Gao Xingjian's Post-Exile Plays Intro

Gao Xingjians Post-Exile Plays
Transnationalism and
Postdramatic Theatre
Mary Mazzilli
Bloomsbury Methuen Drama

An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
9781472591609_txt_print.indd 3
20/07/2015 09:41
Bloomsbury Methuen Drama

An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
Imprint previously known as Methuen Drama
50 Bedford Square
London
WC1B 3DP
UK
1385 Broadway
New York
NY 10018
USA
www.bloomsbury.com
BLOOMSBURY, METHUEN DRAMA and the Diana logo are trademarks of
Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
First published 2015
Mary Mazzilli, 2015
Mary Mazzilli has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act, 1988, to be identified as author of this work.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior
permission in writing from the publishers.
No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on
or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be
accepted by Bloomsbury or the author.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN:
HB: 978-1-4725-9160-9
ePDF: 978-1-4725-9162-3
ePub: 978-1-4725-9161-6
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Mazzilli, Mary.
Gao Xingjians post-exile plays : transnationalism and postdramatic theatre /
Mary Mazzilli.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4725-9160-9 (hardback)
1. Gao, Xingjian--Criticism and interpretation. 2. Transnationalism in literature.
3. Literature and transnationalism. I. Title.
PL2869.O128Z783 2015
895.1352--dc23
2015010418
Typeset by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 8NN
Printed and bound in Great Britain
20/07/2015 09:41
Contents
Acknowledgements
Introduction
1 Gao Xingjian and Postdramatic Theatre: The Other Shore
Between Lehmann and Fuchs
2 Gao and Postdramatic Theatre: A Comparison with
British Playwright Martin Crimp
3 Dialogue and Rebuttal: The Death of Love in Postdramatic
Transnationalism
4 Individualism and Freedom in Nocturnal Wanderer
5 Transnational Postdramatic Realism in Weekend Quartet
6 Latest Postdramatic Attempts at Transnationalism
Conclusion
Notes
Bibliography
About the Author
Index
vi
1
21
47
89
117
147
181
219
229
239
253
255
20/07/2015 09:41
20/07/2015 09:41
Introduction
In 2000, Chinese-born playwright, director, novelist and painter Gao

Xingjian won the Nobel Prize for Literature. At that time, Gao had
already been living in Europe for about thirteen years after making
the decision, in 1987, to live in voluntary cultural exile after his
work The Other Shore (1986) had been censored in mainland China,
possibly because its underpinning political message represented
the individual against the masses (Riley and Gissenweher 2002:
1256). While living in France, Gao published some of his major
works, including the novel Soul Mountain (1990), which is based
on the ten-month walking tour along the Yangtze river that Gao
undertook after he had been misdiagnosed with lung cancer. During
his career, Gao has received many awards and honours; these include
the prestigious Chevalier de lOrdre des Arts et des Lettres (1992);
the Prix Communaut Franaise de Belgique (1994) for Nocturnal
Wanderer; and the Prix du Nouvel An Chinois (1997) for Soul
Mountain.
Since receiving the Nobel Prize, Gaos work has garnered much
attention from scholars around the world, who have been interested
in his unique style of writing fiction, his theatrical conception and
the philosophical exploration of the human condition all elements
that will be considered in this book. However, not many scholars
have fully explored his work outside an Asian and sinologist context
and related it to a contemporary European and North American
context. Most of the scholarship in English on Gaos theatre has
focused on the link between Gaos work and that of past European
(not contemporary) theatrical traditions, in particular modernism
and the avant-garde. Towards a Modern Zen Theatre: Gao Xingjian
20/07/2015 09:41
and Chinese Theatre Experimentalism, one of the first books on Gaos

theatrical writing by eminent Chinese scholar Henry Zhao, places
Gaos theatre work well within modern experimentalism and the
Chinese avant-garde, but also clearly defines it as being embedded
within the context of Zen Buddhism. Izabella abdzka, in Gao
Xingjians Idea of Theatre (2009), makes a brief comparison between
Gaos work and the contemporary German playwright Peter Handke,
who is associated with postdramatic theatre; however, she does not
extend the comparison to a discussion of postdramatic theatre in
a larger theatrical context. Jessica Yeung, in Ink Dances in Limbo
Gao Xingjians Writing as Cultural Translation (2008), discusses
modernist and postmodernist writing in terms of Gaos theatre but
she does not make a direct reference to specific contemporary theatrical trends. Sy Ren Quahs Gao Xingjian and Transcultural Chinese
Theater (2004) is one of the most exhaustive studies of Gaos theatre
and places him in the larger context of performance theory and
philosophical discourses; it also defines him as a transcultural intellectual. However, Quah still tends to view Gaos work in isolation and
emphasizes a WestEast paradigm.
Similarly, Chinese scholars such as Huang Mei-hs, Lin Kehuan
and Gilbert Fong consider Gaos work and his Chineseness; they
hail him as the main exponent of the Chinese avant-garde. However,
other scholars have begun to discuss Gaos theatre in a different
way. Chen Xiaomeis early chapter Wilder, Mei Lanfang and
Huang Zuolin a Suggestive Theatre Revisited (1995) engages
in a direct comparison between Gaos 1985 play Wild Man and
American playwright Thornton Wilders 1938 Our Town. While such
a comparison relates Gaos work to past traditions, it is still one of the
few studies that directly and systematically compares Gao with other
non-Chinese writers.
More recently, Claire Conceison, in her article The French Gao
Xingjian, Bilingualism and Ballade Nocturne (2009), suggests that
20/07/2015 09:41
Introduction
there is a need to look at Gaos work beyond his Chineseness, which

she calls fraught and fractured (ibid.: 302). She goes on to argue that
the parallels between Gao and French contemporary theatre should
be explored. Conceison calls for a different approach to Gaos work,
one that would associate Gao with contemporary theatrical practices.
Todd Coulters 2014 book Transcultural Aesthetics in the Plays of
Gao Xingjian does consider Gaos theatrical work in this light. Both
Conceison and Coulters works are important because Gao wrote
his post-exile plays in both French and Chinese, which is a very
significant aspect of his transnationalism.
Outside the sinologist scholarly circles, however, Gao is still a
figure of mystery, largely unknown in English-speaking countries
despite being awarded a Nobel Prize. Those who recognize him most
probably only recall his name, as a novelist, in relation to his novel
Soul Mountain. Gao began his writing career as a playwright after
the Chinese Cultural Revolution (196676). In the 1980s, he was a
playwright in residence at the Peoples Art Theatre in Beijing, where
he worked with the influential director Lin Zhaohua on such experimental and ground-breaking plays as Alarm Signal (Juedui xinhao;
1982), Bus Stop (Chezhan; 1983) and Wild Man (Yeren; 1985). His
plays are scarcely seen in the UK and US, and despite being staged in
France, Italy, Austria and Germany, major studies on contemporary
European theatre have overlooked and failed to acknowledge Gaos
theatrical work.
So why is Gaos theatrical work not considered as influential as
that of other experimental playwrights and directors, to mention a
few, such as Elfriede Jelinek, herself a Nobel Prize winner, and Peter
Handke, with whom, as we will see in this study, he shares a similar
approach to theatre and concerns about writing for theatre? Is Gao,
a heavyweight of contemporary theatre, really only destined to be
remembered by sinologists and Asian literary academic scholars? If
so, why?
20/07/2015 09:41
No definite answer can be given but there is the potential for Gaos
work to be regarded as being as significant as that of Handke or
Jelinek within the contemporary theatrical context. In Transcultural
Aesthetics, Coulter questions Gaos marginality and his position
beyond cultural boundaries which Gao himself wants to transcend.
He defines the Gao plays written in France, after he left China in
1987, as belonging both to France and Chinas contemporary cultural
legacy (2014: 135). Coulters book, which fills an important gap in
Gaos scholarship, reconfirms Gao as a transcultural intellectual and
translator of Western and Eastern cultures, although he questions
Gaos identity by focusing, unlike other scholars, on the French plays.
This book, Gao Xingjians Post-Exile Plays, builds on this past
scholarship but tries to avoid the uncomfortable WestEast paradigm
by transcending a debate on Gaos cultural identity, because its
object is to open up the possibility of locating Gaos work within the
contemporary debate of theatre and drama studies. A discussion of
Gaos identity and the emphasis on his marginality, even his transculturalism, have so far limited the breadth and the impact of his work.
Ironically, by defining Gaos writing as transcultural what Coulter
calls a transcultural sensibility of identity expressed through the
unique aesthetics of his dramaturgy (2014: 114) Gaos work has
not only been forced into a secondary marginality, but has also been
relegated to a position in between China and the West, two cultural
categories that, conversely, have been seen as two monolithic entities
with very little in common. In particular, there has been a disregard
for the continuous dialogue and the studies made of the subject
between China and the West, whose boundaries and differences are
not so fixed and separate.
To be clear, I believe these past studies all point to the need to
see Gaos work within different contexts. Apart from Coulters work,
Quahs book is particularly important and revealing of the transcultural nature of Gaos oeuvre. I am also not defining Gaos theatrical
20/07/2015 09:41
Introduction
work in strict cultural and artistic categories, the -isms that Gao has
been so keen to avoid. This book is intended to add a new perspective
on the authors post-1987 theatrical work, to reveal a new relevance
that will link it to that of other contemporary greats. The book relates
his post-exile plays to the postdramatic theatrical tradition that has
developed within a European and North American contemporary
theatrical context and has spread beyond the West, to Asia, and to
Latin America. In doing this, on the one hand this book attempts to
situate Gao more strictly within a Western context and, on the other,
challenges Gaos marginality and allows him his rightful position in
European contemporary theatre.
Most importantly in this study, I want to consider that postdramatic theatre, though conceived and developed in the West, has a
transnational resonance examples of which can be seen in Latin
America, Australia and Asia. In theatre studies there is now academic
interest in the connection between transnationalism and postdramatic theatre as well as in the transnational examples of postdramatic
theatre. Christina Marinettis essay, Transnational, Multilingual,
and Postdramatic Rethinking the Location of Translation in
Contemporary Theatre (in Translation in Theatre and Performance,
2013), refers to examples of transnational postdramatic theatre as
a form of cultural production but strictly within the context of
Translation Studies, and the author focuses mainly on performance
rather than on the dramatic text. The edited volume of essays Theatre
and Performance in the Asia-Pacific: Regional Modernities in the
Global Era (2013) opens up a discourse on transnational global
theatre in the Asia Pacific; however, it focuses mainly on South East
Asia and Australia.
Having spent some time in Asia in Singapore and in China
I have seen first-hand examples of postdramatic theatre. In the
Chinese context, upcoming directors like Wang Chong1 have used
Peter Handke and Heiner Mllers plays as a springboard to create a
20/07/2015 09:41
physical multimedia theatre. Similarly, in Hong Kong, the famous and

eclectic theatre company Zuni Icosahedron2 can be seen embracing
postdramatic practices; the same can be said of prominent Taiwanese
director Stan Lai.3 The term postdramatic, which translates as hou
huaju, has been used in a Chinese context when talking about
contemporary forms of theatre (mainly in papers in the journal
Jintian). However, despite many postdramatic plays being adapted
and having provided inspiration for contemporary Chinese theatre,
the term is not widely used by Chinese scholars. They still prefer to
use the term shiyan, meaning experimental, when discussing a kind
of theatre that should be considered postdramatic.
This book is an acknowledgement that postdramatic theatre is
working through different theatrical and cultural traditions, and, while
this is not the place to make a strong connection with non-Western
contemporary theatrical work, I do want to call attention to the fact
that there is scope to undertake further studies on postdramatic
theatre in the context of Asian and Sinophone countries.
The aim of this book is twofold. First, this monograph will
contextualize Gaos theatre work, in particular his post-exile plays
(post-1987), strictly outside the Chinese context4 and WestEast
paradigm, to place his work within a larger contemporary theatre
tradition. This will enable us to assess the cultural links of Gaos
theatre with the international theatrical community. Secondly, the
wider aim of this book is to consider the term postdramatic anew
by expanding on Lehmanns definition. I would use here a different
expression postdramatic transnationalism. By this, I refer to a type
of cultural discourse that is, above all, intercultural and cross-cultural.
It is a type of cultural discourse that has found its best expression
through theatre and drama, but also explains how cultural networks
have shaped the contemporary global landscape beyond national
boundaries. This expression not only refers to a transnational artistic
and theatrical trend that is fluid, flexible and accounts for a variety of
20/07/2015 09:41
Introduction
styles and influences, but also interprets transnationalism by the very

nature of a postdramatic discourse.
In its original usage, transnationalism often refers to processes
whereby immigrants build social fields that link their country of
origin to their country of settlement; in this sense the term transnational is connected to cultural diaspora. An expanded definition
of transnationalism can be found in Robin Cohens argument that
transnational bonds are no longer cemented by migration or by
exclusive territorial claims (1996: 515). Similarly, Chris Berry and
Mary Farquhars definition of transnationalism describes it as a
phenomenon that exceeds the national and is part of a larger arena
connecting differences, so that a variety of regional, national, and
local specificities impact upon each other in various types of relationships ranging from synergy to contest (2006: 45). Ato Quayson and
Girish Daswani distinguish between diaspora and transnationalism
by stating that while diaspora creates a distant homeland in the
present, transnationalism is about transcending geographical, social
and economic boundaries and the political and cultural barriers and
boundary-making processes (2013: 18).
Building on this expanded definition of transnationalism, postdramatic transnationalism comes to describe a type of cultural discourse
that mirrors the development of postdramatic theatre in different
countries and continents. The word postdramatic, moreover, as a
suffix to transnationalism, describes a type of transnationalism that
is postdramatic in nature, fluid and open, but also that has, above all,
moved forward from its dramatic peak. Here the word dramatic
figuratively refers to the bipolar model of transnationalism home
country versus destination country (Quayson and Daswani 2013)
whereas postdramatic refers to a transnationalism that, beyond
this model, has embraced its own hybridity. Postdramatic, like
post-human and other post-isms, stands for both the complexity of
contemporary culture and also, because of its origin in the theatrical
20/07/2015 09:41
context, relates to the movement and mobility of cultural, artistic and

aesthetic forms.
Relating this back to Gao, Quah and Coulter have stressed in
their studies that the author is a transcultural intellectual. Here, it is
worth referring back to Gaos Nobel Prize speech and his definition
of cold literature as one that will escape for its own survival and
that does not let itself be strangled by society (Gao 2008: 78). He
refers to a literature that both transcends national boundaries and
makes profound revelations about the universality of human nature
(ibid.: 8). Gaos conception of cold literature can also be applied to
his belief in a theatre that is not merely transcultural, as is defined
by both Quah and Coulter. Quah states that Gaos transcultural
theatre exemplifies a cultural exchange and integration that can be
collaboratory and contradictory (Quah 2004: 14) and asserts that it
ultimately promotes a dialogue between cultures (ibid.: 13). Quahs
argument is important in that he views Gaos work as linked to the
origin of modern Chinese theatre and the latter as product of its
interaction with twentieth-century Western avant-garde. However,
Quah also misses an important point that Western avant-garde is
actually indebted to Asian theatre. For instance, Bertolt Brecht had
looked at Chinese Peking opera for inspiration, and Antonin Artaud
had found in Balinese theatre an ideal model for a conception of
Total Theatre. With this in mind, Min Tians The Poetics of Difference
and Displacement (2008) gives great consideration to the process of
cultural exchange between European avant-garde and East Asian
theatre. Picking up on Quahs definition of transcultural theatre,
Coulter defines transculturalism as exemplifying the direct influences from China and France and asserts that Gao has negotiated
with Chinese and French theatrical traditions, in creating a different
form of theatre while relegating himself to a peripheral position,
dissociated from any ideology (Coulter 2014: 101). Both Quah and
Coulter have attached the term transcultural specifically to Gaos
20/07/2015 09:41
Introduction
work in theatre and thus stress his freedom and also his intended
marginality. Conceison, in turn, highlights Gaos Frenchness and his
bilingualism (he writes plays fluently in both French and Chinese,
sometimes at the same time) without specifically using the term
transcultural. She claims that Gao, especially with regard to Ballade
Nocturne (2007), which I analyse in the last chapter of this book,
transcends and reconstructs categories of nation, language, genre
among others (Conceison 2009: 315). All three of these scholars
focus on the question of identity, an identity that they all admit
is fluid and free from specific cultural ideologies. It is from the
fluidity and the freedom inherent in their definition of transculturalism that I take inspiration to define transnationalism in Gaos
theatre, beyond questions of identity. My definition of transnationalism as connected to Gaos theatre does not look for traces
of Frenchness or Chineseness but merely acknowledges them in
the fluidity of the theatrical discourse that is postdramatic in its
essence of being post and beyond ideologies, because postdramatic
theatre cannot be assigned to an individual nation or culture. On
one hand, despite being coined in Germany, the term postdramatic
describes theatrical practices that have developed in many countries
across Western Europe, North America and beyond. On the other, it
embodies a post-essentialist discourse that defies monolithic definitions because it questions, transcends and deconstructs the validity
of specific ideological definitions. It is from this perspective that I
see in Gaos theatre a transnationalism that transcends a discourse of
cultural and, above all, national identity. I use the term transnational
because the history of the term, as mentioned above, is embedded
within a discourse of transnational mobility, of intellectuals working
transnationally and cultural trends and products being produced
across several countries and cultures, which define much of contemporary global culture. The word, as seen through Gaos definition
of literature, also points to a transcendence of cultural discourses
20/07/2015 09:41
10
which, though used by Gao, I do not associate with universality,

nor would refer to a constraining cultural-specific discourse. It is,
for this reason, that while looking at the aesthetics of theatrical and
literary practices, I also strongly refer to cultural discourses that
are anti-essentialist and defy dogmatisms, and these are normally
connected to post-structuralism and postmodernism. I will make
specific references to the ideologies of Lacan, Derrida, Foucault
and Baudrillard among others, which find resonance in Gaos plays
and in postdramatic theatre. Within a discourse on the aesthetics
of theatre, an important aspect that will be discussed in the second
part of this book is that of freedom, of individualism connected to a
debate of hegemonic societal forces. This will help me question Gaos
anti-ideological stance and his apolitical approach compared with
Lehmanns approach, in his definition of postdramatic theatre.
Postdramatic theatre
My approach to postdramatic theatre reflects the post-essentialist
nature of the expression postdramatic transnationalism that which
considers the fluidity and the openness of definitions, especially as
far as wide cultural practices are concerned. The term postdramatic
theatre has provoked some scholarly controversy, not least about its
origin and about the scholar who first coined it. The German theatre
academic Hans-Thies Lehmann used the term in his 1999 German
book Postdramatisches Theater, subsequently translated into English
by Karen Jrs-Munby in 2006. Lehmann, in turn, referred to Richard
Schechners 1988 application of the word to happenings (Lehmann
2006: 26).5 However, ignoring Lehmanns reference to Schechner,
the American theatre scholar Elinor Fuchs, in an extremely critical
review of the English translation (published by TDR The Drama
Review, in 2008), accused Lehmann of having stolen the term from
9781472591609_txt_print.indd 10
20/07/2015 09:41
Introduction
11
Andrzej Wirth, Lehmanns collaborator and mentor (Fuchs 2008:

179).6 In an issue of the same journal in that same year, Lehmann
responded to the accusation, stating that indeed he was the one who
theorized the use of the term while in conversation with Wirth. He
added that even if this had not been the case, using a word is very
different from developing and elaborating a term by making it into a
concept (Lehmann 2008: 16). I would agree with Lehmann because
even if he did not coin the term, he was the first one to theorize an
aesthetic approach based on it.
Controversy apart, more than a decade after Lehmanns German
publication, scholars have lamented that the term has been
misused, or rather over-used. In After Postdramatic Theater, Bernd
Stegemann, a German critic and dramaturge, criticizes Lehmanns
vision and definitions for exactly what Lehmann was trying to
avoid, i.e. being prescriptive and dogmatic. In his view, Lehmanns
notion has become so prescriptive that practitioners in Germany
felt compelled to avoid using dramatic forms like characters and
narratives in order to attract funding (Stegemann 2008: 23). What
needs to be clarified here is that Lehmann does not only attempt to
categorize a wide generation of theatre-makers sharing a common
aesthetic on both sides of the Atlantic from the 1970s (and in some
cases 1960s Peter Handkes Offending the Audience, Kaspar are
from the late 60s) through to the 1990s. As Lehmann himself states,
he also wants to develop an aesthetic logic of the new theatre (2006:
18). These practitioners, especially those mentioned by Lehmann
following the experimentation of old avant-gardes, were consciously
pushing forward the boundaries of theatre and further revolutionizing conventional dramatic structures and playwriting. Moreover, as
I said at the beginning, a few years later, similar theatrical practices
could be seen outside Europe and North America, in South America,
Australia and Asia among others. So, in this sense, Lehmann has
imposed an overreaching aesthetic, and has given a name to it, which
9781472591609_txt_print.indd 11
20/07/2015 09:41
12
despite being to some extent descriptive, helps understand common

theatrical trends amongst several theatre practitioners.
In the introduction to his book, Karen Jrs-Munby, Lehmanns
translator, states that the benefits of Lehmanns approach are in the
possibility of discovering surprising new insights into existing work
(2006: 11) and in providing practitioners, scholars and students with
an invaluable theoretical vocabulary for reflecting on this work and
for articulating its aesthetics and politics (2006: 14). It is my strong
opinion that Lehmanns study explains exactly what has changed in
theatrical practices since the 1970s and what all those new theatrical
practices have in common. As Fuchs concurs in later and far more
positive studies of Lehmanns concept, another way to understand
Lehmanns contribution is to look to the Hungarian scholar Peter
Szondis idea of a crisis of the dramatic, witnessed in the failure of
absolute dialogue (Fuchs 2011: 64), which refers to the changes
taking place from the end of the nineteenth century, and continuing
up to and beyond Brecht in the mid-twentieth century. Fuchs
stresses that Lehmann broadens Szondis archaeology of drama
that witnessed the decay of dialogue, to the mutual estrangement
of drama and theater (ibid.). In this sense, the theoretical breadth
of Lehmanns concept helps continue the debate of a dramatheatre
relationship in crisis, as will be explained in Chapter 1. Similarly,
Jrs-Munby states that, since the scholars Nick Kaye and Johannes
Birringer had rejected a postmodern style based on postmodern
theories of textuality and visual representation and postmodern
architecture that they found ill-fitted to define theatrical practices
and relations between performance and text (2006: 14), Lehmann
provides an aesthetic of Postmodern Theatre that is a missing link
between modernistic theatre and contemporary practices (2006: 14).
As I stated at the beginning of this Introduction, my understanding
of postdramatic theatre in the expression of postdramatic transnationalism is fluid and avoids prescriptive and contrived aesthetic
9781472591609_txt_print.indd 12
20/07/2015 09:41
Introduction
13
norms. What I am interested in is the cultural breadth of Lehmanns

definition, which despite his prescriptive aesthetic discourse has a
theoretical relevance in describing how the function of theatre and
drama has changed and how the crisis (mentioned by Szondi) has
evolved. Consequently, when looking at Gaos post-exile plays, I will
not only look for the aesthetic signs of the postdramatic in his work,
but also examine how his plays contribute to a discourse of dramatic
crisis. That is why, in terms of theoretical framework, I will refer not
only to Lehmanns study and ideas, but also to Fuchs, because despite
their intellectual differences, both have examined the same kind
of theatre and both announced a similar development of theatrical
discourses and practices. I discuss this further in Chapter 1.
It is no coincidence that at the very beginning of her introduction to Lehmanns translation, Jrs-Munby mentions Fuchs most
important book on theatre, The Death of Character, and concurs
that, like Lehmann, Fuchs also explores the relationship between
drama and the no-longer dramatic forms of theatre (2006: 1). In
Fuchs book, the focus is on the discourse of subjectivity or of self
in theatre. This discourse of subjectivity, as Coulter also suggests, is
particular relevant when looking at Gaos theatre.
Gao Xingjians theatrical origins

How does Gaos theatre work fit into this debate on postdramatic
theatre? Some of the answers to this question can be deduced from
looking at Gaos theatrical journey. The origin of Gaos dramatic
works can be associated with the theatrical debate and the theatrical
landscape in China from the end of 1970s into the 1980s, which saw
a return to Western sources, and to Chinese tradition (Yu 1996: 57,
Dong 1998: 134, Shi 1998: 132, Tian 2008: 17592). Translations of
absurdist theatrical works of the likes of Eugne Ionesco, Jean Genet,
9781472591609_txt_print.indd 13
20/07/2015 09:41
14
Samuel Beckett and Edmund Albee introduced modernist Western

theatre to China (Shi et al. 1980). Moreover, modernist experimental
approaches to theatre by Vsevolod Meyerhold, Bertolt Brecht, Antonin
Artaud and Peter Brook entered the Chinese debate on theatre that
had tried to distance itself from realist theatre and Stanislavsky. The
latter had been associated with, and used to form an idea of, Socialist
Realism in theatre (Ferrari 2004: 334 and 60). In the 1950s, Shanghai
director Huang Zuolin7 began the debate on theatrical methodology
by comparing the work of Stanislavsky, Mei Lanfang8 and Brecht in
an essay eventually published in 1962 (Huang 1986: 38). According
to Shiao-Ling S. Yu, among others,9 Huang Zuolin urged theatremakers to opt for a Brechtian methodology as opposed to accepting
Stanislavskys limitations of realism and naturalism. He recognized
that Brecht wrote his essay on the alienation effect after watching a
performance by Mei Lanfang (Yu 1996: 5). Ferrari, instead, refers
to Zhou Xians Bulaixite de youhuo yu women de wudu (Brechts
seduction and our misinterpretations) and discusses a misinterpretation of Huang Zuolins preference for Brechts approach to theatre.
Later on in the 1980s, Huang Zuolin theorized about the conception
of a xieyi theatre, encompassing a fusion of Stanislavsky, Mei Lanfang
and Brechts approach to theatre (Zuolin 1990). Huang, however,
still emphasized the importance of Brechts idea of the relationship
between the actor and his/her role and the actor and the audience in
relation to the idea of fourth wall (Huang 1986: 118).
Gaos pre-exile theatre developed from the experimental/avantgarde theatre of the 1980s,10 of which he was believed to be a principal
exponent. He entered the debate on theatre when he published his first
collection of essays, Dui yizhong xiandai xiju de zhuiqiu (In the Pursuit
of a Modern Theatre) in 1988, in which he expresses his preference
for a Brechtian approach to theatre (Gao 1988: 526). Conversely,
Huang Zuolins idea of xieyi, which stands for a form of art mediation
that aims at transcending language or any other medium (Zhao
9781472591609_txt_print.indd 14
20/07/2015 09:41
Introduction
15
2000: 170), directly influenced some of Gaos principles. Huangs use

of the term relates to Brecht and also, to some extent, Mei Lanfangs
anti-illusionist idea of a theatre that breaks down the fourth wall
(Tian 2008: 177) and stands for non-illusionism. On the other side
of the coin, as mentioned earlier on, it is not a coincidence that the
European avant-garde theatre of this period borrows elements from
Chinese traditional theatre (xiqu), through what Min Tian defines as
a process of inter-displacement and replacement of both avant-garde
and the traditional (ibid.: 198). Thus, while Brecht and Meyerhold
borrowed elements of Asian and particularly Chinese theatre in
their attempt to create new theatrical practices, Chinese avant-garde
theatre-makers rediscovered the practices of xiqu by connecting to
Western modernist and avant-garde theatre. This is especially the
case of Gao who continued to look back to xiqu. Coulter dedicates
his attention to the connection between jingju Peking opera, one of
the many forms of xiqu and Gaos theatre, especially in terms of a
complex system of self-awareness between performer and character
(Coulter 2014: 41). In order to avoid a discourse on Gaos theatre
and his cultural identity, it is important to state that the connection
between Gao and Chinese traditional theatre has helped shape Gaos
theatrical work. But it is also important to stress that many of the
postdramatic notions of presentation rather than representation, of
the changed performercharacter relationship among others, find
strong resonance in Asian traditional theatrical practices, whose
principles were not based on the conception of theatre as mimesis of
reality. Lehmann himself makes this association:
Indian Kathakali or Japanese Noh theatre are structured completely
differently and consist essentially of dance, chorus and music, highly
stylized ceremonial procedures, narrative and lyric texts, while theatre
in Europe amounted to the representation, the making present
(Vergegenwrtigung) of speeches and deeds on stage through mimetic
dramatic play (2006: 21).
9781472591609_txt_print.indd 15
20/07/2015 09:41
16
To some extent, through a process of inter-displacement and

replacement, through the borrowing of theatrical practices of theatremakers like Brecht and Meyerhold, Asian theatre has influenced
Western contemporary theatre. This demonstrates the transnational
nature of postdramatic theatre and that it is an evolution of modernist
practices whose origin lies in a connection to non-Western practices.
Conversely, this is at the heart of Gaos transnationalism which has,
to some extent, reintroduced back into Western theatre theatrical
practices which were born through a dialogue between Western and
Eastern practices.
Vsevolod Meyerhold was one of the major influences on Gao. His
method for actors, biomechanics, reduces acting to the expressions
of emotions through controlled movements, a sense of complete
self-awareness and self-control in performance (Brown 1995: 176).
Directors like Jerzy Grotowski and Peter Brook have also made use
of this approach and have been associated with Gaos theatre. Gao
incorporates their ideas into his theatre, but, in his own response to
the directors tyranny, he urges dramatists to think about stage directions, urging them to take more control of their plays (Gao 1993: 54).
In his post-exile plays, Gao focuses on performercharacter relation
through the notion of jiadingxing.11 This forms the basis of many of
his post-exile plays and will be explored further in Chapter 1. Chen
Jide links Gaos theatre, also, to the idea of Total Theatre, wanquan de
xiju, which revives Chinese traditional dramatic practices, making
use of a wide theatrical linguistic spectrum or chang nian zuo da
(singing, reciting, playing and acrobatics) (2004: 120). An example
of this can be found in all Gaos plays with their consistent use of
dance, physical theatre, puppetry and mime and especially in the last
two theatrical works, Snow in August (Bayuexue; 1997) and Ballade
Nocturne (2007), both analysed in the last chapter of this book.
The plays from the pre-exile/pre-1987 period, Bus Stop, Alarm
Signal and Wild Man, reflect the theatrical debate of the time, but
9781472591609_txt_print.indd 16
20/07/2015 09:41
Introduction
17
also see Gaos experimenting with modernist theatre, which is still

rooted on the dramatic. The Other Shore (Bian; 1986) signals a breakthrough in Gaos plays and also in his personal life and career. The
play was written in 1986, but never reached the stage in mainland
China. In Chapter 1 we will examine the new paths opened up by
this play, while giving a more exhaustive explanation of definitions
and approaches.
Through a close analysis of his plays,12 which will not only engage
in an aesthetictheatrical investigation, but also examine cultural and
theoretical debates, this study will rediscover Gaos theatre.
Two aspects that will be taken into account in the analysis of the
plays are: self-referentiality as connected to the idea of performativity
(see Chap. 1 Note 2), a notion that will be explained in Chapter 1;
and subjectivity, the representation of the self as exemplified in the
theatrical practices, that can be equated with Gaos concern about the
role of the individual and the actorperformeraudience relationship
as well as Fuchs idea of the self and the death of character.
The second and the third chapters of this book apply a comparative
perspective to Gaos plays and also examine the motif of death and the
fragmentation of the self with a focus on the function of language.
Chapter 2 engages in a detailed comparison of Gaos Between Life and
Death (Shengsijie; 1991) and British playwright Crimps Attempts on
Her Life (1997). The latters work has represented an alternative kind
of theatre in his native Britain and like Gao, he also stands in the
shadows of other postdramatic greats. Coincidentally, both plays deal
with a womans social and psychological displacement and the idea
of female entrapment within societal and narrative structures. Both
plays tell the story of a woman, who is present on stage in the case of
Gaos and absent in the case of Crimps. Such a direct comparison will
highlight more clearly the link between Gao and postdramatic theatre.
Drawing on Becketts Happy Days and debating Becketts contribution to postdramatic theatre, Chapter 3 looks at one of Gaos
9781472591609_txt_print.indd 17
20/07/2015 09:41
18
most violent plays, Dialogue and Rebuttal (Duihua fangjie; 1992),

in which the metaphorical death of two characters, a man and a
woman, is enacted through a series of dialogues and through the
characters physical embodiment of self-destruction. The motif of
after-death catastrophe, present in both plays, exemplifies a theatre
of perception the dynamic of gazing and the self the relation
between the theatrical and reality, which, according to Fuchs, is
determined by a crisis of ontological belief in the external real. There
is an element of self-orientalizing in the play, with the introduction
of a clearly religious Buddhist figure on stage. However, the selforientalizing element of the play does not diminish its postdramatic
transnationalism. Transnationalism, in this case, can found in a kind
of theatre that recreates a beyond-dramatic, beyond-death, transnational dimension, through the transcendence of a staged death.
Chapters 4 and 5 introduce new elements to Gaos theatre that
question Gaos anti-ideological stance in connection with the debate
on the political and ideological in postdramatic theatre, which have
been rejected by Lehmanns vision. Both chapters deal with the idea
of freedom and individualism, while still continuing to focus on the
self and on theatrical openness. In one of Gaos most complex but
underrated plays, Nocturnal Wanderer (Yeyoushen; 1993), nuanced
by the use of non-linear narrative, one can recognize an underpinning hidden political stance where individualism and the idea
of freedom are questioned. The debate on the political potential of
the postdramatic will be investigated. The paradigm of the death of
character is also discussed in connection with Gaos characterization
of the main character who embodies a complex subjectivity. Here,
transnationalism is questioned because it is the only case where Gao
clearly states how a play can be adapted for a Western and a Chinese
audience. Chapter 5 looks at Weekend Quartet (Zhuomo sichongzou;
1995), which is distinctly different from the other plays under
discussion in that which presents semi-realist named characters
9781472591609_txt_print.indd 18
20/07/2015 09:41
Introduction
19
and a semi-realistic situation. The discussion on freedom and the

political still continues to raise issues on representation of the real,
this time linked to the concept of spectacle in theatre as connected to
Baudrillards vision. The semi-realistic elements in the play question
the possibility of a realist form of postdramatic theatre, a vision that
seems to resonate in Fuchs more recent studies of postdramatic
theatre. In a play that Coulter has deemed to be embodying a strong
Frenchness, postdramatic transnationalism lies in Gaos experimenting with theatrical approaches, transcending theatrical artistic
boundaries and national ones. Moving onto Gaos later plays, the last
chapter assesses Death Collector (2000)13 with some references to
Snow in August (1997) and Ballade Nocturne (2007), and the way in
which Gao is moving towards a postdramatic form of Total Theatre
in a style that presents both an apparent textual and visual cacophony
while returning to the Chinese traditional genre of Peking opera in
Snow in August, as well as to forms of dramatic closures in all three
plays. References to Nietzsches ideas of tragedy and its relevance
within postdramatic theatre will be also discussed.
9781472591609_txt_print.indd 19
20/07/2015 09:41

Gao Xingjian's Post-Exile Plays Intro

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Gao Xingjian's Post-Exile Plays Intro

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Gao Xingjians Post-Exile Plays

Bloomsbury Methuen Drama

Bloomsbury Methuen Drama

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

In 2000, Chinese-born playwright, director, novelist and painter Gao