Düşmüş Âdemler: Frankenstein ve Yaratılan Üzerine Metinlerarası bir Analiz

Öz

Mary Shelley’nin ünlü romanı Frankenstein (1818), yazıldığı günden bu yana aralıksız beyazperdeye, televizyona veya tiyatroya uyarlanmıştır. Sinemayla birlikte iletişim araçlarından biri olan televizyon dizileri de hikâye anlatımında oldukça tercih edilen bir araç olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Çoğunlukla romanlar ve bazen de kısa öyküler, geniş izleyicilere hitap edebilecek bölümler halinde beyazperdeye uyarlanmaktadır. Son olarak, uyarlama çalışmalarındaki aslına uygunluk yaklaşımıyla ilgili olarak ve tüm düzeltmelerin temelde yeniden yazım olduğu, kaynak içeriğin yeniden yapılabileceği ve yeniden bağlamlandırılabileceği argümanından yola çıkarak, bu makale edebi bir metin ile onun televizyon dizisi uyarlaması arrasındaki diyalojik ilişkilerin metinlerarası bir analizini içermektedir. Bu kapsamda, Shelley’nin Frankenstein (1818) adlı eserinin Çağan Irmak tarafından Netflix’de Yaratılan (2023) adıyla Türkçe yayınlanan uyarlaması, “sadakat eleştirisi” açısından hiper metnin alt metni ne ölçüde anımsattığı ve yansıttığını ortaya koymak amacıyla analiz edilmiştir. Roman, 19. yüzyıl İngiliz kültürünün toplumsal, tarihi ve ideolojik konularını içerse de, Irmak’ın, Shelley’nin mesajlarını 21. yüzyıl Türk okuruna ustalıkla aktarmanın yanı sıra, popüler bir kaynak materyale “sadık” kalarak yeni bir bakış açısı da kazandırdığını da söylemek doğru olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Diyalojik İlişkiler
• Frankenstein
• Yaratılan
• Uyarlama Çalışmaları
• Metinlerarası Analiz
• "Sadakat Eleştirisi"

The Fallen Adams: An Intertextual Analysis on Frankenstein and Yaratılan

Öz

Frankenstein (1818), written by Mary Shelley, has been relentlessly adapted for all forms of art since it was written. One such form is a recent television drama series that has re-envisioned Frankenstein for a Turkish audiences. To this end, this paper examines an intertextual analysis of the dialogical relations between a literary text and its adaptation into a television series, with a focus on the fidelity approach in adaptation studies and the premise that all modifications are essentially rewritings in which the original content may be remade and recontextualized. Within this scope, the Turkish adaptation of Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) into a Netflix series as Yaratılan (Created) (2023) by Çağan Irmak is analysed to present to what extent the hypertext recalls and mirrors the hypotext, regarding the “fidelity criticism” in adaptation studies. Although the novel involves the societal, historical, and ideological issues of the 19th-century British culture, it is proper to claim that Irmak not only ingeniously conveys Shelley’s messages to the 21st-century Turkish audiences but also provides new perspectives for a popular source material while being “faithful” to the novel.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dialogic Relations
• Frankenstein
• Yaratılan
• Adaptation Studies
• Intertextual Analysis

Kaynakça

1. Allen, G. (2000). Intertextuality. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. google scholar
2. Andrew, D. (1984). Concepts in FILM THEORY. Oxford: Oxford University Press. google scholar
3. Aras, G. (2017). Literature and film: Different approaches to two narrrative forms. CÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 41(2), 33-54. https://cujos.cumhuriyet.edu.tr/tr/download/article-file/392514 google scholar
4. Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Texas: U of Texas Press. google scholar
5. Baldick, C. (1990). Dictionary of literary terms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. google scholar
6. Barthes, R. (1977). Image-music-text (S. Heath, Trans.). New York: The Noonday Press. google scholar
7. Bazerman, C. (2004). Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. google scholar
8. Bialkowski, B. (2001). Facing up to the question of fidelity: The example of A Tale of Two Cities. Literature Film Quarterly, 29(3), 203-209. google scholar

9. Brownen, M. & Ringham, F. (2006). Key terms in Semiotics. Bloomsbury Publishing: Continuum. google scholar
10. Bryant J. (2013). Textual identity and adaptive revision: Editing adaptation as a fluid text. Adaptation Studies: New Challenges, New Directions. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 46-67. google scholar
11. Cardwell, S. (2007). Adaptation studies revisited: Purposes, perspectives, and inspiration. In J. M. Welsh & P. Lev (Eds.). The literature/film reader: Issues of adaptation (pp. 51-64). Toronto: Scarecrow. google scholar
12. Cartmell, D. & Whelehan, I. (2007). Introduction-literature on screen: A synoptic view. In D. Cartmell and I. Whelehan (Eds.). The Cambridge companion to literature on screen (pp. 1-12). Cambridge: Cambridge UP. google scholar
13. Chair, L.C. (2006). Literature into film: Theory and practical approaches. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co. google scholar
14. Corrigan, T. (2017). Defining adaptation. In T.M. Leitch (Ed.). The Oxford handbook of adaptation studies (pp. 3548). UK: Oxford University Press. google scholar
15. Desmond, J. & Hawkes, P. (2006). Adaptation: Studying film and literature. New York: McGraw-Hill. google scholar
16. Ellis, J. (1982). The literary adaptation: An introduction. Screen, 23(1), 3-5. google scholar
17. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discource and social change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
18. Genette, G. (1997). Palimpsests: Literature in the second degree (C. Newman & C. Doubinsky, Trans.). London: University of Nebraska Press. google scholar
19. Hutcheon, L. (2013). A theory of adaptation. New York: Routledge. google scholar
20. Hutton, S. (2011). Before Frankenstein. In J. A. Hayden (Ed.). The new science and women’s literary discourse: Prefiguring Frankenstein (pp. 17-28). New York: Palgrave McMillan. google scholar
21. Irmak, Ç. (Producer). (2023). Yaratılan [TV series]. Netflix Films. google scholar
22. Irwin, W. (2004). Against intertextuality. Philosophy and Literature, 28(2), 227-242. google scholar
23. Karadağ, Ö. (2003, Aralık). Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in nineteenth century Ottoman İstanbul: Function of appropriation and performance in Çağan Irmak’s Creature [Öz]. Akademik Bilişim Konferansında sunulan bildiri, Theatre and Drama Studies Conference II, Adaptation, Appropriation and Translation, İstanbul. Erişim: https://www.academia.edu/106476556/CFP_2nd_Theatre_and_Drama_Studies_Conference_TDN_ Adaptation_Appropriation_Translation_2023_ google scholar
24. Kiraly, H. (2013). The medium strikes back- ‘Impossible adaptation’ revisited. In J. Bruhn, A. Gjelsvik & E. F. Hanssen (Eds.). Adaptation studies: New challenges, new directions. London: Bloomsbury Academic. google scholar
25. Kline, K. E. (1996). The accidental tourist on page and on screen: Interrogating normative theories about film adaptation. Literature Film Quarterly, 24(1), 70-83. google scholar
26. Kristeva, J. (1986). The Kristeva reader. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. google scholar
27. Leitch, T. (2003). Twelve fallacies in contemporary adaptation theory. Criticism, 45(2), 149-71. google scholar
28. Livingston, P. (2010). On the appreciation of cinematic adaptations. Projections: The Journal for Movies and Mind, 4(2), 104-127. google scholar
29. McFarlane, B. (1996). Novel to film: An introduction to the theory of adaptation. Oxford: Clarendon Press. google scholar
30. Newman, C. (1985). The postmodern aura. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. google scholar
31. Özsoy, N. (2020). Osmanlı medyasında batılılaşma, din ve gelenek. Academic Social Resources Journal, 5(13), 251258. google scholar
32. Palmer, R. B. (2017). Continuation, adaptation studies, and the never-finished text. In J. Grossman (Ed.). Adaptation in visual culture: Images, texts, and their multiple worlds (pp. 73-99). London: Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
33. Perin, C. (1946). Tanzimat edebiyatında Fransız tesiri. İstanbul: Pulhan Matbaası. google scholar
34. Ray, R. B. (2000). The field of ‘Literature and Film’. In J. Naremore (Ed.). Film Adaptation. London: Athlone Press. google scholar
35. Rich, A. (1972). When we dead awaken: Writing as re-vision. College English, 34 (1), 18-30. google scholar
36. Sanders, J. (2006). Adaptation and appropriation. Canada: Routledge. google scholar
37. Scognamillo, G. (1973). Türk sinemasında yabancı uyarlamalar. İstanbul: Yedinci Sanat. google scholar
38. Shelley, M. (1993). Frankenstein or, the modern Prometheus. The Project Gutenberg eBook. google scholar
39. Sinyard, N. (1986). Filming literature: The art of screen adaptation. London: Croom Helm. google scholar
40. Smith, M. (1995). Engaging characters: Fiction, emotion, and the cinema. Oxford: Clarendon Press. google scholar
41. Stam, R. (2000). Beyond fidelity: The dialogics of adaptation. In J. Naremore (Ed.). Film adaptation (pp. 54-78). Great Britain: The Athlone Press. google scholar
42. ________(2005). Introduction: The theory and practice of adaptation. In R. Stam & A. Raengo (Eds.). Literature and film: A guide to the theory and practice of film adaptation (pp. 1- 52). Malden, MA: Blackwell. google scholar
43. Thornburg, M. K. P. (1984). The monster in the mirror. Michigan: UMI Research Press. google scholar
44. Wagner, G. (1975). The novel and the cinema. Cranbury, New Jersey: Associated University Presses, Inc. google scholar
45. Whelehan, I. (2006). Adaptations: The contemporary dilemmas. In D. Cartmell & I. Whelehan (Eds.). Adaptations: From text to screen, screen to text (pp. 3-19). London: Routledge. google scholar