The opening and closing ceremonies contained neat symbolic summaries of how the festival went. Achievements were mixed. Heavy rain interrupted the opening ceremony, but while it put a definite damper on the proceedings it did not wash away the general appreciation for the resounding success that Carifesta was for Suriname as a nation and a people. The carnival atmosphere at the closing adequately reflected the fun, popularity and positive feeling at the end when, after the many early problems, the overall judgement was favourable.

The opening had its greatest strength in the outstanding demonstrations by the Surinamese performers. The theme of “many cultures” was stressed through colourful displays of theatrical acts by a variety of ethnic groups from the host country’s Amerindian, African, East Indian and Indonesian communities. These were as awesome in spectacle as they were in religious ritual. A shaman in ceremonial dress, who played on a ceremonial drum, performed rituals and offered prayers throughout the gala, was blamed by many for bringing down the rain. While he was a significant symbol of the festival’s effectiveness at the beginning, the 6,000 who packed the Anthony Nesty Sports Hall (National Indoor Stadium) to see Trinidad and Tobago perform on the last night after the closing ceremony uttered the final statement on the overwhelming local popular response to Carifesta VIII.

Harclyde Walcott, expert on theatre, who directed Barbados’s main production, summed up his impressions of proceedings in Suriname by saying “I would go back there tomorrow!” However, while he was not alone in that sentiment, serious questions were raised in the Symposium at the Hotel Torarica where there was a critical analysis of the whole Caribbean Festival of Arts. In that forum there was an overhanging mood of cynicism, doubt and disaffection. The future of the arts in a regional context was examined evoking concerns for its survival and fingers of blame pointed at Caribbean governments. Many views were aired about the failure of the politicians to give sufficient support to Carifesta and demonstrate in material terms that they took the arts seriously. Caricom was accused of complicity with the errant governments in taking no heed of the many criticisms, resolutions and suggestions that have come forward over the years without ever being implemented.

Yet, there were some differences in the attitudes coming from the main presentations. St. Lucian dramatist Kendell Hippolyte was more hopeful in his review of the march of artistic development in the region over the last two decades, while Guyanese theatre designer Henry Muttoo felt strongly that the old pattern will continue: nothing will result from the proceedings of the symposium and none of its recommendations would be implemented. On the other hand, the other presenters pointed out that many of the problems had to do with Carifesta itself, which lacked philosophical directions and an established plan. Its very occurrence is irregular and uncertain; it has no time-table or financial base and takes little advantage of tourism potential and commercial possibilities. It is in need of a business plan for which alternative formulae were suggested.

A word from Caricom’s Teni Housty on the exploitation of communications technology by the arts was a good lead into another section of the symposium addressing “Cultural Networks in the Caribbean”. This covered the uses of databases and the internet, the visual arts, funding for culture and the field of publishing. These discussions ended with a compilation of the findings and recommendations for the benefit of Caricom and its governments. The prevailing climate of turbulence and gloom moved Caricom official Eddie Green to reassure the meeting that no plan for the next Carifesta will proceed until the issues and recommendations are studied and considered.

As if to illustrate one of the observations made in the forum, Carifesta VIII of 2003 exhibited notable reductions in the scope, range, variety and form of the theatre presented. In the past there was a number of major plays representing the work of major dramatists giving an idea of the current theatre in the region. The situation was the same for dance and major companies, but it dwindled between 1992 and 1995. Full length plays were absent in 2003, with many countries opting for less demanding ensembles of total theatre. The trend was nationalistic, with performances aiming to showcase national culture and history.

A number of territories depended on heavy use of narrative, mime, music and dance to portray historical material. Paramaribo’s four most interesting theatre houses allowed some creative use of space. Back Lot housed the film festival, while Theatre Unique is the best for shape and artistry, but not large enough for some of the productions. Those worked better at Thalia or Ons Erf where the rigid platform stage was abandoned and stage space created in another area.

Suriname’s Winti Drama used a narrative to give a historical coverage of traditions, demonstrating them with mime, movement and dance and claiming that they survived over the centries because of the preserving spirit of such forces as the winti. St.Vincent read an account of the history of the Garifuna or Black Caribs who fought the English and eventually migrated to Belize. The reading was accompanied by dramatizations in mime and dance. In both cases, the narration was too sociological, stilted or remote, insufficiently dramatized and not integrated into the action.

Barbados’s Praise Song for Bruce strung together a selection of poems by Bruce St.John, threaded by dance and ritual borrowed from traditional religion. In one sequence there was an interlude of Land Ship and Tuk Band performance, which seemed quite unrelated to the poems. Individual performances were very good both in design and acting, and the idea of ritual inspired. But it broke down because of uninspired choreography, slow pace and a repetitive monotony. Furthermore, there was nothing to give the poet, St.John an identity or presence, leaving him faceless and anonymous in a production that was supposed to celebrate his work.

Yet Barbados had concept, depth and a sense of theatre, all of which Guyana lacked. Guyana and St. Lucia had similar aims, to showcase national traditions. But Guyana mistook patriotism for theatre and political correctness for cultural identity, ending up nationalistic but thin and patchy. St. Lucia was better put together with superior dramatization, a workable narrative thread, colour and vibrancy.

Even the symposia were of a different kind than those of previous Carifestas. Jamaica in 1976 was particularly strong in literary presentations and publications. Eddie Baugh’s “The West Indian Novelist and His Quarrel with History” and Martin Carter’s radical discourse on “Ëxile” were memorable. The panels on writers, writing and drama as well as the readings in Trinidad were not far behind with Earl Lovelace, Errol Hill and George Lamming among the dramatis personae. But since then the major writers and critics have hardly been involved.

The strength of Paramaribo’s Symposium was that it turned its attention to the vital issues of strengthening, survival and continuation. Suriname’s Ismene Krishnadat, Caricom’s Carole Maison-Bishop