Brecht - Epic Theater

On the Experimental Theatre Author(s): Bertolt Brecht and Carl Richard Mueller Source: The Tulane Drama Review,
Vol. 6, No. 1 (Sep., 1961), pp. 2-17 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1125000 . Accessed: 25/02/2014 21:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Tulane Drama Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 202.125.102.33 on Tue, 25 Feb 2014 21:34:45 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
On The Experimental Theatre

By BERTOLT BRECHT For at least two generations now the serious-minded European theatre The diverseexperiments has existedin an era of experimentation. have but the not as yet produced any unequivocal, clearlydiscernibleresults, era is by no means at an end. It is myopinion that the experiments followed two separate courses,which,thoughtheyoccasionallyintersected, can, when separated, be individually pursued. These two courses of fromone anotherby means of theirindidevelopmentare distinguished vidual functions:entertainment and instruction, that is to say, the theatre organized experiments which were to increase its powersof enterand experiments whichwere to increaseits powersof instruction. taining, In a world as fast-moving and dynamicas ours the enticements of entertainment are quick to wear out. We mustalwaysbe prepared to meet the desire forprogressive with new effects. In order public stupefaction to distractits already distractedspectatorsthe theatremust first of all make him concentrate.It must lure him with its spell out of his noisy The theatremust deal with a spectatorwho is tired,exenvironment. hausted with his rationalizedday labor, and vexed with social frictions of all sorts.He has fledhis own small world,he sits here a fugitive. He is a fugitive, but he is a customeras well. His escape can be here or elsewhere.The competitionof one formof theatrewith another form, and of the theatrein general with the cinema, occasions continuously new struggles, which will alwaysexist anew. struggles In reviewing the experiments of Antoine,Brahm,Stanilavski, Gordon and Piscator,we disCraig, Reinhardt,Jessner, Meyerhold, Vachtangov, cover thattheyquite remarkably of expression enlargedthe possibilities in the theatre. Its capacityto entertain has grownunquestioningly. The art of ensembleplayinghas createdan uncommonly sensitive and elastic A social milieu may be depicted in its most subtle detail. stage-being. Vachtangov and Meyerhold drew certain dancelike forms from the Asiatic theatre and created a complete choreography for the drama. realizeda radical Constructivism, and Reinhardttransformed Meyerhold natural,would-beshowplacesinto stages: he performed Everymanand Faust in public places. Open-air theatres saw productions of A MidsummerNights'Dream in themidstof a forest, and in theSovietUnion an atof the Winter Palace with the temptwas made to repeat the storming use of the battleshipAurora. The barriersbetweenstage and spectator 3
f
q
*81
BertoltBrechtin New York about 1942. (Sketchby Edith Schloss.)
The Tulane Drama Review
were demolished.At Reinhardt'sproductionof Danton's Death in the Grosses Schauspielhaus actors sat in the auditorium,and in Moscow on the stage. Reinhardtutilized the "flower Ochlopkov seated spectators the techway" of theChinese theatreand borrowedfromthe circus-arena nique of playingin the midstof the audience. The directionof crowds was perfectedby Stanislavski,Reinhardt,and Jessner,and the latter Revolvwon a thirddimensionforthe stage withhis stairconstructions. ing stages and domed cycloramaswere invented,and lightingwas dismade possible illuminationon a large scale. A covered. The reflector board complete light permittedus to conjure up the atmosphereof a of theatre Rembrandtpainting. We mightjust as easily in the history of medicine name certainlighting effects Reinhardtian,as in the history we have named a certain heart operation afterTrendelenburg.There and thereis a new way of manare new methodsof using the projector, aging sound. As far as the art of the theatrewas concerned,the boundaries between the cabaret and the theatreand between the revue and with masks,busthe theatrewere demolished.There were experiments were undertaken with kins, and pantomime.Far-reaching experiments the ancient classical repertoire.Time and again Shakespeare was refashionedand changed. We have extractedso manyfaces fromthe clasWe have lived sical authorsthat theyhave scarcelyany more in reserve. to see Hamlet in dinner jacket and Caesar in uniform,and at least have profited dinner jackets and uniforms by it and won theirway to respectability. Experiments,as you can see, are very unequal in their and themostnoteworthy are not alwaysthemostvaluable, though worth, even the most worthlessare scarcelyever completelyworthless. As far as Hamlet in dinnerjacket is concerned, it is scarcely any moreof a sacHamlet in silk tights. One is rilege to Shakespearethan the conventional of a costume-play. alwayskept withinthe framework One can generallysay that the experiments to improvethe theatre's have not been lacking in results.They have in powers of entertaining They are, howpaiticular led to the developmentof theatremachinery. ever,by no means at an end. In fact,theyhave neveryet been put into A general usage, as have the experimentalresultsof other institutions. new medical operationperformed in New York can withina veryshort time be performed in Tokyo. That, however,is not the case with our modern stage technology. The artistis continuously hinderedby an evident reticencein taking over unbiasedly the experimentalresults of anotherartistand improving on them.Forgery in art is considereda dishas fora long grace.This is one of thereasonswhytechnological progress while not been so greatas it mightbe. The theatrein generalhas not for a long while been broughtup to the standardsof moderntechnology. It
BERTOLT BRECHT
amuses itselfwith the generallyawkwardutilizationof a primitive turnforthestage,witha microphoneand withtheinstallation ing mechanism of a fewautomobilelightreflectors. in theprovince Even theexperiments of acting techniquesare seldom made use of. It is only recently that this or thatactor in New York is becominginterested in the methodsof the Stanislavskischool. What are we to say of the other,the second function, whichaesthetics have bestowed on the theatre: instruction? Here, too, we find experiments and the results of experiments.The drama of Ibsen, Tolstoy, Strindberg, Gorky,Chekhov, Hauptmann, Shaw, Kaiser, and O'Neill is an experimentaldrama. It is an importantexperimentwhich reshapes the problemsof our time into theatricalterms.' We have the social-critical drama of environment fromIbsen to Nordahl Grieg,and the Symbolist drama fromStrindberg to PairLagerkvist. We have a drama typified, perhaps,by my ThreepennyOpera, a parable typeof drama whichis destructive of ideologies,and we have original dramaticforms, developed by such poets as Auden and Kjeld Abell, and which, seen from a purely technical standpoint,contain elements of the revue. At timesthe theatredid well in endowingsocial movements of justice,hy(the emancipationof women,perhaps,the administration giene, even, in fact,the movementfor the emancipation of the proletariat)withdefinite impulses.Still it cannot be secretedthat the insights whichthetheatre into thesocial stituation werenot particularly permitted profound. It was more or less, as the objections pointed out, a mere social lesymptomof the superficialcharacterof society.The intrinsic in the galitieswere not made perceptible.Consequentlythe experiments of plot and provinceof the drama led to an almostcompletedestruction the image of man in the theatre.The theatreby placing itselfin the serviceof social reform suffered the loss of manyof its artisticefficacies. Not unjustly, do we lament thoughoftenwithratherdubious arguments, the prostitution of artistic tasteand the bluntingof the stylistic sense. In fact,thereprevailsover our theatretoday,as a consequence of the many diverse kinds of experiments, a virtual Babylonian confusionof styles. On one and the same stage, in one and the same play, actors perform with utterly dissimilartechniques, and naturalistic acting is done within fanciful scenic designs. The techniques of speech have fallen into a lamentable state, iambics are spoken as theywere common speech, the et cetera, et cetera. The parlance of the marketsis made rhythmical, modern actor findshimselfjust as helpless when faced with the techniques of movement.It is meant to be individual but is only arbitrary, it is meant to be natural but is only accidental. One and the same actor utilizes an action which is suitable for the circus-arena, and the next
momenta piece of mimewhichis discernibleonly fromthe first rows of and at that only with a pair of opera glasses.Let us have the orchestra, a clearance sale of all the styles of all the ages, a totallyunfaircompetition between all possible and impossible effects! One certainlycannot say thatsuccesseshave been lacking,nor can one say that theyhave cost him nothing. I come now to thatphase of the experimentaltheatrein whichall the hitherto describedefforts achievedtheir standardand withit their highest various turning-points or crises.It is in thisphase that all the manifestations of the importantprocess,positiveas well as negative,appeared at theirmostprominent:thus the increaseof the powersof entertainment along with the developmentof the techniquesof stage illusion, and the increaseof the powersof instruction along with the fall of artistictaste. The most radical attemptto endow the theatrewith an instructive characterwas undertakenby Piscator.I took part in each of his experiments,and therewas none of themwhich did not have as its objective the heightening of the stage's powersof instruction. It was a question, then, of masteringthe importantcontemporary subjects for the stage: the struggle forpetroleum,the War, the Revolution,justice,race probto rebuild the theatrecompletely. lems,et cetera. It seemed necessary It is impossiblefor me to enumeratehere all the inventionsand innovations which Piscator utilized togetherwith virtuallyall of the newer technologicaladvances in orderto bringto the stage important modern subjects. You undoubtedlyknow of some of them,such as the use of which transformed the rigid backdrop of the stage into a new cofilm, to the Greek chorus,and the conveyorbelt which enplayer,analogous abled the stage floorto move so that epic scenes could roll past, as in the marchof the good soldierSchweikto the wars.Hithertotheseinventionshave not been adopted by the international theirmanners theatre, of lightingthe stagehave been all but forgotten, theirutterly ingenious is rusted, and grassgrowsover all. machinery Why is it? It is necessary in order to discontinuethis eminent political theatre to reveal its political origins.The increase of the political powers of learningcollided with the approaching political reaction. Today, however,we want to confineourselvesto pursuingthe developmentof the turningpoint of the theatrein the provinceof aesthetics. The experiments of Piscatorcaused, above all, completechaos in the theatre.If the stagewas transformed into a machineshop, then the auditoriumwas transformed into an assemblyhall. For Piscator the theatre was a parliament, the public a legistlative body. To thisparliamentwas presented in plastic terms important,decision-demanding, public af-
BERTOLT
BRECHT
fairs.In place of an address by a memberof parliamentconcerningcertain untenable social conditionsthereappeared an artisticreproduction of the situation.The theatre had the ambitionto prepareits parliament, the public, to come to political decisionson the basis of the illustrations, and slogansshownon thestage.While Piscator'stheatre statistics did not waive applause, it desireddiscussioneven more.It did not wantmerely to with an experience,but in addition to wrestfrom provide its spectators them a practical resolve to take an active hold on life. All means were to achieve thisend. The technicalaspectsof the theatrebecame justified inordinatelycomplicated.Piscator'sstage manager had in frontof him a promptbook which was as different fromthe promptbook of Reinhardt'sstagemanageras the orchestral scoreof a Stravinsky opera is from the manuscriptof a lute singer. The machineryon the stage was so to supportthestagefloor of theNollendorf heavythatit becamenecessary Theater withiron and cementstruts, so much machinery was hung from the dome that it once collapsed. Aestheticaspectswere completely subordinated in the political theatre.Away with painted sets when one could show a filmwhich was shot at the veryplace of the action, and which possesseda documentary, worthabout it. And welcome certifying the cartoonwhen the artist, forexample George Gross,had something to When the German Kaiser filed a protest say to the parliament-public. that Piscator intended to personify him on the throughfive attorneys the Kaiserhimstagebymeans of an actorPiscatormerelyasked whether self would like to make an appearance, one mightsay that Piscatorofferedhim an engagement. In short:the objectivewas of such significance and importancethat all means seemed justified. The preparationof the of productionaccorded with the preparationof the play. A whole staff workedtogether on the play, and theirworkwas aided and playwrights controlledby a staff of experts,historians, and statisticians. economists, The experiments of Piscatorwere the source of virtuallyall conventions. They took hold of and changed the creativeprocessof the playwright,the styleof production,and the work of the theatrearchitect. Altogetherthey strove for a completelynew social function for the theatre. The revolutionary foundedby thosegreatenlightbourgeoisaesthetic, eners,Diderot and Lessing, definedthe theatreas a place of entertainment and instruction. The Age of Enlightenment, which ushered in a no oppositionbetween powerful upsurgeof European theatre, recognized entertainment and instruction. Pure amusement, even in regardto tragic subjects,seemed to Diderot to be quite emptyand discreditable when it failed to add to the knowledge of the spectator,and elements of in-
seemed in no way to disturb the struction, naturallyin artisticforms, of that amusementwas given more after this it was aspect amusement; substance. If we observe the theatreof our time we shall findthat the two constituentelementsof drama and the theatre, and instrucentertainment tion, have come more and more into sharp conflict.This opposition existstoday. of the arts," which provided Naturalism,with its "intellectualization it withsocial bearing, had doubtlessparalyzedsignificant aestheticforces, thatof fantasy, the aestheticsense,and the genuinelypoetic. particularly The instructive elementsplainlyharmedthe artistic elements. The Expressionism of the post-war era had describedthe world as will and representation and brought a characteristic solipsism. It was the theatre'sanswer to the great social crisis,just as the philosophicalMachismuswas philosophy's answerto it. It was a revoltof art against life, and the world existed for it only as vision, strangely the offshattered, minds. Expressionism, which greatlyenriched the spring of frightened theatre's means of expressionand broughtabout a hitherto unexploited aestheticgain, showed itselfin no position to interpret the world as an shriveled object of human usage. The theatre'spowers of instruction away. The instructional elements of a Piscatorproductionor of a production like my ThreepennyOpera were,so to speak, installed; theydid not result organicallyfromthe whole, theystood in opposition to the whole; the flowof the play and its events,theythwarted theyinterrupted sympathetic understanding, theywere cold showersfor those who wanted I hope thatthe moralizing to sympathize. partsof the ThreepennyOpera and its didactic songs are to some extent entertaining, but surelythere can be no doubt thatthisentertainment is different fromthatwhichone experiences fromthe scenes of the play proper. The characterof this instructionand entertainment stand togetherin play is two-pronged, In Piscator'sproductions theactorand thestagemachinery open hostility. in open hostility. stood together We perceive fromthe fact that throughentertainment the public is split into at least two hostilesocial camps,so that the commonart experience falls to pieces; it is a political fact.The enjoymentof learningis subject to social position. The artistictreat is subject to political attitude, so that it can be challenged and become accepted. But even if we consideronly thatone part of the public that is in political agreement, we are able to see how the conflict betweenthe powersof entertainment and the powersof instruction becomescritical.It is a quite definite, new
BERTOLT
BRECHT
kind of learningwhich cannot reconcileitselfto a definite, old kind of self-entertainment. In one of the (later) phases of the experiments every new increase in the powersof instruction led to an immediatedecrease in the powers of entertainment. ("This isn't theatreany more, it's an adult education class.") In reverseorder, the effect upon the nervous which is the result of emotional threatened system, acting,consistently the performance's powers of instruction. (Bad actors were often interested in utilizingthe instructional aspect of the theatre.)In otherwords: the more the public was emotionallyaffected the less capable it was of That the more we the is, learning. brought public to whereit agreed,experienced,sympathized, just thatmuch less was it capable of seeing the ins and outs of thematter, thatmuchlessdid it learn,and the more there was to learn,just thatmuch less was the artistictreatbroughtto realization. The crisiswas this: the experiments of half a century, broughtabout in almost all civilizedcountries, had won forthe theatrean utterly new made it a facrange of subjects,a new sphere of problems,and thereby tor of eminent social significance. But theyhad broughtthe theatreto the place where any further social developmentof the verdict-finding, the artistic (political) experiencemustnecessarily destroy experience.On the other side, however,the artisticexperience always came about less oftenwithoutthe further developmentof the verdict-finding experience. A technical apparatus and a styleof productionwas developed which were able to produce illusion ratherthan practicality, intoxicationrather than elevation, and deception ratherthan enlightenment. Of what profit was a Constructivist stage when it was not sociallyconwhat profit was therein the finest structive, lightingplant when it illuminated false and childishrepresentations of the world,and what profit was therein a Suggestivist art of the theatrewhen it servedonly to convince us that an X was a U? Of what use was the whole box of magic trickswhen it could only offer us artificial substitutes for actual experiences?What purpose was therein this constantilluminationof problems which always remained unresolved?Was all this meant to gratify not only the nervesbut the understanding as well? One could not possiblyhave ended here. The developmentpressedfora fusionof the two functions, entertainmentand instruction. If theseendeavorsare to attain a social consciousness then theymust finallyprepare the theatre to develop a view of life throughartistic means, to develop models of the social life of human beings,in order to his social surroundings and to help him help the spectatorto understand controlthemrationallyand emotionally.
10
Man today which control knows little aboutthelegalities his life.As a socialbeinghis general but these emotional reaction is emotional, reactions are vague,inexact, ineffective. The sources of his emotions and are justas bogged as thesources of his knowlpassions up and polluted in a rapidly world and himself edge.Man today, living changing rapidly with himand on the lacksan image of theworld which changing, agrees he can act witha viewto success. basisofwhich His conceptions of the sociallifeof humanbeings are false, and contradictory, his inaccurate, call impracticable, thatis, withhis imageof imageis whatone might theworld, theworld ofhumanbeings, he cannot control theworld. He does notknowon whathe is dependent, he lacksa graspon socialmawhichis necessary to cause thedesired A knowledge effect. of chinery the natureof things, so greatly and so ingeniously increased and exis incapable, a knowledge without ofthenature ofman,human panded, in itstotality, ofmaking this a source control ofnature ofhappisociety nessformankind. It willfarsooner become a source ofunhappiness. So it happensthatour greatdiscoveries and inventions have becomean everincreasing to mankind, threat so thattoday invention nearly every is received a cry with of triumph which soonturns intoa cry offear. Before thewarI experienced a genuinely historic sceneon theradio: the institute of thephysicist Niels Bohrin Copenhagen was beinginterviewed a revolutionizing in thefield of nuclear concerning discovery fission. The physicists thata new,tremendous source of energy reported had been discovered. When theInterviewer askedwhether a practical utilization of theexperiment wereyetpossible, he received theanswer: In a toneofgreat relief theInterviewer No, notyet. ThankGod replied: forthatl I firmly believethat mankind is notyetmature to take enough of sucha source of energyl It was clearthathe had onlythe possession warindustries in mind.The physicist Albert Einstein does notgo quite so far, buthe goesfarenough, whenin a few short which are sentences, to be buriedin a capsuleat theNewYorkWorld's on Fair,as a report our timeto future he writes thefollowing: generations, Ourtime is a mine ofinventive intellects whose inventions could Wecross the seasbymeans easeourlives ofmechaniconsiderably. cal power, and. we also use thatpower to free mankind from all labor. We havelearned to fly and are able by fatiguing physical meansof electric wavesto disseminate newsand information theentire world. Yet production and distribution throughout of merchandise is farfrom so that eachofus must livein organized, fear of being forced from theeconomic Moreover, sphere. people in different lands murder one another at irregular living periodic so that all whoponder thefuture intervals, must livein fear. This comes from the fact that theintelligence andcharacter ofthe masses
BRECHT BERTOLT
11
are incomparably lowerthanthe intelligence and character of the thosewhoproduce of worth forthecommon few, good. things Einsteinthusprovesthe factthatthe controlof nature,in so far as we have controlof it, contributes littleto a happy life forman, and further thatman in generalis lackingin knowledgehow to turnthesediscoveries and inventionsto his own use.' They know too little about their own nature.The factthatman knowsso littleabout himself is thereason why his knowledgeof nature is of so littlehelp to him. In point of fact,the monstrousoppression and exploitation of man by man, the warlike butcheriesand peaceable degradations of all kinds across the entire planet have almost become natural by now, but man, faced with these natural manifestations, is unfortunately not so ingenious and qualified as when faced withothernatural manifestations. The greatwars,forexand therefore as seemingly ample, seem as innumerableas earthtremors, inevitableas the power of nature itself, but whereasearthtremors come to an end, man's inhumanity to man seemsnever to reach an end. It is clear how much would be gained, if, for example, the theatre,if not art itself,were capable of providingus with a practicable view of life. An art capable of thiswould be able to take firm hold on social development,it would not merelyradiate more or less apathetic impulses but deliver its findingsto sensitiveand intelligentmen of the world, the world of human beings,fortheiruse. But theproblemis not at all simple.The veryfirst showed experiments thatart,in order to perform its duty,had to stimulatecertainemotions, provide certain experiences,but by no means correctviews of life or of happeningsbetweenmen. It achieved its effects genuine illustrations withincomplete, deceitfulor obsoleteviewsof life. Through artistic suggestion,which it knowshow to exercise,it investsthe mostabsurd assertions concerninghuman relations with the appearance of truth.The more powerfulit is, the more unverifiable its In place of production.. of fancy,in place of argument we have rhetoric. logic we have flights Aesthetics demand a particularplausibility forall happenings,otherwise effects will eithernot occur or else be impaired.At the same time,however, there is also the question of a purely aestheticplausibility,a socalled aestheticlogic. The poet is grantedhis own world,it has its own If thisor thatset of elementsis specified, thenall otherelements legality.
must be similarly and theprinciple ofspecification be in some specified uniform in orderto save thewhole. degree Artachieves thisprivilege of beingable to construct itsown world, which neednotconform to anyother, a particular through phenomenon on thebasisof theSuggestivist which, asserts thatwithin the technique,
12
artistthereexiststhe establishedsympathetic of the specunderstanding and eventson tator,and which passes fromthe artistinto the characters thestage.It is thisprincipleof sympathetic whichwe have understanding now to consider. understandingis a main support of the prevailing aesSympathetic we have a description of how thetic.In the imposingPoetics of Aristotle of the spectator, was brought Catharsis,that is, the spiritualpurification Mimesis.The actor imitatesthe hero (Oedipus or Promeabout through theus), and he does so with such suggestionand power of conversion that the spectatorimitateshim in the role and thus possesseshimselfof the hero's experience. Hegel, who, to my knowledge,drew up the last of aesthetics, of the importantsystems refersto the ability of man to experience the same emotionswhen faced with simulated realityas he does when faced with realityitself.What I want to acquaint you with now is thata seriesof experiments to establisha practicableview of life the means of theatre's resources has led to the staggering by question whetherto achieve this end it is necessary, more or less, to surrender Unless one perceiveshumanity, with all its understanding. sympathetic mannersof behavior and institutions, as someconditions,proceedings, thingstable and unchangeable,and unless one accepts the attitudesof humanity,as one has accepted them of nature with such success for several centuries,those critical attitudes,concerning change and the masteryof nature, then one is unable to utilize the technique of sympathetic understanding.Sympathetic understandingin changeable human beings,in avoidable acts,and in superfluous pain, et cetera,is not possible. As long as the starsof his fatehang over King Lear, as long as we considerhim as being unchangeable,his deeds subject to naturewithout restriction, even presentedas being fated,so long can we be symtowards him.To discusshis behavioris as impathetically understanding of the atom would have been in possible as a discussionof the splitting the tenthcentury. If the intercourse betweenstage and public were to occur on the basis of sympathetic then at any given moment the spectator understanding, could have seen only as much as the hero saw withwhom he was joined in sympathetic And towardsparticularsituationson the understanding. stage opposite him he could only have such emotional responsesas the "mood" on stagepermitted. The observations, and perceptions emotions, of the spectatorswere the same as those which broughtthe characters on stage into line. The stage could scarcelygenerate emotions,permit observationsand facilitate understanding, which are not suggestively on it. Lear's wrathover his daughtersinfectsthe spectator, represented that is, the spectator,watchinghim, could only experience wrath,not
BERTOLT
BRECHT
13
perhapsamazementor uneasiness,and the same holds forotherpossible emotions.The wrathof Lear, therefore, could not be testedagainst its it with nor could be a prophesyof its possible provided justification only to be sharedin. In thisway consequences.It was not to be discussed, social phenomenaappeared eternal,natural,unchangeable,unhistorical, and did not hold fordiscussion. My use of theterm"discussion"heredoes not imply a dispassionatetreatment of a theme,a purely intellectual immune process.We are not concernedwithsimply makingthespectator to the wrathof Lear. It is only the directtransplantation of thiswrath thatmustbe stopped.An example: The wrathof Lear is sharedin byhis faithful a servantof the thankless servantKent. Kent soundly thrashes who is instructed to disobey one of Lear's wishes.Shall the daughters, spectatorof our time share Lear's wrath and approve of it, while in essence sympathizing with the thrashing of the servant,carried out on Lear's orders?The question is this: How can this scene be played so that the spectator, on the contrary, fliesinto a passion because of Lear's wrath?Only an emotionof thiskind which can deny the spectator symwhich generallyonly he can experience,and pathetic understanding, which generallycould occur only to him, and then only if he breaks can be sociallyjustified. Tolthroughthe theatre's power of suggestion, stoyhad excellentthingsto say on thisverymatter. is the important artificial means of an age Sympathetic understanding in whichman is thevariable and his surroundings the constant. One can be sympathetically a towards unlike who, understanding only person bears the starsof his destiny withinhim. ourselves, Human beingsgo to the theatrein orderto be sweptaway,captivated, moved, kept in suspense, released, diimpressed,uplifted, horrified, verted,set free,set going, transplantedfromtheirown time,and supplied with illusions.All of thisgoes so much withoutsayingthat the art of the theatreis candidlydefinedas having the power to release,sweep et cetera.It is not an art at all unlessit does so. away,uplift, The question, then,is this: Is the artistic treatat all possible without or, in any case, is it possibleon a basis other sympathetic understanding, than sympathetic understanding? What could a new basis such as thisoffer us? What can be substituted forpity and terror, the twin-yoked classical cause of Aristotle's Catharsis? When one renounceshypnosis to what can one appeal? What attitude should a spectatorpartake of in this new when he is denied the illusionary, theatre, attipassive,resigned-to-fate tude? He should no longer be abducted fromhis own world into the world of art, no longer be kidnapped; on the contrary, he should be ushered into his own real world,with attentivefaculties.Would it be
14
forpity,helpful collaboration?Is it pospossible,perhaps,to substitute to create a new contactbetween the stage and the specsible therewith a new basis forthe artistic treat?I cannot describe tator,mightthisoffer here the new technology of playwriting, of theatreconstruction and of whichour experiments were carriedout. The acting techniques, through in place of sympathetic understanding principle consistsin introducing whatwe will call Alienation. What is Alienation? To alienate an eventor a character is simplyto take what to the event or character is obvious,known,evidentand produce surprise and curiosus of it. Let consider the Lear out wrath of over thanklessthe again ity nessof his daughters. understandThrough the techniqueof sympathetic ing the actoris able to presentthiswrathin such a way thatthe spectator sees it as the mostnatural thingin the world,so thathe cannot imagine so that he is in complete agreehow Lear could not become wrathful, withhim completely, mentwithLear, sympathizing fallen havinghimself into the same wrath.Through the techniqueof alienation,on the other thewrathof Lear in such a way thatthespectator hand, theactorpresents can be surprisedat it, so that he can conceive of still other reactions Lear as well as thatof wrath.The attitudeof Lear is alienated, that from to Lear, as something is, it is presentedas belongingspecifically shocking, as a social phenomenonwhichis not self-evident. This emoremarkable, tion of wrathis human, but it is not universally applicable, there are human beings who do not experienceit. The experiencesof Lear need not produce in all people of all timesthe emotionof wrath.Wrath may be an eternallypossible reaction of the human being, but this kind of itselfin thisway and which wrath,the kind of wrath which manifests has such originsas thoseof Lear, is an ephemeralthing.The processof of presenting eventsand alienation, then,is the processof historifying, and therefore as ephemeral The same, of course, persons as historical, theirattitudesmay also be presented may happen with contemporaries, and evanescent. as ephemeral,historical, What do we achieve by this?We achieve the fact that the spectator need no longer see the human beings presentedon the stage as being unchangeable,unadaptable, and handed over helpless to fate. What he sees is that thishuman being is thusand so because conditionsare thus and so. And conditionsare thus and so because human beings are thus and so. This human being, however,is capable of being presentednot only in thisway,as he is, but in otherwaysalso, as he mightbe; conditions,too, are capable of being presentedin otherwaysthan as theyare. As a resultof thisthe spectator has a new attitudein the theatre.He has the same attitudetowardsthe images of the human world opposite him
BERTOLT
BRECHT
15
on the stage whichhe, as a human being,has had towardsnatureduring thiscentury. He is also welcomedinto the theatreas the greatreformer, one who is capable of comingto gripswith the natural and social processes, one who no longer merelyaccepts the world passivelybut who masters it. The theatre no longerseeksto intoxicatehim,supplyhim with theworld,to reconcilehim withhis fate.The illusions,make him forget theatrenow spreads the world in frontof him to take hold of and use forhis own good. The techniqueof alienationwas developed in Germanythrough a new seriesof experiments. At the Theater am Schiffbauerdamm in Berlin we attemptedto develop a new styleof production.The mostgiftedof the youngergenerationof actorsworkedwithus. There were Helene Weigel, Peter Lorre, Oskar Homolka, Neher, and Busch. Our experiments could not be carriedthrough so methodically as thoseof the foreign schoolsof Stanislavski,Meyerhold,and Vachtangovbecause we had no state supwere,therefore, port,but our experiments pursuedmore widelyand not theatre. Artists of merelyin the professional participatedin experiments amateurgroups,et cetera.From the beginning schools,workers' choruses, amateurgroupsweredeveloped along with the professional. The experiments led to a vast simplification of apparatus,styleof productionand subject matter. It was a question throughout of continuingthe earlier experiments, and thoseof Piscator'stheatre in particular.Even in Piscator'slast experimentsthe consequentdevelopmentof the technicalapparatus led to the realization that the machinery which then dominated everything might also permita beautifulsimplicity of production.The so-calledepic style of production, whichwe developed at the Theater am Schiffbauerdamm, revealed its artisticqualities relatively quickly and the non-Aristotelian with importantsotechnique of drama set about workingimportantly cial subjects. Possibilitiesappeared for transforming the dancelike elements and the elements of group composition of Meyerhold'sschool from somethingartificialinto somethingartistic,and the naturalistic elementsof Stanislavski's into realisticelements.The art of speech was while workadayspeech and the recitajoined with the art of movement, tion of verse were thoroughly fashioned fromthe so-called movement was completely revolutionized. Piscator's principle.Theatre construction theatre principles,freelyemployed,permittednot only an instructive but a beautifulone as well. Symbolism and Illusionismmightbe liquidated in like manner,and the Neher principle for the developmentof scenic design permittedthe scenic designer,according to the needs determinedin rehearsal,to gain profitfromthe acting of the performers and to influencethe actingin his own way. The playwright was able to
16
propose his play to the actorsand the scenic designerin uninterrupted collaboration,to influenceas well as be influenced.Paintersand musicians at once regained theirindependence and were able throughtheir own artificial means to make theirpresence felton the subject matter: the collectiveart projectappeared beforethe spectatoras a seriesof dissociated elements. From the startthe classical repertoire organizeditselfon the basis of The means such artificial of alienation opened a many experiments. broad path of approach to the vital importanceof the dramaticworks of other ages. Through alienation it became possible to produce enterand instructively the worthwhile old plays withoutdisturbing tainingly elementsof over-actualization and museumliketreatment. Liberation fromthe compulsion to practice hypnosisis noted to be amateur theatre(worker, advantageousto the contemporary particularly student,and child actors).It is becomingconceiveable to draw boundaries between the performancesof amateur and professional actors withoutthe need to relinquishone of the basic functions of the theatre. On the basis of the new foundation,forexample, such divergentacting techniquesas perhaps those of the Vachtangovor the Ochlopkov extroopsand the Workers'troop could be joined. The heterogeneous of half a century periments appear to have founda basis fortheirutilization. Nevertheless,these experimentsare not so easily described, and I have simplyto asserthere thatwhat we intend is to make the real artistic treatpossible on the basis of alienation. This is not too terribly surprisingsince,seen froma purelytechnicalpoint of view, even the theatresof past ages produced resultsthroughthe use of alienation effects, the Chinese theatre, forexample, the classicalSpanish theatre, the popular theatreof Brudghel'stime and the Elizabethan theatre. Is this new styleof productionthe new style,is it a technique which is complete and which can be surveyedas such, the definitive result of all the experiments? The answeris: No. It is one way,the way which we have gone. Experiments mustcontinue.The same problemexistsforall art,and it is a giganticone. The solutionwhichwe are striving towards is only one of the perhaps possible solutions to the problem which is this: How can the theatrebe both entertainingand instructiive at the same time?How can it be drawn away fromthis intellectualnarcoticsand be changed froma place of illusion to a place of practicalextraffic perience? How can the shackled, ignorant, freedom-and knowledgethe tormented and heroic,abused seekinghuman being of our century, and ingenious,the changeable and the world-changing human being of
BERTOLT BRECHT
17
this frightfuland important century achieve his own theatre which will help him to master not only himself but also the world? Translated by CARL NOTES 1The importanttheatresare naturally prominentfor the share theyhad in the experiments Ibsen his Brahm, along thisline. Chekhov had his Stanislavski, et cetera. However, the initiativealong the line of increasingthe powers of instructionproceeded next most significantly fromthe drama itself. 2We need not here enter into a painstaking critique of the technocratic point of view of the highlyeducated. Normally that which is of use to society will proceed completelyfrom the masses, and the few inventiveintellectsare here veryhelpless where the sphere of economics is concerned.We are satisfied with the fact that Einstein confirms the ignorance concerningco6perative interests, directlyand indirectly. RICHARD MUELLER

Brecht - Epic Theater

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brecht - Epic Theater

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

On the Experimental Theatre Author(s): Bertolt Brecht and Carl Richard Mueller Source: The Tulane Drama Review,

On The Experimental Theatre

BertoltBrechtin New York about 1942. (Sketchby Edith Schloss.)

The Tulane Drama Review

The Tulane Drama Review

The Tulane Drama Review

The Tulane Drama Review

The Tulane Drama Review

The Tulane Drama Review

The Tulane Drama Review

You might also like