Read the following passage and answer the questions.
The matter of adaptation of literary or theatrical works to the cinema has been taken from granted by most early filmmakers including – not the least among them – Sergei Eisenstein. The Lessons with Eisenstein, as recorded by one of his students, Vladimir Nizhny, are, in fact, lessons in film adaptation …… Reading Lessons with Eisenstein gives the impression that film making is adaptation. Were not some of our most memorable film experiences derived from novels, plays, Broadway shows? So, what is the problem? The author is dead – or nearly so. Texts are open – or can be opened. Plagiarism is an empty concept.
Adaptation has been an issue in both classic and post-classic – that is, pre-mid- 1960s and post-mid -1960s – film theory. But whereas classical theory dealt with the transfer of a work from one set of codes to another set, recent film theory of adaptation. For, to paraphrase Robin Wood, if you have masterpiece, sooner or later the presence of the master will be felt. This is why film adaptation remains an important issue today in as much as auteurism endures.
One could, of course allude have to the observation of Mcluhan that any new medium absorbs the products of earlier media. That is what film did with regard to literary and theatrical works. And we can see the same phenomenon occurring today with television. This new corner, indeed, absorbs everything; journalism , education, religion, entertainment, sports, arts, business – all but McLuhan has done much more, in this respect to help us take note of a rather obvious phenomenon. This phenomenon creates problems for the filmmaker. The latter show that a screening of his her film on the TV network has important implications regarding the very perception of the film – let alone necessary market implications. While making film, a filmmaker may have to keep in mind that his or her film may eventually be shown on TV and this may mean disaster to the complex sound track, to image composition where the values of color and masses may be neutralized, and, above all, to framing. It is not a purists matters of the works being unaltered, faithfully reproduced. It is a matter of life or death: there are film segments that just won’t go on the small screen.
Similarly, the adaptation of literary or theatrical work to film can be a matter of life or death for the work concerned. As Andrey Tarkovsky has noticed:
Some works have a wholeness, and are endowed with a precise and original literary image, characters are drawn in unfathomable depths. The composition has an extraordinary capacity for enchantment, and the book is indivisible; through the pages comes the astonishing, unique personality of the author; books like that are masterpieces, and only someone who is actually indifferent both to fine prose and to the Cinema can conceive the urge to screen then. It is all the more important to emphasize this point now, when the time has come for literature to be separated once and for all, from cinema.