Dr Yun-Cheol Kim is a professor at School of Drama, Korean National University of the Arts. He is honorary president of the International Association of Theatre Critics. He is guest of the “Showcase” programme, and at the end of the festival he shared his impressions with Anita Angelova.

Mr. Kim, this is not your first time at the Varna Summer International Theatre Festival. What makes you come back to the festival?

15 years ago, I was invited to the festival by its director, Nikolay Iordanov. At that time, it was difficult for me to join, but I was urged by Nikolay, who seemed to be such a very sincere and serious person, that I couldn’t refuse. Once I arrived, I was immediately fascinated – by the city, by the festival’s selection, and by the work of the team. Good shows, beautiful nature, and warm people – these three things make me come back to Varna as often as I can. I believe this is my seventh visit to Varna. I just love it. These three elements – good nature, good theatre, and good people — are irresistible. Varna is a lovely, peaceful, beautiful, and safe city.

What are your impressions of this year’s selection?

I’m truly impressed by the progress Bulgarian theatre has achieved. Compared to before, artists are now far more confident and assured in their work. I remember when I first visited as the president of IATC, I was often asked what I thought of Bulgarian theatre. At the time, I was traveling around Europe frequently, and compared to other countries, if you allow me to be very frank, I use to find Bulgarian theatre makers a bit shy – without speaking out for what they are doing and why they’re doing this for. Now, my opinion has completely changed. For the first time, I’ve encountered many Bulgarian theatre makers who are both competent and truly convinced of what they’re doing and how they’re doing it. That’s wonderful.

I liked very much Mother Courage and Her Children.  The actress who played Mother Courage was truly outstanding, and the directing was well-conceived. Some people commented negatively on the large iron wheel of the wagon, saying it was not relevant. But I think it was a powerful contemporary interpretation. That iron wheel speaks to today’s mechanized, technology-oriented society. It’s not a wooden wheel; it’s a huge iron wheel. The things that Mother Courage carry are displayed on the stage very much like a department store. It tells about the current commercialism and capitalism. I think it’s quite relevant to bring these things to the stage, and the reason for revisiting something from the past is that we have the opportunity to interpret it in a contemporary way. This is exactly why we revisit classical texts: not to repeat them as written, but to reinterpret them as if they are being written now. I wasn’t bothered by that kind of approach – I actually loved it. For me, this approach felt entirely proper and relevant. What the director did, in particular, was to differentiate the acting style of Mother Courage from that of the rest of the cast. The supporting cast performed in the style of a commedia dell’arte troupe, while Mother Courage herself was portrayed with great energy and precise timing. I believe this contrast in acting styles was a very intentional directorial choice – not a reflection of the actors’ competence. It was clearly a conceptual decision.

I also appreciated the Anna The Incorrigible. It was a very courageous piece and extremely well performed. It combined elements of documentary theatre, lecture, and theatrical representation – and these components worked together beautifully. It made me deeply socially aware of what is happening right now; it clearly takes a stance against the Russians. I believe the standing ovation at the end of the show was absolutely genuine. As a theatre critic, I’ve never been entirely comfortable with the tendency of Bulgarian audiences to give standing ovations regardless of the performance’s quality. But this time, I think it was fully justified. They truly deserved it.

Without Blood, a production by the Drama Theater in Plovdiv, had a strong visual presence. I really enjoyed the visual aspect of the show. However, I wasn’t particularly moved by the actors’ performances. The director used flamenco as a kind of narrative frame but only employed the basic postures of the dance. If she used flamenco more as a professional dance form, it could have been wonderful. As it was in the performance, the gesture felt superficial and didn’t go deep enough into the expressive potential of the dance. That said, the overall visual impression was powerful, and I can’t say I didn’t enjoy it.

Medea and Oedipus Rex are what we call immersive theatre. Just last year, I saw Declan Donnellan’s production of Hamlet at the Craiova National Theatre in Romania. That was not immersive – it took a very minimalist approach, and it was impressive in its own way. But this time, immersive theatre truly functioned as it should. Immersive theatre should involve people directly, engaging them in the actions presented in the performance. It should make the audience feel like real witness — not just to what happens on stage, but to real life as reflected through the performance. Unfortunately, in many cases, what’s called “immersive theatre” doesn’t actually immerse the audience. But these productions were completely immersive. Very good work.

As for the performance by Silviu Purcărete The Ploughman and Death – I think his technological savvy is truly impressive. He is an old man, and to have such a deep understanding and confident use of holographic technology is amazing. I wasn’t quite convinced by the motivation of the ploughman’s anger over his wife’s death. Death is a part of life, and his rage toward God felt disproportionately exaggerated. I couldn’t fully agree with the nature of his questioning or how it was framed. But it’s the use of technology that makes the production so great. That’s where Silviu Purcărete’s competence as a stage director is preserved.

Now, regarding As You Like It and Public Enemy – I must say I wasn’t happy with either of those two performances. In As You Like It, there was no sense of joy from the actors on stage. It felt like they were just performing their duties – there was no liveliness, no spontaneity, and very little directorial imagination. I’m sorry to say it, but it was very poorly done. Gábor Tompa is a good friend of mine, and I know he’s a much better director than what I saw in that production. Maybe it needed more rehearsal time. He needs to let the actors come alive – to give them the freedom to play. But in this case, he seemed to have controlled them too much, and they lost that essential creative freedom. That was the real problem.

As for Public Enemy – it was okay. The rap-like performance style might appeal to younger generations, and if that was the director’s intention, then it was successful in that sense. But that stylistic choice also limited the depth of meaning, the depth of interaction between the actors.

Lastly, the documentary performance 96% – I thought it was another well-done documentary piece. My friend Savas Patsalidis is from Greece, and I was initially hesitant to ask how he felt about it, given that he’s from Thessaloniki himself. The performance addressed the cowardice of the general public or leadership to take a stand – to stay aloof in moments that demand moral clarity. The way the production presented numbers and facts, and then occasionally transformed them into dramatic scenes, was quite effective. While it didn’t reach the same level of impact as Anna The Incorrigible, it was another strong example of theatre blending lecture and reportage. It was done efficiently and with purpose. I really enjoy this kind of documentary theatre. I have many favorites from this festival.