On Tue, 4 Mar 1997 14:33:20 -0300 Santiago Pereson wrote:
>i strongly dissagree on this subject. for one part there's the added
>difficulty for most of the actors to speak a language that's not natural
>for him. even if he can speak english, he will have a noticeable accent,
>and this accent will make the text sound funny... it won't sound like Babel
>but will sound like an english for foreigners class. and another (more
>important) point is that people on each stage will not hear the local
>language. we loose the 'world-wide' part of the idea (in fact if we do it
>in english the best would be to have only actors from the USA, UK or
>Australia).
Well, whatever is decided is fine with me and I agree with many of your
comments. However, as is the case with almost everything we do, there are
advantages and disadvantages that have to be weighed. In addition to what
has already been discussed there is also another difficulty that should be
mentioned. If the dialogue is spoken in a variety of languages, every
audience will have to both listen to the dialogue and read subtitles in a
rather disjointed way. If we were to go with one language for the
dialogue, the audience would more quickly adjust to the subtitled text and
not have the discomfort of using it in a sporadic manner. Again, whatever
method is decided is fine with me as long as we look at all the pros and
cons.
>
>to do the play in english will only help audiences on Chicago and Perth.
>
>i can re-post all the discussion we had about this last year, but i think
>it's not necessary.
Thanks, but I already reread it. Still believe the original idea from
Vienna was the best way to go but let's see what everyone thinks.
P.S. I realize I could have a different opinion if my mother language were
not English.
Lee