Buscador de Personas - SIGEVA - Universidad Nacional de Córdoba

“I thought I’d lost you / What are you talking about? / It’s just something Gandalf said. / What did he say? / ‘Don’t you lose him, Samwise Gamgee’.” In Peter Jackson’s film, such are the words exchanged by Frodo and Sam right before the irruption of the Orcs, in Minas Moria. A large part of the dialogues in the first volume of the trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring, by J. R. R. Tolkien, is made up of repetitions of previous instances of speech. One of Tolkien’s schemes for weaving through different moments of the story consists in having characters repeat words from relevant previous tracts of conversation, thus recreating processes of memory storage in a quasi illiterate society, as well as reproducing an extensive bulk of proverbs and folk songs. In the film, the dialogue stated above occurs only once inside Minas Moria, a place different from those in which these words appear in the novel. This is but one of the changes introduced by Jackson and, required or not by filmic economy, it can be set as an example of the sort of variations Tolkien’s works have gone through in their filmic transmutation. All along these pages, several tasks will be handled, including some research on the location of Tolkien’s writings in his context of production; an insight on the Professor’s aims through his works; and last but not least, a discussion of Jackson’s filmic achievements, and of the ‘degree’ to which his filmic version has been able to ‘reproduce’ the novel. A contrastive exercise will be here undertaken between the novel The Fellowship of the Ring and the film “La Hermandad del Anillo”, adapted and directed by Jackson. Framed in ‘Translation Studies’, this word is devoted to studying the extent to which Tolkien’s novel under filmic format can be considered a product of intersemiotic translation.
Part One comprises four sections, in which several definitions of such terms as ‘translation’, ‘version’, ‘adaptation’, and ‘interpretation’ are tried. In Part Two, a contrastive exercise is embarked on with a view to proving that the film script, based on one of the trilogy volumes, is a paraphrastic version -i.e.: an intralingual reformulation- under the guise of filmic requirements, not to mention the author’s decisions on the film, as influences externally affecting the product. The requirements for the ‘conversion’, or ‘transmutation’ of a literary piece into a filmic composition will be herein analysed, in an attempt to trace all that appears to be specific to each of these forms, on the basis of exegetic strategies, in the case of the novel, and of diegetic strategies, when confronting novel and film.
The present object of study will be described from a hybrid position combining the standpoint of Studies on translation -intersemiotic in nature, as is the case with the novel ‘writing’, ‘rewriting’, or ‘conversion’ into filmic format-, and that of Studies of Translation -interlingual and intralingual in nature, as it is shown in the paraphrastic process the novel is put through, to make it fit into filmic format. After presenting different theoretical and reading perspectives, a comparative work will start to take shape, setting novel and film face to face in a crossroad of exegetic and diegetic outlooks, including explanatory tables with Christian Metz’ and Gilles Deleuze’ approaches to the study of films. Clearly enough, such confrontation will only contribute to the uprising of both answers and reformulated questions.

enviar mensaje