Theatre and Environment

Vicky Angelaki

• Publisher: Methuen Drama
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781350316379
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medios de comunicación y artes escénicas
• Subtopic: Teatro

This exciting new title in the Theatre And series explores how theatre and the environment have informed and continue to inform each other, considering both what theatre can do for the environment and what the environment can do for theatre. Drawing on a diverse range of case studies from writers and theatre-makers, Vicky Angelaki encourages a sense of responsibility towards the environment and examines how it is being handled by artists and performers in our time. Timely and topical, this concise introduction is ideal for undergraduate and postgraduate students of theatre and performance studies with an interest in the environment, contemporary theatre-making or site-specific performance.

theatre & environment

In April 2018, I visited Vienna’s Kunsthistorisches Museum. I have been there frequently through the years, but this time the space was newly defamiliarised by the temporary exhibition The Last Day, consisting of Helmut Wimmer’s photography and Karlheinz Essl’s sound installation. The sound emulated the natural phenomena encountered in the photographs: crashing waves, strong wind, trees surrendering to its force. Twelve large images depicted various landmark spaces of the museum, except dramatically different. Eerily, in all the photographs, the artworks were still present, witnessing a new moment in history. In some cases, tourists could still be seen enjoying their visit, gazing at the centuries-old masterpieces. Yet, strangely, there were no longer limits between the human-made art, or the space that accommodates it, and nature. In fact, nature had invaded, forcing the point of how much longer we can afford to be complacent, or how much longer those so admired artistic and architectural structures, resilient and enduring through times of conflict, war and destruction, might be able to survive. What if the beautifully landscaped Maria-Theresien-Platz, extending from the Kunsthistorisches to the Naturhistorisches Museum, became a jungle? What if debris suddenly exploded everywhere, the Roman statues now resting on a surface of scattered leaves and fallen branches? What if large mountainous formations suddenly broke through the walls of the Renaissance halls or perhaps lakes and bushes covered the parquet floors? What if wildlife creatures roamed the corridors with the same ease as the affluent tourists? What if the wild sea crashed against the masterful testimonials to all of humanity’s histories and grand achievements, the visitors’ feet steeped in water? And what if that remarkable marble staircase, where one first pauses to take it all in upon encountering the museum, were covered in snow and ice? Would the imposing statue by Antonio Canova, depicting Theseus as he prevails over the centaur, a symbol of human victory and survival towering over the landing, still be so awe-inspiring? There was no solace in Wimmer and Essl’s installation, nor should there be. It provided, to a wide, international audience, a spectatorial base of means and responsibility, a staggering vehicle for the visual realisation of how much was at stake in that very moment. The museum had made it into the twenty-first century to perform a scenario of its own dystopian future, staged more self-reflectively than ever before, asking how much time might still be left.

When it comes to the environment, as well as to many aspects of our social and political experience, our current historical moment feels unprecedented. The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris (30 November–12 December) offered both a crucial forum for reflection and a renewed opportunity for urgent and collective action towards managing the most pressing global crisis of the twenty-first century. Involving all the major players and leading economies with pivotal influence on the handling of this crisis, the conference produced the Paris Agreement, which became available to signatories on 22 April 2016. As we now know, 2016 proved to be a landmark year in terms of political developments received by many as substantial hindrances on the path to international collaboration, not least because some of these developments concerned two leading global powers: the United Kingdom and the United States. In June 2016, the result of the British referendum concerning the country’s future within the European Union was announced as favouring the Leave campaign that had supported Brexit with a marginal majority of 52% of the vote. Given the European Union’s pivotal role in the Paris conference, as well as in UN action against climate change more broadly, the blow to confidence was significant. In November 2016, the United States experienced a political moment held by some as its Brexit equivalent in terms of its unpredictability and the uncertainty it produced: the election of Donald J. Trump as the country’s 45th president. In June 2017, the Trump Administration announced that it would be withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.

Una Chaudhuri, leading scholar in the field of performance and environment, has noted in her work the significance of the present moment, recognising that the policy changes of the Trump administration have necessitated bolder action in solidarity (Climate Lens). Identifying the term ‘post-national’ as a suitable determiner, unifying rather than dismissive, Chaudhuri frames the unique urgency of the present as transcending local contexts to create a universal call to action (Climate Lens). The term ‘post-nation’ that she proposes denotes an internationalist community rather than globalised disassociation (Climate Lens). Instead of tying environmental protection to national imperatives or to financial, partisan or even noble governmental concerns, this work clarifies why it ought to be framed as appealing profoundly to our ethical commitment as citizens of our world. The call of Chaudhuri’s research group, which identifies as CLIMATE LENS, to apply a syllogism similar to the one that established gender as the ultimate conditioning factor for feminism, making it into a movement, to the climate as focusing angle for all concerns is apt and indicative, reflecting the extent to which the cause ought to be adopted on a humanitarian level (Climate Lens). For Chaudhuri and her research/practitioner activist group, the significance of this refocusing of the question links to reversing hegemonic attitudes of locating human interests at the heart of the environmental issue. The benefit of such a behavioural shift would be the democratising and universalising of the question, stepping away from the dominant conditioning lens of our self-preservational and utilitarian perception of nature. As feminism became a powerful tool for textual and performance analysis, so too, Chaudhuri proposes, can climate become a guide for our future critical discourses, for contemporary theatre production and for revisionist approaches to the canon (Climate Lens).

Any conversation concerning the environment is always equally geared towards the past, present and future. While it is certainly a matter of understanding and accounting for our past transgressions against the planet, performance made and witnessed through the environmental lens seeks to discover how we might begin to adjust our attitudes and implement a shift, not arbitrarily or momentarily but in depth of time and substantive enough to produce future improvement. In the following chapters, this short book discusses representative examples of environmentally aware performance. In so doing, it hopes to draw on paradigms that will provide the reader with a frame of reference specific and yet broad enough to draw conclusions on how our sense of responsibility towards the environment has been handled by artists and theatre-makers in our time.

The Anthropocene and the Eco-lexicon

Few terms have emerged as strongly in the contemporary lexicon as the ‘Anthropocene’, understood as the time period in which human impact has grown to such an extent that it has caused permanent and lasting consequences for our natural world. Reaching a consensus regarding the precise beginning of the Anthropocene is not a straightforward proposition, due to the range of evidence and the implications – social, political and scientific – of such an acknowledgement. In 2016, the Working Group on the Anthropocene (WGA) underlined its findings by recommending that the era should become officially ‘declared’ (Carrington). Scientists contributing to the WGA had previously made the compelling argument that in order to account for the Anthropocene, we need to appreciate its historical depth (Zalasiewicz et al. 197), which reaches further into the past than we might imagine given the relatively recent surge in the usage of the term, located in the early 2000s (Zalasiewicz et al. 197). The WGA note that an understanding of the term’s origins does not equal a by-default formalisation of the Anthropocene (Zalasiewicz et al. 197), but that its recognition, on the basis of the ‘substantial’ ‘anthropogenic acceleration of processes of erosion and sedimentation’ and the ‘geological novelty of many human-driven processes’, is important (Zalasiewicz et al. 197). The WGA present the options for the starting points of the Anthropocene, identifying pivotal moments whereby, simply put, a differing approach of the individual’s relationship to land, as well as technology-accelerating inventions and population growth, could have marked a beginning (Zalasiewicz et al. 198). A consideration of variables leads the authors to propose:

that the Anthropocene (formal or informal) be defined to begin historically at the moment of detonation of the Trinity A-bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico, at 05:29:21 Mountain War Time. (± 2 s) July 16, 1945 (1⁄4 11:29:21 Co-ordinated Universal Time 1⁄4 Greenwich Mean Time).

(Zalasiewicz et al. 200)

Long before ‘Anthropocene’ became a term, a host of other related terms had been appearing, revealing a turn towards heightened environmental awareness. From early instances to more recent ones, we may be surprised to find that some of the terminology is first encountered further into the past than we might expect. For all of the examples that follow on this page and ensuing pages for the etymology of words, my research source is the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). From ‘ecologic’ (1894), ‘ecologist’ (1893), ‘ecological’ (1879) and the oldest form, ‘ecology’ (1875), environmental vocabulary, sometimes in the plural rather than singular form provided here, branched out in combination forms with the prefix ‘eco-’ (occasionally not hyphenated), which begins to enter discourse more widely in the early twentieth century. Within this lexicon, terms range from scientific, academic and observational descriptors objectively denoting social developments to terms that, if not colloquial, carry derogatory or even mocking and insulting connotations. Examples in the former category include ‘ecogeographical’ (1939), ‘eco-cultural’ (1949), ‘ecospace’ (1969), ‘eco-consciousness’ (1971) and ‘eco-awareness’ (1973), or ‘eco-city’ (1973), ‘eco-catastrophe’ (1969), ‘eco-crisis’ (1970), ‘eco-damage’ (1977) and even ‘eco-tragedy’ (1992), along with numerous other composites. Instances in the latter group feature ‘eco-freak’ (1969), ‘eco-nut’ (1971), ‘ecodoomster’ (1972), ‘eco-fashionable’ (1974), ‘ecofascism’ (1983), ‘eco-warrior’ (1987), ‘eco-babble’ (1989), ‘eco-craz[y]’ (1990), ‘eco-hip’ (1991), ‘eco-smugness’ (1992) or even ‘eco-twats’ (1996). Also recently, an appropriation of the form linked to a widespread, occasionally fashionable though not necessarily devoid of substance engagement with environmental issues, coinciding with globalisation and the recognition of climate change as a major threat, has also appeared, producing, indicatively, terms such as ‘eco-audit’ (1980), ‘ecotourism’ (1982), ‘eco-label’ (1989), ‘eco-tax’ (1990), ‘eco-architect’ (1991), ‘eco-efficiency’ (1992), ‘eco-literacy’ (1993), ‘eco-charities’ (2000), ‘eco-friendly’ (2000), ‘eco-footprint’ (2002), ‘eco-advocacy’ (2003), ‘eco-gastronomic’ (2004) and ‘eco-protester’ (2007). All of the above underline human agency in the fate of the environment. At the same time, the growing engagement of the arts with the environment has produced terms intermixing ‘eco-’ with different performance and visual arts genres, stretching back to 1970, when ‘eco-art’ makes its first appearance. The environment, of course, is not only a social but also a political issue, as the fervour of the terms attacking ecological activity also indicates. Words like ‘ecopolitics’ (1944), ‘ecomanagement’ (1968), ‘eco-justice’ (1973), ‘eco-raider’ (1973) or ‘eco-terrorism’ ((1980), indicating either opposing side on the spectrum of meanings for the term), as well as ‘ecofeminism’ (1980) and ‘eco-socialism’ (1985) are representative examples.

Towards an Eco-theatre and Eco-performance

To date, notable efforts that have addressed, in various ways, concerns of ecology, environment, climate and nature (terms not to be conflated, though frequently interchangeable) in the context of performance, have included On Ecology, the special issue of Performance Research: A Journal of the Performing Arts (17.4), and Environmentalism, the themed issue of Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance (17.2) (both 2012). It was in that same year that Readings in Performance and Ecology, edited by Wendy Arons and Theresa J. May, scholars whose impact on the field has been consistent and considerable, was also published. In 2015, the journal for the Center for Sustainable Practice in the Arts, CSPA Quarterly, published its On Environment volume, which included reflections on performance. A year later, a special issue of Green Letters: Studies in Ecocriticism, guest edited by Carl Lavery, focused on the theme of Performance and Ecology and asked What Can the Theatre Do? The Routledge volume of the material in the form of an edited collection followed in 2018.

The field has continued to flourish, with publications probing the issue of performance and climate change from different specialist angles and gaining from the growing interest in the relationship between theatre and science more broadly. Moreover, research forums such as the Performance and Ecology Working Group of ASTR (American Society for Theatre Research) provide a basis for ongoing dialogue. Other initiatives have included the Culture & Ecology Network, a forum for academics and practitioners (which, like the ASTR group features the work of Lisa Woynarski), and Julie’s Bicycle, a charity committed to sustainability and fostering change within creative practice towards an intervention in working methods and thematic focus that might materialise on the artistic and the audience fronts. There had been significant antecedents, prominent among them the journal Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment (since 1993); Nature Performed: Environment, Culture and Performance, edited by Bronislaw Szerszynski, Wallace Heim and Claire Waterton (2003); Gabriella Giannachi and Nigel Stewart’s edited collection Performing Nature: Explorations in Ecology and the Arts (2006); Baz Kershaw’s Theatre Ecology: Environments and Performance Events (2007); and Downing Cless’s Ecology and Environment in European Drama (2010). This list is not intended to be exhaustive but rather to provide the reader with an indication of the timelines and directions in the field in the recent period and until today.

First, this book opens with playwriting, concentrating on work that displays a clear focus on negative human intervention on nature, energy/resource overconsumption/ exhaustion/compromise and overpopulation. I discuss how the burgeoning crisis we have been facing has provided the impetus for writing that has often defied social realism to produce new forms and nuanced texts with an environmental pivot. Such explorations have established new directions in the relationship between playwriting and science – which in itself stretches back to the definitive texts of naturalism – and created new strands for what we might describe as socio-environmental and political writing for the stage. Second, I examine the work of directors and companies who have prioritised the environment as a concern. I discuss that this has meant implementing the environmental turn in performance to shape new methods for staging and develop new conditions for spectating, imagining theatre audiences as communities and attacking neoliberalist insularity by promoting stronger civic awareness. Such practice has often also helped redefine the use of institutional spaces and transcend their structural limitations. In turn, this has heightened the feeling of reciprocity among audience/community members by highlighting our shared ethics, responsibilities and mutual implications, attacking passivity and inaction. Third, I consider cross-genre initiatives, taking a broader approach to the definition of theatre and performance. This involves practices that frequently occur beyond institutional spaces to include public installations, platform discussions, interactive and participatory performance events, sustainability think tanks in theatre-making and collective projects that enable a performance of ethically driven citizenship.

Playwriting

Although the environment has yet to take hold as a consistent reference and framing angle in the work of contemporary playwrights in the way that other major social and political issues have, most notably the economy and critiques of capitalism, concerns of climate change have featured in significant texts of the recent period in various iterations. This book concentrates predominantly on new plays, yet it is relevant to the grounding of this discussion to note the enduring attention that one of the most impactful texts to explore the concern of environment, economy and community across theatre history has been receiving from theatres, companies and audiences alike. The play is Henrik Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People (1882), which transcends local contexts and cultural specificity. The plot is as follows: the protagonist, Dr. Thomas Stockmann, establishes that the town baths are contaminated and feels compelled to divulge this information to his community. While others in positions of power and authority, from the mayor (Dr. Stockmann’s brother) to the journalists at the local paper, ultimately position themselves against informing their fellow citizens, Dr. Stockmann remains committed to his decision and to transparency. When he shares his knowledge in a meeting with his community, the results run against his expectations. Dr. Stockmann emphasises morals and responsibility, but his words are interpreted as criticism. He becomes alienated from his peers, now a mass turning against him. As Dr. Stockmann becomes an outcast in the town that he attempted to protect, the title of Ibsen’s play echoes. This title of course also creates ambiguity as to who the enemy of the people actually is, on what terms this is defined and how any public might become vulnerable to demagogy.

Through Dr. Stockmann’s story, Ibsen put to his audience questions regarding political authority and ethics, as well as the role of the expert, within a civic community that needs to be alerted and also to adapt to the realities of an imminent health threat. In recent years, high-profile productions have appeared in major international stages. At the Schaubühne Berlin, director Thomas Ostermeier and dramaturg Florian Borchmeyer returned to the play in 2012 for an updated version that has subsequently toured extensively. In 2013, playwright David Harrower and director Richard Jones brought their version to London’s Young Vic. In 2017, a version by writer/ director Frank-Patrick Steckel, director Jette Steckel and dramaturg Anika Steinhoff opened at Vienna’s Burgtheater. According to the data held by the National Library of Norway concerning the international productions of Ibsen plays until 2014, An Enemy of the People was staged from 2000 onwards in 234 different productions (‘Alt om Henrik Ibsen’).

The Burgtheater show directed by Steckel and designed by Florian Lösche with costumes by Sibylle Wallum visibly marks Dr. Stockmann as both scientist and outsider from the beginning. Semiotically, the two signs come to merge: expert equals outcast. Dr. Stockmann wears an oversized orange parka, carrying his orange metal durability briefcase, never too far from him throughout the duration of performance – both become visual trademarks in this production. However supported Stockmann may be by his family, here too, as in Ibsen’s source text, his journey is, ultimately, a solitary one, set to his own moral compass. The visual connotations of Stockmann’s costume are such that we might imagine him on an expedition in Antarctica, for example, but he is instead making his way across the hometown, where everyone else seems blissfully immersed in their ignorance. At one point, in the final stretch of the show, Stockmann (Joachim Meyerhoff), now at one with the community of spectators, turns his back on the stage, shunned by his own community. He trespasses in the space of the audience, where he installs himself in one of the auditorium chairs, delivering an indignant monologue and wrapping his orange parka around him like a shield, protected in the power that the truth of his knowledge affords him. The monologue prompts direct communication with the audience, rendering Ibsen’s interventionist play as urgent today as when it was first performed. Spectators double up as Stockmann’s community, both real, in the space of p...