# data[].attributes.body
The debate around adaptation and originality of adapted texts is continuously relevant within media from literature being adapted into films to video games being adapted into television, however when is one adaptation deemed good whilst others titled money grabs? Adaptations are often seen as very popular within the media either being praised for their ability to ‘successfully’ retell a story or criticized for possibly changing the original source too much or simply being deemed as unoriginal and labeled as a financial gain.

My main focus on this topic will be novels adapted into films, investigating certain areas of debate around production and capturing the spirit of a novel into a film adaptation. “The filmmaker merely treats the novel as raw material and ultimately creates his own structure” (Bluestone, 1996:9) This raw material provides a somewhat readymade audience for producers and directors to fall back on without so much of a risk a ‘original’ or non-adaptation film would face without a pre-existing fanbase. This could be both a positive and negative for adaptations because on one hand it grants more creative freedom for directors to add their own touch to the original source text without too much of a worry about financial loss but on the other hand, it could cause the adaptation text to feel a little sloppy in its desire to engage with an audience other than those already familiar with the storyline.

Personally, I believe this debate is rather unfair purely due to the different experiences one can receive from either watching a film or reading a novel. “The camera depicts but does not describe” (Chatman, 1980:121) To read a book is to get lost in that rich definition of surroundings and characters while creating these images described in one's head. Whilst within a film, spectators are already presented with the visuals of characters and locations. It is a completely different experience and even relationship presented for individuals as novels can tend to feel more intimate as most of the time the text is read alone whilst with a film the text is received generally with other people.

That's not to say I agree with ideas around Novels being better than films, just that both mediums can be received in different ways. For example, the novella Coraline (2002) by Neil Gaiman has been adapted into multiple media worlds such as stage plays, graphic novels but the most famously known is the film Coraline (2009) Directed by Henry Selick. United States (100 mins) and whilst the film isn't exactly the same as the book there is still that sense of spirit recognized within the two texts; the same eerie atmosphere is captured within the film as within the book whilst adding in Henry Selicks own style and aesthetics. “The British author considered Selick an obvious choice because the latter ‘understands something that people often forget- that children love to be scared’” (Mihailova, 2021:6) Adaptations contain that sense of spirit when there is the idea within the text that the director has fully immersed themselves into the creativity of the film.

References:

Bluestone, G. (1957) Novels into film: The Metamorphosis of Fiction into Cinema. Los Angeles: U of California P.

Chatman, S. (1980) What novels can do that film can’t (and vice versa). Critical Inquiry. pp.121-40. At: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43798874 (Accessed 25/02/24)

Coraline (2009) Directed by Henry Selick. United States. (100 mins)

Mihailova, M. (2021) Coraline: A twitchy, witchy girl in stop-motion land. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. pp 1–18. At:  www.bloomsburycollections.com (Accessed 25/02/24)

# data[].attributes.headline
Intertextual references within the film Coraline 

# data[].attributes.subject
Intertextual references within the film Coraline 

# data[].attributes.body
Intertextuality plays a massive role within the stop motion animation film Coraline (2009) Directed by Henry Selick. United States (100 mins) with several subtle and not so subtle references to multiple texts.

Intertextuality essentially is the process of finding deeper meanings and connections behind what is visually on the screen through references either made explicit or vaguely for the viewer to infer connections themselves. “Intertextuality, a word which for Derrida evokes the dependence of any text on a host of prior figures, conventions, codes and other texts.” (Stam, 1992:24) It is through the process of decoding intertextual references that audiences gain the ability to actively make these connections within the text.

Coraline embraces and takes advantage of the use of intertextuality especially with its links to Alice in Wonderland (1951) Directed by Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson and Hamilton Luske. United states (75 mins). The main reference being the passageway to the other world within Coraline; the small door which later on in the film Mr. Bobinsky refers to as the little door. This is very similar to the doors which Alice finds within Alice in wonderland when she falls down the rabbit hole and is met with the conundrum of being too big for the small door. Both doors within these two texts signify the entryway to a new world through which both characters Coraline and Alice are met with their ‘ideal’ worlds.

“Meaning becomes something which exists between a text and all the other texts to which it refers and relates, moving out from the independent text into a network of textual relations. The text becomes the intertext.” (Allen, 2000:1) This then leads me to my second example of intertextual referencing within Coraline which is another early scene within the movie where Coraline is instructed to explore the house by counting the number of windows and doors. There is a direct reference to Psycho (1960) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock. United States. (109 mins) where Coraline is seen to push the shower curtain to one side revealing bugs on the wall which she begins to squash, while this scene plays the original exploratory music playing is briefly replaced by a more slashing type of music (very similar to that within psycho but with a more subdued tone) while she kills the bugs in the shower before the previous soundtrack resumes. This style of intertextuality is very effective within Coraline as the references are very subtle, leaving the viewer a sense of pride if they can make a connection to the referred text.

Finally, Henry Selick also makes amazing use of being very self-referential within his work. Within Coraline we see references to two of his previous works being The nightmare before Christmas (1993) Directed by Henry Selick. United States (76 mins) when the other mother is seen making an omelette Jack Skellington’s face can be seen within the egg yolk briefly. Along with references to Monkeybone (2001) Directed by Henry Selick. United States (93 mins) Where Coraline's other father is seen wearing monkeybone slippers. Again, this use of subtlety is very effective within active viewership gaining audience members a feeling of achievement when noticing these references.

References:

Alice in Wonderland (1951) Directed by Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson and Hamilton Luske. United states (75 mins)

Allen, G. (2000) Intertextuality. New York: London, Routledge.

Coraline (2009) Directed by Henry Selick. United States. (100 mins)

Monkeybone (2001) Directed by Henry Selick. United States (93 mins)

Psycho (1960) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock. United States. (109 mins)

Stam, R., Burgoyne, R. and Flitterman-Lewis, S. (1992) New vocabularies in film semiotics: structuralism, post-structuralism, and beyond. New York: London, Routledge.

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) Directed by Henry Selick. United States (76 mins)

# data[].attributes.headline
Active spectatorship: Stuart Halls Reception Theory

# data[].attributes.subject
Active spectatorship: Stuart Halls Reception Theory

# data[].attributes.body
Stuart Hall's reception theory focuses on three main ways in which text is decoded by spectators. Firstly, the dominant or sometimes called the preferred reading where audiences take away the intended message from the text due to it being presented in a clear relevant way. Secondly, the negotiated reading where spectators bring together their own views and reception of the text along with parts of the producers original intended meanings. Then finally the oppositional reading where audiences reject the dominant ideologies and create their own meaning behind the text, this could be either due to an audience disagreeing with potential controversial themes explored, a lack of understanding from a complex narrative used or simply the audience having different beliefs, cultural backgrounds or being of a different age to the targeted audience.

“The individuals own role and activity in participating in the pleasures of the text, determining the meaning of a film and, even, the meaningfulness of cinema” (Aaron, 2007:1) Cinema relies on spectators and their ability in creating and interpreting not only the intended meaning behind the text but also their own personalized message, granting individual spectators a unique experience and relationship to the text.

However, where would Stuart Hall’s reception theory fit itself within a text that is considered polysemic? Surely if the ending of a film is left open to interpretation there would be a lack of oppositional readings received, however spectators would still be creating their own meaning behind the text which is what the producers would have intended so surely all readings of polysemic text would be considered a dominant or oppositional reading.

This then brings in the idea of the ‘ideal’ viewer compared to the hypothetical spectator. “The spectator has tended to fall into perfect correspondence with the narrative and visual operations specific to a textual system.” (Klinger, 1998: 3) which I think aligns nicely with Hall’s reception theory in addressing the spectator rather than the viewer as his theory is too narrow to be categorizing viewers as individuals who's cultural/ religion backgrounds can affect the reading of certain texts rather he focuses on a mass of spectators all adhering to these three categories of reading.

Bringing in the example of the stop-motion film Coraline (2009) Directed by Henry Selick. United States (100 mins) I wanted to briefly make comments on the use of polysemy within this film and the role the viewer is given while drawing connections and meanings behind the narrative. Within Coraline audiences are given the ability to either actively dedicate their whole attention to the small details and hints given out towards the intentions behind certain shots, or allowed a more passive viewing where these small hints are missed but spectators are still brought to the same polysemic conclusion of has Coraline really truly escape the Beldam?

I would imagine the majority of viewers who indulged in Coraline would be placed on a more oppositional reading of Halls reception theory purely because of so many of the different theories around the film itself, and what truly happened and the connotations behind certain symbolism within the film that might not have been fully intentional by the director. I believe a great deal of polysemic films would fall into this category simply because of the number of different meanings viewers can create and interpret for themselves.

References:

Aaron, M. (2007) Spectatorship: the power of looking on. London: Wallflower.

Coraline (2009) Directed by Henry Selick. United States. (100 mins)

Klinger ,B. (1989) Digressions at the cinema: Reception and Mass Culture. In: Cinema journal, 28(4), pp.3 At : https://www.jstor.org/stable/1225392 (Accessed 22/02/2024)