>Hi, there we are again on the discussion of language, which I consider very
>important.
and tiring! :-/
>there is the problem of telling the story with mixed language, so that the
>story would probably not be told via dialogue. It would be told by eithere:
>screens
> or movements / playing
>if we use 1 language - so english is the first I think of as well and it is
>not my mother tongue, it is just the most frequently used one, georg said
>the other day that "soon we all speak english" , and he might not be that
>wrong
i'm sure he is. i wouldn't leave my language for any other. i like other
languages (would love to speak french or german), but they will never
replace the one i have spoken since i learnt to speak. if you take a look
at artists that work with language (writers, poets, musicians) you'll find
that even when they change the language they speak, they still write in
their mother tongue.
>so we have to think of
>understandability of our play
>and intention of what are we want to tell with a multilingual performance
let's split the atom: content/concept, recipients/audience, money/production.
contenticallyways/concept:
to perform the play in one language would not transform the original text
(written in one language) in any way. it would be 'direct'.
but that's theory. in reality, a transformation (and not a subtle one) will
be done by the actors, which will have different local accents that will
modify the content and distract the audience. language will get in the way.
[have you ever heard Manuel de Falla's works by non-spanish
singers? i found myself laughing (for the german accent of
the
soprano) when i should be crying (it was a sad song)]
another problem is that we're working on analogies to Internet, and
Internet is NOT in english (but this has already been said).
[i like the pictures in kis.productions' site. i'd like to
know what they do, but it's in german. pity it's not in
SPANISH]
to perform the play in multiple languages would be to mutate the text, to
bring it to life, to make it complex. every stage would work on its way of
performing it, cultures will mix and the content will grow in the process.
and we have no accent problem, we keep the analogy, and language is _part_
of the play.
recipientallyways/audience:
the discussion here was about if the text is easier to _understand_ if it's
all in one language, without getting into Babel-style. i agree it would be
easier if it's all english... for audiences in Chicago only. audience in
other stages will get something, but not the whole text. some people will
understand one sentence, other will understand half of the play, and some
will only understand a word. besides this, they will be concerned with the
language and miss the play (language gets in the way). (and remember, they
_will_ laugh for the accent.)
another problem: half of the possible audience here will _not_ go to an
english play. and this can also be true for other stages.
another (BIG) problem: if the play is in english the audience will think
it's from the USA, not local. they will not realize it's a world-wide
thing. we loose most of the ideas we've been working on.
if the play is multilingual, everybody will understand at least the local
actor. they can understand the others if they know the language. they will
come to see it. they will know people from here worked with people from
there and there and there. we are understood.
moneyticalways/production:
this one's short and simple: most of the funds/sponsoring in Rio and Buenos
Ayres will come from the government. they will not pay for a theater
project in english. they will not pay attention to conceptual reasons, and
will not agree that english is more clear than multi.
conclusions:
the only advantages i see in doing oudeis in english (to keep the original
text unmodified and to make the play clearer) are false (the text will be
modified by accents and the play is the same confusion in english and in
multi).
to do it multilingual has lots of advantages (mutation giving life,
cultural mingling ['To mix so that the components become united'], true
analogy to the net, showing the world-wide aspect of it), and the only
stated disadvantage (Babel-style) isn't one.
and i like it better :)
>next is the transportation of the audio data , this is a technical question
>but has to be taken into account here as well:
>maybe you will not understand a single word on the stages, because of the
>bad transmission? that would be a reason for using the mother tongue,
>because every stage will understand the real actor and what comes over the
>net is a foreign language mixed with the bad quality of the net, so words
>does not really matter any more. ...?
as the connection between stages will be a fast one (and not like the ones
we pedestrians have), the audio quality between stages can be CD-like
(almost perfect for earthlings... any alien over there? ;). so voices will
be perfectly heard even if they come from the other part of the world (and
they will).
>anyway I think the idea of using subtitles (not a scrolling screen) - as I
>think Cat Hebert suggested - would be easier to read for the audience?
i would prefer a narration that complements the texts and is inclusive
enough to make the plot clear without understanding the texts.
so, that's my point.
nos vemos el martes,
santiago
mailto:jaco@overnet.com.ar
http://www.geocities.com/~yaco
check oudeis, a world wide odyssey
at http://iguwnext.tuwien.ac.at/~oudeis/
music is dressed silence