THE FUNTION OF HOPE IN BRECHT’S PRE-REVOLUTIONARY THEATER
A dominant influence in Anglo-American criticism of Brecht has been the psychoanalytically-oriented view propounded and popularized by Martin Esslin and Robert Brunstein. In this view Brecht the man is understood primarily as a paradox and his work as a product of unconsciously warring contradictions between his “rebellious instincts” and his “desire for absolute submission”.(1)
Both Esslin and Brustein find Brecht’s vision of the world to have been basically pessimistic and negatvie, so that his Marxist optimism was “merely a pious and touching hope”which could not conceal the despair pervading his work. (2) As evidence for this contention both critics refer to the paucity of positive side of his view of the world, according to Esslin, “is always merely postulated. It is never shown... Play after play depicts the horros of the world bejore the revolution.”(3) Brustein too finds Brecht “curiously reluctant to celebrate the ‘bigger side’ of Communism, to create a ‘positive hero’”; “his play remain concerned with flawed, imperfect, and unchanging human beings.”(4)
This view, I will here argue, fails to recognize (a) the precise Marxist aims and approach of Brecht’s theater and (b) the genuine humanistic hope which has connected the issue of Brecht’s hope or despair with the fact of the pre-revolutionary character of his plays. If, however, he is “curiously reluctant” depict positive Communist heroes, let our curiosity lead us to analyze, not the play-wright’s psiche, but his plays and his expressed intentions for clues to the correct interpretation of this reluctance.
My procedure here will be to attempt to demonstrate, first, that Brecht’s own particular view of his funtion as a Marxist playwright required him to show precisely “the horrors of the world before th revolution”and to represent this world not only as horrible and in need of change but also, by what he called “historicizing”, to represent it as historically conditioned and there-
(1) Robert Brunstein, The Theatre of Revolt (Boston, 1964) (2) Martin Esslin, Brecht: The Man and His Work (New York, 1961) (3) Ibid. (4) Brustein.
então traduzam este documento... parece good!!!
ResponderExcluirse não me engano são de Brecht!
ResponderExcluirCOmo se encaixam os jogos teatrais no verfrendung ?
ResponderExcluirBoa pergunta! PN
ResponderExcluirOnde continua esse documento?
ResponderExcluirPN
Dei uma digitada, acho que fica melhor pra ler...
ResponderExcluirEDWARD M. BERCKMAN
(Stillwater, Oklahoma)
THE FUNTION OF HOPE IN BRECHT’S PRE-REVOLUTIONARY THEATER
A dominant influence in Anglo-American criticism of Brecht has been the psychoanalytically-oriented view propounded and popularized by Martin Esslin and Robert Brunstein. In this view Brecht the man is understood primarily as a paradox and his work as a product of unconsciously warring contradictions between his “rebellious instincts” and his “desire for absolute submission”.(1)
Both Esslin and Brustein find Brecht’s vision of the world to have been basically pessimistic and negatvie, so that his Marxist optimism was “merely a pious and touching hope”which could not conceal the despair pervading his work. (2) As evidence for this contention both critics refer to the paucity of positive side of his view of the world, according to Esslin, “is always merely postulated. It is never shown... Play after play depicts the horros of the world bejore the revolution.”(3) Brustein too finds Brecht “curiously reluctant to celebrate the ‘bigger side’ of Communism, to create a ‘positive hero’”; “his play remain concerned with flawed, imperfect, and unchanging human beings.”(4)
This view, I will here argue, fails to recognize (a) the precise Marxist aims and approach of Brecht’s theater and (b) the genuine humanistic hope which has connected the issue of Brecht’s hope or despair with the fact of the pre-revolutionary character of his plays. If, however, he is “curiously reluctant” depict positive Communist heroes, let our curiosity lead us to analyze, not the play-wright’s psiche, but his plays and his expressed intentions for clues to the correct interpretation of this reluctance.
My procedure here will be to attempt to demonstrate, first, that Brecht’s own particular view of his funtion as a Marxist playwright required him to show precisely “the horrors of the world before th revolution”and to represent this world not only as horrible and in need of change but also, by what he called “historicizing”, to represent it as historically conditioned and there-
(1) Robert Brunstein, The Theatre of Revolt (Boston, 1964)
(2) Martin Esslin, Brecht: The Man and His Work (New York, 1961)
(3) Ibid.
(4) Brustein.
Esse "historicizing" tem a ver com o distanciamento?
ResponderExcluirVide próxima página?
PN