cattrysse_patrick1992adaptation_as_translation.pdf

8/14/2019 Cattrysse_Patrick__1992__Adaptation_as_Translation.pdf

1/10

TARGETINTERNATIONALOURNALFTRANSLATIONTIJDIES

EorronsCroroN ouny(TelAviv University, srael Josnvernr(KU Leuven,Belgium)Eorronrm rcnrrRny

LtrveND'HuLsr (Llniversity f Antwerp,Belgium)Srylr Eorron

Mtntnu SHrrstNcenBar-tlanJniversity,srael)EorronlnlBonno

MnnrLvN noors-RosrSUNy,Binghamton,USA)lrnvnnEveN-ZoHenTelAviv IJniversity,srael)WrnNrn or-rsnBergen,Norway)ReyvoNo ANDEN norcx KVHAntwerp,Belgium)

I NrrnHmoxll Aovlsony BonnoPierreBourdieu Paris);EugenioCoseriu Tilbingen)NilsErikEnkvistHelsinki);rminpaulFrank@t ingen)BrianHarris Ottawa);R.R.K. artmannExeter)TheoHermans London); ulianeHouse Hamburg)Dell Hymes University f Virginia);Vladimir vr (Zigreb)Kittyvan Leuven-ZwarAmsterdaml; lbrechtNeubert Leipzig)RolandPosnerBerlin);Mary Snell-Hornbv ilrich)MarioValds Toronto)

Al,r,rNo ScoprTARCETocuses n the interrelationshipsetweenhe positionof translatingand translationsn culture, he normsgoverninghem,and the modes f perlforming ranslation.rocessesnder arious ircumstances.t publishesriginalstudies f theoretical,methodologicalnd descriptive-explanatoryature nt otranslationroblems nd corpora, eflecting arious ocio-culturalapproaches.tssN 924-1881

@JOnN ENJAMTNSUBLtSHtNGCOMPANYP.O.Box 5577Amsteldijk4 . 1070 NAMSTERDAMHollandTel. 020) 738156. ax 020) 739773821Bethlehemike PHILADELPH|A,a. 91 8 . usA Tel . 215) 36-1200Fax 215) 36-1204

Target :1. 53-701992). JohnBenjamins .V', AmsterdamNot to be reproduced n any orm without written permission rom the publisher'

Film (Adaptation)as Translation:SomeMethodologicalProPosalsPatrickei:5 I

IAbstract.. 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 adaptationsmade in the American film noir of the 1940s nd 1950s hows that this approachprovides the basisor a systematicand coherentmethod with theoretical ounda-tions, and that it permits the study of aspects f ftlm adaptation which have beenneglectedor ignored so ar.Rsum; L'article propose une application de quelques horiesde a traductionspcifiquesd.ites polysystmiques' t'tude de I'adaptation filmque. une analy-se prlimnaire et exprimentale d'un corpus d'adaptations ftlmiques ralisesdans le film noir amricain des annes 40 et'50 permet de constaterqu'une ap-proche polysystmique du phnomne de l'adaptation filmique fournit les basesd'une mthode systmatique,cohrenteet thoriquement onde, et qu'elle per-met d'largir le champ d'tude et d'examiner desaspectsde I'adaptation ilmiquengligsou ignors usqu'ici.

1. Introductory NoteThe following methodological roposals oncern he study of film in termsof translation.This proposition s not presented s a mere play on wordsnor is its intention polemical.Film studiesand ranslationstudies o havedifferentobjects,of course.However, I think that an extension f the con-cept of translation,and an approach o the study of film (adaptation) nterms of this extendedconcept ould provideus with new nsightsnto the


2/10


3/10

56 PATRICKCAT:TRYSSEscreenplayor a ilm noir, andhadonly one noveladapted nto a ilm noir,namely, KissTomorrowGoodbye.Woolrich,on theother hand,hadsevennovels adapted nto film noirs, and many more short stories.However,Woolrich was a literary non-identitywhereasMcCoy acquired iteraryfame.The fact hat a scholar ikeHirsch(1981:4l-43)wroteseveral ara-graphson McCoy's TheyShootHorsesDon't They?,and only briefly men-tioned the title of Klss Tomorrow Goodbye, seems o have been deter-mined by the samemotivation, hat is. the literaryprestige f the sourcetext. Although Hirsch stresseshe mportanceof the novel for the ilm noirThey Shoot HorsesDon't They?was only filmed in 1969,more than tenyears after the film noir in fact ceased o exist. But Albert Camus hadappraised he work asa "literary masterpiece".As I said,only Kr'ss omor-row Goodbyewas adapted nto a film noir in Da9 @y CagneyProduc-tions), but this novel did certainlynot possesshe same iteraryprestige.Hence, ilm criticshave argely gnored he importance f this novel or theAmerican ilm noir.It seems herefore hat, moreoften than not, scholarswere rnore nterested n the cultural emancipation f their object of studythan they were n studying he real' literary origins.When ooking at the literary (sub-)genreshat were selected or a dap-tation, four typesof storiesmanifested hemselves s mportant: he privateeye detective tory.(e.9., DashiellHammett's The MalteseFalcon), hecriminalstory old from the point of view of the criminal e.g.,JamesM.Cain's Double ndemnity), he criminal story ol d from the point of viewofthe victim (e.g.,Lucille Fletcher'sSorry WrongNumber), and hespystory(e.g., GrahamGreen's TheConfidentialAgent).. AdaptationPolicyThe search or an adaptationpolicypertinent o the American lm noir hasled to the conclusion hat not only the original exts, but other normsand(more or less)general mechanisms s well seem o have servedas con-straintson the adaptationprocess. or example, he norm of narrativeper-tinencevs. narrative edundancy pparentlydetermined he suppressionfmany of the sourcenovel elements.When comparing everalnovelswiththeir film noir adaptation, one notices that actions which are repeated nthe novel are generallydeleted n the film. This practice s alsogenerallyapplied to actionsor characters hat fulfill the same narrative or other)function. For instance, n general, he role of the police ends o be dimin-

FILM (ADAPTATTON) AS TRANSLATIONished n film adaptations f detectivestories.Actions or characters hichare not really mportant for the further development f the main story -what Barthes 1977)called atalyses nd catalytic har acters havegener-ally been suppressedoo. In this way, one can distinguishseveralnormsthat seem o have determined he transferprocess rom the novel to thefi lm.

What is more, looking further at the novelsvs. the films noirs, onenotices hat ranspositional ormsdo not function n isolation.Rather,var-ious kindsof hierarchical elations an be discerned etween h em. Severalnorms maycombine nto complexes. or example,next to the above-men-tioned norm of narr ativepertinence, ilm noir adaptations eem o 'prefer'a straightnarrative ine. Consequently,lashbacks, pisodicnarrative truc-tures and compositenarrativesare generallydeleted.The overal l effect sthat of narrativesimplification.Thus, a norm suchas narrativesimplifica-tion woul d be situatedon a hierarchicall y uperi or evel, from which t gov-erns severalower-rank norms suchasnarrativepertinence, traightnarra-tive line, etc.), which oin force o producea commoneffect.At other times, variousnorms seem o install hemselvesn a conflict-ing situationwhere the one tries o overrule he other insteadof cooperat-ing with it. For example, t is clear that the adaptationprocess annotbereduced to simplification. Many modifications additions, permutations,substitutions) roduce an effect which, far from simplifying, s sometimesrather complicating.Thus, one (more or less)common dramaticpracticeconsists n adding sceneswhere antagonistse.g., the criminal and thedetective)are brought together n the same,or in an adjoiningplace.Thisprobably explainswhy, in contradistinction o films based on detectivestories,wherenumerousscenes here he police eaturesare deleted, rim-inal filmspresented rom thepoint of view of th e criminal addscenes f thiskind. Thesesituationsheighten he risk of discoveringhe culprit and end-ing the storyprematurely.Therefore, apparently,an overall norm of sus-penseserveso explainwhy, n certain cases,he norm of simplification asbeen overruledand the literary sceneunderwentnarrativecomplexificationin the film.

57


4/10

58 PATRICK CAT'TRYSSEc. The Functioning of AdaptationsIn English, like many other languages, he wordsfilm adaptation (l'adapta-tion filmique, Lieraturverfilmung) indicate the transformation processaswell as ts product. Therefore, studying film adaptation also meansstudyinghow an adaptation (as a finished film) functions within its context. Ques-tions to be asked here are: Do film adaptationspresent themselvesas adap-tations of previous texts? Are they considered and/or evaluated as such bycritics 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 ext (novel, story, screenplay,etc.) and i ts author's name.However, most of the films noirs present themselves n the first place as heautonomous work of a film studio, director and producer. Only when thefilm is based on a famous source ext, 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 necessarilybecause he public orcritics are aware of the existenceof underlying literary source materials hata film adaptation fupctions as an adaptation. Thus, French and Americanpublic and critics in the 1940sand 1950swere 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 heir fi l -mic qualities only.d. The Retations btetween Functions and PoticiesFinally, it is important to study adaptation (on the selection and transferdimensions) 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 seriesof films noirs, namely,the private eye ilm noir, makes t possible to see hat genre norms and the

FILM (ADAPTATION) AS TRANSLATIONposition 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 successfulposition, the function offilm adaptations ends to be conservative.As against his, when the stabilityof the film genre is endangered, the function of film adaptations becomesinnovative. The conservative or innovative function of film adaptationsseems o determine the selectionpolicy, as well as he ways of adapting thesource texts. If the function of a film adaptation consists n sustaining andpreserving a stable and successfulgenre, the selection policy consists nselecting source material which corresponds maximally to the dominantfilm genre conventions. when exceptionally, a source ext is selectedwhichdoes 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 n renewing a petrified film genre which is on the vergeof decay, both selection and adaptation policies are reversed: source extsare selectedwhich 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. EvaluationIt is too early to give a full-scale evaluation of the application of the pSmethod 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 forcingresearchto 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' aspectsof 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 tself as an adaptation of (a) previous

59


5/10

60 PATRICK CATTRYSSEtext(s) and/or is regarded as such by the public and the critics, can help doaway 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., aboutwhat constitutes a film noir, a semi-documentary, a roman noir, etc.) fromthe deadlock that has characterized them until now. It also enlarges thefield of film adaptation studies,which can no longer be reduced to'faithful'adaptations of canonic literary texts: On the one hand, film adaptationsmay be unfaithful to the source ext; on the other hand, many adaptationsare based on popular literary texts; and all these oo are worthwhile objectsfor study. In addition; the adaptation of literary texts has to be seennext tothe adaptation of other types of (non-literary) materiala such as letters,police files, radio and television plays, previous movies, and so forth. Thisobservation may well lead to the conclusion that practically every film pro-duction represents some kind of adaptation, if only the adaptation of ascreenplay.

The (conservative or innovative) function of a film adaptation (as afinished text) within its filmic context represents another new aspect n thedomain of (film) adaptation studies, which has not been studied so far. Thestudy of the presentation of a film alone implies a whole researchprogram.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 soforth. The functioning ofa film adaptation as such also concerns the film's reception by the publicand critics. Needless o say, the functioning of a film adaptation can vary intime 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 itsrelease) and the selection and adaptation policies, which constitute stillanother new aspect that has been ignored in film adaptation studiesup tillnow.All this does not mean that the PS approach leavesno difficulties unre-solved. In the first place, it does not provide analytical instruments forstudying and comparing film texts. Furthermore, some of its theoreticalconcepts (e.g., norms, models, systems, dominant) are in need of more

/d

FILM (ADAPTATION) AS TRANSLATIONelaboration. The descriptive, historical definition of film adaptation canpose some difficulties too. In some cases, ilms 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 n the United Statesbeforethe end of the 1960s.The remake is another case n point. In contradistinc-tion to a film adaptation of a non-filmic text, the remake (; the adaptationof a previous film) generally does not present tself 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 s 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. NewPerspectivesor Film(Adaptation) tudiesBe that as t may, the observations adeduring hepreliminaryandexperi-mental study of film adaptation is--vis he American ilm noir make tpossible o detectsome very nterestingnewperspectivesor film adapta-tion studies, ven ilm studiesn general.Most mportant of all, descriptive(rather hanprescriptive)analyses f the adaptation olicy and of the con-cept of equivalenceeadone o the conclusionhat film adaptationsn gen-eral do not limit themselves g one so-called sourc. Rather -veral(source)practices, imultaneously nd at different evels,normallysL.veasmodels or the production process.This is particularly he casewith filmproduction which constitutesa real Gesamtkunstwerk.For example, n the American ilms noirs, the storiesof many shortstories and novels have indeedbeen adoptedas a basis or adaptation.However,on the photographicevel, directors f photographywere argelyinspiredby German Expressionism f the 1920s s well as Americancon-temporaryphotography,drawingand painting.Music,followed ts own tra-ditions, asdid actingstyleandconventions f miseen scne cf. Stanislavskyand MethodActing). Even ilm adaptations f famous iterary textsgener-ally do not imit themselveso adapting he iterarysourcealone.The storyof sucha book may have guided he film adaptationon the narratologicallevel,but other aspects uchasdirecting, staging, cting,setting, ostumd,lighting, photography,pictorial representation,music,etc. may well havebeen governed y other modelsand conventions hich did not originate n

61


6/10

62 ,/(4I I ; I ,M (ADAPTATION) AS TRANSLATIONATRICKCATTRYSSEthe literary text and did not serve as a translation of any otrts e^ents. Asa consequence, ilm 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 studiesclose to the way studiesof interttuality have proceeded. This means that the purpose of theanalysis consists n 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 transfr practiceshave (or havenot) functioned as adaptation, ranslation, parody, etc.; and 3. explainwh yall this has occurred the way it has.In this respect, some concern has been expressedabout the specificityof the discipl ine adaptationstudies, ranslationstudies,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-guishedhere: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 fild, which must always be larger than the historicallydetermind conception, and comprise the sum total of discursiveprac-tices, along with their situational contexts, and the systematicstudy ofthe intersystemic relations between those practicesand their contexts;3. the scholar's descriptive apparatus (method, definitions, labels), whichresults from the analysis of the aforementioned relations between thediscursive racticesand their respectivecontexts.The different disciplines of film adaptation studies, translation studies andthe l ike do not lose their specifici ty among the other discipl ines such ascomparative iterary sciences, r theories of intertextual i ty) then. Even ifthey share n method (3) and working field (2), the historical definition ofthe object of study (1) sti l l indicates he special ocus and the (relative)specifici ty of the discipl ine applied to i t. In fact, i t is only by juxtaposingone particular type of text processingwith 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 existingstudiesof intertextual i ty, think someof theiranalytical ools can be made useful to fi lm adaptation studies.However,before using those concepts, hree additional points have to be borne inmind.First, one has to be aware of the fact that theories of intertextual i tyhave been developed within the domain of riterarystudies.The applicabilityof these concepts to therstgdy of firm has therefore to be uerifi-ed, ayu r/modified too. gn.ult 'tFurthermore,\ 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,especial ly hose (few) studies hat have beenapplied o fi lms (e.g.,Mander-bach 1988).Again, the samequestions arise:what conditions have to bemet for a fi lm to be consideredas 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 speakingof pre-texts (Broich andPfister 1985) or hypotexts (Genette rgg2), it is important to considerthemnot as sourcematerial to be reconstructed, but as models which have deter_mined the production of the target text (adaptation, translation, parody,etc.) in someway and to a certainextent.


7/10


8/10

66 PATRICK CATTRYSSE4. FilmAdaptationand OtherTypeso Text ProcessingThe study of film adaptation as a (more or less) specific set of explicit (:labeled) and implici t (: non-labeled) relationships between discursivepracticesand historical contexts places the adaptation next to other types oftext processing,and brings into focus types of film production which haveso far receivedvery l i tt le or no attention. I havealreadymentioned he fi lmadaptations of popular literary texts as well as non-literary texts. Here, theremake seems o occupy a particular place too. Next to the remake, thereare prequelsand sequels,seriesand compilation i lms, citations,parodies,pastiches, nd so forth.Another type of text processingwhich is very common, and which hasnot been studied in any seriousway until now, concerns the translatedver-sions of films. At this point, adaptation studies oin translation studies evenmore. closely. The importance of the translation of films has of courseincreasedsince movies stopped being silent. Nowadays, films are constantlybeing dubbed or supplied with translated subtitles. In the 1930s, imultane-ous versions were produced in English, French, German, Italian, etc. Inone of the few but interesting articles about these practices, Vincendeau(1989) explains that the existing critical terminology is not sufficient todescribe or distinguish the different types of text processing that existwithin film practices. For example, some versionswere 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 acouple of years in between. Consequently, the author asks herself at whatpoint.s-imultaneouspolyglot versions become remakes in another language.Such a discussion, which is basically terminological, may bp of minorimportance, though. Of more importance seems o be the precise descrip-tion of the different types of film text-variants that were produced, and theway they functioned in their proper contexts.

5. ConclusionThe conclusion rings me back o a proposition made at the beginningofthe article. f every ilm production epresents omekind of (film) adapta-tion, th ere seems o be no a priori reasonwhy the PS approach ould nothelp developnot only a theory of film adaptation,but a theory of film in

FILM (ADAPTATION) AS TRANSLATIONgeneral. ilm would thenbe studiedasa moreor lessspecific ind of trans-lation (in the broadest ense f the word) of previousdiscursive ractices swell asexperiencesn real ife. The underlyingassumptions that by pro-ceedinghat way, onewouldnot only be able o describen a moredetailedwayhow moviesweremade,but alsogetonestepcloser o explainingwftycertainmoviesweremade he way theyweremade.Also, the studyof film as ranslation ouldhelpconsider heconceptoforiginal from a different perspective,maybehelp account or it in a morepreciseway. Until now, a film hasgenerally eenconsidered/labeledorigi-nal' when t was basedon an 'original' screenplay. uestions o be askedhere are: how original are originals?what kind of intertextualor intersys-temic inks with previousdiscursive ractices nd situations anbe found?How are hey labeledandwhy are they abeled he way theyare?Parallel o the suggestions adeby Lambert 19g0) n the ield of liter-ary studies nd translation tudies, ilm productioncould be considered spart of a group of similarpracticeswhich, aftera certain ime, yield somekind of a trudition. The next question, hen, s how long sucha tradition

can be successful, ow long it takes before t needs o be renewed (orbefore t disappearsor lack of public and critical nterest). f innovationoccurs,does t proceed hrough the importation of innovativeelementsfrom other (artisticor non-artistic) ommunicative ractices? here do theimportedelements ome rom? And what shape oes he importationpro-cess ake?Does a refusal o import innovativeelements ead o the disap-pearance f the system the traditional genreor whatever)?A first try tocome o grips with this kind of questions as alreadybeenmadewith theevolutionof the literaryand ilmic detective enrebetween he 1920s ndthe 1940s. or the concrete esultsof this, refer he reader o my studyofthe American film noir (cattrysse 1990; 1992).The more general ransfermechanismsavealreadybeendescribed bove.Theseobservationsmay also ead to someconclusions oncerning hetheoryof translation. n recentPS discussionsseee.g. Even-zohar19g1;Toury 1986; Lambert and Robyns 1992), ranslation has indeed beendefined n very broad terms. This doesnot mean, however, hat manydescriptive tudieshavealreadyadopted his attitude. Most studiesn thePS vein concentrate n literary translation,andonly recentlyand sporadi-cally has he conceptof literaryalso beenapplied o non-writtenmaterial,for instancen studiesof drama ranslation thougheven here, he focus sgenerallyon printed texts.The theatrical epresentations n stage,which

67


9/10

68 PATRICK CATTRYSSEconstituteanother kind of translationof the printed text, still tend to beneglected).7 hus, althoughsome heoreticiansry to broaden he conceptof translation nd the scope f translationstudies, his doesnot apparentlyhappen without difficulties. Perhaps for the same reasons, (oral)phenomena, .9., the work of an interpreter,are stil l largelyneglected.(But cf. recently hlesinger 989;Harris1990.)Fromwhat hasbeenexplained bove, t mustbe clear, hough, hat thesimilarity of the problemsand he questions aisedwithin the studyof filmadaptationsuggest hat the specificityof the issues tudied by translationstudies s very relative. As a consequence,here seems o be no valuableargument o keep reducing he conceptof translation o mere cross-linguis-tic transferprocesses. he scopehas to be extended o a contextualisticsemioticperspective.Author's address:PatrikCattrysse Dept. Communicatiewetenschappen,U Brussel Vrij-heidslaan 7 B-1080BRUSSEL . BelgiumNotes1. This research has resulted in a Ph.D. dissertation (Cattrysse 1990). See also Cattrysse1,992.2. For more information about these heories, see Toury (1980), Hermans (1985)and Even-Zohar (1990).3. The fact that these selection and adaptation mechanisms orrespond to those uncoveredby Even-Zohar (1978) in the literary field again illustrates the parallels which existbetween ranslation 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 n this context, seems o 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 narratologicalcategories ike dramatization, narrativization, trans/de/vocalization, rans/de/focalization, acculturation, periodization, modernization, and soforth. For an explanation of the concepts, I refer the reader to the above mentionedstudiesby 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

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

ReerencesBarthes, Roland. I9TT. "lntroduction l'analyse structuraledes rcits". Bartes et al.1977:7-57.Barthes, Roland, Wayne C. Booth, Wolfgang Kayserand Philip Hamon.1977. Poriquedu rcit. Paris: Editions du Seuil, Coll. Points.Broich, Ulrich and Manfred Pfister. 1985. Intertextualitt: Formen, Funktionen, anglis'tische Fallstudren.Ttibingen: Niemeyer. [Konzepte der Sprach- und Literaturwis-senschaft ,35.]Cattrysse, Patrick. 1990. L'adaptation filmique de textes ittraires: Le film noir antri-cain. Leuven. [unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation]Cattrysse, Patrick. 1992. Pour une thorie de I'adaptation filmique: Le film noir amri-cair. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1978. "The Position of TranslatedLiterature within the LiteraryPolysystem".James S Holmes, Jos Lambert and Raymond van den Broeck, eds.Literature and Translation: New Perspectives n Literary Studies. Leuven: Acco,

1978. l7-127. [a revised version n Even-Zohar 1990:45-51.]Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1981. "TranslationTheory Today: A Call for TransferTheory".Poetics Today 2:4. l-7. [A revised version entitled "Translation and Transfer" inEven-Zohar 1990 73 78.1Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. PolysystemStudies. Duke University Press. : PoeticsToday 11:1.1Genette, Grard. 1982. Palimpseses:La littrature au second degr. Paris'. Editions duSeuil, Coll. Potique .Harris, Brian. 1990. Norms in Interpretation" . Target2:1. 115-119.Hermans, Theo, ed. 1985. The Manipulation of Literat ure: Studies in Literary Transla-ton.London and Sydney: Croom Helm.Higham, Charles and Joel Greenberg. 1968. Hollywood n the Forties. London: A.Zwemmer.Hirsch, Foste r. 1981. The Dark Sid e of the Screen:Film Noir. New York: Da CapoPress.Lambert, Jos.1980. Production, tradition et importation: une clef pour la descriptionde la littrature et de littrature en traduction". Revue anadenne e ittrature om-pare1:2.246-252.Lambert, Josand Clem Robyns. 1992. Translation". Roland Posner, Klaus Roberingand Thomas A. Sebeok, eds.Semiotics:A Handbook on the Sign-Theoret ic ounda-tions of Nature and Culture. Berlin and New Y ork: de Gruyter. [forthcoming]Manderbach, Jochen. 1988. Das Remake - Studien zu setner Theorie und Praxis.Siegen,Universitt-Gesamthochschule. Massmedien nd Kommunikation, 53].Shlesinger,Miriam. 1989. "Extending the Theory of Translat ion o Interpretat ion:Normsas a Case n Poin t " .Target :1 . 111-115.

69


10/10

70 PATRICK CATTRYSSEToury, Gideon. 1980. In search of a Theory of rranslation Tel Aviv: The porter Insti-tute for Poeticsand 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 Dctionary of semotics. Berlin-New york-Amster-dam: Mouton de Gruyrer, 1986.1.11.1-1124.Toury, Gideon. in press. 'Lower-Paradise' n a cross-Road:Sifting a Hebrew Transla-

tion of a German schlaraffenland ext through a RussianModel". Harald Kittel, ed.'History' and'system' in the study of Literary Translation. Berlin: Erich schmidt.Vincendeau, Ginette. 1989. "Films en versions multiples". JacquesAumont, AndrGaudreault and Michel Marie, eds. Histoire du cinma: Nouvelles Approches. paris;Publicationsde Ia Sorbonne, 1989. 10'l-117.wienold, Gtz. 1981."some BasicAspects of rext processing". poeticsToday 2:4. 97-109.

TARGETTNTERNATIONALOURNAL FTRANSLATIONTUDIESMRNuscntpts

Contributionsrewelcomed rom all countries.heyshouldbe written n Eng-l ish,French r Cerman.All contr ibutionshould ncludean abstractn bothEnglishnd French.Manuscriptshouldbe submittedo oneof the Editorsn triplicate. heyshouldbe ypewritten ith wide margins nd double pacing etweenhe ines;pleaseuseone sideof the paperonly.Notes, eferences,igures nd ables houldbepresentedn separate heets. leaseollow the stylesheet hich is availablefrom he Editors.Authorswill be informedwithin our months f receipt f manuscriptshetherthese anbe acceptedor publication. ubmissionf an article s aken o implythat t hasnot beenpreviously ublished nd snotbeingconsideredor publi-cationelsewhere.Authorswill receiveproofs f their articles nd are requestedo check hesecarefully eore eturninghem o the Editors. uthors f articles ill receive 0offprints f their contribution pon publication; ontributors f a reviewwillreceive 0 offprints.All correspondenceoncerning ditorialmatters houldbe directly ent o oneof the ollowing ddresses:CroeoNTounY JosnMsrnrTheM. Bernstein hairof Translationheory Dept.of Literary heory' KU LeuvenTel Aviv University P.O.Box 9085 Bli jde-lnkomststraat1TELAVIV 69 978 lsrael 8-3000LEUVEN BelgiumTel. + 9723 5459420 Tel. + 32 16 284847/284839

SusscnrpnoNsTheannual ubscriptionatesor TARCET An Internationalournal f Transla-tion Studiesonevolumeof 2 issues f about250pages ltogether)re : Hfl. 130,--/$ 9.00(incl.postage nd handling) or ibraries nd nstitutions Hfl. 67,--/$ 8.00 incl.postage nd handling)or ndividuals rovided heirprepaidorder s placeddirectlywith the Publisher.Forsubscriptionnd otherbusinessnformation, rite o:

JOHNBENJAMINSUBLISHINCOMPANYp.O.Brrx5577 AmsretcJiik4 | 070AN AMSTERDAMHollandTel. 020) 738156Fax020) zlgtzlB2f Berhlehenr'tke PHILADLPHIA,a. 9l l8 . USATel . 215) 36-1200Fax215) 36-12o4

cattrysse_patrick__1992__adaptation_as_translation.pdf

Documents

cattrysse_patrick1992adaptation_as_translation.pdf