Hi all! Here are some ideas from Jeremy Tiang’s presentation that struck me, and some loose thoughts that bubbled up:
Translation often serves to solidify the existing canon rather than foster cross-cultural understanding and spotlight newer voices. We think of it as a canon-buster, but sadly it is not inherently so. Something to be intentional about!
In the theatre world, bilingual translators usually provide literal translations and are backgrounded, then famous monolingual playwrights get the top billing. Hearing this, I was reminded of the trots we are provided in class. After all, which of us students, as we receive our applause, has cited Professors Zielinska-Elliott and Maurer in our translations? When will they get their flowers?! The analogy made me laugh.
I agree with David Hare that the new Chekhov translations—which switch things up just for variety’s sake—are pretty lacking. And unfortunately that includes David Hare’s rendition. I say this with knowledge that stylistic flourishes for variety’s sake have been my bread and butter thus far in our class. But I'm not getting paid!
Simon Stephens’s version of The Seagull changed even the characters’ names. And what dialogue we saw was hardly recognizable. I know this query has been posed before, but where is the line between translation and adaptation? For instance, the 2022 adaptation Fire Island is basically Pride and Prejudice plot-wise (just with everyone being gay men in 2020s New York), but it doesn’t use Austen’s original title. So why does Stephens get to broadcast a new translation of Chekhov’s seminal masterpiece? I am not nearly as worked up about this as it may sound.
I am shocked that The Lehman Brothers isn’t originally in English; everybody and their mother was talking about that play, and yet nobody spoke about it as a translation. Poor Stefano Massini. And yes, poor Italy.
This was a great line: “[I think of the] 2018 production of Tea House, which looks like no tea house that’s ever been seen. But of course, why should it?” Wow. I like Jeremy Tiang so much. I hope someday he can be featured in the Times with his dogs.
I have no experience watching a play that has subtitles projected for the audience. How common is such a practice? I wonder if, for spectators, it’s hard to focus on everything that’s happening.
That led me to thinking about the film medium. You never ever ever hear about the translators who write subtitles. But their work is so crucial! And, I’m sure, super difficult. Who are these unheralded backbones of society? Many of my all-time favorites movies are international, and I've never even given this a thought. Sad. And, since we are (or, I am) on the topic of cinema + translation, I recommend Quo Vadis, Aida? It's a tough watch but all about language and meaning.
Furthermore, I liked how Pavis discusses “stage and the scene” as existing “at the point of origin of textual production,” in reference to Balme’s idea of stage-writing, wherein different contributors with sundry roles co-create a piece (118). Tiang speaks of this too. It sounds wise and fruitful. And, perhaps most importantly, fun. Something similar (but not the same) is that I always change my poems after I read them aloud and hear parts that are sticky or ugly or tongue-twisting. I’ve even made mid-sentence alterations during a reading.
I appreciated Pavis’s writing; I’m always impressed when academic papers offer moving or beautiful or wonderful moments. Here’s one: “Luckily, we never really know in what scenario we find ourselves. Deep down, we do not want to know. We can only observe this historically established shift…” (125).
Also, kudos to you, Professors, for rejecting the notion of theatre as an island, to use Vinaver’s term. Integrating the form into our conversation feels productive, and I’m glad it’s happened.
And thanks for the trots!
No comments:
Post a Comment