 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
- Film Adaptations and Screenwriting
- Interview with Gabrielle Carey
- Interview with Melina Marchetta
The adaptation of Australian novels involving schoolgirls as the main protagonists and exploring their growth into women through film has been a recurring theme in Australian cinema. The films create very different outcomes, both for the audience and within the film industry.
The four novels examined in this research study are Picnic at Hanging Rock, The Getting of Wisdom, Puberty Blues and Looking for Alibrandi. Each novel offered very different views on the role of schoolgirls in Australia, and yet were all successful critically and commercially.
The films based on these novels on the other hand, ranged from being true to the book to straying considerably from the text. They met with a very varied response, from huge success to critical failure and oblivion. The reasons for these outcomes have been widely hypothesised. Contents.
The novel, by Joan Lindsay, is a fascinating exploration of Australia at the beginning of the 20th century, the repressive nature of society and the menace of the bush, and has managed to capture the repressed Victorian sexuality perfectly (Phillips 2000). These themes are perhaps the key to the films lasting success.
At its release, the novel became a bestseller and was hailed as an insight into human relations and the aura and mystery of female adolescence (Mc Farlane 1987). This being so, with hindsight, many consider it to be dated, banal and snobbish, and that it has only received extensive fame due to Peter Weir’s mastery and Cliff Green’s adaptation of the more rudimentary aspects (Inman 2000).
It is widely believed that Australian culture had come of age with Picnic (Turner 1989), being both a beautiful piece of art, and the first commercial work of a major international director. It is probably more admired as a masterpiece of filmography, rather than as an intriguing story of suspense or a social piece on schoolgirls at the turn of the 19th century (Inman 2000).
Even though the whole film centres round teenage schoolgirls, the film never once addresses their perception of life, or their place in society. As Mc Farlane (1987) points out, Weir himself persistently denied that his film offered any insight on the girls, as the author herself did not address these issues.
The film had very mixed European and British influences, which helped it greatly in gaining foreign acceptance and stance. It is only distinctly Australian in the accents of the actors and the landscape of the hot gumtree bush, every other aspect, such as the clothing, manner, language and events, are very English (Mc Farlane 1987). This could explain why it was so easily received in international film circles.
The movie has used a great deal of the plot in the novel, but to a different extent, as is explained by (Stedman 2000):
“It seemed that much of the focus in the book was on how the disappearances affected the people who didn’t disappear while the movie focused on the strangeness of the event. This causes the book and movie to be different experiences even though the story is exactly the same. The book is a fascinating portrait of Australian life at the turn of the century while the movie is a masterpiece of psychological horror, not that the book isn’t frightening or that the movie doesn’t recreate how life was at that time, there’s just a different focus.”
Weir’s and scriptwriter Green’s talent of using only the best and most apt events of the novel are what is considered the secret to the films success. The book places a lot of stress on the endurance and spatiality of the rock, while the college and all the life within it is purely temporal, and ‘the film eloquently picks up the novel’s suggestions in this matter and creates what is still one of the most visually arresting experiences in modern cinema’ (Mc Farlane 1987).
The novel itself was clearly and plainly written, and had the instant visual appeal for a good screenplay. This meant that it was very simple for Cliff Green to adapt, and as the story was a mystery, there was no strong message he had to convey about the girls. While many factors contributed to its success, it is undeniable that the real stars of the picture were the camera, and the director, Peter Weir (Reade 1979). Contents.
The novel The Getting of Wisdom is a well-loved literary classic by Australia’s first internationally-acclaimed author, Ethel (Henry Handel) Richardson. ( Larsen 1994) describes it as a ‘poignantly hilarious account of a young woman’s desperate attempts to control her feelings and survive her education.’
Being both witty and amusing, it is set at a turn-of-the-century boarding school in Melbourne, Australia, and is a classic tale of a girl who thinks for herself and, thus, is forever out of step with both her society and her classmates. Although it is almost 100 years old, many find the book’s message is still fresh today, which is why Richardson is considered one of Australia’s greatest novelists (Christensen 1998).
The film was directed by Bruce Beresford and its script by Eleanor Witcombe won Best Adapted Screenplay at the 1978 AFI awards. It was reasonably well received at the time, described as a ‘low-key, made with love, resulting in a rich and amusing portrait of an imaginative young girl’, and that both Beresford and Witcombe had ‘handled the story sensitively and the external photography had a strong Australian-feel’ (Reade 1979). There was also some criticism, however. For example, ‘too episodic a script; and the irony of the book didn’t come off in the picture’. Many also felt the casting of Laura, the main character, had been poorly done (Reade 1979).
Its reputation has not survived, and is now generally thought of as one of its director’s lesser efforts. Perhaps this is due to the difficulty of having to adapt well-loved literature, thereby changing aspects of it, which many find ‘outrageous’. Turner (1989) perhaps sums it up by describing it as beautiful, untroubling, politically correct and offering no contemporary or indeed, classical, message.
One of the main difficulties the film faced on its release in 1977, was that it was ‘yet another ‘nostalgic’ movie, and, worse still, another one about schoolgirls, like Peter Weir’s Picnic ’(Colman 1992). This leads to the supposition that its release was not well timed.
McFarlane (1987) agreed, adding that both The Getting of Wisdom and Picnic at Hanging Rock reflects strongly ‘the presence of English ways of thinking in the influences on young people’ and that ‘the information and attitudes they seek to instil replicate English educational experiences, and Australian-ess.’
One clear problem with the film is its dissimilarity from the book. Witcombe’s original screenplay included every event in the novel and the duration of the film would have been ten hours. Therefore much unscrupulous condensing was undertaken to produce the final 100-minute product (Colman 1992).
In the novel, the focus is very much on Laura’s interaction with her female teachers and fellow classmates and boarders, but also her disastrous association with the new school chaplain, Mr Shepherd. However, in the film the ‘relationships between men and women have lain as subtexts’, with Beresford preferring to concentrate on, often over-stressing, Laura’s relationship with the older girl Evelyn supposedly as an examination of friendships, but in doing so loses the essence of the novel (Colman 1992). Therefore, careful consideration must be taken when deciding the focal point of the screenplay.
Another problem was that script drew on Richardson’s actual autobiography Myself When Young, and much of the plot was changed, with entirely new scenes and turning the main character into a highly skilled pianist, which Richardson was (Colman 1992). This undoubtedly created a sense of indecision about what story was being told, as the character Laura in the book is portrayed as an ordinary high spirited school girl, not a misfit child prodigy as Richardson was herself. It was not at all necessary for the story line to function, and actually detracted from the character, so she no longer became humorous or likeable, rather an annoying, uninteresting ‘overachiever’ so far detached from the real character of Laura.
It seems odd that Beresford who had desired for decades to direct the film of this book, that once he had finally achieved the rights and means, he should change its total thrust in this way. Could this be because Beresford had no real connection with the intricacies and subtleties of the female character? This issue had been raised directly with Beresford himself. When he first sought funding, ‘One committee concluded that ‘only a woman could make the Getting of Wisdom’(Colman 1992). Perhaps a woman is necessary to direct films with feminist themes? Contents.
In 1979, Puberty Blues, the shocking expository novel of teenage life was greeted with a huge amount of public interest, creating lot of speculation into the Australian ‘surfie culture’. It allowed readers a ‘voyeuristic insight into the private lives of a small group of Australians, which can be viewed as representational of the whole nation’s sexual awakening’ (Smith 1998). It was remarkable for its reality, and the blunt, unfeeling way it approached horrors such as rape and heroin habits and overdoses and was very widely read by adults and teenagers alike.
The film was released only two years later, which ensured a large already-interested audience. There was still huge controversy and public outcry over its subject, which would attract even those who hadn’t read the novel (White 1984). Puberty Blues, also directed by Bruce Beresford, has met with a more lasting success than The Getting of Wisdom, and is still remembered to this day as the first Australian movie dealing with the darker side of teenage life and surf culture, rather than romanticising it. The crass, raw mise-en-scene and screenplay are confronting to the point to which the film appears at times to enter the documentary realm, lending the story a great deal more power to affect.’ (Smith 1998).
Unlike The Getting of Wisdom, the book, although wildly popular at the time, is not regarded as a classic of literature (Colman 1992). Written by a pair of teenage girls, Gabrielle Carey and Kathy Lette, its language was unsophisticated and its attitude to its horrifying subject matter so detached that it was not a book that anyone would “love”.
Colman (1992) identifies that one problem with transferring such a book to the screen was its disturbing contents, which, while acceptable when written on paper, would be completely unsuitable for movie-going public when visualised. This meant that Kelly and Beresford would be forced to make several changes to the plot, in order for it to be shown at Australian cinemas.
In the novel, the girls are aged 14 (under the age of consent), so before the filming took place the producers submitted the screenplay to the chief censor for an early screening, so to avoid an R certificate. The censor suggested that the girls ages should be altered to 16 or at least, non-specified, and all intimacy should be discreet. The screenplay complied with all requests. ‘Margaret Kelly made a narrative out of the sketches, adding new incidents, sharpening the characters, and emphasising the deadliness of the heroine cult. It retained the contemptuous portrait of the vacuous, oafish and illiterate boys who dominate surfing and its attendant girls.’ (Colman 1992)
But in changing girl’s ages and experiences to please conventionality, the screenplay detracted from the novels harsh reality, meaning social problems were not being fully addressed. It had lost the real message – the horror of the surf world and the completely demoralised girls that live in it – and changed it into more of a happy teen-movie where the heroines come out on top in stereotypical fashion (Colman 1992).
Nonetheless, as a film, it is a much more realistic perception of the inscrutable, unbalanced, maturing teenage girl than Beresford’s The Getting of Wisdom. Is this simply because of its relative modernity? Or possibly because only women had input in Margaret Kelly’s screenplay, resulting in a much more feminist overtone (Colman 1992). Puberty Blues was a direct confrontation of the shaky structures on which teenagers built there lives, without the distancing glow of nostalgia and poorly depicted female personalities that made The Getting of Wisdom difficult to access on an emotional level (Mc Farlane 1987). Contents.
Looking for Alibrandi, a novel written directly for teenagers and which is currently on the New South Wales HSC syllabus, tells the story of an Australian-Italian teenage schoolgirl growing up in a world cluttered with school stress, boys and family problems. ‘Author Melina Marchetta has created a strong and sassy role model in Josephine, whom girls with growing pains on both sides of the Pacific will love.’ With its accurate and insightful portrayal of a young woman’s coming of age, and the simplicity of the language, it gained a wide audience of teenage readers (Hubert 2000).
The film, which was made five years after the novel was published, was widely praised, as ‘an excellent adaptation of a popular novel that goes against the grain of all teen films at the moment”. The quality of the filming itself was also admired. The ‘Production values are all on the button, with excellent use made of prime Sydney locations, and the inevitable music track filled with songs by local groups can only enhance the film’s appeal to the youth audience’ taking advantage of the scenery to create a type of bio-piece of life in the city of Sydney (Stratton 2000).
Unlike the other authors in this study, Marchetta actually penned the screenplay as well as the novel. This could be seen as a plus and the reason why ‘ the original’s realism, humour and sentiment remain’ (Stratton 2000). However, not every critic agreed. ‘It just doesn’t quite handle the complexities of its self-narration in a method that can sustain itself as an engrossing picture’ suggesting that possibly because Marchetta wrote the screenplay, she was unwilling to change her perspective as to the meaning or style (Buckmaster 2000).
The plot of both the book and the novel is simplistic, little more than a slice of life, rather than an insightful glimpse into the world of teenage Italian-Australians or single mothers and family crises, ‘but this actually works in the film’s favour since it lends an air of concrete reality to the proceedings”, and makes it more acceptable to the conservative market (Howe 2000).
However, when looked at more closely, the process of becoming a film and the accompanying alterations to plot and character, resulted in, if anything, a more clichéd piece of entertainment than the original novel. The suicide of one character, for example, is heavily overdramatised, as is Josephine’s experience of the “posh” school, which detract from subtlety and realism. It was so implausible that the audience was able to detach themselves from all antagonists and bad situations, making it a watchable, unconfronting and undemanding film (Stevens 2000).
The film also deliberately avoids tackling adult relationship issues, by changing the story so that Josephine’s mother and father decide that love conquers all and become a couple rather than Jo needing to accept their separation as she does in the novel. This change made the film sugary and conventional, rather than the novels more realistic message that parents are allowed not to love each other and can want things other than families (Stevens 2000).
So what made the film such a hit with its target audience? As mentioned above, the use of local location, teen language and music, with a oh-so-sweet love story thrown in, gave Looking for Alibrandi a contemporary authentic Australian feel, an advantage Picnic and Wisdom lacked. This, combined with its complete lack of challenge to the audience’s conventional beliefs, in remarkable contrast to a work such as Puberty Blues, is perhaps the key to its success. Contents.
Film Adaptations and Screenwriting
The act of turning a book into a film is a controversial subject and one that requires a great deal of forethought and consideration. As Kilday (2000) sums up ‘Adapting novels into film is pretty close to a sucker’s bet. There’s never enough screen time to do a novel justice—even a three-hour film is hard-pressed to pack in all the events of a midsize book. A book’s fans complain that the casting’s off or a favourite scene is missing.’
‘Adapting a novel into a screenplay is no easy task. The job is by no means simpler
because a story already exists. Adapting literature requires a great deal of reading, thinking, eliminating and compressing words, characters and time frames. These are just a few fundamental obstacles to consider’ (Nazarian 2000).
When adapting it is important not to lose the spirit of the novel, because presumably the meaning of the original is the reason for picking that book for adaptation. . There are several questions that needs to be answered during writing ‘Whose story is this? What is the world? What journey shall we go on? How do I know when the story has been irreversibly changed? What are the plot points? How can I reinvent the story as visually as possible?’ (Cyberfilm, 2001).
The two main processes involved are condensing the plot, and reinventing aspects that will function more successfully in a visual way. ‘The adaptation of any work necessitates rebuilding the work, without being too true to the original or dismissing all of its integrity.’ (Cyberfilm, 2001). This balance is very difficult to achieve owing to the various conventions of film story telling.
For example, so as not to upset or disturb the audience, changes must be made to reduce shock at some aspects of the novel, and if the novel has an ironic and depressive conclusion, to make it less so by creating some sense of an achievement (Mc Farlane 1987). The upbeat ending would appear to be a requirement of the genre, at least in mainstream films. Even the most obviously tragic mainstream film, such as Titanic, manages to end on a positive note. The film audience is seen as needing to leave the cinema with their anxieties solved after a cathartic experience. This may relate to the fact that seeing a film is a very compressed experience, while reading a novel is usually more drawn out and leaves more time for reflection.
Another difficulty facing the adapter is the rule that you can never let your audience be bored. ‘When writing, you must always be aware of ‘dramatic conflict’. What your characters say will serve the substance and thrust of the story, so long and careful planning is required’ (Kelley 1998). In order to ensure this, the film writer will tend to amplify any emotion, tension or dramatic events This may result in a change to the balance of the story or the characters themselves.
Novels abound in minor characters, subplots and incidental events which add to the richness of the work. However, in film it is believed to be most important to concentrate on your main characters. If you place too much importance or screen time on minor characters, it is thought the audience only get sidetracked and confused ‘Stick with the protagonist and the antagonist. In a short film there is little time for action that is not specific to the main idea’ ( Aronson 2000) As a result, there is a risk of losing the flavour of the book by this simplification.
In novel character and action are often revealed through extended dialogue between characters. Words are at all times obviously the key tool of communication. But screenwriter frequently aim for scenes that eliminate the need for dialogue. The convention is that because film is so visual, it is best not to create dialogue when the meaning could easily be conveyed in an action ‘Examples: Hero orders a certain very heavy drink at a bar. This could show that he's had a bad day, that he's in despair, rather than him telling another character that he's feeling bad’ (Kelley 1998). Shorthand clichéd visual shots such as these to convey emotional states are very frequent.
Again the nature of the dialogue that is used in screenplays is much more simplified that what may be found in a novel. The interaction between characters on film tend to convey a sense of real speech, so the audience are able to relate to the people and situations “Dialogue needs to come across as people speak—with incomplete sentences, starts, stops, and tangents that mimic regular human conversation. We need to see whether the actions support the dialogue or prove the spoken words to be untrue” (Nazarian 2000). This may necessitate changing the way characters speak and often whole new dialogues are written for them which did not exist in the novel. Contents.
Peter Weir’s Picnic at Hanging Rock is the most famous and critically acclaimed of all the four films in this study. This success is partly due to the script, but it also owes much to the sophistication of the directing and the beauty of the Australian landscape captured by the camera. Neither the film nor the novel shed much light on what the girls were actually thinking and feeling but relied on the mystery and psychological horror to carry the story. Lindsay’s novel was simply told and straightforward, making it easy for Green to create a plot that was both intriguing and easy to understand. What can be learnt from Green’s adaptation is to concentrate on the most relevant and dramatic aspects, and also to understand the author’s intentions in composing the book.
The Getting of Wisdom is a prime example of what happens when the original spirit of a novel is lost. By changing the teenage Laura and giving her attributes that were not in keeping with her character, her essential appeal as a lively, passionate and fascinating personality was lost, instead becoming a dull and irritating child genius. And because the character of Laura was pivotal to the charm of the book, the film was unable to sustain itself when this character was lost. This proves how important it is that the treatment of main characters has to be very understanding of the author’s intention, and their personalities at any rate to be as close to the book as possible.
The frightening and real Puberty Blues is one of the more successful and convincing adaptations. While it is obviously not every teenage girl’s life, the novel’s dialogue and tone had a sense of reality, and an understandable plot. Therefore Kelly’s role of adapting was not too difficult, and by keeping a great deal of the events and conversations from the book, she managed to transfer the characters successfully to the screen. Several scenes and facts that had to be modified in order not to repel the audience, and for simplicity some characters were eliminated or combined. The book’s message was still preserved though, even if it had lost some of its impact. This shows it is important to make the right compromises, but not so many that the film loses all its meaning and importance.
The final film in this study, and the most recent, is Looking for Alibrandi. Because of its modernity, it is far easier to relate to the character of Josephine. As the novel was not complex, controversial or dated, it made a very easy transferral onto the screen. The dialogue was realistic, but some of the characters were improbable, distancing the audience from them and causing the film to lose credibility. However, it was extremely popular with teenage girls, due to the fact that it contained all the guaranteed crowd-pleasing elements. This is perfectly acceptable, although whether it really confronted any issues or taught its audience anything is doubtful.
From this brief study, it would appear that certain types of novels are more easily and successfully adapted than others. When choosing a novel to adapt, the attributes I should look for are realistic dialogue, contemporary setting and simplistic plot, in order that the actors, screenwriter and audience can relate to the characters. The more complex the work of literature, the more difficult and challenging the adaptation. The screenplay should be condensed, not skimmed! Contents.
A set of questions for interviews were developed in order to confirm the literature and build knowledge on the topic. To gain varying results it was ensured that the different fields in the film-making process were represented and the interviewees involved in different films.
The interviewees were found by personal recommendation, and were contacted by telephone. The interviews were held in an open-style format with a Mini-Disc recorder.
The questions were based on information found in the literature and general research, and were tailored for each person.
The interviewees were asked questions in common on "What type of books make the best films?", "Would a woman be better at directing films with feminist themes?" and "Is the meaning of a novel altered when being transferred to film?".
Gabrielle Carey co-wrote the novel "Puberty Blues" as a teenager in 1979 and the film of the same name was released in 1981. She answered questions that dealt with her involvement in the film process and how the novel came about being made into film (see Appendix A).
Melina Marchetta is both author and screenwriter of "Looking for Alibrandi". The novel was published in 1992, and the film released in 2000. She answered questions on film techniques, screenwriting and casting (see Appendix B).
The final interviewee Peter Colman is author of the biography "Bruce Beresford: Instinct of the Heart" and film buff. Bruce Beresford is the director of both "Puberty Blues"(1981) and "The Getting of Wisdom" (1977). He answered questions on the involvement of directors in the filming process and the adaptation of novels (see Appendix C). Contents.
Interview with Gabrielle Carey, co-author of the novel Puberty Blues
When you were writing the novel, was it ever a possibility in your mind that it could be made into a film?
No, never ever. Things were very different twenty years ago, these days people write books in the hope that they will be turned into film or sometimes just as kinds of screenplays waiting to be made into films.
Who approached you to make the film?
There was a young playwrights conference which used to happen in Carlton, and we heard about it and went along. At that stage, Puberty Blues was written as a whole lot of episodic short stories, and when we got to the publisher she said it was no good like that so we had to make it one story. But it was still in short story form at the young playwrights weekend, and there was a film producer there named Margaret Kelly. She saw the stories and asked to take them away and see if she could do something with them. Then she came back to us and asked if she could sign the rights for it to be made into a film. We got very excited and signed a bad deal, because the book wasn't published and we had no idea it was going to be a success. Then she went and gathered support and financing for her screenplay, and we found a publisher for Puberty Blues. The book became a huge hit mostly because it was outrageous, not because it was any great literary achievement
Did the filming start before the book was released?
No. Then the book came out and was a hit, in '79, and then by the next year they began filming we'd realised we'd signed a bad deal. Anyone involved in the film made some very serious money, except we didn't.
What about the short stories would have made Margaret Kelley want to adapt them into a screenplay?
She had a teenage surfy son at the time, and it seemed very genuine to her. People are always looking for stories about young people, because it’s young people who go to movies. I think at that time there was a lot of funding around for films with Australian content, so it was good timing.
What was Margaret Kelley’s role in making the film?
She coproduced and adapted the stories into a screenplay. I think she did that very well, but she didn’t do the deal with us very well.
Did you or Kathy Lette have any input in the screenplay?
Part of the reason Margaret Kelley received funding was because she put in an application saying that she would train us up as screenplay writers. So we went up to her place a few times, but it fell through, so in the end she wrote the whole thing. Then we got consulted when she had finished, and I didn’t have any complaints. I think writing screenplays is a very specific art, very different to other kinds of writing, and I think she had experience in that and was good at. I don’t think for a minute that we could have written a better one.
Do you think the meaning of the book was altered in the film?
The emphasis of the film was very different to the book, but I feel that had more to do with the director than the screenwriter. If there was anything that disappointed me about the film it was that the emphasis of the book was about female friendship and solidarity surviving this dreadful situation. Because of the nature of film, you can’t really identify with two heroines, you can only have one person to focus on. I remember going along to the premiere and feeling a bit disappointed that they had kind of missed the point. Then there are scenes like at the party where they fall in the pool, and someone's trying to get over the fence and someone pulls on their undies. In reality, it wasn’t funny, it was horrible, and pretty desperate. But that’s what people like in film, the three stooges. I can understand why Bruce Beresford wanted it to have a few more up moments, because to tell it realistically, it’s just depressing.
Do you think the film would have been better had a woman directed it?
It would of been great having one of our female directors, it would have been a very, very different film. But his name would have definitely been a drawcard, and helped to get funding. It all comes down to funding in films. If you have a ‘name’ attached to a screenplay, you get to make it. He made it a successful film, just missing the female point of view.
In the film, the emphasis seems to have been taken off the characters, and focused more on events. Why do you think that is?
I think it was because of the inexperience of the actors. To be exploring inner emotions and relationships, you need experienced actors, and they were all first-timers. But again, the difference between books and film is that books can take you inside someone's head, they are about the interior life and film is about the exterior life and actions. You can’t film thoughts, there has to be action
Were the actors in the film how you visualised your characters?
No, I think they symbolised the experiences of lots of girls but I'm not sure if they had individual characters very much. They were all just a generic type.
Did you or Kathy have any involvement while the film was being made?
A lot of the time it’s part of the contract that the writers will never be on set, because the director wants to be the author. They don’t want writers saying ‘No that’s not the way it is!’.
Did the film help your’s and Kathy’s career?
Not in any tangible way. It increased our reputation, but it certainly didn’t open doors to Hollywood or anything like that. Kathy did go and write for the screen for a while, though.
Did you receive any complaints about changes in the film?
Well, alot of the time, people had seen the movie without reading the book, which is just our culture. Quite a few people realised that the movie was an upbeat cutesy version. But I don’t really object to that. I see them as very different genres, that’s the way a film does it, and this is the way a book does it. Who wants that dreadful depressing ending?
Interview with Melina Marchetta, author of Looking for Alibrandi
Whose idea was it originally to make the film?
When the book came out in October '92, and that Christmas I got a phone call from my publishers saying that a producer, Tristram Mile, was interested in the film rights. I really liked him, and he had just had a hit with Strictly Ballroom, so I thought he would be good. I got a few other offers, and by July, after six months of thinking about it and talking to people, I signed with him, though someone else was writing the script in those days.
Was the person they had to originally write the script Italian, or did they have any connection with the novel?
She was a novelist, but I never really understood the connection, or the decisions on why one particular person gets picked. I think it was difficult for her to capture the essence of Josie's world, she was a completely different age group, completely different ideology, different culture. I felt the first couple of drafts she did was too much directly from the book, and when she did move away from the book she was trying to modernise the grandmother and mother, because that was how she wanted women depicted, but that was not my intention. I was worried about the way she changed cultural things. In the novel, the family are having a tomato day, but in her screenplay, she made it a sausage making day. So one of the first graphic images was meaty and bloody, and I felt it had a negative effect.
Then I found that whenever Josie was depicted she was always complaining, whereas Christina was pure. There was this insinuation that it was the half-Anglo part of her that was balancing her out. But I was lucky that a couple of years later Tristram, the executive producer, after seeing a play of Looking for Alibrandi that I had written for a amateur company, said that with a script editor I could write the screenplay. So I worked very closely with Robyn Kershaw writing drafts, and about two years before the filming, the director Kate Woods joined me and I worked very closely with her. Sometimes what would happen is stuff that I had to take out at the very beginning, we'd go back at the very end and add in again.
What would make the film so well received by its audience?
I think it has the universal theme of identity, and if you look at any country in the world, there's people trying to work out their identity. Not just people with cultural issues are looking for it, people are looking for identity in their families and schools, and I think that's what the story is. Its about love, jealousy, the universal themes. People also like school stories, and I think the setting makes it appealing. Josie is also a good character because she is flawed.
One of the more noticeable changes was the different means of John's suicide. Why was this?
In the book it was tablets, but in the film I implied that he slit his wrists. It was a blood image, because that's what you need in film, image, and I needed that red. Film is so image based, that it tells the story of the characters without you having to point it out.
In the film you used a voice-over. Was that necessary to get inside Josie's head?
It was nightmare necessary. The appeal of the novel is Josie's voice, and when a book gets made into a film, the first thing that gets lost is the author's voice, and when it's first person, to let go of that is letting go of a massive chunk of the book.
How long did it take from when you began writing the script to get to the final draft?
Three years. Everyone said 'because it's your novel, you'll find it easy', I think I found it harder. I didn't want to let go of so much of it. I had to cut down almost two-hundred pages and cut characters. Less is more. But make sure if you take someone out, make something else, maybe visual, represent that character.
Is a simple book more suited to film than a more literary or classic novel?
They reckon that the best films are made from the crappiest short stories, and the worst films, such as 'The Horse Whisperer' or 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin', are from great novels. The easiest ways for projects to get off the ground is for people to say 'we've got this film, based on a popular book', and they'll give them the money. Its much harder to get something original produced.
Were any male directors ever suggested for the project?
There were a few male ones, but it was predominantly women. Maybe it was felt that it needed a female's point of view. It would have been interesting to have a male slant.
Was Pia Miranda type cast as Josie?
Not really, no. We did many huge open auditions around the cities, and some girls would have the right look, but when they opened their mouth, it was a problem, or else they couldn't display emotions. I really wanted an Italian girl, and Pia walked in, her father was Italian, and she could do the empathy and the acting.
How long did it take after filming for it to be released at the cinema?
It was a year and a half. It took three months to film, but it took a long time to get the editing right, and the voice overs.
Do you get complaints about changes you've made in the film?
People who complain have no idea about film, or the processes involved. I did get one angry person who disliked one of the characters smoking. There are flaws in the film, but they don't worry me.
When you were writing the screenplay, did you always have the novel in your hands?
No actually, not even at the beginning. The director did though, near the end, when she felt that there were some things in the book that we hadn't really captured. But you have to let go, you have to put the book away.
Interview with Peter Colman, author of the biography
Bruce Beresford: Instinct of the Heart
What was Bruce Beresford's motivation to make The Getting of Wisdom into a film?
He says he had been interested in it for many years, and had tried to trace Henry Handel Richardson's friend who lived in England. It was a story that had always interested him; he always enjoyed the novel, and was interested in the feminist theme, as well as the literary quality. It seemed to him that this was the right moment for a film; there was this burgeoning of feminism. Period films and films about girls such as 'Picnic at Hanging Rock' had been a great success. That was the mood of the times, and he was interested in this theme generally as is seen in 'Fringe Dwellers' and 'Puberty Blues'.
Henry Handel Richardson had written 'The Getting of Wisdom' semi-autobiographically, yet in the film, Bruce Beresford changed the main character to be more like Richardson. Wasn't this changing the actual plot, so it wasn't based on the book?
He combined 'The Getting of Wisdom' with the autobiography 'Myself When Young', and he took bits from both books to make the story line of the film. He never wanted to call it 'The Getting of Wisdom’; he thought it was the worst title for a film. However, in the end, they decided to go with that name.
Did the film meet with a lot of criticism for the changes it made?
No, there wasn't much criticism of that. Films rarely stick to the book, that’s why they don't like having authors hanging around the film set, because they've changed the story. They didn't want literary critics hanging around; they didn't mind film critics hanging around, or cinema people. Many things in fine books are hopeless when it comes to turning them into cinema, because they're not visual, they're much more cerebral, much more intellectual, much more mental, much more verbal, where as films have to be essentially visual.
Then, is it ever right to turn a book into a film?
That could be argued, some books are visual, some writers write visually, bearing in mind that the book could be turned into a film. And their rule is, every scene must be clearly visualised, nothing too intellectual or verbal. In some cases it isn't right to turn novels into film, there are many famous books that have been made into poor films, even though they've been well acted and well directed. I don't really think that you can do justice to the great novelists or great poets, because you have to turn everything into a visual. Plays are slightly different because they have to be on stage to begin with, and hold your eye as well as your mind.
In 'Puberty Blues', the film was much more upbeat than the novel. Did this perhaps lessen its meaning and shock value?
Well, if it did, it never worried the producers or actors or directors. They weren't making a total reproduction of the book, it was the idea. There are a million degrees of compromise between just taking the mere idea and totally changing the story, or trying to be faithful to the story, and changing it as necessary for the visual effect. Puberty Blues was never a literary work, it was more sketchy, and therefore lends itself to film scenes, rather than a sustained narrative from the opening chapter to the end.
Did the film encourage more people to read 'The Getting of Wisdom'?
I would think it did a lot for the book. In the case of 'Puberty Blues', it certainly made Kathy Lette and Gabrielle Carey better known figures. In the case of Henry Handel Richardson, she was dead and gone, and I don't know whether it did so much for her other novels, but it certainly made 'The Getting of Wisdom' more well known. It brought people back to the novel.
Why would Bruce Beresford be so prepared to make 'Puberty Blues'?
Bruce would of seen it as a splendid vehicle for a feminist film, which is bound to find popularity with young women and girls. There would be a market for a feminist, surfy film. Bruce said he was concerned with the social and moral issues raised about the drugs and all the rest. Maybe he was, but I've never seen him crusading on such themes before or since, so although he said that, I don't know how deeply that ran in his mind.
Would a female director be more successful with handling feminist issues?
He had always been a good feminist director interested in feminist themes. Bruce did it, and did it with some success.
Wouldn't the censorship have again lessened 'Puberty Blue's' meaning and shock value?
I think there's plenty of shock in the film anyhow, so I don't know whether that's right or wrong. I wouldn't have thought that it was gutted.
So do writers today write specifically in the hope the novel will be turned into a film?
Not now, always. Ever since film started, for example John Brane who wrote 'Room at the Top', he wrote a book on how to write a novel about forty years ago, in which he said, 'make sure every scene you write in the novel is visual'. Imagine it in your head, see it before you write it, know what the furniture in the room is, know what clothes they're wearing, what they look like. Visualise before you put pen to paper, which is a great help for selling it to the film industry. So I wouldn't say it's a recent development. Some writers would even change their theme to appeal to film makers, but I don't think great writers do that.
Is it a good idea for the novelist to write the screenplay?
Well, if they have a gift. Bruce has written a number of screenplays, but he's a film maker, not a novelist. I think it’s unusual for a novelist to write their own scripts. My first instinct is to say that novelists are too tied in with the novel and it needs someone like Margaret Kelley to come in from outside. Some scriptwriters may write novels and plays, but it doesn't follow that the novelist is a good scriptwriter for their own work, although they might advise. Filmmakers think that it’s better to have someone else write the script. You are converting a literary genre into a visual genre; it needs a different style of thinking. That is why the film doesn't do justice to the novel. It is very hard to be faithful to the book, and make a great film. Films used to be called 'talking pictures', and if you're interested in pictures, then you might be more interested in the film than the highly verbal book.
Today, is it better to make films of modern books, so the audience has a higher interest and understanding?
I don't know whether it’s better, sometimes it's more topical and get the crowds in. On the other hand, they're always making popular films about Shakespeare.
In casting, should the director look for someone most like the character, or the best actor?
I think the film director looks for the characters, some say that type-casting is everything, you don't look for a great actor, you look for the actor who just naturally fits that role. Directors subordinate everything to making a good film, they don't care about the novel or the script or the actor or the cinematographer, as long as they can get out of them what they want for their film. In 'Picnic at Hanging Rock' the cinematographer and the director made that film, and the book was useful.
Both the literature review and the live interviews conducted in this study revealed that the act of adapting a novel into film is a very contentious subject. This was highlighted in the examination of the four films surveyed.
As discussed in the literature review, ‘The Getting of Wisdom’ is not true to the novel in a narrative sense and in fact draws on another novel by Henry Handel Richardson ‘Myself When Young’ (Colman 1992). However, as Colman (2002) points out in the interview, the changes made did not meet with much criticism, very possibly because few film goers were at all familiar with the book. In any case, the film had never been intended by the director to be based entirely on the one novel. It was a studio decision to name it ‘The Getting of Wisdom’, and that was perhaps a mistake.
One topic on which all interviewees had an opinion was whether a female director is needed to direct films with feminist themes, a question raised in the literature review. Carey (2002) insists it ‘would of been great having one of our female directors’ to direct Puberty Blues, and believes Beresford is ‘missing the female point of view’. In contrast, Colman (2002) strongly argues that Beresford ‘had always been a good feminist director interested in feminist themes’ and furthermore directed with ‘some success’. On the other hand Marchetta (2002) says of her own film, directed by a woman (Kate Woods), that it would have been ‘interesting to have a male slant’ on the feminist themes in "Looking for Alibrandi" but there were few male directors interested in the project. These differences of opinion perhaps reflect the generational attitudes of the interviewees and the historical moments in which the three films were made, as well as their own differing taste.
As stated in the literature by Colman (1992), when ‘Puberty Blues’ was in pre-production, the script was submitted to the censor who warned that the film would receive an ‘R’ rating unless certain aspects were changed. This raises the question of whether censorship can destroy the theme and alter the meaning of the novel, which is not censored. Colman (2002) argues the changes ‘never worried the producers or actors or directors. They weren't making a total reproduction of the book, it was the idea’ and that the film retained its shock value. Carey (2002) points out events in the novel that were horrible and desperate were made to seem funny in the film. However, she believes that since film and novels are very different genres, she doesn’t object to the ‘upbeat cutesy version’, saying in the end, ‘Who wants that dreadful, depressing ending?’ Censorship was not an issue for the other two films.
Casting of characters was also discussed. Carey (2002) said the actors in ‘Puberty Blues’ were ‘all just a generic type’ that symbolised the ‘experiences of lots of girls’ rather than having individual characters. Colman (2002) hypothesises that the reason for this is the inexperience of the actors. He goes on to say that the film director looks not for a great actor, but the actor who just naturally fits that role, that typecasting is everything. ‘Directors subordinate everything to making a good film, they don't care about the novel or the script or the actor or the cinematographer, as long as they can get out of them what they want for their film’. Marchetta (2002) says that for the casting in ‘Looking for Alibrandi’, a mixture between typecasting and competence of the actors was the key.
Another question raised was whether the authors of the original work should have input in the screenplay. Stratton (2000) argues that that the fact Marchetta penned both the novel and screenplay for ‘Looking for Alibrandi’ may be the reason why ‘the original’s realism, humour and sentiment remain’. However, Carey (2002) believes ‘writing screenplays is a specific art’, that requires different skills to that of writing a novel and that she herself had not wished to write the screenplay. Colman (2002) says ‘that novelists are too tied in with the novel’ and although they might advise’ during the scripting process ‘filmmakers think that its better to have someone else write the script’. This is because ‘you are converting a literary genre into a visual genre, it needs a different style of thinking’. He goes on to argue that this is the reason ‘film doesn't do justice to the novel’ and that the two works should be judged on their own merits, rather than in contrast to each other.
Ultimately, both the literature and the interviewees agree, film is primarily a visual tool not verbal. Colman (2002) believes the problems associated with making films from novels is ‘they're not visual, they're much more cerebral, much more intellectual, much more mental, much more verbal, where as films have to be essentially visual’. He gives this as the reason ‘Puberty Blues’ is successful in film, since in it’s original form it was sketchy, and no great literary work. Marchetta backs up this belief stating the general consensus in the industry is the best films are made from short stories.
The three films discussed above all have their various merits and will continue to entertain and interest students of the genre well into the future. However, the only film of the four studied that will surely stand the test of time as a classic work of art is Peter Weir’s ‘Picnic at Hanging Rock’. While it is based, like the other films, on a well known and well loved book, it seems to have escaped the kinds of criticism that the others have been subject to. In this regard, it is interesting to note that it is widely commended as being ‘one of the most visually arresting experiences in modern cinema’ (Mc Farlane 1987).
Therefore it is the visual atmospherics that are the key to the film rather than plot or character, which are the typical strengths of a novel. Joan Lindsay’s story was clearly and plainly written with instant visual appeal which made a good screenplay perhaps an easier task. However, perhaps Peter Weir’s instinct as a film maker in choosing this particular book to turn into a film and his personal vision of the work was what made the difference. In the end the real stars of the picture were the camera and Peter Weir (Reade 1979). Contents.
After reviewing the literature and interviews, the knowledge gained was put into practice. A short story was adapted into a screenplay, which was then filmed and edited.
The three minute film ‘Going On’ is based upon a short story from the Rachael Flynn book Messing Around. In the film, a group of girls are discussing where a farewell party for a not very well liked girl, Kathryn, is going to be held. Kathryn then enters, declines the invitation, and says goodbye, ignoring entirely her ‘best friend’, Joan. Contents.
Methodology
As Melina Marchetta said “the best films are made from short stories”. A short story was also necessary for this project as the film was to be only three to five minutes and a simple plot was a necessity.
The story was deliberated selected also for its comedy. Humour is very appealing to audience, as the Tropfest shows, and was thought to be particularly important for a short film of this kind . Messing Around from which the story is chosen is a comical collection of tales about Australian school life.
When writing the screenplay, several issues were at the forefront of the writer’s mind.
As a novel is cerebral, and a film is visual (Colman 2002), it was important, as Marchetta suggested, not to work to too closely with the original words, but instead to attempt to concentrate on the essential uncluttered story line with regard foremost to visual impact. Marchetta also used the phrase "Less is more", so what was originally a five page screenplay was carefully edited down to three pages, which both made the actual filming less complicated and the plot more coherent.
The format for setting out a screenplay and details regarding camera directions were gathered from a guide issued by Film Victoria. Following Nazarian's (2000) guidelines, "words, characters and time frames" were compressed. In Rachel Flynn's original, the events take place over two days, in two locations. However, in the screenplay, they all occur at the same place and time. Dialogue was changed to seem more natural to actual school girl speech and there was elimination of several characters who did not bring meaning to the scene.
Announcements of auditions were posted on noticeboards in a private girls school . Approximately 20 girls auditioned for the ten roles. With the allocation of parts, there was an attempt to follow Colman's "typecasting is everything" approach. However, due to the limited number of actresses available, casting came down to whoever had time in their schedule to attend filming. The script was then re-written for the six girls who filled this criteria. This proved ultimately a positive change, making the screenplay more "concise", and allowing more focus on the main characters. Contents.
(Rough, Feb 2002)
by
MAISIE
Based on a book by
RACHEL FLYNN
© COPYRIGHT MAISIE, 2002
Sydney, NSW, Australia.
9554-6102
SYNOPSIS
The story is set in two locations, present day. Events take place in a girl’s school and a kitchen/living room. It centres round the interactions of Joan, the main character, Kathryn, Kirsty, Mary, Melinda, and Bridgette. Conflict is initiated during the decision of whereabouts a farewell party for Kathryn will be held. There is also speculation into the ‘friendship’ of Kathryn and Joan. The resolution is abrupt as Kathryn leaves and the other girls resume with their lives, neither upset nor reflective.
JOAN – shy and quiet. She has been friends with Kathryn since they met, and their families are also good friends. She is very hardworking and conscientious, and in Grade 7 won a medal for being dux of the year. She is always being made to feel inferior by Kathryn, and due to her reclusive nature has never really been able to make any other good friends.
KATHRYN – harsh and competitive. Has always been jealous of Joan’s good marks. Desperately wanted to be part of Kirsty’s group, but was too much of a ‘try hard’. Aspires to enter politics, and has a ruthless and superior nature. Her weaknesses lie in her own self-doubt, and when she fails, she takes out her anger on those around her, especially Joan.
KIRSTY – superficial, blonde and brainless. Has only ever cared about is her appearance, being popular and boys.
MELINDA – very similar to Kirsty, but with darker hair. She is very talkative, and doesn’t care about displaying her ignorance.
BRIDGETTE – Kirsty’s best friend, used to let Kirsty do all the talking, but has now come out of her shell.
MARY - catholic girl who is very friendly and outgoing, if insensitive.
The girls are discussing where to hold a farewell party for Kathryn. After nobody else wants to have it at their house, it is decided that Joan should have the responsibility. They then invite Kathryn, who is hesitant but agrees. At the party, Kathryn talks endlessly of how much better her new school will be, and bids them farewell, without a word to Joan. The others continue in their conversations as Joan ponders her friendship with Kathryn.
1. EXT. SCHOOL PLAYGROUND DAY 1.
KERRIE
Someone has to do it.
ESTABLISHING SHOT staircase. PAN to MS of GIRLS.
CU of KIRSTY
KIRSTY
Well, I’m not. Our house is just a mess, what with baby Darren and all, and Kathryn’s is so perfect, and Mum and Eric aren’t back from their honeymoon yet, and Gran can’t really cope with lots of visitors, and well, I’m just not... but someone has to do it. I’ll help.
ACROSS TO CU of BRIDGETTE
MARY
Well I’m not. I don’t think Kathryn has ever actually spoken to me all through school, not directly anyway... but someone has to do it, otherwise it wouldn’t be nice would it? I’ll help too.
ACROSS TO CU of MARY
SALLY
Same for me. And I’ll bring a bag of chips.
ACROSS TO MS of JOAN, everybody turns to look at Joan
SALLY (OC)
She is your friend Joan.
KERRIE (OC)
Yes, she is your friend.
MARY (OC)
She’s your best friend Joan, isn’t she?
MS of GIRLS
KERRIE
Quick, she’s coming!
KIRSTY
Where’s she been?
JOAN
Having a special lunch with Mrs. Pitts and Mr. Cunning because, you know, she’s good.
GIRLS
Oh, hi Kathryn.
JOAN
Hi Kathryn. We umm..., I mean, if you wanna...
KIRSTY
Like, have a farewell party or something.
KERRIE
Yeah, like a farewell party.
KATHRYN
I don’t think-
SALLY
At Joan’s house. You know, cos, you guys are best friends or something?
KATHRYN
Hey, did you know, that Mrs. Ramshead is not really travelling around the country for her long-service leave, she’s spending at least a month in the Thorndike Clinic.
KERRIE
So?
KATHRYN
Well, they don’t have unstable teachers at Hilltop Grammar and the Principal, Dr. Jean-Loup Horst, has a degree from Sorbonne.
KIRSTY
Is that like the Pond’s Institute? Because I’m going there after Year 12...or maybe after Year 10.
KATHRYN
I’m really glad I’m going to get a good education. Thanks for organising a party, but I really can't come. I’m going to Felicity’s place. She’s a girl I met at the Hilltop orientation program. So...bye.
GIRLS
Bye, Kathryn.
JOAN
Yeah, bye.
There is a prolonged silence. Then KIRSTY speaks.
KIRSTY
Remember the time David kissed me in the pantry?
GIRLS
Yeah.
KIRSTY
Ohmigod, and he…
The filming of the screenplay took months, due to the availability of the video camera and the actresses. A log book was kept as a record of the filming process.
Tuesday March 12th
Filmed establishing shots of the school buildings, but not knowing how to move the camera up and down restricted filming.
Tuesday March 26th
Filmed 5 or 6 lines of dialogue, mainly close ups, with MARY, KERRIE and SALLY. Location was a brick wall and bench near the tennis courts.
Recording was stopped too early so a clean edit is an impossibility.
The directors voice could be heard over the top of some of the shots and a finger frequently covered the lens.
It was realised that the uniform in the next semester would change, so the footage is unusable.
Monday May 6th
Over the holidays, the script was amended to include fewer characters, so that a filming schedule would be easier to compile.
Filmed after school with full cast, except KATHRYN. Location was the Sacred Lawn. However, there was too much shadow and background noise from the main road, so the footage cannot be used. However, knowledge was gained to make the next filming more successful.
The actors had a problem of looking at the director at the end of their lines. It was decided that at the beginning and end of each section of filming, the actor should count to three and hold their pose, which will make editing simpler.
It has been decided that for sound purposes and continuity, the film should be shot indoors. Conference Room 1 in the school library was selected.
Wednesday May 8th
Only a few characters were available for filming, so only close-up shots were filmed. Volume is still a problem, but is much better than the other locations. The girls had difficulty remembering their lines, so a script was held above the camera while they spoke.
Friday May 10th
Owing to lunchtime filming, the girls were very excitable. It was almost impossible for anything to be filmed properly.
Monday May 13th
Filming with the whole cast. Half the dialogue is now filmed, but the quality is very varied.
Thursday May 16th
Mid-shots of the main group of girls were taken. No major problems arose, apart from confusion over the positioning of the characters, which was sorted out.
Friday May 17th
More dialogue completed, this time with JOAN. Problems occurred with ensuring continuity of the shots, and the poor quality acting. Everybody in the room lacked motivation.
Monday May 20th
The director viewed footage in the computer room. With the help of Ms. Saunders, main filming glitches were identified.
There were many problems with the line of sight. This means that the direction filmed in was disjointed, and the footage needed to be redone if possible.
The editing process was discussed. A general rule states that it takes 2-3 hours of editing for each minute of film.
Tuesday May 21st
Remainder of dialogue was filmed, as well as midshots involving whole cast. The whole process of filming has become much simpler, and the actors more experienced.
Friday May 24th
Amendments in line of sight was filmed. All footage is now ready for editing. However, there are problems associated with continuity that cannot be helped. This is after all, a learning experience. Contents.
The editing process involves careful technical work, an eye for detail, time and patience. The film recorded onto a digital camera was downloaded onto an Imac computer. A program was then used to edit. It is a very precise, time consuming process, which requires split-second timing and common sense. In many ways, this was found to be surprisingly the most demanding, draining and yet creative part of the process, as this is where the series of images are actually made into the film itself. It is only at this stage that the director begins to understand the shape the film will take as a finished product. Contents.
Analysis
During and after the film-making process, several problems became evident, resulting largely from the choice of the material to be adapted. This had serious ramifications for the success of the finished product.
As filming began, it became clear that the screenplay as written was still too wordy and there was too much reliance on dialogue for the movement of the plot . There also were clearly too many characters that were too similar which made the action again difficult to follow. This was probably not helped by the inexperience of the actors chosen and possibly miscasting by the director. There was, however, not a great deal of choice available for the casting as previously explained.
It also became very evident to the director in the process of filming and also of editing, that the essential appeal of the short story “Going On” upon which the film is based is in its subtle verbal humour and characterisation. This proved very difficult if not impossible for an amateur film maker to convey. Humour, while very appealing to audiences, is clearly difficult to achieve in film. The setting of the film was a drab classroom, so it was not possible to create much visual stimulation to compensate for the weaker parts of the film.
The film may be found amusing by some nonetheless and must be kept in mind that it is a first attempt. Contents.
In the evaluation of interviews, literature and synthesis, some key elements for success in the adaptation of novels involving Australian schoolgirls into film become evident.
· Film is a highly visual medium, which is why creative verbal elements in a novel often cannot be transferred into cinema with much success.
· Writing a screenplay requires different skills than writing other literary works. This is why it is often not the author who adapts the novel into film.
· The novel being adapted should be preferably simplistic, with visually stimulating scenes.
· Film-makers concentrate on the themes and ideologies of the book, rather than details, and eliminate characters and events which do not support or add to these themes.
· The plot of the screenplay should not rely on dialogue. As film is visual, the audience’s interest cannot be sustained on words alone.
If the project was to be undertaken again, the most important change would be in the choice of the story to be filmed. A story with a more obviously action-oriented plot, with several different scenes and locations and a screenplay reliant far less on dialogue (and therefore acting skills) would be selected. The approach to the screenplay would be focussed on the visual, not the verbal. This would result in a more manageable and satisfying challenge for the film maker.
Additionally, the scheduling of both the filming and editing would be more organised and time efficient. A very time specific program would be set out in advance with deadlines to be kept, as well as time set aside for contingencies such as complications with technology, cast members and location problems, such as rain and light.
If at all possible, the director would attempt to obtain advice in person from one already experienced in the making of a short film and therefore able to point out the likely pitfalls in the approach. This sort of information was not readily obtainable through books or websites, but should perhaps be made a priority.
It is hoped that this research can contribute to film literature with its in depth study of the four films, first hand interviews and the practical experience of adapting a work of literature into film.
One area into which further research could be undertaken is the somewhat contentious issue of male vs. female directors in making what are essentially stories of the female experience. All the interviewees had strong and differing views on this subject and there was clearly a great deal more to be said and discovered on this subject in Australia and overseas.
Another issue ripe for further research is the effect of censorship in adapting a novel into a film. Censorship standards for films are clearly different to that of novels, and it would be interesting to explore this further. One area this could be undertaken in would be the horror film genre, comparing for example the novels and films of a writer such as Stephen King
The whole re-emerging genre of the short film could also be examined. There are now highly popular short film festivals all over the world and the largest is in Sydney. More short films than ever are being made, although they are rarely shown at the cinema as they were as recently as 20 years ago. The reasons for this could be researched, including a study of what makes a good short film and how this differs from a feature. Contents.
Conclusion
The process of adapting novels into film were examined and investigated in this project by evaluating, analysing and synthesising information gained through interviews and a literature review through the making of a short adapted film.
The four films focused upon in the literature review were - "Picnic at Hanging Rock", "The Getting of Wisdom", “Puberty Blues” and "Looking for Alibrandi". Three interviews were also undertaken with Gabrielle Carey, Peter Colman and Melina Marchetta, all of whom had insights to offer on the films in which they had been involved and had expert knowledge. It was made very clear that film is a visual tool, and that the most successful transferral of books into film were short stories or simplistic novels.
This information was then put to practical use to adapt the short story “Going On” into a screenplay, which was then filmed and edited. The main lesson learnt from this exercise was dialogue should come secondary to action, especially in a short film. It became clear that the writing of a screenplay is very different to a stage play or indeed any other type of literary activity.
It also became clear that film making is essentially a cooperative team enterprise rather than the work of an individual, such as novel writing. This therefore entails the necessity of demanding high level organisational and people skills, as well as the director-writer’s personal vision. A broad variety of technical skills are also required and an ability to economise not only on time but also equipment et cetera as the technology remains expensive.
Ultimately, although film directors frequently look to literature as inspiration for their films, the question must be asked, how worthwhile is it to make a film from a literary work? As has been seen in this study, the results are very mixed. It may be that producers and directors are merely looking for material that already has a track record and a following. Might they be better off seeking out writers directly for original screenplay ideas, rather than, as is currently the practice, seeking out writers to adapt already written novels? Contents.
Aronson, Linda (2000) Scriptwriting Updated, Allen and Unwin, Australia, 2001
Buckmaster, Luke (2000) Sofcom Movie Times
Carrol, Kathleen (1976), Movie Reviews: Picnic at Hanging Rock, New York Daily News.
Christensen, D (1998) Book Review : The Getting of Wisdom www.amazon.com
Colman, Peter (1992) Bruce Beresford Harper Collins Publishers (Australia) Pty. Ltd.
Cyberfilm ( 2001) Story & Screenwriting: 3 - Screenplay Craft - Adaptation,
www.cyberfilmschool.com
Howe, Andrew (2000)Looking for Alibrandi, Film Written Magazine
Inman, Heather, Dark Childe's Sanctuary on the Web, w3.one.net/~voyager/picnic.html
Kilday, Gregg (2000). Taking Liberties. Variety, January 10-16
Keller, Louise (2001), Looking for Alibrandi, http://www.urbancinefile.com.au/home/menu.asp?s=Reviews
Kelley, William (1998) Interview with screenwriter William Kelley http://hollywoodnet.com/pov/pov8.html
Larsen, Jesse (1998) 500 Great Books by Women: A Readers Guide, Thomas Christensen (mercury@wenet.net), USA,1998.
Moran, Albert (ed.) and O'Regan, Tom (ed.), The Australian Screen, Penguin Books Australia Ltd., 1989.
Nazarian, Eric (2000) Prose and Pictures: Adapting Literature Into Film
http://www.moviemaker.com/issues/38/38_prose.htm
Phillips, J. (2000) Book Reviews: Picnic at Hanging Rock, www.amazon.com
Reade, Eric (1979) History and Heartburn – The Saga of Australian Film, Harper and Row Publishers, Sydney, 1979
Smith, Joshua (1998) Puberty Blues - All Too Real http://www.ozcinema.com/reviews/p/pubertyblues.html
Stratton, David (2000), Looking for Alibrandi (review), www.findarticles.com/d_vrty/m1312/12_3778/62298247/pl/article.jhtml
Stedman, S. (2000) Book Reviews: Picnic at Hanging Rock, www.amazon.com
Stevens, Gary (2000) Looking For Alibrandi, www.Moviemarshal.com
Turner, Graeme (1989) The Australian Screen: Art Directing History, Penguin Books Australia Ltd., 1989.
White, David (1984) Australian Movies to the World, Fontana Australia, Sydney and Cinema Papers, Melbourne, 1984
Appendix – Intel Tropfest 2002
The researcher attended the 2002 Intel Tropfest, which is the largest short film festival in the world.
Of the 600 odd 7 minutes or less films entered, sixteen were selected for judging by a distinguished panel including Gabriel Byrne and Bryan Brown.
The element that the three main winners seemed to have in common was tare a concise and simple story, and a sense of humour. The 90,000 strong audience in the Domain also reacted to those films that involved comedy, or had a surprising twist at the end.
Boomerang, a film by -, was a supposed true story of a woman’s misadventure involving a date, a bag snatcher and returning faeces. It won several awards including best editor and actress, but only picked up third place. This was probably due to its predictable plot and a tedious scene involving a toilet.
The second prize-winner, Gary Eck’s Tragic Love, was a comedy about a short filmmaker trying to keep all his stars, Schwarzenegger, Crowe, Reeves and Cruise happy.
While it picked up no other awards, its strong humour and snappy plot enabled it to win second, although the filming, acting and directing were not as good as others.
The grand prize and best original score winner, Lamb, was the tale of a father and his blind son living off the arid land. The father is forced to eat the son’s pet lamb, but dresses their dog up in the wool so the son doesn’t get upset. Lamb was beautifully filmed and had a very suitable soundtrack, but it was the mixture of drama and humour that won over viewers and clinched the thirty thousand-dollar prize.
Wilfred and The Thing in the Roof were both parodies that failed to pick up any prizes. In the end it was probably the lack of structure in the plot that was their downfall.
Another unusual entry was ?The green grass something?, which had no action or actors, but showed peaceful scenes of Australia while subtitles translated a true story of a grandmother suffering in a foreign country. Because film is such a visual medium, ?The green grass something?, was too aural and long to sustain interest.
In conclusion, the most important aspect of a short film is a cohesive plot that displays and evokes a range of emotions. The amount of hard work, money and dedication the entrants were prepared to risk was both awesome and inspiring.