The 2015 Inaugural Shanghai Experimental Xiqu (Chinese Indigenous Theater) Festival, December 1–6
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PERFORMANCE REVIEW: THE 2015 INAUGURAL SHANGHAI EXPERIMENTAL XIQU (CHINESE INDIGENOUS THEATER) FESTIVAL, DECEMBER 1–6 JOSH STENBERG University of British Columbia, Canada A consistent forum for the presentation of xiqu 戲曲 (Chinese indigenous theater) in “little theatre” (xiaojuchang小劇場) form (translated as “experimental” on all promotional material for the Shanghai festival) is overdue. Pretty much the entirety of the xiqu world is in agreement that xiqu arts and audiences have long been in crisis. There is perhaps an element of ideological determinism in this narrative— on-its-last-legs is a default story for tradition anywhere—but there can be no doubt that troupes face a rapidly-changing policy environment and pressure to experiment and modernize. How they should do this, and where the bounds of such reforms should be set, are questions which continue to drive the work of xiqu practitioners, and their interaction with spoken theater and foreign artists. “Little theatre,” a term usually associated with Taiwanese spoken theater and lately with non-official PRC spoken theater (huaju 話劇) performance, is one option for xiqu troupes, especially given the bloatedness and complacency of many gala xiqu productions. To date, for two years running, festivals of “little theatre” xiqu plays lasting at least a month that involved at least 12 plays and fifty performances have been held in Beijing.1 The festival under review, whose Chinese title was Xiqu huxi: 2015 Shanghai xiaojuchang xiqu jie 戲曲呼吸: 2015 上海小劇場戲曲節 (Let Chinese indigenous theater breathe: The 2015 Shanghai small theater Chinese indigenous theater festival) was smaller (six plays and seven performances) and shorter in length (only a week). Plans are in the works for the 2016 edition. 1 For a survey of the development of “little theater” xiqu beginning from the late twentieth century through the first of the Beijing festivals, see Xie Boliang 謝柏梁, “Dangdai ‘xiaojuchang xiqu’ de fasheng yu fazhan—Zhongguo shiyanxing xiqu puxi zhi shuli 當代 ‘小劇場戲曲’ 的發 生與發展—中國實驗性戲曲譜系之梳理 (The birth and development of contemporary ‘little theater xiqu’—Sorting out the genealogy of Chinese experimental xiqu),” Xiju 戲劇 2 (2015): 91–103. Reportage on the second festival is comparatively hard to find. Liu Ping 劉平, “Xiaojuchang de shiyan yu chuangxin 小劇場的實驗與創新 (Experimentation and innovation in little theater),” Xiju wenxue 戲劇文學 (Theater literature) 2016.3: 8–11, was written in response to the discussion of “little theater” xiqu at a final symposium (zongjie luntan 總結論壇) that concluded the second festival. For the promotional material of the Beijing festivals, “black box” was used to translate xiaojuchang. See, for example, the advertisement for the second festival in the 2016.2 issue of Juben 劇本 (Play scripts). CHINOPERL: Journal of Chinese Oral and Performing Literature 35.1 (July 2016): 64–69© The Permanent Conference on Chinese Oral and Performing Literature, Inc. 2016 DOI 10.1080/01937774.2016.1183329 The festival opened with The Polished Jade Guanyin (Nianyu Guanyin 碾玉觀音) from the Beijing Jingju Company (Bejing Jingju yuan 北京京劇院). The piece is an adaptation by the young writer-director Li Zhuoqun 李卓群 of a vernacular story that appears under this title in an incomplete collection of stories first published by Miu Quansun 繆荃孫 (1844–1919) in 1915 that Miu claimed was based on a Yuan copy but which many scholars think he actually fabricated by making use of material from the original editions (published from 1620–27) of Feng Menglong’s 馮夢龍 (1574–1646) three collections of vernacular stories, which had become rare books by 1915.2 It is an excellent story, and eminently suitable for xiqu adaptation, one might think. The plot concerns the forbidden love between a great jade worker and his embroiderer beloved, sold into the service of the powerful and titled Han Shizhong 韓世忠 (1089–1151). They run away from Han’s mansion but are pursued and persecuted by Han’s henchman. She is ultimately killed but as a ghost is able to take her vengeance and lead her husband into eternal love in the other world. In between are cross-dressing disguises, a pregnancy, indecent overture repelled, and any number of declarations of love. The attempt to compress this much plot into a show that runs under two hours leads to breakneck pacing—hardly a common xiqu feature. More problematic is that neither of the lead actors is compelling , there is no chemistry between them, and the show felt under...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".