REVIEWS 751 period is still not well documented. Translating Great Russian Literature does much to shed light on this transitional moment in Anglo-Russian literary relations. Faculty of English Language and Literature Rebecca Beasley University of Oxford Marsh, Cynthia. Translated and Visiting Russian Theatre in Britain 1945–2015: A ‘Russia of the Theatrical Mind’? Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2020. xvi + 392 pp. Illustrations. Notes. Appendices. Bibliography. Index. £74.99;£54.99 (paperback); £59.99 (e-book). The germ of this ambitious project originated, according to its author, in ‘my own reading in translation studies, from translating plays and from directing, watching and teaching them’ (p. 255). The following review is of the e-book. The book itself seems attractively produced and illustrated. The extent of the project’s nature can be gauged from the fact that, in a work of nearly 400 pages, approximately 100 are devoted to lists of productions, the overwhelming majority of which are of Chekhov. In addition, a further seventy pages consist almost solely of endnotes to each of the book’s eight sections, leaving a little over 200 or so for the work’s main topic. It opens with a prologue (section one) and concludes with an epilogue (section eight). Section two sets out the theoretical basis of the study wherein concepts of collision, hybridization and acculturation are deployed in a discussion of ways in which translation and performance of Russian/Soviet plays in Britain have been affected, for good or ill, by either well-informed, partial or wayward comprehension of either the Russian language, the country’s landscape and its associations, its idiosyncratic social norms, or a combination of all three. The third and fourth sections focus mainly on Gogol´, Turgenev and Ostrovskii, while sections five and six cover Gor´kii, the Soviet, and post-Soviet repertoire. Section seven considers the staging of Russian prose works from Gogol´ onwards. Although, at first glance, there would seem to be a preoccupation with theory, the main emphasis of the study falls on the actual productions themselves, which are reconstructed through citation of critical commentary, hence the plethora of footnotes. Herein lies part of the problem. Due to the sheer number culled from a multitude of sources, quotations tend to be reduced to either single words or phrases, with the result that no vision or intellectual conception of any specific production emerges with real clarity. Information overload and speculative rumination become substitutes for selective, incisive analysis. SEER, 99, 4, OCTOBER 2021 752 Dramatists of the nineteenth century occupy the bulk of the discussion. It therefore comes as something of a surprise when, in a section devoted to Chekhov, we are invited to look elsewhere for treatment of the production and reception of his plays. It is precisely at this point that a reader would welcome theory being put into practice by way of a discriminating and evaluative treatment of, for example, one or two productions and translations that the author considers exemplary, or which otherwise leave much to be desired for whatever reason(s). It also seems characteristic of Professor Marsh’s approach that very few significant individual British actors, directors or designers are accorded their rightful importance in the scheme of things. Given her comparative neglect of Chekhov productions, it is unsurprising but nevertheless regrettable that an entire galaxy of native stars is eclipsed by lesser luminaries, with even Olivier finding himself reduced to celluloid (his film of Tri sestry). As for the visitors and their offerings, those neglected or ignored include the Sovremennik’s artistic director, Galina Volchek, as well as MKhAT’s Oleg Efremov and the actor Innokenti Smoktunovskii. Tovstonogov’s Idiot and his Kholstomer evade scrutiny as does his Diadia Vania. Dodin’s King Lear and Diadia Vania, as well as his splendid ‘lakeside’ Platonov and ‘pondside’ Vishnevyi sad are glossed over, while Liubimov’s recreation in Leicester of his Vysotskii/ Borovskii-inspired Hamlet, later seen in London, is overlooked. Missing from any reference to the Edinburgh Festival repertoire are the Efros production of Mesiats v derevne as well as Moscow South West Theatre’s Hamlet. Liubimov’s Taganka production of Pushkin’s Boris Godunov is mentioned but disregarded. Further blind spots occlude the...
Read full abstract
Feb 15, 2023
Giuseppe Ciaburro + 3
Open Access
