A sign of the Times?

‘I think we ought to read only books that bite and sting us. If the book we are reading doesn’t shake us awake like a blow on the skull, why bother reading it in the first place? A book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us.’ - Franz Kafka.
I first came across this quotation in my AS English Literature class, and it has since then stuck with me. However, I would argue that this does not only apply to books, but to all art forms.
But should it apply to the dramatic arts? Well I would argue that it does. Indefinitely.
But whenever I think about this, there is always a little voice reminding me of the work and ethic of the lovely Bertolt Brecht.
Nowadays, when people think of dear Bertolt, all they may see is an old photograph of a man that would today be classed as a hipster, what with his thick-rimmed glasses and his top button done up.
But in his day, Brecht was causing quite a revolution in the world of acting and theatre practise.

Rivaling Stanislavski's blistering naturalism, Brecht developed the concept of "Epic Theatre", and devoutly believed in using the theatre as "a forum for political ideas". The theory behind "Epic Theatre" was that a play should not cause an audience to engage with the plot or characters on an emotional level, but instead provoke "rational self-reflection and a critical view of what's happening on stage". From here, the Marxist within him hoped that this alienation would result in audience members leaving the theatre and trying to make a difference within society.
From this basis came all the zaney elements known as "Brechtian Theatre" such as breaking the fourth wall, the use of Explanatary cards in performance and the use of song.
I am currently working on a production of "Caucasian Chalk Circle" (One of his earlier, less experimental plays) and one thing I will say about working on a Brechtian project, is that it undoubtedly allows a lot more freedom for everyone involved, revealing a new creative process which is an invaluable experience for any performer.
However, I wonder in if in this era of kitchen sink dramas and relentless soap operas, if this approach seems somewhat less successful in making a connection with audiences today.
We are a nation obsessed with truthful representations of the world we live in. Whether its an episode of Emmerdale or a novel based on the true story of someone's troublesome life that tugs at your heartstrings, it appears that what we now favour is art that we can all relate to, something with which we personally can connect or empathise with, or even lay ownership to.

Over recent years, playwrites have diregarded Brecht's practises and favoured their focuses instead on every day characters and scenarios.
One writer who does this particularly well is David Hare. Narrowing his focus on chracter relationships and standard, familiar settings such as the family home; Hare writes in a way that makes the audience feel as though they fit comfortably within the world of the play. However along with the security provided by this familial sense, Hare manages to also address serious societal issues. One piece which does this particularly well is "The Judas Kiss". Although based on two pivotal moments in the life of Oscar Wilde, and set over a century ago, Hare manages to entwine the brutally truthful human relationships between the characters, and the prejudice societal opinions on homosexuality, many of which can still be identified today.
So which theory is the more effective? The risky one or the safe one? Well, it is difficult to draw the one conclusion. But one thing remains certain, if an audience member approaches the piece with a ready interest and a open mind, it is nearly impossible for them to leave without being effected, whether on an emotional or politcal level. So maybe your performance really will change someone's life.
Or perhaps not.

Bertolt Brecht

Do you see what I mean?




Hipster