Film (Adaptation) as Translation: Some Methodological Proposa

Patrick Cattrysse
K.U Brussel

Abstract

This paper proposes an application of some particular theories, known as the 'polysystem' theories of translation, to the study of film adaptation. A preliminary and experimental analysis of a series of film adaptations made in the American film noir of the 1940s and 1950s shows that this approach provides the basis for a systematic and coherent method with theoretical foundations, and that it permits the study of aspects of film adaptation which have been neglected or ignored so far.

Table of contents

The following methodological proposals concern the study of film in terms of translation. This proposition is not presented as a mere play on words nor is its intention polemical. Film studies and translation studies do have different objects, of course. However, I think that an extension of the concept of translation, and an approach to the study of film (adaptation) in terms of this extended concept could provide us with new insights into the [ p. 54 ]fundamental patterns of communication in both film and translation. Also, when I speak of translation studies, I do not have in mind just any theoretical framework. I wish to join a relatively new tendency among a group of translation scholars who believe that there are no grounds for reducing the concept of translation to interlinguistic relationships only and who accept that translation is in fact a semiotic phenomenon of a general nature.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Barthes, Roland
1977 “Introduction à l’analyse structurale des récits”. Bartes et al. 1977: 7–57.Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland, Wayne C. Booth, Wolfgang Kayser and Philip Hamon
1977Poétique du récit. Paris: Editions du Seuil, Coll. Points.Google Scholar
Broich, Ulrich and Manfred Pfister
1985Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [Konzepte der Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft, 35.]   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cattrysse, Patrick
1990L’adaptation filmique de textes littéraires: Le film noir américain. Leuven. [unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation]Google Scholar
1992Pour une théorie de l'adaptation filmique: Le film noir américain. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Even-Zohar, Itamar
1978 “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem”. James S Holmes, José Lambert and Raymond van den Broeck, eds. Literature and Translation: New Perspectives in Literary Studies. Leuven: Acco 1978 117–127. [a revised version in Even-Zohar 1990: 45-51.]Google Scholar
1981 “Translation Theory Today: A Call for Transfer Theory”. Poetics Today 2:4. 1–7. [A revised version entitled “Translation and Transfer” in Even-Zohar 1990: 73-78.]   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990Polysystem Studies. Duke University Press. [ = Poetics Today 11:1]Google Scholar
Genette, Gérard
1982Palimpsestes: La littérature au second degré. Paris: Editions du Seuil, Coll. Poétique.Google Scholar
Harris, Brian
1990 “Norms in Interpretation”. Target 2:1. 115–119.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Theo
ed. 1985The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. London and Sydney: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Higham, Charles and Joel Greenberg
1968Hollywood in the Forties. London: A. Zwemmer.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Foster
1981The Dark Side of the Screen: Film Noir. New York: Da Capo Press.Google Scholar
Lambert, José
1980 “Production, tradition et importation: une clef pour la description de la littérature et de littérature en traduction”. Revue canadienne de littérature comparée 7:2. 246–252.Google Scholar
Lambert, José and Clem Robyns
1992 “Translation”. Roland Posner, Klaus Robering and Thomas A. Sebeok, eds. A Handbook on the Sign-Theoretic Foundations of Nature and Culture. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. [forthcoming]Google Scholar
Manderbach, Jochen
1988Das Remake—Studien zu seiner Theorie und Praxis. Siegen, Universität-Gesamthochschule. [Massmedien und Kommunikation, 53].Google Scholar
Shlesinger, Miriam
1989 “Extending the Theory of Translation to Interpretation: Norms as a Case in Point”. Target 1:1. 111–115.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 70 ]
Toury, Gideon
1980In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.Google Scholar
1985 “A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies”. Hermans 1985 . 16–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1986 “Translation: A Cultural-Semiotic Perspective”. Thomas A. Sebeok et al., eds. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics. Berlin-New York-Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter 1986 1111–1124.Google Scholar
in press. “‘Lower-Paradise’ in a Cross-Road: Sifting a Hebrew Translation of a German Schlaraffenland Text through a Russian Model”. Harald Kittel ed. ‘History’ and ‘System’ in the Study of Literary Translation Berlin Erich Schmidt
Vincendeau, Ginette
1989 “Films en versions multiples”. Jacques Aumont, André Gaudreault and Michel Marie, eds. Histoire du Cinéma: Nouvelles Approches. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne 1989 101–117.Google Scholar
Wienold, Götz
1981 “Some Basic Aspects of Text Processing”. Poetics Today 2:4. 97–109.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar