Bridget Jones does not look like that! Are you reverential or emotive?

Adaptation – to break something, take it apart (deconstruct) and reassemble it, all the while maintaining the essence of the original work. Easier said than done, surely, but we did listen to some amazing stuff like:

• The Lord of the Rings (imagine adapting it into 26 half hour episodes!)
• Hound of the Baskervilles (vague memories from my childhood; more recent memories of my husband insisting we drive through Dartmoor – Sherlock Holmes country – in summer 2004.)
• Bomber, based on a novel by Len Deighton (another author my husband reads: hey, he should be doing this course!), where real interviews were intercut with dramatization. The radio schedule was changed to accommodate the “real time” of the adaptation i.e. it was Saturday 2pm in the docudrama and it was broadcast Saturday 2pm. The events unfolded through the day in 3 parts.

It’s certainly true that watching a movie all too often wrecks an image we have crafted in our minds after reading the book. About a month back, some friends were commenting that their image of fictional character Bridget Jones (from the book) was not one of an overweight, frumpy woman. In other words , “why did they make her so fat in the movie?”. During my radio days, I used to hear a lot of “Oh, I didn’t realize you were so tall”. Actually this went on through my TV days too because the TV image can be misleading (well, it made me look a lot fatter for one).

Back to the point – radio preserves the image. Then again, if not for films, a lot of classic stuff will go unappreciated by this generation’s young. And I daresay book sales wouldn’t be as brisk.

This creature, the documentary drama (drama documentary? Docudrama?) needs a lot of thinking through. When is it ethical to blend fact and fiction? Where is the line drawn? What music is appropriate (e.g. charged or elegiac for war)? But listening to the programmes, you realize that it’s an effective form. And Sean’s suggestion is helpful. Think “what if…”, “suppose that…”.

The reading this week delved into Talk and Music Radio. It’s difficult to imagine there was initial resistance to records. “Live” music was a staple (1945) and it wasn’t till the 1950s / 60s, that it became widely accepted.

Here’s the academic treatment. Andrew Crisell argues that the pop record was revolutionary in that it allowed the creation of acoustic beads. Each bead represents either a song, a commercial break, a talkset, etc. They fit seamlessly because the duration is about equal. Even classical music stations have adopted this model with drive time programming made up of shorter pieces, to accommodate advertising beads.
Another argument is: records are a form of advertisements. Of course this gives rise to the age old industry argument– who should be paying whom for services: record companies or radio stations? The UK and US model are diametrically opposed.

Are you reverential or emotive? Let me rephrase that: are you a low profile presenter or a personality jock? Just a regular academic trying to make simple things sound more complicated.