Miguel Escobar Varela’s monograph introduces and explicates various computational methods that, when properly executed, aid and even reframe research in what is sometimes a data-adverse field. At the center of the project is a distinction between data-driven and data-assisted methodologies; the former is typically operative in the positivist realm of the sciences, the latter better suited to the constructivist view endemic to the humanities. While data-assisted methodologies are often best suited to complement in-depth theatre research, Escobar Varela aims not to resolve disciplinary distinctions but instead to participate in an ongoing conversation regarding epistemology and methodology. This endeavor is enlightened by “critical realism,” which, as Escobar Varela argues, does not commit the fallacy of equating epistemology and ontology but rather accepts the presence of an external reality that can nevertheless be viewed only through subjective means (37). By taking readers on several “excursions” through his research on Indonesian and Singaporean theatre and performance, the author demonstrates how computation and various forms of visualization and preservation can be used to chart historical, aesthetic, and geographic trends, including the evolution of vocabulary in theatrical criticism and gradual changes in artist associations and partnerships. This volume is an excellent primer on gathering and analyzing data in theatre research, as well as an informed guide for using and preserving data ethically.

In this rigorous study, Siyuan Liu examines how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) “gentrified” (1) xiqu (traditional theatre) in order to rid it of its presumed feudalist sensibilities and align it with the massive, state-sponsored cultural revision projects that characterized mid-20th-century China. At issue for reformers was not only the xiqu plays’ folk content but also their theatrical form, which the party attempted to bring in line with more realistic models that better aligned with the modern forms it saw in the West. The process of reformatting this national treasure incorporated several interlinked aspects: censorship of vulgar, inappropriate content; purification of theatrical conventions in performance; revision of play texts and the assertion of the text over scenarios and improvisation; the division of regional genres into traditional and modernist forms; and the transformation of private troupes into state-owned companies. This resulted in the displacement not only of performers, who historically dominated production, but also the very repertoire, conventions, and ecosystem of xiqu. Liu complements his readings of official party documents, editorials, and conference proceedings with individual case studies of xiqu performances, effectively demonstrating how this comprehensive ideological renovation was articulated, with varying degrees of success, from top to bottom.

Ferrone opens his examination of 40 years worth of theatre in neoliberal London with a reflection on Matilda: The Musical, a massive commercial hit developed in Britain’s (ostensibly) publicly subsidized theatres prior to a West End run and subsequent jump to Broadway. The example perfectly illustrates Ferrone’s methodology, which marries dramaturgical critique with materialist analysis in order to situate plays as “artistic products with quantifiable cultural currency that, to an increasing extent, circulate in international markets” (20). Ferrone’s subsequent case studies, a diverse set of plays ranging from acerbic pieces by Caryl Churchill to collaboratively built, multinational touring productions, dramatize or comment on finance, labor, and politics under neoliberalism. They do so by revealing, willfully or not, the ways macro-level neoliberal policy has reshaped social life from the top down. Ultimately, Ferrone concedes that conceiving of theatre — at least the commercial theatre of London — outside the material realities of capitalism “constitutes a mental exercise that is anachronistic at best” (30). Nevertheless, the project artfully holds in tension the utopian potentialities of the theatre with its embeddedness within global capitalism, often by illustrating how even progressive and resistive theatrical processes are themselves often imbricated in diffuse modes of production enabled by neoliberalism.

The latest in Cambridge’s Companion series adopts a “hub-and-spoke model” (5) to chart the diverse and intersecting lines of research in the burgeoning field of circus studies. The four-part volume takes in (1) the origins and spread of the circus, incorporating its transnational advancement as enabled by (and enabling of ) colonialism; (2) significant acts, human and animal, in circus aesthetics; (3) the circus’ formal evolution, beginning with traditional/classic forms and continuing into nouveau and contemporary circus; and (4) the various methodological and disciplinary perspectives within circus scholarship. Each succinct chapter spotlights significant figures in circus history, indigenous and intercultural forms across multiple continents, and theoretical interventions that interrogate the circus’s evolving role in society. Of particular interest to the editors and contributors is identifying significant aspects of this emerging field while accounting for its interdisciplinary complexity. The breadth and depth of contributions, ranging from the historical to the pedagogical, make it a successful endeavor. Like many Companions, this volume is the ideal introduction and guide to a discipline that is growing in prominence.

This robust anthology begins with coeditor Kalina Stefanova’s vivid recollections of some of the most distinctive theatrical performances she has witnessed on Eastern Europe’s leading stages, many of which succeed, as she argues, by overcoming the limitations of the text through evocative (and often provocative) mise-en-scène (xiii). Careful attention to craft and theory as practiced by the directors of these productions is a significant feature of the volume’s contribution, each of which grounds its survey of the director’s biography with an examination of their key productions. Polish directors make up the largest cohort, though innovators from nations often understudied in the West, such as Latvia and Lithuania, are also included. By collecting entries from scholars writing on their compatriots, the coeditors showcase not only the breadth of Eastern Europe’s directorial innovation but also the depth of its theatre scholarship. As coeditor Marvin Carlson notes, the anthology aims to illuminate the celebrated but little-studied corpus of Eastern European directorial practice. It does so to great effect, though its sheer breadth and scale perhaps make it best suited to scholars already familiar with the terrain or those looking to study just one of the 20 directors on offer.

This volume contains transcripts of discussions drawn from two gatherings that took place in Poland during the late summer of 2020: the 9th International Theatre Festival, operated under the title “Retrospectives” by the CHOREA Theatre Association in Łódz´, and a series of panels held during the 4th Generation After Showcase organized by Nowy Teatr in Warsaw. Unsurprisingly, the main topic was theatre during the pandemic, which drew a variety of responses from artists and scholars in attendance, including those calling in from across Europe and the Americas. Readers will find familiar themes under consideration in these pages, among them the practical, aesthetic, and philosophical considerations of creating theatre during times of social distancing; reflections on sociopolitical problems exacerbated by the pandemic; and theatre’s role in times of crisis, including crises brought on by financial constraint. What resonates now, well over a year later, is the sense of introspection — even a willingness to embrace opportunities — that characterized many such conversations during what were, then, the early days of the pandemic.