I found Brecht's essays extremely interesting. In light of the political and economic issues in Germany in 1929, I found Brecht's tactic to inspire change innovating. I love when he said, "Real innovations attack at the root." When invested emotionally in plays, my heart beats for the character or the issue that is so well relatable to me, but when I am distanced from a stage I am able to step back and judge. This is what Brecht wants. He wants his audience to alienate or distance themselves emotionally so that they can judge for themselves.
I had a question in class today about the Brecht essays on opera, but it never came around to me. In the portion where Brecht comments on how irrational an opera is because people don't typically burst into song, what did he mean by this quote:
"The irrationality of opera lies in the fact that rational elements are employed, solid reality is aimed at, but at the same time it is all washed out by the music. A dying man is real. If at the same time he sings we are translated to the sphere of the irrational. (If the audience sang at the sight of him the case would be different.)"
I guess what I'm trying to ask, is why would he suggest the audience sing at the sight of the dying man? It seems to me that bursting into song at all is irrational.
To distance oneself from becoming emotionally invested in a play seems backwards. When going to the theatre I expect to disconnect from the real world and mentally/emotionally engage with whatever world is set upon the stage. Brecht, however, wants his audience to do the opposite. Does distancing the audience really bring about, or spur, or inspire social change? And have there been any other successful Brecht-style plays/operas other than his Three Penny Opera?
"The irrationality of opera lies in the fact that rational elements are employed, solid reality is aimed at, but at the same time it is all washed out by the music. A dying man is real. If at the same time he sings we are translated to the sphere of the irrational. (If the audience sang at the sight of him the case would be different.)"
I think he's making a joke. People sing at funerals all the time - but corpses rarely sing at their own funerals.
"And have there been any other successful Brecht-style plays/operas other than his Three Penny Opera?"
Yes. In fact, people influenced by Brecht are frequently more successful at distancing audiences than Brecht may have ever been.
Paula Vogel's "How I Learned to Drive" and "The Mineola Twins" both employ Brechtian staging techniques and dramaturgy, and are quite good. Werner Fassbinder, an East German theatre director and playwright, was equally effective at employing Brechtian themes into his works ("Garbage, The City, and Death" is one example). In fact, there are LOADS of Germans writing after Brecht who built on what Brecht did (we're reading Peter Weiss on Wednesday).
The thing about Brecht is that, frequently, his plays don't practice what he preaches - but other playwrights do, typically those who came after him. You can see his fingerprints on political drama since the 1960s or so - and really any theatre that plays with suspension of disbelief.
A Brechtian staging method that's frequently employed - and frequently effective - involves unconcealing the illusion of theatre: lighting instruments are frequently visible on stage; stage crew and run crew appear on stage; basically, all of the things that happen backstage can be employed on stage, in the sight of the audience, to remind them that they're in the theatre. This stuff is really common.
In an introduction to theatre class, one of the things we stress is that suspension of disbelief isn't necessarily a "given" of the theatrical experience: in some productions, it's maintained and delivers the types of experiences you want when you go to the theatre. In other productions, however, taking you out of the moment can be effective to pursue a given aesthetic goal (which might be to make you realize that you're watching theatre, and marvel at what the stage can do).
A good example of a play we've seen this semester that works with this would be some of the elements of Jerry Finnegan's Sister: Wil Thomas enacted all scene changes himself by shifting tiny boxes, he directly addressed the audience, sometimes he even engaged in commentary about his own character. It's not a perfect analogue to what Brecht is doing, but the sorts of staging opportunities embraced by the show are the kinds of things that Brechtian theory made possible.
I'm glad that we talked about this in class because it made a lot more sense than it did when I read it. When I read the essay, it just seemed stupid to me (probablly because I didn't understand it) but when we broke it down in class, I became interested. Brecht's theory sounds like fun, but it also sounds like a challenge. The "laugh when the characters cry and cry when the characters laugh" thing is difficult to do in my mind because everyone is different; I think I get what he wanted, it just sounds difficult.If I understood correctly, it sounded like Brecht wanted his and other pieces to represent reality and let the audience know that what they were watching was a symbol, not the real thing. He wanted theatre to provoke, to communicate and to actually make a difference; epic theatre should be epic. I did find it ironic that he wanted to distance emotions and plays as much as possible so that his audience wouldn't become attatched because for these riots and protests and things to have taken place, someone had to feel something that they either approved or disapproved of. At least he did what he wanted to do; he made a change.
I completely agree with Donovan. When I was reading the essay by Brecht, I hardly understood what I was reading, but after we went more in-depth in class and Neal explained things further, everything began to make sense. Brecht wants the audience members to know that they are seeing something that is fictitious and take something away from it. He also wants the actors on stage to show that they are aware of the character they are playing, and that they themselves are not that characters. If I understand correctly, Brecht wants to actors to wear their character's personality and demonstrate qualities of someone else, but not to become the character. The actor/audience should be on the same page and understand that they are either teaching/learning a lesson.
I found Brecht's essays extremely interesting. In light of the political and economic issues in Germany in 1929, I found Brecht's tactic to inspire change innovating. I love when he said, "Real innovations attack at the root." When invested emotionally in plays, my heart beats for the character or the issue that is so well relatable to me, but when I am distanced from a stage I am able to step back and judge. This is what Brecht wants. He wants his audience to alienate or distance themselves emotionally so that they can judge for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI had a question in class today about the Brecht essays on opera, but it never came around to me. In the portion where Brecht comments on how irrational an opera is because people don't typically burst into song, what did he mean by this quote:
ReplyDelete"The irrationality of opera lies in the fact that rational elements are employed, solid reality is aimed at, but at the same time it is all washed out by the music. A dying man is real. If at the same time he sings we are translated to the sphere of the irrational. (If the audience sang at the sight of him the case would be different.)"
I guess what I'm trying to ask, is why would he suggest the audience sing at the sight of the dying man? It seems to me that bursting into song at all is irrational.
To distance oneself from becoming emotionally invested in a play seems backwards. When going to the theatre I expect to disconnect from the real world and mentally/emotionally engage with whatever world is set upon the stage. Brecht, however, wants his audience to do the opposite. Does distancing the audience really bring about, or spur, or inspire social change? And have there been any other successful Brecht-style plays/operas other than his Three Penny Opera?
ReplyDelete"The irrationality of opera lies in the fact that rational elements are employed, solid reality is aimed at, but at the same time it is all washed out by the music. A dying man is real. If at the same time he sings we are translated to the sphere of the irrational. (If the audience sang at the sight of him the case would be different.)"
ReplyDeleteI think he's making a joke. People sing at funerals all the time - but corpses rarely sing at their own funerals.
"And have there been any other successful Brecht-style plays/operas other than his Three Penny Opera?"
ReplyDeleteYes. In fact, people influenced by Brecht are frequently more successful at distancing audiences than Brecht may have ever been.
Paula Vogel's "How I Learned to Drive" and "The Mineola Twins" both employ Brechtian staging techniques and dramaturgy, and are quite good. Werner Fassbinder, an East German theatre director and playwright, was equally effective at employing Brechtian themes into his works ("Garbage, The City, and Death" is one example). In fact, there are LOADS of Germans writing after Brecht who built on what Brecht did (we're reading Peter Weiss on Wednesday).
The thing about Brecht is that, frequently, his plays don't practice what he preaches - but other playwrights do, typically those who came after him. You can see his fingerprints on political drama since the 1960s or so - and really any theatre that plays with suspension of disbelief.
A Brechtian staging method that's frequently employed - and frequently effective - involves unconcealing the illusion of theatre: lighting instruments are frequently visible on stage; stage crew and run crew appear on stage; basically, all of the things that happen backstage can be employed on stage, in the sight of the audience, to remind them that they're in the theatre. This stuff is really common.
In an introduction to theatre class, one of the things we stress is that suspension of disbelief isn't necessarily a "given" of the theatrical experience: in some productions, it's maintained and delivers the types of experiences you want when you go to the theatre. In other productions, however, taking you out of the moment can be effective to pursue a given aesthetic goal (which might be to make you realize that you're watching theatre, and marvel at what the stage can do).
A good example of a play we've seen this semester that works with this would be some of the elements of Jerry Finnegan's Sister: Wil Thomas enacted all scene changes himself by shifting tiny boxes, he directly addressed the audience, sometimes he even engaged in commentary about his own character. It's not a perfect analogue to what Brecht is doing, but the sorts of staging opportunities embraced by the show are the kinds of things that Brechtian theory made possible.
I'm glad that we talked about this in class because it made a lot more sense than it did when I read it. When I read the essay, it just seemed stupid to me (probablly because I didn't understand it) but when we broke it down in class, I became interested. Brecht's theory sounds like fun, but it also sounds like a challenge. The "laugh when the characters cry and cry when the characters laugh" thing is difficult to do in my mind because everyone is different; I think I get what he wanted, it just sounds difficult.If I understood correctly, it sounded like Brecht wanted his and other pieces to represent reality and let the audience know that what they were watching was a symbol, not the real thing. He wanted theatre to provoke, to communicate and to actually make a difference; epic theatre should be epic. I did find it ironic that he wanted to distance emotions and plays as much as possible so that his audience wouldn't become attatched because for these riots and protests and things to have taken place, someone had to feel something that they either approved or disapproved of. At least he did what he wanted to do; he made a change.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Donovan. When I was reading the essay by Brecht, I hardly understood what I was reading, but after we went more in-depth in class and Neal explained things further, everything began to make sense. Brecht wants the audience members to know that they are seeing something that is fictitious and take something away from it. He also wants the actors on stage to show that they are aware of the character they are playing, and that they themselves are not that characters. If I understand correctly, Brecht wants to actors to wear their character's personality and demonstrate qualities of someone else, but not to become the character. The actor/audience should be on the same page and understand that they are either teaching/learning a lesson.
ReplyDelete