The Lark

THE LARK TRANSLATION VS. ADAPrATION: A CASE HISTORY THE MAIN DIFFERENCE between the work of a translator of a play and that of an adapter can be stated simply: a translator will try to reproduce the original intact; he will therefore generally try to find a level of language and idiom which achieves that aim. An adapter tries to find an approximate equivalent for the original, not only in terms of the language .but in terms of the whole theatrical tradition to which the adaptation is being made. He therefore has to deal with two elements in addition to the linguistic problem; dramatic technique first of all, and secondly those commonly understood national characteristics or attitudes which are relevant to the particnlar play. Both of these depend on the traditions and therefore on the expectations of the playgoer ; they are bound up with each other and often seem no more than two aspects of the same problem. Often a play and its playwright are served best by a faithful translation which merely transfers all the meaning and content of the work from one language to another. At times, though, a close translation may not lead to such a faithful transfer; in other words, an adapter may at times keep faith with the intent of the playwright by judiciously departing from the original in order to make it comprehensible to an audience used to a different culture or theatrical tradition. A play which exemplifies this problem of translation and adaptation has recently been performed in Paris, London, and New York. It provides a more interesting case history than usual because its production occurred in three theatrical traditions, not only two, and because it was translated in one case and adapted in the other, hoth by major dramatists . It is L'Alouette (The Lark) by Jean Anouilh; translated by Christopher Fry; adapted by Lillian Hellman. The Lark retells the story of Joan of Arc; this in itself indicates a possible problem in a transfer from one country to another: the national hero of one is not likely to be savored as fully in another. Secondly , there is of course the possibility that the reason for success or failure may lie primarily in the different productions. But both these causes turn out to be quite insignificant in comparison to those which are implicit in the problem of translation versus adaptation. My interest in The Lark was aroused by the fact that the play was a great critical and audience success when it was first given in Paris; that it had a mixed reception in London, where it did not last through the season; 15 16 HENRY W. Km:PLER May and that it was as much of a triumph in New York as a historical play is ever likely to be there. The London production was of the translation by Christopher Fry; the production in New York was of the adaptation by Lillian Hellman. A quick survey of the critical receptions of the three main productions will show that the reasons for success or failure were most likely not in them. L'AloufJtte was first performed in Paris at the TM~tre Montparnasse Gaston Baty on October 14, 1953, with an excellent cast headed by Suzanne Flon as Joan, and remained for a long run. There is virtual unanimity in the praise bestowed upon the play as a fresh, thoughtful, and powerful retelling of the story "meme apres Shaw" as France Soir says. Figaro describes it as a faultless presentation of an exceptional work. Even Figaro Litteraire, the most highbrow of all, is very much taken ,,~th it and calls it the Cyrano de Bergerac of the half century, perhaps a somewhat left-handed compliment. In London the play was first performed at the Lyric Theatre, Hammersmith , on May 11, 1955. A brilliant revival of Shaw's Saint Joan, witll Siobhan McKeIUJa, was running at the same time and almost every reviewer succumbed to the temptation to compare the two plays. With Dorothy Tutin in the title role and Peter Brook as director The Lark had considerable assets of its own. The critical reception, however ; was not favorable. The Daily Express, not one...