From written to visual language
Written by Sanaa El Alaoui
In art milieu, it is commonplace to be evoked by other artworks, provided that there is
a subliminal stream that passes through and between artists, propelling them to be triggered
by various new waves, theoretical trends, inventions and art forms. No matter rebellious or
“avant-garde” these crafts can seem, by some means, they touch others artists, whether they
are classic or contemporaries to react in certain ways. A perfect example of this claim is the
translation or conversion of written forms into the visual language (film adaptation). Thus,
if we often attribute painter’s instruments to brushes and colors, and writer’s instruments to
pens and words, then it is inevitable that we will attribute cinema’s instruments to camera
and images.
In his book, Astruc theorized the notion of “caméra-stylo” or “camera pen”, and this
denotes the idea of storytelling via images and asserts that “direction is no longer a means
of illustrating or presenting a scene, but a true act of writing” and that “the
filmmaker/author writes with his camera as a writer writes with his pen” (22). This concept
is an introductory ground to the so-called “Auteur theory” or “Film Authorship”. Such
rebellious transgression arose along the “French New Wave” when it became explicit that
there will be no radical separation between novel authorship and film authorship, and that
both creators should be evaluated similarly. That is to say, the effectiveness of a film is
mirrored in and evaluated from the directors’ performance, and that “there are no good and
bad movies, only good and bad directors” (Truffaut).
The reason why this topic is raised is that film adaptation is often referred to the
concept of “horizons of expectation”, and that the silver screen, as a modern medium of
expression, can hardly be consecrated to the level of books, following the claim that
“literature profits from a double “priority”: (a) the general historical priority of literature to
cinema, and (b) the specific priority of novels to their adaptations” (Stam 4).
The expression is a language in its own right; therefore, this language is conveyed
through a multitude of mediums, ranging from cinema to craft, sculpture, composing,
writing, dancing , singing … etc. For this reason, the topic in question is the whether the
overarching message of the original work retains its substance or it evaporates throughout
the process of words to images translation and its results in restricting the freedom of
directors’ vision in expressing his work, following his bound to fidelity.
Edgar Alan Poe’s short story “The Cask of Amontillado” with its several film
adaptations aptly embodies this issue.
To begin with, it is noteworthy to put in mind the impossibility to answer to what extent the
film adhered to a book, novel or a short story. The different medium to which the story is
2
exposed to has unavoidably its touch in conveying the meaning differently. The reason lies
behind the fact that when readers are exposed to different items, this stimulates and
enhances their comprehension of the story. Such items can be listed in music, camera
movement, lighting, mise en scène, colors… etc.
These elements position the reader in a
different world than the one they are exposed to while going through a written text. It is true
that the extent of their imagination is wider when reading since they are not supplemented
with any tools but their mere imagination, which explains their disappointment when they
watch adapted films that did not live up to their “horizons of expectation”. However this
does not mean that the filmmaker was not faithful enough to the original work, but in order
to gain the title of an artist, one should keep in mind that acquiring a distinctive and special
style is of crucial importance.
“The Cast of Amontillado” is a quite interesting story, its poetic tone and ironic theme
explain its alluring nature to worldwide filmmakers. Among these filmmakers, this essay
examines Julián Franco Lorenzana’s film version.
To start with, the symbolic richness of the original text is unquestionable. Every part
of the story denotes meanings (explicit or implicit) that overlap with other meanings in the
text. This can be the case for a film as well; the shots may overlap to indicate subliminal
meanings which provoke the audience consciously and unconsciously. Apparently, this is
quite identical to the notion of Vladimir Kulechov’s effect in cinema, as he implies that
editing is our gate to understanding the gist with no need for dialogue or explicit thought,
but merely with the juxtaposition of shots, and that “ the montage of shots is the
construction of whole phrases” (350).
Lorenzana directed his film as per his stylistic vision, and this is quite obvious throughout
his work. He started the film with a shot announcing a dark place where the audience is
faced with a closed gate made of masonry (apparently built by Montresor). Parallelly, the
camera takes us in a smooth manner with a zoom-in penetrating the closed gate; all
accompanied by a slow and sad violin music that ends up with a fade-in triggered by a
hollow sound, generated by the effect of plastering up the last stone into the stonework.
Subsequently, with a fixed black shot, the director introduces the film title (The Cask of
Amontillado) and the original author (Edgar Alan Poe).
As the film progresses, the audience is slowly introduced to the setting of the story.
The third shot begins with a voice-over of the text’s first lines joined by the sad music that
begins again: “The thousands of injuries of Fortunato I had borne as I best could, but when
he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge … “(line 1). Parallelly, a long shot takes us
steadily throughout a room enlightened by dim flames of fire, where it reflects gothic
shadows on a black mask and a trowel positioned on a table. As the recitation of the story
carries on, the camera keeps moving on to position deeply the audience into the place (the
room of Montresor in his Palace).
The camera stops at a high angle in the following shot,
showing us a character (Montresor) writing some lines on paper (same lines that we hear
equivalently in the voice-over). Above the desk, there is a glass of wine and some writing
tools. The shot ends with a close-up onto Montresor’s hand, writing the last words with ink
on paper enlightened by the same source of light: “ … he did not perceive that my smile
was the at the thought of his immolation”
This description shows that symbolic meaning if it is denoted by words in the text, it
is inevitably denoted by the gothic nature of the place (the dark gate/masonry in first shot),
the trowel/mask on the table (the tools with which Montresor will arm himself to take
vengeance), the fire that stirs the audience with a shrinking feeling and discomfort, and
finally the wine on the table that represents the strongest weapon in the story.
Cinema is a language of signs in its own right since each constituent is relevant to the
story. Each object, each movement or camera angle denotes thoughts and provokes us
unconsciously, and this is the beauty of film adaptation: re-telling a story in more than onne
way with a new medium gives us a new reading every time.
Generally, the ordinary means to read a novel is the narrator, this latter is
indispensable and predominant.
He is the key to the story, and if there is no narrator, a
reader is like a vehicle with no wheels. However, in film, the narrator is uncalled for,
following the fact that he is replaced by other strong and alternative elements that stimulate
our understanding and imagination. Even though in Lorenzana’s short film, we hear a
voice-over of Montresor relating parts of the story sometimes, it is still superfluous. If we
take the voice- over off, we can still understand the thoughts and feelings with the help of
performance (e.g., facial expressions), camera movement, lighting, coloring, and even
silence, for instance.
The following shot takes us outside the room, where we explicitly see our main
character, Montresor, walking in the narrow and dark streets of Italy where “it was about
dusk”. As he walks through the street, the music of “the supreme madness of the carnival’’
rises as he approaches the place (line 11). The camera in a wide shot represents to the
audience people dressed up madly and dancing widely in the dark streets and takes the
viewers steadily to introduce Fortunato, who has dressed up accordingly as a jester. This
might be exemplified ironically throughout the story. From one hand his name denotes the
opposite of his fate and from the other hand, his outfit announces imbecility, and this is not
matching his title of connoisseurship.
A famous Chinese adage claims that “one picture is worth ten thousand words”.
On
this ground, thoughts in the original text are expressed explicitly to understand the internal
suffering of Montresor in one sentence: “…the thousand injuries of Fortunato I had borne
… but when he ventured upon insult I vowed revenge…” However, in the film, this one
sentence is demonstrated in one mere shot (the very first shot of the masonry). It denotes
everything Montresor was feeling: his injuries (Metaphorically symbolized in the stones),
his revenge (Beyond this gate is Fortunato’s catacomb) and his journey to revenge (the
smooth penetration of camera throughout the closed gate). Another key element is the scene
where Montresor and Fortunato stand next to the coat of arms. The beauty of this scene is
announced in the shot composition and the characters’ position. From the left hand,
Fortunato stands to gaze at the coat of arms, and from the right hand, Montresor holds a
flambeau enlightening the entrance (A symbolic picture implying that Fortunato is gazing at
his own place of burial, his fate). The flambeau illuminates the coat of arms positioned in
the middle, which embodies “ a huge human foot d'Or, in a field azure; the foot crushes a
serpent rampant whose fangs are imbedded in the heel” (line 60). As a result, we conclude
that the indirect thought announces that Fortunato is faced to his own fate and that he will
be crushed (as a serpent) by Montresor (the human foot d’Or) in a field azure (in the vaults).
Another ambiguous thought (which may not be denoted in the original text) is the position
of the flambeau in the middle that gives a beautiful metaphor of the light (as Montresor’s
knowledge) while holding it against the coat of arms (knowledge = revenge). We infer that
there is an endeavor to tell the audience that the light is the guiding force of Montresor to
seek his vengeance which is represented in “Nemo me impune lacessit” (line 62) and which
implied that no one do bad to be and get not punished.
Consequently, thoughts in cinema
may announce ambiguity that demands more mental effort for the audience to understand
the message.
In cinematography, one of the atypical and powerful tools is silence. Silence can be as
dangerous as it can be peaceful and as effective as music, which explains its usage in my
film genres especially the horror ones. As the film has a gothic influence, the audience can
hear cautiously the echo of the unsteady treading of Fortunato followed by the sound of the
jingling belt throughout the damp way, and this denotes a strong metaphor: as he they go
deeper, the echo of the jingling belt and the footsteps enhance a feeling of suspense.
However, this is not present in the text, the only tool presented in a written material is
language, and the interpretation of this tool is dependent on the reader. Nevertheless,
readers have the liberty to create their own film as per their vision.
Another way of approaching this issue is the extent of effort readers or viewers consume
when exposed to these artistic trends. While reading, as discussed previously, the reader’s
imagination is quite wide, provided that there is no supplementary tool that enhances their
comprehension; therefore, there is no restrictions for them when it comes to creating their
own film in their minds. Nevertheless, this does not mean that viewers may lack
imagination. Contrarily, in films, fantasy and mental creation is as powerful as reading.
When going through a text, we can readily feel and understand the characters’ emotions and
their intentions; therefore, thoughts are more common in texts.
However, in films, we need
more mental effort, following the lack of explicit thoughts. Even though actions may
supplement our comprehension, they are still inadequate. Let’s say that a viewer hasn’t read
the text, and he is exposed to this adapted film with no voice-over, he will surely need more
mental effort to understand Montresor’s tendencies. It is noteworthy that it is not unfeasible
to do so. However, it is only a matter of time and mental creativity to decode the message
with certain kind of assistance, such as: objects, colors, lighting, subliminal actions, setting,
camera position…. etc .
To conclude with, in his film, Lorenzana used a different chronological order than the
original text. We afterward learned that the initial frame is itself the same last frame. The
only difference is that the final frame ends with a high zoom-in into the coat of arms, which
answers the question we formed initially: where are we? This gate is same one that
announces Fortunate’s fate, and this is related to a cinematic logic where for a film to be
successful, the first and last frames should be progressive, that is to say, some events should
occur that would changes the last frame (e.g., accomplishment). In order words, Lorenzana
began with a puzzling image where the audience needed to go through the whole film to
decode it with the knowledge they gained in their mind to fill in the gap: what is that gate
for and who is behind? Therefore, after watching the film, we can perceive that the
substance of “The Cask of Amontillado” has been kept and that we eventually feel the same
severity of Montresor’s suffering and his vengeance as we did while reading the original
5
work.
Not only this but also irony and symbols, as they were prevailing in the original text,
they are domineering elements in this film as well, nevertheless they have been conveyed
with different elements. As far as freedom of expression and its relation to restriction is
concerned, Lorenzana was successful enough in recapturing the original work in some way
that both maintain the gist of the source text and translate this substance as per his
distinctive style. Hence, fidelity does not restrict the freedom of expression in a way that
enchains the cinematic content. As a successful director, there are varieties of alternatives
that allow expressing freely along with preserving the soul of the source text.
Filmmakers are in a constant development of their own style. Inspiration is of crucial
importance in their lives, without it they cannot find their driving force. Artists breathe into
other artistic works to generate reactive products. In other words, adapting a film is by any
means a reaction or response in its own right. Therefore, it is worthy to say that the
overarching message does not evaporate throughout the process of adaptation, as long as the
director keeps its core. The core here is the subliminal stream that pulled the director in the
first place, it was the chief reason why he wanted to adapt the film. However, since artists
tools differ in respect to tendencies, personal interpretation, and stylistics vision. The
question of fidelity will never evaporate following the fact that filmmakers cannot penetrate
the minds of readers and answer every expectation their created in their minds. However,
what we should perceive here is adaptation as some kind of artistic exchange or an
intertextuality pursuit that gives a new reading every time. Therefore, the audience should
widen their horizons and expect different readings every time they are exposed to adapted
works.
Posts
