[automatically translated] The adaptation talks incessantly revolve around a series of stainless clichés: the extreme poles of the fantastic illusions disappointed readers and programmatic indifference of diehard cinephiles. The theory should oppose tenaciously to common sense but is bogged down in jargon and nell'autoreferenzialità: scholars are read together, are positioned and reposition, modify and update their taxonomic grids - almost always triadic - committed to endlessly redefine continuum ranging from faithfulness originality. Adaptations to individual demand only the kindness to sit down in the relevant compartments. And never mind if all this serves only to direct. But their terminology almost always reflects the same concern: the obsession of translatability. Formalizing fiercely a nucleus that comes from a false premise: that the fit is not a translation, it's an interpretation. Or, rather, it is not only interpretation but certainly it implies. Of all the misconceptions that is the most dangerous, because it does not have the excuse of naivety. Throughout the grueling debate on loyalty, even in its most recent reworkings, it is least where you just recognize the fallacy of the premise. If it is legitimate to judge a translation by the standard of fidelity, it is totally irrelevant when you recognize the adaptation as something new, a rewriting of a text, its continuation, a change therein. If the translation seeks shelter in comfortable territory of the similarity, adaptation - a good fit - must go further, daring on diversity grounds. From a text means to leave, travel, cross a border to land elsewhere. And sometimes, as called Truffaut, do "something else, better."
|Number of pages||7|
|Volume||1, n. 1 (Maggio/May 2011)|
|Publication status||Published - 2011|