The Translator as Performer: Theater in Translation, Translation in Theater

 

Seeing a different side of translation and therefore, a different type is moving and informing. Jeremy Tiang, a translator and playwright, explains the innerworkings of translation in theatre accompanied by various examples of distinguished translations in his talk at BU. Firstly, Jeremy Tiang writes and translates plays and fiction even though, he holds a master in acting. He combines the acting world with the power of translation. He agrees with Jacques Derrida’s idea that translation is writing. That is, it is not translation only in the sense of transcription. It is a productive writing called forth by the original text. In the sense of the productivity, Tiang tries to let go of ideas of accuracy or getting it right, which makes sense when we focus on the translation in theatre. Theatre is not just about the transcripts and so is not its translation. Prioritizing thinking more about the creative response to the source text and source language makes Tiang’s translations stand out. He clearly states that, ‘’Creating a situation where my own artistic sensibilities can harmonize with the original and produce something that has both of us in it.’’

 

Since the job of translators is to find a form of words in English that does create the same affect in ST, the choices vary and so does the target texts. After collecting different versions of the famous opening lines to Chekhov’s The Seagull, the differences in translations reveal the intention of translation. The main idea/the literal translation was, ‘’ MEDVEDENKO: Why do you always wear black? NASHA: This is mourning for my life. I am not happy.’’ The various translation examples that evolved from a literal translation by Helen Rappaport can be ordered as; ‘’MEDVIEDENKO, (off) And the way you dress-  MASHA, (off) What’d you mean, the way I dress?   MEDVIEDENKO, In black- why’d you always go round in black?   MASHA, I’m in mourning for my life. I’m unhappy.’’ Martin Crimp (2006), ‘’SEMYON, Oh / Who died? MASHA, Why, I did. Every day, always do, can’t you tell?’’ John Donnelly (2013), ‘’MEDVEDENKO, Who died?   MASHA, Me, since you ask. I’m unhappy.’’ David Hare (2015), ‘’MASHA, Alright then. Let’s hear it! What’s so wrong with black?   SIMON, I’m just saying it’s an unhappy colour...    MASHA, Well, I am unhappy so...’’ Torben Betts (2015), ‘’SIMEON, Why do you do that?   MARCIA, Do what?   SIMEON, Wander around like that?   MARCIA, Like what?   SIMEON, You look so angry. All the time.   MARCIA, I am angry. All the time. SIMEON, What on earth have you got to be angry about?   MARCIA, My life.’’ Simon Stephens (2017). All of these translations are different and apart from each other even though the literal translation-the source text/phrase is the same. These examples explicitly explain the aspect Tiang tries to approach during his talk. The creativity, the productivity of each translator is all unique and sometimes very far from each other. As Tiang indicates, ‘’A variation familiar but different.’’ Additionally, since Simon Stephens has found a different way to get the spirit of the lines across, it is a valid translation for Tiang. 

 

Every translation is dependent on the translator and the approach of the translator, no matter how faithful or unfaithful to the source text, can be observed or felt. As Tiang suggests, a translator cannot be completely out of the picture and just produce the pure meaning- which is nearly not possible. Translators cannot be out of the picture and invisible, since they re-write the source text in another language. Tiang says that, ‘’ I certainly bring a lot of me to every translation I do. The translation is still going to be my voice.’’ This statement is bold and true. If the translator is the one engaging with the text and analyzing the source text through their own ideas, these ideas will be and should be present. The energy, the spirit, the genuine creativity of translation process are the main elements and purposes for Tiang. The translation may not be word-for-word or literal, but if it conveys the intended message of the author and therefore, the source text, then it is a successful translation, in means of theatre in translation. Here, I completely agree with him. 

 

The change of image is conducted for the sake of the purpose of translation to make sense in another culture/language. ‘’ So, when I translate them, I have to over explain certain things to make them legible.’’ Having a free space while translating a play by Wei Yu-Chia helped Tiang achieve the purpose of the translation in his own way. He altered some phrases and words to provide equivalents for the culture-specific items. So, the effect of the play in Chinese was present in the translated versions. For example, for the readings of the play in London, he preferred the word mate for the greeting. Whereas, he considered using dude, man, just hey for the American version. For Tiang, translation reshapes in its context and therefore, every target audience gets to see and experience almost the same play. 

 

Ece Celikkol