Erwin Piscator’s The Political Theatre and The Concept of Performing Bodies in 1920s

Erwin Piscator’s The Political Theatre and The Concept of Performing Bodies in 1920s

“Something was shattered forever: illusion. The curtain separating life from stage was torn away. Theatre, yes, but a different kind- not a stage, but a platform- theatre as an instrument to probe life and to come to grips with reality- not an audience, but community-.” Erwin Piscator. (August 4, 1914; The Piscator Experiment, 2)

Erwin Piscator is a German director who was “one of the most remarkable artists in second stage of the modern movement, whose work remains in many ways inspiring, yet at the same time brings under question the very notion of political art" with its consequences. (The theatre of Erwin Piscator, 45).  Piscator is thrilled with revolution, and his friends enable him to get involve in it. Most of his friend who belong to Dada engaged him in a discussion about art, “but always in relation to politics.” (Piscator, 21) The conclusion that he agree on is that “if art wants to be a meaningful art it must be a weapon in the class struggle”.(ditto) Piscator believed that revolution enabled him to pursue his dream to put art and politic in the same stage ( Piscator, 17). For the first time the phrase political theatre, which Piscator coined later in 1928, was given the meaning. (Leither, 224) However, he tried to find a form which is accepted by the bourgeois since Dada had been laughed and rejected.(Piscator, 21) Piscator once wrote that “ The true People’s Theatre, can only legitimate exist as a theatre of the people’s most class- conscious section, the proletariat, these was the basis of the new political theatre” ( Willet, 65). This statement sound contradictive with another statement that he made above. But, what he means here is how the proletariat as the basis concern loudly promoted their struggle to the bourgeois in a suitable form so that the bourgeois will be able to be agreed with them. Another reason behind his political theatre vision is due to the fact that “he has a lifetime hatred of militarism and war”, the ruling class. (Willet, 43)

As the result, Piscator was one of the sons of revolution like John Willet once wrote that “there is a great concern with the social and political background and economic basis on which it rests” in Piscator’s vision and theatre (Willet, 108). Piscator has a notion that “any artistic intention must be subordinated to the revolutionary purpose of the whole” (Culture and Agitation, p.40). Revolutionary in this term means the class struggle toward the ruling class, which he belief can be achieved by joining the struggle of KPD (German Communist Party). Another meaning of political theatre is theatre’s ability in exploring theatre as a political tool to propagate the political agenda of the party. Piscator also categorized as an icon in the period of New Sobriety in Germany which is aroused during 1920s, with its goal to promote “sharply critical view of existing society and individuals, and a determination to master new media and discover new collective approaches to the communication of artistic concepts” (Willet, the new sobriety, 11), ( Modern German Culture, 215).

Once, he said that “I have to be honest with the facts, truthful to the people who came to see these plays and who want to find an answer to their own problem (Willet, 64). Concerning the meaning of the people here, I assume that Piscator tried to promote human agency. Therefore, it will be interesting to see what kind of approached that he used to put forward human agency in his pieces.  Nonetheless, according to critics, Piscator is a director, who never worked out a new acting approach/ method to accompany his new approach to new dramaturgy and stage technology. (The Theatre of Erwin Piscator, 119-120). While acting approach is important for a director to direct one member of his team, namely, the actors who obviously are the human agency that Piscator would like to promote. One form that the actors can do is being the performing bodies on the performances. The actor’s body while she/he is performing a role. The question is, if he did not invent a new one, then, how did he approach the performing body? What is the significant point of performing body for Piscator? Therefore, regarding his innovation in theatre and his radical idea of political theatre in contributing for theatre revolution in early 20^th century;  this essay try to investigate how Piscator’s political theatre was approaching the performing body in the 1920s.

Moreover, in most of his pieces there was a tendency, visually, that the actors on the stage were overwhelmed by the technology and machines that applied in the scenery. Why does it happen? For what reason is Piscator used this technique in his performances? One of the way to answer the questions above is by observing and analyzing Pisactor’s pieces. However, Piscator was a productive director; therefore, I limit my investigation upon Piscator’s piece from 1920 when he founded his Proletarian Theatre with Hermann Schuller, a writer, until 1931 after he had to close his Piscatorbuhne. (Piscator, 37 & Willet, 83) During this more or less ten years period, I noted that Piscator involved in more than one different theatre, but my focus will be The Proletariat Theatre in 1920 to 1921, Piscator in Volksbuhne and also worked for KPD where he produced his agit-pop ( agitation and propaganda) pieces during 1924 to 1926 and Piscatorbuhne in 1927 to 1931. This is due to the fact that I notice there was significant metamorphosis in Piscator’s works also because there were significant pieces during his productive time with these theatres. Also, I limit my observation on several production which I assume significant in representing Piscator’s pieces overall i.e. Russlands Tag  ( Russia’s Day) by Lajos Barta, Revue Roter Rummel by Piscator and Felix Gasbara, Strumfult by Alfons Paquet, Rauber by Schiller, Hoppla, wir leben! and Adventure of Good Soldier Schweik.