Cattrysse Patrick (1992) Adaptation as Translation

TARGETINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

TRANSLATION STIJDIES

EorronsCroroN Touny

(Tel Aviv U niversity, lsrael )JosÉ Lnvernr

(KU Leuven, Belgium)

Eorronrm SrcnrrRnyLtrveN D'HuLsr (Llniversity of Antwerp, Belgium)

Srylr Eorron

Mtntnu SHrrstNcen (Bar-tlan tJniversity, lsrael)

Eorronlnl BonnoMnnrLvN Cnoors-Rosr (SUNy, Binghamton, USA)lrnvnn EveN-ZoHen (Tel Aviv IJniversity, lsrael)

WrnNrn Kor-rsn (Bergen, Norway)ReyvoNo vAN DEN Bnorcx (KVH Antwerp, Belgium)

I NrrnHmoxll Aovlsony Bonno

Pierre Bourdieu (Paris); Eugenio Coseriu (Tilbingen)Ni ls Erik Enkvist (Helsinki) ; Armin paul Frank @óít ingen)

Brian Harris (Ottawa); R.R.K. Hartmann (Exeter)Theo Hermans (London); Juliane House (Hamburg)

Dell Hymes (University of Virginia); Vladimir tvír (Zigreb)Kitty van Leuven-ZwarÍ (Amsterdaml; Albrecht Neubert (Leipzig)

Roland Posner (Berlin); Mary Snell-Hornbv eilrich)Mario Valdés (Toronto)

Al,r,r lNo Scopr

TARCET íocuses on the interrelationships between the position of translatingand translations in culture, the norms governing them, and the modes of perlforming translation p.rocesses under various circumstances. lt publishes originalstudies of theoretical, methodological and descriptive-explanatory nature intotranslation problems and corpora, reflecting various socio-cultural

'approaches.

tssN 0924-1881

@JOnN BENJAMTNS pUBLtSHtNG COMPANYP.O.Box 25577 .Amsteldijk 44 . 1070 AN AMSTERDAM . Holland .Tel. (020) 6738156. Fax (020) 6739773

821 Bethlehem Pike . PHILADELPH|A, Pa. 191 t8 . usA .Tel. (215) 836-1200 . Fax (215) 836-1204

Target 4:1. 53-70 (1992). oJohn Benjamins B.V', AmsterdamNot to be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher'

Film (Adaptation) as Translation:Some Methodological ProPosals

Patrick ceËi:5 I

I

Abstract.. This paper proposes an application of some particular theories,

known as the 'polysystem' theories of trawlation, to the study of film adapta-

tion. A, preliminary and experimental analysts 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 founda-tions, and that it permits the study of aspects of ftlm adaptation which have been

neglected or ignored so far.

Résumé; L'article propose une application de quelques théories de la traduction

spécifiques d.ites 'polysystémiques' à t'étude de I'adaptation filmíque. une analy-

se prélimínaire et expérimentale d'un corpus d'adaptations ftlmiques réalisées

dans le film noir américain des années '40 et'50 permet de constater qu'une ap-

proche polysystémique du phénomène de l'adaptation filmique fournit les bases

d'une méthode systématique, cohérente et théoriquement fondée, et qu'elle per-

met d'élargir le champ d'étude et d'examiner des aspects de I'adaptation filmiquenégligés ou ignorés iusqu'ici.

1. Introductory Note

The following methodological proposals concern the study of film in termsof translation. This proposition is not presented as a mere play on wordsnor is its intention polemical. Film studies and translation studies do havedifferent objects, of course. However, I think that an extension of the con-cept of translation, and an approach to the study of film (adaptation) interms of this extended concept could provide us with new insights into the

54 PATRICK CATTRYSSE

fundamentalpat ternsofcommunicat ioninbothf i lmandtranslat ion.Also,when I speak of translation studies, I do not have in mind just any theoret-

ical framework. I wish to join a relatively new tendency among a group of

translation scholars who bllieve that there are no grounds for reducing the

concept of translation to interlinguistic relationships only and who accept

that tianslation is in fact a semiotic phenomenon of a general nature'

The idea of studying film as tianslation has sprung from a previous

research project of mine which was concerned with the development of a

theory oftit* adaptation.r This phenomenon is as old as cinema itself, but

although since the beginning Óf the century many studies were devoted to

it, no Joherent methoá has Éeen developed to date which would allow one

to study film adaptation in a systematic way' In an attempt to lay the foun-

dations of a theory of film adaptation, particular theories of translation

known as polysystem theories were tentatively adopted'2 The use of these

theories as a framework for the study of film adaptation was deemed applo-

priate because, after all, translation studies and film adaptation studies are

both concerned with the transformation of source into target texts under

some condition of "invariance", or equivalence' The use of the so-called

pàlyryrt"* (henceforth: PS) theories in their application to translation also

.""*"0 plausible because of their attack on various procedures and situa-

tions in the traditional field of translation studies' which seem to charac-

terize studies of film adaptation as well:

a source-oriented approach where the focus is on the reconstruction of

the source text, and a'faithful' reconstruction at that;

ap r i o r i expec ta t i ons (on thepa r to f t hescho la r )w i t h respec t t . oadequ -aiy andnoi-. of equivalence of the adapted text to its 'original" leading

to normative attituàes which prescribe how'successful' film adaptations

shouldproceedrather thandescr ib inghowf i lmadaptat ionshaveactu-ally proceeded and trying to explain the reasons for these practices;

the scope restricted tá the comparison of pairs of individual (source and

target) texts, leading to very iniomplete descriptions of the mechanisms

that may have deteimined the transformation process as well as the way

the target text actually functions'

In order to verify whether and in what way the PS approach co-uld provide

thenecessa ry ins t rumen ts fo r thedeve lopmen to fa theo ryo f f i lmadap ta -tion, some PS principles were applied to the study of a group of film adap-

ta t i onsknownas theAmer i can f i lmno i r . o l | y f i lmsmadebe tween1940

F-ILM (ADAPI'ATION) AS ]'RANSLATION

and 1960 were taken into consideration, which led to a corpus of approxi-

mately 600 films recognized as film noirs in the most important publications

abouithe genre. Of those, I had some 250 at my disposal. From this study,

several interesting observations have indeed resulted' for the study of film

noir itself as well as for the study of film adaptation in general.

In what follows, I will first explain the method that has been applied in

that study and present some of the results it yielded. A few perspectives will

then be added concerning the study of film adaptation, even film studies in

general.

2. The Method and Some Results

within the attempt to verify whether the PS approach could provide tools

for the development of a coherent and systematic theory of film adaptation,

four groups of questions were asked: about the selection policy of source

items, the adaptation policy of the items that were selected, the way film

adaptations (ai texts) function within the cinematic context, and the rela'

tions that may obtain between the selection and adaptation policies, on the

one hand, and the function/position of the adapted film within the cinema-

tic context, on the other hand.

a. Selection PolicY

Thus, for instance, while trying to answer some of these questions with

respect to the American film noir of the 1940s and 1950s, it became clear

thai most of the films noirs were based on novels (34%) and short stories

(33%). only 22"/" of them were based on an original screenplay. The study

of the authors whose prose fiction was selected for adaptation revealed

that, next to Dashiell Hammett, Raymond chandler and James M. cain,

writers such as Cornell Woolrich, William R. Burnett, William P. Mc-

Givern, Mickey Spillane, and Dorothy B. Hughes have also provided liter-

ary material for the film noír. Flowever, until recently, critics tended to

attach more importance to literary writers and books in terms of their liter'

arv prestige, rather than to their (quantitative or qualitative) importance

tor it" fiím noir itself.;This is illustrated, for example, by the fact that

Horace McCoy has been studied earlier, and in more detail than Cornell

woolrich. As far as the credits tell us, McCoy never wrote a single

55

56 PATRICK CAT:TRYSSE

screenplay for a film noir, and had only one novel adapted into a film noir,namely, Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye. Woolrich, on the other hand, had sevennovels adapted into film noirs, and many more short stories. However,Woolrich was a literary non-identity whereas McCoy acquired literaryfame. The fact that a scholar like Hirsch (1981: 4l-43) wrote several para-graphs on McCoy's They Shoot Horses Don't They?, and only briefly men-tioned the title of Klss Tomorrow Goodbye, seems to have been deter-mined by the same motivation, that is. the literary prestige of the sourcetext. Although Hirsch stresses the importance of the novel for the film noir ,They Shoot Horses Don't They? was only filmed in 1969, more than tenyears after the film noir in fact ceased to exist. But Albert Camus hadappraised the work as a "literary masterpiece". As I said, only Kr'ss Tomor-row Goodbye was adapted into a film noir in Da9 @y Cagney Produc-tions), but this novel did certainly not possess the same literary prestige.Hence, film critics have largely ignored the importance of this novel for theAmerican film noir.It seems therefore that, more often than not, scholarswere rnore interested in the cultural emancipation of their object of studythan they were in studying the 'real' literary origins.

When looking at the literary (sub-)genres that were selected for adap-tation, four types of stories manifested themselves as important: the privateeye detective story.(e.9., Dashiell Hammett's The Maltese Falcon), thecriminal story told from the point of view of the criminal (e.g., James M.Cain's Double Indemnity), the criminal story told from the point of view ofthe victim (e.g., Lucille Fletcher's Sorry Wrong Number), and the spy story(e.g., Graham Green's The Confidential Agent).

ó. Adaptation Policy

The search for an adaptation policy pertinent to the American fílm noir hasled to the conclusion that not only the original texts, but other norms and(more or less) general mechanisms as well seem to have served as con-straints on the adaptation process. For example, the norm of narrative per-tinence vs. narrative redundancy apparently determined the suppression ofmany of the source novel elements. When comparing several novels withtheir film noir adaptation, one notices that actions which are repeated inthe novel are generally deleted in the film. This practice is also generallyapplied to actions or characters that fulfill the same (narrative or other)function. For instance, in general, the role of the police tends to be dimin-

FILM (ADAPTATTON) AS TRANSLATION

ished in film adaptations of detective stories. Actions or characters whichare not really important for the further development of the main story -

what Barthes (1977) called catalyses and catalytic characters - have gener-ally been suppressed too. In this way, one can distinguish several normsthat seem to have determined the transfer process from the novel to thef i lm.

What is more, looking further at the novels vs. the films noirs, onenotices that transpositional norms do not function in isolation. Rather, var-ious kinds of hierarchical relations can be discerned between them. Severalnorms may combine into complexes. For example, next to the above-men-tioned norm of narrative pertinence, film noir adaptations seem to 'prefer'

a straight narrative line. Consequently, flashbacks, episodic narrative struc-tures and composite narratives are generally deleted. The overall effect isthat of narrative simplification. Thus, a norm such as narrative simplifica-tion would be situated on a hierarchically superior level, from which it gov-erns several lower-rank norms (such as narrative pertinence, straight narra-tive line, etc.), which join force to produce a common effect.

At other times, various norms seem to install themselves in a conflict-ing situation where the one tries to overrule the other instead of cooperat-ing with it. For example, it is clear that the adaptation process cannot bereduced to simplification. Many modifications (additions, permutations,substitutions) produce an effect which, far from simplifying, is sometimesrather complicating. Thus, one (more or less) common dramatic practiceconsists in adding scenes where antagonists (e.g., the criminal and thedetective) are brought together in the same, or in an adjoining place. Thisprobably explains why, in contradistinction to films based on detectivestories, where numerous scenes where the police features are deleted, crim-inal films presented from the point of view of the criminal add scenes of thiskind. These situations heighten the risk of discovering the culprit and end-ing the story prematurely. Therefore, apparently, an overall norm of sus-pense serves to explain why, in certain cases, the norm of simplification hasbeen overruled and the literary scene underwent narrative complexificationin the film.

57

58 PATRICK CAT'TRYSSE

c. The Functioning of Adaptations

In English, like many other languages, the wordsfilm adaptation (l'adapta-tion filmique, Liíeraturverfilmung) indicate the transformation process aswell as its product. Therefore, studying film adaptation also means studyinghow an adaptation (as a finished film) functions within its context. Ques-tions to be asked here are: Do film adaptations present themselves as adap-tations of previous texts? Are they considered and/or evaluated as such bycrit ics and the public, or are they taken on their own merits instead? Turn-ing to the American films noirs again, it becomes obvious that the filmsmention.several sources they have used. The credits generally mention thetype of source text (novel, story, screenplay, etc.) and its author's name.However, most of the films noirs present themselves in the first place as theautonomous work of a film studio, director and producer. Only when thefilm is based on a famous source text, or the work of a famous writer, doesthe credit deviate from this practice and cast the name of the source textand/or its author into greater prominence.

As for the way film adaptations are perceived by the public and critics,this is not always a simple matter. It is not necessarily because the public orcritics are aware of the existence of underlying literary source materials thata film adaptation fupctions as an adaptation. Thus, French and Americanpublic and critics in the 1940s and 1950s were all aware of the popular liter-ary origins of the American film noir, but only in France did the films noirsclearly function as film adaptations. French contemporary criticsappreciated both the romans noirs and the films noirs. As against this,

American critics had no high esteem for this pulp literature, which theyconsidered morally depraved. They preferred to ignore the whole genre,

and therefore, when they wrote aboul films noirs, they tended to skip theirl i terary origins (cf., e.g., Higham and Greenberg 1968), stressing their f i l-mic qualities only.

d. The Retations btetween Functions and Poticies

Finally, it is important to study adaptation (on the selection and transfer

dimensions) in relation to the function and position of the adaptations asfilms within their context. Thus, a brief look at the evolution of the selec-tion and adaptation policies of one particular series of films noirs, namely,the private eye film noir, makes it possible to see that genre norms and the

FILM (ADAPTATION) AS TRANSLATION

position of the respective literary and cinematic genres can play a veryimportant role in the selection as well as in the adaptation process: Whenthe importing genre holds a stable and successful position, the function offilm adaptations tends to be conservative. As against this, when the stabilityof the film genre is endangered, the function of film adaptations becomesinnovative. The conservative or innovative function of film adaptationsseems to determine the selection policy, as well as the ways of adapting thesource texts. If the function of a film adaptation consists in sustaining andpreserving a stable and successful genre, the selection policy consists inselecting source material which corresponds maximally to the dominantfilm genre conventions. when exceptionally, a source text is selected whichdoes not correspond to the filmic conventions, the conventions of the liter-ary genre are abandoned and the source material is largely modified tomeet the cinematographic genre needs. But when the function of the filmadaptation consists in renewing a petrified film genre which is on the vergeof decay, both selection and adaptation policies are reversed: source textsare selected which are different from the dominant cinematographic genreconventions, and, instead of being modified, those different literary charac-teristics are imported as they are into the film adaptation, in order torevitalize the outworn film conventions.3

3. Evaluation

It is too early to give a full-scale evaluation of the application of the pS

method to the study of film adaptation. However, it does seem that thisapproach offers more than one advantage. PS theories provide some prom-ising tools to start developing a theory of film adaptation without forcingresearch to start working from scratch. The methods and results of previousstudies can be integrated in the overall methodological program. Further-more, the PS approach directs attention to 'new' aspects of film adaptation.For example, a systematic analysis of the selection policy of (literary ornon-literary) source material, followed by the analysis of large corpora offilm adaptations, constitutes another aspect of film adaptation studieswhich has not yet been undertaken. Also, the pragmatic and rathertautological conception of a film adaptation (following Toury's workingdefinition of translation [1985: 20]) as a fiIrn which functions as a firm adap-tation, that is, a film which presents itself as an adaptation of (a) previous

59


text(s) and/or is regarded as such by the public and the critics, can help do

away with the traditional, normative definition of film adaptation, based onpostulated relations of adequacy between the adaptation and its so-called'original'. Replacing this a priori notion by a historic, descriptive and func-

tional definition helps free some terminological discussions (e.g., about

what constitutes a film noir, a semi-documentary, a roman noir, etc.) from

the deadlock that has characterized them until now. It also enlarges the

field of film adaptation studies, which can no longer be reduced to'faithful'

adaptations of canonic literary texts: On the one hand, film adaptations

may be unfaithful to the source text; on the other hand, many adaptations

are based on popular literary texts; and all these too are worthwhile objects

for study. In addition; the adaptation of literary texts has to be seen next to

the adaptation of other types of (non-literary) materiala such as letters,

police files, radio and television plays, previous movies, and so forth. This

observation may well lead to the conclusion that practically every film pro-

duction represents some kind of adaptation, if only the adaptation of a

screenplay.The (conservative or innovative) function of a film adaptation (as a

finished text) within its filmic context represents another new aspect in the

domain of (film) adaptation studies, which has not been studied so far. The

study of the presentation of a film alone implies a whole research program.

After all, a film is not presented to the public by its credits alone. It is alsopresented by a whole gamut of. parafilmic activities such as previews, pre-

sion, promotional activities of many kinds, and so forth. The functioning of

a film adaptation as such also concerns the film's reception by the public

and critics. Needless to say, the functioning of a film adaptation can vary in

time and space, so that the study of this aspect may well result in the estab-

lishment of a historical description.Finally, let me mention the analysis of the possible system(at)ic rela-

tions between the function of a film adaptation (at the moment of its

release) and the selection and adaptation policies, which constitute still

another new aspect that has been ignored in film adaptation studies up till

now.All this does not mean that the PS approach leaves no difficulties unre-

solved. In the first place, it does not provide analytical instruments for

studying and comparing film texts. Furthermore, some of its theoretical

concepts (e.g., norms, models, systems, dominant) are in need of more

/

d


elaboration. The descriptive, historical definition of film adaptation canpose some difficulties too. In some cases, films may be based on previoustexts without being adaptations in the functional sense of the word (i.e.,they do not function as such within a given context). I have already men-tioned the functioning of film noir adaptations in the United States beforethe end of the 1960s. The remake is another case in point. In contradistinc-tion to a film adaptation of a non-filmic text, the remake (; the adaptationof a previous film) generally does not present itself as one. In the credits ofa remake a previous novel or a screenplay will normally be mentionedrather than a previous film, so that the term remake is mostly used by criticsin metatexts (cf. critical reviews and film comments). Flowever, these dif-ficulties lead to a terminological problem, not a methodological one.

4. New Perspectives for Film (Adaptation) Studies

Be that as it may, the observations made during the preliminary and experi-mental study of film adaptation vis-à-vis the American film noir make itpossible to detect some very interesting new perspectives for film adapta-tion studies, even film studies in general. Most important of all, descriptive(rather than prescriptive) analyses of the adaptation policy and of the con-cept of equivalence lead one to the conclusion that film adaptations in gen-eral do not limit themselves tg one so-called sourc€. Rather -veral(source) practices, simultaneously and at different levels, normally sL.ve asmodels for the production process. This is particularly the case with filmproduction which constitutes a real Gesamtkunstwerk.

For example, in the American films noirs, the stories of many shortstories and novels have indeed been adopted as a basis for adaptation.However, on the photographic level, directors of photography were largelyinspired by German Expressionism of the 1920s as well as American con-temporary photography, drawing and painting. Music,followed its own tra-ditions, as did acting style and conventions of mise en scène (cf. Stanislavskyand Method Acting). Even film adaptations of famous literary texts gener-ally do not limit themselves to adapting the literary source alone. The storyof such a book may have guided the film adaptation on the narratologicallevel, but other aspects such as directing, staging, acting, setting, costumd,lighting, photography, pictorial representation, music, etc. may well havebeen governed by other models and conventions which did not originate in

61

62 ,/(4 I I ; I t ,M (ADAPTATION) AS TRANSLATIONPATRICK CATTRYSSE

the literary text and did not serve as a translation of any otrts eÉ^ents. Asa consequence, film adaptation had better be studied as a setlof discursive(or communicational, or semiotic) practices, the prod.uctionlof which ha{vbeen determined by various previous discursive practices and by its generalhistorical context.

This conclusion brings film adaptation studies close to the way studiesof intertèítuality have proceeded. This means that the purpose of theanalysis consists in trying to: 1. find and explain the relations between dis-cursive practices with regard to their respectiVe..(socio-cultural, political,economical, etc.) contexts; 2. find out what transfèr practices have (or havenot) functioned as adaptation, translation, parody, etc.; and 3. explain whyall this has occurred the way it has.

In this respect, some concern has been expressed about the specificityof the discipline (adaptation studies, translation studies, etc.), which wouldbe lost if adaptation and translation studies were to fall under the headingof intertextual or comparative (film or literary) studies. However, I can seeno immediate danger(?)s of this happening. Three things have to be distin-guished here:

1. the historical (i.e., functional) conception of adaptation, translation,parody, remake, and the l ike, which is l imited to those texts whichhave functioned, or still function as such at a particular time and place(cf. Toury 1980; 1985);

2. the ,ivorking fièld, which must always be larger than the historicallydeterminêd conception, and comprise the sum total of discursive prac-

tices, along with their situational contexts, and the systematic study ofthe intersystemic relations between those practices and their contexts;

3. the scholar's descriptive apparatus (method, definitions, labels), whichresults from the analysis of the aforementioned relations between thediscursive practices and their respective contexts.

The different disciplines of film adaptation studies, translation studies andthe l ike do not lose their specificity among the other disciplines (such ascomparative l iterary sciences, or theories of intertextuality) then. Even ifthey share in method (3) and working field (2), the historical definit ion ofthe object of study (1) sti l l indicates the special focus and the (relative)specificity of the discipline applied to it. In fact, it is only by juxtaposing

one particular type of text processing with other types within one and thesame theoretical framework that the specificity (or lack of specificity) of theunderlying transfer process can be accounted for in the first place.

63

-lurning back to the existing studies of intertextuality, I think some of their

analytical tools can be made useful to fi lm adaptation studies. However,before using those concepts, three additional points have to be borne inmind.

First, one has to be aware of the fact that theories of intertextualityhave been developed within the domain of riterary studies. The applicabilityof these concepts to therstgdy of firm has therefore to be uerifi-ed, -ayuá r/modified too. gn.ult

't

Furthermore,\ some studies of intertextuality are st1il source-textoriented- This way of reasoning has to be reversed. In this respect, it isinteresting to see that the source=text.oriented perspectives and the oor-u-tive procedures, obserVed arready in, tradifonal iranslation siuores anostudies of film adaptation, appear in various studies of intertextuality too,especially those (few) studies that have been applied to fi lms (e.g., Mander-bach 1988). Again, the same questions arise: what conditions have to bemet for a fi lm to be considered as a remake, parody, or any other type oftext variant? when can one say that a remake, a parody, etc. is successful,and merits this label? Consequently, while speaking of pre-texts (Broich andPfister 1985) or hypotexts (Genette rgg2), it is important to consider themnot as source material to be reconstructed, but as models which have deter_mined the production of the target text (adaptation, translation, parody,etc.) in some way and to a certain extent.


Keeping these points in mind, one notion that appears rather commonly,

but could still be useful, is that of marker (cf. Broich and Pfister 1985).

Starting from the (target) discursive practices and looking back at the prac-

tices or contextual situations which may have functioned as models for their

cstablishment, the scholar should be looking for markers which may give

some clue of intertextual or intersystemic relations. Different types of inter-

systemic relations can be discerned according to different kinds of markers.

For example, markers may be either explicit or implicit. Generally, in every

adaptation of a non-fi lmic text, the type of source text (novel, short story,

screenplay, play) and the name of its writer are mentioned explicit ly; some-

times its t it le too. On the other hand, a remake normally does not present

itself as an adaptation of a previous fi lm. It wil l rather present itself as

bascd on a non-fi lmic text, be it a novel, a short story, a theater play or a

screenplay. The link with the previous fi lm(s) thus remains implicit.

If the markers are explicit, the receivers of the message (adaptation,

translation or whatever), be they contemporary viewers, crit ics, or scholars,

need no prior knowledge of the modeling practices and/or situations in

order to find them and be able to check their relations. As against this, if

thc markers are only implicit, the receiver has first to get to know of the

cxistencc of the previous material before he/she can expose and evaluate its

modeling function..When studying the concept of equivalence in a descriptive way, that is,

when looking not only at the explicit, but at the implicit markers too, one

bccomes aware of the fact that every fi lm adaptation makes explicit only

part of .the material that has constrained its production; in other words, it

only partially presents itself as an adaptation. For example, the American

fi lms noirs only mention the l iterary source-text and its author. There is no

mcntion of the adaptation of German expressionist photography or of pre-

vious fi lm music conventions, for instance. The same goes for the remake.

So far, adaptation studies, maybe translation studies too, seem to have

mostly bcen confined to the source, or modeling material which was men-

tioned explicit ly (but see e.g. Toury in press). It goes without saying that

the implicit ly marked relations should also be analyzed, if only in order to

scizc the relative importance of the explicit ly marked relationships them-

sclves and supply a proper explanation for them.

The explicit or implicit character of the markers also has to do with the

functioning of the texts or the discursive practices, as well as with the labels

tlrat are used within the cultural context itself. For instance, some fi lm


adaptation practices may function as such, even being labeled 'adaptations'

by the practitioners in a certain cultural domain, while other transfer prac-tices do not, for one reason or other; at least they need not be labeled assuch by the same practitioners, even though they may well resemble theformer ones in many respects (cf. the above-mentioned remake). Trying toexplain why some markers are explicit while others are implicit, then, ispart of trying to describe and explain how adaptations, translations, anddiscursive practices in general function within their proper context(s).

Besides being explicit or implicit, markers can be found in differentplaces and consequently indicate different types of relationship. Markerscan be located in the textual part of the message (e.g., the citation) or in itsperitextual part (e.9., in the credits). Markers can also be found in metatexts(e.g., reviews, publicity campaigns, previews, premières [as total happen-ingsl, retrospectives, etc.) and inthe general,larger (cultural, social, politi-cal, economic) context.

In his study Palimpsestes, Genette (1982) adds many more transfercategories, some of which have already proven their usefulness in the studyof film adaptation in the context of the American film noir (cf. cattrysse1990).0 However, it is clear that only after having analyzed and described alarger set of relations between discursive practices will one be able to estab-lish, if not an exhaustive, at least a more comprehensive list of types of pos-sible transfer processes. Looking back at the terminological difficultieswhich came up in trying to describe the adaptation process of the American

films noirs,I believe many new terms may have to be coined to account forthe different kinds of shift on various levels (such as staging, acting, kine-tics, proxemics, or music) which have not been analyzed so far. êIlbgt_

labels have functioned in their proper context and how/why they do, or donot correspond with the scholarlabels. In this way, the distinction betweenthe historical labels, used within the cultural context itself, and the descrip-tive methodological labels, used by the scholar, wil l make it possible: 1. todescribe how certain transfer practices have functioned (or have notfunctioned) at a certain time and place; 2. to uncover anomalies in the his-torical use of some terms; and 3. to detect anomalies in the descriptive ter-minology elaborated by the scholar.

65

abels that are in currencv within ural sesment underimportant recurring question the historical user-


4. Film Adaptation and Other Types oÍ Text Processing

The study of film adaptation as a (more or less) specific set of explicit (:

labeled) and implicit (: non-labeled) relationships between discursivepractices and historical contexts places the adaptation next to other types of

text processing, and brings into focus types of film production which have

so far received very l itt le or no attention. I have already mentioned the fi lm

adaptations of popular literary texts as well as non-literary texts. Here, the

remake seems to occupy a particular place too. Next to the remake, thereare prequels and sequels, series and compilation fi lms, citations, parodies,pastiches, and so forth.

Another type of text processing which is very common, and which has

not been studied in any serious way until now, concerns the translated ver-

sions of films. At this point, adaptation studies join translation studies even

more. closely. The importance of the translation of films has of courseincreased since movies stopped being silent. Nowadays, films are constantly

being dubbed or supplied with translated subtitles. In the 1930s, simultane-

ous versions were produced in English, French, German, Italian, etc. In

one of the few but interesting articles about these practices, Vincendeau(1989) explains that the existing critical terminology is not sufficient to

describe or distinguish the different types of text processing that exist

within film practices. For example, some versions were made simultaneous-

ly, with (at least partially) the same crew, sometimes the same director,

while others were produced with a time gap of a couple of months, even a

couple of years in between. Consequently, the author asks herself at whatpoint.s-imultaneous polyglot versions become remakes in another language.

Such a discussion, which is basically terminological, may bp of minor

importance, though. Of more importance seems to be the precise descrip-

tion of the different types of film text-variants that were produced, and the

way they functioned in their proper contexts.

5. Conclusion

The conclusion brings me back to a proposition I made at the beginning ofthe article. If every film production represents some kind of (film) adapta-tion, there seems to be no a priori reason why the PS approach could nothelp develop not only a theory of film adaptation, but a theory of film in


general. Film would then be studied as a more or less specific kind of trans-lation (in the broadest sense of the word) of previous discursive practices aswell as experiences in real life. The underlying assumption is that by pro-ceeding that way, one would not only be able to describe in a more detailedway how movies were made, but also get one step closer to explaining wftycertain movies were made the way they were made.

Also, the study of film as translation could help consider the concept oforiginal from a different perspective, maybe help account for it in a moreprecise way. Until now, a film has generally been considered/labeled ,origi-nal' when it was based on an 'original' screenplay. euestions to be askedhere are: how original are originals? what kind of intertextual or intersys-temic links with previous discursive practices and situations can be found?How are they labeled and why are they labeled the way they are?

Parallel to the suggestions made by Lambert (19g0) in the field of liter-ary studies and translation studies, film production could be considered aspart of a group of similar practices which, after a certain time, yield somekind of a trudition. The next question, then, is how long such a traditioncan be successful, how long it takes before it needs to be renewed (orbefore it disappears for lack of public and critical interest). If innovationoccurs, does it proceed through the importation of innovative elementsfrom other (artistic or non-artistic) communicative practices? where do theimported elements come from? And what shape does the importation pro-cess take? Does a refusal to import innovative elements lead to the disap-pearance of the system (the traditional genre or whatever)? A first try tocome to grips with this kind of questions has already been made with theevolution of the literary and filmic detective genre between the 1920s andthe 1940s. For the concrete results of this, I refer the reader to my study ofthe American film noir (cattrysse 1990; 1992). The more general transfermechanisms have already been described above.

These observations may also lead to some conclusions concerning thetheory of translation. In recent PS discussions (see e.g. Even-zohar 19g1;Toury 1986; Lambert and Robyns 1992), translation has indeed beendefined in very broad terms. This does not mean, however, that manydescriptive studies have already adopted this attitude. Most studies in thePS vein concentrate on literary translation, and only recently and sporadi-cally has the concept of literary also been applied to non-written material,for instance in studies of drama translation (though even there, the focus isgenerally on printed texts. The theatrical representations on stage, which

67


constitute another kind of translation of the printed text, still tend to beneglected).7 Thus, although some theoreticians try to broaden the conceptof translation and the scope of translation studies, this does not apparentlyhappen without difficulties. Perhaps for the same reasons, (oral)phenomena, €.9., the work of an interpreter, are stil l largely neglected.(But cf. recently Shlesinger 1989; Harris 1990.)

From what has been explained above, it must be clear, though, that thesimilarity of the problems and the questions raised within the study of filmadaptation suggest that the specificity of the issues studied by translationstudies is very relative. As a consequence, there seems to be no valuableargument to keep reducing the concept of translation to mere cross-linguis-tic transfer processes. The scope has to be extended to a contextualisticsemiotic perspective.

Author's address:Patrièk Cattrysse . Dept. Communicatiewetenschappen, KU Brussel . Vrij-heidslaan 17 . B-1080 BRUSSEL . Belgium

Notes

1. This research has resulted in a Ph.D. dissertation (Cattrysse 1990). See also Cattrysse1,992.

2. For more information about these theories, see Toury (1980), Hermans (1985) and Even-Zohar (1990).

3. The fact that these selection and adaptation mechanisms correspond to those uncoveredby Even-Zohar (1978) in the literary field again illustrates the parallels which existbetween translation and (film) adaptation practices.

4. The distinction between literary and nonJiterary texts can be very problematic. At anyrate, it can never be made once and for all in a absolutist way. Again, only a historical,functional description can help one out.

5. The word "danger", which is often used in this context, seems to me inappropriate, sincethere is no point in trying to present a scientific discipline as specific for pragmatic reasonsif it can not be made specific on a scientific basis.

6. I would mention some narratological categories like dramatization, narrativization, trans/de/vocalization, trans/de/focalization, acculturation, periodization, modernization, and soforth. For an explanation of the concepts, I refer the reader to the above mentionedstudies by Genette (1982) and Cattrysse (1990 and 1992).

7. On this point. studies on film adaptation differ from those on theater translation: whereastheater translation studies mostly concentrate on the comparison of the written texts of a


play, the studies offilm adaptation seldom take into account the screenplay. Rather, theycompare the source text with the filmic performance (registered on film or video tape).

ReÍerences

Barthes, Roland. I9TT. "lntroduction à l'analyse structurale des récits". Bartes et al.1977:7-57.

Barthes, Roland, Wayne C. Booth, Wolfgang Kayser and Philip Hamon.1977. Poériquedu récit. Paris: Editions du Seuil, Coll. Points.

Broich, Ulrich and Manfred Pfister. 1985. Intertextualitàt: Formen, Funktionen, anglis'tische Fallstudren. Ttibingen: Niemeyer. [Konzepte der Sprach- und Literaturwis-senschaft,35.]

Cattrysse, Patrick. 1990. L'adaptation filmique de textes littéraires: Le film noir antéri-cain. Leuven. [unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation]

Cattrysse, Patrick. 1992. Pour une théorie de I'adaptation filmique: Le film noir améri-

cair. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.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. ll7-127. [a revised version in Even-Zohar 1990: 45-51.]

Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1981. "Translation Theory Today: A Call for Transfer Theory".Poetics Today 2:4. l-7. [A revised version entitled "Translation and Transfer" inEven-Zohar 1990 : 7 3 -7 8.1

Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. Polysystem Studies. Duke University Press. Í: PoeticsToday 11:1.1

Genette, Gérard. 1982. PalimpsesÍes: La littérature au second degré. Paris'. Editions duSeuil, Coll. Poétique.

Harris, Brian. 1990. "Norms in Interpretation" . Target 2:1. 115-119.Hermans, Theo, ed. 1985. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Transla-

tíon.London and Sydney: Croom Helm.Higham, Charles and Joel Greenberg. 1968. Hollywood ín the Forties. London: A.

Zwemmer.Hirsch, Foster. 1981. The Dark Side of the Screen: Film Noir. New York: Da Capo

Press.Lambert, José. 1980. "Production, tradition et importation: une clef pour la description

de la littérature et de littérature en traduction". Revue canadíenne de littérature com-parée 1:2.246-252.

Lambert, José and Clem Robyns. 1992. "Translation". Roland Posner, Klaus Roberingand Thomas A. Sebeok, eds. Semiotics: A Handbook on the Sign-Theoretic Founda-tions of Nature and Culture. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. [forthcoming]

Manderbach, Jochen. 1988. Das Remake - Studien zu setner Theorie und Praxis.Siegen, Universitát-Gesamthochschule. IMassmedien und Kommunikation, 53].

Shlesinger, Mir iam. 1989. "Extending the Theory of Translat ion to Interpretat ion:Norms as a Case in Po in t " . Targe t l :1 . 111-115.

69


Toury, Gideon. 1980. In search of a Theory of rranslation Tel Aviv: The porter Insti-tute for Poetics and Semiotics.

Toury, Gideon. 1985. "A Rationale for Descriptive Translation studies". Hermans1985. 1,6-4r.

Toury, Gideon. 1986. "Translation: A cultural-Semiotic perspective". Thomas A.sebeok et al. , eds. Encyclopedic Díctionary of semíotics. Berlin-New york-Amster-dam: Mouton de Gruyrer, 1986. 1.11.1-1124.

Toury, Gideon. in press. "'Lower-Paradise' in a cross-Road: Sifting a Hebrew Transla-tion of a German schlaraffenland rext 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, AndréGaudreault and Michel Marie, eds. Histoire du cinéma: Nouvelles Approches. paris;Publications de Ia Sorbonne, 1989. 10'l-117.

wienold, Gótz. 1981. "some Basic Aspects of rext processing". poetics Today 2:4. 97-109.

TARGETTNTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

TRANSLATION STUDIES

MRNuscntpts

Contributions are welcomed from all countries. They should be written in Eng-

l ish, French or Cerman. Al l contr ibut ions should include an abstract in both

Engl ish and French.

Manuscripts should be submitted to one of the Editors in triplicate. They should

be typewritten with wide margins and double spacing between the lines; please

use one side of the paper only. Notes, references, figures and tables should bepresented on separate sheets. Please Íollow the stylesheet which is available

from the Editors.

Authors will be informed within four months of receipt of manuscripts whether

these can be accepted for publication. Submission of an article is taken to imply

that it has not been previously published and is not being considered for publi-

cation elsewhere.

Authors will receive proofs of their articles and are requested to check these

carefully beÍore returning them to the Editors. Authors of articles will receive 30

offprints of their contribution upon publication; contributors of a review will

receive 10 offprints.

All correspondence concerning editorial matters should be directly sent to one

of the following addresses:

CroeoN TounY JosÉ LnMsrnrThe M. Bernstein Chair of Translation Theory Dept. of Literary Theory' KU Leuven

Tel Aviv University ' P.O.Box 39085 Bli jde-lnkomststraat 21

TEL AVIV 69 978 ' lsrael 8-3000 LEUVEN ' Belgium

Tel. + 9723 5459420 Tel. + 32 16 284847/284839

SusscnrpnoNs

The annual subscription rates for TARCET - An International Journal of Transla-

tion Studies (one volume of 2 issues of about 250 pages altogether) are:! Hfl. 130,--/$ 69.00 (incl. postage and handling) Íor libraries and institutions! Hfl. 67,--/$ 38.00 (incl. postage and handling) Íor individuals provided their

prepaid order is placed directly with the Publisher.

For subscription and other business information, write to:

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHINC COMPANYp.O.Brrx 25577 . AmsretcJiik 44 . | 070 AN AMSTERDAM . Holland . Tel. (020) 6738156 ' Fax (020) àzlgtzl

B2f Berhlehenr t ' tke , PHILAD€LPHIA, Pa. l9l l8 . USA 'Tel. (215) 836-1200 . Fax (215) 836-12o4

Cattrysse Patrick (1992) Adaptation as Translation

Documents

Transcript of Cattrysse Patrick (1992) Adaptation as Translation