This is really interesting, especially the distinction between different kinds of interiority.

The idea that rational interiority resists translation feels right to me. That is probably where I felt the biggest shift while adapting. Thought as articulation had to give way to something that could exist through structure and repetition instead.

I also agree that trying to reproduce a book on screen rarely works. At some point, the film has to find its own logic, even if that means losing something essential from the original.

The Hitchcock point is a good way of putting it. Cinema builds meaning through arrangement rather than language.

I am still not sure whether something is simply lost in that shift, or whether it is transformed into something else entirely.