eliana p.c. franco - arts.kuleuven.be · discourse or coincidence? a case of documentary...

Discourse or Coincidence? A Case of Documentary Translation*

Eliana P.C. Franco

With its critical views on the representational function of texts, Discourse Analysis should be a fruitful approach to the study of documentary discourse and documentary translation. After a short introduction to this approach (section 1), a close reading of a subtitled documentary about Brazil will be undertaken in section 2 in order to look for discrepancies between reality, the documentary and its subtitles. The reading will address these meaning gaps from a predominantly textual angle, revealing them as ideologically biased. Finally, in section 3, the paper will critically reassess this interpretation by resituating the texts in their material, institutional and agential setting. The borderline between idiosyncrasies and normative behaviour — between contingency and telos — will turn out to be particularly difficult to trace (section 4). 1. The textual/discursive approach 1.1. Documentary as discourse Instead of trying to arrive at an indisputable definition, recent accounts of documentary have shifted the discussion towards why and how facts of the “real world” are presented in documentaries. This is, at least, the central concern of Discourse Analysis, in which representations of facts or reality and people are stressed, rather than the facts and people “themselves”. The question is not whether the truth is presented, but from which perspective the truth is presented. The term “discourse” is used here mainly in Foucault’s sense as “a social construction of reality, a form of knowledge” (Foucault quoted in Fairclough 1995: 18), and in Thompson’s sense as “particular ways of using language and other symbolic forms such as visual images” (Thompson quoted in Fairclough 1992: 3). Underlying this new approach is the assumed impossibility of neutrality, endorsed by many scholars in the field when discussing the sociocultural dimension of documentaries:

* See Franco (1998) for a slightly different analysis of partly the same materials.

Documentary Translation

288

Any document is […] necessarily political. Documentation is inescapably an expression of the social relationships of its production and reception. This involves questions about those who are institutionally empowered to describe aspects of the “real world,” and about the potential of the descriptive categories and conventions employed. The “knowledge” of the everyday world which organizational documents possess and mobilize is “thus ideological in the sense that [its] social organization preserves conceptions and means of description which represent the world as it is for those who rule it, rather than as it is for those who are ruled.” This point is central for our understanding of the rhetoric of documentary, for the “how” of documentary construction is inseparable from the “why” of its accounting, and the rhetoric of neutrality generates the paradox of the impossibility of neutrality. (Chaney and Pickering 1986: 31, quoting Dorothy Smith)

Alongside this sociocultural aspect, an “aesthetic” dimension — which includes the editing and is identified by Corner (1986: x-xi) as “the rhetorics” of the documentary — plays a role in the impossibility of neutrality. According to Corner, each set of aesthetic/rhetorical devices within the range of documentary discourse (e.g. types of shot, forms of voice-over, conventions of interview method, editorial combinations of vision and sound, vérité sequences, use of music, etc.) brings potential pleasure to the viewer, thus obliterating objective perception (ibid.). New questions arise about legitimacy and openness of the finished film or programme. In relation to editing, Silverstone (1986) stresses the effect of the work done in the “cutting room”:

[True, m]uch of the work of narrative and rhetorical construction is clearly complete prior to editing: images are shot and questions asked for their answers, and the manner of both to some extent determines the character of the final film. [However,] the restructuring and rewriting of this film gives some indication of how much can be done, and how much can be changed, as a result of changes in its narrative and its rhetorical structure. (1986: 97)

It may be inferred from this that documentary discourse is much more than what we see and hear on the screen: it is a social action, an expression of interests which has a place in a given culture at a given moment. The researcher can conjecture these dimensions through systematic analysis of content together with factors, circumstances and people involved in the construction of this content. Useful questions that challenge the smooth façade of documentaries include:

Eliana Franco

289

Who produced the documentary? What is the broadcasting channel? What are the traditions or values of this channel? What aspects or events of the theme were selected? Which facts are made more sensational? How are facts presented and structured in the documentary sequence? What is the visual content? Are there any archive scenes? Are there testimonies to the facts? By whom? How are people portrayed? What lexical choices are made (register, forms of address, etc.)? Are there any absences or gaps in the programme? At whom is the programme directed? What is the main objective of the programme? 1.2. Documentary translation as (re)constructed discourse Documentaries generally rely on in loco material (i.e. real images, street interviews, etc.) in order to provide the audience with a convincing, confidence-inspiring picture, and Discourse Analysis can prevent us from taking this construction for granted. My case study, however, will have to deal with an additional layer which is not usually the focus of Discourse Analysis. When the target audience, the interviewers and/or the interviewees do not speak the same language, the authentic material which gives documentaries a realistic character needs to be translated. If we assume that documentaries are indeed far from impartial representations, then the role of translation in the documentary discourse seems to me to be a highly relevant issue. Especially when the target product appears to be constructed by a joint effort of producers, filmmakers, TV channels and translators, translation should not be viewed as posterior to production but as an integral part of the discursive construction. But is there really a framework at hand for such an investigation? In 1994 Yves Gambier and Eija Suomela-Salmi (1994: 243) recognized the paucity of attention paid by research to language transfer for the so-called “nonfictional genres”:

Up till now, research has mainly been concerned with the subtitling and dubbing of fictive stories/fiction films. In the light of the huge variety of audiovisual communication, this may seem somewhat surprising; in fact, however, it reflects the prevailing orientation in translation theory, which is still highly dominated by literary translation.

Three years later, Yves Gambier’s bibliography Language Transfer and Audiovisual Communication (1997) confirmed this and also revealed that books and articles about nonfiction have usually been devoted to the description of general mechanisms and constraints which characterize dubbing and subtitling, sometimes in relation to particular countries. The invaluable


290

contribution of these accounts to the understanding of some universals of audiovisual translation cannot be denied1, but the fact is that very few writings include other forms of audiovisual transfer such as those typical of documentaries: voice-over, narration and commentary2. Thus lacking a specific framework for the study of documentary translation, I will at least try to explicate some of the general features of my methodology. Descriptive Translation Studies as proposed by Toury (1980; 1995) seems to constitute the most adequate background here, since it shares two basic principles with Fairclough’s views on discourse in general (1992; 1995). First, in both approaches texts are the main items from which to investigate how translations are done (see Toury 1995: 65; Lambert and Van Gorp 1985: 47) and how the world is (re)presented. The observation of behavioural regularities through the detection of recurrent textual choices leads the researcher to the formulation of norms (Toury 1995: 55). Discourse Analysis shares this concern with choices at the level of texts in its study of representation, signification and construction (Fairclough 1995: 105). Secondly, in both approaches the choices made by text producers and translators find their explanation in sociocultural factors. The description and analysis of textual/rhetorical choices at various levels may throw light on questions about discursive practices, social motivations, and ideologies and relations of domination (Fairclough 1995: 103-4). Along similar lines, translations are regarded as “play[ing] a social role” (Toury 1995: 53), as complying with or challenging the norms of the cultural environment which hosts them. 1.3. Documentaries about Brazil This paper is a part of a larger PhD project on documentaries about Brazil which were broadcast on the West-European cable TV available in Belgium3. The idea of focusing on documentaries about Brazil originated in my personal observation that many Europeans, when trying to show some knowledge about Brazil, recurrently made one-sided comments about, for instance, the killing

1 As an example, Ivarsson (1992), a handbook which can be applied to all audiovisual

genres. 2 Among these, I would like to refer to the comprehensive work by Luyken and

Herbst (1991) and to Kaarina Pönniö (1995), both devoted to the description of these modes of transfer, and to Aline Remael (1995-96), one of the first studies to approach documentary film translation from the perspective of research.

3 Since the 1960s, Belgium has occupied a privileged position in Western Europe concerning the number of TV channels and languages at the viewer’s disposal.

Eliana Franco

291

and prostitution of street children, while very few positive aspects were mentioned. This aroused my curiosity about the kind of information available in Western Europe. So I selected the most popular audiovisual means of communication, television, as the data source. After two years of chronological videotaping, starting in November 1995 in Leuven, I observed that at least one programme about Brazil is broadcast every week on one of the twenty-five channels. This demonstrates that these programmes are socially relevant. It also addresses Lambert’s warning (1994: 31) against too easily assuming innocence in European programme selection, especially when dealing with foreign/exotic information. At a production level, most of these documentaries are European undertakings — a fact that points even more strongly to the Old Continent’s interest in Brazil. However, if we want to know more about the nature of this interest, we must study documentary discourses and their translations. In thematic terms, the largest single group of documentaries approach the “street children issue”4, justifying Europeans’ comments and questions as well as indicating some insistence by producers on the subject. From the point of view of Discourse Analysis, an investigation of the “street children discourse” and its translation produced by different channels might highlight social practices directed either towards the well-known scripts about the Third World or to more innovative scripts which are embedded in the traditions, values and ideologies of organizations, institutions and groups “behind” the channels. Recurrent text scripts are said to confirm and sustain stereotypes so that the audience is eventually led to recognize and accept them as reality. In this case, a script on a developing country like Brazil typically includes poverty, the killing of children and lack of punishment as usual practices, without caring much about contextualization. Fairclough says of the “Third World script” that “the text takes the script as universally given for its audience, and so positions audience members that they are induced to draw upon it to arrive at a coherent interpretation […] Such texts can cumulatively shape the knowledge, beliefs and values of audience members” (1995: 123). Let us see if my study confirms these views.

4 According to my corpus, the “street children issue” constitutes 20% of the themes

approached in documentaries about Brazil. Other themes are: Indians (10,9%); the Rainforest and Brazilian cities (9.09% each); agriculture and carnival (5.45% each); music in general, the Northeast, pollution, landless people, architecture, fauna, religion and black culture (3.63% each); and racism, violence, military activities, goldmining, poetry and trade (1.81% each).


292

2. The discursive approach: a case study 2.1. Aim and corpus My main objective in this reading exercise will be to exemplify the similarity that may exist between translation priorities and the documentary’s discursive position: the choices made by the translator can indeed reflect the producer’s intentions and interests. To this purpose, I will describe and analyse my own transcription of videotaped interview extracts of a documentary in Brazilian Portuguese with Dutch subtitles. The programme is entitled De meisjes van Papa Adolfo (“The Girls of Father/Papa Adolfo”) and was broadcast by the Dutch channel NED2 (Nederland 2) on February 26, 1997. Since the documentary text cannot be fully described and analysed here, I will provide some essential contextual information. It is worth mentioning that the assumptions about the documentary discourse stated here are not only mine, but were also confirmed by students from Flemish universities, with whom I discussed the documentary.

Production. I consider the producers here to be those who are mentioned in the credits at the end of the documentary. Commentary, direction and editing are credited to Flemish names. Remarkably, no reference is made to the translator/subtitler. In institutional terms, the programme is presented as a 1997 Belgo-Dutch coproduction for NED2, and more specifically for the EO (Evangelische Omroep)5. Besides the religious EO, the other producers are the frequent EO partner Night & Day Productions6, and the humanist Lichtpunt, both from Belgium. The credits strongly suggest that the EO is the main producer, since its name scrolls first over the screen.

Theme and focus. The documentary is about “child prostitution”. In a conventional documentary format like this, the presenter of the opening sequence generally says what the more specific focus will be. Here, it is made clear that the aspect to be examined is child prostitution in Fortaleza (Brazil) as a result of sex tourism. Fortaleza is the capital of Ceará State in the Northeast of Brazil and, according to the presenter, it has been a hot spot for European sex tourists since the opening of its international airport about two years

5 A short explanation of the Dutch broadcasting system is needed here. Besides the

commercial companies, the Netherlands have three official and national channels, NED1, NED2 and NED3. All programmes on these three channels stem from different ideological “omroepen” (broadcasting companies): VARA (“socialist”), NCRV (“protestant”), KRO (“catholic”), VPRO (“progressive”), EO (“evangelical”), etc. The News is produced by the overarching and “neutral” NOS.

6 In my larger PhD corpus EO and Night & Day Productions coproduced other documentaries.

Eliana Franco

293

previously. Before the in loco documentary starts, one last question is put to the audience: Has Brazil become a hot spot of sex tourism comparable to Thailand and the Philippines?

Participants and their roles. The makers rely on many testimonies presented in the form of monologues and interviews, alternating with short interventions by the voice-over presenter whose triple role is to provide additional information, to make the link between shots and to introduce new participants. Among the participants, three members of the Church (Father Adolfo, Sister Elizabeth and Patricia) are presented as “authorities” on the subject, sketching an accurate picture of the problem. The fact that the main producers have a religious profile and that the “voices of expertise” — those who have the right to speak about others — are all members of the Church is at least striking. Moreover, the most important character (Father Adolfo) is European (from Italy) and responsible for the development of “great” social work in Brazil. Other participants such as the transvestite Cristina, the girls Rosangela, Diana, Maria Cristiana and Maria Helena are in turn representatives of the problem, the “victims” of sex tourism. They are supposed to tell their story, not to give their opinion. These “voices of experience” generally function as a confirmation of the experts’ view7. Finally, there are the off-screen interviewers. Although they never appear to the audience, their voice, intonation and style make possible the identification of two female interviewers. One is in charge of most of the interviews in the text and is characterized by a high-pitched voice, a strong Northeast Brazilian accent in Portuguese, quite emphatic intonation, a very informal way of addressing the interviewees and a direct and aggressive way of formulating questions. The other woman interviews only one girl (Maria Helena). This interviewer has a less strong Northeastern accent, a soft voice, a melancholic, compassionate intonation and she addresses the interviewee in a motherly way, always using the interviewee’s first name.

The discourse. As the theme is developed, the focus is displaced from sex tourism to family disintegration as the reason for child prostitution. This can be observed in the leading discourse of the clerical voices, who abandon the “sex tourism perspective” announced at the start for a more traditional and conservative testimony about parents who invariably do not care about their children, who allow prostitution and who finally contribute to family disintegration. No matter how true this assumption may be, the important point is to realize that it is (re)presented to the viewer as the only truth, as if all child prostitutes in Fortaleza were above all victims of a sort of contempt from their parents. Interestingly enough, foreign tourists seem to be absolved of what they

7 For a more detailed view on the concepts “voices of expertise”, “voices of

experience” and “victims”, see Fairclough (1995).


294

are accused of at the beginning of the programme. Silencing the role of foreigners and other people and organizations involved (e.g. travel agencies), and even of the country’s (un)employment policies, helps to maintain a distorted image of parents as irresponsible. It prevents even the critical viewer from seeing perspectives on the issue other than the one desired and imposed by the producers: the traditional family perspective. This seems related to what Fairclough says about “lacks” in the text: not only the said but also the unsaid is extremely important for uncovering ideological practices (Fairclough 1995: 108; Macherey 1966). To summarize, the documentary’s discourse on Brazil as a whole is quite paternalistic, since it relies on the acknowledged script of the Developing World to approach the problem of child prostitution: the problem is intrinsically viewed as originating and developing within the country with no substantial contribution from foreigners whatsoever, so that its solution is logically to be found inside the country’s family environment too. Such a simplistic view addresses the narratives of poverty, child abuse and social injustice accepted as typical of a developing country while it favours Europe by exalting the work of the Italian priest Adolfo and by remaining silent on Europeans who have sex with children. Concrete interview analyses will illustrate these points. But first one more point has to be made about the impact of macrolevel features on interview perception. 2.2. The interview: macrolevel techniques and conditions In the first chapter of The Television News Interview (1987), Akiba A. Cohen defines “interview” as follows:

All interviews are social encounters. All interviews involve at least two persons performing specific roles, that of interviewer and that of interviewee. During the course of an interview questions are posed by the interviewer to the interviewee in order to obtain information. The nature of the information exhibited can be verbal or nonverbal. The information can be factual or attitudinal. Finally, there can be various reasons why interviewees submit themselves to an interrogation by another individual. All of these points seem to indicate that there is good reason to consider the interview as a special form of interaction, with social and psychological implications. (1987: 13; original emphasis)

In the conclusion of the same chapter the author completes the above definition:

Eliana Franco

295

[T]he journalistic interview is a highly dramatic encounter with numerous social, psychological, situational, and technological pressures operating on both the interviewer and the interviewee, and which are likely to affect in some ways the reader, listener, and viewer. (1987: 28; my emphasis)

Although Cohen’s accounts are mainly concerned with the news interview, he suggests at the end of his book that his concepts and tools can be tested for other forms of news interviewing (1987: 154). The above quotations stress important aspects of the interviews with the three girl prostitutes Rosangela, Diana and Maria Helena. First, the three interviewees clearly show inexperience with the media apparatus (position of camera, spots, use of microphone, etc.); second, the girls are representatives of the problem but do not ask to be interviewed, a fact that may also involve some psychological effects such as shyness, shame, etc.; third, although the interviewers are not “celebrities”, they still represent “media authority” to the girls; finally, while trying to cope with their interviewees’ lack of experience, interviewers try at the same time to pursue their goals, that is, to elicit the specific information which will give meaning to the whole documentary discourse, a twofold task which certainly puts some pressure on the most experienced professional. The whole documentary discourse is constructed so as to make the “voices of experience” function first and foremost as an appeal to the viewers’ emotions with moving, convincing testimonies. Supplying factual information to the viewer becomes a secondary aim. The status of the extracts is in this sense paradoxical: while meant to be evidence of “veracity”, they are actually instances of emotional communication guided by the interviewers. The pertinence in this context of two types of interview techniques cannot be stressed enough: (almost) uninterrupted monologue versus question-answer. In the case of monologues, questions are usually posed beforehand and directions are given before and during the formulation of the interviewees’ testimonies and “edited out” afterwards. The monologue as an apparently uninterrupted speech can suggest the interviewer’s or producer’s endorsement of the speaker’s words: the interviewer has, so to speak, “no questions”. It is no coincidence that this is how the three “voices of expertise” are treated — the “voices of the Church” upon which the documentary discourse is constructed. In contrast, interviews with the girls rely mostly on the question-and-answer technique, a fact which is immediately justified by the girls’ clearly low educational level (which requires more “directing”) and their inexperience with the media apparatus. Nevertheless, this effective way of establishing communication with the interviewees has its side-effects: the interviewer has many more opportunities to manipulate the flow of discourse by interrupting,


296

selecting, emphasizing, ignoring and eliciting information from the interviewees. More particularly, the question-and-answer form constitutes a highly suitable means of avoiding deviations from the discourse of family disintegration. From the strong discrepancy between instances of spontaneous attitudes or reactions and other sequences which sound quite artificially dramatized it may be assumed that “rehearsal” or planning was done before the actual shooting. It should be clear by now that the documentary interviews to be described are not systematic question-and-answer processes, but dynamic and potentially problematic encounters, to use some of Cohen’s terms (1987: 38). 2.3. Translated interviews: a microlevel analysis of three

extracts The interviewers focus on two main points during the programme: (1) prostitution is not a profitable activity at all, and (2) the family accepts and exacerbates child prostitution. This is also the case in the extracts transcribed in the following format:

original in Portuguese

Dutch subtitles n° English translation

of the original English translation

of the subtitles

The numbers in the middle column facilitate references in my description, dots stand for pauses or hesitations, capital letters stand for STRESSED SEGMENTS, capital letters between brackets stand for (VISUAL INFORMATION), and finally, normal text in brackets constitutes (questions, instructions or comments by the interviewer which are made in a low voice, almost inaudible to the audience). 2.3.1. “Poor” Rosangela Rosangela is introduced by the presenter as a 15-year-old girl who has been working in the Passeio Público park (the centre of prostitution in Fortaleza) for two years. The interview takes place in the park and the shot is always on the girl. R stands for Rosangela, IR for Interviewer.

Eliana Franco

297

Eu trabalho aqui. Ik werk hier.

1 R I work here. I work here.

(Você consegue quanto por dia?) Hoeveel vrouwen werken hier?

2 IR (How much/many do you get a day?) How many women work here?

Só c’uns dez. We zijn hier ongeveer met z’n tienen.

2a R Only (with) some ten. There are ten of us, more or less.

(Isso por dia) 3 IR (This a day) (Você ganha por hora...) Hoeveel verdien je ongeveer?

3a IR (You earn per hour...) How much do you earn roughly?

Por dia eu ganho... cem reais. Ik verdien tien real.

3b R Per day I earn... a hundred reais. I earn ten real.

Dez reais... (por homem?) Per avond?

3c IR Ten reais... (per man?) Per evening?

(THE GIRL NODS) 3d (THE GIRL NODS) À noite cê vem também? 4 IR Do you come in the evening

too? Não, eu saiu cinco horas. 4a R No, I leave at five. Cê vai pra onde? 4b IR Where do you go? Pra casa. Nee, ik werk maar vijf uur per dag en dan ga ik naar huis.

4c R Home. No, I work five hours a day and then I go home.

Sua família sabe? Weet je familie ’t?

5 IR Does your family know? Does your family know it?

Sabe. Ja.

5a R Yes. Yes.

Cê dá dinheiro pra eles? Geef je ze geld?

6 IR Do you give them money? Do you give them money?

Eu dô uma ajudinha. Ik help ze’n beetje.

6a R I give a little help. I help them a little.

The questions asked by the interviewer are mainly about the girl’s earnings and family. The interview starts with Rosangela’s answer (1) to a question that was probably edited out. Question (2), “Você consegue quanto por dia?” can be interpreted in two ways due to the ambiguous meaning of the elliptical “quanto”: either “How much (money) do you get a day?” or “How many (men) do you get a day?” The translation, however, provides the viewer with a totally different question: “How many girls work here?”

According to the girl’s answer in (2a), “Só c’uns dez” (Only (with)


298

some ten), it is clear that she chose the second meaning, in which “quanto” refers to the number of men. But the Dutch version aims to be coherent and therefore answers the invented/translated question in (2) as “We zijn hier ongeveer met z’n tienen” (There are ten of us here, more or less) (2a). This apparently strange modification nevertheless seems to have a clear goal: it completely overcomes the contradiction between the documentary’s general suggestion that all girls from Passeio Público have small earnings and no more than six clients a day on the one hand, and Rosangela’s promiscuous and “rich” profile on the other. The next part of the interview supports my assumption even more. The girl’s answer is followed by the comment in (3), “Isso por dia” (This per day), which, together with the intonation, implies a negative evaluation by the interviewer about the girl having sex with ten men a day. Since this does not cohere with the translated version and is not very audible to the viewer, it is simply dropped in the translation. Question (3a), “Voce ganha por hora…”, directly asking about her earnings per hour, is also less audible. It is translated into “Hoeveel verdien je ongeveer?” (How much do you earn roughly?) — my emphasis. Literally, the answer is “Por dia eu ganho… cem reais” (Per day I earn... a hundred reais) (3b). The Dutch translation makes “tien real” (ten real) of it.

Rosangela earns the equivalent of a little less than a hundred dollars a day — more than an average university teacher’s income — but a joint effort by interviewer and translator fits the girl back into the general scheme. The former somehow tricks the girl with the very audible comment (3c) “Dez reais” (Ten reais) followed by the nearly inaudible “por homem?” (per man?), as if making sure she had understood that a hundred reais a day meant ten reais a man; and the girl confirms with a nod (3d). The translator in turn not only complies with the intended message of the documentary by reducing “a hundred reais” into “ten real” in (3b), s/he also translates “per man” (3c) into “per evening”, thus implying that Rosangela earns in fact ten reais per working day. Further, the Brazilian “real” is not converted into any known currency for the European viewer, thus completely failing to inform the average watcher. The next question, “À noite cê vem também?” (Do you come in the evenings too?) (4), would not cohere with the previous translation of “per man” into “per evening” (3c) if it was translated literally, since the translation of (3c) already implies that the girl works in the evenings. But the translator again drops this question and reconstructs the message in segments (4a), (4b) and (4c) as if the girl worked five hours every day and then went home, while the girl actually meant that she works until five in the afternoon and then goes home. The remaining segments (5), (5a), (6) and (6a) go straight to the point the documentary discourse wants to make about the complicity of the family — they are translated literally. All of this strongly suggests that the parts of the

Eliana Franco

299

original interview which are not in accordance with the intended documentary discourse are the ones in which the translator takes a more active role. 2.3.2. Diana’s drama The interview with Diana is a long one, also focusing on money and family and again homogenizing the prostitutes’ profiles. Diana is the most naïve and nervous of the girls, impressed by the media apparatus. In fact, she seems to be following instructions all the time. The following short extracts are sufficient illustration of the situation. In the first sequence, Diana is being interviewed on the bus on the way home; the shot is on her.

Quando é que você começou sua vida na rua? Wanneer ben je op straat begonnen?

1 IR When did you start your life in the street? When did you begin in the street?

Treze anos... treze anos. Op m’n dertiende.

1a D Thirteen... thirteen. When I was thirteen.

Você tinha treze anos. 2 IR You were thirteen. E o que é que cê fez? Como é que a coisa aconteceu? Op je dertiende? Hoe ging dat dan?

3 And what did you do? How did it happen? You were thirteen? How did it happen?

Como assim? Hoe bedoelt u?

3a D What do you mean? What do you mean?

É..você foi à praça... alguém lhe levô... Heeft iemand je toen mee-genomen?

4 IR Er..you went to the square somebody took you... Did anybody take you?

Ah! Uma amiga minha me me convidô. Een vriendin van me.

4a D Ah! A friend of mine invited me me. A friend of mine.

This sequence first of all gives an idea of the girl’s conversational naivety. Whatever has come to Diana’s mind in (3a), she could not make the link between questions (3) and (1); she did not understand that the interviewer wanted her to talk about her introduction into prostitution; she did not link “a coisa” (it) in (3) with her street life mentioned in (1). When the interviewer restates the question in (4), the interjection “Ah!” at the beginning of Diana’s answer (4a) confirms this. Her naivety is an ideal basis for the interviewer to guide the dialogue, often through frequent dramatization. Diana is asked to emphasize dramatic


300

points of her story, with the interviewer helping her to do so. Here, it is the interviewer who repeats Diana’s answer as a way of calling the viewer’s attention to the gravity of the problem: in (2) “Você tinha treze anos” (You were thirteen), the interviewer repeats the age at which the girl started working in the streets, although she stated this herself in (1a), “Treze anos... treze anos” (Thirteen... thirteen).

Striking in this segment is also the fact that the translator introduces the formal and polite pronoun “u” (you) in “Hoe bedoelt u?” (What do you mean?) (3a), whereas the original is informal in its form of address (“Vôce” is informal in Brazilian Portuguese while “Senhor(a)” would have been formal; “Como assim?” does not have a pronoun and is therefore also quite informal). Thus the subtitle suggests a social awareness of the girl and a girl-interviewer relationship which by no means exists in the extreme two-way informality of the original. The transformation has an “objectifying” effect on the dialogue perception, presenting the girl as less manipulable. In the second extract from Diana’s interview, she has just got off the bus “from work” and is walking back home. The introductory text is in voice-over and no previous question is asked before the girl starts talking about her mother, but there is an obvious cut between the previous shot and this one, during which some instructions were probably given. Minha mãe também andava lá aí foi aí muito tempo ah ah a minha mãe sustentava a gente de lá eu e meus quatro irmãos. M’n moeder werkte ook op ’t plein. Ze heeft ons vijven grootgebracht.

1 D My mother has also worked there for a long time er er my mother has maintained us from there me and my four siblings. My mother also worked in the square. She raised the five of us.

Só que ela pegou... morreu... ela morreu de aids. Maar ze is gestorven aan aids.

2 D But she got... died... she died of Aids. But she died of Aids.

(Quê que foi?) 3 D (What’s up?) DE AIDS ELA MORREU DE AIDS Of hoe noem je dat? Aan aids, ja. Ze is gestorven aan aids.

4 D OF AIDS SHE DIED OF AIDS How do you call that? Of Aids, yes. She died of Aids.

Intonation, voice pitch and stress play an important role here. In (2) Diana sounds hesitant, almost ashamed to say that her mother has died of Aids. Again, the translator provides the straight text “Maar ze is gestorven aan aids” (But she died of Aids). In (3), “Quê que foi?” (What’s up?), however, there is a change in Diana’s intonation from “storytelling” to a “what’s-the-matter”

Eliana Franco

301

attitude, and her voice pitch is low, almost secretive. This change, together with the actual meaning of (3), “What’s up?”, indicates that she is not really asking the interviewer about the right term for Aids, as the Dutch translation in (4) “Of hoe noem je dat?” (How do you call that?) suggests, but reacting to an external interruption by the interviewer. This is confirmed by (4), when Diana restates the details of her mother’s death, very emphatically this time, with no hesitations. So it may be assumed that the interviewer required repetition of the dramatic event. If not, why would Diana repeat twice more something she sounded ashamed to say? The translator seems concerned once more with disguising the interviewer’s effort to manipulate the interview, even if the translation of the original in (3), “Quê que foi?”, turned out a little nonsensical as in (4). It is nonetheless unlikely that Dutch-speaking viewers would notice the discrepancy between subtitles and original. In short, the interviewer makes Diana stress the drama which the girl at first put forward with some hesitation; and where Diana’s sudden spontaneity uncovers the interviewer’s active role in eliciting desirable information, the translator conceals the traces. 2.3.3. Maria Helena Maria Helena is the last interviewee in the programme. She is fourteen years old and pregnant. She has left prostitution and lives with her mother. The focus is once more on the parents. The shot is on Maria Helena. The interviewer now is the other woman, the motherly type, but her sweetness also works well as a strategy to make the girl conform to the documentary discourse. Again, the translator plays a role in this process. E por quê que você tinha que fazê heim Maria Helena, explica um pouco a história. Leg dan ’s uit waarom je ’t deed.

1 IR And why did you have to do it ha Maria Helena, tell us a little about this story Tell us why you did it.

Pra mim... comprá minhas coisa... comê... dava pra mãe. Om dingen te kunnen kopen. Voor m’n moeder.

1a MH For me... to buy my things... to eat... I gave to my mother. To afford things. For my mother.

O quê que você comprava pra tua mãe? Wat kocht je dan voor je moeder?

2 IR What did you buy for your mother? What did you buy for your mother?

As coisa... comida... Van alles. Eten.

2a MH Things... food... A bit of everything. Food.

Hum hum... 2b IR Humhum...


302

E o seu padrasto num trabalha Maria Helena? En je vader werkt niet?

3 E And your stepfather does not work Maria Helena? And your father does not work?

3a (LONG PAUSE) DIGA isso DIGA que o seu padrasto não trabalha.

3b IR SAY it SAY that your stepfather does not work...

Não trabalha não. 3c MH No, he doesn’t. Ãh? Nee, die werkt niet.

3d IR Ah? No, he doesn’t work.

E sua mãe trabalha? En je moeder werkt ook niet?

4 IR And your mother works? And your mother does not work either?

Também não. Nee.

4a MH She doesn’t either. No.

Segments (1), (1a), (2) and (2a) make it clear that Maria Helena worked as a prostitute in order to provide for her mother. The “expected” discourse runs its course and the interviewer has no reason to act. But this time it is the translator who takes the initiative to make points even stronger. While the original in (1a) states “pra mim” (for me) as the child’s immediate reason to meet men, the subtitle favours “dava pra mãe” (for my mother) and “forgets” to mention “for me”. Question (3) is then adequately translated except for one important detail: “padrasto” (stepfather) is rendered as “father” — perhaps to comply with the overall assumption that the “real parents” are lazy, that the closest relatives of these children are the ones who contribute most to the drama. Indeed, everybody is aware of the stereotypes attributed to step-parents, which could “explain” the stepfather’s lack of responsibility towards Maria Helena and weaken the documentary’s causal claims. Almost logically, the translator avoids this interpretation. In (3a) there is a long pause which indicates that the girl is either thinking about an answer in function of the instructions she has received, or hesitating because of shame or any other feeling. In view of the long silence, the interviewer becomes impatient and almost begs Maria Helena for the right answer in (3b) — “diga” (say it). The girl starts crying, and the dramatic effect is once more achieved. Unlike the procedure used in Diana’s interview, this time the translator leaves the utterance meaningless for the viewer, opting to omit the interviewer’s intervention, although it is rather clear in the original. It is also interesting to observe at sentence level that in (3) the interviewer asks a negative question concerning the stepfather’s work, a possible strategy either to give the girl a hint about how to answer the question or to induce her psychologically to give the right answer. The first possibility seems to be

Eliana Franco

303

refuted when we look at (4) and see that the interviewer formulates an affirmative question about Maria Helena’s mother’s work; however, this question becomes negative when translated. It may be suggested that the translator reinforces the negative view of parents by the use of repeated negation. Finally, concerning what Fairclough says about “lacks in the text” (see section 2.1.), it should be observed that, in comparison with the other interviews, a similar repertoire of questions is asked, except for questions about the father of her baby (a foreigner). Similarly, Maria Helena’s mother is not asked a single question, despite the fact that her daughter is living with her. 2.4. Tentative conclusions The representational choices of the documentary can be read as a discourse in favour of family integration which, in turn, is embedded within a larger sociocultural practice: that of the Church. The evangelical identity of the main producer reinforces this reading. First, the interviews are instrumental in this respect since they present a systematic question-and-answer activity where the power relations between participants are out of balance and any instance of individual, spontaneous discourse is avoided, thus leaving little room for interpretations by the audience other than the intended ones.

Second, the role of the subtitles is ambiguous because they enjoy a double status: they not only reproduce discourse but construct a new discourse. Taking this view into account, the translator’s behaviour identified in this case study allows for the interpretation of choices/decisions as the result of an absolute norm: that related to the producers’ interests, objectives and values expressed by means of the documentary discourse. This seems to support what Theo Hermans (1996) has to say about the discursive position of translations:

Rather than occurring in a self-contained universe, translations are inserted into — or sometimes between, or alongside — existing discursive forms and practices. In catering for the needs of the target system translation cannot but defer to the prevailing discourses of that system. It is this aspect of translation which Tejaswini Niranjana (1992) calls the overdetermination of translation. As she puts it, “translation comes into being overdetermined by religious, racial, sexual and economic discourses” [...]. (Niranjana quoted in Hermans 1996: 11-12; the emphasis is Niranjana’s)

This operative force of translation was observed in most instances of the translator’s behaviour: when s/he modifies the original content quite drastically in order to convey the intended message, disguising any unpredictable


304

behaviour by the girl-interviewees; when s/he also omits whatever piece of text is considered undesirable material, or interventions by the interviewer which would put the spontaneity of the testimonies at risk; when s/he apparently even takes initiatives, distorting information as a way of making the producers’ points stronger. On the other hand, when the source material meets the desired objectives, the translator’s procedure is “to translate literally”, that is, to adhere to adequacy norms. 3. Discourse reinterpreted: tracing the productional

picture One of the main criticisms of Discourse Analysis has been the emphasis put on texts (and thus on language analysis), from which discourse practices and ideologies are identified (see Allen 1992 and Corner, Richardson and Fenton 1990, both quoted in Fairclough 1995). Despite acknowledging that “the production of a media text is a collective process, involving journalists, producers, and various categories of editorial staff, as well as technical staff” (1995: 48), Fairclough’s idea of documentary production is still limited to issues of representation, such as point of view and rhetorical devices which a documentary will adopt in order to persuade the audience (1995: 45). If the production process is as complex as described, it seems first of all fair to ask how effective an analysis of representation alone can be for the interpretation of a documentary as a discursive/ideological practice, and whether the global setting of the programme should not form a more substantial part of the interpretation process.

In our specific case it is necessary to challenge an overly simplistic view of the translation process. The translated message goes through several changes and adjustments before reaching the spectator (see Gambier 1994: 246), and criticism of the descriptive branch of Translation Studies has asserted the need to encompass the social and ideological embedding and impact of translation (Hermans 1996: 12), which cannot be accounted for by the mere description and comparison of texts. In brief, the social environment must be brought into perspective and the point at issue is how effective the text-based description of the producer’s and translator’s behaviour alone is for throwing light on the actual social/ideological norms which have regulated the construction of the documentary (translation). 3.1. On “producers” As mentioned above, the credits at the end of the documentary seemed clearly

Eliana Franco

305

to position the evangelical institution (Evangelische Omroep) as the first producer of De meisjes van Papa Adolfo. However, some elements required explanation. A more marginally credited coproducer appeared to be the Belgian humanistic circle Lichtpunt — a surprising coproduction. In a telephone conversation both institutions said they were not directly responsible for shooting and/or translating the documentary, but merely paid a third producer which, going by the credits, had to be the marginally mentioned Night & Day Productions.8 The EO’s financial involvement may have been motivated by the documentary’s theme but the EO did not impose the discursive practice on the third company. When the documentary film reached both institutions it was already in its final version, that is, it was already translated as well. Only after I contacted Night & Day Productions9 did it emerge that Martin Coenen, who was credited as the “director”, was in fact both the actual filmmaker and the man in charge of the production company that took the initiative. Martin Coenen is known in Flanders as an independent and “progressive” journalist. Thus, the hierarchy established in the credits was basically financial, not authorial: first came the two institutions which financed the production and last the one which actually produced it, all under the same heading, “production”. Lichtpunt stressed their “open attitude” toward the documentary’s interesting theme: even though it focused on a priest, they did not perceive any religious ideology in it. Although their acceptance and compliance with the translated material is certainly relevant, all the responsibility for the manipulations discussed in section 2.3. seemed to be with the filmmaker.

This leaves us with many questions. The credits proved misleading, and interpreting them at the textual level resulted in an overhasty attribution of the religious/ideological character of the final product to the evangelical institution as its main producer. But was the final product therefore not what it first seemed? Did Martin Coenen make a documentary opposed to his beliefs? Did Lichtpunt not see the conservative nature of the film? Or was the previous analysis biased by the credits? 3.2. Interviewing the “real” producer During our conversation on April 10, 1998, Martin Coenen affirmed one basic point — that there were no ideological intentions in his coproduction with EO. He spontaneously supplied data which facilitated a reconstruction of the stages through which the documentary film went before being broadcast.

8 Contact made by phone on March 19, 1998. 9 Contact made by phone on March 27, 1998.


306

The idea. The idea of the documentary film originated at an international congress about child prostitution in Stockholm in 1996, where Martin Coenen first met the Italian priest Adolfo Serripierro (“Papa Adolfo”). After a successful contact with the priest in Brazil, the latter’s collaboration was agreed upon, but the participation of the young prostitutes had to be worked out by Martin Coenen himself. Shooting time and film length. The technical staff flew to Brazil in 1997 and filmed for eight to nine days, which resulted in more than two hours of tape, later edited and reduced to a documentary of twenty-six minutes. The script. As mentioned earlier, the documentary had no script written prior to the shooting. The filming was done more or less freely and according to the material/testimonies available at the time. Although Martin Coenen had guideline questions he wanted to be asked, the interviewers were free to act spontaneously throughout the conversation with the interviewees and to pose unforeseen questions that they believed relevant. As for members of the Church being asked few or no questions and the prostitutes being asked many, Martin Coenen confirmed one point — that there was a need for more questions in the interviews with the girls due to their inexperience with the media — but rejected another point entirely — that there was a controlling/manipulating intention behind the questions. He added that he “hated questions in documentaries”. The interviewers. The interviewers were also the interpreters and the translators of this documentary. There were two of them: one interviewed Rosangela and Diana, the other Maria Helena. Both are Brazilian and live in Fortaleza, where the documentary was filmed. The contact was made with the second, whose experience with this multifunctional task had already been demonstrated in two previous documentaries about Brazil produced by Martin Coenen10, and who was also supposed to do the job for the present documentary. However, the interviewing/interpreting task was taken over throughout almost the whole programme by a friend, the first interviewer, whose professional background and experience was not known to the producer.11 The interpreting/translation process. As mentioned above, the translators also functioned as interviewers, interpreting Martin Coenen’s questions to the girls (from French into Brazilian Portuguese) and their answers back to him (from Brazilian Portuguese into French). This mediating position is viewed

10 Koning van Patrocínio (1996), about goldmining in the region of Patrocínio, and

Amazon, a touch of perfume (1995), about how the American cosmetics multinational Avon conquers the Amazon in Brazil. Both are a coproduction with EO — The Netherlands, and in the latter case, with BRTN (now VRT; Belgium-Flanders) too.

11 I was unable to obtain their phone numbers despite various efforts.

Eliana Franco

307

with some suspicion by the producer (“you can never know whether interviewers are 100% correct”). From a linguistic point of view the translation process was a complex undertaking. Not only were the interviews constantly interpreted into French for Martin Coenen, and his French questions translated for the interviewees, but the final Dutch subtitles also relied on an intermediate French version into which the Portuguese original was translated by the interviewers. And it was Martin Coenen himself who used the French texts to write the Dutch subtitles. Martin Coenen seemed completely unaware of the translational distortions.

So, on the one hand there were no ideological intentions, the priest was European for practical reasons, the interviewers were given freedom, the translators were Brazilian; on the other hand, the editing effort was considerable, the producer’s ideas about documentaries seemed important, and the location of the translational distortions needed to be sought more carefully. These facts add a layer to the analysis of the documentary translation as a discursive practice and imply a multiplication of authorship. The manipulations discussed in section 2.3. are thus not directly ascribable to what the credits textually presented as the main producer. The postproduction script — which consists of the documentary commentaries written by Martin Coenen, the Brazilian Portuguese original transcribed directly from the videotape by the interviewers/translators, and their French version from which Dutch subtitles were derived — gave access to the mediating process. A re-examination of the interpretive assumptions drawn in the analysis in 2.3. can now be made. 3.3. The postproduction script Below, the three original extracts analysed in 2.3. are reproduced again — this time in the way they appear in the postproduction script. For ease of comparison, I have added my transcription (on the left). Next are the transcriptions of the Brazilian interviewers (BR transcription)12 and the corresponding French version. Though not in the script, the Dutch subtitled version is included again on the right. The Brazilians used P for “pergunta” (question), and R for “resposta” (answer).

12 All language errors in French and Brazilian Portuguese are entirely part of the script.


308

Rosangela Extract

My transcription

BR transcription

French Translation

Dutch subtitles

Eu trabalho aqui.

R: Trabalho aqui.

1 Je travaille ici.

1 Ik werk hier.

(Você consegue quanto por dia?)

P: Quanto mulheres aqui?

2 Vous êtes combien ici?

2 Hoeveel vrouwen werken hier?

Só c’uns dez. (Isso por dia)

R: So com uns dez.

3 Juste avec plus ou moins dix.

3 We zijn hier ongeveer met z’n tienen.

R: E. 4 Oui. (Você ganha por hora...)

P: Você ganha quanto?

5 Tu gagnes combien?

5 Hoeveel verdien je ongeveer?

Por dia eu ganho... cem reais.

R: De dia eu ganho dez reais.

6 Pendant la journée je gagne dix reais.

6 Ik verdien tien real.

Dez reais... (por homem?) À noite cê vem também?

P: Dez reais? A noite?

7 Dix reais? Le soir?

7 Per avond?

Não, eu saiu cinco horas.

R: Não, eu saio cinco horas.

8 Non, je pars à dix heures.

8 Nee, ik werk maar vijf uur per dag.

Cê vai pra onde?

P: Pra ir pra onde?

9 Pour aller où?

Pra casa. R:...pra casa. E.

10...à la maison.

10 en dan ga ik naar huis.

Sua família sabe?

P: Sua familia sabe?

11 Ta famille le sait?

11 Weet je familie’t?

Sabe. R: Sabe. 12 Oui. 12 Ja.

Cê dá dinheiro pra eles?

P: Você da o dinheiro pra eles?

13 Tu leur donnes de l’argent.

13 Geef je ze geld?

Eu dô uma ajudinha.

R: Dou uma ajudinha.

14 Je les aide un peu.

14 Ik help ze’n beetje.

Comparing the translators’ transcriptions with mine, it is clear that their text presents a much less faithful and careful version. As far as manipulations are

Eliana Franco

309

concerned, some important observations have to be made. Reading the postproduction script from right to left, we find that subtitles tend to reproduce the French text almost entirely, and the French version, in turn, appears to be an almost faithful reproduction of the Portuguese transcription. The changes did not originate in the translated versions stricto sensu, but in the transcription from oral to written Portuguese.

I directed Martin Coenen’s attention especially to the distortions in (2), (5) and (7). He talked about the background street noise and the very limited conditions the translators had to work in: transcribing the original and translating it into French had to be done in a few days. It seems that what was previously interpreted as ideological translation may now be explained by a time-constrained, careless original transcription, in which translators simply tried to make some sense of the gaps caused by background noise.

Nevertheless, an explanation could not be found for the transcription of segment (6), where Rosangela clearly states that she earns a hundred reais a day (“cem”) instead of ten (“dez”). For Martin Coenen, who seemed to knew nothing about the actual details, this constituted a most worrying example.

Let us now turn to the sequences with Diana. Diana Extracts

My transcription

BR Transcription

French Translation

Dutch subtitles

Quando é que você começou sua vida na rua?

P: Quando é que você começou sua vida na rua?

1 Quand as-tu débuté ta vie dans la rue?

1 Wanneer ben je op straat begonnen?

Treze anos... treze anos.

R: Treze anos. 2 J’avais treize ans.

2 Op m’n dertiende.

Você tinha treze anos.

P: Você tinha treze anos.

3 Tu avais treize ans?

3 Op je dertiende?

E o que é que cê fez?

Como é que você fez?

Comment tu as fait?

Hoe ging dat dan?

Como é que a coisa aconteceu?

Como é que a coisa aconteceu?

Comment c’est passé?

Como assim? R: Como assim?

4 Comment ça? 4 Hoe bedoelt u?

É..você foi à praça...alguém lhe levô...

P: Você foi na praça, alguém lhe levou?

5 Ça a été dans la place? Quel-qu’un t’a amené?

5 Heeft iemand je toen meegenomen?


310

My transcription

BR Transcription

French Translation

Dutch subtitles

Minha mãe também andava lá aí foi aí muito tempo ah ah a minha mãe sustentava a gente de lá eu e meus quatro irmãos. Só que ela pegou... morreu... ela morreu de aids. (Quê que foi?) DE AIDS ELA MORREU DE AIDS

Minha mäe também andava la muito tempo. Minha mäe sustentava a gente de la, eu e mais quatro irmäos. So que ela pegou e morreu. Morreu, ela morreu de AIDS... O que é que foi? De AIDS, ela morreu de AIDS.

1 Ma mère fréquentait aussi la place, pendant longtemps. C’était comme ça qu’elle nous a élevés, moi et mes quatre frères et soeurs. Mais elle est morte du SIDA. C’était comment encore? Du SIDA, elle est morte du SIDA.

M’n moeder werkte ook op ’t plein. Zo heeft ze ons vijven grootgebracht. Maar ze is gestorven aan aids. Of hoe noem je dat? Aan aids, ja. Ze is gestorven aan aids.

Again, the French text cannot be said to occupy a key position in the condensation strategies that subtitling requires; and again, the Dutch version clearly attempts to adhere to the text which served as its source — the French version. The most controversial point was the translation of “Quê que foi?” (What’s up?) into “Of hoe noem je dat?” (Or how do you call it?) in fragment (2). In the previous analysis, Diana’s spontaneous reaction was interpreted as a reaction to the interviewer’s external intervention. Martin Coenen sees other explanations and completely rejects any hypothesis related to a possible controlling interruption by the interviewer. Diana was inexperienced as an interviewee and the conditions in which the interview was carried out were difficult: her interview was the longest; there were many people in her house, sometimes creating background noise and distractions from the conversation. Thus, Diana’s reaction might have been a response to something that happened outside the interview context, and the restatement about her mother’s death of Aids which follows Diana’s reaction might simply mean her re-introduction into the interview.

Eliana Franco

311

Maria Helena Extract

My transcription

BR Transcription

French Translation

Dutch subtitles

E por quê que você tinha que fazê heim Maria Helena, explica um pouco a história.

P: E por que você tinha que fazer, Maria Helena? Explica um pouco a história.

1 Et pourquoi est-ce que tu devais le faire, Maria Helena? Explique un peu l’histoire.

1 Leg dan’s uit waarom je’t deed.

Pra mim... comprá minhas coisa... comê... dava pra mãe.

R: As coisas,... dava pra mäe.

2 Pour acheter des choses... je le donnais à ma mère.

2 Om dingen te kunnen kopen. Voor m’n moeder.

O quê que você comprava pra tua mãe?

P: O que é que você comprava pra tua mäe?

3 Qu’est-ce que tu achetais pour ta mère?

3 Wat kocht je dan voor je moeder?

As coisa... comida...

R: As coisas, comida.

4 Des choses, de la nourriture.

4 Van alles. Eten.

E o seu padrasto num trabalha Maria Helena? DIGA isso DIGA que o seu padrasto não trabalha. Ãh?

P: E o seu padrasto, näo trabalha, MH?

5 Ton père ne travaille pas?

5 En je vader werkt niet?

Não trabalha não.

R: Näo. 6 Non. 6 Nee, die werkt niet.

E sua mãe trabalha?

P: E a sua mäe, também näo trabalha?

7 Et ta mère, elle ne travaille non plus?

7 En je moeder werkt ook niet?

Também não. R: Näo. 8 Non. 8 Nee. Once again we see how closely the Dutch subtitled version sticks to the French source text, except for segment (1), whose condensation is justified by the subtitling rule of leaving out redundant material . All the assumed instances of manipulation by the Dutch translator appear to be related to the Brazilian


312

translator’s transcription of the Portuguese original, which reads more like a simplification of its audiovisual source. In (2), for example, the Portuguese transcription hides the fact that Maria Helena also wanted the money for her own needs and not just for her mother’s; and Maria Helena’s negative response to enquiries about her mother’s professional life is further grammatically emphasized in the transcription (7). The instance of a clear attempt to instruct the interviewee discussed in the previous analysis (“DIGA isso DIGA que o seu padrasto não trabalha”) left no traces in the Portuguese transcription. Concerning the ideological translation of the Portuguese “padrasto” (stepfather) into the Dutch “vader” (father) in (5), it appears from the extracts that this was a feature of the mediating translation. An explanation for this procedure based on a preoccupation by the translators with the number of characters on screen will not suffice. In view of the mistakes in some parts of the French version, it is possible that the translator simply did not know the French term for “padrasto”. Finally, as far as the ideological load of “absences in the text” is concerned, Martin Coenen claims that an interview with a girl’s parents would require more time and research since in most cases they did not live together — although this was not true of Maria Helena. Interviews with tourists, in turn, would always be a difficult task, as they would rarely be willing to be identified. He added that he made documentary films to show the audience the stories he found interesting, and that concentrating on the girls’ stories was just a reflection of that. Now, should we take Coenen’s discourse at face value? When a university researcher who knows about Brazil and Brazilian Portuguese is accusing him of ideological manipulation, what else should he do than defend himself by claiming neutrality? Why should we believe him? Or why should we not consider motivations of which he was not aware? 4. Final remarks In line with Discourse Analysis one may suggest that a documentary film, like any other representation, discusses its theme from a certain perspective. But would this necessarily constitute an ideological practice? Or, as Gadamer puts it,

Is all human activity ideologically motivated? When is something “ideology” rather than just “culture”? [...] Can we invoke the notion of ideology to explain what is only our “life world”, our concrete human situation? (quoted in Peter Fawcett 1998: 106)

Although the perspectivist nature of representations cannot be ignored, it

Eliana Franco

313

seems that the ideological interpretation of linguistic/discursive representations is not a straightforward activity. It is not possible to unearth or deconstruct meanings through purely textual analyses alone. The second part of this paper proved how indispensable it is for accurate Discourse Analysis to take into account all social agents and steps of the collective production process. Although Fairclough acknowledges this need, he seldom puts it into practice. As for translated discourse, some methodological models in translation studies tend to undervalue the difficulties of fieldwork. An interpretative comparison that remained internal to the final product led to a false picture if not of manipulative behaviour, then at least of the real actors involved in the game. In the present case, fieldwork taught us that the subtitler did adhere to adequacy norms — probably because “he is not in a position to challenge the image of the unknown as constructed by the [original] translator” (Hermans 1996: 10). If one thing is still to be discovered now, it is “which side the translator is on” (Hermans 1996: 10). But now, at least, we know where to look for the translator. Finally, since the Brazilian transcribers knew they were working for a European producer, why should they not have constructed meaning in accordance with what they perceived the required ideology to be (i.e. what they thought the European wanted to know)? It is here that Brazilian perceptions of European intellectuals or evangelical interests might be playing a role. In short, the insights of Discourse Analysis must also be applied to more hidden social dynamics. References 1. Texts EO TV, Lichtpunt, Night & Day Productions 1997 De meisjes van Papa Adolfo, The Netherlands / Belgium: NED2. 2. Studies Allen, Robert C. 1992 “Audience-oriented Criticism and Television”, in Robert C.

Allen (Ed.), Channels of Discourse Reassembled, London: Routledge.

Baker, Mona (Ed.) 1998 Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, London / New

York: Routledge.


314

Bell, Elaine 1986 “The Origins of British Television-Documentary: The BBC

1946-1955”, in John Corner (Ed.), pp.65-80. Chaney, David and Michael Pickering 1986 “Authorship in Documentary: Sociology as an Art Form in Mass

Observation”, in John Corner (Ed.), pp.29-44. Cohen, Akiba A. 1987 The Television News Interview, Beverly Hills: Sage. Corner, John (Ed.) 1986 Documentary and the Mass Media, London: Edward Arnold. Corner, J., J. Richardson and N. Fenton 1990 Nuclear Reactions: Form and Response in Public Issue

Television, London: John Libbey. De Greef, Willem and Willem Hesling (Eds.) 1989 Image - Reality - Spectator. Essays on Documentary Film and

Television, Leuven / Amersfoort: Acco. Eguíluz, F., Merino, R., Olsen, V., Pajares, E. and J. M. Santamaría (Eds.) 1994 Transvases culturales: Literatura, Cine, Traducción. Pro-

ceedings of the Symposium, Vitoria-Gasteiz: Universidad del País Vasco.

Even-Zohar, Itamar and Gideon Toury (Eds.) 1981 Theory of Translation and Intercultural Relations, special issue

of Poetics Today 2:4. Fairclough, Norman 1992 Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity Press. 1995 Media Discourse, London / New York: Edward Arnold. Fawcett, Peter 1998 “Ideology and Translation”, in Mona Baker (Ed.), pp.106-111. Franco, Eliana 1998 “An Empirical Look at a (False) Believe in Audiovisual

Translation”, Cadernos de Tradução III, pp.289-312.

Eliana Franco

315

Gambier, Yves (Ed.) 1997 Language Transfer and Audiovisual Communication. A

Bibliography, Turku: Maria Käld. Gambier, Yves and Eija Suomela-Salmi 1994 “Subtitling: A Type of Transfer”, in F. Eguíluz et al. (Eds.),

pp.243-252. Hatim, Basil 1998 “Discourse Analysis and Translation”, in Mona Baker (Ed.),

pp.67-71. Hermans, Theo 1996 “Norms and the Determination of Translation: A Theoretical

Framework”, in Román Álvarez and Carmen-África Vidal (Eds.), Translation, Power, Subversion, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Ivarsson, Jan 1992 Subtitling for the Media. A Handbook of an Art, Stockholm:

Transedit. Jost, François 1989 “Documentary: Narratological Approaches”, in Willem De Greef

and Willem Hesling (Eds.), pp.77-90. Lambert, José and Hendrik Van Gorp 1985 “On Describing Translations”, in Theo Hermans (Ed.), The

Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation, London / Sydney: Croom Helm, pp.42- 53.

Lambert, José 1994 “Ethnolinguistic Democracy, Translation Policy and

Contemporary World Order/(Dis)order”, in F. Eguíluz et al. (Eds.), pp.23-36.

Luyken, Georg-Michael and Thomas Herbst 1991 Overcoming Language Barriers in Television. Dubbing and

Subtitling for the European Audience, Manchester: The European Institute for the Media.

Macherey, Pierre 1966 Pour une théorie de la production littéraire, Paris: Maspero.


316

Morley, David 1983 “Cultural Transformations: the Politics of Resistance”, in

Howard Davis and Paul Walton (Eds.), Language, Image, Media, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp.105-117.

Odin, Roger 1989 “A Semio-Pragmatic Approach of the Documentary Film”, in

Willem De Greef and Willem Hesling (Eds.), pp.91-100. Pönniö, Kaarina 1995 “Voice-over, narration et commentaire”, in Yves Gambier (Ed.),

Communication audiovisuelle et transferts linguistiques. Audiovisual Communication and Language Transfers, International Forum, Strasbourg, 22-24 June 1995, special issue of Translatio (FIT Newsletter / Nouvelles de la FIT) 14:3-4, pp.303-307.

Reisz, Karel and Gavin Millar 1968 The Technique of Film Editing, New York: Hastings House. Remael, Aline 1995-1996 “From the BBC’s ‘Voices from the Island’ to the BRTN’s ‘De

President van Robbeneiland’. A Case Study in TV Translation”, Linguistica Antverpiensia XXIX-XXX, pp.107-128.

Shohat, Ella and Robert Stam 1994 Unthinking Eurocentrism - Multiculturalism and the Media,

London / New York: Routledge. Silverstone, Roger 1986 “The Agonistic Narratives of Television”, in John Corner (Ed.),

pp.81-105. Toury, Gideon 1980 In Search of a Theory of Translation, Tel Aviv: The Porter

Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. 1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam:

Benjamins.

eliana p.c. franco - arts.kuleuven.be · discourse or coincidence? a case of documentary...

Documents