Characteristics And Differences Of Anton Chekov And Bertolt Brecht

This phenomenon was replicated at the University of Michigan’s SMTD performance of The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui, written by Bertolt Brecht. This play told the story of the rise of gangster Arturo Ui and the corruption of the cauliflower business in order to satirize the rise of Hitler. Despite this being a play, rather than a musical, the use of Copland’s “planes of listening” still apply. Theater-goers can still view the work with different approaches- either purely surface level, meaning-driven, or technical, like the “planes of listening Copland describes.

Brecht’s political theatre stems from his political views towards communism and the upper class society. Theatre that comments on political issues within society. Brecht began to have a dislike for the capitalist society he was brought up in and wanted more of an equal approach to the world and the people around him. With epic theatre, Brecht wanted it to be both didactic (able to teach others) and dialectic (able to create discussions and ideas). The audience at no time during an epic play can be seen to be in a trance or take what they see on stage for granted. Our performance is reflective of Brecht and his Epic and Political theatre as we address many political topics such as Marxism and the divides between classes and the corruption of the government. We have props such as protest signs and banners to communicate Brecht’s political theatre to the audience. In the first episode, Brown’s Boys, there is a scene where MPs choke and die after ignoring the recession and protesters emerge into the audience chanting that ‘politics is dead’ and ‘they don’t really care about us’ while holding banners saying, ‘politics is dead’ and ‘Gordon Clown’. This was done as it represented politics and the fact the seriousness of the situation was ignored; showing how quickly the issues with the recession spiralled out of control and became something that even the higher up in society were unable

Theatre is a complex art that attempts to weave stories of varying degrees of intricacies with the hope that feelings will be elicited from the audience. Samuel Beckett’s most famous work in the theatre world, however, is Waiting for Godot, the play in which, according to well-known Irish critic Vivian Mercier, “nothing happens, twice.” Beckett pioneered many different levels of groundbreaking and avant-garde theatre and had a large influence on the section of the modern idea of presentational theatre as opposed to the representational. His career seemingly marks the end of modernism in theatre and the creation of what is known as the “Theatre of the Absurd.”

How Brecht achieves producing this state of consciousness is more subtle and elegant than the previous technique of having actors walk out with blatant placards to remind the audience that they are watching a play. One of the marks of Brecht’s epic theater is his alienation effect, or “a representation which allows [the audience] to recognize its subject, but at the same time makes it seem unfamiliar” (Brecht 1948, 8).

Bertolt Brecht and Constantin Stanislavski are regarded as two of the most influential practitioners of the twentieth century, both with strong opinions and ideas about the function of the theatre and the actors within it. Both theories are considered useful and are used throughout the world as a means to achieve a good piece of theatre. The fact that both are so well respected is probably the only obvious similarity as their work is almost of complete opposites.

Within this essay I will look at how I as a director will approach directing Chekhov, commenting on how I went about choosing the sections of the script I wish to use, why I chose these sections and how. I will then reference Katie Mitchell’s twelve golden rules on working with actors to demonstrate how I will approach my rehearsals and working with the actors. I will then go on to mention how and where the piece will be performed, continuing on to how I will use there lighting, sound and setting finishing with costume.

Anton Chekhov, born in Taganrog, Russia on January 17, 1860, was considered the father of the modern short story and modern play. In 1875, his father lost his business and was forced to leave to find work in Moscow in order to pay off his debt. Anton and his three younger siblings were left with their mother, Yevgeniya, after a while they lost their home and decided to move to Moscow to be with Chekhov’s father. Chekhov, who was left behind in Taganrog to finish his schooling, helped his family financially by tutoring children in Taganrog. He found work in a clothing warehouse until he finished his final exams. After school, he joined his family in Moscow, where he continued his studies in the medical field at the University of Moscow. Chekhov used his own experiences of living in Moscow in his short story “The Lady With the Dog”.

Bertolt Brecht and Constantin Stanislavski are regarded as two of the most influential practitioners of the twentieth century, both with strong opinions and ideas about the function of the theatre and the actors within it. Both theories are considered useful and are used throughout the world as a means to achieve a good piece of theatre. The fact that both are so well respected is probably the only obvious similarity as their work is almost of complete opposites.

Since the beginning of theatre, there have been numerous playwrights who have made their attempt at greatness. Most have failed, some have had minor success, and a slim few have succeeded. Arthur Miller was an inventive, determined playwright who made a lasting impression on theatre in the 20th century. He was a head-strong, willful individual who conquered obstacles when they presented themselves. Through a brief examination of Arthur Miller’s personal life, career as a playwright, and influence on theatre, it is clear to see that he was a very innovative and impactful individual whose effects can still be seen today.

The ideas of Bertolt Brecht (1898-1965) changed the theatre in many ways. Brecht along with Erwin Piscator developed the style of Epic theatre style contrasting to previous accepted styles. Presentational in form, Epic theatre is a vehicle for social comment through techniques such as: alienation, historification, eclectic influences (highly Asian), constructivism in scenery, disjointed and illogical scene placement, ordinary clothing and lighting, the use of music to detach the audience from emotion, placards and signs and projected images. Didactic in nature Brecht’s works aim to challenge the

In the words of Gay McAuley, “for an activity to be regarded as a performance, it must involve the live presence of the performers and those witnessing it…” (McAuley, 2009, cited in Schechner, 2013, pp.38). This statement recognises the importance of both the actor and the audience for something to truly function as a performance. In addition, Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones highlights the significance of the theatrical space and how it can influence an audience stating that “on entering a theatre of any kind, a spectator walks into a specific space, one that is designed to produce a certain reaction or series of responses” (Llewellyn-Jones, 2002, pp.3). The relationship between actor, audience and theatrical space is no less important today than it was at the time of theatre during the Spanish Golden Age and the creation of Commedia dell’arte in Italy. Despite being very close geographically with theatre thriving for both in the same era, sources that explore the social, cultural and historical context of these countries and the theatre styles will bring to light the similarities and differences. This essay will analyse the staging, the behaviour of the audience as well as the challenges the actors faced, and how this directly influenced the relationship between actor, audience and theatrical space.

Realism played a huge role in the lives of Anton Chekhov and Konstantin Stanislavsky. Both men made a huge impact on the world of theatre, and results are still seen today. Elements from Chekhov’s plays have influenced playwrights that came after him, like the works of Tennessee Williams, who listed that Chekhov had a huge impact on his writing. Stanislavsky’s acting system, based on acting truthfully, inspired many other acting systems that are still used today.

For example, ¡§The action which they all share by analogy, and which informs the suffering of the destined change of the Cherry Orchard, is "to save the Cherry Orchard": that is, each character sees some value in it¡Ðeconomic, sentimental, social, cultural¡Ðwhich he wishes to keep.¡¨ii[ii] Chekhov divided the people of the orchard in different ways so that the orchard and its being sold carry a symbolic meaning for each group. Basically, there are three kinds of groups in The Cherry Orchard. The first group is the characters that dominate money and power; Ranevskaya and Lopahin are the kind of persons. The orchard, to them, is merely a tool for investment. The second group is a sort of person to understand the change of situation but they have no power to prevent the orchard from being sold. These learned people have their sense of duty. Trofimov is a topical one. As to the third type, neither do they have knowledge nor power but they could feel what is happening and sorry about it. Firs is such kind of person.

The Life and Works of Bertolt Brecht In this essay I will consider the life and works of Bertolt Brecht, the famous theatre practitioner who has had such a dramatic impact on our understanding of the theatre and acting. First of all I will give a biography of Brecht because it is important to know the background of his life in order to understand the motives he had for writing and producing plays in the way he did. We will see a direct correlation between events in his life and the plays and techniques that he propagated. I will then move to explore the methods and techniques that Brecht developed, looking at how they came about and who influenced his work.

Anton Chekhov conceived The Cherry Orchard as a comedy but had trouble persuading people it was not a drama. The play fulfills all the conventional requirements of a classical and of a realist drama. It aligns the action with time, from hopeful spring to despairing autumn. It has a crux to the plot that remains unresolved until the end of the third act - Will the estate be sold or saved? It has couples who seem destined to be married, servants who fail to serve a heroine with both grave flaws and charisma. The Cherry Orchard can be read in many ways, as a conflict between hope and despair, between conflicting illusions, or nature and mankind. Above all, it can be read as an evocation of honest pessimism about the outcome of all these conflicts, with only a glimmer of hope and no false consolations. This idea is seen throughout the views of the major characters.