Questioning why people hate adaptations

Like it or not (and many seem to have fallen into the latter camp), Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” has thus far been the standout cultural moment of the year. An adaptation of the complex and oft misunderstood 1847 novel by Emily Bronte, it drew ire for many quite understandable issues, not least its whitewashing of Heathcliff. To be transparent, I haven’t watched this film, and have no intention of doing so. Just not my thing! As we look ahead to the rest of the year, we soon have Christopher Nolan’s Odyssey, new versions of both Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility, and the first installment of Greta Gerwig’s Narnia films, The Magician’s Nephew. There are a lot of adaptations around this year. And people don’t like it.

Adapatations, particularly new versions of beloved classics, seem to spark a particular type of rage in the online commentariat. Cries of ‘do we really need another x?’ sit alongside justifiable concerns about the lack of space for new stories. But if I’m quite honest, I just don’t get it! I first started thinking about this when a new version of Amadeus, starring Will Sharpe and Paul Bettany, was released last year. So much of the discourse around this series focused on the brilliance of the 1984 film, of which I am an avowed and devoted fan (read more on this here). Why would we possibly need another version when we have this standout film? This line of questioning struck me as particularly odd, given that both are based on the play by Peter Shaffer. A play is inherently designed to be retold over and over again, with different casts, set designs, etc. The play received numerous different runs during Shaffer’s lifetime, and he wrote different versions for each of these. These versions addressed what he saw as weaknesses in the play, notably its ending. He then also wrote the screenplay for the 1984 film. Few people seem to have been more aware of the value of creating new versions of an existing work than Shaffer.

Perhaps the strongest adaptation discourse surrounds Jane Austen adaptations. The Pride and Prejudice 1995 vs 2005 feud is well-documented and doesn’t seem to mellow with time – people still have incredibly strong feelings about this. Once again, I definitely have a favourite (1995 of course!), but I see nothing wrong with other people preferring the 2005 version. The upcoming adaptation starring Emma Corrin (whom I love) will no doubt pour more fuel on this fire. There are appeals to authenticity, accuracy, superior casting, etc. But even the truly wonderful 1995 Pride and Prejudice, and indeed Sense and Sensibility diverge from their novel in some places (quite significantly in the case of the latter). So it is hard to really justify this sense of inhenrent superiority.

While the examples I’ve cited are largely targeted a female audiences (although my male partner is a big fan of 1995 Pride and Prejudice), it is worth noting that this isn’t a phenomenon we only see in this space. One only has to look at the tangled (and often racist) discourse around new Tolkien adaptations to see that this isn’t just a period drama problem.

So why do people get so het up about adaptations? If we boil it down, I think it comes from a sort of inter-generational defensiveness. We’ve seen such conversations around jeans, eyebrows, side-parts, and more, although there is an aspiration towards intellectual heft in the adaptation debate which was lacking from these. But in essence they feel to me the same – if the 1995 version was good enough for me, why should someone younger need a new version? Perhaps it comes from a place of worrying about aging, of being replaced, and being seen as lesser for things beyond one’s control.

We should be pleased by younger generations being offered a way into a world of literature we have gained so much from

Which begs the question: can’t we let the younger generation have what we have? We got to enjoy adaptations which spoke to us at key ages in our lives, which realised elements of the stories we loved just as we had hoped. It seems only fair that the next generation (and the one after that, and the one after that…) should get to experience this as well. Little Women is a good case to support this. I can hardly imagine anyone of my generation arguing that we had the 1949 version, so why would be possibly need another? Film and television reflect the world they are created in, and to some extent can shape it. Rather than arguing against the creation of new versions, we should be pleased by younger generations being offered a way into a world of literature we have gained so much from. If the new versions are so deeply offensive to us, we can simply choose not to watch!

---

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this apparently rather divisive topic! I love adaptations and will always enjoy getting to see new ones. Some of them might not meet the high standards I would hope for (yes, I’m afraid I’m looking at you, 2022 Persuasion), but if anything that just makes me love the ‘originals’ more. What are you favourite adapations? Do you choose to read the book first? Please do share your thoughts!