A Report on “East and West—International Conference on Mei Lanfang, Stanislavski, and Brecht,” Beijing, China, October 2018

Abstract

A REPORT ON “EAST AND WEST— INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MEI LANFANG, STANISLAVSKI, AND BRECHT,” BEIJING, CHINA, OCTOBER 2018 DA LIN Mei Lanfang Memorial Museum “East and West—the International Conference of Mei Lanfang, Stanislavski and Brecht,” hosted by the Mei Lanfang Memorial Museum (Mei Lanfang Jinianguan 梅蘭芳紀念館), took place on October 22 through 24, 2018, at the Tibet Hotel (Xizang dasha 西藏大廈) in Beijing. This conference was held to explore the historic meeting and communication among these three great theater practitioners, and reevaluate the significance of Mei Lanfang’s (1894–1961) performances in a global perspective. Thirty papers were presented at the conference by scholars from mainland China, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Russia, Singapore, South Korea and the US. The whole text of eighteen papers and the abstracts of the rest were printed and distributed in a bound volume at the conference. Papers were written in Chinese, English, and Italian, and presentations and discussions were simultaneously interpreted in the three languages. Three major themes emerged in the conference papers: (1) exploration of the theory of the “system” (tixi 體系) in Mei Lanfang studies and Chinese theater studies in general; (2) new discoveries of historical documents concerning Mei Lanfang in Chinese and other languages; and (3) reflections on Mei Lanfang in cross-cultural dialogue. The first group of papers is mainly concerned with the systemization of Mei’s performances in relation to Chinese opera. This focus is rooted in an attempt to postulate a comprehensive and theoretical framework of Mei Lanfang studies, as proposed in the paper by Mao Zhong 毛忠 (Mei Lanfang Memorial Museum) who stressed Mei’s own innovation based on accumulation of his predecessors’ practices. Some scholars were inclined to evaluate Mei’s artistry within a system of Chinese opera, such as the paper presented by Tseng Yong-yih (Zeng Yongyi 曾永義, Shih Hsin University) on general attributes of Chinese opera as a virtual, symbolic, stylized art that inspired Western drama practitioners and theorists, such as Stanislavski and Brecht. Ma Guojun 麻國鈞 (Central Academy of Drama) offered a similar insight into an examination of Mei as a legendary performer of female roles (dan 旦), and suggested that a more comprehensive study should be made in an expanded scope of Asian classical theaters, many forms of which use a system of role types (hangdang zhi 行當制). Chang-Sook Lee (Seoul National University ) approached the “system” of Chinese opera with respect to a sense of “stylization ” (chengshi 程式), as manifested in Mei’s performances, with which actors can CHINOPERL: Journal of Chinese Oral and Performing Literature 37. 2 (December 2018): 157–160© The Permanent Conference on Chinese Oral and Performing Literature, Inc. 2019 DOI 10.1080/01937774.2019.1594020 create characters’ spiritual expressiveness that transcends time and space, and make these characters always comprehensible to the audience. Wang Ankui 王安奎 (China Art Academy) dealt with macroscopic and microscopic understandings of a “system,” the former referring to the aesthetic philosophy about a performing art and the latter denoting specific practices including both composition and training. He suggested Mei Lanfang studies should extensively explore the macroscopic system to make possible communication between the performing arts of China and those of the West. An interesting debate took place between Zhou Huabin 周華斌 (Communication University of China) and Sun Huizhu 孫惠柱 (Shanghai Theatre Academy). Zhou traced the proposition of “three systems of Stanislavski, Brecht and Mei Lanfang” back to an article by Sun in 1982, and attributed the origin of this categorization to the post-World War ideological opposition between socialist and capitalist countries, as well as a patriotic promotion of Chinese culture. Zhou called for a modification of this categorization considering that the meaning of “system” has changed in a globalized context in the twenty-first century. In response, Sun confirmed the early origin of “system” from the field of Russian theater and pointed out that approaches and methods are more commonly used to refer to one’s distinctive theatrical style in Western scholarship, instead of “a system” which usually denotes an organized set of ideas and practices imposed upon practitioners. Additionally, Sun enhanced his current argument that Mei’s creativity encompassed the areas of singing, acting, playwriting, and theatricalization, therefore it is more appropriate to understand Mei’s style in a systematic way than it...