Abstract
If the individual and the world are substantially (though not entirely) constituted through language and if, therefore, ‘ identity’ and ‘ reality’ are fictional constructs which continually elude full representation, then there is always the possibility that both the individual and the social reality in which he is inscribed can be reinvented. To effect such a re-creation was precisely the challenge taken up by the Field Day Theatre Company. Field Day was born in 1980 in the depressed city of Derry, from the conviction that the political crisis in the North and its reverberations in the Republic made the necessity of a reappraisal of Ireland’s political and cultural situation explicit and urgent. ‘ Everything, including our politics and our literature, has to be re-written — i.e. re-read’,1 announced Seamus Deane, one of the founding directors. Field Day set out to ‘ contribute to the solution of the present crisis by producing analyses of the established opinions, myths and stereotypes which had become both a symptom and a cause of the current situation’.2 The initial moving force behind the formation of the company was the Belfast actor, Stephen Rea who, despite his success on television and the London stage, wished to return to Ireland to contribute to cultural life there. He approached Brian Friel whose play The Freedom of the City, Rea had acted in at the Royal Court.
Keywords
National School Private Place Ordnance Survey Faith Healer Rich LanguagePreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
- 1.Seamus Deane, ‘Heroic Styles: The Tradition of an Idea’, in Ireland’s Field Day (London: Hutchinson, 1985), p. 58.Google Scholar
- 4.Brian Friel, quoted in John Gray, ‘Field Day Five Years On’, Linenhall Review, 2, 2 (summer 1985), p. 7.Google Scholar
- 10.These are lines of John Wilson Foster writing about John Montague’s The Rough Field which Edna Longley applies to Translations. See Edna Longley, ‘Poetry and Politics in Northern Ireland’, in Poetry in the Wars (Newcastle upon Tyne: Bloodaxe, 1976), p. 191.Google Scholar
- 11.Brian McAvera, ‘Attuned to the Catholic Experience’, in Fortnight 3 (March 1985), p. 19.Google Scholar
- 12.Brian McAvera, Fortnight 3 (March 1985), p. 20.Google Scholar
- 13.Sean Connolly, ‘Dreaming History: Brian Friel’s Translations’, in Theatre Ireland, 13 (1977), pp. 43–4.Google Scholar
- 18.J. H. Andrews, ‘Translations and A Paper Landscape: Between Fiction and History’, in The Crane Bag, 7, 2 (1983), p. 122.Google Scholar
- 21.Brian Friel, ‘Extracts from a Sporadic Diary’, in Ireland and the Arts, ed. Tim Pat Coogan (London: Quartet Books, 1982), p. 58.Google Scholar
- 25.Michael Toolan, ‘Language and Affective Communication’in Cultural Contexts and Literary Idioms, ed. Michael Kenneally (Gerrards Cross: Colin Smythe, 1988) p. 145.Google Scholar
- 26.Lionel Pilkington, ‘Language and Politics in Brian Friel’s Translations’, Irish University Review, 20, 2 (autumn 1990), p. 292.Google Scholar
- 29.Blurb on dustjacket of Brian Friel’s Three Sisters (Dublin: Gallery Press, 1981).Google Scholar
- 33.Elisaveta Fen, ‘Introduction’, in Plays: Anton Chekhov, trans. Elisaveta Fen (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968), pp. 8–9.Google Scholar
- 36.Anton Chekhov, letter to Alexei Plescheyev (4 Oct. 1888), in Letters of Anton Chekhov, trans. Michael Heim and Simon Karlinsky (London: Bodley Head, 1973), p. 109.Google Scholar
- 37.F. L. Lucas, The Drama of Chekhov, Synge, Yeats and Pirandello (London: Cassell and Co., 1963), p. 115.Google Scholar