some thoughts on translating/interpreting/life/films and their relations

So. The other day in one of my [masters] classes on "text and discourse," the professor was explaining her research project (doctoral, I presume) about analyzing film transcriptions and comparing the conversations with actual, real-time speech patterns. This is done using a huge "corpus" of recorded speech (then transcribed) and comparing word patterns, spacers, pauses, etc. to see how "realistic" these screen interactions actually are. And then there are arguments about different inter-semiotic translations/adaptations (i.e. book to film script, film script to what actually is said in films, film to subtitles or dubbing, etc.). Some researchers say that film conversation is not actually like real-time. Others say it is quite similar, because the actors change the script somewhat in their "interpretations" and tend to use more natural patterns. ETC.

My point is this: I was listening to these different arguments, occasionally adding comments, discussing with the class on this topic and suddenly thought: Oh my goodness. This is the most worthless thing in the world, right now! (A little exaggeration for dramatic purposes.) I suppose that studying these things will eventually mean that the area in general has more credibility which may eventually lead to a higher level of professionality (inventing words) in translation and interpreting in general. Which will have effects also on those people who actually need such services (immigrants, deaf/hard of hearing people, indigenous language speakers in countries with other official languages...) supposing there is a better network and qualification standards and pay and actual interpreters available. But that's kind of a stretch from studying movie transcriptions. And I cringe at the thought of spending hours and hours transcribing the speeches and then comparing them with pre-collected material. Clearly I'm not meant for the research department. And I suppose, also, that this comes more highly contrasted because of the recent earthquake in Haiti and thinking of so many practical needs that are not getting met in a timely or well-organized manner. INCLUDING the need for interpreters, which in such situations is often left to anyone with vaguely bilingual capabilities--quite often children. Not that this hasn't been going on for centuries... but. There is so much room for improvement. But no, I'm in class talking about which elements impede the realistic qualities of oral interaction in popular films...

On a related and more uplifting (?) note, in another class (Audiovisual/Audio-description) we were talking about the audio-description process of films, in order to make them more accessible to those with poor eyesight/blind people. I'd never watched a movie with audio-description. We watched segments (with our eyes closed) to experience and critique it. On the one hand, its an excellent step in the right direction--universal access. On the other hand, so much content is lost that I think I personally would prefer to listen to books on tape (or CD, or whatever...). Which is a obviously a dumb statement because If I were blind, I would still want to be able to experience aspects of popular culture (selectively, of course) and be able to talk about the same things as my friends, even if our experiences were different. And it also leaves a lot of room for creative imagination and self-development of characters and settings. It was just a shocking experience to hear everything that happened in the movies with intermittent comments like "Daytime. A tall man, dressed in ___ is walking through a field towards a small house. He is interpreted by __[actor's name]." and know that they cannot possibly describe everything in a few phrases that we take in with our eyes in a few seconds... Both frustrating and incredibly cool.

The "ONCE" (assoc. of "disabled" people in Spain) has done a lot to increase accessibility in the country. (And, interestingly, is largely/almost entirely--okay, I don't know the statistics!--funded by the lottery, tickets of which are sold by people with disabilities (sorry about the un-politically correctness of these terms) in little cabins (?) on the streets. So, simultaneously 1. employing someone who is physically or mentally unable to do many other types of work 2. earning money towards the development of institutions and organizations to help said people be more integrated in society, access proper medical/pschological attention when needed, etc... like. Um, but I still haven't bought a lottery ticket. hmm...

Well, there you are. A nice little introduction to some recent class discussions and my reactions to them. I complain about the lack of practical things that I am doing in my masters (i.e. NOT actually learning to translate/interpret) but occasionally we get through some theory and history to interesting things, and I *am* learning things, so I suppose all is well. :)

Have a great day, and appreciate the physical and mental capacities that you have.