Tom Stoppard’ın Gerçek Müfettiş Hound (The Real Inspector Hound) ve Akrobatlar (Jumpers) Oyunlarında Parodi ve Gizem

Year 2018, Issue: 6, 88 - 109, 25.11.2019

Kenan Koçak

Abstract

Tom Stoppard, Çekoslavakya doğumlu ve
İngilizce’yi sonradan öğrenmiş olması sebebiyle, anadili İngilizce olan
yazarlara nazaran dile daha hâkim ve dilin imkanlarını daha iyi kullanabilen,
kelimelerle oynamada mahir; komik diyaloglar, yanlış anlaşılmaya mahal vermeler
ve beklenmedik cevaplar yaratabilen usta bir oyun yazarıdır. Kendinin belirli
kalıplara indirgenip isimlendirilmesini reddetse de oyunlarında kimliğin ve
hafızanın önemi, gerçek ve görünen arasındaki ilişki, hayatın sıkıntıları,
kendinden ve kendinden önceki yazarlardan esinlenme ve ödünç alma gibi postmodern
ve absürd tiyatronun tipik özelliklerini görmek mümkündür. İlk defa 1968
yılında sergilenen Gerçek Müfettiş Hound
(The Real Inspector Hound) oyunu
Agatha Christie’nin 1952 yapımı Fare
Kapanı (The Mousetrap) oyununun
bir parodisiyken Akrobatlar (Jumpers) akademik felsefenin satiriktik
bir eleştirisidir. Stoppard, bu makalede incelenen Gerçek Müfettiş Hound ve Akrobatlar
adlı oyunlarında kurgusunu oyunlarının başında yarattığı bir gizem üzerine inşa
eder. Bu gizem Gerçek Müfettiş Hound’da
sahneye diğer aktörlerce fark edilmeyen bir ceset koyarak gerçekleştirilirken Akrobatlar’ın en başında akrobatlardan
birinin öldürülmesi ve kimin öldürdüğünün de oyun boyunca söylenmemesiyle
sağlanır. Stoppard, Gerçek Müfettiş Hound’da
yarattığı gizemi oyun boyunca korumak için radyodan geçilen firar etmiş bir
akıl hastasıyla ilgili polis duyurusunu ve sahnede çalan telefonu kullanırken Akrobatlar’da sahnede yer alan telefon
dışarıya telefon açılması için kullanılır. Yine Stoppard izleyicilerini daha
derin muammalara sokmak için açılış sahnelerinde Gerçek Müfettiş Hound’da büyük bir ayna, Akrobatlar’da ise televizyon ekranı kullanır. Her iki oyunun
diyaloglarında da şüphe, şiddet, yanlış anlaşılma, iletişimsizlik oldukça yer
tutar. Stoppard Gerçek Müfettiş Hound’da
tiyatro eleştirmenlerini oyuna dahil ederek ve cinayet işlettirerek
eleştirirken Akrobatlar’da akademik
felsefecileri, cinayeti kimin işlediği sorusuna cevap aramak yerine, en büyük
muamma olan ‘neden yaratıldık?’ sorusuna cevap vermeleri gerektiğini söyler.

Keywords

Tom Stoppard, Gerçek Müfettiş Hound, The Real Inspector Hound, Akrobatlar, Jumpers, parodi, gizem

Parody and Mystery in Tom Stoppard’s The Real Inspector Hound and Jumpers

Abstract

Tom Stoppard, who was born in Czechoslovakia and
learned English later, is a playwright who is more capable in English language
and more able to use the possibilities of the language than most of native
English writers. He is capable of playing with words, creating funny dialogues,
misunderstandings and unexpected answers. In his plays, though he refuses to
name himself as such, it is possible to see some typical features of postmodern
and absurd theatre, such as the importance of identity and memory, the
relationship between the real and the visible, the troubles of life, and inspiration
and borrowing from even himself and other writers. The Real Inspector Hound, first exhibited in 1968, is a parody of
Agatha Christie's 1952 play The Mousetrap,
while Jumpers is a satirical critique
of academic philosophy. Stoppard builds his fiction in both The Real Inspector Hound and Jumpers on a mystery he creates at the
beginning of his plays. This mystery is created in The Real Inspector Hound
by putting a corpse on the stage unnoticed by the other actors while one of the
acrobats is killed at the beginning of the Jumpers
and who the killer is is not told throughout the play. Stoppard uses the police
message on radio about an escaped madman to preserve the mystery he creates, and
a ringing telephone on the stage in The
Real Inspector Hound while the telephone in Jumpers is only used to telephone. Again, Stoppard uses a large
mirror in The Real Inspector Hound
and a television screen in Jumpers in
the opening scenes to immerse his audience in deeper enigmas. Doubt, violence,
misunderstanding and miscommunication are often seen in the dialogues of both
plays. In The Real Inspector Hound, Stoppard
criticises theatre critics by adding them in the play and having them commit a murder,
while in Jumpers, he criticises
academic philosophers for trying to answer the question of who committed the
murder, rather than the biggest conundrum: ‘Why Were we created?'.

Keywords

Tom Stoppard, The Real Inspector Hound, Jumpers, Parody, Mystery

References

• Ayer, A. J. Language, Truth and Logic. London: Penguin Books, 1971.Bennet, Jonathan. “Philosophy and Mr Stoppard.” Philosophy 50. 191 (1975): 5-18.Brassel, Tim. “Concern with the Concepts of Art and Revolution.” In Tom Stoppard: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Jumpers & Travesties, A Casebook, edited by T. Bareham, 202-206. London: Macmillan, 1990.Brater, Enoch. “Parody, Travesty, and Politics in the Plays of Tom Stoppard.” InEssays on Contemporary British Drama, edited by Hedwig Bock and Albert Wertheim, 117-132. Munich: Hueber, 1984.Corballis, Richard. Stoppard: The Mystery and The Clockwork. Oxford: Amber Lane Press, 1984.Crossley, Brian M. “An Investigation of Stoppard’s “Hound” and “Foot.”” Modern Drama 20 (1977): 77-86.Crump, G. B. “The Universe as Murder Mystery: Tom Stoppard’s Jumpers.” In Tom Stoppard: A Casebook, edited by John Harty, 153-172. London: Garland Publishing, 1988.Dean, Joan Fitzpatrick. “Four Distinct Views on Art.” In Tom Stoppard: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, Jumpers and Travesties, A Casebook, edited by T. Bareham, 171-176. London: Macmillan, 1990.Durham, Weldon B. “Ritual of Riddance in Tom Stoppard’s The Real Inspector Hound.” In Tom Stoppard: A Casebook, edited by John Harty, 89-104. London: Garland Publishing, 1988. _________________.“Symbolic Action in Tom Stoppard’s Jumpers.” Theatre Journal 32. 2 (1980): 169-179.Esslin, Martin. The Theatre of the Absurd. New York: Penguin, 1983.Gussow, Mel. Conversations with Stoppard. New York: Grove Press, 1996.Heuvel, Michael Vanden. ““Is postmodernism?”: Stoppard among/ against the postmoderns.” In The Cambridge Companion to Tom Stoppard, edited by Katherine E. Kelly, 213-228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Hu, Stephen. Tom Stoppard’s Stagecraft. New York: Peter Lang, 1989.Jenkins, Anthony. The Theatre of Tom Stoppard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.Kreps, Barbara. “How Do We Know That We Know What We Know in Tom Stoppard’s Jumpers?” Twentieth Century Literature 32. 2 (1986): 187-208.Mason, Jeffrey D. “Foot-prints to the Moon: Detectives as Suspects in Hound and Magritte.” In Tom Stoppard: A Casebook, edited by John Harty, 105-120. London: Garland Publishing, 1988.Perrett, Roy W. “Philosophy as Farce, or Farce as Philosophy.” Philosophy 59. 229 (1984): 373-381.Robinson, Gabriele Scott. “Plays Without Plot: The Theatre of Tom Stoppard.” Educational Theatre Journal 29. 1 (1977): 37-48.Sadrian, Mohammad Reza. “Parody in Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, The Real Inspector Hound, And Dogg’s Hamlet, Cahoot’s Macbeth.” (PhD Thesis, Middle East Technical University, 2009).Stoppard, Tom. “After Magritte.” In Tom Stoppard: Plays One, 45-72. London: Faber and Faber, 1996.______________. Jumpers. London: Faber and Faber, 1986.______________. “The Real Inspector Hound.” In Tom Stoppard: Plays One, 1-44. London: Faber and Faber, 1996.______________. Travesties. London: Faber and Faber, 1975.Yardımcı, Çiğdem. “Reflections of Historiographic Metadrama in Tom Stoppard’s Travesties, Arcadia, Indian Ink and Invention of Love.” Master’s Thesis, Doğuş University, 2008.