The Futurist movement was not only an artistic but also a social and political force for innovation, conceived as a total and permanent revolution encompassing all aspects of human life. One such aspect was food. Banquets had been a highly developed performative art in the Italian Renaissance and were again placed in a theatrical framework by the Futurists after the First World War. They founded three night clubs, where food and drinks were served in Futurist fashion, and opened several restaurants dedicated to a renewal of Italian culinary habits. In the 1930s, the Futurists focused on the creation of a new lifestyle called aerovita, which included cooking and dining as paratheatrical arts. Many of the recipes (or rather scenarios) in the Futurist cookbook La cucina futurista of 1932 derived from banquets that Marinetti, the driving force of Futurism, had organized as a kind of savoury-olfactory-tactile theatre accompanied by music and poetry recitations. The highly imaginative table scenery and food sculptures were complemented by inventive lighting effects and an amazing mise en scéne of interior decor, furniture, and waiters' garb. This essay describes and analyzes some of the Futurist experiments with culinary theatre, the manifestos dedicated to Futurist cuisine, and some of the Futurist concepts of dining as a performative art. Günter Berghaus is Reader in Theatre History and Performance Studies at the Drama Department, University of Bristol, and has published a dozen books and a large number of articles on theatre anthropology, Renaissance and Baroque theatre, dance history, and avant-garde performance. Directing a number of Futurist shows led to the publication of The Genesis of Futurism (1995), Futurism and Politics (1996), Italian Futurist Theatre (1998), and International Futurism in the Arts and Literature (2000).

Actors' feet are accepted as part of their expressive equipment – but doubts are often expressed that this has always been so. The evidence of early English theatre history is adduced to suggest otherwise, while recent treatments of the peripatetic in literary studies argue that the ‘visible walk’ attains prominence only in the Romantic period. But David Roberts argues that, from the emergence of permanent theatres, walking offered a metonymy for performance which persisted throughout the seventeenth century. Cross-dressing highlighted the expressive potential of the feet, while close examination of play-texts implies evolving styles of the peripatetic in performance, and the scenic theatres of the Restoration frequently portrayed walking as a cultural activity bound up with the status of both actors and scenery in post-revolutionary London. David Roberts teaches English and Drama at University College Worcester, and has published widely on theatre and literature from 1550 to 1789. He leads an AHRB-funded project on theatre criticism.

The National Council for Drama Training represents the drama sector of the British performing arts industry and is responsible for the accreditation of the standard and content of the courses at vocational drama schools for professional actors and stage managers, to ensure their relevance to the industry. The Council has three wings: the employers (Society of London Theatre, Theatrical Management Association, the BBC, Channel 4, Channel 5, and ITV), the trades union (Equity), and the leading professional training providers. The purpose of the report which follows was to provide as objective as possible an assessment of the workings of the government's new Dance and Drama Awards scheme, to assist the industry in discussions with Government on improvements to the scheme. Its author, Graham Marchant, is an arts consultant with an exceptional breadth of knowledge and experience, particularly as theatre administrator, senior Arts Council officer, and principal of a vocational school for professional dancers. The NCDT was enabled to commission the Report through the generous provision of funds from the Mackintosh Foundation and the Society of London Theatre.

The classical theatres of southern Asia are variously treated with the reverence thought due to sacrosanct and immutable forms – or as rich sources for plunder by western theatre-makers in search of intra-cultural building-blocks. The rights and wrongs of this latter approach have been much debated, not least in the pages of NTQ; less so the intrinsic desirability of leaving well alone. At the symposium on Classical Sanskrit Theatre, hosted in Dhaka by the Centre for Asian Theatre in December 1999, an unexpected consensus sought ways in which classical theatre forms might best meet contemporary needs, not only by drawing upon their unique qualities – but also by respecting the injunction in the Natyasastra that the actor must combine discipline with a readiness for improvisation. John Russell Brown here supports the conclusions of the symposium that the qualities of Asian theatre which differentiate it from western forms – of a quest for transformation rather than representation, a concern with emotional truth rather than ideological ‘meaning’ – can best be pursued by such an approach, restoring to the theatre ‘its enabling and necessary role in society’. John Russell Brown was the first professor of Drama and Theatre Arts at the University of Birmingham, and subsequently Associate Director at the National Theatre in London. More recently he has taught and directed in the USA, New Zealand, and Asia, and is now Visiting Professor of Performing Arts at Middlesex University. The most recent of his numerous books is New Sites for Shakespeare: Theatre, the Audience and Asia (Routledge, 1999).

Theatre of a kind familiar to western audiences can be found in present-day Tehran – as Clive Barker's contribution to the ‘Reports and Announcements’ section later in this issue testifies. But Iran also has a traditional performing mode little known in the West – the Taziyeh, first performed in Britain at the Islamic Cultural Centre in London, and elsewhere, during April 2000. Taziyeh is a passion play, which like its medieval Christian antecedents remains inextricably linked with its religious purpose – the commemoration of the martyrdom of the third Imam of the Shi'ite Muslims, Ali Hussein, and his family in the desert of Kerbala. This relationship sustains a dramaturgy which diverges significantly from western forms, and seems at times almost contradictory – with actors who clearly know their parts by heart none the less required to read them from their scripts, to sustain both the immediacy and the spiritual truth of the performance. In this account of the origins, development, and present state of the Taziyeh, Reza Ale-Mohammed resolves such contradictions through an analysis of the play's distinctive quality, its performance, and its relationship with the audiences it reaches and the faith it expresses. Reza Ale-Mohammed recently completed his doctorate on the Taziyeh at the University of Warwick.

Accurately tracing the process leading to the creation of a theatre within most western societies is an endeavour usually fraught with hazards, since so much needful information has been lost or remains conjectural. But the Jewish theatre arrived far later than most, due to a combination of the prohibitions against theatricality in Jewish laws and the problems of preserving a performative tradition during the long period of the Diaspora. The eventual emergence of a Jewish theatre little over a century ago thus offers a unique opportunity not only to investigate the subsequent development of that specific theatre, but also potentially to illuminate questions concerning the social, economic, and demographic variants which determine the cultural distinctiveness of other national theatres. The author, Corina Shoef, is a researcher based in Tel-Aviv who has already published several articles on related themes, and is currently working on a project to create a research database of the Jewish and Hebrew theatre.

Western assumptions of unthinking Serbian support for the policies of Slobodan Milošević were upset by the success of popular protest in securing his removal in the autumn of 2000. In fact, just three years after his accession to power in 1989, there had already been massive student protests against the Balkan War, and these were repeated and surpassed in the winter of 1996–97, when Milošević tried to disregard the success of the opposition in the local elections of that November. The student protests quickly took a theatricalized form, and their recurrent modes – graffiti, banners, street processions – were successfully carnivalized, to become popular performative events. This feature provides a chronology of the main developments to complement the more analytical study by Milena Dragićević-Šešić of the nature of this organic but ironic response to an authoritarian regime, which gave old traditions a late twentieth-century voice.