ABSTRACT

In one sense at least, there are two ‘diaspora’ involved in this exploration – that of the Chinese people, and that of jingju (Beijing/Peking ‘opera’) itself.1 As jing ju spread out from Beijing to become a ‘national theatre’ in China, an inherent tension developed between tradition and innovation. The art as performed in Beijing was considered the ‘pure’ form, referred to as ‘jingpai ’ ([Bei]jing style). But somewhat paradoxically, innovation was only regarded as truly successful if it was recognized in Beijing. For instance, liupai, the schools or styles of acting representative of the creative work of individual actors, could only be established through the validation of Beijing audiences and critics. Prior to 1949, jingju was actor-centred not only in performance but also during the creative process – this meant that all major creative work was carried out or overseen by actors. But this creative work had to be taken to Beijing for approval. An actor’s original composition, scripting, staging and performance achieved the power of long-term influence and continuity only when Beijing conferred liupai status.