adaptation essay 2

P a g e | 1Yi Wang Candidate No. 109050

Thomas Leitch identified twelve fallacies in adaptation studies. This essay aims to examine a

few of the fallacies by looking at the adaptation of children’s book The Invention of Hugo

Cabret --contemporary three dimensional film case Hugo (2011). Comparative analysis will

be employed as a primary approach to discuss three issues—the adapted value between the

two texts, film’s media specificity and visual over-specification with post-celluloid

adaptation. Leitch’s fallacies will be used to either support or criticise the scene examples.

To assess an adaptation and reach a conclusion such as it is better or worse than its source

text has been criticised as one of the twelve fallacies listed by Thomas Leitch (2003, p155).

An acknowledgement of both texts’ value should be encouraged and their shared values are

more likely to be recognized through the process of adaptation (MacCabe, 2011, p8). An

exploration on how books and films illuminate each other requests discussions on what

adapters adapt and what is the values both texts share. An adaptation process was compared

to manufacturing natural resources (Meikle 2013, p174) so how are ‘raw material’ rearranged

to maintain the value? In the first section of the essay a comparative analysis is employed to

identify the similarities and transmutation between the two works in order to figure out their

shared value in form and content.

I will begin by arguing that in the form the mutual value lies largely in the co-existence of

the very concept of film mechanics in both the children’s book and the digital film. Film’s

birth derives from unison of instantaneous photography (Kracauer, 2004, p143). In reflecting

this thematic concept both the book and film are considered as, in collaboration with each

other, contributing to our higher level of awareness in early film preservation. Philip Nel

(2012, p445) dedicated his article ‘Same Genus, Different Species: Comics and Picture


Books’ to an analogy of comics and picture books and pointed out intermittent illustrations’

presence and juxtaposition of a number of them with content continuity forms an important

feature of picture books. The Invention of Hugo Cabret contains one illustration in a panel.

The succession of a few of these panels provides readers who flip across pages with

cinematic experience. This designation, along with the black frames around pages and black

and white colour are reminiscent of storyboards and early cinema. The book integrates and

welcomes cinematic approach of telling stories (Clement & Long, 2012). Robert Stam (2000,

p74) also brought up the idea ‘cinematic novel’ defined as any book telling stories in filmic

mode. In the book we see illustrations assembled in an order from landscape to figure’s face

or even eye, the way establishing shot arrayed before close-ups. Selznick once described his

book as ‘not exactly a novel, not quite a picture book, not really a graphic novel, or a flip

book or a movie, but a combination of all these things’ (Selznick, 2012). Similar to films, it

tells stories with a convergence of text and images. In the book we see what Hugo does:

Hugo flipped through the pages of the book. There were images of men playing cards, people leaving a factory, each one a still from an early film. Hugo continued turning pages, and then he saw what he had been hoping to find. (Selznick 2007, p350-351)

Illustrations then follow abovementioned words but we see limited dynamics compared

with the same plot in the adaptation. In Hugo as Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz) and

Hugo (Asa Butterfield) are researching a book by René Tabard (Michael Stuhlbarg) in

the Film Academy Library, after the same line from both of them ‘no one had ever seen

anything like it before’, there is a montage of early film excerpts among which the shots

of two children’s flipping their book are intercut. Footage from early cinema follows the

corresponding content in their book and later some shots of their book being flipped

rapidly are intercut with canonical films’ footage until they turned to the picture from

Une Voyage dans la Lune (1902). When papa Georges (Ben Kingsley) firstly sees


Hugo’s notebook in toy booth, in a close-up we see him flip the notebook. The

automaton’s head starts turning towards us in the flipping. Later Hugo and Isabelle see

all the drawings flying in Georges Méliès’ room and with the aid of special effects we

see some pages of pictures flipped in the air and figures start moving. McFarlane (2004)

claimed that film adapters create aesthetic elements based on ‘raw material’ and

novelists are not the only creators. Both the book and film are innovative in the same

artistic sense.

Apart from film mechanics as one value abstractly inherited from the book in Hugo,

the general plot structure of the film follows primarily that of the book in spite of a

number of events’ chronical adjustment. For instance, at the end of chapter 2 Hugo

witness men and women locked up in jail cell in station inspector (Sacha Baron

Cohen)’s office. In the film, we can find a similar plot when Hugo witness a little orphan

being caught, locked up and taken away but only after the sequence of his working for

papa Georges’ toy booth. Instead of confronting audiences with the unpleasant orphan

sequence at the beginning, what the Hugo in film sees from roof clock is a light-hearted

interaction between Madame Emile (Frances de la Tour)’s pet dog and Monsieur Frick

(Richard Griffiths). Although the book has a more complex and detailed plot, Hugo

possesses its own way of engaging audiences by additions, deletions, and

transformations. In terms of content, it is not difficult to realise the film equivalents of

the book.

Another significant difference between the source and adaptation lies in the Hugo-

Isabelle relation. A supporting example will be the way Hugo gets back his notebook and

steals the heart-shaped key from Isabelle. At the end of the chapter 8 in part one Hugo stays

in the bookstore and finds a book titled Practical Manual of Card Magic and Illusions and

applies the tricks in it later to steal Isabelle’s key so he may function his mechanical man.


Plot here along with plot in Chapter 10 and 11 in part one are left out in Hugo as in the film

Hugo takes Isabelle to the department and finds out the message in automaton together.

Isabelle herself in the film likes adventure and secrets looking forward to satisfying her

curiosity so she passes on her key to Hugo in a harmonious symmetrical shot of hands of the

two. In the book Hugo only plans to find out the message alone. Isabelle rushes into his room

with anger and from page 234 to page 237 they fights in a childish manner. Hugo experiences

more dramatic obstacles to get the key in the book but in the film we see more of a harmony

between the two characters. Hugo tells Isabelle where he lives on the bridge over River the

Seine and that he had been winding up the train station clocks which should be a secret kept

from station inspector. He asks Isabelle to “act natural” once he spots the inspector. Later

Isabelle even helps him out of station inspector’s investigation. In the book “Hugo was lost

in thought” and he doesn’t tell Isabelle about Uncle Claude (Ray Winstone)’s disappearance

(Selznick 2007, p204). At the end of chapter 9 “they parted without saying goodbye”

(Selznick 2007, p222).

In the book Hugo resists going to cinema in front of Etienne and Isabelle initially but in the

film it is Hugo who invites Isabelle to the cinema by asking “do you want to have an

adventure?”

Despite the minute changes in details, the event that they go to cinema together

remained. Comparatively the book has a more detailed description of their cinematic

experience in the particular historical time:

There was one about the Depression in America, one about a World’s Fair that would be opening in Paris in a few months…and one about politics in Germany…In the end, the music grew wilder as two alarm clocks had a fight. The curtain closed, everyone applauded, and the projectionist changed the reels. (Selznick 2007, p202)


Whereas the film included the actual footage of Safety Last (1923) and in a series of eye line

match we are shown the two children’s reactions and facial expressions towards the story on

screen.

The second issue this essay is intended to discuss is the properties film medium owns

particularly beneficial for adaptation and the obstacles adapters may face. Although the

assumption that radical distinction between film and literature depends on their respective

media properties has been devalued by Leitch (2003, p151), it can still be useful if put in a

neutralised way. An art form will not accredit itself as valuable until its medium-specific

creative potentiality is defined (Hutcheon & O’ Flynn, p34). For film to maximise its creative

possibilities, Siegfried Kracauer identified its basic and technical properties in his essay

From Theory of Film: Basic Concepts. He firstly pointed out that film’s basic property is the

same as that of photography, namely to reveal and record physical reality. However, this

concept has been challenged in discussing post-celluloid adaptations. Rodowick (2007)

claimed that photographic film was disappearing and gradually replaced by digital

filmmaking that obscure the definition of ‘physical reality’. Dixon and Foster (2011) also

added the aesthetic and practical potentialities digital technologies could bring to new

generations of audiences. These arguments align with Leitch’s criticism that any properties

belong to a special historical time (Leitch 2003, p153). Higgins (2012, p196) provided a

timeline of new representational technologies evolved from ‘innovation to prevalence’.

Another property of film emphasized by Kracauer is editing, described and honoured as

the most meaningful and indispensable property. Juxtaposition of shots in continuity still

plays a significant role in cinema. This point can be elaborated by looking at two editing

techniques used wisely in Hugo – graphic match and flashback. I will compare the source text

with the adaptation in a few examples.


In the very first shot of Hugo (the aerial shot) we see machine pieces running and after a

dissolve the whole Paris skyline is presented. Scorsese made the most of Paris’ unique shape

of road map and this graphic match implies the thematic connection between the city, the

world and machinery. This editing technique conjures up the famous shot in Psycho (1960).

Marion’s eye was matched with the drain of tub after the famous shower murder scene.

Clement and Long (2012) mentioned Selznick’s interpretation about a critical chapter in the

book – chapter 6 in part two titled ‘Purpose’. Selznick appears to believe that an orphan

needs to find his own role in the world and the below conversation between Hugo and

Isabelle in the book are faithfully translated in Hugo:

“Sometimes I come up here at night, even when I’m not fixing the clocks, just to look at the city. I like to imagine that the world is one big machine. You know, machines never have any extra parts. They have the exact number and type of parts they need. So I believe that if the entire world is a big machine, I have to be here for some reason. And that means you have to be here for some reasons, too.” (Selznick 2007, p378)

With the graphic match at the beginning Hugo grounded this important theme and

demonstrated what the illustrations in the beginning of the book did not achieve. Another

example of graphic match can be found when Hugo and Isabelle watch all the drawings of

papa Georges fly in his room, the final picture of ‘A trip to the moon’ falls down. We see

papa Georges open the door next and wonder what happened in the room. This novelty in

shot design here matches Georges Méliès’s identity with his representative work, which

suggests that he along with his works need to be fixed, repaired or restored as the moon’s eye

needs to. In the lengthy flashback of Georges Méliès’s retells his lifelong story. He sits in

front of the camera and graphic match is used again in dissolving into the younger Georges

Méliès. When he finally mentions the reason that his dream of filmmaking was ruined –the

war, there is a juxtaposition between the shot of his own film set in studio with fireworks

effect and the shot of explosion in war. We see him burning all his film strips into ashes later


with fire graphically matched with the previous explosion. Chemicals made from his film

strips were reproduced as shoes and we see another graphic match of shoes and shoes worn

by passers-by walking in train station.

Another valuable editing technique in Hugo is flashback –a technique concerned largely

with the rearrangement of ‘raw material’ from the book. I will take chapter 5 in part one as an

example to compare the two works. Chapter 5 reveals the reason why Hugo has been stealing

machine pieces from toy booth and where his stubbornness of getting back his notebook

derives from. Both film and book indicate the temptation to tell the story from the past.

Whereas chapter 5 contains paragraphs and five illustrations in five panels, Hugo not merely

possesses flashback shots but also two shots of cutting back to Hugo’s sad face with tearful

eyes recalling everything from now. The two cutting-backs in close-up show Hugo’s same

face but slightly different reactions to different stages of the past—him and father fixing

automaton together with notebook available and him being adopted by drunk uncle Claude,

which marks the commence of his infortunes. Every time it cuts back to Hugo’s face now we

see the lighting effect and sound that seem to imitate the lights and sounds film projectors

generate. Hugo is not only recalling but memories in the past remain in his head as if he were

watching a film about himself. The two close-ups can be interpreted as Scorsese’s

understanding of Hugo’s attitudes now towards the past. In chapter 5 there are descriptions of

Hugo’s thoughts and emotions then when everything happened – confusion, fear, loneliness

but we barely find his thoughts now towards the past except the emotion of guilty:

“This was all his fault! He had wanted his father to fix the machine, and now, because of him, his father was dead.” (Selznick 2007, p124)

Within words’ description the difference between emotions now and then is obscured and by

reading the text in past tense it is difficult to differentiate the emotional changes. However

with cutting back and forth between Hugo now and Hugo then, not only can audiences see


two different looks of Hugo but in the two shots we see Hugo’s subjective emotional

distinction and transformation after experiencing the past. He was better dressed and hairs cut

neat then. We conceive and interpret the overturn in his life not just by seeing the contrast in

appearance but also by the way the two looks are presented together. In the book we see once

his hair style change but it is nearly at the end of the book (the two illustrations connected by

‘SIX MONTHS LATER’ before chapter 11 in part two show his change) when he finds back

his own dream, his ‘own place’, to borrow Selznick’s words, as a magician. Editing falls into

the category of narrative code that belongs to one of the codes film compasses—auditory

code, fictional code, visual code and character description (Leitch, 2003, p156). It is an

exemplary embodiment that films deals with not only visual perceptions but also the way

images are assembled, which leads to productive interpretations through conceptions.

Despite the availability of properties such as editing (flashback or flash-forward), film

adapters are still confronted with obstacles and challenges to cope with its running time

narrative flow in accuracy. Time phrases are constantly brought up in chapter 5. On page 130

we see “a long time passed”. On page 132 there is “three months had passed since then”. On

page 126 there is time reference “Soon, Uncle Claude began to disappear for hours at a

time…Sometimes his uncle didn't return until very late…and then one day…” in regarding to

Uncle Claude’s disappearance (Selznick 2007, p126-127). The plot is simplified in the

flashback but we don't have a clearer sense of Uncle Claude’s change. All we realise is time

does pass in the montage and the film condensed Hugo’s past experiences. As far as Deren

(1984) is concerned, motion picture is mainly a time form. With both the plot and film’s

screening time (not story time) condensed, what is sacrificed or abandoned is the complicated

process through which automaton was recuperated. The Invention of Hugo Cabret consists of

chapters. Each chapter alone can be a story. Leitch (2003, p152) regarded readers’

historically formed reading habits as a factor that determines perceptions around media’s


distinction. For readers reading only a few chapters a time they pause and leave it to next

day. Therefore there are beginning and closure in each chapters encouraging readers to

continue reading next time but the narrative flow in a feature length film needs to be managed

to engage audiences’ attention throughout the screening time without viewers feeling

tiresome. Hence a degree of continuity is required in plot’s unfolding. This leads to deletions

of some plots. For instance in chapter 8 of part one, instead of including the conversations of

Georges Méliès teaching Hugo magic tricks, we only see montage of teaching without

dialogues. Chapter 8 is centred on Hugo’s new life pattern – standing behind toy booth

counter during the day and fixing automaton during the night. With soundtrack left occupied

only by orchestra music, we see shots of Hugo practicing magic tricks, helping in toy booth,

fixing automaton, and watching life events ongoing in train station without the equal

complication in plot in the book.

In the novel there are constantly words dedicated to express Hugo’s nostalgia to all his

father did from taking him to cinema to reading books to him. When he first meets Etienne,

the man with eye patch who is eliminated from Hugo, he is invited by Isabelle to the cinema

and his thoughts are stated:

“Hugo looked at both of them. He thought about the time he had gone to the cinema with Father and how much they had loved being together in the darkness of the theatre.” (Selznick 2007, p173)

Also later,

“The idea of going to the cinema made Hugo remember something Father had once told him, about going to the cinema when he was just a boy, when films were new. Hugo’s father had stepped into dark room and, on a white screen, he had seen a rocket fly right into the eye of the man in the moon.” (Selznick 2007, p176)

In effect, similar nostalgic thoughts about his father appear in the book sometimes just in the

form of a single short sentence – “First came the newsreels, each one a few minutes long…


Hugo knew his father would have loved it…”(Selznick 2007, p202). These short sentences

recur to suggest Hugo’s deep emotional attachment. Literature fiction gives priorities to

internal motivations, thoughts and attitudes than to external appearances (Andrew 1984,

p103). The tool with similar but not identical functions as printed words existing in film is

dialogue. Leitch (2003, p158), while admitting film’s weakness in conveying direct thoughts,

indicated that the pleasure it offers lies in engaging audiences in figuring out characters’ ideas

by representing their actions and words. Though immediate nostalgic reactions of Hugo

confronted with situations in the book was sacrificed in the film, it is partly made up by

several scenes in which Hugo expressed the nostalgia directly to other characters. A

representative example of the scenes happens after Isabelle and he are driven out of cinema

and walking on a bridge across River the Seine, with Notre-Dame de Paris in the background.

In the conversation Isabelle shows sympathy asking the questions of ‘where do you live?’ and

‘you think about him a lot don’t you?’ after Hugo tells her the movie his father watched

before. Hugo verbalises this nostalgia by answering ‘all the time’. Film consists of at least

five tracks: motion pictures, sound, music, ambient noises and written words and filmmakers

have independent choices of utilising these tracks (Stam 2000, p59). Not simply the

presentation of dialogue, other tracks invite audiences’ comprehension on what characters

think. We hear the theme song after the question ‘where do you live?’ with emotion built up,

which made up for its inability of internalising emotions in words. Despite the distinguished

modes of engagement in two media, they share the aim of representing character’s

psychological status.

In introducing the essentiality of post-celluloid adaptation, Constandinides (2012, p26)

summarised that a transformation from older, more conventional media to a more novel

media is certainly involved in such process but unlike celluloid adaptations they explore

multiple aspects of media text that are independent and inter-dependent simultaneously. Post-


celluloid adaptation procedure can be regarded as deriving from the essentiality of

convergence culture. These multiple aspects are achieved with computer editing, that

Constandinides (2012,p23) described as to have advanced ahead of montage by its ability of

producing one single shot combining layers of actions altogether in seamless space. It can

result in incredible effects that enable us to believe our immersion in a certain space rather

than an artificial, constructed space achieved by traditional montage. “Digital compositing is

not concerned with time but with space…” (Constandinides, 2012, cited in Manovich 2001,

p155).

Hugo can be seen as an example in point since it contains scenes largely relying on the

assistance from special effect and three dimensional technologies. In the book the first 21

illustrations lead readers into train station circumstance. The image content from the third

panel to the seventh panel are presented in Hugo as one continuous shot. In the book from

page p436 to 439, the two illustrations of Hugo hiding around the giant clock are converted

into an imitation of the iconic scene in Safety Last (1923). Train is another leitmotif recurring

in some significant scenes associated with digital cinema. What we see as only a

documentary photograph in the book finds its equivalent of passengers screaming and

running away from platform in three dimensional space of Hugo. A sentence “he knew every

inch of the train station” (Selznick 2007, p145) can be transferred into Hugo’s running inside

station walls from one clock to another. These visual spectacles lead to the third issue in this

essay-- the relation between over specification in adaptation and digital filmmaking. Leith

(2003, p160) considered the assumption that films create barriers for audiences to imagine

visual details whereas novels stimulate readers to imagine, as a fallacy. The reasons he gives

are the details novels can specify outweighs those that films specify in terms of details’

importance and imagination should not be confused with picturing. I will take two contrasting

scenes in Hugo to analyse and argue that 3D films can specify in colour application,


characters appearances or plot details but this specification leads to more imagination and

interpretation by viewers and supports to enhance dramatic tension. Whereas cinema visual

specification can limit imagination, visual perception prevalently seen in film can still trigger

imagination if put in a certain context.

The last chase scene between the station inspector and Hugo in the film involves

Hugo ending up hanging from the arms of giant clock himself. Unlike the two black and

white illustrations in the book, we see the snowy Paris outside the station. The colour tone of

the city (the sky) takes on blue. We see a close-up of Hugo’s hands sliding across the arm

covered in snow. The snow, the weather, or from the colour we can interpret the exterior

temperature are all the factors produced by animation to worsen his situation and increase his

chance of falling and being killed. This scene with more graphic details doesn't restrict us

from imagining, however, in a non-visual way. Instead it inspires us to anticipate the

potential danger Hugo might be in the next moment. It extends our sensory field by addition

of ‘temperature’ using digital colour. It transforms the fear towards orphanage into the fear

towards death.

In the same scene we eventually see the automaton thrown out into the air and fall

down to train track in a slow motion with special effect. It is important to notice that in the

book Hugo is not running with automaton in his arms but in the film the reason he is finally

on the track seeing the train’s black engine room in towards is his attempt to rescue the

automaton. In fact a previously mentioned flashback about Hugo’s past with father and Uncle

Claude in the film doesn't cover an important plot in the book that Hugo’s father didn't bring

the automaton back home but kept it in museum all the time. He also fixed it always in

museum and it was Hugo that restored it in museum ruins as he tried to escape away from his

uncle. Leitch introduced (2003, p157) a valid practice to study how films dig out the visual

implication from the novel and influence our understanding of itself by its visual


representation. Visual digital technologies are employed to reflect and dramatize the rescue

or recuperation action in details. Special effects play roles in attempting to realise the “he was

caught, unable to look away, as though he were watching a film” (Selznick 2007, p459). The

details trigger us of associating the automaton with thematic meaning – automaton is

considered as symbolic of celluloid, the early film, or ‘quasi-object’, to borrow Bruno

Larour’s term, whilst the book mainly offered description of Hugo’s own sensory reaction.

The five illustrations of train’s room-in, though visual signifiers, create an ambiguity in the

book’s context. Readers may not tell whether those five panels indicate the film Arrival of a

Train at la Ciotat (1897) or Hugo’s point of view. We do not even see platforms’ details in

the panels whilst in Hugo we watch train drivers trying to apply the brake. Filmmakers’

decision can specify to an extent story’s details but visual signifiers existing not just in

images but certainly in film cannot necessarily constraint our imaginative thoughts.

Hugo maintained the film mechanics as the value of the book and demonstrated filmmakers

can be creative artists by rearranging, translating and transforming raw materials in their

unique ways to represent the value in form and content. Although the theory of the

‘properties’ in specific media has been marginalised as a conventional approach in analysing

new text, it generates valuable discussions when used in combination with decoding the

particular media text. Hugo confirms the validity of editing’s function and film’s interactive

engagement mode of inviting audiences to decode characters’ internalised thoughts by

speech. Digital filmmaking does produce details in image colour and saturation to expand

our sensory fields, and plot complication to trigger our conceptual interpretation of the theme,

detailed visual perceptions are not necessarily obstacles for readers or viewers to imagine.

REFERENCE


‘A letter from Brian Selznick’. Amazon.com, n.d. Web.17 May 2012

Andrew, D., ‘Adaptation’ (1984), in Leo, B and Marshall C. (ed.) Film Theory and Criticism:

Introductory Readings 6th Edition (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999),

pp451-460; originally published in Dudley Andrew, Concepts in Film Theory (Oxford

University Press, 1984).

Arrival of a Train at la Ciotat (1897) Directed by Auguste Lumière and Louis Lumière

France : Société Lumière.

Constandinides, C., (2012), ‘Toward Post-Adaptation Celluloid’, From Film Adaptation to

Post-Celluloid Adaptation: Rethinking the Transition of Popular Narratives and Characters

across Old and New Media (London: Continuum, 2012). P19-27

Clement, J. & Christian, B.L., ‘Hugo, Remediation and the Cinema of Attractions, or the

Adaptation of Hugo Cabret,’ Senses of Cinema, 6th January, 2015), available from:

http://sensesofcinema.com/2012/feature-articles/hugo-remediation-and-the-cinema-of-

attractions-or-the-adaptation-of-hugo-cabret/

Dixon, W.W. and Gwendolyn, A.F, (2011), 21st – Century Hollywood: Movies in the Era of

Transformation. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Higgins, S. (2012), 3D in Depth: Coraline, Hugo, and a Sustainable Aesthetic, Film History:

An International Journal, 24(2), 2012, pp196-209.

Hutcheon, L.& Siobhan O., A Theory of Adaptation, Second Edition (London: Routledge,

2012).

Hugo, (2011), Directed by Martin Scorsese, GK Films Infinitum Nihil.


Kracauer, S. (1947), ‘From Theory of Film: Basic Concepts’, in Braudy, L & Cohen. M.

(ed.), Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings 6th Edition (New York and Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2004) pp. 143-153.

Leitch, T. ‘Twelve Fallacies in Contemporary Adaptation Theory,’ Criticism, 45.2 (2003),

p146-71

MacCabe, C., (2011), ‘Introduction: Bazinian Adaptation: The Butcher Boy as Example’,

True to the Spirit Film: Adaptation and the Questions of Fidelity, in MacCabe, C., Murray,

K., and Warner, R. (ed.), p3-25.

McFarlane, B. (1996), Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation. Oxford:

Clarendon.

Meikle, K. (2013), ‘Rematerializing Adaptation Theory’, Literature/Film Quarterly, 41.3

(July 2013), pp174-184.

Philip Nel (2012), Same Genus, Different Species? : Comics and Picture Books, Children's

Literature Association Quarterly, 37 (4), Winter 2012 pp. 445-453.

Psycho, (1960), Directed by Alfred Hitchcock, United States, Shamley Productions.

Rodowick, D.N. (2007) The Virtual Life of Film. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Selznick, B. (2007), The Invention of Hugo Cabret, London: Scholastic Ltd.

Safety Last, (1923), Directed by Fred C. Newmeyer and Sam Taylor, Hal Roach Studios.

Stam, R. (2000), ‘Beyond Fidelity: The Dialogics of Adaptation,’ in James Naremore, (ed.)

Film Adaptation (London: The Athlone Press,2000), p54-76.

Une Voyage dans la Lune, (1902), Directed by Georges Méliès, France, Star Film Company.


Arrival of a Train at la Ciotat (1897) Directed by Auguste Lumière and Louis Lumière

France : Société Lumière.

adaptation essay 2

Documents