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.