Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions. The matter of adaptation of literary or theatrical works to the Cinema has been taken for 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 filmmaking 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 postmid- 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 offers but variations on the theme of authorship. For, to paraphrase Robin Wood, if you have a 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 here 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 comer, indeed, absorbs everything; journalism, education, religion, entertainment, sports, arts, business – all. But McLuhan has not done much more, in this respect, than to help us take note of a rather obvious phenomenon. This phenomenon creates problems for the filmmaker. The latter shows that a screening of his or 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 colour and masses may be neutralized, and, above all, to framing. It is not a purists matter of the work 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 a 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 them. 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. 46. What did the Lessons with Eisenstein talk about?

🎲 Try a Random Question  |  Total Questions in Quiz: 1714  |  🧠 Study this quiz with Flashcards
This question is part of a full practice quiz:
UGC NTA NET JRF Mass Communication & Journalism Previous Papers Questions — practice the complete quiz, review flashcards, or try a random question.

1700+ communication & journalism questions.The UGC NET Mass Communication and Journalism syllabus consists of 10 units: Communication & Journalism  Role of media in society, Demographic & sociological impact of media, effects Journalism- role & responsibilities, Indian constitution Magazines, Press Commission, Small Newspaper, Press Councils, Development of Radio after independence, Development of Television, Committees in broadcasting, Communication & theories of social change, Role of media in social change, and Cinema Dominant paradigm & alternative conception Administrative &... Show more

Directions: <em>Read the following passage</em> <em>and answer the questions.</em> The matter of adaptation of literary or theatrical works to the Cinema has been taken for 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 filmmaking 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 postmid- 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 offers but variations on the theme of authorship. For, to paraphrase Robin Wood, if you have a 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 here 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 comer, indeed, absorbs everything; journalism, education, religion, entertainment, sports, arts, business – all. But McLuhan has not done much more, in this respect, than to help us take note of a rather obvious phenomenon. This phenomenon creates problems for the filmmaker. The latter shows that a screening of his or 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 colour and masses may be neutralized, and, above all, to framing. It is not a purists matter of the work 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 a 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 them. 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.<br /> 46. What did the Lessons with Eisenstein talk about?






ADVERTISEMENT