Borrowing from Bernard Malamud: Levinson's version of The Natural.
The film theorist Dudley Andrew in his essay, "Adaptation" writes, "If we confine ourselves to those cases where the adaptation process is foregrounded-that is, where the original is held up as a worthy source or goal-there are still several possible modes of relation between film and the written text. These modes, according to Andrew, can be reduced to three: borrowing, intersection, and fidelity" (29). In this essay I hope to show that Levinson's adaptation of Malamud's novel fits snugly into Dudley Andrew's definition of borrowing. .
Andrew in his essay defines borrowing as, "The artist employs, more or less extensively the material, idea, or form of an earlier, generally successful text" (28). Andrew goes on to say that, "To study this mode of adaptation the analyst needs to probe the source of power in the original by examining the use made of it in adaptation. Here the main concern is the generality of the original, its potential for wide and varied appeal-in short, its existence as a continuing form or archetype in culture. This is especially true of that adapted material which, because of its frequent reappearance, claims the status of myth"(28). Andrew then goes on to suggest that the success of these adaptations rests on the issue of their fertility, and not their fidelity. .
Levinson's in his adaptation most glaringly borrows and relies upon the fertility of the material, ideas, and forms of Malamud's novel. The most obvious thing that Levinson borrowed is that the overriding theme of The Natural, that is, of a mans quest for redemption. A common theme not only in baseball movies, but to more extent, in life. One swing of the bat can make an ordinary man into a hero or a hero into an ordinary man. The assembly of a lifetime can mean little compared to the success or failure in the clutch.
