DRAMA, Styletasters 2 (Brecht, Boal, Brook) Copyright © Jeni WhittakerNOTES 1. Atrisk of upsetting probably the largest percentage of drama students - the gis - | have consistently used ‘he’ and ‘him’ throughout, taking my precedent from the word ‘actor which is now applied to both genders. Any of the exercises can of course be ‘sex-changed to suit your student requirements! 2. You are allowed to photocopy whatever you need from this resource for your sludents. Please note, however, that the material is copyrighted. None of the material in this folder may be reproduced to pass on to other teachers or educational establishments. 3. For any further information about this or any of the other publications, workshops or the Playshare Scheme developed by Dramaworks write to: Jeni Whittaker 12, Polsethow, Penryn, Cornwall TR10 8PA Tel: 01326372561 or e-mail on: jeni@dramaworks.co.uk jit the website at: www.dramaworks.co.uk ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jeni Whittaker has been a teacher, an examiner and a chief examiner of drama for many years. In fact, she pilot-taught on the very first ‘A’ level exam in drama back in the mid- 1970s and has been at the forefront of drama as an exam subject in one capacity or other ever since. Her other experience includes directing and performing professionally as well as adjudicating drama festivals and running a very large and active youth theatre. Since 1996, Jen has been completely free-ance, taking her workshops around schools and colleges all over the country. Her experience as a teacher makes her an ideal person to write a handbook especially for other teachers: she knows the problems of time and resources that teachers experience and can guarantee that al the exercises in this study-file actually work! If you have found this file of work helpful, you may be interested in the companion volume: Styletasters 1, covering Stanislavski, Artaud and Grotowski. For this and other books of practical’ work on practitioners, acting skills or lesson plans, apply to the above address or look for further information on the web-site. copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 1CONTENTS INTRODUCTION BRECHT GAUSES AND EFFECTS THE THEORIES THE THEORIES EXPLORED THROUGH PRACTICE: FINDING THE OUTWARD SIGNS: GEST 20 DEMONSTRATION, NARRATION, BREAKING THE FOURTH WALL VERFREMDUNGSEFFEKT CHOICE: IDENTIFYING MOMENTS OF CHOICE; MAN IN CHARGE OF HIS DESTINY USING THE THEORIES:A FINAL GROUP PROJECT BOAL A BRIEF INTRODUCTION CAUSES AND EFFECTS 32 THE THEORIES THE THEORIES EXPLORED THROUGH PRACTICE: MUSCULAR EXERCISES SENSORY EXERCISES MEMORY, EMOTION AND IMAGINATION TRUST EXERCISES THEATRE USED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES PREPARATION FOR IMAGE THEATRE, MASKS AND RITUALS IMAGE THEATRE - A PREPARATION FOR FORUM THEATRE USING THE THEORIES: A FINAL GROUP PROJECT copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 12 20 21 25 27 29 31 35 44 44 47 49 50 52 56 59 61BRIEF INTRODUCTION GAUSES AND EFFECTS 3 THEORIES THEORIES THROUGH PRACTICE DISCOVERING THE BASICS. EARLY EXPERIMENTS SIMPLICITY, HONESTY AND TRUTH FREEDOM WITHIN BOUNDARIES EMPTY SPACE, EMPTY PROP 87 USING THE THEORIES: A FINAL GROUP PROJECT copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 62 68 75 75 79 85 90ITRODUCTION With an awareness that some syllabuses require not so much a detailed knowledge of practitioners as an understanding of different styles in more general terms, this series is designed to serve that purpose. The emphasis, as in al my work on practitioners, is on understanding the work through practice. Once again, theories are Clearly explained in terms that any student can understand and each theory is then explored and tested through practical exercises. This practical work helps fix the understanding of the theory. ‘The grouping together of Brecht with Brook and Boal makes some good sense. All three practitioners are interested in the social function of theatre, though with Brook it is an interest that he experimented with only as part of his extensive journey into the whole range of theatre experience, past and present, Western and Eastern Brecht saw theatre as a tool to explore man asa social animal and to show how we are both manipulated by social conditions into behaving the way we do, and able, through recognition of these social conditions, to change them for the better. Human beings as interesting characters in their own right are not in his brief, but human beings as alterable cogs in the social machine are. Thus the actor's ability to convince an audience of the believabilty or reality of a character is of no interest to Brecht; instead itis the actor's task to show human behaviour under different circumstances and, more importantly, that if the circumstances can be altered then so can human behaviour. The thieves and beggars of ‘The Threepenny Opera’ only behave in this way because of the social inequality of the classes, the division of wealth and the corruption of those ‘elements of society, such as the police, who should be working for the greater good of all society. Social conditions are alterable and this will cause an alteration in the behaviour of human beings. Brook in his early experimental work used many of the tools of Brecht's epic theatre, combining them - as in ‘The Marat/Sade - with the ideas of Artaud to cteate anew synthesis. But his work wih Brechtian theories is only, small part of his testing of world theories in his all-consuming quest for ‘What is theatre?’ Boal takes the Brechtian idea of theatre as a tool to alter the human condition into logical - but uttimately non-theatrical - routes that are closer to therapy and personal self-discovery. However, his most interesting and passionate work follows the Brechtian ideal of freeing the ‘Oppressed’ layers of society - women, the poor, anyone who is, infact, an undering of any kind. By exposing the mechanisms and workings of society around our daily lives and showing, through working with ‘the oppressed’, that they themselves can afer these things, Boal comes perhaps closes! to a development theatre in a way that Brecht might approve. The format of the book is as follows: 1. Such biographical details as help with the understanding of the practitioner are given and followed by a clear exposition as to how those details help explain the theories. 2, The essential theories of each practitioner are clearly explained. These are easily Photocopiable should you want students to have the text in front of them. 3. Each theory is then explored with one or two exercises. Students should be ‘encouraged to try the theories through this practical work in an enquiring manner, seeking te undersiand the reasons for tha practioner’ eraphsls on such ara! auch a theory bt copyright JHWhittaker © 2003not being afraid to find the limitations of a theory either. 4. Afinal project is set in which the students are expected to explore the practitioner as fully and as ‘truthfully’ as possible. The work on each of these practitioners should take between four to six weeks. This is sufficient for an informed taster but may not have enough detail for an ‘A’ level in-depth essay on that practioner alone; it would be sufficient, though, for comparisons between practitioners and the work throughout invites this approach. Note: should you want to cover a particular practitioner in more depth, there are Study Programmes on Stanislavski, Brecht and Artaud where all the theories are very thoroughly explained and expiored through a wealth of practical exercises. The work in each of these Study Programmes is sufficient for one term’s exploration of that practioner. The Study programmes apply the theories in each case to a variety of texts, something which this series can do no more than suggest. This file of work is a companion to Styletasters 1, which covers Stanislavski, Artaud and Grotowski in a similar fashion. ‘The approaches in both these Styletasters files is different from that of the more detailed Study programmes dealing with a single practitioner. There may be an occasional exercise found in both, but on the whole Styletasters offers a different selection of work. Those teachers aiming at exploring Brook or Grotowski, who already have Study Programmes on the ‘main’ practitioners can rest assured that they are not paying for ‘repeats.’ copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 5BERTOLT BRECHT | 18 6) Al AND EFFECT: Brecht was a colourful, charismatic character who has been the subject of many biographical studies, which | do not intend to repeat. The smoker of foul-smeliing cheroots, boiler-suited style-setter - he had a following of young men involved in a range of arts who dressed identically in the ‘worker's uniform’ of the boiler-suit - leaps off the page of any biography. His musicianship, enjoyment of pub-culture, politics, womanising, famous intolerance - all are important to building up a fiery but very human portrait of Brecht the man and perhaps should be borne in mind when students grumble ‘about Brecht's ‘coldness’, lack of emotion’, ‘dryness’, as they will somewhere along the line. Then it is best to remember that this man made his mark through passion: passion for the theatre, for his own political beliefs, for the rights of the working classes, on top of which he had passionately bohemian and noisy personal life, Despite his inlerest as a person, however, | intend to pick out only those biographical details that help the student to understand why his theories evolved as they did. Like all practitioners, Brecht's theories are the product of the times he lived in. 1. Brecht lived through two World Wars, the First as a medical orderly [after school he began training as a doctor, though he did’ not complete] and the Second from the ‘safe’ distance of exile in the United States. In neither war, then, did he fight and the sights he ‘saw as a medical orderly in the First World War confirmed him as a life-iong pacifist. The Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War One, in which Germany was forced to make expensive and humiliating reparation for the damage caused by the war provoked a deep-seated desire to rebel. Nobody likes his nose rubbed into the dirt and the constant reminders of their defeat :- no armed forces; huge sums paid to all ‘countries deemed to be damaged by Germany during the war, [e.g France on whose land much of the fighting had taken part], which were not just lump sums but crippling amounts of money paid out over years; parcels of German territory given out to nations allied to the victors, and so on - all these factors combined to keep Germany down in the dust. But the Versailles treaty paid scant attention to human nature and human nature is to gtin and bear such humiliations as long as it is politically expedient, whilst nurturing bitteiness and anger inside. Not surprising that Hitler, whipping up pride in Germany, real benefits such as efficient roads, schools and the other structures of society, as well ‘as promises of revenge for all those years of humiliation, could achieve such power. What was Brecht's position through all this?’ Like many intellectuals of the twenties and thirties, his response to the growth of fascism was to look beyond the immediate ‘benefits’ that this seemed to offer to_an alarmed realisation of the lack of Personal and intellectual freedom it also entailed. Fascism was sweeping through many ‘countries in Europe and seemed unstoppable - except possibly by Communism - the only party with sufficient numbers to oppose it. Many intellectuals, like Brecht, became Communists in the 1920s and 30s. A proof of how strong. the Communist Party in Germany was at this time is Hitler's actions on being made Chancellor: almost his first act was to make membership of the Communist Party illegal and to arrest all known Communists and put them in concentration camps. Brecht himself narrowly escaped by fleeing Germany on the day ater Miler became Chancellor. further attempt to discret the, Communit Party inthe eyes of the ordinary German people was to arrange for the burning of the Reichstag Building [the German equivalent of our Houses of Parliament] and to blame the crime on the Communists. This caused an emotional charge of revulsion against Communism amongst ordinary people. By these actions, Hiler had won an unseen politcal skirmish and eliminated a potential threat to his new power. copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 6These facts tell us : a] that Brecht's starting-point, quite understandably, is a critical one of the world and society that he knew. People needed to be warned. And theatre could both show society and its faults and suggest that it is within the audience’s power to alter it. In fact, the growth of Hitler and his party is a model of how people's minds can be altered through propaganda and brain-washing; Brecht's theatre seeks to keep an audience fully aware at all times and conscious ’of its own power to judge, to make decisions and to alter events - the opposite of brainwashing, since awareness and choice are involved. b] It becomes understandable why Brecht embraced Communism as his creed. To the end of his life, and despite Stalin, whose tyranny, especially in the field of the Arts, must have made him uncomfortable, he held firm to the Communist ideal and recognised that society was a long way from this ideal so that sometimes extreme ‘means’ were justified to bring about an ‘end’ that is desirable and for the ‘greater good.’ Hence, many plays from Brech's middle period of writing, the Lehrstiicke [teaching/leaming plays], are attempts to grapple with hard tests to his own natural inclination - tests posed by Communism. Many of these plays are ‘what ifs.’ ‘What if there was a choice between the life of a chid and the lives of a whole village? ['He Who Says Yes’). In the short term, we are betrayed by our emotional inclination to wish to save the child - in any case, the child is ‘there’ in front of us on stage so our emotions are engaged by that fact. Yet, unless the child is sacrificed, the others cannot cross the mountain, fetch the medicine and save the whole village. ‘The whole village’ are unknowns to the audience - their ‘emotions’ are not therefore engaged - a fact of human nature well understood by Brecht, [Don't we have more sympathy for the photograph of the one starving African child than the huge numbers of dying in a famine, umbers that we cannot comprehend and so which cannot capture our emotional interest in the same way?] This fact of human nature - our short-sighted emotional response is ‘one that Brecht is always challenging, probably because he found this the hardest thing to conquer in himself. Intellectually, itis obvious that the ‘greater good’ is more important than the fate of a single individual but emotionally? Hence, we have the start of the whole emotion versus reason debate that forms so much of Brecht's theory. The emotional hysteria of the Fascist ‘message’ as delivered by Hitler, which stirs up an extreme response by manipulating its audience emotionally, would be very suspect to Brecht, bypassing, as it does, the reason. Brecht's plays and methods of production always appeal to our reason and our intellectual understanding. 2. The twenties, with its seething political unrest of all kinds - unrest that spawned {groups of intellectual Communists on the one hand and such as Hitler, seeking to regain national pride, on the other - was a cauldron of clubs, beer cellars and similar venues where people drank and talked heatedly, aired political poetry and songs and put on revues and cabarets where criticism and exposure of events that reached the Newspapers were given amore popular slant. Berlin was full of these places, satirsing the famous figures and events of the day. [ Our society throws them up through such as ‘Private Eye’ , ‘Not the Nine O'Clock News’, ‘Spitting Image’ and more recently the topical digs at’ celebrities and institutions from such as Graham Norton or Ali G.] The audences atsuch places were more apt to jénin, shouting comments and arguing with the performers than a theatre-going audience might. Brecht and his friends were habitués ‘of such places and revelled in the to-and-fro of satirical and political exchange ‘encouraged there. From this background we can understand, a] Why Brecht wants an audience of this kind rather than the formal theatre going aucience. ‘The prevalent cimato n the theatre was Opera or Stanislavat type psychological drama. Both of these encourage the audience to be sucked into the action uncriically, to go along with the conclusions and reasoning of the play without challenging them, Such audiences, as Brecht was fond of saying ‘hang up their brains copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 7\nth ther hats’ nthe theatre cloakroom. He, however, wanted an aware and a orca lence. b] The atmosphere of the clubs and cabarets is irreverent and hard- hitting, whilst stil remaining entertaining. This is a balance that Brecht realised was necessary finally, when writing his ‘great’ plays - ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle’, “The Life of Galileo,’ ‘The Good Person of Setzuan’ and 'Mother Courage and her Children.” c]At these clubs and the boxing venues also favoured by Brecht, spectators and ‘actors’ are lit. Brecht used this idea as part of his Verfremdungseffekt [Distancing effec, arguing that fan audience is tit ows it's an audience; ncviduals do not become isolated and immersed in the magnetic light of the stage as they do when plunged into womb-like darkness. d] The actors at these clubs do not seek to become a character, as in the Stanislavskian theatre; their role is largely satire - clever quick impersonations of well- known figures, made recognisable by certain features or ‘outward signs’, such as voice or mannerisms. ‘A character is adopted and dropped again and the audience share delight with the performer at his. skil without ever losing realisation that they are watching a Performance. This style of acting is what Brecht wanted to retain in his theatre. 3. Fora short while in the late 1920's Brecht worked with the director Erwin Piscator. At the same time he began to read Karl Marx's ‘Das Kapital, the basis of Communism. Both influences came at a point where Brecht was searching for a style and a creed. Piscator’s style of theatre concurs with the one Brecht was feeling his way towards already in his first plays such as ‘Baal’ and ‘Drums in the Night’ Many critics have accused him of stealing the epic style from Piscator, but itis clear from ‘Baal, for instance, that certain features - short separated scenes set over a wide span of years; the inclusion of songs to break up the flow of action; the fact that the songs and titles at the beginning of a scene often tell us what is to ocour in the scene - were already in place. Piscator's main legacy to Brecht was to show him: i. that social and political concerns were proper concerns for the theatre to have il that a playtext was not sacred. Piscator offen manipulated texts to suit his purpose i, that fim and other methods could be combined with live action to give greater impact to the message of a play. This last point is also where they deviated in the end. Brecht found Piscator too inclined to submerge the actor in a welter of images, film footage and the like, diluting the actors role. But he did like the atmosphere of participation and debate often ‘engendered by Piscator's productions. For instance, a play about the rights and wrongs of abortion [in the 1920's rememberl] ended in a fierce debate amongst members of the audience and the actors themselves at the conclusion of the piece. Here we have the barriers broken down between audience and actors and the actors participating as themselves rather than characters they had portrayed. From the above, we can understand: a] the stylistic features that became the halmark of ‘epic theatre.’ In brief summary: i. stage and audience lit - to promote awareness of being a member of an audience in a theatre rather than an imagined place conjured up by theatrical ilusion. il Lights, scene changes, sometimes costume changes, visible to remind the ‘audience they are ina theatre i, the use of the half-screen, not so low as to mask the set-change occurring behind it, on which announcements could be made, slides shown, or whatever ‘teal’ event could be portrayed, to underiine the relevance of the stage action without interfering with the action of a scene. The vehicle for carying the message in a Brecht production, as opposed to a Piscatorian one, is strictly in the hands of the actors. Yet it might be necessary to make links with the real world of current events copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 8for the audience -for instance, showing slides of Hitler, Goebbels and so on before the relevant scenes in ‘Arturo Ui.’ iv. Most importantly, the actors are revealed as actors; they have political convictions which are their own and will inform the way they play their role. Thus the actor playing the villain demonstrates his villainy without trying to justify and understand it emotionally, as a ‘Stanislavskian actor would do. Note that a cast playing a Brechtian play must have shared poitical convictions, obviously. A certain type of actor is required for Brecht - the actor with poitical convictions, who desires to change the world and make it a better place for ordinary working people. (Note, that the theory section further on in the file has further detail of ‘Verfremdung techniques.} From the Piscatorian influence, we understand further: b] why Brecht altered those classic plays he chose to direct [ Marlowe's ‘Edward I" , Sophocles’ ‘Antigone’, for instance]. His idea was to drag a text into twentieth century relevance, and if that meant altering aspects of the text, fine. He believed firmly in the need for a theatre that is relevant to the time in which itis being formed. Certainly, theatre, if i is going to be a political tool, must show the world as it is for that particular audience; they see its relevance, have a chance to observe the flaws in society as pointed out to them and are then free to act upon their discovery. Like Piscator’s abortion debate, Brecht wanted at least an audience that would discuss the revelations of the play and, better, an audience that would do something about it. cc] how instrumental both Marx and Piscator were to giving Brecht political conviction and a style that arises from it. ‘Baal’ had shown the first experiments in a type of style that discouraged an audience from empathising with the hero. But Brecht had achieved this mainly by making the character of Baal thoroughly dislikeable and no particular message is shown in the play. It just gives a picture of a sick society, full of People of al classes prepared to murder casually, to have sex with anyone, male or male - a general portrait of debasement. It does not hint at any answers, any way out; Brecht knows the worid is all wrong, but he does not know how to alter it Marx and ‘Communism give him the answer he needs. From now on, Brecht has a mission. 4. Alter his discovery of Marxism, Brecht is filed with a fervour to decimate his new- found beliefs to all and sundry. He sets about re-educating himself and devises lessons in play-form to cany particularly to schoolchildren and to the working classes. These plays are called ‘Lehstiicke’ that is, teaching pieces or learning pieces; the verb ‘lehren’ means both to teach and to leam in German. These plays set out to explore the implications of Marxist theory. These facts explain: a] Why so many of the Lehrstiicke are unpalatable in their message. Going straight for the jugular, Brecht confronts in them aspects of the ideas that the end justifies the means’ and ‘the individual is of litle importance compared with the common 100d of the mass of people.’ ‘He Who Says Yes’, ‘The Exception and the Rule’ and ie Measures Taken’ are examples of this. Taking these two ideas, in particular, and exploring them dramatically to their logical conclusion, meant that Brecht could confront problems of acceptance of Marxist doctrine within himself - and by conquering his own ‘squeamishness, could help others to conquer their own. in ‘He Who Says Yes’, the young boy has'to consent to his own death for the greater good of the whole village; in "The Measures Taken’, the Young Comrade must recognise that he has imperilled the spreading of Marxist principles and the readjustment of society through his constant pity {or individual people's problems on his way. He, too, has to consent to his own death, since his face as a revolutionary will be recognised and thus endanger the others in his team. Needless to say, by confronting such particularly unpalatable [but logical] ‘consequences of the Marxist doctrine, Brecht embarrassed the Communist Party - particularly with those two plays I have mentioned! Yet the conclusions of both plays copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 9and the two protagonist's acceptance of the necessity for their own deaths, is entirely logical and reasonable in the circumstances proposed by Brecht. Try it for yourselves - Brecht i if’ situations that many people ‘play’ in group discussion: what if your home was burning and you had a chance to rescue only one item? What if @ hospital was burning and you could rescue one ward only - that full of geriatrics or that full of the mentally disturbed? Try it as a class - with a few other ‘what ifs’ too! What if your family was drowning and you could only person? What if you were in a nuclear shelter after the bomb had fallen, with ‘only enough resources to keep alive eight out of the ten people sheltering there? For this one, give each person a ‘skill’ - nurse, mother, artist, etc. - Or take it one step further still - these are the ten last people alive in the whole world? Try this one in groups, where each person is a character with a skill, who has to give his own case for staying. simply dramatising the kind scue one The important thing is to discuss afterwards which responses were emotional and which rational? Brecht was a very emotional - even passionate - man, here trying hard to subjugate this part of his character and embrace the hard but entirely rational proposals of Marxism. You could try one of the above ‘What if's from two standpoints - the emotional response and the rational. Are the conclusions reached different? Ask yourselves which conclusions embraced the greater good - the most people? And which benefited people in the long term rather than ‘just for now.’ The above exercise should help students understand what it is Brecht is trying to do with the Lehrstiicke, which is a period of his life that most students find particularly hard to grasp. Itis human nature to fee! pity for the individual and the immediate problem, rather than to think logically, stand back from it, balance all the pros and cons and then come up with the ‘right’ decision - that is, the decision benefits most people for the longest period. This decision can mean some unpalatable truths on the way - such as the sacrifice of people or long-held beliefs. ‘Why is it necessary to reach some understanding of the Lehrstuck period? | feel that his last plays have to be appreciated through the fier of this difficult middle period of Brecht’s career; without an understanding of the principals of Marxism, how can students really understand the argument of the fruitgrowers and the goatherders in the Prologue to ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle,'for instance? This section of the play is too often dismissed and yet itis central to an understanding of the play as a whole. Through its friendly, ratonal debate, Brecht points out the difference between an emotional response to a problem - the goatherders who have always lived in the valley - itis their home, the air ‘smells special, itis the place of their ancestors - and a rational response -the fruitgrowers ‘who will put the valley to the best use, tailoring the land to work and produce food for the greatest possible long-term good. 4. From 1933, when he fled Germany, to 1949 when he was invited to settle in ‘Communist East Germany, where he formed the famous Berliner Ensemble, Brecht and his family travelled, setting for some time in Switzerland, then Denmark, Sweden and finaly the United States. They stuggled often for existence. Brocht kept the wot from the door by publishing his theories, putting on plays in each of the countries he sellin, dabbing in the word of fim, and 80 on twas during this period that he wrote his great plays, ‘The Life of Galileo,’ ‘The Good Person of Setzuan’, ‘Mother Courage copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 10and her Children’ and ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle.’ After the war, the political cimate in the U.S. was uncomfortable for ‘Communists. Senator McCarthy and others stired the American people up against ‘Communism, which they perceived as a terrifying threat to the American Way of Life. Many people from all walks of life, including the Arts, were hauled in front of the Un- American Activities Committee, accused of Communist leanings and thrown into prison. Brecht fled back to Europe - Switzerland, from where he was finally tempted back to Germany - the Communist section. Here he remained until he died in 1954. Brecht's history is remarkable for two main factors: his personal survival and his knack for ‘hedging his bets.’ In 1933, when many of his friends fled to Russia, he went to Scandinavia and then the United States, on the surface a place ilk equipped to make him happy. Somehow, the thought of Brecht in Hollywood has always made me smile. Most of his friends who went to Russia were caught up in the Stalin purges, imprisoned and killed. Brecht made the right choice. ‘When he was working in East Berlin at the Berliner Ensemble, he was often in trouble for faiing to follow Stalin's orders that theatre should be produced in the Stanislavski style. He survived by tweaking his plays and making promises, which he faled to cary throughthat he offered merely to buy time. In the end hs juaging between his own theatical belies and the sijecket of naturalism tha he Party Inset upon failed, he was imprisoned and may well have suffered the death sentence, but Stalin died instead and Brecht once again ‘got away with it.” His history has many such ‘compromises’ made in the name of survival. Rewriting ‘He Who Says Yes’ for a Communist party unhappy with the death of the hid that that play entails, he wrote ‘He Who Says No’ to please them, to be published in the Eastem block, at the same time sending the original play to be published by his ‘Western publishers. Awarded the Stalin peace prize for his anti-war efforts, he sent the money prize to his bank in Switzerland for safe-keeping. These contradictions in his ‘are part of his charm and speak one main message to me: Brecht believed in survival. He wanted to practise theatre in his own style but the freedom to do so often meant compromise on the way. These facts explain why: a] Brecht wrote many essays extolling facets of Stanislavski in direct contrast to earlier essays in which he slates the whole naturalistic style. Obviously he was seeking to please his East German masters. b] struggling for survival through the 30s depression years and the war, with a wife and family to keep, he wrote theories about his theatrical practices. The theories are what we study today, but they were written, as it were, largely after the ‘event. Brecht wrote the plays, devised the style and only afterwards sought to give justification to this style. | Many of his plays are about survival and, particularly, the embracing of unpalatable necessities. Yes, there is always choice and Brecht never fails to point out the choices his characters make, but sometimes the choices made seem strange unless one bears in mind Brecht's other message, borne out by his own life - to survive, to play for time by seeming to go with the flow. Thus, Grusha chooses to take the baby - a choice which could invite personal disaster but, having made that choice, she follows trough by doing the necessary fing ensure bol to calc sunvel and ho onne marrying te poasant or nsiance Mother Courage may seem to be the ultimate survivor, but she makes choices that certainly ensure her own survival though at the cost of her childrens’. Shen Te is forced to adopt an alter ego, the nasty Shui Ta, to ensure her own survival. Brecht seems to be telling us that this world is such, thet personal survival is impossible within it without compromising personal beliefs and goodness, something he himself did all his life. Once again, we are forced to the point of all Brecht’s work: change the world; needs i, Ifthe good Shen Te, the poor and the downtrodden in hreepenny Opera’ - who must become thieves or beggars to survive - the true mom JHWhittaker © 2003 "and honest Swiss Cheese or Grusha cannot survive without compromising the very virtues they hold dearest, then the world is a sorry place indeed and needs changing. Brecht's place is to point out the faults and problems in his plays, which are microcosms or allegories of society, but it is up to us, the audience, to get out there and do something about it. BRECHT: THE THEORIES Brecht's own writing about his theories are often not helpful or easy to read. You will find that trying out the practical work for each theory given in this file will make things very clear- and the theories themselves are, surprisingly, far easier to understand than it would seem from Brecht’s own essays. ‘The starting point needs to be extracted from the above ‘facts’ given in Causes and Effects. They are: 1. Brecht is a Marxist, who believes that the Communist creed may hold the answers for a horribly flawed and class-ridden society, where the poor are kept poor by the uncaring rich who exploit them. 2. Having discovered this creed, Brecht is keen to expose the faults in society and show that there are choices to make and that the world as itis is alterable. 3. For this to be evident, Brecht needs a thinking and aware audience, who can ‘see what a play is getting at and will at least debate the issues and at best try to alter injustices. ‘4. To keep the audience thinking and aware, the actor needs to be conscious at all times of what he is doing and why. The Brechtian actor is acting from his reason, his, intellect and not from his hear, his emotions. ALL THE THEORIES HANG ON THE ABOVE. Most of the theories are either about: al keeping an actor at one remove from his character, so that he can himself point out that faults and identify what choices he has along the way. To do this properly, the actor cannot be ‘in character’ that is absorbed in the skin of the part, as in Stanistavski, or b] keeping an audience aware of his surroundings - that he is justin a theatre - ‘so that he can watch for the messages being shown him, realise that the world is alterable and act on this realisation. 1.THE WORLD IS ALTERABLE. THE FAULTS OF NATURALISM. BRECHT PROPOSES PLAYS APPROPRIATE FOR THEIR TIME. Brecht is aware of the power and temptation of Stanistavski. Many actors do not feel they are acting unless they become totally immersed in their character and achieve, if possible, the state of ‘Iam.’ lam’ Hamlet, who had a mucked-up childhood losing his father, felt emotionally betrayed by his mother ... and so on. Naturalistic acting is dependent on the whys and wherefores of the emotional state of the character - the chology, the motives - and every one of the actor's moves have to be justified by ing tied into the inner emotional state of the character: | sink to the floor, because | am 's0 gutted by the news of my mother’s betrayal that my legs won't support me ... etc. Frustrated by working with actors trained in Stanislavski, Brecht set out frst to ‘debunk’ the System and then to put something ints place - a new set of possibilities for an actor to follow, to achieve a different effect. Debunking the System consisted of pointing out the absurdities of believing that man and society is unalterable. Naturalism shows a state of mind that is just so ‘because itis.’ The audience are invited to feel along with the characters, to laugh or ‘weep with them, to nod or shake their heads sadly, to see Hamlet's or Julet’s deaths as inevitable, to make links with their own lives. Love in the Fifteenth century is just lke itis today - how wise of Shakespeare - how well he understands the world. Hamlet is a copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 12trait of any ditherer; again and again he is given the opportunity to right a wrong, but Fis his destiny to diher= that is jst the way thngs are; his tragedy IE inevitable’ and unchangeable; there are people just ike him today. ‘What good is such an attitude, says Brecht? What does it do to theatre and the world it should portray, ultimately, to say that mankind is the same wherever and whenever - to look for the similarities in people and events over the centuries rather than to recognise that this needn't be so. If Hamlet is a viotim of political chicanery, Juliet a victim of a society oppressive to young women, what good is it to say that things haven't changed? To look for links with our society, rather than pointing out the aiflerences young gis of fourteen are not forced into mariages any more in the West - isa waste of time. Instead of celebrating a defunct social tradition and shaking our heads ‘over the sadness of it, we should be tuming our minds to areas of our own society that are oppressive or wrong. Re-interpreting ‘Romeo and Juliet's’ story as in West Side ‘Story, for instance, which shows the evils of gang warfare and the oppressive nature of ‘some Hispanic cuitures to their own womenfolk in the 50's, was a legitimate use of the original story because it was made relevant to the sub-culture of New York, To clarify: Brecht was not interested in plays that have no relevance to our time. Each society is different, living in different conditions and with different problems; the plays writen and perlormed should be relevant to that sociely and not showing things as they are, inviting the ‘oh dear, what a shame - shaking of the head sadly’ approach, but rather showing how things could be altered. His plays tend to expose a problem - ‘sometimes many problems. The main characters in the play make decisions that we are made aware of which alter the circumstances. Often answers are not given; the audience is simply shown the problem and itis left to them to decide what would be the best way of dealing with it. For instance, in ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle’ we are given a judge who is not really a judge at all, who allows Grusha the baby because she will be ‘good for it!” Yet in the real world - our world - where judges abide by laws set in stone, that ‘outcome could never have happened. It is part of Brecht's cham [and possibly naivete] that he leaves the working out and connections with our own society up to us, the audience. He does not rub our noses in it. Even the referral back to the valley and how it should be used - ie. the part that was relevant to Brecht's post-war world, where land was being re-allocated everywhere and traditional ways challenged - is dealt with in ‘one line at the end of the play. An audience that is not listening - that is ‘carried away’ by the story could miss the connection altogether. And yet itis crucial. ‘Thus, given the problems Brecht poses for us with his own legacy of plays, an factor teng part in one of his plays must be very aware of he point of the production at every moment. Never should he drift out of his own ‘head! in to the ‘head’ of the character. The two must never be confused. How is this done? Through a dear ‘demonsirative’ style of acting, through the use of ‘gest’ and through distancing exercises designed to keep the actor at one remove from his part. 2. ACTING STYLE: A BLEND OF EXAGGERATION AND REALISM. ‘WEIGHTED’ STEREO-TYPING THROUGH EXAGGERATION OF SELECTED FEATURES. GEST. This type of acting starts from the premise that the actor is not ‘being’ a character but adopting enough of the outward signs of a real person to make him instantly recognisable to an audience. Thus shifty eyes, hand-rubbing, an insincere smile will be the outside signs for dishonesty; a puffed-out chest, nose in the air, a bombastic voice will be the outward signs of pomposity. And so on. This is ‘stereo-typing’ - Dut not quite as we normally use it. The type of stereo- 'yping Brecht proposes is always weighted in such @ way that an audience sees the political point the actor is making about his character. tis not the simple form of stereo- copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 13typing as used in, for example, pantomime. Because Brecht wants the audience to come to certain political and social conclusions, this style of acting will exaggerate features to make the ‘right interpretation unavoidable. Thus, because Brecht is Communist, the aristocracy may be exaggeratedly pompous, uncaring, stupid and selfish with their money and uselessly impractical, having to rely on servants for their every need. The actor needs to pick out all these features and exaggerate them. The outward signs decided upon to portray the aspects of a character relevant to the story are what Brecht calls ‘gest’, that is gesture plus attitude. A gest is always ‘conscious - that is, the actor has come up with it as an outward sign that tells the audience something significant about the character. For instance, he holding ofthe hands up inthe air, loosely flopped over at the wrists for an aristocrat tells an audience that he is impractical, that he does not know what to do with his hands. All the ‘baddies’ in Brecht's world view will be exaggerated similarly, often made humorous in consequence, though without ever losing the social oriicism that lies behind that humour. Brecht was well aware of the anarchic power of laughter. The ‘goodies’ in this world view will tend to be down-to-earth, practical, working people. The style of acting used for them is not exaggerated - the audience needs to recognise that these are individuals ‘ike’ them. That is Not to fall into the naturalistic trap ~ quite. The actor does not become the character, though because the temptation is Greater, Brecht had to devise many ways for the actor to break through his. natural ‘empathy with his role - direct address to the audience; song; the nor-iinear writing of the play which does not allow for the ‘development’ of a character, scene by scene, as naturalism does. Other ‘distancing’ techniques [the actor being ‘distanced’ from ‘empathising with his role] were devised for rehearsal too. These will be explored in the practical section to follow. Why was it so important that the actor taking any role should be ‘distanced! trom his part? Because only if he is, will he be consciously putting over the social messages ol te play. Todo this propery, the actor has to be aware at all imes of what he is doing and why, 3. GEST/ GESTUS= THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE OUTWARD SIGNS WHICH ENABLE RECOGNITION OF A SOCIAL TYPE OF PERSON OR A SOCIAL | have briefly mentioned gest in the above section. Indeed, it is hard not to do gest is so intrinsic to Brechtian performance as to be used the whole time. is the one area which seems to confuse students more than any other of Brecht's theories, it needs a litle bit of careful explanation. However, ‘gest’ is one of those theories that is far easier to prove through practical work. Working through the practical exercises should help identity what it is and clarify it for the student. - Nonetheless, students have to write about itin examinations, so some sort of clear written explanation is also needed. And, by the way, Ris wor noting tat Brecht used ‘gest ard! ‘gestus! fairly indiscriminately. They are not separate ideas but the same idea under two different names. Brecht defines Gest as ‘gesture plus attitude’. Most stage gestures are empty of particular meaning, arising out of a character's inner feelings. A Gest, by contrast, is a gesture made with a particular intention - a consciously planned gesture - to show something about a character or a scene. A gest might be the rubbing together of the hands of the dodgy car salesman or the large insincere smile - anything that helps the audience recognise the outward signs - the give-away signals - of a Social type in a social situation. [For ‘social situation’ | do not mean a party or social gathering of that nature but ‘anything that happens between one person and another.’ Brecht saw copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 14people as social creatures, influenced by and changingin accordance wit diferent social Broumstances; he did not see them = as Sianslavell does - ao constant] Gests must be carefully planned by the actors, consequently, in order to clarity what is going on for an audience. The ‘tight’ gest will lead the audience to the ‘right’ conclusions and will expose the faults in society or in man as society has made him. ‘Actors on stage will be using gest at all times; that is, every action made by their character will be planned in order to expose what is relevant to the play about the character. Gest is also used to describe a whole scene - making sure that in a crowd of people, we can see the social message. An example would be atthe opening of the story of ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle’ - the Governor's family and aristocrats are seen going to church, surrounded by beggars. The contrasting individual ‘gests’ of the uncaring aristocrats and the desperate poverty of their subjects will make a whole-scene ‘social ‘gest’ depicting the outrageous neglect of the rich towards the poor. 4. NARRATIVE THEATRE. THE STREET SCENE AS MODEL OF DEMONSTRATIVE ACTING. Brechtian theatre is narrative theatre. Ittells a story. The story-telling features of narration, past tense and third person are often deployed. Sometimes the narration is from the outside - tke the Singer in ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle’ whose role is to ‘comment on the action, to point out the choices the main characters are making and to break up the emotional fiow of Grusha's journey, allowing us to reflect on her reasons rather than being carried along by the emotional excitement of the events. Often, too, he tells us what to watch out for in a scene before it happens - thus taking away the ‘element of surprise and leading an audience to watch why something occurs rather than wondering what will occur next. Always the emphasis is on the reason rather than emotion. Narration can happen in other ways too. A character can suddenly drop out of role, to comment on his own actions as if from the outside. He can do this in the first son, or in the third. The latter wil distance him and the audience more from identification with his role - reminding them [and the actor] that he is merely an actor demonstrating the actions and feelings of a character. The actor playing ‘Arturo U'in the play of that name, commonly is the one who speaks the epilogue, which comments on the evil of Ui- his own character throughout the play - and warms the audience that there are other examples of tyranny and despotic rule in their own society. By dropping role lke this, the audience is quickly reminded that the actor is’ not ‘Ui’, but just an actor demonstrating the role. This quick adoption of characters - and minute, often comical adjustments of the tole made infent of the audience - are all aspects of the model that Bracht quotes: The Street Scene. The point of the Street Scene, which briefly describes an accident perpetrated by the driver of a car as seen by witnesses, is that the events of the accident are not described by the participants - nor do we see the accident happening in front of our eyes. Both of these approaches would be the province of Stanislavskian naturalistic theatre - which seeks to al encourage actors and audience to become emotionally involved in the characters [the driver, the victim] seeking to understand what in their outer lives might have caused the event [drver worried by quarel with wife or whatever, for instance] b] wants the audience to experience the action as something real, happening in front of their eyes and surprising. Our hearts should be in our mouths as we are ‘caught. up’ in the events. copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 15The Brechtian actor is at one remove - ike a witness of the accident. in describing the events to the audience, he does not pretend to be the driver or the victim; instead he demonstrates the most important things about them that will explain his [the actor's] understanding of the event, asifhe had observed the accident from the ‘outside. Thus, by adjusting his cap to a rakish angle and titing his head in just such a way = he can show an audience that, in his opinion, the driver was not concentrating - he was maybe a ile drunk.. and so on. The selection of the gestures to ‘interpret’ the events for the audience is another example of ‘gest.’ ttis also dear from the Street Scene model, that the Brechtian actor is telling a story. He is describing events that have happened in the past and repeating them for, ‘an audience, with his own interpretations. He may say: ‘Watch this closely... the driver is about to knock down the old lady .... and by 80 doing, he is taking away the element of surprise, essential to naturalistic acting. The audience, knowing what is about to happen, watch the reasons for it happening rather than being cared along with the tension or ‘excitement of the events. Correct ungersancing of Brech's essay entited ‘The Street Scan’ gives the clearest model of Brechtian theatre and its intentions as well as a model of what is ‘expected of the Brechtian actor. 5. EMOTION VERSUS REASON. EMOTION IS NOT AVOIDED, BUT DEMONSTRATED AND THUS SUBJECTED TO REASON. MAN'S FATE IS IN HIS OWN HANDS: THE IDENTIFICATION OF CHOICE. Itis a fallacy to say that Brechtian acting is unemotional acting. | have been into schools where they are so caught up with this idea that what they are producing in the name of Brecht is devoid of any life and interest. Brechtian theatre takes as its subject-matter people as influenced by social situations and events: people during a war [Mother Courage’; people under a tyrannical regime or in a country torn by political strife [The Caucasian Chalk Circle]; people whose good fortune are preyed upon by thet relatives = themselves forced inio poverty by society they live in [The Good Person of Setzuan’]; people forced into street crime by ihe injustices in the social system [The Threepenny Operal]. Though the emphasis of the narration and story-telling is on the events and how individuals react to these events, Brecht is still in the realm of people - not automatons. People’ reactions to things are often emotional; often, too, it is the emotional reaction that can lead them astray - hence the comment from ‘the ‘Singer in ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle’ - ‘Terrible is the temptation to do good’ when describing the pull of emotional responses that Grusha has towards the abandoned baby and her own realisation of the danger into which taking the baby will lead her. Thus it is clear that emotions cannot be avoided; people are emotional beings. Instead, the reasons for their emotional reactions must be studied and identified. This is the task of the actor: to ‘demonstrate’ emotion - not to be carried along with it. Emotion is put under the scientific microscope of the actor's reason - and shown to the audience, inviting their rational response to it. It should be as if the actor playing Grusha is saying - ‘Look, we all understand the response of Grusha to the abandoned baby... she hesitates; her maternal instincts are aroused ... but she is aware that this baby could not be more’ dangerous for her; she has overheard the Fat Prince telling his soldiers to find the litle heir and to kill him... her reason tells her that to take the baby would be foolish ... and yet .... The skillof the actor is to show the choices going through Grusha's head. A series of carefully planned ‘gests’ - hesitation - movement towards the baby [the matemal pull] - movement away [the impulse to save herself and leave him to his fate] - this will demonstrate the emotional choices open to the character, as revealed by the actor. copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 16As described in the above example, Brecht is keen to show that we are all masters of our own fate. Through focusing on characters who, in extreme social situations all have choices as to how they behave, Brecht hopes to open the audience to realisations about their own behaviour and thus to changing it. For this reason, he wanted actors to emphasise the moments of choice within a play, to show that they can change their own lives - as Grusha does - though not always for the best. In fact, Grusha = who listens to her voice of emotion rather than her reason - is one of the few people in Brecht's plays to be rewarded for this - by being granted the boy at the end of the play. An earlier Brecht, the writer of the Lehrstticke, would have admired and rewarded the rational response. 6._VERFREMDUNGSEFFEKT - THE IMPORTANCE OF DISTANCING AND BEING DISTANCED FOR AUDIENCE AS WELL AS ACTOR: Hopefully, everything | have said to date will help you to the realisation that Brecht’s theories are all ‘ofa piece’, intertwined and, above all, logical. The discussion of ‘gest’ ended with the observation that an actor needs to be intellectually aware at all times of what he is doing and why. Without being ‘in his head’, he cannot remain outside his character enough to calculate the ‘right’ outward signs - gests - for the clear exposition of his character. Without being at all tines aware of the social messages implicit in any moment of the play, he will not be making clear what the audience should be receiving, Brecht talked about creating a theatre for the Twentieth century - a theatre for the ‘scientific age.’ He imagined that all his audiences would be made up of rational men and women, willing to be led into a greater understanding of the world and ready to change it. There is arather endearing naivete here; one ofthe qualties | most Ike about Brecht is that he never patronises his audience; he always assumes their intelligence. All that is needed, in Brecht’s view, is the right kind of play to enlist that inteligence - and the right kind of demonstrator-actors to lead them away from the emotional response they have been used to giving when watching naturalistic plays. So Brecht wanted an atmosphere of reason, where the audience's cttical faculties are alerted. The actor's attitude to the play and his role in itis only one of the ways in which Brecht tried for this atmosphere. And we have already discussed how the actor must be ‘in his head’; if the actor is not carried away by the role, then the audience won't be either. Brecht devised a whole load of exercises, mainly for the Tehearsal process, to help the actor keep distanced from ‘being’ his character. Some of these are in the next section, which explores the theories through practice. In addition, Brecht came up with a number of other distancing techniques, to keep the audience aware that they are in a theatre, watching a play put on by a bunch of actors. Every effort is made to prevent the audience from being sucked into the ilusionary world created by the naturalistic theatre. Thus, lights are left on in the auditorium - which may be as brightly lit as the stage - both areas using bright white light, Which leaves no shadows, creates no illusions, and exposes the mechanical and technical devices in every theatre building. An audience left in the light is aware thatit is an audience; they are conscious of their neighbours; they are not isolated in darkness. Lighting bars are left visible; sets are changed openly - or partly visible under a half-curtain; sometimes costumes are added to on stage in open view. Settings will not be detailed as in the naturalistic theatre; there is no attempt to create a teal’ room, for instance. Instead, only those items actually used in the scene are brought on - achair, a table, a door-frame, for instance. Note, though, that if a char is used it must be appropriate for the ‘scene. It must not’be just any old plastic schoo! chai, but a asant's hut will require a wooden chair, lovingly made, as it would be by the peasant mse - Brecht isnot slapdash about such props as are used. Ths atten to detallis all part of over-all ‘gest. A lovingly made chair is a ‘gest’ which extolls the craft of the copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 7worker; the haphazard collection of weapons used in ‘Mother Courage’ may be a visible gest which, by using some anachronistic modem weaponry and costuming opens out ‘ur response from one specific to the Thirty years War to one which embraces all wars. ‘So, what does ‘Verfremdungseffekt’ actually mean? It is the word that Brecht uses to suggest that, in order to keep intellectually aware, the actors and the audience need to be ‘distanced’ enough from the emotion of the piece to make a measured and ratonal response to what is going on. Nowadays, itis usually translated as ‘distancing’; Previously, was translated as ‘afenation’- aterm which has unfortunate connotations of ‘epelling’ - something that Brecht certainly did not mean. The literal meaning, however, is ‘making strange’: the ‘making strange effect.’ This is the translation | prefer to use since | believe it is closest to what Brecht really intended. When something is ‘made strange’, we look at it afresh, as if for the first time. Brecht intended us to reassess every aspect of the world around us; to do this, we have to ‘make it strange’, look at it from new angles. It really is the attitude of the scientist looking at things under the microscope - as Suggested when Brecht extolls a theatre for ascientiic age. By keeping away from emotional involvement with his character, the actor has had to put his character under the microscope: what has made this man react in this way? Why? Is it logical? What aspects of it do | need to point out to an audience for the character to be re-assessed and understood? Having understood all these things, the actor is able to come up with the right ‘gests’, the correct outward signs, to expose his character to the audience's critical understandit By keeping away from emotional involvement with the play, through all the distancing techniques practised in the performanee, the audience maintains the attitude of the scientist - interested and aware. His reason is appealed to and is uppermost. He has been encouraged to look at the world from the different angles offered by the cast and the playwright. 7. BREAKING THE ILLUSION. THE DEVICES WITHIN THE PLAY USED TO KEEP THE AUDIENCE AWARE. THE MAIN FEATURES OF ‘EPIC THEATRE.’ The main legacy of Brecht’s theatre for the twentieth century is the breaking down of the fourth wall.’ Stanisiavsk’s System had been in part about creating an imaginary fourth wall between the audience and the actors, beyond which the actor's attention never strayed. In fact, in Stanisiavskian theatre, every effort was made to pretend that the audience were not there at all - that the characters in the play were real people sitting in, for instance, their real dining room, making conversation, suffering in front of us - living their lives with the audience as privileged flies on the wall who observed with bated breath and wondered what would happen next. The darkness of the aultorum, the realty ofthe sels, props and costumes all helped contribute tothe sense of reality, building up an illusion. Much of the System concentrates on the importance of maintaining that illusion, by the actor building up a character so complete and detailed, with a history over and above the immediate needs of the play, so thal through the actor's belief in his character - ‘becoming’ the character - the audience believes too, is ‘swept along with the illusion. Brecht found this ‘kidding’ of an audience, this tricking them into believing that something illusory is ‘real, literally disgusting. How could it be that a whole art form is devoted to convincing an audience that a lie is actually the truth? How can rational human beings, members of the modern scentiic age, want to be tricked so? Better by far, in his view, not to conceal the mechanics of the stage, in fact to expose the lights, props and other devices as mere tools for another purpose entirely - to tell a story, to expose aproblem in society, to entertain, to satirise, to promote thinking, debate, criticism and copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 18action. Instead of characters locked into their own unchangeable patterns, he offers a view of people as alterable. And because this is where his interest lies, he needs to break down the ultimate illusion - that of the fourth wall. Brechtian actors use direct address, make eye contact with individuals in the audience, appeal constantly to the audience's own sense of reason. tis strange thathe never went so far as to use a different stage shape than the proscenium arch which he inherited from Stanislavski. But he does point the way for a whole new throng of practitioners after him to do just that - to take it one stage further from the Brechtian actors Who cross over the barrier with their eyes and verbal direct address, to actors who challenge the audience- actor relationship by touching , surrounding them and so on. The productions offer a variety of other ways in which Brecht worked at breaking that naturalistic ilusion - or rather, not allowing it to ocour. The bright non- naturalistic light, the simplified settings and costumes helped too. Written into the plays are other features of what became known as the ‘epic’ style: 1,Songs, often delivered in a harsh satiical style, in itself not conducive to an audience being carried along, broke up the scenes - particularly at potentially emotional moments. 2. Placards, or headings projected on the half-curtain, told an audience what to ‘expect of a scene. This took away the element of surprise - surprise being dangerous, since it keeps audiences emotionally involved rather than using their brains. Knowing that, say, a murder is going to occur ina scene makes the audience look for the reasons for it; they analyse the situation rather than being horrified emotionally by the deed itself. 3. The scenes themselves were non-linear, or took great leaps in time; they were episodic. This prevents an audience being carried along with the unraveling of a story or the development of a character. We move from one essential episode to another and can concentrate on that and the lessons to be leamed from it; different situations are focused on and we see how characters react to them. This is a different way of viewing characte showing, thal people are diferent in diferent. sets of iroumstances [with the potential to do things differently and aller events], not canied along with events, not caught up, as so many older plays suggest, with the idea of an unalterable tragic destiny or ‘Fate. 4. Many Brecht plays have huge casts, though because of the episodic style of ‘epic theatre’ many characters will appear once and not again. This encourages the idea of doubling or even trebling roles for many of the actors, further breaking the illusion. ‘Actors cannot “be’ a character with such quick changes from one to another. Actors sometimes change roles one after the other, in quick succession [I once saw a highly successful version of ‘The Good Person of Setzuan' performed by five very busy actors This obviously ‘encourages furher the idea of identlying charactrs by daar ‘outward ‘signs’ or gests. copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 19BRECHT: THE THEORIES EXPLORED THROUGH PRACTICE 1, FINDING THE OUTWARD SIGNS - GEST. a. Find identifying ways of moving and talking for the following: a car salesman with an obviously dodgy motor to get rid of. 4 telephone sales person on commission, desperate to full his quota of sales a politician on a walk-about in his constituency a wealthy business-man making a bid to buy a failing business a lawyer defending a murderer; though obviously guilty the lawyer has found a ‘loophole’ in the prosecution's evidence b. Having tried out each of these characters, seek to cut out all but the most necessary identifying gestures, facial expressions, voice tones. Is there one repeated gesture, perhaps, that can be identified as the most ‘telling’ - clearly exposing what is going on to an audience? Try these out in groups, - eaci taking one of these characters - and testing their character out on the others. If the rest of the group's - the audience's - reaction to a character is that of recognition and, even better, the stirings of anger or outrage, then the ‘gest’ has been successtul Gest requires an actor conscious of what he is doing at alltimes. The selection of the right detail to make the character clear and to ellicit a response from the audience is what gest is all about. . A group of actors seeking to expose the faults of, say, the aristocracy might come up with the following criticisms: pompous nearing ‘stupid sellish with money uselessly impractical Find a gesture or mannerism for each of the above that shows this point clearly. Add the right voice to help the ‘gest.’ |t may be that the above list contains too many criticisms to be effective in Practice. In a play like ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle’, where Brecht crticses the axislocracy, would probably be better for a group of alors to whitle the gests down {rom allof the above to only one or two of the most important - perhaps uncaring [of the lower classes) and uselessly impractical - as when the Governor's Wife cannot pack her belongings even in a crisis, or the Fugitive prince cannot cut his food. copyright JHWhittaker © 2003 20