Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T16:18:17.460Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Stage Metaphor: With or Without. On Rina Yerushalmi's Production of Ionesco's The Chairs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2009

Extract

In the last century it has become commonplace that faithfulness to the playwright, and the play, is not necessarily a commendable quality. The play is currently viewed as raw material for a production, a pre-text for a more complex and final text, which reflects the universe of the director rather than that of the playwright. The performance is a work of art in which dialogue is only one component among others, although usually of crucial importance. Similarly, the playwright is viewed as merely the designer of the verbal aspects of the final text, among other designers. The director, in contrast, is viewed as the actual sender of the message and accountable to audience and critics for the results of his decisions: whether he or she has impoverished or enriched the play, whether or not he or she succeeded in conveying some new insight. Without elaborating on a justification of this view, there is no doubt that the production of Ionesco's The Chairs, directed by Rina Yerushalmi at the Cameri Theatre, Tel Aviv, 1990, is a clear instance of such an approach.

Perhaps the most striking decision of Yerushalmi was to get rid of any deviation from consistent characterization, although prescribed by the playwright in the stage directions of the play. Following Martin Esslin, with regard to plays within the style of the so-called ‘Theatre of the Absurd’, such deviations are among the features which are held responsible for the sense of absurdity and/or grotesque that such texts produce in the audience.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © International Federation for Theatre Research 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. All references to the play: Ionesco, Eugene, Les Chaises in Theatre. Paris: Gallimard, 1954, Vol. I, pp. 129–80.Google Scholar The translations are mine.

2. Esslin, Martin, The Theatre of the Absurd. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1961; pp. XIX–XXIGoogle Scholar, particularly: ‘It [also] disregards such traditional axioms as that of the basic unity and consistency of each character…’ [p.XXI].

3. Aristotle, Poetics in Butcher, S. H., Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Arts. New York: Dover, 1951.Google Scholar

4. I assume a basic equivalence between explicit metaphors that articulate all verbal elements corresponding to the deep structure of metaphor, such as closed similes, and elliptical surface structures, such as open similes and other forms.

5. ‘Improper’ in the sense of using a term for a set of referents other than the one intended by the language.

6. See n. 4.

7. For a detailed discussion see Rozik, Eli, ‘Stage Metaphor’, in Theatre Research International, Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. I have shown elsewhere that the addition of stage metaphors with no roots in the play does not necessarily change anything either; for example, the ‘tarantula’ image in Antony Sher's interpretation of Richard III and the giant's robe in James, Peter production of Macbeth, 1973Google Scholar: See Rozik, ibid.