Without question, Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead (1947) is exceptionally suited for a cinematic adaptation. Indeed Rand not only writes cinematically, but the subject matter of her novel is premised on the visual; which naturally is fitting for cinema. However this is not my point of concern, rather my interest lies in how King Vidor’s 1949 cinematic adaptation takes on a novelistic form in itself.

I think it is fair to say that most of us have, one way or another, read and/or heard of Rand’s The Fountainhead before studying this course, after all it is ‘A Worldwide Bestseller’. But let’s say for a moment that we hadn’t, and that we just happened to stumble across Vidor’s film one lazy afternoon. It becomes clear, from the moment the film begins, that the film is heavily representative of a book; from the film’s credits displayed on pages of a book, to an image of a building reminiscent of a book cover; the film candidly lets us know, this is an adaptation.

So from its earliest moments, The Fountainhead literally takes on a novelistic form. Surprisingly however, its form also made my experience of the film much like ‘reading a book’ (so to speak), which followed with me throughout the entirety of the film.

I think the characters hearty, and somewhat cumbersome dialogue is the main reason for this. Indeed it was no surprise when Melissa informed us Rand expected the film to follow her screenplay word for word; however in bearing such a strong fidelity to the original text, the characters in the film appear non-naturalistic, stilted; performing as though they are simply speaking written words. More precisely, it felt as though the characters were on screen merely to speak, or perhaps more literally, to give voice to Rand’s philosophical perspectives.



I struggled to find just one example to demonstrate this notion, even when looking over my notes on the film - which incidentally is covered in quotes – it became clear that Vidor’s film as a whole, is very much about words. Thus by remaining faithful to Rand’s novel, and essentially her words, the film becomes considerably novelistic.

While I enjoyed the bold, theatrical nature of Vidor’s film, the heavy dialogue did eventually wear thin. I found myself drifting away; distracted by small insignificant things around me, rather than engaging in the happenings on screen.

But perhaps this reflects how, with any adaptation, some changes must be made. I ask you, do we not have different expectations when reading a novel, and watching a film? Naturally, these two very different mediums must change and alter in order to successfully adapt from each other.

With that being said however, Vidor did manage to turn Rand’s lengthy novel into a 120 minute film. Not an easy task! But a task I believe was achievable, and indeed made successful, through Vidor’s use of sound and close-ups.



Throughout the film these two techniques stood out to me the most (and why wouldn’t they, they saturated the film!). Rather than read page after page, and build up to, or even on, how we are intended to feel and/or think, Vidor uses visual and aural techniques; an illustration of the transition from novel to film. For instance, Vidor’s scene in the granite quarry, highlights not only his use of close ups with Howard Roark and Dominique Francon - to highlight the sexual tension and sense of longing between these two characters - but implements this scene with an overwhelming sense of sound; of blasting granite on the one hand, and cliché ‘love’ music on the other, to ‘sway' the viewer into feeling/thinking that these two uncompromising characters are unwillingly attracted.

So, while the film is significantly novelistic, it does also adapt to the cinematic; maintaining a strong fidelity to the original text, but changing and altering in order to fit within its world of cinema. But my question is: Does this work? Can a text successfully do both? I think Vidor’s The Fountainhead, is a testament to the fact it can, just.