Tynan on European Theatre
I fear as I go longer and longer without writing, and further and further
from the original read, these writings will become less and less thorough. When
my professor told me to write the moment you return home from the theatre – I
should have done well to apply that to my readings as well. For I found today
as I sat down to write this, that while I knew the basics of his writings in
this section, I had lost a majority of the content in my memory. So – that
prompted a nice (hour-long) re-read-through.
The section reads thusly: French Theatre, German Theatre, and why the
Russians can out-act our English any day. I shall discuss it in that order.
Tynan on French Theatre:
We
begin with the plays of Giraudoux and Ionesco – and we learn about not only the
plots of the plays, but more importantly, the styles of these writers. How one
writes often supersedes the importance of the actual plot – at least this is
what I gathered from what I was reading. How Giraudoux and Ionesco are examples
of this idea, comes across in Tynan’s emphasis on their beautiful prose and the
duality in their writing of both the playwright and the poet. Shakespeare had
this duality – his speeches are famous for it. It is nice to be reminded now
and then, though, that it still exits in contemporary playwrights of the 20th
Century.
While
not every playwright is met with total praise, there is clear respect and
admiration for Ionesco and Giraudoux. While I once thought that Moliere was the
heart of French theatre, it seems I have now been redirected and educated to
look towards these contemporary writers. A whole article is dedicated to
Ionesco, who I admit, is hailed as one of the great 20th Century
writers – but I think it becomes even more poignant when it is told to you by
one of the original viewers, instead of a second-hand scholar. No offense to
second-hand sources, mind!
In
the end, the section sums up with an account of the great political turmoil (regarding
government funding) that the French theatre found itself involved in the late
1950’s with the interference of the Minister of State in charge of Cultural
Affairs, Andre Malraux. A time when funding for the Comédie-Française was reduced so as to allow for more funding to
other types of theatre and more contemporary works. There was also an increase
in control of the government in theatre and theatre content. In fact, from my
point of view, if not Tynan’s, it looked as if the French theatre was heading
down the same path as the English. But while it was a difficult time for the
French theatrical of the time, I don’t believe it hurt them too dearly in the
long run.
Tynan on German Theatre:
Or
rather – Tynan on Brecht. I am a fan of Brecht, even before reading Tynan’s
thoughts on the sly and clever little German man. With his wonderful reviews
and summaries of both Mother Courage
and The Good Woman of Setzuan,
Tynan’s great admiration for Brecht comes across in glowing respect short yet
poignant critiques. Then after that delightful discussion of Brecht, we get a
lovely article on West Berlin theatre on the whole. Tynan is more professor and
educator in his articles, he disperses information over opinion and the result
is thought-provoking to say the least. I find when reading his articles, I have
to think about my own opinion and draw my own conclusions – like reading a text
book (imagine! One of my required readings for graduate school reading like a
textbook), rather than a collection.
After
reading his thoughts on Berlin and the Berliner Ensemble, I just feel a little
disgruntled at the lateness of my birth. I also feel a renewed interest in
Bertolt Brecht beyond Galileo, a play I actually rather enjoyed thanks to an
inspiring Professor of Theatrical History and Texts. Tynan has such an evident
and entrancing love for Brecht’s style and writings that it’s hard not to get
swept up with him while reading his thoughts. He is so interested and invested
in his love that he spends 20 pages summing up 1959 in Germany and Brecht’s
genius, influence and innovations in German theatre and theatre in general.
Then,
finally we move on to Russia
Tynan on Theatre in Moscow:
When
reading Tynan’s thoughts on theatre in Moscow and how audiences in Moscow
received theatre, I felt almost ashamed for my adopted British theatre. In
Moscow, it appears, plays are bigger, sets much grander, and the acting –
larger in scale, and filled with multi-faceted characters. While Chekov is the
only writer truly explored here – one get’s the sense that the style and
capacity of the Russian actors is what truly makes their theatre great.
Tynan
speaks about the obvious choice in England to make Chekov plays into tragedies,
whereas the Russian take Chekov at his word and allow the comedy to take over.
Personally, I had the good fortune of learning first about Chekov as a dry wit
before reading his plays. This allowed me to read and enjoy them for that,
though I find I did not respect Konstantine Gavrilovich as much as I probably
should have…
From
what I can tell from Tynan’s view and admiration of Russian actors and their
style, they are more involved, more intellectual and just truer than many of
their contemporaries from other nations. It no longer seems odd to me that
Drama Centre London sends their student to Moscow for 4 months. Instead, I find
myself thinking that it is actually practical and even essential.
Summation:
All
in all, this section reads as a sort of love-letter to international theatre,
and reminds me of the importance of seeing and taking in as much art as humanly
possible. I know from professors and my own experiences, that is important to
broaden ones horizons not only to be educated but to also come to logical
conclusions. But this seems important also for the reason of bettering one’s
self through identification and exploration of the cultural practices and
theatrical styles of other nations.
No comments:
Post a Comment