16 in Mies Julie: the plot skeleton, climactic confrontation and symbolic hierarchies remain. Yet the psychological determinism and naturalism of the origin are reconceived to resonate within a post-apartheid South African context. Through this lens, adaptation becomes a meta-theatrical enactment of memory itself: the text of the past is both present and transformed, generating layered temporal, cultural and affective meaning. By framing the haunting in terms of lieux de mémoire, we see that Farber’s adaptation is not a homage or retelling but a dynamic negotiation between source text, historical trauma and contemporary theatrical practice. It is precisely through performance: physicality, gesture and spatial interaction, that this layered interplay of textual and historical memory is made tangible, allowing the audience to experience the past as viscerally present. While these mechanisms confer distinctive artistic merit, it is important to acknowledge that they also generate critical tensions. Adaptation theory cautions that if the transformation becomes too radical, the resulting work may risk losing its meaningful connection to the source, making the adaptation less legible as dialogue with the original. Postcolonial framing adds a further complication: imposing a European dramatic structure into African historical realities may produce formal contradictions, in which the temporal and symbolic architecture of the text can clash with the lived experience of colonial and apartheid legacies. Performance itself presents another tension: when historical presence is so dominant, characters risk functioning primarily as symbolic vessels for history, rather than as psychologically complex individuals whose agency and ambiguity can be fully explored. These tensions extend to audience reception as spectators familiar with Strindberg’s original may find the ritualised, corporeal staging and heightened historical emphasis disorientating, prompting reflection on the ethical and political stakes of adaptation. Conversely, audiences experiencing Mies Julie without prior exposure to Miss Julie may engage fully with the play’s historical and affective layers but might not perceive the nuances of intertextual dialogue, losing some sense of Strindberg’s narrative skeleton. Moreover, audience reception is shaped not only by prior exposure to Strindberg’s original Miss Julie but by sociohistorical and political issues. Marisa Keuris (2016: 45) acknowledges an interview by Faber that for South African audiences this play would be a “highly personal experience” and that it may even be “unbearable” while for international audiences it is mainly a theatrical experience. Ironically, the very mechanism that creates the play’s distinctive power: the saturation of the present with historical and textual pasts, can simultaneously complicate comprehension. This occurs by producing divergent interpretations that are shaped by each viewer’s prior knowledge, cultural context, and attention to temporal layering. These drawbacks, however, are not failures but productive tensions, reflecting the high stakes of adaptation as both artistic and political practice and underscoring the ethical and aesthetic challenges inherent in translating modernist texts into contemporary, postcolonial contexts.
View this content as a flipbook by clicking here.