes thus it is evident that a process of elimination took place; deleting subplots, relationships and even some characters. Despite this, the film is still considered by most as a success and is still praised on its fidelity to Austen`s original: For all its romantic gloss and finery, the film still reflects Austen`s keen scrutiny of social mobility and... the struggle of the hungriest to advance by wielding whatever leverage is at hand. (Holden.Online. http://movies.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/movies/11prid.html). Film critic Stephen Holden supports the adaptation and compares it to Austen`s original work, congratulating it on its loyalty to the novel`s dominating denotations. The film adaptation`s victory is proved by nominations for several awards, with Joe Wright winning the award for `Best Newcomer` in the 2005/2006 film season. Once again, the following questions are raised: Are these comparisons to the original source are truly necessary? Can the adaptations be evaluated without raising its integrity to the stimulating language? Further research in this essay will attempt to achieve the answer to this debate.

Chapter 1 What Is Adaptation? Adaptation is common in all art forms; theatre, cinema, art, architecture, dance and literature. Of course, it is not hard to believe that when an individual becomes part of a piece of creativity which inspires and motivates them; they can use their engagement with this material as a stimulus for their own creative process. Before research can progress, it is important that the core definition of `adaptation` is found, and in what context the word will be used within this document. The `Oxford English Dictionary` (1998) dictates a variety of definitions, for example: . Biology: the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment. . The action or process of adapting or being adapted. . A film, television drama, or stage play that has been adapted from a written work. (p.8). Adaptation does not have to be considered as an artistic process, it can be also viewed as a biological procedure. The Oxford Dictionary states that adaptation can be considered as the transition of life form; the evolutionary process. Species can evolve by adapting to their surroundings as being a gradual process of `exquisite design` (Gould 1980 p.103) with the growth of stability and strength in a linear process. However, the `cultural adaptation` (Cardwell 2002 p13) that is being studied contrasts as a process. Biological adaptation is considered as an ever improving process, which results in positive outcome; each species classified as better adapted to the environment than the previous. S. Cardwell argues that cultural adaption does not necessarily make improvements. Instead it attempts to reproduce an already existing form, with an aim to succeed in society, but also with an aim for a new niche to enjoy the reproduction and an objective to aid the survival of the original source. Adaptations can achieve this in two ways: they can aim for textual fidelity, faithfully `reproducing` elements of their sources on screen, and they can `send viewers back to the book`. (Cardwell 2002 p13) Here Cardwell explores the notion that `cultural adaptation` differs to the linear progress of biological adaptation, and instead reverts back to the original rather than dismissing it. This gives indication that the film adaptation can never be classed as an independent art source, given the fact that the director made a choice to revert to the past and relive the source, regardless of the transition of medium from text to screen. The Oxford Dictionary definition refers to adaptation as a `process`. When adapting a source, the adapter has to go through a series of steps in order to create the resulting product. In the case of novel to film adaptation, the screenwriter will usually have to condense the original material, having to keep to a time limit. This condensing often results in the erasing of scenes, sub plots and characters. L. Seger refers to the adaptor sharing similarities with the sculptor Michelanglo: When asked how we was able to carve such a beautiful angel, (he) replied, "The angel is caught inside the stone. I simply carve out everything that isn`t the angel." The adaptor is sculpting out everything that isn`t drama, so the intrinsic drama contained within another medium remains. (Seger 1992 p.2) The director also has to submit to the `process` of making his material commercial. This is especially important in classical adaptations. The juxtaposition between modern day`s contemporary language and Shakespeare`s traditional Elizabethan causes Shakespeare adaptation screen writers to adapt the language in order to fit within the barriers of today`s niches. Directors are also required to apply style to the adaptation. This may be of a certain period, such as Victorian, where the space, scenography, costume and/or music should be taken in account in order to achieve the style. For example, `The Notebook` is a novel written by Nicholas Sparks, published in 1992. In 2004 it was adapted into an award winning film directed by Nick Cassavetes, starring Rachel McAdams and Ryan Gosling. The storyline depicts a romance between a young couple who face the challenges of growing up. Set just after the Second World War, costumes and set had to fit within the wartime period, with even the soundtrack by Aaron Zigman having to adapt to the conventions of wartime jazz and blues. It can be argued that this process of adaptation is evidence of the director and screenwriter`s creative input, and therefore it should be these to whom we give credit for the adaptation, regardless of the use of an author`s work as initial stimuli. A. R. Fulton describes the specific concept of adaptation and the expected conclusion when an adaptation has been created: Discussion of a film based on a novel... arrives sooner or later at a comparison of the film with its source. This kind of criticism may have its advantages. But somehow it leads to the mistaken conclusion that the excellence of the film depends on similarity to the novel... from which it is adapted. (Fulton 1977, cited in Cardwell p.9). Fulton defines the specific form of `novel to film adaptation` and, similarly to Rodgers, he highlights the unavoidable result that the film adaptation does not stand as a separate art form; instead it is critically compared to what the novel which the film is adapted from. When classifying cultural adaptation problems can arise. Difficulties occur when the idea of `representation` is crossed over with `adaptation`, and to what extent a representation of a stimulus can be classed as a true adaptation. Dudley Andrew (1984) expresses the confusion with this crossing over of terms: `Every representational film adapts a prior conception. Indeed the very term "representation" suggests the existence of a model`. (p.97). This highlights that representation is a rather broad process that can be related to a variety of contexts within the media world, yet signifies that the art of adaptation relates more directly to the novel and film transition. The example of the popular 2007 television series `The Tudors` is directed by Michael Hurst and is based on the life of the English monarch Henry VIII. Despite using historical events as cause for action and plot despite, the series is layered with fictional aspects, such as dialogue, scenes and relationships that are simply created for commercial viewing. Yet surely the series could be classed as an `adaptation of history`? It depicts the life of a real King, the events and decisions which he played a part of, and his six wives which made him one of the infamous Kings in English legacy. However, as Andrew argues, it is the basis of history which prevents the series from falling in the `adaptation` genre: As interpretations of a person, place, situation, event and so forth...we reserve a special place for those films which foreground this [adaptive] relation by announcing themselves as versions of some standard whole. A standard whole can only be a text. A version of it is an adaptation in the narrow sense. (Andrew 1980, p.462) Andrew notates that the representational films or series can never fall under the genre of adaptation as they are merely based on factual contexts; they take small concepts from a variety of factual and fictional sources and then use their own creativity in order to create art. In order to submit to the genre of adaptation, the art needs to be from a stabilised source, in this case Andrew argues that it `can only be a text`, a piece of literature. For these reasons, `The Tudors` cannot be considered as a documentary series which has derived from a fixed foundation, thus cannot be considered as an `adaptation`. Instead, it is a `representation` of the English Monarchy during Henry VIII`s reign. This study will follow the methodology set out by Andrew and aims to classify adaptations as literary based mediums.