The foregoing analysis reveals several marked trends in the contextual background of the translations in my sample. Firstly, all eight plays come from theatres which received substantial amounts of funding from ACE, ranging from £889,942 (the Almeida) to
£14,810,852 (the National) in the same period. Secondly, all plays began in theatres which prioritise commissioning and new writing. Thirdly, all plays were developed in theatres which employ specific personnel to fill the Literary Management function (this feature is explored more fully in Chapter Four). The second and third points are closely related to the first. Fourthly, the commissioning theatres were either members of SOLT, or had strong personnel or geographical links with that organisation. Therefore, it could be argued that the West End theatres, who are well-represented in that organisation, and where four of the plays were ultimately staged, while not directly responsible for the commissioning of those plays, have a substantial influence on their progress and outcome. As I pointed out earlier in this chapter, the dividing line between subsidised and commercial theatre is more than blurred. This is significant because these two sectors are frequently considered to be oppositional. There is a view that only state-subsidised theatre can be truly creative, untainted by the impediments, described by Caridad Svich, of ‘the emphasis on box-office receipts, entertainment “value”, and “marketable content”’. Svich’s considers that ‘the inordinate pressure to bow down to an economic god’ limits the imagination of the artist (2002: 17). The former director of the Leicester Haymarket, Peter Lichtenfels, and academic Lynette Hunter complain that ‘there is still resolute sticking to the idea of producer and consumer, with no interaction between the two, which typifies the commercial theatre’ (2002: 50-51). They do, however, acknowledge the ’unique hybridity of commercialism and
state support that shapes British theatre’ (ibid: 41). My study demonstrates this interface in progress, as it relates to the creation of translated performance.
A rigorous analysis of the theatrical construct which is known as ‘the West End’ requires an extensive study, which I am unable to include in this survey of translation practices for performance. This chapter must serve, however, as notice that the environment in which such translation takes place cannot be assumed to be a site of transparency or stability, and this should be taken into account when assessing the narratives inherent in the translation process. I proceed to consider the detailed procedures of translation for each play in my sample, bearing in mind the theatrical context outlined here.
CHAPTER THREE: THE PLAYS AND THEIR TRANSLATION TEAMS
3.1 IntroductionIn this chapter, I review the translated plays in my sample and the role of the theatre translator as part of a collaborative team engaged in the performance of a translated playtext. Based on the resources made available by the theatres themselves on their websites and in archives, but also drawing on background research into each production, I have attempted to identify the inception of the translation project. For what purpose were the respective translation agents brought together and how do they combine to transmit a specified narrative reflecting the translation in its current form, any antecedents, and the source text itself? Although it is not possible to identify accurately the motivations of the protagonists of any project, contextual and paratextual sources provide evidence of the evolution of decision-making and further translation processes which ultimately result in a public product: the performance. And how does that performance communicate the multiple nature of its pre-translational origins to its audience?
Whilst words are predominantly the domain of the translator, the holistic nature of performance dictates that movement, sound and image also contribute to the impression received by the spectator. I therefore consider audience reception, where accessible. For these purposes, I have been largely dependent on newspaper reviews, but, as Paul Prescott points out, this response is composed by ‘a community of professional interpreters’. Prescott suggests that such reviews not only present a professional response to a production, but also knowingly influence other theatre-goers, so that ‘the review-text stands in and substitutes for the experience of performance, thus blurring the boundaries between performance and criticism, production and reception’ (2005: 359). Nevertheless, the very influence of such reviews may dictate to some extent the audience reaction, while simultaneously reflecting the personal response of the author. Bettina Göbels, however, raises a further issue with respect to this combination of personal and public reaction: the reviewers ‘tend to reflect the general politics and opinions of their respective newspaper’ resulting in a ‘double reflection of public opinion’ from the perspectives of both the writer and the publisher (2008: 13). Nevertheless, the variety, or homogeneity, of reactions from
different reviewers makes it possible to form an impression of the audience response. I have also viewed or listened to each of the plays either in person or via archive recordings of the productions, which additionally convey audience response such as laughter or applause. In one case, The Woman Before, a post-show audience discussion had been recorded. However, any such impressions can only be subjective, both in my own reading and in the audience’s willingness to display their reaction. The volume of newspaper reviews, systematically collected in the journal Theatre Record, at least supplies a mass of observations which can be analysed to form an impression of the range and distribution of opinions.
My main aim is to map the processes of translation operating in Anglo-Saxon theatrical practices, as exemplified by these eight productions, presented in the Society of London Theatre venues which I discussed in Chapter Two. For each of the productions in my sample, I attempt to uncover the processes which brought them onto the stage, focusing on translation practices; the ‘intent’ behind the selection of each play; and the extent of the reception and recognition of that intent by the audience. These analyses present an
opportunity to attempt an identification of common features among the sample, a review of translation dynamics which may be applicable on a wider basis.