Emotion vs critical thinking

As I study and do research surrounding Bertolt Brecht I find myself asking questions about how important is it to cause an emotion and make the audience think. The process of assisting to a theatrical tradition implies the experiencing of emotions, however some kinds of theatre don´t stop there, don´t just cause an emotion and leave it there, they transcend it making it just part of a larger process which ends up with reflection and, to some extend, critical thinking in the spectators, making them not only spectators but involving them in the production so they become observers.

With this contrast of emotion vs. critical thinking I wonder more about Brecht´s theories surrounding theatre, but at the same time the idea of these two elements going against each other is appealing when trying to apply it to art in general, and more so, in what differentiates art from simple entertainment. The main idea which about form all these reflections was that entertainment, just as the name states, entertains, centers on entertaining the public and possibly causing emotion while art produces emotion, produces an entertainment but transcends that provoking a reflection from the audience. However, I find this reflection is not complete, since the basic understanding I have of a theorist such as Artaud leads me to understand that the "theatre of cruelty" centers on causing an emotion, and so through the last statement, would that be simple and mere entertainment? would that cease to be art? Therefore I can only address this statement once i possess more knowledge regarding the subject.

Not only regarding theatre but art in general, what is the difference between art and entertainment, and is it possible for a branch of entertainment to develop into an art form? Can we say art is what produces a meditation, or reflection int he public while entertainment only centers on producing an emotion? Through the independent project I want to achieve this knowledge and hopefully get in touch furthermore with the cultural aspect behind theatre. To what extent is representing culture, or modern society, important in Brecht´s theories? That is the main objective i want to achieve, the thing I want to learn about the most out of all.

A directors´ vision.

Though I don’t know what the exact direction/design/acting concepts were, I can truly assure they all worked in harmony creating an amazing play.

Brecht´s “La jungla de las ciudades” was a play I truly enjoyed due to the symbolism present in the design concept and a wonderful vision on stage. It was the application of the symbols in the text, how they were portrayed thorugh Gisela cardenas´ vision, which really captivated my attention. Throughout the play I was trying to

Brecht makes it clear at the start of the play the important thing is not the why, is what is actually happening, the struggle of the characters (garga and shlink) is actually what matters and not why did shlink actually starts “the fight”. The progression and evolution of the characters, garga decides to keep his opinion and not “sell-out” to shlink´s proposition and hence becomes a total mess, even when possessing all of shlinks fortune, he becomes an alcoholic and does not resemble at all the humble man from the first scene anymore. He treats his sister more as an object rather than as a person, making her feel as if she was “being auctioned”, and all the tragedies, all the degradation and collapse of his family and life, they all occur due to him not selling his opinion.

Although I recognize I haven´t actually been able to comprehend Cardenas vision fully ( I believe there´s more to it than what I have actually been able to comprehend, mostly because I don´t feel I know enough about Brecht´s theories and ideas), I do believe I have been able to appreciate the play enough to realize Cardenas vision is what really sold me on the play.

The play would not have made such an impact without Cardenas vision, the stage set up was different, it played much more vertically, playing with the levels that could be possibly achieved due to the stage layout. When it became the Garga´s house, it felt it was all extremely too tight. Everything gave this sense the apartment was extremely small and was worn out, the shape of the vertical scenery gave the sense we were able to watch what was happening inside a building in Chicago, as if it had been cut in half and we were allowed to view inside the lives of those who inhabit it. This also happened when the scenery changed to the hotel and each segment of the “building” became a room, some filled with couples that spent time together in bed while others showed the regular life of a man. Anyhow, they all helped to give this sense of degradation about the city of Chicago at the time.

“In the end, we are all that we have.” In the play this is mentioned, people are what actually matter, our opinions and family bonds should be more important than money or physical objects, but the truth is, that society pushes us to do the contrary. This is where the symbolism behind “coldness” appears. In many occasions characters complain about how cold Chicago city is, possibly the most recurring theme along with “the boxing fight”. They suddenly feel cold, many times when a character is left alone, specially George Garga´s sister Mary, they complain about feeling cold. Perhaps I am analysing this way too much but after Shlinks final speech it is clear to me, the coldness represents and stands for the solitude. Therefore characters feel as if they are all alone and by themselves, the concern for getting money or getting payback is way more important for many of them.

However the element that attracted me the most of Cardenas vision is the juxtaposition between ideas in the script and their application in elements such as the visual design. Shlink mentions men are born with a skin too soft for the human world, and that is why it is needed to harden the skin, making it black. In this case I wonder whether I am trying too hard to analyse it or if these were actual reasons for the decisions taken in designing the play. I am sure it is the latter, and so when Shlink mentions we have to be able to harden our skin and make it dark I believe he refers to repel emotions or feelings, act with apathy in many cases and end up loving through hate, having affection through such a negative feeling as hate. I don´t believe this stops here, the moment Garga accepts Shlink´s fortune, he also accepts to done a black outfit, a black leather jacket. Leather is a cloth able to repel substances and not stain with many dyes, is hard and we wear it as if it was our skin. In addition we can also take this metaphor and explain all of this is obtained through money, being rich will give you the means to wear this hard and dark skin to repel many things and gives you the means to survive in this dark and cold world.

This is something you can obtain only in theatre; no other medium is capable of portraying and creating an experience that can juxtapose visual elements with iconic and abstract images such as words and their meaning behind. I believe the only other medium which can actually obtain a similar, but not as effective, effect is sequential art, but that is because there is an actual juxtaposition of words and pictures. You actually look at them and it is way more explicit, even though reading a comic book is an experience where the reader is as important as the creator doing the book, there is no way theatre is something you really experience it, a play is something you live and you participate in. This sole element of the black jacket Garga wears made me realize all of this, how crucial this juxtaposition can be in a play.

Now here are some of the question which have appeared after watching the play.

What would be the consequences of taking the slow and long lasting scenes away from this theatrical production? Would it cause the play to advance too fast and make it feel it has an uneven pace, is it something necessary for the play to later on engage us furthermore with revelations behind symbols and such?

If so, must the director be aware that the “active moments” must compensate for the slow ones? So all the decisions would have to centre in keeping the balance between these moments? If this happens, then why is this happening? Is it because there was a problem, an error in the play´s structure? Would this be the fault of the director´s vision not being well portrayed?

If the director´s vision had been different, would all of my interpretations have been different too? Would I have misunderstood the play? Would I have different interpretations about all those elements I just described? How can I know that my interpretations might not follow Brecht´s original intentions but are truly symbolisms created by Cardenas vision? If so, then the script exists just for the basis of the play, what actually matters is what the director is able to make out of it, what the vision is.