Staging Transitory Europe. Precarious Re-enactment Variations from Le Birgit Ensemble ’ s Memories of Sarajevo to Milo Rau ’ s The Dark Ages Stella Lange (Innsbruck) In the theatre productions of the Birgit Ensemble, Memories of Sarajevo (2017) and Milo Rau's The Dark Ages (2015), the Bosnian war becomes the starting point for a far-reaching reflection on Europe's past and present "status quo" through the respective adapted narrative form of re-enactment. Usually understood as a realization of the past or, instead, an absent-present, by following Mathias Meiler, one sheds light on the re-enactment as a certain way of narrating a historical transition and, at the same time, problematizing this choice of 'translation'. Thus, the different degrees of mediation between ‘ unfamiliar ’ and 'familiar', 'present' and 'absent', with the help of various theatrical means, give rise to different implications with regard to the relationship between past and present Europe. In light of the manifold transitions in Europe since 1989, we observe a growing need for reflection and consciousness about Europe ’ s identity, history and historiography. Some of the latest theatre productions also dedicate themselves to the question of Europe - what it has been so far, what is seems to be today, how it will change tomorrow. In the following, I analyse two exemplary productions approaching them firstly from the Theatre of the Precarious and secondly from the theoretical perspective of ‘ Re-enactment ’ . Bringing these approaches together and observing them from the new perspective of a transitional Europe, will help old and new concepts and realizations of the reenactment emerge. In Transition: Questioning Europe ’ s Past, Present, and Future Since 1989 at the latetst, Europe has undergone many transformations caused in particular by the collapse of the Soviet Union that went hand in hand with Eastern Europe ’ s simultaneous political and economic opening towards the West and vice versa, which prepared the way for a neoliberal Europe. 1 Historical events like the Yugoslav Wars from 1991 to 2001 make us aware that the period of reconciliation between East and Western Europe was not as straightforward as some overly synthetic or idealistic history books would make us believe. 2 Political agreements like the Maastricht Treaty (1992) that turned the European Communities into a transnational European Union, sought to strengthen the Eurozone by introducing the common currency ‘ Euro ’ in 2002, led - step by step - to the desired unified ‘ EU-rope ’ that has taken up its position against the other global players. This ‘ egalitarianism ’ policy that for the sake of a strong Union aims to stabilize the economic and political situation of 15 countries in 2004, and later, in 2013, of 28 countries, each with specific historical, cultural, social, and especially different economic and political backgrounds has met with reactionary or critical attitudes from the beginning. However, ‘ EU-rope ’ s ’ positive wind of change still dominates the skepticism. Initially, that was changing slowly and Forum Modernes Theater, 31/ 1-2 (2020), 160 - 174. Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen DOI 10.2357/ FMTh-2020-0015 nearly imperceptibly with the growing unemployment rate, particularly in the Southern and Eastern European countries. It has changed more quickly since the economic crisis in 2008. Moreover, the unstable power relations in the so-called Middle East and North Africa (e. g. the Syrian Civil War since 2011, violent oppressive politics following the Arab Spring in 2010) have caused many people to migrate to Europe in hope of a better future. Yet, unemployment, unstable working and living conditions within Europe, the ongoing discourse about border controls, lack of residence permits or work permits inside the EU remain unresolved problems. Alongside these crises of legitimacy regarding Europe and, foremost, regarding the responsibility of the EU, sociologists, labor lawyers and philosophers characterize the present as the Age of ‘ Precariousness ’ and ‘ Precarity ’ 3 referencing a general state of uncertainty and bodily vulnerability that predominantly influence today ’ s Post-Fordism societies in Europe and beyond. Growing consciousness of having lost decisive securities at the dawn of Neoliberalism in the 1970s together with entry into a global, transcultural society result in significant changes for the former national states. In a wide-ranging state of disorientation, Europeans are starting to rethink their situation. Concerned about their identification as future, about how things will work out, they have once again begun to question their past as well as their present. Having obviously lost a former status quo of Europe, remembering as searching for one ’ s own identity and one ’ s own values seems again indispensable. Artists, cultural experts, and most especially historians claim it is necessary to rethink European identity. Early voices highlighted the significance of the continued lack of a foundational myth for Europe 4 . Others - already in 1985 - analysed the diverse unconscious reductions in European historiographies: e. g., the hegemonic reduction of Europe to the ‘ leading countries ’ , the misleading equation of Europe and Christianity, or the teleological reduction to a Europe aligned on the path to European Unification. 5 Alternatively, in the context of education, scholars have already underlined the need to rewrite and reconstruct European historiographies in the light of pluralism and diversity. 6 Theatre of the Precarious In the context of the critical circumstances within Europe, many theatre pieces have been dedicated lately to the “ diverse discontinuities that effect on persons ’ life and future ” 7 and which Katharina Pewny has called the “ Theatre of the Precarious ” . Interpreting these productions related to war, trauma or the economic crisis, she has analysed some of the most important characteristics that often recall their post-dramatic frame. The representation of the ‘ Other ’ , implicitly associated with a non-economic utility 8 is particularly in question. Adopting Butler ’ s skepticism about the adequate visual representation of ‘ Other ’ s ’ pain and vulnerability particularly through mass media, producers especially within the Theatre of the Precarious have experimented new non-representational paradigms in order to problematize the often stereotyped or limited visual representations and recognition of the ‘ Other ’ in our societies. Mobilizing mainly to non-visual effects like acoustic, olfactory and haptic stimuli, producers aim to create “ multi-sensory encounters ” 9 that engage the audience while referring back to the remaining trace(s) of the ‘ Other ’ on the stage: The absence of the other (on stage) is evidence of previous suffering, the existence of a trauma that is made present through incessant rainfall, through song, through record- 161 Staging Transitory Europe ings of songs and radio interviews, and through painful seating arrangements within (sic! ) theater spaces. Therefore, the spectators ’ corporeal perception can be read not only as traces of the other but, more precisely, as traces of its disappearance. Its character of the trace carries in it the double nature of the traumatic, of being simultaneously absent and present. 10 This way, the ‘ Other ’ is situated between the visible and the invisible, presence and absence in order to problematize its precarious social and political ‘ representation ’ . 11 When we also think of the contemporary production conditions of theatre, especially of the growth of travelling productions within Europe, one may conclude that the Theatre of the Precarious ultimately invites a metaaesthetic reflection. First, it does this by staging the “ theatre work itself [a]s precarious, in the sense that staging the transitory cannot take place on stable ground ” 12 , and, second, by problematizing the representational limits of the ‘ Other ’ who only exists in a liminal status whether it be economic, legal or social precarity and, thus, is only present in a transitional way. Apart from this general critique of representation that echoes post-dramatic tendencies, the Theatre of the Precarious has further implications with respect to the audience and to the conceptualization of the narrative. First, the trace-like, metonymic sensory “ encounter ” with the ‘ Other ’ demands a live, participating audience, which in Pewny ’ s eyes mainly works through a bodily involvement - a sensory stimulus that, e. g., initiates a reflection about the partial or even impossible representation while evocating possible ways for empathy. 13 Musical, haptic or olfactory stimuli along with fragmentary contextual information may incite the audience to rethink, reconstruct or (re)write the missing elements of the narrative represented on stage unsettling the typical fixing function of the narrative. 14 Of course, inherent in this, is the postcolonial drive to enable the audience to (re-)act to the narrative and reclaim their own agency instead of merely accepting the political, economic and social circumstances. Therefore, we can conclude ultimately that Pewny already senses a metanarrative function within the analysed precarious theatre narrations. When she states that the representation of the ‘ Other ’ follows non-representational patterns revealing blanks or further narrative inconsistencies that subsequently demand rethinking, reconstructing or even rewriting on behalf of the audience, she is pointing to the instable, transitory content and its effects on the further (re)construction of the narrative form. This returns us to the initial observations regarding the ongoing transformation process within Europe. It is a plausible idea that theatre productions dealing with a contemporary changing and precarious Europe will reflect some of the aesthetic choices from the Theatre of the Precarious. Le Birgit Ensemble ’ s Memories of Sarajevo (2017) and Milo Rau ’ s The Dark Ages (2015) deal with the ‘ shadows ’ of Europe ’ s history at least thematically. These include, amongst others, the Yugoslav Wars and the Second World War. They all represent bitter chapters of the multiracial continent Europe that speak specifically against its idealistic conceptualization as pure. Furthermore, they all belong to the ‘ ghosts ’ that are still haunting Europe. 15 By adding or re-elaborating contemporary witnesses ’ private stories and perspectives, the productions mainly focus on Europe ’ s micro and macro history while aesthetically connecting past, present, and future. For this reason, they often fall back on a traditional historical theatre form, namely, the re-enactment. But is the ‘ re ’ enactment, the literally taken repetition of a former historical narrative, able to respond 162 Stella Lange to the new challenges of rewriting Europe ’ s historiography in the light of the latest transitions and theatrical reforms that form the post-dramatic Turn? Between ‘ Present-Past ’ and ‘ Past-Present ’ : The Theory Quarrel and The Relating Function of Re-enactments Wolfgang Hochbruck was one of the first to provide a historically-based typology of living history phenomenon, differentiating between the ‘ re-enactment ’ and other similar forms like, e. g., the live action role-play (LARP) or the pageant - a historical parade. In his view, all these subgenres are subject to a ‘ commodification ’ , which - instead of teaching or solving historical inconsistencies - actually aims to entertain and to facilitate the identification process of the participants following the same rule. In contrast to some time travel novels, the time-jumpers are not concerned with the journey, but with the arrival, with the imagined presence in other times and different worldliness, which is constructed as a world of experience. The presumed story is appropriated, performatively processed and dramatically performed, whereby the most important basic assumption is that it is not about a performance of historical material per se (as the enactment in a historical drama), but about a re-performance of something that has taken place in this way or at least in sufficient similarity: a re-enactment. 16 According to Hochbruck, the participants ’ desire to immerse themselves in another, distant world often has to do with the assumption that the imagined former circumstances were more manageable and easier control than the present times. However, he underscores that the constructed “ parallel worlds ” do not stand for themselves. Rather they represent “ a realization [of a past] whose transfer in the present is not overwritten like a palimpsest but problematizes the own shifting ” 17 . Regardless, in practice, and especially in the reception process, reflection about the shift of a past into a present, often disappears. 18 It is, therefore, the crucial question of reception that makes the practice and the theory and discussion of re-enactment complicated. In the light of this problem, the first attempts to theorize and define ‘ re-enactment ’ within German theatre studies were often criticized. Equating ‘ re-enactments ’ with ‘ performances ’ , Fischer-Lichte deduced from her performativity theory (2012) that these “ could not be conceptualized otherwise than unique events in the hic et nunc ” 19 . Along this line, Hochbruck does not deny the possible realization effect in theatrical terms but insists: “ the main part of the tension derives only from the relation between the representation in the present and the image of the long-ago-history. ” 20 Consequently, Fischer-Lichte ’ s definition falls short of the complexity of re-enactments. At least an implicit aspect of a performative ‘ realization ’ in theatrical terms cannot be denied in the alternative premises of the re-enactment, like e. g., if one speaks of the possibilities of the nostalgic participants ’ immersion into a period of the past or if one assumes the re-enactment to be an anachronistic model that refers to an obsolete, still unitarian concept of subjectivity. 21 In context with these contradictory receptions, maybe the differentiation into ‘ historical ’ and ‘ artistic ’ re-enactments is mandatory. 22 With regard to the critique of reviving apparently the past in present times, Günther Heeg speaks of the “ mythos of immediacy [. . .] as an authentic History- Event ” 23 and even underscores the counterfunction of re-enactments. In his eyes, [r]ealization implies and suggests the complete revival of past phenomenon, while the 163 Staging Transitory Europe inanimate, emerging in the re-enactment, marks the resistance in the name of all dead sexes to their instrumentalization by the present. They haunt the present in their dead form of non-presentable, non-(re)presentable remains: as ghost, symptom and unredeemed, as recurring and repeated, as repetition. The repetition [literally in German ‘ wieder-holen ’ , the act of bringing again/ bringing back, SL] of the remains transforms the sequence of times into a space-time of the ‘ present-past ’ and the ‘ past-present ’ . In it, all representations are surrounded by the shadow of the non-representable, which questions their presence and reveals them as ‘ absent-presents ’ . The suspicious spacetime, which emerges through the re-enactment in the present, is here to be described as that of afterlife and survival. 24 Like Heeg, Inke Arns describes an unusual displacement of the past into the present “ that actually enables an impossible perspective on history ” 25 . Moreover, she also highlights the mediatedness of history that the artistic device ‘ re-enactment ’ challenges especially at a time when any picture at any time can become its own simulacrum. In this situation of the potentiated spectacle, there is a fundamental feeling of insecurity about the status and the authenticity of images. 26 Indeed, Arns like Heeg emphasizes that the rather prominent representational critique within the praxis of the re-enactment echoes the basic assumptions of the Theatre of the Precarious. While Heeg is speaking of “ incomplete images ” or rather “ fragments of images without any origin ” 27 that only provide us the access to the original by virtue of their afterlife, Arns speaks of the general “ growing feeling of insecurity about what the images actually mean ” 28 in times of mass media. In her view, the re-enactment is not intended to showcase “ the ‘ authenticity ’ beyond the images ” 29 but rather to interrogate the meaning of these images for us or rather for our present situation. Furthermore, the immanent media critique of re-enactments can even appear as consciously incorporated “ meta-comments about their pure mediality ” . 30 If we follow the art historian ’ s analysis further, we might eventually conclude that the evoked insecurity towards the images may also derive - if not in an exponential manner - from the artistic device of the re-enactment itself as it modulates the proximity-distancerelation between the historic events and the presence of the audience. In this way the artistic re-enactment confronts the general feeling of insecurity about the meaning of images by using a paradoxical approach: through erasing distance to the images and at the same time distancing itself from the images. 31 Thus, in addition to declaring the image to be precarious, Arns also affirms an unsettling function for the re-enactment itself that is based on two opposing aesthetic mechanisms that may also be the reason for the former discussed theory quarrel, which tries to locate the re-enactment between ‘ immersion ’ and ‘ distance ’ , ‘ presence ’ and ‘ absence ’ - that is to say, the factors known to describe a possible reception. Therefore, it is difficult to make a general statement about the question of reception in historical as artistic re-enactments. Depending on the spectator ’ s introspective process (amongst others, the capacity for empathy, the ability to recognize metanarrative structures) and his/ her modes for interacting with the performance, a re-enactment can, in principle, lead to complete immersion. Thus, it can still represent an anachronistic theatre model and refer to an obsolete concept of subjectivity while partially (or actually) overcoming it. 32 As such, re-enactments generally require balancing, in a reflexive, theoretical mode, between ‘ past ’ and ‘ present ’ - e. g. at 164 Stella Lange what distance does ‘ past ’ still remain alive in ‘ present ’ - and consequently also in an emotional mode - e. g. at what distance does the spectator consciously feel this balance between ‘ past ’ and ‘ present ’ ? Following Heeg ’ s thoughts about the transcultural theatre, one might eventually deduce the paradigmatic dialogue between “ familiar ” (cf. German eigen) and “ unfamiliar ” (cf. German fremd) that is also in the structure and reception of a re-enactment trying to relate a distant, if not unknown ‘ past ’ to a close, obviously known ‘ present ’ . This hermeneutic balancing may even lead to an unexpected insight: the revelation of the ‘ unfamiliar ’ within the ‘ familiar ’ that subsequently speaks for a relating reconceptualization of ‘ familiar ’ and ‘ unfamiliar ’ - the actual ‘ gesture ’ 33 of contemporary transcultural theatre that stages ‘ Europe ’ and that definitely goes beyond a mere intention of ‘ immersion ’ . [T]heater producers and other artists all over the world are currently turning to the remnants of their respective cultural traditions. Not to reassemble them into the whole of a national culture, but to examine the individual parts for their usability in a changed, evolving world. This presupposes a position vis-à-vis one's own cultural past, which is characterised both by distance and immersion. In this position, they bring the fragments of cultural traditions into a constellation with the present, in order to gain a future through this ‘ bringing back ’ of the past. [. . .] [They aim for] crossing cultural boundaries towards a transcultural community. [. . .] The prerequisite for this is to distance oneself from one's own supposed cultural tradition. This requires a foreign view from outside, even if it is taken from within. 34 This line of argument, which highlights the re-enactment function connecting different components or rather concept of worlds, reappears in the work of the linguist and media scholar, Matthias Meiler. I will conclude this section by explaining his methodological approach to re-enactments since it differs from the main analytical premises so far at the same time as it helps to rethink and analyse the theatrical modes of narrating and mediating ‘ Europe ’ in the exemplary contemporary stagings that I will discuss in the end of my article. Like Ulf Otto (2012), Meiler, does not specifically question the aspect of ‘ repetition ’ or rather ‘ the bringing back of past ’ which focuses on the prefix ‘ re- ’ but, instead, challenges for the binding particle ‘ -en ’ in re-enactment - the prefix of (to) ‘ act ’ . This way, he interrogates the “ medializing quality ” 35 of re-enactments. In doing so, he seeks to underscore the decisive but often unconsciously applied techniques of selecting, putting again together and reframing what is meant to be a “ past ” in the light of a (subjective) “ presence ” . In fact, the process of putting and perspectivating a certain past moment of history into a presence etymologically corresponds to the ‘ -en ’ . That brings along the performative aspect of the enactment. Hence, reviving or re-enacting is fundamentally different from the experience that lies behind us, because it is already embedded in a reflection of ‘ today ’ on ‘ yesterday ’ - it is no longer naive, it is no longer "innocent". Meiler quotes Collingwood ’ s The Idea of History (1946) to draw the attention to this concrete inner ‘ hiatus ’ : If I want to be sure that twenty years ago a certain thought was really in my mind, I must have evidence of it. That evidence must be a book or letter or the like that I then wrote, or a picture I painted, or a recollection (my own or another ’ s) of something I said, or of an action that I did, clearly revealing what was in my mind. Only by having some such evidence before me, and interpreting it fairly and squarely, can I prove to myself that I did think thus. Having done so, I rediscover my past self, and re-enact these thoughts as my thoughts; judging now better than I could then, it is to be hoped, their merits and defects. 36 165 Staging Transitory Europe Collingwood ’ s rediscovery of the “ past self ” recalls Heeg ’ s recognition of something ‘ unfamiliar ’ within the ‘ familiar ’ . Moreover, it emphasizes Meiler ’ s critique. Collingwood does not specify with which cultural techniques or “ practices of transcription ” 37 he manages to create and medialize a plausible red thread within the re-enactment out of a bundle of heterogeneous ‘ evidences ’ of the past. Instead of speaking about narrative techniques to transpose these pieces of evidence into a narration by processes of selection, arrangement and perspectivation, the media linguist and network specialist Meiler speaks of “ transition, translation, reference and transformation processes ” 38 . This way, he brings to mind the range of ways to connect diverse elements beyond linguistic modes of connection. Eventually he underscores exploring the aesthetic or historic modes, the ‘ how ’ of the relating 39 , or the mode of ‘ mediation ’ in reference to Collingwood ’ s ‘ principle of [following SL] identity in difference ’ 40 . Highlighting the transitional moment between ‘ past ’ and ‘ present ’ , ‘ familiar ’ and ‘ unfamiliar ’ , ‘ factual ’ an ‘ fictional ’ , the gesture of the re-enactment obviously corresponds very well to the productions that focus thematically on a Europe in flux. Connecting back to Pewny ’ s Theatre of the Precarious we can imagine similar ways of relating techniques and discovering new ones in the following analysis of examples from the re-enactment variations by Le Birgit Ensemble and Milo Rau that both tackle the Yugoslav Wars. Re-enacted Europe - Europe in Transition The selected theatrical pieces by Le Birgit Ensemble (Paris) Memories of Sarajevo (2017) and Milo Rau (Zurich/ Berlin/ Gent) The Dark Ages (2015) thematise moving and mostly tragic caesuras in European History. In the first case, they recall the bloody wars of the Orthodox Serbs against the Muslim Bosnians in the name of ‘ ethnic cleansing ’ in Yugoslavia between 1992 - 1995. The second case re-elaborates two different critical moments in Europe ’ s history by interweaving the Yugoslav Wars (1991 - 1999) with the Second World War (1933 - 1945) and its xenophobic politics. At the origin of all these conflicts lies the problem of lack of tolerance when the ‘ familiar ’ and ‘ unfamiliar ’ cohabitate, or, in a nutshell, of acceptance of the ‘ Other ’ - be it ethnic, religion, sex, language or culture. All these productions follow more or less the ‘ gesture ’ of the re-enactment because each searches for an adequate mode through which to relate the enacted war period or riot of the past in a reflected, subjective frame of Europe ’ s present. Le Birgit Ensemble: Memories of Sarajevo (2017) In comparison with Rau ’ s production, Memories of Sarajevo still corresponds the most to what is generally meant as a reconstruction 41 of the past - or rather a re-enactment. The producers Julie Bertin and Jade Herbulot, both born around 1989, offer an uncompromising assessment: the wars in ex-Yugoslavia (still) represent historical lacunae in their education as well as in the (European) collective memory. In order to understand what happened at that time, they started to doing research, conducting several interviews with contemporary witnesses, and listening and watching various documents in the National Audiovisual Institute in Paris. The traditional historical frame of the reenactment becomes evident by the chronological arrangement of the script of the play structured by the main political events of that time. 42 For example, from the dawn of the treatise of Maastricht in Feb- 166 Stella Lange ruary 1992, to the siege of Sarajevo that occurred shortly thereafter, to the repartition of Ex-Yugoslavia, to the Dayton Agreement in 1995, the main chronological dates of the Yugoslavian conflict and its tragic significance within the European framework are successively projected onto the screen in the background of the stage. The scenery is changed to reflect respectively the celebration hall for the Maastricht Treaty, the precarious daily life in Sarajevo ’ s barracks, a bloody slaughter bathed in red light to the characteristic sounds of Nirvana, and the negotiation rooms of the competitors, the Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic and the self-style Serbian ruler Radovan Karadzic. At times, these different time layers are superimposed using a second upper stage level in the background that represents either the egomaniacal politicians of Yugoslavia arguing or the passive European Union - each of these contrast with the poor and precarious daily life of the civil population during the war (cf. fig. 1). In addition, the actors and actresses alternatively slip into the role of the main political figures or represent the simple folk of Sarajevo in the typical dress from the 1990s. With the aid of these recurring scenarios, the audience ’ s immersion into the times of the Bosnian wars is probable. However, as both producers underline, they did not seek to produce a documentary theatre. 43 Rather, they thought of different estrangement effects to produce a Brechtian distance for reflection. One of the main ideas of these estrangements is precisely to crack the described first impression of a chronologic reenactment, namely by mixing fictional and factual as well as different historical periods. Thus, during the celebration of the Maastricht Treaty, the Habsburgian Arch- Fig. 1: Le Birgit Ensemble: Memories of Sarajevo © Pascal Victor 167 Staging Transitory Europe duke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary is revived, while the mythical figure ‘ Europe ’ passes through crying bitterly in the war scenes of Sarajevo mourning her tragic selfinjury caused by East and West Europeans ’ intolerance or ignorance (cf. Fig. 1). In parallel with these different layers of time, the audience is asked to find out their relationships with one another. Obviously, the Archduke revives because the Habsburg ’ s real imperial policies and only apparent attempt to initiate federalist structures in the Slavic countries constitute one of the key moments that sets the stage for the conflict in Yugoslavia that will occur 90 or so years later. In addition, the visible parallel between the glamorous imperialist Franz Ferdinand and the sparkling evening dress of the EU-politicians put them all in a questionable light, challenging what political goals they really stand for. Here, the present perspectivation of the past by means of a strong critique and parody of the EUpoliticians, who did not intervene in the bloody Yugoslavian conflict for a long time - is evident. This is especially true, when one recalls that the critique is anticipated - even before the chronological narration of the war events starts. In addition, the reappearance of the mythological figure ‘ Europe ’ in a blank white, innocent cape obviously calls to mind both the multi-ethnic origin of the continent itself as well as the violent conquest of Europe by Zeus in the guise of a bull. Therefore, multi-ethnicity and the topic of violence, and the figure of imperialism runs through Europe ’ s history like a red thread. What is, moreover, especially conspicuous, however, is that the producers sought to change the gender of the most important main politicians. Two women perform the roles of the Bosnian-Serbian Radovan Karad ž ic´ and his political competitor, the Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, both of whom were implicated in the Chetnik ’ s genocide against the Muslim Bosniaks - the Srebrenica massacre - and the intolerant policy of Alija Izetbegovic, the Bosniak President of Bosnia-Herzegovina. On the other hand, some of the EU-politicians - men as women - are also represented by their opposite sex. With this feminist approach to gender, the producers obviously draw attention to the culturally conceptualized Eurocentric dualism of ‘ masculinity ’ and ‘ femininity ’ where in a neoliberal perspective the former, stronger, potential, and richer dominates the latter, weaker, unimportant and poorer. By attributing the female gender exactly to those who always wanted to represent the masculine principle, they try to break up this dualism, which also constitutes one of the bases for the unresolved conflicts between Western and Eastern European countries since the Yugoslav wars. Just as importantly, the non-representational reference to the main cruel rulers enables a figurative commentary that may also refer to similar ethnic conflicts and genocides in Europe ’ s and in the World ’ s past and present. Finally, the described cross-dressing across gender lines reveals also a hidden comment on European politics, which until now obviously have not got past its imperialistic attitude. This way, the burlesque imitation of the mainly Western European Union ’ s politicians directly refers to a ‘ travesty of justice ’ . Literally spoken, it signifies a fiasco and an utter disaster criticising the politicians ’ hypocrisy and their unfair treatment against the Eastern European countries. 44 In comparison with Milo Rau ’ s production, Memories of Sarajevo, despite the several estrangement effects used, promotes, at most, an immersion in the past figures and times. Therefore, it corresponds best to the idea of a re-enactment as a reconstruction of past times. The correlation with present perspectives becomes evident with the analysed estrangement effects. Still, it is more 168 Stella Lange difficult to deduce a concrete reference to a future or to a vision for Europe. Rather, Europe and the EU were subjected to a critique and in the sober light of this, stand, still or again, at the threshold between the imperial desires of power, influence and domination and a possible vision for solidarity and community, which remain very difficult to realize. Mediation between the past and present - according to Meiler - is mainly achieved through the layering of different critical and violent moments of European history and through the changing color within the representation of gender that finally can be read as a manifesto for the ‘ Other ’ . While the first color reveals historical forms of coherence, cohesion and constancy as violence or intolerance for the ‘ Other ’ , the latter tentatively proposes a possible vision for another Europe by reconfiguring political and economic hierarchies and values within Europe. Milo Rau: The Dark Ages (2015) In comparison with Memories of Sarajevo, the historical period in The Dark Ages by Milo Rau is not anymore differentiated by a chronological reconstruction. In fact, the production is not a re-enactment because its main characters do not re-enact a certain period. Instead, they remember their different pasts as private persons, ascending actors, and contemporary witnesses of different historical times. However, the process of remembering sometimes approaches a reenactment, especially, when Sanja Mitrovic´ (Serbian), Subdin Music´ (Bosnian) and Vedrana Seksan (Serbian) remember the Bosnian Wars from 1992 - 1995, or when Manfred Zapatka (German) remembers the final years of the Second World War around 1945. Given their aesthetic frame, these apparently mini-re-enactments that last for one scene are intended less to enable an immersion for one of the actors and more to enable an immersion in the past for the spectators themselves. As such, the audience rewatches, for example, the already mediatized images from news broadcasts or similar private videos of the war in Sarajevo on a big screen behind the official stage in order to be reminded of the terrors blindly accepted by the European Union. With different documents, news or video extracts, photos, or music, the production team re-enacts the atmosphere of these difficult political times without claiming to offer a documentary theatre. As a consequence, the narration does not follow a common thread. Rather, the past atmosphere of those years is reconstructed 45 via a fragmentary discourse. On the one hand, this reveals the different spectres of Europe ’ s history - the unfinished Fig. 2: Milo Rau: The Dark Ages © Thomas Dashuber - Subtitle: “ Imagine it, holding your father ’ s head. ” 169 Staging Transitory Europe challenges and problems, the unsaid, the blanks. On the other hand, it implies (the danger of) a recurring history, one that only proceeds in circles, returning in the bitterest colors to the extermination of the ‘ Other ’ respectively during the Second World War and during the Bosnian War. Both aspects come together in model fashion when the Bosniak Sudbin explains how he excavated his father ’ s head years after the Chetniks had aggressively attacked his family and home. The following quotation of the play gives one an idea of how the personal retelling of the circumstances turns into a mini-re-enactment. In 1998, right after I returned to Bosnia, I received the message that I could retrieve my father from the well. There ’ s a group of men who do this dirty job. His remains were in there. And before my eyes they hauled him out of there. One part at a time. There was no body, just bones. But he was wearing synthetic clothes and that doesn ’ t disintegrate so easily. They collected the bones from every corpse and sent them to pathology in Sanski Most for identification. When it comes to identifying corpses, we Bosnians are world champions. I recognised my father by the clothes as soon as he had fetched him out. He was wearing my pullover. One of his shoes was outside in front of the well, a bit swallowed up by the grass. The other one was at the bottom of the well. I stood there the whole time and watched it all happen. Imagine it, holding your father ’ s head. Just bones. A skull. 46 With the last three sentences, the perspective changes. Sudbin - always shown in a closeup on the screen behind the traditional stage - directly addresses the single spectator by being on familiar terms with him or respectively her. Additionally, Subdin opens his palms towards the sky forming a bowl and, thus, re-enacts the gesture of holding his father ’ s skull in his hands (cf. Fig. 2). Simultaneously, the famous scene of Hamlet is called to mind; the Shakespearian drama which recurs throughout The Dark Ages. Hence, with the help of this re-enactment scene addressed particularly to and re-constructed for the audience, the spectator may immerse her/ himself in the Sudbin ’ s crucial situation. The re-enactment does not, however, principally re-present an image of the past as was more likely the case in Memories of Sarajevo. Instead, it refers quite directly to its absence or rather to its latency and lack, amongst others, caused by Bosnia ’ s post trauma. Here, the relation of present and past, presence and absence is not as concrete as in the first play. This becomes even clearer if one examines the relationship between the actors and their narratives. For the most part, there is no effort to relate the own history with the ‘ Other ’ - nor to relate their personal emotions with the ‘ Other ’ as everybody is speaking in his or her mother tongue. The re-enactment as a paradigm for connecting different worlds is negated. It links only superficially with the structure of the topic of European wars. It does not, however, promote a concrete linguistic and emotional dialogue of past and present, absence and presence. Rather it refers to the missing links among European histories, cultures, languages and historiographies. Nonetheless, a subtle mediation can be seen. The projected act titles on the screen, the emotional mirror effect of similar closeup “ mini dramas ” among the actors or the common recitation of extracts from Hamlet imply, at best, possibilities for relating to one another. However, this possible connecting function of past and present, presence and absence only works on a visionary, hardly conscious meta-level. It has not been realized yet, or maybe, will never be realized at all. Thus, we only can snatch re-enactment moments or fragments in which a re-construction of the past still coincides and connects with a present, conscious and reflexive perspectivation about what has 170 Stella Lange actually be lost. Or the connection of past and present Europe has already resulted too precarious that one may agree with Andreas Tobler who speaks of “ the farewell of the reenactment ” 47 . Conclusion The theoretical discussion shows that reenactment is neither to be reduced to a performatively-generated ‘ presence ’ , an anachronistic theatre model, nor to those elements to ‘ be brought back ’ into collective memory. Rather, the re-enactment aims to connect and to mediate between past and present, presence and absence, familiar and unfamiliar, or in a nutshell, between different worlds and views. The previously stated historical beginning of a new European age in 1989 at a time of transitions and upheavals begs the need for new histories and historiographies of Europe. As we have seen, different theatre productions with relevant impulses appear to respond to this need for reflection by specifically thematising the transition from a past into a present Europe. Analysis of the examples of Le Birgit Ensemble ’ s Memories of Sarajevo and Milo Rau ’ s The Dark Ages illustrates the producers ’ experimentation with the genre of the re-enactment and its immanent idea of “ reconstruction ” . Whereas in Memories of Sarajevo the original, chronological thread that serves as the basis of the re-enactment is still made visible, in The Dark Ages we are challenged more in our quest to find the remains of a red thread since all chronological patterns seem to have vanished. The reenactment appears only in an abrupt and fragmentary form. Of course, these different narratives, together with various aesthetic choices, like the use of screens, have an impact on the modes used to immerse the audience in the ‘ story ’ and alongside the protagonists. Generally, it can be stated that both productions change the tone through use of techniques to create proximity as well as distance. We have seen that Memories of Sarajevo highlights parallels or similarities between different historical layers within European historiography despite the common chronological “ red ” thread. In the larger picture, this can give us a hint regarding connecting and mediating between past and present. Moreover, the interchanging of the main protagonists ’ sexes alludes to the culturally controversial, namely, to hierarchical power relations between ‘ male ’ and ‘ female ’ , between ‘ powerful ’ and ‘ powerless ’ . It hypothetically performs its queer-like dissolution in vision of an equal positioning of each member in the European Union - be it ‘ male ’ or ‘ female ’ , economically and politically stronger or less, belonging to the ‘ West ’ or to the ‘ East ’ of Europe. In The Dark Ages, on the contrary, we can only sense a possible dissolution of those power relations on a metanarrative level where the use of projected scene titles or mirroring close-ups renders the topical and emotional relationality evident. Despite the lingering traumas of the Second World War and, more recently, of the Yugoslav Wars, the absent dialogue between the protagonists and the missing that connects on a linguistic, cultural, cognitive and probably also on an emotional level turns the mediation between ‘ past ’ and ‘ present ’ into a mere vision. According to Rau ’ s ‘ Theatre of the Real ’ this mediation, however, can still be realized if the tenor of The Dark Ages implies exactly the opposite: a possible negotiation between past and present. Thus, the way ‘ past ’ and ’ present ’ are mediated and the transition from a past into a new Europe in both productions is thematised turns out to be uncertain. The perspective on Europe ’ s future remains precarious. Obviously, both re-enactment variations are still based on the premise that understanding the past in relation to our 171 Staging Transitory Europe present is fundamental for delineating Europe ’ s future. However, both productions analyse different problems with regard to this mediation just as they offer different solutions. This can be done explicitly in performance, as in the nearly realized case in the crossing between of sexes on the stage (Memories of Sarajevo). It can be done implicitly in performance, as is the case of the mirror effect of close-ups that evoke a possible world of empathy (The Dark Ages). Finally, the re-enactment can be conceptualized as a paradigmatic form for problematizing historical changes - in these cases, particularly the transition from a past into a present Europe. Questioning the relationship between past and present on a meta level, the re-enactment actually searches for ways to orient itself and possibly (new) directions. Therefore, the re-enactment - at least those productions examples studied - fulfil the opposite of an anachronistic model that would only aim to stabilize and confirm old (nationalists ’ ) views and values. To conclude, the uncertainty of future and the simultaneous indecision of planning this future reflects the basic feeling of precarity. Consequently, these re-enactments align with the Theatre of the Precarious. As such, the precarious re-enactment reflects also the politically and medially motivated critique of representation. Eventually, it focuses on the contact with the ‘ Other ’ that in our case of connecting to and mediating between ‘ West ’ and ‘ East ’ Europe is central to questioning Europe ’ s (new) identities. Notes 1 Philipp Ther, Die neue Ordnung auf dem alten Kontinent: Die Geschichte des neoliberalen Europa, Frankfurt a. M. 2014. 2 Cf. John Hirst, The Shortest History of Europe, Melbourne 2009. 3 Cf. Judith Butler, Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? , London/ New York 2016; Isabell Lorey, Die Regierung der Prekären, Wien/ Berlin 2012. 4 Cf. Wolfgang Schmale, Scheitert Europa an seinem Mythendefizit? , Bochum 1997. 5 Cf. Karl-Ernst Jeismann, “ Europäische Identität - der Beitrag des Geschichtsunterrichts ” , in: Karl-Ernst Jeismann, Geschichte als Horizont der Gegenwart. Über den Zusammenhang von Vergangenheitsdeutung, Gegenwartsverständnis und Zukunftsperspektive, ed. by Wolfgang Jacobmeyer, Paderborn 1985, pp. 259 - 279; here pp. 262 - 263. 6 Bernd Schönemann, “ Didaktische Varianten der Präsentation europäischer Geschichte im Unterricht ” , in: Kerstin Armborst and Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele (eds.), Der Wert ‘ Europa ’ und die Geschichte. Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Geschichtsbewusstsein, Mainz 2007, pp. 128 - 138; here p. 131. 7 Katharina Pewny, “ Performing the Precarious. Economic Crisis in European and Japanese Theatre (René Pollesch, Toshiki Okada) ” , in: Forum Modernes Theater; 26 (2011), pp. 43 - 52; here p. 43. 8 Katharina Pewny, “ Tracing the Other in the Theatre of the Precarious (Lola Arias, Elfriede Jelinek, Meg Stuart, Wajdi Mouawad, Christoph Marthaler) ” , in: Arcadia 2014, 49 (2), pp. 285 - 300; here: p. 295. 9 Ibid., p. 290. 10 Ibid., p. 298. 11 Cf. Johanna Schaffer, Ambivalenzen der Sichtbarkeit. Über die visuellen Strukturen der Anerkennung, Bielefeld 2008, pp. 83 - 88. 12 Cf. Pewny, “ Performing the Precarious ” , p. 48. 13 Cf. Pewny, “ Tracing the Other in the Theatre of the Precarious ” , p. 287. 14 Ibid., p. 288. 15 See the contribution of Elisabeth Tropper. 16 Wolfgang Hochbruck, Geschichtstheater. Formen der ‘ Living History ’ . Eine Typologie, Bielefeld 2013, p. 8. 17 Ibid., p. 9. 18 Ibid., pp. 9 - 10. 19 Erika Fischer-Lichte, “ Die Wiederholung als Ereignis. Reenactment als Aneignung von 172 Stella Lange Geschichte ” , in: Jens Roselt and Ulf Otto (eds.): Theater als Zeitmaschine. Zur performativen Praxis des Reenactments. Theater- und kulturwissenschaftliche Perspektiven, Bielefeld 2012, pp. 13 - 52; here p. 13. 20 Cf. Hochbruck, Geschichtstheater, p. 13. 21 Cf. Ulf Otto, “ Re: Enactment. Geschichtstheater in Zeiten der Geschichtslosigkeit ” , in: Jens Roselt and Ulf Otto (eds.): Theater als Zeitmaschine. Zur performativen Praxis des Reenactments. Theater- und kulturwissenschaftliche Perspektiven, Bielefeld 2012, pp. 229 - 254; here p. 232; cf. Hochbruck, Geschichtstheater, p. 19. 22 Inke Arns, “ History Will Repeat Itself. Strategies of Re-enactment in Contemporary (Media) Art and Performance ” , in: Inke Arns and Gabriele Horn (eds.): History Will Repeat Itself. Strategien des Reenactment in der zeitgenössischen (Medien-)Kunst und Performance./ Strategies of Re-enactment in Contemporary (Media) Art and Performance, Frankfurt a. M. 2007, pp. 37 - 63; here pp. 41 - 43. 23 Günther Heeg, “ Reenacting History: Das Theater der Wiederholung ” , in: Günther Heeg (ed.): Reenacting History: Theater & Geschichte, Berlin 2014, pp. 10 - 39; here p. 12. 24 Ibid., p. 13. 25 Arns, “ History Will Repeat Itself ” , p. 58. 26 Inke Arns and Gabriele Horn, “ Foreword and Thanks ” , in: Inke Arns and Gabriele Horn (eds.): History Will Repeat Itself. Strategien des Reenactment in der zeitgenössischen (Medien-)Kunst und Performance./ Strategies of Re-enactment in Contemporary (Media) Art and Performance, Frankfurt a. M. 2007, pp. 6 - 11; here p. 7. 27 Cf. Heeg, “ Reenacting History ” , p. 14. 28 Cf. Arns, “ History Will Repeat Itself ” , p. 43. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid., p. 55. 31 Ibid., p. 43. 32 Cf. Otto, “ Re: Enactment. Geschichtstheater in Zeiten der Geschichtslosigkeit ” , p. 232. 33 Cf. ibid., p. 231. As it is still in discussion, if the “ specific contemporary ” (ibid.) re-enactment forms an own genre taking into account its problematic historicizing as its still missing relating to the historical drama, I take up Ulf Otto ’ s denomination of ‘ gesture ’ . According to Otto and Christel Weiler, ‘ gesture ’ seems to be adequate as it refers to the performative and symbolic body practice within the re-enactment. Besides, both underline that this binding to cultural gestures may also be a reason for a “ rhetorical excess ” (ibid.). Stating so both call this in question if the re-enactment is actually commenting on our view about the ‘ past ’ or if it meets rather with a popularising and medializing culture and need of our times. 34 Günther Heeg, “ Einleitung ” , in: Günther Heeg and Jeanne Bindernagel: Das transkulturelle Theater, Berlin 2017, pp. 7 - 11; here p. 8 - 9. 35 Matthias Meiler, “ Über das -enin Reenactment ” , in: Anja Dreschke at al. (eds.), Reenactments: Medienpraktiken zwischen Wiederholung und kreativer Aneignung, Bielefeld 2016, pp. 25 - 39; here p. 26. 36 Robin G. Collingwood, The Idea of History, Oxford 1963 [1946], pp. 295 - 296. 37 Cf. Meiler, “ Über das -enin Reenactment ” , p. 29. 38 Ibid.. 39 Cf. ibid, pp. 29 - 30; emphasis by the author. 40 Ibid.. 41 Cf. Explanation to Nicole Haitzinger ’ s “ Auf dem Weg zur Auflösung des ‚ Re- ‘” , in: Martin Obermayr, Reenactment als künstlerische Strategie in der gegenwärtigen Medien- und Performancekunst, Wien 2011, pp. 77 - 78: http: / / othes.univie.ac.at/ 13129/ [accessed 15 March 2019]. 42 Cf. the structure of the script (translated from French into English SL): Prologue; First Part: The Division (February - April 1992); Second Part: The Siege (Spring/ Summer 1992), Third Part: The Agreements (Autumn-Winter 1995), in: Le Birgit Ensemble (Julie Bertin, Jade Herbulot), Memories of Sarajevo, October 2017. 43 Cf. Interview of Le Birgit Ensemble, “ Principes d ’ écriture ” , in: Press kit for Dans les ruines d ’ Athènes, 2017, p. 6. See Julie Bertin/ Jade Herbulot: “ Nous ne quêtons pas une ‘ vérité historique ’ . Ce sont les symboles attachés aux événements dits "historiques" qui 173 Staging Transitory Europe nous intéressent et, ainsi, leurs déformations et leurs transpositions possibles. [. . .] Aussi, nous nous intéressons, en début de millénaire, à ce qui a façonné notre mémoire collective 1 . ” ( “ We do not question the ‘ historic Truth ’ . Rather, we are interested in the symbols that come along with the so-called ‘ historic ’ events and, subsequently, their possible deformations and transpositions. [. . .] Moreover, at the beginning of the Millennium, we are interested in what has shaped our collective memory. ” ) 44 Cf. “ travesty ” , in: Merriam-Webster Dictionary: https: / / www.merriam-webster.com/ dic tionary/ travesty [accessed 10 April 2019]. Many thanks to Michelle Cheyne for this very interesting reference! 45 Cf. Obermayr, Reenactment als künstlerische Strategie in der gegenwärtigen Medien- und Performancekunst, pp. 77 - 78. 46 Milo Rau, “ The Dark Ages ” , in: Milo Rau (ed.): Die Europa Trilogie/ The Europe Trilogy, Berlin 2016, pp. 128 - 221, here p. 199. 47 Andreas Tobler, “ Die monströse Rückseite der Normalität. Wie ein Blick in die offene Mündung einer Waffe: Mit ‘ The Dark Ages ’ hat der Schweizer Regisseur Milo Rau in München den zweiten Teil seiner Europa- Trilogie uraufgeführt ” , in: WOZ N.16/ 2015, 16 April 2015: https: / / www.woz.ch/ 1516/ mi lo-rau/ die-monstroese-rueckseite-der-nor malitaet, [accessed 12 March 2019]. 174 Stella Lange