I found the third fallacy of Thomas Leitch’s “Twelve fallacies of contemporary Adaptation Theory” very interesting. The claim “Literary texts are verbal, films visual” seems to be a very true statement, and I wondered what the discrepancy would be in it. Leitch writes, “Films since the coming of synchronized sound, and perhaps even before, have been audio-visual not visual, depending as they do on soundtracks as well as image tracks for their effects.” Leitch’s statement seems so “obvious”, that I didn’t even think about it, but it is true. The power of music can emphasize the plot of the movie, not only instrumentally, but lyrically. I think of a movie like Peter and the Wolf, where particular instruments are represent certain animals. There aren’t any lyrics in the movie, but the music participates in the story telling process.
The movie “Once” also comes to mind, where the performers of the movie are also singing the soundtrack of the movie. Although this movie is not an adaptation, I think intertextuality of this sort works really well. “The script is a performance text- a text that requires interpretation first by its performers and then by its audience for completion- whereas a literary text requires only interpretation by its readers”, argues Leitch. In the case of Once, the actors and actresses are interpreting the screenplay, and the songs on the soundtrack are interpretations of the performance in a particular scene.