Willmore �1

David Willmore

THEA 481

Feb 22, 2015

“On the Merits of Seeing, Studying, Creating Global Theatre”

There has been extensive debate over the suitability of seeing and creating global

theatre or collaborate, intercultural theatrical works. Centered around concerns over “cultural

appropriation”, sensitivity to a culture’s sense of possession of their traditions, and frequent

ignorance from a general public, works of global theatre has become a contentious subject.

As previously isolated cultures and traditions become interconnected, creating “global

theatre” is unavoidable, and an element of all contemporary theatre, with numerous elements

influencing and being influenced by one another.

Looking at Nō theatre - and Japanese theatre in general - makes for an interesting

perspective on the merits of intercultural theatre. On one hand, Japan’s fiercely isolationist

attitude until the later 1800s effectively preserved Nō and other unique art forms without any

harmful Western intervention or influence. But on the other hand, the preservation of Nō as a

style of theatre, and its status in Japanese performance has only grown since the beginning of

Japan’s contact with the West. In fact, it was Ulysses S. Grant who insisted to his hosts in Tokyo

that they “must preserve this” after seeing Nō drama for the first time in 1879 (Keene). By the

late 1800s, Japan was hastily importing as much culture as it could manage from the West,

and it is considered to be largely due to Grant’s comments that Nō remains as well preserved

and documented as it is today.

Willmore �2

Interestingly, and perhaps corroboration that humanity is more similar than not, many

accurate comparisons have been made between Western theatre traditions and Nō - which is

remarkable only because Nō developed in complete isolation. Parallels between Nō and

ancient Greek drama are plentiful: both have a chorus, an abundance of masks, generally

small casts, and reliance on traditional moral or legendary supernatural themes. Additionally,

as Japan began to view Western art, the similarities between Nō and opera were noted

(Keene); seeing such a similar art form enjoying success in the West buoyed its Japanese

counterpart (Tyler). Perhaps all the similarities between theatrical forms are coincidence. But

more likely than not, similar dramatic challenges were overcome the same way, similar stylistic

choices were made along the way, and the result was similar forms of theatre. Which is to say,

maybe intercultural theatre is only building upon a layer of collectively intercultural theatre,

where similar ideas can form in complete isolation of one another.

As unique and distinct as Nō is, it has easily found a home in this world of global

theatre. What was once unique to the shores of Japan is now performed far beyond its

borders, and its influence apparent throughout a variety of other theatrical forms. From early

direct translations to Brecht’s contemporary retellings and altered texts, Nō’s presence can be

found in multiple highly esteemed and popular works (“Der Jasager (1930)”). Even when Nō

is not directly present, its aesthetic can be a popular choice, as can be seen by Peter Brook’s

and Yoshi Oida’s collaboration on close to a dozen works (Oida). (This, to a certain extent,

reminds me of the incorporation of Butoh into A Fear of Falling in the Studio just over a year

ago.) Contemporary adaptations of Nō dramas also play a major role in current Nō theatre,

much like retellings and modernizations of Western classics fill our stages (Keene).

Willmore �3

These kinds of collaborative compositions do not have to fall under the category of

“cultural appropriation.” In this truly global world, where someone can go online and find a

wealth of information about any given topic, including video recordings of thousands upon

thousands of performances. It is possible to adapt and incorporate theatrical elements which

may be foreign to a work’s creator in an entirely authentic and respectful way. While we, in

class, rightfully critiqued Peter Brook’s Mahabharata, many critics praised the work for its

skillful weaving together of multiple different dramatic traditions, such as those originating in

Africa, as well as Nō. Peter Brook’s The Tempest, which utilized a Nō inspired scenic design, as

well as more broadly known works such as Julie Taymor’s The Lion King, incorporate elements

of various styles of theatre and positively highlight them, and enhance the quality of

performance. When done well, and done respectfully, works such as these can expose new

audiences to unique styles of global theatre; this expands the collective worldview and can

only stand to improve the collective understanding of other cultures.

It is important when reading, viewing, or even discussing works of theatre (or any art)

from another culture, it is prudent for one to understand the society and culture from which

the art originated. Japanese society is one that is much more deeply rooted in individual and

familiar honor than practically any Western country, and it’s dramatic works reflect that (Tyler).

It can be incredibly challenging to take foreign works, such as Nō and study them in the same

way as one’s own dramatic or literary traditions. Nō, for instance, is not considered a literary

form in Japan, and is much more difficult to understand reading than staged (as much of the

pacing and action relies on movement) (Tyler). To compare it to Western dramatic convention,

Willmore �4

it would be as if people largely only saw live theatre (or recordings of it), but read only critic’s

reviews and discussions about the works (Keene).

Ultimately, global theatre is a side effect of our increasingly global society. It is entirely

impractical and unrealistic to expect that people will not see global theatre and, after seeing

it, incorporate it into various artistic works of their own. (Such incorporation has been

increasingly seen with artists inadvertently sampling each other’s work due to their exposure

to it while growing up.) It is far better to acknowledge these amalgamations of theatre styles

and let them balance one another, impact one another, and benefit from another, than to

refuse to produce intercultural theatre for fear of someone deeming it “cultural

appropriation.” That being said, other culture’s traditions should be treated with respect, and

the tradition’s contribution to the whole should be forthrightly acknowledge. After all, it is

better to create great, passionate, relevant, moving art than to shy away, with the fear of not

being completely politically correct. At the same time, creating or studying global or

intercultural theatre for the sake of making global or intercultural theatre, or because it is

“scheduled” is perhaps even more offensive than not doing it at all.