Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:37:23.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interculturalism, Aestheticism, Orientalism: Starting from Peter Brook's Mahabharata

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2009

Maria Shevtsova
Maria Shevtsova
Affiliation:
Maria Shevtsova is Professor of Theatre Studies atLancaster University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The criticism of ‘intercultural’ theatre in general, and Peter Brook's Mahabharata in particular, that was spearheaded by Rustom Bharucha in Theatre and the World, has taken firm hold in the Anglo-American academy and especially in Britain. Bharucha's critique of Eurocentric appropriation of non-western cultures (although the word ‘plundering’ might be more precise for his argument) is the mainstay of his attack on interculturalism, whether theorized by Richard Schechner or, in Bharucha's view, epitomized in performance by Brook's production. Schechner is understandably Bharucha's central reference, for he essentially gave the concept of interculturalism its particular twist in the early 1980s and has continued his crusade for it ever since. Scheduler's concept involves generic mixing within an anthropological framework, as occurs, for instance, when ‘western’ text-based theatre, usually situated in the domain of art and letters, merges with non-western ritual, one of the main areas of anthropological study.

Type
Articles
Information
Theatre Research International , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , Summer 1997 , pp. 98 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © International Federation for Theatre Research 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. London: Routledge, 1993.

2. The point of demarcation might be ‘Intercultural Performance’, The Drama Review, (Vol. 26, No. 2, 1982), pp. 3–4. Scheduler develops the thesis introduced here in Between Theatre and Anthropology (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985). See also ‘Interculturalism on the Road’, The Drama Review, (Vol. 35, No. 1, 1991), pp. 7–9.

3. New Theatre Quarterly, (Vol. 12, No. 46, 1996), p. 116.

4. Theatre and the World, p. 4.

5. Thus the article which appeared in the Economic and Political Weekly, ‘Peter Brook's Mahabharata: A View from India’, was also published in Theater, (Vol. 19, No. 2, Spring 1988), pp. 6–20. It was then reprinted in the Indian edition of Theatre and the World (New Delhi: Manohar Publications, 1992), in Williams, David, ed., Peter Brook and The Mahabharata: Critical Perspectives (London: Routledge, 1991), pp. 228–52Google Scholar. Subsequently it was revised slightly for the 1993 Routledge edition referred to above. It is, of course, Bharucha's 1993 Routledge version which is known best.

6. Theatre and the World, p. 68.

7. See Said, Edward, Orientalism (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978)Google Scholar, the last section in particular, pp. 201–328.

8. Theatre and the World, p. 70.

9. See, especially, Shevtsova, Maria, ‘Universal Theatre/Universal Culture? Brook, Grotowski, Barba’, Chapter 2 of Theatre and Cultural Interaction (Sydney Studies: University of Sydney, 1993).Google Scholar

10. I have been developing for many years my version of the sociology of the theatre: see, for example, ‘Social Actors/Stage Actors: Jean Genet and the Sociology of the Theatre’, Revue Internationale de Sociologie, 11th series, (Vol. 17, Nos. 2–3, 1981), pp. 276–309; ‘La Sociologie de la mise en scène: le Cas d'Ubu aux Bouffes de Peter Brook’, Recherches sociologiques, (Vol. 20, Nos. 2–3, 1988), pp. 195–220; ‘The Sociology of the Theatre’ (in three parts), New Theatre Quarterly, (Vol. 5, Nos. 17, 18 and 19, 1989), pp. 23–35, 180–94 and 282–300, respectively; ‘Histoire/Identité: le contexte sociologique du théâtre australien’, Théâtre/Public, (Vol. 91, 1990), pp. 10–18; ‘Théâtre multiculturel, nouveauté et perspec tive ethnique’, Sociologie de l'art, (Vol. 5, 1992), pp. 69–79; Theatre and Cultural Interaction, as above.

11. For the debate in India concerning The Mahabharata's identity and travels see Gupta, S. P. and Ramachandran, K. S., eds., Mahabharat: Myth and Reality, Differing Views (Delhi: Agam Prakashan, 1976).Google Scholar

12. Theatre and the World, p. 70.

13. ‘Oriental theatre is the art of the actor. That's it. The Orient knows what the actor is, and we know what a dramatic text is. Writing for the theatre seems to me to be a western phenomenon—the Greeks, Shakespeare—but the art of the stage, the art of the actor, is eastern, and we have everything to learn [from it]. I try to educate myself by seeing the great, traditional eastern forms, whether they are Japanese, Indian, Balinese. It is the eastern actors who know how to give a feeling flesh and blood, that is to say, how to transform a state of being into symptoms, how to transform all the sicknesses of the soul, all its passions and happiness—and also its health—into physical symptoms. This is what western actors did not know how to do—but which they have begun to learn to do—with the exception of some of the very great: Charlie Chaplin knew how to do it perfectly.’ For the original interview in French, see Alternatives théâtrales, No. 48 (juin 1995), pp. 69–73 (72). Subsequent quotations are from pp. 72–3. The English translation of the interview first appeared in Western European Stages, (Vol. 7, No. 3, Winter 1995–96), pp. 5–12 (9). Subsequent quotations are from pp. 9–10.

14. ‘I think I owe as much to Noh as to Kabuki, Kathakali or Topeng. I owe them everything… Their laws are the same even if they aren't the same formally because of their different languages, their totally different musical rhythms.’

15. ‘Of being accused of looting, or of a certain kind of cultural imperialism that goes hand in glove with ‘orientalism’.’

16. ‘But what goes on here is quite the opposite of imperialism. Cultural imperialism means going down there and imposing our culture on them. It doesn't mean letting ourselves be influenced by their culture.’

17. ‘As far as I am concerned, I take what oriental theatre teaches us. I think that taking someone's teachings is the most beautiful gift you can give them. You don't plunder a master. You value him. You honour him. If, on the other hand, you plagiarize or vulgarize something … well, I don't think I do that. No, I don't have the impression that I plunder oriental theatre; on the contrary, I know that I owe it a tremendous amount.’

18. See, for example, Wallerstein, Immanuel, Geopolitics and Geocultures: The Changing World System (Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Featherstone, Michael, ‘Global Culture: an Introduction’, Theory, Culture and Society, (Vol. 7), pp. 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lash, Scott and Urry, John, Economies of Time and Space (London: Sage Publications, 1994)Google Scholar; Beck, Ulrich, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London: Sage Publications, 1992).Google Scholar

19. The concept of ‘vision du monde’ refers to the ensemble of ideas, beliefs, feelings, values, aspirations, and so on, that identify a distinct social group and/or class. This concept is elaborated by Goldmann, in Le Dieu caché (Paris: Gallimard, 1956).Google Scholar