1
Strategy Statement: Interculturalism and Contemporary Golden Age Theater
Christopher D. Gascón
SUNY Cortland
Many of us are involved in directing or analyzing intercultural theater. The
term has been defined as broadly as “performances which have a cultural identity
that does not coincide with that of their intended audience” (Bennett ix), or as
specifically as theater that “creates hybrid forms drawing upon a more or less
conscious and voluntary mixing of performance traditions traceable to distinct
cultural areas” (Pavis 8). Most discussions of the concept distinguish between the
source and target cultures, “source” indicating normally the “foreign” culture or
cultures that originated the piece, while “target” usually refers to the “home” society
to which the performance is addressed, though intercultural theater may also refer
to shows in which the source and target cultures are one and the same, but a style or
aesthetic is borrowed from another culture. If we understand culture broadly, for
example in Clifford Geertz’s sense of “a system of symbols thanks to which human
beings confer a meaning on their own experience” (130), then “intercultural” is not
limited to encounters between nations or societies, but includes any exchange
between groups that identify themselves through an established system of signs.
Given this range of possibilities, any of the following could be considered
intercultural theater:
1. Teatro del Valle’s El astrólogo fingido, in which Calderón’s play is rendered in
the style of Peking opera.
2. Repertorio Español’s El perro del hortelano, in which Lope’s comedy is
tailored in such a way that it speaks directly to a young, contemporary New
York Latino audience.
3. Escuela Superior de Murcia’s Broadway rendition of Calderón’s No hay burlas
con el amor;
4. Teatro del Duende’s Flamenco version of some of Cervantes’s Entremeses.
Thus, a variety of types of Golden Age plays may, depending on where and how they
are performed and created, constitute intercultural theater, and a majority of us, I
would expect, have something at stake in discussions of the concept.
Critics, theorists, and directors of intercultural theater have for some time
been engaged in a controversial debate over how this type of theater may “best” be
done. What should an intercultural production try to achieve? What criteria should
we use to gauge the work’s success or failure? On the whole, critics and theorists
seem to be more skeptical than optimistic about the possibilities of intercultural
theater. While raising some critical issues, Erika Fischer-Lichte also warns idealists
of the perils of intercultural ventures:
Does it [interculturalism] guarantee and confirm cultural identity, or
does it metamorphose and even dissolve identity? Is it a question of
the attempt to propagate awareness of a foreign culture, or is it rather
2
cultural exploitation? Does theatrical interculturalism today support
and provoke intercultural communication and mutual understanding,
or does it deny fundamental differences between cultures and make
any communication impossible, if one is deceived into believing in a
shared community, which actually does not exist? (18)
Conceptions of intercultural theater as political minefield like this one are enough to
discourage any well-meaning theater company from risking such a staging. Is it
really fair to expect that a two-hour show designed to entertain an audience of
diverse backgrounds and experiences “guarantee and confirm cultural identity”?
What if the show seemed designed instead to challenge notions of cultural identity?
Intercultural theater is not one-size-fits-all. Perhaps critics and theorists would be
better served by assessing plays on the criteria they appear to set for themselves,
and by setting realistic expectations.
Fortunately, directors and actors seem more hopeful and enthusiatic than
theorists about intercultural theater. Clive Barker maintains that “the intercultural
or cross-cultural investigative workshop allows an exchange of technique and
training methods which form the strongest basis for intercultural penetration and
exchange” (253). In a workshop setting, whether in preparation for a particular
production or for an actor or director’s continuing development, performers seem
to have the time for meaningful exchange of cultural differences, especially those
that involve molding the body in new and unfamiliar ways. Here, at the kinaesthetic
level, is where true intercultural learning begins, according to Patrice Pavis:
Microscopic work of this kind concerns the body, then by extension
the personality and culture of the participants. It is only ever effective
when it is accepted as inter-corporeal work, in which an actor
confronts his/her technique and professional identity with those of
the others. Here is the paradox and strength of such inter-corporeal
and inter-cultural theatre: the greater its concern with the exchange
of corporeal techniques, the more political and historical it becomes.
(15)
Although there is no general recipe for staging a successful intercultural production,
Pavis and Barker imply that workshop experiences provide the building blocks of
intelligent and well-informed intercultural performances.
This certainly seems to be the case for Teatro del Valle’s combining
Calderonian drama with the costumes and acting style of Peking Opera in their
production of El astrólogo fingido. Directors Ma Zhenghong and Alejandro González
Puche explain the workshop approach they used to conceptualize the show:
La manera de producir esta obra fue a partir de un taller académico,
donde no es el productor conjuntamente con el escenógrafo los que
deciden todos los aspectos, sino los docentes se plantean los objetivos
3
de las escenas y encargan a los estudiantes todos los detalles de los
personajes, incluyendo el carácter, la voz y el movimiento, y así ellos
empiezan a traer cosas. Es una metodología de prueba y error.
(Gascón 208)
Using her knowledge of the stylized movement of Peking Opera, Zhenghong
educated and trained the cast extensively until the stances, gestures, and facial
expressions of the genre became second nature to her Colombian actors:
Una de las grandes experiencias fue la de trabajar con la mirada; los
actores son conscientes que la postura corporal, la línea del
movimiento y el gusto pantomímico son elementos que se trabajan
conjuntamente bajo el concepto de la técnica actoral de la ópera de
Pekín. Cuando ya se decidió en el estilo oriental, se realizaron
agotadoras sesiones de calentamiento propias de la ópera de Pekín
con especial atención en los desplazamientos, bajando el centro,
articulando las manos, y manteniendo una mirada abierta mientras se
hacen rotaciones [con la cabeza]. (Gascón 212)
In my opinion, the cast’s hard work paid great dividends, and affirmed Barker and
Pavis’s assertion of the value of the cross-cultural workshop. As a spectator, I
witnessed actors who had taught their bodies the habitual movements of another
culture and genre so well that they seemed natural, comfortable, expressive and
enchanting. Their movement was evidence enough for me that a profound
intercultural transformation had taken place on the level of each of their bodies. I
saw no evidence of cultural exploitation or reduction, but rather a performance that
highlighted the beauty of both cultural texts involved. One critic described the show
as the “matrimonio feliz, multiétnico, de sana y afortunada hibridación” (González).
This is not to imply that culturally-informed workshop exchanges alone will
guarantee a successful show. Indeed we are still far from comprehending a
methodology of intercultural theater. But the enterprise can at least begin with
sound preparation in the form of educational exchanges for performers and greater
flexibility and more realistic expectations on the part of critics and theorists.
Works Cited
Barker, Clive. “The Possibilities and Politics of Intercultural Penetration and
Exchange.” In Pavis, 247-56.
Bennett, Susan. Theatre Audiences: A Theory of Production and Reception. Second
Edition. London: Routledge, 1997.
Fischer-Lichte, Erika, J. Riley and M. Gissenwehrer, eds. The Dramatic Touch of
Difference: Theatre, Own and Foreign. Tübingen: Günter Narr Verlag, 1990.
4
Gascón, Christopher D. “Calderón y la Ópera Pekinesa: El astrólogo fingido del Teatro
del Valle. Entrevista con Ma Zhenghong y Alejandro González Puche.”
Comedia Performance 4.1 (2007): 199-216.
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
González, Miguel. “Calderón de la Barca Restituido.” Resena. Memorias, III Festival de
Teatro de Cali, Salas en Concierto 2002. 20 marzo 2006 <http://escenicas.
univalle. edu.co/alejandro/gonzastro.htm>
Pavis, Patrice, ed. The Intercultural Performance Reader. London, Routledge, 1996.