Write Here, Write Now

...Aren't they? I was watching "The Nutty Professor" last night and it struck me that although fun for kids, it was an amalgamation of Jekyll and Hyde with a dash of Cinderella thrown in. The fat professor was the benevolent Dr Jekyll, looking for a cure for obesity; he then accidentally creates the mean ladykiller alter-ego Buddy Love (aka Mr Hyde). They even go to a ball near the end where the potion wears off and Buddy Love turns fat again in front of everyone - just as Cinderella had to run off from a similar ball at midnight, leaving her glass slipper behind (why didn't that ever disappear along with her coach and dress? Never got that as a kid - adults would tell me, "It just didn't!!" Hey, maybe that's what made me a screenwriter?! Intriguing thought!)

There are all these variations of stories - but it's said those actual stories are still the same. Joseph Campbell was of the opinion there are only seven actual stories that can be "boiled down" - boy meets girl, fish out of water, etc. Everything else that's added is an elaboration. If that's true, then all stories are adaptations of those original seven... Aren't they?

Hmmm. Seems a little fishy to me. If it were so obvious, how come no one's noticed, in hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of years? If stories are constant and never change, and those measures like genre etc have been created AROUND them, why do stories still have the ability to surprise us? I'm not convinced we can separate story from the rest of its elements so easily.

I mean, look at the remakes that we don't actually call remakes. Dirty Dancing was one of the biggest movies of the eighties (I think I was one of the only little girls I knew who wasn't warbling "Time of my liiiifffffE....!" in the school playground; I was allergic to sentiment even then!) and producers must have been desperate to reproduce (pardon the pun) its success. So they did, with a movie called Coyote Ugly. It was just about the same movie in every way - a coming of age story, where a young girl is introduced to sex and lurve and expressing herself through creativity... Instead this time it was in a seedy bar instead of a 1950's butlins-style holiday camp. How nineties.

If we could separate story from the rest of its components so easily, then everyone would have immediately seen Coyote Ugly for what it was - a re-run of Dirty Dancing. We didn't. Some people even argue with me it was an entirely different movie, and hey - maybe they're right and I'm a big fat cynic. However you stand though, it cannot be argued that they DON'T share some very vital statistics in common (and I'm not talking about the heaving flesh in both movies!).

Also, when it comes to supposed remakes of other movies, you cannot get more famous than "Jaws" and "Alien". "Alien" was pitched as "Jaws in space" and it had movie moguls running for their chequebooks - but other than the fact the Alien had great big jaws and ate people, that was where the similarity actually ends, in direct contrast to Dirty/Ugly. Whilst Jaws was a "wolf threatening the village" story, this was very much NOT part of Alien's agenda. There was no "village" within The Nostromo space ship - these were desperate people who for the most part despised one another. In the Director's cut, much footage of this kind has been restored, especially the enmity between Ripley and Lambert, the only two females on board. "Alien" was not about the people who would otherwise have been happy had the monster not arrived then; rather it was about survival in the face of adversity, against all odds - including when the monster was actually vanquished, since their lives were still crap even after that: "Ten months to get back to earth?!" (Actually it took Ripley 55 years to reach the second instalment of the franchise, but hey - who's splitting hairs when it comes to navigation?)

So, stories - all adaptations? If you believe the notion that stories are constant and individuals build different components around them, then maybe. If you believe stories are fluid and change according to the times and even the writer, then the answer would have to be a resounding no: after all, we often attribute characteristics to some movies from others (Jaws/Alien) that we don't to more obvious candidates (Dirty/Ugly).

Or maybe there's another way of looking at this?

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

• #3 Comment from bang2writeEntry Author 
  03/01/06 18:56 | Permalink

  Some good points there - whatever it takes to ensure maximum audience enjoyment; as long as it has some kind of point, does it matter if it sails close to another story? In my book, no it doesn't. If you started to get previous about who does what to whom in relation to what story, we'd soon run out of material. We NEED variations of the same thing, quite literally - and then on top of that, it's desirable to see how others see the same thing - and film IS a communication as far as I'm concerned. You don't just write a story - you're telling the world exactly how you see it by the stories you choose, the characters you create within them and how they see the world too. Even if it's the exact opposite to how you are personally (I'm not a werewolf or vampire!), you're still making a statement in my view.
• #2 Comment from probitionate 
  03/01/06 15:59 | Permalink

  Why haven't we noticed if there are only a small core of original stories and all the rest are variations? I don't believe that people think that way when they're watching or listening to something being presented to them. I think there's an unconscious compact between the 'teller' and the 'listener' to entertain and be entertained and most people go into the exchange wanting so badly to have it turn out to be something magical that they switch off their filters. Not everyone, of course. And if the 'adaptation' isn't done well, if it's obvious that the movie or show is simply a tasteless retread, then the teller hasn't done their job properly. I think that it's not so much a problem with concepts these days that make for bad films. It's the execution. But then the 'screenplay by commitee' habits of Hollywood is yet another discussion, yes?
• #1 Comment from probitionate 
  03/01/06 15:57 | Permalink

  Hmm... Well, first off, I don't think I subscribe to the idea that people crave 'something new'. What they crave is something that resonates powerfully for them...and most times, it's a variation on something they've heard before. Great storytelling (and I should say right here that I'm in the 'film is visual storytelling' camp) means the *telling* is original. Not necessarily the thrust of the story.
  Yes, I've read Campbell and am familiar with the concept of there being a small number of basic tales and all the rest are variations thereof. Ditto for music; only so many notes, aren't there? Only so many ways to shake and stir and present? Again, I think it's all in the presentation. And I'm not talking about the 'look' of a film. Or which stars. Or the soundtrack. It's like a joke; any great comedic idea will have numerous ways to play it out. So if you took a concept to ten comedians and asked them to do something with it, you'd probably get ten different results. Each unique...but stemming from the same concept.
  
  As for whether all stories are 'adaptations'... I'll go along with this to a certain extent. I don't think you can say that there's all that much on the silver screen or the tv these days that isn't an 'adaptation'...or derivative...or an interpretation...or a remake! My job as a writer is to create something that resonates. Not something 'never seen before'. I write to move myself first, then craft it to move others. If it turns out I've written something akin to something else in basic concept, so be it. As long as I get them laughing or crying...or better yet, thinking.