The use of language in Șerban's Medea

I'm still on the subject of language and communication. Andrei Șerban, a Romanian born American theater director, explored "how to communicate the power and passion of the play without the mediating influence of modern language" (102) in his adaption of Medea, a Greek tragedy. 

"Serban's rejection of recognizable language came from a desire to find the emotional core of the drama - something that was not merely hidden under inadequate translations but, he felt, impossible in  a modern language whose relation to the emotions and to the very structure of society had become dulled" (104).

He wanted to understand and emphasize the emotions inspired by the play but felt that much was lost in translation. I definitely empathize with this sentiment. I attempted a translation for my non French speaking collaborators of the excerpts I've chosen. While in some parts I felt as if I got the gist of what they were saying, it was never said in the same way, thereby losing much of its impact. Everything I'm using was written by renowned authors so not only am I probably not translating the literal meaning very well but the style in which it's written is getting lost in the translation. 

I love this quote by him from "The Life of a Sound," an essay on his approach to language:

"Hidden vibrations start to appear, and we begin to understand the text in a way truer than any 'analysis' would have afforded. It is not only the imagination but our entire being which lives through the words. It is a matter of discovering the paradox that the head, the heart, and the voice are not separate but connected to each other...Movement and voice rediscover one another in a common effort...This potential cannot be realized by means of any technique, but rather through the opening of a particular sensibility" (104).

I do think that movement and voice are connected in a way that makes them mutually reflexive (I'm not sure that's a real description but I think it works). If you don't understand the language but can see the movement and hear the tone you're still going to understand something about what is being said, and vice-versa, if you can't see the movement but only hear the words and tone you'll understand something about what images are being evoked.

On another note, audience/performer relations:

"Serban's productions created a vibrant emotional connection and intimacy through the staging, but it never violated the implicit boundary between performer and spectator. It was an attempt in modern times, to recreate the sense of connection with a powerful aesthetic, religious, and civic event that the Greeks might have experienced. The audience implicitly understood its role and responded accordingly" (106). 

I'm very interested in the audience/performer relationship (I think I've mentioned it in early posts) so this quote caught my attention. I think playing with this 'boundary' will be an interesting part of this project because I want to make an impression on my audience but I don't want them to feel overwhelmed to the point where they detach and leave their reactions in the performance space. I think how the language is presented to them will alter this dynamic. I'm looking forward to creating small test groups this semester to experiment with audiences who A) can speak French - no context given, B) can speak French - context given, C) only speak English - no context given, D) only speak English - context given. 

Be on the look out this semester for posters / an email advertising this!