Just a few thoughts....
First off: Women in Noh plays just cannot a break can they? It seems to me that the driving force behind two Noh plays that I've now read in my time are due to the uncontrollable jealously of a woman scorned. It seems to me that the Japanese at this time are concerned with the somewhat fragile transformation from evil to good of these women's spirits, but what about Gengji? He's the one who needs to be dealt with, and in fact, his absence in the play is just strange and were it not for that intro into the play I would have no idea what was going on. What does this mean about the culture's attitude toward the stability of the women in their culture, easily swayed by personal demons and in need (in some cases) of exorcism?
Now that that is said, I want to transition to form. Noh plays and I have a love/hate relationship with one another; I LOVE reading them because it takes about 20 minutes of my day. Subject matter is easy to follow, for the most part (most often due to footnotes) and plot is usually explained and easy to pick up on. However, having said that, I have a few issues with them as well....
Translation: As far as I'm concerned, anytime one reads any type of Asian theatre, and mainly my experience with Japanese and Indian theatre, the translation is key. Did anyone else get reminded of a catholic exorcism near the end? I highlighted a few words/phrases that seemed rather western to me, which caused me some distraction from Buddhism. A few places I found were when the witch is referred to a sorceress (145); the man they get to exorcise is a saint who "sprinkles with the holy water" (150); later the saint announces " I shake the red wooden beads of my rosary and say the first spell" (151). WHen someone puts forth the words "sorceress" and "spell" it attributes itself to a sort of black magic phenomenon and christian ideology gets mixed in where it probably shouldn't (unless I am wrong, then someone correct me, please).
Movement/Song: There is so much movement in a Noh play and unless i can see it, it is lost on me. I know textually where such movements are located, but there is nothing to tell us about how they are. There is no information given about the structure of the stage and the characters entrances. There is much significance to the fact that the messenger calls to the Saint offstage and then he makes his entrance(150). This entrance, I'm sure was extremely detailed, which all is slot by simply reading the play. And the singing? I think I noticed what must have been sung and what must have been...spoken? Was there just spoken words or was it more or less like Opera, aria versus recitative . If you look on page 149, you'll notice that the formatting of the text changes from sung song to spoken(song) in Rokujo lines "So that standing at the bright mirror/ I tremble and am ashamed./(Formatting change, no indentation) I am come to my broken coach." Other than that there is little textual evidence to support the actual delivery of these lines, aside from a few (singing) stage directions thrown in, but even those do not reference all of the places where text format changes.
For this play only taking a brief moment to read, I feel I'm right in assuming that this play would have last almost 2 to 3 hours when performed, it's just a shame that that is lost in the text and not thoroughly supported in stage directions. Is it safe to assume that the book this text came from assumes one has extensive prior knowledge of Noh? Also, is it safe to assume that it's a protected art, so that others who don't not know Noh extremely well can't try to stage their own version that wouldn't reflect Noh tradition? Just a few thoughts I wanted to spill before going to class. Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Zac--The love/hate thing is something that we share. I have a strange passion for theatre which will allow me to defend almost any and every form, and although I appreciate Noh, I can't outrightly say I enjoy it, and I know that this has a direct correlation with understanding. Also something we have in common is the problem with translation. On page 151, the footnote 3 explains the spells as "Known as the Lesser Spell of Fudo. The longer one which follows is the MIddle Spell. They consist of corrupt Sanskrit mixed with meaningless magic syllables."
....
Ok. So this leads to me to A.) What the hell is "corrupt" Sankskrit? I am somewhat familiar with Sanskrit as a language, understanding that is is considered a classical language (compared to how we see Latin) and is widely used in religious Hindu texts. So what is Sanskrit when it is "corrupt"? Written badly? Profanity? Promoting an immoral message? I'm not quite sure how to understand this. And also B.) What the hell are "meaningless magic syllables"? I don't know if I've ever come across these meaningless syllables before so I wouldn't know how to identify them. However, I'm sure I could make some up for us real quick. It just comes across as bad translating rather than giving the reader a solid definition.
I tried to translate this prayer with the little knowledge I have of Sanskrit and with a good, ol' fashioned online translater:
Namaku Samanda Basarada roughly comes to mean "Naming Ceremony Calming/Soothing Speaking". Now, I can't be completely sure about this because there is no "Meaningless Magic Syllables" online translator, so this is the best I have, but I think it would suffice better than the footnote given. And, like Zac said, this translation completely distracts from the original Buddhist attempt the play seems to first present. Along with some random Christian references, the plays intent can be easily lost in translation.
I agree that translation from the Japanese is always a problem, and it's so clear with the translations I've read that the translators are imposing a Christian perspective or some other assumption onto the text, possibly to familiarize it for American or British readers? I'm reminded also of an article about modern Japanese translations of Shakespeare, and how difficult that is because the structure of Japanese is fundamentally different from English. But also, as Zeami's writing points out (in translation ...), these plays also involve the collection of other texts that have particular religious or social significance. So a lack of familiarity with the source material is another barrier to be overcome.
But Zac, I think you're getting at something that I find really fascinating about these plays: that in terms of form they call into question our reliance on a play text as the primary source of meaning for theatre. I wonder if it's possible to imagine a contemporary American play that uses movement and song as its foundation, and allows those to shape the composition of the play.
Post a Comment