Talk:Bertolt Brecht/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Alienation effect?

I don't want to interrupt the name calling and "yo yo yo"s, but I don't understand why there is a redirection from "alienation effect" to this article. Granted, Brecht founded this method, but is it not a subject that can stand on its own? Are there not other uses of the alienation effect employed elsewhere? This is found commonly in many modernist (to include "post-modernist") literary and dramatic works, and certainly not just those written by Brecht. Just a thought. Oh, and did anyone else realize that the Epic Theatre (founded by Brecht to present his plays) is still around? Who would have thought something so counter to the socially acceptable concept of theatre would survive fifty years? Thus proving that "alienation effect" deserves its own Wiki entry. 8)66.245.200.216A Dead Cat

He who?

"After the war he moved to Berlin where an influential critic, Herbert Ihering, brought him to the attention of a public longing for modern theater. Already in Munich his first two plays, Baal and Drums in the Night, had had performances, and he got to know Erich Engel, a director who worked with him off and on for the rest of his life. "

Who is the "he" in the second sentence referring to? Brecht or Ihring Brecht. - Lewis

Marriage and divorce

"He married the opera singer and actress Marianne Zoff in 1922. Their daughter, Hanne Hiob, born in 1923 is a well-known German actress. One year later they had a son, Stefan. In 1930 he married Weigel, and their daughter Barbara was born soon after."

What Happened to the marriage to Zoff? This makes it sound like he had two wives simultaneously. At least one sentence is needed explaining their divorce, and hopefully a word on why.

Currency remittances

"Although he lived in the DDR, a copyright on his writings was held by a Swiss company and he received valuable hard currency remittances. "

Remittances? Payments? Clarify please.

scazza 18:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Saint Joan

This refers to Saint Joan of the Stockyards as "Brecht's first great play", but later on it says "Brecht would later uses elements of Happy End as the germ for his Saint Joan of the Stockyards". That's confusing... unless it means that everything before Saint Joan wasn't great. Teiladnam 07:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC) Yeah, that's what it means. From the POV of Brecht's theories regarding the theater, or the POV of Brecht's international reception, it's a valid claim. - Lewis

Influence on cinema

I added the bit about his influence over the cinema. I am amazed that this point was missing from the page. Anyway, I'm no Brecht expert (hence reading the article), if you can elaborate on his influence on the cinema please do so. I notice that the Godard article had a point about Brecht, as it must, and was shocked to see no Godard reference on this page. As a side note, if you are a Brecht fan or want to see what the alienation effect is all about check out some Godard films or early Fassbinder films. --Collingsworth 22:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

cleanup tag

A cleanup tag was added to this article a couple of weeks ago by an anonymous editor, and there's been no rationale posted to this Talk page. Since the article seems decent and not too messy to me, I am removing the cleanup tag until an explanation of what needs fixing is given. -- Rbellin|Talk 01:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The talk page, though, could use a cleanup...

Art, hammer, mirror

Is Brecht the source of the quote which goes something like "Art is not a mirror held up to society, it is a hammer by which to shape it."...? A5 01:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote attributes it to him, but it would be nice to see a source. It seems to be extremely mis-attributed. If it is him, maybe this article should mention the quote? A5 01:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a quotation from Brecht, but rather a closely-related 'epic/constructivist Russian dramatist and poet, Vladimir Mayakovsky, who was to Meyerhold what Chekhov was to Stanislavski. I believe the standard translation is: "Art is not a mirror to reflect the world but a hammer with which to shape it." Utterly Brechtian in sentiment, of course. DionysosProteus 17:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How odd that Brecht, who was an Austrian citizen all his life, is listed among "American communists".

well... as the article states, he was a german citizen, and acquired the austrian citizenship only late in his life, and never actually lived in Austria; plus he lived on the US east coast for several years in exile, so he can probably be referred to as kind of american, although his relationship with america was a difficult one. -- 790 08:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

On the East Coast? I seem to recall he lived in Santa Monica. - Lewis

Fix this.

There's a whole section on the term "Brechtian" (which if I'm not mistaken is spelled "Brechtean" anyway) which says nothing except that it is an adjective comparing things to Brecht. Thanks, Wikipedia. How about someone more familiar with the man than I am edits this section to describe what a person would actually mean when they use that term, so, as a good encyclopedia should, it does not require that the casual reader looking up that word read the entire article on Brecht. Also, the word "Brechtian" when linked to other pages does not link to that particular section, but merely redirects to the top of the article. Thanks. Rufusgriffin 22:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Major works

I'm surprised to see in the list "Herr Puntila und sein Mann Matti". The work is generally known - and often performed - under the title "Herr Puntila und sein Knecht Matti". I don't know whether Brecht revised the title himself, or whether there is simply a mistake here. Anthony Mellor-Stapelberg, Hanover 84.130.162.114 12:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Date error

from the article: "After Adolf Hitler won the election in 1933". Hitler won the election in 1932, and became chancellor and dictator in 1933. I don't know which it is supposed to be, but this is wrong. Mtijn 00:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A bit hair-splitting, this. According to my Brockhaus, after the election in November 1932 the Nazis held 196 out of 584 seats in the Reichstag. True, they were the largest party, but "winning an election" looks rather different - which is why Hitler didn't become Chancellor until the following year. In March 1933 they won 288 seats. Anthony Mellor-Stapelberg, Hanover

Cold War and East Germany

This section is a bit of a mess. Brecht was not one of the Hollywood Ten, he was one of the many people to testify at the same time. He was not cited for contempt for the simple reason reason that, entirely truthful or not, his testimony did not establish that he was in a position to "name names". The chronology needs work as well.--Dhodges 14:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In addition, there is increasing evidence since the collapse of the USSR that Brecht was in fact a Soviet agent. His return to East Germany was, in that context, unsurprising, as was his lack of party membership, given his party activism in prewar Germany. His deft handling of the HUAC commiittee does not suggest a political naiif. Mje 12:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I usually hear Brecht's name pronounced "Brekt", but the German language page suggests that "Bresht" is the correct pronunciation, though I've heard only one person use the latter pronunication. Perhaps the proper pronunciation should be given on the page. --Scottandrewhutchins 05:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends on where you are in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, etc. Some places "ch" is a hard k, others "sh", still others, kh (like you're going to spit--German is such a pretty language). I'm not sure if there's an "official" pronunciation other than High German, which would make it the last option I mentioned (It's like "ich": some say "ick" or "isht" or "ikh" or "ikhsht" or some variation of any of these). Any native or professional German speakers out there? Freshacconci 13:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually I'm German and you'd never pronounce "Brecht" like a hard k oder like sh or even kh. The way to pronounce "ch" in German is usually something you can't bring over to English because there's no similiar sound in English. At least I can't think of any and almost all people for an Englisch speaking country have big problems with German words that contain "ch" - e.g. Eichhoernchen (squirrel). The "ch" is more like an hissing sound but not really.;-) The best way would be the sh, every German would understand what you mean even if it's not the right way of saying it.

As I understand it, the best way to render his name in English is to use the sound English uses for Loch, as in a Scottish lake. DionysosProteus 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

His name is pronounced with the special sound similar to the Scotish "loch". Listen to the audio file where it is pronounced correctly. The variations of the pronounciation mentioned by Freshacconci apply only to words beginning with a "Ch" e.g. China. --Enka 10:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dated, Hagiographic

The article sounds like something Eric Bentley might have written about his hero in the Fifties. Contemporary scholarship investigates his exploitation of women writers ("collaborators") who wrote works under his name. And we are no longer forgiving people who were still Stalinists long after the purge trials, long after the evidence was out. If we are supposed to stop "goggling Romantically" and evaluate the works on political grounds, they're indefensible, post Communist bloc collapse and confessions of what was really going on. He'd better hope we just relax and enjoy Azdak or the Good Woman. What's really carrying Brecht is Weill's great music. This article is way behind the pitch, by 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.7.222 (talk • contribs).

Sounds like Tony Calabro's take on Brecht. The problem is, Eric Bentley and others of his time usually deemphasized Brecht's politics, as if politics had nothing to do with what Brecht wrote, seeing it as "unfortunate." It's only been in the last ten years or so that studies of Brecht as a political playwright have appeared, or at least which see his politics as a vital component of his works (this of course takes into account Brechtian theory outside of theatre, such as film, which often foregrounds the politics). There are some serious rethinks of Brecht which consider the darker sides of him, in particular his treatment of women in general and collaborators. But evaluating the works on political ground is really the only way to evaluate them, and "post-communist" is irrelevent because that's a gross simplification. Besides all this, what you are calling for would be original research and not applicable to Wikipedia. Freshacconci 17:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This first comment is profoundly ill-informed about the state of contemporary Brecht scholarship. I gather that you've read John Fuegi's book, which is a highly idiosyncratic and deeply suspect take on Brecht's relationships with women and with his collaborators in particular. It stages a classic drama triange: Brecht the big bad Stalinist wolf persecuting the passive damsels in distress with whom he collaborated for most of his career (any clues there?), needing to be rescued by the critical knight in shining armour, John Fuegi. It's a misogynist and patronising piece of second-rate scholarship designed to sell copies on the bookstand, rather than to advance our understanding of a man who remains the single most important theatre practitioner of the twentieth century (with apologies to Beckett). There are many possible reasons why his collaborators chose to work in the way that they did with Brecht; they were not necessarily passive 'victims'. No doubt Brecht's relationships with women and his collaborators is an important area of research, but it deserves a well-informed feminist's attention, not someone as politically-naive as Fuegi. I don't mean to character-assassinate him, since his other, more scholarly work on Brecht is excellent, but the Brecht and Co or whatever it's called (its known by a couple of names) is pulp trash. That's without even getting into the all the many, many reasons why describing him as a 'Stalinist' is just plain dumb. Have you bothered read his Journals? As for the other comment above that there is evidence emerging from the Soviet Union that he was a Soviet agent, I have to say 'Put up or Shut up' - just ill-informed slander without citing evidence. And to say that the plays are only carried by Weill's music?!? Have you read the plays? Do you know on how many of them Weill collaborated with Brecht? Browsing through one book on Brecht doesn't make you well-informed enough to be able to justify such vociferous comments. DionysosProteus 18:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Choice of major works?

I'm curious as to how you decided what counts as a major work for the list there. It seems like a pretty much comprehensive list of all of Brecht's plays, except the plays that are adaptations of existing works (Edward II, Antigone, The Duchess of Malfi). But there is of course one adaptation on the list, Threepenny Opera, so even that rule wasn't adhered to. (And for that matter, St. Joan of the Stockyards owes at least _something_ to Shaw.) I guess the point is that the adaptations (all of them) are Brecht plays in their own right--Brecht took his source material and made it his own--that's why Brecht bothered to "adapt" these plays in the first place. "Adapt" is in quotes there, because the adaptations are always _very_ free-form. _Leben Eduard des Zweitens_ doesn't look a whole lot like Marlowe's version, just as one example. So as long as the list is as comprehensive as it is, shouldn't it include those adaptations?

As a completely different issue with that list, it contains (as far as I can see) essentially no fiction or verse. Brecht wrote a fair quantity of both . . .

Would you be able to help with this? I agree with the comments on the validity of adaptions. And likewise, sections on his fiction and verse would be useful. Freshacconci 15:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me

But as far as I know, "He who says yes, he who says no" is ONE play, which was adapted from a japanese Noh. Now tell me why the hell it's divided into TWO plays, with different dates?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.2.243.179 (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

No, they were written a year apart, but are sometimes performed together. Freshacconci 18:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Which is still strange. But thanks, anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.25.234.71 (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Dates in major works section

I added an online Brecht bibliography as reference to the production dates, but there are a few deviations from those in the article. Does anyone have other references to back these dates up? The bibliography online follows Brecht publisher Suhrkamp. --Hahahannes 19:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Stiletto in his heart?

This is not exactly necessary for improvement of the article, but does anyone know why he asked for a stiletto to be placed in the heart of his corpse? Was it to prevent the possibility of his being buried alive? --Saforrest 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Since keeping a "trivia" section in the article seems to invite editors to integrate its material back into the text of the article in places it doesn't belong, I am removing the following text from the article:

Paul Haggis quoted Brecht ("art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it”) when he accepted the best original screenplay Oscar for Crash. [NB: This isn't Brecht, it's Mayakovsky: "Art is not a mirror to reflect the world but a hammer with which to shape it."] DionysosProteus 18:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Brecht's influence can easily be seen on the work of director-choreographer Bob Fosse, not only in his Academy Award-winning film version of the Kander and Ebb musical Cabaret (1972), but also in his work on stage with Kander and Ebb's Chicago (1975) and in his other films, such as Lenny (1976).

Playwright Tony Kushner (Angels in America) has claimed Brecht as his major influence.

The Boston band The Dresden Dolls describe their own music as "Brechtian Punk Cabaret".

None of this seems to me to be important enough to retain in an encyclopedia article on Brecht (see WP:TRIVIA). But editors interested in salvaging this material are invited to connect it more closely with Brecht's ideas or life. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates

I've inserted templates for Brecht's Theories and for his Plays. The links and titles need some work in the old list from the article, which I'll look at later.

DionysosProteus 04:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro. is too long.

I have reinserted the template indicating that the introduction of this article is too long, which has now been removed twice. The introduction as it currently stands is entirely too complex, too overburdened with facts and names (many of them only last names, as though a casual reader who is not already familiar w/ Brecht would know who "Jameson" is) and detailed explanation of Brecht's method and influence. The last paragraph, on Brecht's influence should be removed in its entirety. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I've just removed the tag because the intro does indeed conform to the guidelines to which the tag refers - see Wikipedia:Lead section#Length. It says there that in an article of this length, three or four paragraphs are appropriate, which is what is here. This within the context that the article as it stands is in the process of substantial rewriting and elaboration, since so many of its sections are substandard at present. The tag does not address issues of complexity.

As far as its complexity is concerned, there is a clear and objective criterion to which we may refer; that is, all of the material in the introduction is taken either directly or only slightly paraphrased from the introductory sections of books about Brecht and overviews from Anthologies or other theatre-specialist encyclopedias. The introduction is a montage of other introductions (in order to avoid copyright violation). The complexity arises from the inherent nature of the subject. It is complex, but not complicated.

All of the ideas explained in the introduction are significant and of a general, overarching nature; the one possible candidate for complexity might be "(which constitutes that medium's rendering of 'autonomization' or the 'non-organic work of art'—related in kind to the strategy of divergent chapters in Joyce's novel Ulysses, to Eisenstein's evolution of a constructivist 'montage' in the cinema, and to Picasso's introduction of cubist 'collage' in the visual arts)"; it's true that the article would benefit from links to articles that describe 'autonomization' and the 'non-organic work of art', but this is broad context stuff, which is appropriate for an overview; it also provides the important link to Joyce, Picasso and Eisenstein; what Joyce is to the novel, Picasso is to painting, and Eisenstein is to cinema, Brecht is to theatre and drama. That's pretty straightforward and appropriate. Note also, it's offered in parentheses.

Your point about surnames - anyone studying theatre will be familiar with Piscator and Meyerhold, and the whole point of a wiki project article in contrast to a book-published encyclopedia is that if the casual reader doesn't know who they are, it is incredibly easy to correct that via the wikilink. Any undergraduate studying an art-based subject who doesn't know who Jameson is ought to report to their head of department immediately for an explanation of the substandard nature of their curriculum. Which undergraduate doesn't study post-modernism? Given that you're concerned about length, of what significance is their first names? "Picasso" is just as familiar as "Pablo Picasso".

The suggestion that it is "overburdened" with facts and names strikes me as a little strange. To which facts are you referring? That he was married? That he set up the Berliner Ensemble? That's too detailed?!? If not facts, then what, exactly? As far as the names are concerned, it's entirely appropriate for a lead section to situate 'Brecht' within his context; that context is defined by those people. There are so many of them, because he had such a profound influence and wide-ranging scope in his work. It's appropriate for them to appear in the intro, because the overview enables the casual browser to follow paths of development and skip between articles quickly, without having to scroll down into the density of detail that the article should offer below. The names mentioned are his wife; the directors he developed, the artists in other fields he is similar to, the major philosophers his ideas argued with, the dramatists he develops; that's overview stuff. None of them is developed in any detailed way; that's for the article's main body to take care of. Again, the quantity is a direct reflection of his significance.

The many names in the third paragraph are a fairly unique phenomenon to Brecht - that when we say the work of 'Brecht' we don't mean just one individual. Given the intensity of scrutiny that this aspect of his work has received in recent years, it's important enough to be mentioned in the overview intro, rather than confined to a footnote. This simply isn't an issue with Ibsen, Beckett, Chekhov or whoever else you might compare Brecht to.

I'm bewildered by your suggestion that the intro contains a detailed description of his method; where, exactly? I see a description that narrates who he developed, what he did and who this is similar to, and who developed on him in turn. The second paragraph says, in this sequence: how he changed theatre, how he changed drama, who this was similar to, how different from them / social function of aesthetic, theoretical context, overall significance in history of theatre. Each of these ideas is expressed in a single, concise sentence. Each of these ideas form an essential part of his overall achievement. They are all taken from other overviews, cited in the footnotes, not the detail of later chapters.

You offer no reasoning for your proposal to remove the final, influenced paragraph, which makes it difficult to engage with it. If the purpose of a lead section is to provide a concise overview of who and what 'Brecht' was, his profound influence on subsequent twentieth-century theatre is indispensable. Compare Brecht to any of his closest 'rivals' for the most significant theatre-maker of the century and it becomes obvious why. Beckett, for example, is very important, but hasn't had anything like the same degree of influence on playwrights and directors since. The paragraph offers a list of the places to move on to next, which needs to be substantially developed in the influenced section in the article. As you can see, the article is in a period of transition at the moment.

Overall, I would suggest that the 'Brecht' phenomenon is the subject of this article, not a mere biography of the man. To understand who and what 'Brecht' was, these contexts--and yes, there are many of them--are indispensable. Take a look at William Shakespeare, for example, who provides an appropriate comparison. Brecht's work touched so many different aspects, media, movements, etc. it's not surprising that it takes this much to describe it--if you look closely, you'll see that that description not detailed at any point; it simply marks an area and moves on quickly.

DionysosProteus 12:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)