The Origins Of Theatre And Playwrights English Literature Essay

This essay aims to discuss the effectiveness of political theatre in causing social change, looking specifically at the practice of the contemporary political playwright Augusto Boal including the influence of social theorist Karl Marx on Boal’s work and how Marxism affected Boal’s style of theatre. This essay will begin by looking at the origins of theatre and how it has been used since then as a medium of promoting political thought. However, in order to understand political theatre we must first be able to understand what is mean by politics, the Oxford Reference Dictionary (1991:647) describes something ‘political’ as “affecting the State or its Government; of public affairs.” From this definition we are able to deduce that political theatre is theatre that is produced in order to affect or influence the community and those in power with regard to public affairs. This type of theatre has been used and enjoyed since the very beginning of theatre as we know it today, which began in Ancient Greece in the celebration of the festival of Dionysos, the God of ecstasy. The festival included prayer and procession as well as singing and dancing, there may also have been groups of performers who would answer each other through the medium of song or dance. It is believed that it was Thespis who stood out and performed first without the chorus, and thus creating what we understand to be a protagonist. (GREEK THEATRE 1) Competitions then began to take place during the festivals in which playwrights would enter their plays to be performed, either a tragedy, or a comedy and satyr play. The Greek playwrights would present the audience with ideas to think about and reflect over; during the plays a Parabasis, or ‘stepping aside’ would take place, this was an opportunity for the playwright to comment upon the state of city affairs or anything else that he so wished. Aristophanes thought that, “the dramatist should not only offer pleasure but should, besides that, be a teacher of morality and a political advisor.”(in Boal 2008:xiii) In his plays, Aristophanes would satirise the most important people of the day, in between the scenes the chorus would perform short, satirical pieces of song and dance always attacking well known individuals by name, for example he ridiculed the demagogue Kleon in his play ‘Babylonians’. However, a plays success depended on the funding from the wealthy aristocracy ay the time, the choragus therefore the plays produced may be seen to reflect the view of the choregus rather than that of the playwright, because without them a play would not have the funding to be performed. Greek society was much controlled by the economic minority, the Bourgeoisie, but nothing was done to change this. This state of affairs in Ancient Greece is very similar to the social situation that Karl Marx was fighting against when he introduced his communist manifesto; the alternative to capitalism. Marx believed that human beings have been conditioned throughout history to behave a certain way by economic institutions and that in order for an equal society without a social hierarchy then the proletariat must seize power from the bourgeoisie through a social revolution and place everything in collective ownership.

In his book “Theatre of the Oppressed” Augusto Boal writes how Marx believed that art is a key way of offering knowledge, but this knowledge is conveyed from the perspective of the artist, social surroundings or whoever provides sponsorship or payment. Mainly, it is the part of society that maintains economic power that holds control over any means of communication. Bordwell and Thompson (in Woodson, no date) back this up:

Each art form is controlled, not by the artists, but by larger social institutions. In a capitalist society, an artist may believe he or she is using the art form for personal expression, but he or she is actually producing merchandise of a kind acceptable to the society.

It is only from the arrival of Karl Marx and his theories on socialism that playwrights and practitioners have begun to use theatre as a means for change. Bertolt Brecht was greatly influenced by the Marxist theory because he too wanted to create change, “the major goal of the historical avant-garde was to challenge the institution of bourgeois art” (Kistenberg 1995:29); Pescator described Brecht’s work as a Marxist-based analysis of social relations. Brecht agreed with Marx that it was the capitalists that created the bourgeois society, and that drama can be used as a medium of didacticism. It was from this belief that Brecht adopted Piscators form of avant-garde theatre known as epic theatre. Epic theatre has many parallels with Cartesian tradition in which people are encouraged into rational thought; it underlines the socio-political content of drama rather than trying to manipulate the emotions of the audience. Brecht stated that there must be a “transformation of psychological ‘conflict’ into historic condition” (in Basuki no date) in theatre in order to release the ‘self’ and to create rational thought. This Cartesian belief is needed so that neither the audience nor the actor tries to empathise with the action and characters on stage and are able to view the action with a critical mind. In order to do this Brecht proposed that theatre needed to give to the audience a process of alienation because “alienation is necessary to all understanding” (Brecht in Basuki no date) so that they are able to form an opinion unfettered by empathy. The term Brecht used to describe this distancing of the audience is Verfremdungseffekt, which when translated, means alienation. In a description about epic theatre Brecht gives an explanation about the difference between a spectator watching dramatic theatre and one watching epic theatre:

The dramatic theatre’s spectator says: Yes, I have felt like that too-Just like me-It’s only natural-It’ll never change-The suffering of this man appals me, because they are inescapable-That’s great art; it all seems the most obvious thing in the world-I weep when they weep, I laugh when they laugh.

The epic theatre’s spectator says: I’d never have thought it-that’s not the way-That’s extraordinary, hardly believable-It’s got to stop-The sufferings of this man appal me, because they are unnecessary-That’s great art: nothing obvious in it-I laugh when they weep, I weep when they laugh (Brecht in Basuki no date)

This quote from Brecht shows us how he intended epic theatre to work and its popularity among playwrights and directors is a great example of how successful epic theatre is as a form of didacticism. However, in Brecht’s plays the separation between the stage and the audience is still present. The spectator is persuaded to think the thoughts and opinions that presented to them through the action on stage because it is the playwrights who condemns the characters or the events that have taken place; the audience’s thoughts are merely pointed in the right direction by the dramatist (OPPRESSED xx) Augusto Boal, though highly influenced by the likes of Marx and Brecht took the format of epic theatre to a new level. He found ways of combining Marxist theory with new ways of writing and analysis. He believed that in order to liberate the audience from the constraints of stage and spectator, they themselves must be part of what is happening on stage “To transform is to be transformed.”(Boal 2008:xxi) and thus becoming spect-actors. From this belief Boal created ‘ the Theatre of the Oppressed’ in which the audience are asked to intercede, and suggest the next course of action for the actors to perform or actually perform themselves, whilst the actors assist and persuade the audience to take the role of a spect-actor. For example, in forum theatre, the actors perform a short play with which ends with unresolved oppression and then it is performed again but this time the spect-actor is able to become involved and suggest ways to fix the oppression. Boal saw the spectator’s invasion of the stage as a symbolic moment in their transformation, “This invasion is a symbolic trespass. It symbolises all the acts of trespass we have to commit in order to free ourselves from what oppresses us.” (Boal 2008:xxi) By doing this the spect-actor is made aware of what he needs to do in order to change the situation in his real social setting, and by breaking down the wall between spectator and actor, Boal also breaks the wall between the oppressor and the oppressed. (BOAL ESSAY)

English Theatre company Cardboard citizens is one of the leading producers of Forum Theatre in the UK, this company is made up of homeless people or those at risk of becoming homeless. Cardboard Citizens tour the UK, performing for other Homeless people, and as it states on their website, aiming to “problem-solve together”. (CARDBOARD WEBSITE) Although this is an excellent way of trying to create social change, it may be the case that the company perform to an audience who are already aware of the situation being presented to them, and are therefore ‘preaching to the converted’. In ‘The Transparent Closet: Gay Theatre for Straight Audiences’, Richard Hall (in Kistenberg 1995:76) suggests:

Theatre is inefficient as an instrument for social change. It either speaks to those already in support of its views, or to those who are so secure in their power that they don’t mind hearing themselves abused, as long as the abuse is entertaining.

Although theatre is an excellent form of communication, it is unable to access the parts of society in which people do not watch theatre that is seen to be anything other than mainstream entertainment i.e. Musicals etc. This then stops the theatre from being its most effective. As well as this, political theatre may become an outlet for people to confirm their opinions, for example, David Hare’s play ‘Stuff Happens’ was written as a reaction to the Iraq War, somebody who has negative beliefs about this event may watch the play just so their opinions are confirmed. This again may stop the theatre from being at its most effective. Although Cardboard Citizens’ use of forum theatre has helped many homeless people’s situations and is working to gain understanding of the struggles homeless people encounter, Elizabeth Burns states that the audience “…view themselves as part of a performance rather than performance as part of their lives” (in Kistenberg 1995:32) She believes that the audience are merely props for the actors and that because they are in a state of being neither fully part of the performance nor full separate then it isn’t much different from their usual role as spectator. If this is the case then the spectators of Cardboard Citizens’ performances, even if they were able to present their theatre to a much wider and varied kind of audience, would not be much changed by what they have seen.

Boal’s next step in creating social change could be seen to have a great impact on society, he generated a form of theatre named ‘Legislative Theatre’ in which theatre is used to create an active and practical change in society.

Boal ran for election and was voted in to be one of 42 vereadores of Rio, (BOAL ESSAY) he used his new political position to create ‘Legislative Theatre’. In this type of theatre Boal attempted “To use theatre within a political system to create a truer from of democracy” (Boal 2008:i) This type of theatre uses all the techniques of the theatre of the oppressed in order to create new laws, Boal would take his theatre to the streets of Rio and asked the people what they thought of certain issues then proposed his findings to the council chamber. In this way he was able to put forward laws to be passed that had a significant impact on the people of Rio, for example, one law that was passed was one which protected the witnesses of crimes. (LEGISLATIVE THEATRE 104).

Theatre is not just about entertaining the masses; it provides a means in which to get a message across. Although all of theatre could be said to be political in a broader sense, it is political theatre that has been established as designing a theatre that is left wing and that expresses the need for radical change. Political theatre has thrived under oppressive governments as a means of communicating political opinions; however this has not always been the case. In spite of how seemingly political Greek theatre appears the censorship of the plays provides evidence towards the fact that it was not and it did little to challenge and change the social hierarchy of the time because it was controlled by the people in power. Greek theatre started by being interactive and an open form of communication; however the right to speak was taken away when the citizens were split into chorus and audience. It is seemingly ironic then that it was someone speaking out of turn that first created this form of theatre but by being made to be the audience the rest were stifled.

Looking back at how political theatre has developed over the years it is clear of the relevance of each individual practitioner at the respective times in which they were writing, for example, in the years of extreme censorship by the Bourgeoisie when Brecht was writing he was one of the first practitioners to use theatre to make people aware of their situation therefore enlightening them because it was the first time they had been shown the truth. However now, in the 21st Century when people are able to access, via the means of the internet for example, all types of imformation without censorship they are given the opportunity through practices such as Boals to actively change society. Boal’s Legislative Theatre encapsulates the aim of political theatre. As Brecht used Epic theatre in order to create social change, Boal took his format and physically created change through the placement of new laws. This is ultimately the aim of political theatre, to release the oppressed from the oppressor.

Conclusion.

Zortman (2) says that “The avant-garde artists were denounced as ‘breeders’ of the proletarian world revolution”

Quotes 356 / 1403words.