The Theatre of Suzuki Tadashi (review)

106Comparative Drama Ian Carruthers and Takahashi Yasunari. The Theatre ofSuzuki Tadashi. Directors in Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pp. xxxiii + 293. $95.00. More has been written in English about maverick theater visionary Suzuki Tadashi than anyother contemporaryJapanese theater director.This is no doubt because of his acclaimed international productions of Greek tragedy, Shakespeare, and Chekhov, in addition to his renowned Suzuki Method,a highly physical approach to acting,which is taught and practiced throughout theWest. While Paul Allain's recent book TheArt ofStillness (Menthuen, 2003) took the first step in updating earlier studies (namely articles by James Brandon,Yukihiro Goto, and Frank Hoff, and J. Thomas Rimer's landmark The WayofActing) to incorporate the director's recent productions and activities, Carruthers and Takahashi's The Theatre ofSuzuki Tadashi is able to offer, on the whole, a more illuminating account, thanks to their access to Japanese-language materials. Tremendous insight into Suzuki, his company (really, companies), and its critical reception is gained as a result oftheir incorporation ofJapanese secondary sources, reviews, scripts, and Suzuki's own writing, much ofwhich has yet to be translated into English. Structurally the book is similar to Allain's, which it strangely does not acknowledge . It is divided into nine chapters and covers five main areas: (1) Suzuki's early influences and his oeuvre, (2) how Suzuki'swork fits into the landscape of contemporary Japanese theater, (3) the impact ofSuzuki's quest to decentralize theater and relocate his company outside of Tokyo, (4) the Suzuki training method, and (5) an examination ofmajor productions. The book also includes several excellent photographs and a chronology of Suzuki's life through 2001. While the book is well written and highly informative, the authors neglect to position their work against Suzuki studies in Japan and the West. Nor do they explain, at the outset, their own personal interactions with Suzuki, which is a shame,as it becomes clearlaterin the bookthat Carruthers has had an ongoing relationship with Suzuki, as a practitioner and veteran observer. Partly because this is never done, the intermittent use ofthe first person"I" isjarring. The lack ofa conclusion, not to mention why the final production discussed took place in 1998, six years before the book's publication, also raises questions about the study's currency. At the very least, some clarification of the choices for including certain productions and omitting others would have been useful, but perhaps the authors are to be excused, as the untimely death ofTakahashi, who is credited for writing only two ofthe nine chapters, must have made the publication realization even more challenging. At no point do the authors attempt to hide their enthusiasm for Suzuki's daring productions, stating that"he, more than any other living Japanese the- Reviews107 atre artist, has contributed substantially to the modernization and postmodernization ofJapanese theatre"(5). This claim is substantiated with concrete examples of Suzuki's work in which he has fused aspects of world classics and traditional Japanese theater forms, generally from Noh and Kabuki. Lest the reader mistakenly think that Suzuki has left these great traditions in their pure forms, the authors demonstrate how he leaves no classical dance step untouched, no text unaltered. He is constantly paring away words and movements , so that, in the case of manyWestern plays, only 5 percent ofthe original text remains. The authors take pains to defend such actions, showing that these works can only have meaning in Japan if, in Suzuki's words, it makes "reference to the specificities ofJapanese society and theatrical history" (238). Just how Suzuki's relentless "return to roots" and engagement with social issues—ranging from the destruction ofwar, mental illness, imperial authority , and doomsday cults—differs from other current Japanese directors is a subject left unexplored. How Suzuki differed from his contemporaries in the 1960s, however, is given due attention in the introduction, which clearly offers the reasons for Suzuki's decisive break with the left-wing, Stanislavski-inspired theater prevalent when he was a student at the prestigiousWaseda University.After forming his own company with the playwright Betsuyaku Minoru, Suzuki, like other directors of the "small theatre movement," grew increasingly interested in prioritizing the actor's body over...