in Literature into Film: Theory and Pratical Approaches, by Linda Constanzo Cahir
To explore the merits of literature-based films > see them as
translations
Difference between adaptation and translation
Adaptation > alter the structure or function of an entity so that it fits in a different environment Translation > to move a text from one language to another; a fully new text is made To think of literature-based films as translations is to understand that: 1) Every act of translation is simultaneously an act of interpretation; 2) Through the process of translation, a new text emerges; 3) Film translators of literature face the same challenges that any translator faces.
It's also necessary to understand that there are
different translation modes: 1) literal translation: reproduces the plot and all the details as closely as possible; 2) traditional translation: maintains the overall traits of the book, but revamps particular details; 3) radical translation: reshapes the book in extreme and revolutionary ways.
Case Study: Moby-Dick by Herman Melville
1. Literal Film Translation of Moby-Dick (1956, dir. John Huston)
The film stays as near to the written text as possible;
Conveys the novel's drama; Tried to replicate every detail; Only two exceptions to satisfy popular tastes; Stays on the surface of Melville's ideas. Literal translations do not lend themselves to exploration of the meanings of the parent text.
2. Traditional Film Translation of Moby-Dick
(1998, dir. Franc Roddam) Maintained the overall traits of the book (plot, setting, stylistic conventions), but revamped details as the filmmakers saw fit; It includes whaling and historical inaccuracies; The alterations further the filmmakers' interpretations; Makes us think about Moby-Dick in unexpected ways. Theatrical moments may run contrary to readers impressions Ambiguity a. literally -- films interpretative image is consistent b. darkly ironic -- religious interpretation Traditional film translation stays respectfully close to the original text.
Radical film translation
Reshapes the literary work extreme/revolutionary ways; Not unique to the film; Multicultural explorations; Pride and Prejudice (2005) / Pride and Prejudice (Austen); Total artistic liberties; Exciting/unlimited possibilities of expressions and interpretations.
Complex literary texts of form and meaning must be
Francis Ford Coppolas Apocalypse Now ( Joseph Conrads Heart of Darkness) Gus Van Sants My Own Private Idaho ( Shakespeares Henry IV) Clueless ( Jane Austens Emma) Martin Scorseses Gangs of New York ( Herbert Asburys The Gangs of New York)
Radical film translations in a non-realistic style
Luis Buuels Abismos de Pasion ( Emily Brntes Wuthering Heights) Andy Warhols Frankenstein ( Mary Shelley) David Cronenbergs Naked Lunch ( William S. Burroughs) Shrek ( William Steigs Shrek) Ken Jacobs The Sky Socialist ( Hart Cranes The Bridge)
Traditional film translations (in part or in whole, non-realistic in style)
of non-realistic literature Fred Haines Steppenwolf ( Herman Hesse) George Roy Hills Slaughterhouse-Five ( Kurt Vonnegut) Terry Gilliams Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas( Hunter S. Thompson)
Traditional film translations of realistic-in-style literature
Caroll Ballards The Black Stallion ( Walter Farley) Mike Nichols The Graduate ( Charles Webb) Steven Spielbergs Empire of the Sun ( J. G. Ballard)
Traditional & Radical translations creation of an independent work;
Traditional & Literal translations adherence to original narrative
values;
Literal translation replication of the literary text. Such as
Harry Potter saga; John Maddens Ethan Frome ( Edith Wharton) Peter Bodganovichs Daisy Miller ( Henry James) Jack Claytons The Great Gatbsy ( F. Scott Fitzgerald)
Literal film translations of literature can excite us through their
extraordinary capacity to transport us to the very world that the literature describes. Literal translations can also frustrate us in their failure to plumb the depths of the literature they are rendering.
While traditional and radical film translations are more likely to
explore the regions of meaning in the literary text than literal translations do, these two translation modes may frustrate us for their failure to render the literal world that the writer has had us so strongly envision.