brecht_epic theater (1)

8/21/2019 Brecht_Epic Theater (1)

1/17

On the Experimental TheatreAuthor(s): Bertolt Brecht and Carl Richard MuellerSource: The Tulane Drama Review, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Sep., 1961), pp. 2-17Published by: The MIT PressStable 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 [email protected].

.

The MIT Pressis 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 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1125000?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1125000?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress


2/17

On The Experimental heatreBy BERTOLT BRECHT

For at least twogenerations ow theserious-mindeduropean theatrehas existed n an era of experimentation.he diverse xperiments avenot as yetproducedanyunequivocal,clearlydiscernible esults, ut theera is byno means at an end. It is myopinion thattheexperiments ol-lowed twoseparatecourses,which, houghthey ccasionally ntersected,can, when separated,be individuallypursued. These two courses ofdevelopment re distinguished rom ne anotherbymeansof their ndi-vidual functions: ntertainmentnd instruction,hat s to say,the the-atre organizedexperimentswhich were to increase ts powersof enter-taining, nd experiments hichwereto increase tspowers f nstruction.In a worldas fast-movingnd dynamic s ours theenticements f en-tertainmentre quick to wear out.We must lwaysbe preparedto meetthedesireforprogressive ublic stupefactionwithnew effects.n orderto distract ts alreadydistracted pectators he theatremustfirst f allmakehim concentrate. t must ure himwith itsspell out of his noisyenvironment. he theatremustdeal witha spectatorwho is tired,ex-hausted with his rationalizedday labor,and vexedwithsocial frictionsof all sorts.He has fledhis own smallworld,he sitshere a fugitive.Heis a fugitive, ut he is a customer s well. His escape can be here orelsewhere.The competition f one formof theatrewithanotherform,and of the theatre n generalwith the cinema,occasionscontinuouslynew struggles,truggleswhichwill alwaysexist anew.In reviewing heexperimentsfAntoine,Brahm, tanilavski,GordonCraig,Reinhardt,Jessner,Meyerhold,Vachtangov,nd Piscator,we dis-coverthatthey uite remarkablynlargedthepossibilities fexpressionin thetheatre.ts capacity o entertainhas grownunquestioningly. heartofensembleplayinghas created n uncommonlyensitive nd elasticstage-being.A social milieu maybe depicted in itsmostsubtle detail.Vachtangovand Meyerholddrew certain dancelike formsfromtheAsiatic theatre and created a completechoreography or the drama.Meyerhold ealized a radicalConstructivism,nd Reinhardt ransformednatural,would-beshowplaces nto stages:he performed veryman ndFaust in publicplaces. Open-airtheatresaw productions f A Midsum-merNights'Dreamin themidst fa forest,nd in theSovietUnion an at-temptwas made to repeat the storming f theWinterPalace withtheuse of the battleshipAurora. The barriers etweenstageand spectator3

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

/ fq

*81BertoltBrecht n New York about 1942.

(Sketchby EdithSchloss.)



4/17

4 The Tulane Drama Reviewwere demolished.At Reinhardt'sproductionof Danton's Death in theGrossesSchauspielhausactors sat in the auditorium,and in MoscowOchlopkovseatedspectators n thestage.Reinhardt utilizedthe "flowerway"oftheChinesetheatre nd borrowed rom he circus-arenahe tech-nique ofplaying n themidstof the audience. The directionof crowdswas perfectedby Stanislavski,Reinhardt,and Jessner, nd the latterwon a thirddimensionfor thestagewithhis stair constructions. evolv-ing stagesand domed cycloramaswere invented, nd lightingwas dis-covered.The reflectormade possible illumination on a large scale. Acomplete ightboard permitted s to conjure up the atmosphere f aRembrandtpainting.We might ust as easilyin thehistory f theatrename certain ighting ffects einhardtian, s in thehistoryfmedicinewe have named a certain heartoperationafterTrendelenburg.Thereare newmethods fusingtheprojector,nd there s a newwayofman-agingsound. As far as theart of the theatrewas concerned, he bound-aries between the cabaret and the theatre nd between the revue andthe theatreweredemolished.There were experimentswithmasks,bus-kins,and pantomime.Far-reachingxperimentswere undertakenwiththe ancient classical repertoire.Time and again Shakespearewas re-fashioned nd changed.We have extracted o manyfacesfrom he clas-sical authors hattheyhave scarcely nymorein reserve.We have livedto see Hamlet in dinner jacket and Caesar in uniform, nd at leastdinner jacketsand uniforms ave profited y it and won theirway torespectability. xperiments, s you can see, are veryunequal in theirworth,nd themostnoteworthyrenotalwaysthe mostvaluable,thougheven themostworthless re scarcely ver completelyworthless.As faras Hamlet in dinner acket is concerned,t is scarcely nymore ofa sac-rilegetoShakespeare hanthe conventionalHamlet in silktights. ne isalwayskeptwithinthe framework f a costume-play.One can generally ay that the experiments o improvethe theatre'spowersof entertaining ave not been lacking n results.They have inpaiticularled to thedevelopment f theatremachinery. hey are,how-ever,byno means at an end. In fact, heyhave neveryetbeen put intogeneralusage,as have theexperimental esults f other nstitutions.newmedical operation performedn New Yorkcan within very horttime be performedn Tokyo. That, however, s not the case withourmodernstagetechnology. he artist s continuously inderedbyan evi-dent reticence n takingover unbiasedlythe experimentalresultsofanother rtist nd improving n them.Forgeryn art s considered dis-grace.This isone of thereasonswhy echnological rogress as for longwhilenot been so great s itmight e. The theatren generalhas not fora longwhile been broughtup to thestandards f moderntechnology.t



5/17

BERTOLT BRECHT 5amuses tselfwith thegenerally wkwardutilization fa primitive urn-ingmechanism orthe tage,with microphone nd withthe nstallationof a few utomobile ight eflectors.ven theexperimentsn theprovinceof actingtechniques re seldom made use of. It is only recently hatthisor that actor n New York is becoming nterestedn the methods f theStanislavski chool.What are we to sayof theother, he secondfunction,whichaestheticshave bestowed on the theatre: instruction? ere, too,we findexperi-ments and the results of experiments.The drama of Ibsen, Tolstoy,Strindberg,Gorky,Chekhov,Hauptmann,Shaw,Kaiser,and O'Neill isan experimentaldrama. It is an important xperimentwhichreshapestheproblemsofour time nto theatrical erms.'We have thesocial-critical rama of environment rom bsen to Nor-dahl Grieg, nd theSymbolist ramafrom trindbergo PairLagerkvist.We have a drama typified, erhaps,by myThreepennyOpera, a para-ble type fdramawhich sdestructivef deologies, nd wehaveoriginaldramaticforms, evelopedbysuchpoetsas Auden and Kjeld Abell,andwhich,seen from a purely technicalstandpoint,contain elements oftherevue.At timesthe theatredid well in endowingsocial movements(the emancipationofwomen,perhaps,theadministration f justice,hy-giene, even, in fact,the movementforthe emancipationof the prole-tariat)withdefinitempulses. tillit cannotbe secreted hatthe nsightswhich he theatre ermittednto the ocialstituationwerenotparticularlyprofound.It was more or less, as the objections pointed out, a meresymptom f the superficial haracter f society.The intrinsic ocial le-galitieswerenot made perceptible.Consequently heexperimentsn theprovinceofthedrama led to an almostcompletedestructionfplot andthe image of man in the theatre.The theatreby placing itself n theserviceof social reformufferedheloss ofmanyof itsartistic fficacies.Not unjustly, hough ftenwithrather ubiousarguments,o we lamenttheprostitutionfartistic aste nd theblunting f thestylisticense. nfact, hereprevailsover our theatre oday, s a consequenceof themanydiversekindsof experiments, virtualBabylonianconfusionof styles.On one and the same stage, n one and thesame play,actorsperformwithutterly issimilartechniques, nd naturalisticcting s done withinfancifulscenic designs.The techniquesof speech have fallen into alamentablestate, ambics are spokenas theywerecommonspeech,theparlance of the markets s made rhythmical,t cetera,et cetera. Themodernactor findshimself ust as helplesswhen faced with the tech-niques ofmovement. t is meant to be individualbut is onlyarbitrary,it is meantto be naturalbut is onlyaccidental.One and thesame actorutilizes an action which is suitable for the circus-arena,nd the next



6/17

6 The Tulane Drama Reviewmoment piece of mimewhich s discernible nlyfrom hefirst owsoftheorchestra,nd at thatonlywitha pair ofopera glasses.Let us havea clearance sale of all the styles f all theages,a totallyunfaircompeti-tion between all possible and impossibleeffects ne certainly annotsaythat uccesseshave been lacking,nor can one saythattheyhave costhimnothing.I comenow to thatphaseof theexperimental heatren whichall thehitherto escribed ffortschievedtheir ighest tandard nd with ttheirvariousturning-pointsr crises. t is in thisphase that all themanifesta-tions of theimportant rocess, ositiveas well as negative, ppeared attheirmostprominent: hustheincrease of thepowersof entertainmentalong withthedevelopment f the techniquesofstage llusion,and theincreaseof thepowersof instructionlongwith the fallof artistic aste.The mostradical attemptto endow the theatrewithan instructivecharacterwas undertakenbyPiscator. tookpart in each of his experi-ments, nd therewas none of themwhich did not have as its objectivetheheightening f the stage'spowersof instruction.t was a question,then,of mastering he important ontemporaryubjectsforthe stage:thestruggle orpetroleum, heWar, theRevolution, ustice,race prob-lems,et cetera. t seemednecessary o rebuildthetheatre ompletely.tis impossiblefor me to enumeratehere all the inventions nd innova-tions which Piscatorutilized togetherwithvirtually ll of the newertechnological dvances n order to bringto thestage mportantmodernsubjects.You undoubtedlyknow of some of them, uch as the use offilm,which transformedherigidbackdropof the stageinto a new co-player, nalogous to theGreekchorus, nd theconveyor eltwhichen-abled the stage floor o move so thatepic scenescould roll past,as inthemarchof thegood soldierSchweik o thewars.Hithertothese nven-tionshave not been adoptedbythe nternational heatre, heirmannersof ighting hestagehave been all butforgotten,heirutterlyngeniousmachinerys rusted, nd grassgrows ver all.Whyis it?It is necessaryn orderto discontinue thiseminentpolitical theatreto reveal its political origins.The increaseof the political powersoflearningcollided with the approachingpolitical reaction.Today, how-ever,we want to confine urselves o pursuingthe development f theturning ointof thetheatre n theprovinceof aesthetics.The experiments f Piscatorcaused,above all, completechaos in thetheatre. f thestagewas transformedntoa machineshop,thentheaudi-toriumwas transformednto an assemblyhall. For Piscatorthe theatrewas a parliament, hepublic a legistlative ody.To thisparliamentwaspresentedin plastic terms mportant,decision-demanding, ublic af-



7/17

BERTOLT BRECHT 7fairs. n place ofan addressbya memberofparliament oncerning er-tainuntenablesocial conditions here ppeared an artistic eproductionof thesituation.The theatre ad the ambitionto prepare tsparliament,thepublic,tocometopoliticaldecisionson thebasisof the llustrations,statisticsnd slogans hownon the tage.While Piscator's heatre id notwaiveapplause, t desireddiscussion venmore. t did not wantmerely oprovide tsspectatorswith an experience,but in addition to wrestfromthem a practicalresolve to take an active hold on life. All meanswerejustified o achieve thisend. The technical spectsofthetheatrebecameinordinately omplicated.Piscator's tagemanagerhad in front fhima promptbook whichwas as differentrom he promptbook of Rein-hardt's tagemanager s theorchestralcoreofa Stravinskypera is fromthe manuscriptof a lute singer.The machinery n the stagewas soheavy hat tbecamenecessaryosupport he tagefloor ftheNollendorfTheaterwith ronand cement truts,o muchmachinerywashungfromthedome that t once collapsed.Aesthetic spectswere completely ub-ordinated in the political theatre.Away with painted sets when onecould show a filmwhich was shotat theveryplace of the action,andwhichpossessed documentary,ertifyingorth bout it. And welcomethecartoonwhentheartist, or xampleGeorgeGross,had something osay to the parliament-public.When the GermanKaiser fileda protestthroughfiveattorneys hatPiscatorintendedto personify im on thestagebymeans of an actorPiscatormerely skedwhether he Kaiserhim-selfwould like to make an appearance,one might ay thatPiscator of-feredhim an engagement.n short: heobjectivewasof suchsignificanceand importance hatall meansseemed ustified. he preparationof theproduction ccordedwiththepreparationof theplay.A whole staff fplaywrights orkedtogether n theplay,and theirworkwas aided andcontrolledbya staff f experts,historians,conomists,nd statisticians.The experiments f Piscatorwere the source of virtually ll conven-tions.They tookhold of and changedthecreativeprocessof theplay-wright, he styleof production, nd theworkof the theatre rchitect.Altogethertheystrovefor a completelynew social functionfor thetheatre.

The revolutionaryourgeois esthetic, oundedbythosegreatenlight-eners,Diderot and Lessing,definedthe theatre s a place of entertain-mentand instruction. he Age of Enlightenment, hichushered n apowerful psurge fEuropean theatre, ecognized o oppositionbetweenentertainmentnd instruction.ure amusement, venin regardto tragicsubjects, eemedtoDiderot to be quite empty nd discreditablewhenitfailed to add to the knowledgeof the spectator, nd elements of in-



8/17

8 The Tulane Drama Reviewstruction,naturally n artisticforms, eemed in no way to disturbtheaspectof amusement; t was after thisthat amusementwas givenmoresubstance.If we observe the theatre f our timewe shall findthat the twocon-stituent lementsof drama and the theatre, ntertainmentnd instruc-tion,have come more and more into sharp conflict.This oppositionexiststoday.Naturalism,with ts "intellectualizationf the arts,"whichprovideditwith ocial bearing, ad doubtlessparalyzed ignificantesthetic orces,particularlyhatoffantasy,heaesthetic ense, nd thegenuinelypoetic.The instructive lementsplainlyharmed theartistic lements.The Expressionismfthepost-warrahad described heworldas willand representationnd broughta characteristicolipsism. t was thetheatre's nswerto thegreatsocial crisis, ust as the philosophicalMa-chismuswas philosophy's nswerto it. It was a revoltof artagainst ife,and the worldexistedfor t only as vision,strangelyhattered, he off-springof frightenedminds.Expressionism,whichgreatly nriched thetheatre'smeansofexpression nd brought bout a hitherto nexploitedaestheticgain, showed tself n no positionto interpret he world as anobject of human usage. The theatre'spowers of instruction hriveledaway.The instructional lements fa Piscatorproduction r ofa productionlikemyThreepennyOpera were, o to speak, nstalled;theydid not re-sultorganicallyfrom hewhole,they tood in oppositionto thewhole;they nterruptedheflowof theplay and itsevents, hey hwartedym-pathetic understanding, heywere cold showersforthosewho wantedtosympathize. hope that hemoralizing artsoftheThreepennyOperaand itsdidacticsongsare to some extententertaining, ut surelytherecan be no doubt thatthis ntertainments differentrom hatwhichoneexperiencesfromthe scenesof the play proper.The character f thisplay is two-pronged,nstruction nd entertainmenttand together nopen hostility.n Piscator's roductionsheactorand the tagemachinerystoodtogethern open hostility.We perceivefrom he factthatthrough ntertainment he public issplit nto at leasttwohostile ocial camps, o that thecommon rtexpe-riencefallsto pieces; it is a political fact.The enjoyment f learning ssubject to social position.The artistic reat s subject to political atti-tude,so that t can be challengedand become accepted.But even ifweconsideronlythat one partof thepublic that s in political agreement,we are able to seehow theconflict etween thepowersofentertainmentand thepowersofinstructionecomescritical. t is a quite definite, ew



9/17

BERTOLT BRECHT 9kind of learningwhichcannot reconcile tself o a definite, ld kind ofself-entertainment.n one of the later)phasesof theexperiments verynew increase n thepowersof instructioned to an immediatedecreasein the powersof entertainment."This isn't theatre ny more, t's anadult education class.") In reverseorder,the effect pon the nervoussystem,which is the resultof emotional acting,consistentlyhreatenedthe performance's owersof instruction.Bad actorswere often nter-ested n utilizing he nstructionalspectof thetheatre.) n otherwords:themore the public was emotionally ffected he less capable it was oflearning.That is,themore we brought hepublic to where t agreed, x-perienced, ympathized,ust thatmuch less was it capable of seeingtheinsand outs of thematter,hatmuch essdid itlearn,and themore therewas to learn, ust thatmuch esswas theartistic reatbrought orealiza-tion.The crisiswas this:theexperiments f half a century, rought boutin almost all civilizedcountries, ad won for the theatre n utterly ewrangeofsubjects, new sphereofproblems, nd therebymade it a fac-torof eminentsocial significance. ut theyhad brought he theatre othe place whereany further evelopmentof the verdict-finding,ocial(political) experiencemustnecessarilyestroy heartistic xperience.Onthe otherside, however, he artistic xperiencealwayscame about lessoftenwithout hefurtherevelopment ftheverdict-findingxperience.A technicalapparatus and a styleof productionwas developed whichwereable toproduce llusionrather hanpracticality,ntoxication atherthan elevation,and deceptionratherthan enlightenment.Of whatprofitwas a Constructivisttagewhenitwas not sociallycon-structive, hatprofitwas there n thefinestightingplantwhen it illu-minated false and childishrepresentationsf theworld, nd whatprofitwas there n a Suggestivistrtof thetheatrewhenit servedonlyto con-vince us that an X was a U? Of what use was thewhole box of magictrickswhen it could onlyoffer s artificialubstitutes oractual expe-riences?What purposewas there n thisconstant lluminationof prob-lemswhichalwaysremainedunresolved?Was all thismeant to gratifynot onlythenervesbut theunderstandings well?One could not pos-siblyhave ended here.The developmentpressedfora fusionof thetwofunctions,ntertain-mentand instruction.If theseendeavorsare to attaina social consciousness hentheymustfinallyprepare the theatreto develop a view of life throughartisticmeans,todevelopmodelsof thesocial life ofhumanbeings, n ordertohelp thespectator ounderstandhissocial surroundingsnd tohelp himcontrolthemrationally nd emotionally.



10/17

10 The Tulane Drama ReviewMan todayknows ittle boutthe egalities hich ontrol is life.Asa socialbeinghisgeneral eactionsemotional,ut these motionale-actions revague, nexact,neffective.he sources f his emotionsndpassionsre ustas bogged p andpolluteds the ources f hisknowl-edge.Mantoday,ivingna rapidlyhanging orld nd himselfapidlychanging,acks n image f theworldwhichgreeswith im ndon thebasisofwhich e canact with view osuccess. is conceptionsfthesocial ifeofhumanbeings refalse, naccurate,nd contradictory,isimage s whatonemight all impracticable,hat s,withhisimageoftheworld,heworld fhumanbeings, e cannot ontrol heworld.He

does not know nwhathe isdependent,e lacks grasp n socialma-chinery hich s necessaryo cause thedesired ffect. knowledgefthe nature f things,o greatlynd so ingeniouslyncreasednd ex-panded,s incapable, ithout knowledgefthenature fman,humansocietyn its otality,fmakinghis ontrol fnature source fhappi-nessformankind.twillfar ooner ecome source funhappiness.oit happens hatourgreatdiscoveriesnd inventionsave become never ncreasinghreatomankind,o that oday earlyverynventionisreceived ith cry ftriumphhich oonturnsnto cry ffear.Before hewar experienced genuinelyistoriccene n theradio:the nstitutef thephysicistielsBohr n Copenhagen asbeing n-terviewedoncerningrevolutionizingiscoveryn thefield fnuclearfission. he physicistseportedhat new, remendousource fenergyhad beendiscovered.When the nterviewerskedwhether practicalutilizationf the xperimentereyetpossible, e receivedhe nswer:No,notyet.n a tone fgreat eliefhe nterviewereplied: hankGodforthatl firmlyelieve hatmankindsnotyetmaturenough otakepossessionfsuch source fenergyltwasclearthathehadonly hewar ndustriesnmind.The physicistlbert instein oesnotgoquiteso far, uthegoesfar nough, hen n a few hortentences,hich reto be buriedn a capsule t theNewYorkWorld's air, s a reportnour time o futureenerations,ewriteshefollowing:Our imesa mine f nventiventellectshosenventionsouldeaseour ives onsiderably.ecrosshe easbymeansfmechani-cal power,nd.wealsousethat owerofreemankindromllfatiguinghysicalabor.Wehave earnedoflyndareablebymeans f electric aves o disseminateews nd informationthroughoutheentireworld. etproductionnddistributionfmerchandisesfar romrganized,o that achofusmustive nfear fbeing orcedromhe conomicphere.Moreover,eoplelivingndifferentandsmurderneanothert irregulareriodicintervals,o that llwho onderhefuture ustive nfear. hiscomesromhe acthathentelligencend haracterf hemasses



11/17

BERTOLTRECHT 11are incomparablyower hanthe ntelligencend characterf thefew, hosewhoproduce hingsf worth or hecommon ood.

Einsteinthusprovesthefactthatthe controlofnature, n so faras wehave controlof it,contributesittleto a happylife forman,and furtherthatman in general s lacking nknowledgehowto turnthesediscoveriesand inventions o his own use.' They know too little about theirownnature.The fact hatmanknows o little bout himself s thereasonwhyhis knowledgeof nature s of so littlehelp to him. In pointof fact, hemonstrousoppressionand exploitationof man by man, the warlikebutcheries and peaceable degradationsof all kinds across the entireplanet have almostbecome naturalbynow,but man, faced withthesenaturalmanifestations,s unfortunatelyot so ingeniousand qualifiedas whenfacedwithothernaturalmanifestations.he greatwars,forex-ample,seemas innumerable s earthtremors,nd therefores seeminglyinevitable as thepowerofnatureitself, utwhereasearthtremorsometo an end,man's inhumanity oman seemsneverto reach an end. It isclear how muchwould be gained, if, forexample, the theatre, f notart itself,were capable of providingus witha practicableview of life.An artcapable ofthiswould be able to take firm old on social develop-ment, t would not merelyradiatemore or less apathetic mpulsesbutdeliver its findings o sensitive nd intelligentmen of the world, theworld of humanbeings,fortheiruse.

But theproblem snotat all simple.The veryfirstexperimentshowedthatart, n ordertoperformtsduty,had to stimulate ertainemotions,provide certainexperiences,but by no means correctviews of life orgenuine illustrationsfhappeningsbetweenmen. It achievedits effectswith ncomplete, eceitful r obsoleteviewsoflife.Throughartistic ug-gestion,which tknowshow to exercise, t invests hemostabsurdasser-tions concerninghuman relationswith the appearance of truth.Themorepowerful t is, themore unverifiablets production.. n place oflogic we have flights f fancy,n place of argumentwe have rhetoric.Aesthetics emand a particular lausibility or ll happenings, therwiseeffects ill eithernot occuror else be impaired.At thesame time,how-ever,there s also the question of a purelyaestheticplausibility, so-called aesthetic ogic.The poet is grantedhis own world, t has its ownlegality. f thisor that etofelements s specified,henall other lementsmust esimilarlypecifiednd theprinciplefspecificatione in somedegree niformnorder osavethewhole.Art chieves hisprivilegefbeing ble toconstructtsownworld,which eednot onformoany ther,hroughparticularhenomenonwhich,n thebasis ftheSuggestivistechnique,ssertshatwithinhe



12/17

12 The Tulane Drama Reviewartist here xiststhe established ympatheticnderstanding f thespec-tator, nd whichpassesfrom heartist nto the charactersnd eventsonthestage. t is thisprincipleofsympathetic nderstanding hichwehavenow to consider.Sympathetic nderstandings a main supportof the prevailingaes-thetic. n the mposingPoeticsofAristotlewe have a description fhowCatharsis, hat s,thespiritualpurificationf thespectator,was broughtabout throughMimesis.The actor mitates hehero (Oedipus or Prome-theus),and he does so withsuch suggestion nd power of conversionthatthespectatormitateshim in therole and thuspossesseshimself fthe hero'sexperience.Hegel, who, to myknowledge,drewup the lastof the important ystems f aesthetics, efers o the abilityof man toexperiencethe same emotionswhenfacedwithsimulatedreality s hedoes when facedwithreality tself.What I want to acquaint you withnow is thata seriesofexperimentso establish practicableviewof lifeby means of the theatre'sresourceshas led to the staggering uestionwhetherto achieve this end it is necessary,more or less,to surrendersympathetic nderstanding.Unless one perceiveshumanity,with all itsconditions,proceedings,mannersof behavior and institutions,s some-thingstable and unchangeable,and unlessone accepts the attitudes fhumanity, s one has accepted themof nature with such successforseveral centuries, hose criticalattitudes,concerningchange and themastery f nature,thenone is unable to utilize the techniqueof sym-patheticunderstanding. ympathetic nderstanding n changeable hu-man beings, n avoidable acts,and in superfluous ain, et cetera, s notpossible.As long as thestarsofhis fatehang overKing Lear, as long aswe considerhim as beingunchangeable,hisdeedssubjectto naturewith-out restriction,ven presented s being fated, o long can we be sym-pathetically nderstanding owardshim.To discusshisbehavior s as im-possibleas a discussionof thesplitting f theatomwould have been inthe tenth entury.If the ntercourse etween tageand publicwere to occur on thebasisof sympathetic nderstanding,henat anygivenmoment the spectatorcould have seen onlyas much as thehero sawwith whomhe was joinedin sympatheticnderstanding. nd towardsparticular ituations n thestageoppositehimhe could onlyhave such emotionalresponses s the"mood" on stagepermitted. he observations,motions, nd perceptionsof the spectatorswere the same as thosewhichbroughtthe characterson stage into line. The stagecould scarcelygenerateemotions,permitobservations nd facilitateunderstanding,which are not suggestivelyrepresented n it. Lear's wrathoverhis daughters nfects he spectator,that is, the spectator,watchinghim,could only experiencewrath,not



13/17

BERTOLT BRECHT 13perhapsamazement r uneasiness, nd thesame holds forotherpossibleemotions.The wrathof Lear, therefore,ould not be tested gainst tsjustification or could it be providedwitha prophesyof its possibleconsequences. t was nottobe discussed, nlytobe shared n. In thiswaysocial phenomenaappearedeternal,natural,unchangeable, nhistorical,and did not holdfordiscussion.Myuse of theterm discussion"heredoesnot implya dispassionatetreatment f a theme, purely ntellectualprocess.We arenot concernedwith implymaking hespectatormmuneto thewrathof Lear. It is onlythe directtransplantationf thiswraththatmustbe stopped.An example:The wrath fLear is shared n byhisfaithful ervantKent. Kent soundlythrashes servant f the thanklessdaughters,who is instructed o disobeyone of Lear's wishes.Shall thespectatorof our time share Lear's wrathand approve of it, while inessence sympathizing ith the thrashing f the servant, arried out onLear's orders?The question is this: How can thisscene be played sothatthespectator, n thecontrary,lies ntoa passionbecause of Lear'swrath?Only an emotionof thiskindwhichcan denythespectator ym-patheticunderstanding,whichgenerallyonly he can experience,andwhichgenerallycould occur only to him, and then only if he breaksthrough hetheatre's owerofsuggestion, an be socially ustified. ol-stoyhad excellentthings o sayon thisverymatter.Sympathetic nderstandings theimportantrtificialmeans ofan agein whichman is thevariableand hissurroundingsheconstant.One canbe sympatheticallynderstanding nly towardsa personwho, unlikeourselves, earsthestarsof hisdestinywithinhim.Human beingsgo to thetheatre n order to be sweptaway, aptivated,impressed,uplifted,horrified,moved, kept in suspense,released,di-verted, et free, et going,transplanted romtheirown time,and sup-pliedwith llusions.All of thisgoes so muchwithout aying hattheartof thetheatre s candidlydefined s havingthepowerto release, weepaway,uplift, t cetera. t is not an artat all unless t does so.The question,then, s this: s theartistic reat t all possiblewithoutsympatheticnderstanding,r, n anycase, s it possibleon a basis otherthansympatheticnderstanding?What could a newbasissuch as thisoffer s?What can be substituted orpityand terror,he twin-yokedlassicalcause ofAristotle's atharsis?When one renounceshypnosis owhatcanone appeal? What attitudeshould a spectatorpartakeof in thisnewtheatre,when he is denied theillusionary, assive,resigned-to-fatetti-tude?He should no longerbe abducted fromhis own world into theworld of art,no longerbe kidnapped; on the contrary, e should beushered nto his own real world,withattentivefaculties.Would it be



14/17

14 The Tulane Drama Reviewpossible,perhaps,to substitute orpity,helpfulcollaboration? s it pos-sible therewith o createa new contactbetween thestageand the spec-tator,might hisoffer newbasis forthe artistic reat? cannot describehere the new technology f playwriting,f theatre onstructionnd ofactingtechniques, hroughwhichour experiments ere carriedout. Theprincipleconsistsn introducingn place of sympatheticnderstandingwhatwe will call Alienation.What is Alienation?To alienatean eventor a characters simply o takewhatto theeventor characters obvious,known, vident nd producesurprise nd curios-ityout of it. Let us consider gain thewrathofLear overthethankless-nessofhisdaughters. hroughthetechniqueofsympatheticnderstand-ingtheactor s able topresent hiswrath n sucha waythatthespectatorsees it as themost naturalthing n theworld, o thathe cannotimaginehow Lear could not becomewrathful,o thathe is in completeagree-mentwithLear,sympathizing ithhimcompletely, avinghimself alleninto the samewrath.Throughthetechniqueof alienation,on the otherhand,the actorpresentshe wrath fLear in sucha waythat he pectatorcan be surprised t it, so that he can conceive of still other reactionsfrom ear as well as thatof wrath.The attitude f Lear is alienated,thatis, tis presented s belonging pecificallyoLear, as somethinghocking,remarkable, s a social phenomenonwhich s notself-evident. his emo-tion of wrath s human, but it is not universally pplicable, therearehuman beingswho do not experience t. The experiences f Lear neednot produce in all people of all timestheemotionofwrath.Wrathmaybe an eternally ossiblereactionof the humanbeing,but this kind ofwrath,the kind of wrath whichmanifeststself n thisway and whichhas suchorigins s thoseofLear, is an ephemeralthing.The processofalienation, then, s the processofhistorifying,fpresenting vents ndpersonsas historical, nd therefores ephemeral The same,of course,mayhappen withcontemporaries,heir ttitudesmayalso be presentedas ephemeral,historical, nd evanescent.What do we achieve by this?We achieve the factthat the spectatorneed no longersee the human beingspresentedon the stage as beingunchangeable,unadaptable,and handed overhelplessto fate. What hesees is that thishuman beingis thus nd so because conditions re thusand so. And conditions re thus and so because humanbeingsare thusand so. This human being,however,s capable of beingpresentednotonlyin thisway,as he is,but in otherwaysalso, as he mightbe; condi-tions, oo,are capable ofbeingpresentedn otherwaysthanas they re.As a resultof this hespectator as a new attitude n the theatre.He hasthe same attitude owards he imagesofthe humanworldoppositehim



15/17

BERTOLT BRECHT 15on thestagewhichhe, as a humanbeing,has had towardsnatureduringthiscentury.He is also welcomed nto thetheatre s thegreatreformer,one who is capable ofcomingto gripswiththenatural and social proc-esses,one who no longermerely ccepts theworld passivelybut whomasterst.The theatre o longer eekstointoxicatehim, upplyhimwithillusions,make himforget heworld,to reconcilehim withhis fate.Thetheatrenow spreadsthe worldin front f him to take hold of and useforhis owngood.The techniqueofalienationwasdeveloped n Germany hrough newseriesofexperiments. t theTheater am Schiffbauerdammn Berlinweattempted o develop a new style f production.The mostgifted f theyounger eneration factorsworkedwithus. There wereHelene Weigel,PeterLorre,OskarHomolka,Neher,and Busch.Our experimentsouldnotbe carriedthrougho methodicallys thoseoftheforeign chools ofStanislavski,Meyerhold, nd Vachtangovbecause we had no statesup-port,butour experiments ere,therefore,ursuedmorewidely nd notmerelyn theprofessionalheatre.Artists articipatedn experiments fschools,workers' horuses,mateurgroups, tcetera.Fromthebeginningamateurgroupsweredevelopedalongwith theprofessional. he experi-ments ed to a vastsimplificationf apparatus, styleof production ndsubjectmatter.It was a question throughout f continuingthe earlierexperiments,and thoseof Piscator's heatre nparticular. ven in Piscator's astexperi-mentstheconsequentdevelopment f thetechnical pparatus ed to therealizationthat themachinerywhich thendominatedeverythingmightalso permit beautiful implicityfproduction.The so-calledepic styleofproduction,whichwe developedat theTheater am Schiffbauerdamm,revealed its artistic ualitiesrelatively uicklyand the non-Aristoteliantechniqueof drama set about working mportantly ithimportant o-cial subjects.Possibilities ppeared fortransforminghe dancelike ele-ments and the elementsof group compositionof Meyerhold'sschoolfromsomething rtificialnto something rtistic, nd the naturalisticelementsof Stanislavski'snto realistic lements.The artof speechwasjoined withtheartofmovement,whileworkaday peechand therecita-tion of versewere thoroughly ashionedfromthe so-calledmovementprinciple.Theatreconstruction as completely evolutionized. iscator'sprinciples,freely mployed,permittednot only an instructiveheatrebut a beautifulone as well. Symbolism nd Illusionismmightbe liqui-dated in like manner, nd theNeherprinciplefor thedevelopmentofscenicdesignpermitted he scenicdesigner, ccordingto the needs de-terminedn rehearsal, o gain profit rom he actingof theperformersand to influence heacting n his ownway.The playwright as able to



16/17

16 The Tulane Drama Reviewproposehis play to the actorsand the scenicdesigner n uninterruptedcollaboration, o influence s well as be influenced. ainters and musi-cians at once regainedtheir ndependenceand wereable through heirown artificialmeans to make theirpresencefelton the subjectmatter:thecollective rtproject appeared beforethespectator s a seriesofdis-sociatedelements.From the startthe classicalrepertoire rganized tself n the basis ofmany such experiments.The artificialmeans of alienation opened abroad path of approach to thevital importance f the dramatic worksof otherages. Throughalienationit becamepossibleto produce enter-tainingly nd instructivelyheworthwhile ld playswithoutdisturbingelementsof over-actualization nd museumlike reatment.Liberation fromthe compulsionto practicehypnosis s noted to beparticularlydvantageousto thecontemporarymateur theatreworker,student, nd child actors). t is becomingconceiveable to draw bound-aries between the performances f amateur and professionalactorswithout heneed to relinquishone of the basic functions f the theatre.On thebasis of the new foundation, orexample,suchdivergent ct-ing techniquesas perhaps those of the Vachtangovor the Ochlopkovtroopsand theWorkers'troopcould be joined. The heterogeneous x-perimentsf halfa centuryppear tohave founda basisfortheirutiliza-tion.Nevertheless, hese experiments re not so easily described,and Ihave simply o asserthere that whatwe intend s to make thereal artis-tic treatpossibleon thebasis of alienation.This is not too terriblyur-prising ince,seen from purelytechnicalpoint of view,even the the-atresof past ages producedresults hrough heuse of alienationeffects,the Chinesetheatre, or xample,theclassicalSpanishtheatre, hepopu-lar theatre fBrudghel's ime and the Elizabethantheatre.Is this newstyleof productionthenew style, s it a techniquewhichis completeand which can be surveyed s such,thedefinitive esultofall theexperiments?he answer s: No. It is one way,thewaywhichwehave gone. Experimentsmustcontinue.The same problemexistsfor allart,and it is a gigantic ne. The solutionwhichwe are striving owardsis only one of the perhaps possible solutionsto the problemwhich isthis:How can the theatrebe both entertaining nd instructiivet thesame time?How can it be drawnaway fromthis ntellectualnarcotics-trafficnd be changedfrom place ofillusionto a place ofpracticalex-perience?How can the shackled,ignorant,freedom- nd knowledge-seekinghumanbeing of our century,he tormented nd heroic,abusedand ingenious, hechangeableand theworld-changinguman being of



17/17

BERTOLT RECHT 17this frightful nd important century achieve his own theatre which willhelp him to master not only himself but also the world?

Translated by CARL RICHARD MUELLERNOTES

1The important heatres re naturallyprominentfor the share theyhad intheexperiments long this ine. Chekhovhad his Stanislavski,bsen his Brahm,et cetera.However,the initiativealong the line of increasing hepowersof in-structionproceedednextmost significantlyromthe drama itself.2We need not here enter into a painstakingcritique of the technocraticpoint of view of the highlyeducated. Normallythat which is of use to societywill proceed completelyfromthe masses,and the fewinventive ntellects reveryhelplesswhere the sphereofeconomics s concerned.We are satisfied erewith the factthatEinstein confirms he ignoranceconcerningco6perative n-terests, irectly nd indirectly.

brecht_epic theater (1)

Documents