If we take the analogy of a football match, imagine that a player has rounded the keeper, approaches the goal line but then all of a sudden he puts his shot wide, what are the reactions of the fans? A sense of inevitability and a passive viewing of the event? No, of course not, they all have an opinion on how it went wrong and what they would have done, they are constantly in a state of criticism and judging. Imagine then that the team in question lose the game by a single goal, the audience are then even more critical and even more emotional about the events. This was Brecht's aim for the viewers of theatre, to have them constantly being critical of the actions of characters but to also have them engage on a lager scale that deals with the actions of the characters and also motivates them into thinking of the context being presented. As we know Brecht had an agenda which meant he wanted to showcase politics and engage audiences with said politics, to do this he would have to make them care about the events they were seeing in a manner that was deeper than just passive viewing.
The alienation effect was also to do with splitting character perceptions, Brecht uses the example of someone's wife who is also someone else's mother, in order for these two perceptions to be portrayed we need the alienation effect, this is because they are two very different roles, despite being able to fill the same body space. A mother is a family member and is to do with being a care giver and guardian. A wife however, is an object of desire, she's a prize, almost an object of sorts (traditionally of course, I am not trying to demean women). These two differing discourses are how the alienation effect occurs. In terms of acting this means that the actor must almost separate into two different characters on stage, this is useful for audience engagement as it gives them a reason to think about why the portrayal changes when the discourse changes.
No comments:
Post a Comment