MovieChat Forums > Ulysses Discussion > Modern Ulysses adaptation

Modern Ulysses adaptation

posted 12 years ago by youplural
8 replies | jump to latest

Hi, I'm working closely with some folks that are developing a modern adaptation of Ulysses set in California. It's an experimental work that focuses on Joyce's thematic content while staying true to his stylistic innovations (for instance, during the Oxen of the Sun episode we intend to mimic Joyce's chronological survey of English prose styles with a chronological survey of dramatic film styles).

My question is: what's important for you in a cinematic Ulysses adaptation?

[–] meddled 11 years ago

My only advice would be to play it as straight as possible, with any inclusions of stylistic innovations kept very subtle. If you try to mimic Joyce's literary innovations, the film will come across as terribly pretentious. What works in a book is very different than what works in a film. Even changing the styles to fit the format, as in your example of changing the survey of prose styles to film styles, will not work for at least two reasons. First, Joyce is referencing the changes in prose style and the meaning derived from that cannot possibly be derived from a doing a similar survey in a completely different medium. Once you've done that, you've changed the source material to something completely different. Second, a film like this would not have the time, and the audience would not have the patience, to do a thorough survey of the type you seem to mean. Again, what we are willing to accept as readers is fundamentally different than what we are willing to accept as viewers of a movie.

I don't mean to insult your approach at all. I just can't see a successful film version of the novel that is not a very straightforward adaptations of the scenes and themes, instead of a reworking of the stylistic innovations of the book. There just isn't a successful way for a very unique literary style, such as Joyce's, to "crossover" to the medium of film.

[–] VAIPANdotCOM 11 years ago

I completely agree. (I'm part of this project.) Style certainly does not mean substance. Let's say you're a Joyce fanatic: what length would you be willing to sit through? Standard 90 minutes? Two hours? Four hours? Similarly, if you'd never heard of Joyce, what length would be acceptable before you walk out?

Concerning the Oxen chapter, Joyce mainly uses those prose styles to mask lewd discussions of sex, religion, and alcoholism (among other things (he's also simultaneously commenting on the childbirth of someone who's been in labor three days (the birth galvanizes the style))). He isn't paying homage as much as he's parodying and abrogating the previous "innovations" to give way to a new form of the novel.
By now, of course, most of Joyce's innovations are part of the mainstream in the same way that the discovery of the close-up is part of the standard cinematographic lexicon. In this way, approaching the history of cinema as a stylistic backdrop to a discussion of various themes while simultaneously moving the plot along is a little different than merely focusing on style. Although, perhaps even the notion, let alone the actual production, that someone could boil dramatic cinema down to a fifteen minute scene on its face does sound wildly pretentious if not altogether impossible.

However, I did do something similar with the history of modern art (1865-1960 (arbitrary dates)), specifically and exclusively oil on canvas, chronologically in five minutes. The soundtrack for that scene commented on the progression of 20th century classical music. Thematically it serves to underscore the subjectivity of success (among other things). You can watch it here: http://vimeo.com/27181543 -- it starts at 18 minutes in.

[–] VicariousFacade 11 years ago

This is interesting. I'm curious to see how this develops. Besides Oxen of the Sun, how would you approach even just the first chapter?

*´¨)
¸.·´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·´Movie Magic

[–] VAIPANdotCOM 11 years ago

To put it quickly, Joyce made two schemas for every chapter which would be very confusing without 1) a ton of other scholarly research and 2) without having close-read the text trying to analyze how relevant the schemas are to an analysis/interpretation.

1.1 is one of the most traditional narrative chapters, so approach it as a traditional third-person omniscient movie. However, 1.3 is entirely first-person -- the question is, what does first-person cinema look like? I have lots of answers, but I'm trying something new that also fits with what I think Joyce is creating in terms of a mood, etc. (1.3 is the chapter that is suddenly slow and long and confuses everyone and no one gets past it, they throw the novel away first -- I guess people will normally say never include something like that early on in a movie before the main character (Bloom) is introduced.

[–] meddled 11 years ago

Ideally, the length would be something like an 18-part (corresponding to each episodes) series on HBO or another premium channel where the content can be as explicit (or non-explicit) as it needs to be. Of course, unless you have serious connections, this is much, much easier said than done. Getting a tv series on a channel like HBO would be incredibly difficult I would imagine.

However, if those involved really wish to make a movie out of it, again ideally, it would be a trilogy, or even quadrilogy, where each film is three to four hours in length to give you the most time. While I absolutely hate Ayn Rand and her novels, the independently produced Atlas Shrugged is three movies (I think the second one came out recently or is about to), and would be a good example in terms of getting the most out a long novel (though Ulysses is infinitely more complex than anything Ayn Rand ever wrote). How to go about splitting it up into three or four films, I have no idea off the top of my head. It would take a good deal of work, including another, very-close reading of the material, with cinematic and pacing possibilities at the forefront of your mind.

I mention these two ideas, because honestly, a shorter adaptation of Ulysses, even one four-hour movie, would neither do the book justice or would be palatable to pretty much any audience. Compressing the book would bewilder any audience members who haven't seen the book and those that have read the book would most likely not find it worth a damn, unless you have a screenwriter who's ability and talent to drastically condense incredibly dense material equals Joyce's own talent in writing a novel.

I honestly don't mean to be disparaging; I wouldn't have written all of this if I were just trying to shoot you down. This is merely my opinion of how an adaptation of Ulysses could ever possibly work. But it is doable. It's not out of the realm of reason or logistics. In fact, the material would be probably fairly cheap to shoot. No huge FX or CGI budget; locations that could be easily found or built; and if you've got one hell of a script, good actors would most likely work for a fraction of their usual fee just to be able to take part in such a project. You'll need absolutely visionary producers, director, and screenwriter to pull this off though.

Best of luck, and if you'd like any more of my opinions, send me a private message and I'll throw you an e-mail. Or we can stay on this thread if you like. It doesn't matter to me.

Cheers!

[–] kaream 11 years ago

You might get some ideas by first reading Raymond Queneau's "Zazie dans le metro" (in the original French!), and then seeing how Louis Malle attempted to translate this entirely unfilmable book to the screen. Obviously a very different situation, but Malle's solution is essentially similar to what you are suggesting for Oxen of the Sun.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheGreatBambino (207) 2 years ago

So how did this modern adaptation turn out?