Possibility of ´political theatre´ in modern advanced capitalism
Connecting philosophy and theatre practice as research, and even claiming their unity, is very much in fashion today - at least in Finland. Performing arts practitioners often think that philosophy forms general theories that can be directly applied to practice. This can be a problem. In this article I offer one possible way for a practitioner of art to work with philosophy. The research context is my work as a theatre director in a productions of Jean Genet`s "The Screens" (2004) and Witold Gomrowicz`s "Yvonne, Princess of Burgundy" (2005), which coincided with my reading of Herbert Marcuse`s philosophy.
Since my viewpoint is one of theatre practitioner, I do not try to offer any deep analysis of Marcuse`s text or try to make any claims about what Marcuse really meant with his writings. I will write something that had significance for my practices of theatre, influenced by this very difficult aesthetic reasoning. At the same time I present a few ideas about the way I have employed these ideas myself quite liberally and used them as an "aesthetic interlocutor" in preparing well-informed "political" theatre performances. My artistic work is meant to be in dialog with the Marcuse`s aesthetic philosophy - not a "practical solution" of it.
I exist and function as an artist in this society. I am a theatre-director and an actor in Finland. Both the artist and the human being in me are well aware of the fact that I am performing these roles in an unfair and unjust western society. I am aware of all this, but at the same time I believe that critical ways of thinking and acting in order to change current social practices are possible, which obliges me to find ways towards such change-oriented thinking and praxis.
How does this ongoing injustice then presents itself to us? The existence of my whole society, right down to my immediate living environment, is based on exploitation of the weaker species and whole ethnic groups located in some far away countries. This small living environment, its unbelievable standard of living and the day-to-day oversupply of luxury goods is built on direct exploitation and murder on the one hand and on the other sophisticated methods of concealing the very structures responsible for injustice.
These structures and their concealment are upheld actively by the propaganda of the "Society of the Spectacle", which has the eager help of the society's "artistic community". By producing the aesthetic material, "artists" are participating in increasing the overall consumption, in the creation of new needs, production of systematic forgetfulness and in the endless maintenance of forced lifestyles.
Modern advanced capitalist society has demolished all of the old models, forms and stories of the classical "Class War". The battle lines between the proletariat and the bourgeois have diminished, and their ways of life, hobbies and interests have started to resemble each other more and more to the extend that it is quite impossible to point out any meaningful differences between them -- Art and Culture have not been innocent bystanders in all this. In this kind of "Society Without Opposition" all current forms of Art and Culture (Avant-Garde included!) are actively part of this injustice in every aspect of their form, content and production. Possibilities of political art - at least in it's narrow 60`meaning - are reduced quite close to zero in this kind of One-Dimensional Society (Marcuse:3).
"In this kind of situation where the miserable reality can be changed only through radical political praxis, the concern with aesthetics demands justification" (Marcuse :1)
3. My personal aesthetic problem
I am a politically aware person who is acting as a theatre artist. Do I then direct political theatre?
If so, then why do my theatre productions often not speak directly about prevailing injustices? Oppression and repression of ethnic minorities? Valid alternative social activities? A few bomb-building instructions? This prevailing substantive problem of my artistic work has often plagued my thoughts.
I encountered this personal tension head on when I witnessed a theatre performance about animal rights. Since I have been engaged with these issues most of my life, and I am still a hard-line Vegan, the theme of the play was already very close to me. While it was somewhat fun and the crowd around me loved it, the play was produced by amateurs and thus it was clumsy and awfully performed. But what was significant in this event was my feeling of complete emptiness and frustration when the curtain came down. It raised many questions for me: Why does this very common form of political theatre, which almost always involves some intelligent critically minded people, remain very conservative in content and form? As an Art experience its predictable mediocrity drives the spectators to almost complete intellectual apathy. Is this group-experience of political righteousness, I mean the feeling of it all, worth all the trouble and money that has been used to produce these political performances? I believe that in this kind of communal political theatre the audience already completely agrees with everything with the artists before the play has even begun.
The same thing can happen if the spectator completely disagrees with the content and/or form before the play has even begun - if, for example, the viewer knows that this is a left-wing performance, and is himself a conservative, and he simply refuses to accept anything he sees, he actually ceases to exist as a valid theatre spectator. A crucial aspect of both of these cases is the fact that the identity of a particular theatre performance and the way of communication is already known in advance, which makes the theatre performance as a political act resemble spreading political flyers or making speeches on a soap boxes on the streets.
3. Finland as a promised land of political theatre
Political or non-political Art? This issue has for some reason always haunted Finnish theatre practitioners. Finnish composers, painters or writers are rarely challenged to explain whether their aesthetic tinkering is socially or politically conscious enough. But theatre is constantly plagued by this question, especially for the younger generation of practitioners. Why is it so? Does it stem from bad conscience about their elitist role in our society? It is also the case in Finland that all those other forms of art mentioned above have generally been perceived as genuine and "real" art forms, whereas theatre has always been considered more like some kind of healthy social act combined with appropriate self-humiliation; not as a true form of art.
Perhaps my generation of theatre practitioners is the first one to really consider themselves as genuine artists in the same way that for example contemporary painters and composers do.
Finnish theatre history is of course, full of political awareness. In particular, the 60`s generation embraced Brecht and Marxist aesthetics in general. Their productions can certainly be seen as political art in the sense that they were in conflict with the prevailing elitist political views and included ideas for a new (leftist) world order. Many theatre practitioners also declared themselves as communists in various artistic ways: speaking, shouting, singing, acting and beating or making love to the grand piano. This is of course not restricted to the 60`s era. For example, in last decade our repertory theatres have produced many plays that deal with contemporary social problems, such as social exclusion, alcoholism, and integration of immigrants and minorities. In other words, the multitude of everyday difficulties. This conception of political aesthetics can to some degree be found in all stages of Finnish theatre: high and low, rich and poor, good and bad. The essential idea in this is the assumption that politics is something to be added as a side dish to Art, some kind of a nice additional value that has already been configured outside the actual practices of Art.
But when or how could works of Art themselves be political? To this difficult question I would like to add a challenge, or even a hope. In what way can Art possibly be "just Art" and also a forum where the whole concept of the "political" is questioned? Further than that, can the practice of Art indeed be one of the best venues for the complete re-evaluation of that concept every now and again?
II Herbert Marcuse
Herbert Marcuse was a German born philosopher who is known as a member of the "Frankfurt School" that originated at The Frankfurt Institute for Social Research. Other major thinkers affiliated with the School are Theodor W. Adorno, Walter Benjamin and Jürgen Habermas. Marcuse`s most important philosophical writings related to the critical study of Hegel, Freud and Marx. Marcuse's critique of capitalist society resonated well with the concerns of the student movements in America in the 1960`s, and this made him a "youth idol" of sorts. His book One-Dimensional Man (1964) influenced many radical activists around the world during that time.
Marcuse´s essay The Affirmative Character of Culture (1937) examines the concept of "Culture" during the "Bourgeois" period (1400-). Since the beginning of this epoch, social practices have been divided into mundane labor or base pursuits, and to "Culture", which has higher pursuits. At the same time, developing markets are involved in creating an illusion of "Universal Humanism", which includes the notion of general human values. In this new situation the developing High Culture is, available to all individuals, but only in their own "inner" experience - its material rewards are accessible only for the market-successful-elite (Marcuse:92-93). "Affirmative" in this context means a tendency of this "Culture" to strengthen the current (capitalist) social system.
In his later aesthetic writings, Marcuse claims that Marxist social critique has never sufficiently stressed the need for an aesthetic reflection on these issues. Marcuse had already opened this discussion with his interpretations of Schiller`s and Kant`s writings in the book Eros and Civilization (1955). In the chapter Aesthetic dimension, he reinterprets them as forming a view of aesthetics as an alternative form of reason (Marcuse:148). In a preliminary way he presents the idea that the aesthetic image provides a social perspective which is not linked to current practices. Therefore it may give an opportunity to think otherwise - thus opening the possibility for change. The main themes of this text are related to critique against mass culture, but it also offers interesting perspectives on Schiller's philosophy.
Next, I will try to explain some of Marcuse's criticism of the above mentioned "Marxist aesthetics " in his last book The Aesthetic Dimension (1978) and ponder some of the potentials of what this kind of reflection could possibly have to offer for contemporary politically aware theatre. In this book, Marcuse directly challenges the artistic discourse of his own time. I therefore believe that it can offer insight in to my present concerns.
III The Aesthetic Dimension (1978)
1. Marxist aesthetics
Marcuse seeks to criticize Marxist aesthetics by questioning its predominant orthodoxy. By "orthodoxy" Marcuse understands the interpretation of the quality and truth of a work of art in terms of the totality of the prevailing relations of production - specifically if this interpretation holds that the work of art represents the interests and worldview of particular social classes in a more or less accurate manner. This critique is aimed at Marxist theory in general inasmuch as it also views art only in the context of the prevailing social relations and ascribes to art a political function and a political potential. The critique focuses, in particular, at the tendency of Marxist aesthetics to devaluate the subjectivity of individuals themselves, their passions, their drives and goals. Marcuse accuses Marxist theory that it succumbed to that very reification which it had exposed and combated in society as a whole. Subjectivity thus became an atom of objectivity; even in its rebellious form it was surrendered to a collective consciousness (conversely, Marcuse had in his early text accused Bourgeois society of isolating individuals into separate atoms) (Marcuse:6).
Marcuse sees the political potential of art in art itself, in the aesthetic form as such. In its historically separated aesthetic dimension (Marcuse:ix) (see also Affirmative Culture), Art is largely autonomous from the given social relations and prejudices. In this autonomy, Art both protests these relations and prejudices and at the same time transcends them. This enables art to transcend prevailing thinking patterns and conservative social consensus, to keep its distance from the every day concerns - the bread and butter of Marxist aesthetics. Although The Aesthetic Dimension speaks of "Art" in general, discussion is essentially focused on literature. However, Marcuse states that what holds true for literature, mutatis mutandis, may also apply to music and the visual arts (Marcuse:ix-x).
2. Revolutionary art
According to Marcuse, Art can be revolutionary in two modes:
- Art may be called revolutionary if it represents a radical change in style and technique. Such change may be the achievement of a genuine avant-garde, anticipating or reflecting substantial changes in the society at large.
- Art can also be revolutionary if, by virtue of aesthetic transformation, it represents, in the exemplary fate of individuals, the prevailing unfreedom and rebelling forces, thus breaking through the mystified (and petrified) social reality, and opening the horizon of change (liberation). In this sense, every authentic work of art can be revolutionary. The authenticity of art lies in this: that the world really is as it appears in the work of art. As the work of art in this way raises the validity of subjective experience to new heights, it reincarnates the rebellious subject. This kind of autonomy of art contains the categorical imperative: things must change (Marcuse:x-xi).
Thus, the true political potential of art lies in this aesthetic dimension. Its relation to praxis, however, is indirect, mediated, and frustrating. The more immediately political the work of art, the more it reduces the power of estrangement and the radical, transcendent goals of change (Marcuse:xii).
3. Art and reality
What, then, is the relationship between an artist (or Art) and the surrounding social reality? According to Marcuse, it is always and inevitably highly charged: Art includes the possibilities for radical freedom but is at the same time "affirmative" as a cultural phenomenon.
Compared with the often one-dimensional propaganda of optimism, art is permeated with pessimism. It serves to warn against the "happy consciousness" of radical praxis: as if all of that which art invokes and indicts could be settled through class struggle. Such pessimism permeates even the literature in which revolution itself is affirmed: Büchner`s play The Death of Danton is a classic example (Marcuse:14).
Marxism has too long neglected the radical potential of this aesthetic dimension. This neglect is based on following doubt: how can the prevailing social problems be transferred to this autonomous aesthetic realm? Marcuse states that in any case society remains present in this realm of art in several ways: 1. As all the "stuff" for the aesthetic representation which, past and present, is transformed in this representation. This is the historicity of the conceptual, linguistic, and imaginable material, which the tradition transmits to the artists and with or against which they have to work. 2. As the scope of the actually available possibilities of struggle and liberation. 3. As the specific position of art in the social division of labor, especially in historical separation of intellectual and manual labor, which makes artistic activity the privilege of an "elite" that is removed from the material process of production (the fact that the artist belongs to a privileged group negates neither the truth nor the aesthetic quality of his work.) (Marcuse:18).
The criteria for the progressive character of art are given only in the work itself: in what it says and how it says it. The distance and estrangement from praxis contribute to the emancipatory values of art (Marcuse:19).
Lucien Goldman has stated the central problem of Marxist aesthetics in the period of advanced capitalism. If the proletariat is not the negation of the existing society but to a great extent integrated into it, then Marxist aesthetics is confronted with a situation in which "authentic forms of cultural creation" exist though they cannot be "attached to the consciousness - even a potential one - of a particular social group." The decisive question therefore is: how the "link is made between the economic structures and literary manifestations in a society where this link occurs outside the collective consciousness," i.e., without being grounded in a progressive class-consciousness, without expressing such consciousness? (Marcuse:30). Adorno answered: in such a situation the autonomy of art asserts itself in extreme form - as uncompromising estrangement (Marcuse:31).
4. Art and "the people"
Marcuse acknowledges Adorno`s concept of the decadent and elitist nature of such "autonomous Art", but he claims it contains the potential of denying the monopoly of truth in "One-Dimensional society" (Marcuse:31).
If the content of the old Class War was that we must get power back to "the people" who are doing all the work and creating the surplus value of that pours straight in to the pockets of the "Bourgeoisie", in recent days, the nature of "the people" has profoundly changed. One characteristic of this new "advanced capitalist society" is that social classes meld smoothly with each other. This also affects the consumption habits of Art - "the people" is one, whole and "everybody" to the commercial producers of Art. If such is the case, then works of Art can hold on to "truth" only when they remain as far as possible in all various ways from "the people". Thus Marcuse`s claim of an autonomous aesthetic dimension is not meant to be a universal, but instead it is tied into this historical dialectic.
How is "the people" built today? Who belongs to it? The fact is that in modern capitalism the exploited population is much larger than the "proletariat" and it contains a large part of what were formerly known as "the middle classes" - almost everybody that is... Since political art has therefore no real "place among the people" for critical aesthetics, it will be forced to create this second place, and this is a process which may require that art stands against "the people" (Marcuse:37). This process may even prevent it from speaking their language. In this sense, "elitism" today may have a radical consciousness. Revolutionary art may, curiously, become "The Enemy of the People" (Marcuse:33-35).
Marcuse has many different dimensions and turns of thought in this matter. One must remember that this is the description the development of modern society. As I hinted earlier regarding Marcuse`s conception of Affirmative Culture, creation of the independent dimension of art/high culture was originally an affirmative (conservative) act - similar to the banishment of sexuality from public life - both of which were part of the process of creating the "One-Dimensional Bourgeoisie Human Image". But after this situation has been normalized the "elitist dimension of art" can adopt a new and critical function as it allows critical rethinking and exploring alternative truths. And that is why bringing this second dimension into everyday political struggle risks losing the source of utopian energies.
At the same time, Marcuse also speaks about the everyday mass production of Culture (movies, music and commercial aesthetics), but in his terms, this is not "Art". His definition of art is fundamentally tied to this dimensional dynamics: it is always defined in relation to its social function and inherent possibilities. Thus, institutions of Art can both serve as sanctuaries of critical thought - even when they are elitist - and as sources of criticism in an era when most of that what is called "Art" is mass culture.
5. Aesthetics as a representational tool of "reality"
But what is the relationship of "the aesthetic" to the current social reality according to Marcuse? A play, for example, becomes a work of art by virtue of its form which incorporates and sublimates "the stuff" from reality. The reality itself may be the "starting point of aesthetic dimension" and it may be "class determined" - but in the work of art, this "stuff", divested of its immediacy, this stuff becomes something qualitatively different, part of another reality. Even where a fragment of reality is left untransformed (for example, quoted phrases from a speech by Robespierre), the content is changed being one constituent part of the work as a whole; its meaning can even be turned into its opposite (Marcuse:42).
When, or if, art abandons this autonomy of the aesthetic dimension, and with it, the aesthetic form in which the autonomy is expressed, it succumbs to that problematic reality which it seeks to grasp and indict. The abandonment of the aesthetic form may well provide the most immediate, most direct mirror of a society. This maybe attempted by shattering or atomizing subjects and objects, robbing them of their words and conventional imagery, however the rejection of the aesthetic dimension means that in the end such works remain mere fragments of the very society whose "anti-art" they want to be. Such "anti-art" is self-defeating from the outset (Marcuse:49).
IV Political theatre in Practice at Tampere in 2004 & 2005
In 2003, The West started "the liberation" and "democratization" of Iraq. The war was swift, and after the colossal victory of "freedom", started the never-ending U.S led occupation. Opposing Westerners and Arabs was a familiar situation for those Europeans who still well remembered the French occupation and violence in Algeria that lasted until 1962. Particularly embarrassing and bloody was the Algerian War, which is also the subject of (or the backdrop of) Jean Genet's The Screens (Les Paravents). It was obvious from the start that during our production of play we could not (nor did we want to) hide from contemporary political issues. It was personally very satisfying to know that at the time of the invasion of Baghdad, we were rehearsing Arabic dances & music in Tampere.
Jean Genet is, a strong political figure as a person and a playwright. His plays do not contain any clear political messages or manuals for resistance, but they certainly offer an opportunity to different thinking. Genet was involved in anarchistic student movements and opposed Vietnam War quite openly, but in his actual political statements he was very controversial figure. For example, he said that he took the Palestinian side in the Middle East crisis, but only for so long as the Palestinians would receive their independence and their own state.
Jean Genet said that The Screens is "a dream" about Algeria - it is not an allegory or critique, but "a dream"… For me this "dream quality" of the play was a good way to consider the material as some kind of moving space in time, to reflect current political issues by bringing it into a kind of theatrical aesthetic dimension, to search its possible universal features (musical, poetical) within it and disarm it from all the daily clichés. Our intention was also to find for these complex structures an artistic form that would cause the urge to take action and facilitate active reflection in theatre spectators, rather than to treat the whole play as a kind of poor form of political agitation for all those things which we already had been reading in the news.
At the same time, we organized a seminar and published series of articles, in which academic experts expressed their views on the Algerian war, many meanings of the concept "terrorism" and the various European perspectives over the "mythical Orient". Critical, academic reflective thinking was given this change, its own dimension, alongside the actual event of theatre. This kind of event, in which the political issues are discussed at the same time in many different forums, could well provide an example of practical application of Marcuse's aesthetic considerations.
This video-clip is from a scene in which we encounter the loudmouthed Arab-lady, Kadidja. Colonial French forces have just been driven out of their lands, and in the middle of this chaos drunken Sir Harold shoots Kadidja. Before she dies, bleeding Kadidja urges her countrymen to take part in the underground resistance. Kadidja gives various tasks to all these men and they put them into practice by drawing their foul deeds into "screens". Finally Kadidja dies, and again, her perspective shifts. This particular scene combines many, highly deviating concepts into an understandable form: How does "hate" turn to into "evil"? How did the killing actually begun? Who (or what) is the terrorist? What is the essence of memory in violence? Is monstrosity a necessity in armed resistance? How much killing is enough? What might be the relationship of the dead to the spectacle of the revolution? Does bloody revolution have a carnivalistic nature?
As political concepts, importance also lies in the character of Kadidja, its planning, thinking and practices behind the character that the actor is performing. The character has not been defined as a pre-digested psychological concept of "a political resistance leader", but acting has comprised parametric design developed at the level of single movements and gestures. As a result, Kadidja is not defined as a defined whole but as parts that are allowed to live and evolve in the "world" of the performance. The performance's political dimension can rather be seen in how "radical" is defined as a cybernetic concept for subjectivity instead of a narrative and informative element.
We are living in the middle of structural violence. In the era of developed markets, this pervasive violence often escapes inside legalised and generally accepted laws, regulations and structures. This occurs in so seamlessly, merging into our everyday lives, that we do not recognise it, even when we are looking at it on our plates or wearing it on our feet. In his essay Globalization. The comparison between institutional/structural and explicit violence, Teemu Mäki defines structural violence during the era of globalisation as:
"What is structural violence? It is violence organised consciously or unconsciously at the community, corporate or government level, visible as actions other than voluntary trading, rationalisation, cultural heritage, joking, etc. Global capitalism is its (oppression's) largest form." (Mäki:32)
Yvonne, Princess of Burgundy corresponds to this violence. Certainly, the play has a number of other themes that may be greater for some, but structural violence is present in such many forms all the time (e.g. hierarchical/absolute royal power, full objectification of women, religion, hunting…) that it was impossible to ignore in the direction and the play's aesthetic aspects. The question was how to build the play so that the audience becomes aware of the core themes and starts to deliberate upon them, but does not make sink into the problems produced by "marxist aesthetics" as stated by Marcuse, together with any of the play's political potential.
Considering the performance's visual aspects, I required something with massive volume and is truly concealed or hiding at the same time, but also something ordinary. I decided to take the risk and use a slaughterhouse as the entire play's dream level of a kind, an aesthetic aspect, a horizon which flashes above all. The slaughterhouse is a clear example of a group using its hierarchical superiority for acquiring nutrition, matter and pleasure. Industrial slaughterhouse is the final element of business that is industrialised, structural, honed efficiently by engineers. The animal has finally been turned into a pure product - a machine. At the end of the play, the slaughterhouse materialises to us through Yvonne's ritualistic death as an imagery that crashes into us through the 'veil of mundane realism', as experience-based time is slowed down and opened for that something located below the surface - death or violence.
Image 1 (setting):
Image 2 (setting):
Image 3 (performance):
Video (performance - the quality is very poor because of the dark scene...)
What is politically meaningful is the acting method behind "Yvonne's death". Here, the actress does not portray death as a narrative or psychological concept but completes a process developed through butoh exercises where she dissolves different parts of her embodied awareness around the performance world, "immersing" as part of the awareness. While other characters are still trapped inside the "containers" of their bodies, Yvonne (and the actress) moves from one embodied awareness to another, towards a more politically radical, cyborg/decentralised body.
Finally as the play advances, Yvonne also changes more and more into a product, a good, used mechanical doll, a machine – not necessarily in her own feelings (before the end), but in the eyes of the surrounding social reality.
V Some conclusions
Political struggle is seen very much as a necessity throughout The Aesthetic Dimension but is more like a background assumption. This kind of philosphical aesthetic criticism can be frustrating to an artist and it might seem quite cerebral and devoid of any practical solutions. I agree with this view in many ways: this kind of philosophy cannot make any "readymade" models, social alternatives or tools for practical artistic work, but it can be (at least for me) a critical, reflective sounding board while producing works of art in the existing society.
As a simplified conclusion, in a 'political' concept where politics are understood as criticism or a solution for problems at hand, art is always in the danger of losing something essential of its characteristics and deep, multi-layered political possibilities.
Reading Marcuse changed my practices for making theatre in that I turned the entire question of art and politics upside down. Therefore, the question is not about how to work politics into our art, but the question which I want to ask myself over and over again in the future is: "What kind of politics would I like to make within my art and its practices?" Question therefore also is that we should not only concentrate on what we do, but how we do it? Donna Haraway's A Cyborg Manifesto opened this particular political horizon for me in practice. When in rehearsals, i.e. at the practical level, we are defining the qualities of the characters/objects portrayed, we are dealing with essential questions for our political theatre: Are our characters already explained entities served for the audience or are we ready provide objects with parameters; thus, transferring our artistic power somewhere else? Are we ready to add to the multiplicity of voices in art?
There is however at least one practical guideline: We are experiencing, not the destruction of every whole, every unity or all meaning, but rather the rule and dominion of the whole, the superimposed and administered unification (Marcuse:50). Not disintegration but reproduction and integration of the disastrous. In this kind of a situation art can, by the power of its autonomic aesthetic dimension, revolt against this cultural fascism and forced integration. Practice of Art has the possibility to maintaining the multidimensional point of view in a "One-Dimensional society". Art cannot directly change the world, but in this way it can contribute to changing the consciousness and the drives of men and women who then might yet change the world (Marcuse:51-53).
Like Marcuse says: "The true revolution is for the sake of life, not death. Here is the perhaps most profound kinship between art and revolution." (Marcuse:56)
- Marcuse, Herbert (1968) Negations - essays in critical theory, essay The Affirmative Character of Culture. The Penguin Press.
- Marcuse, Herbert (1955) Eros and Civilization - A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, essay The Aesthetic Dimension. The Beacon Press.
- Marcuse, Herbert (1978) The Aesthetic Dimension - Toward a Critique of Marxist Aesthetics. The Beacon Press.
- Mäki, Teemu (2002) Helsinki Art-Hall catalogue, essay Globalization. The comparison between institutional/structural and explicit violence. Gummerus kirjapaino OY, Jyväskylä.
Rubidge, Sarah (2004). Artists in the Academy: Reflections on Artistic Practice as Research [web-document]. Australian Dance Council.
[cited on 31.10.2009]
Weblinks to theatre productions: