Theatre
is a device in which society talks to itself:
Discuss
by
Jennifer Richards
In
this essay I will be discussing how theatre as a device reflects
culture and society as well as communicating with it. Touching upon
historical examples as well discussing the work of Anton Chekhov,
William Shakespeare and Bertolt Brecht, more specifically the three
plays 'Macbeth', 'Fear and Misery in the Third Reich' and 'Three
Sisters'. I will also be talking about how theatre funding can play
its role in the reflection of society. Theatre acts as an informative
mirror held up to various cultures and civilisations through which
ideas and concepts are formulated, inspiration is shed and can
provide us with the opportunity to reflect upon our world.
Taking
a look at Greek plays to begin with, they were some of the earliest
theatrical devices in history and were often used as ways to portray
fables and epics that prior to that were only heard. However as they
advanced they served to reflect various aspects of their society.
Examples would include oppression of the patriarchy, as seen in Medea
by Euripides, the juxtaposition between working class, peasants and
the nobility and lastly how totalitarian religious rule played a
major role in the shaping of ancient Greek civilisation. During the
period of 550 and 220 BC the political and military power within
Greece was a central theme in most theatrical productions and it is
also where the origin of western theatre can be found. Most plays we
see today are cultural remnants and echoes influenced by ancient
Greek plays and the society it reflected.
Looking
now in more depth at how theatre has enabled or encouraged society to
talk to itself, two example in particular, the play 'Justice' by John
Galsworthy inspired Winston Churchill to move to change the law on
solitary confinement and the Marriage of Figaro by Beaumarchais was
described as being “The French revolution in action”, by
Napoleon. Michael Billington claims that “What theatre can do is
shift attitudes, articulate discontent, and reflect, often with
microscopic accuracy, the mood of the nation.” Theatre acts as a
device in which society can see itself, sparking inspiration or
change in the mindset of the general public yet it is less direct or
catatonic in its influence. Prior to the commercial use of the
internet, theatre was the primary component in the evolution of
society and culture. He continues to outline the relationship between
theatre and society during the Attlee period in England, discussing
the labour party and their national socialist ideas in conjunction
with J. B. Priestly's work, Billington explains “(he) penned a
brilliantly polemical book, Theatre Outlook, that called for measures
to counter the power of fat-cat theatre owners.” as well as the
play 'Uranium 235' by Joan Littlewood intended as a demonstration of
nuclear fission.
Another
play worth noting for its reflection and communication with society
is Shakespeare's Macbeth, the work of Shakespeare as a whole often
embodied powerful or strong female roles which could be seen as an
homage to Queen Elizabeth during his time. Contrary to that and more
specifically within Macbeth, especially when considering the
villainous light his female lead is cast under, if we are to
associate lady Macbeth with the Queen at that time, the intention was
more likely to be a role that mirrored what he may have felt to be
an unfit ruler that would inevitably lead to chaos. “Shakespeare
implicitly suggests the danger of women's involvement in politics at
the sovereign level.” Jane Dall explains in her essay 'The stage
and the state'. The play reflects a
sense of criticism and exaggerated turmoil that Shakespeare believed
was ensuing within the government due to a woman being in power,
perhaps this served to spread discontent by implying the existence of
tyranny within the government, akin to early subliminal messaging.
Audiences are given the impression that a woman with power can only
lead to downfall and destruction which could encourage anarchy within
society. Shakespeare's command went beyond the stage and beyond the
script, as can be said with many dramatists, their influence had more
power than one might first assume. Within the play we see Lady
Macbeth exhibit a mad lust for power and she convinces her husband to
commit treason by murdering the king and usurping his throne, this
could be Shakespeare's way of insinuating a number of things: that
despite her sovereign status Elizabeth still can't be revered as a
figure of power or that it should simply be passed onto a man, it was
never lady Macbeth that went after the throne for herself and she
lamented being born a woman. It could also insinuate that having a
woman in a position of power or seeking power will cause tensions,
plotting or revolting within a power struggle that wouldn't exist if
the status quo of the patriarchy remained in tact. Lastly it promotes
negative stigma toward female sovereignty or female leaders, taking
away any credibility and encouraging the public to question the
Queen's right to rule.
Shakespeare's
Macbeth reflected a very prevalent fear in the minds of many,
regarding the uncertainty of a female ruler and through this play, as
well as many others, he created an atmosphere in which society began
to stir.
It
would seem that a complete lack of theatre and performances says just
as much, if not more, about society than individual plays themselves.
During Cromwell's rule in England we see then more than ever how
important the device of theatre was to the community, an abolishment
of theatre made many realise the value it held in society, as without
it a freedom of speech or creativity and a sort of awareness was
lacking, one could argue that theatre maintained a balance, it served
to subtly educate the public on how their country was being run, or
how society behaved, it gave them introspective thought and the
ability to be entertained whilst also be aware of what was at work
throughout their nations and the world.
Another
key aspect to note that ties in to the conversation of society
brought about by theatre, is the funding of various production houses
and companies.
It
works both ways, how the financial state of the government or society
reflects upon theatre and how the financial state the theatre
reflects upon on society. Beyond how theatre itself sways and
intermingles with our thoughts throughout society, the funding for a
play, or lack thereof, can paint a picture of how the community it
exists within behaves toward the performing arts or even just the
financial state of the country/nation at that time. For example:
during Margaret Thatcher's time as priminister, subsidies were
reduced and theatres were asked to find private funding, this could
be seen as a representation of the financial crisis and unemployment
England faced during that time. In present day society, seeing as
commercial funding is the primary source of funding, the artistic
integrity of the theatre has all but disappeared in most cases, as
sponsors and conglomerates have monopolised the funding for most
theatrical shows. The lack of substance, art and meaning within
performances could be a reflection upon how consumerism and
capitalism have risen within first world countries.
Looking
back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries,
prior to the revolution, it was popular amoung Russian dramatists to
have their work revolve around a bittersweet theme of both hope and
despair. Even though Chekhov's play, the Three Sisters, predates the
Russian revolution there are definitely hints of risen tensions and
apprehension within the characters and their nation, there is a
longing sense of nostalgia presented and a miserable apathy about the
characters' current lives, yet hope for the future, or perhaps just a
pipe dream for better days. This can all be considered a mirror held
up to the livelihoods of the people of Russia during that time.
Known
for his theatrical voice toward anti-fascism and his disdain for war,
Brecht's Fear and misery in the third Reich was one of the more
notable anti-war pieces, displaying the tragedies and travesties that
went on during the second world war, but taking a different
perspective to what is usually written about; Brecht focused his play
on how Hitler's reign affected the economy, German citizens not
focusing solely on Jewish citizens and the horrors they were
subjected to. Taking a different approach was a much more effective
way of getting his audience to think about the situation as it would
have been relatable, as well as his tendency to distance the audience
from the play. This prevents the public from forming emotional
connections with the characters and subsequently biased points of
view, Brecht clearly wanted his audience to think but he didn't want
to convince them one way or another, his goal was to inform and
educate but not to argue. The focal point of Fear and Misery was the
origins of the fascist regime, how did it happen? Brecht has always
been very clear about his feelings toward fascism, as Mark Ravenhill
states in his article arguing against critics and nay sayers of
Brecht's work, “Before the Nazis came to power, Hitler's brown
shirts were disrupting performances of Brecht and Weill's 1930 opera
Mahagonny, claiming that it brought the contamination of black and
Jewish musical influences into the German opera house.” The lack of
any inherent or consistent plot within the play works to distance
itself from the notion of fiction, if audiences were consciously
aware of a plot it would make it easier to remain complacent to the
message Brecht intended on sharing. Having the scenes played out like
a montage of events as opposed to the cohesive scene changes
accompanying a clear storyline allows the audience to remember this
is real, what is happening in the play is happening on their
doorsteps. “The scenes have a disturbingly everyday feel to them,
as though we are looking at lives through a distorted prism”
Lindsey Oldham describes in her review of Fear and Misery in the
Third Reich for The Oxford Student. It is well known that Brecht as a
dramatist has used his plays as a device to convey a message or to
hold up a mirror to the society he was subject to and lived through.
In his play Mother Courage he has claimed the intention was to warn
society of the impossibilities of remaining neutral in the upcoming
war. Identifying society's tendency to remain complacent or to bury
their heads in the sand and urging them that this war, unlike any
others, will make that impossible. One could say Brecht foresaw the
devastating affect this war would have on the world and Mother
Courage was his attempt at shaking his audience into changing their
attitudes and reactions in preparation for this.
Looking
back throughout history it is hard to believe our civilisations and
cultures would be anything like what they are today without the use
of theatre. Before the rise of social media and communication via the
internet, before television and cinema, theatre held a position in
society that was the tool for evolution, the evolution of thinking,
action, movements and politics. Some government officials or figures
of power remained unaffected by theatre, others fell to revolutions
through movements sparked by theatre. As previously stated the affect
of drama and performances does not come with overwhelming force and
it doesn't happen overnight, it is the device in which society talks
to itself and through talking and thinking, actions arise, movements
are born and change takes place. In conclusion the art of theatre
plays a more major role in our world than mere entertainment, it is a
reflection of our cultural ideals and political status, or even just
personal fears. It is also what encouraged and still encourages
audiences to think and create change.
No comments:
Post a Comment