INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. l.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages m the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of "sectioning" the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8318461 Zimmerman, James Richard JOHN FOWLES ON FILM: A STUDY OF THE FILM ADAPTATIONS OF "THE COLLECTOR", "THE MAGUS", AND "THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN" The Ohio State University PH.D. 1983 University Microfilms International 300N.ZeebRoad,AnnArbor, MI 48106 Copyright 1983 by Zimmerman, James Richard All Rights Reserved JOHN FOWLES ON FILM: A STUDY OF THE FILM ADAPTATIONS OF THE COLLECTOR, THE MAGUS, AND THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By James Richard Zimmerman, A.B., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1983 Reading Committee: Approved By Morris Beja Barbara Rigney Arnold Shapiro TK — Advisor Department of English ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My advisor, Professor Morris Beja gave me excellent support throughout the entire course of my graduate studies, and his own work continually set a standard that encouraged me to improve myself in my teaching, research, and writing. I am grateful for his many comments about my work and for the frequent discussions of matters which both helped me to see my dissertation more clearly and also helped me to see beyond it. Professors Barbara Rigney and Arnold Shapiro were unfailingly prompt and perceptive in their reading of my drafts. Their encouragement and enthusiasm contributed significantly to whatever is good in this final version. Thanks to a grant from the Department of English and Chairman Julian Markels, I was able to study a print of The Magus more easily and more thoroughly than I would have been able to otherwise. Many people have been kind enough to discuss the novels and films of John Fowles with me over the past year, but I want to especially thank Janet Robbins Zimmerman for her interest and support. ii VITA November 7, 1949 Born in Columbus, Ohio 1971 A.B., The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 1972-1979 Reporter, Writer, Editor, and Consultant for various publi­ cations and organizations. 1979-1983 Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of English, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1980 M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio PUBLICATIONS "The French Lieutenant's Woman: the Book, the Movie, and the Screenplay." The Ohio Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2 (1982), pp. 37-38. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Twentieth Century British and American Literature. Studies in Twentieth Century Literature and Film: Professor Morris Beja. Studies in the Novel: Professors Richard D. Altick and Arnold Shapiro. Studies in Writing Fiction and Non-fiction: Professors William Allen and Robert Canzoneri. Studies in Drama: Professor Rolf Soellner. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii VITA iii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. THE COLLECTOR 17 III. THE MAGUS 50 IV. THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN 107 V. CONCLUSION 147 BIBLIOGRAPHY 163 iv Chapter One: Introduction In his foreword to Harold Pinter's The French Lieutenant's Woman: A Screenplay, John Fowles comments on the relationship between novels and films, calling them "two ways of telling stories" that are "much nearer sisters than anything else." He goes on to say that "a good director is always partly a novelist, and vice versa...": ...the shared need to narrate, to create new worlds of character and atmosphere, to play the godgame, brings us incomparably closer than any other pairs- of artists in different arts. It is the techniques that are so differ/ent, not the / final aims; and if I have to justify...the selling of rights, one reason certainly Hies in my fascination with that difference of technique. Discovering its exact nature can, be a very instructive experience for novelists, even when—perhaps, most of all when—the screened result disappoints. Discovering the "exact nature" in the "difference of technique" employed by novelists and film directors is also an instructive experience for students of literature, and 1 2 particularly for those interested in the nature of narrative literature, because the novel and the film can be viewed as 2 two forms of one art—the art of narrative literature. For Fowles, the notion that disappointing screen results can be instructive is important; two of his novels, The Collector and The Magus, were made into films that he did not like. Only the third, The French Lieutenant's Woman, inspired a film that he is happy about. The present study is aimed at exploring the different techniques used by novelists and film directors to tell ostensibly the same stories, and also at evaluating to what extent the resulting films embody the novels' original narratives. By placing the emphasis of this study of the novels and films on the element of narrative, I am isolating only one element of a novel (or of a film), but it is an element of central importance, and one that is affected by—even propelled by—all the other important elements in novels and films, such as character, point of view, language, imagery, and symbolism. In Fowles's case, it is particularly appropriate to focus on narrative because he is a novelist consumed with questions relating to the ways of telling stories. In undertaking a comparative study of novels and film adaptations, one makes the assumption that the two forms of narrative art are closely enough related to make such a 3 project worthwhile. The reason students of literature and students of film can both benefit from comparative studies of the two media is that both forms do rely on, as Fowles puts it, "the shared need...to create new worlds of character and atmosphere." And, although novelists and filmmakers employ different techniques, one can argue that these techniques involve very similar principles. For example, one must tell a story from some point of view, or points of view; one must characterize one's human element by means of language, gestures, appearances,' images, symbols, and behavior; and one must convey a setting for the human action. Certainly the novelist uses the written word and the filmmaker uses the visual image and soundtrack, but the processes of conception involved are closely linked. The key point in any comparative study is not that one narrative varies from another, because that is inevitable given the different forms of telling involved. The important thing is that one must assume that both a good novel and a good film can be made about the same subject. Very often, in order for a good film adaptation to be made, different content must be admitted to (or original content excluded from) the narrative in its new form. By comparing novels with the films based on them, one can evaluate the ways in which the filmmakers attempt to treat the same subject. (One can first ask if in fact the filmmakers have treated the same subject.) And then one can evaluate how 4 successful the new narrative treatment of this subject is in terms of its own medium. By examining the ways open to both novels and films to convey narrative, and by evaluating the filmmakers' decisions, one can achieve a greater understanding of and appreciation for the methods of telling stories in general. Fowles has resisted the label "novelist," as evidenced by his explanation of the reason for his publication of The Aristos: To call a man a plumber is to describe one aspect of him, but it is also to obscure a number of others. I am a writer; I want no more specific prison than that I express myself in printed words. So a prime personal reason for this book was to announce that I did not intend to walk into 3 the cage labelled "novelist." Despite this desire to be viewed as "a writer" rather than as a novelist, Fowles finds his public identity inextricably wrapped up in novels: The Collector (1963), The Magus (1965, rev.