Chapter One: Introduction

Literary adaptations have been a staple part of filmmaking since the introduction of the talkies and researchers even have noted screen adaptations as early as 1899. Mark Duguid writing for the BFI associated screen online website notes that the first known Shakespeare adaptation occurred in 1899. Although due to the crudeness of equipment and filmmaking technique, the film consisted of a few unrelated scenes strung together, rather than paying attention to the narrative as a whole. Duguid suggests that the joy for the audience lay in seeing scenes from a favourite play being brought to life (Duguid, n.d, para 2). This may seem alien to a current film audience as we have ourselves become almost oblivious to the wonders of the cinematic process. A cinematic audience in 1899 would have still been getting to grips with cinema and filmmaking, and to see a favourite play, by someone such as Shakespeare, would have been a phenomenal event. Ultimately it could be said all film is adapted from some form of written language, directors having a screen play or script to use as their basis, unless a film is totally improvised. However film makers have constantly raided the works of well established authors and first time writers alike, and transferred the literary works of such authors to the screen. Because of the sheer quantity of films which use literature as their source, film adaptation and the means by which people transfer novels to the screen has become a significant field within the arena of film studies. Critics such as George Bluestone have written at length about the nature of literary adaptation, considering the mistakes which have been made by filmmakers and the problems which should be considered when deciding to adapt a novel, play or other literary source for the screen. Screening the Novel by Robert Giddings, Keith Selby and Chris Wensley uses much of Bluestones work, as well as

works by many other distinguished critics to provide a comprehensive outline of the nature of adapting.

Issues which are constant throughout the works of most writers when dealing with adaptation studies are the notions of authorship, can the original author still have such a claim to the filmed version of his text? Fidelity to the source material in terms of content, does a filmmaker transfer the necessary and proper amount of information from the source text to his film? Authenticity to the source, does a filmmaker produce a film which is of suitable tone and does the film maintain the ideas and meaning of its source? The ideas of authorship, fidelity and authenticity with regards to source material will be examined in two case studies. I have chosen to use A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, first published in 1962, and its cinematic realisation A Clockwork Orange directed by Stanley Kubrick, and released in 1971. The second study is the 1991 novel by Bret Easton Ellis American Psycho and the screen version released in 2000, American Psycho directed and co written by Mary Harron. Nearly thirty years separates the release of each book, and as a result there are a great amount of differences between the two. Each text does however have similar thematic narrative strands, and both novels clearly try and address social issues.

A Clockwork Orange focuses on Alex and his group of friends or his droogs(Burgess,2000, p.3) as he refers to them. The story sees the central protagonist and his accomplices commit crime after crime until Alex is betrayed by his gang, and is arrested. Alex goes to prison and after two years he takes part in a scheme which promises to get him reformed and ready for release in advance of his sentence ending. Alex is released as promised, confirming that the scheme is a

complete success. He is no longer capable of committing crimes, not because he believes they are wrong but because the conditioning he has undergone now prevents him from carrying out any acts which may be deemed immoral. Burgess tries to convey the message to his readers that, perhaps a man without free choice is not a man at all. This is perhaps the most prominent message to come from the book, although as a whole the book acts as a social commentary. Many of the events which take place in the story are inspired by events in Burgess own life, and as such the book has autobiographical elements. Burgess served in the army and as a result he spent a lot of his time abroad. Whilst serving in Gibraltar in 1944, his first wife Lynn was beaten and robbed in London by four G.I deserters. This detail is clearly reminiscent of the rape scene within the book, where Alex and his gang rape the wife of an author after they force entry into their house. Living in Hove, Sussex and newly back from service in Malaya and Brunei, Burgess became aware of the emergence of coffee bars, popular music and teenage gangs. Living on the south coast of England he witnessed the on going battle between the Mods and the Rockers which was placed right on his door step and elements of this gang warfare come through in his novel. The book is set in the near future (sometime in the 1970s) when gang violence has escalated to problematic levels. Although set in the future, the book definitely was trying to address problems which Burgess saw as affecting the time and society in which the book was written.

As opposed to Burgess writing A Clockwork Orange in the 60s and setting it in the 70s, Bret Easton Ellis wrote American Psycho in the 90s and the narrative is set a decade earlier. As with A Clockwork Orange, American Psycho is a social commentary, albeit more satirical than the work produced by Burgess. Easton Ellis

chooses as his target the financial sector of New York and the lives of the people who work at the epicentre of this world, Wall Street. The central protagonist is Patrick Bateman, a wealthy 27 year old who works on Wall Street. Whilst Burgess criticised the growing despondence of youth culture in 60s Britain, Easton Ellis studies the brutal consumerism of the 80s in America. His central protagonist describes people not by how they look but instead by what they wear, he is wearing a linen suit by Canali Milano, a cotton shirt by Ike Behar, a silk tie by Bill Blass and cap toed leather lace ups from Brooks Brothers (Easton Ellis, 1991, p.29).He also describes which restaurants and bars they eat in and what jobs they do, preferring these details to descriptions of physical appearance or personality. The book studies Bateman and his decline into madness, episodes of uncontrollable and malicious violence in which he kills, often brutally whoever he sees fit. Bateman on one hand could be described as a poster boy for American values, he is handsome, intelligent, charming and earning large amounts of money, yet he also exemplifies the darker side of not just American society, but society in general. He kills people without prejudice, abuses women both sexually and violently and has contempt for anyone who does not fit in with his ideals of a good or more importantly, successful life. This side of his life is kept secret and his peers are unaware of the crimes he commits. As Bateman public face slowly slips away, he finds it harder to conceal what he does from those he works with and the people he mixes with. Although Easton Ellis has not drawn on personal experience in the way Burgess has in order to write American Psycho, in the sense that he was a witness or victim to events taking place in his work, there is an amount of auto biography in his work. Easton Ellis grew up in California in extremely affluent environment. Jane Bane suggests his novels are scathing satires of the glamorous world he observed from the inside (Bane, 2003, para 1). In American Psycho he

highlights the extreme wealth, consumerism and ultimately the superficiality of America, and specifically the affluent middle upper classes during the Neo Conservative Reagen era.

Although both texts are now dated in terms of the generations on which they focus they both remain pertinent today. With regards to A Clockwork Orange, society is still troubled by teen gangs causing problems on the streets, people who act out side of the norms of society. Consumerism and superficiality still exist just as much today as they did during the 80s, and is a world wide issue rather than being specific to Wall Street, and as a result a modern audience would still find American Psycho relevant today.

Both texts have also proven to be controversial, though in different ways. Burgesss novella went widely unnoticed upon release, and it was only when American director Stanley Kubrick adapted it for the screen in 1971 that many people became aware of the book. It was not however Burgess original text that caused such controversy, it was the film which caused problems. After a number of copy cat incidents in addition to growing attention from the press, Kubrick decided to withdraw distribution in the U.K with the co operation of Warner Bros, effectively banning his own work. The film would not be shown legally in Britain in cinemas until after the directors death. American Psycho however worked in reverse. The book caused much outrage upon release, with feminist readers such as Linda S Kauffman noting that The National Organization of Women organized boycotts not just of the novel, but also of products that appear in the novel (Kauffman, 2000, p.41). The book was viewed as being sick and portraying women in a negative light. The film conversely caused little controversy, due to the films director being Mary Harron, a woman. Harron and the

way she chooses to portray Bateman, reduces the character to a humorous cartoon of a man, whom the director will not allow an audience to take seriously. Both the original novel and the film of American Psycho are black comedies, yet Harron chooses to emphasise the comedic elements of Batemans character making him almost ridiculous. As a woman, it could be argued Harron is trying to discredit his misogynistic behaviour by not allowing an audience to fear him but instead laugh out loud at the actions he carries out through out the film.

Both novels and the films which have been made using them as source material are highly pertinent in terms of their use in adaptation studies. They share similar themes, yet both writers, and subsequently both directors handle these themes in very different ways. Methods of adaptation as outlined by critics working in the field shall be explored and then applied to the each text in two case studies. The transferral of authorship from novelist to director will be considered, can as Bluestone suggests the film maker be considered an author in his own right(Bluestone, 1968, p.62)? These case studies shall explore the methods used in adapting the two selected novels to the screen. The films chosen will be looked at in terms of their production history, the processes involved in adapting each novel for the screen, and the finished product.

Chapter Two: Adaptation

John Orr in the book Cinema and fiction notes that from 1930 onwards cinema and fiction have always closely intertwined, not only in the United States but throughout Europe and the rest of the world. (Orr, 1992, p.1) This book is one of many which tackle adaptation as a field of study within the greater field of film studies. The study of adaptation has matured into a large field of study with critics now approaching adaptation as an art (Horton and Magretta, 1981, p.1). George Bluestone in his book Novels into Film remarks that the moment the film went from the animation of stills to telling a story, it was inevitable that fiction would become the ore to be minted by story departments (Bluestone, 1968, p.2).

Many of the critics, who have written on the subject, note that adaptation of a literary text is usually preformed for either one of two reasons, either as a commercial process, a kind of industrial recycling which turns one product (a best selling book) into another (a box office success) (Horton and Magretta, p.4). Conversely Independent American and European directors adapt not for financial gain, but because of a serious engagement with the source (Horton and Magretta, p.4) To a certain extent a stigma has developed around cinematic versions of literary texts, Horton and Magretta suggesting most adaptation studies have shown, rather disdainfully, how great books become inferior movies Hollywood has been notoriously crass and shameless in its commercial exploitation of serious artists and their work (Horton and Magretta, p.1). This view is further substantiated by Bluestone. He states that in film criticism it has always been easy to recognize how a poor film destroys a superior novel (Bluestone, p.62) examples of films doing this

are so plentiful it is pointless to single out a specific film. Theatrical practitioner Bertolt Brecht furthered the debate by suggesting of literary adaptation in cinema that we put ourselves in the position of a man who lets his laundry be washed in a dirty gutter and then complains that it has been ruined (Giddings et al, 1990, p.3) Brecht could be of this opinion because next to television, Film is the youngest of the arts (Bluestone, p. VII) and therefore Film is deemed an unqualified medium for literature to be transferred. A number of critics have written on the short comings of film in comparison to literature. Many critics agree that the novel has three tenses, the film only one (Giddings et al, p15), if a medium is limited to one tense it is therefore inadequate as a story teller. Although films can show what has happened and what will happen via flashback and flash-forward, these still take place in the present. A novel can talk about the past and future of the text whilst remaining in the present, by simply changing its language. This means a reader can suspect what is going to happen or be informed by past events without having it spelt out explicitly. This feature of the novel means a rich and detailed text is presented to the reader, who in turn gains a sense of an entire universe existing within the novel, a sense which is lacking in filmic texts. The book Screening the Novel written by Robert Giddings, Keith Selby and Chris Wensley considers another strength of the novel over cinema, cinema can show someone in pain, but not in pain; it can show a women and a child but not convey the word mother (Giddings et al, p20). Because the novel uses language rather than images, it can be a lot more effective at conveying emotions and relationships to those who fully understand its conventions. Cinema although easier to read and gain information from, is perhaps not as adept at conveying such emotional information to its audience as literature. Cinema relies on an audiences cine-literacy ,

the ability to decipher semiotic coding to gain meaning from the images which are presented to them on screen , whether those images have explicit or implicit meaning.

Bluestone considers the ways in which the different media convey meaning and suggests that perhaps the novel undergoes a mutation when transferred to screen and therefore no adaptation will ever do its source material justice. In a chapter regarding the limits of the novel and the film, Bluestone says what occurs when the filmist undertakes the adaptation of a novel, given the inevitable mutation, is that he does not convert the novel at all. What he adapts is a kind of paraphrase of the novel the novel viewed as raw material. He looks not to the organic novel, whose language is inseparable from its theme, but to characters and to incidents which have somehow detached themselves from language(Bluestone,p.62) If a filmist is not actually adapting the work of an author, who is the author of the film which is being produced? Bluestone suggests that in the fullest sense of the word, the filmist becomes not a translator for an established author, but a new author in his own right (Bluestone, p. 62).

The nature of adaptation therefore is problematic, a number of highly important factors should be considered whilst attempting to evaluate adaptations. George Bluestone considers the difference in audience attitude toward the two text formats, values and attitudes of small middle class reading public might be incomprehensible to mass film public, and the passing of time between novel and subsequent film will intensify this (Giddings et al, p.2). The difference could therefore said to be the ways in which each type of text works the viewer of the film, unlike the solitary reader, is involved in a collective experience, in which the action presses relentlessly on; there

is no opportunity for pause or recap (Giddings et al , p4). So the way each text is consumed should be considered, it is also suggested in the book Screening the Novel that conditions of production are similarly important to understanding adaptation, we should be aware of the differences in the contexts of production and consumption before we begin the comparison of each text (Giddings et al, p3). Bluestone compounds this by highlighting what he sees as the differences between the media forms an art whose limits depend on a moving image, mass audience and industrial production is bound to differ from an art whose limits depend on language, a limited audience and individual creation (Bluestone, p.64).

Another element to critical readings of adaptations is the way the films derived from literature are actually reviewed. Perhaps these films are rated not on their own merit but in fact how faithful they are to the source material, criticism of films using novels as a source will frequently centre on their fidelity to the events of the novel, not on their artistic integrity. References are constantly made to what is left out; or changed instead of what is there (Giddings et al, p.9-10) The Film Industry and the films it produces are subject to many restraints which the writer or producer of literature is not confined by. For an author to create a vast futuristic landscape , all he needs to do is think about the details then write what his mind envisages. For a filmmaker to then take that image and transfer it to celluloid is a far greater task. A Filmmaker is constrained by a schedule which must be adhered to, and perhaps most importantly a budget. If a scene being adapted from a novel is either too expensive or too time consuming to re create it will be evaluated as to whether or not it is absolutely necessary to the narrative.

Because this is by no means a new trend within cinema, critics have also noticed certain styles of adaptation emerge, and to a certain extent what must be considered the politics of adaptation. Michael Klein and Gillian Parker highlight what they consider to be the three different styles or categories of adapting a novel for the screen. The first type films of novels, attempt to give the impression of being faithful, that is, literal translations (Giddings et al, p. 11). There are countless examples which could be used to showcase this method of adaptation; a recent example would be the film Fight Club (Dir. David Fincher, 1999) from the book of the same name by Chuck Palahnuik. Finchers film remains extremely faithful to the original text omitting only certain scenes or details, possibly because of production restraints as mentioned earlier, and the difference between the two versions is minimal. The second mode of adaptation is identified thus retains the core of the structure of the narrative significantly re-interpreting, or in some cases de constructing the source text. Films which adhere to this method are still relatively faithful to its source text but challenge or adapt elements for a new meaning or suit a new audience. Romeo + Juliet (Dir. Baz Luhrmann, 1996) can be seen as doing this, based on the play by William Shakespeare, it moves the action from the 1400s to the modern day, yet retains the original language and dialogue. Instead of horses and swords used in the play, the film utilises guns and cars bringing the text into the modern era. Finally Klein and Parker outline their third method of adaptation, in which a film regards the source merely as raw material, as simply the occasion for an original work. Apocalypse Now (Dir. Francis Ford Coppola, 1979) , based on the novel Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad exemplifies this mode of adaptation. The films narrative is only loosely based on that of Heart Of Darkness, and instead of being set in the Belgian Congo, Coppola sets his film during the Vietnam War. Coppola has used

Heart of Darkness as the occasion to write a film which explored the validity of Americas involvement in a conflict many felt did not involve them.

Critics have also concluded that when analysing the source text before adaptation takes place, the bound motifs and free motifs must be recognised. The writers Luhr and Lehman describe each motif like this, Bound motifs; cannot be omitted without disturbing the chronological chain of events whilst free motifs; may be omitted in summary (Giddings et al, p.2). Luhr and Lehman then point out that an adaptation will often include all the bound motifs but omit free motifs even though they may possibly be crucial to the impact of the original text.

If making adaptations or what John Orr calls picture books (Orr, p.1) is so problematic artistically then why has it been a major trend in Hollywood since the dawn of sound? Thomas H. Guback in his article Hollywoods International Market notes the American Supreme court ruled that the exhibition of motion pictures is a business pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit (Guback, 1985, p. 463). The appeal of adapting literature for the Hollywood movie producer is money. These texts not only have a story already established and formulated but they also bring with them an established fan base. Established fan bases mean that a guaranteed audience is already there for the film on release before hardly any publicity or promotion has occurred. An extremely relevant and contemporary example would be The Da Vinci Code (Ron Howard) which is due for release in 2006. The book has sold hundreds of millions of copies worldwide since its release in 2003 it has become one of the most popular books of the last few years and now there are not many people who are not aware this book exists, if they have not in fact read it. When the film

eventually is released it will already be familiar to millions by virtue of the fact they have read the novel, an audience is already going to be waiting. This factor is also highlighted by Harmony H. Wu. Wu, in the book Defining cult movies she talks about the Lord of the Rings Trilogy by Peter Jackson, films adapted from the books by J.R.R Tolkien. Even a year before the release of the first film, there was more buzz around these films than any other much of this excitement and box office power is driven by the rabid fans of Tolkiens Rings books (Wu, 2003, p. 84). Also noted by Wu is the amount of literature written by fans about the trilogy on the internet which detailed all elements of the productions in some cases years in advance of production. This kind of publicity cannot be bought, and only arises when a text is truly revered. A Producer looking to get the money to make a series such as the Lord of the Rings would have his life made infinitely easier by the existing fan base which almost guarantees recovering the films cost, leading to profit.

It is impossible to deny either that this formula does in fact work. Upon researching figures for the biggest opening weekends in U.S Box office history, six of the top ten films on the list have been adapted from either novels or comics. The comic book conversion acting in a similar manner to that of literary adaptation, and conversions of this type could be viewed as a modernist type of literary adaptation. Films in the top ten include all of the Harry Potter films, both the Spiderman movie outings and the fifth instalment of the Star Wars series and The Passion of the Christ (Dir. Mel Gibson, 2004) which was subject to much controversy as it dealt with the life of Jesus Christ and is arguably based on one of the most famous books of all time, the Christian Bible. (All time box office, n.d)

Literature can therefore be said to be a rich and valuable source of material for filmmakers. Independent and art house filmmakers adapt literature to reflect personal ideologies and also as an opportunity for critiquing contemporary social and political change. Hollywood and other mainstream commercial film makers use literary adaptation as a means of capitalising on an audiences familiarity with a given text in order to try for maximum financial success with their films. This success is driven by exploiting various fans and their affection for existing materials. The comic book movie phenomena of recent years being a prime example, with many major studios owning rights to produce cinematic versions of established comic books. Sony owning the rights to the tremendously successful Spiderman franchise, Fox producing the X-Men movies and Universal pictures with its version of the Incredible Hulk. However profitable and useful adaptation can be for filmmakers it is a process which is not without problems. Audiences, especially when familiar with the source text, will judge adaptations on what has been omitted rather than what is actually in front of them, and as such reviews of the films can suffer. Other problems such as what to include and how to transfer information from novels have also been highlighted by critics working in the area of study. Although it is clearly a risk for film makers to make adaptations from literature, it is a practice not likely to end soon as the rewards can often be great.

This idea that authorship is transferred from novelist to director is relevant when discussing the transferral from novel to film in the case of American Psycho and A Clockwork Orange, and many writers have considered notions of authorship regarding both screen versions. A Clockwork Orange differs greatly on the screen to the way it appears in the novel in terms of tone. Geoffrey Wagner notes emphatically

that Burgess clearly sets the tone for his novella in his specific choice of language, his invented language was phonetically raw and harsh, suitable to the theme; Kubricks images, on the other hand were generally smooth and graceful (Wagner, 1975, p.308) Kubrick changing the tone of the text could therefore be said to have made his own unique piece. Both these texts also prove useful when considering content in adaptation, as the two selected films represent different trains of thought with regards to the material that should be transferred from page to screen. Over the two case studies the arguments which have been outlined here will be assessed.

Chapter Three: Case Study; A Clockwork Orange

Whats it going to be then eh?(Burgess, 2000, p.3). This is the bold and punkily defiant question (Morrison, 2000, p.xx) which opens A Clockwork Orange , firmly setting the tone for the rest of his story. The narrative traces the activities of Alex, a teenager who like many other youths in the novel is a member of a gang. The gang act as they choose, disregarding the rules which society imposes on them. They rob, beat and rape whomever they see fit. This disregard for the establishment is reminiscent of the punk movement in Britain of the late 70s and early 80s. Although Burgess wrote his novella in the 60s and was inspired by the on-going battles between the Mod and Rocker gangs, his portrayal of disenfranchised youth and their attitudes has transpired to be truly prophetic.

Burgess use or in fact creation of language in A Clockwork Orange is one of the novels most intriguing features. As Burgess was focussing on the idea of an emergent youth sub-culture, he wanted to use the slang of such groups, but as Morrison highlights the danger in using the idiom of Mods and Rockers was that it would be outdated by the time the novel was published, let alone a generation later (Morrison, p.xvi). In order to side step this problem, Burgess created his own teen vernacular, entitled Nadsat. Nadsat derived from the Russian suffix for teen(Morrison, p.ix) is a hybrid of Russian, English and American slang. A new language ensured that his work would be as relevant to audiences thirty years after publication, as it was to an audience reading the novel the week after publication.

Kevin Jackson notes that the very first time the book was put on screen was in the May of 1962 the producers of the BBC current affairs program Tonight brought Burgess to the studio to be interviewed by Derek Hart and dramatised part of the books first chapter (Jackson,1999, p.26). Stanley Kubrick released his cinematic vision of Burgess source text almost a decade later in 1971, and it is Kubricks film which has become famous the world over.

Before Kubrick became interested in the production, several other parties were keen on transferring the novel to the screen. An unlikely party interested in making the film were British Rock n Roll group The Rolling Stones. The group wanted to star and also compose and perform the music for the film, photographer Michael Cooper was to direct. The Rolling Stones eventually pulled out due to a lack of time, presumably because of commitments to other, less unfamiliar projects. The interest shown by The Rolling Stones is highly interesting, because like Alex and his three droogs (Burgess, p.3) the band were considered to be renegades acting not within the rules of society but completely of their own free will, self satisfying any primal urges or desires they had. Mick Jagger and his band were the antithesis of the Beatles, who maintained a clean cut image. The Stones unashamedly and openly used drugs, had sexual relations with many women and were considered the bad boys of Rock n Roll. Parallels can be drawn between the ways in which The Rolling Stones behaved with actions the gangs in A Clockwork Orange, in the narrative. Perhaps the Stones noticed the viability of such a comparison, or perhaps wanted to do a film which would further enhance their notoriety. Kevin Jackson in an article on the history of the film notes that others interested were Ken Russell, who took a serious interest in the project for a while before turning to Aldous Huxley and The Devils (Jackson, p.26).

Stanley Kubricks A Clockwork Orange arrived in cinemas in the winter of 1971. Starring as Alex the films, humble narrator (Burgess, p.139), was Malcolm McDowell. The rest of the droogs consisted of James Marcus as Georgie, Michael Tarn as Pete, and Warren Clarke as Dim. Both McDowell and Clarke were relatively unrecognised actors, and since appearing in A Clockwork Orange have gone on to become firmly established actors. Upon release, the film received mixed reviews with some critics launching fierce attacks on the piece, Leslie Halliwell in his Halliwells Film Guide 6th Edition was particularly scathing. Halliwell said of the film that it was repulsive it is pretentious and nasty rubbish for sick minds who do not mind jazzed up images and incoherent sound (Anderson, p.43). As well as a number of reviews similar to Halliwells, there have been reviews written which herald the film as a work of genius, a masterpiece. Ephriam Katz in The Film Encyclopedia suggests that Kubricks film is a striking, visually brilliant film that provides a chilling, near nihilistic vision of a world dominated by anarchic, vicious violence a perverse world of tomorrow which some say mirrors Kubricks view of the world today (Anderson, p.43). Today, the film is widely regarded as a classic although this opinion of the film was no doubt helped by the fact that Kubrick prevented A Clockwork Orange from being shown in the U.K on any format after the films initial run. Following increasing pressure from the press, outspoken members of the public and Kubricks fears of attacks on his family (Jackson, p. 27), Kubrick effectively censored himself, decreeing the film would not be shown in the United Kingdom until after his death. This decision created a cult following for the film, British fans of Kubrick were forced to watch A Clockwork Orange on grainy exhausted prints at fleapit cinemas in Paris, Amsterdam and New York (Bradshaw, 2000). Bradshaw

suggests this cult status came about because for decades, Kubricks brilliantly scabrous fable of ultra violence has existed only as a fascinating rumour (Bradshaw, 2000). The film once again went back into cinemas after a twenty seven year absence, following Kubricks death in 1999. The formal elements of the film mean A Clockwork Orange is very much a Kubrick film; it sits well in the directors body of work. Directorial traits such as long tracking shots, clinical shot framing and even classical music feature heavily in A Clockwork Orange as they do in Kubricks previous films, and the films he would make such as 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Barry Lyndon (1975), and The Shining (1980). When the film fell foul to public outcry, it was Burgess the novels author who was wheeled out to defend the film and explain the origins of the violence to which people where so opposed, as Kubrick himself could not or would not justify his film (Bradshaw, 2000). When preparing his production, Kubrick had looked at many scripts which he cast aside and decided eventually to write one himself. One submitted to the director was written by Burgess himself, this factor combined with the choice to use Burgess as the films defender means a comparison of the two works is extremely interesting, as the relationship between Kubrick and Burgess was clearly a strange one. This estranged relationship is also shared by the two texts which they individually produced.

The novella consists of twenty one chapters in all, split equally over three sections. Blake Morrison writing in his introduction to the Penguin Classics publication of A Clockwork Orange suggests this division of the chapters is an implicit allusion to Shakespeares seven ages of man (Morrison, p. xx). The novel concludes with Alex reaching maturity at the age of twenty one, and finally renouncing violence at the end of the twenty first chapter. The structure which Burgess fashions his narrative on is

essential to the novel. Morrison considers A Clockwork Orange to be the most carefully constructed of novels (Morrison, p. xx) and this is due to the careful progression of Alex with relation to the chapters of the novella. This intended and carefully planned structure was not adhered to in Kubricks adaptation of the novel, and here in lays the first problem when dealing with the transferral of the novella to the screen. Kubrick did not read the original version of Burgess text, but instead the U.S version. This version omits the final chapter in which Alex renounces violence, instead finishing at the end of the twentieth chapter with Alex saying I was cured alright(Burgess, p.132), insinuating that he will return to his old tolchocking ways(Morrison, p. xx). Morrison notes that the U.S publishers, W.W Norton had declined to publish the book unless the affirmative ending in which Alex on reaching maturity, renounces violence- was dropped(Morrison, p. xvii). The removal of this ending shows what Morrison suggests is a rare and uncharacteristic American need for pessimism(Morrison, p. xvii). Stanley Kubrick and other critics have suggested that Burgess original ending was far too optimistic and that in fact the U.S ending is far more effective being tougher and more realistic (Morrison, p. xxi). With his ending Burgess was considering the decline of generations to come, and as such his original ending is just as pessimistic as that of the ending published in the U.S edition. Burgess aimed to imply that although Alex has renounced violence he would be unable to prevent his offspring and furthermore his bloodline from acting in the same way to him, a cycle of adolescent violence would be established, a point missed by his U.S publishers. In the final two pages of the novel Alex proclaims that when his own son is old enough he will explain what he did as a teenager, but that this may not be enough to stop him that his son would not understand or not want to understand and would do all the veshches I had done, yes perhaps even killing some poor starry forella and I would not be able to really

stop him. And nor would he be able to stop his own son, brothers, and so it would itty on to like the end of the world, round and round and round(Burgess, p.140-141).

Although Alex is clearly intelligent, and this is displayed throughout the narrative of both the film and novel, it is only the novel which allows him to grow morally, and perhaps most importantly allow him to mature. It is in the final chapter which he not only renounces his past but becomes aware of society and its needs, he adopts the tone of an adult truly concerned with what lies ahead for the children he will bring into the world. Kubrick denies Alex this moral growth in his film, instead allowing the character to return to his old ways, having not learnt anything or changing after the events he experiences throughout the narrative.

As well as preventing a moral growth in Alex, Kubrick removes any weakness in his narrator, weakness which was present in Burgesss portrayal of the narratives central protagonist. Alex in Kubricks version appears to be a number of years older than he is in the original novel. When Alex is told that he has in fact killed the old ptitsa who had all the kots and koshkas (Burgess, p.56) he realises that he will be going to prison for murder he proclaims that was everything. Id done the lot, now. and me still only fifteen ( Burgess, p.56). As a result of this age, Alex actually cries on a few occasions through out the story, something which the Alex of Kubricks film does not do. By having Alex growing up during the length of the narrative, Burgess ensures that his readers can be more sympathetic towards Alex. Alexs age means that he fits perfectly into the cycle of youth violence of which he himself fears in the final pages of the novel. At the time he commits the crimes he is too young to see the error of his ways. He has been thrown down this path not necessarily because he is wholly evil, but because the society Alex is a part of does not look after its young and as reaction

societys youth rebel against the rules which they are told to live by. Alex in the film does not cry and most importantly at the end of the film does not show that he has matured or grown. An audience cannot feel sympathetic for a murderer and rapist if he is old enough to know that his actions are wrong, if he does not show any form of redemption even after being punished. As a result an audience watching A Clockwork Orange have a true anti hero, with whom it is very hard to sympathize with.

The alteration of Alex as a character, and also the removing of the final chapter from his screen play mean that Stanley Kubricks A Clockwork Orange is an enormously different text to Burgess original. However one of the novels most important and endearing features is untouched by Kubrick. Burgess constructed teen vernacular, Nadsat, survives the transition from page to screen unscathed, bizarre and as obscure on the screen as it was on the page. Burgess created a language which has many strangely beautiful words in it, words which were designed to create a sense of unity for the people who use it in the book. The language is used to exclude those who do not speak it, in the case of the novel, to exclude adults and the people who run the country such as teachers, police men and government officials. Words such as horror show which is used by Alex in the same way the word wicked is used today , as in referring to something that is good. Gulliver is a human head, a term Blake Morrison suggests is a passing nod to Jonathan Swift (Morrison, p.x) Tolchock, to hit someone, glazzies which mean the eyes, millicents refers to law enforcers and the rather childish guttiwuts is used to talk about the stomach. These are only some examples of the colourful and utterly charming language which Burgess created. The inclusion of the language in the film is highly peculiar considering the studio behind its production. Warner Brothers are, and have always been, one of major forces in the

film industry and consistently produces films which are geared towards achieving huge success at the box office. Nadsat, as an encoded language, is therefore not openly accessible to a wide audience, and getting to understand what Alex and his gang are talking about requires patience. However the languages inclusion could be more to do with Kubrick and the studios faith in their director rather than a shocking lapse in their business strategy. Kevin Jackson notes that the film was shot almost directly from the book, with Kubrick walking on set announcing a page number then spend the following time working out what he wanted to use (Jackson, p27).

Although the book is as violent as the film, the language which Burgess uses to describe these violent acts means that the imagery conveyed to a reader is softer and less brutal than the actual acts are. The problem which the film faces is that it is forced to show the actions of the characters, and as such is far more brutal than the book. For example tolchocking someone on the Gulliver, is a far more pleasant image than watching someones head being hit. Criticism levelled at the film because of its violent content, notes the way in which Kubrick chose to shoot these violent sections. Rather than choosing to portray the violence in a gritty and abrasive way, the fights and beatings in the film are shot with grace and beauty. Two scenes within the film which illustrate this grace are the scene in which Alex and his droogs fight Billy Boy and his five droogs (Burgess, p.13) in the old theatre, and the other when Alex quashes a possible mutiny within his gang and attacks his own friends. In the film these scenes are shot in a way that is reminiscent of a ballet, choreographed with bright and uplifting music in accompaniment.

A Clockwork Orange can be seen as a very close translation of the original novel. It follows the same narrative structure, and events occur in the correct chronological order. Although certain scenes are left out of the film, the content is very similar. The voice of the narrator is still present in the film, with Alex providing a voice over, and as he does in the book he still allies himself with the audience, often prefacing details by saying O my Brothers (Burgess, p.57).However, the way in which Kubrick has changed elements of the story mean that, as Bluestone suggests, he becomes the author of a new piece of work. Kubricks choice to iron out any weaknesses in Alex and cull the final chapter of the novel from his film meant that the tone and impact the film has is greatly different to that of the book. This change of tone combined with the formal elements, which are very much in keeping with the rest of Kubricks work, mean that Kubrick is established as this pieces author.

Chapter Four: Case Study; American Psycho American Psycho was first published in 1991, and was Bret Easton Ellis third novel. The novel traces the activities of Patrick Bateman, a yuppie stockbroker/serial killer with yuppie and cannibalistic tastes (Kauffman, p.41). The novel paints a portrait of the world and more specifically society which Bateman inhabits. Like Burgess and A Clockwork Orange, Easton Ellis uses his novel as an opportunity to comment on society, but specifically the world occupied by the rich and affluent living in New York during the late 80s. The novels central protagonist and his friends inhabit a world in which the dollar and consumerism reign supreme. Patrick Bateman describes his peers and those he interacts with not by character traits or physical appearance but by what suits or clothes they wear. A person is not worthwhile in Batemans eyes unless they have been educated at an established institution, wear tasteful clothes, and eat at the correct and usually exclusive restaurants. His friends are essentially versions of himself each sharing the same persona; his environment is one of identikit personalities. The central characters of the novel aspire to physical perfection, enormous wealth and all that goes with such wealth. Bateman becomes aware of this notion himself and suggests there is an idea of a Patrick Batemanbut there is no real memyself is fabricated (Easton Ellis, p.362) As a result of these shared personalities which are constructed with the aid of GQ magazine and other style bibles, Bateman is consistently mistaken for other people by his peers and even his lawyer when he confesses to killing a pantheon of people and committing various atrocities.

As with A Clockwork Orange, American Psycho can be considered a critique of the period around which it was written. Fourteen years on from its publication however,

the novel remains as pertinent as ever. A modern audience can still identify with the novels themes of violence, greed and image obsession which is highlighted today perfectly by magazines such as Heat, OK! and Hello. Due to readily available credit provided by companies today, people do now not even need to be in the same social context as Bateman and his friends to enjoy expensive products. The brutal consumerism of the late 80s is just as relevant to people reading the book in todays climate. Kauffman highlights the main themes within the novel as the craven addiction to sex and commodities, the convergence of consumerism and psychosis in alienating urban environments(Kauffman, p.41), these themes mean that the novel is just as relevant to a contemporary audience as it was upon publication.

Unlike A Clockwork Orange, it was Easton Ellis novel which caused huge controversy and not Mary Harrons American Psycho, released in 2000. Jeff Stipe notes that Literary critics and feminist groups savaged the novel(Stipe, 1999, p.8), because of the horrifically detailed portrayals of sex and violence, which often take place at the same time. After completing a finished version of the novel, Easton Ellis publishers Simon and Shuster, reneged on (his) contract just a month before the book was scheduled to arrive in bookshops (Kauffman, p. 41). The book was eventually published by Vintage books and within two months of the book hitting the shelves in April 1991 more than 100,000 copies had been sold (Stipe, p.8). One possible reason for such interest is that the story is told from Batemans controversial point of view, and as a result an audience is inexorably linked to the hideous events of the novel. Although still horrific, it is possible that these acts had they been placed within the third person would have had less gravitas and therefore been easier for an audience to deal with. The reason feminist groups and critics despised the novel so much is easy

to understand. The murders which Easton Ellis creates most horrifically and descriptively are of Batemans female victims. Batemans attempts at eating his female victims, his decision to mutilate their dead bodies and at one point unleash a starved rat on one of his victims are described in all their terrifying glory. Conversely Batemans male victims are disposed of quickly. This disproportionate balance of female victimization was certain to enrage feminist readers. The choice of first person narration caused massive problems for people who misread the novel. Kauffman highlights that one critic even assumed that Ellis and Bateman were interchangeable (Kauffman, p. 41), on the basis of this assumption perhaps readers believed that in fact Easton Ellis condoned the actions of his psychopathic creation.

As with A Clockwork Orange, Easton Ellis story made neither a quick or easy journey to screen. Jeff Stipe in an article on the film notes the film version of American Psycho (had) been an impossible project in Hollywood almost since the book was published(Stipe, p.8). Director Mary Harron began transforming the novel in 1996 and two years later the script she was ready. Lions Gate films were producing the project and announced at Cannes 1998 that (Leonardo) DiCaprio had agreed to star in the film (Stipe, p.9). Mary Harron did not agree with the studios decision to have Leonardo DiCaprio as Patrick Bateman saying in interview with Guardian reporter Nisha Gopolan, Leonardo wasnt remotely right for the part theres something very boyish about him. Hes not credible as one of those tough Wall street guys(Gopolan, 2000, para 5). Harrons opinion must also have been influenced by the actors role in the film Titanic (Director James Cameron, 1997). The film exponentially increased DiCaprios fan base, with hundreds of teenagers pinning pictures of him on their walls, as Harron says I did not want to deal with someone

who had a 13 yr old fan base. They shouldnt see the movie(Gopolan, para 5). As the young star became involved with the project Harron was removed by Lions Gate as she did not appear on DiCaprios list of purported list of Directors(Stipe, p.9). Oliver Stone became involved with the project after Harrons departure and began to chip away at Harrons script, preparing to re-write it all together (Gopolan, para 10). The progress being made on the project declined however when DiCaprio and Stone found it hard to agree on the nature of the film. Gopolan notes how some of the problems DiCaprio highlighted hadnt even been an issue when he started work on American Psycho and eventually bolted off to make The Beach(Gopolan, para 11). Oliver Stone eventually also left the project, and Lions Gate reinstated Harron as the films director. She was also allowed her first choice actor for Bateman, British actor Christian Bale, on the condition that her budget would not exceed $10m and that she would cast recognisable talent in the supporting roles(Gopolan, para 13). Once the production began again, more problems were faced. In an attempt to replicate the details of the novel, the film makers were denied the use of products by their manufacturers. Gopolan notes how many of the brand names the production gained permission to use actually came from European fashion houses rather than American ones, brand like Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein didnt want to be associated with something so horrible(Gopolan, para 17). Talking to Jeff Stipe, Harron recognises that the film is a period piece, as it focuses on a by gone era, and as a result the costume of the film is extremely important in creating a realistic vision of the source text. American Psycho was eventually released in 2000.

For a source text such as American Psycho, which portrays such vile and despicable crimes against women, it is highly pertinent that a woman chose to try and adapt the

text for the screen. Even when the studio dropped her in favour of other directors she was still passionate about her vision of the novel; of her removal from the film Harron said I wanted the Movie back(Gopolan, para 12). In terms of authorship, Harrons gender is highly pertinent, as is her previous film. I Shot Andy Warhol, made in 1996, was a biopic focusing on Valerie Solanas, author of the SCUM (Society for cutting up men) Manifesto(Kauffman, p.44). Under Harrons direction, Bateman becomes a ridiculous cartoon character, no longer the menacing psychopath that Easton Ellis penned. In the scenes of the film where Bateman is having sex, instead of focussing on his partner, he instead prefers to stare at himself in the mirrors on his wall. He is not making love to a women, he is making love with himself, something which an audience may find extremely amusing. Through rearranging key speeches from the novel, Harron also manages to ridicule Batemans killings. A whole chapter is dedicated to the band Huey Lewis and the News, as the story is drawing to an end and Bateman is becoming less stable. Harron however rearranges the chronology of the story and has Bateman give his analysis of the bands work whilst killing his arch rival Paul Owen. The speech is extremely detailed and Christian Bale enhances it by prancing around his victim, at times dancing. An audience are too busy laughing at the actor to appreciate the full extent of this macabre situation. Harron through a variety of techniques dilutes Bateman, instead of emphasising the violence of the film; the British director chooses to draw on the novels scathing satire of New York society.

Throughout American Psycho, Harron not only manages to change the way Bateman is received by an audience, but also manages to drown out his voice. The novel uses a first person narrative to detail the events which occur. The voice of this narrator is the

storys protagonist, Patrick Bateman. Although the film still follows Bateman, he is denied the opportunity of a voice over for the majority of the film, only being granted one at the beginning in order to describe his vigorous beauty regime. Unlike Kubrick and his vision of A Clockwork Orange, in which he retains the voice over of his central character Alex, the audience are never allowed to ally themselves with Bateman in Harrons American Psycho. Harron, whos previous film was a sympathetic portrait (Stipe, p.8) of a violent feminist, has clearly attempted to correct some of what she thought were shortcomings in the original text. In denying the audience voice over narration, Bateman and his internal mental activities are kept private. Harron does not wish the character to become a hero in the film, as he with represents everything the feminist movement has tried to stop. This change means that she manages to become an author in her own right, building on the material Easton Ellis left her and offering the characters a new direction.

Unlike A Clockwork Orange a great deal of the source material has been excluded from the screen play. However, a film maker is constrained by a number of limitations which a novelist is simply not effected by. Superficially it is to understand why so much has been omitted from Harrons film. At 318 pages, Easton Ellis novel is dense with activity and for a film maker with budget and time constraints it is simply too much. Harron however juggles sections of the novel which are interesting, amusing or integral to the story and places them at different points in the film. Scenes have also been omitted which are overly violent or disgusting, and only a handful of the murders in the novel remain in the film. Two possibilities can be suggested as to why these scenes have been omitted. Censorship is perhaps the most obvious, one chapter in the novel describes Bateman killing a child at the zoo, in another Bateman crucifies

one of his female victims. A film which portrayed these horrific events would certainly run into censorship issues, and could possibly risk being banned. For a commercial film studio, whose primary concern is financial success, this would not be an option. The second reason for these omissions is Mary Harron herself. Instead of dwelling on the horrific acts of the novel she instead emphasises the dark humour and satire of the story, trying to completely avoid the superfluous violence. The acts which are omitted from her screenplay are mentioned within the narrative of the film, yet have little effect, as they are not shown. Harron chooses to emphasise the novels social commentary and satirical elements rather than dwell on the violent content.

Literary adaptation can be performed in a manor of ways each with a different result. In the case of American Psycho, Mary Harron has taken the source text and manipulated that material to serve a personal purpose. As a woman, with a history of feminist interest, Harron manipulates Bateman into a joke, rather than the dangerous Psychopath that roams the pages of Easton Ellis novel. As the films director and cowriter, Harron removes Easton Ellis as author and establishes herself in the role. Although the film works well in capturing the time period in which the novel is set and also manages to reproduce the satirical elements of the book, it fails not unintentionally, at conveying the turbulent psyche of the storys central protagonist. Bateman is not a character with which a female would identify with, and Harron realised this. Harron possibly wishes the audience to forget Bateman in the same way his colleagues do.

Chapter Five: Conclusion. Over the course of the two case studies it can be seen that different directors choose to adapt from literature in different ways. Perhaps more significantly it has been shown what sort of effect this transition has upon the material being used.

Through changing elements of a novel, in even a small way, the tone or impact of the resulting film can be greatly different to that of the source material. In the case of A Clockwork Orange, Stanley Kubricks choice to remove the intended ending and also his decision to moderate the character of Alex, means that an audience cannot sympathise with the protagonist in the way the novels reader can. In Kubricks film, Alex never redeems himself as he never progresses morally or spiritually in the way he does in Burgess novel. Burgess, by allowing his creation to morally mature and renounce violence places the character within an established cycle of youth violence, which the protagonist himself highlights in the novels final chapter. The Alex of Kubricks tale however ends the film in way which suggests he will in fact return to his old pattern of behaviour. Alex in the film could perhaps be called inherently evil, whilst in the novel perhaps Alex is a confused and mislead adolescent. However Kubrick still wishes an audience to ally themselves with the films central protagonist, as Alex still narrates the film via voice over, and much of the dialogue from the original text is retained. As in the novel Alex calls to the audience by saying O My brothers(Burgess, p.5), with this device he compromises the audiences distance from his actions and makes people feel involved with his life. Although the language and events of the novel are kept on the whole in tact, Kubricks authoritative decision to remove the last chapter greatly changes the resulting piece and as such it is a totally independent, new text.

The same can be said in the case of American Psycho. Although in contrast to A Clockwork Orange a great deal of the novel is left out of the film, and what remains is rearranged in terms of chronology. However in this case study, a female director has taken a source text which is brutal in its attitude to women, and her interpretation deconstructs the gender relations of the novel. By building the central female characters of the novel into well developed characters in the film, the tone of the novel is changed, resulting in a film which works differently. Harron also chooses to ridicule the central protagonist by turning him into a laughing stock. The misogynistic predator who stalks the pages of Bret Easton Elliss novel no longer remains; instead the audience are left with a man who cannot be taken seriously. He is no longer a source of fear but a source of amusement and his decline into uncontrollable madness is not perturbing but pitifully hilarious. What was once a novel that feminist critics despised has now become a film which could be enjoyed to a greater extent by female viewers.

Through the case studies it could also be suggested however that film is simply not a suitable medium for literal translation. Filmmakers are constrained in a way which novelists would find strange and alien. Directors must work within the confines of the budget and this will dictate what directors can achieve. Novelists in terms of content however, are only limited as their imaginations. An explosion or plane crash costs the novelist nothing to pen, yet for a film maker orchestrating such a scene can be expensive and logistically difficult.

Novels also communicate readers in a different manner to films and their audience. A novel can offer back a characters history and often elaborate on certain aspects of the narrative, because prose is used to convey the story. A directors primary tools are sight and sound, and all the content of a novel transferred to the screen, both textual and sub-textual must be conveyed with these devices. It is therefore to be expected that when adapting from page to screen, that something will be lost in translation.

If it is a problematic process then why have so many directors always relied heavily on literature for material? The answer is undoubtedly money; a film maker can take an established text with its existent fan base, transfer it to the screen in the hope the novels fans will come and see the finished product. It could also be suggested that instead of analysing the changes which occur when a text is transferred from page to screen, a more accepting attitude could be employed. Critics, scholars and even fans should perhaps accept the differences between the two mediums, rather than how truthful the film remains to its source text. The film maker offers their vision of a text, and will also assimilate features and themes they identify with from the novel, it therefore to be accepted that with such input the director becomes author for this new text. Although characters and story lines may remain the same, they are merely shadows of the original work being cast onto another authors blank canvas.

Bibliography

All Time Box Office (n.d) Retrieved February 19, 2005 from Box Office Mojo Website: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/ Anderson, C.W. (1985). Science Fiction Films of the Seventies, Jefferson, North Carolina; London; McFarland Annesley, J. (1998). Blank Fictions: Consumerism, Culture and the Contemporary American Novel, London; Pluto Press Balio, T., ed, (1985) The American Film Industry, Madison, Wisconsin; London; University of Wisconsin Press Bane, J. (2003). The Novels of Bret Easton Ellis. Retrieved March 12, 2005, from B.B.C website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1036315 Bluestone, G. (1957). Novels into Film, Berkeley; London; University of California Press Bradshaw, P. (2000). The Old Ultra-Violence. Retrieved March 18, 2005 from Guardian Newspaper, Film Guardian Website: http://film.guardian.co.uk/Feature_Story/feature_story/0,4120,142566,00.html Burgess, A. (2000) A Clockwork Orange, London; New York; Penguin Classics Chapman, J. (1999) A Bit of the Old Ultra Violence; A Clockwork Orange in I.Q Hunter, ed, British Science Fiction Cinema (pp. 128-137). London; Routledge Duguid, M. (n.d). Literary Adaptation. Retrieved January 10, 2005 from Screen Online Website: http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/444951/ Easton Ellis, B. (1991). American Psycho London; Picador Feldmann, H. (1976). Kubrick and His Discontents. Film Quarterly, 30(1), 12-19 French, P. (2000). You Looking at Me? Retrieved March 18, 2005 from Guardian Newspaper, Film Guardian Website: http://film.guardian.co.uk/Feature_Story/feature_story/0,4120,141472,00.html Giddings, R. and Selby, K. and Wensley, C. (1990). Screening the Novel: The Theory and Practice of Literary Dramatization, Basingstoke; Macmillan Gopolan, N. (2000). American Psycho: The Story Behind the Film. Retrieved March 12, 2005 from Guardian Newspaper, Film Guardian Website: http://film.guardian.co.uk/Feature_Story/feature_story/0,4120,150245,00.html

Guback, T.H. (1985). Hollywoods International Market in T. Balio, ed, The American Film Industry (pp.463-486). Madison, Wisconsin; London; University of Wisconsin Press Horton, A. and Magretta, J. (1981). Introduction in A. Horton and J. Magretta, eds, Modern European Filmmakers and the Art of Adaptation (pp.1-5) New York; Frederick Ungar Publications Hunter, I.Q., ed, (1999) British Science Fiction Cinema, London; Routledge Jackson, K. (1999). A Short Lexicon of Nadsat. Sight and Sound, 9(9), 24-27 James, N. (2000) Sick City Boy. Sight and Sound, 10(5), 22-24 Jancovich, M. and Reboll, A.L. and Stringer, J. and Willis, A., eds, (2003) Defining Cult Movies , Manchester; New York; University of Manchester Press. Kauffman, L.S. (2000). American Psycho [review of the motion picture American Psycho]. Film Quarterly, 54(2) 41-45 Leigh, D. (2001). Murder Most Horrid. Retrieved March 12, 2005 from Guardian Newspaper, Film Guardian Website: http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,477979,00.html McEwan, I. (1998). Enduring Love London; Vintage Morrison, B. (2000). Introduction in A. Burgess A Clockwork Orange (pp.vii-xxiv) London; Penguin Classics Orr, J. (1992). Cinema and Fiction: New Modes of Adapting, 1950-1990, Edinburgh; University of Edinburgh Press Palahnuik, C. (1997). Fight Club, London; Vintage Rayns, T. (2000) American Psycho [review of the motion picture American Psycho]. Sight and Sound, 10(5), 42 Stipe, J. (1999). Blood Symbol. Sight and Sound, 9(7), 8-10 Wagner, G. (1975). The Novel and The Cinema. Rutherford; Madison; Teaneck; Farleigh Dickinson University Press; London; Tantivy Press. Walker, A. (1999). Stanley Kubrick, Director. London; Weidenfeld & Nicolson Welsh, I. (2003). Trainspotting. London; Vintage Wu, H.H. (2003). Trading in horror, cult and matricide: Peter Jacksons phenomenal bad taste and New Zealand fantasies of inter/national cinematic success in M. Jancovich and A.L Reboll and J. Stringer and A. Willis, eds, Defining Cult Movies (pp.84-108). Manchester; New York; University of Manchester Press.

Filmography Boyle, D. (Director). (1996). Trainspotting [Motion Picture]. United Kingdom: Channel Four Films. Coppola, F.F. (Director). (1979). Apocalypse Now [Motion Picture]. United States: Zoetrope Studios. Fincher, D. (Director). (1999). Fight Club [Motion Picture]. United States: Fox 2000 Pictures Harron, M. (Director). (2000) American Psycho [Motion Picture]. United States: Lions Gate Films Kubrick, S. (Director). (1964). Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb [Motion Picture]. United Kingdom: Hawk Films ltd. Kubrick, S. (Director). (1968). 2001: A Space Odyssey [Motion Picture]. United States: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Kubrick, S. (Director). (1971). A Clockwork Orange [Motion Picture]. United States; Great Britain : Warner Brothers/ Hawk Films ltd. Kubrick, S. (Director). (1980). The Shining [Motion Picture]. United States; Great Britain: Warner Bros/ Hawk Films ltd. Luhrmann, B. (Director). (1996). Romeo + Juliet [Motion Picture].United States: 20th Century Fox Michell, R. (Director). (2004). Enduring Love [Motion Picture]. United Kingdom: Film Four/ UK Film Council