Novels into Film

by George Bluestone

First published in 1957, this seminal work of film theory analyzes the process—"the mysterious alchemy"—by which novels are transformed into films. Beginning with a discussion of the aesthetic limits of both the novel and the film, George Bluestone goes on to offer close readings of six films based on novels of serious literary merit— The Informer , Wuthering Heights , The Grapes of Wrath , Pride and Prejudice , The Ox-Bow Incident , and Madame Bovary —focusing on the additions, deletions, and other changes made by the filmmakers in adapting the source material for the screen. Based on both in-depth research into film archives and libraries and on interviews with the screenwriters, directors, and producers who worked on these films, Novels into Film concludes that because the novel lends itself to states of consciousness and the film to observed reality, the adaptation of one from the other produces a new and wholly autonomous art form.

Genres: Film

251 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1957

Reviews

[Jesse · Rating 3 out of 5]

Essentially ground zero for adaptation studies—it's actually kind of embarrassing that I hadn't given it a look until recently (I'm assuming checking it out multiple times from the library to have it sit unopened on my shelf doesn't count, right?).

Bluestone follows Lessing's classic distinction between the verbal and visual as articulated in Laocoon: An Essay on the Limits of Painting and Poetry (though interestingly never references Lessing explicitly), and in minute detail argues that "what is peculiarly filmic and what is peculiarly novelistic cannot be converted without destroying an integral part of each."

Fair enough, though almost all analysis and commentary on the subject—my own included—in the half century since have taken on a more nuanced approach in how the literary and cinematic interact in film adaptations, thus Bluestone's study takes on that unenviable position of being that initial, influential text that everyone subsequently takes to task to erect their own theoretical conjectures. The majority of the book is comprised of essays that entail close, formalistic readings of both the cinematic and literary text of the type that was de rigueur in academic studies in the first half of the twentieth century (which is my diplomatic way saying that it's good stuff that makes for dull reading).

Someday I will sit down and give it a thorough read though.

[Rachael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Outdated, yes. But seminal. Bluestone published this in the 1950s, and it's sort of the touchstone for everyone else--they either have to align themselves or work to refute his theories before they can advance their own.

[Marnie Cannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Though an older work that many have analyzed, broken down, and expanded from - George Bluestone's work is still an important read for the adaptation studies field. His emphasis on looking past "film versus novel" and asking the question of what the film brings us in its own form of art is an important idea to remember. His point that comparing the novel and film at face value is as unproductive as comparing a painting of the French Revolution to actually being there during the event is paramount. And he proves his point with excellent examples including the 1939 Wuthering Heights and 1940 Pride and Prejudice. Some of his arguments require more proof in our current day and age, and while he makes important points - he does not spend enough time on all of them. But as a building block to any scholar within the fields of film and the novel - this is a must read.

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bluestone's essay on The Grapes of Wrath explains how the film softens Steinbeck's social criticism.

[Peter Wolfley · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book contains a lot of interesting arguments about the relationship between novels and their film adaptations. When Hollywood turns a book into a movie we should really view the book and movie separately and not try to make some grand pronouncement that the book is better or worse than the film.

This principle has really come in handy since everyone and their cousin is making a Sherlock Holmes adaptation. At first they all made me furious because they were so different than the books, but now I'm OK with it because they are mainly independent of each other.

[Kobita Banerjee · Rating 4 out of 5]

When you are done with this move to a similar title by McFarlane.