Peter Brook & Multiculturalism

Is the adoption of non-western performance modes in Brook’s work constituting as cultural homage or cultural appropriation? Multiculturalism and Interculturalism are words frequently used in today’s modern society; however the meanings are often confused with one another. A multicultural society is one where different cultures, nationalities, religions and ethnicities of people populate the same area, but do not necessarily share anything else with each other. The Editor of Prospect magazine, David Goodhart, states that ‘Multiculturalism has come to be seen as the opposite of integration’ (BBC. 2013) and that these different minorities may be tolerated, but are rarely fully accepted or valued. Multiculturalism sees identity as static and fixed with group boundaries. Interculturalism shifts away from this idea and is ‘about changing mind-sets by creating new opportunities across cultures to support intercultural activity’ (TEDCANTLE. 2014) Within intercultural society, there is a recognition and acceptance of each other’s differences and way of life. These differences are respected and appreciated bringing community together, making it possible for all members of society to be treated equally and fairly. Behind this idea of Interculturalism, lies the concept of a developing global community; a belief that Brook was looking to achieve when he set up his International Centre for Theatre Research. Brook wanted to bring actors together from many different cultures and help them work together to make theatre for other people. In his book The Shifting Point, Brook states that the first principle of the International Centre was to ‘make culture’ (BROOK. 1987. Pp. 105), suggesting that by bringing together a group of likeminded individuals from differing cultures, who each possessed their own skills, they could fuse into one intercultural culture, with everyone working towards one goal. In this case, the goal was creating theatre. Brook’s centre led his theatre to experiments in both Africa and Asia where they performed The Ik, The Conference Of the Birds, Ubu, The Cherry Orchard, Carmen and then finally leading to the Indian epic, The Mahabharata, in 1985. The Mahabharata is thought to be basis of Indian mythology, religion, history and thought which lays down values of individual life and society which are reflected in contemporary Indian society. Like The Bible, The Mahabharata ‘is a vision of society, like ours, in discord, coming to the brink of destruction.’ (EVANS. 2005. Pp.194). After encountering The Mahabharata as a series of stories told to him by Jean-Claude Carrière, Brook became fascinated with the story and committed to share it with a Western audience. The universal appeal of the plot provides an example of how Brook tries to create culture a of links by establishing contact between people from different backgrounds through the medium of theatre. The production toured in both English and French, and when it opened at the Avignon Theatre Festival in France, it received great critical acclaim with The Guardian reporting it to be an ‘unforgettable experience’ (BILLINGTON. 1985). Reflecting popular theatre traditions, Asian dance and martial art forms, it became ‘the most spectacular of all Brook’s productions’ (EVANS. 2005. Pp.194) It used elements of fire and water to captivate the audience yet included a lot of symbolism and minimalism where a piece of cloth represented a ‘cloud or lake, a single wheel a war chariot and a stick a sheaf of magic arrows’. (EVANS. 2005. Pp.196) Of the nine hour production, Vijay Mishra stated that it was ‘a theatrical event of such epic proportions that it will change the Mahabharata-as-world-text forever’ (WILLIAMS. 1991. Pp.201) When Brook took his production to New York however, it opened with controversy with it being denounced by Phillip Zarilli as ‘cultural piracy’ (CASE & REINELT. 1991. Pp.123) and Una Chaudhuri asked if Brook’s kind of Interculturalism was a ‘sophisticated disguise for another instalment of orientalism or worse, cultural rape’. (LEE. 2006. Pp.102) From a review written in the New York Times in 1987, you get an impression that the writer found the production extremely dull and boring as he states that after nine hours Peter Brooks production of ‘The Mahabharata is still not over – but at least the world is coming to an end’ (RICH.1987) Roger Long, a leading authority on Javanese theatre found the production to be ‘only a curried version of Western theatre which brings me no closer to understanding how Asian and Western theatre can be successfully fused together while retaining the essence of both. (PAVIS. 1996. Pp.83) As in much of Brook’s earlier work, the sense of ritual is conveyed through stylised set design, actors movement and speech patterns. Gestures are ritualistic, such as the bowed greeting with palms together which is used repeatedly throughout the performance. A ceremonial style of performance also conveys to the audience a sense of ritual and adds to conveying an Orientalist feel to the audience. The elements of earth, fire and water which were seen as evocative of India were also elements in Brook’s other work such as The Tempest where the floor was covered in earth and sand, musicians sat on cushions and rugs and the spirit characters were dressed in colourful Indian robes and masks. Although adding to the spectacle of the production it could be argued that the ‘Indian elements no longer speak in anything like their own voice, but have been assimilated into the powerful visual system of Brook’s theatre.’ (PAVIS. 1996. Pp.84) One of the main objections to Brook’s interpretation of The Mahabharata was that he eliminated a number of the secondary tales to create a linear plot development. Rustom Bharucha disagrees with this practice, saying ‘Nothing could be more foreign to The Mahabharata than linearity.’(BHARUCHA. 1988. Pp.1644) Arguably though it is this linear plot which makes the production more accessible to a Western audience. Likewise by introducing non-western elements into a western text, Brook is breaking up western tradition and the idea of cultural exchange can be shared with the audience. Rivalling the work of Peter Brook is that of Ariane Mnouchkine. A French theatre director, Mnouchkine founded the Parisian avant-garde stage ensemble Théâtre du Soleil that was not dis-similar to Brook’s International Centre. Theatre du Soleil is a collection of amateurs, professionals and teachers who seek to ‘destroy the preconceptions and prejudices of their audience by demystifying traditional concepts of theatre and history’ (EVANS. 2005. Pp.87), and her production of L’Indiade opened in Paris at the same time of Brook’s Mahabharata in New York. L’indiade is a play of five acts that explores the impact of history on the life of the individual and it became one of Theatre du Soleil’s most popular productions attracting thousands of audience members. As in The Mahabharata, L’indiade featured many non-western components within the production. The New York Times called it a ‘flamboyant cross breeding of all manner of Oriental Theatre with Western means’ (ROCKWELL 1987), going on to paint Mnouchkine in a much more favourable light then they did Brook. Not only did Mnouchkine add non-western elements to her stage production, she also created a microcosmic feel of India by decorating the theatre lobby with a huge map of India, dressing the theatre ushers in Indian clothing and serving authentic Indian food before the performance and during the interval. Although giving a tourist like feel for India, it does not however immerse us fully into the culture of India. Both Brook and Mnouchkine are extremely popular names in the world of theatre with thousands of followers who regularly go to see their work. Are the audience members watching these productions going to see them as works of non-western theatre, or simply because they want to see what either theatre practitioner has done next. Gissenwehrerw states that like other Western artists before them, Brook and Mnouchkine saw their ‘oriental material as a useful source for further development of their own artistic concerns than as something to be produced for its intrinsic interest.’ (LICHTE. 1990. Pp.50) This is what we can also call appropriation. To appropriate something is to examine the forms and styles of other cultures and adopt them to be used in a Western context. As Brook states in The Shifting Point, ‘one of the difficulties we encounter when we see traditional theatre from the East is that we admire without understanding.’ (BROOK. 1987. Pp.160) Brook then goes on to talk about his experience of observing a Kathakali demonstration where the costumes were visually shocking and through a series of ferocious movements from the dancers he began to realise that a story was unfolding, although he could not understand exactly what the story was. He found he lost interest in the production after the visual shock had worn off and realized that he preferred the moment when the dancer came back on stage after the production in his plain clothing and described the scene he had been playing. This mirrors my own experience of Kathakali after attending a workshop and performance on Kathakali. I found that I was engaged in the workshop as I was taught elements of the traditional Indian dance by a man that was in plain clothing and speaking English. After the workshop I sat and watched the Kathakali story unfold with the dancers in the full makeup and costume making extreme facial expressions and stamping their feet. I was able to pick up on some of the movements due to the workshop element prior to the performance, however as the performance went on I gradually began to lose interest in what was happening in front of me. The plain clothed man before the production I saw and the plain clothed man that Brook saw was more appealing to us as Westerners, as it was made ‘more accessible’ (BROOK. 1989. Pp.160 By introducing non-western modes to a western society practitioners like Brook and Mcouchkine are making the idea of these cultures more accessible which will hopefully encourage people to want to find out more about other cultures. Having only watched the film version of Brook’s Mahabharata, I can only comment that although interesting to watch, it is at times very confusing, although I admired the aesthetics of it all I can agree with Roger Long in that the productions are praiseworthy of the other cultures but still bring us no closer to understanding how you can fuse two cultures together whilst still retaining the individual essence of each. Utilizing elements of other cultures and fusing them with Western ideas gives purpose to finding commonality. The idea of Brook’s Interculturalism is still in infancy and may take generations for it to come into fruition, ‘envisioning the world as we want it to be, rather than be determined by our separate and past histories’ (TEDCANTLE. 2014)  Bibliography BBC, 2014. Multicultralism. [Online] Available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12381027-multicultralism [Accessed 02 01 2014]. BHARUCHA, R., 1988. Peter Brook's Mahabharata - A View from India. Economic and Political Weekly, 6 August, pp. 1642-1647. BILLINGTON, M. (1985) ‘Archive Theatre Review: Krishna comes to the city of the popes’ Culture section of The Guardian, 16 July 1983 [ONLINE]. Available at http://www.theguardian.com/stage/1985/jul/16/peter-brook-mahabharata-theatre (Accessed 03 January 2014) BROOK, P., 1987. The Shifting Point. New York: Harper & Row. CANTLE, T., 2014. About Intercultralism. [Online] Available at: www.tedcantle.co.uk/resources-and-publications/about-interculturalism/ [Accessed 03 01 2014]. ELLEN-CASE, S. &. R. J., 1991. The Performance of Power: Theatrical Discourse and Politics. Iowa: University of Iowa Press. KIM LEE, E., 2006. A History of Asian American Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. LICHTE, E. R. J. &. G. M., 1990. The Dramactic Touch of Difference: Theatre; Own and Foreign. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Vertag. MEER, N. &. M. T., 2011. How does Intercultralism contrast with Multicultralism?. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 33(2), pp. 175-196. NARAYAN, R. K., 2012. The Mahabharata. New Dehli: Vision Books. PAVIS, P., 1996. The Intercultural Performance Reader. Abingdon: Routledge. RICH, F. (1987) ‘From Brook, The Mahabharata’. Arts section of The New York Times, 19 October 1987 [ONLINE]. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/19/theater/stage-from-brook-the-mahabharata.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm (Accessed 02 January 2014) ROCKWELL, J. (1987) 'L'Indiade in Paris directed by Mnouchkine'. Arts section of The New York Times, 17 October 1987 [ONLINE]. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/17/theater/stage-l-indiade-in-paris-directed-by-mnouchkine.html ROOSE-EVANS, J., 2005. Experimental Theatre. Abingdon: Routledge. WILLIAMS, D., 1991. Peter Brook and the Mahabharata - Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge. 20826214