Hello All!
I wanted to take this opportunity to go off of a questions that I brought up under another post. I questioned whether the age of the original work was correlated with amount of artistic licenses available to the translator. For example older original works like Shakespeare and even religious texts, seem to lead to many translations varying in their maintenance of the original work. We probably have all seen The Lion King, which is the Disney, cartoon version of Hamlet. Though the themes and characters may be similar, the overall stories, settings, etc. are vastly different. On the other hand you have original works that were created much more recently, like the Harry Potter series; it seems to me that these books had a much more restricted range of interpretations that were deemed acceptable.
So my questions on this subject are
1. Do you think there is a distinction between the artistic license taken for works of different ages? What examples do you have to support your opinion?
2. If you think there is a difference or have seen differences, why do imagine those differences exist? (this question is a bit like trying to get into the heads of the translators, but sometimes that can be were we discover the coolest stuff!)
If you would prefer to discuss something else that is still related to the topic
3. What do you think qualifies as a translation of the original? Example: Is Lion King not a true translation of Hamlet? Why or why not?
14 comments:
When it comes to translating works, I think that the time period plays a huge role in how things get adapted. Especially when it comes to books being translated as movies. I'm going to stick with your Shakespeare example. His plays were written some 400 years ago. This alone makes the Shakespearean style not very mainstream. Plenty of movie versions of Shakespearean plays have been made using the traditional, Elizabethan style. I've seen them, as I sure most people have, in high school English classes.
The plot line as well as the lessons learned in them, can still be entertaining and relevant in today's society. This is why I believe that filmmakers have the initiative to take these same stories and "modernize" them. It makes the stories more appealing to a wider range of people. A great example of this is Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet (the one with Leo!). The dialogue and plot line are still the same as Shakespeare's original, Baz just changed the setting to something that today's audience would be more familiar with and probably enjoy more. I''m sure that this is a version that many of us have watched outside of the classroom; I know I have.
I guess in summary I'm trying to say that the more recent a story is (say Harry Potter), the less changes need to be made it to during translation because it is already modern enough that the majority of the population will enjoy it.
First off, I never recognized The Lion King as a version of Hamlet! But now that it’s been mentioned, I kind of get it!
Yes, I do think there is a correlation between the age of a work and how it is translated. I agree with Kami; I think directors/translators change older stories (like Shakespearean works) into more modern settings to reach a wider audience. Hearing “Shakespeare’s (insert name of play here)” as a movie definitely reminds me of high school English classes, and I think it turns a lot of people off. However, the messages and plot lines in those plays are still relevant to modern times, so I think recycling them into a modern setting is fine.
I also think our mental images that we place on different print works influence how we feel about them once they’ve been translated into movies. Reading Shakespeare, I never really had a solid image of characters or setting in my mind. Reading Harry Potter however, I had a very distinct set of characters and settings “designed” in my mind, so seeing the movies and how they differed so much from my mental images made me criticize the movies and the director’s choice of casting and translating overall. Older works might be more distant to people, so directors and translators feel like they can flex their creativity a little more in order to create their own “original” works. (Though I don’t think this method applies to all ‘older’ works.)
The example that came to mind was that of the fairy tales of the brothers Grimm, including Snow white, Little Red Riding hood, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella and on and on. Though we may know many of them now by the disney movies of the same name, the original versions can be incredibly different and significantly more grim. They were collected by the Grimm brothers and translated into a several volume collection of folk tales and it is hard to know whether the Grimm brothers took liberties with the original, oral accounts of the tales and the modern day adaptations are quite different from those of the Grimm's.
In this example, i think the motivation for changing either minor details or significant plot lines is to suite the sensibilities of the modern audience. These are children's stories in an age where parents try to protect and shelter their children from everything and anything unpleasant(in many cases, not in all). We prefer the happy ending where the princess marries the prince, not the version where she suffers the pain of unrequited love and throws herself into the sea and turns to foam( The little Mermaid, not Grimm, but the same idea applies). Times change and stories must change along with them in order to remain relevant and adored by the public. I personally think it is fascinating to research the evolution of a specific story over the course of it's multi generational life.
When translating one peice of work to another, it isn't just the time period of the original work that calls into question the amount of liberties an adapter may take.
Take for example Harry Potter. J.K.Rowling is still very much alive and can be questioned as to her views and thoughts on the portrayl of differenct aspects of the characters or settings in her books. I'm also pretty sure that she owns most of the rights to any and all things concerning her books, characters, etc.
Shakespeare's works on the other hand are most likely public property which means the translator could essentially do with them what they wish. For instance the movie "She's the Man" is based, albet loosely, on Shakespeare's Twelfth Night, other interpretations of his works include "Gnomeo and Juliet" "West Side Story" and "Romeo Must Die" from his Romeo and Juliet, "10 Things I Hate About You" from his the Taming of the Shrew, "Get Over It" from his A Midsummer Nights Dream.
His works are widely known and therefore are recognizable to a wide public, as well as being wonderfully written pieces of literature.
I think translations/adaptation are necessary to an extent. As human culture and beliefs evolve so must our stories. Haven't you ever noticed that stories change in the telling? Each of us tells stories on a daily bases, but who we tell them too dictates what details we include or embelish, and which we don't mention at all. It's the same with literature. Shakespeare's works just so happen to be easily and lovingly adaptable so various interpretations of his works are far more common.
I think that a translation of the original can be anything that is taken from an original work and turned into something else. Whether it is good or not is where the questions come into play. In the case of the lion king and hamlet, of course it's not an exact translation because it has been adapted to fit the characteristics of a disney movie. The essential story line was kept but the lion king is very different from Shakespeare's hamlet.
The story of the lion king is not an exact depiction of hamlet but it does have many elements that are in correlation with the story of hamlet. The main element is the idea that the kings brother kills the king so that he can become king. This happens in lion king and simba leaves but then returns to face his uncle and claim his rightful place as king. The lion king is the happier version of hamlet...everyone doesn't die at the end of the lion king.
Many original works get translated and the way they are adapted has to do with who is doing it and what audience they are trying to target.
I think this is a very interesting question especially when we consider different genres, not just books to movies.
In the case of many of these examples, I agree with Lyndsey. A lot of recent works are not as heavily changed in adaptation because the owners and makers of the original works still own the rights. In some cases, after the maker dies, the family has the right to sell or not. One example I can think of is anything to do with Jim Henson. Several people have tried to write biographies of his life, but his family didn't like the books, so they were never published.
One area that I think has more translations of modern work is music. I recently heard a cd of Tool's music adapted into a string quartet. On the radio I often here remakes of old songs. It's interesting to think how these questions have different answers depending on the art form.
Though I think it's true that whether or not the original author of the work is still alive, in the case of non visual works, it still may not live up to the audiences expectations. The more striking an imprint the images the reader made in their own mind influences how they feel about someone else's rendition. Most of us, for example, are first introduced to the work of shakespeare visually, at fairly young ages. So when we finally read it, we don't have our own visual's already matched with it.
After reading your comments, particularly hjm and Lyndsey's, I cannot believe that I forgot to take liberties into account. Whether changes get made to a story depends a lot on whether or not the author/creator (or people close to that person) are alive to voice their opinion about things. I'm sure a lot of suggested changes are vetoed.
One counter to this that I can think of, is with The Social Network. Now I have not seen the movie, but I have heard that there was a lot of unhappiness from the Mark Zuckerberg camp about how much of the movie was actually true. Mark may have had the opportunity to voice his opinions about what went into the movie (seeing how he's still alive), but I assume that the The Social Network team did not want to do that. What resulted was a movie that many people saw and that garnered lots of acclaim, but may not be completely factual.
A translation is the "rendering of something into a different language." In our case, its the translating from one art form into another, and going off what Ife said anything taken from an original work can be a translation. Each person, with knowledge of the original work, makes up his/her mind on whether the translation is good or not.
The way I see it, if the story line or plot is the same or very similar, then I believe it does qualify as a translation of the original work.
Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet is extremely susceptible to changes during translation. Maybe because everybody has already read or watched the original Romeo & Juliet, we feel like it's okay to mix it up a little, and play the what if game.
Just about anybody can point out the Romeo & Juliet theme if it happens to pop out. So, pretty much what I'm trying to say is that if the original work can be recognized from the translation or if the creator believes it is a true translation, then it is. Everyone has their own view points.
This whole true translation idea brought up an interesting concept. Growing up I did a lot of English translating for my parents, and of course being small and just learning English myself, I didn't know a lot of the words, so I did a lot of paraphrasing. Now it wasn't a word by word translation, but I was able to help them understand the other person. Translating from one art form to the other seems to be the same. Movie directors translate novels and plays into movies to allow others to appreciate it in a different manner. However, because we already appreciate it one way, it's hard for us to readjust into liking it a different way.
I agree with Lyndsey that adaptations of more modern works also has a lot to do with whether or not the original author is still living and who has the rights to the story. As hjm pointed out with the Jim Henson biographies and Kami pointed out with the social network, having people around, alive and capable of enforcing their opinions about what change can be made makes it less likely that there will be drastic deviations from the original works. It is harder to fly off into the realm of strange interpretations when there are people to stop you.
The current popularity of a work is also likely to influence how closely the adaptation will follow the original. Irritable or flat out angry fans can be scary (they need to like it so that the adaptation makes money). A certain amount of consideration regarding the audience must go on. People have certain expectations that must be met for an adaptation to be a success. You need an audience.
In terms of artistic license when it comes to different time periods, I definitely see a correlation. I don’t know exactly when the “break” from fact begins and the implementation of distortion comes into play, but when it comes to “older” works, distortion is rampant. I believe that these breaks from the original either are based on wanting a younger generation to relate to the material or to make it more suitable for the audience. One story that comes to mind is Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Little Mermaid.” The tale by Andersen is more gruesome and ends in the young mermaid’s suicide. So much of this story has been changed in order to appeal to a more sensitive, politically correct society. Another example is Shakespeare’s “Taming of the Shrew” into what is today’s “10 Things I Hate About You.” Just recently, the old Disney program “The Sorcerer's Apprentice” was adapted into a newer and more modern version. Still, the older generation can appreciate the original work while the younger generation can enjoy the special effects of the newer one.
In terms of “younger” works NOT being distorted, I believe that’s due to relativity. In the example of Harry Potter, I believe that not only would J.K. Rowling be upset if Hollywood were to take her book’s name and create a completely different story but also the audience. We pride ourselves in being able to read the book and notice differences in the movie. Differences can either make or break a movie… In more cases than not, differences can make the movie less enjoyable. One example of this is “The Last Airbender.” Yes, the Avatar was the “Last Airbender,” but that name isn’t what the cartoon series is actually named. Slight things like a name change can draw fans away. In the movie, names were pronounced differently, which took a LONG time to get used to.
I agree with Kami in that the more recent works are already modern enough. It’s the poor, older works that are constantly tweaked and changed.
I think that there is a difference in artistic licensing for different ages. For example, with Shakespeare there are many different types of translations for his works. With recent works such as Harry Potter, we only have a limited translation that are more restrained. I believe that the reason for this is because with older pieces, we do not have anyone who was there during the time that it was made to interpret the piece in a restrained matter. As far as Harry Potter, we have J.K. Rowling as a direct resource. So essentially, directors, writers, etc have to follow her guidelines for the interpretations. With Shakespeare, Sophocles, etc, we have more freedom to work with translations because no one was there to see what the interpretations should be like. In older pieces, people have the ability to change the works because they have no restraint. With newer writings, we must follow according to the piece for the most part because the writer is still alive and well. (if that makes sense).
Translation of course plays a role with when and the technology available. As far as the lion king being a translation of hamlet that wouldn't have been possible without animation and television. Cultures will translate works according the the resources available, which in the most basic form is oral story telling, as well as what media form is valued. In our society we think of film and the television and don't put so much importance on plays as they did in Shakespeare's time period. And yet other cultures translate media into art...sculptures, paintings, drawing, collages, a variety of forms that appeal to the senses and can tell a story with no words. This form I think is extremely powerful.
Post a Comment