Screening The Novel: Tom Darlington

8/4/2019 Screening The Novel: Tom Darlington

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/screening-the-novel-tom-darlington 1/37

Chapter One: Introduction

Literary adaptations have been a staple part of filmmaking since the introduction of

the talkies and researchers even have noted screen adaptations as early as 1899. Mark

Duguid writing for the BFI associated screen online website notes that the first known

Shakespeare adaptation occurred in 1899. Although due to the crudeness of

equipment and filmmaking technique, the film consisted of a few unrelated scenes

strung together, rather than paying attention to the narrative as a whole. Duguid

suggests that the joy for the audience lay in seeing scenes from a favourite play being

brought to life (Duguid, n.d, para 2). This may seem alien to a current film audience

as we have ourselves become almost oblivious to the wonders of the cinematic

process. A cinematic audience in 1899 would have still been getting to grips with

cinema and filmmaking, and to see a favourite play, by someone such as Shakespeare,

would have been a phenomenal event. Ultimately it could be said all film is adapted

from some form of written language, directors having a screen play or script to use as

their basis, unless a film is totally improvised. However film makers have constantly

raided the works of well established authors and first time writers alike, and

transferred the literary works of such authors to the screen. Because of the sheer

quantity of films which use literature as their source, film adaptation and the means

by which people transfer novels to the screen has become a significant field within the

arena of film studies. Critics such as George Bluestone have written at length about

the nature of literary adaptation, considering the mistakes which have been made by

filmmakers and the problems which should be considered when deciding to adapt a

novel, play or other literary source for the screen. Screening the Novel by Robert

Giddings, Keith Selby and Chris Wensley uses much of Bluestone’s work, as well as



works by many other distinguished critics to provide a comprehensive outline of the

nature of adapting.

Issues which are constant throughout the works of most writers when dealing with

adaptation studies are the notions of authorship, can the original author still have such

a claim to the filmed version of his text? Fidelity to the source material in terms of

content, does a filmmaker transfer the necessary and proper amount of information

from the source text to his film? Authenticity to the source, does a filmmaker produce

a film which is of suitable tone and does the film maintain the ideas and meaning of

its source? The ideas of authorship, fidelity and authenticity with regards to source

material will be examined in two case studies. I have chosen to use A Clockwork

Orange by Anthony Burgess, first published in 1962, and its cinematic realisation A

Clockwork Orange directed by Stanley Kubrick, and released in 1971. The second

study is the 1991 novel by Bret Easton Ellis American Psycho and the screen version

released in 2000, American Psycho directed and co written by Mary Harron. Nearly

thirty years separates the release of each book, and as a result there are a great amount

of differences between the two. Each text does however have similar thematic

narrative strands, and both novels clearly try and address social issues.

A Clockwork Orange focuses on Alex and his group of friends or his

“droogs”(Burgess,2000, p.3) as he refers to them. The story sees the central

protagonist and his accomplices commit crime after crime until Alex is betrayed by

his gang, and is arrested. Alex goes to prison and after two years he takes part in a

scheme which promises to get him reformed and ready for release in advance of his

sentence ending. Alex is released as promised, confirming that the scheme is a



complete success. He is no longer capable of committing crimes, not because he

believes they are wrong but because the conditioning he has undergone now prevents

him from carrying out any acts which may be deemed immoral. Burgess tries to

convey the message to his readers that, perhaps a man without free choice is not a

man at all. This is perhaps the most prominent message to come from the book,

although as a whole the book acts as a social commentary. Many of the events which

take place in the story are inspired by events in Burgess’ own life, and as such the

book has autobiographical elements. Burgess served in the army and as a result he

spent a lot of his time abroad. Whilst serving in Gibraltar in 1944, his first wife Lynn

was beaten and robbed in London by four G.I deserters. This detail is clearly

reminiscent of the rape scene within the book, where Alex and his gang rape the wife

of an author after they force entry into their house. Living in Hove, Sussex and newly

back from service in Malaya and Brunei, Burgess became aware of the emergence of

coffee bars, popular music and teenage gangs. Living on the south coast of England

he witnessed the on going battle between the Mods and the Rockers which was placed

right on his door step and elements of this gang warfare come through in his novel.

The book is set in the near future (sometime in the 1970s) when gang violence has

escalated to problematic levels. Although set in the future, the book definitely was

trying to address problems which Burgess saw as affecting the time and society in

which the book was written.

As opposed to Burgess writing A Clockwork Orange in the 60s and setting it in the

70’s, Bret Easton Ellis wrote American Psycho in the 90’s and the narrative is set a

decade earlier. As with A Clockwork Orange, American Psycho is a social

commentary, albeit more satirical than the work produced by Burgess. Easton Ellis



chooses as his target the financial sector of New York and the lives of the people who

work at the epicentre of this world, Wall Street. The central protagonist is Patrick

Bateman, a wealthy 27 year old who works on Wall Street. Whilst Burgess criticised

the growing despondence of youth culture in 60s Britain, Easton Ellis studies the

brutal consumerism of the 80s in America. His central protagonist describes people

not by how they look but instead by what they wear, “he is wearing a linen suit by

Canali Milano, a cotton shirt by Ike Behar, a silk tie by Bill Blass and cap toed leather

lace ups from Brooks Brothers” (Easton Ellis, 1991, p.29).He also describes which

restaurants and bars they eat in and what jobs they do, preferring these details to

descriptions of physical appearance or personality. The book studies Bateman and his

decline into madness, episodes of uncontrollable and malicious violence in which he

kills, often brutally whoever he sees fit. Bateman on one hand could be described as a

poster boy for American values, he is handsome, intelligent, charming and earning

large amounts of money, yet he also exemplifies the darker side of not just American

society, but society in general. He kills people without prejudice, abuses women both

sexually and violently and has contempt for anyone who does not fit in with his ideals

of a good or more importantly, successful life. This side of his life is kept secret and

his peers are unaware of the crimes he commits. As Bateman public face slowly slips

away, he finds it harder to conceal what he does from those he works with and the

people he mixes with. Although Easton Ellis has not drawn on personal experience in

the way Burgess has in order to write American Psycho, in the sense that he was a

witness or victim to events taking place in his work, there is an amount of auto

biography in his work. Easton Ellis grew up in California in extremely affluent

environment. Jane Bane suggests his novels are “scathing satires of the glamorous

world he observed from the inside” (Bane, 2003, para 1). In American Psycho he



highlights the extreme wealth, consumerism and ultimately the superficiality of

America, and specifically the affluent middle upper classes during the Neo

Conservative Reagen era.

Although both texts are now dated in terms of the generations on which they focus

they both remain pertinent today. With regards to A Clockwork Orange, society is still

troubled by teen gangs causing problems on the streets, people who act out side of the

norms of society. Consumerism and superficiality still exist just as much today as they

did during the 80s, and is a world wide issue rather than being specific to Wall Street,

and as a result a modern audience would still find American Psycho relevant today.

Both texts have also proven to be controversial, though in different ways. Burgess’s

novella went widely unnoticed upon release, and it was only when American director

Stanley Kubrick adapted it for the screen in 1971 that many people became aware of

the book. It was not however Burgess’ original text that caused such controversy, it

was the film which caused problems. After a number of copy cat incidents in addition

to growing attention from the press, Kubrick decided to withdraw distribution in the

U.K with the co operation of Warner Bros, effectively banning his own work. The

film would not be shown legally in Britain in cinemas until after the director’s death.

American Psycho however worked in reverse. The book caused much outrage upon

release, with feminist readers such as Linda S Kauffman noting that “The National

Organization of Women organized boycotts not just of the novel, but also of products

that appear in the novel” (Kauffman, 2000, p.41). The book was viewed as being sick

and portraying women in a negative light. The film conversely caused little

controversy, due to the film’s director being Mary Harron, a woman. Harron and the



way she chooses to portray Bateman, reduces the character to a humorous cartoon of a

man, whom the director will not allow an audience to take seriously. Both the original

novel and the film of American Psycho are black comedies, yet Harron chooses to

emphasise the comedic elements of Bateman’s character making him almost

ridiculous. As a woman, it could be argued Harron is trying to discredit his

misogynistic behaviour by not allowing an audience to fear him but instead laugh out

loud at the actions he carries out through out the film.

Both novels and the films which have been made using them as source material are

highly pertinent in terms of their use in adaptation studies. They share similar themes,

yet both writers, and subsequently both directors handle these themes in very different

ways. Methods of adaptation as outlined by critics working in the field shall be

explored and then applied to the each text in two case studies. The transferral of

authorship from novelist to director will be considered, can as Bluestone suggests the

film maker be considered “an author in his own right”(Bluestone, 1968, p.62)?

These case studies shall explore the methods used in adapting the two selected novels

to the screen. The films chosen will be looked at in terms of their production history,

the processes involved in adapting each novel for the screen, and the finished product.



Chapter Two: Adaptation

John Orr in the book Cinema and fiction notes that “from 1930 onwards cinema and

fiction have always closely intertwined, not only in the United States but throughout

Europe and the rest of the world.” (Orr , 1992, p.1) This book is one of many which

tackle adaptation as a field of study within the greater field of film studies. The study

of adaptation has matured into a large field of study with critics now approaching

“adaptation as an art” (Horton and Magretta, 1981, p.1). George Bluestone in his book

Novels into Film remarks that “the moment the film went from the animation of stills

to telling a story, it was inevitable that fiction would become the ore to be minted by

story departments” (Bluestone, 1968, p.2).

Many of the critics, who have written on the subject, note that adaptation of a literary

text is usually preformed for either one of two reasons, either as a “commercial

process, a kind of industrial recycling which turns one product (a best selling book)

into another (a box office success)” (Horton and Magretta, p.4). Conversely

Independent American and European directors adapt not for financial gain, but

because of a “serious engagement with the source” (Horton and Magretta, p.4)

To a certain extent a stigma has developed around cinematic versions of literary texts,

Horton and Magretta suggesting “most adaptation studies have shown, rather

disdainfully, how great books become inferior movies… Hollywood has been

notoriously crass and shameless in its commercial exploitation of serious artists and

their work” (Horton and Magretta, p.1). This view is further substantiated by

Bluestone. He states that “in film criticism it has always been easy to recognize how a

poor film destroys a superior novel” (Bluestone, p.62) examples of films doing this



are so plentiful it is pointless to single out a specific film. Theatrical practitioner

Bertolt Brecht furthered the debate by suggesting of literary adaptation in cinema that

“we put ourselves in the position of a man who lets his laundry be washed in a dirty

gutter and then complains that it has been ruined” (Giddings et al, 1990, p.3) Brecht

could be of this opinion because “next to television, Film is the youngest of the arts”

(Bluestone, p. VII) and therefore Film is deemed an unqualified medium for literature

to be transferred. A number of critics have written on the short comings of film in

comparison to literature. Many critics agree that the “novel has three tenses, the film

only one” (Giddings et al, p15), if a medium is limited to one tense it is therefore

inadequate as a story teller. Although films can show what has happened and what

will happen via flashback and flash-forward, these still take place in the present. A

novel can talk about the past and future of the text whilst remaining in the present, by

simply changing its language. This means a reader can suspect what is going to

happen or be informed by past events without having it spelt out explicitly. This

feature of the novel means a rich and detailed text is presented to the reader, who in

turn gains a sense of an entire universe existing within the novel, a sense which is

lacking in filmic texts. The book Screening the Novel written by Robert Giddings,

Keith Selby and Chris Wensley considers another strength of the novel over cinema,

“cinema can show someone in pain, but not in ‘pain’; it can show a women and a

child but not convey the word ‘mother’” (Giddings et al, p20). Because the novel uses

language rather than images, it can be a lot more effective at conveying emotions and

relationships to those who fully understand its conventions. Cinema although easier to

read and gain information from, is perhaps not as adept at conveying such emotional

information to its audience as literature. Cinema relies on an audience’s cine-literacy ,



the ability to decipher semiotic coding to gain meaning from the images which are

presented to them on screen , whether those images have explicit or implicit meaning.

Bluestone considers the ways in which the different media convey meaning and

suggests that perhaps the novel undergoes a mutation when transferred to screen and

therefore no adaptation will ever do its source material justice. In a chapter regarding

the limits of the novel and the film, Bluestone says what occurs “when the filmist

undertakes the adaptation of a novel, given the inevitable mutation, is that he does not

convert the novel at all. What he adapts is a kind of paraphrase of the novel – the

novel viewed as raw material. He looks not to the organic novel, whose language is

inseparable from its theme, but to characters and to incidents which have somehow

detached themselves from language”(Bluestone,p.62) If a “filmist” is not actually

adapting the work of an author, who is the author of the film which is being

produced? Bluestone suggests that “in the fullest sense of the word, the filmist

becomes not a translator for an established author, but a new author in his own right”

(Bluestone, p. 62).

The nature of adaptation therefore is problematic, a number of highly important

factors should be considered whilst attempting to evaluate adaptations. George

Bluestone considers the difference in audience attitude toward the two text formats,

“values and attitudes of small middle class reading public might be incomprehensible

to mass film public, and the passing of time between novel and subsequent film will

intensify this” (Giddings et al, p.2). The difference could therefore said to be the ways

in which each type of text works “the viewer of the film, unlike the solitary reader, is

involved in a collective experience, in which the action presses relentlessly on; there



is no opportunity for pause or recap” (Giddings et al , p4). So the way each text is

consumed should be considered, it is also suggested in the book Screening the Novel

that conditions of production are similarly important to understanding adaptation, “

we should be aware of the differences in the contexts of production and consumption

before we begin the comparison of each text” (Giddings et al, p3). Bluestone

compounds this by highlighting what he sees as the differences between the media

forms “ an art whose limits depend on a moving image, mass audience and industrial

production is bound to differ from an art whose limits depend on language, a limited

audience and individual creation” (Bluestone, p.64).

Another element to critical readings of adaptations is the way the films derived from

literature are actually reviewed. Perhaps these films are rated not on their own merit

but in fact how faithful they are to the source material, “criticism of films using

novels as a source will frequently centre on their ‘fidelity’ to the events of the novel,

not on their artistic integrity. References are constantly made to ‘what is left out; or

‘changed’ instead of what is there” (Giddings et al, p.9-10) The Film Industry and the

films it produces are subject to many restraints which the writer or producer of

literature is not confined by. For an author to create a vast futuristic landscape , all he

needs to do is think about the details then write what his mind envisages. For a

filmmaker to then take that image and transfer it to celluloid is a far greater task. A

Filmmaker is constrained by a schedule which must be adhered to, and perhaps most

importantly a budget. If a scene being adapted from a novel is either too expensive or

too time consuming to re create it will be evaluated as to whether or not it is

absolutely necessary to the narrative.



Because this is by no means a new trend within cinema, critics have also noticed

certain styles of adaptation emerge, and to a certain extent what must be considered

the politics of adaptation. Michael Klein and Gillian Parker highlight what they

consider to be the three different styles or categories of adapting a novel for the

screen. The first type “films of novels, attempt to give the impression of being

faithful, that is, literal translations” (Giddings et al, p. 11). There are countless

examples which could be used to showcase this method of adaptation; a recent

example would be the film Fight Club (Dir. David Fincher, 1999) from the book of

the same name by Chuck Palahnuik. Fincher’s film remains extremely faithful to the

original text omitting only certain scenes or details, possibly because of production

restraints as mentioned earlier, and the difference between the two versions is

minimal. The second mode of adaptation is identified thus “retains the core of the

structure of the narrative significantly re-interpreting, or in some cases de constructing

the source text”. Films which adhere to this method are still relatively faithful to its

source text but challenge or adapt elements for a new meaning or suit a new audience.

“ Romeo + Juliet ” (Dir. Baz Luhrmann, 1996) can be seen as doing this, based on the

play by William Shakespeare, it moves the action from the 1400’s to the modern day,

yet retains the original language and dialogue. Instead of horses and swords used in

the play, the film utilises guns and cars bringing the text into the modern era. Finally

Klein and Parker outline their third method of adaptation, in which a film “regards the

source merely as raw material, as simply the occasion for an original work”.

Apocalypse Now (Dir. Francis Ford Coppola, 1979) , based on the novel Heart of

Darkness by Joseph Conrad exemplifies this mode of adaptation. The films narrative

is only loosely based on that of Heart Of Darkness, and instead of being set in the

Belgian Congo, Coppola sets his film during the Vietnam War. Coppola has used



Heart of Darkness as the occasion to write a film which explored the validity of

America’s involvement in a conflict many felt did not involve them.

Critics have also concluded that when analysing the source text before adaptation

takes place, the bound motifs and free motifs must be recognised. The writers Luhr

and Lehman describe each motif like this, “Bound motifs; cannot be omitted without

disturbing the chronological chain of events” whilst “free motifs; may be omitted in

summary” (Giddings et al, p.2). Luhr and Lehman then point out that an adaptation

will often include all the bound motifs but omit free motifs even though they may

possibly be crucial to the impact of the original text.

If making adaptations or what John Orr calls “picture books” (Orr, p.1) is so

problematic artistically then why has it been a major trend in Hollywood since the

dawn of sound? Thomas H. Guback in his article Hollywood’s International Market

notes the American Supreme court ruled that the “exhibition of motion pictures is a

business pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit” (Guback, 1985, p.

463). The appeal of adapting literature for the Hollywood movie producer is money.

These texts not only have a story already established and formulated but they also

bring with them an established fan base. Established fan bases mean that a guaranteed

audience is already there for the film on release before hardly any publicity or

promotion has occurred. An extremely relevant and contemporary example would be

The Da Vinci Code (Ron Howard) which is due for release in 2006. The book has sold

hundreds of millions of copies worldwide since its release in 2003 it has become one

of the most popular books of the last few years and now there are not many people

who are not aware this book exists, if they have not in fact read it. When the film



eventually is released it will already be familiar to millions by virtue of the fact they

have read the novel, an audience is already going to be waiting. This factor is also

highlighted by Harmony H. Wu. Wu, in the book Defining cult movies she talks about

the Lord of the Rings Trilogy by Peter Jackson, films adapted from the books by J.R.R

Tolkien. “ Even a year before the release of the first film, there was more buzz around

these films than any other … much of this excitement and box office power is driven

by the rabid fans of Tolkien’s Rings books” (Wu, 2003, p. 84). Also noted by Wu is

the amount of literature written by fans about the trilogy on the internet which

detailed all elements of the productions in some cases years in advance of production.

This kind of publicity cannot be bought, and only arises when a text is truly revered.

A Producer looking to get the money to make a series such as the Lord of the Rings

would have his life made infinitely easier by the existing fan base which almost

guarantees recovering the films cost, leading to profit.

It is impossible to deny either that this formula does in fact work. Upon researching

figures for the biggest opening weekends in U.S Box office history, six of the top ten

films on the list have been adapted from either novels or comics. The comic book

conversion acting in a similar manner to that of literary adaptation, and conversions of

this type could be viewed as a modernist type of literary adaptation. Films in the top

ten include all of the Harry Potter films, both the Spiderman movie outings and the

fifth instalment of the Star Wars series and The Passion of the Christ (Dir. Mel

Gibson, 2004) which was subject to much controversy as it dealt with the life of

Jesus Christ and is arguably based on one of the most famous books of all time, the

Christian Bible. (‘All time box office’, n.d)



Literature can therefore be said to be a rich and valuable source of material for

filmmakers. Independent and art house filmmakers adapt literature to reflect personal

ideologies and also as an opportunity for critiquing contemporary social and political

change. Hollywood and other mainstream commercial film makers use literary

adaptation as a means of capitalising on an audience’s familiarity with a given text in

order to try for maximum financial success with their films. This success is driven by

exploiting various fans and their affection for existing materials. The comic book

movie phenomena of recent years being a prime example, with many major studios

owning rights to produce cinematic versions of established comic books. Sony

owning the rights to the tremendously successful Spiderman franchise, Fox producing

the X-Men movies and Universal pictures with its version of the Incredible Hulk .

However profitable and useful adaptation can be for filmmakers it is a process which

is not without problems. Audiences, especially when familiar with the source text,

will judge adaptations on what has been omitted rather than what is actually in front

of them, and as such reviews of the films can suffer. Other problems such as what to

include and how to transfer information from novels have also been highlighted by

critics working in the area of study. Although it is clearly a risk for film makers to

make adaptations from literature, it is a practice not likely to end soon as the rewards

can often be great.

This idea that authorship is transferred from novelist to director is relevant when

discussing the transferral from novel to film in the case of American Psycho and A

Clockwork Orange, and many writers have considered notions of authorship

regarding both screen versions. A Clockwork Orange differs greatly on the screen to

the way it appears in the novel in terms of tone. Geoffrey Wagner notes emphatically



that Burgess clearly sets the tone for his novella in his specific choice of language,

“his invented language was phonetically raw and harsh, suitable to the theme;

Kubrick’s images, on the other hand were generally smooth and graceful” (Wagner,

1975, p.308) Kubrick changing the tone of the text could therefore be said to have

made his own unique piece. Both these texts also prove useful when considering

content in adaptation, as the two selected films represent different trains of thought

with regards to the material that should be transferred from page to screen. Over the

two case studies the arguments which have been outlined here will be assessed.



Chapter Three: Case Study; A Clockwork Orange

“What’s it going to be then eh?”(Burgess, 2000, p.3). This is the bold and “punkily

defiant question” (Morrison, 2000, p.xx) which opens A Clockwork Orange , firmly

setting the tone for the rest of his story. The narrative traces the activities of Alex, a

teenager who like many other youths in the novel is a member of a gang. The gang act

as they choose, disregarding the rules which society imposes on them. They rob, beat

and rape whomever they see fit. This disregard for the establishment is reminiscent of

the punk movement in Britain of the late 70s and early 80’s. Although Burgess wrote

his novella in the 60s and was inspired by the on-going battles between the Mod and

Rocker gangs, his portrayal of disenfranchised youth and their attitudes has transpired

to be truly prophetic.

Burgess’ use or in fact creation of language in A Clockwork Orange is one of the

novels most intriguing features. As Burgess was focussing on the idea of an emergent

youth sub-culture, he wanted to use the slang of such groups, but as Morrison

highlights “the danger in using the idiom of Mods and Rockers was that it would be

outdated by the time the novel was published, let alone a generation later” (Morrison,

p.xvi). In order to side step this problem, Burgess created his own teen vernacular,

entitled Nadsat. Nadsat derived from “the Russian suffix for teen”(Morrison, p.ix) is a

hybrid of Russian, English and American slang. A new language ensured that his

work would be as relevant to audiences thirty years after publication, as it was to an

audience reading the novel the week after publication.



Kevin Jackson notes that the very first time the book was put on screen was in the

May of 1962 “the producers of the BBC current affairs program Tonight brought

Burgess to the studio to be interviewed by Derek Hart and dramatised part of the

book’s first chapter” (Jackson,1999, p.26). Stanley Kubrick released his cinematic

vision of Burgess’ source text almost a decade later in 1971, and it is Kubrick’s film

which has become famous the world over.

Before Kubrick became interested in the production, several other parties were keen

on transferring the novel to the screen. An unlikely party interested in making the film

were British Rock ‘n’ Roll group The Rolling Stones. The group wanted to star and

also compose and perform the music for the film, photographer Michael Cooper was

to direct. The Rolling Stones eventually pulled out due to a lack of time, presumably

because of commitments to other, less unfamiliar projects. The interest shown by The

Rolling Stones is highly interesting, because like Alex and his “three droogs”

(Burgess, p.3) the band were considered to be renegades acting not within the rules of

society but completely of their own free will, self satisfying any primal urges or

desires they had. Mick Jagger and his band were the antithesis of the Beatles’, who

maintained a clean cut image. The Stones unashamedly and openly used drugs, had

sexual relations with many women and were considered the bad boys of Rock ‘n’

Roll. Parallels can be drawn between the ways in which The Rolling Stones behaved

with actions the gangs in A Clockwork Orange, in the narrative. Perhaps the Stones

noticed the viability of such a comparison, or perhaps wanted to do a film which

would further enhance their notoriety. Kevin Jackson in an article on the history of the

film notes that others interested were “Ken Russell, who took a serious interest in the

project for a while before turning to Aldous Huxley and The Devils” (Jackson, p.26).



Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange arrived in cinemas in the winter of 1971.

Starring as Alex the films, “humble narrator” (Burgess, p.139), was Malcolm

McDowell. The rest of the “droogs” consisted of James Marcus as Georgie, Michael

Tarn as Pete, and Warren Clarke as Dim. Both McDowell and Clarke were relatively

unrecognised actors, and since appearing in A Clockwork Orange have gone on to

become firmly established actors. Upon release, the film received mixed reviews with

some critics launching fierce attacks on the piece, Leslie Halliwell in his Halliwell’s

Film Guide 6th Edition was particularly scathing. Halliwell said of the film that it was

“repulsive… it is pretentious and nasty rubbish for sick minds who do not mind

jazzed up images and incoherent sound” (Anderson, p.43). As well as a number of

reviews similar to Halliwell’s, there have been reviews written which herald the film

as a work of genius, a masterpiece. Ephriam Katz in The Film Encyclopedia suggests

that Kubrick’s film is “a striking, visually brilliant film that provides a chilling, near

nihilistic vision of a world dominated by anarchic, vicious violence… a perverse

world of tomorrow which some say mirrors Kubrick’s view of the world today”

(Anderson, p.43). Today, the film is widely regarded as a classic although this opinion

of the film was no doubt helped by the fact that Kubrick prevented A Clockwork

Orange from being shown in the U.K on any format after the films initial run.

Following increasing pressure from the press, outspoken members of the public and

Kubrick’s “fears of attacks on his family” (Jackson, p. 27), Kubrick effectively

censored himself, decreeing the film would not be shown in the United Kingdom until

after his death. This decision created a cult following for the film, “British fans of

Kubrick were forced to watch A Clockwork Orange on grainy exhausted prints at

fleapit cinemas in Paris, Amsterdam and New York” (Bradshaw, 2000). Bradshaw



suggests this cult status came about because “for decades, Kubrick’s brilliantly

scabrous fable of “ultra violence” has existed only as a fascinating rumour”

(Bradshaw, 2000). The film once again went back into cinemas after a twenty seven

year absence, following Kubrick’s death in 1999. The formal elements of the film

mean A Clockwork Orange is very much a Kubrick film; it sits well in the director’s

body of work. Directorial traits such as long tracking shots, clinical shot framing and

even classical music feature heavily in A Clockwork Orange as they do in Kubrick’s

previous films, and the films he would make such as 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968),

Barry Lyndon (1975), and The Shining (1980). When the film fell foul to public

outcry, it was Burgess the novel’s author who was wheeled out to defend the film and

explain the origins of the violence to which people where so opposed, as “Kubrick

himself could not or would not justify his film” (Bradshaw, 2000). When preparing

his production, Kubrick had looked at many scripts which he cast aside and decided

eventually to write one himself. One submitted to the director was written by Burgess

himself, this factor combined with the choice to use Burgess as the films defender

means a comparison of the two works is extremely interesting, as the relationship

between Kubrick and Burgess was clearly a strange one. This estranged relationship is

also shared by the two texts which they individually produced.

The novella consists of twenty one chapters in all, split equally over three sections.

Blake Morrison writing in his introduction to the Penguin Classics publication of A

Clockwork Orange suggests this division of the chapters is an “implicit allusion to

Shakespeare’s seven ages of man” (Morrison, p. xx). The novel concludes with Alex

reaching maturity at the age of twenty one, and finally renouncing violence at the end

of the twenty first chapter. The structure which Burgess fashions his narrative on is



essential to the novel. Morrison considers “ A Clockwork Orange to be the most

carefully constructed of novels” (Morrison, p. xx) and this is due to the careful

progression of Alex with relation to the chapters of the novella. This intended and

carefully planned structure was not adhered to in Kubrick’s adaptation of the novel,

and here in lays the first problem when dealing with the transferral of the novella to

the screen. Kubrick did not read the original version of Burgess’ text, but instead the

U.S version. This version omits the final chapter in which Alex renounces violence,

instead finishing at the end of the twentieth chapter with Alex saying “I was cured

alright”(Burgess, p.132), insinuating that he will return “to his old tolchocking

ways”(Morrison, p. xx). Morrison notes that the U.S publishers, W.W Norton had

“declined to publish the book unless the affirmative ending – in which Alex on

reaching maturity, renounces violence- was dropped”(Morrison, p. xvii). The removal

of this ending shows what Morrison suggests is a rare and uncharacteristic “American

need for pessimism”(Morrison, p. xvii). Stanley Kubrick and other critics have

suggested that Burgess’ original ending was far too optimistic and that in fact the U.S

ending is far more effective being “tougher and more realistic” (Morrison, p. xxi).

With his ending Burgess was considering the decline of generations to come, and as

such his original ending is just as pessimistic as that of the ending published in the

U.S edition. Burgess aimed to imply that although Alex has renounced violence he

would be unable to prevent his offspring and furthermore his bloodline from acting in

the same way to him, a cycle of adolescent violence would be established, a point

missed by his U.S publishers. In the final two pages of the novel Alex proclaims that

when his own son is old enough he will explain what he did as a teenager, but that this

may not be enough to stop him that his son would

“not understand or not want to understand and would do all the veshches I had done,yes perhaps even killing some poor starry forella … and I would not be able to really



stop him. And nor would he be able to stop his own son, brothers, and so it would ittyon to like the end of the world, round and round and round”(Burgess, p.140-141).

Although Alex is clearly intelligent, and this is displayed throughout the narrative of

both the film and novel, it is only the novel which allows him to grow morally, and

perhaps most importantly allow him to mature. It is in the final chapter which he not

only renounces his past but becomes aware of society and its needs, he adopts the tone

of an adult truly concerned with what lies ahead for the children he will bring into the

world. Kubrick denies Alex this moral growth in his film, instead allowing the

character to return to his old ways, having not learnt anything or changing after the

events he experiences throughout the narrative.

As well as preventing a moral growth in Alex, Kubrick removes any weakness in his

narrator, weakness which was present in Burgess’s portrayal of the narratives central

protagonist. Alex in Kubrick’s version appears to be a number of years older than he

is in the original novel. When Alex is told that he has in fact killed “the old ptitsa who

had all the kots and koshkas” (Burgess, p.56) he realises that he will be going to

prison for murder he proclaims “that was everything. I’d done the lot, now. and me

still only fifteen” ( Burgess, p.56). As a result of this age, Alex actually cries on a few

occasions through out the story, something which the Alex of Kubrick’s film does not

do. By having Alex growing up during the length of the narrative, Burgess ensures

that his reader’s can be more sympathetic towards Alex. Alex’s age means that he fits

perfectly into the cycle of youth violence of which he himself fears in the final pages

of the novel. At the time he commits the crimes he is too young to see the error of his

ways. He has been thrown down this path not necessarily because he is wholly evil,

but because the society Alex is a part of does not look after its young and as reaction



society’s youth rebel against the rules which they are told to live by. Alex in the film

does not cry and most importantly at the end of the film does not show that he has

matured or grown. An audience cannot feel sympathetic for a murderer and rapist if

he is old enough to know that his actions are wrong, if he does not show any form of

redemption even after being punished. As a result an audience watching A Clockwork

Orange have a true anti hero, with whom it is very hard to sympathize with.

The alteration of Alex as a character, and also the removing of the final chapter from

his screen play mean that Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is an enormously

different text to Burgess’ original. However one of the novels most important and

endearing features is untouched by Kubrick. Burgess’ constructed teen vernacular,

Nadsat, survives the transition from page to screen unscathed, bizarre and as obscure

on the screen as it was on the page. Burgess created a language which has many

strangely beautiful words in it, words which were designed to create a sense of unity

for the people who use it in the book. The language is used to exclude those who do

not speak it, in the case of the novel, to exclude adults and the people who run the

country such as teachers, police men and government officials. Words such as ‘horror

show’ which is used by Alex in the same way the word ‘wicked’ is used today , as in

referring to something that is good. ‘Gulliver’ is a human head, a term Blake

Morrison suggests is a passing nod to Jonathan Swift (Morrison, p.x) ‘Tolchock,’ to

hit someone, ‘glazzies’ which mean the eyes, ‘millicents’ refers to law enforcers and

the rather childish ‘guttiwuts’ is used to talk about the stomach. These are only some

examples of the colourful and utterly charming language which Burgess created. The

inclusion of the language in the film is highly peculiar considering the studio behind

its production. Warner Brothers are, and have always been, one of major forces in the



film industry and consistently produces films which are geared towards achieving

huge success at the box office. Nadsat, as an encoded language, is therefore not

openly accessible to a wide audience, and getting to understand what Alex and his

gang are talking about requires patience. However the language’s inclusion could be

more to do with Kubrick and the studio’s faith in their director rather than a shocking

lapse in their business strategy. Kevin Jackson notes that the film was shot almost

directly from the book, with Kubrick walking on set announcing a page number then

spend the following time working out what he wanted to use (Jackson, p27).

Although the book is as violent as the film, the language which Burgess uses to

describe these violent acts means that the imagery conveyed to a reader is softer and

less brutal than the actual acts are. The problem which the film faces is that it is

forced to show the actions of the characters, and as such is far more brutal than the

book. For example ‘tolchocking someone on the Gulliver,’ is a far more pleasant

image than watching someone’s head being hit. Criticism levelled at the film because

of its violent content, notes the way in which Kubrick chose to shoot these violent

sections. Rather than choosing to portray the violence in a gritty and abrasive way, the

fights and beatings in the film are shot with grace and beauty. Two scenes within the

film which illustrate this grace are the scene in which Alex and his droogs fight “Billy

Boy and his five droogs” (Burgess, p.13) in the old theatre, and the other when Alex

quashes a possible mutiny within his gang and attacks his own friends. In the film

these scenes are shot in a way that is reminiscent of a ballet, choreographed with

bright and uplifting music in accompaniment.



A Clockwork Orange can be seen as a very close translation of the original novel. It

follows the same narrative structure, and events occur in the correct chronological

order. Although certain scenes are left out of the film, the content is very similar. The

voice of the narrator is still present in the film, with Alex providing a voice over, and

as he does in the book he still allies himself with the audience, often prefacing details

by saying “O my Brothers” (Burgess, p.57).However, the way in which Kubrick has

changed elements of the story mean that, as Bluestone suggests, he becomes the

author of a new piece of work. Kubrick’s choice to iron out any weaknesses in Alex

and cull the final chapter of the novel from his film meant that the tone and impact the

film has is greatly different to that of the book. This change of tone combined with the

formal elements, which are very much in keeping with the rest of Kubrick’s work,

mean that Kubrick is established as this pieces author.



Chapter Four: Case Study; American Psycho

American Psycho was first published in 1991, and was Bret Easton Ellis’ third novel.

The novel traces the activities of Patrick Bateman, “a yuppie stockbroker/serial killer

with yuppie – and cannibalistic – tastes” (Kauffman, p.41). The novel paints a portrait

of the world and more specifically society which Bateman inhabits. Like Burgess and

A Clockwork Orange, Easton Ellis uses his novel as an opportunity to comment on

society, but specifically the world occupied by the rich and affluent living in New

York during the late 80s. The novel’s central protagonist and his friends inhabit a

world in which the dollar and consumerism reign supreme. Patrick Bateman describes

his peers and those he interacts with not by character traits or physical appearance but

by what suits or clothes they wear. A person is not worthwhile in Bateman’s eyes

unless they have been educated at an established institution, wear tasteful clothes, and

eat at the correct and usually exclusive restaurants. His friends are essentially versions

of himself each sharing the same persona; his environment is one of identikit

personalities. The central characters of the novel aspire to physical perfection,

enormous wealth and all that goes with such wealth. Bateman becomes aware of this

notion himself and suggests “there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman…but there is no

real me…myself is fabricated” (Easton Ellis, p.362) As a result of these shared

personalities which are constructed with the aid of GQ magazine and other style

‘bibles’, Bateman is consistently mistaken for other people by his peers and even his

lawyer when he confesses to killing a pantheon of people and committing various

atrocities.

As with A Clockwork Orange, American Psycho can be considered a critique of the

period around which it was written. Fourteen years on from its publication however,



the novel remains as pertinent as ever. A modern audience can still identify with the

novel’s themes of violence, greed and image obsession which is highlighted today

perfectly by magazines such as Heat, OK! and Hello. Due to readily available credit

provided by companies today, people do now not even need to be in the same social

context as Bateman and his friends to enjoy expensive products. The brutal

consumerism of the late 80s is just as relevant to people reading the book in today’s

climate. Kauffman highlights the main themes within the novel as “the craven

addiction to sex and commodities, the convergence of consumerism and psychosis in

alienating urban environments”(Kauffman, p.41), these themes mean that the novel is

just as relevant to a contemporary audience as it was upon publication.

Unlike A Clockwork Orange, it was Easton Ellis’ novel which caused huge

controversy and not Mary Harron’s American Psycho, released in 2000. Jeff Stipe

notes that “Literary critics and feminist groups savaged the novel”(Stipe, 1999, p.8),

because of the horrifically detailed portrayals of sex and violence, which often take

place at the same time. After completing a finished version of the novel, Easton Ellis’

publishers Simon and Shuster, “reneged on (his) contract just a month before the book

was scheduled to arrive in bookshops” (Kauffman, p. 41). The book was eventually

published by Vintage books and “within two months of the book hitting the shelves in

April 1991 more than 100,000 copies had been sold” (Stipe, p.8). One possible reason

for such interest is that the story is told from Bateman’s controversial point of view,

and as a result an audience is inexorably linked to the hideous events of the novel.

Although still horrific, it is possible that these acts had they been placed within the

third person would have had less gravitas and therefore been easier for an audience to

deal with. The reason feminist groups and critics despised the novel so much is easy



to understand. The murders which Easton Ellis creates most horrifically and

descriptively are of Bateman’s female victims. Bateman’s attempts at eating his

female victims, his decision to mutilate their dead bodies and at one point unleash a

starved rat on one of his victims are described in all their terrifying glory. Conversely

Bateman’s male victims are disposed of quickly. This disproportionate balance of

female victimization was certain to enrage feminist readers. The choice of first person

narration caused massive problems for people who misread the novel. Kauffman

highlights that one critic even “assumed that Ellis and Bateman were interchangeable”

(Kauffman, p. 41), on the basis of this assumption perhaps readers believed that in

fact Easton Ellis condoned the actions of his psychopathic creation.

As with A Clockwork Orange, Easton Ellis’ story made neither a quick or easy

journey to screen. Jeff Stipe in an article on the film notes “the film version of

American Psycho (had) been an ‘impossible project” in Hollywood almost since the

book was published”(Stipe, p.8). Director Mary Harron began transforming the novel

in 1996 and two years later the script she was ready. Lions Gate films were producing

the project and “announced at Cannes 1998 that (Leonardo) DiCaprio had agreed to

star in the film” (Stipe, p.9). Mary Harron did not agree with the studio’s decision to

have Leonardo DiCaprio as Patrick Bateman saying in interview with Guardian

reporter Nisha Gopolan, “Leonardo wasn’t remotely right for the part… there’s

something very boyish about him. He’s not credible as one of those tough Wall street

guys”(Gopolan, 2000, para 5). Harron’s opinion must also have been influenced by

the actor’s role in the film Titanic (Director James Cameron, 1997). The film

exponentially increased DiCaprio’s fan base, with hundreds of teenagers pinning

pictures of him on their walls, as Harron says “I did not want to deal with someone



who had a 13 yr old fan base. They shouldn’t see the movie”(Gopolan, para 5). As the

young star became involved with the project Harron was removed by Lions Gate as

“she did not appear on DiCaprio’s list of purported list of Directors”(Stipe, p.9).

Oliver Stone became involved with the project after Harron’s departure and “began to

chip away at Harron’s script, preparing to re-write it all together” (Gopolan, para 10).

The progress being made on the project declined however when DiCaprio and Stone

found it hard to agree on the nature of the film. Gopolan notes how some of the

problems DiCaprio highlighted hadn’t even been an issue when he started work on

American Psycho and eventually “bolted off to make The Beach”(Gopolan, para 11).

Oliver Stone eventually also left the project, and Lions Gate reinstated Harron as the

films director. She was also allowed her first choice actor for Bateman, British actor

Christian Bale, on the condition “that her budget would not exceed $10m and that she

would cast recognisable talent… in the supporting roles”(Gopolan, para 13). Once the

production began again, more problems were faced. In an attempt to replicate the

details of the novel, the film makers were denied the use of products by their

manufacturers. Gopolan notes how many of the brand names the production gained

permission to use actually came from European fashion houses rather than American

ones, brand like “Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein didn’t want to be associated with

something so horrible”(Gopolan, para 17). Talking to Jeff Stipe, Harron recognises

that the film is a period piece, as it focuses on a by gone era, and as a result the

costume of the film is extremely important in creating a realistic vision of the source

text. American Psycho was eventually released in 2000.

For a source text such as American Psycho, which portrays such vile and despicable

crimes against women, it is highly pertinent that a woman chose to try and adapt the



text for the screen. Even when the studio dropped her in favour of other directors she

was still passionate about her vision of the novel; of her removal from the film Harron

said “I wanted the Movie back”(Gopolan, para 12). In terms of authorship, Harron’s

gender is highly pertinent, as is her previous film. I Shot Andy Warhol , made in 1996,

was a biopic focusing on “Valerie Solanas, author of the SCUM (Society for cutting

up men) Manifesto”(Kauffman, p.44). Under Harron’s direction, Bateman becomes a

ridiculous cartoon character, no longer the menacing psychopath that Easton Ellis’

penned. In the scenes of the film where Bateman is having sex, instead of focussing

on his partner, he instead prefers to stare at himself in the mirrors on his wall. He is

not making love to a women, he is making love with himself, something which an

audience may find extremely amusing. Through rearranging key speeches from the

novel, Harron also manages to ridicule Bateman’s killings. A whole chapter is

dedicated to the band Huey Lewis and the News, as the story is drawing to an end and

Bateman is becoming less stable. Harron however rearranges the chronology of the

story and has Bateman give his analysis of the band’s work whilst killing his arch

rival Paul Owen. The speech is extremely detailed and Christian Bale enhances it by

prancing around his victim, at times dancing. An audience are too busy laughing at

the actor to appreciate the full extent of this macabre situation. Harron through a

variety of techniques dilutes Bateman, instead of emphasising the violence of the

film; the British director chooses to draw on the novel’s scathing satire of New York

society.

Throughout American Psycho, Harron not only manages to change the way Bateman

is received by an audience, but also manages to drown out his voice. The novel uses a

first person narrative to detail the events which occur. The voice of this narrator is the



story’s protagonist, Patrick Bateman. Although the film still follows Bateman, he is

denied the opportunity of a voice over for the majority of the film, only being granted

one at the beginning in order to describe his vigorous beauty regime. Unlike Kubrick

and his vision of A Clockwork Orange, in which he retains the voice over of his

central character Alex, the audience are never allowed to ally themselves with

Bateman in Harron’s American Psycho . Harron, who’s previous film was “a

sympathetic portrait” (Stipe, p.8) of a violent feminist, has clearly attempted to correct

some of what she thought were shortcomings in the original text. In denying the

audience voice over narration, Bateman and his internal mental activities are kept

private. Harron does not wish the character to become a hero in the film, as he with

represents everything the feminist movement has tried to stop. This change means that

she manages to become an author in her own right, building on the material Easton

Ellis left her and offering the characters a new direction.

Unlike A Clockwork Orange a great deal of the source material has been excluded

from the screen play. However, a film maker is constrained by a number of limitations

which a novelist is simply not effected by. Superficially it is to understand why so

much has been omitted from Harron’s film. At 318 pages, Easton Ellis’ novel is dense

with activity and for a film maker with budget and time constraints it is simply too

much. Harron however juggles sections of the novel which are interesting, amusing or

integral to the story and places them at different points in the film. Scenes have also

been omitted which are overly violent or disgusting, and only a handful of the

murders in the novel remain in the film. Two possibilities can be suggested as to why

these scenes have been omitted. Censorship is perhaps the most obvious, one chapter

in the novel describes Bateman killing a child at the zoo, in another Bateman crucifies



one of his female victims. A film which portrayed these horrific events would

certainly run into censorship issues, and could possibly risk being banned. For a

commercial film studio, whose primary concern is financial success, this would not be

an option. The second reason for these omissions is Mary Harron herself. Instead of

dwelling on the horrific acts of the novel she instead emphasises the dark humour and

satire of the story, trying to completely avoid the superfluous violence. The acts

which are omitted from her screenplay are mentioned within the narrative of the film,

yet have little effect, as they are not shown. Harron chooses to emphasise the novels

social commentary and satirical elements rather than dwell on the violent content.

Literary adaptation can be performed in a manor of ways each with a different result.

In the case of American Psycho, Mary Harron has taken the source text and

manipulated that material to serve a personal purpose. As a woman, with a history of

feminist interest, Harron manipulates Bateman into a joke, rather than the dangerous

Psychopath that roams the pages of Easton Ellis’ novel. As the film’s director and co-

writer, Harron removes Easton Ellis as author and establishes herself in the role.

Although the film works well in capturing the time period in which the novel is set

and also manages to reproduce the satirical elements of the book, it fails not

unintentionally, at conveying the turbulent psyche of the story’s central protagonist.

Bateman is not a character with which a female would identify with, and Harron

realised this. Harron possibly wishes the audience to forget Bateman in the same way

his colleagues do.



Chapter Five: Conclusion.

Over the course of the two case studies it can be seen that different directors choose to

adapt from literature in different ways. Perhaps more significantly it has been shown

what sort of effect this transition has upon the material being used.

Through changing elements of a novel, in even a small way, the tone or impact of the

resulting film can be greatly different to that of the source material. In the case of A

Clockwork Orange, Stanley Kubrick’s choice to remove the intended ending and also

his decision to moderate the character of Alex, means that an audience cannot

sympathise with the protagonist in the way the novel’s reader can. In Kubrick’s film,

Alex never redeems himself as he never progresses morally or spiritually in the way

he does in Burgess’ novel. Burgess, by allowing his creation to morally mature and

renounce violence places the character within an established cycle of youth violence,

which the protagonist himself highlights in the novel’s final chapter. The Alex of

Kubrick’s tale however ends the film in way which suggests he will in fact return to

his old pattern of behaviour. Alex in the film could perhaps be called inherently evil,

whilst in the novel perhaps Alex is a confused and mislead adolescent. However

Kubrick still wishes an audience to ally themselves with the films central protagonist,

as Alex still narrates the film via voice over, and much of the dialogue from the

original text is retained. As in the novel Alex calls to the audience by saying “O My

brothers”(Burgess, p.5), with this device he compromises the audiences distance from

his actions and makes people feel involved with his life.

Although the language and events of the novel are kept on the whole in tact,

Kubrick’s authoritative decision to remove the last chapter greatly changes the

resulting piece and as such it is a totally independent, new text.



The same can be said in the case of American Psycho . Although in contrast to A

Clockwork Orange a great deal of the novel is left out of the film, and what remains is

rearranged in terms of chronology. However in this case study, a female director has

taken a source text which is brutal in its attitude to women, and her interpretation

deconstructs the gender relations of the novel. By building the central female

characters of the novel into well developed characters in the film, the tone of the

novel is changed, resulting in a film which works differently. Harron also chooses to

ridicule the central protagonist by turning him into a laughing stock. The misogynistic

predator who stalks the pages of Bret Easton Ellis’s novel no longer remains; instead

the audience are left with a man who cannot be taken seriously. He is no longer a

source of fear but a source of amusement and his decline into uncontrollable madness

is not perturbing but pitifully hilarious. What was once a novel that feminist critics

despised has now become a film which could be enjoyed to a greater extent by female

viewers.

Through the case studies it could also be suggested however that film is simply not a

suitable medium for literal translation. Filmmakers are constrained in a way which

novelists would find strange and alien. Directors must work within the confines of the

budget and this will dictate what directors can achieve. Novelists in terms of content

however, are only limited as their imaginations. An explosion or plane crash costs the

novelist nothing to pen, yet for a film maker orchestrating such a scene can be

expensive and logistically difficult.



Novels also communicate readers in a different manner to films and their audience. A

novel can offer back a character’s history and often elaborate on certain aspects of the

narrative, because prose is used to convey the story. A director’s primary tools are

sight and sound, and all the content of a novel transferred to the screen, both textual

and sub-textual must be conveyed with these devices. It is therefore to be expected

that when adapting from page to screen, that something will be lost in translation.

If it is a problematic process then why have so many directors always relied heavily

on literature for material? The answer is undoubtedly money; a film maker can take

an established text with its existent fan base, transfer it to the screen in the hope the

novel’s fans will come and see the finished product. It could also be suggested that

instead of analysing the changes which occur when a text is transferred from page to

screen, a more accepting attitude could be employed. Critics, scholars and even fans

should perhaps accept the differences between the two mediums, rather than how

truthful the film remains to its source text. The film maker offers their vision of a text,

and will also assimilate features and themes they identify with from the novel, it

therefore to be accepted that with such input the director becomes author for this new

text. Although characters and story lines may remain the same, they are merely

shadows of the original work being cast onto another author’s blank canvas.



Bibliography

All Time Box Office (n.d) Retrieved February 19, 2005 from Box Office Mojo

Website: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/

Anderson, C.W. (1985). Science Fiction Films of the Seventies, Jefferson, North

Carolina; London; McFarland

Annesley, J. (1998). Blank Fictions: Consumerism, Culture and the Contemporary

American Novel, London; Pluto Press

Balio, T., ed, (1985) The American Film Industry, Madison, Wisconsin; London;

University of Wisconsin Press

Bane, J. (2003). The Novels of Bret Easton Ellis. Retrieved March 12, 2005, from

B.B.C website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1036315

Bluestone, G. (1957). Novels into Film, Berkeley; London; University of California

Press

Bradshaw, P. (2000). The Old Ultra-Violence. Retrieved March 18, 2005 from

Guardian Newspaper, Film Guardian Website:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/Feature_Story/feature_story/0,4120,142566,00.html

Burgess, A. (2000) A Clockwork Orange, London; New York; Penguin Classics

Chapman, J. (1999) A Bit of the Old Ultra Violence; A Clockwork Orange in I.Q

Hunter, ed, British Science Fiction Cinema (pp. 128-137). London; Routledge

Duguid, M. (n.d). Literary Adaptation. Retrieved January 10, 2005 from Screen

Online Website: http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/444951/

Easton Ellis, B. (1991). American Psycho London; Picador

Feldmann, H. (1976). Kubrick and His Discontents. Film Quarterly , 30(1), 12-19

French, P. (2000). You Looking at Me? Retrieved March 18, 2005 from Guardian

Newspaper, Film Guardian Website:


Giddings, R. and Selby, K. and Wensley, C. (1990). Screening the Novel: The Theory

and Practice of Literary Dramatization, Basingstoke; Macmillan

Gopolan, N. (2000). American Psycho: The Story Behind the Film. Retrieved March

12, 2005 from Guardian Newspaper, Film Guardian Website:




Guback, T.H. (1985). Hollywood’s International Market in T. Balio, ed, The

American Film Industry (pp.463-486). Madison, Wisconsin; London; University of

Wisconsin Press

Horton, A. and Magretta, J. (1981). Introduction in A. Horton and J. Magretta, eds,

Modern European Filmmakers and the Art of Adaptation (pp.1-5) New York;

Frederick Ungar Publications

Hunter, I.Q., ed, (1999) British Science Fiction Cinema, London; Routledge

Jackson, K. (1999). A Short Lexicon of Nadsat. Sight and Sound, 9(9), 24-27

James, N. (2000) Sick City Boy. Sight and Sound, 10(5), 22-24

Jancovich, M. and Reboll, A.L. and Stringer, J. and Willis, A., eds, (2003) Defining

Cult Movies , Manchester; New York; University of Manchester Press.

Kauffman, L.S. (2000). American Psycho [review of the motion picture American

Psycho]. Film Quarterly , 54(2) 41-45

Leigh, D. (2001). Murder Most Horrid . Retrieved March 12, 2005 from Guardian

Newspaper, Film Guardian Website:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,477979,00.html

McEwan, I. (1998). Enduring Love London; Vintage

Morrison, B. (2000). Introduction in A. Burgess A Clockwork Orange (pp.vii-xxiv)

London; Penguin Classics

Orr, J. (1992). Cinema and Fiction: New Modes of Adapting, 1950-1990, Edinburgh;

University of Edinburgh Press

Palahnuik, C. (1997). Fight Club, London; Vintage

Rayns, T. (2000) American Psycho [review of the motion picture American Psycho].

Sight and Sound , 10(5), 42

Stipe, J. (1999). Blood Symbol. Sight and Sound, 9(7), 8-10

Wagner, G. (1975). The Novel and The Cinema. Rutherford; Madison; Teaneck;

Farleigh Dickinson University Press; London; Tantivy Press.

Walker, A. (1999). Stanley Kubrick, Director. London; Weidenfeld & Nicolson

Welsh, I. (2003). Trainspotting . London; Vintage

Wu, H.H. (2003). Trading in horror, cult and matricide: Peter Jackson’s phenomenal

bad taste and New Zealand fantasies of inter/national cinematic success in M.

Jancovich and A.L Reboll and J. Stringer and A. Willis, eds, Defining Cult Movies

(pp.84-108). Manchester; New York; University of Manchester Press.



Filmography

Boyle, D. (Director). (1996). Trainspotting [Motion Picture]. United Kingdom:

Channel Four Films.

Coppola, F.F. (Director). (1979). Apocalypse Now [Motion Picture]. United States:

Zoetrope Studios.

Fincher, D. (Director). (1999). Fight Club [Motion Picture]. United States: Fox 2000

Pictures

Harron, M. (Director). (2000) American Psycho [Motion Picture]. United States:

Lions Gate Films

Kubrick, S. (Director). (1964). Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying

And Love The Bomb [Motion Picture]. United Kingdom: Hawk Films ltd.

Kubrick, S. (Director). (1968). 2001: A Space Odyssey [Motion Picture]. United

States: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

Kubrick, S. (Director). (1971). A Clockwork Orange [Motion Picture]. United States;

Great Britain : Warner Brothers/ Hawk Films ltd.

Kubrick, S. (Director). (1980). The Shining [Motion Picture]. United States; Great

Britain: Warner Bros/ Hawk Films ltd.

Luhrmann, B. (Director). (1996). Romeo + Juliet [Motion Picture].United States: 20th

Century Fox

Michell, R. (Director). (2004). Enduring Love [Motion Picture]. United Kingdom:

Film Four/ UK Film Council

Screening The Novel: Tom Darlington

Documents

Transcript of Screening The Novel: Tom Darlington