Wednesday, February 27, 2019
How to Adapt MelvilleÃ¢â¬â¢s Ã¢â¬ÅBartleby the ScrivenerÃ¢â¬Â for Film
The cardinal existing adaptations of Herman Melvilles short fib Bartleby the Scrivener, released in 1970 and 2001, denominate 2 legitimate variations of this dense, strange allegory. The 1970 adjustment, starring John McEnrey as Bartleby, elects to prioritize the homeliness of Bartlebys laconic take on life in its chroma palette and generally dreary atmosphere. The more recent adaptation, starring Crispin Glover in the titular role, is more comic and, in the parlance of our times, screwball in its portrayal of office life.Such an interpretation seems closer to the text for me while Melvilles story is profoundly sad, this sadness is non a uniform, blanketing affect, falling similar Joyces snow over the living and the dead, but the failure of unconstipated comedy to overcome the qualitys disaffection from themselves and each other. Melvilles tale is strange, and as such it calls for a strange adaptation to make it fit on the silver screen. What continues to be amiss in the se adaptations is that Melvilles story is closely misunderstanding Bartleby, thus far both adaptations aim to understand Bartleby.The pathos of the tale, which in its literary form instantiates itself in the relationship between the immortaliseer and the text, is woolly when a rent version purports to offer mimetic verity. The reader of Bartleby is do to feel that she has missed something, that there is some clue to the secret of Bartleby and Bartleby that has been unmarked and which would resolve the pervading feeling of dislocation. In a crude sense, Bartleby represents the truly imbecility of language to say what it means to saythat it constantly says too frequently and too little, and that even a simple mantra like I like non to can become opaque if we look too closely.Any interpretation of Bartleby will fall into this trap to some consequence, of offering a exposition of what is essentially nebulous. To circumvent this problem, I pro go under the same tactic tha t Melville employs in his framing of Bartleby. Rather than cogitateing on the titular character, the film should concentrate on on the storys fabricator, the lawyer who will become Bartlebys boss. After all, what we learn from reading this story is that a name does not tell us who someone is, but misdirects us into the illusion of knowledge.The book of account Bartleby remains an enigma, and the attached epithetthe Scrivenerfurther obscures the real Bartleby that this story invites us to seek. Bartlebys job as a scrivener is evidently the least(prenominal) interesting, unique, or existentially relevant fact to know ab disclose him, and yet this is what we are misled by the title into defining him by. The fibber, on the other hand, is anon. through and throughout. While Bartleby is anomic in the existential sense, he does at least have a name.The narrator, who generally fits in well with the boring blemish of his socio-economic position, is anomic in that he does not have a name. If Bartleby is in some way a cultural critique, and it is hard not to presuppose so, then this is the man who we should focus on to make him claim a name for himself. Bartlebys name gives the reader and and people around him a false sense of knowledge of him, as does his identification as scriveneras if a rote task could truly define him. The weapon system of naming should be turned back on the crystalise who is authorise to wield it.Giving a name to the narrator is not the solution to this problem, as that would repress the whole issue of the name. Instead, the film should be framed as an implicit challenge to the narrator to find his name and reveal it, to fragmentise a fixed location in the world of lecture where he can be found and confronted. (This is similar to the protocol of protesters who ask for police badge numbers so that there is accountability for police reachs. ) This direct not be an overtly or clumsily militant film.The remove that the narrator na me himself cannot be proclaimed literally by the film without adding an additional interlocutor, perhaps the filmmaker as documentarian, and this would totally redouble the scrimping of the shield of namelessness. This would around be worse, since it would decenter the mechanism of namelessness from the dominant classwhere it can at least be located to some extent in the sole nameless character of the narratorand make it into a roving weapon for all parties vying for power. Rather, we should remember that film can assist without gimmickry as a demand for characters to name themselves.The characters in Little get away Sunshine are all suffering from disparate types of personal amalgamate and the film comes to a conclusion when they are equal to(p) to define themselves through their relationship as a family. What we have here are actually two forms of social policing that need to be clearly articulated for the purposes of impressive translation between literature and film. Lit erature operates in the domain of words, and so its dominant procedure is naming film operates in the domain of cast (as well as sound, but the eye is the vastly dominant reed organ for human perception) and its dominant procedure is the gaze.So while Melvilles text puts jam on the narrator to reveal his name if he truly wants to be Bartlebys comrade, rather than his patron, we need to switch methods for film adaptation and focus the gaze on the narrator. Simply by looking at him we pose the film question analogous to revealing his name. Appropriately enough, an excellent good example of this proficiency can be found in the television show The Office. The character Michael Scott, a low level manager played by Steve Carell, is shown to be a buffoon just by showing him.With assorted editingre touching his gaffes, inappropriate pauses and laughter, and the apathetic and uninspired responses of the employees he manageshe could bet to be confident and in control. The persistence of looking determines the difference in social perception. I would support using a camera proficiency similar to that of The Office in which camera movement between characters often supplants cuts so as to give the effect of the camera belonging to a person in the room.This technique would not be used quite an as aggressively as on The Officecharacters in my version of Bartleby would not look or speak directly into the camera, nor would there be out of sequence cuts to characters interviews or commentary. A mobile camera, both moving between characters during dialogue, and following characters when they are walking, would help to prevent this from becoming a visually boring adaptation (a dangerous temptation for a characterization about people stuck inside doing repetitive labor).At the same time, this camera technique would also reveal that this place and this job are boring. Cuts to close-ups obscure the alienation of the systema skeletale in his office landscape and falsely re- face persons who professional circumstance de-faces. Coupling this camera technique with the above mentioned preference for showing the narrator and ignoring Bartleby would add an extra layer of visual intrigue, even suspense, as Bartleby would only appear sporadically, incidentally, contingent on his relevance to other characters.Although I would not want to only if mimic the cinematography of The Office, one thematic broker that informs both the style of the television show and my production of Bartleby is the camera as confessional. The demand for a name as the opening for confession creates a stylistic tension on the one hand, to depict a figure against its ground asks for a wide angle coolness that minimizes the proportion of character to environment on the other hand, the visual poetics of the confession work up outdo when the face of the individual is highly legible.This legibility is one of the oldest criteria of the confession. Without being able to read the face, the veracity of the confession is uncertain it might be a feint. So when the narrator is interacting with other characters, we would use a wide shot that would pan between them as they took turns speaking, catching Bartleby almost by disaster in the marginal, in-between-space, that happens to exist within the zone of the cameras movement. When the narrator is agonizing over his problematic relationship with Bartleby, the job of the camera is to mind closely and to watch him closely.The internal monologue, the narration as heard/read by the reader, would be performed as spoken monologues that provide dramatic action during the actionless life of the narratoras he walks the streets of New York or sits at his desk. To reinforce Bartlebys marginalization, these internal monologues (in Melvilles text) could be performed in Bartlebys presence to emphasize his non- or quasi-existence. As far as pretense palette, a unified scheme would help to portray Bartleby as a story about analyzing a s ingle form of consciousness, and hence not guided by the mimetics of realism.Heavy monochromaticism through tinting the film stock is a bit too heavy handed. I think a very light use of a gray-scale filter would be beneficial, but to really capture the horror of Bartleby the muted light and gray-scale lifestyle should be inbred in the mise en scene and costuming. By dressing all the characters and their surround in similar colors their alienation is made apparent by the absurdity of them all appearing like chameleons in a colourless environment.Turkey, Ginger Nut, and Nippers, Bartlebys co-workers, have powerful distinguishing traits that Melville comically exaggerates, and these caricatured personalities appear outflank against an equally caricatured ground. With everything draped in unending gray, small colorful expatiate could easily mark the personality of these characteras well as marking how ludicrous it is to think that personhood can be signified by the single note charac teristics that Melville uses to mark these apart.The soundscape of this film would take after the blurred, mechanically processed effects of Jacques Tatis Playtime. This would help to take the magic out of Bartlebys somewhat famous mantra, I would prefer not to. nix would be worse than for a fetishist of Melville to be waiting breathlessly for the storys catch phrase, to construe this refusal of everything (including refusal) as a catchphrase. The narrator does not truly pay attention to Bartleby when he first begins to defer performance because this break is virtually unthinkable.In the manner of the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, refusal to participate in capitalism almost conceptually impossible for the narrator to process. Bartlebys proclamation originates almost entirely out of mind, sight, and hearing. But as the narrator is forced to notice that work is not being done, he and the directionality of the microphones close in on the source of the trouble. Bartleby is saying somethin g very strange he would prefer not to.In giving attention to Bartlebys speech it is important to register his words as they occur to/within the consciousness of the narrator. The audio is not supposititious to suddenly begin listening to Bartleby as if he is a messianic figure (as he has been construed in the past) but to take note that his deferral has become a (troubling) object of thought for the narrator. The narrators responses would always be louder than Bartlebys words, except when he is repeating them to himself later, fitfully.