What have we wrought? Popular Culture, Adaptations and the Death of Canon (Part 1)
The point of this post, when I finally get around to it, is that adaptations of literature in popular culture have tended to emphasise an overly romanticised angle, spawning fandoms that are copiously creative in their worship of romantic pairings, but seem to have no regard for authorial intent in the original sources.
What got me thinking about this was a movie which is not even technically an adaptation of a book. I recently read a few online opinions on the Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur triangle and there was an uniform distaste for the glorification of the adulterous pair's passion for each other; as if passion excused Lancelot's betrayal of his king, or Guinevere's betrayal of her husband. I agree whole-heartedly. In fact, I wish the entire Lancelot plot was never in the classic Arthurian writings. It detracts from the true glory of Arthurian legend - the tales of courage, chivalry, battles, brotherhood, loyalty, love, magic and mysticism. The love triangle with Lancelot was just a rather tawdry distraction.
Then I came across First Knight while channel surfing. An entire movie ostensibly inspired by the King Arthur legend, and it had this tagline: "Their greatest battle would be for her love."
No prizes for guessing what was important to the film-makers. Not the battles for independence and sovereignty (although battles formed the backdrop), not the Knights of the Round Table (although several knights were featured), not Merlin (this was alas, not a wizard-world version of Arthur) , not even the creepy incestuous Morgaine/Mordred subplot (again, no magic in this version). Nope, the most important thing about King Arthur is that he had a wife who fell passionately in love with a young handsome knight and their love could not be denied. Yeah, well, ho-hum. I might be more interested if Lancelot wasn't played by Richard Gere, who was just so uncomfortable in period costume.
The thing is, I don't really much mind how film-makers choose to interpret the Arthur story. There is not one fixed text that they could faithfully follow or carelessly defile, as is more often the case. There are so many accounts and versions from Tennyson to White to Zimmer-Bradley. Canonical King Arthur is a many-headed creature. A romanticised approach is not at the expense of textual faithfulness, so I can live with it, although I reserve the right to decry shoddy film-making and maudlin sentimentality.
Too often though, romance is highlighted in book adaptations to the extent that it is deterimental to other textual points. While book purists cringe, the adaptations find new audiences and new fans, many of whom are of the "shipper" breed. I am not sure why, but female fans are especially quick to hook into the romance angle of any story. Even if romance is only a minor plot point in the original, fans have the ability to magnify it and analyse it to death.
This is still not so bad if the romance is within the realms of canon. The 1995 BBC mini-series adaptation of Pride and Prejudice launched a million Darcy-Lizzie ships, on the strength of one wet shirt, one exchange of looks and a very chaste kiss. Lizzie and Darcy did marry in the book, so this was a Austen sanctioned relationship.
Where it starts to get weird is when people start "shipping" pairings that are not in the original books and are clearly not within authorial intent. The two fandoms that come to mind immediately are the BIG 2 musicals - Phantom of the Opera and Les Miserables. Both are based on French novels and both have pseudo-operatic scores with lush melodies. And both have spawned rabid fans wishing death on one half of the central romantic pairing.
To follow in the Part 2: Les Miserables
What got me thinking about this was a movie which is not even technically an adaptation of a book. I recently read a few online opinions on the Lancelot-Guinevere-Arthur triangle and there was an uniform distaste for the glorification of the adulterous pair's passion for each other; as if passion excused Lancelot's betrayal of his king, or Guinevere's betrayal of her husband. I agree whole-heartedly. In fact, I wish the entire Lancelot plot was never in the classic Arthurian writings. It detracts from the true glory of Arthurian legend - the tales of courage, chivalry, battles, brotherhood, loyalty, love, magic and mysticism. The love triangle with Lancelot was just a rather tawdry distraction.
Then I came across First Knight while channel surfing. An entire movie ostensibly inspired by the King Arthur legend, and it had this tagline: "Their greatest battle would be for her love."
No prizes for guessing what was important to the film-makers. Not the battles for independence and sovereignty (although battles formed the backdrop), not the Knights of the Round Table (although several knights were featured), not Merlin (this was alas, not a wizard-world version of Arthur) , not even the creepy incestuous Morgaine/Mordred subplot (again, no magic in this version). Nope, the most important thing about King Arthur is that he had a wife who fell passionately in love with a young handsome knight and their love could not be denied. Yeah, well, ho-hum. I might be more interested if Lancelot wasn't played by Richard Gere, who was just so uncomfortable in period costume.
The thing is, I don't really much mind how film-makers choose to interpret the Arthur story. There is not one fixed text that they could faithfully follow or carelessly defile, as is more often the case. There are so many accounts and versions from Tennyson to White to Zimmer-Bradley. Canonical King Arthur is a many-headed creature. A romanticised approach is not at the expense of textual faithfulness, so I can live with it, although I reserve the right to decry shoddy film-making and maudlin sentimentality.
Too often though, romance is highlighted in book adaptations to the extent that it is deterimental to other textual points. While book purists cringe, the adaptations find new audiences and new fans, many of whom are of the "shipper" breed. I am not sure why, but female fans are especially quick to hook into the romance angle of any story. Even if romance is only a minor plot point in the original, fans have the ability to magnify it and analyse it to death.
This is still not so bad if the romance is within the realms of canon. The 1995 BBC mini-series adaptation of Pride and Prejudice launched a million Darcy-Lizzie ships, on the strength of one wet shirt, one exchange of looks and a very chaste kiss. Lizzie and Darcy did marry in the book, so this was a Austen sanctioned relationship.
Where it starts to get weird is when people start "shipping" pairings that are not in the original books and are clearly not within authorial intent. The two fandoms that come to mind immediately are the BIG 2 musicals - Phantom of the Opera and Les Miserables. Both are based on French novels and both have pseudo-operatic scores with lush melodies. And both have spawned rabid fans wishing death on one half of the central romantic pairing.
To follow in the Part 2: Les Miserables
Labels: Fiction and Fandom
posted by gentleice the deptfordian at 7:11 PM
<< Home