the- Page 2

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 10:45pm

Daniel, even after several readings, I have no idea what you want to say in this thread. (I do hope it was clear that I said your original post was "juvenile", not that you yourself are.)

 

Yes, many of the German Expressionists were nihilist. So were some of their cousins among the Futurists and Constructivists. They were the Angry Young Men of their era, analogous to punk rockers in the 1970s and having as much and as little influence on the culture at large. Expressionism lasted a little longer because of the dark circumstances imposed on Germany after WWI.

 

But whether any of these movements achieved any lasting change on individual psyches is highly debatable. (The same may be said of Artaud, despite his grandiose claims.)

 

And what does any of this have to do with the American musical? Not much, really.

 

Harold Prince was deeply influenced by a post-WWII trip to Brecht's East Berliner Ensemble (arguably the grandchild of German Expressionism though Brecht would deny it). The influence of Prince's trip is seen not only in CABARET, but in the direction and design elements of shows such as ZORBA, FOLLIES, SWEENEY TODD, EVITA , GRIND and even PHANTOM. But none of Prince's shows are true Expressionism; like all post-modern works, they borrow (often superficially) from early 20th century Modernist works without embracing the philosophical aims of those earlier movements.

 

This is not to say Prince's shows are superficial. I'm just saying we shouldn't confuse Prince's appropriation of German Expressionist design and directorial elements with German Expressionism itself.

 

I know less of Fosse's influences (other than his early days dancing in night clubs), but he did much the same in CHICAGO. But the ironic ending of that show ("In 50 years or so, it's gonna change, ya know" would have caused nothing but eye-rolling among true Expressionists. Was CHICAGO's view of the justice system disturbing in pre-O.J. days? Yes, to an extent that probably kept it from a longer run at the time. But not in the "Let's tear everything down and start over" sense of expressionist nihilism.

 

I don't disagree with darquegk often, but I saw the original PIPPIN and found it about as disturbing as THE SOUND OF MUSIC. Yes, there were some striking moments in the "War" number, but the show as a whole was a glossy version of Medieval theatrical elements that had been staples of protest theater throughout the 1960s. Even more than HAIR, it was a chance for middle-class audiences to take a day trip past a counter-culture that was already waning. Fosse was neither Wedekind nor Artaud, nor did he want to be.

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 12:44am

I'm not as well-versed on this subject as Gaveston (I have only an MFA, not a PhD!), but from my knowledge, expressionist theater never really took off. In the 1920's we got Elmer Rice's The Adding Machine (later made into a really good musical), Sophie Treadwell's Machinal...and that was kinda it. In the 60's and 70's people experimented with lots of avant guard stuff (Theatre of Cruelty, Theatre of the Oppressed, and other forms of masturbation), taking the Beckett type stuff to extreme levels (the most successful and commercially viable of it coming from some of Pinter's works), but for the most part expressionist theatre is something that is performed in people's basements in Queens and it has mostly failed as an theatrical style except for its influence on later writers.

That said, Machinal is pretty awesome.

[devonian.t]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 9:15am

An interesting thread- a concise answer could be: not on Broadway.  

reference to Artaud is interesting but I think even more exploration of Expressionism can be found in the work at Gardzienice in Poland.

[DanielMoszkowicz]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 1:07pm

can

Updated On: 1/30/16 at 01:07 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 2:35pm

"After having been banned from all "active" theatre forum websites based in my home country of Australia..."

 

Now there's an interesting statement, about which I would like to hear more.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 9:54pm

The Distinctive Baritone said: "I'm not as well-versed on this subject as Gaveston (I have only an MFA, not a PhD!), but from my knowledge, expressionist theater never really took off. In the 1920's we got Elmer Rice's The Adding Machine (later made into a really good musical), Sophie Treadwell's Machinal...and that was kinda it. In the 60's and 70's people experimented with lots of avant guard stuff (Theatre of Cruelty, Theatre of the Oppressed, and other forms of masturbation), taking the Beckett type stuff to extreme levels (the most successful and commercially viable of it coming from some of Pinter's works), but for the most part expressionist theatre is something that is performed in people's basements in Queens and it has mostly failed as an theatrical style except for its influence on later writers.

 

That said, Machinal is pretty awesome.

 

"

Sounds about right to me. Your MFA program must have been more informative than mine!

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 9:58pm

devonian.t said: "An interesting thread- a concise answer could be: not on Broadway.  

 

reference to Artaud is interesting but I think even more exploration of Expressionism can be found in the work at Gardzienice in Poland.

 

"

I wasn't suggesting Artaud was an Expressionist. He was a Surrealist until they kicked him out.

 

I mentioned Artaud because the OP's first post, with its references to Jung, the destruction of the psyche, etc., seemed more evocative of Artaud's stated aims than those of the Expressionists. I'm sorry that wasn't clear.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 10:20pm

newintown said: ""After having been banned from all "active" theatre forum websites based in my home country of Australia..."

 

 

 

Now there's an interesting statement, about which I would like to hear more.

 

"

Yes, indeed!

 

***

 

Daniel, your initial attempt to be provocative reads as if you took Brockett's (yes, I taught from his texts for 15 years; I know him well) one-line descriptions of half-a-dozen movements and threw them all at the wall to see what sticks. It appears you crammed for a final exam without really understanding any of the movements to which you allude--which is why I said it seemed "sophomoric".

 

I'm certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually understand many Modernist movements, but we need to distinguish between those that actually held meetings and wrote manifestos (Naturalists, surrealists) and those that were merely lumped together by critics and scholars looking for a shorthand reference (Theater of the Absurd and, IIRC, the Expressionists).

 

Expressionism, really a critic's category, had its most influence in graphic design, especially of typography, until it eventually gave way to Abstract Expressionism. In the theater, the not-really-a-unified-movement is represented today by a handful of surviving plays, those mentioned by Baritone (especially MACHINAL, IMO), along with SPRING AWAKENING and the plays of Brecht (though the latter liked to pretend his work was entirely sui generes, Brecht in fact borrowed heavily from Expressionist cabaret as well as Piscator). Expressionism didn't tend toward humor, but the comedies of Jarry and Kaiser are also sometimes included.

 

All of the above share a view of society as oppressive and dehumanizing, but if you could perform them all in rep, viewers might not notice much similarity. So back to your original question--"Was the destructive power in Expressionist theatre ever fully realized?"--the answer is probably "First, you'll have to prove that Expressionist theatre actually had destructive power". The riots that greeted the premieres of UBU ROI and MAHAGONNY led to nothing consequential.

Updated On: 1/24/16 at 10:20 PM

[devonian.t]

Posted: 1/23/16 at 7:15am

Gaveston- I wasn't trying to correct you- I should have said "furthermore" or "moreover" to clarify my topic shift!

 

Although I'm still not sure whether the original intention in starting this thread was to discuss or provoke, it has certainly inspired some very interesting posts.

As a post-script, I wonder whether any of the early 20th Century movements can be drawn upon in the post-modern era, without being presented as a self-conscious pastiche, parody or period piece?

[DanielMoszkowicz]

Posted: 1/23/16 at 2:27pm

clearly

Updated On: 1/30/16 at 02:27 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/23/16 at 8:53pm

devonian.t said: "Gaveston- I wasn't trying to correct you- I should have said "furthermore" or "moreover" to clarify my topic shift!

 

 

 

Although I'm still not sure whether the original intention in starting this thread was to discuss or provoke, it has certainly inspired some very interesting posts.

 

As a post-script, I wonder whether any of the early 20th Century movements can be drawn upon in the post-modern era, without being presented as a self-conscious pastiche, parody or period piece?

 

"

No hard feelings on my part. I hope that was clear. We're all speaking in the broadest possible terms here, so some misunderstanding is inevitable.

 

I think the answer to your question above is usually no. Presented in their original form, those early 20th century plays turn into museum pieces (see most attempts to do Brecht, alas) or pastiches. On the other hand, some of the actual plays do hold up when their scripts are simply approached honestly and not in an attempt to to achieve some Edwardian or Weimar Republic aim. SPRING AWAKENING has done pretty well as a musical. I was incredibly moved by a production of MACHINAL about 20 years ago. UBU ROI is still performed on college campuses, I believe. Etc. and so forth.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 1/23/16 at 8:58pm

Can't you be profound later?

 

In the spirit of the thread, and from my admittedly hazy knowledge of Expressionism and post-modernism in theater, where does Robert Wilson fall in this discussion? He's forged an incredibly productive career in Germany, where the Brechtian ideal is either alive and well or dead and borrowed (how austere, exactly, were Brecht's original concepts?). I've seen a couple of his works, which borrow the notion of obvious theatricality, but they use it in what I guess is a Beckettsian way, to allow the audience more freedom in emotional reaction through abstraction. Is that different from what Brecht wanted?

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/23/16 at 9:08pm

Daniel, as I'm sure you know, Perth also has an excellent state theater, the Black Swan. I feel compelled to mention this because my best friend from grad school, Kate Cherry, is beginning her final year there as Artistic Director.

 

Grotowski is amazing, but I don't see how it will help to throw him into the stew.

 

But as for forcing me to question myself, I hope I do that all the time. What I try not to do is much outside research for this board. I just don't have the time. So feel free to take that into consideration when you read my comments.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/23/16 at 9:34pm

Charley Kringas Inc said: "Can't you be profound later?

 

 

 

In the spirit of the thread, and from my admittedly hazy knowledge of Expressionism and post-modernism in theater, where does Robert Wilson fall in this discussion? He's forged an incredibly productive career in Germany, where the Brechtian ideal is either alive and well or dead and borrowed (how austere, exactly, were Brecht's original concepts?). I've seen a couple of his works, which borrow the notion of obvious theatricality, but they use it in what I guess is a Beckettsian way, to allow the audience more freedom in emotional reaction through abstraction. Is that different from what Brecht wanted?

 

"

I assume your question was directed at Daniel. Neither of my posts today can be accused of profundity or even wordiness.

 

In answer to your question, yes, post-Modernism is almost always self-conscious, reminding us that we are watching a play or film or teleplay. And, yes, Brecht's theater was also self-conscious, at the time a rebellion against what he considered the hypnotic appeal of Realism/Naturalism.

 

But as Brecht eventually realized, even the most presentational theater quickly becomes representational in the spectator's mind UNLESS one constantly changes the rules of the on-stage world. (See Brecht's A SHORT ORGANUM for a discussion of this.)

 

As to whether presentational devices work the same today, I'd say "no" except in the hands of writers like Tony Kushner, who really knows his Brecht. TV "reality" shows have made the "confessional" a cliche; it's a presentational device, but most viewers accept it as part of the "narrative" of the show, even to the point of forgetting that it can't have been filmed at the time of the events being discussed. It's just an easy way to superficially vary the program.

 

Brecht, on the other hand, had a specific scheme for constantly reminding us we were watching a play.  Basically, he wanted us to feel our own feelings, not pretend we could feel through empathy what Oedipus or Hamlet was feeling. And by reminding us we were watching a play, he reminded us that we were watching somebody's choice (not something that had actually happened), And if we know it's a choice, he hoped we would ask ourselves why the choice was made.

 

Whether he achieved all that is highly debatable.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/23/16 at 9:41pm

Charley, I didn't address your question about Robert Wilson because I don't know his work well enough to comment. I saw one of his pieces and by the time the Conestoga wagon took flight and soared over the Great Wall of China, I was lost. I did like Phillip Glass' music, however.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 1/23/16 at 11:24pm

That kind of answers my question about Brecht, which seems to me less like an ideal than a reaction to the Stanislavski realism that was trendily new then. Plays were much more mannered before Stanislsavski came along, right? I remember seeing some scans of a book on acting that actually demonstrated how actors should stand to express certain emotions, and they were all very silent film-y. It's kind of an interesting back-and-forth - some aspect of the previous generation always seems to be peeking through. 

 

What does Kushner do that supports what Brecht was doing?

 

Also, re: Wilson, he seems to create characters in situations that are highly theatrical, and never realistic as a rule, but seem to be, in their boxed-in way, extremely realistic. His production of Threepenny Opera started with the opening notes of "Mack The Knife" playing, which you can see here: https://youtu.be/nv2SiBcE9dM?t=47 You get the sense that it's not the actors coming through the characters, but the characters themselves having some kind of awareness, being called forward from the darkness and having an emotional reaction to being made to perform (most of them seem diabolically delighted). I guess it's not strictly Brechtian but I'm not sure what else it is, if not that. 

[DanielMoszkowicz]

Posted: 1/24/16 at 9:48am

expand

 

 

 

 

 

Updated On: 1/30/16 at 09:48 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 1/24/16 at 11:14am

I, personally, have no affinity for Robert Wilson. His work is maddeningly opaque to me, often interminable to sit through and laden with intriguing imagery that seems to exist simply because it's cool. To paraphrase The Simpsons' definition of post-modernism: it's weird for the sake of weird. While he embraces some of Brecht aesthetically, Brecht wanted to distance audiences from emotional engagement in order to make a very clear social point. Wilson distances the audience and leaves them wondering why they watched a white-faced actor walk slowly across the stage for so long.

Kushner falls in line with Brecht's embrace of obvious theatricality and theatre as a platform for social change. Unlike Brecht, Kushner embraces the emotional connection of the audience to characters. That's the tricky thing about Brecht- he really didn't want the audience to invest emotionally in what was going on. That's why characters explain themselves directly to the audience, why the emotions are superficial, why they make irrational decisions without any buildup, why we learn so little about them.

 

[DanielMoszkowicz]

Posted: 1/24/16 at 1:57pm

and

 

Updated On: 1/30/16 at 01:57 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/24/16 at 8:11pm

Kad said: "I, personally, have no affinity for Robert Wilson. His work is maddeningly opaque to me, often interminable to sit through and laden with intriguing imagery that seems to exist simply because it's cool. To paraphrase The Simpsons' definition of post-modernism: it's weird for the sake of weird. While he embraces some of Brecht aesthetically, Brecht wanted to distance audiences from emotional engagement in order to make a very clear social point. Wilson distances the audience and leaves them wondering why they watched a white-faced actor walk slowly across the stage for so long.

 

Kushner falls in line with Brecht's embrace of obvious theatricality and theatre as a platform for social change. Unlike Brecht, Kushner embraces the emotional connection of the audience to characters. That's the tricky thing about Brecht- he really didn't want the audience to invest emotionally in what was going on. That's why characters explain themselves directly to the audience, why the emotions are superficial, why they make irrational decisions without any buildup, why we learn so little about them.

 

 

 

"

Oh, Kad, I'm sorry, and I know that's how Brecht is taught in almost every Theater class, but it's a serious misreading of Brecht, caused in part by reading his didactic early remarks and then assuming he never refined those ideas over 30+ years of theatrical practice. In other words, yeah, he said something about alienating the audience when he was in his mid-20s; but he drops the notion in later, more thoughtful works.

 

Brecht wrote that the theater should be like a boxing match, with spectators taking sides as passionately as those who place bets on fighters. Does that sound like "emotional detachment" to you? Does killing off Mother Courage's children--even the deaf-mute daughter--one by one sound like an attempt to achieve emotional detachment?

 

Charley is right: Brecht's early theory is a rebellion against Realism (including Stanislavsky) and the well-made play. Brecht thought the very seamlessness of such efforts had a sort of hypnotic effect on spectators as they engaged in the "willing suspension of disbelief" (first defined by Coleridge and the Romantic poets). That "suspension" was akin to voodoo in Brecht's eyes and the very seamlessness made it appear that the action of the play all took place in the past, where it was also "resolved". Since it was all over and done with at the final curtain (and, in fact, over before it began), it could not possibly inspire action on the part of the spectator. What was left for them to do?

 

Instead, Brecht thought theater should enrage, inspire and motivate us to take action. Yes, he thought that required a critical view of the events of the play, but one can view critically without retreating into cold, intellectual isolation. Unfortunately, the young Brecht so overstated his case that hundreds of academics have used him as an excuse for their boring productions, claiming they were "distancing" the audience. (I'm not suggesting all or even most academic productions are boring, not at all. I'm just saying Brecht makes a handy excuse when they are.)

 

In fact, it is not the audience which is estranged, it is the symbols on stage. And it is certainly not a Brechtian invention. Again, it was Romantic critics who first defined the process:

 

1. The spectator is shown something that looks familiar.

 

2. The familiar is made strange, causing the spectator to wonder what is wrong with it.

 

3. The spectator comes to see what was once familiar in a new light.

 

(I didn't invent the above schema. Some early 20th-century Russian did; his name escapes me at the moment.) This process can be done with props, plot events, characters, really anything on stage. And it is central to Brecht's aims. And by the time of A SHORT ORGANUM, he is referring to V-effects (A-affects, or alienation effects in English) only in the plural; so it's clear he not talking about the singular attitude of the audience itself. Every production has many V-effects!

 

Example: MOTHER COURAGE contains what may be the single most harrowing line in Western dramatic literature when, having tried to negotiate a lower ransom for her favorite son, she realizes, "I have haggled too much." And she has: her favorite son is dead, murdered by his kidnappers. If this doesn't tug at our heart strings, what does?

 

BUT IN THE VERY NEXT SCENE, Courage waits in line to demand justice from the captain of the regiment that killed her son, but leaves before airing her grievance because she just isn't angry enough to risk the consequences. As spectators, we are shocked by this! Enraged, even! We've just been reduced to sobbing by Courage's loss; now she herself tells us it isn't worth the trouble to protest. We feel a lot of things: confusion, anger at the cowardice of Courage, betrayal by play itself, rage at the apparent attack on the sacred concept of Motherhood, perhaps. What we don't feel is cool and detached. (And what do we conclude from all those feelings? This is a matter of interpretation, of course, but I think the play is saying a sense of individual injustice isn't enough; to truly effect social change, we need a sense of the ingrained injustice of the entire system and a sense of solidarity with others who are also mistreated.)

 

As for Kushner, yes, he writes emotional scenes. In ANGELS, however, he also specifies that the actors end each scene and begin each new scene by changing the set and moving furniture themselves. So whatever we are feeling about Prior, we are also reminded Prior is a creation of playwright and actor for some purpose. What might that be?

Updated On: 1/24/16 at 08:11 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/24/16 at 8:28pm

I've admitted my limited knowledge of Wilson. And, yes, Brecht has influenced everyone who came after, pro and con. But if I cared enough to explore Wilson further, I'd read up on the surrealists. I don't know that Wilson shares the surrealist regard for Freud, but what I've seen of Wilson's work seems more representative of André Breton and his countrymen.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/24/16 at 8:37pm

Daniel, per Wiki, "The term "metatheatre" (was) coined by Lionel Abel in 1963". It's a logical coinage, since the Semiotics term "metalinguistic" preceded it and refers to "language about language", i.e., comments we make to verify that the connection between speaker and listener is still intact. "Can you hear me?" "Do you see what I mean?"

 

Metatheatre is indeed one of the foundation concepts of post-modern dramaturgy. But it is by no means a new concept. See the Shakespearean  "aside" for just one example from 400 years ago.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/24/16 at 8:54pm

Daniel, I think my preceding reply to Kad also serves to respond to your last post. You'll notice that my remarks on estrangements correspond quite closely to Bloch's. We should set aside this notion that Brecht thought theater should be like a game of chess.

 

I don't know what you mean by the following: "Could Brecht have more readily achieved all that if he shrunk the stage by sinking it down and raking it back in a nightmarish twist for the alienist entering the theatre, is my question?"

 

Brecht did work in all sorts of spaces, including factories when he was trying to recruit union members. (He concluded that theater wasn't at all effective in getting the audience to take a specific action, such as to vote for so-and-so or to oin the union. That's when he began to think and write in terms of changing the spectators' "critical thinking" skills. I suspect there's a cautionary tale there: all of us who devote so much time to the theater may tend to overstate its influence and importance to non-theatergoers.) 

 

"Alienist" is an late 19th/early 20th-century word for a psychiatrist or hypnotist. I'm guessing that's not what you meant to say.

Updated On: 1/24/16 at 08:54 PM

[DanielMoszkowicz]

Posted: 1/25/16 at 11:20am

cultivate

 

 

 

Updated On: 1/30/16 at 11:20 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 1/25/16 at 1:00pm

"Brecht wrote that the theater should be like a boxing match, with spectators taking sides as passionately as those who place bets on fighters. Does that sound like "emotional detachment" to you? Does killing off Mother Courage's children--even the deaf-mute daughter--one by one sound like an attempt to achieve emotional detachment?"

I think it's a differing type of investment than theatre typically asks for, which is usually of a more empathetic nature. Brecht wanted fiery passions, a visceral call that sweeps you into action, not for you to weep and feel the loss of Mother Courage- that's why he undercuts her loss in the next scene by having her move on.

Brecht also compared his theatre to vaudeville- standalone "sketches" and songs. The best production of Brecht I've seen was The Foundry's Good Person of Szechwan a few years ago, featuring Taylor Mac as Shen Te, which really embraced this idea. The social point of the production was all-too-clear, but it was uncommonly entertaining.
I agree that a lot of Brecht productions are dry and dull in an effort to be "distancing." But that's not what Brecht meant, as you say (and that's not what I intended to imply). He wanted audiences engaged as they are engaged in low-brow entertainments, like boxing or vaudeville, but engaged over worthy social issues. The 'emotional engagement' in those things is far different than the engagement asked for in most realist drama.