Golden Shield

by Anchuli Felicia King

  GOLDEN SHIELD

  by Anchuli Felicia King

  MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY PRESS

  An imprint of Melbourne University Publishing Limited

  Level 1, 715 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia

  mup-contact@unimelb.edu.au

  www.mup.com.au

  First published 2019

  Text © Anchuli Felicia King, 2019

  Design and typography © Melbourne University Publishing Limited, 2019

  This play is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 and subsequent amendments, no part may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means or process whatsoever without the prior written permission of the publishers.

  Every attempt has been made to locate the copyright holders for material quoted in this book. Any person or organisation that may have been overlooked or misattributed may contact the publisher.

  Cover photography by Isamu Sawa

  Design by Vic U

  Rehearsal photographs courtesy Deryck McAlpin

  Text design and typesetting by Cannon Typesetting

  Printed in Australia by McPherson’s Printing Group

  9780522876369 (paperback)

  9780522876376 (ebook)

  CONTENTS

  PLAYWRIGHT’S NOTE

  CAST OF CHARACTERS

  TEXT NOTE

  ACT 1

  ACT 2

  ACT 3

  With a $4.6 million investment by MTC and MTC’s Playwrights Giving Circle, the NEXT STAGE Writers’ Program has introduced the most rigorous playwright commissioning and development process ever undertaken by the Company, setting a new benchmark for play development in Australia.

  Golden Shield was the first NEXT STAGE original produced by the company.

  ___________

  Thank you to MTC’s Playwrights Giving Circle for sharing our passion and commitment to Australian stories and Australian writers.

  Louise Myer and Martyn Myer ao, Maureen Wheeler ao and Tony Wheeler ao, Christine Brown Bequest, Allan Myers ac qc and Maria Myers ac, Tony Burgess and Janine Burgess, Dr Andrew McAliece and Dr Richard Simmie,Larry Kamener and Petra Kamener

  PLAYWRIGHT’S NOTE

  Anchuli Felicia King

  I read something on the internet.

  This is how most of my plays start. It’s also how the majority of the world’s population gets its information. As of April 2019, 56.1% of the world’s population was online. Fifty-five per cent of that content was written in English, and 800 million of those users were Chinese, making it by far the largest national population online.

  And yes, I got those statistics from the internet.

  It’s easy to balk at statistics like these, but how can we actually conceptualize the human cost of this mass global digitalization? Indeed, how can we conceptualize the internet? As a nebulous cloud of data? As a vast, interconnected web of servers, data processing centres, household objects (the Internet of Things)? Or should we think of it as pure math—algorithms that determine what we see or don’t see, algorithms written by an emergent class of technocrats who increasingly define our political, social and cultural lives?

  To my mind, the theatre is a really good place to grapple with impossibly big phenomena like the internet and globalization—what some contemporary philosophers, borrowing terminology from computer science, call ‘metaobjects’. Theatre is uniquely suited to dealing with metaobjects because it’s an aggressively immediate and analog form. It’s a space where big issues can be transformed into little stories, where the epic and the quotidian don’t just coexist but coalesce. In theatre, the personal is always political, and vice versa.

  In 2016, I read something on the internet. A group of Chinese dissidents were mounting a class action lawsuit against a US technology company for their purported criminal collusion with the Chinese government. The plaintiffs alleged that this billion-dollar corporation had knowingly helped the Chinese government build systems that would enable online censorship and digital surveillance as part of the Golden Shield Project, the national security policy that has since become synonymous with China’s Great Firewall.

  For some ineffable reason, I knew I wanted to write a play about this. And I knew that the play should be written in both Mandarin and English, so the play would need a translator. And if it needed a translator, why not make them The Translator, who could not only translate literal text but also subtext and context, revealing the total sum of semiotic misfires that can happen when two parties try to bridge a communicative chasm?

  I read everything I could find about the lawsuit. Then I read a lot more. I read public documentation on the numerous cases Golden Shield is based on. I read transcripts of civil trials, theses on the Great Firewall, books on digital filtering, on Mandarin-into-English translation, on the surveillance state and linguistics and technocracy … and then I threw it all out and tried to write a compelling piece of drama.

  So how ‘real’ are the events in this play? I would say the broader circumstances and events are based on fact, while individual characters and events are heavily fictionalized. In this sense, the play is itself an act of translation. Complex global issues are mapped onto fictive human stories—the core of which is the story of Julie and Eva, two Chinese–American sisters struggling to navigate their fraught relationship and shared trauma. The Chen sisters are in many ways my metaphor for the toxic sisterhood of China and America, two economically codependent superpowers that continue to struggle with their profound ideological incompatibility.

  I am, of course, painfully aware of the hubris of a 25-year-old Thai–Australian playwright thinking she has anything meaningful to say about Chinese–American relations (or indeed, about international litigation or human rights abuses in China). My hope is that Golden Shield gives you an impressionistic sweep of these metaobjects, and if you want to learn more about them, please consult an actual expert who will have far more interesting and nuanced things to say than I ever could. That is after all the wonderful thing about the internet—the enlightened texts of linguists, engineers, activists and lawyers are just a click away.

  The only thing we’re really qualified to do as artists is ask questions about what it means to be human. The heart of this play is a universal human predicament: the failure to communicate. Golden Shield explores how we fail to translate effectively on all fronts—not just between different languages and cultures, but between technologies, judicial systems, lovers and family members. I hope that what people take away from the play is that the attempt to translate, as fraught as it is, is what counts—that as multivalent and impossible as communication is, we have to keep trying because it’s the best mechanism we have.

  Anchuli Felicia King is a playwright and multidisciplinary artist of Thai–Australian descent. As a playwright, Felicia is interested in linguistic hybrids, digital cultures and issues of globalisation. Her plays have been produced by the Royal Court Theatre (London), Studio Theatre (Washington D.C.), American Shakespeare Center (Staunton), Melbourne Theatre Company, Sydney Theatre Company, National Theatre of Parramatta and Belvoir Theatre (Sydney). As a multidisciplinary artist, Felicia has worked with a wide range of companies and institutions, including Punchdrunk, PlayCo, 3LD Arts & Technology Center, Roundabout Theater, 59E59, Ars Nova, the Obie Awards, The Builders Association, Ensemble Studio Theater, NYTW and Red Bull Theater. She is a member of Ensemble Studio Theater’s Youngblood Group and Roundabout Theater’s Space Jam Program. Formerly based in New York, Felicia continues to work internationally and is based between London, New York and her hometown of Melbourne, Australia.

  CAST OF CHARACTERS

  Golden Shield was first produced by Melbourne Theatre Company at The Sumn
er, Southbank Theatre, Melbourne on 12 August with the following cast and creatives:

  CAST

  Nicholas Bell Richard Warren/Larry Murdoch

  Jing-Xuan Chan Eva Chen

  Gabrielle Chan Huang Mei/Deputy Minister Shengwei Gao/Waitress

  Fiona Choi Julie Chen

  Yi Jin Li Dao

  Josh McConville Marshall McLaren

  Sophie Ross Amanda Carlson/Jane Bollman

  Yuchen Wang The Translator

  CREATIVE TEAM

  Director Sarah Goodes

  Dramaturg Chris Mead

  Set & Costume Design The Sisters Hayes (Esther Marie Hayes & Rebecca Hayes)

  Lighting Designer Damien Cooper

  Composer & Sound Designer Luke Smiles

  Collaborating Composer Kelly Ryall

  Voice & Dialect Coach Geraldine Cook-Dafner

  Associate Designer Kat Chan

  Assistant Director Alice Qin

  Language & Translation Consultant Jing Wei Lee

  Design Secondments Jemima Johnston & Harrie Hogan

  Voice & Dialect Secondment Matt Furlani

  Stage Manager Pippa Wright

  Assistant Stage Manager Lisette Drew

  Rehearsal Photographer Deryk McAlpin

  Production Photographer Jeff Busby

  The play text went to print before the end of rehearsals so may differ from the play as performed on stage.

  TEXT NOTE

  SETTING

  Dallas, Washington D.C., Beijing, Palo Alto, Yingcheng.

  TIME

  2006–2016

  TEXT NOTE

  Bold text is spoken in Mandarin and synchronously translated into English by the Translator.

  Bold and underlined text is spoken in Mandarin,and not necessarily accompanied by a translation.

  Where noted, a ‘staggered’ translation occurs with a slight delay, as though being translated in real time.

  Whenever the / symbol appears within the dialogue,it is to indicate an overlap of speech with the subsequent line of dialogue.

  A NOTE ABOUT THE TRANSLATOR

  The Translator is an intermediary between the audience and the action.

  They intervene in the action only when their presence becomes essential.

  They are otherwise engaged in an act of self-abnegation.

  Yuchen Wang (seated) with Jing-Xuan Chan.

  ACT 1

  Nicholas Bell (l) with Fiona Choi (r).

  TRANSLATOR: The most difficult … the most difficult.

  I guess it would be the proverbs.

  I generally opt for a literal translation

  ‘Stone’ to ‘stone’

  And let the hearer extrapolate

  Well, take something like ‘every rose has its thorns’

  That’s pretty universal.

  But for something culturally entrenched

  Or by some degrees removed

  That’s a little trickier

  An example:

  三个和尚没水喝 (Sān gè héshàng méi shuǐ hē.)

  Three monks have no water to drink.

  Any thoughts?

  (laughing) Right. Doesn’t work so well.

  So what do I do with that?

  I can try to find an English equivalent, if one exists.

  But of course, I risk making false parallels

  Unwittingly engaging in an act of … linguistic imperialism

  Or I can really spell it out—

  Here’s the monks, here’s the water

  Here’s what that all means

  But you do lose some of the beauty

  Of the original

  It’ll be much the same with this job

  I suspect

  I tend to employ a kind of … hybrid approach

  A bit of one-to-one, a bit of analogy,

  Context where you need it

  A word of warning though

  Things can get … muddy

  Once we really get going

  I always tell my clients, ‘give your mind time to adjust’.

  It can be disorienting, hearing multiple voices at once

  Just settle into it

  Trust that your mind is a machine

  Eventually, it’ll find a focal point

  Having said that,

  It is essential that you concentrate

  JULIE: (out) There’s a lot of jargon in this case. A lot of legal jargon and a lot of technical / jargon.

  MARSHALL: You’ve got IDS devices at the local router level, you’ve got provincial ISPs doing their own shit, so by the time you get to the / border AS—

  JULIE: My advice to you is this: don’t get caught up in the jargon. Jargon is one of many tactics employed by corporations like the defendant—

  THE TRANSLATOR: ONYS Systems.

  JULIE:—to evade accountability. Because they assume that the layman—and don’t be offended, but that’s you and me—simply can’t understand what it is they do. What they build.

  JANE: (to Marshall) When I say call me back, you / have to—

  MARSHALL: I’m busy, Bollman.

  JANE: You have to / call me back.

  JULIE: That’s not what this case is about.

  MARSHALL: I’m busy, someone’s suing us?

  JANE: Yes, I’ve been trying / to—

  MARSHALL: Who’s suing us?

  JANE: Eight Chinese dissidents.

  JULIE: This is about right and wrong.

  MARSHALL:… what?

  JANE: Eight / Chinese—

  MARSHALL: I heard you—fucking, what?

  JULIE: You don’t need to understand jargon to understand that.

  EVA: What does that mean exactly, the Law of Nations?

  MEI: Then what are you? What did you do?

  那你是什么？/你干了什么？

  Nà nǐ shì shénme?/Nǐ gànle shénme?

  DAO: I can’t survive without you.

  没有你我活不下去。

  Méiyǒu nǐ wǒ huóbuxiàqù.

  JANE: Eight Chinese dissidents are suing us for criminal collusion with the Chinese government.

  MARSHALL: The—how? What? In China?

  JANE: In … Texas.

  MARSHALL:… how?

  JANE: It has to do with / … pirates.

  RICHARD: It’s about pirates.

  JULIE: (out) Having said that, I have some legal jargon to get out of the way. The fact is that in this case the plaintiffs are not American citizens. They are eight citizens of the People’s Republic of China. And they are suing the defendants—

  THE TRANSLATOR: ONYS Systems.

  JULIE:—for injuries inflicted in the state of China. So I imagine you’re a little confused / I imagine you’re wondering what the hell this has to do with you as a resident of Dallas County. And to explain that, I’m going to tell you about a piece of legislation called the Alien Tort Statute.

  THE TRANSLATOR: D.C., 2012.

  RICHARD: It’s about pirates.

  JULIE: I’m aware of / the—

  RICHARD: I mean I’d never even heard of this thing, you know why I’d never heard of it? Because it’s from the Judiciary Act of 1789. Wherein this statute was included, I’m informed by the best and brightest legal historians, as a means for dealing with / pirates.

  JULIE: Pirates.

  RICHARD: Pirates. As in ‘yarr’.

  JULIE: Is that your pirate?

  RICHARD: Maybe, why, what’s your pirate?

  JULIE:… ahoy?

  RICHARD: You’re a disgrace to the legal profession.

  JULIE: You said yarr.

  RICHARD: Jules, I just don’t wanna be that firm.

  JULIE: I hear you.

  RICHARD: I don’t wanna just jump on some fad legal loophole just because every other schmuck on the human rights beat is doing it.

  JULIE: It’s not a fad.

  RICHARD: I mean God knows your little humanitarian hobby is taking up enough billable hours—

  JULIE: Well, I’m sorry doing my civ
ic duty isn’t proving to be a particularly profitable venture / for you.

  RICHARD: That’s not what I—don’t put words in my mouth, Jules. I just mean that the last thing we can afford right now is some kinda academic exercise—

  JULIE: It’s / not—

  RICHARD:—in whether or not a district judge will uphold an eighteenth-century statute. A statute which, I’ll remind you, was not intended for a modern court of law but for marauding gangs of Vitamin-C-deficient pirates.

  JULIE: It’s not an academic exercise. Look, Kpadeh v. Emmanuel, tried in Florida last month, under the ATS.

  THE TRANSLATOR: Alien Tort Statute.

  JULIE: Twenty-two million in damages.

  RICHARD: Jules, that case was about a Liberian dictator wiping his ass with the Geneva Convention. You wanna use this thing, you gotta have something that’s flagrantly violating the Law of Nations.

  JULIE: Okay. What about an oppressive government that casually engages in torture, censorship and ethnic genocide?

  RICHARD: Well, which government are we talking about here? About seventeen are coming to mind. (beat) Aw Jules! Not the China thing!

  JULIE: I know it’s not much to be going on.

  RICHARD: No, no, I’m sorry, just because your comrade at / that Australian NGO—

  JULIE: Amanda’s not my comrade, okay, I / don’t have comrades.

  RICHARD:—has you all hot and bothered about some leaked document—

  JULIE: It’s an internal ONYS document that explicitly shows—

  RICHARD: It’s a bullet point!

  JULIE: But—

  RICHARD: A bullet point. You don’t mount a case around a bullet point.

  JULIE: Rich, think of the precedent. If we could get some dissidents willing to sign on as plaintiffs, we get a class action going—

  RICHARD: Woah, now we’re talking about a class action?

  JULIE: We’d have foreign citizens suing a multinational corporation. In a US district court. Doesn’t that get you going just a little? Come on. It’s the white whale of international humanitarian law.

  RICHARD: Which district?