Annihilation: Novel vs. Film
Examining How Female Constructs, Tropes, and Stereotypes Changed from the Novel to the Film
Summer 2018
Essay by Hoda Mallone
Admittedly, the book Annihilation by Jeff VanderMeer is one of my absolute favorite novels. This is the case for a whole host of reasons. When the film version was released in 2018, written and directed by Alex Garland, as a loyal fan of the novel, I was both thrilled and apprehensive. Adaptations can be tricky. For a book lover, you just never know if it will deliver. Although the film did not hold fast and true to the book, and in fact ignored some crucial plot points, and in my opinion, missed the mark on some of the more interesting character development that was in the book, it did offer an entertaining version of the story. A good film in its own right, better if held separate and apart from the book from which it was inspired.
I would, however, like to explore a more specific aspect of the story that became very apparent after having the film to compare to the novel. Women. More specifically, how they were depicted in the movie as opposed to the book. There are some very interesting observations that arose. The way the two mediums chose to portray their female characters was very different and made me think about the stereotypes and tropes that we are used to seeing in film and how that drew a stark contrast to the way these women were written in the book.
Three instances stood out most: the characters’ sense of self, the relationships the women had with one another, and the relationship the main character, Lena/Biologist, had with her husband.
In the book, the characters have no names. They are only referred to by their occupation. There is the Biologist, who is telling the story, the Surveyor, the Anthropologist, and the Psychologist. I found this stripping of the first thing that causes people to have a preconceived notion about us, our name, to be a refreshing way to begin a relationship with a character. And in my readings, I had never encountered that before. A lot goes into the name one chooses for a character. I found the choice to abstain very disciplined. It offered a perspective that could be more objective and allowed the reader to form an opinion based on outside and supplementary information instead of what inevitably comes to mind when someone’s name is introduced.
The film gave all the characters names and changed their professions for the most part. Lena, Anya, Cass, and Josie, along with Dr. Ventress, became the female leads. The first time you meet them, they are seemingly friends, not just collogues. I understand why this choice was made in the film. It’s much easier and palatable for the average viewer to connect with characters in this way and to root for them if they are rooting for each other. Teamwork makes the dream work, I suppose. But I feel it did a disservice to the more austere way the women were portrayed in the novel. The women were written almost as if they were men, traditionally speaking, detached, and self-involved. They were highly professional, highly skilled, and without the messy connections to one another, you could focus on their work and their task at hand, saving the world from potential destruction. It was utterly refreshing to read women like that.
The relationships the women have to each other in the novel differ greatly from their relationships in the film. To put it simply, in the novel, they had no relationships. They are only together based on their specific qualifications and their commitment to this momentous mission. They are focused on the work and actively try to push connections away. Their rigorous training engrained this as virtue as opposed to vice. It was this dehumanizing, not of the characters, but of their relationships to each other, that felt new and unique to this book. Things that we deem as traditionally “feminine” or “emotional” were stripped from the women’s interactions. Although the constructs around gender and the loaded terms, “feminine” and “masculine” have changed and evolved, and are still changing and evolving, the traditional sense of male and female still dominate the basis for characters in the majority of storytelling. And this film was no exception. The fact that there are only female lead characters in both the film and the novel is a revelation. Even now. Progress on this issue is rather slow.
Another significant element of their relationships that was completely changed from the novel to the film, was how they all met their untimely ends. In the film all the women, apart from Lena (in a way), die from outside causes and circumstances they encounter in Area X. The characters are mournful, deeply saddened, and show outward emotion at every instance of a team member passing. It was all very compelling to see as viewer. I can understand why making this distinction was necessary for the storytelling when adapting from book to film.
In the novel, however, the characters kill each other. The Psychologist kills the Anthropologist, the Biologist kills the Surveyor, and the Phycologist essentially kills herself. The interplay of these intersections of the characters was fascinating to read. In the book, they relied only on themselves for survival because they couldn’t trust each other. Their conditioning made it impossible to do so. Their lack of connection and really not knowing who their partners were, ultimately contributed to their failures. I believe the change regarding this in the film came from a desire for the viewer to need to “like” the characters. There is no clear villain among them, in either medium, but it was clear who you were encouraged to support as a viewer, even if the characters were somewhat complicated and conflicted. In fact, in the film, they used Dr. Ventress’ lack of emotion to portray her in a negative light. Something that was looked at as quality in the book. Illustrating that there is still a certain way female characters must be portrayed in film to make audiences more endeared to them.
The final glaring difference in female characterization is the relationship the Biologist/Lena has with her husband. Since she is our protagonist, there is a heavy emphasis on their relationship, past and present. The way this was handled was the starkest contrast of all. In the film, Lena is heartbroken over her husband leaving on this top – secret mission. She is visibly forlorn and sad. There is even a scene where she is holding a locket with his picture in it and crying. In the flashbacks of them together, she is engaged, and adores her husband. While he is away, she cannot get any information on his whereabouts, she becomes frustrated and feels abandoned. She proceeds to have an affair with a colleague. This sets up the situation that, when her husband comes home, unexpectedly, and is extremely ill, she feels compelled to help him. She needs to “save” him. At one point says she “owes him” to go into Area X and help find answers that can possibly save his life. As a viewer, we can relate to this. Her guilt and some form of loyalty are the propellers for her subsequent bravery. Her motivations are clear from the start and are inherently connected to a man.
None of this was the case in the novel. The Biologist’s husband had already passed in the novel. We only get him through the recollections of the Biologist. In her flashbacks, she is usually aloof, slightly distant, and more curious about her husband than she is adoring. She seems fascinated by marriage and by how her husband moved through this world. Her reasons for entering Area X were entirely her own and were not predicated on anything that had to do with her husband at all. She felt no duty or responsibility to help him. She was, beyond anything else, a scientist. As she explains it, she wanted to understand her husband more and his choice to go to Area X to begin with. As a reader, I found that a woman’s reason for doing something so dangerous and unknown not being directly connected to a man or her children, wholly original. A breath of fresh air. That the Biologist made all her choices based on her own desires fascinated me. This was one of the most interesting parts of her character and what drew me in as a reader. This was all lacking in the dimension of the character Lena in the film.
I can see the merit and the necessity to change many aspects of a book when adapting to film, making it fit a more conventional type of film making. Some things in film helped move the story along and connect the dots more quickly when you don’t have the luxury of filling the gaps with exposition and character development. Unfortunately, the most interesting and novel character choices in the book that made it modern and pushed against established norms, were the same things that were left out or changed in the film in terms of how the women were ultimately represented.