Brecht is nothing if not vibrant,
rough and recognizing the need for audiences to engage with strong
and exciting performances. Music, comedy, drama and bizarre juxtapositions
are theatrical devices to draw attention to socially significant
questions. Audiences are encouraged to question the precepts of their
thinking. Communist governments were uneasy with Brecht while the
liberal intellectual establishments in capitalist Europe and America
thirsted for more Brecht . . . as many students still do . . .
As much as Brecht and his
plays and ideas are admirable, challenging and exciting, his
theoretical framework is related and perhaps even part of that same
bureaucratic world of benign and well meaning collectives who share a
vision of a better world through paradigm creating . . . and
ultimately politically controlling!
Brecht's focus on causal
relationships has a reductionist tendency where the heart of the
matter can be found in simple exchanges between people being the result
of historical forces. It is not the psychology that is important;
rather it is the action or the results of actions that are of prime importance.
There is an implication that if the apparatus of state changes then
so does the actions of the people from within. Change the state, the
institution or the curriculum; take control of the political, social
and educational organs and then one can change the consciousness and
actions of people.
This might almost seem a
truism until one sees the opposing views from the mystical tradition
that sees change occurring as a result of imagination, creativity and
the force of the spirit. Artaud's tendency to separate the collective
body or state apparatus from the spirit is based more on the realm of
myths, metaphors and the explosive capacities of individual will. Art
is itself seen as the prime source and vehicle for such explosive
change.
A problem for art and
theatre in the Western Liberal democracies is that reductionism, the
material view of social interaction, has gradually reduced the notion
of reality down to semantics and commodities. What is said about the
event is accepted as the reality of the event. The ticking of
checklists and boxes and supplying of balance sheets is accepted as
evidence of action as much as experience or the phenomenology
associated with the actual interaction or engagement. Our thoughts
and feelings become a position rather than an experience. We
"position" ourselves to make a pitch or we scaffold a way
through the bureaucracies and "pathways" of life; moulding
ourselves into whatever identity it takes to achieve the goals we
shape within the paradigms offered by society. We tend to distance
ourselves within alienated work environments and from artistic
engagements seen as frivolous or as escape for given slots of time.
At a deeper level, personal insecurities are traded and bargained as
the ennui of homeless minds needs to be shaped and moulded into
commodities further separating experience from semantics and the checklist
understanding of one's own life. Only in naming or boxing our
problems of life can we "move forward"; as if giving names
and titles to experience some how allows us control by simply
reducing complexity into labelled boxes for ticking.
This is the antithesis of
Artaud's thinking. One can find philosophical discourse to elaborate
such alternative thinking from philosophers such as Faucault,
Deleuze and
Derrida.
Brecht's theatre is about
giving names and labelling the enemy and situation. Artaud's theatre
is about constant engagement; exploding the labels and names and understandings
at the point of recognition. While Brecht might contain a situation
for our examination: Artaud creates nuclear fission of the senses
that cannot be contained.
Neither can be faked. Brecht's
theatre requires extreme attention to details of gesture and vocal
phrasing. Absolute clarity in what the scene is saying within
different social contexts for audiences is essential for it to work. Artaud's
theatre requires attention to all the details, but also must engage
the emotional commitment and personal dramaturgies of the performers
to be integrated into each performance. Brecht's theatre allows for
the attitude of the actor to the character to sometimes be obviously
played.
Artaud's theatre demands
that the actor find ways to communicate the essential meaning other
than through literal delivery of words. His Theatre
Of Cruelty encaptulates this seemingly vague and difficult to
define concept. It means evoking the mesmeric
state within the self in order to share common archetypes
through usually buried understandings brought to the surface. It is
less significant what an actor says on stage than what comes through
his / her very presence.
This has significant
implications for the way theatre is approached. In a way, it means
the actor is standing on nails in a performance so that every slight
change in balance and nuance of emphasis is felt through the feet and
into the sensory system. Every sense of joy is tempered by the
feeling of pain. Every engagement with violence and violent movement
is further enhanced by the need to overcome the feeling of standing
on nails that dig into the very bones at the base of the heels and
toes. In most forms of theatre, years of training can alleviate the
struggle over such pain. In Artaud's theatre, the struggle is ever
increased as the threshold of pain is increased and the work moves
beyond the simple actor / character relationship.