626
PAR TIS
AN
REV lEW
drugged or overwhelmed by a suffused emotionalism which can have no
effect on its thought patterns and social behavior.
All this may be interesting, but if not perceived through the plays
themselves it is actually misleading. For the fact is that these plays
with their somewhat ribald humor-part folk canniness and part twen–
tieth-century sophistication-their starkly naive "stories," their rude sim–
plicity, their dry, yet poignant songs--witty homilies or grave and aus–
tere preachments--inspire a sense of nobility, a kind of humane asce–
ticism which is cleansing and elevating. The spareness of the plays is
sinewy; their slightly astringent timbre which might easily be mistaken
for cynicism is invigorating; their pathos-and they have a pathos at
times bordering on sentimentality-is classically serene.
What about the anti-emotionalism of Brecht's
esthetique?
It exists
chiefly there. Emphasis on it was made by Brecht himself both to purify
the hysterical atmosphere which choked the German expressionist thea–
ter and to counteract the orotundity and stomachic stress of "traditional"
German acting. Just as there is as much "emotion" in the Parthenon as
in Chartres Cathedral, as much in Stravinsky as in Tschaikowsky, so
there are very few contemporary plays which provoke as much "emo–
tion" as Brecht's masterpiece
Mother Courage.
To define the difference
of "emotion" in each case is to discover the true nature of each par–
ticular work.
The artist does what he is, he makes what he can. Brecht's pro–
ductions are what they are because they constitute the visible, palpable
form of what he has written. Because he found the appropriate de–
livery, lighting, stage design for what he had to say, he was a great
master, just as the Moscow Art Theater in its day achieved mastery
by
finding the right stage form for the Russian realists.
How confused and confusing most explanations of Brecht's work
are (including at times his own-unless they are read chronologically
and in continuity) may
be
judged by a quote in John Willett's book. In
criticizing the German classical stage Brecht said, "There is little chance
of hearing any genuine human voice, and one gets the impression that
life must be exactly like a theater instead of the theater being just like
life." Was Brecht then a realist-for it is presumably the realist school
which aimed to make the theater "just like life." In Brecht's produc–
tions we are constantly reminded that we are in the theater-the elec–
trical apparatus is exposed, the actors often address themselves directly
to the audience, mottoes are flashed on a screen, etc. etc.-all purely the–
atrical devices and certainly non-realistic.
Such confusion arises, I repeat, when we substitute argument over
