Performing Arts Journal, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Performing Arts Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
From
Bertolt
to
Brecht
Heiner
Muller
Sue-Ellen Case
Bertolt Brecht founded his Berliner Ensemble the same year the German
Democratic Republic was founded (1949), and built his directorial/dramaturgical stage practice along side the new state and its cultural policies. He
was the international star of the first generation of GDR playwrights. The
year Brecht died (1956), Heiner Muillerwrote his first major play. Though
other playwrights followed Brecht chronologically and formally (Peter
Hacks and Volker Braun),Muller became what Theo Girshausen has called
"the real Brecht pupil." Girshausen: "The real Brecht pupil is not he who
uses the forms of epic theatre, or even imitates them ... rather, it is he who
accepts and further develops the socio-political and aesthetic principles on
which Brecht founded his theatre model."1 Muller has developed, revised,
and finally abandoned the Brechtian model of political theatre, in the process creating a new form for the contemporary political play.
THE ROLEOF THE PLAYWRIGHT
Brecht devised a model for the role of the political playwright based on the
playwright's relationship to a specific political ideology, and his or her
alliance with an organized political movement or state. In his emigration to
the GDR, Brecht allied his work with the new state and placed his theatre
within the context of state history and ideological development. In his
Notes to Katzgraben, he states that a new kind of state produces a new
kind of audience, a new class of playwright, a new content, and a new relationship of audience to stage. (Certainly, Brecht's early plays reflect the
94
95
Here is the learning play as mole rather than teacher... the finale of constructive defeatism rather than the new world ... the solitary text without
major political organizational alliances-enter Philoctetes on his deserted
island with his stinking foot and hatred of the Greeks, a character closer to
Beckett's Hamm than any positive socialist hero. Here is a world which concentrates on the battle over private property and the state's use of the individual. Odysseus teaches the cunning compromise of individual conscience for public good. At the end, Neoptolemus exits with his new lie and
the dead Philoctetes on his back-the cultural inheritance of the classical
world. Philoctetes is the solitary text which waits on revolutionary history.
The play merely sits on the stage, limping and stinking along with its hero.
Mullerwill not impose revolutionaryaction into a social context (or theatre)
in which it does not already exist. There is no revolutionary lesson in the
structure: it is a victim of its time. Muller's drama has purged the learning
play of didacticism and optimism.
In The Horatian, Muller removes simplicity and clarity. The Horatian
dramatizes the crack in complete knowledge and the "perforated memory."
The single event and single character grow more complex; the political action loses its comprehensibility. Brecht wrote The Horatians and The Curiatians in 1934, one year after the rise of fascism in Germany. His version
presents two sides and gives the necessary information for a correct
perspective on rebellion. Mullerwrote his play in 1968, the year the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia; the USSR, which had brought the socialist state to
the East bloc, filled the streets of Prague with tanks. In the play, the Horatian defeats the Curiatians, but kills his sister because she wept for one of
the vanquished. The people must decide whether the Horatian is a hero or a
murderer.They decide he must be remembered as both. The complications
lead Mullerto a new sense of the theatrical event:
Not to introduce one thing after another, which was still the law for
Brecht. Now you have to bring in as many factors as possible at the
same time so people are forced to make choices. That is, maybe they
can't choose anymore, but they have to decide what they can
assimilate first.7
The careful construction of revolutionary logic, through the method of
dialectical thought, is abandoned for an accelerative, accumulative process-a thinking which is "on the go," adapting to situations, grabbing
what it can; in place of central organization, fringe accommodation: closer
to the life of a guerilla unit than to a Party Congress.
Mauser is based on The Measures Taken, the play Brecht called "the
theatre of the future." Though Mauser revolutionizes the voice of the learning play and its relationship to the audience, perhaps its single most revolutionary function is in the portrayal of the new relationship between the individual and the collective, the heart of Brecht's understanding of
socialism. Brecht emphasized the need for the individual to assume a
representative identity: the collective represents the individual and the in99
muffled-not
streets.
FOOTNOTES
1Theo Girshausen, "Reject it, in order to possess it," Modern Drama, January,
1981, p. 405.
2WernerMittenzwei, Der Realismus Streit um Brecht (Berlin:Aufbau-Verlag,1978),
p. 36.
3Mittenzwei,p. 39.
4H.G. Huettich, Theater in a Planned Society (Chapel Hill: Univ. of N. Carolina
Press, 1978), p. 74.
5Huettich, pp. 26-27.
6Mittenzwei,p. 49.
7Quoted in Helen Fehervary,"Enlightenment or Entanglement," New German Critique, Spring, 1976, p. 81.
8Joachim Fiebach, von Craig bis Brecht (Berlin:Henschelverlag, 1975), p. 319.
9Quoted in New German Critique, Spring/Summer 1981, p. 61.
'?Jean Baudrillard,Kool Killeroder Der Aufstand derZeichen (Berlin:MerveVerlag,
1978), pp. 19-21.
"Baudrillard, pp. 14-15.
102
at the University of