Brecht and breaking fourth wall in theatre

Brecht’s ideas resonated with the Indian folk narrative tradition, which involved presentational acting, choric intervention, third-person narratives, choreographed movement, the use of music, song and percussion. Though not aware of Brecht, Indian performers unknowingly articulated these ideas as part of their collective legacy

A plaque and flowers on the wall of the house where Bertolt Brecht was born in Germany. ISTOCK

Neelam Mansingh Chowdhry

THE fourth wall is a term that refers to an imaginary wall separating the audience from the performer. This invisible wall makes the actors alert to the presence of the audience. In this, the audience becomes a voyeur, a sort of Peeping Tom watching life unfold on the stage but invisiblising himself/herself in the process. This notion was flipped around by playwright Bertolt Brecht, who used it to challenge western theatre conventions by appealing to the audiences’ reasoning power rather than their emotions. He dismantled the illusion created in theatre by revealing the technical and dramaturgical mechanisms behind the scenes, such as the source of light that was previously hidden by black curtains. The actors spoke in the third person, sometimes directly to the audience, emphasising the constructed nature of the performance. Brecht sought to always be alert to the presence of an audience. He would show the multiple ways of revealing reality, challenging established facts and questioning constantly.

I first heard of Bertolt Brecht when I saw his famous play, ‘The Threepenny Opera’. The main character was called Mac the Knife, who fancied himself as the king of the underworld. All the petty thieves and whores of London were under his control. The plot revolves around Mac’s wedding, which takes place in a warehouse with no celebratory trappings. The ceremony is interrupted by the police, but Mac remains confident that his connections will save him from arrest. While the plot may seem thin, the play is actually a scathing critique of middle-class values and the unjust social system that benefits the wealthy and keeps others in fear. Brecht presents this amoral world of Mac and his gang in contrast to the bourgeois society, allowing the audience to assess and decide for themselves. He doesn’t force any viewpoint, but gives them space to think and engage with the characters.

His plays aimed to stimulate critical thinking and observation in the audience. In many of his works, he included an invited jury on stage that provided suggestions on politics and history, creating a parallel text and adding complexity to the viewing experience. He believed that observation, contradictions and comparison were essential qualities and embraced the idea that one question leads to another, fostering an ongoing dialogue with the audience. He entered the German theatre world as a writer but eventually became a practitioner, actively involved in the production of his own plays.

In the 1920s, while Germany was going through terrible political upheavals and economic decline, he recognised the need for a new kind of dramatic writing that challenged the bourgeois theatre’s emphasis on rhetorical and declamatory acting, with heavy doses of realism. Theatre should be a tool for social change, instructing and entertaining the audience simultaneously. If Brecht didn’t find joy in his creations, he would immediately change the text to ensure it was engaging and entertaining.

Indian theatre was significantly impacted by Brecht’s style and methods. In 1970, Ebrahim Alkazi invited Fritz Bennewitz to direct Brecht’s ‘The Threepenny Opera’ at the National School of Drama. Bennewitz’s experience of working with Indian actors had a profound impact on him, changing both him and the Indian theatre practitioners. From 1970s until 1994, he directed 30 productions in Hindi, Urdu, Marathi, Bengali and Kannada which helped in developing a pedagogy that impacted actors, designers, directors and translators. Bennewitz stimulated and stirred the imagination of theatre artistes, changing their understanding of structure, editing, montage, translation and grammar of performances.

Brecht’s ideas resonated with the folk narrative tradition, which involved presentational acting, choric intervention, third-person narratives, choreographed movement, and the use of music, songs and percussion. Despite not being aware of Brecht’s formulations, Indian performers unknowingly articulated similar concepts and ideas during their performances as part of their collective inherited legacy. Brecht was also deeply influenced by the values contained in traditional Asian performing systems, a fact that becomes integral to our understanding of Brecht. Who borrowed from which source is not the point. Similarity of vision can exist despite distance, differences in sensibility and motivational reasons behind the performance.

Directors and actors in India found his ideas accessible, especially those familiar with folk performances, where narratives were transformed by breaking the rules of realism. For example, in the love legend of Sohni-Mahiwal, the earthen pot that Sohni uses to cross the Chenab river suddenly animates itself and continues the narrative. This unconventional theatrical device may not fit any known grammar of performance but is completely acceptable to the audience.

Breaking the fourth wall in theatre, a Brechtian intervention has had a significant impact on the way stories are told and perceived. How tradition and modernity dovetailed, claiming conventions from a different world, a different context and varied references, making them segue seamlessly. When modern creative material is made to resonate with the traditional by reshuffling and reorganising it, creative ways emerge to dissolve differences and celebrate similarities, enriching us in the process.

— The writer is an acclaimed theatre director