Aristotelian Theatre

History serves as the basis for theatre to exist, giving theatre a platform to exist upon. The separation between history and theatre lies in their purpose; history is narrowly focused on a specific event, whilst theatre broadens and uses the event to create a myriad of possibilities of thoughts, words, and actions. The events that occurred in history may not have been due to a specific happening of events, or a cycle of causes and effects. Due to this, historical events may not be relevant to one another and therefore it is the duty of the theater to propose a connection (cause and effect) of possible events that may have occurred.

The deeper purpose for this is for the audience to view themselves within society as part of this cause and effect cycle. Theater-makers keep within the lines of reality and history because that which is possible must therefore also be credible, and for the same reason that which has not occurred is difficult to accept. History is accepted in the realm of theater for there is a necessity for historical events to succumb to the forces of what is probable and possible. I can further identify the historical and social aspects of society working in conjunction with the theater, in the works of Bertolt Brecht.

Brecht sets forth a theory based upon the foundation of what he calls, “The Street Scene”. This scene consists of a natural-occurring traffic accident that is possible to have taken place on any street corner, of which an observer of the incident demonstrates how the event occurred. It may be the case that the witness did not fully observe the event or perhaps have an alternative opinion, but the underlying idea is that the bystander must “demonstrate” or enact the characteristics of the those involved in the accident.

The objective of this idea is to allow the spectators of this demonstration to develop their own personal bias of the situation. Brecht writes, “The theater must therefore be in a position to say that its ‘individual’ is a special case and to indicate the surroundings in which the relevant social processes come into existence. ” (Bertolt Brecht, “A Model for Epic Theater”, 430). I believe that Brecht is correct in asserting this because just as Aristotle emphasized that history is basis for theatre to build upon and explore in order to find truth, Brecht searches for truth through social factors.

In terms of “The Street Scene”, the demonstrator must take into account the realities of all the individuals involved in the circumstances. For instance, the driver of the car must fear the consequences; revoking of his license or even imprisonment and victim must fear hospital bills, injuries, or even paralyzation. It is imperative for the demonstrator to derive his behavior on stage from the social circumstances of those that he is demonstrating. The ultimate purpose of the demonstrator to go about in this manner is to evoke a judgement from the spectator.

In addition to “The Street Scene”, the “V-effect” is a technique developed by Brecht serving the purpose of transforming what seems to be familiar, to become strange. Through this effect, common everyday events are analyzed and become much grander than real life. Brecht writes, “When something seems ‘the most obvious thing in the world’ it means that any attempt to understand the world has been given up. ” (Bertolt Brecht, “Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic).

This technique “estranges” spectators of the theatre and in turn manipulates the audience to scrutinize and become conscious of the social ideas that are presented in the performance. The reason Brecht was effective in using the “V-effect” is because it removes the fourth wall and the illusion that it was a performance. Instead of the audience believing that they were witnessing a performance, instead he involved them into it by forcing them to question the social issues presented.

His intention was not for the spectators to become connected to the audience, but rather maintain separate from them. This distance between the audience and characters on stage allows the spectators to efficiently analyze the characters trials and tribulations, but more importantly the social messages. The “V-effect” is evident in Bertolt Brecht’s play, Mother Courage and Her Children, as Mother Courage sings the “Song of Great Capitulation” to her daughter and expresses, “Chirp: Wait a bit!

And you’ll be marching with the band in step, responding to command and striking up your little dance: Now we advance. And now: parade, form square! Then men swear God’s there- Not the faintest chance! ” (Brecht, Mother Courage and Her Children, Scene Four, Lines 99-106). To me, the “V-effect” is effective here as we see Mother Courage singing this song without a bit of emotion. This ironic behavior on the part of Mother Courage serves as the means to allow the alienation to occur. I feel that when observing the performance we begin to question as to what Mother Courage’s purpose truly is.

Why does she behave in that manner if she is truly a mother? Is there a significance to her name? Is the word “courage” significant? I can then conclude that this is precisely what Brecht strived to do; he successfully manipulated the audience into becoming aware of the socially conscious ideals present in the play. Brecht’s theories are attempts to create an awareness and bring about social issues and truths within the realm of the theatre, just as the ideas presented by Antonin Artaud.

When analyzing the work of Artaud, I begin to ask myself in what direction is the path of life taking me? We, as humans, travel and travel this path but it seems as if there is no deviation from it. We can walk along the path in a variation of manners, but why is it that ultimately it is the path that leads the way? At times we tend to forget that it is life, itself, that is leading us and although we try to pave our own path, we will once again realize that we truly have no control.

This precise reality is reflected through Antonin Artaud’s play, Jet of Blood as he emphasizes the metaphysical laws that lead us down life’s path. Artaud stresses that the purpose of theatre is to remind society of how “cruel” the world truly is. One could argue that by cruel, Artaud means that we live in a harsh world, in which we struggle. Whilst I can identify as to how one may come to that conclusion, I believe that this is just a minuscule aspect of his message and his revelation goes much deeper. In the play the Young Man states, “Young Man: “We are intense.

Ah, how well-ordered the world is! ” (Artaud, Jet of Blood, 223). The Young Man is a symbol for the primary aspect of Artaud’s “theatre of cruelty”, in which Artaud argues against the false consciousness of believing that we, as individuals, are in control of the lives we live. I think that the Young Man’s expression of a “well ordered world” is the direct opposite of Artaud’s message because by his terms, the world is not well ordered in the least, as metaphysical factors disrupt this hope for perfection.

Artaud goes deeper in the play through stage directions, as he writes, “A hurricane separates the two. At this moment two stars crash into each other, and we see a number of live pieces of human bodies falling down” (223). This unexpected, sudden event causes what was thought by the Young Man to be a perfect world, to transform into a world of destruction and despair as he is separated from the Young Girl, whom he loved so much. I feel that Artaud ingeniously places this event in the play in order to symbolize the role metaphysics play in our world.

These are the true “cruel” forces that Artaud discusses as he exemplifies the idea that at any moment the sky could very well fall on our heads. Therefore, for one to believe that we have control over our lives and the way in which we shape it, is an illusion. Richard Lee Gaffield-Knight elaborates on this as he states, “Artaud believed that the only salvation for mankind and society as it was, was theatre working as one of its doubles, the plague, to purge the world of its violence and ugliness.

If we can think freely, let our mind make the connections freely, without thinking of the ugliness on the underside, as Artaud suggests, we will see the parallels that Artaud envisioned between the plague and his vision of theatre. ” (Ricard Lee Gaffield-Knight, Antonin Artaud: In Theory, Process and Praxis or, for Fun and Prophet, 72). In my opinion, Artaud is expressing a call to action as he express that theatre must rid society of the illusion and come to the reality of the truth within accepting and trusting the metaphysics in control.

I believe that theater is a rare experience, in the sense that it is one of the very few means of direct communication in which we are able to transfer messages of truth and reality to society as a whole. Artaud is challenging all theater-makers to show this world the raw “cruelty” which will forever be the catalyst behind all the directions that the path of life takes us. All in all, the theories of Aristotle, Bertolt Brecht, and Antonin Artaud strive to transform theatre from its surface-level purpose of pure entertainment into a means to raise social consciousness.

As Bertolt Brecht puts it, “Theatre may be said to be derived from ritual, but that is only to say that it becomes theatre once the two have separated; what it brought over from the mysteries was not its former ritual function, but purely and simply the pleasure which accompanied this. ” (Bertolt Brecht, “A Short Organum for the Theatre”, 179). This trifecta of theatre makers all unite on the basis of having the objective to allow the events on stage to ignite an emotional response from the audience.