Comparing Meyerhold And Brecht’s Approaches To Stage Setting

Artistic, Personal, and Professional Similarities

Discuss about the Element of Design for Human Constructivism.

Meyerhold and Brecht shared most artistic, personal and professional similarities. They shared most visions for theatre but they come from the different cultural perspective. They shaped the characteristics of theatre around their characteristics. They are both believed to have the legacy that lives to date (Francis 2016).  Brecht had a desire of creating a theatre perspective in which he altered the way an audience participated in the performance (Francis 2016). Meyerhold too shared the same desire though, they were coming from different perspectives. Their perspectives were different in terms of the stage and other designs that surround it. The elements involved in the design include lighting, props, stage, and sound. Focusing on stage setting, this essay looks at the two theatrical practitioners (Meyerhold and Brecht) and their different ways of reasoning (Charlton 2016).

Meyerhold and Brecht both shared the idea of human constructivism. They believed that human could change through what they saw on theatre. They, however, had different ideas on how to make these changes in people. Brecht, who was a German, believed in exposing the audience to twisted realities. The audience who sees the performance would then reflect and change.  Meyerhold believed that in order to make people change, he had to create symbolism. He created symbolism through use of materialism and improvisation of the scenes. It is this main difference that influenced how the two set up a stage.

Meyerhold believed in an act that emphasized value for movements and acrobatics. (Meyerhold 2014). He encouraged the use of stage movement to any other accompaniments such as music, light, props and other stage settings. He, therefore, incorporated physical training and gymnastics to allow his performers make movements on stage. This kind of training had an influence on the stage set up. Meyerhold’s theatrical performances required a wide stage area. The audience kept a good distance from the stage. In one of Meyerhold’s performances, he deconstructed the idea of the “box without a fourth wall.”(Whitefield 2017). His stylization of the stage area, was made so that it is able to accommodate exercises and flashes of so many movements. An example can be drawn from Meyerhold’s classical performances of the Vietnam wars. He used ramps to eliminate the audience from the stage. The ramps were used in the play. Real army vehicles passed through the ramps symbolizing war that was ongoing in Vietnam.

Human Constructivism and Its Influence on Theatre

Bretch’s idea on stage setting is quite contrary to Meyerhold’s. He exposed the audience to a series of events from the audiences’ comfort. He set a stage where everything happened at the exposure of the audience. He insisted in trying to make the stage as natural as possible. This, therefore, required the stage to be propped so much. The propping of stage is done so that it imitates natural environment. The stage, therefore, should be as small as the room trying to be imitated. It should fit the acting descriptions. The audience are supposed to be very near the stage. By being near, the audience will notice even the tiniest details. Each room’s detail is supposed to communicate immensely to the audience. The chain of events leads to frequent change of the stage into several shapes that will fit the imitated natural environment. It involves changing of the stage from one set to another for every scene. He employed the use of breaks and commercials. In one of his performance, he had some performers standing at the back of the audience, who led the audience in singing a chorus. The audience had to look back, and by the end of the chorus, the stage was already furnished with new props different from the scene that had just ended. He again introduced the use of curtains on the stage. The curtains, behind the performer on stage, are supposed to be arranged during the continuance of an act. By the time the act is done, the stage for the next scene is already set.

Brecht believed in a stage that sets up the mood for both his performers and the audience. He made sure the lighting effects, the curtains, and the stage, in general, would make the audience devise the kind of mood for the performance. A death performance would be lit up by a lot of dark lights so that the emotion can be sad guided by the darkness. The stage, according to Bretch, is supposed to spark everything at that moment. It, therefore, means a lot of work is needed in setting up a stage. In case the set-up is wrong, then the mood, and the meaning of play is lost. For Bretch, the best acts are determined by the stage rather than making the performance interesting. For Meyerhold, the essential thing is the performance that takes place on the stage. What movements are supposed to be made so that they excite the mood of the audience? These are those movements that the audience make to inspire their emotions. Stunning movements are what he considered important. For him, it is vital for performers to get their movement right. He prefers working hard on stage to setting the stage. The stage is only set, if it will induce the movements that the actors are going to make. He, therefore, insists on setting up a stage that will improve the movements as per the play or the act.

Meyerhold’s Approach to Stage Setting

Meyerhold and Bretch agree that the stage should be unpredictable for the audience. The method in which they do agree, however, is different. The audience should be completely stunned off by the next move from the performers if they base their prediction on the stage changes. The two agree on this but, where does the difference come in? The difference comes in when Bretch believes that the prediction comes in through the precepts involving the Marxism and dialectical materialism. Using these theories, he resorted to using stage exhortations and comical entries to create a diversion as the best strategy. This is especially, used for speculative audiences.  He does this through individual actors that create different alternatives. The historical stage creates real experiences for the audience. He then twists the reality through the portrayed performers. This totally knocks off the audience. Meyerhold then gives another style where the change does involve the stage, but how does it kill the audiences’ speculation? He applies the use of direction-initiated change (Dubost 2016). He trains the performer into mastering changes within the movements. When they use the stage, their movements even become more unpredictable for the audience. The concept that he uses to knock off the audience from the already speculated movements caused by the stage is developed from the use of creativity, freedom of improvisation, and natural act (Roy 2016). The performers are allowed to improvise anything during the course of performance. They are not restricted to follow everything on stage. This creativity allows the performer to do anything as long as they do not read in line with what the audience expected. For Meyerhold, a single stage can produce very many scenarios. He lets his performers explore each scenario to the best of their ability. He makes the audience look like at the performance like it was never that way before. This appears to have been renewed through the various forms of act (Paivolereen 2016).

Meyerhold emphasizes the need to use the stage as a value to movement and rhythmic diction. This helps him emphasize the real essence of the performance. He assimilates reality into movements. The actor, freely incorporates aspects of creativity and aspects of reality. The ideas are then joined to communicate to the spectator. The dependents on props, like Brecht does, is not used in this case. He uses physical plasticity, and scenic elements of the performance to exclude emotions.

Brecht’s Approach to Stage Setting

The character, who uses the stage according to Bretch, should build the character from the perspective of the story internally around them. The actor is chosen in relation to the emotion of the character in the play. The actor does not depend on the stage but, depends on the different roles assigned to him. An actor would, therefore, be chosen from the best character internally to fit the desired role. Meyerhold would choose the characters from their abilities to perform the external tasks (Abulafia 2015). The actual performance depended on the ability of the character to use the stage in taking their external roles. This external ability is the one considered during choice of characters. The characters are created in relation to the stage’s set up. The best stage is used in determining the best external characters based on abilities. This, therefore, means that biomechanics is part of the performer training.  Importantly, is the use of the learnt biomechanical as part of the performance. The basics of the actor according to Meyerhold, was to build the performance of the biometrics around the performance of the character (Verstraete 2014).

The method of using the stage as a way of introducing the characters to the audience was preferred by Bretch. He favored introducing characters directly by shouting their name to the audience or projecting their character on to the stage. If the two did not work, he would then use a narrator to introduce the character. Each character was supposed to introduce a new concept to the issue of discussion. From this, he, therefore, preferred to use the stage as a way of revealing his character as observed in “The Caucasian Chalk Circle”. Brecht (2015) drew a circle to introduce judge Adzak. This was totally different from Meyerhold’s. He introduced his character at the stage using the movements that they made (Braun 2016). The “movement and movement” change on the stage would easily make the audience realize the introduced character. For example, when a staggering character hits the stage, it is likely predictable that the person on stage is a drunkard. (Fischer-Lichte 2015). This, therefore, represents a similar idea by the two practitioners but, totally different perspectives.

Bretch also preferred using the décor for hiding equipment used at the stage. The use of décor on the stage to hide acting equipment, was to ensure audience do not see the next move and predict it. The predictability of the action depends on whether the audience could see the next equipment around the stage. Meyerhold, on the other hand, would not use the décor. He would expose the audience to reality by letting them see the equipment. They are then given a surprise move from the actors using the same equipment they had seen. Giving the audience what they did not expect even after seeing the equipment guaranteed achievement of suspense. These kept them stacked throughout the theatrical performance.

Emphasis on Mood and Movement

Bretch also believed that the stage should always be lit so that it draws attention to itself (Hunka 2016). The attention created from the lights in the stage can be used in many functions. An example of this is the introduction of the character and changing of a series of an event. The sources of the light should be visible to display things such as the curtain, short advertisement (during the change of the sequences), and increase clarity for the audience who are far away from the stage (Bretch 2014). Meyerhold does not emphasize the use of lighting the stage unless when enhancing a particular character’s movement from one part of the set stage to another. Light is normally used when the movements by the actors are not on the actual stage, but somewhere else within the same venue. For example, if an acting character is somewhere in the middle of the audience, light will then be focused on such an actor to enhance his movement and draw the audiences’ attention to the technicality of the characters’ movements.

Conclusion

Meyerhold and Bretch come from different theories and perspectives. However, they both seem to be advocating for the same theatrics advancements. Their elements of design are different. Whereas Meyerhold uses the constructivism theory, Bretch reasons from the perspective of humanism (Revermann 2016).

References

Abulafia, Y., 2015. The Art of Light on Stage: Lighting in contemporary theatre. Routledge.

Braun, E., 2016. Meyerhold on theatre. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Brecht, B., 2014. Brecht on theatre. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Brecht, B., 2015. The Caucasian chalk circle. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Brecht, B., 2016. Fear and Misery of the Third Reich. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Charlton, W., 2016. Postmodern Brecht: a re-presentation. Routledge.

Etienne, A. and Dubost, T., 2017. Perspectives on Contemporary Irish Theatre. Palgrave Macmillan.

Fischer-Lichte, E., 2018. Philosophical Theatre: Some Reflections on the Concept. Anglia, 136(1), pp.43-60.

Francis, R.T., 2016. Meyerhold, Flanagan, and Brecht: the rise and fall of the people’s theatre (Doctoral dissertation, San Francisco State University).

Hunka, G., 2016. A Bookshelf of Brecht.

Meyerhold, V., 2014. Meyerhold on theatre. A&C Black.

Paavolainen, T., 2018. Directorial Perspectives: The Image, the Platform, the Tightrope. In Theatricality and Performativity (pp. 91-127). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Revermann, M., 2016. Brecht And Greek Tragedy: Re?Thinking The Dialectics Of Utilising The Tradition Of Theatre. German Life and Letters, 69(2), pp.213-232.

Roy, D., 2016. Teaching meyerhold. Mask, (2016), p.15.

Verstraete, B., Moon, H.K., Smets, E. and Huysmans, S., 2014. Orbicules in flowering plants: a phylogenetic perspective on their form and function. The Botanical Review, 80(2), pp.107-134.

Whitehead, C., 2017. An explanation and analysis of one principle of Meyerhold’s Biomechanics?tormos. Theatre, Dance and Performance Training, 8(1), pp.89-102.