Pick a text, and write a brief synopsis. Imagine the process of production, identifying the changes needed for an adaptation to the screen. Underline director and casting suggestions, give an indication of scale, and whether it is intended for world-wide cinema release, small art-house release or television and why.

The text chosen for an adaptation to the big screen is Yann Martel’s 2002 Booker Prize-winning novel, Life of Pi. A brief synopsis of the major plot points is given below:
Piscine “Pi” Patel is an Indian boy who grows up in Pondicherry with his mother, father and brother Ravi. His father owns the local zoo, and Pi, as he becomes known, spends a happy childhood, surrounded by the animals of whose lives he takes a keen interest. He also develops spiritually and becomes a devoted practitioner of the Hindu, Muslim and Christian faiths.
Pi’s idyllic childhood ends at the age of 16 when his father announces the family are selling up the zoo and relocating to Canada. The main portion of the story begins after the boat the family are travelling on sinks and Pi finds himself sharing a lifeboat with a hyena, a zebra, an orang-utan and a mighty Royal Bengal tiger named Richard Parker. The following section of the narrative describes Pi’s struggle for survival as the solitary human survivor of the shipwreck. Before long his sole companion is Richard Taylor, and Pi comes to realise that his own survival is inextricably linked to the survival of this tiger that moves from being the most likely cause of death for Pi, to being the companion on which he comes to rely and uses to retain hope.
A series of episodic challenges and scrapes follow, including one in which a blind Pi meets another castaway from the ship; this man boards the lifeboat only to be killed and eaten by Richard Parker. Subsequently Pi and Richard Taylor come ashore on an island that turns out to be a living organism. Finding themselves in great danger from this seemingly harmless paradise they flee. Soon after, they wash up on the mainland of South America, Richard Parker flees into the jungle, and Pi is rescued.
The final portion of the novel sees Pi being questioned by two Japanese officials from the company who owned the ill-fated ship. They disbelieve his story, so he comes up with a more believable narrative in which he was in the lifeboat with three other people, namely his own mother, a chef, and an injured soldier. The chef kills and eats the soldier, then murders Pi’s mother. Pi witnesses this and retaliates by killing and eating the chef.
After telling the officials this alternative story which in some ways mirrors the previous one, Pi asks them which tale they prefer. They choose the former version which makes the basis of their report. It is left to the reader to choose which story they want to believe.
Adapting a book for the screen, in common with adapting any text from one media to another involves making difficult choices. Foremost is how “faithful” the adaptation will be to the original material. There are many levels of faithfulness: from a Shakespeare adaptation such as Roman Polanski’s Macbeth (1971, UK/US, Roman Polanski) which retains almost all of the original’s scenes and dialogue, to a film such as Hitchcock’s The Birds (1963, US, Alfred Hitchcock), which shared very little with the original novella by Daphne Du Maurier except perhaps the title and the presence of the feathered creatures.
Professor Neil Sinyard, a well renowned film studies author whose credits include editing the film section of the Pears Encyclopaedia, argues that in terms of screen adaptation, the most important thing to retain is “fidelity not to the letter of the source but to the spirit.” (Sinyard, 1986, p135) Therefore although scenes and dialogue can be significantly altered, the adapter must not lose sight of the message and tone of the source. The question of who decides what the “spirit” of the book is remains unanswered however; the same text can be interpreted in completely different ways by two different readers.
There is also the question of intertextuality (discussed in McFarlane, 1996, pp21-22), referring to how there are more sources than just the original novel on any adaptation. These can include the time, country and context of production, the contribution of a director’s style, an actor’s public persona as well as the input of the studio and any censorship issues. McFarlane argues that these can have just as much an influence, if not more, than the original source material. This phenomenon will be familiar to anyone who has seen both the 1962 and 1991 versions of Cape Fear. Both films were derived from the same original source (The Executioners, John D Macdonald, 1957) but whilst the first Cape Fear (1962, US, J Lee Thompson) was a fairly conservative adaptation albeit with some minor changes from the book, the second Cape Fear (1991, US, Martin Scorsese) was a wholly different affair. The 30 year gap in production allowed the presentation of much more graphic scenes of a violent and sexual nature without the fear of censorship, the film was spearheaded by the star personas of Robert De Niro and Nick Nolte among others, references were made to the original film by way of appearances from Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck, and Martin Scorsese was able to stamp his directorial style on the film, exploring his familiar themes of family, guilt, and Catholicism.
This discussion of adaptation in general shows that there are unlimited variations of how the film of Yann Martel’s book Life of Pi will turn out, depending on the choices that are made concerning its adaptation and production. What follows will be a discussion of the hypothetical decisions that will need to be made regarding the adaptation including the style of the film required, changes that may need to be made to the book, key personnel that could be involved as well as the type of marketing and distribution that will eventually be needed.
In these days where most new films are marketed to within an inch of their lives, the first decision to be taken, even before the adaptation begins, is who the film is to be aimed at. It’s worth noting that although Life of Pi won the Man Booker Prize and achieved substantial sales, it was a long way off the sales of a cultural phenomenon such as The Da Vinci Code (Dan Brown, 2003) which sold over 60 million copies in the first three years alone (Wikepedia,). With a prospective audience of that size, it would have been possible to produce a dreary, long-winded film adaptation of the book, whilst still gaining successful box office returns. Some would argue that Ron Howard did exactly that as The Da Vinci Code (2006, US, Ron Howard) took over $70 million dollars in its opening weekend in the US (Internet Movie Database). Our adaptation of Life of Pi would not enjoy this advantage however, as despite the critical acclaim; its sales were a relatively modest 2 million in comparison.
There are several choices to be made with regards to the target audience of the film. One option is to market it as a family film; one that children can enjoy. If this route was to be explored, it would necessitate a considerable toning down of some of the book’s more graphic moments such as the hyena’s beheading of the orang-utan on board the lifeboat. (Martell, 2002, pp131-132). Other elements that may have to be expunged entirely from the book to make a more family-friendly film include the instance where Pi’s father makes him and his brother watch a tiger devour a goat at the zoo (Martell, 2002, pp35-36). Even with these changes, marketing the film towards a younger audience would still be fraught with danger however. After all is said and done, despite having a 16 year old lead character, Life of Pi is not a children’s book. The themes in the book of spirituality, religion, life and death are arguably too much for a young audience to deal with. Therefore it is more appropriate to aim the film at an older audience.
Given the critical acclaim that Life of Pi enjoyed, especially amongst literary critics, it would seem justifiable to aim the resulting film towards a similar demographic. Therefore the producers should not try and make a massive summer blockbuster aimed at the multiplexes, but rather a smaller budget affair with the art cinema circuit as its major audience. It would be financially foolish to risk hundreds of millions of dollars of investors’ money on the possibility of the film becoming a greater phenomenon than the book; rather a realistic and more cautions viewpoint should be taken, resulting in a more modestly budgeted affair. Whilst the producers should retain the possibility of a crossover film that may enter the mainstream, they should not take this for granted and instead should concentrate on pleasing the existing audience who have read the book rather than alienating them by moving too far away from the book and losing the subtleties and themes contained within it.
For the actual adaptation therefore, it would seem wise not to drift too far away from the narrative of the book. However, perhaps some small changes could be made; the book contains intermittent flash forwards to many years after the bulk of the story takes place, with the author meeting the grown-up Pi. To make a tighter narrative, these could be eliminated and instead the film should start and end with Pi’s examination by the two Japanese officials. His retelling of the story would lead into the lengthy flashbacks of the main portion of the story. In this way the film would share a similar plot structure to The Usual Suspects (1995, US, Brian Singer) which ironically also featured an unreliable narrator in the form of Kevin Spacey’s character. Pi’s early life in India would not automatically be covered by his testimony to the Japanese officials; however they could try and put him at ease by asking about his early life and this then could act as a device to lead into a sequence of his early life in India. After this, the film could switch back to the interrogation scene as the officials ask Pi about the happenings following the sinking of the boat. This would then clearly be separated from Pi’s early life which as far as we know, is reliable within the context of the book.
Pi’s telling of the story would include a voiceover of his, although this would be kept to a minimum. After the story is finished, as in the book, the two Japanese men would express incredulity at the tale and Pi would then tell them the second, more believable story. This would be portrayed very briefly, given the same sort of time proportion that it is given within the book and would use a more prominent voiceover. The atmosphere would darken, there would be less colour and the editing would be swift and disorientating. When this is over, the officials would discuss the stories and come to the same conclusion as in the book; that they prefer the first one. This conversation would take place in Japanese with subtitles. There is an argument for having them speaking English, but the type of audience the film is aimed at will in all likelihood be used to reading subtitles in films, and there will be more authenticity having them speak in their native language.
Using the book as a template, we have a fairly conventional form of narrative storytelling. Pi is telling of his adventures; his main quest in the story is to stay alive throughout his ordeal. The investigators have a quest of their own; to find out the truth of what happened to the ship and to discover what happened to Pi afterwards. Although Pi achieves his quest, it is arguable whether the investigators achieve theirs; however whilst they find that the truth is not wholly black and white, they still achieve a form of closure leaving themselves and the audience satisfied. Therefore the narrative is ideally suited for the film form, giving a complete story whilst still leaving questions unanswered for the literate audience. The twist at the end will surprise some, although those that have read the book will be well aware of it, so it would not cause the same sensation as the twist in the aforementioned The Usual Suspects or The Sixth Sense (1999, US, M Night Shyamalan). Nevertheless it will retain interest right to the end, and leave the audience with the impression of a thought-provoking film.
In terms of film format and style, one argument would be that the film is ideally suited to animation. With much of it taking place on board a lifeboat with just Pi and the tiger, it would seem on the surface easier to present the tale as entirely computer generated. However, recent achievements such as Lord of the Rings (2001, NZ/US, Peter Jackson) and The Chronicles of Narnia (2005, US, Adam Adamson) have shown that live action and computer generated imagery can now be seamlessly and convincingly combined. This route is preferable to all out animation because the fanciful subject matter of the film needs to remain rooted in a semblance of reality. Its themes concerning the truth, reality and fable, need a backbone of reality on which to build the story around. Going for all out animation would reduce this reality and perhaps deter the audience that the film is aiming to target. Notwithstanding the magnificent advancements in animation in recent times, the story will be more touching if the audience has a real human character with whom to live the experience through.
Moving onto the issue of direction and it is clear a capable hand is needed to steer the film. After all, the majority of the film takes place in the cramped conditions of a solitary lifeboat with just one human character. This situation is not without its precedents; Alfred Hitchcock’s Lifeboat (1944, US, Alfred Hitchcock) was filmed in its entirety in a small lifeboat, albeit with considerably more than one character, whilst Robert Zemeckis’ Cast Away (2000, US, Robert Zemeckis) told of Tom Hanks stranded on a desert island with only a beach ball for company. A director with considerable talent is needed to blend the live action and computer generated animals, and still keep the audience’s attention for the major portion of the film during which there is little in the way of human interaction. One option is to go for a director such as Peter Jackson. He is well known for his skill at blending human actors with computer generated imagery, and his name would add a massive amount of interest to the film with him being arguably one of the best know directors working in film today following his recent successes. However with a salary of 20 million dollars plus 20% of the gross takings for his last film King Kong (2005, NZ/US, Peter Jackson) (Internet Movie Database), he would be far too costly for a modestly budgeted film such as Life of Pi unless he is willing to take a significant attract the added revenue needed, but in reality it would be more prudent to opt for a less costly director.
One such person would be Terry Gilliam who would be an ideal director for this project, having been described as a “truly original film artist, an erratic, highly inventive director of fantasy movies.” (Andrew, 1989) He is experienced with the technical side of dealing with the computer generated action following The Brothers Grimm (2005, UK/Cz/US, Terry Gilliam) and is also well known for his lower budget films that are always visually interesting: “an idiosyncratic visionary to rank alongside Lynch” (Andrew, 1989), receiving critical acclaim and finding an audience with the art cinema crowd. Examples of this range from Time Bandits (1981, UK, Terry Gilliam) and Brazil (1985, UK, Terry Gilliam) through to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998, US, Terry Gilliam). Gilliam also has previous form in films concerning the mixture of what is true and what is false. Brazil in particular “is first and foremost a reflection on the nature of perception and deception, on the places where dream and reality meet and mix.” (Haubner, 2002, p274). This description is also applicable to Life of Pi hence it is a theme with which Gilliam should feel at home. In his discussion of Brazil and its take on dream and reality, Steffen Haubner continues: “In Terry Gilliam’s universe at least, no clear barrier can be drawn between these two states.” (Haubner, 2002, p274) The director would therefore be able to deal with translating to film the discussion provoked at the end of the book concerning what is real, what is not, and whether at the end of the day it really matters. If Gilliam agrees to the project he could be a real asset to the production; he has the ability to turn Life of Pi into a visually arresting film whilst still retaining the emotional heart and complexities of the piece.
Whilst filming decisions would be left to the director, it would seem prudent for the filming to take place on digital video rather than on film in order to keep the costs as low as possible, especially given the computer generated imagery that is needed. This would not necessarily result in a loss of picture quality; it is a format that George Lucas used in Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones (2002, US, George Lucas) in order to reduce costs. (Bordwell & Thompson, 2004, p11)
For casting the film, the major decision clearly involves the casting of an actor to play Pi. It could be argued that two actors are needed; one to play the younger Pi back in India and one for the 16 year old. However, given that most of the early story concerns Pi when he is close to the age of 16, this need not be a real concern, and one actor should be able to convincingly portray Pi for the ages he will be throughout the film. Casting a well know actor would not be viable as there has not really been an actor of the required age and background who has found fame in the West since Sabu in The Thief of Baghdad (UK, 1940, Assorted directors) over 60 years ago. Conceivably this film is a chance to change that, and to give a young unknown Asian actor a starring role that could propel him to stardom. Casting an unknown would also mean that the audience have no prior experience of the actor; there will be no star persona in place to distract from the character of Pi that he will be playing.
As previously stated, the film is not intended nor expected to be a summer smash hit; instead a low-level release can be envisaged around the November/December period in order to attract attention for the award season. (Bordwell & Thompson, 2004, p9). An Academy Award nomination combined with the pull of the award winning book would hopefully then create extra “buzz” around the film, providing an additional reason for film fans to go and see it, and a more widespread release could then be co-ordinated in the early spring. Releasing the film during this period also ensures it would not get lost amongst all the summer blockbusters which may otherwise overwhelm any news of its release.
What we are left with then, is a film from an acclaimed original novel, with a respected director at the helm. The novel will be followed fairly closely with a few minor changes as described above. The film will be aimed at a cineaste audience, many of whom will already be familiar with the source material. The director will be given the freedom to stamp his authorial vision on the film, making it visually appealing, and working with themes in which he has historically shown an interest with his films. A modestly budgeted and relatively small scale affair in comparison to the large Hollywood productions, the film will aim to attract attention during the award season, and should the nominations accrue, an initial limited release on the art circuit may well be extended, leading to the film gaining momentum and becoming a sleeper hit, extending beyond its target audience of those familiar with the book.