Book Review

After Brecht: British Epic Theater

The Berliner Ensemble's 1956 visit to London inaugurated an era of Brechtian influence in English theatre. The effect on playwriting was immediate, and many plays of the "angry young men" came to be identified as examples of Brechtian drama. The political activism of the late 1960s brought a second wave of Brechtian drama, but recent years have seen a decline in leftist theatre and prompted questions about the continuing relevance of Brechtian theory and practice.

Janelle Reinelt's After Brecht approaches the question of Brecht's influence on English theatre through a study of selected works of six playwrights--Howard Brenton, David Hare, Edward Bond, Trevor Griffiths, Caryl Churchill, and John McGrath. These playwrights, with the exception of Bond, came to prominence during the second wave of Brechtian theatre in Britain; the plays examined in Reinelt's study date from the mid-1970s to 1990.

The title of the book evokes the disjunction between Brecht himself and the contemporary British playwrights examined in the study. After Brecht not only refers to the fact that contemporary dramatists follow Brecht at some distance, in terms of time and location, but also hints at the elusiveness of some aspects of Brechtian techniques. Contemporary productions both of Brecht's own plays and of what could be considered "Brechtian" plays have tended to feed debate over the validity of various interpretations of Brecht's ideas rather than demonstrating a consistent and authoritative Brechtian style.

Reinelt traces the development of the six British playwrights within the Brechtian tradition, devoting a chapter to each writer that highlights several representative examples of his or her work. She finds no playwright whose work incorporates the entire Brechtian legacy; instead, she identifies in the work of each dramatist a different combination of epic techniques. Some plays, in fact, lie rather far outside a strict construction of epic theatre; but Reinelt does not exclude from consideration plays which, from some perspectives, seem non-Brechtian, such as David Hare's Plenty. In fact, she expresses greatest interest in those plays that "are not so classically epic but which extend or transform some epic strategies" (34).

The studies of individual playwrights provide provocative, though brief, sketches of the work of these playwrights, highlighting three or four plays in careers that span as long as thirty years and twenty or more full-length plays. They begin with Howard Brenton, whom Reinelt describes as the one contemporary British playwright who "most epitomizes the Brechtian legacy" (17). She identifies in Brenton's work a consistent commitment to epic form--a commitment expressed most basically in the fact that most of Brenton's plays are set in public spaces, thus giving a "social perspective on private experience" (39). Reinelt goes on to discuss Edward Bond; though he can be considered among the influential first wave of Brechtian playwrights in Britain, he remains active in contemporary theatre, and Reinelt concentrates on his more recent plays. The chapter on Caryl Churchill's [End Page 525] work contains interesting reflections on the interaction of the Brechtian legacy with contemporary feminism. Reinelt's discussion of David Hare's plays returns to the framework of the public-private opposition established in the first chapter in its attempt to identify an evolving Brechtian perspective within Hare's work. The book's narrowly focused discussion, however, does not really come to terms with the complex and prolific work of Hare.

Reinelt's discussion of John McGrath, documented with lengthy quotations of his views on theatre and social change may prove particularly useful to American scholars and students. Though McGrath is not as well known to Americans as are other playwrights in the study, he has played a central role in British theatre of the left. McGrath never aimed at the type of "mainstream" audience to be found in the seats of the National Theatre; instead, he and other members of his similarly committed company, 7:84 (the name calls attention to the fact that 7 percent of Britain's population controlled 84 percent of its wealth), took their work to union halls, working-class pubs, and community centers. McGrath's reflections on the decade and a half during which the company was active provide important insights into the dynamics of theatre that attempts to locate itself within working-class culture.

All of the playwrights included in Reinelt's study find the continuance of a Marxist stance in the contemporary theatre difficult. Brenton exemplifies the trajectory of Britain's post-1968 wave of politically oriented playwrights: he "grew up in a time when revolution seemed like a viable possibility," but "after two periods of Thatcherism . . . Brenton, along with other theater workers might be said to find themselves increasingly in a kind of exile" (17-18). This situation translates itself into a dilemma for Reinelt: she does not know whether she is writing a postmortem for leftist theatre in Britain or a chapter in its continuing history. Recent political developments suggest that the terms of political identity are themselves in the process of redefinition so radical as to make the us/them mentality of Labour under Margaret Thatcher obsolete. The desperate mood of what remains of the British left is exemplified in a new play by Trevor Griffiths, Who Shall Be Happy? This play uses the historical figure Danton to represent the imprisonment and betrayal of a passionate idealist by official oppression and the self-interest of private individuals. It may indeed serve as a coda to the second wave of Brechtian theatre in Britain. Whether or not that proves to be the case, the British Brechtians have earned a place in history as a forum both for political ideas and for theatrical experimentation. After Brecht offers a valuable perspective on this movement.

Amelia Howe Kritzer
Madison, Wisconsin

[an error occurred while processing this directive].