Theatre of the Oppressed

The “Epic” Concept

In this chapter, Boal breaks down different interpretations of the word “epic” throughout history. When Marxism began to change the landscape of art and theater, epic theater took on a new meaning. However, the new use of an old term created confusion.

Aristotle created strict definitions for epic poetry, tragedies, and comedies. For the Greek philosopher, the difference between epic poetry and tragedy lies in the tense of the action. The tense of epic poetry occurs in the past, while tragedies take place in the present. As Boal explains, “Aristotle adds that all the elements of epic poetry are found in tragedy, but not all the elements of tragedy are present in poetry” (83). Over time, however, Aristotle’s definitions were abandoned, and modern interpretations of the word have been expanded to include films that exhibit mass murders and violence.

German director Erwin Piscator developed a new meaning of “epic” for his performances. Piscator used multimedia tools such as slides and graphics to break the traditional form. Director Bertolt Brecht took this a step further, developing a type of epic theater that acts as a response to Hegel’s definition of epic poetry.

Types of Poetry in Hegel

Hegel defined the word “epic” as something that is entirely objective. A character commits an action that creates conflict between the individual and the exterior world. This interaction becomes an event, and the narration of this event lives in the past. The focus of the epic is the action, not the poetical interpretation. In this version, a horse is a horse, not a symbol of something else.

By contrast, Hegel described lyric poetry as something that exists within the individual rather than in the external world. In lyric poetry, the artist engages in self-expression. In this version, the horse matters less than the emotions it stirs. Like Aristotle’s view of drama, lyric poetry occurs in real time. Spectators are transported to the time of the narrative and allowed to sit with it as though it is occurring in the present.

Characteristics of Dramatic Poetry, Still According to Hegel

Hegel believed that humans had a basic need to see human actions presented in front of them so that they could engage with the struggles of life from a safe distance. He asserted that the event—the occurrence derived from action between the individual and the exterior world—is indicative of the flaws of the character. Hegel followed the traditional view that the characters must be completely free in their choices and that the true subject of dramatic poetry is the action of the individual. Bertolt Brecht presented a reversal of this idea.

Freedom of the Character-Subject

In this section, Boal outlines Hegel’s theories about the freedom of characters in dramatic poetry. While characters could not have limits placed on their actions, other characters—equally as free—could establish limitations.

Hegel saw royalty as great fodder for dramatic characters. Because animals are subject to their environments, humans must live according to their basic needs. Hegel argued that characters could not be truly free if they were limited by their own material needs. Furthermore, royalty escapes many of the daily restrictions placed on individuals. As the text states, “[t]he characters must appear as essentially free, able to determine their own fate, while the men of a developed society are tied hand and foot to all types of laws, customs, traditions, [and] institutions” (89). Hegel also clarified that freedom does not necessarily always mean physical freedom. He pointed to Prometheus, a figure who was physically constricted but still had the freedom to change his situation at any point by repenting before Zeus.

A Word Poorly Chosen

Bertolt’s challenge of Hegel’s work began with Hegel’s very definition of an epic. Bertolt believed that, rather than identifying the subject as the action of the character, the absolute subject of the epic was the context with which the character must engage and challenge through virtuous action. The Marxist director saw the character as an object that was impacted by social and economic factors. Brecht’s theory of poetics saw no distinction between lyrical, epic, or dramatic poetry. All were Marxist, and all were epic.

Does Thought Determine Being (or Vice Versa)?

For Aristotle, Hegel, and others—the focus of drama is the action of the individual. This character is free, and the actions of the character are derived from fundamental flaws in human nature. This nature is innate to the person: something that the character was born with. For Brecht, however, human nature does not exist. There is only the impact of outside forces on the individual. One of Brecht’s works explored the war of Vietnam through Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. Rather than emphasizing the actions of these three men, Brecht’s work proposes that the true evil is the President of the United States—not the individual, but the concept itself, asserting that the actions of these men are determined by their social being.

Can Man Be Changed?

In Brecht’s 1938 play, Man Is a Man, the protagonist—a man named Galy Gay—leaves his home to buy a fish for lunch. While walking, he meets three soldiers who have lost their comrade and cannot return to base without him. They trick Gay, compromising him so that they can convince him to disguise himself as their missing soldier. Gay becomes a war hero and is transformed into a bloodthirsty character before the eyes of the audience. Brecht’s play challenges Aristotle’s model, in which the protagonist recognizes the flaw and changes. In Man Is a Man, Galy Gay does not exist. He is only the sum of what he is capable of doing under the oppressive power of his social context. From this perspective, the action of the individual is the result of social life, not an inherent flaw in the person’s nature.

Conflict of Wills or Contradiction of Needs?

Hegel proposed that tragic conflict is inevitable because humans will always act in accordance with their natures; people cannot avoid who they are. For Brecht, however, human nature does not exist. The only necessities are social and economic forces. Boal returns to Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, stating that their individual natures do not matter, because each is forced to align his principles with the imperialist structure of the office. Although Brecht admits that the will of individuals can be used to challenge social and economic forces, the function of his work is to highlight that the determining factors of all epic, dramatic action are the forces themselves.

Empathy or What? Emotion or Reason?

In Aristotle’s model, empathy refers to the emotional reaction of the spectator upon witnessing the experiences of the protagonist. Aristotle saw this emotional response as having two parts: pity and fear. Boal challenges this idea, arguing that empathy has a wide range of expressive emotions. Aristotle also proposed that the empathy of the spectator was wrapped up in the character’s justification of the action. The interaction of these two cognitive processes is called dianoia.

Brecht proposed that Aristotle and Hegel’s models were constructed to elicit what he referred to as “emotional orgies.” He was fundamentally opposed to any manipulation of the audience’s emotions. For example, Brecht was critical of directors who might utilize a dark room and a blood-curdling scream to draw fear from the spectators. However, he was not opposed to emotion. Instead, he believed that emotional responses should occur naturally.

Catharsis and Repose, or Knowledge and Action?

In the traditional model of drama, the protagonist purges the fundamental flaw and order is restored. Once more, Brecht challenged these established approaches to performance arts by resisting the urge to end his plays with equilibrium. He believed that the function of theater is to invite spectators to examine and challenge the oppressive social and economic systems that shape their lives. Brecht urged artists to take theater to neighborhoods rather than to major stages, where only the wealthy might enjoy it.

How to Interpret the New Works?

Boal shares a poem in which Brecht exhibits his ideas succinctly while highlighting the role of art in challenging power. Boal interprets the poem to mean that art belongs to all individuals and is not a commodity to be bought and sold. However, the bourgeoisie system seeks to monetize everything, including art and the individual.

The Rest Does Not Count: They Are Minor Formal Differences Between Three Genres

Brecht also questioned the three models of poetry while blending all three styles—objective, subjective, or both in balance. Boal explains that understanding Brecht works requires recognizing that his form subverts everything that has come before. As he explains, “The artist’s duty consists not in showing true things but in revealing how things truly are” (112). Brecht was not sure how this feat could be accomplished, but he saw his model as just one approach leading toward transformation.

Empathy or Osmosis

Boal asserts that the Aristotelian notion that the spectator feels empathy toward the character is insidious because this model forces the viewer to relinquish power and submit to what is offered. Yet even so, empathy changes the viewer, impacting real decisions in the real world. Art and life thus become intermingled in a process that Boal describes as “esthetic osmosis.” The themes of social and economic power are interwoven into what viewers are forced to learn and therefore to incorporate into their own lives.