Ruth Prawer Jhabvala's Adapted Screenplays
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Absorbing the Worlds of Others: Ruth Prawer Jhabvala’s Adapted Screenplays By Laura Fryer Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of a PhD degree at De Montfort University, Leicester. Funded by Midlands 3 Cities and the Arts and Humanities Research Council. June 2020 i Abstract Despite being a prolific and well-decorated adapter and screenwriter, the screenplays of Ruth Prawer Jhabvala are largely overlooked in adaptation studies. This is likely, in part, because her life and career are characterised by the paradox of being an outsider on the inside: whether that be as a European writing in and about India, as a novelist in film or as a woman in industry. The aims of this thesis are threefold: to explore the reasons behind her neglect in criticism, to uncover her contributions to the film adaptations she worked on and to draw together the fields of screenwriting and adaptation studies. Surveying both existing academic studies in film history, screenwriting and adaptation in Chapter 1 -- as well as publicity materials in Chapter 2 -- reveals that screenwriting in general is on the periphery of considerations of film authorship. In Chapter 2, I employ Sandra Gilbert’s and Susan Gubar’s notions of ‘the madwoman in the attic’ and ‘the angel in the house’ to portrayals of screenwriters, arguing that Jhabvala purposely cultivates an impression of herself as the latter -- a submissive screenwriter, of no threat to patriarchal or directorial power -- to protect herself from any negative attention as the former. However, the archival materials examined in Chapter 3 which include screenplay drafts, reveal her to have made significant contributions to problem-solving, characterisation and tone. I argue that she develops themes pertinent to her and in Chapter 4 I posit outsider characters in particular as sites of her authorship. In the final chapter I explore the collaborative nature of the working environment which made these contributions possible. I adapt Kamilla Elliott’s incarnational concept of adaptation to reincarnation in order to argue that adaptation and screenwriting are both continual, collaborative processes. Segments of Chapters 2 and 5 have been included in published articles and feature in the appendices: ‘A room with many views: Ruth Prawer Jhabvala’s and Andrew Davies’ adapted screenplays for A Room with a View (1985, 2007)’; and ‘Screenwriting, adaptation and reincarnation: Ruth Prawer Jhabvala’s self-adapted screenplays’. ii Acknowledgements Although this thesis has my name on the cover, there are many to thank for making it happen. The richness and range of primary research materials included here has been made possible thanks to Midlands 3 Cities and the Arts and Humanities Research Council. I am incredibly grateful for the support and guidance of my supervisory team, Deborah Cartmell, Claire Monk and Jane Dowson. Huge thanks go to my technical team, Alison Aldridge, Jonathan Fryer and Matthew Fryer, and to the rest of my family and friends for their cheerleading and support. David Mayne, thank you for always believing in me. iii Table of Contents Abstract i Acknowledgements ii Table of Contents iii List of Figures vii Introduction: The Aunt in the Attic 1 Opening Scene 1 Research Impetus and Aims 2 Biography of Ruth Prawer Jhabvala 7 Review of Jhabvala Studies 10 Review of Merchant Ivory Adaptations Studies 18 Research Significance and Methodology 28 Thesis Outline 33 1. (Women’s) Screenwriting: Both Inside and Outside of Film 36 Problems Facing Screenwriting Study 36 The Problem of Reputation 38 Attitudes Towards Film 38 Attitudes Towards Screenwriting 44 Attitudes Towards Women in Film 48 The Problems of Screenwriting Studies 54 The Screenplay is Not Artistic Enough 55 …Because it is Too Functional 55 …Because it is Incomplete 56 …Because it is Inseparable 58 What Do We Study in Screenwriting? 59 How Do We Study Screenwriting? 62 The Problems with Adaptation Studies 67 Comparative Case Studies 68 Word Versus Image 69 Destabilising Source Texts 71 iv Authorship and Industry 73 Conclusion: Marrying Adaptation and Screenwriting Fields 76 2. Jhabvala Performing and Denying Authorship 81 Authorship Portrayals Outside of Jhabvala’s Control 86 Trade Press 86 Promotion 91 According to Merchant Ivory Productions 97 Obituaries 101 According to Interviewers 102 Authorship Portrayals within Jhabvala’s Control 107 Interviews 107 Film Credits 111 Maurice (1987) 111 The Remains of the Day (1993) 115 A Soldier’s Daughter Never Cries (1998) 124 3. Jhabvala’s Authoring and Adaptive Practices 129 Merchant Ivory Productions’ Collaborative Work Group 131 Jhabvala’s Approach to Adapting 133 Collaborative Writing 137 Continued Involvement 139 Contradicting the Angel Figure 143 Case Studies 150 Quartet (1981) 150 A Room with a View (1985) 156 Surviving Picasso (1996) 165 Conclusion 176 4. Authoring from the Outside: Jhabvala’s Outsider Characters as Sites of 178 Authorship Original Characters 183 Krishna, To Whom She Will (1955) 183 Esmond, Esmond in India (1958) 186 v Peggy, ‘The Aliens’ (1963) 187 Lizzie, Shakespeare Wallah (1965) 189 Ma and Ross, ‘The Temptress’ (1998) 191 Adaptations 192 Leonard, Howards End (1992) 192 Manek and Sushila, Madame Sousatzka (1988) 194 Grace, Mr. & Mrs. Bridge (1990) 196 Stevens, The Remains of the Day (1993) 199 Benoit/Billy, A Soldier’s Daughter Never Cries (1998) 201 Conclusion 206 5. Screenwriting, Adapting and Reincarnation: Jhabvala’s Self-Adaptations 208 A Reincarnational Concept of Adaptation 210 Self-Adapting and Collaborating 213 Self-Adapting to Retain Control 222 Self-Adapting as Rewriting 223 Adaptation as Continual, Collaborative Process 239 Conclusion 230 Conclusion: Absorbing the Worlds of Others 233 Chapter Summaries 234 Reflections on Archival Research 235 An Innocent Millionaire 236 Possibilities for Future Research 242 Closing Comments 243 Bibliography 245 Filmography 276 Appendices 278 Appendix 1. Academy Awards Analysis 278 1a. Writing Nominee and Winner Gender Analysis 278 1b. Winning Female Writers Summarised 296 Appendix 2. Ruth Prawer Jhabvala’s Work and Achievements 297 vi 2a. Filmography – TV and Motion Picture (Chronological) 297 2b. Bibliography 298 2c. Awards 299 Appendix 3. Ruth Prawer Jhabvala’s Timeline 300 Appendix 4. Publications Derived from this Research 302 4a. A room with many views: Ruth Prawer Jhabvala’s and Andrew Davies’ adapted 303 screenplays for A Room with a View (1985, 2007) 4b. Screenwriting, adaptation and reincarnation: Ruth Prawer Jhabvala’s self-adapted 317 screenplays vii List of Figures Fig. 1. – Title page of The Wandering Company by John Pym 20 Fig. 2 – Promotions section of Heat and Dust small pressbook, BFI 92 Fig. 3 – Final shot from The Householder trailer 93 Fig. 4 – Final shot of Heat and Dust film trailer 94 Fig. 5 – From Shakespeare Wallah trailer 94 Fig. 6 – From The Guru trailer 94 Fig. 7 – From A Room with a View trailer 96 Fig. 8 – 35th Anniversary Variety feature, including article on Jhabvala ‘Novel Scribe’ 99 Fig. 9– Photocopy of Madame Soustazka p34-45 in The Ruth Prawer Jhabvala Papers 136 Fig. 10 – Howards End - Miscellaneous Screenplay papers 139 Fig. 11 – p48-49 of Quartet in The James Ivory Papers 153 1 Introduction: The Aunt in the Attic Opening Scene INT. UNIVERSITY OF OREGON READING ROOM - DAY A grand, high-ceilinged room. The walls are lined with shelves of heavy bound books. At one of the long desks LAURA, a frazzled-looking student, is barely visible behind a laptop and a fort of archival materials. LAURA hunches intently over a large book support where a fragile notebook is held open. She frowns at the scrawling, almost indecipherable handwriting. LAURA (muttering) Come on. What are you trying to tell me...? RUTH (V.O.) Nothing. I didn't expect anyone -other than Jim and Ismail perhaps- to read this. LAURA gives up and turns to an unbound screenplay draft. On the first page, a borderline legible annotation reads: ‘so much for my suggestion’. LAURA tuts. LAURA So self-critical! RUTH(V.O.) Well, it's simply creating a blueprint for others to work on, others who will know better than I do. I’m a novelist, you see, not a filmmaker. Another page of the screenplay. LAURA smiles at something she reads. Whilst typing the note ‘OFFERS EDITING IDEAS’ onto her laptop, she mutters: LAURA (sarcastically) Oh yeah, you know nothing about film do you? A loose script page, more closely resembling a collage than a screenplay. It's an amalgamation of white paper, yellow paper, type, handwriting, staples, tape and paperclips. LAURA gently 2 tries to lift a flap of paper but it won't move easily. Instead, she holds it up to the light to read the original text beneath. RUTH (V.O.) Jim added that. He's much more visual than I am. Another collaged page, far exceeding A4 length. Several lines have been slashed and rewritten. Notes in red ink and a new hand join Ruth’s, some of which is heard aloud: JAMES IVORY (V.O.) ‘Brilliant! I can already picture this scene exactly.' RUTH (V.O.) ‘Omit this section? Or use only what you need.’ JAMES (V.O.) ‘Keep it. It's too early to say.’ As LAURA flicks through the screenplay, RUTH's and JAMES' voices speak over one another, their words becoming unintelligible. And as LAURA sifts through other materials –- letters, contracts, pressbooks, reviews -- more voices are added to the mix with only snippets to be heard, such as: ISMAIL MERCHANT (O.S.) ...in the editing room Ruth... ANTHONY HOPKINS (O.S.) ...Ruth’s rewritten ending is... JOHN SCHLESINGER (O.S.) ...I agree with Ruth that... They all speak over one another, merging into an inseparable blend as LAURA types hurriedly. Research Impetus and Aims Like Stephen Greenblatt's often-quoted 'desire to speak with the dead' (1), my thesis began with the desire to find the voice of Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, the adapter and screenwriter.