Different schools of thought

It was interesting to see how the different mentalities of each producer was and how it played a role in conveying a message to the audience. William Butler Yeats’ focus on naturalism and realism seemed bizarre to me because as the audience, I am more concerned about grasping the reality of the play rather than the symbols behind them. Although I know that there is more to theater than entertainment, it is nice to be able to go to a play and just sit back and relax without having to analyze every aspect of it. The fact that Yeats recreation of the Noh did not establish a trend in theater, proves that being abstract and symbolic may not always be understood by the audience. I do, however, admire Yeats ability to encompass symbols within his play through body language and masks. I think this takes great talent even though the degree to which gestures may express metaphysical forces though a delayed effect (people won’t realize the meaning of the symbols till later). I would rather have an immediate reaction than I delayed reaction. 

Antonin Artaud’s idea of basing a play around the audiences’ reaction reminded me of balinese theater’s emphasis on the rhasa. Unlike Yeats who relied heavily on body language and gestures, Artaud used different mediums to elicit a metaphysical response from the audience. Some of the mediums included the space in the stage and the lighting. In a way, Artaud’s mentality was similar to Yeats because it relied on external forces to convey a message to the audience. Because words are not a medium, the audience must use their own constructs to understand the play. What I find empowering is that the play is able to have an effect on the audience despite the fact that the control is not within the actors. This demonstrates how energy and the manipulation of space can unconsciously stir a message to the audience. 

Bertolt Brecht had the most westernized mentality of the three in that his plays were not tied to emotion. Instead, he was looking for a way for theater to address social issues. I could relate to this sort of mentality the most because it is straight forward. In other words, Brecht wants his audience to know that they are watching a play. This goes back to the idea of entertaining for a purpose. Unlike Artaud’s plays which has the actors in the background, Brecht has the actors play important roles so that they are able to convey a strong message to the audience.The black and white mentality of westerners would allow them to relate to this type of play because they are able to leave with something concrete. Whereas Artaud’s and Yeats plays may leave them confused and thirsty for something more.