ABSTRACT Mobility and !eatre: !eatre Makers as Nomadic Subjects !is article discusses the pros and cons of theatrical mobility, investigating situ- ations where theatre is breaking its traditional practices of being local and urban by becoming mobile, international and rural. !e main features in this context are guest performances at home and abroad, the importation of guest directors, performers, designers et cetera, and "nally, site-speci"c and open-air produc- tions. !e structure of the analysis is based on these features, partly derived from the historical development of theatre but partly also from the aim of contrary thinking, insisting that contrary to the widespread assumption of nomadism as something indigenous or postmodern, nomadic attitudes can also be detected in quite traditional forms of theatre making and living. While touring at home and abroad provides opportunities for theatre makers to practice nomadic life style, summer theatre creates an opportunity for spectators to experience nomadism in more local spaces. !e above mentioned features are analysed in the context of Estonian theatre, drawing occasional parallels with the neighbouring country of Finland. Each section goes through three periods of Estonian theatre history; 1) the period before the Second World War when theatres belonged to societies; 2) the period between 1940 and 1991 when Estonia was a part of the Soviet Union and all theatrical activities were subject to state control; 3) the period of independ- ence and globalization. Since each period had a di#erent imprint on theatrical mobility, the phenomenon will be investigated in relation to the political, social and cultural contexts, using Bruno Latour’s concept of actor-network-theory as a methodological tool. Keywords: Estonian theatre, mobility, touring, internationalisation, summer theatre, nomadism, actor-network-theory. BIOGRAPHY Anneli Saro is Professor of !eatre Research at the University of Tartu (Estonia) and the Editor-in-Chief of Nordic !eatre Studies. She has been a convener of the international working group Project on European !eatre Systems (2004- 2008) and is presently convener of !e !eatrical Event working group. Saro was also a member of the executive committee of the International Federation for !eatre Research. She has published articles on audience research, performance analysis, Estonian theatre history and systems. [email protected] 90 Nordic Theatre Studies vol. 27: no. 1 Nordic Theatre Studies vol. 27: no. 1 Mobility and Theatre Theatre Makers as Nomadic Subjects1 ANNELI SARO During the twentieth century, theatre has been con- topher B. Balme3 who have used Bruno Latour’s sidered to be more local than global, more institu- actor-network-theory4 for mapping activities of a tional and urban than rural. In my paper, I am going theatre and a manager respectively, taking into con- to analyze the pros and cons of theatrical mobility, sideration their geographical mobility, networking, investigating situations where theatre is breaking its repertoire and audiences. Latour de"nes an actor as traditional practices of being local and urban by be- follows: “… any thing that does modify a state of coming mobile, international and rural. !e main a#airs by making a di#erence is an actor – or, if it features in this context are: 1) guest performances has no "guration yet, an actant.”5 It means that ac- at home; 2) guest performances abroad; 3) the im- tors embrace more than agents in Pierre Bourdieu’s portation of guest directors, performers, designers et theory, covering not only people, groups and insti- cetera; 4) site-speci"c and open-air productions. !e tutions but also objects (like, for example, texts and structure of the analysis is based on these features, technology) that have agency to change the state of partly derived from the historical development of a#airs. And network is de"ned by Latour as “a string theatre but partly also from the aim of contrary of actions where each participant is treated as a full- thinking, insisting that contrary to the widespread blown mediator”.6 He also stresses that a network is, assumption of nomadism as something indigenous "rst of all, a methodological tool: “an expression to or postmodern, nomadic attitudes can also be de- check how much energy, movement, and speci"city tected in quite traditional forms of theatre making our own reports are able to capture. […] It is a tool and living. !e above-mentioned features are ana- to help describe something, not what is being de- lysed in the context of Estonian theatre, drawing scribed.”7 !e value of the actor-network-theory lies occasional parallels with the neighbouring country in its intention to track relations between di#erent of Finland. Each section goes through three peri- actors and to describe movement instead of "xed ods of Estonian theatre history: 1) the period be- entities. Because of that, the theory has been proved fore the Second World War when theatres belonged to be useful for investigating mobility in theatre and to societies; 2) the period between 1940 and 1991 also has the potential to highlight certain aspects of when Estonia was a part of the Soviet Union and all artistic nomadism. Latour’s discourse supports mo- theatrical activities were subject to state control; 3) bility and $uidity and resembles in this regard the- the period of independence and globalization. Since ories developed by Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari8, each period had a di#erent imprint on theatrical Rosi Braidotti and other postmodern thinkers. For mobility, the phenomenon will be investigated in example, he points out that the actor “is not the relation to the political, social and cultural contexts. source of an action but the moving target of a vast A suitable methodological tool for the research array of entities swarming toward it”.9 In addition, has been found already by Ott Karulin2 and Chris- since Latour values thick description as a research Nordic Theatre Studies vol. 27: no. 1 Nordic Theatre Studies vol. 27: no. 1 91 tool, the following article describes more than it ex- two years, the Travelling !eatre joined the Drama plains in the conviction that a carefully chosen and Studio !eatre because the constant commuting composed description also has an explanatory value. tended to be exhausting and also provided an un- Only certain aspects of theatrical mobility are stable income. Nevertheless, the group continued described and analysed here, emanating from the travelling all over Estonia, performing, among oth- following research questions. What factors trigger ers, plays by Shakespeare, Schiller and Strindberg, theatrical mobility? What consequences do touring which were all received quite warmly, even in re- and internationalisation have on artistic practices mote places. An actor of the theatre, Alfred Mering, and life styles of theatre makers? And what kinds has described the working conditions as follows: “A of relationships are created with audiences through two month long winter tour on a narrow-gauged theatrical mobility? !us, the central focus of the railway followed. !e winter was extremely cold. As research lies on actors (in the Latourian sense) and always, we used a rented wagon for sleeping. On mobility, and not so much on networks. Neverthe- some days, we rode in horse carriages for 25-30 less, the formation or spontaneous creation of the- kilometres to be able to give a performance at some atrical networks, i.e. theatre troupes is tackled in the distant places from the railway in the evening.”11 second part of the article, while relationships with !e bus as a potential but exceptional vehicle of spectators as important actors in networks in the touring was mentioned only in connection with a "rst part. broken bus.12 Based on the Estonian sources, guest performances seem to have been an extremely aus- tere form of theatre making in the "rst half of the THE INFLUENCE OF TOURING ON THEATRE twentieth century. MAKERS AND PRACTICES Memoires of theatre makers concentrate mostly !e domestic mobility of theatres depends, "rst on exceptional events and conditions. !us often of all, on the national theatre system and cultural the modes of travelling and the vehicles for trans- policy. In Estonia, institutional theatres are mostly portation receive more attention than the actual bound to a certain house(s) or hall(s) where they performances or the reception at the various sites. rehearse and give performances. Contrary to this It is obvious that the use of technology and techno- is the touring system that was widely practiced in logical development in general in$uenced not only Europe until the nineteenth century but also exists theatre making but also the distribution and con- nowadays in the Netherlands, for example. !e Es- sumption of theatre, and this becomes evident also tonian theatre never used the touring system nor in the short history of touring practices presented had a strong central touring company as found in in this article. Sweden10 and in some other countries. In the twen- !e situation described above did not change tieth century, semi-professional or professional the- much after the Second World War. In the Soviet atres were established, even in small towns, so there Union, including Estonia, all theatres had an ob- was no great need for touring theatre. Nevertheless, ligation to give guest performances in the country- almost all institutional theatres have toured to a cer- side and small towns. !e reason for that was not tain extent, sometimes because of the limited size of so much a cultural mission or decentralization but, local audiences, sometimes as a cultural mission of "rst of all, theatre was considered to be an impor- theatre institutions or the state’s cultural policy. !e tant ideological and educational tool and touring "rst two reasons were dominant before the Second was a strategy to reach a wide range of inhabitants World War and all three to di#erent extents after (especially workers and farmers) providing them the war.