Interview by Bruna Marziani from Ca' Foscari University of Venice
2015




As mentioned in Part 1, this play was written closely after “Last Night in Shuangyong Road”《昨夜的双拥路》 and before “At This Time Next Year”《明年的这个时候》, and was still under the influence of “Theatre of Absurd” and Chekhov. Speaking about difference(s), this play is composed of many fragments that don’t seem to connect closely with each other, the relationship between characters is quite unclear, and the existence of this Strange Guy is quite confusing.
After I moved my focus to the field of directing in 2012, I found it difficult to find a new standpoint to write a new play. Then, in 2014, I started to write my autobiographic trilogy, but strangely this time my writings actually point at a realistic style and are closer to “drama” in a traditional sense. I intended to invite other directors to stage the last two plays of the trilogy. This will be a new experiment in my theatrical career.




Le You Yuan 乐游原literally means Happy-Wandering-Highland. It was a place in Tang Dynasty, northwest of Changan 长安 (just out of the city wall长安城). It is a highland, and has a panorama view of the city. It often appears in literature works of Tang Dynasty, and the poem by Li Shangyin is one the most renowned. Today, the highland is still there, but the name Le You Yuan is long obliviated. (In 2013, the local government of Xi’an西安 built a theme park named Le You Yuan, and perhaps some people will recall its connection to the glory old times).
When I finished the play, it was still nameless. Then suddenly, I recalled this obliviated place and decided to name the play after it. The year after the play, I researched Le You Yuan and really visited the place. When I was there, I realized that I had been there long time ago, but I didn’t know it was Le You Yuan. Strangely, such experience accords with the theme of the play, as the play is really about oblivion and remembrance. The five characters come together in this obliviated place/name, leaving the story (if there is a story) in a void.




As mentioned in part 1, at that time, writing was my way into theatrical experiment. So when I was writing the play, I already knew I would be the director, and had already imagined and included what the play would look like on stage. So the play didn’t change much from paper to stage. The main input was from the set design. The scenery designer Gao Yuan 高原and I used 3 tons of old newspapers and many other deserted materials to build a deserted place. Such set design well supplemented the visual of the play.





Three characters out of five are young guys that are completely astray. Can it be read as a sort of critic to the young people? 
Truly, except Lai Ning, the other four characters are faceless, and I intentionally made little comments of their appearance or personalities. And yes, they are astray, or more precisely lost or disoriented in the play. They could be any confused young people in our everyday lives. Lai Ning, in comparison, this really-existed character is much fuller and more self-conscious/decisive. But he couldn’t escape from his fate and died in a fire. Lai Ning, in real life, was an iconic hero (with Lei Feng雷锋) in my childhood. The central government used him and his deed for civil education and posted his photo in every school. But later, his photos were taken down, seemingly he was deserted by the government for his deed may create a moral dilemma for the children. Also, the “rumor” said he was merely playing in the mountain and died in a fire by accident. But the “official story” said he was a 13-year-old hard-working, helpful, patriotic science-learner. When he was doing a scientific fieldwork in the mountain, he ran into a fire and sacrificed himself for rescuing national properties (meaning the woods). In my writing, I assumed that the official story is totally true and every life detail is replayed in the play. The facts that Lai Ning did exist and the play confirmed all his deeds as claimed must have affected/confused the audience. And Lai Ning’s coexistence with the other four faceless characters can only reinforce the feeling of nihility. Like the famous couplet from A Dream of the Red Chamber 《红楼梦》: 假作真时真亦假，无为有处有还无。




Yes, we are getting too much, and meanwhile forgetting too much.




I appreciate your interpretation. The strange guy could be a silent and unconscious witness. From my life, I noticed many astray and loud youngsters who just sit there and talk and talk about the “meaning of life”; and I also noticed another crowd (and perhaps the majority) of people in silence, they are the witness and the bearer of life and time.





I often depict a character trapped in a presently inescapable position but still longing/looking hopefully for the future and past. Like in Chekov’s plays. So for me, the ship didn’t arrive at the end of the play.





Following the above question, characters trapped in such positions often “see” such hints of hope (not even as big as “salvation”), but they will only be disappointed. Indeed, in such kind of art, characters experience hardly any change throughout the process, and can only receive seconds of empty excitement from the fate.