Developments in the United States

The currents of innovative stagecraft eventually reached the United States. The first migration was represented by the Viennese Joseph Urban, who when he went to the Boston Opera before World War I took with him an entire atelier of draftsmen and scenic artists. Urban moved into musical comedy and eliminated the acreage of painted vistas and box sets that had been manufactured by the stock scenic studios.

The next change grew out of marginal experimental groups, such as the Provincetown Playhouse on Cape Cod in Massachusetts and the Neighborhood Playhouse in New York City, which fostered designers such as Robert Edmond Jones, Cleon Throckmorton, and Aline Bernstein. By the middle 1920s, their simple, tasteful romanticism had invaded Broadway as the groups had become commercial and as the more artistic theatre managers extended commissions to the freelance designers. The industrial designer Norman Bel Geddes entered the growing ranks of theatre artists and devised grandiose projects and engineering marvels. With the impetus provided by ecstatic reports from Europe on the work of Reinhardt, Copeau, Meyerhold, and Tairov, American directors such as Arthur Hopkins and Philip Moeller attempted to synthesize the elements of production into a persuasive whole. The imaginative poetry of Robert Edmond Jones was balanced by the sensible craftsmanship of Lee Simonson for the Theatre Guild. Simonson as the exponent of “selective realism” was more attuned to the practicalities of the earthbound psychological problems that provided the staple fare of Broadway’s “serious” drama.

By the 1930s, scenery consisted of solid carpentry and tasteful furnishings that were tailored to the mood, atmosphere, and mechanical requirements of the individual play. The Urban style in musical comedy design was replaced by that of Albert Johnson—a style characterized by loose colour and calligraphic line that went well with the sharp revues that prevailed until World War II. In staging musicals, a peculiar division persisted between the direction of the plot and comedy segments and that of the production numbers—the sumptuous song-and-dance displays under the separate supervision of a “stager” who was noted for his taste. Director-producer George Abbott surmounted this artificial departmentalization in an important step forward in the development of the rhythmic, lively musical show that became America’s contribution to world theatre.

The importation of Blue Blouse techniques, through direct exposure to German groups or through political theatre groups formed by ethnic immigrants, led to one sensational development in the United States. The Living Newspaper had been a relatively crude form of propaganda elsewhere. Under the Federal Theatre Project (1935) several Living Newspapers were produced, of which Triple-A Ploughed Under (1936) and One Third of a Nation (1938) are probably the best known examples. These productions were articulate documentaries of great sophistication. So impressive were they that the model was reexported into Europe as the basis for many documentary theatre productions. Another refinement of these techniques married to the skill of Broadway-experienced professionals produced the political revue Pins and Needles (1937), which was put on to aid a strike and which ran on Broadway for 1,108 performances.

The influence of Brecht

By 1936 a wide range of experimentation and innovation had established the parameters of the contemporary theatre. The training of actors in the Western theatre has since become more organized to take in concepts and programs from the earlier innovators. There are few schools today that do not acknowledge the work of Stanislavsky in their training. Less obvious but equally pervasive is the influence of Reinhardt and Copeau, largely by way of their pupils in teaching. And towering above all others (save perhaps Stanislavsky) is the figure of Brecht. It is reasonable to argue that Brecht absorbed, and in turn perpetuated, more influences than any other individual in the modern theatre.

Of central importance in establishing this argument is Brecht’s essay “On Experimental Theatre” (1940), in which he reviews the work of Vakhtangov, Meyerhold, Antoine, Reinhardt, Okhlopkov, Stanislavsky, Jessner, and other Expressionists. Brecht traces through the modern theatre the two lines running from Naturalism and Expressionism. Naturalism he sees as the “assimilation of art to science,” which gave the Naturalistic theatre great social influence, but at the expense of its capacity to arouse aesthetic pleasure. Expressionism (and by implication the other anti-illusionist theatres), he acknowledges, “vastly enriched the theatre’s means of expression and brought aesthetic gains that still remain to be exploited.” But it proved incapable of shedding any light on the world as an object of human activity, and the theatre’s educational value collapsed. Brecht recognized the great achievements of Piscator’s work, in which he himself played a significant role, but proposed a further advance in the development of so-called epic theatre.

Brecht’s Marxist political convictions led him to propose an alternative direction for the theatre that would fuse the two functions of instruction and entertainment. In this way the theatre could project a picture of the world by artistic means and offer models of life that could help the spectators to understand their social environment and to master it both rationally and emotionally. The main concept of Brecht’s program was that of Verfremdungseffekt (“alienation”). In order to induce a critical frame of mind in the spectator, Brecht considered it necessary to dispense with the empathetic involvement with the stage that the illusionary theatre sought to induce. Generally, this has been understood as a deadening coldness in the productions, but such an interpretation proceeds from a general ignorance of Brecht’s own writings on the subject. Rather, he insisted, as Appia, Craig, and the Symbolists did before him, that the audience must be reminded that it is watching a play.

Brecht’s ideas can be approached through the image presented by the theatre he chose to work in on his return to East Germany in 1947. The auditorium of the Theater am Schiffbauerdamm is lavish to the point of fantasy, decorated with ornate plaster figures. The stage, by complete contrast, is a vast mechanized scenic space in which everything is clearly exposed to view as theatrical and man-made. In the contrast between the comfort of the auditorium and the science of the stage lies the condition of Brecht’s theatre. The audience was there to be entertained but also to think scientifically.

Many of the techniques of Brecht’s staging were developments of earlier work. The use of three-dimensional set pieces in a large volume of space clearly derived from Jessner. His delight in the use of machinery and in particular the revolving stage came from Piscator. The insistence on the actors’ demonstrating through the physical disposition of the body their gestus (“attitude”) toward what is happening derived from Meyerhold, though with Brecht the gestus was always socially based. The clearest of his alienation devices, the projection of captions preceding the scene so that the audience knows in advance what will happen and therefore can concentrate on how it happens, derived from Piscator’s jotter screens and film captions.

Brecht acknowledged in his work the need for the actor to undergo a process of identification with the part, and he paid tribute to Stanislavsky as the first person to produce a systematic account of the actor’s technique. Brecht required his actors to go beyond Stanislavsky and to incorporate a social attitude or judgment into their portrayal. Characterization without a critical judgment was in Brecht’s view seductive artifice; conversely, social judgment without the characterization of a rounded human being was arid dogmatism. The theatre of mixed styles and means that Meyerhold and others constructed to cope with the grotesque experience of modern living was transformed by Brecht into a political principle. He used mixed means and styles to expose the contradictions, inconsistencies, and dialectics of situations and characters. Brecht’s strongest theatrical effects were created through the juxtaposition of inconsistent attitudes in a character. Although the settings in Brecht’s productions were clearly theatrical, the costumes and properties were not. Great care was taken to make each property and its use authentic for the period or character. In Brecht’s theatre, if a chicken were to be plucked the actor did not mime or roughly approximate the action—the chicken was plucked. Costumes had to make clear the social class of the persons wearing them. This places Brecht directly in the line with the Meiningen Players, though again the gestus is particularly social rather than historical.

Brecht’s methods of rehearsal were especially innovative. The methods worked out in his own company, the Berliner Ensemble, established a directing collective well advanced beyond those of Reinhardt and Piscator. In Brecht’s theatre, the director, dramaturge, designer, and composer had equal authority in the production. The designer had a special function; in addition to designing the sets and costumes, he also produced, for early rehearsal purposes, a series of sketches of key moments in the action. The rehearsals became a process of testing hypotheses about the play and its production. What held the collective together and made the method workable was the story, or fable. All the elements of production were synthesized for telling this story in public. At some points the music conveyed the meaning, at other times the setting, or the actors, or the words did. Brecht often invited observers to the rehearsals in order to test the clarity of the story. The process of testing could continue into the performance period. When the company was satisfied that the staging was correct, the production was photographed and a Modellbuch was prepared with photographs set against the text to show the disposition of the stage at all times and to mark significant changes of position on the part of the actors. The Modellbuch was then available (in a more advanced form than the designer’s sketches) as the basis for any subsequent productions.

The Modellbuch has aroused resentment on the part of directors who prefer to respond freely to the text. Brecht’s intention was not to limit but to provide a document as scientific evidence of an experiment that could be used in further research. Since the finished text was, in any case, only one facet of the fable, the model book gave evidence of other aspects of the story and its telling.

Brecht’s influence on the contemporary theatre has been both considerable and problematic. His Marxist views have proved a real stumbling block to his assimilation in the West, and his use of formalist techniques in the service of entertainment has presented difficulties in the socialist countries. There is no doubt that the settings and costumes of his productions are the features that have most influenced the contemporary theatre. Contemporary design exhibits in many ways the influences of his staging.