Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Bert July 1st, 2008

I don't believe I have suggested at all that Truth is not a valid concept... Perhaps some confusion's being caused in the translation. My query was do you think the concept underlying Epic Theatre is valid? As for my life allegedly not being a mystery, how do you discern which sources of history are accurate and which are not?

Zia Lopez June 29th, 2008

Bertie, unlike Shakespeare and Kennedy (what grand company you keep!) there is no longer any mystery about your activities. And yes, I'm sure you would prefer that people didn't care who stole what - but frustratingly, we do. We find Truth a 'valid concept', worth chasing.

Bert June 29th, 2008

Have you got any dirt on Shakespeare while you're at it? I'll swap you for the truth about the Kennedy assassination. Wherever the origin of Epic Theatre lies, either you appreciate it's a valid concept, or you don't. If you don't then who cares who stole it from what. If you do then you must at least appreciate my work in it's own right. That's what it's actually for. As for any outstanding accounts with Kurt, I trust our respective estates can find a consensual solution. One of the advantages of being dead is I no longer personally owe anybody anything.

Zia Lopez June 28th, 2008

Barefaced lies as usual, Bertie. By the way, Kurt's still chasing you for that huge amount of money you owe him.

Bert June 28th, 2008

I never said anything was all my idea. It's everyone's idea. Was I knowingly and purposefully exploiting someone else's idea for my own personal gain because I was not capable of having an idea myself? ...I don't know who I really was well enough to answer that. I made some plays and people came and watched and clapped, and maybe thought about the world and their lives in a different way. Maybe they even took some kind of positive action, I do not know. I just created a collection of all sorts of ideas and I hope folks can benefit from them somehow. Kurt helped quite a lot.

Zia Lopez June 27th, 2008

Oh hi Bertie, I was wondering when you’d pipe up. I would love your thoughts on the assertion below, that your ‘theory’ including that ‘alienation’ business was pinched from Meyerhold? “But Julius Bab, a leading theater critic and perhaps the most knowledgeable chronicler of German theater from
1900 to 1935, believed that Meyerhold had directly affected the
development of avant-garde theater in the West. In his 1928
study of contemporary theater (which includes descriptions and
photographs of Meyerhold's productions) Bab pointed out that
Piscator as well as such other Brecht associates as Berthold Vier­
tel, George Grosz, and Caspar Neher, were indebted either to
Meyerhold or to modernist Russian theater. 7 This view did not
spring from any wishful thinking. In fact, the German critic was
apprehensive that the Russians, with their love of visual devices
and aversion to psychologizing, might dehumanize theatre … ” “Thus, at least by 1922, and with increasing regularity thereafter, Germany had news about the new Soviet theater. Even
in far-off America, by the mid-1920s Meyerhold's name and accomplishments were household knowledge to theater people,
who as yet (and for many years to come) knew nothing of Bertolt
Brecht. Why, then, are Brecht's dramatic theory and style,
which in every important detail so clearly echo Meyerhold's
work, now popularly seen as phenomena which either sprang
fresh and whole from Brecht's imagination, or in some vague
and peripheral way were influenced by Greek theater, Renaissance theater, medieval theater--in other words, anything and
everything but the work of Vsevolod Meyerhold? Perhaps the
answer lies in the power of Stalin's purges, which erased not
only the mortal part of so many millions of people, but in the
case of artists, attempted to destroy their fame as well. Between 1939 (the year of his arrest) and 1956 (the year of his
"rehabilitation") Meyerhold's renown nearly vanished.” (From The Theater of Meyerhold and Brecht by Katherine Eaton)

Bertie B June 27th, 2008

You all deserve to be shot.

Welly Watch June 26th, 2008

I’d love to oblige, theatrephile, but I haven’t seen that production. Surely there is someone up there who has, and has an opinion to share. Or one/some of the cast, even! Come on, give. What were you trying for and did it work? Oh, and did the production ‘fall apart’ during the season? Zia’s Billington/Hook anecdote is interesting, but the man and the works that bear his name are different issues, especially if one accepts the ‘text for sex’ theory espoused by John Fuegi in his, Brecht & Co: Sex, Politics and the Making of Modern Drama, which inspired the Jean Betts play The Collective, in 2003 (apparently women who were in love with Bertolt wrote the plays that made him famous in order to win sexual favours from him… something like that). I’ve found a quote from Fuegi: “[To] understand this century it is essential to recognize the wholly irrational power these figures – whether Hitler, Stalin, or Brecht – exerted when they were encountered in person. Brecht is very much a part of this century of the charismatic, irrational yet effective Pied Piper powers that could, in the case of both Hitler and Stalin, lure tens of millions of supposedly intelligent beings to embrace their butchers.” But maybe we’re going off on another tangent here. Someone answer theatrephile’s question, please.

Theatrephile June 26th, 2008

Umm. Right. Well. Good, glad that's sorted out. Now, back to my initial question re Threepenny opera.... any thoughts?

Welly Watch June 26th, 2008

You know what, Rachel? Many plays play with words and if someone wants to appropriate ‘enter: to go in’ by way of explaining their take on ‘entertain’ that’s fine by me. Yes yes, I know you are right(eous) and John was wrong but lighten up for heaven’s sake. Word play is fun – where would Shakespeare have been without it? I agree with Martyn that Wikipedia is not as rigorously reviewed as your published academic text but I can’t accept that just because something is in a (non-fiction) book it is therefore true. History books are, in the end, collections of selective opinions often challenged and contradicted in other history books. They keep each other in work. After all, anyone looking for a thesis topic has to find one that argues a point that hasn’t yet been done, don’t they? And as long as they can show they have reviewed the literature, and they reference their sources, they can get a pass mark, like that holocaust denier joker. What’s great about Wikipedia is that it is a very dynamic global ‘conversation’ that arguably has more integrity than the printed word because it does not claim to be the last word in accuracy.

Rachel Robbins June 26th, 2008

I have a high regard for wikipedia. It's a basic self-regulating reference tool that works admirably. Of course it's not without its flaws but I challenge Martyn to show us where it advises that the derivation of the first part of the word "entertain" is "enter=to go in". That requires a special type of daftness.

martyn roberts June 26th, 2008

This is perhaps a lesson on the dangers of 'wikipedia' as a source of information perhaps? It is the the most unreliable internet source yet so many people use it. Stop the rot and go to a book and look it up next time, and cross reference too. 4/10.

John Smythe June 25th, 2008

I stand spanked once more and duly corrected. Thank you Mistress Rachel. We are agreed on the meaning of ‘tain’ (tenére to hold). So, given ‘enter’ in this context is interchangeable with ‘inter’ – a prefix occurring in loanwords from Latin, where it meant ‘between,’ ‘among,’ ‘in the midst of,’ ‘mutually,’ ‘reciprocally,’ ‘together,’ ‘during’ … the dictionary.com definition ‘to hold the attention of’ – mutually, reciprocally and/or together – may well serve. However, this suggests that one may not be individually entertained, reading a book, watching or even in a theatre, ‘between’, ‘among’ or ‘in the midst of’ among others who are bored witless while you alone are riveted. Certainly the collective experience can affect our desire to laugh or not; there is contagion to be had either way. But I would argue that common usage will require dictionaries to catch up with the possibility of being entertained alone. Mind you, if the mutuality, reciprocity and/or togetherness refer to the relationship between the entertainer and entertainee, it makes perfect sense. Anyway, the important thing is that we are entertained when our attention is held, which may be achieved though various combinations and permutations of emotional and/or intellectual engagement. And this may have some bearing on the discussion above about The Threepenny Opera.

Zia Lopez June 25th, 2008

Grateful thanks Rachel; and very entreteniring.

Super Dooper June 25th, 2008

Hey Rachel! http://modernarthur.com/blog/ christwhatanasshole.html

guy in the corner June 24th, 2008

...all getting a little personal, eh, folks? ...wouldn't you say?

Rachel Robbins June 24th, 2008

John Smythe posted 24 Jun that he'd "said it before but it's worth repeating: ENTER (to go in) + TAIN (to hold) = ENTERTAIN." He concludes from this, "By definition, then, entertainment is achieved when we are drawn in and held, either through emotional empathy or intellectual engagement or some combination of both." The word entertain first appeared in written English in the late 15th century, with its meaning "to keep up, maintain" (a rather fittingly Brechtian use). It was derived from the Middle French "entretenir" which in turn came from the Old French entre=among (from the Latin "inter") and tenir=to hold (from the Latin "tenere"). The sense of entertaining a guest appeared in 1490; the use of entertainer as public performer appeared in 1535 and the sense of entertaining as amusing appeared in 1626. Anyone breaking down the word entertain into parts consisting of "ENTER (to go in) + TAIN (to hold)" is probably best advised to steer clear of occupations that might involve making public pronouncements on the use of the English language. Meanwhile - how's Thelma, Weather and the Virtues of Reality going, John? That director got it up and running? It's not Moya Bannerman, is it?

P Stanway June 24th, 2008

I was laid off at Fisher & Paykel in East Tamaki two years ago and got on the piss and started living on the streets. Most days I go begging up round the Ferry building and eating at the City Mission down the other end of town. I seen that musical was on about begging and that. I went to that Maidment Theatre and tried to bludge a ticket. They told me to fuck off.

Theatrephile June 24th, 2008

Having been highly entertained by a number of Brecht's works over the last decade or more, in several countries, many complete with the whole distancing device, dollops of humour, and pathos, i simply found this production dull and unchallenging. Again, i would have to question the reason for staging it. Is it really that much of a classic that we need to tie up all of those resources in it? Thankfully i had my entertainment quotient more than filled at the delightfully lightweight, gloriously entertaining Priscilla the next night. Now there was a production that delivered on it's huge ticket price. Oh, and re Brecht's "The more innocent they are, the more they deserve to be shot" line: genius. I'm not surprised he never saw Brecht again, no doubt Brecht was avoiding the dullard.

John Smythe June 24th, 2008

I've said it before but it's worth repeating: ENTER (to go in) + TAIN (to hold) = ENTERTAIN. By definition, then, entertainment is achieved when we are drawn in and held, either through emotional empathy or intellectual engagement or some combination of both. As I understand it, Brecht and/or the women who collaborated or ghost-wrote his plays, eschewed emotional empathy for fear it would distort our ability to analyse the socio-political implications of the content - hence what has become known in English as 'the alienation theory'. Or, as Wikipedia puts it: The distancing effect (from the German Verfremdungseffekt) is a theatrical and cinematic device "which prevents the audience from losing itself passively and completely in the character created by the actor, and which consequently leads the audience to be a consciously critical observer." The term was coined by playwright Bertolt Brecht to describe the aesthetics of epic theatre. The question here is whether one is being consciously critical of the work (as written and/or produced and performed) or of the make-believe characters and their actions - and at what point does such criticism render the work itself invalid?

nik smythe June 23rd, 2008

that is interesting information... without further research into the controversy i can't really make any call as such. as it stands my review accurately reflects my personal experience. i will however add to the topic of translation, that i saw a fairly different version many years ago and recall a number of lines and lyrics were to my mind more effective than the comparatively staid text used today. more research would be needed to determine which text was the more literally translated? as for the audience being unentertained, whatever Brecht's living agendas were, he famously sought to challenge and wasn't afraid of alienating an audience. so in that respect this production appears to be a success, for whatever worth you might think such a success to have. did i mention the music was incredible?

Zia Lopez June 23rd, 2008

I’m with you, Theatrephile. Nik Smythe ends his review with “It's arguable Brecht was always aiming for a non-plussed response to his work, perhaps to illustrate the fatuousness of the convention of theatre itself.” There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that Brecht preferred a ‘non-plussed response’ because the alternative was being rumbled as a conman and fraudster who exploited all those around him, who hid behind a cleverly constructed façade of ‘genius’ which far too many people who should know better are still helping to keep in place; and whose convictions were limited to the overwhelming importance of filling his Swiss bank accounts. Consider the following anecdote from a recent Michael Billington review:- ‘The American socialist Sidney Hook put the case for indifference best after Brecht came to dinner in Manhattan in the mid-Thirties. Stalin was forcing thousands of Soviet communists to confess to fantastic crimes, and Hook asked Brecht what he thought of the show trials. ' It was at this point that he said in words I have never forgotten, "As for them, the more innocent they are, the more they deserve to be shot." I was so taken aback that I thought I had misheard him. '"What are you saying?" I asked. 'He calmly repeated, "The more innocent they are, the more they deserve to be shot." 'I was stunned by his words. "Why? Why?" I exclaimed. All he did was smile at me in a nervous sort of way. I got up, went into the next room, and fetched his hat and coat. When I returned, he was still sitting in his chair, holding a drink in his hand. When he saw me with his hat and coat, he looked surprised. He put his glass down, rose, and with a sickly smile took his hat and coat and left. Neither of us said a word. I never saw him again.' I bet he didn’t. Sidney was supposed to be enchanted by the dazzling complexity of the master's response, and to spend the rest of his life trying to untangle its deeper meanings; not call Brecht’s bluff. I suggest Nik call his bluff too.

Theatrephile June 23rd, 2008

Having had what I would consider the great misfortune to sit through this production on Friday night I came home and reread all of the reviews, wondering if i had in fact seen the same show. What i saw was a pedestrian, uninspired, and uninspiring, shouty piece of conservative theatre that appeared largely to be unenjoyable to many if not most in the audience. It was also plagued with technical issues, (microphones cutting out on a number of occasions). The row of people in front of me had a discussion at half time in which they stated that they were certainly not enjoying it in the slightest. One of them, an elderly gentleman, said, "I loved it last time i saw it, in 1960". To be fair, one woman stood and applauded at the end, but the applause in general was lackluster and perfunctory, and embarrassingly had virtually stopped before the cast reappeared to take a second bow. Being the polite theatergoers that we are we half heartedly clapped them again. So, my question is this: did anyone else see the production later in the season and did it fall apart somewhere along the way, or, was it always the uninspiring nonsense that we saw? If it is in fact, as one reviewer stated, the Silo's coming of age, i would have to wonder what age it has come into? All i saw was a vast waste of time and resources and funding, and really did have to wonder why it was even put on in the first place. Thoughts?

S Sanders June 3rd, 2008

There are now also reviews on Metrolive ("It is only June, but if I had money on it, The Threepenny Opera is already the theatre experience of the year." - Gilbert Wong) and National Business Review ("This may turn out to be the production of the year in this city." - Deborah LaHatte). There seems to be a theme emerging . . . [Links to these reviews have now been added - ed]

Fred Barlow June 3rd, 2008

Great review, Nik, really well written and interesting. It makes me wish I was in Auckland to see the show.