Vassar College Digital Window @ Vassar Senior Capstone Projects 2013 Designing Lysistrata: Reconciling Aristophanes and the Twenty-First Century Audience Yannick Godts [email protected] Follow this and additional works at:http://digitalwindow.vassar.edu/senior_capstone Recommended Citation Godts, Yannick, "Designing Lysistrata: Reconciling Aristophanes and the Twenty-First Century Audience" (2013).Senior Capstone Projects.Paper 167. This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Window @ Vassar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of Digital Window @ Vassar. For more information, please [email protected]. Designing Lysistrata: Reconciling Aristophanes and the Twenty-First Century Audience by Yannick Godts a senior thesis in Greek and Roman Studies submitted May 21, 2013 Vassar College Poughkeepsie, New York Acknowledgements According to my mother, it was she who forced me to take Latin class in sixth grade and, later, suggested that I join theater tech crew in high school. I do not remember either of these events. But, there can be no doubt that I must thank her for putting me on the path that eventually led to both designing Lysistrata and writing this thesis about it, as well as for her undying love and support. I must also profusely thank my major/thesis adviser, Barbara Olsen. Her guidance, criticism, and general advice have been invaluable to my completion of this project, as well as her understanding of the insanity that tends to comprise my life. Finally, my deepest appreciation goes to Stephen Jones, professor, mentor, boss, and friend in all things concerning theatrical design. 1 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Note on the translation of the play 7 Aristophanes’ Lysistrata 10 Chapter 1: Lysistrata at the Experimental Theater of Vassar College 43 i. Approaches to the Play 44 ii. Scenic and Costume Design 48 iii. Staging 53 Chapter 2: Lighting Lysistrata 68 Figures 85 Chapter 3: Critical Context 92 Conclusions 107 Bibliography 111 2 Introduction One of the most enduring questions of working with an a classical Greek or Latin source in the modern world is that of faithfulness to the text in its language of composition. Is it important to be faithful at all? What is lost or gained in using a translation or other adaptation? When using a translation, how does knowledge of the original language inform one’s work? Any translation inherently imposes a single interpretive lens on the text in question. In using a translation without considering its source, one risks losing the subtlety and specificity present in the original language, which no translation can completely capture. Our bold interpretations and reinventions of Greek and Latin sources risk losing the integrity and the creative beauty of their composition. If we have no investment in faithfulness to the text at its moment of origin, we lose access to much that no translation or commentary can capture or recreate. I have had the opportunity to explore the relationship between faithfulness and interpretation through my work with the Vassar College Department of Drama on their December 2012 production of Aristophanes’ Lysistrata1. I was offered the opportunity to design lighting for the play when the Department of Drama announced their season for the coming year at the end of the 2011-2012 academic year. As part of that season, the department invited Vassar alumna Ianthe Demos, class of 2000, to return for the 2012-2013 academic year as a guest artist. She would direct Lysistrata in the fall, using a translation by Patric Dickinson, and Sarah Ruhl’s Eurydice in the spring. 1 The Department of Drama’s complete record of the production may be obtained by contacting the Experimental Theater’s Director of Theater or the Vassar College Archives and Special Collections Library. 3 Ianthe2 is Greek herself and has made theater from or about Greece—classical, modern, or mythological—a specialty of hers in her career. Upon her graduation, she and several other Vassar alums founded One Year Lease Theater Company, of which she is currently the artistic director. She has directed many plays from antiquity or inspired by Greek myths with her own company and with others’, and any project of hers tends to have an unconventional, experimental quality to it. Lysistrata would prove to be no different. My position as a member of the Lysistrata design team was unique in several ways. As a designer with the ability to read classical Greek, I approached the project with detailed knowledge of Greek theater practice and the ability to draw not only from our chosen translation, but also from Aristophanes’ original text when designing. I also had the opportunity to closely observe the process of producing a Greek play today from the perspective of a student of Greek and Roman Studies who was in the rehearsal room with the directors and actors for much of the process. As a lighting designer, I discovered that I could use the medium of light as a mode of negotiating the tension between the Greek text, Dickinson’s translation, and the design team’s conception. Light functioned as a workable middle ground between the original and the new, enabling me to preserve the particular intent of Aristophanes’ language while still responding to our broader concept and themes. By integrating my knowledge of the ancient source into my own concept and, eventually, final design, I could ground the production in an accessible reality without inhibiting the grander interpretive steps we took. 2 Since all participants in the production of Lysistrata referred to Ianthe Demos by her first name during the process, I will be doing the same here. The same is true of designers and Professors of Drama Stephen Jones and Kenisha Kelly, and so I shall refer to them by their first names throughout as well. 4 This thesis will survey the process by which I accomplished this. I will devote one chapter to a discussion of the choices that the director and other designers made in their work on the Experimental Theater’s production. This will survey the broad thematics and concepts behind the direction and design, both in regards to the themes we brought out from the text and what was added through movement and choreography. I will then focus on specific moments in the staging that were unusual in our interpretation of them or that we made into significant points in the play. In the second chapter, I will discuss my own choices as lighting designer and the process by which I arrived at my design. To understand the text fully, I began with a close reading of the play in Greek, from which I wrote my own translation of it. Any design in theater originates from a study of the text being performed, but this translation enabled me to search the original composition of the play for indicators that would inform my design that might have been lost in translation. I found many such points in my work with the play, as well as numerous other features of Aristophanes’ writing that, sometimes, presented a very different picture of his characters than the text we used in our staging. My direct involvement with the original text and my responses to it in designing ultimately created an odd juxtaposition between my own work and the other aspects of production that did not concern themselves at all with the original text. Finally, I will consider the Experimental Theater’s production critically in the context of a larger performance history of Lysistrata. This must, of course, begin with a brief analysis of how Ianthe’s choices altered the meaning and message play compared to its original staging from 411 B.C.E. I will then discuss how her direction relates to trends in the production of the play in the modern world. Three monumental stagings from Germany, Russia, and England in 5 the early 20th century established the early modern performance trend shortly after Lysistrata first reappeared on the stages of Europe. For contemporary views, however, I will look mainly at productions and staging concepts from the Middle East in the last decade. There is a trend in these contemporary ideas that differs vastly from more traditional interpretations of the play, and it is these that provide the most informative venue for understanding Ianthe’s more radical choices. These three chapters create three critical lenses through which I can examine questions of faithfulness versus adaptation of this creation of Classical Greece. My involvement in the rehearsal and design process of one specific production gives me insight into how those staging Attic comedy in the modern day see the source material their work is derived from. As a student of Greek, I can speak to the nature of Aristophanes’ text and how the knowledge of that informed my own process of designing for a contemporary production. My close reading of the Greek has also revealed things to me about specific choices the translator made that then, unknowingly to them, influenced the director, actors, and designers in their treatment of the play. The assembly of a performance history, general though it is, lets me then put our own relationship to Aristophanes’ Greek in a broader context. The trends of other theatermakers in their departures from and reimaginings of the text create a backdrop against which to understand generally how one can be faithful to the original and the richness and beauty that can be accessed when one is. 6 Note on the translation of the play In translating Lysistrata, I have attempted to preserve the literal meaning of Aristophanes’ text to the greatest extent possible. To translate any text exactly word-for-word is of course impractical, as rendering every single word into its equivalent in the new language would produce in an incredibly cumbersome, inelegant result with problems far greater than those that result from inexact translation. Instead, I mean that with my close reading of the Greek, I have written this translation with an eye toward preserving Aristophanes’ turns of phrase and choices of diction to the best extent that I can while still writing in fluid English. I have eschewed any impetus to render the text into a specific dialect beyond standard modern American English. The exception is, of course, the Spartans’ speech. For their dialect, I have unapologetically borrowed from the vocabulary and vowels of former Governor of Alaska and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. To an extent, it may even be more accurate to assign credit for my rendition to comedian Tina Fey for her devastating parody of the candidate. Fey’s portrayal, which barely even qualified as an exaggeration and had to do very little to turn imitation of Palin into absurdity, swiftly became better known than anything Palin had ever done or said herself and thus is useful as a reference for popular opinion of her. I believe use of her peculiar accent would resonate with my probable audience of educated, liberal-minded people most likely from the Northeast in the same way Aristophanes’ parody of Spartan dialect would have resonated with the Athenian audience. That is, it makes it readily apparent that the speaker comes from somewhere far away, but still a part of the same people, and creates a distinct impression of backwardness and lack of education. 7 Their dialect is the only major place where I have deviated from my effort to be faithful to the original Greek text, but even in this I think I have captured the same effect as Aristophanes’ Spartan dialect would have had. In some points in the Spartan characters’ lines, I have opted to render the Greek particles—otherwise often left untranslated—as specific idioms like Palin’s quintessential “You betcha!” or “Goshdarnit.” Otherwise, I have rendered particular Greek idioms that do not lend themselves to translation with idioms or adages common to modern American English that have the same import. As far as Aristophanes’ humor goes, I have tried to leave all the sexual and scatological humor intact: Attic Greek is extremely frank and explicit in these matters, so there is no reason to be less than frank in English3. I have treated the other jokes in varying ways. Wordplay I attempt to recreate in the equivalent in English, but humor derived from mockery of specific Athenians I leave untouched, unless context, not reference alone, is what creates the humor. One certainly could adapt the referential jokes into a form appreciable by a modern audience, but to do that—i.e., to single out contemporary figures with whom the audience is familiar—would require adapting the rest of the play to a modern setting as well, which is not my intent in this translation. As a final remark, I must distinguish between the use of my own translation and the use of Patric Dickinson’s translation in this thesis. When I refer to the Greek to comment on Aristophanes’ diction or grammar, I will cite the Greek text and supply my own translation alongside it. If I am referring to a specific line in the text as a point of reference when 3 It is to be expected that the older translations produced in the Victorian or otherwise Early Modern eras would attempt to tame Aristophanes’ raw sexuality, as the topic still remained taboo at those times. However, even in the modern day of 2013, there are few translations of Lysistrata that preserve both the sheer frequency and the forthrightness of Aristophanes’ sexual humor. This is disappointing both because the sexual jokes are, in my opinion, hysterical in the Greek and because I would like to hope that we as an audience can be trusted to handle explicit sexual dialogue onstage nowadays. 8