The Ideological Working of Fidelity Criticism in Dramatic and Cinematic Adaptation Studies

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
Mahdi Javidshad 1
Alireza Anushiravani 2
1 PhD in English at the Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
2 Professor of Comparative Literature at Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran
Abstract
The present research explores the reasons why contemporary theoreticians of adaptation studies spurn “fidelity criticism.” With an increase in the production of adaptation with the advent of the cinema, there appeared a critical approach known as “fidelity criticism” in which the extent of the fidelity of the adapter to the adapted was investigated. Since this approach considers the adapted as a touchstone to evaluate the adapter and since it implicitly acknowledges the superiority of the former over the latter, postmodern critics, who frequently advocate alternative views and readings, struggle to release the adapter from being overshadowed by the adapted in order to let them express their unique message in the modern era. By referring to contemporary theories, the present research explores the whyness of the necessity for avoiding “fidelity criticism” as a touchstone for the evaluation of adaptation. To this end, the question of adaptation is expounded in the light of canon, logocentrism, and minor literature in order to study the likelihood of the ideological working of “fidelity criticism” as an apparatus in the hands of power. While the fact that “fidelity criticism” cannot be an appropriate criterion for the evaluation of adaptation has been frequently pointed out, the howness of its contribution to power discourse is an issue that has not been investigated in a coherent research, an attempt that can lead to a better understanding of the whyness of the rejection of “fidelity criticism.”

Keywords

Subjects

Alavipour, S., (2014). Political Implications of Abbas Kiarostami’s Cinema. The International Journal of Humanities 21(1): 143–164.
Barnett, S., (1987). Review of Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature. Criticism 29(4): 552–554
Barry, P., (2002). Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory. Manchester: Manchester UP.
Barthes, R., (1972). Mythologies. trans. Annette Lavers. New York: The Noonday Press.
Bertens, J. W., (2001). Literary Theory: The Basics. New York: Routledge.
Bluestone, G., (1957/1968). Novels into Film. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Brannigan, J., (1998). New Historicism and Cultural Materialism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Camati, A. S., (2005). Textual appropriation: totalitarian violence in Shakespeare’s Macbeth and Tom Stoppard’s Cahoot’s Macbeth. A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies 49: 339–367.
Cardwell, S., (2002). Adaptation Revisited: Television and the Classic Novel. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Carroll, J., (1995). Evolution and Literary Theory. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.
Cartmell, D., (1999). Introduction. In D. Cartmell & I. Whelehan (Eds), Adaptations: From Text to Screen, Screen to Text (pp. 23–28). London: Routledge.
Colebrook, C., (2002). Gilles Deleuze. London and New York: Routledge.
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F., (1983). “What is a minor literature?” translated by Robert Brinkley, Mississippi Review 11(3): 13–33.
Desmet, C., (2002). Introduction. In Ch. Desmet & R. Sawyer (Eds), Shakespeare and Appropriation (pp. 1–15). London and New York: Routledge.
Enos, T., (2010). Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age. New York and London: Routledge.
Emig, R., (2012). Adaptation in Theory. In P. Nicklas & O. Lindner (Eds), Adaptation and Cultural Appropriation: Literature, Film, and the Arts (pp. 14–25). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Ferretter, L., (2007). Louis Althusser. London: Routledge.
Fischlin, D. & Fortier, M., (2014). General Introduction. In D. Fischlin & M. Fortier (Eds), Adaptations of Shakespeare: An Anthology of Plays from the 17th Century to the Present (pp. 1–23). London and New York: Routledge.
Fish, S., (1985). “Consequences.” Critical Inquiry 11(3): 433–458.
Franssen, P., (2016). Shakespeare’s Literary Lives: The Author ::as char::acter in Fiction and Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Habib, M. A. R., (2008). A History of Literary Criticism and Theory: From Plato to the Present. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Hirsch, E. D., (1983). Against Theory? Critical Inquiry 9(4): 743–747.
Hutcheon, L., (2006). A Theory of Adaptation. London and New York: Routledge.
Leitch, T., (2017). Introduction. In T. Leitch (Ed), The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies (pp. 1–23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Linder, B., (2001). Davis Confirms Potter Role. Available at
https://www.ign.com/articles/2001/01/08/davis-confirms-potter-role
Linder, B., (2001). Screenwriter Kloves Talks Harry Potter. Available at
https://www.ign.com/articles/2001/02/06/screenwriter-kloves-talks-harry-potter
Maynard, J., (2009). Literary Intention, Literary Interpretations, and Readers. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
McFarlane, B., (1996). Novel to Film. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
McQuillan, M., (2001). Deconstruction: A Reader. New York: Routledge.
Muir, K., (2013). Shakespeare’s Sources: Comedies and Tragedies. London and New York: Routledge.
Murray, S., (2012). The Adaptation Industry: The Cultural Economy of Contemporary Literary Adaptation. New York and London: Routledge.
Newell, K., (2010). “We’re Off to See the Wizard” (Again): Oz Adaptations and the Matter of Fidelity. In C. Albrecht-Crane & D. Cutchins (Eds), Adaptation Studies: New Approaches (pp. 78–96). Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press.
Olssen, M., (2016). Michel Foucault: Materialism and Education. London and New York: Routledge.
Pittman, L. M., (2011). Authorizing Shakespeare on Film and Television: Gender, Class, and Ethnicity in Adaptation. New York: Peter Lang.
Ritchie, F. & Sabor, P., (2012). Introduction. In F. Ritchie & ‎P. Sabor (Eds), Shakespeare in the Eighteenth Century (pp. 1–17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sanders, J., (2006). Adaptation and Appropriation. London and New York: Routledge.
Schober, R., (2013). Adaptation as connection – Transmediality reconsidered. In J. Bruhn, A. Gjelsvik & E. F. Hanssen (Eds), Adaptation Studies: New Challenges, New Directions (pp. 89–113), London: Bloomsbury.
Selden, R. & Widdowson, P., (1993). A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. Third Edition. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.
Sinfield, A., (1994). Give an account of Shakespeare and Education, showing why you think they are effective and what you have appreciated about them. Support your comments with precise references. In J. Dollimore & A. Sinfield (Eds), Political Shakespeare: Essays in Cultural Materialism (pp. 158–182). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Sinfield, A., (2006). Shakespeare, Authority, Sexuality: Unfinished Business in Cultural Materialism. London and New York: Routledge.
Stam, R., (2000). The dialogics of adaptation. In J. Naremore (Ed), Film Adaptation (pp. 54–76). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Voigts-Virchow, E., (2012). Pride and Promiscuity and Zombies, or: Miss Austen Mashed Up in the Affinity Spaces of Participatory Culture. In P. Nicklas & O. Lindner (Eds), Adaptation and Cultural Appropriation: Literature, Film, and the Arts (pp. 34–57). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Walker, E., (2006). Authorship: Getting Back to Shakespeare: Whose Film is it Anyway?. In D. E. Henderson (Ed), A Concise Companion to Shakespeare on Screen (pp. 8–31). Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Walton, D., (2012). Doing Cultural Theory. London: Sage.
Yousefian Kenari, M. J. & Mokhtabad, M., (2010). “Kiarostami’s Unfinished Cinema and its Postmodern Reflections.” The International Journal of Humanities 17(2): 23–37.
The International Journal of Humanities
Volume 28, Issue 3
Summer 2021
Pages 55-74