Page 29 - Translation Journal July 2015
P. 29
Cinematic text and translation: film adaptations and follow-ups
By: Inga Milevica
A feature film is one of the most respected consumer visual texts of modern man, and representatives of the cinema art and the film
industry are the most outstanding representatives of the reference groups occupying an important place in the world building (cf.
metaphorical transfer of nominations of antique and Christian mythology into modern cinema world: celestials, Olympus, pantheon,
goddess, deity, idol, icon, pray, worship, etc.).
Cinema is undoubtedly the quintessence of the modern mass culture main features. Features (even functions) of the modern mass
culture are largely seen alone in the names of mass culture theories (an overview of the main theories is presented, e.g., in the works
of A.R. Karoyan): Magic bullet theory; Hypodermic needle theory; Accumulation theory; Two-step flow theory; Diffusion of innovation
theory; Cultivation media effects theory; Gatekeeping theory; Unintentional news distortion theory; Agenda-setting theory; Uses and
gratification theory;Dependency theory.
The film world features constitute separate films, which, in turn, in a separate, isolated form also represent a particular world – both film
critic and theorist, and the mass consumer repeat this idea. A language of this unique world is also specific – it is often used the ‘visual
language’ notation. A concept of visual language is not so metaphorical: it is the language with its grammar (e.g., adunation of film
characters into narrative), vocabulary and semantics (e.g., the meaning and use of characters for an idea, symbol, and concept).
The American cinema, often reducible to designate Hollywood becomes a centripetal (“let’s make real Hollywood films”) and
simultaneously a centrifugal forces (“let’s make it different from Hollywood”) of the modern world of mass culture. Historically, film-
making always characterises by significant financial investment, and it is not surprising that its making – in contrast to , e.g., literature
or art – determines the political and economic system, in other words, the art of cinema inevitably enters into a relationship with money
and power, and the emergence and dissemination of successful film expression is more than natural. American cinematic texts (wider
– cinematic discourse, or even wider – cinematic communication) are a means of understanding the cinema relationship and features,
in particular, the border between the American (it is not often and always correctly synonymous with concepts of mass, commercial,
actor) and European cinema (equally as often and wrongly equated to independent, intellectual, director’s cinema). The American
cinema cannot reflect the characteristics of American culture that have a certain specificity.
The American cinema structured according to certain laws, reflecting the particularities of the film world in general: it has ambiguity and
understatement, its uniqueness and ways of typing, metaphorical and associative mechanisms, this is a historically conditioned unity of
rational and emotional, real and unreal, aesthetic and commercial, realised, in particular, in successful strategies.
American cinematic texts, secondary in relation to a previous piece of work – remakes, sequels, adaptations – often under attack
from the audience (“can’t can come up with anything new, just want to make money”). Although the causes of the secondarity in
the cinema, apart from the obvious commercial, are great many: precedent, mythologicality, versatility and thus recognisability of the
plot. It should also be stated that cinematic text secondarity could often be linked with the question of the versatility of artistic works
Translation Journal - July 2015 | 29
By: Inga Milevica
A feature film is one of the most respected consumer visual texts of modern man, and representatives of the cinema art and the film
industry are the most outstanding representatives of the reference groups occupying an important place in the world building (cf.
metaphorical transfer of nominations of antique and Christian mythology into modern cinema world: celestials, Olympus, pantheon,
goddess, deity, idol, icon, pray, worship, etc.).
Cinema is undoubtedly the quintessence of the modern mass culture main features. Features (even functions) of the modern mass
culture are largely seen alone in the names of mass culture theories (an overview of the main theories is presented, e.g., in the works
of A.R. Karoyan): Magic bullet theory; Hypodermic needle theory; Accumulation theory; Two-step flow theory; Diffusion of innovation
theory; Cultivation media effects theory; Gatekeeping theory; Unintentional news distortion theory; Agenda-setting theory; Uses and
gratification theory;Dependency theory.
The film world features constitute separate films, which, in turn, in a separate, isolated form also represent a particular world – both film
critic and theorist, and the mass consumer repeat this idea. A language of this unique world is also specific – it is often used the ‘visual
language’ notation. A concept of visual language is not so metaphorical: it is the language with its grammar (e.g., adunation of film
characters into narrative), vocabulary and semantics (e.g., the meaning and use of characters for an idea, symbol, and concept).
The American cinema, often reducible to designate Hollywood becomes a centripetal (“let’s make real Hollywood films”) and
simultaneously a centrifugal forces (“let’s make it different from Hollywood”) of the modern world of mass culture. Historically, film-
making always characterises by significant financial investment, and it is not surprising that its making – in contrast to , e.g., literature
or art – determines the political and economic system, in other words, the art of cinema inevitably enters into a relationship with money
and power, and the emergence and dissemination of successful film expression is more than natural. American cinematic texts (wider
– cinematic discourse, or even wider – cinematic communication) are a means of understanding the cinema relationship and features,
in particular, the border between the American (it is not often and always correctly synonymous with concepts of mass, commercial,
actor) and European cinema (equally as often and wrongly equated to independent, intellectual, director’s cinema). The American
cinema cannot reflect the characteristics of American culture that have a certain specificity.
The American cinema structured according to certain laws, reflecting the particularities of the film world in general: it has ambiguity and
understatement, its uniqueness and ways of typing, metaphorical and associative mechanisms, this is a historically conditioned unity of
rational and emotional, real and unreal, aesthetic and commercial, realised, in particular, in successful strategies.
American cinematic texts, secondary in relation to a previous piece of work – remakes, sequels, adaptations – often under attack
from the audience (“can’t can come up with anything new, just want to make money”). Although the causes of the secondarity in
the cinema, apart from the obvious commercial, are great many: precedent, mythologicality, versatility and thus recognisability of the
plot. It should also be stated that cinematic text secondarity could often be linked with the question of the versatility of artistic works
Translation Journal - July 2015 | 29
