Scene 12: Here the actress not only set herself against the workers she was addressing, but also showed herself to be one of them; she and they together made up a picture of the proletariat at the start of the war. Notably the long drawn-out ‘yeees’ four lines from the end of the scene was very carefully spoken, so that it virtually became the scene’s climax. Bent like an old woman, she raised her chin and smiled, dragging the word out and speaking it softly in the head-voice, as if she understood the temptation to let everything go, but at the same time the necessity to do her very utmost in the situation confronting the workers.
Scene 14: At first the actress conducted her anti-war propaganda bent over, turned away and with her head wrapped in a big scarf. She showed that the work was like that of a mole. In every case she picked, out of all conceivable characteristics, those whose awareness promoted the most comprehensive political treatment of the Vlassovas (i.e. special, individual and unique ones), and such as help the Vlassovas themselves in their work. It was as if she was acting to a group of politicians – but none the less an actress for that, and within the framework of art.
VI Choruses
See below (pages 358–360).
VII Is non-aristotelian drama primitive, as typified by The Mother?
[. . .] Far from believing for one instant that they were being offered a portrayal of certain historic events in Russia with a view to ‘spiritual participation’ in an adventure story, ‘a distillation of eternal human nature’ etc.; far too from wanting to forget the inhuman conditions of their own lives – special, alterable conditions – these spectators were prepared to mobilise their entire experience, intelligence and fighting spirit, to acknowledge objectives and handicaps, to make comparisons and objections, and to criticise the conduct of the characters or to generalise so as to apply it to their own situation and learn from it. This is a kind of psychology they can understand, an applicable, political psychology. The spectator is here considered to be faced with images of men whose originals he has to deal with – i.e. make speak and act – in real life, and cannot treat as finally and exactly determined phenomena. His duty to his fellow-men consists in ranging himself with the determining factors. In this duty the drama must support him. The determining factors, such as social background, special events, etc. must be shown as alterable. By means of a certain interchangeability of circumstances and occurrences the spectator must be given the possibility (and duty) of assembling, experimenting and abstracting. Among the differences that distinguish individuals from each other, there are quite specific ones that interest the political being who mixes with them, struggles with them and has to deal with them (e.g. those which the leaders of the class-struggle need to know). There is no point for him in stripping a given man of all his peculiarities until he stands there as Man (with a capital M), i.e. as a being who cannot be altered further. Man has to be understood in his role as man’s (the spectator’s) own fate. It has to be a workable definition.
VIII ‘Direct’, flattening, impact
In calling for a direct impact, the aesthetics of the day call for an impact that flattens out all social and other distinctions between individuals. Plays of the aristotelian type still manage to flatten out class conflicts in this way although the individuals themselves are becoming increasingly aware of class differences. The same result is achieved even when class conflicts are the subject of such plays, and even in cases where they take sides for a particular class. A collective entity is created in the auditorium for the duration of the entertainment, on the basis of the ‘common humanity’ shared by all spectators alike. Non-aristotelian drama of The Mother’s sort is not interested in the establishment of such an entity. It divides its audience.
IX Is Communism exclusive?
[. . .] A great many intellectual workers have a strong feeling that the world (their world) is off balance, but do not behave as if this were so. If we exclude those who construct a world intellectually which is inherently unbalanced (and lives by that) then we are left with those who more or less know about this imbalance but behave as if it were not so. Since the thought processes of such people are not much affected by the world, it is hardly surprising if their thoughts have no effect on it. This however means they consider thinking to be ineffective: hence we have the ‘pure intellect’ which exists for its own sake, more or less impeded by ‘external’ circumstances. For such people the arguments of a working-class woman, as sparked off by The Mother, cannot be classed as intellectual. They send in the politicians. Just as they themselves are cut off from practical matters, so are the politicians nothing to do with intellect. Why should the head bother what the hand does when it fills his pocket for him? These people are against politics. Which means in practice that they support the politics that affect themselves. Their behaviour is utterly political, even in their own profession. Setting up one’s home outside politics is not the same as being forcibly settled there, and to be beyond politics is not the same as to be above them.
Some think they could become perfect in an imperfect State, without trying to perfect it. But it is in the nature of our State to do without any perfect people, or people who are trying to become perfect. We see plenty of institutions which can use the handicapped, those missing an arm or one or both legs. Public administration is best mastered by blockheads. To do their job properly, our policemen should be criminal and our judges blind. Research workers deaf and dumb, or at least the latter. While book and magazine publishers rely on the illiterate to save them from bankruptcy. What we call cleverness shows itself not in finding and expressing the truth, but in finding untruth and saying nothing, with greater or less sensitivity. Some complain of the lack of great works, which they ascribe to the absence of major talents. But no Homer and no Shakespeare could make poetry of what they want to hear. And those who miss the great works can get along quite well without them, and might be unable to live with them.
X Resistance to learning, and contempt for the useful
One of the chief objections made by bourgeois criticism to non-aristotelian plays like The Mother is based on an equally bourgeois distinction between the concepts ‘entertaining’ and ‘instructive’. In this view The Mother is possibly instructive (if only for a small section of the potential audience, the argument goes) but definitely not entertaining (not even for this small section). There is a certain pleasure to be got out of looking more closely at this distinction. Surprising as it may seem, the object is to discredit learning by presenting it as not enjoyable. But in fact of course it is enjoyment that is being discredited by this deliberate suggestion that one learns nothing from it. One only needs to look around and see the function allotted to learning in bourgeois society. It amounts to the buying of materially useful items of knowledge. The purchase has to take place before the individual enters the process of production. Its field is immaturity. To admit that I am still incapable of something that is a part of my profession, in other words to allow myself to be caught learning, is equivalent to confessing that I am unfit to meet competition and that I must not be allowed credit. The man who comes to the theatre for ‘entertainment’ refuses to let himself be ‘treated like a schoolboy’ once again because he remembers the fearful torments with which ‘knowledge’ used to be hammered into the youth of the bourgeoisie. Libellous things are being said about the learner’s attitude.
In the same way most people have taken to despising the useful and the instinct for the useful ever since men first took to making use of one another exclusively by means of underhand tricks. Nowadays utility derives only from abuse of one’s fellow men.
[‘Anmerkungen’ to the play in Versuche 7, 1933, with small amendments (1938) and abridgements. Translation largely taken from Brecht on Theatre, 1964. The many quotations from the Berlin 1932 and New York 1935 press criticisms have been omitted; they can be found in the German editions of the play, notably in vol. 24 of the Berlin and Frankfurt edition, 1991.]
OPTIONAL CHORUSES
T
o prevent ‘free’ association and the ‘carrying away’ of the spectator, it is possible to place small choruses in the auditorium which would demonstrate the proper attitude, invite him to make up his own mind, call on his experience and exercise control. Such choruses constitute an appeal to the spectator’s practical side: to liberate himself from the world depicted, and also to depict himself. Here are a few examples of their texts. They are meant to be adaptable to the situation and may be supplemented or replaced by the reading of quotations or documents.
Chorus 1:
Observe mother and son. Between them
Is an estrangement. Outside circumstances
Have made her almost his enemy: it is a struggle between
Friendly mother and hostile son.
So you see:
The struggle raging outside carries on in the parlour
And a space full of struggle cannot be entered unscathed.
Chorus 2:
He is discontented; he understands his position.
And on his discontent
The whole world is waiting.
Chorus 3:
See how far she is from
Understanding her task, so gigantic! Still she considers how
To divide his dwindling pay-packet, so it could
Grow still smaller, unperceived thanks to her art!
Chorus 4:
Everyone seems to the mother a natural enemy, who
Strengthens her son in his rebellion. Far preferable
Would she find it, if he kept to his engagement: welcome
To the eyes of his oppressors, he might perhaps
Crawl through under the poverty line, or even
Join the side of the exploiters to his own advantage. This way however
By trying to improve his lodging, he merely
Puts that lodging at risk.
Chorus 5:
Stop! Don’t go on! what you are portraying is peculiar!
Here she is, condemning those who fight her, for their cruelty.
Just the application seems cruel to her, not the law!
And there are others who forgive those who put cruel laws into effect.
Both views are wrong! Never dissociate
This law from its servant or this
State from its rulers!
It is exactly as they are! For it was made
By men. It consists of people, and for
People it was planned
And by no means for all
But just for a few – and those unlike yourself.
Easily the rumour grows and proves long lasting
That the State is somehow different from those that run it
And of a nobler kind than those that use it for their own ends.
Much as one says: those are good people in a bad business
One likewise says: bad people serve a good cause.
But in reality whoever acts badly is bad, and bad too
Is the bad ones’ business.
Therefore do not say: the State is good that treats you badly
And it could become better. No: if it were better it would be a State no longer.
Chorus 6:
See, now she realises: this is my business
And the struggle is useful. Soon
She will join it. And then she can
Say aloud: this struggle is useful
Always in a loud voice: especially for me!
[These constitute section 6 of the ‘Anmerkungen’ to Versuche 7, above. Their suggested places in the first three scenes of the play are indicated by the figures (1) to (6) in our text. There is no record of any setting by Eisler, or of their actual performance.]
HANNS EISLER ON THE THEATRE UNION’S PRODUCTION OF ‘MOTHER’
The experience with the music in the Theatre Union’s production of Mother again shows the difficulties encountered in introducing a new use of music to the theatre. The conventional man of the theatre uses music in only two ways: for singing and dancing (as in musical comedy) or for music emphasising and illustrating a drama. With these two outmoded methods, however, the newer music can not be made use of. An artistically wrong presentation of the music leads, strangely enough, to serious political errors. Therefore the political content cannot be separated from the artistic as one conditions the other. To present music of the Mother type properly, it is necessary first of all to realise that it is an independent part of the production. It must therefore be clearly separated from the action.
As to the purely musical performance, such as the accompaniment on two pianos and the studying and recitation of the choruses by the actors, it must be made clear in the first place that music of the type written for Mother does not express a state of the soul but is meant to force the interpreters into a certain attitude, a certain gesture.
When composing the score of Mother the limited possibilities of the revolutionary theatre and the actors lack of musical training, was in general taken into consideration. This means, that difficulties of a purely technical nature, such as the playability of the accompanyment, the correct reading of the notes, could be overcome more or less easily. An interpretative musician, approaching this music with conventional standards may however make the mistake of underrating its peculier difficulties of a sort new to him, or may not even note them at all.
In the Theatre Union these problems caused great difficulty: singing without sentimentality or pathos, coldness of recitation without dryness, exact understanding of the tempo, the avoiding of accelerandos or ritenutos where they are not marked. The differences between the various ways of playing such as portamento and non legato, light staccato etc. etc. In the studying of such music it is absolutely necessary to avoid all rigid conceptions of tempi. To get the proper tempo it is necessary to try out various tempi. In the beginning this naturally causes great difficulties for the musicians. A revolutionary theatre, if it is to make progress, must demand much more of its musicians than the bourgeois theatre. In the American working-class musical movement there is so much talent and so many important manifestations that the workers’ theatres will soon be able to overcome these difficulties.
[Shortened from the uncorrected English-language original in Eisler’s Musik und Politik 1924–1948, Leipzig, 1973, pp. 358–360. This was written at the request of the US Communist Party for publication in their Daily Worker, but may not have appeared. The concert performance at the New School took place on 3 May 1936. That of The Decision never materialised. See Brecht’s letter 287 to Lee Strasberg, dated New York City, 27 January 1936.]
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THEATRE UNION
Act I
I am very glad you have decided to use the more stylised form of the original for the first two Acts. I lay particular store by the monologues and the curt conversations and closing lines, as for example the Mother’s uninterrupted monologues and the conclusion ‘No, I can’t read’ to the first scene. In scene 3 the tautness of the conversation about property. As for the conclusion of this scene I beg you above all to cut the last words, where the Mother promises to join the march. This destroys the surprise of Act 4.
Act II
This is where the projection of the scene titles is particularly important. In scene 6 there are some changes to be made. Pavel has not escaped. He has served his sentence in Siberia and must now travel on to Finland on a new mission for the Party. Just a few phrases will suffice for this. E.g. for the start of the scene, project:
IN THE YEARS PRECEDING WORLD WAR ONE THE BOLSHEVIK PARTY WAS TIRELESS IN ITS PROPAGANDA. PELAGEA VLASSOVA IS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN AN ILLEGAL PRESS
Act III
Scene 1
Projection: 1914 THE TSAR MOBILISES
Scene in the railway compartment. Version attached.
Scene 2
The bible scene. Back to the original text:
Comrade Vlassova, your son
Has been shot. But . . .
Sole change:
THE THREE WOMEN at the door: Pavel Vlassov has be
en arrested and shot for revolutionary agitation among the troops.
The Mother, very white make-up. We see the great effort she has to make in the conversation with the three women. Following her closing sentence ‘Whatever happens I’d advise you to insure your harvest!’ she faints.
Scene 3
The Schoolmaster’s flat.
Before and during the scene, large background projections of the Tsar, Poincaré, Grey and the Kaiser, the powers whom the Mother must fight. This scene must show how the Mother, after the terrible blow represented by the death of her son, is brought to her feet again by the threat to the Party and the cause of the workers, and the necessity for redoubled work. All the same she has greatly aged.
Scene 4
Street corner. Original scene 12.
Scene 5
Conclusion. The demonstration. Before it starts there must be a big projection saying:
IN NOVEMBER 1917 THE RUSSIAN PROLETARIAT SEIZED POWER
The projections are of the utmost importance for the play. They are the only way by which it can acquire the character of a History. It must on no account function like a story.
The less colourful the set, the more successful the establishment of the play’s background as a historical one. In Berlin we performed against white canvases (with a lot of light on the stage) and virtually nothing else apart from projected inscriptions and photographs.
[From Brecht: Werke: Schriften, Berlin and Frankfurt edition, vol. 24, 1991, pp. 135–137. From Brecht’s German typescript, sent to Paul Peters from Denmark as an annex to his letter no. 274 of 3 October 1935. This was four days before he sailed for New York.]
PROJECTIONS, 1932 AND 1935
(a) Berlin production
Scene 1: THE VLASSOVAS OF EVERY COUNTRY
Scene 2: BATTLE FOR THE KOPECK
Scene 3: Photograph: P.SUCHLINOV, OWNER OF THE SUCHLINOV WORKS
Brecht Collected Plays: 3: Lindbergh's Flight; The Baden-Baden Lesson on Consent; He Said Yes/He Said No; The Decision; The Mother; The Exception & the ... St Joan of the Stockyards (World Classics) Page 36
