Why Adaptations are good for Literature and Movies.

Adaptation is a work created from an original material. Adaptation can be a book, a movie, or a play. Adaptations can benefit from the original material or the material can benefit from the adaptation. Charles Eidsvik, the author of “Why Adaptations Are Good for Literature –And for Movies”, gives nine reasons why adaptations are good for film and literature. The author is an expert in Film and Literature. Adaptations have a lot to do with expectations. The higher the expectation, more frequent the disappointment. If an adaptation reaches our level of expectation, they are considered masterpieces.

Charles Eidsvik is sensitive to the unfair expectations viewers bring to adaptations. He suggests that if we approached adaptations a bit differently, we would recognize that adaptations advance the art of film. He claims that there is no single reason why adaptations should provide newness. He believes expectations have a lot to do with movies and determining what a masterpiece looks like. Our expectations are much higher for an adaptation than a movie and we are not willing to put up with a lot for adaptations. Twenty good minutes in an adaptation can contain more originality than a whole masterpiece. Charles Eidsvik gives four reasons why adaptations are good for literature, and five reasons why adaptations are good for movies.

First reason why adaptations are good for literature is that movie works an introduction to books. Second, movies help books get out of classroom and into streets. Third, movies help restore literature’s link with its past. Fourth, movies help make writers self-conscious, nervous, and experimental.

The reasons why adaptations are good for movies are as follows. One, books sold well might make movie a hit. Second, literature provides raw material for film. Third, adaptations keep middle class in shape. Fourth, adaptations present film with technical challenges. Fifth, literature gives filmmaker an inferiority complex.

The author refuses to believe that he has a soft spot for adaptations. Is he trying to convince himself whether he has a soft spot for not? He says that a film is worth watching only if it has ten or twenty good minutes in it. Is this always the case? He is not correct when he says that books are almost the only source of new ideas. Ideas can come from many different things. Books are not the only source of new ideas. Eidsvik does not clearly define adaptations, masterpieces, and co-opt. He expects his audience to know these things as if his audience is cine-literate. Is it fair to say there are only two ways to make a movie? One way is to line up stars, cash in the proven formula, or the other way is adaptations. Is it fair to say that twenty good minutes in an adaptation can contain more originality than a whole masterpiece? So what is a masterpiece? According to Eidsvik, “Masterpieces are no more or less than works so successful that they transcend or make us forget their limitations.” It seems the author is contradicting himself. It is not logical to say adaptations keep middle class in shape. How does Hollywood protect the middle class? He does not give enough evidence to support his claim. Is marriage between literature and film significant? How do we benefit from the “lousy marriage?” How do we benefit from adaptations? I watched a book and its adaptations and I don’t think that we benefit from the process of adaptations.

This article can be interpreted in many different ways since the author does not do a good job of clearly defining adaptations and masterpieces. I think the author is biased. “I have a great deal more faith in the potency of a book first encountered in a college classroom.” I read a book named “One flew over the Cuckoo’s nest.” I also watched the adaptation after reading the book. I agree that books sold well may help a movie. Also literature provides raw material for movies. Adaptations provide film with technical challenges. After reading the book and later watching the movie, I realized that is was difficult to show all the details due to technical difficulties. Also because when we read the book, we imagine it