From books to the screen
Naan bidi, Daredevil. Gotto? (Know what? I’m a daredevil...)
Actor Suchendra Prasad’s voice reverberates in the minds of those who have heard the audio story ‘Daredevil Musthafa’, written by K P Poornachandra Tejaswi (Poochanthe). As ‘Daredevil Musthafa’ hit the screens last month, there have been discussions on whether the film developed beyond what Tejaswi wrote, and if it fits “Poochanthe Prapancha” (The universe of Tejaswi) as the tagline claims.
Such arguments are common when films are adapted from literature, especially if they are popular. Even Mani Ratnam couldn’t escape the wrath of book lovers when the movies on Ponniyin Selvan were released.
It’s natural to draw similarities between the film and the original story. Although many literature lovers are often the first ones to watch such films, sometimes the adaptations end up disappointing them.
If we were to go back in time, the first Indian film Raja Harishchandra (1913) directed by Dadasaheb Phalke was an adaptation of the life of the celebrated mythological king Harishchandra. Most films of the time were mythological— based on existing written material.
Similarly, the first Kannada film, Sati Sulochana (1934) directed by Yaragudipati Varada Rao, is based on a legendary story from the Ramayana. However, the first Kannada film to be based on a published novel was Karuneye Kutumbada Kannu (1962). Directed by T V Singh Thakore, it was based on Krishnamoorthy Puranik’s novel, Dharma Devathe.
Book vs movie
One of the basic problems of adapting literature into cinema is the differences in the linguistic interpretation of literature and the audiovisual semiotics of cinema. Novels and books use language to create simple narratives, leaving underlying messages.
Most often, filmmakers use metaphors to show underlying meanings. However, when readers grasp multiple meanings, it gets difficult to show all of it in the film.
During the 1950s and the 1970s, there were a fairly good number of successful adaptations.
Literary works like Chandavalliya Thota and Chandanada Gombe by TaRaSu, Uyyale by Chaduranga, Bangarada Manushya by T K Rama Rao, Bhootayyana Maga Ayyu by Goruru Ramaswamy Iyengar, Bellimoda and Sharapanjara by Triveni, Gejje Pooje by M K Indira, Eradu Kanasu by Vaani can be considered as good examples of adapting common interpretations. These films were well-received by the audience.
According to film critic Balu V L, Sarvamangala (1968) directed by Chaduranga and Bhootayyana Maga Ayyu (1974) by S Siddalingaiah are very important novel-based films in Kannada.
Samskara by U R Ananthamurthy narrates the social aspects of Hinduism in post-independent India with a critical lens. The author questions the society that blindly follows the religious rituals imposed by the privileged caste. The novel got into a controversy when it was released.
When Pattabhirama Reddy adapted Samskara into a film in 1970, it was the first of its kind: A film without a star cast, songs and dance. The film was banned for over a year but is, however, considered to be one of the greatest Kannada films.
The film was made within five years of publication of the book. Most literary works like Samskara, Ghatashraddha (U R Ananthamurthy), Vamsha Vriksha (S L Bhyrappa) are bound by the social history of time and place. When adapted immediately, a film gains the advantage of relevance in place and time, having a greater impact on the audience. Ghatashraddha was directed by Girish Kasaravalli and Vamsha Vriksha by B V Karanth and Girish Karnad.
However, films like Mayura, adapted from Devudu Narasimha Sastri’s Mayura and Sanaadi Appanna adapted from Kuniyitu Hejje Naliyithu Gejje by Krishnamoorthy Puranik are examples of how adaptations of works with socio-historical narratives of a different age and time evoke present day modified socio-historical identity issues.
Response to a story
Many of Girish Kasaravalli’s films are successful adaptations of novels. Kasaravalli uses the framework of the original story to build a visual story and reinterpret the novel. He says, he has never attempted to make a film an “as it is” of a novel. “Adaptation is not translation. As a creative artist, my response to the story will become a film,” he said.
Before working on the adaptation of a book, Kasaravalli assesses whether the book can be adapted into the medium, whether the subject can be elaborated and the story can be reinterpreted.
“It is also important to assess to what extent a story will sum up my present-day concerns, if it can be generalised and be seen as a universal problem,” he notes.
Film critic Phaniraj K says that Tejaswi’s Abachurina Post Office (1973) directed by N Lakshminarayan failed because of single interpretative narratives. Tabarana Kathe (1986) and Kubi Mattu Iyala (1992), both directed by Girish Kasaravalli, used the historical residue of the works in a different age and experimented with multiple narratives.
Girish Kasaravalli recalls U R Ananthamurthy telling him that it takes about 20 minutes to read a story while a film is two-hours-long. Kasaravalli quotes Ananthamurthy: “If I have to end up seeing the same thing on the screen, then I will read the story. Why should I waste my two hours? If the story puts me across new streams, new meanings, then it will look more creative, I prefer films like that.”
Most films adapted from Shivarama Karanth’s writings like Chomana Dudi (1975, B V Karanth), Chigurida Kanasu (2003, T S Nagabharana), Bettada Jeeva (2011, P Seshadri) were well-received by the audience and were also celebrated by critics.
T S Nagabharana has adapted several novels into films. He directed a movie based on Girish Karnad’s play Nagamandala, which was based on a folklore he heard from A K Ramanujan.
Inspired by poems
Mysuru Mallige (1992) is one-of-a-kind film that is adapted from a poetry collection by K S Narasimhaswamy by the same name. It was quite a task to weave a story around the diverse poems in the collection, Nagabharana recalls.
Nagabharana, along with C Ashwath, H S Venkateshmurthy, M N Vyasa Rao, Narahalli Balasubramanya and B R Lakshman Rao, worked on the film’s script for about three years, developing the characters derived from the poems. Shanubhoga’s daughter, the bangle seller Chennayya and poet Manju were such characters. “And in order to bring a dialogue to the story, we placed it during the freedom movement. Our goal was to use the poems to weave a story,” he says.
Some writers feel their writings were massacred by filmmakers. One such prominent example is T R Subbarao’s (TaRaSu) statement about the film Nagarahavu (1972) directed by Puttanna Kanagal. It was based on TaRaSu’s novel by the same name. TaRaSu had commented on the film saying “naan barediddu nagarahavu, neev madiddu kere havu” (I wrote about the cobra while you’ve adapted it into a rat snake).
In the book, Ramachari is seen as a rebel. Quoting this, Girish Kasaravalli said that in the film, Ramachari is characterised as an imprudent son and not a rebel. It was natural for TaRaSu to get offended by this, he adds.
He also mentions that writer Bharathi Suta too was upset with the adaptation of Edakallu Guddada Mele. Madhavi’s character is portrayed as an independent woman in the book, whereas in the film, she is depicted as a promiscuous woman.
Currently, many youngsters are trying to bring short stories to life on the silver screen in the form of short films, web series and anthologies. Will such a move help create more content-oriented cinema? Only time will tell.
Deccan Herald is on WhatsApp Channels| Join now for Breaking News & Editor's Picks