"The process of transformation involves much more than just the adaptation of ideas and form to contemporary situations and audiences". Discuss this statement in relation to two of the prescribed texts you have studied.
Restructure intro...1st sentence should always directly the question and give me your thesis...then introduce me to the texts which provide the evidence for your thesis. The texts themselves are just examples of a concept – in this case transformation.
Transformation is “much more than just the adaptation of ideas” as it requires the composer of the new text to have a sound understanding of texts and contexts (isn’t there more? what about from the responder’s point of view – an adaptation is like novel emma to film emma where we pretend to know the conventions and contexts of 19th century england. i think what heckerling does is allow us to gain insights we would otherwise fail to realise, about 19th cent england and about our own contemporary societies...the whole duality of change thing comes in again here because as different as we like to think our contexts are, heckerling draws parallels that comment on our society, and also allows us to recognise the way of thinking in austen’s world). To compose contemporary equivalents (be careful with words such as equivalents...implies that the new text doesn’t stand on its own and that it is simply a new way of saying the same thing) it is essential to understand the meaning of the original text. Amy Heckerling transformed Jane Austen’s nineteenth century novel Emma into the contemporary 1995 film Clueless, requiring an adaptation of ideas and form, but also going beyond a mere adaptation.
Amy Heckerling
transformed Jane Austen's nineteenth century text "Emma" into the
contemporary 1995 film "Clueless". This transformation did require an
adaption of ideas and form. However the text went beyond merely an adaption.
When a text is transformed the known reflects apon the known while the new
resonates with the new, roughly translated they contribute to one and other.
Transformation is "much more than just the adaption of ideas" as it requires the
composer of the new text to have a sound understanding of texts and contexts.
To compose contemporary equivalents it is essential to understand the meaning of
the original text. Heckerling could not have transformed scenarios and
relationships from "Emma" into "Clueless" had she not been able to
comprehend the meaning and significance of them in the context of 1816. Whilst
Heckerling understood the world of Austen and her satire she also needed to
understand the world of a Beverly Hills teenager in the late twentieth century.
These factors and more were necessary in order to transform "Emma" they
also demonstrate that "the process of transformation is much more than an
adaption of ideas and form to contemporary situations and audiences". The
techniques used to demonstrate status, wealth and character were different as "Clueless"
was a film and could use [visual techniques and other – cut] film techniques to
demonstrate these factors. "Emma" on the other hand was a prose fiction
text, therefore Austen had to establish character and scene through use of the
omniscient narration and dialogue. A primary example of this is the beginning
of each text. The first chapter of "Emma" was a description of Emma
[where does your introduction stop?]
"handsome, clever and rich", her home and her status in her home "Highbury,
the large and populous village almost amounting to a town...afforded her no
equals".
[Likewise – cut] Heckerling
introduce[s] the responder to the world of Cher and Beverly Hills at the
beginning of "Clueless", [not through narration but] with the choice of
music "Kids in America", [a] montage [of fast, angled party scenes
representing wealth and privilege] and [the use of] voice-over. The montage
established that Cher was also "handsome, clever and rich" [at this point
i’d question clever she’s fitting well into stereotypical blond] however unlike
Emma, Cher considered she "actually lived a way normal life for a teenage
girl". [is there a point in telling me this difference? end of paragraph,
link back to question – how does this example tell me that heckerling has gone
beyond merely adapting ideas and form to contemporary situations because that is
what you have to consistently argue]
There are many similarities in "Emma" and "Clueless" such as the relationship between the heroine Emma/Cher and the brother type character "we are not really so much brother and sister as to make it at all improper/Josh, you are not my brother" [don’t do this in an essay, make it very clear who you are quoting and you can also point out techniques of language differences, transformation of dialogue...the similarity here also points to social values of relationships and expected/accepted roles] of Mr Knightley/Josh. Other similarities include the transformation of the likeness painted by Emma to the photograph taken by Cher. Another example of a direct transformation is Mr Elton "actually making violent love to her" and Elton's attempt at groping Cher in the car. Perhaps [do not ever use perhaps...it is like the sin of i think...be sure of what you are arguing or there’s little chances of the marker believing you...an essay is a persuasive argument especially if the marker may have opposing views] the process of transformation involves more than just the adaption because it is the extra's added to the new text by the composer, the completely changed factors and the components left out which tell the responder most about the text [how have we just gone from similarities to extras? aren’t extras, changed factors and components left out differences?]. Transformation is also found in the meanings of the text, "making violent love" consisted of seizing Emma's hand and professing affection.
The character of Cher essentially remained unchanged from her counter part Emma. The wardrobe, language and hobbies changed however the description of Emma also fits Cher "handsome, clever and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition... very little to distress or vex her". [It was the new society which existed, new values and inclusion and exclusion of characters which demonstrates the process of transformation – this is a topic sentence what is it doing in the middle of a paragraph which from your structure is supposed to be talking about cher remaining unchanged]. Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill had prominent roles in "Emma", neither was explicitly transformed into characters in "Clueless" however Christian took on traits of both of these characters. Heckerling explored social hierachy, values and minority groups in "Clueless". Christian was initially the love interest to Cher much the same as Frank Churchill was the love interest for Emma. Both heroines feel they are above the men in their social circle "high school boys are like dogs/afforded her no equals" [is afforded her no equals austen’s value or a value she has given to emma? just a question because i can’t remember the tone of the text there], Christian/Frank Churchill were a change from this, they were suitable for Cher/Emma's affections [suitable how? careful...certainly not suitable from the composer’s perspective...cher/emma deceive themselves of their suitability – their roles as characters is part of the ‘education’ of cher/emma about self-delusion]. Despite them meeting the credentials for a match with the heroine neither is suitable in the long term. Frank Churchill is engaged to Jane Fairfax and Christian is gay. Christian is a combination of Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill, he [characters are not real...Heckerling has adopted traits of both characters of Jane and Frank into her own creation Christian] has adopted traits of both. Jane Fairfax was a member of a minority group [really which minority group?] and would have been ostracised had the rest of society found out about her secret engagement. Her behaviour was not considered suitable [i think she had the role of victim to frank’s unsuitable behaviour rather than being blamed for her own...frank put her in a compromisable position because she was waiting for him to make up his mind while she continually avoided trying to find a position usually permanent as governness and frank flirting with emma in deliberate deception was also potentially very harmful...jane essentially has all the suitable characteristics and i think you’re supposed to pity her...at the end especially austen portrays her as the redeeming chance for frank she’s the “steady influence” to settle him down]. This component of Jane Fairfax's character has been transformed into a gay minority group. Although politically corectness says that homosexuals should not be rejected from society it does still occur and members of the gay community are still ostracised. This is reinforced with the absence of Christian at the wedding of Miss Geist and Mr Hall. Christian like Frank Churchill had a secret to hide so initially was forced to appear interested in the heroine. The clues to Christian's homosexuality are present in the text but like Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax's engagement the clues may not be recongnise as such until the responder looks at the text for a second time. Jane Austen used an omniscient narrator whereas Amy Heckerling used a voice over. These techniques are quite different however they both favour Emma/Cher's thoughts and point of view [positioning] the responder to believe what [characters] think and believe. [What about 2nd time isn’t it then used to expose self-delusions? I think the use of Christian in his role as a gay guy is to transform and portray socially accepted expectations in a modern context – “Austen’s work lends itself to a particular social environment searching for a balance between mutating social convictions.” (Mazmanian). Austen uses Frank Churchill in Emma as a character who infringes social norms by having a secret engagement. Heckerling’s use of a homosexual character, Christian, draws on this concept of social norms and the stigma attached to such behaviour. “We no longer equate secret engagements with moral inadequacy, but we...place homosexuals in a...stigmatized category.” (Mazmanian). Austen positions the responder to judge Frank through the Knightley’s comments “he can have no English delicacy towards the feelings of other people”. However, Austen also allows a kind of forgiveness for his flawed character, in that he will improve under the stable influences of Jane Fairfax. This stigma is subtle in Clueless. Heckerling uses intertextuality in drawing on knowledge about the editing of Spartacus to depict the judgments placed on homosexuals by a wider society. Just as Frank becomes socially acceptable because of his inherited wealth and position, Christian is suggested to be socially acceptable only if he conforms to stereotyped expectations of a male homosexual – the well-dressed shopping partner who “always wants things to be beautiful and interesting”. His exclusion from the heterosexual couples at the conclusion of the film emphasises the continued social fringe existence. Well this is my view you don’t have to agree with it...I think my problem with your view is more with the structure – you’re not convincing me here or making it clear enough what you are arguing – which means if i’ve marked another essay before i’ll start picking yours to bits]
Intertexuality is one of the merits of "Clueless" and a technique that is not employed in "Emma". To a degree "Clueless" is a transformation of a number of texts. Heckerling has transformed many popular scenes from other films into this text, as Tai has the dye washed out of her hair the responder see's red colour washing down the drain a play on the American thriller "Physco", as Cher descends the stairs to go out with Christian it is a transformation of a film from "Gigi" and has the same theme music. This is much more than an adaption of characters and form. [yes but what does it actually tell us? why psycho and gigi? what are the contexts, the messages being communicated through intertextuality? is heckerling celebrating or mocking other texts or both – eg shakespeare? and why do it?]
Character motivation in the text is somewhat different yet there are parallels. Cher and Emma occupy their mind with matchmaking. Whilst both their reasons in part are due to boredom their reasons to match make are also different. Cher considers the match making and make over of Tai as "using our popularity for a good cause" wheras Emma regards match making as "the greatest amusement in the world". Matrimony is still the principal outcome of these match making attempts [showing] that despite the passing of one hundred and eighty years, women's liberation and revolutions, other factors of society have remained unchanged [why exactly do we still aim for matrimony and which factors of society are contributing?]. Mr Knightley/Josh are educators of Emma/Cher and are in love with the heroine whether they realise it or not. The motivation for these characters to improve the heroine is different. Mr Knightley sees faults in Emma however the only one he actively tries to alter is her lack of education in how to behave and treat others following the box hill episode. Following this Emma realises how important Mr Knightley's approval is to her. Emma's class gave her certain roles to fulfill such as charitability to those less fortunate than herself such as the Bates's. Cher on the other hand does not have any such role to fulfill. Josh criticises Cher for her lack of worldliness "I thought they declared peace in the middle east". This is a transformation as knowledge of the world has become important, Josh values thought and unselfish behaviour. The world of "Emma" and "Clueless" have a very small scope. Mr Knightley/Josh represent a change from this, Emma has never been away from Highbury, never even contemplated going to London which is sixteen miles away. Likewise Cher has barely left Beverly Hills, a trip to the Valley and a drive on the freeway represent chaos. Josh on the other hand goes to university and comes from another region of the United States. The meaning of change and what makes a valued person has changed. [nice broad statement...i don’t think what makes a valued person has changed i think the scope of values has changed...there are still universal values of charity and wider awareness...essentially social and moral responsibilities, personal worth...but heckerling is forced to explore them more in the context of the world rather than english values – cancer, planting trees...and the values of highbury and their privileged status, power and responsibility is transformed to values of beverly hills...charity with cher organising peachbo beach rescue i think compares to visit to the poor...she does it without real understanding but out of pity and maybe obligation to her position]
The process of transformation involves much more than the adaption of ideas and form to contemporary situations and audiences. The old resonates with the known when a text is transformed. This has taken place in "Clueless" however it
