Explanatory essays - The Power of Knowle: Essays That Explain the Important Things in Life - Sykalo Eugene 2025

Comparative Analysis of Literary Adaptations in Different Cultural Contexts
Comparative literature and cross-cultural analysis

The Shape-Shifting Beast of Adaptation

Literary adaptations are like trying to translate a dream into a different language. You can get close, but something always gets lost—or added, sometimes gloriously, sometimes disastrously. Take Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen’s razor-sharp jab at class and romance. The 2005 Joe Wright film with Keira Knightley? It’s all misty moors and longing glances, a romantic fever dream that leans hard into the English countryside aesthetic. It’s gorgeous, sure, but it sandpapers down Austen’s snark to make it more... digestible. Meanwhile, the 1995 BBC miniseries with Colin Firth keeps the wit, the social skewering, but feels like it’s trapped in a drawing room, all stiff collars and propriety. Neither is “wrong,” but they’re both so English—so rooted in that specific cultural lens that they can’t help but feel like museum pieces to someone like me, raised on a diet of globalized streaming and fragmented attention spans.

Now, pivot to something like Devdas, the sprawling Indian novel by Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay. It’s been adapted into film at least a dozen times, but let’s talk about Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s 2002 version. It’s operatic, drenched in color, with Shah Rukh Khan as the ultimate tragic lover, drowning in his own self-inflicted misery. The novel’s Devdas is a flawed, pathetic man, but Bhansali turns him into a myth—a larger-than-life figure who’s both magnetic and maddening. It’s not just an adaptation; it’s a cultural event, a Bollywood spectacle that screams excess in a way that feels uniquely Indian. Compare that to, say, a restrained British adaptation of a similar story, like Wuthering Heights. Emily Brontë’s Heathcliff is a mess too, but his torment is cold, windswept, almost Puritan in its restraint. Bhansali’s Devdas is a peacock; Heathcliff is a storm cloud. Same vibe, different souls.

What’s wild is how these adaptations aren’t just retelling stories—they’re wrestling with what those stories mean in their cultural contexts. Austen’s England is all about restraint, subtext, the unsaid. Bhansali’s India? It’s about unleashing everything—grief, love, betrayal—in technicolor. I’m obsessed with how these choices reflect not just the source material but the people telling the story. It’s like the difference between a whisper and a scream. One’s not better than the other, but they hit you in completely different ways.

The Messy Art of Translation

Okay, let’s get real for a second. Adaptations aren’t just about slapping a book onto a screen—they’re translations, and translations are always a little bit of a betrayal. I mean, who hasn’t read a book and then watched the movie and thought, “What the hell did they do to my favorite character?” It’s not just about fidelity to the text; it’s about how the story feels when it lands in a new cultural context. Take Akira Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood, his 1957 take on Macbeth. Shakespeare’s play is all brooding Scottish castles and existential dread, but Kurosawa swaps that for feudal Japan, Noh theater vibes, and a ghostly, fog-drenched forest that feels like it’s haunted by something older than time. The ambition, the bloodlust, the betrayal—it’s all there, but it’s not Shakespeare’s Macbeth anymore. It’s something else, something that speaks to samurai codes and post-war Japanese fatalism.

I remember watching Throne of Blood for the first time and feeling like I’d been slapped. It wasn’t just the story—it was the way Kurosawa made every frame feel alive with dread, like the air itself was conspiring against the characters. Compare that to, say, Roman Polanski’s 1971 Macbeth, which is gritty and bloody but so rooted in a Western, almost nihilistic lens. Polanski’s Macbeth feels like a man unraveling in a world that’s already broken. Kurosawa’s Washizu? He’s a man caught in a cosmic trap, doomed by forces bigger than himself. It’s the same story, but the cultural wiring is so different that you can’t help but feel like you’re watching two entirely different tragedies.

And here’s where I get a little annoyed, because why does it feel like Western adaptations get all the critical love? Like, sure, the BBC does Austen and Dickens with surgical precision, but there’s something so... safe about it. Meanwhile, you’ve got filmmakers like Kurosawa or Bhansali taking these wild swings, turning familiar stories into something that feels like it’s been ripped out of their culture’s soul. It’s messy, it’s bold, it’s not always “faithful,” but it’s alive. I’d take that over a perfectly pressed costume drama any day.

When Cultures Collide

Let’s talk about what happens when adaptations cross borders in a more literal way. I’m thinking of The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s glittering, hollow American dream. The 2013 Baz Luhrmann version is a sensory overload—gold, champagne, Jay-Z blasting in the background. It’s so excessive it almost feels like a parody of itself, but I kind of love it for that. It takes Fitzgerald’s critique of wealth and turns it into a feverish, almost apocalyptic party. It’s American in the way a Las Vegas casino is American—loud, unapologetic, a little tacky.

Now imagine Gatsby adapted somewhere else. There’s a 2000 South Korean film, The Last Party, that’s loosely inspired by Gatsby, and it’s fascinating because it’s not just a retelling—it’s a reimagining. The story gets transplanted to modern Seoul, where the glittering excess of the original is replaced with a quieter, more introspective kind of longing. The Jay Gatsby figure isn’t a mysterious millionaire; he’s a music producer chasing a dream that’s slipping through his fingers. The cultural shift changes everything. In America, Gatsby is about the myth of reinvention, the promise that you can become anyone if you try hard enough. In Korea, The Last Party feels more like a meditation on loss, on the things you can’t hold onto no matter how much you want to. It’s not better or worse—it’s just different, and that difference is what makes it sing.

I’m kind of obsessed with this idea of stories as shape-shifters. A book like Gatsby or Devdas or Macbeth isn’t just a static thing—it’s a living organism that changes depending on who’s telling it and where. And yeah, sometimes that means you get a version that feels like a betrayal (I’m looking at you, 2019 Little Women—did we really need that meta-narrative twist?). But other times, you get something that feels like it was always meant to exist, like it’s been waiting for this new voice to bring it to life.

The Emotional Gut-Punch

Here’s the thing: I don’t just want to analyze these adaptations like they’re specimens under a microscope. I want to feel them. When I watch Bhansali’s Devdas, I’m not just seeing a story—I’m drowning in it, in the music, the colors, the sheer weight of it all. When I watch Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood, I’m not just following a plot—I’m haunted by it, by the way the fog curls around Washizu like it’s alive. And yeah, when I watch yet another Austen adaptation, I’m rolling my eyes a little, but I’m also secretly charmed by the way Elizabeth Bennet’s wit still cuts through all the period-drama fluff.

Adaptations aren’t just about getting the story “right.” They’re about what the story does to you, how it makes you feel in your bones. And that’s where the cultural context comes in. A British Pride and Prejudice makes me feel like I’m sipping tea in a too-tight corset, all manners and suppressed longing. A Bollywood Devdas makes me feel like I’ve been thrown into a whirlwind of emotion, where every gesture is a cry for something bigger than myself. A Japanese Macbeth makes me feel like the universe itself is out to get me. None of these are the “definitive” version of the story, and that’s the point. They’re all true in their own way.

Where Do We Go From Here?

I don’t have a neat way to tie this up, because life doesn’t work like that, and neither do stories. Adaptations are messy, imperfect, beautiful things. They’re proof that a story can be a thousand different things depending on who’s telling it and why. I love that. I love that a book written in 1813 can feel like it was written yesterday, that a tragedy from 1606 can feel like it’s speaking to a post-war samurai, that a Jazz Age novel can feel like it belongs in Seoul or Bollywood or wherever else someone dares to take it.

So, what’s next? Maybe it’s time we stop obsessing over “fidelity” to the source material and start asking what these stories are saying to us now, in this moment. Maybe it’s time we let them breathe, let them break the rules, let them be messy and human and alive. Because if a story can’t do that, what’s the point?