多「源」改編：《返校》電影的改編

A Study in Pluralities: The“Recreation”of Detention

本文探討改編自同名電玩的臺灣電影《返校》背後，改編及歷史的交織與互動。《返校》以戒嚴時期為背景，帶領玩家及觀眾分別透過電玩與電影，正視臺灣歷史的這個黑暗篇章。本研究重點在於探索從電玩到電影的符際翻譯，討論文本及語境層面蘊含的「多源」與「多元」。具體而言，這種多源／元性體現在「原文」、文本意義、觀眾反應各面向。雖說《返校》是電玩到電影的改編，但電玩（所謂「原文」）和電影（所謂「譯文」）之間的關係並不單純。電影除了改編電玩，同時也取材自臺灣電影史、歷史事件等，使作品層次更多元。再者，文本意義和受眾反應也隨受眾的經歷、意識形態等因素而改變，顯示受眾對文本（此為《返校》）的詮釋不僅反映歷史脈絡，而深植於流動的當下與社會的變遷。《返校》的分析可促使我們重新審視歷史霸權，同時提倡「多元歷史」的思維模式。挑戰此霸權也讓人得以挑戰原文／譯文、歷史／文學、受害者／加害者的二元對立，認知對話中所隱含的複雜性，並凸顯正視歷史創傷和歷史記憶的價值。

This essay delves into an exploration of the intersection and interaction of adaptation and history in the context of the Taiwanese film Detention, which is based on a video game of the same title. The narrative, set against the backdrop of Taiwan’s martial law, invites its audience to confront this dark chapter in Taiwan’s history. The study focuses on the pluralities inherent in such an inter-semiotic translation at both the textual and contextual levels, in terms of the sources, textual meanings, and audience’s reception. Detention might be primarily a game-to-film adaptation, but the relationship between the game (what one might think of as source text) and the film (what one might think of as target text) is far from straightforward. The film incorporates multiple sources other than the game, including film traditions and historical references, to create a multi-layered narrative. In the same vein, textual meanings and reception shift in accordance with the audience’s experience and ideological inclinations, among other factors, showing that the interpretation of a particular text, in this case, Detention, is not merely a reflection of history but is deeply rooted in the evolving present and the changing dynamics of Taiwanese society. Ultimately, Detention prompts a reevaluation of the hegemony of History and advocates for a view of histories in the plural. Challenging this hegemony also allows one to problematize the binary polarization of source/text, history/literature, and victim/victimizer, in the process acknowledging the inherent complexities of these explorations and underscores the value of initiating dialogues about historical trauma and memory.