Two Sides. Photo: AI Generated
Leona (Jixin) Li, Oliver Wen
Audiences at Chatswood’s Concourse Theatre were treated to a night of fun discovery of Chinese Modern History with “Donald’s Inferno,” a comedy stage production written and directed by Jon-Claire Lee. The show ran on December 10 and 11, bringing an imaginative afterlife story to an Australian Journalist in China, and historical conflicts between famous Chinese politicians.
This is the opening scene of the first act of Donald’s Inferno. The elderly man is William Henry Donald, an Australian journalist who was friend and advisor to Sun Yat-sen, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, and Madame Chiang during World War II.
During the 40 years he spent in China, he maintained a close relationship with Chiang Kai-shek and actively participated in Chinese politics, having both direct and indirect influence on the country’s events. Using Donald as the narrative thread, Donald’s Inferno creates a bizarre afterlife world: Purgatorial.
In this strange world, as the host of Purgatorial Committee TV, Donald’s program welcomes four historically significant figures from historical China: Mao Zedong, leader of the Chinese Communist Party; Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party of China); as well as their wives, Jiang Qing and Soong Mei-ling.
These four individuals, who came from totally different backgrounds, held opposing political views, and once fought bitterly on Chinese soil, now find themselves reunited in this afterlife world. As they review history together, their interactions unfold into an absurd yet thought-provoking story.
The first thing many audiences will notice is the staging which, while concise and simple, effectively reinforces the comedic nature of the story the director wants to convey to the audience. Jon-Claire Lee, the director and the writer of this play, rather than providing “a serious record and discussion of history”aims for the show “to be more comedic, offering the audience a chance to explore history and discover new perspectives on historical events”.
Same as the costumes; all the characters wear classic and well-known outfits to help the audience easily identify them. Photographs taken in that period are shown on the screen beside the stage so everyone can recognise the characters.
The story’s setting is also cleverly designed. Creating an imaginative afterlife world, Purgatorial, the writer explored different angles to portray the characters and reveal “unknown” aspects of China’s history. In Act 1, Scene 2, Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek meet again in Purgatorial where they argue, providing a vivid display of their roles as rival party leaders to present historical events from each other’s perspective.
Kuomintang icon. Photo: alien0417, Pixabay
The director also conducted extensive research on these two historical figures. Through Chiang Kai-shek’s accusations against Mao Zedong, the audience discovers an intriguing contradiction: even someone who frequently criticised Western ideologies and once proclaimed “anti-imperialism” slogans, spent much of his later years enjoying films as a primary leisure activity. Among these were many American movies, including classics like Romeo and Juliet.
Meanwhile, through Mao Zedong’s accusations against Chiang Kai-shek, Lee presents a significant contrast to the usual portrayal of Chiang as an educated and reasonable party leader: to establish a defensive line against the Japanese Armed Forces during World War II, he decided to destroy levees on the Yellow River. This action led to a catastrophic man-made flood, drowning 30,000 to 89,000 people and causing the deaths of 400,000 to 500,000 people due to drowning, famine and plague.
This afterlife world didn’t just provide Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek with a platform to meet; it also allowed Jiang Qing (Mao’s wife) and Soong Mei-ling (Chiang Kai-shek’s wife) to “meet” each other in Act 1, Scene 3. These iconic women never crossed paths in real history but the play imaginatively bridges this gap. In this fictional encounter, these women—often considered adversaries due to their affiliations with opposing political parties—exchange thoughts about the conflicts between the CCP and the KMT, and reflect on their lives before death. Surprisingly, during the scene they come to understand each other’s struggles and even form an unexpected friendship.
But despite its merits, there is room for improvement.
While the first few scenes effectively present a fresh perspective on history and revealed lesser-known facts about Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek, the overall narrative ultimately falls back on traditional western viewpoints . For example, after showcasing Chiang Kai-shek’s controversial decision to destroy the levees on the Yellow River, the writer chose not to dig deeper into the ramifications and showcase more different angles of Chiang. Instead, in the second act, the focus abruptly shifts to Chiang’s confession of his mistakes, with his lines repeatedly reinforce his helplessness and sorrow during World War II. Furthermore, his wife Soong Mei-ling defends him on the sidelines, which comes across as an intentional effort to glorify Chiang.
But Mao Zedong is portrayed as an arrogant, unreflective and authoritarian leader. Throughout the play, whether under the director’s intention or the actor’s own interpretation, Mao is portrayed solely as a bad-tempered, ill-mannered, uneducated figure despite some possible contribution to Chinese society during a very unstable time. In the scenes where he argues with Chiang Kai-shek, compared to Chiang’s calm and rational lines, Mao appears unreasonable and furious. While this certainly created dramatic tension and enhanced the comedic effect, it also made it immediately obvious to any audience who is more the “villain” in line with traditional narratives.
To build up this personality, in Act 1, Scene 4, they brought in Sidney Rittenberg, an American who supported communism. He came to China and joined the Communist Party under Mao, but unfortunately, he was accused of being an American spy and spent 16 years in Chinese prisons. By adding this character they showed a scene full of accusations: a kind, idealistic young man who ended up in prison for decades. Missing his wife and child, he eventually died with resentment towards communism and Mao Zedong.
From a historical perspective, this did happen but in the context of this play, weaved into the plot as an aside to the main story and focused exclusively on Mao Zedong, feels intentional and disconnected. The purpose is to portray Mao as an “authoritarian leader”, the traditional Western narrative. This risks oversimplifying his character and contributions, reducing a complex historical figure to a singular narrative that aligns with a predetermined perspective.
China Flag. Photo: PPPSDavid, Pixabay
The contrast in the way the author portrays Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong is significant. Chiang is depicted as someone who acknowledges and reflects on his mistakes, while Mao is a one-dimensional character, with the emphasis on his negative traits.
The same slant is seen in the portrayal of Mao and Chiang’s relationships with women. In Act 1, Scene 2, the writer introduces He Zizhen, Mao’s former wife. Mao divorced He to marry Jiang Qing and even sent her to Russia. This also is historically correct but the writer did not include Chiang Kai-shek’s political motivations behind his divorce from his first wife and his marriage to Soong Mei-ling.
Both Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek had their weaknesses and both made significant contributions during one of the most chaotic periods in Chinese history. The information available today is often neither objective nor sufficiently comprehensive to provide a full picture of their true stories.
Donald’s Inferno offers a political ideology that comes across as overly simplistic, favouring a Western interpretation that echoes the CCP’s portrayal of Chiang, albeit in a different framework
