Nightmare (Re)visions: The failure of dystopian literary adaptations?

MA in English by Independent Study

Nic Felton

January 2010

*Front cover image from Fahrenheit 451 (1966) Nightmare (Re)visions: The failure of dystopian literary adaptations?

It’s funny how the colours of the like real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.1

And like children, you will only swallow all the bitter stuff I have to give you if it is carefully coated in a thick syrup of adventure.2

Literary adaptation theorists believe that we should look beyond the failure or success within adaptation studies but this seemingly cannot be ignored in the case of dystopian literary adaptations. The dystopian text should result in an outstanding and enlightening filmic adaptation, encompassing the cultural and historical points of view of both the author and adapter. However, many dystopian adaptations fail, not only to attract a large audience attendance, but to adequately portray the major themes and narrative evident within the precursor text. As Leitch states “Adaptations imitate novels, novels imitate life” but what happens when this “life” is projected into the future?3 Why do adapters choose to abandon the true dystopian vision? Why do many dystopian literary adaptations fail so spectacularly?

This essay will seek to examine the potential reasons for the failure of the dystopian literary adaptation with regards to both audience expectations of the film adaptation and attendance at the cinema The issue of fidelity will be discussed to some extent but I will not seek to justify that the text is far superior to the film (or vice versa). The dystopian literary adaptation must be examined within the wider context i.e. beyond that of fidelity as a means to justify success, or indeed failure.

1 Burgess, Anthony, A Clockwork Orange, London: Penguin Books, 1972, p. 82 2 Zamyatin, Yevgeny, We, London: Penguin Classics, 1993, p.100 3 Leitch, Thomas, ‘Twelve Fallacies in Contemporary Adaptation Theory’, Criticism, Volume 45 Issue 2, pp. 149-162, Spring 2003 (online version)

2 The movement of the cinema into the twenty-first century, resulted in the dystopian film, and indeed the dystopian literary adaptation, becoming increasingly popular with directors. From Bladerunner (1982), Ridley Scott’s very loose adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s original text Do Androids Dream of

Electric Sheep?, with a lifetime gross of approximately $33 million to Jurassic

Park (1993) based on Michael Crichton’s original text, with a lifetime gross of

$357 million.4 Such films use the stereotypical Hollywood prescribed science- fiction genre to encompass dystopian adaptations.

The director’s concentration on the advancement of technology and other worldly creatures tends to distract from the actual narrative themes of the dystopia, themes which firmly separate it from science-fiction in terms of genre. The relationship between dystopia and science-fiction has always been complex. Dystopia can be seen as a combination of genres. It subsumes both utopian and anti-utopian tendencies whilst maintaining its original dystopic elements. This can clearly be seen by the way in which the genre has transformed over time. There is evidently no clear definition, no start and end to dystopia as a term and as a genre, as Moylan states, it is a

“complex continuum”5, one which is moving from “critical dystopia” to the apocalyptic text/film due to the growing interest in science-fiction cinema.

There has been some debate as to whether dystopia should belong to the genre of science-fiction. Jameson refers to both utopias and dystopias as science-fiction whereas Booker feels that “dystopian literature is not so much

4 See Appendix Three for US Box Office Revenues 5 Moylan, Scraps of the Untainted Sky: Science Fiction, Utopia, Dystopia, op.cit., p. 122

3 a specific genre as a particular kind of oppositional and critical energy or spirit.”6 Dystopian literature is often marginalized and is seen to be the critical strand of science-fiction writing. It emphasises the harshness of the existing reality and presents a bleak view of the future through a critique of social, economic, political and environmental elements. Orwell, Atwood et al can be seen to be looking beyond criticisms of technology as a future downfall, and concentrate upon totalitarianism and the state as a whole. Dystopian writing concentrates on critiques of the past and present and pays little attention to technology, science and creatures from distant planets.

As Amis acknowledges, there is an element of genre blurring between science-fiction and the emerging “new maps of hell”. Amis perceives both as

“a form of writing which is interested in the future, which is ready….to treat as variables what are usually taken as constants which is set on tackling those large, general, speculative questions that ordinary fiction so often avoids”7

Amis is somewhat contradictory in his definitions of science-fiction. On the one hand he regards science-fiction texts as those which take the literature meaning of the genre i.e. they are purely concerned with science (as with the majority of supposed successful contemporary dystopian filmic adaptations) but on the other hand states that science-fiction is “not necessarily fiction about science or scientists.”8 If this is the case, then surely dystopias must contain all the criteria to be subsumed into the genre of science-fiction?

However, if we are to take Moylan’s term of the “critical dystopia” it is evident

6 Booker, Keith M., Dystopian Literature: A Theory and Research Guide, Westport: Greenwood Press, 1994, p. 3 7 Amis, Kingsley, New Maps of Hell: A Survey of Science-Fiction, London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1961, p.134 8 Amis, Kingsley, op.cit., p.14

4 that dystopias are a unique genre. They provide the critical element, which is lacking from science-fiction in so much as they allow the reader/viewer to question the oppressive society presented to them. Moylan summarises the work of science-fiction with the use of the word “novum”9 – the primary element in a work of science-fiction by which the work is shown to exist in a different world than that of the reader. Dystopias on the other hand can be regarded as realist texts, which are thoroughly grounded in the past and present world, our world.

Early dystopian literary adaptations managed to maintain the dystopian themes contained within the text without yielding to the generic Hollywood conventions of the science-fiction genre. Things to Come (1936), Menzies’ adaptation of H G Well’s The Shape of Things to Come maintained the primary plot of the global population’s struggle during a 100 year war and did not descend into the expected excess of beings from other worlds evident in today’s cinematic experience.10 As with later dystopian literary adaptations, the advancement of technology is evident but is minimal in imagery when compared with the rest of the narrative. The acceleration of the dominance of science-fiction within cinematic adaptations has resulted in dystopias becoming subsumed by the science-fiction genre. Any text/film which exists within the future is seemingly classified as science-fiction and demands the appropriate use of special effects, alien costumes/spaceships and technology at the expense of the actual narrative.

9 Novum (“new”) was originally coined by Ernst Bloch and then later used in relation to science-fiction by Darko Suvin in 1972. 10 See Appendix Two for Dystopian Film Timeline

5 Science-fiction is a lucrative business in terms of literature, film/filmic adaptations and potential merchandise/franchise opportunities. P D James even ventured beyond the comfort of the detective fiction genre into that of future fiction with her novel The Children of Men (1992), which was adapted by Alfonso Cuarón in 2006. As film critic Roger Ebert stated of the adaptation:

Cuarón fulfils the promise of futuristic fiction; characters do not wear strange costumes or visit the moon, and the cities are not plastic hallucinations, but look just like today, except tired and shabby. Here is certainly a world ending not with a bang but a whimper, and the film serves as a cautionary warning. The only thing we will have to fear in the future, we learn, is the past itself. Our past. Ourselves.11

The adaptation only grossed $0.5 million on its opening day at the US box office. The film was not billed as science-fiction with the film poster emphasising the key theme of the text/film that of the decline of the human race.12 Dystopias have been collectivised into the genre of science-fiction and therefore, now have to seek the approval of the audience who appear to determine their worth as suitable candidates for inclusion in the genre.

Margaret Atwood, in an interview regarding her novel Oryx and Crake, adequately summarises both the struggle to define dystopia and the contemporary audience’s perception of science-fiction (both in text and film):

"Science fiction has monsters and spaceships; speculative fiction could really happen”.13 The fundamental components of dystopias and science-fiction are vastly different. Science-fiction imagines the impossible whereas the dystopia

11 Ebert, Roger, The Children of Men, Chicago Sun Times, 5 October 2007, http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071004/REVIEWS/710040307/1 023 12 See Appendix One, Figure 7 13 Atwood, Margaret, ‘Light in the wilderness’, interview with Robert Potts for The Guardian (online), Saturday 26 April 2003

6 is very much grounded in contemporary reality but looks forward to potentially bleak futures. This could be seen to be part of the failure of the literary dystopian adaptation - are they simply appalling science-fiction, especially when projected onto the screen?

If dystopias are to serve as warnings then the narrative and imagery utilised in their filmic adaptations must be powerful and sufficient enough to influence the potential audience. This can prove difficult when considering the historical contexts of both text and adaptation. Do dystopian adaptations only have

“kitsch” appeal? Are the films only relevant to the time in which the text is written or the future it is projecting? For example, texts being adapted within the “critical dystopian” phase of dystopian literature e.g. a text written in the

1960s but adapted in the 1990s, will certainly have a different directorial interpretation from the author and a different response from the 1990s audience.

Adaptations need to be considered within their historical framework in order for the audience to understand the nature of the themes they contain. The lapse in time between the writing of the text and the production of the adaptation can be critical to the success of the adaptation. This is especially evident in the case of dystopian adaptations as the text has been written in a past time that is projecting a potential future with the adaptation being viewed in the present. As Stam states: “Each recreation of a novel for the cinema unmasks facets not only of the novel and its period and culture but also of the

7 time and culture of adaptation.”14 The director has to contend with several different time periods at any one time whilst attempting to maintain the underlying themes of the text and utilising the appropriate level of cinematography to convey those themes to the audience.

The adaptation also has to remain relevant to the contemporary audience, therefore, themes relevant to today’s society are often forcefully added to the adaptation. For example, both V for Vendetta (2005) and The Children of

Men (2006) seek to attribute blame for the demise of society to the Iraq War -

“their political message consists of little more that a list of bad things that could happen”.15 Similarly, Schlöndorff’s 1990 adaptation of The Handmaid’s

Tale glosses over Atwood’s feminist ideologies in favour of concentration on basic plot lines to which the generic audience an relate. In encompassing contemporary society, the adaptation often loses its original themes, themes which are highly relevant to the overall plot. On the other hand, if the adaptation is to remain faithful to the precursor then it will not provide the necessary visual spectacle or have the visual/narrative relevance to the contemporary audience. For example, Truffaut’s adaptation of Ray

Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 (1966) is a film which could be set in any society.

The themes of the precursor text remain, in that censorship has reached the extreme within the society with literature being burned. The film actually accentuates the mindless state of the individual and the juxtaposition of book versus film (very appropriate in terms of the consideration of literary

14 Stam, Robert, ed., Literature and Film: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Film Adaptation, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005, p.45 15 Berg, Chris, ‘Goddamn you all to hell!’: The Revealing Politics of Dystopian Movies, Institute of Public Affairs Review, March 2008, p.3

8 adaptation). However, on a viewing level it does not provide a contemporary context to a great extent.

Through the dystopian text the author attempts to “open the eyes” of the reader and make them aware of the state of their immediate environment and influence them to change a potentially bleak future. Directors, rather than focusing on the actual issues contained within the text, appear to choose to concern themselves with political issues, such as state oppression. As Berg states:

The evolution of the dystopian genre can reveal much about the popular obsessions of filmmakers and the audience, but each time those fears fall back upon a fear of the omnipotent state.16

Political issues are at the fore of many dystopian texts, 1984 being the prime example, but directors sacrifice the plethora of other major themes evident within the text, such as social values, relationships, gender oppression. Do filmmakers actually fear the contemporary state and the possible repercussions of their adaptations, therefore, choosing to adapt “safe” themes?

Evidently this cannot be the case if we examine Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of A Clockwork Orange. The film, originally released in 1971, was withdrawn from cinema screens shortly after release by Kubrick himself due to the adverse public/governmental reaction to the “ultra-violence” contained within the film. Apparently the violence could be tolerated on the page but not on the screen. Kubrick transferred the majority of the themes from the text In his

16 Berg, Chris, op.cit., p.1

9 own flamboyant, artistic style. As James Berardinelli states in his review of the film:

A Clockwork Orange has a universal message. Admittedly, it’s one that many would prefer not to hear, but to deny the importance of its central themes or to dismiss the movie as a descent into debauchery is to ignore an artistic achievement and cautionary tale. A Clockwork Orange is not a pretty or comfortable experience. It does not pander to the crowd-pleasing mentality that shapes the structure of many films.17

The film was eventually re-released in 2000 and by this point its notoriety had increased, providing it with cult status. Therefore, the adaptation was not so much a success as an increase in audience interest due to censorship.

Audience interest and audience expectation are instrumental when considering the success or failure of the literary adaptation. Filmmakers incorporate the audience’s demands and possible audience response into the film making process, inevitably affecting the transference from text to screen.

Dystopian adaptations could be seen to be too ambitious in terms of all the themes they are attempting to convey and the need to encompass the “crowd- pleasing mentality” of the potential audience. They pander to the conventional Hollywood specifications for the supposed utopian film – one which must contain all elements of the traditional film e.g. romance, action, suspense, despair, hope and the typical happy ending. As the genre of science-fiction, especially in terms of the cinema, appears to have subsumed the dystopia, adaptations are also expected to meet with the anticipations of blockbuster sci-fi obsessed audiences. The desire to witness advanced technology, alien landings and action through the use of special effects is first

17 Berardinelli, James, A Clockwork Orange, Reel Movies.net,1999, http://www.reelviews.net/movies/c/clockwork.html

10 and foremost to today’s discerning audience. The visual is placed more highly than the narrative. As Linda Williams states of action within film:

…during the 1980s and 1990s the term ‘action’ came to mean not dynamic narrative movement but regular interruptions of the spectacular. Moments of spectacular interruption are, then, the action. ‘Action’ is thus, paradoxically not narrative movement but visual event: shoot-outs, sex scenes, exploding helicopters.18

Just as the dysptopian text requires several readings, the dystopian adaptation requires more than one viewing to glean all the information/issues highlighted, to dismantle the many symbollic layers and understand them in their entirety. The audience expects ‘action’ from the adaptation but instead receives a subconscious demand to reflect on the images and narrative presented. They are not just a quick fix of entertainment.

The desire for simplified entertainment is emphasised in Bradbury’s

Fahrenheit 451 with the population being consumed by the lure of the “parlour families” – large, wall-mounted interactive televisions and the “subtle treatment of the relationship between mass exploitation and the decline of thought.”1920 The audience is no longer challenged by entertainment. As

Captain Beatty states: “If the drama is bad, if the film says nothing, if the play is hollow, sting me with the theremin, loudly. I’ll think I’m responding to the play when it is only a tactile response to vibration. But I don’t care. I just like solid entertainment.”21 Truffaut’s 1966 adaptation of Fahrenheit 451

18 Williams, Linda Ruth, ‘Dream Girls and Mechanic Panic: Dystopia and its Others in Brazil and Nineteen Eighty-Four’, in Redmond, Sean, ed., Liquid Metal: the Science Fiction Film Reader, Wallflower Press: London, 2004, p.70 19 See Appendix Four, Figure 21 20 McGiveron, Rafeeq O, ‘What “Carried the Trick”? Mass Exploitation and the Decline of Thought in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451’, Extrapolation, Volume 37 No. 3, The Kent State University Press, 1996, p.245 21 Bradbury, Raymond, Fahrenheit 451, London: HarperCollins, 2008, pp.80-81

11 adequately conveys the privileging of film over literature, despite its abundance of poor acting and lifeless characters. The audience is allowed to view the texts through the eye of the camera, for example, we see close up of

Dicken’s Great Expectations as Montag reads, thus accentuating the “solid” reality of the film.22 McFarlane insinuates that films make fewer demands upon the imagination of the audience than the literary text and therefore, there is nothing remaining for the viewer to translate. The dystopian text and therefore, the dystopian adaptation reveals a complex narrative, one which requires a high level of translation and one which is far from abridged.

Dystopian adaptations should have a wide-spread appeal to audiences because they play upon our deepest fears – a loss of life, liberty and happiness but they appear to have a lack of engagement with the audience.

Cinema can be seen as a temporary respite from the mundane nature of temporary society, a form of escapism for the masses, therefore, what has dystopian film got to offer the potential audience? Are they too close to the reality of today and the potential truth? Dystopias attempt to establish a distinction between the present and the future but often this is not made apparent through the adaptation, especially in those adaptations whereby there is a lack of technology and the background/landscape looks all too familiar. In this sense, it may be difficult for the audience to grasp the speculative nature of the adaptation. Dystopias are also invariably ironic in nature which adds to a potential uncomfortable viewing. The juxtaposition of text and film, pages and screen in Fahrenheit 451 provides a perfect example

22 See Appendix Four, Figure 20

12 of such irony. All literature is purposely burned by firemen and replaced by large screens within the home supposedly to entertain the masses, resulting in a subdued population who are no longer allowed (or able) to think. Just as the cinema audience sits in front of the projected image to watch the adaptation of the text. Dystopias are not the mindless escapism supposedly distributed by the producers of mass communication, they cannot be classed as easily gratifying to the audience as they induce the audience to contemplate their present and their potential future existence.

On the other hand, an “uncomfortable viewing” may be experienced when the visual imagery on the screen is exceptionally blatant, such as in the case of A

Clockwork Orange. The adaptation was regarded by film critics of the time as a faithful adaptation but on first release it was given an X-rating and was then subsequently banned due to the extreme violence and aura of eroticism portrayed by Kubrick. The film even bore the brunt of blame for the copy-cat crimes committed after the film’s release. The adaptation was evidently too excessive for the audience of the time, especially when it is compared with contemporary dystopias or horror films. Excessive violence on screen, whether film, TV or computer game, remains the subject of ongoing debate within temporary society due to the increased violent and realist nature of content. The adapter obviously needs to find the perfect balance between present and future, the mundane and the perverse, whilst catering for the wider audience.

Many viewers could observe A Clockwork Orange without fully understanding

13 the themes within the adaptation. The violence is first and foremost on the screen and no doubt the initial censorship of the film added to its notoriety. It raises questions (part of its success) and demands more than one viewing to gain an insight into the adaptation’s key messages e.g. the removal of free will of the individual through state intervention and the sacrifices to be made by the individual in order to live in a supposed utopian environment. As

Gonslaves states in his review of the film: “The ride is not for everyone – your response to the film depends largely on how much jovial sexual violence you’re prepared to watch before the movie turns moralistic.”23 In this respect dystopian adaptations seem to demand a specific audience, one which is critically aware of the flickering images and narrative on the screen.

Dystopian adaptations rely heavily upon audience awareness, not necessarily of the precursor text, but of the whole range of issues evident within the film and therefore, society as a whole. Dystopias are as much as engagement with the present as representations of an alternative, bleak future. The audience should be aware of what the film is attempting to project and therefore, relies on a certain amount of intellect and intuitiveness. Dystopian film adaptations could be seen to attract a more widely cultured audience due to the nature of dystopian ideology – high art versus popular art. The shortage of the anticipated deluge of aliens and robots could therefore, prove disappointing to some audience members.

Directors may be seen to insinuate that the masses are actually being

23 Gonslaves, Ron, A Clockwork Orange, efilmcritic.com, www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=1382

14 brainwashed by those who control the media and the state. It is almost as if the director is purposely subjecting the audience to ridicule. This can be seen with the adapter stressing the brainwashing elements evident in the text. We see the brainwashing of Alex in the second part of A Clockwork Orange with

Kubrick quite literally opening the eyes of Alex and therefore, the audience.24

The audience’s sympathies are manipulated as Alex is supposedly cured of his “afflictions”. Again, brainwashing is more than evident in the television adaptation of A Brave New World (1998) not only with the scenes where a factory worker is visually programmed to kill Bernard Marx (in scenes reminiscent of A Clockwork Orange) and scenes of children being subjected to aural repetitive slogans but with the constant flashing of captions on screen, such as “Promiscuity is a citizen’s duty” and “Everyone belongs to everyone else.”25 Who can forget the infamous Room 101 scene in 1984, which is portrayed horrifically in Radford’s adaptation? It is not surprising that there is reluctance to witness such adaptations.

Audience expectation may be further increased when the adaptation is a long anticipated version of a canonical text, such as 1984 and A Brave New World.

The adaptations of canonical texts unquestionably receive greater analysis and therefore, more criticism than the lesser-known literary adaptations, such as those seen to be pulp fiction. Criticism in this sense being based upon literary principles rather than cinematic observations. The fanbase of the text, especially the canonical text, could be seen as ultimately the reason for failure of the adaptation at the box office. For example, the revision of Orwell’s 1984

24 See Appendix Four, Figure 17 25 See Appendix Four, Figures 24 and 25

15 text, and indeed Anderson’s original adaptation in 1956, did not appear on cinema screens until the year of the text’s basis and only attracted an opening night revenue of $29,00026. It may be that the fanatical literary audience does not want to see their favourite text mutilated by a wanton adapter.

Some canonical texts have never actually made it to the “big screen” due to the adapter’s awareness of the audience’s potential critique and also the need for a massive production budget in order to do the text justice. For example,

A Brave New World has only ever been adapted for television (1998) and its full film adaptation, directed by Ridley Scott, will not be released until late

2010.

On the other hand, the adaptation of non-canonical dystopian texts has resulted in an increase in the popularity of the pre-cursor text as audiences clamour to witness the adaptation. Richard Fleischer’s adaptation of Harry

Harrison’s Make Room! Make Room!, with the revised title of Soylent Green, has become a cult classic and the text of A Clockwork Orange has become established within literary circles. However, both adaptations have their respective reasons for their success: Soylent Green due to the casting of

Charlton Heston as the main protagonist, Thorn, and A Clockwork Orange due to the controversy surrounding the adaptation. It appears that when it comes to the question of the status of the text then the adapter is seemingly at a loss – the status of the text has little involvement with the success of its adaptation.

26 See Appendix Three for US Box Office attendance figures

16

The massification of the dystopian text to appeal to the wider audience and ensure real-time interaction with the film does rely upon the audience’s knowledge of the precursor text to a greater extent. This is not only to establish a viable fan base for the adaptation, and therefore, an assured audience, but to allow the audience to actively engage with the adaptation due to the nature of its dystopian context. As Hutcheon states of all adaptations:

Adaptation as adaptation involves, for its knowing audience, a conceptual flipping back and forth between the work we know and the work we are experiencing.27

The literariness of the dystopian text could be its downfall when adapting to the screen. Audience expectation is high and there is a requirement for a

“knowing audience”.

When we consider adaptation as a receptive process, the reader/audience lack of awareness as to the “text’s” intertextuality can reveal the adaptation as an original piece of work. In this respect, can the dystopian adaptation be deemed successful in terms of its originality or is it too faithful to the precursor text resulting in its failure both at the box office and as an adaptation? In the case of dystopian adaptations, there seems to be no intermediary level between fidelity and interpretation. Many adaptations attempt to project the fundamental narrative, plot and themes of the precursor text, therefore, foregoing the special effects, which are needed to satiate the contemporary technology-demanding audience. Truffaut’s adaptation of Fahrenheit 451 can

27 Hutcheon, Linda, A Theory of Adaptation, New York: Routledge, 2006, p.139

17 be seen as being far too faithful to Bradbury’s text to the extent that there is actually very little interpretation of the text. Scenes become disparate and some are sacrificed for the sake of compression for the screen due to

Truffaut’s obsession with including as much as possible from the text. For example, the relationship between Montag and Clarisse, an important part of the text and a means of providing that much needed/desired romance for the audience, is only given partial recognition by Truffaut. Its importance is further diminished with Truffaut’s casting of the same actress for both Clarisse and Linda Montag. As Tom Whalen states in his aptly titled article ‘The

Consequence of Passivity’: Re-evaluating Truffaut’s Fahrenheit 451’:

So far as the score card reads: the characters are lifeless; the film humorless; a key metaphor (in order to save knowledge and memory the “book-people” memorize one book and “become” that book) laborious; the director impersonal, cowardly, and dishonest. Were expectations too high?28

On the other hand, Kubrick’s adaptation of A Clockwork Orange provides a rather parodic interpretation of the precursor text. The morality of the text becomes lost in Kubrick’s visual whirlwind of violence. As Gonslaves states:

Burgess looked to the future fearfully, armed with the knowledge of man’s violent past; Kubrick viewed the past and future as a continuum, nothing to get hung up about. Man will always be idiotic; Kubrick saw the comedy and the consistency in the human condition.

Kubrick gains ownership of the text/adaptation through his interpretation and firmly moves away from Bluestone’s theory (and one of Leitch’s fallacies) that novels deal in concepts whereas films deal in percepts.

28 Whalen, Tom, The Consequence of Passivity: Re-evaluating Truffaut’s Fahrenheit 451, Literature/Film Quarterly, July 2007, p.181

18 Some directors choose to ignore fidelity as an issue, neglecting to include essential themes for the sake of inclusion of computer generated graphics

(CGI) and action sequences. Bladerunner (1982) saw Ridley Scott taking full advantage of the special effects of the day, turning Philip K. Dick’s original text into a very loose adaptation. Similarly, Cuarón’s adaptation of The

Children of Men concentrates on action sequences with various car chases and fight scenes to add to the film’s cinematic appeal. The film is in perpetual motion with no time to linger on the actual plot of the sterility of the global population. As with Fahrenheit 451, Cuarón neglects to include the romance between the main character, Theo Faron and Julian Taylor (the last pregnant women on earth). Again, failing with the standard necessary love story needed to make the film (and plot) complete.

The success of dystopian adaptations, as with all literary adaptations, depends to an extent on the authorship, or rather “auteurship” of the film.

From canonical texts to marginal adaptations – whereby the adaptations are loosely based on a single original source and contain allusions to several intertexts – the previous work of the director has to be considered. The status of the director can have both positive and negative consequences to the success of the adaptation. It can draw in a larger audience but it can also mean that the expectations of the audience are high due to the previous work of the director. The success of A Clockwork Orange relied heavily, not only upon the violent nature of the film, but on Kubrick’s status as auteur. His previous successful films include Lolita (1962), Dr.Strangelove or: How I

Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

19 – all notably literary adaptations. In his own unique style, Kubrick mutated Burgess’s text in order to concentrate on set design, musical score and, of course, the visual shock factor.

He wanted his adaptation to be viewed literally as a work of art. The dystopian nature of the text is not fully brought to the fore and is nowhere near as visionary as 2001: A Space

Odyssey in terms of content and effects, despite being made three years later.

The collaborative nature of film adaptation, from screenwriter, to director to cast and crew, does not result in a single interpretation of the text. The text undergoes a transformative process twice in terms of from text to screenplay and then screenplay to film. One idea becomes many ideas, all intermingling and resulting in an adaptation which results, especially in terms of the dystopia, in the transmogrification of the precursor text. The analogy of ‘one man’s dream is another man’s nightmare’ seems an appropriate phrase to use in terms of the dystopian adaptation. At the centre, and beginning of the production process, is the scriptwriter, responsible for the initial transference of text into screen-ready material. The inadequacy of the scriptwriter to transfer the harsh reality of the dystopian text to the screen can ultimately result in failure. For example, Pinter’s bland script for Schlöndorff’s adaptation of The Handmaid’s Tale neglects to encompass the fundamental issues advocated by Atwood in the text, such as feminism, religion and reproduction. There is simply a vague plot concerning the formation of the state of Gilead and a passiveness surrounding the narrative, which is reinforced by lifeless performances from the cast (namely Natasha

Richardson as Kate/Offred). The audience is left unaware of the film’s actual message. Similarly, Soylent Green reveals poor scriptwriting and lack of

20 consideration of the themes of the text, nowhere more so than with the change of title from the Harrison’s original title of Make Room! Make Room!

The scriptwriter considered the title not to be obvious enough (in a text which is predominantly concerned with a global over-population crisis) and altered it to match the foodstuff fed to the masses within society – a foodstuff made from deceased members of the population.

As with all literary adaptations, the failure of the dystopian literary adaptation can be attributed to the restraints of Hollywood and the entertainment industry and the constraints of cultural production. A variety of script and production issues result in a less than utopian (ideal) adaptation. One of the main issues is the interiority of the narrative within the dystopian text versus the subjectivity of the cinema. Dystopian texts are predominantly based around a central protagonist, with action taking place within the mind of this character. The focus is on this traveller and their passage through this alternative world, which we see solely through their eyes. Filmic adaptations have difficulty in contending with such interiority of character and the plot, rather than narrative voice, becomes the overpowering element.

First person narration occurs infrequently within film and we see the camera being used as a third person narrator revealing the plot to the audience.

Several techniques can be utilised by the director to enable the successful transfer of narrative voice to the screen but it appears that in the case of the dystopian adaptation there is far too much interiority to contend with. The traditional use of the point of view (POV) shot is limited to events as witnessed by the narrator and does not allow the audience to experience the

21 actual thoughts of the protagonist. Kubrick utilises POV shots throughout A

Clockwork Orange, together with the distortion of imagery, to encourage the audience to see the world through the eyes of Alex. During the near comical fracas scene between Alex and the “Catlady”, we see the fight from Alex’s point of view with him making threatening gestures with a phallic sculpture. 29

Later in the adaptation we again see the action from Alex’s point of view during the examplification scene, whereby he is seen grovelling at the feet of a naked woman due to his repulsion at the thought of sexual activity. 30

Kubrick situates Alex in the centre of the shot throughout the film (from the beginning close up of Alex to the “eye-opening” scene31), the focus is undoubtedly on him and his seeming normality. This does however have the consequence of distorting the view of Alex portrayed by Burgess in the text.

The audience becomes more empathetic with the character. We are no longer appalled by his violence but now side with him. We are often led by the camera to look down upon Alex, to take pity on him and identify with him.

The point of view shot is restrictive in its use, the audience can only see restricted character interiority and in many cases it conveys the interiority of the director’s rather than protagonist’s thoughts.

Many dystopian adaptations resort to the use of voice-over in an attempt to convey interiority. There are instances of direct speech throughout A

Clockwork Orange with Alex alluding to the audience as “my brother”, a reference taken from directly from the text. Kubrick’s attempt to draw the

29 See Appendix Four, Figure 14 30 See Appendix Four, Figure 18 31 See Appendix Four, Figures 11 and 17

22 audience into Alex’s world often distracts the audience from the actual imagery on the screen. As Hutcheon reveals, the adaptation becomes more concerned with telling rather than showing. Visual imagery is neglected for the sake of narrative content. Similarly the adapters of A Brave New World resorted to the use of voiceover to convey difficult themes, for example, the generation of the “Reservation” and development of the “savages”. This results in the audience seeing through the world through the eyes of “John the

Savage” as if he were narrator of the text/film rather than provision of Huxley’s balanced view of the alternative world. There seems to be an inability of the adapter to maintain a balance between interiority of character and imagery.

Truffaut’s desire to retain fidelity resulted in an incorrect balance between narrative and imagery in Fahrenheit 451. The adaptation is far from cinematic, being story driven rather than visual. The audience doesn’t gain the full sense of character of the main protagonist, Montag, and therefore, could have difficulty in understanding why literature is so important to him.

The audio-visual nature of contemporary film and the advancement of cinematic technology, especially in terms of special effects, have resulted in a greater sensory experience for the viewer but it appears the narrative has been sacrificed for the sake of visual engagement with the audience. The discerning audience would far prefer to witness action rather than suffer narrative presence, as can be seen by considering US box office attendances.32 There is evidently a move towards canonical films such as

Bladerunner and War of the Worlds with dystopian adaptations not only being

32 See Appendix Three

23 compared with their precursor texts but also against other films which seemingly fit within the same genre, that of science-fiction. The dystopian adaptations of the twentieth century evidently had limited special effects due to the unavailability of technology (or in some cases inadequate budgets).

Truffaut’s adaptation of Fahrenheit 451 merely contained an opening sequence of colourful television aerials accompanied by a voiceover reading the credits and a short sequence of policemen with jetpacks. 33 He even failed to introduce the “mechanical hound” an intrinsic part of the text. The only other scene within the entire adaptation in which special effects are used and results in shocking viewing is the fire brigade’s confrontation with the female house owner who is found to be harbouring hundreds of books. The sight of the woman surrounding by flames is one which would haunt any audience.34

Kubrick also chooses to disregard special effects to the extent to which the only scene within A Clockwork Orange is that of the “droogs” in a hurtling through the countryside in a stolen car.35

The scarcity of special effects is accompanied by the desolate background/landscape contained within all dystopian adaptations.

Hollywood’s glorious Technicolor is replaced with the adapter’s use of monochrome, with occasional splashes of colour, emphasise the bleakness of the text and potential future. The landscapes within A Clockwork Orange are predominantly concrete greys, which are then juxtaposed against colourful

33 See Appendix Four, Figure 22 34 See Appendix Four, Figure 21 35 See Appendix Four, Figure 13

24 artwork.36 The insufficiency of vivid colour intensity is exceptionally evident in

John Hillcoat’s recent adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road (2010).37

The entire film is shot in ashen greys and austere blacks with the exception of minute glimpses of colour in various product placement shots, such as the vibrant red of the Coca-Cola can and the yellow of the Dole pineapple rings tin, together with the sepia tones of the flashbacks to the former life of the man and boy. The film, whilst being rather faithful to the precursor text in its preservation of dialogue and themes, provides slow and depressing viewing for a contemporary audience who demand action, computer-generated effects and escapism. Hillcoat’s adaptation could quite possibly be the end of “the road” for some audiences as the harsh reality of the film becomes apparent.

The film industry’s desire to provide audiences with much needed escapism results in the need to include the standard Hollywood “happy ending” in dystopian adaptations, regardless of the ending of the precursor text. The director is pressurised to provide the possibility of hope and negate the dystopian themes in favour of the utopian tendency thus rendering the adaptation as a failure in terms of its general concept. Truffaut altered the ending of Fahrenheit 451 in order to present the audience with hope in the sect of the “Book People”. The emphasis is on the possibility of survival and that the individual does not have to be consumed by technology. The ending of Bradbury’s text contains only a faint glimmer of hope with the advent of a

Holocaust in which only the “Book People” remain. Schlöndorff similarly opts for the ubiquitous open, hopeful ending in his adaptation of The Handmaid’s

36 See Appendix Four, Figure 12 37 See film poster of The Road, Appendix One, Figure 9

25 Tale and alters Atwood’s textual ending of Offred being escorted from the

Commander’s abode by the “eyes” (he is not even concerned with the contents of the “Historical Notes”) to a rather sudden ending with a lack of resolution – Offred/Kate appears in a caravan on a mountain, awaiting the arrival of Nick’s unborn child and potentially the arrival of Nick. The ending appears to be forcibly attached to the end of the film in order to conform to the desirable Hollywood “happy ending”. The concentration on hope and consideration of the audience in this respect can be seen as the implicit failure of the dystopian adaptation.

The film industry is perpetually searching for a production formula that creates

(and recreates) adaptations, which satisfy the desires of all expectant audience members. Therefore, the inherent failure of the dystopian adaptation can be attributed to a combination of factors. From the assumption of the audience and/or adapter that dystopias are incorporated in the science-fiction genre to the adapter’s sacrifice of narrative structure in favour of visual imagery and action coating the film “in a thick syrup of adventure”, the dystopian literary adaptation struggles to portray the prevailing norms of contemporary society whilst advocating a bleak, alternative future.38

The dystopian adaptation may succeed in terms of transference of narrative/plot but this is frequently at the expense of visual imagery/special effects (and vice versa). It appears that an equilibrium of narrative, themes and visual imagery cannot be attained by the adapter. Ultimately, the perceived success, or indeed, failure of the adaptation remains with the

38 Zamyatin, Yevgeny, We, London: Penguin Classics, 1993, p.100

26 individual – whether they are knowledgeable of the precursor text or are viewing the adaptation simply for entertainment. After all, if we revise/reverse the analogy, one person’s nightmare is potentially another person’s dream.

27 Bibliography

Amis, Kingsley, New Maps of Hell, London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1961

Baccolini, Raffaella and Moylan, Tom, Dark Horizons: Science-Fiction and the Dystopian Imagination, London: Routledge, 2003

Barton Palmer, R, ‘Imagining the Future, Contemplating the Past: The Screen Versions of 1984’ in, Sanders, Steven, ed., The Philosophy of Science Fiction Film, The University Press of Kentucky: Kentucky, 2008

Berg, Chris, ‘Goddamn you all to hell!’: The Revealing Politics of Dystopian Movies, Institute of Public Affairs Review, March 2008, http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/976/goddamn-you-all-to-hell-the- revealing-politics-of-dystopian-movies

Bluestone. George, Novels into Film, The John Hopkins University Press, 2003

Booker, Keith M., and Thomas, Anne-Marie, The Science Fiction Handbook, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009

Carruthers, Susan, Past Future: The Troubled History of Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, National Forum, Spring 2001

Kunkel, Benjamin, Dystopia and the End of Politics, Dissent Magazine (online), Autumn 2008

Geraghty, Christine, Now a Major Motion Picture: Film Adaptations of Literature and Drama, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007

Hermansson, Niclas, Exploring Dystopia, online publication, http://www.dystopias.tk, last updated November 2003

Hutcheon, Linda, A Theory of Adaptation, New York: Routledge, 2006

Hutheon, Linda, ‘In Defence of Literary Adaptation as Cultural Production’, M/C Journal, Volume 10 Issue 2, May 2007, online: http://journal.media- culture.org.au/0705/01-hutcheon.php

Kumar, Krishan, Utopia and Anti-Utopia in Modern Times, Oxford: Blackwell,1987

Leitch, Thomas, ‘Twelve Fallacies in Contemporary Adaptation Theory’, Criticism, Volume 45 Issue 2, pp. 149-162, Spring 2003

McFarlane, Brian, Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996

28 McGiveron, Rafeeq O, ‘What “Carried the Trick”? Mass Exploitation and the Decline of Thought in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451’, Extrapolation, Volume 37 No. 3, The Kent State University Press, 1996, pp.245-256

Milner, Andrew, ‘Darker Cities: Urban Dystopia and Science Fiction Cinema’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, Volume 7 Issue 3, pp.259-279, 2004

Milner, Andrew, ’Framing Catastrophe: The Problem of Ending in Dystopian Fiction’, Centre for Comparative Literature & Cultural Studies, Monash University, September 2005

Moeller, Hans Bernhard and Lellis, George L., Volker Schlondorff's Cinema: Adaptation, Politics, and the “Movie-Appropriate”, Southern Illinois University Press, 2002

Mohr, Dunja M., Worlds Apart?: Dualism and Transgression in Contemporary Female Dystopias (Critical Explorations in Science Fiction and Fantasy), McFarland & Co Inc, 2005

Morson, Gary Saul, The Boundaries of Genre: Dostoevsky’s Diary of a Writer and the Traditions of Literary Utopia, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981

Moylan, Tom, Demand the Impossible: Science fiction and the utopian imagination, Methuen: London, 1986

Moylan, Tom, Scraps of the Untainted Sky: Science Fiction, Utopia, Dystopia, Westview Press: Oxford, 2000

Mulvey, Laura, ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, in The Narrative Reader, ed. Martin McQuillan, London: Routledge, 2000

Naremore, James, ed., Film Adaptation, London: The Athelone Press, 2000

Sobchack, Vivian C., Décor as Theme: A Clockwork Orange, Literature/Film Quarterly, Volume 9 Issue 2, 1981, p.92-102

Stam, Robert, ed., Literature and Film: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Film Adaptation, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005

Tower Sargent, Lyman, ‘Themes in Utopian Fiction in English before Wells’, Science Fiction Studies, Volume 3 Part 3, November 1976

Whalen, Tom, The Consequence of Passivity: Re-evaluating Truffaut’s Fahrenheit 451, Literature/Film Quarterly, July 2007

Williams, Linda Ruth, ‘Dream Girls and Mechanic Panic: Dystopia and its Others in Brazil and Nineteen Eighty-Four’, in Redmond, Sean, ed., Liquid

29 Metal: the Science Fiction Film Reader, Wallflower Press: London, 2004, pp.64 – 73

Primary Texts Atwood, Margaret, The Handmaid’s Tale, London: Virago Press Limited, 1987

Bradbury, Raymond, Fahrenheit 451, London: HarperCollins, 2008

Burgess, Anthony, A Clockwork Orange, London: Penguin Books, 1972

Harrison, Harry, Make Room! Make Room!, London: Penguin Books Ltd, 2004

Huxley, Aldous, Brave New World, London: Vintage, 2007

James, P D., The Children of Men, London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1993

Le Guin, Ursula, The Dispossessed: An Ambiguous Utopia, Harper Paperbacks, 1994

Orwell, George, 1984, London: Penguin Books, 1990

Wells, H.G., The Shape of Things to Come, London: Penguin Books, 2005

Zamyatin, Yevgeny, We, London: Penguin Classics, 1993

Film Reviews Berardinelli, James, A Clockwork Orange, Reel Movies.net,1999, http://www.reelviews.net/movies/c/clockwork.html

Ebert, Roger, The Children of Men, Chicago Sun Times, 5 October 2007, http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071004/RE VIEWS/710040307/1023

Gonslaves, Ron, A Clockwork Orange, efilmcritic.com, www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=1382

30 Appendix One Filmography 1984 (1956 adaptation) Release date: September 1956 Director: Michael Anderson Screenplay: Ralph Gilbert Bettison / William Templeton Producer: Ralph Gilbert Bettison / N. Peter Rathvon Cinematography: C. M. Pennington-Richards Costume design: Barbara Gray Production design: Terence Verity Editing: Bill Lewthwaite Music: Malcolm Arnold (Beethoven) Running time: 90 minutes

Main cast: Edmond O’Brien Winston Smith Michael Redgrave General O’Connor Jan Sterling Julia David Kossoff Charrington Mervyn Johns Jones Donald Pleasance R. Parsons Carol Wolveridge Selina Parsons Ernest Clark Outer Party Announcer Patrick Allen Inner Party Official Ronan O’Casey Rutherford Michael Ripper Outer Party Orator Ewen Solon Outer Party Orator Kenneth Griffith Prisoner Anthony Jacobs Telescreen voice

Figure 1 31 Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984 adaptation) Filmography

Release date: 10 October 1984 Director: Michael Radford Screenplay: Michael Radford Producer: Simon Perry Cinematography: Roger Deakins Costume design: Emma Porteus Production design: Allan Cameron Editing: Tom Priestley Music: Dominic Muldowney Running time: 113 minutes

Main cast: John Hurt Winston Smith Richard Burton O’Brien Suzanna Hamilton Julia Cyril Cusack Charrington Gregor Fisher Parsons James Walker Syme Figure 2 Andrew Wilde Tillotson David Trevena Tillotson’s Friend David Cann Martin Anthony Benson Jones Peter Frye Rutherford Roger Lloyd-Pack Waiter Rupert Baderman Winston as a Boy Corinna Seddon Winston’s Mother Martha Parsey Winston’s Sister

32 A Clockwork Orange Filmography

Release date: 13 January 1971 Director: Stanley Kubrick Screenplay: Stanley Kubrick Producer: Stanley Kubrick Cinematography: John Alcott Costume design: Milena Canonero Production design: John Barry Editing: Bill Butler Music: Wendy Carlos Running time: 136 minutes

Main cast: Malcolm McDowell Alex Patrick McGee Mr Alexander Michael Bates Chief Guard Warren Clarke Dim Adrienne Corri Mrs Alexander Carl Duering Dr Brodsky Paul Farrell Tramp Clive Francis Lodger Michael Gover Prison Governor Miriam Karlin Catlady James Marcus Georgie Aubrey Morris Deltoid Godfrey Quigley Prison Chaplain Sheila Raynor Mum Philip Stone Dad

Figure 3

33 Blade Runner Filmography

Release date: 9 September 1982 Director: Ridley Scott Screenplay: Hampton Francher / David Webb Peoples Producer: Michael Deeley Cinematography: Jordan Cronenweth Costume design: Michael Kaplin / Charles Knode Production design: Lawrence G. Paull Music: Vangelis Running time: 117 minutes

Main cast: Harrison Ford Rick Deckard Rutger Hauer Roy Batty Sean Young Rachael Edward James Olmos Gaff M. Emmet Walsh Bryant Daryl Hannah Pris William Sanderson J.F. Sebastian Brion James Leon Kowalski Joe Turkel Dr. Eldon Tyrell Joanna Cassidy Zhora James Hong Hannibal Chew Morgan Paull Holden Kevin Thompson Bear John Edward Allen Kaiser Hy Pyke Taffey Lewis

Figure 4 34 Fahrenheit 451 Filmography

Release date: 16 September 1966 Director: François Truffaut Screenplay: François Truffaut / Jean-Louis Richard Producer: Lewis M. Allen Cinematography: Nicolas Roeg Costume design: Tony Walton Production design: Syd Cain / Tony Walton Editing: Thom Noble Music: Bernard Herrman Running time: 112 minutes

Main cast: Oskar Werner Guy Montag Julie Christie Clarisse / Linda Montag Cyril Cusack The Captain

Figure 5

35 Soylent Green Filmography

Release date: 9 May 1973 Director: Richard Fleischer Screenplay: Stanley R. Greenberg Producer: Walter Seltzer / Russell Thatcher Cinematography: Richard H. Kline Costume design: Pat Barto Editing: Samuel E. Beetley Music: Fred Myrow Running time: 97 minutes

Main cast: Charlton Heston Thorn Leigh Taylor-Young Shirl Chuck Connors Tab Joseph Cotton Simonson Brock Peters Hatcher Paula Kelly Martha Edward G. Robinson Sol Roth Stephen Young Gilbert Mike Henry Kulozik Lincoln Patrick The Priest Roy Jenson Donovan Leonard Stone Charles Whit Bissell Santini

Figure 6 36 The Children of Men Filmography

Release date: 22 September 2006 Director: Alfonso Cuarón Screenplay: Alfonso Cuarón / Timothy J. Sexton Producer: Marc Abraham Cinematography: Emmanuel Lubezki Costume design: Jany Temime Production design: Jim Clay / Geoffrey Kirkland Editing: Alfonso Cuarón / Alex Rodríguez Music: John Taverner Running time: 109 minutes

Main cast: Clive Owen Theo Faron Julianne Moore Julian Taylor Michael Caine Jasper Palmer Claire-Hope Ashitey Kee Chiwetel Ejiofor Luke Pam Ferris Miriam Danny Hutson Nigel

Figure 7 Charlie Hunman Patric

37 The Handmaid’s Tale Filmography

Release date: 2 November 1990 Director: Volker Schlöndorff Screenplay: Harold Pinter Producer: Daniel Wilson Cinematography: Igor Luther Costume design: Colleen Atwood Production design: Thomas A. Walsh Editing: David Ray Music: Ryûichi Sakamoto Running time: 109 minutes

Main cast: Natasha Richardson Kate / Offred Faye Dunaway Serena Joy Aidan Quinn Nick Elizabeth McGovern Moira Victoria Tennant Aunt Lydia Robert Duvall The Commander Blanche Baker Ofglen Traci Lund Janine / Ofwarren Zoey Wilson Aunt Helena Kathryn Doby Aunt Elizabeth Reiner Schöne Luke Lucia Hartpeng Cora Karma Ibsen Riley Aunt Sara Lucile McIntyre Rita Gary Bullock Officer on Bus

Figure 8

38 The Road Filmography

Release date: 8 January 2010 Director: John Hillcoat Screenplay: Joe Penhall Producer: Schwartz / Schwartz / Wechsler Cinematography: Javier Aguirresarobe Production design: Chris Kennedy Editing: Jon Gregory Music: Nick Cave / Warren Ellis Running time: 111 minutes

Main cast: Viggo Mortensen Man Kodi Smit-McPhee Boy Robert Duvall Old Man Guy Pearce Veteran Molly Parker Motherly Woman Michael K. Williams The Thief Garret Dillahunt Gang Member Charlize Theron Woman Bob Jennings Bearded Man

Figure 9 39 Things to Come Filmography

Release date: 31 March 1936 Director: William Cameron Menzies Screenplay: H.G. Wells Producer: Alexander Korda Cinematography: Georges Périnal Costume design: John Armstrong Editing: Charles Crichton / Francis D. Lyon Music: Arthur Bliss Running time: 100 minutes

Main cast: Raymond Massey John Cabal / Oswald Cabal Edward Chapman Pippa Passworthy / Raymond Passworthy Ralpg Richardson The Boss Margaretta Scott Roxana / Rowena Cedric Hardwicke Theotocopoulos Maurice Braddell Dr. Harding Sophie Stewart Mrs. Cabal Derrick De Marney Richard Gordon Ann Todd Mary Gordon Pearl Argyle Catherine Cabal Kenneth Villiers Maurice Passworthy Ivan Brandt Morden Mitani Anne McLaren The Child Patricia Hilliard Janet Gordon Charles Carson Great Grandfather

Figure 10

40 Appendix Two: Dystopian Film Timeline

Text Author(s) Year Adaptation Director Year of Published Adaptation The Shape of Things to Come H G Wells Things to Come William Menzies 1936 The War of the Worlds H G Wells 1898 The War of the Worlds (radio) Orson Welles 1938 1984 George Orwell 1948 1984 (TV play) 1954 Dune Frank Herbert 1965 Dune David Lynch 1954 Fahrenheit 451 Ray Bradbury 1953 Fahrenheit 451 Francois Truffaut 1966 2001: A Space Odyessy Arthur C Clarke 1968 2001: A Space Odyessy Stanley Kubrick 1968 A Clockwork Orange Anthony Burgess 1962 A Clockwork Orange Stanley Kubrick 1971 The Andromeda Strain Michael Crichton 1969 The Andromeda Strain Robert Wise 1971 Make Room! Make Room! Harry Harrison 1966 Soylent Green Richard Fleischer 1973 A boy and his dog Harlan Ellison 1969 A Boy and his Dog L Q Jones 1975 Logan’s Run William F Nolan and 1967 Logan’s Run Michael Anderson 1976 George Johnson Joseph Kosinski 2010 Do Androids dream of Electric Philip K Dick 1968 Blade Runner Ridley Scott 1982 Sheep? 1984 George Orwell 1949 1984 Michael Radford 1984 The Handmaid’s Tale Margaret Atwood 1985 The Handmaid’s Tale Volker Schlöndorff 1990 A Brave New World Aldous Huxley 1932 A Brave New World (TV) Leslie Libman/ 1998 Larry Williams Starship Troopers Robert Heinlein 1959 Starship Troopers Paul Verhoeven 1998 The Time Machine H G Wells 1895 The Time Machine Simon Wells 2002 George Pal 1960 The Stepford Wives Ira Levin 1972 The Stepford Wives Frank Oz 2004 Bryan Forbes 1975 I, Robot Isaac Asimov 1950 I, Robot Alex Proyas 2004 V for Vendetta Alan Moore 1982-85 V for Vendetta James McTeigue 2005 The Children of Men P D James 1992 The Children of Men Alfonso Cuarón 2006 A Scanner Darkly Philip K Dick 1977 A Scanner Darkly Richard Linklater 2006 The Road Cormac McCarthy 2006 The Road John Hillcoat 2010

41 Films attributed to precursor texts or prior adaptations Adaptation Director Year of Film Metropolis Fritz Long 1927 THX1138 George Lucas 1971 Silent Running Douglas Trumbull 1971 Sleeper Woody Allen 1973 The Terminator James Cameron 1984 Brazil Terry Gilliam 1985 Terminator 2: Judgment Day James Cameron 1991 Gattaca Andrew Niccol 1997 Dark City Alex Proyas 1998 Pleasantville Gary Ross 1998 The Matrix Andy Wachowski 1999 eXistenZ David Cronenberg 1999 Equilibrium Kurt Wimmer 2002 Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines Jonathan Mostow 2003 The Matrix Reloaded Andy Wachowski 2003 The Matrix Revolutions Andy Wachowski 2003 Code 46 Michael Winterbottom 2003 The Island Michael Bay 2005

*NB These lists are by no means exhaustive and merely serve as an example of dystopian adaptations through the twentieth century.

42 Appendix Three: Science-Fiction Adaptations, 1980 to Present, USA Box Office Revenues Lifetime Gross / No of Opening No of Date of First Rank Film Title Studio Theaters Theatres Day Gross Theatres Screening 1 Jurassic Park Uni. $357,067,947 2,566 $47,026,828 2,404 6-Nov-1993 2 War of the Worlds Par. $234,280,354 3,910 $64,878,725 3,908 29-Jun-2005 3 The Lost World: Jurassic Park Uni. $229,086,679 3,565 $72,132,785 3,281 23-May-1997 4 I, Robot Fox $144,801,023 3,494 $52,179,887 3,420 16-Jul-2004 5 Contact WB $100,920,329 2,314 $20,584,908 1,923 7-Nov-1997 6 Congo Par. $81,022,101 2,676 $24,642,539 2,649 6-Sep-1995 7 Jumper Fox $80,172,128 3,430 $27,354,808 3,428 14-Feb-2008 8 Cocoon Fox $76,113,124 1,163 $7,936,427 1,140 21-Jun-1985 9 The Stepford Wives Par. $59,484,742 3,057 $21,406,781 3,057 6-Nov-2004 10 The Time Machine DW $56,832,494 2,958 $22,610,437 2,944 3-Aug-2002 11 Starship Troopers Sony $54,814,377 2,971 $22,058,773 2,971 11-Jul-1997 12 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy BV $51,085,416 3,133 $21,103,203 3,133 29-Apr-2005 13 K-PAX Uni. $50,338,485 2,581 $17,215,275 2,541 26-Oct-2001 14 2010 MGM $40,400,657 1,213 $7,393,361 1,126 12-Jul-1984 15 The Running Man TriS $38,122,105 1,694 $8,117,465 1,692 13-Nov-1987 16 Sphere WB $37,020,277 2,814 $14,433,957 2,814 13-Feb-1998 17 The Mothman Prophecies SGem $35,746,370 2,331 $11,208,851 2,331 25-Jan-2002 18 Children of Men Uni. $35,552,383 1,524 $501,003 16 25-Dec-2006 19 Dreamcatcher WB $33,715,436 2,945 $15,027,423 2,945 21-Mar-2003 20 Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) WB $32,868,943 1,325 $6,150,002 1,295 25-Jun-1982 21 Dune Uni. $30,925,690 975 $6,025,091 915 14-Dec-1984 22 The Island of Dr. Moreau NL $27,663,982 2,039 $9,101,987 2,035 23-Aug-1996 23 Invasion of the Body Snatchers UA $24,946,533 445 $1,298,129 445 22-Dec-1978 24 The Iron Giant (The Iron Man) WB $23,159,305 2,179 $5,732,614 2,179 8-Mar-1999 25 Battlefield Earth WB $21,471,685 3,307 $11,548,898 3,307 5-Dec-2000 26 The Incredible Shrinking Woman Uni. $20,259,961 - $4,279,264 789 30-Jan-1981 27 Fire in the Sky Par. $19,885,552 1,435 $6,116,484 1,422 3-Dec-1993 28 Altered States WB $19,853,892 - $174,650 3 25-Dec-1980 29 Timeline Par. $19,481,943 2,787 $8,440,629 2,787 26-Nov-2003 30 The Postman WB $17,626,234 2,207 $5,260,324 2,207 25-Dec-1997 31 Freejack (immortality Inc) WB $17,129,026 1,560 $6,736,243 1,551 17-Jan-1992 32 Solaris Fox $14,973,382 2,406 $6,752,722 2,406 27-Nov-2002

43 33 Memoirs of an Invisible Man WB $14,358,033 1,753 $4,601,954 1,753 28-Feb-1992 34 The Thing (Who Goes There?) Uni. $13,782,838 910 $3,107,897 840 25-Jun-1982 35 The Thirteenth Floor Sony $11,916,661 1,815 $3,322,416 1,815 28-May-1999 36 Lifeforce (Space Vampires) TriS $11,603,545 1,526 $4,209,136 1,526 21-Jun-1985 37 Deadly Friend WB $8,988,731 1,213 $3,804,429 1,213 10-Oct-1986 38 The Puppet Masters BV $8,647,042 1,482 $4,069,057 1,481 21-Oct-1994 39 1984 Gold. $8,430,492 295 $29,897 1 14-Dec-1984 40 A Scanner Darkly WIP $5,501,616 263 $391,672 17 7-Jul-2006 41 Creator Uni. $5,349,607 820 $2,019,728 820 20-Sep-1985 42 Monkey Shines Orion $5,344,577 1,181 $1,902,024 1,181 29-Jul-1988 43 Solo (Weapon) Sony $5,107,669 1,230 $2,228,668 1,230 23-Aug-1996 44 The Handmaid's Tale Cinc $4,960,385 177 $738,578 117 3-Sep-1990 45 Communion NL $1,919,653 240 $822,123 240 11-Oct-1989 46 Carnosaur Conc $1,753,979 65 n/a - 21-May-1993 47 From Beyond EP $1,261,000 190 $514,417 190 24-Oct-1986 48 Nightflyers NCeV $1,149,470 - n/a - 23-Oct-1987 49 Watchers Uni. $940,173 161 $260,820 161 12-Feb-1988 50 Body Snatchers WB $428,868 34 $31,494 13 14-Jan-1994

Information courtesy of Box Office Mojo (http://boxofficemojo.com/)

44 Appendix Four: A Clockwork Orange

Figure 11 Figure 13

Figure 12 Figure 14 45

Figure 15 Figure 17

Figure 16 Figure 18

46 Fahrenheit 451

Figure 19 Figure 21

Figure 20 Figure 22

47

Brave New World

Figure 23 Figure 25

Figure 24 Figure 26

48