When examining the work of Ditea it is essential to consider the specific characteristics of this theatre group in relation to the context in which it developed. Since its foundation in 1960, Ditea has been involved in uninterrupted theatrical activity, albeit with uneven intensity, until the present day. The four productions that are the focus of this chapter saw the light at a moment of very special historical significance, 1972 to 1979, during which the Spanish state underwent perhaps the most significant political change in its recent history: the end of Francisco Franco’s dictatorial rule and the transition to democracy. Against this backdrop, a professional theatrical structure started to take shape in Galicia, with many existing groups making their own particular transition, marked by the evolution of the independent theatre of the 1960s, as described in the previous chapter.
After the Civil War (1936-1939), Francisco Franco instituted a dictatorship that lasted until his death in 1975. During the latter years of his regime, he made
1 The hand programmes corresponding to stagings of each of the Ditea plays are reproduced in
109
provisions to be succeeded by Juan Carlos, grandson of Alfonso XIII, the monarch deposed with the proclamation of the Second Republic in April 1931. Juan Carlos I, as Head of State, initiated the process to establish a democratic government in the frame of a monarchy that had been sanctioned by the dictator.2 The ‘Ley para la Reforma Política’, approved by referendum in December 1976, paved the way for the June 1977 elections, the first opportunity for the Spaniards to choose their rulers since the outbreak of the Civil War. Then, in another referendum, the Spanish citizens gave their approval to the Constitution in 1978. While this closed the door on the dictatorial order, a coup d’état fronted by General Tejero in February of 1981 endangered the democratic progress of the previous years. In Galicia, this was a tense reminder of the events in 1936: history seemed to be repeating itself, as the Estatuto de Autonomía was pending final approval at the time of Tejero’s irruption in the Congreso.3 These events allow us to speak of Transition period until the consolidation of the democratic system with the 1982 general election.4
Theatrical activity in Galicia was profoundly marked by the political situation and much of it revolved explicitly around ideological commitment, in circumstances where the use of the Galician language was a political statement in itself. The landmark event of the period was the creation of the Mostra de Teatro Galego de Ribadavia in 1973 and the Premio Abrente for original dramatic works in Galician language. The proliferation of public organised events points to the predominant function of theatrical manifestations at that particular moment, 5 described by Manuel F. Vieites in the following terms:
Fue una época de autoafirmación en la que la simple defensa de la lengua era
2 Juan Carlos I, as Head of State, did not carry out the immediate dissolution of the Francoist
institutions that had existed during Franco’s regime; in fact, his appointed president, Arias Navarro continued in his post until his resignation in 1976.
3 Approved by popular referendum in December 1980, the Estatuto was passed in March 1981. 4 Other scholars extend the transition period until Spain joins the EEC in 1986.
5 Besides the ‘Mostras’ in Ribadavia (1973) and Vigo (1975), preceded by the ‘Jornadas de Teatro’
(since 1972), the ‘Semana de Teatro en Marín’ (1973) and, in 1975, the ‘Ciclo de Teatro Gallego’, organised by the Asociación Cultural Valle-Inclán in Lugo.
110
la única credencial necesaria para subir a un escenario y compartir el cartel más deseado, un momento histórico en el que el teatro constituía, casi en exclusiva, un instrumento de expresión tribal y de lucha social.6
Despite the differences with regards to aesthetic codes and approaches, the importance placed on the ideological component acts as a binding agent for diverse projects and groups. In Vieites’ words, ‘[l]a lucha política unía aquello que la creación artística separaba’.7
While the affirmation of Galician identity was a cohesive element amongst practitioners, opinions on matters such as the use of the language, the definition of what constitutes Galician theatre and, crucially, the position and function of translation in the developing theatre structures were contentious items on the agenda. Nevertheless, the emphasis on organised events indicates a concerted effort towards establishing a solid theatrical network and a pursuit of normalisation.
As seen in Chapter Two, theatre activity in Galician experienced some degree of recovery during the 1960s. The 1970s would see an intensification of debates around the definition of Galician theatre and the pivotal issue of language expressed in a key question: can there be a Galician theatre in Spanish language? This resulted in what Vieites describes as ‘un diferencialismo a ultranza, el ritual de la negación del otro’, sometimes leading to the stigmatisation of the use of Spanish language on the part of certain sectors.8 Conflicting views on this matter became palpable in the second edition of the Mostra de Teatro de Vigo, in 1976. Faced with the opposition of certain sectors to the presence of Spanish-language performers, the organisers declared themselves to be beyond ideological postulates: ‘su intención de crear un teatro plenamente gallego y no solo en gallego, asumiendo la situación sociopolítica de nuestra región para tratar de liberarla de la invasión cultural de que ha sido objeto
6 Manuel F.Vieites, La nueva dramaturgia gallega. Antología y estudio preliminar (Madrid:
Asociación de Directores de Escena de España, 1998), p.62.
7 Ibid., p.56.
111
por parte de la cultura castellana’.9
The protectionist attitude of many towards the vernacular language provoked debates around the acceptability of translations in the construction of a corpus of Galician theatre or the need to prioritise original creations in Galician language.10 Reports on a round table on Galician theatre held at the Galería Sargadelos in Barcelona in 1975 provide an insight into the various positions with regards to translation. On that occasion, Eduardo Blanco Amor pronounced himself contrary to the translation of foreign drama as an investigative, innovative exercise, at the expense of a connection with the Galician people.11 He referred to the work of university groups on his texts: ‘El pueblo lo asume y lo asimila, y yo, que soy bastante más refinado en mis menesteres literarios, estoy satisfecho de haber escrito estas farsas populares’.12
The participants in that debate adopt varying degrees of acceptability towards translated drama, and arguments for or against are overlapping. As Pazó points out, the true key to the matter is the attitude towards stage work and towards the audience, rather than a choice of thematic lines or authors.13 Most of the practitioners that resorted to translation at the time alleged a lack of Galician originals that fitted in with their aesthetic or ideological coordinates.14
One of the preoccupations transpiring from the discussions at the Sargadelos round table was the idea of popular theatre and its ability to connect with Galician audiences. Whereas some contributors saw the potential of foreign popular theatre, others dismissed it on the grounds that it would be ‘popular’ only in its context of
9 Ana Begoña, ‘Las dos Mostras se sentaron a dialogar’, Faro de Vigo (13 July 1977), cited in Vieites,
La Nueva Dramaturgia…, p. 60.
10 For a comprehensive study on the position of translation in this period and the different arguments,
see Pazó, A función da tradución..., p.26 et seq.
11 Blanco Amor’s position here must be nuanced with his work in Buenos Aires, where he
collaborated with Valenzuela and Villaverde, who were clearly not opposed to the idea of translation for the stage, as seen in Chapter Two.
12 Ramón Clemente, ‘Mesa redonda, en Barcelona, sobre el teatro gallego’, La Voz de Galicia (26
March 1975), cited in Pazó, A función…, p. 26.
13 Pazó, A función da traducción…, p. 31
14 Pazó refers to her conversations with translators, directors and dramatists, amongst whom she
112
origin. This concern with validity and identification is addressed in the paratexts that accompany translations from the Irish theatre system since the early twentieth century, where the ability of those texts to mirror the essence of the Irish people and, by virtue of identification, of the Galician people is recurringly highlighted. As I will show in the following sections, the 1970s translations staged by Ditea are not an exception.