|
|
a government agency or governing board, but any hegemonic tentacles are attenuated in our time. Thus, we may regard the national theatre as a place where important theatrical things happen. It is not a “location of culture” in itself, but a place where the performance of culture may take place. Likewise, the so-called “national playwright” is not a representative citizen-artist, but rather an individual who happens to somehow be identified as a national playwright.
The national theatre in the twenty-first century is a place to visit, perhaps be proud of, certainly representing a standard, but surely not the standard. Consider the existence of branches of a national theatre that are provincial playhouses with state funding. The Czech example is illustrative. No one, even the most zealous Moravian separatist, would think for a moment that a reference to the Národní divadlo meant a theatre in Ostrava, Brno, or Olomouc. When performers from the “national theatre” appear in a film or television episode, the ultimate criterion of excellence is invariably that they perform at the Národní divadlo in Prague. The viewer may never have seen the actor in Prague, but the fact that he or she performs at the Národní divadlo trumps even the fact that the performer is from the viewer’s hometown. The difficulty of locating national culture in a playhouse is vexing, dealing with “national” actors, less so.
In 1840 the English historian and philosopher Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881) delivered his lectures “On Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic in History.” These blend mythology of the folk with the metaphysical speculation that the hero can come from any sphere: Odin, Zeus, Mohammed, Napoleon, Dante, Rousseau, and Luther are examples of Carlyle’s “heroes.” He explains: “The hero can be what you will according to the world he was born into.” He responds to the dynamic needs of all persons––their unspoken mystical longings. All heroes recognize the spirit of their time.