In Schecher Chapter 6, the author states that "acting is a sub-category of performing a very broad range of behaviors."
One of the "sub-categories" of acting that intrigued (but also confused) me was Brechtian Acting. Essentially, this is different than realistic acting because it "separates the actors from the roles." This is what aroused my curiosity. I am curious about how this is even possible for spectators to perceive?
Another thing that captivated me was when the authors states that, "The important thing is to create an art where history is not already given, a theater not controlled by fate and destiny, but open to historical intervention and social change." Even though I found this quote slightly confusing, I read it as just a form of acting that disregards social norms and offers the actors to provide their opinions about certain subjects.
The social aspect of this is still prominent in today's acting. I don't know If I am reading this wrong, but a lot of films have an underlying message that deals with the director's position on a subject. Like the author stated, "Brechtian Acting is not so much "opposed" to realistic acting as supplemental to it."
I am curious about how you all understood this aspect of acting and if some of my points could be clarified.
3 comments:
I'll have to agree with you; Brechtian methods are very confusing. Last year, I was in a play analysis class, and because MSU's theatre department was performing Brecht's Mother Courage and All of Her Children, we were all lucky enough to spend three weeks studying the techniques meant to be incorporated into the show. From what I understand (and remember), Brecht's main goal in writing and production was to convey a politic or societal message to those in the audience. This is very similar to realism plays, which were also popular during his time. However, he wanted to convey his message to the viewers without using what actors call the 'fourth wall'. This is basically the imaginary line between the characters and the audience that separates the real world from the imaginary one. Brecht broke this wall in several ways: harsh lighting, visible backstage areas, lack of a curtain, having the actors move the set pieces instead of stage hands, and making moments of human decision and choice incredibly obvious (also called gestus). All of these elements were meant to remind the audience that they are in fact watching a play and that they should not become emotionally attached to the character's or their story's, but to realize the critique they are trying to convey instead.
Katherine's interpretation seems to work for me as well. I thought Schechner was explaining the Brechtian technique as more of a way to send a message that the audience can figure out for themselves, rather than have it told to them directly by the story. Or, it creates a more subjective feel to the performance.
Wow, thank you Katherine. That cleared up a lot. I noticed in "The Good Person of Szechwan" that characters broke the fourth-wall numerous times. I did not know about the lighting aspect, that's very interesting.
Leanne, that's a unique point as well. I never really thought about the fact that they message of the story becomes more subtle (if that's what you are trying to say, correct me if I'm wrong).
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.