Report: Byron’s Sardanapalus at Red Bull Theater
by Vasileia Moschou
24th October 2024, New York City
In the Preface to his tragedy Sardanapalus, Byron explicitly declares that “In publishing the following Tragedies [i.e., Sardanapalus, The Two Foscari, Cain] I have only to repeat that they were not composed with the most remote view to the stage” (CPW 16). Ironically, this assertion is challenged by Sardanapalus himself, who, in explaining his decision to forgo wearing a helmet in battle, states: “I go forth to be recognized, and thus / Shall be so sooner” (ll 143-44). What does one do then, with a closet drama which features uncloseted characters? William Macready in 1834 and Charles Kean in 1853, grappled with this question by adapting the play to suit the conventions of the Victorian stage. Their edits sought to downplay Sardanapalus’ performative expression of gender and sexuality while amplifying the play’s military and imperialistic undertones. In the dramatic reading that took place in the Sheen Center Loreto Theatre though, the approach to the text could not be further from these earlier interpretations.
Having had the privilege of attending a rehearsal by the Red Bull Theater Company, my initial curiosity was immediately drawn to the script. Visually, the version provided to me prior to the rehearsal was considerably different from the text I was familiar with, Professor McGann’s edition of The Complete Poetical Works. This rehearsal script featured larger font, wider spacing between lines, and lacked the scholarly apparatus of notes, explanations, and prefaces. The only elements retained from the original were the settings and Byron’s staging notes. These features suggested that the script was explicitly designed for performance, rather than for academic analysis or leisurely reading.
A closer examination of the text further revealed the interpretive approach adopted by director Raz Golden and scholar Omar F. Miranda. Passages deemed overly philosophical, excessively descriptive, or redundant—elements that did not advance the action—were omitted. This editorial strategy aimed to create a faster-paced performance that would keep the audience engaged, focused, and informed without sacrificing essential narrative or thematic elements. The script, organized into folders and accompanied by highlighters, was distributed to the actors shortly before the rehearsal began, underscoring the practical and performance-oriented nature of the adaptation.
The transition from closet drama to staged performance cannot be achieved solely through textual modifications. At the rehearsal, a talented, multi-ethnic cast—comprising six men and four women—awaited the arrival of their director. Following brief introductions, Dr. Miranda provided an overview of the play’s historical and literary context, Byron’s life, and an explanation for the preferred pronunciation of the characters’ names. With this preparatory framework established, the rehearsal commenced.
Observing individuals from diverse backgrounds negotiate the meaning of a text written nearly two centuries ago is, in my view, an unparalleled experience. The character of Sardanapalus, for instance, emerged as alternately humorous, cruel, dramatic, and sarcastic; Myrrha balanced emotionality with pragmatism; Salamenes conveyed exasperation tempered by concern; Arbaces embodied the tension of an angry revolutionary capable of remorse; and Beleses, intriguingly, retained male pronouns while being portrayed by a female actor. Each performer brought a unique interpretation to their role; however, the characters only began to fully materialize through the interplay and collaboration among the actors.
This dynamic process led to notable adaptations: lines were omitted, tonal inflections shifted, pacing was adjusted, and accents evolved—each an integral element of sculpting the performance into a cohesive and harmonious whole. This evolving portrayal underscores the multiplicity of ways in which a written text can be interpreted. Indeed, the rehearsal and final performance were markedly distinct. As Amir Arison, who portrayed Sardanapalus, observed during the post-performance discussion, he deliberately toned down his performance during the final reading compared to the rehearsal, resulting in a significantly different interpretation of the character and the play as a whole. His subsequent artistic decision was informed by his recognition that, while the highly performative nature of the role can easily lead an actor to overplay their performance, Sardanapalus remains a character of considerable complexity and depth.
