{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024508223153821347, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017413737504030958, 'mean_word_length': 5.216432865731463, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
“Don Juan Tenorio in the Campo de Cebada: re-staging urban space after 15-M” by Matthew I. Feinberg

Every theatrical performance is grounded in space and time; each public, informed by its own historical specificity, creates meaning out of the dramatist’s words and the director’s interpretation of those words into a material and sensorial experience. “Don Juan Tenorio in the Campo de Cebada: Re-Staging Urban Space After 15-M” analyzes the performance site of Don Juan Tenorio in 2011, 2012, and 2013 as generative of new meaning for the canonical play and conjointly reads the performance as phenomenon and the cultural, communal, and political roles of the spectator. The AlmaViva Teatro’s production of Don Juan Tenorio fused contemporary anxieties over debts and promises, solvency and promissory notes. Matthew Feinberg brings to light the convergence of the main themes of Zorrilla’s work with the economic suffering shared by a large part of the public during the recent crisis on a site imbued with a history of transactions. Specifically, decisive action by the play’s protagonist to respond to Doña Inés’s offer of herself in order to pay Don Juan’s moral debts resonates, as the author makes clear, with the public’s own personal debts. Moving beyond thematic similarities, Feinberg draws on theoretical treatments of spatial relations in order to read the intersections of urban and dramatic space in these performances. The historical moment is manifest in the significance of the performance location: poised between its most recent use as a community athletic center and its planned reinvention as a privatized commercial center, the Campo de Cebada reflects anxieties over the ownership of urban spaces throughout Madrid. The author builds effectively upon Lefebvre’s argument on the correlation between the division of spaces and the division of labor under capitalism to propose that the appropriation of the Campo upends this distinct use of discrete locations and, consequently, challenges the capitalist logic underpinning the present urban landscape. The project of participatory urbanism intersects with the spatial practices of the audience at the Campo de Cebada. Feinberg analyzes the spectators’ movement throughout the performance and how such mobility consequently changes the audience’s perspectives as participants and observers of the play’s action. This movement in situ is a principal means by which the creation of meaning becomes collaborative. Indeed, the public is symbolically evicted by “stagehands with headsets” – agents of an invisible hand – and reshuffled as the physical space under their feet is repurposed in each act. The audience thus reenacts the creative and lucrative manipulations by the directors of municipal life in a highly imaginative and symbolic way. The author convincingly argues that the Campo de Cebada is a hybrid space that subverts the traditional production and consumption of culture, but the stark distinction Journal of Spanish Cultural Studies, 2014 Vol. 15, Nos. 1–2, 161–162, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14636204.2014.938460