Monday, 1 December 2014
Is Brecht still relevant?
In my personal opinion i believe Brecht is still very much relevant as his methods are continuously used throughout theatre. I think that every practitioner from Stanislavsky, Artaud, Chekhov etc will always have a prevalence in theatre as their methods and teachings can be used and adapted. In many ways their methods are simple like the 'magic if' method or narration - that can be applied across the board to anyone wishing to extend their understanding of their character or distance the audience from the characters. Even though Brecht is seen as 'old' in some sense he is still relevant to today.
Monday, 17 November 2014
Dramatic vs Epic
Here i'm going to talk about some of the key differences between Dramatic theatre and Epic theatre and which techniques i believe are more effective.
Feeling vs Reason
In dramatic theatre you are often compelled to feel a certain way toward a character, emotionally investing in that character whereas in epic theatre you are often not allowed that opportunity to feel connect to the character in a personal way but are reasoning with yourself about how you feel toward them but above all the message of the play.
In epic theatre you are lead to question and challenge your self on the whole topic of the play rather than the individual topic of each character.
I believe that dramatic theatre in this sense is more effective as for me i am more likely to feel a connection to the play AND its message if i am emotionally involved with characters. I think you can say a lot more when you allow your audience to invest in the characters and can create an interesting dynamic for example: you could make your audience emotionally invest in a criminal and use that strange idea that you are routing for someone who is socially seen as a "bad person" which in itself makes you reason with yourself and the social norms.
Eyes on the finish vs Eyes on the course
Throughout dramatic theatre they play if focused on the final outcome of the plot and often the finish is where the characters reach their realisations whereas in epic theatre the characters change, grown and realise throughout the course of the play, creating a piece which is ever changing as it isn't cemented to having a defining end point.
In epic theatre you focus on the characters journey throughout the play and i believe this is more effective than dramatic theatre as you get to see more of the characters destination, for example in dramatic theatre you only really see that characters defining point at the end of the play which is a summary of the plot but with epic theatre you could have multiple defining moments through the journey which shapes that person.
I like epic theatres "eyes on the course" more than dramatic theatres "eyes on the finish" as it opens up the play into more freedom, you are constantly see the characters grow and realise which i believe is more interesting and funnily enough more naturalistic as this is what happens in real life.
Feeling vs Reason
In dramatic theatre you are often compelled to feel a certain way toward a character, emotionally investing in that character whereas in epic theatre you are often not allowed that opportunity to feel connect to the character in a personal way but are reasoning with yourself about how you feel toward them but above all the message of the play.
In epic theatre you are lead to question and challenge your self on the whole topic of the play rather than the individual topic of each character.
I believe that dramatic theatre in this sense is more effective as for me i am more likely to feel a connection to the play AND its message if i am emotionally involved with characters. I think you can say a lot more when you allow your audience to invest in the characters and can create an interesting dynamic for example: you could make your audience emotionally invest in a criminal and use that strange idea that you are routing for someone who is socially seen as a "bad person" which in itself makes you reason with yourself and the social norms.
Eyes on the finish vs Eyes on the course
Throughout dramatic theatre they play if focused on the final outcome of the plot and often the finish is where the characters reach their realisations whereas in epic theatre the characters change, grown and realise throughout the course of the play, creating a piece which is ever changing as it isn't cemented to having a defining end point.
In epic theatre you focus on the characters journey throughout the play and i believe this is more effective than dramatic theatre as you get to see more of the characters destination, for example in dramatic theatre you only really see that characters defining point at the end of the play which is a summary of the plot but with epic theatre you could have multiple defining moments through the journey which shapes that person.
I like epic theatres "eyes on the course" more than dramatic theatres "eyes on the finish" as it opens up the play into more freedom, you are constantly see the characters grow and realise which i believe is more interesting and funnily enough more naturalistic as this is what happens in real life.
Lesson 1
Narration - Why did Brecht use it?
Throughout Brecht's work he uses narration. This could be in 5 main forms:
1.) A separate narrator
2.) An actor stepping out of character
3.) An actor speaking in 3rd person
4.) Singing narration
5.) Written narration (plaque cards, projection)
Brecht wanted to come away from naturslim whilst still dealing with real life situations and economic/politcal issues. The narration opened up the opportunity to remind the audience that what they were watching on stage was not in fact reality but a warped view and brought the shows back down to earth in some way as it allowed the audience to step outside the situation.
Brecht did this to futhur insure that the audience weren't emotionally connect to the characters but instead constantly debating and challenging themselves.
Gestus
Gestus is where you use your body to suggest emotions/messages and express yourself in appose to just using facial expressions. Brecht wanted to show how a persons circumstances/upbringing could have an effect on the way they move and wanted to break conventions of that era which hadn't really began to play with the way you can move your body as a better tool in theatre.
Gestus are gestures you make to indicate a message so when my group created two opposing images of politicians we created 1 image of the politician looking proud at a podium and other mp's cheering and looking pleased, the another where the politician was giving money to one homeless person but holding up his middle finger too others on the street as the camera only filmed the one he was giving money two.
These two simple gestures told a whole heap of messages for example the second image was indicating that politicians only act like they care in front of the camera but behind the scene they couldn't care less, it also asked questions about the governments personal attitudes and policies on the homeless.
I like the technique gestures as it allows you to be create with your body but at the same time be simplistic which allows the observer to think for themselves.
The Message
Brechtian theatre is all about the message it is conveying. Brecht always wanted to have a strong political or social statement behind his work that provoked the audience to have an internal conflict with themselves on an issue or situation.
In his work , Brecht explored themes related to war, ownership, sacrifice, the notion of justice and the theme of the inequalities produced by 'superior' people in power over the 'inferior' lower class. He challenged society's opinion of the oppressed. Brecht tried to teach his audiences not to accept the world as they found it. he also tried to teach his actor the same thing.
Throughout Brecht's work he uses narration. This could be in 5 main forms:
1.) A separate narrator
2.) An actor stepping out of character
3.) An actor speaking in 3rd person
4.) Singing narration
5.) Written narration (plaque cards, projection)
Brecht wanted to come away from naturslim whilst still dealing with real life situations and economic/politcal issues. The narration opened up the opportunity to remind the audience that what they were watching on stage was not in fact reality but a warped view and brought the shows back down to earth in some way as it allowed the audience to step outside the situation.
Brecht did this to futhur insure that the audience weren't emotionally connect to the characters but instead constantly debating and challenging themselves.
Gestus
Gestus is where you use your body to suggest emotions/messages and express yourself in appose to just using facial expressions. Brecht wanted to show how a persons circumstances/upbringing could have an effect on the way they move and wanted to break conventions of that era which hadn't really began to play with the way you can move your body as a better tool in theatre.
Gestus are gestures you make to indicate a message so when my group created two opposing images of politicians we created 1 image of the politician looking proud at a podium and other mp's cheering and looking pleased, the another where the politician was giving money to one homeless person but holding up his middle finger too others on the street as the camera only filmed the one he was giving money two.
These two simple gestures told a whole heap of messages for example the second image was indicating that politicians only act like they care in front of the camera but behind the scene they couldn't care less, it also asked questions about the governments personal attitudes and policies on the homeless.
I like the technique gestures as it allows you to be create with your body but at the same time be simplistic which allows the observer to think for themselves.
The Message
Brechtian theatre is all about the message it is conveying. Brecht always wanted to have a strong political or social statement behind his work that provoked the audience to have an internal conflict with themselves on an issue or situation.
In his work , Brecht explored themes related to war, ownership, sacrifice, the notion of justice and the theme of the inequalities produced by 'superior' people in power over the 'inferior' lower class. He challenged society's opinion of the oppressed. Brecht tried to teach his audiences not to accept the world as they found it. he also tried to teach his actor the same thing.
"... above all s/he [actor of Brechtian theatre] must be aware of the theme with which the play is concerned."
Bertolt Brecht research
His theory
Bertolt Brecht had an influential theory of theatre, the epic theatre, wherein a play should not cause the spectator to emotionally identify with the action before him or her, but should instead provoke rational self-reflection and a critical view of the actions on the stage.
The content of many of his plays dealt with fictional telling's of historical figures or events. His idea was that if you were to tell a story from a time that is contemporary to an audience, they may not be able to maintain the critical perspective because it may have recent influences from the media or the audience have a resent opinion. Instead, he focused on historical stories that had parallel themes to the social issues of his time. He hoped that, in viewing these historical stories from a critical/outside perspective, the contemporary issues Brecht was addressing would be illuminated to the audience.
Brecht also believed in non naturalistic theatre were he made the audience aware that the characters in the play were indeed actors and this was a play they were watching. He used techniques such as speaking in third person, plaque cards, and unusual sequences or moments which would create an abstract piece which removed the audience from reality and the normal naturalistic play which further broke any attachment they had with a character and drove the audience to connect with the social/political message.
Bertolt Brecht had an influential theory of theatre, the epic theatre, wherein a play should not cause the spectator to emotionally identify with the action before him or her, but should instead provoke rational self-reflection and a critical view of the actions on the stage.
The content of many of his plays dealt with fictional telling's of historical figures or events. His idea was that if you were to tell a story from a time that is contemporary to an audience, they may not be able to maintain the critical perspective because it may have recent influences from the media or the audience have a resent opinion. Instead, he focused on historical stories that had parallel themes to the social issues of his time. He hoped that, in viewing these historical stories from a critical/outside perspective, the contemporary issues Brecht was addressing would be illuminated to the audience.Brecht also believed in non naturalistic theatre were he made the audience aware that the characters in the play were indeed actors and this was a play they were watching. He used techniques such as speaking in third person, plaque cards, and unusual sequences or moments which would create an abstract piece which removed the audience from reality and the normal naturalistic play which further broke any attachment they had with a character and drove the audience to connect with the social/political message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)