Brecht Theory on Theatre versus Aristotelian Theory - Essay Example

? Brecht theory on theatre vs Aristotelian theory Introduction Bert Brecht incorporated an innovative vision on Greek tragedy. The ancient dramatic plays have been changed in accordance with the developing and a changing nature of the society. Bert Brecht managed to redirect the focus of drama from an individual flaw to the social degradation, which resulted in an individual degrading nature. Epic theatre for Brecht was more of a didactic nature. It was focused on changing the social stereotypes within the society. There was a need for the society to change the concept of the epic drama and shift its accents to the modernity. Therefore, the problems and challenges of the modernity were mainly on behalf of the theatre and it was necessary to focus the attention of the modernity on the current processes of socialization. Bert Brecht brought in much into the modern interpretation of the theory of theatre. It is very interesting to look at innovative interpretations of the ancient drama, initiated by Bert Brecht. His aesthetical concerns were mainly focused on the human being as an integrated individual within the social context. His behavior is developed under the social influence of the environment and Brecht claims that no fate exerts influence on the destiny of the main character in the play. There is a kind of different positioning of the role of the theatre developed by Aristotle. He claims that mainly the function of theatre was to impress the audience and make them think about the inner emotional state of the main character. If to speak in more general terms, the epic theatre of Aristotle was not connected to a certain period of time. The term “tragedy” underlined the unity of time and place. There was a need to combine different events during a certain period of time. Further on we will see that the term “epic” was not too relevant for the Brechtian theatre. It was more possible for him to introduce a term “dialectical” theatre, which underlined the combination of thesis and anti-thesis. Each element on the stage could have been interpreted from different perspectives. Moreover, Brecht introduced such concepts as music, lighting, costume, and acting in order each of them could comment on the actions of the main characters from different perspectives. Therefore, Brecht summarized his concepts to the term "non-Aristotelian" theatre, where a constant feeling of pity was changed for a feeling of cooperation and mutual assistance between different actors. “Alienation” effect was dominant over catharsis1. Brecht vs Aristotle Brecht is presented as a playwright, who is able to object to catharsis promoted by terror and pity, to identify the actors with the roles they are performing, to keep allusion of relation to the present times. Aristotle’s principles and theories on theatre were rejected by Bert Brecht. The features of epic were promoted by Aristotle in his Poetics (c.335 BCE). Methods of constructions in drama and epic theatre are different and this was an emphasis, made by Bert Brecht. There is a difference between interpreting of epic, coined by Aristotle and Brecht. “Dramatic” interpretation referred to idealist principles and “epic” principles referred more to materialist positions. Therefore, both of these great men inspired the audience in a different manner. The same way, we can claim that both of them considered the role of the theatre as an integrative social component of the society. The epic form is very useful for dramatists. The human being is considered by Brecht within the strong social bonds. The epic form is the background for considerations about specific features of an individual. The drama is a way to show the comprehensive picture of the world. On the other hand, Aristotle showed a different vision of tragedy. He underlined its philosophical background and not the historical one. The poetry and history in its wider sense are incompatible. Aristotle underlined the importance of the poet and his ability to transfer the transcending qualities. When Brecht introduced his famous concept “Non-Aristotelian” he underlined the antipathy towards the hero and the heroic. Aristotle in his Poetics interpreted fate in the following way: “consists in that it has neither an accidental beginning nor an accidental end”2. Brecht did not believe in fate, but we cannot claim that Brecht discarded Aristotle’s theory completely: in the Little Organon he confesses that Aristotle’s theory is justified and it can be applied in the following way: “When stating that the theater has emerged out of ritual, one is only saying that in the process of coming out it became theater; it probably did not retain the ritual intent of the mysteries, but rather the pleasure in it, pure and simple. And that catharsis of Aristotle, the purification through fear and pity, or from fear and pity, is a washing which is not only produced in a pleasant manner, but actually for the purpose of pleasure”3. Therefore, aesthetical function of Aristotelian theatre was acknowledged by Bert Brecht as the one focused on the amusement and entertainment of the main character of the play. The proponents of Brecht may argue that he discarded the theory of catharsis and in this sentence we can see that he acknowledges its efficacy. In case we consider the creative heritage of Brecht and will not take into account his developments in the “absurd theatre”, we will see the way he is able to relate his theory with the theatre of Aristotle. Nevertheless, we will consider developments of theatre theory by Bert Brecht in juxtaposition in relation to Aristotle. Brecht developed different terminology in the theory of theatre; he did not identify his theatre with a hero, like it was in case of the Aristotelian theatre. Still, the fact that the Poetics by Aristotle is the basis for our considerations about theatre cannot be denied. Aristotle was focused on narrative in the theatre. The play of actors was not very important for him. The spectators were not really involved in the theatre of this kind. Therefore, Bert Brecht developed theory of Verfremdung (estrangement or alienation). Bert underlined the importance of psychological and emotional involvement of the spectators. Brecht developed and implemented another important concept for his theatre. The concept of Einfuhlung implied the necessity of the spectators’ self-control, critical knowledge, and political involvement4. Brecht used to justify his method in the following way: “in this new method of practicing art empathy would lose its dominant role, against that the alienation effect (aeffect) will need to be introduced, which is an artistic effect too and also leads to a theatrical experience, it consists in the reproduction of real-life incidents on the stage in such a way as to underline their causality and bring it to the spectator's attention, this type of art also generates emotions; such performances facilitate the mastering of reality; and this it is that moves the spectator”5. Therefore, Brecht wanted to make the nature of theatre more realistic. He made an emphasis on the necessity to promote the realistic principles of the actor’s play on the stage. The sociological background and the sociological bounds as the leading features of the modern theatre cannot be denied by the contemporaries. That is why aesthetics of the dramatist is closely related to the spirit of the modernity and the importance of social bounds in the modern context. The nature of man could have been presented, in accordance with Bert beliefs, only when his past and present experiences were present. In accordance with his interpretation of famous epic drama, it should be noted that Brecht used to consider the epic poem from a quite another perspective. He wanted to appeal for his auditorium. Brecht wanted that the public could discuss what was right or wrong with the certain actions staged. Oedipus the King was reinterpreted by Bert Brecht from his own perspective. In order to trace the difference between Greek interpretation of the epic poems and dramas and the modern interpretation, produced by Brecht, it should be noted that in the earlier years the audience watched the plays and wanted to be involved in the process of staged play. There was a great reconsideration of Oedipus guilt in the play staged by Bert Brecht. He was focused on the way the environment exerted influence on the development of behavior of Oedipus. He was much more distracted from the hero and his individuality, which resulted from his fate. There was a need to change the society in order to avoid negative outcomes in the individual development of the hero. Brecht suggested a more progressive and dynamic considerations about Greek drama and Greek theatre. In his another interpretation of a famous ancient Greek play Antigone, he reflected resistance and dictatorship after the period of Nazism. This was a striking experiment in the history of the theatre: "Antigone presents herself as autonomous, the pure and simple relationship of a human being to that which it miraculously finds itself carrying that is the rupture of signification that which grants a person the insuperable power of being - in spite of and against everything - what he [sic] is..."6. Therefore, it is evident that Brecht was more focused on the individualistic essence of Antigone. There are different intricate elements involved in the staging of this play. On the one hand, this play is believed to be following the principles of theatre promoted by Sophocles and on the other hand there is an international nature of the play, which cannot be denied. There is a chance to interpret this play in different directions and Bert Brecht considers it to be a favorable field for his creative searching. He made an emphasis on the necessity of realistic representations within the theatre. There is a need to implement a dialectical process and evoke a reality on stage. The actor is able to comment on his actions on stage and he should evoke understanding and emotions of the audience by his actions. The actor should enliven his character. If he acts in such a way that the audience believes him, then his acting is worth seeing. The Brechtian actor is not pretending and he should be free and feel relaxed in his play. His actor feels relaxed and is not oppressed by his fate. There is much more concentration on the outcome of the play and during his playing an actor should be able to prepare the audience for the final product of the play. Unlike Aristotelian theory of the theatre, the inner world of the actor does not really matter. There is a great emphasis made on social interaction of the actor and the surrounding characters around him. There is a direct opposition to tragedy interpretation developed by Brecht in comparison with Aristotle. Brecht also claimed that it was necessary to promote the individual’s ability to change his own fate. The reason is the most prevalent and dominant factor in the life of an actor and in the nature of the theatre. In order to discuss different implications of Brechtian theatre it should be noted that there are basic hallmarks of staging of the epic plays. For example, he underlined the importance of socioeconomic background and tried to involve the audience in the process of staging. The social change was the main goal for Bert Brecht. With the help of the staged plays he intended to show the way the society changed. The author is the producer of another reality. He intended to destroy theatrical illusion, developed by Aristotle, for example. The dialectical basis was expressed in the theatre by Brecht by the involvement of music or actors’ commentaries. Conclusion Therefore, the major implication of the Brechtian theatre is that it is “anti-illusionistic” in its essence. He underlined the importance of realistic events and underlined the integrative function of entertainment. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that Brecht’s goal was to involve the audience in the process of performance. We can memorize his interpretation of Sophocles’ Oedipus, where not the inner conflict or emotional turmoil of the actor was shown, but rather social relations, which led to this type of conflict. This move is relevant to the modern audience, because it initiates social interaction and appeals for the audience reason. Another characteristic of Brechtian theatre is the Verfremdungseffekt or "Alienation-effect"7. He underlined the importance of looking beyond the evident facts and not to take anything for granted. If to consider aesthetical implications developed by Brecht and compare them with the main claims of Aristotelian theory on theatre, we can surely claim that the developments of these greatest thinkers reflected social peculiarities of their contemporaries. Thus, the ancient people were interested in emotional representation of the events and the role of fate in their lives, while the contemporaries are more interested in the social interaction of the main characters within the social context. Bibliography Demetz, P. Brecht: A Collection of Critical Essays. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1962. Elsom, J. "Western Theater's European Roots." World and I, March 2003, p. 78. Jones, J. On Aristotle and Greek Tragedy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962. Koss, Juliet. 2006. "On the Limits of Empathy." The Art Bulletin 88 (2006) :139+. Willett, J. The Theatre of Bertolt Brecht: A Study from Eight Aspects. London: Methuen, 1959. Read More