Download hydra dialogue 2001 - Stockholms dramatiska högskola

H Y D R A
D I A L O G U E
2001
REPORT
ON THE INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE ISLAND OF
HYDRA , GREECE , JUNE 29- JULY 1ST 2001 IN CONNECTION WITH THE
HYDRA FESTIVAL
1
BACKGROUND
The symposium was organised by Michael Meschke, Sweden , who is a summer resident of Hydra island . In
1985 , with the support of Melina Mercouri, then minister of culture .he started an annual international festival
.Ever since artists from all over the world in the field of puppet theatre and related disciplines have presented
their art on the island in joint seminars and encounters .
In the 90´s one such seminar was attended by the Swedish ambassador to Greece Krister Kumlin and his wife
Ewa . This led to the wish to meet again. The ambassador moved to Tokyo where Ewa Kumlin organised a new
meeting in 1999 . The participants had the privilege of meeting eminent Japanese artists and scholars, among
them professor Mori. The theme was ‘relations between ancient Greek drama, Japanese stage arts and Nordic
theatre’. Again, the success required a continuation .
This year´s Hydra symposium was made possible thanks to contributions from
the Swedish embassy in Athens , in connection with the Swedish presidency of the European Union , the
Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation, The Swedish National Council for Cultural Affairs, the
Swedish Institute for cultural exchange, the Historical Archives- Museum of Hydra .
Museum director Mrs Dina Adamopoulou generously offered the museums building on the waterfront by the
port of Hydra .
The theme of the parallel festival of Hydra was martial arts, including performances of Kalaripayat from India,
Capoeira from Brazil and dances from Japan .
The symposium theme was dialogue itself , the participants were invited to come without prepared papers .The
structure suggested was non-structure .
In spite of – or thanks to - that , all guests engaged in lively participation , whether just listening or speaking or
singing , like actress Yuu Komaki, or giving physical demonstrations like artist Gopal Venu .
The following report, kindly put together during autumn 2001 by Mrs Gudrun Zachrisson Ones, gives an account
of a selection of themes and opinions presented .
Thanks to Dramatiska Institutet , Stockholm , the report is published within the series of short publications by
the Institute , “ Dramatiska Institutets Häften “
English corrections by Peter Oxburgh
THE PARTICIPANTS
At the opening of the symposium Michael Meschke introduced each participant in a very warm, personal way.
Here , speakers and auskultants are listed in a matter of fact manner:
Sture Linnér ,Sweden , Guest of honour of the symposium , Professor and author , Swedens eminent scholar on
Greek culture .
Dinesh & KP Krishna Das , India , Kalarippayatt dancers from Kerala .
Andromachi Dimitriadou Lindahl , Sweden/Greece . Dancer and choreographer.
Sara Erlingsdotter , Sweden . Theatre director and artistic leader of Mellby Scenkonst, a foundation for theatre
production and stage art development.
Yuu Komaki (Koma), Japan . Actress , working in Sweden and Japan .
Ewa Kumlin , Sweden . Cultural promotor and writer , lady ambassador , now in Tokyo.
Sven Malmberg , Sweden . Minister, Embassy of Sweden in Athens.
Hanna Malmberg , Sweden .Dancer and puppet player.
Rea Ann-Margret Mellberg , Sweden/Greece , cultural attaché at the Greek embassy in Stockholm , writer .
Michael Meschke, Sweden . Theatre director , Professor of mask and puppet theatre .
Mitsuya Mori , Japan . Professor of theatre at Seijo university , Tokyo.
Lia Sandberg Moustogianni , Sweden . Embassy of Sweden in Athens.
Bodil Nordström Karydaki , Sweden . Archeologist in Greece.
Arto Penttinen , Finland . Archaeologist in Greece.
Paulo Pontevianne ,Brazil , Master of Capoeira martial arts .
Anna Thelin , Sweden . Producer of the Oresteia project with director Peter Oskarsson .
Gopal Venu , India . Master of Kerala Arts, scholar , writer .
Thanos Vovolis , Greece . Maskmaker , costume and stage designer, researcher.
Gudrun Zachrisson Ones , Sweden . Head of studies and research of the National Swedish High school for
Drama , Stockholm.
Inger Zielfelt , Sweden . Professor of the history and culture of theatre, researcher, dramaturge of the Oresteia
project with Peter Oskarson.
( Regrets by Suzanne Brögger, Denmark, Peter Brook, France , Peter Oskarson , Sweden )
2
Dialogue – the meaning of the word
.Michael Meschke opened by reminding of a great international symposium held at Hydra in
1982 by initiative of Melina Mercouri and Jack Lang , France on the theme of Mediterranean
cultures . The chairman of that meeting expressed some worries about the theme : would a
common language become possible, he said, between personalities from most different
horizons? The symposium ended with a resolution, mainly focusing on the Israel-Palestine
issue.
” Well, our approach is a more modest one – we are simply friends gathered to exchange
ideas, banning rhetoric, but our perspectives go beyond Europe.
Dialogue’ is a common theme nowadays , mainly consisting in monologues , rarely ending in
true communication . That is why the world looks the way it does. Before dialoguing –
wouldn’t it be interesting to examine dialogue itself?
The non-structure may turn into a fiasco or a success, it certainly is an experiment.
It is natural that the participation of each one of us will be based upon personal experiences in
our fields. Automatically that means focusing on cultural exchange. Let’s try to be informal
and spontaneous and see where it leads. As the only prepared contribution I have asked Sture
Linnér just to give us a formal definition of the word dialogue.
Sture Linnér : There is a word in ancient Greek, ‘dialegomai’, which really means separate,
distinguish from, you have it in the word dialect, ‘dialektos’. The language distinguished from
the language generally spoken in the country. So instead of the association that we usually
have, that it brings people together, the word originally meant the opposite.
Michael gave me the idea of saying something about ‘logos’ and the importance
of silence – the opposite of ‘logos’ (word). An English poet in the 17th century went to bed
with his mistress. She kept talking, the poet got impatient and said “shut your mouth woman
and make love”. That’s also something essential. The most intimate, deeply felt , may I say
penetrating contact may be made in silence - not necessarily through ‘logos’, the words.
The all time master of the art of dialoguing was Socrates. His mastery consisted
in acting as a midwife, asking questions, making the other part come forward. And I suppose
that is the deeper meaning of dialogue, to get in touch with and make her/him deliver
something she/he has not had in mind before.
I think the importance of dialogue can only be compared to the importance of
silence. I was thinking about last night – three of us sat chatting uninterruptedly for three
hours instead of going to our rooms, having a shower, behaving properly – we just remained
in the courtyard talking. To me it was just marvellous. But at this moment I think the three of
us might as well have kept silent and been as happy – if not happier . Although words may
serve as a link between people, too often they are a barrier. You know the old saying that the
British and the Americans are two peoples separated by a common language. There is
something in that paradox. Whereas silence can imply an intimacy that goes much deeper than
any words .
It is interesting for us who are now in one way or the other involved in Aeschylus and the
Oresteia that some years ago a French scholar published a work called ‘Les silences
d´Echilles’, ‘The Silences of Aeschylus’. If you think of the structure of the drama – of the
Cassandra episode for instance, when she is brought to be slaughtered – her silent horror
expresses the intensity of her anguish better than many words.
3
Silence
Meschke : In theatre , we often talk about the “ zero “ point . In all we do we are loaded with
preconceptions. We need to empty our minds from them in order to create . The word
‘silence’ too has to be analysed : What does it mean, what is required for silence, what kinds
of silences are there , do we use the same interpretation of silence ?
Thanos Vovolis : There are different silences. But perhaps the silence relating to dialogue has
to do with some kind of presence, some kind of face to face encounter. To meet somebody,
you must be near them , be present and see the other. Perhaps this being near to each other is
needed because otherwise silence may become loneliness. Perhaps sitting here in silence
would be the greatest form of getting to know each other because we see each other – perhaps
this kind of bodily encounter, being together in the same room, is part of silence.
Ewa Kumlin : We should not overemphasise or romanticise silence. We have to create an
intimacy before it is possible to communicate in silence.
Meschke : Silence can only be measured by its opposite , by non-silence ,sound and noise .
Mitsuya Mori : I want to talk about silence in Japanese culture. I think silence is something
very intimate in society . People can communicate when they are already close to each other.
But when we are separated -–we need words, we need dialogue. In Japanese society we don’t
need dialogue because we are so close. Between lovers there is no need for words. It may
even be disturbing. But when you are separated – you have to talk, you have to discuss. You
need words to understand. It is interesting that in Europe you discuss all the time - because
you are separated. In European society you are separated because you are all individuals. In
Japanese society we are not individuals but part of a form.
Andromachi Dimitriadou Lindahl : Silence creates a space inside your body, inside a person,
for listening. And listening is the base for dialogue. With silence you can open up a level of
consciousness, of understanding.
Mori : The climax in No drama is performed in silence. Everything stops , sudden silence, that
is the most intense moment – just silence.
In Ibsen or in Strindberg there is silence, but in Chekhov there is pause – not silence. There is
a difference between pause and silence. Silence is maybe a part of the dialogue in the
European sense, but a pause is a stop.In Chekhov´s plays , when lovers are talking to each
other , suddenly there is a pause. It is a stopping of the feeling. They don’t communicate with
each other. But silence could communicate. Japanese and European pauses are different. And
of course also silences are different.
Dimitriadou Lindahl : Silence – you listen to yourself, to your own thoughts, to your
associations.
Gopal Venu : In our concept of theatre it can take half an hour – without words - to
communicate a feeling experienced in a fraction of a second. Suppose a man falls in love with
a woman. He has just seen her for the first time – one look – he is in love and she is in love.
How will the performer bring out the entire span of feelings? How beautiful and admirable
she is - her hair, her eyes, her lips and breasts, everything from head to foot . These feelings
that he may have hidden inside himself. - There are many conventions in our theatre. We have
4
to make certain signs when we want to express our deep inner feelings. So it goes much
beyond the written words , they are just clues, a source of inspiration , a starting point . So
our playwrights are very careful in choosing words because every word must be capable of
development many ways . With four lines I can make three hours of drama , so a play may go
on for two months.
Inger Zielfelt : A group of westerners went to visit Mr Venu in Kerala to see a performance.
We sat there so eager to understand. We looked and we looked and we did not understand
anything at all. We became so tired from trying to understand, exhausted. Then our attitude
changed. We became very relaxed and did not ask for understanding – and suddenly lots of
things happened inside us. We could sit for hours evening after evening. We had not yet learnt
this language, but we understood , because there was a language with invisible words. I
suppose it was a kind of silence, because we did not understand these finger words.
Everything happened, inside us and between these people. So we made our own stories. I
have the same feeling when I see a No play.
You have to change, you have to be silent, you have to relax, you have to
understand there is another kind of language. It will come to you, if you change your attitude,
if you really want to listen. I love the point where they freeze. Nothing happens – and at the
same time lots of things happen. But in a Chekhov play – a pause is not the same at all . For
example , when two lovers talk about their love – and then a pause – I know, I feel, that one
of them has an idea about their love. The pause makes me continue his thinking. But the
thoughts of the other one have a different direction – and that is so terrible. It is the opposite
to Indian or Japanese theatre. In Chekhov I get so sad, so unhappy, because there is a pause
where terrible things happen, because they don’t understand each other and never will.
Nothing, nothingness, emptiness
Mori : In our culture nothing is actually everything. This nothingness is everything. It is
positive. But maybe in the European sense nothing is negative. Nothing is nothing. Maybe.
In space there is nothing, it is empty, it is nothing. But the space is a whole. So this
nothing is also a whole. In Japan or in Buddhism the way of thinking is spatial, not temporal.
The spatial thinking does not include movement from one place to another. The spatial
thinking has it all here. If you have the whole, you don’t need the communication, because it
is all here. This moment of silence, this pause, expands spatially, infinitely, to embrace the
whole universe. But if you are separated, or divided, you need communication. – In modern
Japan we have to change our thinking into the western way , this spatial thinking does not
work in western civilisation. I think that dialogue is the greatest invention of the Greeks. They
started western . You cannot develop without dialogue. The nothingness cannot develop. To
develop you need this linear way of thinking, because progression is linear.
Vovolis : When you talk about emptiness I have a feeling of a pregnant moment, like an
image of the universe just before the big bang . A heavy something, a hole that in the next
phase is going to explode. For me it is a pregnancy. Empty, but filled at the same time with
everything. This is not an intellectual analyses, just a the feeling . I cannot respond
intellectually, but I can respond emotionally to what you say.Talking about emptiness we
must not forget the way they measured land – the Greeks did not start with zero, they started
with one. Other civilisations, e.g. the Babylonians, had the zero. The Greeks had a problem
with the zero. So of course there are two ways of perceiving – not only thinking – also
perceiving.
5
Mori : In Japan we cannot distinguish between speaking to each other and speaking to many.
In Greek drama, you invented the speaking to each other. Aeschylus invented the two actors
speaking to each other. Two persons speaking to each other is the greatest invention. In No
there is no distinction between talking to one person and talking to several persons .
Linnér : Talking about Aeschylus’ invention of using the actor and the chorus as two
components. It is perhaps an interesting thought that in ancient Greece there was a special
form called ‘dualis’. The Greeks had a special word for things that form a pair. Ears. They did
not say one ear, two ears. They did not say one eye, two eyes. They used a special form to
express this particular relation, the duality . I have never thought of it before, but it fits in to
what we are talking about.
And if we come back to the word dialogue. What does ‘logos’ really mean? - It
comes from a word ‘lege’ which means ‘pick’. We have it in ‘lesen’, German ‘lesen’ which
means ‘picking letters together’. You have it in the German word ‘Weinlese’. = ‘grape
harvest’, the grapes are picked, collected.
I would like to combine this conception of ‘logos’ with another word, ‘mythos’
(myth). Here we capture , I think, the very core of Greek thinking. Through the ages. I think
what Aeschylus tried to do, and what the other contemporary poets tried to do, was to
combine two things. a) The awareness of the role of ‘mythos’, which stands for everything
non-rational. ‘Mythos’ really means ‘word’ and ‘logos’ means ‘word’. So what is the
difference? The difference may be something like this. ‘Mythos’ is the word as expressed in
art, in music, in painting, in imagination, in dreams, in lovemaking – all those intangible
feelings in human activity, whereas ‘logos’ stands for the reasoning component, the logical
component. It is Apollo and Dionysos, if you like.
We have a word in Greek – ‘antagonistic’, which really means that the Greeks always
compare themselves with somebody else – there was always a competition, a rivalry. I must
be better than you. You must be better than me. This is the whole foundation of ancient Greek
culture. Competition.
The most rational of Greek authors, Tukydides, does not distinguish between
myth and history. In his work on the Peloponesan war he quotes myth as a base for his
historical writings. It is not that he could not see the difference between them, but he insists
on interweaving them. This must be the secret of art, of acting, of everything.
Zielfelt: It is a huge thing. It is a kind of dialogue between history, experience, intuition and
art. When you talk about emptiness you have it also in the myth, from the beginning. When I
give a lecture about myths I always start with this one: In the beginning there was chaos.
‘Chaos’ means ‘emptiness’. It starts with nothing, absolutely nothing. But this nothing is
pregnant with some energy. There is an energy that you cannot see, you cannot touch. Out of
this energy comes Earth, comes Heaven, comes Love. And Love makes Earth and Heaven
come together. And Earth gets pregnant – with all these gods and stories. So it starts with the
emptiness. The absolute nothing. And this nothing is pregnant.
Linnér: Last night I read a book ‘Sacred texts in world literature’. I read a Sumeric text, an
Arcadian text , an Egyptian text . We are back to the question of archetypes and chaos.
These are deep down in the human soul , not particularly Greek. The Greeks perhaps
articulated them better than anybody else. But there is a common ground.
Mori : Why then was it only in Athens that they invented drama?
6
Zielfelt : That is where ‘the others’ come in. It had to happen somewhere where East and
West meet where there is lots of water, lots of land, and lots of ideas going from one side to
the other. And it had to happen at a meeting point where people want to know more about the
other and you try to articulate it. Even today Greek people talk all the time. And here there
was more of the ‘logos, all the rest came from the East.
Linnér : Still there is some mystery about this. You have given some reasons – but still it is
something inexplicable about it. Why did drama suddenly flourish in the Elizabethan age?
Why Shakespeare? And he was not alone. Why did they found cities like Antwerp and
Liverpool. Why Chartres cathedral? And so on. – These are a quantum leaps , as the
physicists say. You develop, you march forward, quietly, and then all of a sudden …
Meschke : It seems there is no nothingness - but always pregnancy.
Venu : The nothingness is the very base of our theatre.
For many centuries attempts have been made to classify the basic human emotions. Not only
human emotions, but also emotions of all living beings. Eight emotions are the basic ones.
Heated discussions have been carried on about nothingness – whether or not it could be a
basic emotion . Discussions have led to the conclusion that all the other feelings emanated
from emptiness. So we have to keep a distinction between emptiness and the other basic
emotions. But considering the needs of a performer for the purpose of theatrical expression
this emptiness - or calmness or nothingness – all the same has to be added as the ninth
emotion because the others originate in it . It is everything , the base. Even the theatre itself is
an empty space. The actor has to create everything with his body and mind, and relate
everything to the three worlds. May I just give a demonstration , a simple exercise. – I am
moving my eyes now in relation to the three worlds. By that , everybody should be able to see
what is happening , first in Heaven, then I come to the Earth, and then I have to go to another
world. ( follows demonstration ) This is how we have to create in the empty space of theatre.
Zielfelt : Mr Venus´ theatre is the only unbroken acting tradition in the world. There are no
other places where the acting tradition is unbroken. That is why we are so interested - the
western tradition is broken. But when we study your history, we realise that we have a history
before our history – closer to your tradition which is a very elitist tradition. In the temples
they did not depend on an audience, they did not need to find money, they have been able to
continue until today. That’s why it is so important.
Mori : In Japanese traditional theatre we don’t use facial expression. In No theatre we use
masks, but not in the same way as in Greek tragedy. The form, the mask, is only there to hide
the expression of the face. We don’t use the eyes. Even without a mask you never smile or
show other feelings on stage. It is the same for dancers , they never change their faces.
Energy
Vovolis : Greek and Japanese traditions seem to be very similar. They work according to
principles that are very close, even though they use different forms.
Zielfelt : These traditions are not naturalistic. They start from life, from nature.Then ,
expression is stylised and enhanced. But it must be in connection with reality. Like in No ,
which is far from realistic but about life. You make it stronger, bigger to make us understand.
7
Yes, they are alike , but also so different. For me as a westerner , your expression and your
energy are much stronger. Your tradition is more expressive than our tradition.
Kumlin: We westerners always talk about psychology and feelings, we want to transmit
everything into feelings. When you see Zen-buddhist training in Japan or No theatre there is
no talking about psychology or feelings, they only talk about form, about movement , never
using psychological explanations in the instruction of an actor.
Meschke : To a western actor that is irritating. The generally naturalistic actor feels offended.
“You must explain to me deeply and thoroughly, otherwise you make a robot out of me”
Indeed, the big cultural gap is not between cultures but between naturalism and stylisation .
Mori : That is true for the Japanese actor, too. To play the modern drama we need expression.
And you need explanation. The traditional and the modern theatre are completely separated.
Traditional actors never play in modern drama and vice versa . Of course Asian cultures are
related, but for a Japanese , the Indian theatre is very different .
Kumlin : A No master described told about a scientific experiment. In No theatre nothing
happens, they wear masks, they are absolutely still . A comparison was made between a No
actor and a western actress , comparing the brainwaves of the two actors during the
performance. She was acting out, crying and screaming - he was not doing anything. But the
measurements showed that the brain activity and energy in the body of the No master was
much higher.
Vovolis : One of my greatest experiences in theatre was a performance by a Japanese court
dancer. She was a master but had a performance together with one of her students. They were
to do the same dance. They were of the same age. First came the student. She was excellent.
Beautiful. Everything was exact. Nice, really aesthetic. Pleasing. As she left the stage we
were waiting for the master I suddenly had the feeling that something was happening on the
empty stage , like space expanding. An energy . When she came in and danced the same
dance , the difference was immense. The energy level not the level of aesthetics or beauty or
acting, opened to another world, and it started happening before she even appeared.
Mori : That is the “Khi”, the breathing - for air. It is close to devotion. You empty your body
– and “Khi” makes your body very natural.
Zielfelt : It is the same in Indian theatre. The breathing techniques are so important.
Venu: The king selected some scholars, very talented people who had all been trained in the
traditional form, Kathakali, Kutiyattam, whatever – where special breathing techniques are
taught. They experimented in many ways. But this emptiness was the big question - how to
achieve that? They came to the conclusion that a dead body is the ultimate empty human
body. So they wanted to achieve the status of death. - They studied all the traditional yoga
techniques and found that a certain way of breathing is a symptom of death. Actually ,when
one of them was practising it in a wrong way he died.
But secretly the instructor told his daughter not to cremate his body. He might revive. And he
came back.
8
Linnér: I can almost translate word by word what you said about emptying the body,
emptying the soul, by quoting Byzantine Greek philosophers from the middle ages. There is a
central conception called ‘kenosis’. It means emptying. Continents move closer to each other!
Sara Erlingsdotter : I am wondering - about the eternal fire – is it possible to talk about a
dialogue with eternity? Is it a dialogue? Is it an energy? Or is it a communication?
Venu: Ritual is one thing , theatre another ….but like every episode in a story is rooted in real
life it it is also a divine story . And the fire is the witness, the fire is the inspiration, the fire is
everything. When you stand behind the lamp as an actor , you realise how important it is for
the performance. Even if you feel weak, are tired or whatever it is – as soon as you stand
behind the lamp you become different. You get such an energy from fire that you can do
impossible things. This a main secret. Even in modern times we believe in it. Sometimes we
are forced to perform in European countries with a very small flame. Then we lose energy.
Is it because I am an Indian, but this gives a totally different dimension to everything.
Democracy and drama
Dimitriadou-Lindahl : When we discuss with words - we think that we all understand the
same thing, but when we see something in physical action we see what is really meant. Verbal
language can deceive you. Words can easily be misunderstood. With body language, with the
physical presence, it is very hard to tell a lie. Body language cannot dissemble .
Mori : Even silence can deceive you. With body language we could not express the things we
are saying here. The feeling could be communicated by silence and body, but in order to
communicate thinking, thoughts, you need words, dialogue. That is why they invented
dialogue and developed the drama in Greece.
In order to develop a modern society we really need dialogue. Dialogue is something new to
us. Modern drama to us is dialogue We did not have that before. That’s why we are a little
confused. We don’t understand what dialogue really is. Of course we have everyday
conversations, but that is not dramatic dialogue. So I would like to know more. What are the
merits of dialogue – and its deficiencies? The contrast between dialogue and monologue? It
seems to me that Japanese traditional theatre depends on the monologue instead of the
dialogue. When Thespis started drama, drama was a kind of a monologue – not pure
monologue, but there was only one person, one actor. Aeschylus introduced a second actor
and that was the beginning of dialogue on stage. Sofokles brought in a third actor. Why do
you need a third actor? I really want to know – what is dialogue?
Linnér: Basically the human being is a being of loneliness. Never so lonely as in the most
intimate communication between man and woman. You all know that we talk of the orgasm
as a kind of death. It is necessary to tamper with the loneliness inside oneself, because it is at
the same time a tremendous source of strength. Only when you retire into your innermost
recesses and listen to the instrument of your soul can you become capable of communicating
in a true way. Loneliness is a prerequisite of communication. And I think that Aeschylus’
greatness consists in the realisation of this truth. You have a set of pairs which at the very
beginning of drama acted as one unity – this was necessary for the next step, namely to
separate (and here comes the word dialogue) one actor, and later two actors – and to give the
chorus its real function, which in modern theatre is often so completely misunderstood. In fact
the chorus plays an essential part, it represents the community, the surrounding city , life in
general. It gives a continuous commentary on what the author is trying to say.
9
I think we have to realise that in one way we are complete strangers to each other. You as a
Japanese will never understand the innermost thinking and feeling of a Swede. I – as a Swede
– will never be able to really understand your innermost feelings. Still we eat and we drink
and we sleep, we make love, we take part in politics and we carry on in very much the same
way. So I think what we are really talking about is finding the archetypes underlying our
behaviour and our attitudes, to discover the common heritage. Heritage from when? From
what? – I don’t know. Because it is so far back in time. We must also safeguard at the same
time our differences. East is East – and West is West – and never the twain shall meet . And
on the other hand we must always try to cultivate, fertilise those factors and those elements
that we know we have in common. If this sounds abstract – so be it! I cannot find any other
explanation than this, that drama always questions man’s existence in more or less these
terms. What is life? What is death? What is love? What is loyalty? What is treachery? We
pick up all the elementary, all the key factors in social life. We look at what joins us and what
separates us. And then we try to create some kind of synthesis. Perhaps dialogue is really a
desperate , but still an absolutely vital , attempt to bridge over the basic differences between
you and me.
Zielfelt : From the beginning there was the chorus - one part addressing the gods. And then
came monologue – also addressing just the gods, and maybe the king. But then something
different and very important happens : democracy. In a democracy you have to stop your
monologue, you have to listen to another part, you have to react to what the other is saying,
and you have to find new words and respond to other questions or proposals . Then the other
has to listen to your words again. That is the beginning of democracy. Western democracy
started in Athens when Aeschylus was a child. He belonged to the first generation of this kind
of democracy. Even if it was a democracy only for the aristocratic part of society it was a
totally new way of treating political and social matters.
Aeschylus belonged to the first generation of democracy and the first generation
of drama . Dialogue in drama was developing at the same time as democracy . Society was
mirrored in the dialogue of drama. Democracy was developing drama, and drama was
supporting democracy. The king had to listen to the people. When he does not listen to the
chorus, the people, he had to go but when he listened there was dialogue . You have to try to
get the chorus on your side.
Vovolis : Mr Mori said that Japan was in crisis because of the lack of need for dialogue – due
to another way of thinking, another way for the individual to be part of the whole .
I was thinking of your society on one hand and the Greek on the other. In Greece an important
part of the thinking was that there is always ‘another’. The Greeks and the others, the
Athenians and the others. They had their gods who also had the function of representing the
other. They had ways of trying to bridge over from the self to the other. Perhaps this
recognition of the existence of the other is the basis for a need of dialogue. They were aware
that there were others around them. The need for dialogue is a basic human quality – the
feeling of empathy for others , the need to put yourself in the position of the other. If this does
not exist – why bother?
If I am totally sufficient in myself , why bother ? Part of my energy to generate
dialogue is this feeling of empathy. I wonder how the other thinks, how the other feels, what
his life is like . I and the other - we are in various positions but in contact, we are parts of
each other. I am me and the other - at the same time.
Mori : Do you mean that empathy is the basis of drama?
Vovolis: No, no, not the drama. Of the need for a dialogue.
10
Mori : And what is the difference between dialogue and drama?
Vovolis : Dialogue is part of drama. Dialogue is crucial to drama, but drama is not crucial to
dialogue.
Dimitriadou Lindahl : Entering a dialogue means that you are ready to negotiate your own
interests. With silence and openness you create a possibility to accept the other. Entering a
dialogue means to be ready to give up your fixed standpoints – to be influenced.
Mori : I thought that dialogue was mainly related to drama. I distinguish between drama and
theatre. Theatre might be ritualistic, but drama is something else. Drama started when theatre
became non-ritualistic , when needed dialogue , while ancient ritual , traditional theatre – was
a kind of monologue. Then , drama came . It started in ancient Athens, and later on in Japan
in the 14th century. Why? Because ritualistic theatre was not able to express new situations.
I am very glad you brought up the concept of democracy. To me dialogue is the right to
oppose to others . But in ancient feudalistic Japanese society, we didn’t have any right to
oppose. We just had to accept. In modern times we really need dialogue, because we need the
right to oppose , to insist on our own opinion.
Zielfelt : Let me continue. Aeschylus belonged to the first generation of democracy, and also
of drama. He was a soldier and fought against the Persians. He felt he had to oppose the war.
The heroes of the old literature thought that the war was absolutely necessary - they had to go
to war after war after war. Aeschylus was opposed to this kind of conflict solution. With
democracy it became possible to oppose. So when he wrote the Oresteia the old heroes
became the bad guys. And when Agamemnon decides to kill his own daughter, Aeschylus
said: Is that a real solution, a good solution? He opposed the old tradition. He opposes to the
blood revenge that could go on for centuries. In the Oresteia he said that this kind of law
should be stopped. New ways, new laws had to be formed for our time. Drama is a way of
opposing. He asked an audience of 15.000 people: “ Is this right? All these wars - is that the
right way to create justice? Do we have to kill our children? “
Still today , we have to ask the same questions.
Mori : No theatre is similar to Greek theatre because it has a chorus. But this chorus is not
independent like the Greek chorus , more a base on which everything is supported . In Greek
tragedy the chorus could oppose to the main character. In No the chorus is neutral, it just
explains what the actor feels, what he thinks. It is not a character, it is a kind of explanation. –
Someone has to explain what the character is doing and feeling. It is a narrative. Like in the
puppet theatre bunraku . A narrator always speaks for the characters – and not only the lines
but also the stage directions. The puppeteers don’t speak at all. The narrator speaks for all the
characters. It is unique, it touches the relation between movement and speech, or acting and
dialogue. Narrators were more respected than puppeteers. In former times those were
subordinated to the narrators , nowadays the are equally respected . Also, many Kabuki
dramas were adaptations of puppet plays. Here , the narrator’s role has diminished , he has to
adapt more to the actors .When modern or western directors use traditional techniques it
becomes a different type of theatre. Speech or body acting ? Different narrative elements are
more or less important. Brecht´s interest in No and puppet theatre was perhaps inspired to
divide speech and songs , using it as an element for his alienation method . But in puppet
theatre there is no alienation, it is together. To be together in Japanese society , one has to
obey the other. Puppeteers have to obey the narrators, in Kabuki the narrator has to obey the
actors. That is not democracy. – but it still is drama.
11
Audience
Meschke : A German philosopher said: There is no dialogue possible except between four
eyes. The moment you exceed the two person situation the dialogue ceases to exist. --- This is
quite worrying for theatre which has the ambition to dialogue with an audience. After over
hundred theatre productions I still would not dare to say that I have succeeded in dialoguing.
How do you tell? At the best , my repeated experience is that people may forget the play, the
plot, the names, everything but one thing : their emotions .
Mori: Yes, when you experience a really deep understanding you loose words. You don’t
want to speak. I have my own experience. When I am really moved I want to be alone.
There are two different emotions - when I want to speak to others and when I want to stay
silent. - Maybe the distinction is not between East and West, but between pre-modern and
modern times?
Venu : In our theatre drumming announces the performance. Our tradition says that when the
drum is played it is an invitation to the gods and goddesses to witness the play. But who is
actually witnessing : people. That means that our audience consists of people in the guise of
gods and goddesses. - In front of the performer there is a fire, or a lamp. The whole attention
of the performer - with eyes and gestures – is concentrated to the lamp. Always. The
performer must not have eye contact with any of the spectators. It is not allowed. The moment
he has eye contact with any of the spectators he is finished, he falls out of his character. That
is the reason why he concentrates only on the fire. The audience also concentrates on the
lamp. They have direct eye contact with the performer. But the performer never has eye
contact with them. – In the same way one character should not have direct eye contact with
other characters. The eye is very important , a theatre of the eye , reflecting the human mind therefore it is a very strong communication.
Vovolis : In the theatre of Epidaurus the architecture focuses your attention on one central
point. The audience has eye contact with the actor who is embraced by the architecture and by
the audience. But he has no eye contact with the audience in return. When I work with my
masks the eyes and the holes of the masks are important, they are very small. This is another
way of avoiding eye contact. It gives the audience the power to contemplate. It is the form,
the architectural form, that determines this relationship between the audience and the actor.
Venu : Who is important in theatre? The spectator or the performer? In an Indian context the
spectator has the same importance as the performer. It is based in our theory. All
interpretation of the text with your body is a ‘kriya’ . You also add transitions and emotions.
Together ultimately it is the ‘rasa’, the aesthetic experience. The performer gets nothing out of
it, he is only a vessel carrying it.
Meschke : When all the prerequisites are there , the problem of dialogue does not exist . The
problem is when the prerequisites are not there. And that is basically the problem of theatre,
to find its audience. There is a constant risk : the larger the audience , the thinner the soup.
The more people there are to communicate with, the more difficult it is.
Zielfelt: For a large audience you have to use several levels of dialoguing , like in antique
drama : the word, the singing, the music, the movement. The music spoke to the body, the
words to the ‘logos’, the brain. They knew that there are different vibrations from the voice,
from the singing, from the movement, from the music. Ancient Greek drama is not like a soap
12
opera, but it can become one , if you are not aware of these different levels . They are used
very consciously in Indian theatre, in Japanese theatre, in opera and in ancient Greek drama .
What Michael said – that you can only have dialogue between four eyes – is true for private
dialogue, but if you are an artist working with theatre you have to invent other kinds of
dialoguing.
Meschke : Look at it this way : one single man , is standing in the centre of the orchestra at
Epidaurus and whispers . 15000 people can hear him – isn’t that the ultimate dialogue?
What every actor wants is to dialogue with each one in the audience. Since the Epidaurus
example is true , one should admit that it is not true that dialogue is only possible between
four eyes .
Music and dance, sound and movement
Venu: A play is made up of patterns , whether the form is prose or verse .There is talking –
and there is poetry. The poetry is a kind of recitation. And the acting is a kind of dancing. But
Kutiyattam actors never say dance, we say ‘kriya’, movement , a great difference. We are
actors but we move according to the rhythm.
The music has 24 different patterns of recitation according to the emotions , is a kind of
musical pattern. And what is very important is the percussion, the rythm, the accompanying
organism. It is an element that we have inherited from the ritual theatre, that gives the spirit of
the acting.
Dimitridou Lindahl: In our own drama we have – the rhythm, the chorus, the dithyramb ,
ritual of a heavy rhythm, and the song. They develop into a play, a drama. The oldest text we
have found is from ‘Orestes’ by Euripides. It is of course a poetic form. The “ music of the
text “ is described very precisely. We don’t have the rhythm from the drum on stage, but we
have it in the speech and the poetry with the different meters, the anapest, the trochee, the
jamb. We have the same concept that the actors are not dancers, but they do orchesis, which
means that they move in the orchestra combining singing, acting and moving – with different
kinds of gestures; directions, stasis and stops. There are so many similarities.
And also from what I know about the Pythagorean system , every sound
corresponds to a centre which releases certain feelings and energies . When you prepare
yourself to go to war, a certain rhythm is used to make you capable of fighting. In old
Byzantine music they had 64 moods. We still have it in today’s Greek music . Even not
knowing that we sing these moods , we can feel the effect .
At this point Mr Venu gives a demonstration of Kutiyattam facial interpretation .
Dimitridou Lindahl: It is a great gift that the unbroken Indian tradition, through you, is
coming here while our tradition is like a broken mirror. We try to pick up the pieces and look
at our own culture, our own self. We wonder what we are, where we come from.
Now, I can try to better understand what hides between the pieces of our broken mirror.
Linnér : I would like to quote one result of archaeological excavations of ancient No theatres
in Japan where in certain theatres they found big vases located apparently haphazardly under
the stage. Nobody could understand why. Then in Greece they found the same kind of - as we
thought at the beginning – random placing of vases under theatre stages. Finally we
understood that the vases were positioned there in order to help the acoustics. There was a
correlation between the position of the vase and the sound coming from the actors. And the
13
findings were so parallel that you could see that in this respect spot of the Japanese theatre
bore a close resemblance to ancient Greek theatre. When I listen to this discussion I am
somehow overwhelmed by how distant we are – I will never understand you, you will never
understand me – and yet how close we are. Because very basic issues are exactly the same.
Meschke: Talking about Japan and Greece I had this personal experience while preparing a
production of Antigone . In search of knowledge about the time of Antigone we came to
wonder about music , how was it , were there any annotations? A Swedish researcher in
medieval music ( who happened to be married to a Japanese woman- musician ) , worked hard
with a reconstruction and presented his understanding of how it must have sounded . No, I
said, this is Japanese music. But I had no reason to doubt the quality of the research.
So it was established that old Greek music and old Japanese music were almost identical !
Mori: The European kind of drama came to Asia in modern times, in the 19th century. It was a
real surprise to us. Pure dialogue on the stage! For the first time – theatre without music! In
Europe there are two different kinds of theatre. One is with music – one is without! A new
concept to us. Japanese drama always had music! And song! In traditional theatre music and
theatre are not separated , we don’t even have different words.
Vovolis : When we modern Greeks talk about music we say ‘tragedy’ and that comes from
‘tragoidia’ which means goat song. So when we say that we sing , it has something to do with
tragedy , a very interesting etymology.
Text, translation
Rea Ann-Margret Mellberg: I have been translating Strindberg into Greek, and I shall also
translate Söderbergs play Gertrud. My idea of dialogue is not only discussing and
approaching the theme, but it is also the text. Dialogue is very much the text. The reading of
the play.
My problem was always the text. I did my work separately and met the director
afterwards . I presented the translation -–and the director very often said to me: this
translation does not correspond to my interpretation , I imagined something totally different
about this or this hero or heroin. There starts a very big problem - and a difficult dialogue
because I have to be true to the author , not the director. As a translator I have my loyalty to
Strindberg, Ibsen or whoever the author is. And also to my own understanding . A director
who does not know the language cannot penetrate the tradition that lies behind the play. sIt is
not very easy to explain this very heavy and dark space that is called tradition . I think that
tradition is like a big dark lake that we have in common. We who live in Sweden know what
Swedish silence is, but it is totally different from Greek silence. And this silence has to be put
into the text in some way that makes it understandable also to the Greek audience. How is it
done ? For a Greek director who wants to present one of the great heroines of Swedish
theatre like Miss Julie , the easiest way is to understand her as a person of a Greek drama ,
Antigone , Andromache, Ifigenia . . It might be wrong, for example concerning the feministic
view . Of course also Greek drama has its feministic view but do they go apart or can they be
understood by both sides?
In Greece , there is another problem – the language. We have two modern
languages, the puristic language and the demotic, the folk language. At the beginning of the
century many plays by Strindberg and Ibsen were translated into the puristic language.
We always have to choose what language to use .I myself prefer the folk language but it
creates a problem . Many actors don’t know the words . You need to be better rooted in your
14
own language . When I attend a rehearsal they say: These words do not suit my mouth. Can
you change ?. In theatre , I can make a lot of changes together with actors and directors .For
this you need to be close to the actors so they can receive the language, feel that this is their
own .
It would be interesting to discuss how to collaborate , dialogue , with other professions in a
production. I never worked with an author who is alive, so I don’t what it would be like .
Mori: The difficulty is that any translation of language also needs a translation of culture. For
theatre we need a double translation. One translation of text and culture and one translation by
the director from the written text into the stage language.
Ritual and tradition
Yuu Komaki : I was working as an actress in a modern theatre in Japan. Modern theatre in
Japan was established eighty years ago. The old theatre tradition is still alive, even today, side
by side with modern theatre. But modern theatre in Japan is completely separate from
traditional theatre. How can we connect modern theatre with traditional theatre? That’s very
difficult. But during the last ten years some directors have tried to do it.
Zielfelt : Last year in Delphi we saw a Japanese performance of ‘Oedipus’, directed by
Suzuki. He used all the traditional elements in a Greek western drama. It was the most
beautiful and touching performance of ‘Oedipus’ that I ever saw. It was a dialogue between
East and West. I wonder if it was only for us Westerners that it was so magnificent. It was not
traditional theatre. You are absolutely right. Traditional theatre must be traditional. But there
is also a dialogue, a meeting, between traditional theatre and new theatre.
Mori: If you want to act using a traditional technique you need the appropiate training . When
modern actors just pick up some techniques and rehearse for ten months or a year – to us this
is not No technique or Kabuki technique but on the surface. It is OK to use techniques, but if
you say that you are taking up the authentic traditional technique and combine the two in a
modern sense – then we are a little dubious .
If you are born outside the Kabuki family, or outside the No family, you will never, not even
now , get a big role, even if you are a good actor. You have to be born into the family, or you
have to be adopted into the family. Big families always have the main roles. That kind of
hierarchy still exists .
Venu : In Kutiyattam theatre I never perform as a character. My function is similar to that
chorus. I am a narrator or I may have the function of character and narrator at the same time.
Actors have to enact all characters , female and male .You never perform a character of your
own. The narrator comes and salutes and makes all the elaborate ritualistic preparations to
start the play. Rama - the main character in the first act of a very important play – enters and
recites his first text in which he tells all the events that have brought him to this particular
situation in this particular play. Sometimes it takes two or three days to reveal all these
details, although nowadays it is gradually vanishing, because people don’t have the time to sit
for so long.
Meschke: It proves that the risk remains that we stop at enjoying the exotic without reaching
understanding . That does not build bridges . It requires preparation to get deeper . My point
that it is possible , even necessary and utterly rewarding .
15
Venu: In the beginning of Kutiyattam the audience consisted of kings and noblemen . As a
preparation for leadership , they had to join the Kutiyattam in order to learn something about
the other .
Zielfelt : Theatre is a way to new knowledge, even today. You have to give up yourself to
learn about yourself. That too is a kind of dialogue.
Meschke : Once in New Delhi , I had the task of designing a national puppet theatre for Indias
multiple traditions . Over the entrance I wanted an inscription about tradition . Asking my
Indian friend , the philosopher S C Malik how he would define the word , he directly
answered “ Tradition is continuous creation in the now”. Does not this say all ?
The Reporters conclusion
Gudrun Zachrisson Ones : In his opening speech , Michael Meschke invited us to adopt a
method used in theatre of studying every word in a dramatic text, turning concepts inside out ,
communicating with each other about their true meaning, thus trying to replace the
established academic method of seminars by the closer communication practised in the artistic
working process. This idea turned out to be very rewarding. Rhetoric and official role-playing
were replaced by curiosity, exchange and joint inquiry .
The secret of the agenda , that there was no agenda, and Michael’s very
personal introduction of each participant gave an excellent base : each one of us took a
responsibility for the vitality of our participation .
Most participants knew Michael, but not the other members of the group.
During three days there was exciting exchange , growing joint awareness and a longing for it
to continue, at some other place and time, with new challenging themes .
How did Michael achieve this? – By carefully planning the conditions he
regarded as necessary – or at least desirable and facilitating – for reaching true dialogue,
namely : : a space in the form of a congenial environment , a room with a large table where
everybody could see each other, of adequate allotments of time and of course a theme that
was interesting to all participants . This was the starting - point , leading the way into the
discussions . We had a sensitive and wise person to manage our ups and downs , adequate
housing facilities, free time to withdraw or to use for spontaneous meetings and situations .
We had the chance to eat good food together and to attend interesting cultural and social
events at the international festival . Prepared written papers were banned and beyond that : no
detailed plans.
The seminar ‘Hydra dialogue 2001’ was an experiment to see if it would be possible to create
a different form of personal exchange and learning processes .
It is interesting and thought-provoking that it worked! It was a success.
Gudrun Zachrisson Ones/2001-12-03.
16