An interview with Valters Sīlis, director and co-author of the walking performance "Forest"

In the performance “Forest”, the definition of a forest and its various interpretations are mentioned twice. Do you know how many definitions of a forest there are? Did you during the development of the performance try to find that out?

Yes, I was curious, but I haven't counted them! There are many, as far as I know, and that is insane! Why? This in itself shows that for many, the forest is a political entity, not just a collection of trees and the like. A forest can be defined in various ways; in the performance, we focused on two definitions (two explanations). During the working process, without yet knowing for sure, we assumed that there could be more, many more.

While creating the performance, we wanted to understand one of the fundamental questions that truly interested and even "spoke" to us: how the activities in the forest and the understanding of the forest are evaluated and perceived by patriotic Latvian citizens with the best of intentions. Perceptions differ; they can be called sides, where one sees the forest economically as a natural resource, and the other represents the view that tree felling at current volumes can harm biodiversity. Suddenly, a conflict has arisen! There is no doubt about the existence of the conflict! It exists: some call environmental activists foreign spies, others believe that no activity whatsoever should be permitted in the forest. As material for theatre, such a situation is quite interesting and "tells you": "Let's get to work!"

Is the "inverse proportionality" of the actors' surnames intentional or accidental? (Raimonds Celms is in the role of an activist urbanist, Ivars Kļavinskis – a professional forest expert, a forester)

(Hearty and delicious laughter!) Quite accidental; I certainly didn't choose the actors based on their surnames. A joke or two about the forest and stumps (celmi) does appear in the spoken text, but that is understandable and related to the idea of the performance. While writing the text, I sensed which role each actor would take. The connection between the actors' surnames and trees is a coincidence. If you look at it that way, I myself would be linked to ornithology and birds.

You are the director and do not speak in the performance yourself… How was the hour-long walking route created?

We looked at various options. At the beginning, the walk along the asphalt path and arriving at the forest trail is important; it fits into the dramaturgy of the performance. The dunes, a careful walk along the path, trying not to get caught on pine roots and not to fall. Oh, right, you have to look around, you have to enjoy the forest!… That all fits into the idea and story of the performance.

Are the listed authors of the performance – Linda Rudene and yourself – equal authors of the text?

We staged a diptych: "Forest" and "City". We decided to divide the responsibilities – Linda would have more of the "city", and I would have the "forest". Linda was responsible for the pleasant flow of the text for both performances. We talked and deliberated on what to change, what to add and whether to add anything at all.

Are you a city dweller, or…

A city dweller. My native neighbourhood for generations has been Pārdaugava. A city dweller who spent his childhood at the Riga National Zoological Garden, where my mother worked, and where my clearly defined relationship with nature and animals was formed; I was no stranger to hay, livestock, or work with them. I got to know all of that in my childhood.

At the beginning of the performance, both actors deliberate that it would have been interesting to organise the walk in the Baloži or Dzelzāmurs forest, which would be too far for Riga residents or other spectators. Did you choose Mežaparks because it is more easily accessible by transport, or, as it is understood, do you know this area well?

The actors' explanation is the correct one! Although the first idea was different… At an international theatre festival, I watched a production with a political bent; the actor expressed what everyone in the hall was thinking, so they were in agreement, and when the performance ended, everyone left home satisfied. What is the point of that? So that people on stage and in the audience feel comfortable? Are we going to a performance to conclude: "Well done! You think correctly!" I want to argue and challenge the audience.

In that mentioned performance, there were about 100 spectators; I did not have that goal. For my political theatre, one spectator would be enough if it were possible. As I already mentioned, the idea matured (and that was a while ago) a couple of years ago, but it materialized now.

Yes, at first I wanted to go along the most ordinary Latvian forest road, where one could see far more stages of forest development: here – a young stand, here – a clearing, here – an untouched, unmanaged forest, here – something else, for example, a place for mushrooms or berries! Thinking further, it became clear that it would not be a performance for one person; when organizing the flow of the performance, we ended up in Mežaparks. What is said in the actors' text is the truth.

You have managed to achieve a great, even palpable, balance: every shout has a justification, and every sudden flash of emotion is met with an explanation. Did this happen consciously?

Every justification is also emotional. In a way, the balance is… It was very important for me to reconcile these different views as proportionately as possible so that the spectator has the opportunity to think for themselves and feel which of them they lean towards more. So that the audience can see, feel and understand this balance!

Decisions, whatever they are called, are in a way emotional. What are we sacrificing in each situation? What are we gaining? Of course, it is best to "springboard" from your own subjective reality, which you know and understand best. Every topic related to the forest could have a very extensive exposition that would include various views and explanations, yet the length of the performance limits it. Each topic has a set time, as is usual in a performance with its own precise structure. Both sides that are talking also have plenty of emotional explanations, and the spectator thinks: "Where is my position? How do I look at this problem? Who misunderstands whom?"

As a person, I express one view – my own; how far my opponent's good intentions go, how far I am able to respond to him, how far I allow or do not allow myself to be emotional, this is visible or at least perceptible during the course of the performance. The writing of the text was extremely interesting and full of adventure for me.

Who did you consult from the professional environment? In the performance, professional language and a professional touch are palpable!

There were plenty of consultants. Both the chairman of the Latvian Ornithological Society, and a forester who had their own quite strict view (and "non-industrial" at that) on every question, as well as representatives of "Rīgas meži", and a professional ecologist (Doctor of Science). We read the opinion and arguments of "Latvijas valsts meži" in presentations, and we looked at information from the "Silava" Forest Research Institute. I liked that the aforementioned forester was able to evaluate as neutrally as possible, as he is often in the middle of the "fireworks" touched upon in the performance.

The figures included in the text have specific sources. As you saw, we talk about them little in the performance, and here, the definitions of the forest, with which we started the conversation, have an important role. What does one consider a forest and what does one choose to consider a forest? For example, according to one of the definitions, for a stand to count as a forest, it needs trees that are 5 metres tall. That's not much, is it!

Those are the complicated questions...

We have chosen Finland as a model country – everything there in the forest sector seems to be beautiful. I found data in the literature that the Finns import quite a lot of timber intended for paper production in order to maintain their status as the most forested and timber-rich country.

About politics… In a recent conversation about the forest topic, the interlocutor pointed out that, in their opinion, policy related to the forest and the environment has gone askew because it allows any nonsense to enter the public space… For example, I try (for reasons known to myself) to explain to the wider public to explain that you are not Valters, but Vasilijs, and I stick to that, despite knowing that you are Valters. Similar assertions are listened to by the industry, which actually has to work, not debunk them.

You mention this, and interesting things appear here. A successful forest industry often uses arguments that are also nonsense, for example, about CO2 sequestration. A young stand sequesters the most carbon dioxide – is that correct? Do old, mature trees not sequester it? They do. Will the CO2 sequestration balance be just as positive if the forest is felled and a young stand is created in its place? But often only the word "young stand" is heard in arguments, although, as I looked into it, scientists also argue about this. Or does the entire forest ecosystem, which is not disturbed for at least 100 years, for example, including bilberry bushes, sequester more CO2 than young stands? I find it much easier to accept rational arguments that come from the forest industry and which I understand.

However, the diversity of arguments is very essential because it speaks to the freedom of thought of our society. Some need the forest for bilberries, others for mushrooms, others for future generations, others for business, and still others for political activity. In arguments, each of these people, with "their point of view or need", looks for an approach to society. If you want to, advertise your interests, think: "how can I show that 'of mine'?"

For example, tree diameter and protected areas. As I have understood, forest owners and the industry very much do not want an increase in protected areas. "Say, that is all that we want!" Good! Let us fight to have the status quo. But this is followed by another industry desire to reduce the diameter, which in the status quo situation that we want, should not be changed, so that the forest has time to grow. I see that over the last few years, the industry and its opponents have been watching each other very closely, which I perceive as very healthy.

There is also the question of opinions. If we decide that nothing bad can be said about an industry that is necessary and flourishing for society, we will end up with big problems. It is better, in my opinion, for this constant dispute to exist! It is better to argue about definitions.

How patriotic or state-wise, in your opinion, is it to take one of the x definitions after which Latvia is in the worst situation?

During the Soviet era, the Ministry of Forestry was the most patriotic. Such a story is still held in high regard; I have heard it more than once. What did they achieve? Latvia imported timber… A lot was protected. Now it is just as patriotic to say that the industry is the backbone of the Latvian economy.

The thoughts are opposite. Let them be! I am much more frightened by the possibility that grounded (even if emotional) criticism of the industry may be restricted.
For illustration, with the kind permission of the Latvian National Theatre, photographs by Kristaps Kalns (Valters) and Edgars Lazdiņš (scene from the walking performance) have been used. Cover photo and photo gallery - zemeunvalsts.lv