Dr Philip Holden (email: ellhpj@nus.edu.sg)
[ Introduction and Description | Schedule and Readings | Assessment and Policies | Related Resources ]In the lecture l this week, we’ll think about The English Patient as a film, and how the film differs from the novel. The differences between the two texts might be, for convenience, divided into two areas:
This is, of course, a difference of convenience, and it may be that these two areas intersect in surprising ways. Brian MacFarlane's article will give us a framework for discussion. Note that the article's a little recursive, and is made more obscure by the fact that it refers to many different theoretical frameworks and concepts, some of which we've met before, but some of which will be new to you. You don't have to use any of McFarlane's vocabulary in your essay, but it is worth thinking through some of the points he raises. First, the issue of "fidelity" of a adaptation of a novel to the original isn't as easy as it first appears. As McFarlane notes, an insistence on fidelity in letter and/or spirit may actually obscure other issues. First, the director of the film may not be aiming for fidelity (most viewers of the film will, after all, not have read the novel): we might here consider Geoffrey Wagner's distinction between transposition, commentary and analogy, which McFarlane reproduces on page 10-11. Second, we might note that while some elements of narrative from a film are quite easily transferable from prose fiction to film, others are not, and analogies need to be found. If you want a basic schematization of the issues that McFarlane considers important, pay close attention to the concluding section of the chapter, pp. 23-30, which summarizes his "agenda for further study."
Last updated: 6 November, 2007