The truth, I don't think there's a real formula to get adaptations right. It's tricky. It's a tricky gamble between overserving the current trends or flat out gamble with crazy ideas. Sometime it was merely out of sheer luck become trending (in a good way). I am no analyst nor working in the marketing department, but I was in the animation and gaming industry for several years to observe how some adaptations works perfectly despite the flaws.
Disclaimer, as I mentioned before, I am not an analyst and everything I present here is just from observations and personal opinions. I also want to use this opportunity to address issues with remake and understanding whitewashing (again this is just a personal view).
I totally understand if my views seems confusing and you're free to disagree with me.
You Either be Faithful to the Source Materials OR All-Out
Ok what do I mean by "All-Out"? To me this is when a book was faithfully adapted the plot but not the rest. They would include the obvious anachronism with the cast and setting. The key point is, it was obviously made so. In my opinion, Shonda Rhimes (one of the Hollywood top frontrunners and creator of several successful tv shows like Grey's Anatomy, Scandal) is one of the best when it comes to "All-Out" concept for adaptations. Previously she did "a sequel" to Romeo and Juliet titled Still Star Crossed. Unfortunately at that time the concept all out seems too new and people wasn't able to grasp the idea. It become no surprise the series only lasted 1 season.
The differences I noticed about her style and other pc (political correctness) wannabe, not only the black characters are usually one of the protagonists, they all created with complex and solid backgrounds, not simply throw one or two for the sake of giving multicolored characters to be pc. Still Star Crossed introduced the Renaissance era with a twist; black people are the norm just like in the modern days. Costumes and setting also have many
anorchism elements on them.
Despite the lack of success of Still Star Crossed, I'm glad Shonda haven't given up because in the near future she is adapting Bridgerton to Netflix, again with the similar all-out concept. And I'm telling yo, I can't wait!
Regency era with so many twist! Again with the black people being the norm, colorful costumes and backrop that didn't exactly exist during the Regency Era. What is not to love?
This is kind of adaptations I like and so far I felt only Shonda keep getting it right (maybe that's why she is one of the best and richest show frontrunners at the moment).
Hamilton the Musical is probably the best musical when it comes to the term of anorchism.
I mean you gotta love the colorful casts (literally) and the music! From classical to pop to rap! It makes history something fun to learn! If only all history classes like this.
Those colorful costumes too. Again, what is not to love?? Sorry I know I'm a sucker for colorful things. It just made things felt more alive!
Then here come the problems with adaptations which I would called "half-asses", and it had become more severe lately due to the pc movements *major sigh*. The most recent and painfully obvious is the Netflix adaptation of The Witcher.
It's obvious they did amazing job for Geralt. When they first announced casting Henry Cavill as Geralt of Riviera, people were doubting, but when the series was released Henry proved he is meant to be Geralt. Ciri looks solid too. Unfortunately for the rest of the girls...
I have no idea what runs in the production staffs heads when they decided to cast Anya Chalotra, an Indo-English actress to portrayed Yennefer of Vengerberg, who is obviously Caucasian character from Aedirn (which some said based on medieval Germany).
The pain didn't stop there. Even if you're not a fan of The Witcher, you most likely will still know the fiery, red-haired Triss Merigold of Maribor. They casted Anna Shaffer (of harry Potter fame) for Triss. I'm sorry Anna, nothing personal, but Anna looks anything but Caucasian and also appeared too haggard to be Triss.
I really have no idea what the casting crew have in their minds. Both Yen and Triss are not only important characters in The Witcher, but iconic as well. And don't deny that many boys would *ehem* you know on them. Honestly I can't help but to think they added non-white characters for the sake of pc and focused solely on Geralt for female viewers - and for that part it work! But they could had worked better for both Yen and Triss as well and they might racked up MORE viewers. I just don't know at this point, ugh.
On the rare occasion where adaptation done right would had been Crazy Rich Asians. I wish I could had said it was completely done right but I admit there's some hiccups but they're no big deal.
Despite being a Hollywood production, Crazy Rich Asian is 99% Asian casted. Well done!
Small "hiccups" I mentioned earlier was the odd accents among the characters; Rachel Chu, despite being an American and portrayed by an American actress (Constance Wu) have a thick Chinese accent. Rachel wasn't even given any explanation why she have the accent nor it was even mentioned in the book. Her bf Nick Young however, have a perfect British English despite coming from Singapore. The casting of Henry Golding for Nick's role also did caused short controversy as he is mixed English and Iban (an indigenous race from Sarawak, Malaysia). However because he often passed as a Chinese, the controversy eventually died down. Regardless, Crazy Rich Asian hit rights the most.
White Washing: Understand the Differences with 'Version'
The practice whitewashing is as old as the industry itself. Although back then (in Hollywood especially) it was more acceptable as minorities were scarce and their opportunities and availability were not as common as nowadays. Not to mentioned racism was way stronger back then.
Basically what is whitewashing?
Whitewashing is a casting practice in the film industry in which white actors are cast in non-white roles. As defined by Merriam-Webster, to whitewash is "to alter... in a way that favors, features, or caters to white people: such as... casting a white performer in a role based on a nonwhite person or fictional character". The list of films in which white actors have played other races includes everything from romantic comedies to action adventures and fantasies to historical epics." African-American roles and roles of Asian descent have been whitewashed.
While still happening nowadays, whitewashing is become more less acceptable as there more diversity of actors around. Actors from all around the globe are more easily to be in demand compare last time.
Yet some people misunderstood the differences between whitewashing and 'version'. When Netflix decided to adapt Death Note in 2017 and changed everything; from the cast to setting to America, people crying out whitewashing. SMH. That's not whitewashing, that was just a Japanese manga/anime/film adapted into American version. Nothing new here.
And had people forgotten Martin Scorsese's 2006 Academy Award winning film The Departed? It was remake from 2002 Hong Kong film Internal Affairs.
But don't you think only Hollywood enjoying adapting/remake films from other countries. Bollywood (India's equivalent to Hollywood had been doing the same for years).
And sometimes we even have cross adaptations; from 1969 French film The Unfaithful Wife (La Femme infidèle) to Hollywood version Unfaithful in 2002 and finally by Bollywood version, Muder in 2004.
Now the real talk of modern whitewashing. 2016 Adaptation of Dr. Strange saw the powerful Ancient One changed from an Asian man into a Caucasian women of Celtic origins. The only reason I kinda passed this issue (tho I'm still annoyed as heck), the film portrayal of the Ancient One is a bit pathetic compare to his comic counterpart. Just to make myself feel better I guess this way I don't felt bad Asian wasn't represented lol.
But 2010 Avatar: The Last Airbender probably committed the biggest whitewashing (and indianwashing??). White actors play characters that are depicted as East Asian and Inuit in the TV series. On the other hand, the actors portraying the antagonist Fire Nation characters are mainly Middle Eastern and Indian (when originally they're Chinese).
The film often regarded greatly dishonors its source material; which was based off the animation series by Nickelodeon, which aired from 2005 to 2008 and gathered a large following and lots of praise. A disaster. Alright, disaster is an understatement, we meant a catastrophic fiasco. It was also unfortunate the beloved animation series featuring all Asian characters was foolishly ruined by a movie with a plotline of 20 crammed episodes.
And finally I thought I want to skip it but in the end I just can't. The adaptations from anime and manga of Ghost in the Shell and Battle Angel Alita. GitS had long been asked for adaptation but when it did, it was a major disappointment. It received mixed reviews, with praise for its visual style, action sequences, cinematography and score, but criticism for its story and lack of character development. The casting of Caucasian actors, particularly Scarlett Johansson, drew accusations of racism and whitewashing in the United States - which came as no surprise; the setup still in Japan and Scarlett character name Motoko Kusanagi. How do expect people would not think this is whitewashing?
And the we have the never-asked-adaptation-but-ended-up-being awesome is Alita: Battle Angel. What Hollywood did right here is despite the source material is from Japan, the whole setup from the source material is a western world which is just perfect for Hollywood. While Rosa Salazar's Alita character initial digital appearance (with enlarged eyes) were originally mocked, it somehow make sense and works as the film unfolds. Some may criticized the adapts 100% from the manga, but again that's the problem with people; they criticized when you make changes, they even criticized when you faithfully adapting it. Here, the filmmakers definitely respect the source materials and I salute them for that.
Acceptable Changes??
One of the trickiest part of adapting is the change of characters from the source materials; let it of their background to physical appearance and races. Marvel actually did a pretty interesting move regarding this matter. Firstly they only do changes to relatively unknow characters, especially to outside America. Secondly, the chosen a someone well like by many to even dispute they being casted. Thirdly, a rather sneaky move I would say, the make the changes official in the comic and announced it before starting film adaptations.
It works very well among comic book fans as American superhero industry have been notoriously retcon their characters and timeline. Guess black Nick Fury is fine because we have the baddass himself Samuel L. Jackson portraying him.
DC decided to make the same move wen the adapting Aquaman except, unlike Marvel, they did to the main character itself, Aquaman! DC made this bold move and probably did it right by casting Jason Momoa, whom after his appearance in Game of Thrones as Khal Drogo had been beloved by many. Nobody even questioned when he was casted.
I won't lie, I like Aquaman and nearly boycott from watching it. To me Aquaman will always be the Scandinavian looking man with blond hair and blue eyes. In fact this particular appearance caused him not to be accepted into his homeworld Atlantis.
Yes I ended up watching the film, thanks to my friend's urge (and quite literal dragging me to the cinema), I eventually realised casting Jason for the of Aquaman for modern/current day adaptation is actually make sense - especially to make him look like a pariah to Atlantis. You see, when Aquaman was created in 1941, in the midst of World War 2, during the time Hitler is trying to achieve in creating the perfect race, the Aryan, which - you guessed it right, have blond hair and blue eyes. Because of people of this appearance often felt cautious and pariah thanks to Nazi's idealism, his character design at that time does make sense - as he try to make place for himself in Atlantis. But for modern day, not only blond hair and blue eyes is considered a norm, it was in fact was highly sort out. Nowadays minorities such as Native American and Polynesian are often ignored and lack of opportunities. Jason's mixed background including Native American and an appearance that can be passed as a Polynesian just perfect to make him stand out from the rest of Caucasian-looking characters in Atlantis.
I honestly only have this revelation at the near ending when Aquaman stood against the rest of Atlantean and I tell you, he definitely stands out!
And finally Wonder Woman. Again I thought I want to skip it but since I have wrote this long might as well I go for it. Until Aquaman came out, I thought Wonder Women was a good DC adaptation, the changes they make, especially on the Amazonian costumes were well though and practical, proven they had done good research. Gal Gadot portrayal as Wonder Woman was also praised as she does resemble the titular character - but this is where my nitpicky comes in, so just bear with me. To me, Wonder Women will always be the blue eyes, black hair Amazonian women. When I first saw Katy Perry I literally shouted, "Wonder Woman!". But with Gal's portrayal, they didn't even bother to change her eyes colors, they just stick to Gal's original brown eyes and it does bother me even to to this day. Another is her build. To be honest I have no issue with it but my friend kept pointing out Gal is to slender and even frail looking when Wonder Woman in the comic looks a lot more fit and buffs like MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) fighter. There my thoughts regarding on screen adaptations. It's tricky I know. And it's all about luck and timing and respecting source materials.
Commenti