Radical Theater - Research Paper Example

Radical Theater The commercial structure of early British post-war theatre was characterized by the classical teachings of the upper/middle classes who felt theatre should reflect a particular adherence to tradition. Coming out of the war, much of Britain’s mainstream theatre was dominated by the ideologies of a relative minority of commercial businesses who were merely seeking a profit rather than being overly concerned with any kind of artistic achievement. If a theatre company wished to garner the resources offered by these commercial enterprises, they could not present themselves as experimental or controversial in any way. For this reason, much of the theatre developed in this time period “represented the safe middle-class milieu and world-view aspirations of the audiences that would come to see them” (Batty, 2005). The purpose of theatre had been reduced to provide a rather thoughtless, structured evening of culture without the necessity of challenging beliefs or social norms. “They didn’t want anything else, they were perfectly happy to put their feet up. That was what going to the theatre was normally about, going and putting your feet up and just receive something, received ideas of what drama was, going through various procedures which were known to the audience. I think it was becoming a dead area” (Batty, 2005). At the same time, playwrights and producers had to be careful regarding the content and presentation of their material to be sure it fell within the strict regulations of the Lord Chamberlain’s office. This harsh environment saw the number of theatres with permanent repertory companies fall from 96 to 55 between the years 1950 to 1955 (Clough, 2006). It was this constraining atmosphere that ironically gave birth to the radical theater movement brought forward by Peter Brook. Despite the commercial structure of theatre following the close of the war, the dominant conventions of stage realism played a part in determining Peter Brook’s radical approach. During the nineteenth century, theatre took on shapes and forms that would not be recognizable today as realistic despite their claims to the contrary (Gordon, 2006). Advances in stage set design that included more and more realistic trompe l’oeil imagery encouraged a greater degree of naturalism in the acting performance, all set within the proscenium-arch picture frame of the stage (Gordon, 2006). Realism throughout the nineteenth century and into the early portions of the twentieth century was heavily influenced by the new sciences that were emerging, changing the emphasis from those of rationalism or melodramatic displays of emotion. “The terms of Zola’s naturalism required the actor to perform as though completely unaware of the existence of an audience, presenting a fragment of that character’s physiological existence as a series of symptoms that exposed his social and biological history” (Gordon, 2006). These changing approaches to acting in light of a changing world contributed to the development of the modernist movement, which was initiated in theatre in the early twentieth century by essentially four men – Stanislavsky, Meyerhold, Brecht and Artaud – who each focused in different ways upon the idea that theatre is always symbolic. “It assumes that everything that happens on stage stands for something else. This is true even of the most naturalistic piece” (Leach, 2004). While each of these men placed emphasis on different aspects of their productions and the importance such emphasis had on the final outcome, each recognized the essential nature of the actor in this process. “Each helped to open up acting and to liberate it from old traditions. Each saw the actor as a creative artist in his own right” (Leach, 2004). Their influence on theatre had opened up new ideas for theatre prior to the war period and helped pave the way for Peter Brook to bring his radical approaches to the stage after the war was over. The theatre scene at the time of Brook’s earliest plays qualified as what Brook refers to as Deadly Theatre. “A true theatre of joy is non-existent and it is not just the trivial comedy and the bad musical that fails to give us our money’s worth – the Deadly Theatre finds its way into grand opera and tragedy, into the plays of Moliere and the plays of Brecht” (Brook, 1995). According to Brook, Deadly Theatre refers to all types of theatre that is based upon the ‘right’ way of doing things, the prescribed way of acting, the determination of the ‘one right way’ to produce and present a text. “The Deadly Theatre takes easily to Shakespeare. We see his plays done by good actors in what seems like the proper way – they look lively, and colorful, there is music and everyone is dressed up, just as they are supposed to be in the best of classical theatres. Yet secretly we find it excruciatingly boring – and in our hearts we either blame Shakespeare, or theatre as such, or even ourselves” (Brook, 1995). As early as 1946, with his production of Love’s Labour’s Lost, Brook demonstrated a willingness to take a new approach to Shakespeare that would serve to wake up the attending public and instill a new sense of life in the stagnant theatrical world. Rather than following the somewhat dusty routine of Shakespeare productions, in which it was considered necessary to ‘play what is written’ (Brook, 1995), Brook chose to costume his actors in Watteau-eighteenth century clothing (consisting of a number of pleats in the back), yet opted to costume one character slightly differently. The character called Constable Dull was dressed as a Victorian policeman because of the image Brook had of him as a London bobby. The change in costume from Shakespearean to Victorian was only one instance in which Brook pointed out the symbolic notion of what is written. He applied this concept equally to the text as it was written. “What is written? Certain ciphers on paper. Shakespeare’s words are records of the words he wanted to be spoken, words issuing as sounds from people’s mouths, with pitch, pause, rhythm and gesture as part of their meaning. A word does not start as a word – it is an end product which begins as an impulse, stimulated by attitude and behavior which dictate the need for expression” (Brook, 1995). To illustrate his approach to Shakespeare’s plays, Brook points to the lack of stage direction included in the texts. “The best dramatists explain themselves the least. They recognize that further indications will most probably be useless. They recognize that the only way to find the true path to the speaking of a word is through a process that parallels the original creative one” (Brook, 1995). By keeping this in mind, Brook has slowly evolved his own approach to theatre that increasingly celebrates the involvement of the actor as actor and keeps the creative process at the forefront of the production. Like Love’s Labour’s Lost, Brook’s approach to Measure for Measure (1950) was characterized by a certain license given to the actors as the play progressed, such as the breathless length of time that passed in silence before Isabella finally asked for pardon for the man who had tried to rape her in exchange for her brother’s life. These changes, pauses, costume and set design changes to the traditional way in which these plays had been presented emerged as a natural result of the way in which Brook had his actors approach the process of the production. This approach enabled Brook to always be aware of how the subtle nuances of a text could emerge when one allowed the actors to explore the ideas that naturally arose from working in close proximity with the text rather than simply allowing themselves to be limited by the text. “In a living theatre, we would each day approach the rehearsal putting yesterday’s discoveries to the test, ready to believe that the true play has once again escaped us” (Brook, 1995). This required not only actors that had been trained in Method acting, in which the only way to examine a part was through the experience of it, but also a different approach to directing. Throughout his career, Brook has made it a habit to approach his productions with an open mind and a willing capacity to question long-standing interpretations, especially when it comes to Shakespeare. “I wrote in my book The Empty Space that the theater has to go forward. It can’t live in the past or even the present. And that it must go forward to Shakespeare. And that going to Shakespeare is a movement forward because, whether one likes it or not, the phenomenon of Shakespeare is like the carrot in front of the horse, we are always working to catch up” (Croyden, 2003). While it can be argued that Brook’s work is difficult to understand or that he takes too much license with traditional texts, those who have a willingness to pay attention with an open mind are able to experience new aspects of plays they thought they’d long ago deciphered. New elements emerge that make the play real to not only the contemporary audience, but also to those actors and actresses selected to take part in the process. While others have tried to follow in Brook’s footsteps, many fail because of their lack of ability to allow the creative process to flow while still maintaining control and direction. Rather than following along Brook’s suggestions to build off of a single hunch regarding the text to be produced, many of these directors strive to force a view or a variety of views upon a text that it not strong enough or tested enough to really appeal to a contemporary audience. Either this or they have misidentified the contemporary audience concern. However, Brook’s approach still remains as effective now as it was when he first developed it, as the critical and audience acclaim for his most recent rendition of Hamlet testifies. When one approaches a solid text with the willingness to explore its ideas and encourage creativity on all levels, hidden depths become clearer and the translation into modern conventions becomes seamless for all concerned. References Batty, Mark. (2005). About Pinter : the Playwright and the Work. London : Faber. Brook, Peter. (1995). The Empty Space: A Book About the Theatre: Deadly, Holy, Rough, Immediate. New York: Touchstone. Clough, Sarah. (2006). “Take Care: Theatre in the 1950s.” The Caretaker. Sheffield Crucible. Accessed July 9, 2009 from Croyden, Margaret. (2003). Conversations with Peter Brook: 1970-2000. New York: Faber & Faber. Gordon, Robert. (2006). The Purpose of Playing: Modern Acting Theories in Perspective. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Leach, Robert. (2004). Makers of Modern Theatre. New York: Routledge. Read More