EPTBoth the novel and the film have won multiple awards and are considered to be some of the best work in their respective fields. Most film critics, as well as casual viewers and readers will agree that Mulligan's film is an excellent adaptation of Harper Lee's original work. But what makes this adaptation objectively better than many others which are widely considered to be failures? The film certainly is not an exact projection of the text onto the screen, yet it is still largely considered to be one of the greatest novel-to-film adaptations of all time. All of the most important elements of the original work must have been carried over to the adaptation quite well for it to have been so well received, however there are clear differences between the two renditions of the story. Examining those elements that remained intact, as well as recognizing the differences between the source and the adaptation and why it is acceptable for these deviations to occur should lead us to establishing some fairly solid criteria for judging adaptations in general.
The first and most obvious element that absolutely must be retained through the adaptation process would be the plot. In the case of To Kill a Mockingbird, it is fair to say that the original plot has been efficiently preserved through the process of adaptation. Of course, we cannot expect every little plot point from the original to be included, as this would often make for a very long movie, and as Professor Kathleen Kelly of Northeastern University points out, "If you go into the film expecting that everything in the book will be represented on the screen, you’re going to be disappointed." (Kelly). There is no doubt, though, that the main plot points should all be there. If the plot of an adaptation deviates too much from the original version, people tend to get angry. Preserving the main plot points is important because we expect the adaptation to tell the same story as the original. If film tells a completely different story than the novel, then the film ceases to be an adaptation and becomes an original work of its own. While the adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird did a decent job of keeping to the main story, it is true that the film version was more streamlined and focused as far as the plot is concerned, focusing mainly on the Tom Robinson and Boo Radley plot lines while either simplifying or omitting some of the smaller plot points in order to save film time. The most important plot points were carried over though, and the scenes that Mulligan chose cut in his adaptation did not weaken the overall story of the film in any way. Certainly, scenes like the kids visiting Calpurnia's church, and Jem reading to Ms. Dubose on her deathbed served to strengthen the story's overall message, but the film still tells a compelling story without them. Thus, in evaluating this adaptation for plot retention, it is safe to say that the plot points that Mulligan chose to cut were not too significant.
While the overall story and plot points are carried over quite nicely in To Kill a Mockingbird, a noticeable difference between the source and the adaptation is the way in which the stories are actually presented. For example, the story in the novel is narrated by Scout Finch as she tells stories from her childhood. The movie, while still clearly telling the story from Scout's perspective feels a bit less like a narration. While the film presents a focused and chronological plot, it differs from the movie in that it does not feel like a collection of stories being told by an older woman, which is one of the most praised elements of Harper Lee's story telling style in To Kill a Mockingbird. Because Lee's novel is written as a collection of stories from Scout's childhood, the reader is able see how she absorbs small life lessons from each experience, and then brings them all together in the end. The overall message of accepting the differences of other people and seeing things from their point of view is stronger when it is supported by all of these stories about the events she has experienced and the people she has met.
In his article titled "The Unbearable Lightness of Being: Film Adaptation Seen From a Different Perspective", Patrick Cattrysse claims that "The presence or absence of these literary characteristics in the film adaptation is connected to another classic topic which pops up repeatedly in journalistic discussions, namely the 'un-adaptability'..." (Cattrysse 222). Here, Cattrysse explains the idea that some texts cannot be adapted to the screen properly because it is impossible to replicate certain literary devices in film. This idea is strongly related to the belief that adaptations should be as close to a carbon copy of the original as possible, a belief that Cattrysse later disagrees with, saying "...this type of questioning is questionable in itself, and that it stands in the way of a larger and far more interesting type of inquiry." (Cattrysse 222).
Cattrysse's argument makes sense because instead of analyzing an adaptation purely on its faithfulness to the source material, it is much more useful and interesting to look at the original work as a model for the adaptation. That is to say that the source material should be seen as a guide for the adaptation, rather than an instruction manual, because while it is true that certain elements of a piece of literature cannot be cleanly adapted into film, there are certain advantages that film has as a medium that novels do not. For example, in Harper Lee's version of To Kill a Mockingbird, There are certain plot points that Scout is not actually present for. Instead of witnessing these things for herself, she must later hear about them from other people. However, the film version has the freedom to simply show these events to us. This is quite useful because it allows for a much more smoothly flowing storyline. That is not to say that the film has a better way of telling the story, of course, as this is a matter of personal preference. Some prefer to have the plot developed through a collection of stories told from Scout's perspective, while others might prefer the more streamlined approach of telling the story as demonstrated in the film.
Ultimately, it is not how the story is told that matters, as long as the same feeling of the original material is retained. Instrumental in this pursuit, and with similar importance to the overall adaptation as plot retention, is the development of the important characters. As with many novels of its kind, To Kill a Mockingbird centers around the development of the main characters and their relationship to the many minor characters in the story. In Harper Lee's original, the pivotal characters are Scout, Jem, and Atticus Finch. Atticus tries to teach his children, Scout and Jem, not to be judgmental and to put themselves in others' shoes. We see that as children, Jem and Scout have a natural tendency to be judgmental of people who are different from them at first, but we get to see these characters grow and understand how to accept the differences of others. The purpose of most of the minor characters in the story is to be judged by Jem and/or Scout and then to later be understood or accepted by them. Harper Lee's intention is to show the growth of Scout and Jem's ability to empathize with others through their interactions with the people they encounter. All of the small conversations they have with the people of their town can be brought together in the end to paint the big picture.
In Mulligan's film, this concept is largely carried over. Most of the important characters are well portrayed in the movie, although some of the character relationships are simplified. For example, the Mulligan's film, Mrs. Dubose is portrayed as a cranky old lady whom Atticus charms with his good manners. Scout and Jem are meant to learn from this that even people who at first seem like they are hard to get along with may actually be nice people if you just talk to them and treat them nicely. However, the book offers a deeper picture of Mrs. Dubose by having Jem read to her as she is on her deathbed. Jem sees Mrs. Dubose in a new light, realizing that there is more to her character than just being a mean old lady. As a result, Jem learns to see people as being complicated or complex, rather than just one dimensional characters. This is different from what we see in the film adaptation because in the novel, Jem learns this lesson on his own by interacting with Mrs. Dubose, whereas in the film, he learns the lesson on a more shallow level and only by following Atticus's example. Thus, the novel lets the reader see more of the internal changes that are made to Jem's character through personal experience, while the film limits this to a lesson that Jem learns from somebody else.
Although the film misses out on some of these points, it is not all that unfortunate because it still manages to present well developed characters in its own way. This is because, again, the medium of film offers certain advantages and freedoms that text does not have. In the novel, many of the behaviors and quirks of the characters have to be explained to the reader. It has to be explained to us that characters like the Cunninghams, although very poor farmers, are proud people who do not accept charity. In the film, though, these things can simply be shown to us through their actions. The novel tells us about characters, while the movie shows them to us, often providing a much more vivid portrayal of the complexity of these characters. For example, when Tom Robinson is delivering his speech in court, the actor in the movie delivers his lines so well that the viewer cannot help but to be emotionally moved by his speech. You can see the sweat on his face and the tears in his eyes as he pleads his innocence, where as in the book, these details are not really present.
The important thing to understand from this is that it is perfectly acceptable for a film adaptation to do things differently than the original author because a film director has a different set of tools for telling the story. Therefore, it is not wrong to use these tools because just as the medium of film provides these extra opportunities, it is also missing some of the tools that novels have in their story telling arsenal. Stephen Schiff of the New York Times said it best: ”Adaptation isn't a lesser act of creation; it's different in kind." (Schiff 28). When evaluating a film adaptation of a novel, one must recognize this fact. Although it is perfectly reasonable to expect that certain elements like plot and character development are retained through the adaptation process, the criteria for judging whether an adaptation is done well or not should allow for differences to exist between the two works in the way these elements are conveyed.
Works Cited
Cattrysse, Patrick. "The Unbearable Lightness of Being: Film Adaptation Seen From a Different Perspective." Literature Film Quarterly. 25.3 (1997): 222-231. Web. 2 Feb. 2012. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=16&hid=112&sid=bb1d7599-44dd-4002- 882a86909c7d7861%40sessionmgr115&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d# db=a9h&AN=9710306907>
Kelly, Kathleen. "3Qs: What Makes a Good Book-to-Movie Adaptation." Northeastern University. Interview by Matt Collette. 27 Mar 2012. Web. <http://www.northeastern.edu/news/2012/03/kelly/>.
Lee, Harper. To Kill a Mockingbird. Philadelphia : J.B Lippincott Company, 1960. Print.
McFarlane, Brian. Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. eBook.
Mulligan, Robert, dir. To Kill a Mockingbird. Amazon.com, 1962. Film.
Schiff, Stephen. "FILM; Alright, You Try: Adaptation Isn't Easy." New York Times [New York] 01 Dec 2002, 28. Web. 2 Feb. 2012. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=15&hid=7&sid=bb1d7599-44dd-4002- 882a86909c7d7861%40sessionmgr115&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d# db=a9h&AN=29106817>
Really solid movie though.
