A History of Chinese Theatre in the 20th Century IV

Fu Jin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000435573
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Theatre History & Criticism

The 20th century was a dynamic period for the theatrical arts in China. The four volumes of A History of Chinese Theatre in the 20th Century display the developmental trajectories of Chinese theatre over those hundred years.

This volume examines the development of Chinese theatrical art from the Cultural Revolution to the end of the 20th century. The Cultural Revolution had a devastating influence on the theatrical profession, reducing the creation of performance art to serving the political authorities. Adopting a critical view, the author argues that the Reform and Opening-up of the late 1970s not only ended this period of political interference, but also brought about chaos and doubts to the theatrical circle, since neither tradition nor western concepts were a panacea for the problems faced by Chinese theatre. He posits that people should advocate patterns of drama that are rich and colourful in their expression while encouraging the coexistence and competition of different artistic concepts.

Scholars and students in the history of the arts, especially the history of Chinese theatre, will find this book to be an essential guide.

Part I
The consummate features and three prominences in the portrayal of heroes

Having experienced such political campaigns as the Anti-Rightist Movement, the Great Leap Forward Movement, the National Steel-Making Movement and “the people’s commune,” the Chinese people were caught by the “Three-Year Famine” (1959–1962), which brought a drastic economic slump and untold hardships to the countrymen. But for the Anti-Rightist Movement, China would have never been put into the consequent irrational movements, nor would the policy of “taking modern repertoire as the key link” have been prevalent in theatrical circles. Since the Central Government took the new measure to revitalize the national economy in 1962, the economic situation began to turn for the better. Yet, the adverse effect left by the magnification of the Anti-Rightist Movement continued to trouble China’s intelligentsia. During the economic adjusting period, a small number of “rightists” were rehabilitated. However, in the Tenth Plenary Session of the Eighth Committee of Communist Party of China convened in September 1962, Mao Tse-tung put forth the slogan “Never Forget Class Struggle,” a call that again reversed the political situation, in which the theatrical circles were unexpectedly involved and became one of the vortex centers in the political struggle. The criticism of the ghost play “Li Huiniang” promoted the complete prohibition of creation of historical themes for the first time.

1 Modern drama and “feudalism, capitalism and revisionism”

DOI: 10.4324/9781003205159-2

1.1 Review performance of spoken drama in East China

Theatrical circles had all along rejected the demand on “sparing no effort in composing the modern themes from 1949 to 1962” put forth by Ke Qingshi, secretary of the CPC Shanghai Municipal Committee. On the contrary, the CPC’s Propaganda Department irreverently refuted his view. However, the disapproval from the top propagation department did not hinder Ke Qingshi’s political elevation. Regardless of the dissent from the Propaganda Department, this secretary ordered East China (covering Shanghai and six other provinces) to execute his proposition in theatrical circles.

On December 12, 1963, Mao Tse-tung wrote an instruction on a report concerning the reform of the story-telling and ballad singing genre.

There are many problems with various art forms, including drama, folk art genre, music, fin art, film, poetry and novels, which involve numerous professionals. After socialist reform is carried out in many social sectors, little progress has been obtained. To this day, many departments are still dominated by “the dead.” We cannot underestimate the achievements in the fields of film, new verse, folk song, fine arts and novel, but there are some problems remaining to be tackled. Among them, the trouble in theatrical circles is the most severe. Since the economic foundation in our society has been changed, why does this sector, one of the superstructure departments serving for this foundation, fail to address its internal trouble? We should begin our investigation to find out the root of this stubborn issue so as to remove it.

Many communists are ardent in disseminating feudal and capitalist art rather than advocating socialist art. Dose it sound a monstrous absurdity?¹

If we judge from the performance review of East China, Ke Qingshi had speculated on Mao Tse-tung’s political intention from Jiang Qing, Mao’s wife, before instructing Zhang Chunqiao, his subordinate, to write an article attacking Liao Mosha, a high-ranking cultural official in Peking. So Ke Qingshi openly defied the theatrical policy issued by the Propaganda Department of the CPC under the belief that Mao would take more pro-left measures toward rectifying theatrical circles. In this context, he took the performance review in East China as, at the end of 1963, a proper opportunity to show off the theatrical achievement made in the execution of his proposition “sparing no effort in composing the modern themes from 1949 to 1962.” In his article “Vigorously Promoting Modern Drama – Celebrating the Opening of Performance Review in East China,” an editorial in The Liberation Daily, Yao Wenyuan (one of the members of the Gang of Four during the Cultural Revolution) iterated,

One of the most striking features of this performance marks that all the scripts mirror the realistic struggles, the great victories won by the Chinese people on all fronts, and the noble spiritual outlook and high political consciousness of the revolutionary people in the socialist revolution and socialist construction period. This is a new scene in the performing venues in East China.

Yao Wenyuan also directly and clearly elevated the choice of subject matter in the theatrical circle to the height of class struggle in the ideological field. The editorial added,

Today, there exists the complicated class struggle [on the] ideological front … There is no blank space in this front. The truth proves that the less socialist elements, the more feudal and capitalist dregs on the stage; the more feudal and capitalist dross, the fewer heroic images of the workers, peasants, soldiers and other revolutionary people; the more images of feudal emperors and ministers, princes and princesses, sons and daughters of wealthy families, handsome scholars and charming girls, the less sublime heroism of the proletariats and the laboring people. All these will inevitably result in the unhealthy emotional appeals of feudal, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois classes.²

Obviously, this editorial imposed the stronger political intention on theatrical creation and performance.

To conform to the slogan “sparing no effort in composing the modern themes from 1949 to 1962,” the scripts for the performance review were limited to the plays based on modern life after 1949, a practice that was incompliant with the theatrical policies “letting 100 flowers blossom and getting rid of the stale and bringing forth the fresh,” particularly “the upholds of three theatrical categories” as advocated by Culture Ministry. Supported by this municipal Party Secretary, The Liberation Daily (the official newspaper of the CPC Shanghai Municipal Committee) released another editorial at the conclusion of the performance review, in which the writer reinterpreted the aforementioned theatrical policies with Mao Tse-tung’s theory of class struggle and fustigated the excavation and adaption of traditional drama since 1962.

A great majority of art and dramatic workers are the enthusiastic supporters of the policy “letting 100 hundred flowers blossom and getting rid of the stale and bringing forth the fresh.” Yet, due to the in-depth influence of feudalist and capitalist drama, it is no wonder that some of the theatrical workers resist this policy or misinterpret the policy, to which we should make clear the policy from ideological perspective.

One fallacy marks that some dramatists take the slogans “rescuing theatrical legacy” and “excavating theatrical legacy” as the major direction and the most pressing tasks. Instead of taking the view of class struggle into their analysis of theatrical legacies, they separate the theatrical policies from principle “literature and art should serve for workers, peasants and soldiers” or even make the two opposite to each other. In addition, they misinterpret the principle that they can cherish the outdated and preserve the outworn, or we will be tolerant of all the backward and retrogressive elements, of the feudalist and capitalist toxins and of the practice in “rescuing” the outdated and reactionary scripts.

To record the performing technique and skills of the elder dramatists is one of the items for research institutions, but those dramatists regard it as the central task, a move that means to subvert the policy “getting rid of the stale and bringing forth the fresh.” If they are allowed to endlessly “rescue” and “excavate,” will socialist art be submerged by the obsolete theatrical scripts one day? Are there any opportunities for us to create the new socialist culture?

Today, the revolutionary people are the masters of cultural legacies, to whom all the criticism and inheritance should be aimed at serving the present socialist revolution and socialist construction, and at creating a new socialist culture so as to replace the old culture of the bourgeoisie and the feudal class through long and arduous efforts. If you worship the feudal literature and bourgeois literature and art, and only focus on preservation, including those poisonous things that have completely contradicted the socialist culture, fearing that others might damage those toxic obsolete scripts, you will become a slave to your inheritance. Now that you are a slave to inheritance, how can you talk about criticizing inheritance and bringing forth the fresh from the stale?

Under the influence of such wrong and one-sided views, some people misinterpret “letting a hundred flowers blooming” as the “flower” of feudalism and capitalism, and resort to various reasons to fight for the territory for the feudalist and capitalist evildoers.³

As the significance of this performance was far beyond the art of the scripts for the review, a strong pertinence centered the selection of the plays. A total of 16 troupes from Shanghai and the other six provinces in East China attended the performance review in 1963, during which 13 multi-act plays and 7 one-act plays were created and staged by those troupes. Apparently, in accordance with the request and careful arrangement of the sponsors, all those plays mirrored “the socialist revolution and socialist construction,” among which those present the rural life covered “Ode to River Loong” by the troupe of Fujian Province, “The On-going Combat” by the troupe of Zhejiang Province, “A Bumper Harvest” and “Under a White Poplar” by the troupe of Shandong Province, “The Red Route,” “Sending Manure” and “Eight Eggs” by the troupe of Jiangsu Province and “Beside the Siwan River” by the troupe of Jiangxi Province. Those reflecting the life of the working class included “Forging Ahead” and “The Family Members” by two troupes of Shanghai; those showing the life of soldiers were “A Joyous Occasion” and “The First and the Second” by Pioneer Troupe of PLA, “The Fighting Posts” by Avant-Garde Troupe of PLA and “Our Troops Marching towards the Sun” by Front Troupe of PLA. There were also some other scripts mirroring the life of children and juveniles by the troupes of Shanghai and other provinces.⁴

In his speech at the opening ceremony of “East China Performance Review of Spoken Drama” on December 25, 1963, Ke Qingshi prescribed the requirements for the performance review: “Firstly, advocating spoken drama. Secondly, popularizing modern drama. Thirdly, summarizing and exchanging the experience of creating and staging modern drama.” In addition, he specially emphasized that spoken drama was more conducive to reflecting the realistic life and struggle because the masses could easily understand what it meant, which was a genre with the most dynamic vitality and the most promising prospect. In his speech, Ke Qingshi offered the following criticism:

At present, there is a serious problem that deserves our attention: some people, including some Communists, are keen on the drama of the bourgeoisie and the feudal class, but they lack the interest and enthusiasm in the ardent life and fiery struggle that reflects the current socialist revolution and socialist construction. In recent years, some troupes in East China only put on 7% of the modern plays in 1960, and 17% in 1961 and none in 1962. Some troupes did not offer a single modern play in 1961 and 1962, while some theatrical troupes put on quite a few plays that advocated feudalism and capitalism at one time. This is not an insignificant issue, but a major issue concerning the direction and path of literary and artistic creation, which must not be taken lightly. This abnormal situation must be changed in no time.⁵

According to Ke Qingshi,

The following reasons should be blamed for the advent of such circumstance. Firstly, one’s political standing. From the standpoint of the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie, they have no passion and affection for the revolutionary cause of the proletariat and the life and struggle of the workers, peasants and soldiers or even oppose it. Secondly, failing to go deep into real life and real struggle, they have become detached from reality and alien to the masses.⁶

Ke Qingshi listed in his speech a large number of materials of new people, new events and heroes and models emerging from various aspects in east China, which showed that the working people of New China were carrying out earth-shaking and unprecedented revolutionary cause, creating infinite magnificent and magnificent historical poems. Ke Qingshi asked,

How can our literary and artistic workers not heartily eulogize such great times, meticulously depict such great workers, peasants and soldiers, and reverently shape the image of such great heroes? Can we feel at ease if we don’t do this work?

What kind of position, what kind of vision and what kind of feeling do those dramatists have if they think that there are no themes to write or plays to stage for them in real life look? “Refraining themselves from depicting the real life, the workers, peasants and soldiers,” continued Ke Qingshi,

they hold that there are no proper themes, no amiable interpersonal relations and no heartfelt emotions. Actually, those playwrights insist that only the ancient Kings and princes, beauties, the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie are imbued with such relations and emotions. This view is entirely wrong.⁷

Six months later, when again reading his speech carried in “The Red Flag” (official journal of the CPC Central Committee), we see the following words:

This is not only a sharp and complicated struggle in the theatrical and literary circles, but also a revolutionary struggle of “thriving the proletariats and eliminating the bourgeois elements” and “changes of the obsolete customs.” Moreover, it is also a broad and profound socialist revolution … In our theatrical circles, although they agree verbally that literature and art should serve the workers, peasants and soldiers, some people do not heartily carry out the Party’s literary and artistic policy. Over the past fifteen years, they have made little achievement in reflecting the real life and struggle during the socialist revolution and construction. We really don’t know what they have done. They are keen on the drama of the bourgeoisie and the feudal class, on advocating foreign and ancient things as well, on the drama of “dead people” and ghosts, on criticizing and criticizing socialism, in an attempt to obstruct the rapid development of modern socialist drama. However, ...