Information to Users

INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9325552 The Ray Bradbury Theater: A case study of the adaptation process from the written artifact to the cinematic text McConnell, Mary Beth Petrasik, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1993 UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 THE RAY BRADBURY THEATER: A CASE STUDY OF THE ADAPTATION PROCESS FROM THE WRITTEN ARTIFACT TO THE CINEMATIC TEXT DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University by Mary Beth Petrasik McConnell, B.A., M.A. % * * 4c The Ohio State University 1993 Dissertation Committee: Approved by J. Makau J. Foley A d v iser S. Foss Department of Communication To my husband, without whom this dissertation would be a ream of misnumbered blank pages. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge the help and assistance of my dissertation committee, particularly my adviser, Josina Makau, whose patience and perseverance have seen me through the entire process. I would like to thank my parents, Mary and George Petrasik, for believing in me and for instilling in me both the love of learning and the importance of an education. And, finally, there are no words to describe all the help and encouragement my husband Kenrik and son Jacob have given me, but I want them to know how much I appreciate their love and support. VITA 197 6 ...................................... .. B.A., Indiana University, Bloomington, In d ia n a 197 7 ........................................ M.A., The American University, Washington, DC 1977-1985 ................................Staff Associate Director, WKYC-TV, Cleveland, Ohio 1985-1988 ................................Teaching Assistant, Department of Communication, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1988-1993 ................................Instructor, Department of Telecommunication, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio Major Field: Communication iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION...................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................ iii VITA .................................................................................................................... iv CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 1 II. THE MURDERER.............................................................................. 52 Introduction.................................................................................. 52 Cinematic Versus Literary Description ............................... 54 Cinematic Versus Literary Language.................................... 61 Cinematic Versus Literary Chronology.............................. 76 Cinematic Double Register (Image and Sound) Versus the Literary Single Register........................................ 82 Cinematic Versus Literary “Universe” .................................. 121 Cinematic Objective Versus Literary Subjective Viewpoints......................................................................... 133 Cinematic Versus Literary Narrator and Point of V iew................................................................. 145 Cinematic Versus Literary Transitions ................................ 147 S um m ary...................................................................................... 148 III. THERE WAS AN OLD W OM AN................................................. 157 Introduction................................................................................... 157 Cinematic Versus Literary Description ..................... 159 Cinematic Versus Literary Language......................... 170 Cinematic Versus Literary Chronology.................... 193 Cinematic Double Register (Image and Sound) Versus the Literary Single Register........................................... 197 Cinematic Versus Literary “Universe” ....................... 236 v Cinematic Objective Versus Literary Subjective Viewpoints......................................................................... 239 Cinematic Versus Literary Narrator and Point of View.................................................................... 244 Cinematic VersusLiterary Transitions................................. 247 S um m ary...................................................................................... 250 IV. CONCLUSION . ..................................................................... 257 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................... 278 APPENDICES A. Literary transcription of The Murderer ................................................................. 297 B. Literary transcription of There Was an Old W oman ..................................... 306 C. Cinematic transcription of The Murderer ................................................................. 319 D. Cinematic transcription of There Was an Old W oman ..................................... 344 vi CHAPTER I Introduction The process of adapting written to cinematic texts has played a significant role in both the motion picture and television industries since the turn of the century. According to Madsen (1990), the proportion of motion pictures adapted from other media has been as high as 85 per cent in a given year (p. 59). Further, cinematic adaptations of novels, biographies, or short stories provide an overwhelming percentage of award-winning films. Since the inception of the Academy Awards in 1929, more than three-fourths of the best picture awards have gone to adaptations (Miller, 1980, p. 209). Seger (1992) notes further that 45 percent of all television “movies of the week” are adaptations (p. xi). According to Seger (1992), a striking 70 percent of all the Emmy award winners come from these films (p. xi). Another major media user of written material is the television miniseries. Eighty-three percent of recent miniseries were based on written works, of which 95 percent of the Emmy award winners were drawn (Seger, 1992, p. xi). Because adaptations play such an important part in the television and film media, there has been much research on them. From Asheim’s (1951) early analyses of some of the first films, Bluestone’s (1957) seminal labors on the adaptation process to Madsen’s (1990) and Seger’s (1992) more recent looks at film and 1 2 television, among others, the adaptation process has been the subject of considerable attention. These many and diverse studies of the adaptation process have revealed a set of complex problems associated with any attempt to adapt from the written to the cinematic. Morrissette (1985) identified several categories of these inherent concerns (p. 17). They are as follows: •cinematic versus literary description •cinematic versus literary language •cinematic versus literary chronology •cinematic double register (image and sound) versus the literary single register •cinematic versus literary “universe” •cinematic objective versus literary subjective viewpoints •cinematic versus literary narrator and point of view •cinematic versus literary transitions While other adaptation studies have addressed one or more of these concerns, no one has attempted to provide a detailed elaboration of the constituent elements, constraints and creative potential encapsulated in these key concerns. Doing so would contribute significantly to the adaptation literature. This dissertation--a case study of the adaptation process—provides such a detailed account of the process’s most central concerns. The discussion to follow will detail the nature, method and purpose of the stu d y . That the adaptation process is an important aspect of the cinematic industry is confirmed by Giannetti’s (1987) estimate that one-fourth to one-fifth of all feature films have been literary adaptations (p. 260). Historically, literary works have been a primary source of material for films dating back to Uncle Tom’s Cabin in 1904 and the Birth of a Nation

Load more