With close reference to one or more

Drama Danielle Power

With close reference to one or more live productions that you have seen or participated in, assess the success of two or three actors in adopting a Brechtian approach to their roles.

In 2005 I participated in a production of Brechts 'Caucasian Chalk Circle'. The two actors I have chosen to assess were both visually interesting and very versatile. I feel their clothing and make-up played a part in this. The actors wore white make up on their face and neck. Their eyes were coloured black, as were their lips and their cheeks. Their movements were stylised and mechanical and their facial expressions were devoid of emotion. Throughout the first scene, their posture was also mechanical. It was erect but relaxed. All these staging techniques ensured the audience knew that the actor was presenting and not inhabiting the actor. As their body language was not expressive in any way, this contributed to creating a Verfremdungseffekt. This was very typical of Brechtian theatre and the adoption of this into our performance was very successful. The audience were encouraged to observe the actors rather than be absorbed by the actors. Both also played more than one role in the play. When changing character, both of the actors assumed their roles as they turned to face the audience. This ensured that the audience knew they were changing characters. All the techniques mentioned above were very typical of Brecht and by including these general elements in the production, the play was a great success. As individual actors, we also succeeded in creating a successful Brechtian approach to the play.

I played the role of the Governor for our performance amongst other characters. For the governor I wanted to demonstrate a very slothful man. At the beginning of scene 1, as my wife and I were standing with the baby, I had a very slack jaw. I stood with my hands at my sides looking very idle. I had a vacant expression in my eyes, while I continued to stare at nothing in particular. I had a slight slouch of my shoulders in order to convey my lack of interest of the situation at hand. As the conversation between my wife and the fat price continued, my boredom and irritability was noted by my efforts to shift about on my feet slowly but purposelessly. I occasionally rolled my eyes and avoided eye contact with both characters. My accent was upper class English and I spoke with long drawn out vowels, sighs and toots and very weary tones. I feel this adapted my character to the kind I wanted him to be. In this instance I feel my performance adopted a Brechtian technique very successfully. The usual stereotype of a governor is that of an upstanding member of a community. Governors in Brechts days were usually well educated and of very high status. I think that by adopting my character using these characteristics, I alienated the audience from this character and allowed them to realise that it was merely theatre they were watching. It allowed them to think about the situation at hand and not so much about the characters they were watching. They were repelled by the governor’s attitude towards all the members of the play. His lack of interest in his position was also noted through his body language as mentioned above. I feel I used the Brechtian technique of alienation very successfully in these parts of the play. As the governor I also used the Brechtian technique of minimal props on stage. In the first scene, I used a scarf as the baby. Later in that scene that scarf became a celebratory whip. The audience in both instances knew what the scarf was supposed to be. When the baby was present I held it in my arms, continually checking if it was ok and fixing it’s clothing, just like someone holding a child would do. When I was using it as a celebratory whip, I jumped excitedly forward and swung the scarf in circles in the air as if cheering for something. I feel by doing this that it reinforced Brechts approach to the use of minimal props and also served to further reinforce the Verfremdungseffekt.

This is a preview of the whole essay

As the governor I also used a Brechtian technique called gestus. This incorporated the governor in only one scene however was very effective. At the beginning of the first scene, the governor and his wife are standing in the street and there are beggars at their feet begging for food. The governor is looking at these beggars in disgust, trying to shield the child from them as they pull at his clothes. The governor’s wife is also looking at the beggars in disgust as she stands on one of their hands. This gestus was used to show the division of classes within the community and how the governor is not at all concerned with the poverty there. Brechts political message is also communicated through the use of this gestus. He was principally concerned with communism and I think this was very well demonstrated in this gestus. I feel I presented the governors feelings very successfully in this scene.

I also played the character of the peasant woman. As my two characters were in different scenes I didn’t have to turn round immediately to take these two different roles. Instead as I finished my role of the governor, I walked downstage to join the rest of the chorus. This was a very big contrast to the role of the governor. To make this character different I changed everything about my body language, voice and use of the stage. I spoke a southern Irish accent with a very quick pace. The faster paced urgent tone of the peasant woman contrasted well with the long drawn out speeches of the governors. I feel this definitely helped the audience to distinguish between the different characters. The peasant woman’s ‘whittering’ tone created a sense of urgency in scenes that needed it as well. I used a lot more space on stage as I quickly paced around in anticipation. As Brecht wanted to present his characters on stage and differentiate between them I feel the characteristics I used for the peasant woman fulfilled this task successfully. The audience were in no doubt as to what character I was supposed to be. I feel my character added comedy to the piece at points. An example of this was when the ironshirts were coming into her house. Her pitch and tone of voice both increased and it was quite comical to watch her running around in frenzy as they approached. I feel this also highlighted my versatility as an actor. As I could change roles whenever I had to, I adopted the Brechtian idea of interchangability. This was used in many of Brechts plays when one actor played more than one role. I also feel I adopted this very successfully. The change of characters depended on the actors. Versatility helped ensure the interchangability and role changing was clear and successful.

The second actor I have chosen to talk about is the actor who played the roles of the two doctors. I considered this actor very versatile and I feel she adopted a Brechtian approach very well. Her ability to play two characters simultaneously was very impressive. As she was playing the first doctor, she used a very slow paced walk as she entered. Her shoulders were slouched and she dragged her feet slightly as she walked. As she walked on stage, she checked her own heart rate with her stethoscope clearly highlighting her lack of knowledge of medicine. As she stood speaking to the governor and his wife, she did so with her legs slightly apart, shoulders still slouched and her head tilted slightly backwards. She began to swing her stethoscope in circle in the air as he talked. I feel this emphasised how bored he was. The first doctors’ mannerisms were very apathetic and he was very disinterested in the baby’s sickness. He spoke in a very unresponsive way, using a very dead tone of voice. This showed the audience how unprofessional and uninterested he is. Her eyes were struggling to stay open and he blinked very slowly. This again highlighted her lack of interest and boredom. The second doctor in comparison to the first was very different and the audience could clearly make a distinction between the two. To change characters the actor simply jumped 180º in the other direction to ensure she was facing the other side of the stage. When she turned, she immediately took on the other characteristics of the second doctor and I feel she was very successful in adopting a Brechtian approach here. Her pace for the second doctor was much faster that that of the first. She spoke with much more urgency and confidence as her voice was louder and her pitch was higher. Her body language for this doctor also changed completely. Her legs were much more apart than the first doctors and she stood with her knees slightly bent, to make the doctor seem smaller than the first. She pulled her shoulders as far up to her ears as she could s o it seemed like she had no neck. As she spoke, she motioned a lot with her arms. Her elbows were kept firmly at the bottom of her ribs and presented her palms sporadically in her speeches. Her movements were very staccato and due to all these physicalities the audience could clearly decipher which character she was playing. As mentioned before, Brecht usually used one actor to play numerous parts in his plays. I think this actor coped with the interchangability of character extremely well and adopted the Brechtian approach with great success. Her ability to change characters so quickly and flawlessly definitely demonstrated her versatility as an actor. By playing the characters of the two doctors, this actor also used the Brechtian technique of ‘spass’. This was a very popular technique in Brechtian theatre and I feel it was very well used in our production. The characters of the two doctors entertained the audience. The diversity of the two doctors introduced comedy to the production as they both bicker over the child’s illness. The audience found this very funny to watch as one actor plays both parts. The audience was also repelled by the attitudes of the two doctors. Again, they didn’t fit the stereotypical view of an educated man. Because of this the audience felt distanced from them both. This was how we created spass within the piece. Brecht thought it was important to use spass as it gave the audience something to think about but also entertained them. Through the characters of the two doctors, we entertained the audience as well as repelled them. I think the actor was successful in adopting the Brechtian technique to her role of the doctors.

The actor who played the part of the two doctors also played the part of the monk. To ensure this wasn’t confusing for the audience, the actor had to adapt again a very different personality so the audience could differentiate between them all. In order to do this, the actor altered her body language and vocal qualities again. When she came into the scene, she was clearly drunk. She embodied this mood by walking off to one side sometimes and opening and closing her eyes slowly as she walked. The audience could see clearly that she was having difficulty walking to the body. As she spoke, her speech was very slurred and incomprehensible at parts. When the monk finally reached the body and was about to carry on with the service we included a gestus. This was typically a Brechtian technique used within many of his plays. For the gestus the monk stood facing the audience, holding a pair of rosary beads and a bible which was clearly upside down. This reflected the corruption in the church at the time and showed the monk to be agnostic and completely intoxicated. This was a very atypical view of monks and the audience were both shocked and repelled at this. Again, like the other characters, when not in the scene, this actor went downstage to join the rest of the cast members as the chorus.

The fact that none of the actors left the stage was a typical Brechtian technique that we adopted and I think we done this very successfully. This added to the alienation effect and also served to remind the audience that they were watching a play and it was not real. It stopped the audience from getting emotionally attached to any of the characters. Scene changes were also done in full view of the audience. This served the same purpose as having all the actors onstage at all times. I feel in this performance, the two actors discussed adopted a Brechtian approach to their performance with great success and I feel this made the performance a great success.

26/06/2007 _