"The prime purpose of a political play is to effect change in society". How far and in what ways do you consider that this statement describes the two plays studied?

Authors Avatar

Julia Mallard 20091049

“The prime purpose of a political play is to effect change in society”. How far and in what ways do you consider that this statement describes the two plays studied?

The given statement firstly assumes that the plays are both political, and secondly it does not give an accurate depiction of what is to be considered political. It is fair to assume that all overtly political plays, such as those of Brecht, can be considered to attempt to effect change in society, whether this can be said of Playing the Victim (the Presnyakov Brothers, 2003) and Scaramouche Jones (Justin Butcher, 2001) is open to debate.

The simplistic idea of a political play may be interpreted as a play that involves Politics in terms of Governments and Parliaments; whereas another interpretation may be interpreted a political play as one that gives across a message to its audience members.  Brecht a founder of political plays in the early 19th Century was one of the founding and most known theatrical minds in the uses of political ideology to infiltrate theatrical performances. His background in politics from Communism and Marxism infiltrated his productions from Mother Courage to Galileo, this is similar in some respects to the infiltration of political ideology in the Presnyakov Brothers presentation of Playing the Victim. ‘Brecht’s plays had a strong political social function in seeking to promote a Marxist analysis of society’ (Dobson,2000;37). It is this analysis from which he sought to effect change, showing what was wrong with society and therefore negative making the audience think about what they are watching. This seems in many ways similar to Playing the Victim, the Presnyakov Brothers showed Valya, a social underdog, seemingly pushed to the bottom of society by those above and around him, his superiors at work and his family, it is not until the play is analysed further that it shows that it is Valya that is manipulating the ‘system’. The play itself promotes to an extent a Capitalist mode of thinking to an audience, but it still shows an endeavour to escape from the Capitalism of Russia and Valya’s attempt to change the system by not becoming involved in it, which promotes the idea of the need to effect change in society further to the audience.

The alternative interpretation of a political play can involve a more in-depth analysis of a play of as a whole. The ideology and meaning, which infiltrates any play, can be considered as political as the ideas of the playwright are being communicated to an audience, it is whether through these ideological implications they are trying to effect change within a social setting which is imperative to the analysis of the given statement. Scaramouche Jones is a portrayal of a man’s life over a century, Justin Butcher’s interpretation of the character and his own ideological inferences does not seem in any way overtly political as in the afore mentioned interpretation, with links to political theory. The one hundred year portrayal of Scaramouche’s life seems more to link to Butchers own ideological views upon society and how people in the singular adapt to the various trials and tribulations that they face. According to Stanley Fish

Join now!

there are no meanings inherent in works of art except those which ‘interpretive communities’ in any particular era foster or allow, while disallowing and discouraging others


To a certain extent there is reason for disagreement with Fish’s theory, for if there are no inherent meanings then how can a text such as Butcher’s Scaramouche Jones be read by an audience so that they gain the ideological implications which are placed into the text by the author, those meaning which are inherent to the text. Butcher looks at the identity of man as one of his themes, although ...

This is a preview of the whole essay