Scenes are prepared, but participants cannot always attend
Public materials for Romance Theatre preserve two kinds of time: notices from November 2022 describe scene preparation, while a later interview recalls how the workshop continued when attendance became less stable. This reading keeps those accounts distinct and asks a production question: how could prepared scenes and roles continue when the people attending kept changing?
Two invitations credited to Liang Yin, published on 3 and 5 November, propose shared exercises, mutual selection of lead roles, repeated group meetings, a script assembled by selecting recorded material, and then rehearsal and performance. Romance Game is listed as one of the games used; it is not simply another name for the whole project. These are proposed working arrangements. They do not establish that the full process was completed or explain anyone’s actual intimate relationships.[S1][S2]
“Established” and “still to develop” appear in one arrangement
In a first-meeting account published on 6 November, Liang describes confusion and a lack of clear direction, while saying the meeting helped make clear what the project did and did not do. This is the credited author’s interpretation, not a finding that all participants shared it.[S3]
The 12 November notice provides a more concrete production cross-section. The author recalls four themes and performer arrangements taking shape on the preceding Friday: Mengxi (夢夕) for Contract Marriage, Yang Jia for Confirmation, Da Lao Hei for Central Air Conditioning, and Zhenzi for Destiny. The Love Rival scene involving Mogu and Zhao Xuan was still to be developed. These are published theatrical tasks; titles and roles do not establish real-life relationships.[S4]
The same notice proposes rotating positions and interacting with different partners on the afternoon of 13 November. It makes this session free instead of the planned 80-yuan charge because preparation time was short, and welcomes friends. The document establishes how a next step was announced, not who actually attended, how rotations unfolded or which scenes eventually reached a performance.[S4]
Attendance is not compulsory, and returning remains possible
An edited interview published on 28 November 2023 identifies Zheng Zhongtian as the interviewer and Fa He as the interviewee, with an interview date of 18 April that year. The interviewee recalls recruitment for Romance Theatre going relatively smoothly in early November before more people became unable to attend. Attendance was not compulsory; some people returned after restrictions on their movement were lifted, and the workshop continued roughly two or three times a week.[S6]
This account describes a way of organising participation: keep a route back into the work when a stable group cannot always assemble. It is not a session-by-session attendance record and does not explain whether roles changed or scenes were rearranged. Quoted group-chat material in the interview was not independently checked here and is not used to complete an attendance list.
The sixth session’s weekday and date do not agree
A notice credited to He Fa, published on 17 November, says five sessions had taken place and announces the sixth for “Friday (19 November)”. In 2022, 19 November was a Saturday. The notice therefore contains an unresolved date conflict.[S5]
The contemporary notice can be read beside the later account of an ongoing workshop. It does not justify silently changing the date to the 18th or fixing the date of the final session. Five completed sessions are the author’s retrospective statement; the sixth is an announcement. Both still need comparison with actual session records.[S5][S6]
What evidence is missing between preparation and continuation?
The interpretation proposed here is that preparing scenes and sustaining participation are distinct kinds of production work. The first appears in an arrangement of themes, performers and unfinished tasks; the second requires continued organisation as attendance changes. The materials do not yet connect these into a verified chain of recasting, revision or completion, and they do not support a story of success or failure.
The original webpages of 3, 5, 6 and 12 November all credit Liang Yin. The 17 November article credits He Fa; the interview retains Zheng Zhongtian’s and Fa He’s distinct roles. Page authorship, retrospective testimony and duties at a session remain separate. This reading does not merge the project with the Eurydice Plan or attach unidentified video candidates as records of these scenes.[S1][S2][S3][S4][S5][S6]