Literary Latitude

Adaptation is an essential process in film studies, involving the transformation of a source text into its cinematic form. A source text typically refers to a literary work, though there are exceptions where non-fictional works also serve as source materials. The distinction between literary (fictional) and non-literary (non-fictional) works is important. Literary works, such as the plays of William Shakespeare, consist of imaginary or fictional stories, whereas non-literary works, like historical accounts, are based on real events and facts.

Both literary and non-literary works have been widely adapted into films. For example, the film 3 Idiots is an adaptation of Chetan Bhagat’s novel Five Point Someone. This highlights how literature can be transformed into cinema, blending creative interpretation with visual storytelling.

Chetan Bhagat may not be considered the best literary author, but his work Five Point Someone qualifies as a literary text, and its adaptation into the popular film 3 Idiots exemplifies literary adaptation. However, not all films are adapted from literary works. For instance, the controversial film The Kashmir Files is based on historical content, though it does not rely on any specific historical document. The creators claim it to be rooted in historical documentation, but this raises questions about accuracy and authenticity. Adaptations like these, where ambiguous or potentially false claims about historical sources are made, highlight the complexity of adapting non-fictional material. The process of adapting historical documents into films presents unique challenges, which will be discussed further.

A key aspect of adaptation is fidelity, often referred to as fidelity criticism. This concept examines how accurately the adaptation reflects the source material. For example, when comparing the film 3 Idiots to the novel Five Point Someone, viewers might assess how much of the original content has been faithfully reproduced in the film. Fidelity is often measured in terms of accuracy, with adaptations typically maintaining anywhere from 50% to 80% of the original text’s essence. Achieving 100% fidelity is virtually impossible, as only the original author can provide the full meaning. Several factors contribute to this limitation, which will be explored in detail later.

Adaptation, in simple terms, is a form of translation or transformation from one medium to another. Literature, for example, primarily belongs to print media, with novels consisting of printed pages that convey characters, incidents, and events through text. Unlike films, novels lack visual and auditory elements. When reading a novel, the narrative unfolds through text, creating the sense that someone is telling the story to the reader. This storytelling element, known as narration, can be presented through different perspectives. In some novels, like R.K. Narayan’s The Guide, the main character (Raju) narrates the story. In other cases, such as Charles Dickens’s works, a third-person narrator, who is not part of the story, guides the reader.

In film adaptations, narration takes on a new form through audiovisual presentation. While films also incorporate storytelling (narration), they do so by combining “telling” with “showing.” Unlike novels, where readers must imagine characters and settings, films visually present these elements, making characters and scenes more immediate and concrete. This combination of narrative and visual representation transforms the source material, creating a new experience for the audience.

In adaptations, characters that are originally imagined through textual descriptions in novels are brought to life on screen as real, visual representations. However, achieving 100% accuracy in adaptation is nearly impossible due to several factors. When reading a novel, readers form their own mental images of characters and settings based on the details provided. On the other hand, film directors and producers face limitations that influence their interpretation, such as cultural context, societal expectations, and the time period in which the adaptation is created. If the source text is contemporary, audiences can easily connect with its themes and setting. However, for older works, such as those written hundreds of years ago, it becomes challenging to fully reconstruct the environment of that era.

For example, adapting a play by William Shakespeare presents challenges since it was written over 400 years ago. To depict the settings accurately, one must rely on historical research and imagination because the infrastructure, society, and lifestyle of that time no longer exist. A notable example of this challenge can be seen in the adaptation of Salman Rushdie’s novel Midnight’s Children, which largely takes place in Bombay between India’s independence in 1947 and the 1980s. By the time the film adaptation was made by Deepa Mehta in 2011-2012, Bombay had changed drastically over the decades. As a result, the film was shot in Sri Lanka to replicate the setting of the older Bombay, demonstrating the difficulties of recreating an accurate historical setting.

Fidelity, or the extent to which an adaptation stays true to its source material, is influenced by several factors, including the amount of research done by the filmmakers, their understanding of the material, and their ability to replicate that knowledge in a cinematic format. For example, the adaptation of Devdas has undergone significant changes across different versions. The older version of Devdas was filmed in black and white, while the newer version featured colorful and vibrant visuals, altering the tone and meaning of the story. The original story by Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay, written around the early 20th century, reflected a specific historical and cultural context that is difficult to fully replicate in modern adaptations due to changes in architecture, costumes, and societal norms.

Careful consideration is required when analyzing the adaptation of literary works into films. This is where The Kashmir Files fails to fit into the framework of a proper historical adaptation. The film claims to document the communal violence in Kashmir during the 1990s, a period when many Kashmiri Hindus, known as Kashmiri Pandits, were forced to flee due to violence and persecution. However, the film lacks a clearly defined historical source or basis. Unlike a proper historical documentary, which typically cites historical documents or sources, The Kashmir Files does not provide adequate justification or reference to credible historical texts. Historical adaptations require transparency in their sources to distinguish between fact and interpretation, but this film introduces both intentional and interpretative elements without clarifying the historical foundation of its narrative.

When adapting historical events, accuracy and transparency regarding sources are crucial. For example, if a filmmaker claims to be adapting the history of India’s independence, they must clearly state the books, documents, and sources they are using. References should be provided throughout the adaptation, with explanations about key incidents derived from specific historical texts. Scholarly debates or clarifications lasting a short duration (even 30 seconds to a minute) are necessary to prevent viewers from mistaking the work for fiction. Without such references, adaptations risk distorting historical facts, creating fictionalized narratives that can mislead audiences. Documentaries, in particular, must be grounded in fact; failing to provide credible sources or fabricating events amounts to a form of violence against history.

History and literature are closely connected, but when adaptations assign blame or victimhood without careful consideration, they can cause harm. Historical events, especially communal violence, do not affect everyone uniformly. Within any conflict, individuals from the so-called “enemy” group may act as protectors or allies, while individuals from the “victim” group may exploit the situation for personal gain. Benevolent individuals from opposing communities may be erased or ignored, leading to the portrayal of entire groups as uniformly evil or monstrous. Therefore, adaptations should reflect the complexity of historical events by acknowledging the diversity of human behavior during crises. Failing to do so creates biased narratives that mislead audiences.

When filmmakers provide a manipulated or one-sided portrayal of history, they risk inciting emotional reactions in viewers. For example, if an adaptation depicts one community as entirely innocent and the other as completely villainous, it may provoke hatred toward one group and sympathy for the other. This is particularly problematic in the context of communal violence, where biased portrayals can deepen divisions. The intention of historical adaptations should never be to incite communal hatred or promote a single, distorted narrative. Instead, they should aim for honesty and fidelity to prevent the audience from drawing dangerous or false conclusions.

Misleading adaptations can have significant consequences due to the limitations of audience exposure and understanding. Many people rely solely on films as their source of information, believing the content they see to be a universal or accurate version of events. For instance, in popular literature courses, students often watch the film adaptation of 3 Idiots without reading Chetan Bhagat’s novel Five Point Someone. This leads to confusion, as they fail to recognize changes made in the adaptation, such as the different names of the protagonists and the altered love triangle. Consequently, students may write incorrect answers based solely on the film’s content.

This problem is even more severe in the adaptation of historical or non-fictional works. A film like The Kashmir Files, which presents itself as a depiction of the 1990 communal violence in Kashmir, can easily be mistaken for an authoritative account of history due to its title and dramatic storytelling. Without additional research or exposure to credible historical sources, viewers may believe the film’s version of events to be entirely factual. This demonstrates the dangers of uncritical consumption of adaptations and the importance of maintaining fidelity and accuracy when adapting historical events.

When audiences watch films or documentaries that claim to be based on historical events, they often form judgments and emotional responses without verifying the accuracy of the depicted events. Many viewers do not seek out the actual historical context, which leads them to shape their perceptions and reactions solely based on the adaptation. To counter this, viewers must question and critically evaluate the content presented in such films. This involves identifying facts not shown in the film, cross-referencing those depicted, and verifying the accuracy through independent sources.

This need for critical inquiry is particularly relevant when discussing adaptations of non-fictional works or historical documentaries. For instance, in Hollywood documentaries, it is common to see expert interventions, where scholars or authors with expertise in the subject matter clarify historical ambiguities. This approach is necessary because historical facts often raise more questions than they answer. As a result, fidelity and honesty in adaptations are essential to ensure that audiences are not misled or left with incomplete understanding.

The concept of intertextuality is crucial when analyzing adaptations, as it acknowledges that no text is complete in isolation. Intertextuality refers to the relationship between texts, where a story or work references or is influenced by other stories, ideas, or cultural contexts. Understanding an adaptation often requires delving into these interconnected references. For example, Alfred Lord Tennyson’s poem Ulysses is an adaptation that draws upon Homer’s Odyssey. To fully grasp the complexities and meaning of Tennyson’s poem, readers must be familiar with Homer’s original work. In Ulysses, Tennyson presents an aging hero who chooses adventure over ruling his kingdom. To understand the motivations and symbolism behind this, one must explore Homer’s portrayal of Odysseus (Ulysses) as well as the Victorian ideals reflected in Tennyson’s era.

Similarly, when studying adaptations of historical films like The Kashmir Files, viewers should explore various literary and historical texts to understand the broader context. This includes novels, stories, and historical records that document the events surrounding the 1990 exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. It is important to investigate the different perspectives of this period, such as accounts of violence by some Muslims against Hindus, instances where Muslims protected Hindus, and cases where Hindus exploited fellow refugees. There are also narratives about the government’s inadequate response and the harsh living conditions faced by displaced Kashmiri Pandits. Understanding these diverse perspectives is critical to developing an informed opinion, as no single adaptation can encompass the full scope of historical complexity.

By cross-referencing multiple sources, viewers can uncover a more comprehensive picture, ensuring that they do not rely solely on one film or adaptation as the ultimate version of events. This process of exploration reflects the importance of intertextuality in understanding historical adaptations, where knowledge is built through the synthesis of multiple texts and contexts.

Adaptations often require engaging with multiple texts to gain a full understanding of the context and meaning. This process highlights the intellectual nature of adaptation, as it involves constant verification, exploration, and comparison of both the source material and the adaptation. Viewers need to examine what is missing in either the film or the source text and go beyond them to fully grasp the nuances. One reason this intellectual engagement may seem absent is that audiences often rely on prior knowledge from teachers or other experiences, which can lead them to believe that the film or text they are consuming is self-contained. As a result, they may skip deeper analysis and miss important intertextual connections.

No film or literary work is truly complete in itself. Adaptations and their source texts interact and reciprocate, often fulfilling the aesthetic needs of audiences by compensating for what might be missing in either medium. For example, in the adaptation of R.K. Narayan’s novel The Guide, significant differences between the novel and the film exist, yet both versions serve distinct narrative and aesthetic functions. The novel, published in the 1950s, presents Raju, the protagonist, as the narrator of the story. However, in the film version starring Dev Anand, Rosy, the heroine, becomes the narrator. This shift in narration reflects a creative decision that alters the audience’s perspective on the story.

Another major difference lies in the ending. In the film, Raju’s prayers for rain are fulfilled, resulting in a happy ending where it finally rains, aligning with the concept of poetic justice in Hindu beliefs. Poetic justice is a common feature in Bollywood films, where hardships are resolved, and characters often achieve a satisfying resolution, typically symbolized by the union of the hero and heroine. However, the novel does not follow this formula. Raju’s fasting for rain does not succeed, making the ending more ambiguous and reflective of real-life uncertainties rather than idealized outcomes.

There are additional differences between the film and the novel, including changes in character names. In the novel, Raju tells his story to a man named Velan, but in the film, this character is renamed Bhola. These changes highlight the creative liberties taken during the adaptation process, often driven by factors such as narrative structure, audience expectations, and the medium’s limitations.

One key reason for these changes is the pursuit of aesthetic effect. Adaptations are not meant to replicate the original source material with complete fidelity because doing so would diminish the unique experience that films can offer. If a film provides the same effect as the novel, there would be little incentive to watch it after reading the book. Therefore, filmmakers adjust elements to produce a distinct aesthetic experience that complements but does not duplicate the original. This aesthetic effect is essential, as it enhances the audience’s engagement and ensures that the film offers something novel and valuable on its own terms.

In summary, adaptations involve more than simple replication—they are creative reimaginings that balance fidelity to the source with the need for aesthetic and narrative innovation. This balance allows films to engage audiences in ways that are distinct from the literary works they are based on, making adaptations a rich and complex field of study.

Most adaptations deviate from complete fidelity to the source material in order to cater to the changing tastes of the audience and to provide something new and engaging. This creative deviation is not just intentional but necessary. When R.K. Narayan wrote The Guide, he wrote it in English, targeting an educated, English-speaking audience. However, when the novel was adapted into a film, it was produced in Hindi, aimed at a broader, mass audience in India, which had different cultural and entertainment preferences. The Bollywood tradition, with its characteristic narrative structures, strongly influenced the adaptation.

Bollywood films often adhere to the archetype of poetic justice, where conflicts are resolved, and endings are optimistic and conclusive. This structure contrasts with the modernist tradition of literature, to which Narayan’s novels belong. Modernist works often leave open-ended conclusions, encouraging audiences to reflect and draw their own interpretations. For example, The Guide ends ambiguously in the novel. Raju, the protagonist, fasts for rain in a drought-stricken village, but the novel never explicitly states whether it actually rains. The author leaves room for multiple interpretations—readers with an optimistic outlook might imagine that it rains, while those with a more nihilistic or pessimistic perspective might believe that it does not.

In contrast, the film adaptation resolves this ambiguity by explicitly showing that it rains, providing a clear, satisfying conclusion in line with Bollywood’s preference for definitive and hopeful endings. This creative choice reflects the filmmakers’ understanding of the target audience’s preference for clarity and closure, as opposed to the more thought-provoking, unresolved nature of the novel.

The role of financial considerations in adaptations is another critical factor. Writing a novel requires comparatively minimal investment. As Virginia Woolf argued in A Room of One’s Own, writers—especially women—needed only a modest financial investment to pursue writing. At the time Woolf wrote this, she estimated that a woman could start writing with as little as 10 pence. When R.K. Narayan published The Guide in the 1950s, this minimal financial requirement for writing remained largely true.

However, the financial demands of producing a film are vastly different. Adapting a literary work into a cinematic production involves significant costs, including hiring actors, constructing sets, arranging locations, editing, and marketing. Filmmakers, therefore, must ensure that their investment yields returns by appealing to a wide audience. This financial pressure often leads to creative adjustments in the adaptation process, ensuring the final product aligns with the audience’s tastes and preferences. Without these adjustments, the film risks failing at the box office.

In summary, adaptations are shaped by a combination of artistic, cultural, and financial factors. The deviation from the source material is not a failure but a strategic response to the medium and the target audience. While literature allows for ambiguity and introspection, films often require more definitive resolutions and aesthetic effects to meet audience expectations and financial demands.

Writing a novel requires minimal financial investment compared to producing a film. To write a novel, an author only needs basic materials like paper and a pen, which can be acquired for a small sum. For example, with ₹1,000, one could easily buy enough notebooks and pens to write an entire manuscript. The cost of writing is relatively low, making it an accessible medium for creative expression. However, the production of a film involves significant expenses. Filmmakers face costs related to hiring actors, designing costumes, constructing sets, traveling, purchasing equipment, renting or buying cameras, and marketing the film.

Even the cheapest film production today would cost no less than ₹100,000 (one lakh rupees), assuming everyone involved works at minimum or nominal rates. The financial gap between writing a novel and producing a film is substantial, with the cost of film production being at least 100 to 200 times higher than that of writing a novel. For this reason, producers and directors must make decisions that ensure their films appeal to a wide audience and achieve financial success. If they were entirely faithful to the original literary work, they might fail to attract sufficient viewers, resulting in financial losses.

This is why adaptations often deviate from the source material. Directors and producers need to consider audience preferences and market demands. For example, a recent film about Indira Gandhi titled Emergency, featuring Kangana Ranaut, struggled to attract audiences. The film faced issues due to its lack of fidelity to historical accuracy and its politically charged content, which failed to resonate with the current tastes of viewers. Unlike The Kashmir Files, which touched on a sensitive, humanitarian issue and provoked strong emotional and political responses, Emergency did not have the same appeal. Its focus on a historical period (the Emergency of 1975-1977) did not generate widespread public interest, demonstrating how changes in societal and political preferences influence the success of adaptations.

Thus, the financial burden of film production, coupled with the need to cater to contemporary audience tastes, explains why filmmakers often take creative liberties when adapting literary works or historical events. This approach ensures profitability and audience engagement, even if it means sacrificing some level of fidelity to the original material.

Film adaptations often face financial and cultural pressures that influence creative decisions, leading to significant deviations from the original source material. The financial burden of producing a film is a major factor. Producers must recover their investment, and profits are shared among various intermediaries, such as theater owners and distributors. As a result, the initial earnings within the first few weeks of a film’s release are often considered crucial. If a film does not perform well during this period, it risks being offered for free on various digital platforms, making it difficult to generate further revenue.

This financial pressure forces producers and directors to experiment and reject strict fidelity to the original work in favor of incorporating new elements. In India, one of the most common examples of this creative modification is the inclusion of songs and dance sequences in film adaptations. While most novels and plays do not feature such elements, Indian films frequently include them to cater to the cultural tastes of the audience. Songs and dances are deeply embedded in Indian cinema, making them essential for commercial success. These elements help draw in a diverse audience—those who come for the story, those who enjoy the music, and those who are interested in dance performances.

A notable example of adaptation influenced by cultural and financial considerations is the numerous films based on Bhagat Singh’s life, such as The Legend of Bhagat Singh and Shaheed. These adaptations often include romantic subplots, despite historical evidence suggesting that Bhagat Singh and Chandrashekhar Azad did not have prominent love stories. The inclusion of these elements is driven by the need to appeal to the audience’s emotional and cultural expectations, as well as to enhance the film’s marketability.

In conclusion, adaptations involve deliberate creative changes that balance fidelity to the source material with the commercial demands of filmmaking. The goal is to maximize audience engagement and ensure profitability, even if that means deviating from historical or literary accuracy.