Comments

Comments

Leigh$:) November 11th, 2009

Hey my name is Leigh. I go to Kelburn Normal and I am also eleven.
I'd like to share my thoughts on the Caucasian Chalk Circle.

First, imagine a monochrome life. Everything is black and white, plain to the human eye, simple and obvious. Then imagine a silent pause after a show... then imagine noise, bustle, and bursts of colour-as if the whole world is changing in the blink of an eye. I think that Brecht is like that- he sees the world through the eyes of a child. Wishing, foolishly, some may say; rightfully others, that a world of arguments and complications is wrong. Why do we get angered enough to go around the world, killing people with guns for years on end? No I'm serious- rights of everyone should be equal and undeniable.

In Christian Penny's adaption, however, there is Russia. One side is black, the other is white. So they argue. But the point is, I agree discrimination and war is definitely wrong, but discovery is the plus side of it all. Black mixing and fighting with white makes silver, does it not? There is always a upside and a downside to everything. I don't intend to downgrade it in any way, but it all reminds me of a picture book called Good news, Bad News. There is always a bit of bad news which has a good side which has complications etc etc etc.

I know this may sound strange, but the mistake in the pre-release first half I saw when the lamp caught on fire really got me thinking. What if the whole matter was set in the age of tents and torches? It'd be actually very effective, in my view. And instead of complete darkness, it could be just the torches flaming to create shadows. It would be as if they were lit by emotion itself.

A question I had was would it work modernized? My class watched a clip where the lawyers were modern-speaking and clothed. But the whole thing could be... It could have current issues, like World Cup Rugby Tv rights and John Key saying stuff, I suppose, but that kind of thing (no offence to those who disagree) is not exactly as important and heart-touching. Unless you follow rugby, which I don't.

As well, I wonder what Mr. Penny thinks? I know that we're all self critical, but I like any play. And besided, no-one can underestimate a good show. It has what I call the perfect balance- humour, seriousness, and the brink of strange.

Anyway, overall, I think I got the idea- Brecht wanted people to think about issues as if they weren't real so we could realise how real they really are and make an effort to change that. If we think about war as if it were only real inside another world, then, possibly, we could capture it within. Like it was a dream, and we, as an audience, walk out of the play, still seroiusly thinking. Didn't Mr. Penny find doing such a play depressing? Also, I'm sure the dolls were practising in some magical way. Maybe I'm comparing it to Coraline.

I hope that Brecht's life wasn't another one of those dark 1920's people's. I have worn black today to commemorate the evils of the early 20th century.

Finally, I think that I can understand the point being put across, but as Orson Welles said, "If you want a happy ending, that depends, of couse, where you stop the story."
 

John Smythe November 10th, 2009

Thank you Daisy - that is a very valuable contribution to the discussion.

Daisy:) November 10th, 2009

Hello,

I'm Daisy from Kelburn Normal School and I'm 11 years old.
I'd like to share my experience of the Caucasian Chalk Circle.

I saw the play and found it fasinating and entertaining, but I still didn't understand it properly. The play put me on the edge of being in the real world and the unreal world, with my mind being conscious of both. After the play I thought about the questions the play was made of. How did the actors put me in two different places at once with my mind being conscious of both? Was it the costumes? Was it the seating? The staging? What did the story mean to me? That was the hardest of all. What did it mean to me? How the feelings of the innocent average people of the  1940's, born in the wrong place and the wrong time who were the victims of war.
 
I have thought a lot about these questions and I'm not sure I found the right answers, but the questions made the play.  

John Smythe November 9th, 2009

Gosh. I had no idea I was supposed to be enthralled at this “brave and challenging decision” to include the child as “an unrehearsed guest in the production”. Including her in the action as the carrier of the ‘baby’ prop seemed fair enough, as a way of getting her used to being part of the performance. Seeing her so close to the action when Jessup got stark naked and into the drum for a wash was a bit of a worry, but the attendant actress did counsel her to avert her eyes so I suppose that was OK. All that was very distracting, though, from the point of the scene …

For the purposes of the ‘chalk circle test’ scene, however, I’d have thought the simple rules of child’s play were all that was required: let’s pretend I’ve been the only mother you remember over all the years you’ve been growing up, and now this lady who used to be really rich and powerful comes along and says she is your real mother, and a drunken old judge says you have to stand in the circle while each would-be mother takes an arm, and whichever one pulls you out of the circle will be declared your mother. How do you think you might feel about that …? (All explored in a back-and-forth interaction, of course.)

Hopefully the time she spent offstage with some of the cast in the 2^nd half, before her big scene, involved a process by which the child was able to get ‘enrolled’. If not, she would have been a manipulated plaything of the adults, denied the right to engage in the make-believe with her own emotionally intelligent understanding and natural capacity for play.

Of course if a group of children had been pre-rehearsed into the role, that might have empowered them even more and made it a more rewarding experience. 

Surely this production’s emphasis on process and form over content is the antithesis of Brecht’s intention in wanting people to think and feel (about the real world the parable relates to) rather than be distracted and enthralled (by the performance elements).

sam trubridge November 9th, 2009

In my reading of the work, the child is a lot more than just another actor, and deserves more than just a performance rating. The inclusion of this naive, unrehearsed, and unknowing eye WITHIN the machinations of the stagecraft was a brave and challenging decision. He/she became a kind of 'lens' through which (as a character in the story) the issues in the play can be examined, and (as an unrehearsed guest in the production) we may look upon the event with greater seriousness. I am not certain if this figure and its dynamics were completely resolved, but I am certain that it is an inspired and intelligent exploration of Brecht's alienation technique.

I would also like to maintain the relevance of 'Alienation' in an era where the show of spectacle and virtuosity often prevails over an intelligent discourse in performance - both live and on screen. These 'effects' (such as Georgian accents) do little more than show off the skills of a particular craftsman and enthrall the viewer within the world of the show. Escapism is often desired, but as Brecht himself said: "Art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it". That moment where we are snapped out of the theatre-dream is a moment of awakening. It promotes a deeper realisation of our place in the world, helping us recognise the parts that we all play in our lives as 'co-creative' audience members and performers.

Laurie Atkinson November 2nd, 2009

Limited to 350 words a review (with the occasional special case when I can ask for a little more space) I believe it would be invidious to pick out actors in a large cast for special mention, let alone a child actor who will appear only on the night I happen to attend. As always on these occasions the graduating students work very effectively as a team, and so they should after being together for three years.

Also there are many more ways to ‘alienate’ a member of an audience than Brecht’s V-effect: not being able to see the actors who are hidden because I have had to shift my seat yet again and finding myself standing behind a high rostrum; not being able to hear some of the dialogue; being distracted by the actors (not their fault) changing costumes, finding props, etc right beside me or in my line of sight when I am looking at the stage action. It is all a bit of the luck of the draw where one sits or ends up in promenade productions and this can easily colour one’s attitude towards a production.

Yes, one can be moved and have one’s sympathy aroused in plays as unrealistic as The Chalk Circle -  as Anna Harcourt’s clearly was. When Leontes in The Winter’s Tale touches the hand of his wife’s statue and says “O, she’s warm!” I was reduced to tears when I saw the play a few years ago with John Nettles (of Midsomer Murders fame) as the jealous Leontes. But no such emotion swept over me  at any point in this Caucasian Chalk Circle, which is the second production I have seen – the first was a very long time ago and I had read it, also a long time ago.

It seems to me the A-effect is, as John Smythe says, something of a misnomer and something that Brecht developed in reaction to a style of theatre that had a brief period of ascendancy and has since disappeared completely. Also I can’t see why one can’t be enthralled and thinking at the same time.

 

John Smythe November 2nd, 2009

I am delighted, Anna, that at the final performance the form and style of the production was fully serving the content.  By Willem’s account it was working well much sooner than that. But on opening night I felt it was off balance. 

My comment about the opening scene is based on the fact that Brecht saw fit to place the ancient parable in what was then a contemporary context, so would it not be true to his vision to do the same now? Not necessarily in a local setting but somehow related to today’s socio-political issues – although pinpointing one to which the Chalk Circle parable would be relevant is quite a challenge. Also I regard Brecht’s opening scene as a rather tedious piece of dramaturgy.  By the way, were the puppets still used on the final night, and if so, were they endowed with ‘life’?

Hopefully the dramatic tension / release of the chalk circle test became better realised so that the outcome provoked more feeling and thought. Of course the monstrous Governor’s Wife is clearly, and we have shared in Grusha’s struggle, so it is a foregone conclusion we will want Grusha to win. The question is whether this corrupt, sleazy, drunk and self-serving so-called judge, Azdak, will see it that way.  One thing I’ve always wondered about Azdak is, has he always been wise deep within his wily self-preserving ways, or is the case of Grusha and the boy transformative for him? At what point does he hit on that test as the answer to the dilemma, and why?

The whole play pits the individual against society and seeks the point of balance between self and others: how do we balance our personal wants and needs against ‘the greater good’ and where do the basic tenets of humanity – value all lives as you do your own; do as you would be done by, etc – fit  in?  If later performances got people thinking about all that, I am delighted.

Anna Harcourt November 1st, 2009

In this comment I address both your review, John and that of Laurie Atkinson. Both of you appear to be commenting that the production ignored the themes of the play in favour of spectacle and the desire to be different. I imagine that both of you reviewers are quite familiar with the play. I assume you have seen it performed or read it at least once, or multiple times. I however, had not. I had never read the play, seen a production or even wikipediad the plot. And I understood it perfectly, despite the fact that I didn’t even read the synopsis in the programme as you recommended. I felt the themes shone through brilliantly. Maybe not every nuance that you are familiar with was presented in the way you expected or desired, and this left you with the feeling that the point had been missed. But for one experiencing it for the first time, I definitely needed no reduction in the showmanship of the performance to understand the themes.

I felt the seating was the most exciting directorial decision I have experienced this year, and perhaps in a long while. I have never been in an audience that has had the same sense of unity and community. The active involvement and attention that it demanded created an intense focus to the piece. I was surprised to realise afterwards how long the play actually was. Never for a moment did my mind wander away in the way that so often happens when watching theatre.  Brecht wanted to wake his audience up from their drowsy passive viewing. I think he’d be jumping for joy.

 

I disagree with the notion that the setting of the prologue didn’t serve Brecht’s intentions. I dislike being spoon-fed by theatre, and that’s what I feel moving the prologue to a NZ setting would do. I think so much more richness comes from allowing me to draw my own connections from post WW2 Georgia to modern day NZ land disputes, and then back again to modern Georgia to ponder the things that have happened there just since my birth.

 

And “Arouses no sympathy”- are you serious Laurie? The moment of Simon arriving back from the war to find that Grusha is ‘no longer of the same name’ was one of the most heartfelt and lovely pieces of acting I have seen this year. “Without subtlety”? Pah. Hats off to Juanita Hepi and Tim Carlsen.

 

Finally, I think it is an appalling omission to not even mention the child. Every night a primary school student would act as Michael the child. They have never taken part in any previous rehearsals, they do not know the play at all. They would watch the first half of the play, then come onstage in the second half and improvise their response based on what they had seen. I think enormous congratulation should go to the kids who played these roles. John, I don’t know about the people who you spoke to at half time who said they couldn’t follow the plot, but the girl who acted on the night that I attended (Sat 31^st Oct) seemed totally on top of it.

 

Oh, and I loved the lighting.

The Little Black Duck October 27th, 2009

Said better  than I could by Willem, but I wanted to note my agreement.

A whole so much greater than the sum of its parts (though the parts stand up to some pretty fair scrutiny too).

A pleasure, a surprise and an education.

Willem Wassenaar October 25th, 2009

 In addition to John's review, my experience of the CCC (Saturday 24th October) was completely different. 

 What a feast! I felt the work had a strong heart, and I was blown away by the ritualistic nature of theatre and the world that we were invited into. The gentle, simple and beautiful involvement of the child in the story and the ensemble holding and taking us into this ride. This theatre was raw, tender, imaginative, dirty, dangerous and felt unexpected, yet as an audience (which started operating as a community in itself) I never felt alienated from the action in a way that was not adding to the positive experience. I felt, I thought, I questioned, I debated, I repulsed; I did a lot in extremes as the ensemble gave me the empowerment and trust to do so.

This work showcases the corrupt powers that control the individual in society, and I think that this question of who has power over who and in which way this is executed, is very relevant for a modern audience. I do not think that world literature needs to be localized to achieve this, let us please invite audiences to translate the theatrical metaphors themselves. I am not interested in a piece of work that is spelling this out for me, and pushes me how I need to make sense of the play. 

 

John Smythe October 24th, 2009

Exactly, Sam. Because Brecht wrote that “the spectator was no longer in any way allowed to submit to an experience uncritically (and without practical consequences) by means of simple empathy with the characters in a play” people have often taken his verfremdung – translated as ‘the alienation effect’ – to mean we are not supposed to have an emotional response to the action, or become emotionally engaged with the story, and I think this is a misinterpretation.

In my understanding Brecht’s verfremdung effect was/is aimed at breaking away from prevailing notions of ‘naturalism’ in order to get more effectively at the ‘truth’ and jolt bourgeois audiences out of their complacency. Thus the breaking down of ‘the fourth wall’, the re-introduction of a narrator, the use of songs and all the other elements of ‘popular’, ‘people’s’ and ‘epic theatre’ that have found their ways into many performing arts forms in the decades that followed.

His principle aim, I believe, was to stimulate a critical response to society and human behaviour. Penny’s programme note, saying Brecht “wanted his work to make the audience 'think and feel' not just sit on the edge of their seat 'enthralled'” is a good way of putting it, and I imagine there are not many playwrights who would not  agree regarding how they want their own plays to work.

In the 1970s Dennis Potter and a group of his peers coined the phrase “realism but not naturalism” to explain their ways of dealing with the realities of life without exploring their perceptions of the truth through naturalistic dramas that tried to recreate ‘real life’ on stage or screen.

And of course it was ever thus. Throughout the history of theatre, the conventions Brecht and others challenged had only become predominant relatively recently – and can we say briefly?  

But back to this production of CCC. My issue is that, on opening night at least, there did not appear to be any socio-political purpose in presenting the story. It made little connection with the real world and just left me thinking, gosh they’re a talented bunch. Is that enough?   

sam trubridge October 24th, 2009

An interesting review John. There are some very valid observations. However, I am interested in your analysis of the play vis a vis Brecht's techniques of 'alienation' - that cannot go unconsidered in any production, or review of a production, of his work.