世界名著英文原版

Inadaptation.Trulyanadaptation?

FloresNogueiraDiniz

Filmadaptation:stateoftheart

Theprocessofadaptationhasbeenseenasunidirection–goingalwaysfrom

literarytexttofilm–withpriorityfortheformerattheexpenseofthelatter.

Consequently,thestudyofadaptationtendedtoconcentrateonthecomparison

betweentwotypesoftextandthemeasureofsuccessattainedtransferringfromone

theother.Insummary,theconcernofcriticshasbeentoverifythefaithfulnessof

filmcomparedtotheworkoffiction,thatiftis,hefilmmanagestocaptureallthe

elementsofthenarrative:plot,characters,etc.

Thefirstserioustheoreticalworkonadaptationappearedin1957.George

Bluestonedefendedthepossibilityofthemetamorphosisofnovelsintoothermeans,

eachwiththeirnarrativeresources.StudiessuchasthoseofGeoffreyWagnerand

DudleyAndrewfollowed,bothadoptingthecriterionoffaithfulness.Theformer

classifiedadaptationsaccordingtohowclosetheyweretotheliterarytext,

consideringthosewhichwereclosestastranspositions,thosewhichwerenotsoclos

ascommentariesandthosewhichusedtheoriginalonlyasaclueasallegories.

DudleyAndrewclassifiedtheminawaymoreorlessparalleltoWagner’s

terminology,asloans,intersectionsandtransformations,respectively.Asawhole,

theprocesswasseenasatranslation–anintersemiotictranslation–insofarasitwas

meanttotransmitamessage/story/idea,conceivedinagiven–litersystemature–in

termsofanothersignsystem–thecinema.Theanalysisofadaptationconcentratedon

seekingequivalencies,thatis,inthesuccessofthefilmmakerfindingfilmicmeans

substitutetheliterary.Therefore,theybegantolookforfilmicresourceswhich

functionsparalleltothoseoftheliterarywork.However,thishelditsprivileged

position,thetouchstonetoevaluatethefilm.Theyalwayssoughttofind“What

NovelsCandothatFilmsCan’tand-vervicesa”.

Variousapproachesfollowed,allofthemcomparingbothtextsandconsidering

thefaithfulnessofthefilmictexttotheliterarytext.TheoristslikeSeymourCha

KeithCohenandStuartMcDougalmaintainedthebeliefintheinterrelationship

betweencinemaandliteratureandproposedseveralstudiesaboutadaptation,always

seekingtoanalysetheequivalentelementsinbothtextsandprioritising.therefore

criterionoffaithfulness.KeithCohenwasconcernedwithwhathecalledthe

“dynamicsofexchange”,thatis,theoftendencynovelstodevelopcinematographic

resourcesandvice-versa.SeymourChatmanbasedhimselfonBarthes’studieson

narrativetostudythewayinwhichfilmmakersmanagetotransfernarrativefunction

tothecinema.McDougalanalysesthewayinwhichelementsofthenarrative(plot,

characters,pointofview,structure,time,atmosphere,ainnerndoththoughters)are

transferredtothecinema.Inaway,allofthemconsideredfilmadaptationasak

translationandprioritisedthecriterionoffaithfulness.

Becausemostofthescholarsofadaptationweretrainedinliterarycriticism,

criticalreceptionoffilmadaptationswas“plaguedwiththeurgetoaskhowfaith

thefilmversionistotheoriginal”.Recently,criticsfromcinemabegantotakethe

relationbetweenthetwomeansmoreseriously.Thentherewasachangeinthefocus

ofstudiesaboutadaptation,whichnowemphasisesfilmicelements,usingcomparison

toenrichtheevaluationofthefilmandnottheopposite.Criticismisbasedon“

kindofadaptationthefilmproposestobe”andnotnthesuppositionthatereis

onlyonewaytoadaptaliterarywork.Threepeoplestando