The Barker story is much "faster" (Stam 32)--takes place in two days; much smaller--only two real characters plus the killer's victims. Leon's job is different, less romantic, less artsy (accountant?) verses being a photographer in the film. Leon has a love interest to leave behind in the movie--i.e. to ratchet up the emotional stakes. He has friends, acquaintances, fans of his photography. There is only the merest hint in the short story of the kind of people who keep the cover-up alive. In the film, they are represented by the art dealer and her influential social position. The signet rings is a cinematic way Buhler has chosen to connect the surface dwellers to the subterranean cannibal cabal.
As far as the outside elements, what Stam might call the "transtextuality" of the adaptation, i.e. the intertextual, paratextual, and metatextual elements (Stam 27-29):
Starting from the middle: I know that there was concern over the name and whether such a odd (yet evocative) title would work for a mainstream film (paratextual). But Barker and his producers insisted that the name remain the same, especially for the first film adaptation of what was to be a handful of Barker's stories brought to the screen--and of course to best take advantage of the work's existing notoriety among Barker's fans.
As for the metatextuality, i.e. the "critical relation" (Genette; Stam 28) between the film and the short story: given the enthusiasm surrounding Barkers work, especially among his core devotees, Buhler had to be careful not to interpret the original text in such a way that would turn off the film's built-in cult following. Therefor, little was lost but a great deal added. We can discuss with Buhler the details of negotiating this, at times delicate, balance of audience expectation and artistic objectives.
Finally (or initially), there are the various intertuexual elements in the film (most absent from the story). Leon's photography is the most obvious example (and innovation). It visually communicates his emotional devotion to the city--a salient element of Leon's character in the story. The photographs also drive the plot by becoming clues in the mystery. The biggest intertextual element that both story and film share is the various newspapers and reportage that communicate the killer's exploits to the city.
As far as the outside elements, what Stam might call the "transtextuality" of the adaptation, i.e. the intertextual, paratextual, and metatextual elements (Stam 27-29):
Starting from the middle: I know that there was concern over the name and whether such a odd (yet evocative) title would work for a mainstream film (paratextual). But Barker and his producers insisted that the name remain the same, especially for the first film adaptation of what was to be a handful of Barker's stories brought to the screen--and of course to best take advantage of the work's existing notoriety among Barker's fans.
As for the metatextuality, i.e. the "critical relation" (Genette; Stam 28) between the film and the short story: given the enthusiasm surrounding Barkers work, especially among his core devotees, Buhler had to be careful not to interpret the original text in such a way that would turn off the film's built-in cult following. Therefor, little was lost but a great deal added. We can discuss with Buhler the details of negotiating this, at times delicate, balance of audience expectation and artistic objectives.
Finally (or initially), there are the various intertuexual elements in the film (most absent from the story). Leon's photography is the most obvious example (and innovation). It visually communicates his emotional devotion to the city--a salient element of Leon's character in the story. The photographs also drive the plot by becoming clues in the mystery. The biggest intertextual element that both story and film share is the various newspapers and reportage that communicate the killer's exploits to the city.
No comments:
Post a Comment