In “Theatrical Performance: Illustration, Translation, Fulfillment, or Supplement?” theatrologist Marvin Carlson discusses the use and interpretation of text through various means and productions. He references, specifically, four forms by which an audience or consumer absorbs a story (the names of which appear in the title of his essay). When does the interpretation of a text “corrupt” it? Exploring the “increasingly problematic” challenge of creating a relationship between dramatic text and performance, Carlson suggests that every adaption fits into one of these categories. Foremost, illustration exists as a performance for those who cannot interpret the text alone, such as women and children. Illustration, inherently, is therefore linked with social implications: illiteracy and the lower class. Translation, on the other hand, is a separate entity from the original text; it is complete in itself, although, the written text comes first. Carlson then presents the concept of fulfillment with a quotation by Anne Ubersfeld, who “has spoken of dramatic text as...a message consciously created with ‘holes’ which are to be filled by” (9) performance. This is when performance “fulfills” the incomplete, solitary text. Finally, supplements, such as alternative or complementary plays, can provide another lens or shed a new light on a pre-existing show, producing new meanings and implications.
I would categorize Antigonik as both a translation and as a supplement to Antigone. Although it is filled with paintings and drawings, I would not categorize it as an illustration, because it does not present a simple performance or representation directly from the original Antigone. In the same vein, Antigonik appears in written text, not as a performance. Therefore, it does not fulfill any intention that the playwright, Sophocles, may have possessed of producing the play in a fully staged form. Antigonik does, however, exist as a separate entity from the original text, and as an interpretation of the play. Therefore, it follows the rules of a translation, in the sense that it translates the script to another written form, poetry. However, a reading of Antigonik can enlighten its consumer, who may later return to the original work to find that they have been provided with “a new way of thinking about several of the key paradoxes which bedevil theories of performance” (9). Therefore, Antigonik lies in the realm of translation, while possessing the capabilities to serve as a supplement.
With very little dialogue and an avant-garde display of costumes, dance, and music, Antigone Sr. invites its audience to explore a lively interpretation of Sophocles’ Antigone. Antigone Sr. would best be described as a supplement to the original work. For the same reasons as those of Antigonik, it does not function as an illustration of Antigone. Similarly, Antigone Sr. does not truly interpret the text in a book-to-movie or script-to-stage form, in the way that many translations do. Additionally, it takes on a completely new interpretation of the original work. Therefore, because it does not perhaps fulfill the expectations or desires of its playwright, it cannot be categorized as fulfillment. Antigone Sr. indulges in both the aural and the visual, while challenging contemporary society’s hetero/cis-normative structures. It pushes the boundaries of the original show and adds its own flare.