This song by Moscow band “Bravo” was used in a soundtrack of the seminal
perestroika movie “ASSA” (1987) directed by Sergej Solovjov.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4lRv1jJlJc
I’ve recently been to a wonderous place
Where rocky cliffs plunge into amber-rich waves,
Where centuries slumber in shady alcoves,
And pink clouds drift as flamingoes in droves.
A quicksilver stream twists through emerald hills,
Its magical beauty's akin to sweet dreams.
At night you can read on the glint of its waves
A yearning to cling to the Moon’s shining face.
No need to convince
Nothing gets better than this!
No need to convince
Nothing gets better than this…
Из к/ф "АССА" Сергея Соловьёва. (1987). В фильме фигурируют
массово популярные группы: Аквариум, Браво, Кино.
Недавно гостила в чудесной стране.
Там плещутся рифы в янтарной волне.
В тенистых садах там застыли века.
И цвета фламинго плывут облака.
В холмах изумрудных сверкает река,
Как сказка прекрасна, как сон глубока
И хочется ей до блестящей луны
Достать золотистой пеной волны.
Меня ты поймешь
Лучше страны не найдешь!
Меня ты поймешь
Лучше страны не найдешь...
It is subtle. It's like rhyming "меня - тебя" sounds kind of forced. Besides, I went through the whole thing of truly figuring out the reference term in this song. In Russian, it is "страна", which could be land, country or state. Given the movie context, "state" is more appropriate, but it sounds awful, because it is not subtle. I settled on "place", it has a far lower connotation load. Introducing "land" at the end would destroy the magic.
Maybe. In fact the 'state' might be more close, since it is a psychosocial experience:), but, of course l, not suitable. I did not like 'gets' , besides the circle of the first line is not closed and 'this' is rather a weak ending
Still it would be helpful to provide a more rational explanation of my seemingly irrational aversion to "land". If you consider the type of consonants with which every line ends, these are all voiceless fricatives, specifically [s], preceded for the most part by other fricatives [v], liquids [l] and sonorants [m]. If you consider the "understand - land" rhyme, it introduces a voiced stop consonant at the end [d]. This would have destroys the harmony of the sing-song repetitive rhymes. Besides, not a single line in the original ends in a stop consonant. Poetry is more than just meaning. It is also a form that needs to be conveyed.
I am sure you had your reasons, and there are pros and cons, sound vs meaning etc, though it ends with a consonant alright, but with a hissing one, if you wanted to keep this - fine. However I am not insisting on anything:) I am just questioning 'getting' in the first place. It has the meaning 'to become' in a continuous tense.
Yes. Sure it has the meaning What could be better, and mb that's fine - but it has a feeling of continuity, and in the original it is a final statement. Mb I am too picky:) because the 'land' has too many connotations (not the least the one in the context of the movie - u can't escape from that country except to a psychedelic dreamland. When we using the word страна it had a clear meaning эта страна.
Anyway, you r certainly in your own right and the translation is good.
... what can be better than bliss:)
I know, I know. But that's exactly why Russians don't get Shakespeare if you just produce beautiful translations. You need to provide a detailed explanation of every line and set them in the historical context. Translating poetry is always an exercise in compromise.
well, right, by default, since a translation capturing all subtle aspects of a poem are not possible. But not only for poetry - I recall that comments to the Ulysses are perhaps equal to the text itself, and half of it is incomprehensible without them. So I would argue for the usefulness of three translations: a literary one, a "free" poetic one and an equirythmical poetic one followed by a detailed commentary.
Incidentally, I was just listening to a talk on inability of natural languages to deliver a thought precisely as compared to formulas (like in math, physics, chemistry). We may speak the same language, but connotations could be different depending on the era, family tradition, religion, etc. So, given that, commentaries, no matter how extensive, will still be approximations.
Мы используем файлы cookie для улучшения работы сайта. Оставаясь на сайте, вы соглашаетесь с условиями использования файлов cookies. Чтобы ознакомиться с Политикой обработки персональных данных и файлов cookie, нажмите здесь.