BERTOLT BRECHT
625
of the Moscow Art Theater with its climactic peak in the plays of
Chechov and the corresponding development of the so-called Stanis–
lavsky system or Method.
The modern theater has known such influences as those of sym–
bolism, expressionism, constructivism-impulses and tendencies which
characterize certain writers, scene designers, directors, but hardly any of
which shaped themselves into a complete body of work with any perma–
nent organ to institutionalize them on every level of stagecraft. That
is why no one today speaks of an opposition between Stanislavsky and
symbolism or expressionism, while there is much talk of Brecht's practice
as anti-Stanislavsky.
I mention this aspect of the Brechtian phenomenon for historical
reasons only: it is not really fundamental. To approach Brecht as a
stage director in "opposition" to the teachings of Stanislavsky is as cri–
tically bright as to point out that Brecht wrote plays that do not re–
semble Chechov's. The Stanislavsky method-as distinguished from the
nature of his productions---is not a style and does not by itself lead to
a particular style. It is a craft technique of instruction for actors.
Brecht's style is intimately related to what he had to say and is the mark
of his contribution as an artist.
Brecht's plays are picaresque, poetic narrations for the stage. They
are based on brief episodes of concentrated action-most of them almost
complete in themselves-each of which makes a simple sharp point es–
sential to the understanding of the play's idea as a whole. The intellec–
tual approach is tersely factual, the tone ironic, crisp and detached.
Songs in a similar vein embody the ideological point as in an epigram.
The aim is frankly didactic. One play tells us that war debases every–
thing and everyone, even those who seem to be outside its antagonisms.
Another play tells us that it is virtually impossible to "do good" in a
corrupt society. These are morality plays as certainly as anything ever
written in the Middle Ages in behalf of the Church.
If
you read Brechtian manuals you will learn that Brecht espoused
the esthetics of the Chinese and J apanese theaters rather than the Aris–
totelian esthetic. You will learn that Brecht eschews "suspense," that his
dramatic goal is not excitement but understanding. He wants his audi–
ence, it is said, to recognize its place in society, and how it (the audience)
can help change that society. He tries to induce in the spectator the atti–
tude of an alert observer rather than that of a hypnotized person who
seeks to
be
swept away by the show. He wants his public to use its cri–
tical judgment and ultimately its capacity to act, rather than to
be
