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.
