Literature V/S Films

Literature vs. Film
Literature can, at times, have a fascinating connection with film. In some cases, it is evident that the two are intertwined in many more ways than the average person may realize. Whether it is a film or a piece of literature, both are written by someone that wants to impact readers or a viewing audience. With that being said, it is always a question of whether or not the author accomplished his or her goal and if the audience was impacted in the way he or she wanted. Is this intent prevalent to the audience and is the author’s intent predetermined before the film or book is taken in by the audience? How the author can shape the reader or viewer and whether or not they can interpret things for themselves is another factor that must be examined when trying to answer this question. Another question that is often thought of is how power is depicted through film or literature in terms of not only sex and gender, but in class, race, nationality, etc. In again both film and literature power is a very important factor in most good story lines. In seems to be that reality does not have much intervention when it comes to characterizations of the leading roles. Although at times the true reality of who these characters would really be

PRESENTATION DURING AWARDS BY JOHN MIDEGA

For a long time, there has existed an interrelationship and mutual influence between literature and other forms of artistic expressions. This has resulted in painting and music based on works of fiction, drama and poetry, as well as literary works emulating pictorial styles and musical structures. The creative exchange between literature and film was initiated in the last decade of the 19th Century. Initially, film was most related to photography and painting.

Literature shares with film the ability to employ the structures and devices of narrative. Sequence of images on screen told a story and this is equivalent to the sequence of words on page. The use of language in film established firmly the connections to literature.

Films, just like in literature, present i) action ii) images iii) words replicating life. Literary works also have a stylistic and thematic basis in a realistic presentation of characters and incidents. Theatre, initially, seemed nearest to film because of the common use of actors and sets. Critics agree that films have a stronger affinity with fiction, especially with the pronounced emphasis on narrative. However, whereas the primary thrust of literature is linguistic, the thrust of film is imagistic/ visual and immediate.

Film draws from the tradition of live theatre which includes techniques of staging, lighting, movement and gestures. From the novel, film draws from structure, characterization, theme and point of view.

From poetry it draws from an understanding of metaphor, symbolism and other literary tropes. Film can extend into areas of the innermost privacy and consciousness just like poetry does.

From music film draws from rhythm, repetition and counterpoint.

From painting it draws from sensitivity to shape, form, visual textures and colour.

Popular film developed with the emergence of the 18th Century novel. Both the 18th Century novel and film relied heavily upon realism as a technique. Early films were concerned, just like with realism in literature, daily lives of ordinary people. The subject matter and audiences were people of low social standing.

An analogy stands out for film and literature. The basic structural units of the novel were replicated in film. In the novel we have: the word, sentence, paragraph, chapter and the entire novel. In film we have the frame, shot scene and sequence. The word in literature and the image in film were similar in so far as they are visual phenomena, both perceived with the eye.

Despite different degrees of explication, both writers and filmmakers use language or languages. Some differences may exist however. For instance, whereas the film is multi-sensory communal experience emphasizing immediacy, literature is a monosensory private experience that is more conductive to reflection. A film is usually viewed in others’ presence who become a larger part of the film’s experience. Each audience member acknowledges the presence of the others. Audience response can also affect perception of a film. A novel is typically a private experience in which the relationship between the author and the reader is relatively direct and immediate. Others’ responses do not impinge on the novel, thus making it conducive to reflection as the reader can pause and mull over or re-read.

The above notwithstanding, the film and the novel are alike insofar as their order is typically linear. Movement is generally sequential and the events and scenes are ordered in direct relation to each other. Whether the order is ABC or CBA, the progression is usually sequential, straightforward and predictable.

By and large, therefore, film is considered as a branch of literature. Filmmakers are indebted to literature in a wide variety of ways. Since literature is a narrative art intent upon creating images and sounds in the reader’s mind, then film is obviously literary- an extension of the older narrative arts. Indeed, the most distinctive quality of good writing is visual: to convey images by means of words, to make the mind see, to project onto that inner screen of the brain a moving picture of objects and events to convey a balance and reconciliation of a more than usual state of emotion with more than usual order. Film is therefore visual literacy (as opposed to verbal literacy), a new medium which is an extension and enlargement of the idea of literacy itself. In contemporary scholarship, everything written, for example, film scripts, are a part of the study of literature, thus film is a branch of literature.

Filed under: Culture
During the PEN International Voices Festival last night, author and former PEN American Center president Francine Prose met with four writers to discuss the relationship between novels and films in a panel titled Adaptation: From Page to Screen. Each panelist has had one of their novels turned into a movie: French writer Philippe Dijian with “Betty Blue,” Belgian writer and filmmaker Jean-Philippe Toussaint with “La Salle de bain,” American novelist Barry Gifford with “Wild at Heart,” and American writer Richard Price with “Clockers.”
Of the four panelists, only Toussaint considered himself to be both a writer and filmmaker. The rest identified themselves solely as novelists.

Dijan spoke first. He expressed a pessimistic view about the future of novels, saying “maybe books won’t be necessary in the future.” He reflected on his struggle with trying to write screenplays—in the end, he realized that he could not be a screenwriter. He stated that as a writer he is more interested in the world of reflection, not of images. “All the stories have already been told,” he said, implying that the only way to move forward in the literary world is through individual language and style. He lamented that his story in “Betty Blue” was lost when it became a movie.“It had nothing to do with my work! And the terrible thing is that the film was a huge success. ... Writers should struggle against the cinema,” he said.

Toussaint, who is as much a filmmaker as a writer, understandably had a different point of view. He sees value in both art forms, appreciating both the abstraction of novels and the concreteness of movies. He stated that movies have a real dimension to them—“You can touch the actresses,” he said. Toussaint’s first experience with moviemaking was with “La salle de bain,” his novel that gained the interest of many filmmakers. When he agreed to an adaptation, he demanded that he be able to participate in the moviemaking process, and he’s been involved in the film industry ever since.
Gilford, the first American to speak, said simply that he had “nothing against movies.” He alluded to his childhood spent growing up in hotels and watching movies late into the night. He said that watching movies is what taught him how to put stories together. However, he is still skeptical about the “integrity” of most directors. Despite this reservation, he said that he “loves” the movies, considering them to be just another discrete form of expression. “A novel’s a novel and a film’s a film,” he said.
Price started off saying, “At this point in my life I’ve written a shitload of movies.” His reason for getting into the film industry? “Right now I just want the money,” he said. Price said that screenplays pay the bills, and that he doesn’t have the “hope” about his own writings that he had 20 years ago. Based on his own experience, he offered one word of advice for aspiring writers: “Don’t settle for being a screenwriter... If you’re going be a writer, be a writer.”