Coda

Intercultural encounter, as this adaptation illustrated, is no facile endeavour, because of its many pitfalls. When accusing Chinese opera adaptations’ distortion of Shakespeare, one has to remember that the RSC did the same with The Orphan. A vital difference is that, in terms of theme and characterisation, the RSC enriched the source text while Chinese opera adaptors, more often than not, diminished. By marrying Shakespeare with Chinese opera, this adaptation intended to present altered or Westernised ancient Chinese values to European audiences. However to Chinese audiences it might be more Shakespearean than Chinese, for the flow of Chinese culture was almost interrupted by the RSC’s projection of Western ideas. One thing worth mentioning is that the RSC’s adaptation was significantly reciprocal to Chinese theatre on account of one incident: during the conference held in Leeds, more than twenty theatre scholars working on this play joined producers, directors and playwrights of different versions of the play to discuss it. Almost all of them went to watch the RSC’s adaptation in Stratford-upon- Avon. Having seen eight Chinese productions, the RSC’s rendition, particularly the alteration of the ending, astonished many of them. Tian Qinxin (Ifeng.com 2014), director of two productions (Chinese and Korean) of The Orphan, said later in an interview that this play inspired her adaptation of Romeo and Juliet. It is likely that this adaptation has the potential to be more provocative for the Chinese.

What has the Chinese play contributed to the RSC? The RSC’s efforts to find solutions to aesthetic differences and difficulties created a very unusual play, even when compared to many other productions. For example, new aesthetics - the creation of the Demon Mastiff and Fenton’s four ballads which restored lyricism in the source play - neither completely Shakespearean nor Chinese, were sparked by this encounter. Given the experience with The Orphan, Doran acknowledged at the conference that he could not wait to produce another ancient Chinese play by Li Yu, and pleaded for more support from translators and scholars. There were also frictions due to the RSC’s evasion of difficulties and preference of imposition over dialogue. Had the RSC engaged more deeply with Chinese culture and theatre, the interpretation and representation of this play might be more thoughtful and consistent. To appreciate the mechanism and aesthetics of classical Chinese plays beyond merely duplicating costume, hairstyle, weaponry and furniture demanded more time, energy and devotion than one week’s tour sighting and intuition. In this sense, instead of bringing sufficient revitalising elements into the RSC, this adaptation was also suspicious of formal exoticism to attract audiences. To transcend commercial success, the RSC needs to move deeper below the surface.

The old route of intercultural adaptation was changed, if not tremendously, by the RSC’s adaptation. A new paradigm drawing on the productive and dialogic encounter between Eastern text and Western form is emerging but is far from completion. Such interweaving activities will continue in theatre. It might be more fruitful and constructive with further exchanges based on increasing studies and comprehension of the source culture as well as decreasing preoccupation with the target culture.