The issue of fidelity has been a battle-ground for film theorists since the beginning of film theory as an established discipline, that is, when film became worthy of being studied by specialists. The debate is still active and some suggest that adaptation and film, in general, is an art-form inferior to literature.

The Fidelity Reflex 1When Robert Stam entitles one of his recent efforts to theorise adaptation “Beyond Fidelity,” he could be speaking for a wide range of critics (54). Canon Camera Pc1732 Manual. Indeed, as the editor of two major adaptation anthologies, he is speaking for them. Stam’s principal objection is the covert moralising of fidelity discourse: “The conventional language of adaptation criticism has often been profoundly moralistic, rich in terms that imply that the cinema has somehow done a disservice to literature. The standard rhetoric has often deployed an elegiac discourse of loss, lamenting what has been ‘lost’ in the translation from novel to film” (“Introduction”, 3). 2There are problems with fidelity discourse beyond its implied moralising.

For Robert B. Canon Ir3300 Hdd Software Company more. Ray and Dudley Andrew, the problem with fidelity is that it makes for boring criticism. “Unquestionably the most frequent and most tiresome discussion of adaptation (and of film and literature relations as well) concerns fidelity and transformation” (31). Permainan Moto Gp 2018 Hp Nokia Asha Layar 320x240 here. Part of what makes this discussion tiresome is its unswaying commitment to the historically dubious and logically unnecessary assumption that “the task of adaptation is the reproduction in cinema of something essential about an original text” (Andrew, 31).