2.3 Concluding Comments
3.1.3 Epic Theatre
Brecht’s theory of an epic theatre was conceived to treat the content Brecht wished to debate: the tenet that if the working classes were to unite, they could effect change in their constant class struggle. Thus content and form should go hand in hand in his plays. Nonetheless, time has separated form and content in Brecht’s works, as it is for his innovative epic theatre rather than the plays that Brecht is remembered today, especially in the UK.8 Even at the time, however, there was some disagreement as to whether form and content were quite as co-dependent as Brecht claimed. The most controversial challenge was put to Brecht in the 1930s by George Lukács, who charged him with being concerned more about aesthetic innovation than about catering for his proclaimed working-class audience.9 Despite Brecht’s vehement protestation, it has also been argued that the intended audience of his works was indeed not the working class itself, but “working-class revolutionaries and left-wing intellectuals” (Unwin, 2005, 41). Such arguments have led to intense debate on his usefulness in a post-Cold War world, but this discussion lies beyond the scope of this study.
A brief overview at this stage of Brecht’s epic theatre, which deals with both content and form, will illustrate his aims for the theatre and the methods he employed in order to realise them. This will provide the necessary framework for an assessment in later sections of this study of the manner in which some of these elements have been reproduced in British productions ofMutter Courage in the UK. The technique employed to achieve Brecht’s socio-political aims in epic theatre is simultaneously that which Brecht is most commonly associated with and remembered for, and which is most commonly misunderstood: Verfremdung.
8This fusion and interdependence of form and content is an important consideration in the translation of Brecht’s works. British critics have often described his plays as showcases for his dramatic theory, which certainly is not true of the time when they were written. Brecht was prompted to write about his approach to defend it from attempts by Stanislavskians and anti-formalists to confute it. In exile, he wrote to compensate for the rehearsal facility he had lost, as that was where he had devised many of his ideas. Performance theory and its documentation thus generally resulted from work on a particular play rather than the other way around (White, 2004, 4–22). 9This was part of a wider debate on Expressionism, involving Klaus Mann, Alfred Kurella, and Ernst Bloch (See
Until 1936, Brecht used the termEntfremdung, then used both terms indiscriminately until 1940, after which only Verfremdung was used (Knopf, 1996, 2:379–80). Until the 1980s, Brecht research claimed he had adopted the concept from the Russian formalists, specifically Viktor Shklovsky, who operated a method ofostranenie(Knopf, 2000, 79) or ‘defamiliarisation’ in order to ‘deautomatize’ everyday actions and objects (Kiebuzinska, 1988), which was also the aim of Verfremdung. However, it is now believed Brecht adopted the term from Hegel’s
Entfremdung, adopting Hegel’s theoretical position and combining this with the aesthetics of critical realism (Knopf, 2000, 80–1). The translation ofVerfremdung has long been an obstacle to its accurate understanding in English, not least because it has two meanings in German (disillusionment and estrangement as an end and means) which cannot both be conveyed in one English term, and because Brecht himself used the term inconsistently, which makes its precise meaning difficult to determine even in German (White, 2004, 93).
Considering how widely this technique has been misunderstood in the UK, there is some irony in the fact that Brecht’s explanation of theVerfremdungseffektwas written for an English-
speaking audience and were thus first published in English, appearing in a translation by E. W. White in the London magazine, Life and Letters To-Day in 1936 (White, 2004, 90). E. W. White refers to the technique as ‘disillusion’, but John White disagrees both with this and E. W. White’s translation of the text itself, concluding that: “Brecht’s deliberately estranging discourse is diluted to the point of resembling everyday English” (93). It is significant that this early attempt to make Brecht’s theory known in the English-speaking world dilutes the linguistic qualities of the original and hence lessens its accuracy and impact by removing the intended link between form and content. There can be little surprise that the linguistic intricacies in the plays themselves are often lost in English translation when Brecht’s language has been normalised already in translating the very information necessary for their accurate rendering.
Eddershaw also laments the poor attempts at renderingVerfremdungin English as ‘alienation’ or ‘distancing technique’, which misleadingly suggest the audience should be hostile to the events on stage or detached from any emotional response, respectively (1996, 16).10 Such inaccurate translations have led to the mistaken belief that Brecht’s audiences were not supposed to feel, and that emotion should not be appealed to. Brecht is partly to blame for this, since he set up Gefühl as the dramatic polar opposite to epic Ratioin the schematic list of qualities of the dramatic and epic performance modes in the 1930Anmerkungen zur Oper (Mahagonny)
(24:78–80), even though in the earlierSchwierigkeiten des Epischen Theaters (1927/8), he had made it clear that although epic theatre appeals more to reason than emotion, it would be “ganz und gar unrichtig, diesem Theater das Gefühl absprechen zu wollen. Dies käme nur darauf hinaus, heute noch etwa der Wissenschaft das Gefühl absprechen zu wollen” (21:210). By 1940, Brecht’s writings on this matter reflected his realisation that both Verstand and Gefühl
must be involved, only in a different way to orthodox theatre, namely with the former engaged
3.1 Political Rebel and Dramatic Innovator
more than the latter, whereby a pedagogical purpose could still be served (Gobert, 2006, 15). It was also clearly noted that epic theatre could and should involve “Spaß” or “Vergnügen”, which might come as a shock to many British theatre critics. The spectator undoubtedly should feel emotions in the theatre, but these should be as a social and political reaction to the events on stage rather than an expression of empathy with the characters, as was the convention at the time.
It is not merely the lack of objectivity which differentiates Aristotelian from epic theatre, but also the episodic nature of the structure of the play itself. There is no through line in an epic play; the Aristotelian unities are abandoned, and each unit of action can stand alone. This is also how the various units should be approached in performance. In the Antigonemodell, in response to the question “Wie wurden die Verse gesprochen?”, Brecht replies:
Vor allem wurde die Unsitte vermieden, nach der die Schauspieler sich vor größ- eren Verseinheiten sozusagen mit einer das Ganze ungefähr deckenden Emotionen vollpumpen. Es soll keine »Leidenschaftlichkeit« bevor oder hinter Sprechen und Agitieren sein. Es wird von Vers zu Vers geschritten und jeder von ihnen aus dem Gestus der Figure geholt. (25:124)
This marrying of Verfremdung and Gestus is but one example which shows how closely the principles of epic theatre are intertwined. Despite the fact that Brecht wrote so extensively on his theory, it is in fact a practical theory of performance and theatre. Reinhold Grimm identifies three types of the central principle ofVerfremdung: “einmal beim Schreiben eines Stückes, dann bei seiner Inszenierung [. . . ] und schließlich im Spiel der Darsteller” (in White, 2004, 125–6). There is very little writing onVerfremdung as incorporated into the actual text of the plays, but there is a great deal on its realisation in the mise en scène and acting techniques. This is partly because so much of this was recorded as it was worked out in rehearsals, but also because Brecht wrote his theory as a defence and protection mechanism to ensure that his works were correctly performed by others. The lack of theory onVerfremdung in writing would suggest that Brecht did not expect others to follow his lead, or at least did not presume to provide instructions on his writing approach. However, it isVerfremdung in the fabric of Brecht’s language which will be a significant focus of this study.
If we consider Grimm’s three types ofVerfremdung in reverse order, we meet Brecht’s second antithetical theatre practitioner: Konstantin Stanislavsky. Where Aristotle’s theatre is the polar opposite of epic theatre, Method acting is regarded as the polar opposite of the epic acting style. Brecht’s anti-Stanislavsky position has also been lent more emphasis than is justifiable, although it is fairer to say that Brecht was anti-Stanislavskian than that he was anti-Aristotelian.11 As a Marxist in East Berlin, however, it would not have been politically acceptable for Brecht to
11Brecht was more anti-Illusionist than anti-Aristotelian. Brecht explained in a footnote that the epic-Aristotelian theatre table of contrasts should be understood as “Akzentverschiebungen”, but they have been viewed as polar opposites, which, together with the misunderstanding ofVerfremdung, has done great damage to epic theatre.
declare his theatre anti-Stanislavskian (White, 2004, 87). Brecht’s Schriften provide us with substantial evidence of his views on Stanislavskian principles: he rejected Stanislavsky as the founder of the Soviet Socialist Realism movement, from which Brecht worked hard to distance himself, since it was a form of propaganda aimed at subduing the masses rather than prompting them to act. His central objection to the kind of theatre propagated by both the Aristotelian and the Stanislavskian styles was that it could not be political.
Brecht began to look into Stanislavsky’s performance mode in the mid-1930s after his dis- appointing attempt to influence the New York Theatre Union’s production of The Mother in 1935, where he was banned from rehearsals, because he could not accept their judgement of what would work on an American stage. White comments that “he suddenly found himself on the receiving end of a salutary lesson, experiencing at first hand the hold the drama of ma- nipulated empathy continued to exercise on large sections of the contemporary theatre world” (2004, 81). In an attempt to counter the hold Stanislavskian performance methods had in the US, Brecht reassessed his theoretical position and the state of his methodology and its docu- mentation. He examined what Stanislavskians aimed to avoid so that epic theatre could profit from those aspects in refining the Verfremdungseffekt. Thus in the period of 1936–38, Brecht
re-examined epic theatre and consolidated his writings on it in an attempt to make his work intelligible to the English-speaking world, where theatre was dominated by Method acting.
Brecht instructed his actors not to become the character, but to observe it from outside. In rehearsal, actors were instructed to add ‘sagte er/sie’ at the end of their lines, so they were forced to quote them and thus maintain a distance. In turn, this would mean the audience would be less likely to form an empathetic bond with that character. Brecht’s actors worked together as an ensemble, each playing a part in a bigger whole, namely the story itself; the characters as individual entities were irrelevant. Instead, the importance lay in their relationship to each other and the social constellations between them: “die Person sei ‘von außen« zu sehen und im Zusammenhang mit den anderen, in ihrem Verhalten zu sich selbst und zu den anderen” (21:465). The ensemble approach has caused considerable problems where attempts have been made to reproduce it during rehearsals in the UK, because British theatre is often ‘star-based,’ and big names are needed to pull in the revenue.
The second of Grimm’s categories of Verfremdung is the mise en scène. This incorporates
Gestus, although this is partly acting technique as well. In his essay, Kurze Beschreibung einer neuen Technik der Schauspielkunst, die einen Verfremdungseffekt hervorbringt, Brecht writes:
Es ist der Zweck des V-Effekts, den allen Vorgängen unterliegenden gesellschaft-
lichen Gestus zu verfremden. Unter sozialem Gestus ist der mimische und gestische Ausdruck der gesellschaftlichen Beziehungen zu verstehen, in denen die Menschen einer bestimmten Epoche zueinander stehen. (22:646)
Brecht never provided a clear definition of Gestus but it can generally be understood as the gesture, or physical moments of expression, underlining and accompanying speech (Knopf,
3.1 Political Rebel and Dramatic Innovator
1996, 392). PhysicalGestusplays a rather minor role in critical reception as it can be difficult
to identify. It is not usually codified within the text itself and thus not an element which can be translated; it can only reliably be taken into consideration at all if theMaterialienare consulted alongside the original text. However, the significance ofGestusshould not be underestimated. In
Mutter Courage,Gestusplays a prominent role, as it is Kattrin’s only means of communication.12
Gestusis also evident in the language Brecht uses in his predilection for visual images and making them particularly noticeable by distorting the image we might expect, and in this we also see prominentVerfremdung.
Other elements ofVerfremdung which may be considered part of the mise en scène process are those which are considered characteristic of a Brechtian aesthetic. The use of a half curtain reminds spectators that they are watching a play and that events on stage do not represent real life. This effect is enhanced by the permanently bright lighting and the exposed stage
machinery. Just as physicalGestusfalls under the remit of both acting and mise en scène, the final two points commonly associated with epic theatre are not strictly mise en scène, but not exclusively related to the writing of the play either. The use of music and songs adds to the disjointed, episodic nature of the action and is another technique which prevents spectators from being lulled into a cathartic state of passivity. The presentation of the songs is intrinsic to the success of this effect: they should remain disjointed and not become a seamless part of the
action.
The final facet of Verfremdung Grimm identifies is that contained within the text of the play itself. As this study concerns itself with the textual examination of British translations of
Mutter Courage und ihre Kinder, an examination of linguisticVerfremdung can be found in the following chapter, which also sets out the methodology used in the comparison of theSTwith the respective TTs. The discussion here will now consider the final aspect of Brecht’s theatre for which he is renowned and which caused him significant problems, especially concerning the reception of his works into other cultures, namely his reputation as a Marxist playwright with specific political aims.
The Political Dimension
Brecht’s personal political development has been examined above. His use of the theatre for political ends also underwent various stages of change. Even in his early works, Brecht rejected the traditional focus on the individual, but it is the didacticLehrstücke, written shortly before the end of the Weimar Republic, that set out to open the spectators’ eyes to the world and how they could act within it in accordance with Marxist thinking. In the inter- and post- war periods, Brecht believed in the theatre as a social and political institution at a time when there was strong political feeling in Germany but a lack of political theatre. His dialectical
12As Brecht intended the play as a warning to Scandinavia of Hitler’s aggression, he also intended that it be per- formed there. The role of Kattrin was intended for Helene Weigel, who did not speak the language.
theatre and the later co-operative of the Berliner Ensemble were aimed at contributing to social change. Brecht believed that the theatre had an intellectual role to play in the achievement of socialism, which is why he created a dramatic mode which made visible the possibility of change, focusing on the mass rather than on the individual. Brecht’s breaking with theKlassiker
and criticism of Expressionism triggered the development of a theory which he believed would rid contemporary theatre of its deficits and make it more relevant for society: “Wenn man sieht, daß unsere heutige Welt nicht mehr ins Drama paßt, dann paßt das Drama eben auch nicht mehr in die Welt” (Elisabeth Hauptmann, quoted in Hecht, 1986b, 49).
Willett notes that “[n]o creative artist’s politics were ever less independent of his work” (Wil- lett, 1977, 189). Brecht’s political intentions are wholly bound up withVerfremdung as the key to making the audience understand and perceive the social incongruities he critiqued on stage. Human nature and society must be presented as changeable in order to prompt change. This was only possible if they could be prevented from identifying or empathising with the char- acters. Brecht’s post-1927 works can certainly be viewed as political, and, as he was forced to shift his focus from the proletariat due to the circumstances of exile, the works written during the exile years are aimed at the bourgeoisie, so that they may recognise the social injustices of society. Fetscher (1980) questions how successfully Brecht achieved his political aims, because:
[t]he liveliness of the characters, the richness of the language, the sophisticated dramaturgy, and the brilliance of actors made it possible to react to these pieces as culinary art – even though the playwright denounced such a stance very loudly. All of his theatrical provocations were enjoyed by a satiated postwar public simply as additional spice. (13)
Fetscher goes on to emphasise the extent to which Brecht was a political writer and how intrinsic this dimension was to his work: “It is possible to admire the grandness of his linguis- tic facility without recognising his political convictions and intentions. But it is impossible to understand his plays (and many of his poems) without knowing the form of Marxism peculiar to Brecht [. . . ]” (15). A sound understanding of a work is a primary prerequisite for trans- lating it. The documentation detailing the approaches taken to many UK Brecht productions suggests that the role of Brecht’s political intentions is often misunderstood. Despite the fact that left-wing playwrights have been selected to write versions of Mother Courage, in the pro- cess of appropriation, which inevitably anglicises theTT, more often than not it is the political dimension which is neglected. This results partly from a failure to replicate the full palette of