Dr. Yazan Kamal Al Bader – Jordanian

Specialization: Ph.D. Dramatic Arts / Psychodrama/ Work at Moreno Haus as.

e-mail: Yazan.albader@morenohuset.no

 

ARABIC VERSION

 

This reading comes after I had the honor of receiving a personal and formal invitation from the Greek director Theodoros Terzopoulos to visit Greece and attend his theatrical performance of The Oresteia at the ancient theatre of Epidaurus, which is considered one of the most sacred theatrical sites in human history, in addition to observing the training and exercises of his distinctive method and accessing the archive of the Attis Theatre. This invitation formed a rare opportunity to consolidate theoretical and practical knowledge through direct experience and live observation of the latest applications of the «Return of Dionysus« method in its natural context. The ancient theatre, with its rich history and spiritual energy accumulated over thousands of years, provides the ideal framework for understanding the ritual and transformative dimensions of Terzopoulos’s theatre.

This reading is the culmination of extensive theoretical and practical research, starting with the book gifted by the director and a collection of other theoretical and anthropological works.

Theodoros Terzopoulos’s book «The Return of Dionysus” represents a radical shift in understanding contemporary theatre and performance theory, as it presents a vision for 21st-century theatre inspired by ancient Greek mythology and the philosophy of Heraclitus. The book centrally employs the metaphor of «Dionysus” the ancient god of theatre, to redefine and renew theatre from its foundations, transcending traditional and contemporary theatrical forms. This invocation constitutes an authentic reinterpretation of the concept of theatre as a space for transformation, transcendence, and revelation. As I see it, this ambitious theatrical project transcends the limits of traditional theatrical practice to offer a new model of performance based on an exceptional understanding of the body as a site of knowledge, transformation, and change.

The book begins with a valuable and significant introduction by the distinguished German theatre scholar and founder of performance aesthetics theory Erika Fischer-Lichte, who provides a theoretical framework for understanding his project. She explains how the invocation of Dionysus transcends simple symbolic use to become a guiding principle for the actors’ work on themselves, whereby the myth of Dionysus’s dismemberment and reconstitution from his heart becomes a model for the process the actor must undergo: » They must again and again destroy something of themselves in order to be integrated into a new whole » (Terzopoulos, 2020, p. 8). This continuous process of deconstruction and reconstruction is what distinguishes this type of theatre and its performance techniques. This understanding of acting as a transformative process transcends traditional concepts of performance as mimesis or representation, offering instead an authentic creation of performance as a new experience that changes both the actor and the spectator.

The centrality of the body in the theory challenges the traditional Cartesian duality between body and mind. In Terzopoulos’s theatre, the body is a site of knowledge, memory, and transformation. He distinguishes between two concepts of the body: the first, the Body-as-being, and the second, the Body-as-property, drawing inspiration from the ideas of the philosopher Helmuth Plessner. The aim of the performance techniques he develops is to overcome this separation and transform the Body-as-property into the Body-as-being, whereby the actor appears (as mind and body simultaneously), thus allowing access to the «sites of deep memory» buried within the body, which are inaccessible through traditional acting techniques. This understanding of the body as a repository of collective and individual memory aligns with contemporary trends in performance theory, which emphasize the body as a site of embodied knowledge.

As for the (state of ecstasy), it acquires central importance in this method, a state he clearly distinguishes from (coma or trance) … To reach this state of ecstasy, «the body must be conscious of the feet. In a coma, you have no consciousness of your feet» (Terzopoulos, 2020, p. 9). This precise distinction reveals a creative understanding of different bodily states and their impact on performance… Terzopoulos cites a 17th-century text describing rituals in the temple of Asclepius, where «the sick were forced to walk for hours with movements of increasing difficulty until they reached a state of ecstasy and joy under the influence of Dionysus» (Terzopoulos, 2020, p. 8). These rituals become a model for the exercises he develops for actors, which aim fundamentally at transforming physical pain into energy, joy, and creativity through continuous movement. This understanding of ecstasy as a state of heightened awareness, not an absence of consciousness, is what distinguishes it from other approaches seeking similar states through different techniques. He provides a detailed description containing «forty exercises» that actors must perform in «one hour» in preparation for rehearsal or performance, in a circular manner with the same timing and rhythm. These exercises aim to create the conditions in which the Dionysian theatre can manifest itself.

Terzopoulos draws inspiration for these exercises from various sources, including ancient and modern Greek rituals, such as the «Anastenaria» ritual honoring Saint Constantine, where performers dance on burning embers without burning themselves. This integration of traditional ritual practices and contemporary performance techniques reflects an exceptionally creative perspective and an understanding of theatre as a continuation of ancient rituals, not a break from them.

The documentation of these exercises on video and making them available to readers and interested parties reflects his commitment to transferring his knowledge and techniques to a new generation of actors and directors, making the book a practical guide for theatrical practice. What also distinguishes it is his insistence that the body techniques he develops are transferable across different cultures. He bases this on Marcel Mauss’s essay «Techniques of the Body,» which discusses the idea that there are no natural body techniques, only culturally specific ones. He believes that these culturally specific techniques can be erased and replaced by others, paving the way for accessing as yet unknown dimensions of the body. This cosmic vision of the body aligns with his view of Dionysus as a cosmic god appearing in multiple cultures under different names: for example, Adonis in Syria, Osiris in Egypt, Attis in Phrygia, Ogun among the Yoruba, and Yurupari in pre-Columbian Latin American culture. This cosmic vision of the body and performance challenges prevailing Western concepts of theatre and opens the door for genuine dialogue between different cultures. His experience working with actors from multiple cultures confirms the applicability of his method across cultural boundaries, making it a model for theatre in the age of globalization.

Terzopoulos situates his theatre within a historical and philosophical context that is simultaneously complex, simple, authentic, and coherent, drawing inspiration from the philosophy of Heraclitus, as mentioned at the beginning of the article. He dedicates a fragment from Heraclitus as a subtitle for each chapter of the book, showing a philosophical framework for understanding the principles he discusses. The Heraclitean concept of perpetual transformation and the unity of opposites becomes the basis for understanding Dionysian theatre: «For those who step into the same rivers, different and again different waters flow» (Terzopoulos, 2020, p. 12). This concept of perpetual change aligns with Terzopoulos’s vision of theatre as a continuous process of transformation and transcendence.

His inspiration from Heraclitus places his theatrical project within an innovative and completely different philosophical context, connecting it to an intellectual tradition spanning over two thousand years. This connection between contemporary theatrical practice and ancient philosophy reflects his balanced understanding of theatre as an intellectual and philosophical practice, not merely a form of entertainment, artistic expression, or spectacle.

It is interesting to note his description of his theatre as being «performed in the stage before death, in the waiting room of Hades.» This understanding of theatre as a space between life and death is based on the close relationship between Dionysus and Hades, as seen in the fragment he quotes from Heraclitus: «Hades is the same as Dionysus.» In this liminal space, the actor becomes capable of «penetrating the scenes of buried memory and simultaneously transforming them into future scenes, presenting them in the present.» Thus, the body unites past and future with the present, and life with death. This understanding of theatre as a liminal space that transcends traditional dualities aligns with contemporary concepts of performance as a transformative experience that transcends the limits of time and space (liminality). «His description of the theatre as a ‘waiting room of Hades’ reminds us of Victor Turner’s concept of liminality, which describes transitional spaces where social identities and conventional boundaries are transcended. He offers a sharp critique of traditional 18th and 19th-century theatre, which he describes as theatre equipped realistically and with psychologically motivated characters» (Terzopoulos, 2020, p. 13). In contrast, he believes that the theatre of the late «twentieth and twenty-first centuries» requires a different theatre, one that follows Dionysian principles. This critique is what situates his project within the context of 20th-century theatre development, from modernists to avant-garde movements to postmodernism, while emphasizing that his theatre is radically different from all these currents.

Terzopoulos’s rejection of psychological and realistic theatre aligns with contemporary trends in experimental theatre, but he transcends them by offering a coherent alternative based on a deeply rooted understanding of ancient Greek heritage. This combination of radical critique of prevailing theatrical traditions and inspiration from heritage distinguishes his project from other contemporary theatrical endeavors. His production of «The Bacchae» (1986) is considered the first work to fully embody the principles of the Dionysian theatre he proposes. This work sparked significant controversy in Greece, attracting criticism from many Greek critics who «in the eighties wanted to see a specific image of ancient Greece in the performance of Greek tragedy, and simultaneously a Greek cultural identity that had remained unchanged since antiquity.» This tension between traditional Greek cultural identity and a cosmic vision of theatre reveals the political and cultural dimension of his project. Their rejection of his use of non-Greek or Asian body techniques also reflects a larger tension concerning cultural identity and heritage in the context of globalization. In contrast, the acceptance of his theatre by critics in other European countries suggests the possibility of overcoming these tensions through a greater understanding of heritage as a source of renewal and creativity, not as a constraint on contemporary practice.

Despite his strong belief in the possibility of achieving Dionysian theatre, he concludes his book with an open question: Dionysus is absent. He is exiled… Theatre will never have the final word. Will Dionysus return? This question reveals a nuanced awareness of the challenges facing his project, and that Dionysian theatre may always remain an aspiration rather than being fully realized. As Fischer-Lichte noted at the end of her introduction: «Until the day of his appearance, Terzopoulos’s theatre can be considered the closest we have to a theatre of Dionysus.» This awareness of the temporary and transformative nature of theatre aligns with his knowledge of theatre as a continuous process of transformation and transcendence not as a fixed or final form. The doubt he expresses about the possibility of Dionysus’s return also reflects an intellectual and artistic humility that distinguishes his project from other theatrical endeavors that claim to possess absolute truth.

«The Return of Dionysus» represents a distinguished and pioneering contribution to contemporary performance theory.

His invocation of Dionysus represents a call to rediscover the possibilities of theatre as a space for transformation, transcendence, and revelation, offering a potential for unity and integration in a world characterized by fragmentation and division. This integrated vision of theatre challenges prevailing concepts of performance and acting by transcending traditional dualities: between body and mind, East and West traditions, and innovation. Consequently, his project invites us to rethink our relationship with our bodies, with others, and with the world around us, and can be understood as a call to rediscover the possibilities of human truth in an age characterized by alienation and disintegration.

The theoretical framework he provides for Dionysian theatre is a comprehensive, interdisciplinary practice that transcends traditional academic boundaries by incorporating philosophy, anthropology, psychology, and cultural studies (interdisciplinary studies). This is deeply evident in his drawing from Heraclitus, Mauss, and Plessner, alongside ancient and modern Greek rituals. This broad intellectual and cultural context situates his project in line with contemporary trends in theatre studies that emphasize the fundamental interplay between theatrical practices and other cultural and social practices.

 

Reference:

1.Terzopoulos, T. (2020). The return of Dionysus.

2.Fischer-Lichte, E. (2020). Introduction. In T. Terzopoulos, The return of Dionysus. 

3.Mauss, M. (1973). Techniques of the body. Economy and Society, 2(1), 70–88.

4. Plessner, H. (2019). Levels of organic life and the human: An introduction to philosophical anthropology (M. Hyatt, Trans.). Fordham University Press.

5. Turner, V. (N.d) The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Aldine Publishing Co.