| name | value |
| location | Melbourne |
| date | 2024-05-25 |
I started to actively think about this question a lot after seeing all of it, written by Alistair McDowell, who is “interested only in writing plays that absolutely have to be plays, that fully exploit theatre’s unique potential as a live, collective experience” (The Independent).
This year, after seeing An enemy of the people directed by Thomas Ostermeier and incredibly intrigued, I listened to a lot of Ostermeier’s interviews and public speeches on Spotify, and he posed the question, or rather making a statement, that what do we make in theatre to deserve someone’s two hours of their life?
Pina Bausch: "It is almost unimportant whether a work finds an understanding audience. One has to do it because one believes that it is the right thing to do. We are not only here to please, we cannot help challenging the spectator."
Threepenny opera:
in Brecht it is not an individual lack of virtue that causes social injustices, rather it is the other way round. The idea that they should therefore work together to change social circumstances does not occur to the characters. They are much too busy putting on a performance for others and themselves. Thus they themselves keep contributing to their own alienation and to a world where everything, including feelings and ultimately also art, become a commodity.
To Brecht's disappointment, the audience at the world premiere left the theatre apparently rather less educated in matters of social criticism, and instead very well entertained.