Was the Classical Tradition Betrayed by J. Ivory’s Adaptation 1 of E. M. Forster’s Maurice? Pau Gilabert Barberà2 Universitat de Barcelona
[email protected] To J. Baucells, J. M. Orteu and M. Forcano Abstract According to literature and film studies and from the point of view of the influence of classical tradition on Western culture—classical Greek tradition, in this case—this article analyses the inevitable—to a certain degree—betrayal by screenwriters of the literary texts that they adapt. However, in spite of being practically inevitable, Dr. Pau Gilabert indicates what are, in his opinion, the limits beyond which Ivory/Hesketh-Harvey should not have gone in order not to dilute the Hellenic temper of E. M. Forster’s Maurice. As citizens of this and the last century, we are very much used to the undeniable pleasure of seeing remarkable masterpieces of world literature on the screen. Images quite often endow the text with a power of seduction that appears as ‘inherent to’ and ‘exclusive of’ visual expression, and, yet, it would be absurd not to admit that ‘an image is not always worth a thousand words’. If we consider that all translations are betrayals, the translation of a literary text into images must necessarily fall into the same category. Therefore, these short reflections will deal with this idea, with J. Ivory’s small or great betrayals, whether conscious or unconscious—actually, Ivory and Hesketh-Harvey’s, since both were responsible for the script—when he brought E. M. Forster’s Maurice to the screen,3 taking into account