It’s disturbing that Wole Soyinka wants to dictate the interpretations in his works. According to the author’s notes before Death and the King’s Horseman, he seems thoroughly engaged in the idea of bringing about an essence of sorrowful, musical transitions and metaphysical confrontations, while refusing to admit that his work is largely about how the Yoruban community is being corrupted.
This refusal to focus on themes of the environment might have to do with Soyinka’s upbringing. He has to write about a westernized Yoruban culture because that’s just the way it is now. These themes are a part of his life, and so he just writes in that mode without thinking about it. However, criticizing those with a different perspective is a flaw. All playwrights should be aware of the fact that their audience always has a right to an individual perspective. He cannot be angry when someone finds one theme more substantial than the ones he intended. Soyinka even went so far as to call those with a different perspective perverse.
This “perverse” writer of the introduction to his novel, Season of Anomy, thought that the book was about the west’s influence in African traditions. Soyinka didn’t want people to think this of Death and the King’s Horseman this way either. Yet, how could one look at Death and the King’s Horseman and not think that it was about the western world’s corruption of African tradition? The scenes are split up so that sometimes it is from an African perspective, with Elesin the focal character, and other times from a European perspective, with the Pilkings in focus. There is only one time that Elesin and Simon Pilkings talk to eachother, and that’s at the end. If Soyinka wanted us to solely focus on the metaphysical confrontations and “Threnodic” music, he would not add so much hope for Elesin in the women’s songs, and he would not focus half of the time on a seemingly atheist British man. The main reason for the sorrow in the play was the influence of this British man on the community. Therefore, it would seem obvious to blame the westernization.
Based on Soyinka’s goals as a playwright, he does not seem to use his tools very cleverly. Not only does he put down those that have spent time focusing on him (namely the writer of the introduction of his novel), but he also doesn’t clearly outline his plays in a way that benefits his motives of bringing out only an essence of Thredonic music and metaphysical confrontations. However, if he succeeded in this, the play would be flat. Soyinka should be grateful that he failed at making his play void of depth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Christine beat me to the punch on this one. I agree completely: Soyinka has overstepped his boundaries as a playwright in his (rather pompous) decree that his play must be interpreted, or not interpreted, in specific ways.
His comments, however, raise an interesting question in playscript interpretation: how much influence should the playwright have in a production? Obviously, it is our imaginary playwright’s world that is being portrayed on stage, her words, her chosen form. After all, as Christine pointed out, Soyinka, regardless of the fact he didn’t want audiences to solely focus on two distinct cultures, chose to divide his play so that such a reaction was almost inevitable. And, although I agree that this play is about much more than simply cultural conflict, I feel as though it is not Soyinka’s place to decree what I (or anyone else) take away from the show.
So, again I ask, to what degree should a playwright have influence over a production of his play? I find myself answering that question with: little to no influence. After all, a playwright chose the form of theater to express herself. This is, arguably, one of the most diluted forms of art in terms of from the playwright’s pen to the audiences’ senses. With theater, a playwright pens, a producer chooses, a director decides, an actor interprets, and then the audience sees. If a playwright wanted more control then she should stick to a different, less diluted, form of expression, such as books. With that form, there is usually only an editor (and sometimes an agent) diluting for the audiences what the writer had actually intended.
To play the devil’s advocate to my own argument, however, if the producer, director, and actors didn’t want to follow the playwright’s intentions then they can simply choose to be a part of a different show. Theater is as much about choice as it is about anything else.
Where does that leave us then? I am reminded of the fact that C.S. Lewis never wanted his “Chronicles of Narnia” books put to film. And yet these recent films are not only beautifully executed but have reached new generations of audiences that might never have known the wonders of Narnia. Which then would be the lesser of the evils? To have audiences only seen one facet of Soyinka’s play or to have them never experience his work at all?
I feel as though Soyinka has put us in an awkward and unfair position with his decree. He is asking everyone involved with his production to ensure that “Death and the King’s Horseman” is performed in a controlled vacuum. That is not only an impossible task but an unjust one as well. Theater is what it is because it doesn’t exist in a controlled vacuum but in the very messy and complex world that shapes and is shaped by us. Maybe he wants audiences to get more out of his work, and perhaps those involved in its production should do their best to assist with that goal.
Yet I can’t help but feel that although playwrights are critical parts of a production, they are no more valuable than any other element; after all, without audiences (or readers) a play dies an unremarkable death. As such, Soyinka and other playwrights must realize that though they penned the work, their voice is just one of many, equally viable voices. At the same time, though, I realize that those other voices (producers, directors, actors, audiences) must be willing to be quiet just long enough to hear what the playwright has to say. Only when everyone is willing to have a conversation, rather than a shouting match, will a production truly shine.
Post a Comment