Brecht Pieces to Revive

[Perchance-2-Dream]

Posted: 12/26/19 at 11:25am

I'm a huge fan of Bertolt Brecht, his shows and the concept of Epic Theatre! I could be wrong, but it seems to have been a while since we've had a Brecht piece on Broadway/Off-Broadway and I, personally, would love to see one revived!

'The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui' is one I'd like to see!

Any Brecht fans want to throw in their thoughts?

[Synecdoche2]

Posted: 12/26/19 at 12:46pm

There was a revival of Arturo Ui at Classic Stage about a year ago. It wasn't very good, unfortunately. The Wooster Group is doing Brecht's The Mother in the spring.

It's been a while since we've had a good Mother Courage revival, perhaps we'll get one soon.

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 12/26/19 at 12:53pm

Okay, excuse my ignorance, but I just read the definition of epic/Brechtian theatre and it made no sense to me. Can someone here explain what it is, exactly?

[Perchance-2-Dream]

Posted: 12/26/19 at 1:09pm

'Mother Courage' is a classic Brecht piece, I agree that a revival is very much due!

[Perchance-2-Dream]

Posted: 12/26/19 at 1:23pm

Ado Annie D'Ysquith said: "Okay, excuse my ignorance, but I just read the definition of epic/Brechtian theatre and it made no sense to me. Can someone here explain what it is, exactly?"

I'll admit, I'm not the best at explaining, but I will do my best!

Epic Theatre, in its simplest sense, is a movement in which the production asks the audience not to suspend their disbelief but face the production as it is, a theatrical play/musical. It's less about appealing to the emotional side of a viewer, but the logical side instead, and meant as a 'call to action' be it political/social. Several calling cards include a narrator, very sparse production design (we can't distract the audience with a pretty set!), and the "alienation effect" which is meant to pull the audience away from becoming emotionally invested. I would say that the main idea to take away with Epic Theatre is that the audience is no longer a spectator, but an observer. Strip away all the fantastical elements of the show and you are only left with the narrative and its actors. That's the way that I've learned and performed it (I was in The Good Person of Szechwan). I might've screwed the pooch in explaining it well, so if anyone wants to elaborate, go for it!

[inception]

Posted: 12/26/19 at 1:26pm

What was it at The Public in 2013 with Taylor Mac? Good Woman of Setzuan?

[Perchance-2-Dream]

Posted: 12/26/19 at 1:28pm

inception said: "What was it at The Public in 2013 with Taylor Mac? Good Woman of Setzuan?"

Yes, that's the one! I believe Mac used a different translation of the play than the one that I used, but it was The Good Person/Woman of Szechwan/Setzuan. Sadly, never got to see it. I wish I had though!

[TotallyEffed]

Posted: 12/26/19 at 1:34pm

Classic Stage did disastrous productions of Mother Courage and A Man’s a Man, as well as a less disastrous production of The Caucasian Chalk Circle in the last five or six years.

I liked Taylor Mac’s Szechwan a lot

[Perchance-2-Dream]

Posted: 12/26/19 at 1:42pm

TotallyEffed said: "Classic Stage did disastrous productions of Mother Courage and A Man’s a Man, as well as a less disastrous production of The Caucasian Chalk Circle in the last five or six years.

I liked Taylor Mac’s Szechwan a lot"

I hadn't heard of Classic Stage's production, I'll have to dig around and learn more about it! I'm curious, anything specific that you liked about Mac's production?

 

[Kad]

Posted: 12/26/19 at 1:53pm

The only Brecht production I've seen in NYC in recent memory that has been a successful revival was The Foundry's Good Person of Szechwan with Taylor Mac (later transferred to the Public). It's been the only production that made Brecht's text work for me- Brecht once wrote that he wanted to see theatre that was treated as something as accessible as a boxing match, but with loftier ideas. And this production leaned into that idea- there were comedic bits and a very heightened sense of theatricality, and the score (by the alt band The Lisps, who also wrote Futurity) was great. The performances were very broad, befitting characters that often are no more than a name. The cast was impeccable- Taylor Mac, Lisa Kron, and more.

Most Brecht revivals treat the material in a very dour, serious way, with an air of Importance. But then that means you have solemn looking actors reciting didactic speeches, playing roles that are explicitly written to just be personified ideas at most. 

[Perchance-2-Dream]

Posted: 12/26/19 at 2:01pm

Kad said: "The only Brecht production I've seen in NYC in recent memory that has been a successful revival was The Foundry's Good Person of Szechwan with Taylor Mac (later transferred to the Public). It's been the only production that made Brecht's text work for me- Brecht once wrote that he wanted to see theatre that was treated as something as accessible as a boxing match, but with loftier ideas. And this production leaned into that idea- there were comedic bits and a very heightened sense of theatricality, and the score (by the alt band The Lisps, who also wrote Futurity) was great. The performances were very broad, befitting characters that often are no more than a name. The cast was impeccable- Taylor Mac, Lisa Kron, and more.

Most Brecht revivals treat the material in a very dour, serious way, with an air of Importance. But then that means you have solemn looking actors reciting didactic speeches, playing roles that are explicitly written to just be personified ideas at most."

Man, so jealous of everyone who got to see Mac's version of Szechwan, haha!

I completely agree with how many revivals treat Brecht's pieces as if there's no humor in them. On the contrary! Brecht has humor in his work, it is often cynical yes, but never always dour. On top of that, there are many hopeful moments in them that are just passed over with no regard. Treating them with an air of importance destroys the production and its narrative. It's very similar to the dilemma Beckett's 'Waiting for Godot' has, if you try to bring the play up to an unnecessary level of seriousness, it just becomes boring.

Thanks for the comment!

[astromiami]

Posted: 12/26/19 at 9:30pm

Perchance-2-Dream said: "Ado Annie D'Ysquith said: "Okay, excuse my ignorance, but I just read the definition of epic/Brechtian theatre and it made no sense to me. Can someone here explain what it is, exactly?"

I'll admit, I'm not the best at explaining, but I will do my best!

Epic Theatre, in its simplest sense, is a movement in which the production asks the audience not to suspend their disbelief but face the production as it is, a theatrical play/musical. It's less about appealing to the emotional side of a viewer, but the logical side instead, and meant as a 'call to action' be it political/social. Several calling cards include a narrator, very sparse production design (we can't distract the audience with a pretty set!), and the "alienation effect" which is meant to pull the audience away from becoming emotionally invested. I would say that the main idea to take away with Epic Theatre is that the audience is no longer a spectator, but an observer. Strip away all the fantastical elements of the show and you are only left with the narrative and its actors. That's the way that I've learned and performed it (I was in The Good Person of Szechwan). I might've screwed the pooch in explaining it well, so if anyone wants to elaborate, go for it!"

You are really right on about seeing the performance as a performance.

But alienation in Brecht does not mean being emotionally distant, but rather having a different kind of involvement. One in which empathy does not eliminate the critical thinking. When you watch a football game or a boxing match, you are emotionally involved, but you do not say "Ouch" when someone gets punched or tackled. You are evaluating the skill of play even when the players get injured. You are emotionally involved in a sporting event, but not identifying with the participants.

Or itis like when you hear a singer sing a standard---you know it is an old song and you listen to hear this one's unique take on the material. So you are involved, but still critical.

Or when you see a farce. You do not feel the character's pain--because you are laughing at it!

A lot of Brecht makes a very direct emotional appeal--both Chalk Circle and Mother Courage have characters save children. Baal's mistreatment of his lovers stings.

Brecht wanted Ethel Merman to play Mother Courage, and included one of her gags from AGYG in the Berliner Ensemble production. (When Annie first sees Frank Bulter, she went bug-eyed and slack jawed. He had Weigel do the same thing when Courage first spots the Cook.)

If Brecht and the Alienation effect seem like nothing big, it is because it has become part of our culture. Lots of work from The Simpsons to Cabaret to Assassins to Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood invite the audience to watch in a Brechtian way--so we are used to it.
 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/26/19 at 9:56pm

Perchance-2-Dream said: "Ado Annie D'Ysquith said: "Okay, excuse my ignorance, but I just read the definition of epic/Brechtian theatre and it made no sense to me. Can someone here explain what it is, exactly?"

I'll admit, I'm not the best at explaining, but I will do my best!

Epic Theatre, in its simplest sense, is a movement in which the production asks the audience not to suspend their disbelief but face the production as it is, a theatrical play/musical. It's less about appealing to the emotional side of a viewer, but the logical side instead, and meant as a 'call to action' be it political/social. Several calling cards include a narrator, very sparse production design (we can't distract the audience with a pretty set!), and the "alienation effect" which is meant to pull the audience away from becoming emotionally invested. I would say that the main idea to take away with Epic Theatre is that the audience is no longer a spectator, but an observer. Strip away all the fantastical elements of the show and you are only left with the narrative and its actors. That's the way that I've learned and performed it (I was in The Good Person of Szechwan). I might've screwed the pooch in explaining it well, so if anyone wants to elaborate, go for it!"

This is a very well written account of how Brecht is usually taught and it is both right and wrong. Too many teachers take the brief remarks of the very young Brecht at face value, without bothering to consider his masterwork of criticism, A SHORT ORGANUM, and the degree to which it is a direct reply to Aristotle's POETICS.

Yes, in his early 20s, Brecht wrote about his theater of the "intellect" v. the commercial theater of the "emotions"; but he also wrote that attending the theater should be like going to a boxing match, where EVERY spectator has a deep, emotional attachment to the ensuing events on stage.

Bottom line: Brecht wants the spectator to feel his own (i.e., "real" emotion rather than to identify with a stage illusion and feel that character's pretend emotions. Brecht wants to estrange or "alienate" (i.e., to make things seem strange so we take a fresh look at what we usually ignore in real life) what is represented on stage, NOT the spectators. After failing to teach political truths with propaganda plays, Brecht decided the best theater can do is to provoke a critical attitude from the viewer.

As for devices, Dream lists several of the best known. Brecht recognized the viewer's tendency to suspend disbelief and so he supported anything--signs, songs, speeches to the audience, unmotivated character reversals--that would interrupt the stage illusion and remind the viewer s/he is watching a comment on the world, not a representation of it. Put another way, it's about reminding the audience that everything on stage is somebody's CHOICE; if it's a choice (rather than a mirror image of reality), then it was made for a reason and can be critically evaluated.

***

I taught Brecht for years to college students and I should add that one problem with understanding Brecht today is that postmodernism adopted nearly all Brechtian, presentational devices, though usually without employing the political theory that underlay those devices in Brecht's hands. The result is theater-for-limited-attention-spans in which narrative, character and other elements are infinitely fluid. It helps to remember that Brecht was working and writing in a period when most theater was realistic, with "well-made" narratives that didn't jump around in time just because playwrights didn't know how to craft extended scenes.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/26/19 at 9:59pm

Synecdoche2 said: "There was a revival of Arturo Ui at Classic Stage about a year ago. It wasn't very good, unfortunately. The Wooster Group is doing Brecht's The Mother in the spring.

It's been a while since we've had a good Mother Courage revival, perhaps we'll get one soon."

ARTURO UI is certainly timely.

Didn't Meryl Streep do Courage at the Delacourt a few years back? Did you find that not good? I'd have loved to have seen Tyne Daly do the role when she was young enough to want to tackle it. She isn't the "frail" Courage of Brecht's imagination, but IMHO she'd more than make up for it with her acting.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/26/19 at 10:05pm

Kad said: "The only Brecht production I've seen in NYC in recent memory that has been a successful revival was The Foundry's Good Person of Szechwan with Taylor Mac (later transferred to the Public). It's been the only production that made Brecht's text work for me- Brecht once wrote that he wanted to see theatre that was treated as something as accessible as a boxing match, but with loftier ideas. And this production leaned into that idea- there were comedic bits and a very heightened sense of theatricality, and the score (by the alt band The Lisps, who also wrote Futurity) was great. The performances were very broad, befitting characters that often are no more than a name. The cast was impeccable- Taylor Mac, Lisa Kron, and more.

Most Brecht revivals treat the material in a very dour, serious way, with an air of Importance. But then that means you have solemn looking actors reciting didactic speeches, playing roles that are explicitly written to just be personified ideas at most."

As usual, Kad, you are spot on. Especially in academia and regional theater, more boring evenings have been perpetrated in Brecht's name than for any other reason! When hundreds of spectators fled the Mark Taper forum in the middle of Peter Sellars' THE PERSIANS, he crowed to the press that he was successfully "alienating" the audience. If he meant "driving them away with tedium" then he was right, but I doubt that's what he meant. That was 20 years ago, but I just saw his remarks quoted--positively--in a book on the culture of Ancient Greece.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/26/19 at 10:07pm

astromiami said: "Perchance-2-Dream said: "Ado Annie D'Ysquith said: "Okay, excuse my ignorance, but I just read the definition of epic/Brechtian theatre and it made no sense to me. Can someone here explain what it is, exactly?"

I'll admit, I'm not the best at explaining, but I will do my best!

Epic Theatre, in its simplest sense, is a movement in which the production asks the audience not to suspend their disbelief but face the production as it is, a theatrical play/musical. It's less about appealing to the emotional side of a viewer, but the logical side instead, and meant as a 'call to action' be it political/social. Several calling cards include a narrator, very sparse production design (we can't distract the audience with a pretty set!), and the "alienation effect" which is meant to pull the audience away from becoming emotionally invested. I would say that the main idea to take away with Epic Theatre is that the audience is no longer a spectator, but an observer. Strip away all the fantastical elements of the show and you are only left with the narrative and its actors. That's the way that I've learned and performed it (I was in The Good Person of Szechwan). I might've screwed the pooch in explaining it well, so if anyone wants to elaborate, go for it!"

You are really right on about seeing the performance as a performance.

But alienation in Brecht does not mean being emotionally distant, but rather having a different kind of involvement. One in which empathy does not eliminate the critical thinking. When you watch a football game or a boxing match, you are emotionally involved, but you do not say "Ouch" when someone gets punched or tackled. You are evaluating the skill of play even when the players get injured. You are emotionally involved in a sporting event, but not identifying with the participants.

Or itis like when you hear a singer sing a standard---you know it is an old song and you listen to hear this one's unique take on the material. So you are involved, but still critical.

Or when you see a farce. You do not feel the character's pain--because you are laughing at it!

A lot of Brecht makes a very direct emotional appeal--both Chalk Circle and Mother Courage have characters save children. Baal's mistreatment of his lovers stings.

Brecht wanted Ethel Merman to play Mother Courage, and included one of her gags from AGYG in the Berliner Ensemble production. (When Annie first sees Frank Bulter, she went bug-eyed and slack jawed. He had Weigel do the same thing when Courage first spots the Cook.)

If Brecht and the Alienation effect seem like nothing big, it is because it has become part of our culture. Lots of work from The Simpsons to Cabaret to Assassins to Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood invite the audience to watch in a Brechtian way--so we are used to it.
"

Damn! Talk about two posters posting the same things at the same time!

I am greatly chagrined to admit you said it better...

[astromiami]

Posted: 12/28/19 at 10:47am

Actually, I though you said it better, GavestonPS.

I just had more analogies.

[yfs]

Posted: 12/28/19 at 8:07pm

I'm not a young person, but one of the advantages of that is that I am about the only person I know who saw the production of ARTURO UI that Christopher Plummer did in the '60s with a score of live incidental music by...Jule Styne. Tony Richardson directed, David Merrick produced, the cast was stuffed with great vaudevillians, some of whom had been in the original GUYS AND DOLLS, and it was simply spectacular in every way. It got bad reviews and ran a week. What I'd give to see that one again! But I'd take a good CHALK CIRCLE, MOTHER COURAGE, or, happily, the not-so-hot-but-with-a-great score-by-Kurt-Weill HAPPY END in a minute. By the way, that Taylor Mac production people have been referring to was directed by Lear deBessonet, who deserves a lot of the credit. 

[Perchance-2-Dream]

Posted: 12/30/19 at 10:32am

Whoops, late to the game!

I'm so happy that so many people responded to this chat. I don't think Brecht gets the love he deserves in the theatrical world, so this was a great surprise to see people with as much knowledge and admiration.

I also appreciate the continued additions and corrections to my initial description! Brecht is such a beast to explain for newcomers, and you folks did great in helping me out.