Pro-film, Position Statement: "The Life You Save May Be Your Own", Flannery O'Connor

“The Life You Save May Be Your Own”, Flannery O’Connor

Pro-film position statement

Firstly, we have to make a distinction between adaptation and translation. A filmmaker when given a literary work is expected to adapt the given artistic piece to a “new environment”; those adaptations are crucial for it to survive the “changes in structure or function” of a given socioeconomic context, as stated by Thomas Leitch in Adaptation Studies at a Crossroad.

The film is not expected to translate directly the writer’s intentions. We defend that cinema has a legitimate place of analysis and its study requires a perspective detached from the original literary piece. The cinematographic adaptation is subjugated to diverse factors of political, economic and cultural forces that will articulate with each other in the production of the film. For instance, the film adaptation “The Life You Save” comports a whole variety of information about a given context in the United States of America that its literary counterpart tries to criticize. Unfortunately for Flannery O’Connor, the exact society she’s critical about is the one in which she is integrated. For further explanation, after she was led to sell the book’s adaptation rights; she said that “the punishment always fits the crime” (Flannery O'Connor: New Perspectives, 20). Therefore, acknowledging the forces of change in the American society of which she is dependent on for continuing her writings; meaning those aspects criticized in the story are uncritically reproduced by the film.

By analyzing the film adaptation of her literary piece, we are given newer information about the cultural and socioeconomic influences. The context of fear of a war against the Soviet Union might justify the audience’s desire for a happy ending; therefore explaining its change in the adaptation to the television screen. The condition of women in North-American culture might explain the changes in Lucynell’s characterization to a more appealing and slender figure. Although the author’s initial intentions are reinterpreted, we are given a more faithful historical context and a representation of its current changes.

While it is true that there are certainly some reinterpretations, there is also room for some expansion of ideas present in the story but not fully developed. For example the character of Tom Triplett is more elaborate than Tom Shiftlet. While the latter is ultimately a one-note shifty man, the former is a flawed man, who is given a chance of redemption and takes it. Furthermore, the short-story focuses on religious motifs, such as sin, punishment and redemption; which are fully realized in Tom Shiftlet’s characterization. In opposition, the cinematographic adaptation concentrates on the theme of misfit love and the relationship between Lucynell and Tom which is explored in more detail, giving us as the viewer a more established sense of bond between the two; a bond that is fulfilled in the final scene of the film. Therefore, a qualitative comparison between different artistic expressions that explore such different themes and use such different mediums cannot be successfully accomplished. In conclusion, the two artistic objects - film and story - although existing in separated dimensions, they complement each other's existence.

Mauro Spencer

Francisco Cardoso

Filipa Figueiras