Galileo: Ill-Suited
Brechtian style emphasized the verfremdungseffekt, or the alienation effect which called for actors to withhold themselves from fully becoming their characters. As a part of allowing the audience to see the show as a show, or allowing them to “see the frame” of the production, actors were instructed to perform in a manner that “conveyed the awareness of being a performer rather than the involvement of being a character (p. 833).” However, upon reading Galileo, I couldn’t help but feel that many aspects of this play seemed to be written in a manner that invited a more emotionally involved cast.
The introduction states that Brecht intended to condemn the character of Galileo for his betrayal to science (p. 835). However, Galileo is written as such a multifaceted character, that I cannot see how one wouldn’t feel pity for him. The scientist is fairly carefree in his scientific pursuits at the beginning of the play, energetically jumping into any experiment that catches his fancy. We see early on, though, that he is not above altering his findings (such as his “discovery” of the telescope (p. 839), in exchange for his funding. And at the end we see that he regrets having given his recantation when he says, “ I have come to believe that I was never in real danger; for some years I was as strong as the authorities, and I surrendered my knowledge to the powers that be, to use it, no, not use it, abuse it, as it suits their ends. I have betrayed my profession (p. 859).” This statement and the setting of his lonely, blind, imprisonment provokes pity from the observer.
The stage directions as well, from certain movements of characters, to the opening set-up of a scene are also more suited to a production that would strive to ensnare their audience; in essence, immerse them in what they are seeing. In particular, the scene with the street performers (p. 852), has such detailed stage directions for the extras, that, were they to all be followed precisely, it would feel more like the audience had been dropped into a Venetian street corner, rather than watching the portrayal of one on stage. Such detail, to myself, seems indicative of an understanding of personal motives and emotion of the characters, which Brechtian style does not ignore, but tries to separate itself from. This is doubly accentuated when it is even the lesser, extra characters that are given such direction.
1 Comments:
I take your point about Galileo as a multifaceted and balanced character; in fact, if our editor is correct in asserting that Brecht intended his play to condemn Galileo, I'd suggest that Brecht failed. (I'm more inclined to suspect that our editor has misread Brecht's intentions.)
But I take issue with what seems to be your underlying assumption that Brechtian distance - the verfremdungseffekt - is mutually exclusive with emotional involvement. I categorically disagree with your assertion that Brecht's style attempts to separate itself from "personal motives and emotion of the characters." "Theatre for Pleasure and Theatre for Instruction" demands that the theatre engage the passions and pleasures of its audience and its performers; what it asks for that differs from melodramatic realism is not an absence of emotion, but the awareness of emotion.
To put this another way, as I see it, the spectacle in Scene 9 is certainly designed to catch the audience up into the passion of a Renaissance market square; but it is also made explicitly theatrical in order to stimulate the audience to reflect on the ongoing story from a different perspective than that provided in the surrounding scenes. The multifaceted qualities of Galileo's character can evoke both pity and disdain, rather than simply pity or disdain. Brecht's central character is both villain and hero - and the divided emotional response is what prompts the audience to reflect on its experience (rather than simply accept it) and the actor to distance himself from a single passion (rather than simply immerse himself in it).
Post a Comment
<< Home