Adaptations - Tumblr Posts
Opinion time: adaptations that are 100% faithful to the original are not only challenging to create but also have limited utility.
Adaptations are in conversation with their source material, not competition.
Not that criticism of adaptations is invalid on these grounds. Just that a material and it’s adaptations are two different works with merits and weaknesses all their own. Though we tend to notice absences in adaptations, they are uniquely positioned to say something new about the subject already addressed in the source material.
les misérables film adaptations are one of the most interesting things to study, because you can really see where the writers have changed the text to further their ideas depending on context. Of course Dallas, but between 1909 and 1929 it was one of the most popular western properties to remake and set in Japan for a statement film too. Both Indian 50’s adaptations set it as a fight against British colonialism with Javert as a class traitor, and both end redeeming a previously bad guy(Felix and Thernadier) to unite in the fight. 1955 Indian Les Mis even includes real protest footage. The 2007 Sudan Les Misérables by Gadalla and Sara Gubara was made after his film studio was confiscated and he was blinded by police(some scenes are allegedly filmed in the jail he was held in), where he intentionally left out any references to the revolution. The soviet 1937 one shifts focus entirely to Gavroche versus the Monarchy.
But then we also have censorship. 1935 Hayes code les misérables which is scrubbed so clean of anything so unseemly as a single mother or an unjust system it loses all meaning, or the 1951 one which has the same problem and instead becomes about entrepreneurship, prospering in capitalism and the American Dream. The spanish ’71 version made Javert nicer and a Good Cop (I suspect) not to stir trouble with the fash regime at the time. I mean hell, I’d argue BBC les mis is as copagandic as a modern Les Misérables gets, with One Bad Cop who has so many cool cops trying to stop him idk:/ — and it’s the one gay person, and a black man. All of this to say, Les Misérables is some of the most revealing media to adapt, because of its length and themes it has near universal appeal, and it tends to reveal a lot about the context they were made and persons behind it. Is the state unjust, or a friend? Is the Catholic church always good? Do you think Javert is one sole bad actor? Is Fantine a single mother? Is she a sex worker?
Hugo said stories as this one must be told, but what is it about, really? Is Les Misérables about redemption, revoltion, the infinite, Christianity— or economic growth?
Notes on Jean-Paul Le Chanois’s Les Misérables (1958) from French costume drama of the 1950s: fashioning politics in film (2010) by Susan Hayward
-The film was primarily funded by Deutsche Film-Aktiengesellschaft (a state owned East German film studio) and Pathé but was shot with Technicolor’s Thechnirama screen process (rather than the East German Agfacolor) -It was filmed in Berlin, except for the location shoots in Toulon, Digne, the Luxembourg gardens, and scenes along the Seine. (Some French critics thought it was “anti-national” to recreate Paris in Berlin.) -Real soldiers from Easy Germany’s army acted in the battle of Waterloo and the June Rebellion scenes. -The film was criticized for being condescending, as well as for supposedly inaccurate sets and for reusing sets (the houses in Toulon are also the houses in Digne, despite the fact that they did film on location and the dining room of the house on the rue Plumet is also in the house on the rue des Filles du Calvaire.) -Le Chanois originally planned for the film to be 5 hours and 25 minutes. The producers cut the film from four and a half hours to three. The excised footage has been lost. -She notes how Marius and Cosette’s romance, along with Eponine slow down the movie, which I have seen said of a lot of film adaptations! -The actor who played Thénardier (André Bourvil) was known for his roles in comedies and therefore he was hesitant to take the role. Obviously different comedians have played Thénardier in various musical productions but have there been other examples of comedians playing him in film? I feel like there is one but I’m forgetting it! -The film included 28 different sets designed by Serge Pimenoff. She remarks in particular on the accuracy of the streets surrounding the Corinth, as described by Hugo, as well as Valjean’s homes in Paris. -Overall, the rebellion is toned down. She places this in the context of the controversy at the time over Algerian independence. -No red flag is waved at Lamarque’s funeral, possibly to avoid censorship, but it is draped over Mabeuf, Eponine, and Gavroche. She says that a tricolor flag (held at General Lamarque’s funeral) would represent a desire to return to the republic. Is that true though? -She points to Portrait of Monsieur Bertin as a possible inspiration for Jean Valjean’s bourgeois clothes. -This sentence about Cosette stands out: “The bouffant mutton sleeves, so popular at the time, further enhance her aura of dematerialized being.” -She says that Mabeuf, Eponine, and Gavroche, laid out all three together under the banner “Equality to man and to woman” make there own sort of symbolic work-class family, which counter-balances Cosette and Marius’s bourgeois family. -When the film was released in West Germany, the censor cut out the scenes with rioting.
Every time I reread the Hunger Games trilogy I become more furious about the movie representation.
These books were about an indigenous woman (with a brain injury in book 3) living in poverty overthrowing a corrupt white government.
She was demisexual, had stomach hair, was not even remotely romantically driven (and canonically didn’t even find romance until after she had finished a revolution.)
And Peeta was disabled and physically abused as a child and they both suffered from mental health problems and the parallel between the Capitol and the ruling rich was so very transparent.
And I’m seeing fun coloured makeup in stores labeled “Capitol colours from the Hunger Games”!
These books were about the revolution of the most oppressed taking over the extravagance and elitism and decadence of the ruling class while citizens starved.
These books were a parallel to our current social dynamics, they were a call to arms. They were a battle cry for the impeding ruin of the rich white ruling class.
And the movies portrayed them as a fantasy, a romance story, a cute little tale. When the real story in the books was one of strength and upheaval and shifting paradigms and revolutions.
I greatly think, as I've seen it come up time and again whenever this game is brought up, is people becoming interested in JttW. I'm positive you got more traffic since this game was released, cause people want to know what it's based on.
Something called a "Conspiracy Theory" does not invite any sense of truth… But I also do not see what it has to do with BMW. Or what you mean by "The game follows this method." I don't know; maybe it flew over my head, but it doesn't seem like your most informed takes, which surprises me with all the research you do, and I usually like your articles.
I won't mention Does the Buddha Lie in Journey to the West? Too much because it doesn't involve in the overall argument I will present about adaptations in general (maybe I should reblog the response post, but this all started because of this post, so), but for the sake of responding to this post… I don't have any issue with your response to Ye Zhiqiu. I find it the most reasonable thing presented to me out of everything connected to this post and another good article by you, though a part of me wants to read his article directly; however, I am unable to read the language, and online translation can involve some level of incorrectness.
Anyways, more is below. It, uh, got long. I'm sorry if this possibly comes off as rude, I say this as I do have some struggles with identifying emotion and text especially makes it harder.
I just read the post from Ryin-Silverfish, so I will put my immediate thoughts on it. It talked a lot about JCT but little about the game. In addition, how they explained JCT makes me see it even less... Tho, I find it weird that they call out A Chinese Odyssey, considering that's a drama-comedy and most things are done for humor effect rather than a commentary (not that there isn't any; I feel that it is impossible for someone's view/beliefs to not color a work to a degree)--I do not want to say 'reading too much into it' because I don't think that can be true of anything. Still, I feel it's a bit 'watching with an altered view of it.' I have seen the first two parts, and unfortunately, part 3.
A point I've seen in that post and here <https://www.tumblr.com/journeytothewestresearch/762214744615763968/ive-read-your-articles-on-your-blog-i-cant?source=share> is that BMW makes all gods evil, which I would disagree with. Erlang, for all that he was involved in, is not evil as he helps Wukong (even yearning for him at times, ngl that was a... charged battle). I would even argue the Demon Bull family wasn't evil or the Spider family. So on that point, the JCT-BMW theory is just a theory.
Edit: some time after making this post I've seen the true ending, and also an interesting video by Jaobird (Black Myth: Wukong is Actually Insane - Before You Buy Black Myth: Wukong) that talks about his experience and feelings. Something he mentions is the lore entries, how in-depth they are, and the large amount of them, and I think that points to the idea that the developers cared more than some people think. The animations at the end of each chapter I think points to this too. I cannot comment, however, on anything about "distort the meaning of Buddhahood or Enlightenment", though I can see an interpretation both ways of yes or no, because of me being rather new to learning these things and not living in an area with any form of Buddhism so no exposure growing up past knowing that Buddhism is a thing.
And regarding your earlier response about adaptations in that post, this will be rude, but get over yourself. This is honestly spiraling too much, but I think it clouds your view and overwrites your better judgment of any work based on JttW, which you admit to somewhat. You cannot properly analyze BMW with this view that "In general, I don't like adaptations," as it will automatically put BMW in a negative light for you and make you more negative than critical before even looking at the game itself.
Adaptations can be good; whether or not BMW does it is another argument, but disregarding something because it's an adaptation (not even about how it adapts the thing) is just a closed view of it.
Mind you, I've only seen up to the 5th chapter (edit: now true ending) and haven't read the lore entries and such, so I'm not speaking as a BMW fan or anything--for what I've seen so far, it's alright--or as someone particularly knowledgable about it. I'm speaking more from my experiences with mythologies or historical figures adapted to various works. Such as the Greek gods or Arthurian media, even something like Peter Pan. And my research into what makes an adaptation... and my deep dive into as many adaptations of the JttW as possible; what can I say? I have fun with them. (Except for Conquering the Demons, that was a bad movie).
Adaptations are more than just taking the book and making it another medium, keeping 100% as is, despite the common definition or what many people think. To take from Oxford, an adaptation is "the process of making a work of art upon the basis of elements provided by an earlier work in a different, usually literary, medium." And "distinctions are commonly drawn between ‘faithful’ adaptations, in which the distinctive elements (characters, settings, plot events, dialogue) of the original work are preserved as far as the new medium allows, and ‘free’ adaptations, sometimes called ‘versions’ or ‘interpretations,’ in which significant elements of the original work are omitted or replaced by wholly new material."
There will be changes because how people view and/or understand a particular concept changes over time; the whole joke about "historians will call them friends" comes from historians hesitant to put any label on people because how homosexuality was understood has changed over time (from the view of the people then and the historian of any particular era afterward).
Maybe someone wants to "adapt" it to their modern era (whenever that is) and/or change the allegory. Maybe it's JttW, but its setting is changed to 1920s Germany, or the allegory for heaven is changed from 16th-century China and the criticism of it, changed to 20th-century America and the criticism of it. [You definitely see this with Arthurian literature and other mediums, which are constantly adapting on itself, most often Le Morte D'Arthur, or changing the allegory such as Arthur the good chivalrous king vs Arthur the lazy bum look at our original oc Lancelot (I like Lancelot but). Does this make, say, BBC Merlin a bad show cause it changed Merlin into a servant boy who secretly had magic? No, it's a lousy show cause it kept fumbling on how to tell its story and holding back on revealing that Merlin had magic to Arthur until Arthur died was highly dumb.] Nezha Reborn is a damn good movie, even though it involves Nezha dying and Wukong being the cooky old fool and is set in a different time period entirely--it is still an adaptation, and it isn't 100% faithful to JttW or Investiture of the Gods in the case of Nezha.
Sometimes, though, the original work would not work 100% faithfully in another medium--musicals come to mind. I doubt a musical could be entirely faithful to the novel because the time it would take for a musical would be outlandish and unrealistic to do, things would have to be cut out or altered.
To go even further, dipping into slightly extreme, but what about fanart? Art on its own is adapting the work. Is it not worth looking at if someone puts Sun Wukong in modern clothing? Or interpret Tripitaka as something other than a monk?
Is creative expression not allowed? Because it's an adaptation?
I wanted to add something someone on Discord said to me about adaptations. "Adaptations have been a thing basically as long as we’ve had two different mediums to share stories." There have been adaptations that have been called better than the original. (Another mentioned that The Thing is a remake of an adaptation.) Maybe not applying to JttW let alone done by BMW, but something to keep in mind for adaptations.
"It makes a lot of sense to be protective of the original. To be afraid of what might happen if the adaptation of this thing you have opened your heart to goes poorly. But that’s a fear of the risk involved, not so much a fear of adaptation itself."
--
I usually really like your posts about JttW and all that is related to it, but I have noticed you struggle a lot with properly criticizing and in general analyzing anything adapting it.
I feel a little surprised considering how open/encouraging even at times you've been for fanfiction--a form of adaptation let's be honest here.
I think something you should look at is Dominic Noble's channel and his video...
Maybe even the Overly Sarcastic Productions videos that summarize the JttW, I'm curious about your thoughts--taking into understanding your beliefs as you presented them here.
I'm a Theravada Buddhist. I saw many people interpreting the story and meaning behind Black Myth Wukong, differently. But I hope the devs team didn't intend to insult Buddha Dhamma by recreating this new story and distort the meaning of Buddhahood or Enlightenment itself..
I don't know if they intended to insult Buddhism, but I can say that their presentation of Buddhism in the game is disrespectful.
@ryin-silverfish recently posted a wonderful essay on what's known as the "JTTW Conspiracy Theory," which is a method of interpreting the story by twisting details, making the heavenly hierarchy look evil. The game follows this method. I recommend that you read the essay:
I unknowingly ran into the JTTW Conspiracy Theory a couple of years ago. A Chinese article claimed that the Buddha lies in the novel. This is my rebuttal.
In the past I've shared other people's musings about the different interpretations of the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. Namely, why Orpheus looks back at Eurydice, even though he knows it means he'll lose her forever. So many people seem to think they've found the one true explanation of the myth. But to me, the beauty of myths is that they have many possible meanings.
So I thought I would share a list of every interpretation I know, from every serious adaptation of the story and every analysis I've ever heard or read, of why Orpheus looks back.
One interpretation – advocated by Monteverdi's opera, for example – is that the backward glance represents excessive passion and a fatal lack of self-control. Orpheus loves Eurydice to such excess that he tries to defy the laws of nature by bringing her back from the dead, yet that very same passion dooms his quest fo fail, because he can't resist the temptation to look back at her.
He can also be seen as succumbing to that classic "tragic flaw" of hubris, excessive pride. Because his music and his love conquer the Underworld, it might be that he makes the mistake of thinking he's entirely above divine law, and fatally allows himself to break the one rule that Hades and Persephone set for him.
Then there are the versions where his flaw is his lack of faith, because he looks back out of doubt that Eurydice is really there. I think there are three possible interpretations of this scenario, which can each work alone or else co-exist with each other. From what I've read about Hadestown, it sounds as if it combines all three.
In one interpretation, he doubts Hades and Persephone's promise. Will they really give Eurydice back to him, or is it all a cruel trick? In this case, the message seems to be a warning to trust in the gods; if you doubt their blessings, you might lose them.
Another perspective is that he doubts Eurydice. Does she love him enough to follow him? In this case, the warning is that romantic love can't survive unless the lovers trust each other. I'm thinking of Moulin Rouge!, which is ostensibly based on the Orpheus myth, and which uses Christian's jealousy as its equivalent of Orpheus's fatal doubt and explicitly states "Where there is no trust, there is no love."
The third variation is that he doubts himself. Could his music really have the power to sway the Underworld? The message in this version would be that self-doubt can sabotage all our best efforts.
But all of the above interpretations revolve around the concept that Orpheus looks back because of a tragic flaw, which wasn't necessarily the view of Virgil, the earliest known recorder of the myth. Virgil wrote that Orpheus's backward glance was "A pardonable offense, if the spirits knew how to pardon."
In some versions, when the upper world comes into Orpheus's view, he thinks his journey is over. In this moment, he's so ecstatic and so eager to finally see Eurydice that he unthinkingly turns around an instant too soon, either just before he reaches the threshold or when he's already crossed it but Eurydice is still a few steps behind him. In this scenario, it isn't a personal flaw that makes him look back, but just a moment of passion-fueled carelessness, and the fact that it costs him Eurydice shows the pitilessness of the Underworld.
In other versions, concern for Eurydice makes him look back. Sometimes he looks back because the upward path is steep and rocky, and Eurydice is still limping from her snakebite, so he knows she must be struggling, in some versions he even hears her stumble, and he finally can't resist turning around to help her. Or more cruelly, in other versions – for example, in Gluck's opera – Eurydice doesn't know that Orpheus is forbidden to look back at her, and Orpheus is also forbidden to tell her. So she's distraught that her husband seems to be coldly ignoring her and begs him to look at her until he can't bear her anguish anymore.
These versions highlight the harshness of the Underworld's law, and Orpheus's failure to comply with it seems natural and even inevitable. The message here seems to be that death is pitiless and irreversible: a demigod hero might come close to conquering it, but through little or no fault of his own, he's bound to fail in the end.
Another interpretation I've read is that Orpheus's backward glance represents the nature of grief. We can't help but look back on our memories of our dead loved ones, even though it means feeling the pain of loss all over again.
Then there's the interpretation that Orpheus chooses his memory of Eurydice, represented by the backward glance, rather than a future with a living Eurydice. "The poet's choice," as Portrait of a Lady on Fire puts it. In this reading, Orpheus looks back because he realizes he would rather preserve his memory of their youthful, blissful love, just as it was when she died, than face a future of growing older, the difficulties of married life, and the possibility that their love will fade. That's the slightly more sympathetic version. In the version that makes Orpheus more egotistical, he prefers the idealized memory to the real woman because the memory is entirely his possession, in a way that a living wife with her own will could never be, and will never distract him from his music, but can only inspire it.
Then there are the modern feminist interpretations, also alluded to in Portrait of a Lady on Fire but seen in several female-authored adaptations of the myth too, where Eurydice provokes Orpheus into looking back because she wants to stay in the Underworld. The viewpoint kinder to Orpheus is that Eurydice also wants to preserve their love just as it was, youthful, passionate, and blissful, rather than subject it to the ravages of time and the hardships of life. The variation less sympathetic to Orpheus is that Euyridice was at peace in death, in some versions she drank from the river Lethe and doesn't even remember Orpheus, his attempt to take her back is selfish, and she prefers to be her own free woman than be bound to him forever and literally only live for his sake.
With that interpretation in mind, I'm surprised I've never read yet another variation. I can imagine a version where, as Orpheus walks up the path toward the living world, he realizes he's being selfish: Eurydice was happy and at peace in the Elysian Fields, she doesn't even remember him because she drank from Lethe, and she's only following him now because Hades and Persephone have forced her to do so. So he finally looks back out of selfless love, to let her go. Maybe I should write this retelling myself.
Are any of these interpretations – or any others – the "true" or "definitive" reason why Orpheus looks back? I don't think so at all. The fact that they all exist and can all ring true says something valuable about the nature of mythology.
I've just watched this amazing movie... one of the best i've ever seen. Amazing cast, amazing plot, amazing soundtreck! Just awesome!