What inspired you to take on the challenge of translating five of De Filippo’s one-act plays?

De Filippo’s plays have been the centerpiece of my scholarly pursuits (and production pursuits) for many years. The more I knew about them, the more I wanted American actors and audiences and readers to know them, too. One acts often gain more immediate access to productions and publication. And, of course, these plays had never before been translated into English.

De Filippo addresses many social issues in his works, including poverty, social injustice, family, love, entombment and non-communication. Did these issues affect which plays you thought would be most appealing to Americans?

Actually, I chose these particular five plays for a variety of reasons: The part of Hamlet because Hamlet is a universal common denominator and the play offers a piercing view of theater life; Philosophically Speaking for its romance in the face of real poverty; Dead People Aren’t Scary for its comedic qualities in the face of death; Gennareniello because of its commentary of love, marriage and old age again in a comedic vein; and So Long, fifth floor! because it celebrates homes of childhood in general and Neapolitan buildings in particular.

In the Preface, Ron Jenkins writes that De Filippo “chose to write in dialect rather than literary Italian,” which gave “truthfulness” to his plays. Is De Filippo’s ability to use realistic dialogue what gives his works substance and long lasting appeal? What drew you to Eduardo De Filippo’s works?

De Filippo wrote some plays in Neapolitan, some employing both Neapolitan and “literary” Italian, and some relying primarily on the latter. This collection of one acts, most written early in his career, rely heavily on the dialect. Of course the dialogs (and the monologs for that matter) offer “truthfulness” since Neapolitan is a living language spoken daily then and now. Realistic dialog, however, is one of many elements that give substance and appeal to De Filippo’s work. His ability to create the ambiance of a city, of an apartment, of a theatre that is to say, his ability to capture realistic setting to make you believe in PLACE was perhaps as important as his use of language in giving substance to his plays.

What drew me to his work? Meeting him, and discovering his all-encompassing theatre expertise as actor, director, playwright, and theatre manager.

It seems that De Filippo’s works build off of one another, each giving way to a fuller version or a more developed idea. Do you believe that this reflects his experience as an actor before he took on playwriting?

I’m not sure the two parts of the question are necessarily connected. Everything Eduardo wrote related to his knowledge of stagecraft as an actor he was on stage from the age of four. It was the themes that absorbed him through-out a lifetime family, theatre, what Ive called the “commedia resurrection impulse” (the ability in some human situation to seem to overcome death) that I believe continued to inspire fuller versions of the same ideas.

You begin the introduction with an excerpt from your “Encounters with Eduardo De Filippo” in which you discuss the playwrights rushed time backstage, during a show. De Filippo tries to complete a thought that begins “People do become monuments because” but he is called back to the stage without completing it. In your research of and meeting with De Filippo have you ever discovered the reason why people do become monuments? Do you believe De Filippo to be one of those people?

The show was entitled Il Monumento (The War Memorial), and in it a veteran has lived in the base of the monument for twenty-five years, never having accepted either the wars end nor the end of his combat ideals. In various other plays as well, Grand Magic, for example, or Questi fantasmi (produced last season in New York under the title Souls of Naples and starring John Turturro) a central character creates his own psychological tomb by insisting on a particular mindset despite all evidence to the contrary by purposefully remaining blind to a reality he refuses to accept.

Was Eduardo De Filippo such a person himself? I don’t believe so for a moment. In his later years he worked as director and university professor and member of the Italian Senate until his death at age 84. He over-enrolled students in his classes at the University of Rome, accepting as many as 300, and then heard all of their plays. Perhaps the mindset that Eduardo resolutely refused to change in himself was his intolerance of intolerance, one that led to his unending campaign, on stage and in life, against the “tombs” of poverty and injustice.

–Lorna Marie McManus