{"id":4622,"date":"2006-03-16T12:31:29","date_gmt":"2006-03-16T17:31:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/?p=4622"},"modified":"2010-07-14T14:51:05","modified_gmt":"2010-07-14T18:51:05","slug":"translate-adapt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/?p=4622","title":{"rendered":"Translate, Adapt"},"content":{"rendered":"

Interesting analysis of Andrew Upton’s adaptation of Hedda Gabler<\/i><\/a> – being done in Sydney right now, with Cate Blanchett in the lead.<\/p>\n

I found it fascinating – as I do most issues of translation, especially in the theatre. How does Moliere translate? (Not very well, usually. The rollicking crazy Moliere rhythms end up sounding stilted and stiff in bad English translations.) How does Shakespeare translate into, say, Polish? Etc. What is lost? What is gained? It’s an artform, effective translation – and I know now that I grew up with shitty Chekhov translations. I only know that now because I have read multiple translations – I have taken recommendations from friends who prefer this or that translation – and I realize that the one I grew up with, the one in my public library, BLEW. Made Chekhov sound stilted and formal. Chekhov? Formal? Nope. That’s just a bad translation.<\/p>\n

Translation is definitely a topic that I love – but the New Yorker<\/I> article I link to seems to have more to do with adaptation issues, and “interpretation” than translation. FASCINATING.<\/p>\n

At the heart of Hedda Gabler is a mystery. Ibsen leaves stuff out. We don’t get ALL of her. He does not tell us totally WHY she is that way.<\/p>\n

That’s one of the reasons why Hedda has more of a grip on the imagination than Nora from Doll House<\/i> does. Nora can be explained. Nora is a product of her environment. She is a product of the patriarchal system at that time. Ibsen is VERY clear on that. Her money is controlled – that’s the main thing. It’s a bourgeois middle-class play. Nora does not have her own money – and that is really where all the problems begin. Ibsen believed in freeing up women financially – and once that happened, perhaps this ol’ institution of marriage might work a little bit better. So – Nora is explainable, in terms of Ibsen’s playwriting, his intentions, and how he set her up. No less an amazing character. No less a challenge to an actress. But Hedda? Nobody can explain Hedda. Or – you can explain part of her – but that still leaves a vast part of her personality in the shadows. Her motives unclear, to some extent. FASCINATING. Hedda Gabler is a truly magnificent theatrical creation.<\/p>\n

It sounds to me like Upton is trying to explain her – or at least to get rid of the elements of her that defy explanation.<\/p>\n

For example:<\/p>\n

As Tesman sees his aunt to the door, Hedda is left onstage alone for a moment. \u0093Hedda crosses the room, raising her arms and clenching her hands, as if in fury,\u0094 Ibsen writes. It\u0092s the marvellous \u0093as if in fury\u0094 that provides a clue to Hedda\u0092s unfathomable rage. Reared, we assume, in the spartan fashion of a military brat, Hedda is also a nineteenth-century woman, unable to scream or to act out her rage: what man would have her if she shrieked the truth? And, if no man would have her, where would she be? She has no money of her own. Besides, as a member of the bourgeoisie, she cannot go through life as a single woman: no one likes a female who will not join the herd.<\/p>\n

In this scene, Nevin, instead of having Blanchett raise her fists, has her trip over one of Tesman\u0092s footrests. Yes, yes, we get it: the domestic obstacles that Hedda must overcome are really her various internal hindrances\u0097the metaphorical furniture of her sick mind. But if Hedda cannot reveal to us the foundations of her anger, how can she convince us that she is more than a spiteful child, adept only at making the less crafty around her uncomfortable? <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Brilliant observation. There’s much more where that came from in the rest of the article.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Interesting analysis of Andrew Upton’s adaptation of Hedda Gabler – being done in Sydney right now, with Cate Blanchett in the lead. I found it fascinating – as I do most issues of translation, especially in the theatre. How does … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[16],"tags":[193],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4622"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4622"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4622\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20378,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4622\/revisions\/20378"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4622"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4622"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4622"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}