“What, we might ask, is literature on screen? If it is on screen, is it still literature? If it is literature, how can it be cinema as well? And why would anyone want to claim that it is both?‘ it’s vital that literature and film be distinguished from literature on film ’ and acknowledge that ‘ the latter, the subject of this book, has historically privileged the literary over the cinematic’.”
When keeping these questions in mind, I began to think about, (sadly) Breaking Dawn Part 2. I won’t give away details from the movie, for those who haven’t seen it yet, but it remained true to the book until the ending. Now for me, I actually preferred this. It was interesting to read the final ending in novel, and see a different ending (better) in the film. The author of the novel Stephenie Meyer was at the filming of the movie, and had great expectations for the ending, the new way it was created.
When I watch adaptations as viewer, do I point at the screen and scream it’s not exactly like the novel? My answer is of course not. Just as a painting and sculptures of two exact same people are constructed differently, we must to look at these two different works of art with a different lens. It was this article that made me look at adaptations as a form of art. Is it true that we can conclude that pretty much everything we see in art form is some sort of adaptation? Is it just literature on the screen, or is it just cinema?