Research
Monday, 17 December 2012
Bertolt Brecht and epic theatre.
The Fourth Wall.
The fourth wall is a convention in the fiction medium which separates the action from the audience. This term has its roots in the 1800s, and it refers to the effect created in a 'proscenium theater,' in which members of the audience sit on the other side of a "wall" created by the proscenium arch, looking into the set. Works of written fiction usually include a fourth wall, as do plays, movies, and television shows in which the fiction is dramatized.
By convention, the fourth wall is not mentioned or disturbed in the course of the events depicted. The maintenance of the fourth wall helps the audience to suspend its disbelief, as fantastical events can happen beyond the wall but be perceived as acceptable, since they appear in the isolated universe of the fiction itself. In the case of dramatized fiction, the actors usually play to the fourth wall, and the set is oriented towards this imaginary barrier to ensure that the audience can clearly see what is happening.
In some works, people transcend the boundaries of the fourth wall. This practice is known as "breaking the fourth wall," and it can be jarring or unsettling to an audience. A classic example of this is an aside or narration which is directed at the audience, as for example when a character in a Shakespeare play steps to the side of the stage and embarks upon a soliloquy; the other characters do not hear or respond to the speech, because the speech is directed through the fourth wall.
Breaking the fourth wall can be an excellent narrative device, with many artists using the technique to jar, startle, or amuse the audience. A number of television programs have used a documentary-style device, allowing characters to speak directly to the camera as if being interviewed. When done poorly, however, going through the fourth wall can ruin the look and feel of the piece, making the audience feel alienated or confused. In a movie, for example, if a character abruptly begins to address the camera, it might feel unbalanced and strange.
People can also break through the fourth wall within the context of a narrative. In The Matrix, for example, the hero realizes that he is living in a fictional world, and he pulls himself out of that world and into the "real" world of the narrative. Many works of fiction have used this device, unpeeling layers of reality like an onion. In some cases, the audience may be in on the deception, and in other instances, the revelation of an entirely different reality may come as a surprise.
By convention, the fourth wall is not mentioned or disturbed in the course of the events depicted. The maintenance of the fourth wall helps the audience to suspend its disbelief, as fantastical events can happen beyond the wall but be perceived as acceptable, since they appear in the isolated universe of the fiction itself. In the case of dramatized fiction, the actors usually play to the fourth wall, and the set is oriented towards this imaginary barrier to ensure that the audience can clearly see what is happening.
Breaking the fourth wall can be an excellent narrative device, with many artists using the technique to jar, startle, or amuse the audience. A number of television programs have used a documentary-style device, allowing characters to speak directly to the camera as if being interviewed. When done poorly, however, going through the fourth wall can ruin the look and feel of the piece, making the audience feel alienated or confused. In a movie, for example, if a character abruptly begins to address the camera, it might feel unbalanced and strange.
People can also break through the fourth wall within the context of a narrative. In The Matrix, for example, the hero realizes that he is living in a fictional world, and he pulls himself out of that world and into the "real" world of the narrative. Many works of fiction have used this device, unpeeling layers of reality like an onion. In some cases, the audience may be in on the deception, and in other instances, the revelation of an entirely different reality may come as a surprise.
AUDIENCE VS ACTORS
Audience VS Actors
Brecht was highly passionate on keeping the audience as the audience members and the actors on stage just actors. Getting too emotionally connected to a performance was simply not an option for Brechtian theatre and he chose to prevent the audience from losing itself passively and completely in the character created by the actor. He often included different techniques within his plays to ensure the audience never forget that they're just watching a play.
This was dealt with using a variety of different techniques. Sometimes the actors were accompanied by singing narrators, who explained in more detail what the action was on stage by singing it.
To prevent melodrama or emotion from overtaking the audience, comic songs and music are often used to provide emotional details. The effect of this practice can be extremely jarring on an audience unused to Theater of Alienation. Frequently, it leads to cheerful, upbeat tunes with disturbing lyrics. One of the most famous epic theater songs is Kurt Weill’s “Mac the Knife,” which features jazzy, upbeat music combined with the tale of a deranged killer.
(Mac the Knife:)
Sometimes the actors themselves stepped out of character to lecture the audience or to summarise the situations. In many cases, the stage and setting never indicated any locality or placing and Brecht chose to expose the lighting and ropes of the stage set so to reinforce to the audience just what they were witnessing as an audience. In contrast, props are frequently important features that also portray themes or ideas and help indicate a character’s status or profession. Captions or projections are often used to provide quick summaries of off-stage action. This further alienates the audience from believing in the world of the play, and strives to keep them focused on the ideas rather than the characters.
Brecht didn't devise plays to entertain the audience, he wanted to challenge them which I think, despite being unusual as theatre being a peice of art is mostly destined to be entertaining. is a very unique yet effective way to look upon it. Brecht was fond of gestures and how the audience should never rely on just the words coming out of an actors' mouth. He believed that actors should always stand and speak, never walk whilst addressing their lines as it can be seen as taking the importance away from what they were actually saying. The emphasised gestures Brecht wanted from his actors created Gestus; someone who doesn't even speak the language the play is in should still be able to intently follow the story line and know exactly what is going on because of the gestures.
Mother Courage and her Children
Mother Courage and Her Children was German dramatist and poet Bertolt Brecht's considered greatest play of the 20th centuary. It was written by the man himself in 1939, during the second world war which is the inspiration behind this masterpiece, making it the greatest anti-war play perhaps since forever. After four very important theatrical productions in Switzerland and Germany from 1941 to 1952—the last three supervised and/or directed by Brecht—the play was filmed several years after Brecht's death in 1959/1960 with Brecht's widow and leading actress, Helene Weigel.
The play has lived on long after Brecht's death. Having been written in 1939, it was still being performed in 2006 which, in my opinion, highlights just how powerful and memorable this play is. In 2006, Meryl Streep took on the leading role of the Mother herself and performed, free for the audience, as Shakespeare in the Park.
This is Meryl in action.
The play has lived on long after Brecht's death. Having been written in 1939, it was still being performed in 2006 which, in my opinion, highlights just how powerful and memorable this play is. In 2006, Meryl Streep took on the leading role of the Mother herself and performed, free for the audience, as Shakespeare in the Park.
This is Meryl in action.
Monday, 19 November 2012
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)