Two New Adaptation Studies Journals

Adaptation: The Journal of Literature on Screen Studies. Ed. Deborah Cartmell, Timothy Corrigan and Imelda Whelehan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, HY^?)'. Journal of Adaptation irt Film and Performance. Ed. Richard J. Hand and Katja Krebs. Bristol: Intellect Books, 2007-. Two new journals of adaptation studies, both published in Great Britain, offer a fascinating Insight into how the discipline is building upon the valuable work done over the previous three decades by Uterature/Film Quarferfy, and expanding into new areas of theoretical and empirical enquiry. Launched in 2007, the first issue of The Journal
! Adaptation in Film and Performance begins with a

! terature-into-film essay in which Sarah Artt looks ar how the Merchant-Ivory version of The Golden /fja'/(200t) incorporates visual symbolism deriving from Sargent as well as other artisdc sources. I lowever the journal expands its focus into other .ueas of the performing arts such as opera, theatre, :ind translation. Freda Chappie shows how Macbeth \\ as transformed into a novels! Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District (1865) and later adapted by Shostakin-ich as Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk (1934) and filmed ;is Katerina smaiiova (1967). All these adaptations (or, as Chappie calls them, remediations) criticize [he ways in which the authorities rule the Russian nation. Pedro de Senna draws upon his own experiences as a practicing translator to show how rendering the Brazilian stage musical Calahar (1973) into English forced him to bear in mind that this was a text for performance transporting audiences to the center of important ideas. This meant discarding consideradons of textual fidelity in favor or creating "a parricidal dis-memory" (42). Once again questions of fidelity crop up, but this time in a translation rather than an adaptation; this should prompt speculation on how to distinguish between the two, which is something that the Journal of Adaptation in Film and Performance hopes to investigate. Jim O'Loughlin looks at various versions of Uncle Tom's Cabin for stage and screen. He concludes that images assume more significance than words in the adaptations: audiences were already familiar with the book and were ready to accept rewritings of it. The issue's final article 'Translating the City" records the dramaturg Duska Radosavljevic's experiences of translating Wenders's Wings of Desire (1987) into a stage-play performed in Newcastle, northeast England. While some of its conclusions might seem tentative (drawing upon notions of textual equivalence largely discredited in current adaptation studies theory), this is perhaps the most interesting contribution to the volume. It is refreshing to learn about the process of textual evolution rather than reading endless commentaries on completed texts.

72

Review: Two New Adaprarion Studies Joumals/73 Contributions to the second issue of the journal encompass liter ature-in to-film studies of Superman adaptations, the relationship between Kurosawa's Rz7 and K/ngLear, and the adaptation of ancient history in Trqy (2004) and 300 (2007), to a study of Mel Brooks's Broadway adaptation (201) of his highly successful film The Producers. The s tage-director Michael Fry also talks about the challenges involved in adapting Ewma and Tess of the dVrbenlles to the stage.
After just two issues, Journal of Adaptation in Film and Veijortfiance reminds us

of the importance of bringing together adaptation experts from various subject areas, not just literature and screen studies. Only then will the discipline be able to advance into new areas of enquiry. Hopefully future issues can address questions such as the relationship between translation and adaptadon, and whether they assume different meanings in different contexts.' Launched earlier this yc^,Ad^tation begins by giving ten reasons why the discipline has been neglected in the past; they include institutional prejudice, an often constricdve focus on the canon, and a fiandamental distrust of adaptations themselves (they are somehow "inferior" to their "original" sources). The editors propose an approach similar to that adopted by LFQ, focusing both on literature on screen and the screen as literaturea commingling of both disciplines. Emphasis will be placed on alternative methodologies, for example, looking at the institutional and international networks of power that determine k how and why adaptations are commissioned and/or produced. On the evidence of the first volume, it seems that the editors have more than fulfilled their aims. Simone Murray's fascinating essay "Phantom Adaptations" tens the storj' of an adaptation of the Australian novelist Murray Bail's Hucalyptus., which was announced in the press but never made. Nicole Kidman and Russell Crowe were slated to star, but the project collapsed for several reasons, both financial and otherwise. Murray shows the importance not only of analyzing the *'how" and "why" of an adaptation, but also the "why not"defined in this case-study as the role played by institutions in green-lighting or discontinuing a project. Kamilla Elliott's "Gothic-Film-Parody" (24-43) offers a lucid discussion of how parodies of
Gothic classics such us Abbott and Costel/o Meet Dr. Jek^'U and Air. Hyde (\953), Lutve at

first Bite (1979), and Dr. fekyll and Ms. Hyde (1995) deliberately undermine prevailing literary-critical interpretations of the genre, especially left-wing assumptions about Gothic's perceived "radical" or "subversive" content. In several films "the radical can become authoritarian and authority can rebel the moment it begins to lose power" (34). Elliott concludes by showing how Gothic parodies can open up new ideological \'istas and new narradves that resist totalizing stratagems. Jeremy Strong's "Team Films in Adaptation" concentrates on works involving a group of "professional" talents gathered together to carry out a specific task such as The
Great Fiscape (1963) or The Wild Geese or (more recently) The league of hxtraordinary

74/Review: Two New Adaptation Studies Journals

Gentlemen (2003). They have become so well-known in their own right that their original source texts are virtually forgotten. This is a good point; but I'd have welcomed further analysis of the gender assumptions behind such films: why are the "professional" talents almost exclusively male? Thomas Leitch contributes two articles to Adaptation. The first in Volume 1"Adaptation Studies at a Crossroads" (available free online at the journal website)surveys recent critical contributions to the genre, several of which have already been reviewed in previous issues of Literature/Film Quarterly. The second in Volume 2, "Adaptation, the Genre," advocates that adaptations should be approached as works in their own right, containing generic markers such as the use of period settings and music, the conscious fedshizing of history, an obsession with books and works, and the use of intertitles to set the films in their "appropriate" period. He illustrates his case with reference to the proliferation of films based on Alexandre Dumas's {pere ex.fils)works. Other articles discuss lesser known works. Alessandra Raengo looks at The Jackie Kobimon Story., a 1950 film starring Robinson himself. Drawing upon Richard Dyer's work on stardom, she argues that Robinson on screen was reinvented as an icon of racial reconciliation. She further shows how his screen-image transformed him from a sports star into a commodity, lisa Hopkins looks at the book and film versions of the Icelandic author Hallgrimur Helgason's 101 Rey/^afik, and explains why the film omitted all references to the book, although retaining its title. Volume 2 o Ad^tation is rounded off by Yvonne Griggs's "KingLear^ina the Urban Gangster Movie" (a companion-piece to her article \r\ journal of Adaptation
in Film and Performance)..vAch suggests that films such as House of Strangers {\^4Q)

and the Godfather trilogy (1973, 1975, 1990) drew on a framework traceable back to Shakespeare's text. This contribution adopts a familiar methodological focus, but is nonetheless valuable. On the evidence of the first volume. Adaptation has established a valuable outlet for work by new and established scholars, proving beyond all doubt that adaptation studies is here to stay. I look foru'ard to further volumes. If there are readers wondering whether the appearance of these journals threatens Literature/Film Quarterly"^ position within adaptation studies, I can only respond by saying that this kind of healthy competition pro\ides a unique opportunity' for the discipline to progress, both intellectually and within academic institutions everywhere. Laurence Raw Baskent University, Turkey Note
' Since the first issue was launched, I have been fortunate enough to be asked to join the Editorial Board of journal of Adt^taon in Film and Performance. ,