Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature Milada Píchová Comparison of Thomas Keneally’s novel The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith and its Film Version Bachelor ’s Diploma Thesis Supervisor: PhDr. Jitka Vlčková, Ph. D. 2007 2 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. ................................................... Milada Píchová 3 I would like to express many thanks to my supervisor PhDr. Jitka Vlčková, Ph. D. for her kind help, support and valuable advice. 4 Table of Contents: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 6 1. TRANSPOSING OF NOVEL INTO FILM ................................................................. 8 1.1.TRANSFERAND ADAPTATIONPROPER.....................................................10 1.2.NARRATIVEFUNCTIONS...............................................................................13 2. THE CHANT OF JIMMIE BLACKSMITH: THE NOVEL.................................... 14 2.1.STORYAND NARRATIVESTRUCTURE .......................................................15 2.2.JIMMIEBLACKSMITHINSEARCHFORIDENTITY...................................18 2.3.CRIMEASPUNISHMENT................................................................................21 3. THE CHANT OF JIMMIE BLACKSMITH: THE FILM ...................................... 23 3.1.STRUCTURALPATTERNS..............................................................................23 3.2.THESYMBOLIC ASPECTOF NATURE .........................................................24 4. NOVEL AND FILM: THE MEDIA COMPARED .................................................. 28 4.1.TRANSFERAND ADAPTATIONPROPERIN THE CHANT OF JIMMIE BLACKSMITH .............................................................................................................29 4.2.NARRATIVEFUNCTIONSIN THE CHANT OF JIMMIE BLACKSMITH ......31 4.3.LIMITATIONS OFTHEFILMASAVISUALMEDIUM...............................35 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 38 WORKS CITED ............................................................................................................... 40 5 Introduction Filmadaptationsofcelebratednovels havealwaysattractedattentionfrom the public, aswellasfromthecritics,reviewers,andscholars.Nevertheless,the positionofafilm based onawell-knownbooktendstobecomplicatedbythefactthatthe audiencescometoseeit withcertain–biasedor not–expectations.Infact,the spectator(whohasalsoreadthe book) cannothelp buttoconstantlycomparetheimagesthat thenovelinspiredinthemwiththose appearingonthescreen.Thusit becomes muchharder toarriveat anyobjectiveevaluation becausea lotof misleadingfactorscomeintoplay. Firstly,thereisthegeneralassumptionthatafilm cannever reachthequalityofa book.Perhapsitisseenasamoresuperficialmediumthatcannotequal thedepthsand complexityofanovel.Thereareexceptions tothis butnot enoughofthemtouproot thisfixed scepticism.Thesecondproblemariseswhenthe spectatorstartstothinkaboutthe adaptation’sfidelitytotheoriginal.Sometimesitalmostseemsasiftheywerewaitingforthe momentwheretheycancatchoutthefilm-maker alteringthe storyline,omittingparticular scenes,or introducingnewcharactersnonexistentinthenovel.Intheeyesofthespectator, thefilm-makerhasthus failedtoreproducetheoriginalfaithfully,andsucha“fault”often resultsinanoveralldisappointmentofthespectator.Inother words,ifthedirectorhadchosen toworkwithafilmscriptyetunknowntotheaudience,itwouldhave been muchmore probable thattheyweretolerantandreadytoappraisehiscreativityatvariouslevels.The issueoffidelityisa treacherousone,andoneshouldalwayskeepit inmindbefore elaboratingtheirreview oracritique ofafilmadaptation. Theaimof mythesisis tofindobjectivemethodsofevaluatingafilmadaptation. Besideslistingthemand providinga theoretical backgroundtothestudy,Iwill attempttoput theminpractice.As thetopicofmythesisIhave chosenacontrastive approachtoa novel writtenbytheAustralianwriterThomasKeneally, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith ,andits 6 filmversion.Thefilmadaptationis regardedasfaithfultotheoriginaltext,yetthe initial responseoftheaudiences,mostlyinAustralia,wasnotentirelypositive.Ihavechosento examinethis particularworkpartlyforthis reason: becauseit demonstratesthat theissueof fidelityisnotdefinitive. Thefirstchapter isdevotedtoatheoretical backgroundwhich provesfundamentalin ordertoachieveanobjectivenoveltofilmcomparison.Ihavedrawnmostlyonthestudy guideofBrianMcFarlane 1whoproposesamodernfilmtheorymethodologyandoffersa systematicaccountoftransposinganovelintofilm. InthesecondchapterI willintroducethe book, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith ,and myintentionwill be tostudyindetailJimmie’sidentitycrisis whichIconsider thecentral– andmostcomplex–themeofthenovel. Inthe thirdchapterIwillconcentrateonthefilmversionof The Chant ,firstanalysing itsstructural patternsandthenpointingoutthefilm’schiefinnovation,thesymbolicaspectof NatureandtheAustralianland.Thefilmwascriticizedbysomereviewersforits plain episodiccharacter(“Teaching”),but I believethat byintroducingthemotifof Natureand landscapewithinthestoryline,thedirectorfoundawayforhisownartisticexpressionas well. Thefinalchapter isdevotedtothecomparisonof The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith ina novelanda film.Iwillapplythemethodologyandterminologyintroducedatthe beginning, andthusattempta balancedcomparisonofthetwomedia.My mainconcernwill be particularlywithtransfer,enunciation,andnarrativefunctions. Theintentionistooffera possiblyobjectivecasestudywithoutlosingsightofthe specificityofthetwomedia.Theywillfirstlybe examinedseparately,andthensubjectedtoa moredetailedcomparisonwiththeaimtohighlighttheirweaknessesandstrengths. 1 McFarlane, Brian. Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004. 7 1. Transposing of Novel into Film Itishighlyimprobablethatanyvisualadaptationofaliteraryworkinthelastseventy yearshas beenleftwithoutimmediateresponsefromawidecritical publicandmedia.Novels andthewrittenwordtriggerourimaginationwhiletheirfilmrepresentationprovokes our curiositytoknowwhathappenswhenthecharacters appear alive infrontofoureyes.Every spectatorwhogoestoseeafilm basedona booktheyhave readhascertainexpectations basedontheirownunderstandingoftheoriginal textor theemotionalresponsetoit. Besidesthat, manycritics,publicists,writers,andscholarsdedicatethemselves toa moresystematic studyofthetwomediaandtheircomparison.Avaluable reviewisnotso muchaquestionof personallikesanddislikes,butratherrequiresanacademicapproach. Nonetheless,asMcFarlaneforewarnsinhis book,asystematicstudyhas notalways been preferreddespite therelativelylonghistoryoffilmadaptationcriticism.The problemthat seemsdifficulttogetaroundisthefactthatthemajorityofcritics areoverlypreoccupiedwith theissueoffidelity,i.e.how muchoftheoriginalworkhas beentransferredinthe adaptation andwhetheranyalternationshave beenintroduced(194197).Themostfrequentaspects examinedbythe proponentsofrigidtransformationsaretheomissionofscenesor characters, reformulatingofdialogues,andthe credibilityofthecultural andhistoricalcontext (McFarlane 8). However,consideringthecommonlengthofafilm,itisobviousthat the scopeofa noveldoesnotalwaysallowitscomplete transcriptintoavisualmedium.Suchataskrequires “akindofselectiveinterpretation,alongwiththeabilitytorecreateandsustainanestablished mood[ofthenovel]”(DeWittBodeenqtd.inMcFarlane7).Thereis alwaysalinkbetween thesourcetextanditsadaptationnomatterwhetherthedirectorchoosestoadherecloselyto theoriginaltextorusesitonlyasaninspiration.Unfortunately,theaudiencesaswell asthe criticsoftenlimitthemselvestojudgetheissueoffidelity,andthedirector’sorscriptwriter’s 8 creativecontributionsorchangesinthefilmarethereforeundervaluedinsteadofappreciated. McFarlane pointsout that“adaptationisanexampleofconvergenceamongthearts,perhapsa desirable–eveninevitable–process inarichculture”(10).Hisideais toproposethatthe directorshouldbegivenachance tousethe bookasaresourceandat the sametime make anotherworkofartfromit–without necessarilylosingthe appreciationoftheaudience. Moreover,everyfilmadaptationis primarilybasedonthesoleinterpretationofthe few peoplewhoworkonthescript.Hence,thereisalways theriskofnot meetingthe spectator’sexpectations orfailingtoreproducethenovelinthewaythatothershave understoodit(McFarlane9).Sometimes,adifferent pointofviewmaybeinspiring,other timesdisappointing. Ontheotherhand,beingfaithfultothesource textcanbyno meansguaranteea better adaptationthanonethatonlydraws onthe‘essence’ofthe workwhile allowingvarious alternations.Thetwomediahavedifferent possibilitiesandlimits,andwhatworkswell inone maybecomeanobstacle intheother.Iwill clarifywhatthis representswhileIexaminea particularcasestudy, The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith inanovelandafilmlateroninthis thesis. Meanwhile,inorder tounderstandthe processof transferringanovelintoafilm,it maybeusefultotakeacloser lookatthe particularissuesthatcomeintoplay.Bothofthe mediahaveonecommonbase,andthatis thenarrative.“Ifthefilmmakerisawriter,thefilm, byimplication,isatext”(Stam20).I maysupplementthedefinitionbysayingthatnovels tell andfilms show ,butthe basisis,infact,thesame.One producesimagesinthe reader’smind, thusmakingthemactivelyimaginewhatisgoingon,theotherletstheviewer passively receivethe resultsofthe film-maker’simagination(whether theylike itornot).Stam observes:“Bothmediasharea commonnature asdiscourse, écriture ; bothare