Estrategias para captar y fidelizar clientes

Introduction

In this chapter I intend to discuss how the English representation of the characters of Eduardo De Filippo’s play Napoli milionaria!, has led to a cultural appropriation of the source text. My analysis addresses the issue of the relocation of Naples, which is represented according to theatrical conventions that belong to the target milieu. I refer to the definition of conventions provided by Sirkku Aaltonen who considers them a ‘constraint which has arisen on the basis of consensus as to acceptable behaviour, and appl[ies] it to established practices and prevailing usages which have taken on a relatively binding character’.1 Through textual analysis I will discuss how choices made by the translators influence the way in which a given culture is viewed by the audience. In particular I will show that the manipulation of the source text aimed at the creation of a target text which would conform to the way the target audience considers Neapolitan culture.

The chapter is divided into two sections. In the first section I will explore the adaptation by Peter Tinniswood of Napoli Milionaria, using Scouse, the language of Liverpool. My analysis will concentrate on the roles of Gennaro and Amalia Jovine, although I shall also look at the characters interacting with them in various ways. In the second section I will explore an American version, entitled Napoli Milionaria!, by Linda Alper and Beatrice Basso, and I will look at a different form of cultural relocation, which is

obtained through the creation of a new performing style, more suited to the target audience. In the analysis which will follow, I intend to demonstrate that the employment of a socially defined language on the one hand and the construction of new theatrical rhythms on the other, produce a cultural shift so that the source culture is somehow assimilated to the target culture.

It is generally thought that a play text becomes ‘alive’ through the performance, when the director and especially the actors transpose words to action. Set, costumes, speech rhythm and gestures are all factors that bring to life the play script. During this process, the text is reinterpreted and modified according to the director’s views and to the actors’ needs. With foreign plays, the text undergoes a further manipulation by the dramaturge, who usually does preliminary work by researching into the historical and cultural background of the play, and by the translator who actually transposes the play into the target language. In my analysis I will argue that the language used in translation influences the actors’ portrayal of the characters and the reception of the play, and that the rendering of source language into target language brings with it a cultural shift. In the course of the chapter, I will look at the questions of adaptation versus translation and I will illustrate in more detail how adaptation involves substantial changes to the source text so that the target text acquires an identity which is detached from the original. As J. C. Santoyo maintains, this term has been employed to ‘disguise all manner of unacceptable textual and staging manipulations’.2Moreover, Joseph Farrell argues that

adaptation and translation are not two sides of the one coin; they are in conflict with one another, particularly when the adaptor is the wholly new figure of the surrogate, or pseudo-, translator. The justification for this figure arises from the undoubted fact that for a

translator the more important language is not the language he is translating from, but the language he is translating into.3

In particular, I will discuss the possible reasons behind the modifications of the source text and the effects of such modifications on the receiving culture. Finally, by drawing on

Napoli milionaria, I will describe the implications of the use of a given dialect or accent to translate another dialect in terms of cultural transfer, and I will show the ways in which the use of a particular idiom transforms the stage language in the target text.

Napoli milionaria!4was written between 1944 and 1945 and was premiered on 25 March 1945, in Naples at the Teatro San Carlo,5 which had been derequisitioned for a charity matinée. The idea behind the play dawned on Eduardo a few weeks after Naples had been liberated by the Allied forces. The general sense of joy and exultation was in sharp contrast with the material and moral degradation of the city, which had been stricken by the war in a particularly vicious way. The effects of the war were visible especially on the population which had been wracked by the conflict, but nonetheless showed incredible strength and self-determination, fighting the Germans for its own liberation even before the arrival of the Allies. On 1 October 1944, the invaders, under pressure from the Neapolitans and the Allies, abandoned the city after looting it of everything valuable.

Watching Naples left without dignity, prostrated and hopeless, Eduardo felt the urge to represent the effects of the war on human beings.

3_{Farrell,‘Servant of Many Masters’, p. 53. See also the scholarly overview in Chapter One.}

4_{The original version to which I will refer isNapoli milionaria!, published inEduardo De Filippo Teatro,}

Volume secondo, Cantata dei giorni dispari, Tomo primoed. by Nicola De Blasi, and Paola Quarenghi, 1st edn., I Meridiani (Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 2005a), pp. 45-151.

Se fossi un giornalista avrei scritto uno o una serie di articoli per illustrare, magari con un po’ di “colore”, la Napoli miseramente arricchitasi; poiché sono invece un commediografo ho ideato la storia di don Gennaro e di donn’Amalia, Napoli milionaria! È quindi un articolo giornalistico, o meglio un fatto di cronaca, fantasioso quanto si vuole ma conforme alla realtà.6

Napoli milionaria!represents a turning point in Eduardo’s theatre, beginning a new, more pessimistic phase in his writing which is known as La cantata dei giorni dispari, juxtaposed toLa cantata dei giorni pari, which reflects a less disillusioned approach to life and theatre. In fact, during the opening of the play, after the first Act, Eduardo announced that from the second Act his dramaturgy would change, and indeed his theatre began to represent life almost in a journalistic way.7In an interview with Ruggero Jacobbi, Eduardo explained that before writingNapoli milionaria!, he kept alive a representation of Naples

che in parte era già morta, in parte era soffocata e nascosta dalle paterne cure del fascismo [...]. La guerra, io penso, ha fatto passare cent’anni. E se tanto tempo è trascorso, io ho bisogno, anzi ho il dovere, di scrivere dell’altro e di recitare diversamente.8

It is indicative that a few months after the premiere, in Rome, Roberto Rossellini began the shooting of the film Roma città aperta, the first example of neorealism, changing completely the approach of the Italian cinema. In fact,

6 _{Cited in ‘Nota storico-teatrale’, in Napoli milionaria!, in Eduardo De Filippo Teatro, Volume secondo,}

Cantata dei giorni dispari, Tomo primoed. by Nicola De Blasi, and Paola Quarenghi, 1st edn., I Meridiani (Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, 2005a), pp. 5-44 (p. 7).

7_{‘Nota storico-teatrale’, inNapoli milionaria!, inEduardo De Filippo Teatro, p. 26.} 8_{See Ruggero Jacobbi, ‘Napoli milionaria’,Cosmopolita, 1 April 1945.}

sia pure attraverso mezzi e modi espressivi diversi, la commedia di Eduardo e il film di Rossellini soddisfacevano quello stesso bisogno di realtà, quella «euforia della verità» [...] che era stata troppo a lungo censurata e che continuava a restare, in un’Italia ancora non completamente libera e pacificata, un obiettivo di pochissimi autori.9

The play generated an emotional response among an audience deeply touched by the subject.

Arrivai al terzo atto con sgomento. Recitavo e sentivo attorno a me un silenzio assoluto, terribile. Quando dissi l’ultima battuta, la battuta finale: «Deve passare la notte» e scese il pesante velario, ci fu un silenzio ancora per otto, dieci secondi, poi scoppiò un applauso furioso, e anche un pianto irrefrenabile; tutti avevano in mano un fazzoletto, gli orchestrali del golfo mistico che si erano alzati in piedi, i macchinisti che avevano invaso la scena, il pubblico che era salito sul palco [...]. Io avevo detto il dolore di tutti.10

On the other hand, the critics had different reactions to the new change in direction announced by the author. While ‘left-wing’ critics appreciated such an approach, which helped to bring dialect theatre into the national panorama, politically conservative critics highlighted aspects of the traditional comic mise en scène. On the whole the play was a great success and was acclaimed also in Rome and Milan. The television broadcast in 1962 was extremely popular too and confirmed Eduardo’s presence on the international stage.

9_{‘Nota storico-teatrale’, inNapoli milionaria!, inEduardo De Filippo Teatro, p. 8.}

10_{Enzo Biagi, ‘La «dinastia» dei fratelli De Filippo: Mezzo secolo di teatro in tutto il mondo’,La Stampa, 5}

Section I

Napoli milionaria!in England

Peter Tinniswood’s Scouse Adaptation

During the years following the war, Eduardo’s plays were staged in many countries including South America, Japan, Czechoslovakia and England, where in 1958 Questi fantasmi!, translated asToo Many Ghosts!was Eduardo’s first play to be staged in England at the Oxford Playhouse.11 It was only in 1972, though, during the World Theatre Season, that Eduardo became known to the London public after his performance in Napoli milionaria! as Gennaro Jovine. The production by the De Filippo’s company was very successful and critics such as Michael Billington praised the protagonist’s ‘magisterial stillness’.12

Almost two decades after the Neapolitan production, on 27 June 1991, an English adaptation of Napoli milionaria! prepared by the National Theatre translator Peter Tinniswood and directed by Richard Eyre opened in the Lyttelton. The two leading roles were played by Ian McKellen as Gennaro Jovine, and Clare Higgins who played Amalia Jovine. While retaining the Neapolitan setting, the play used the dialect of Liverpool, what Tinniswood calls ‘the accents’ of his home town. Indeed, as he explained in the foreword of his adaptation, he had not intended to use a dialect,

11_{Acqua, ‘Eduardo a Londra: Ricostruzione e analisi degli allestimenti’, p. 2. See also Biagi, ‘La «dinastia»}

dei fratelli De Filippo: Mezzo secolo di teatro in tutto il mondo’,La Stampa, 5 March 1959.

I’ve done this adaptation of Eduardo’s play in the accents of my native city. Not its dialects. I’m not keen on dialect writing in English. It relies too much on a heavily-coated treacled ear and too little on love and sympathy and affection.13

Both critics’ and public’s response was on the whole very positive. The universality of the play was more appreciated here than in the previous production, where the monumental quality of Eduardo’s own performance had overshadowed the message of the play. What is more, the use of Scouse was considered a good choice by the majority of the critics, as it contributed to distance it from previous representations of Italian characters as ice-cream vendors or associated with tomato sauce adverts.14On the other hand, among others, Claire Armistead disliked the linguistic choice as it pushed the play ‘into a no-man’s land, somewhere between an English tradition of Scouse family sitcom and De Filippo’s more lacerating social comedy. It entirely loses the particularity which, at its premiere in Naples in 1945 […] reduced the audience to tears of recognition’.15 Likewise, Kenneth Hurren observed that the language used was excessively vulgar.16The reasons behind the choice of a local idiom to render dialect will be analyzed further on. In this instance I intend to underline the parallels which have been made between Liverpool and Naples as, according to Peter Kemp, both cities seem to share ‘swagger, squalor, unabashed sentimentality, quick-wit, Catholicism, crime’.17 In fact, it was Tinniswood himself who explained in an

13_{See Peter Tinniswood,Napoli Milionaria, adapt. by Peter Tinniswood, inFour Plays The Local Authority,}

Grand Magic, Filumena Marturano, Napoli Milionaria (London: Methuen Drama, 1992), pp. 247-362 (p. 248).

14_{See Michael Billington, ‘Family at War with Itself’,The Guardian,29 June 1991.}

15_{See Claire Armistead, ‘Merseyside meets Napoli’,Weekend Financial Times, 29 June 1991.} 16_{See Kenneth Hurren, ‘Napoli with the syrup on ration’,The Mail on Sunday, 30 June 1991.} 17_{See Peter Kemp, ‘The Italian connection’,The Independent, 29 June 1991.}

interview that his choice derived from a deep similarity between the two cities which are both exuberant, melancholic, and, above all, have an ‘indomitable spirit’.18

Issues of Language Choices

It is important to underline the fact that both Naples and Liverpool are port towns, they both experienced long periods of wealth and were both heavily affected by World War II. This seems to have led to Tinniswood and other critics’ conclusion that there was a similarity of cultures and therefore, of the idioms, which represent them. A brief overview of the two cities’ histories shows, on the other hand, that their proximity to the sea played a rather different role in the development of their cultures, as in Liverpool’s case it promoted its position as an essential trade point and as the most important immigration access, mainly from Ireland. Such a favourable position, certainly contributed to shape the perception of the city as individualistic and independent, and the characteristic idiom which from the city spread throughout the Merseyside was a tangible proof of Liverpool’s distinctiveness.

Liverpool was founded in 1207 by King John of England to provide a port in England towards the newly conquered Ireland. In the Middle Ages it developed as a market town, being the centre of commerce with Ireland first and the West Indies later. Its main strength came from the docks, which made the city a big import-export centre. At the end of the seventeenth century a writer and traveler, named Celia Fiennes, visited Liverpool and was extremely impressed by the elegance of the town, and by its wealth which came from the florid trading industry. The citizens too, were opulent and wore fine and fashionable clothes. Indeed, she regarded Liverpool as London in miniature.19In the 18thcentury

18_{See Tinniswood, Programme ofNapoli Milionaira, National Theatre, 1991.}

19_{See Tim Lambert, ‘A Brief History of Liverpool’, http://www.localhistories.org/liverpool.html, accessed}

a major element in the general trading pattern was the Liverpool Triangle-the exchange of manufactured goods from the Mersey hinterland for slaves in West Africa, who were in turn traded for sugar, molasses, spices, and other plantation crops in the West Indies.20

During the nineteenth century and into the twentieth century, when trading was still its main industry, Liverpool was Britain’s second largest city, and with London constituted the two biggest cities of the Empire. Due to its position on the Atlantic Ocean, it was open to influences from Ireland’s immigration throughout the nineteenth century which contributed to the development of Liverpool’s language and culture as it was its commercial partner for centuries. During World War II Liverpool was the target of heavy German air raids which destroyed large parts of the city.

The geographical position of Naples was, on the other hand, the main reason for the different dominations it underwent ever since its birth as a Greek colony. From the Romans, then the Normans, the French, the Arabs, up to the Spanish, different powers kept it under their political and economic control. The greatest strength of the city was, rather than commerce, its flourishing culture, both intellectual and artistic. However, Naples’ opulence referred mainly to the aristocracy, especially during the regime of the Spanish viceroys, which led to the rebellion of the population, headed by Masaniello, in 1647.21The combination of culture with the amenity of the area made Naples one of the most important cities in Europe for many centuries. As a result, the language, too, was formed in a complex, overlapping set of contexts and cultural interactions, so that Neapolitan dialect drew on Latin, French, Spanish and Arabic, whose cultural strata permeated it. Moreover, the implications of World War II were rather different from Liverpool, as the invasion of

20_{SeeThe New Encyclopedia Britannica, VII, 15}th_{ed n. (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica), p. 411.} 21_{See Giuseppe Coniglio,I viceré spagnoli di Napoli(Naples: Fiorentino, 1967), p. 254.}

the Germans first and then the ‘liberation’ by the Allies, produced a moral devastation of the population, as well as the destruction of large parts of the city.

Therefore, Tinniswood’s assumption that the two cities shared a similar background appears to be based essentially on a geographical similarity which could equally well apply to Aberdeen, Dublin or Cardiff as well. Indeed, while Naples developed essentially as a cultural and artistic centre, Liverpool had strong industrial, and working class connotations. From a linguistic point of view, then, the choice of Scouse to translate Neapolitan seems more related to the image associated with Liverpool that is a port town with working class, swagger and inflammable spirits. As Benedict Nightingale explained,

the cast’s Merseyside accents, and the colloquialisms of Peter Tinniswood’s translation, may sound better than spaghetti-house Italian; but they accentuate the differences between Naples and Liverpool, them and us. Liverpool is not known for fierce Neapolitan values. In the last war Liverpool was badly battered, but did not risk its soul, as Naples did.22

The above argument suggests that, although similarities may be found between the two cities from a geographical and linguistic point of view, it must be stressed that ‘cultural relocation is always going to be inadequate because since no two cultures are identical it is simply impossible to try and impose one framework upon another’.23Later we will see that the assumption that the two cities shared a similar background, translated into theatre language, equates with loud acting and vulgarity.

The importance of Napoli milionaria! lies in its ability to depict moral degradation resulting from war conflicts, and to illustrate how people can be dehumanized by the need to survive. The story of the Jovine family is the story of any family dealing with the horrors

22_{See Benedict Nightingale, ‘Fight for the soul of Naples’,The Times, 28 June 1991.}