The Internet and Theories of Fantasy
[Summary. This paper analyzes the work of Bertolt Brecht in relation to fantasy and reality. Theatre and the Internet today, reach several parallels this paper attempts to uncover; and also to answer the question is it ever really there at all? In conclusion this paper will make not that the internet is really just a space of play.]
Brecht used epic theatre to bring forth an idea or meaning for the audience to consider while entertaining the audience. Epic theatre involves the use of alienation techniques to distance the viewer from the story but still concentrate on the overall meaning. The person who just views the story would likely take it as fantasy and not reach the true depth of the play. Brecht shocks the viewer by making the events and actions in the play "strange and abstract" this contrasts with dramatic plays where the audience sympathises and relates to the characters of the play.
Brecht believed that "To think, or write, or produce a play also means to transform society, to transform the state, to subject ideologies to close scrutiny." Having established this doctrine for himself, Brecht instigated the use of epic theatre in an attempt to break from the Aristotelian definition. Although he did not approve of the Aristotelian version, he redefined the nature of catharsis to suit his needs. (Brecht 71-90)
Quick to criticism the role of the audience in traditional theatre, Brecht placed particular emphasis on the eventual let down created by fantasy.
"For many, the theatre is the abode where dreams are created. You, players, sellers of drugs, in your darkened houses people are changed into kings and perform heroic deeds of safety. In rapture over themselves, or seized with pity they sit in happy distraction, forgetting the toils of daily life. Runaways. .. Of course, should someone come in, his ears still full of the roar of the city, himself still sober, he would scarcely recognize there, up on stage, the world he has just left. And leaving your house, he would scarcely know the world-- now no longer king, but lowly man-- he'd scarcely find himself at home in real life." (Brecht 54)
Brecht's reference to actors as "sellers of drugs" is particularly apt imagery. The actors sell a package of fabricated grandeur to the audience, which experiences a rush of feeling leading to an emotional high. However, at the end of the performance, the audience has already experienced the highest emotional climax, the memory of which is strung along by the inevitable plot resolution.
These plays are presented as slightly distorted mirrors of reality, so by having audiences invest themselves so deeply in the understanding of the literature, they are likely to gain a greater understanding of themselves and the worlds they live in. By pushing the imaginative burden onto the audience, Shakespeare is able to make commentary on human nature and human history without being held responsible for its implications. Because the audience is encouraged to fully embrace their role in the production, any commentary and critique is aimed towards themselves and their inability to effectively understand, resulting in an increased appreciation for Shakespeare himself, and the complexity of literature as an art
Throughout A Midsummer Night’s Dream by William Shakespeare, there are multiple analyses that one can follow in order to reach a conclusion about the overall meaning of the play. These conclusions are reached through analyzing the play’s setting, characterization, and tone. However, when one watches the production A Midsummer Night’s Dream directed by Michael Hoffman, a completely different approach is taken on these aspects, leading to a vastly different analysis of the work. Though there are many similarities between the original written play A Midsummer Night’s Dream by William Shakespeare and the on-screen production of the aforementioned play which was directed by Michael Hoffman, there are differences in setting and
19th century critic William Hazlitt praised Hamlet by saying that, "The whole play is an exact transcript of what might be supposed to have taken pace at the court of Denmark, at the remote period of the time fixed upon." (Hazlitt 164-169) Though it is clearly a testament to the realism of Shakespeare's tragedy, there is something strange and confusing in Hazlitt's analysis. To put it plainly, Hamlet is most definitely not a realistic play. Not only are the events conveyed in the drama fantastic, the dialogue that brings it to the reader is overdramatic and often metatheatrical. The stirring monologues delivered throughout the play are theatrical speeches rather than genuine dialogue. Frequent references to acting and theater, especially surrounding the presence of the players, serve to make the audience aware of the play instead of drawing them into it. The tragedy's villain oozes evil, murdering the king and marrying his queen in just two months. Even more unrealistic is the presence of the king's ghost, surely there weren't really any apparitions floating around the court at Denmark. Then why does Hazlitt make this statement? Though it is tempting to simply write him off as a bad critic, similar statements made by other critics of the 19th century suggest that this view of Hamlet as a realist drama was commonly held in the Victorian Era. It seems clear that the ideals of the Victorian era caused a significant change in the way Hamlet was interpreted. Victorian society's high esteem for rationality and utility shifted the focus of Hamlet from the tragedy's fantastic nature to its realistic insights. The values of the age imply that a 19th century audience would not appr...
“However, at the end of the performance, the audience has already experienced the highest emotional climax, the memory of which is strung along by the inevitable plot resolution. The audience has no choice but to leave with the rapidly fading memory of their dramatic stimulation and return to the underwhelming reality that awaits them outside of the theatre.”
The characters address the audience; the fast movement from scene to scene juxtaposing past and present and prevents us from identifying with particular characters, forcing us to assess their points of view; there are few characters who fail to repel us, as they display truly human complexity and fallibility. That fallibility is usually associated with greed and a ruthless disregard for the needs of others. Emotional needs are rarely acknowledged by those most concerned with taking what they maintain is theirs, and this confusion of feeling and finance contributes to the play's ultimate bleak mood.
The triviality of melodrama is so often the theatrical scapegoat that boils the blood of the modern-day critic: the sentimental monologues, the martyred young lovers, the triumphant hero, and the self-indulgent imagery. Melodrama would seem the ultimate taboo; another failed Shakespearean staging or even worse, an opera minus the pretty music. Ironically, Bertolt Brecht, dramatic revolutionary and cynic of all things contrived found promise in the melodramatic presentation. Brecht examined and manipulated the various superficial and spectacular aspects of theatre, establishing a synthesis of entertainment and social criticism as his fundamental goal. Bertolt Brecht employs various facets of melodramatic technique in The Jewish Wife, ultimately reconfiguring the genre and conveying his central theme; a society rendered immobile at the will of a totalitarian regime.
Brecht argues that the ultimate purpose of play is to induce pleasure and to entertain, and that--because of this purpose--play needs no justification. Plays should not be simply copied from or seen through older performances, but need to develop on their own to better relate to a new audience. Through the use of alienation which aims to make the familiar unfamiliar, play and theatre can be seen under a new perspective, and the actor can feel more free to perform under a new guise.
In this essay I shall concentrate on the plays 'Road' by Jim Cartwright and 'Blasted' by Sarah Kane with specific reference to use of language and structure of dialogue as examples of dramatic techniques.
Plays at this time were a representation of life. People, at this time, did not have modern visual luxuries upon which to garner entertainment. Plays, as well as playwrights, were supposed to bring life to the people and life to the story,
During the Splendid adaptation, it was clear that they mainly focused on style, using a Brecht as an influence. At the beginning of the performance, the audience was greeted
Community performance can include political debates, social commentaries disguised as autobiographical self-debasing monologues as well as Renaissance Faires with their celebratory and informative performances. Each example can be said to include elements of Brechtian Alienation, even if they are not, perhaps, the performances that Brecht himself had in mind. However, the performances are important in that they force us to examine our own place within both the world of the theater and within our respective realities.
A mere mention of the term theatre acts as a relief to many people. It is in this place that a m...
On stage, these points were, looking at the opinions of a majority of both the audiences and the critics, presented successfully by Brook and the cast he worked with. From the prison guards who loomed in the background, clothed in butcher aprons and armed with clubs, to the half-naked Marat, slouched in a tub and covered in wet rags, forever scratching and writing, to the small group of singers, dressed and painted up as clowns, to the narcoleptic but murderous Charlotte Corday, Weiss and Brook offered a stage production that both engaged and amazed the audience, while at the same time forced them to question their role as the audience; no better exemplified than at the very end of the play, where the inmates, standing menacingly at the edge of the stage, actually begin to applaud the very people who applaud their performance, aggravating and confusing some, but forcing most t...
Willett, John, trans. and ed. Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic. New York: Hill and Wang, 1986.
Bertolt Brecht and Constantin Stanislavski are regarded as two of the most influential practitioners of the twentieth century, both with strong opinions and ideas about the function of the theatre and the actors within it. Both theories are considered useful and are used throughout the world as a means to achieve a good piece of theatre. The fact that both are so well respected is probably the only obvious similarity as their work is almost of complete opposites.