Death and the Maiden-Molly McLaughlin

I think the differences in cinematic depictions of both Death and the Maiden and The Reluctant Fundamentalist are difficult to compare. The main reason for this difficulty is the differences in genres between Death and the Maiden and The Reluctant Fundamentalist. Ariel Dorfman's work is a play, which is already more easily translated into a film than Hamid's novel. Death and the Maiden was written to be performed, much like movie. The Reluctant Fundamentalist, on the other hand, would be much more difficult to be translated to film because novels are longer than plays and are not created to be performed. This would explain why the film adaptation of Death and the Maiden sticks much closer to the plot of the play than the film adaptation of The Reluctant Fundamentalist did to the novel. 

I also think it's important not to judge the quality of a work's cinematic adaptation based on its ability to strictly stick to the plot of the original work. For instance, I don't believe that the film adaptation of Death and the Maiden is "better" than the film adaptation of The Reluctant Fundamentalist simply because it sticks more closely to the original plot of the play. One should take into account the benefits and restrictions of adapting a work to the screen. That being said, it is important to analyze the differences that are made in the cinematic adaptations of these works of literature. It can be assumed that the changes made were made for a specific purpose to further drive the plot or give the plot meaning in relation to the filmmakers' lives. For instance, in class we discussed how interesting it was that Roman Polanski chose to adapt Death and the Maiden, a story about torture, rape and revenge after having been involved in a very similar situation with the law having to do with statutory rape. Did Polanski choose to do Death and the Maiden because of his able to relate to the story? 

The changes that bothered me the most in the film versions of both Death and the Maiden and The Reluctant Fundamentalist were the changes in the endings. In Death and the Maiden, the reason why the story is so unsettling is because there really is no resolution at the end. You are left completely unsure of whether or not Dr. Miranda is guilty. By choosing to wrap up the ending into a neat little package, Polanski really takes away a lot of the unsettling uncertainty that Dorfman utilized in his play. Personally, I think the entire story is much more frightening left to the imagination as it was in the play because it makes the entire plot much more realistic. Unfortunately, situations such as the one that Paulina found herself in in the play happen quite often in our world. Capture, rape and torture are not uncommon. Furthermore, many of the perpetrators of these crimes are never caught and are never brought to justice. In the play version of Death and the Maiden, Dorfman plays on this reality by leaving Dr. Miranda's guilt or innocence ambiguous. That being said, it doesn't surprise me that Polanski did choose to have a more conclusive ending to his film because that's what many people look for when they watch a film. Many people value the kind of closed denouement that Polanski provides the viewer in his film. Typically, the general public is more likely to appreciate a story that has a clear resolution. Polanski, who is a very skilled filmmaker, probably took this into account when adapting Death and the Maiden to the screen. 

What Death and the Maiden and The Reluctant Fundamentalist in both their forms show us is that one story can translate so many different ways depending on genre. Neither story was so drastically altered from its original state that it was unrecognizable in film version; however, both did change significantly when adapted to the screen. I think by reading both the novel and the play and watching both film adaptations, we're able to have a really comprehensive view of both what the stories are trying to convey and how literature is so malleable.