[laura bradley] brecht and political theatre

5/24/2018 [Laura Bradley] Brecht and Political Theatre

1/274


2/274

OX F OR D MODE R N LA N GUA GE SA ND LITERAT URE MONOGRAPHS

Editorial Committee . . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . .


3/274

This page intentionally left blank


4/274

Brecht and Political Theatre:

The Motheron Stage

LAURA BRADLEY

CLARENDON PRESS OXFORD


5/274

1Great Clarendon Street, Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.It furthers the Universitys objective of excellence in research, scholarship,

and education by publishing worldwide in

Oxford New York

Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong KarachiKuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi

New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto

With offices in

Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France GreeceGuatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal SingaporeSouth Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Pressin the UK and in certain other countries

Published in the United Statesby Oxford University Press Inc., New York

Laura Bradley 2006

The moral rights of the author have been assertedDatabase right Oxford University Press (maker)

First published 2006All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,

or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriatereprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction

outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,Oxford University Press, at the address above

You must not circulate this book in any other binding or coverand you must impose this same condition on any acquirer

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataData available

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Data available

Typeset by Laserwords Private Limited, Chennai, IndiaPrinted in Great Britain

on acid-free paper byBiddles Ltd., Kings Lynn, Norfolk

ISBN 0 199286582 978 0 199286584

1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2


6/274

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all the people who have helped me during mywork on this book, which is a revised version of a doctoral thesissubmitted to the University of Oxford in 2003. I am particularlyindebted to my supervisors, Tom Kuhn and Richard Sheppard, fortheir invaluable and unstinting advice, enthusiasm, and encouragement

throughout the project. My thanks also go to those colleagues whoprovided thought-provoking comments on my work at various stages:Tony Phelan, Steve Giles, Karen Leeder, Katrin Kohl, Kevin Hilliard,and Ben Morgan.

I am extremely grateful to the Arts and Humanities Research Boardfor funding my doctoral research and to Merton College, Oxford,for enabling me to revise my thesis for publication during my Junior

Research Fellowship. St Edmund Hall, Oxford, generously providedfurther academic and financial support, and the Modern LanguagesFaculty, Oxford, and Conference of University Teachers of Germanfunded visits to German archives.

It is a pleasure to thank the people who have assisted me in archivesand libraries, particularly Dr Wizisla and Dr Harder at the Brecht-Archiv, Frau Hbner at the Berliner Ensemble, Dr Ullrich at theAkademie der Knste, Dr Schirmer at the Stadtmuseum in Berlin,

Frau Ganz at the Schaubhne, and Helen Buchanan and Jill Hughesat the Taylorian Library. I am equally grateful to the theatre practi-tioners who shared their experiences of stagingDie Mutterwith me:Wolf Bunge, Annie Castledine, Hans-Joachim Frank, Wera and ClausKchenmeister, Jrg Mihan, Alexander Stillmark, Renate Richter, andManfred Wekwerth.

I wish to thank the following for kind permission to publish

archive material, quotations from personal interviews, and plates inthis book: Barbara Brecht-Schall; Gudrun Bunge; Alice Eisler; Hans-Joachim Frank; Wera Kchenmeister; Michael Mayhew; Jrg Mihan;Beate Nelken; Daniel Pozner; Monika Rittershaus; Maria Steinfeldt;Alexander Stillmark; Ulrike Stoll-Neher; Vera Tenschert; Holger Tesch-ke; Sebastian Weisenborn; Manfred Wekwerth; Berliner Ensemble;Bertolt-Brecht-Archiv; henschel SCHAUSPIEL; Landesarchiv Berlin;Schaubhne am Lehniner Platz; Scottish Theatre Archive, Glasgow


7/274

vi Acknowledgements

University Library, Department of Special Collections; StadtmuseumBerlin; Stiftung Archiv der Akademie der Knste; Stiftung Archiv der

Parteien und Massenorganisationen der DDR im Bundesarchiv.Finally, I would like to thank my family for their encouragement andinterest, and for even coming to see one of the productions.


8/274

Contents

List of Illustrations xList of Abbreviations xi

Introduction 1

1. Brecht, Performance, andDie Mutter(The Mother) 12. Brechts Political Theatre: Methods and Concepts 33. Die Mutter: The Text and Plot 84. Re-interpretingDie Mutterfor New Audiences 115. Methodology: Reconstructing Past Productions 146. Structural Outline 16

1. From Nizhni-Novgorod to Moabit: The Genesis and

Premire ofDie Mutter

, 1931 2 191. Introduction 192. The Genesis of the Text 213. Preparations for the Premire 294. Politics 315. Dramaturgy and Aesthetics 356. Music 447. The Polarized Reception and Brechts Response 518. Conclusion 56

2. Model or Museum Exhibit?Die Mutterat the Berliner Ensemble, 195171 58

1. Introduction 582. The Process of Production 623. Brechts New Approach: Courting the Audience 67

4. The Productions Reception 795. The 1967 Revival: Change and Development 836. The Model and the Museum Exhibit 887. Conclusion 91


9/274

viii Contents

3. The Politics of Performance:Die Mutterin West and EastBerlin, 1970 and 1974 93

1. Introduction 932. Cultural and Political Context 943. The Schaubhne am Halleschen Ufer and the Berliner

Ensemble 964. Repertoire 1005. StagingDie Mutter 1046. Cultural Politics in East and West 128

7. Conclusion 1324. Translation and Transference since 1932 135

1. Introduction 1352. Productions ofDie MutterWorldwide 1373. Ideological and Aesthetic Appropriation:Motherin

New York, 1935 1424. Interrogating the Foreign:La Mrein Lille, 1979 1555. Post-1968 Political Theatre:The Motherin London,

1986, and New York, 1997 1596. Radical English and Irish Rewrites from the 1970s

and 1980s 1677. Conclusion 173

5. Die Mutterand German Reunification, 19882003 176

1. Introduction 1762. The Apotheosis of theStaatsfeststck: The Berliner

Ensemble, 1988 1773. Archaeological Self-Discovery: Theater 89, 1998 1894. An Outsiders Perspective: The Stadttheater in

Konstanz, 2002 1975. Opposing the War: The Berliner Ensemble, 2003 201

6. Political Theatre, theWende, and the Berlin Republic 213Conclusion 216

1. Die Mutter: The Text and its Performances 2162. Brechts Theatrical Practice 2193. GDR Cultural Politics 2224. Post-Brechtian Approaches 2245. Future Perspectives 226


10/274

Contents ix

Glossary 229Bibliography 231

Index of Works by Brecht 249Index of Names and Subjects 253


11/274

List of Illustrations

1. Solidarity when under pressure: theGruppe Junger Schauspieler,1932 (BBA) 45

2. Caspar Nehers sketch of Scene 1, 1951 (DeutschesTheatermuseum, Munich) 74

3. The Wlassowas of all countries at the BE, 1974 (MariaSteinfeldt; SB) 115

4. Martyrdom and grief at the BE, 1974 (Maria Steinfeldt; SB) 122

5. Scene 7 at the Schaubhne, 1970 (Harry Croner; SB) 123

6. Scene 7 at the BE, 1974 (Maria Steinfeldt; SB) 124

7. The butchers kitchen at the Theatre Union, 1935 (BBA) 153

8. A political washing-line: the National Theatres set, 1986

(Michael Mayhew; NTA) 1649. Well-heeled proletarians at the BE, 1988 (Vera Tenschert; BEA) 183

10. Scene 7 at theater 89, 1998 (Beate Nelken; theater 89) 194

11. Caked with the dust of history: revolutionaries and workers atthe BE, 2003 (Monika Rittershaus; BEA) 207


12/274

List of Abbreviations

AdK Akademie der Knste

AP Associated Press

APO Auerparlamentarische Opposition

BArch Bundesarchiv

BBA Bertolt-Brecht-ArchivBE Berliner Ensemble

BEA Berliner Ensemble Archive

BFA Groe kommentierte Berliner und Frankfurter Ausgabe

CDU Christlich Demokratische Union

cond. conducted by

CPR Centre for Performance Research

DDR Deutsche Demokratische Republik

dir. directed by

EHA Elisabeth-Hauptmann-Archiv

FAZ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FDJ Freie Deutsche Jugend

FRG Federal Republic of GermanyGDP Gross Domestic Product

GDR German Democratic Republic

GLL German Life and Letters

GWA Gnther-Weisenborn-Archiv

HEA Hanns-Eisler-Archiv

IRA Irish Republican ArmyKPD Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

ND Neues Deutschland

n.d. date of publication unknown

n.p. no pagination

NT National Theatre


13/274

xii List of Abbreviations

NTA National Theatre Archive

PDS Partei des Demokratischen Sozialismus

RAF Rote Armee FraktionRBA Ruth-Berlau-Archiv

RDA Rpublique Dmocratique Allemande

RF Die Rote Fahne

RKP Robert-Koch-Platz, Berlin

RUC Royal Ulster Constabulary

SA Schaubhne am Lehniner Platz ArchiveSAPMO Stiftung Archiv der Parteien und Massenorganisationen der DDR

SB Stadtmuseum Berlin

SED Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands

SEW Sozialistische Einheitspartei Westberlins

SPD Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands

STA Scottish Theatre Archive

SW Schlo Wahn Theatersammlung, CologneTDR The Drama Review

USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

ZK Zentralkomitee


14/274

Introduction

1. BRECH T, PERFOR MANCE , AND DIE MUTTER(THE MOTHE R)

Bertolt Brecht argued that performance was the true test of any dramatictext.Ever the writer-director, he revised his plays during rehearsals andthen evaluated their reception by the audience. He often incorporatedthe changes into subsequent editions of the published texts, which thenfunctioned as the starting-point for his future productions. This practice

enabled Brecht to tailor plays to his target audience and to address thepolitical and social issues of the day. His development as a writer,director, and theorist of theatre can therefore be fully understood onlyin relation to performance.

The importance that Brecht attached to performance reflects the factthat a dramatic text can only ever be provisional. This is because itsinterpretation is always contingent on the manner of its performance,when the set design, costumes, movement, gesture, and line deliveryall interact with the words to produce meaning. Interpretations of adramatic text also change in response to the performance context, whichaffects the theatres approach and the audiences reactions. By examiningthe different ways in which a play has been staged, performance historyforegrounds the impact of theatre aesthetics and context on the textsinterpretation.

Die Mutter is an ideal subject for a production history of one of

Brechts plays, both in its own right and in relation to his theatricalpractice. The plays confrontational politics and distinctive aestheticpose particular challenges to directors seeking to transfer it to newcontexts and audiences, as Brecht himself discovered. Die Mutter is

e.g. Bertolt Brecht, Groe kommentierte Berliner und Frankfurter Ausgabe(henceforthBFA), ed. Werner Hecht et al., 30 vols (Frankfurt/Main and Berlin: Suhrkamp and

Aufbau, 1988 2000), xxvi (1994), 395.


15/274

2 Introduction

actually the only text that he staged in the Weimar Republic, inexile, and in the GDR, and Brecht also advised his co-worker Ruth

Berlau on her productions in Copenhagen in 1935 and in Leipzigin 1950. Brechts productions ofDie Mutter show how his theatricalpractice developed, how he responded to different political, culturaland institutional contexts, and how the experience of staging andevaluating plays contributed to the development of his theories. Theyalso reveal how, and how far, Brechts theories articulated and influencedhis practice at different points in time. This is important because heoften formulated his theoretical writings as polemical contributions to

context-specific debates.Since Brechts death in 1956,Die Mutterhas been staged by another

four leading German directors, Peter Stein, Ruth Berghaus, ManfredWekwerth, and Claus Peymann, and by theatre practitioners in mostEuropean countries and the Americas, Australia, Japan, India, andAfghanistan. In the 1970s and 1980s, it became a seminal text forpoliticized theatres in Britain and Scandinavia. These postwar pro-

ductions demonstrate how directors have developed and exploitedBrechts theories and techniques for new purposes and audiences, andhow Brecht has influenced twentieth-century theatre in Germany andabroad.

As an overtly Communist play, Die Mutter divided critics alongpolitical lines at the premire and has continued to do so ever since.During the Cold War, East German critics like Werner Hecht, WernerMittenzwei, and Ernst Schumacher presented it as an important step

forward in Brechts work.In contrast, many Western critics regardedDie Mutteras an aberration and rejected it, sometimes in polemicalterms. Bjrn Ekmann, for instance, called it [eine] blutrnstige Hetze(bloodthirsty rabble-rousing), and Jan Needle and Peter Thomsonargued that it is hard to find much merit inThe Motherexcept as a sopto the converted.Since the collapse of state Socialism in the Easternbloc, Brechts call for revolution has been criticized as out of date.

Die Mutterthus exemplifies the challenges facing left-wing literature in

Werner Hecht,Sieben Studien ber Brecht(Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 1972), 68;Werner Mittenzwei,Bertolt Brecht: Von der Manahme zu Leben des Galilei, 4th edn(East Berlin: Aufbau, 1977), 98; Ernst Schumacher, Die dramatischen Versuche BertoltBrechts 19181933(East Berlin: Rtten & Loening, 1955), 432.

Bjrn Ekmann, Gesellschaft und Gewissen: Die sozialen und moralischen AnschauungenBertolt Brechts und ihre Bedeutung fr seine Dichtung(Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1969),189; Jan Needle and Peter Thomson,Brecht(Oxford: Blackwell, 1981), 77.


16/274

Introduction 3

general, and Brechts work in particular, before, during, and after theCold War.

Although literary critics have often regardedDie Mutteras simplistic,its performance history reveals a wide variety of theatrical interpretations.These in turn shed new perspectives on the text, showing it to be farmore subtle and sophisticated than many critical accounts suggest. Thisbook examines how directors have constructed fresh interpretations fornew contexts and new audiences; how stagings of the play have changed;and what these stagings reveal, both about the text itself and aboutbroader developments in twentieth-century German theatre, politics,

and culture.

2 . BRECHTS POLITICAL THEATRE: METHODSAND CONCEPTS

Brecht defined political theatre in terms of form, not just content. He

argued that new theatrical forms were needed to deal with modernsocio-economic reality: Schon die Erfassung der neuen Stoffgebietekostet eine neue dramatische und theatralische Form. Knnen wirin der Form des Jambus ber Geld sprechen? Das Petroleumstrubt sich gegen die fnf Akte, die Katastrophen von heute ver-laufen nicht geradlinig, sondern in der Form von Krisenzyklen. InBrechts view, existing theatrical forms promoted conservative interests.This was partly because they encouraged the spectator to receive pro-ductions passively, so that [er] gibt seine Vernunft mit dem Mantelin der Garderobe ab. But it was also because they suggested thatspectators were powerless to change society: Das Theater, wie wires vorfinden, zeigt die Struktur der Gesellschaft (abgebildet auf derBhne) nicht als beeinflubar durch die Gesellschaft (im Zuschauer-raum).According to Brecht, even Naturalist drama, which dealt with

Even just to tackle the new areas of subject-matter, we need a new dramatic andtheatrical form. Can we talk about money in iambic form? Petroleum resists anydivision into five acts; todays catastrophes do not run in a straight line, but in the form ofcyclical crises. ber Stoffe und Form,BFA, xxi (1992), 302 4 (303). Unless otherwiseindicated, all quotations from theBFAare by Brecht and translations are my own.

[He] hands the cloakroom attendant his brain along with his coat. Dialog berSchauspielkunst,BFA, xxi. 279 82 (280).

Theatre, as we know it, shows the structure of society (depicted on stage) asincapable of being influenced by society (in the auditorium). Kleines Organon fr dasTheater,BFA, xxiii (1993), 6597 (78).


17/274

4 Introduction

social and political issues, encouraged spectators to resign themselvesto the status quo by presenting workers as powerless victims of their

heredity and environment. Brecht was not alone in viewing Natur-alist drama as an inadequate vehicle for the problems facing modernsociety; the Communist director Erwin Piscator criticized the genreon the grounds that it presented only outbursts of desperation, notsolutions.

In the 1920s, Brecht and Piscator pioneered new forms of repre-sentation in German theatre. But whereas Piscator relied primarily onmodern stage technology, including film, to provide a political com-

mentary and extend the scope of his productions, Brecht developednew dramatic as well as theatrical forms. Through his dramatic tech-niques, acting methods, and staging devices, Brecht created a dialecticaltheatre that would expose the contradictions in social reality anddepict society as an ever-changing process, not a fixed state. Byreplacing the Vortuschung der Harmonie (feigned harmony) ofbourgeois aesthetics with the Hegelian clash of thesis and antithesis,

he sought to confront his spectators with real alternatives and showthat their decisions would shape the future. Although Brecht wouldnot consider using the name dialectical theatre until 1954, dialecticswere already central to his theatrical practice in the late WeimarRepublic.

Brechts theatre transforms the spectators relationship with the stageaction in order to change not just what they think, but how theythink: Bemht, ihren Zuschauer ein ganz bestimmtes praktisches,

die Anderung der Welt bezweckendes Verhalten zu lehren, verleiht[Brechts Dramatik] ihm schon im Theater eine grundstzlich andereHaltung, als er gewohnt ist. Er wird in die Lage versetzt, eine kritische,kontrollierende Haltung einzunehmen. In order to cultivate thiscritical attitude, Brechts theatre destroys the illusory fourth walltheconvention that the audience is eavesdropping on the action, unbeknown

e.g. Die dialektische Dramatik,BFA, xxi. 431 43 (433 4). Erwin Piscator,Das politische Theater(Berlin: Adalbert Schultz, 1929), 30. [Nachtrge zumKleinen Organon],BFA, xxiii. 289 95 (294).

e.g. [Vom epischen zum dialektischen Theater I], BFA, xxiii. 299. See also Brechts19301 essay Die dialektische Dramatik,BFA, xxi. 43143.

In its efforts to teach its spectator a very specific practical type of behaviour, aimedat changing the world, [Brechts drama] already grants him a fundamentally differentattitude in the theatre from the one to which he is accustomed. He is enabled to adopta critical attitude and to monitor the performance. [Das deutsche Drama vor Hitler],BFA, xxii.1 (1993), 1648 (166).


18/274

Introduction 5

to the characters. It displays the stage apparatus, such as the lights, infull view of the audience and introduces narrative elements into the

performance. Songs interrupt the dramatic action; projected imagesprovide a visual commentary, as in Piscators productions; and captionssummarize the plays political arguments and the content of individualscenes. The juxtaposition of these narrative or epic elements withthe dramatic action forces the spectator to adopt an active, criticalrole by comparing and evaluating the different pieces of information.So whereas the epic and the dramatic constitute separate genres inAristotles Poetics, Brecht combined them to form his epic or non-

Aristotelian theatre.Epic theatre requires its actors, like its spectators, to retain their

critical and political awareness. Instead of immersing themselves intheir roles, the actors present their characters to the audience: dieSchauspieler [vollziehen] die Verwandlung nicht vollstndig, sondern[halten] Abstand zu der von ihnen dargestellten Figur, ja, [fordern]deutlich zur Kritik auf. The final clause shows that the actors are

to remain detached in order to invite criticism of the characterinthis context, sociopolitical criticism. By emphasizing the decisions thatinform the actions of the characters, the performers encourage spectatorsto see how alternative courses of action could have provoked differentoutcomes. Brecht called this technique the Nicht, Sondern Prinzip,the not, but principle: Der Schauspieler soll bei allen wesentlichenPunkten zu dem, was er macht, noch etwas ausfindig, namhaft undahnbar machen, was er nicht macht. Er sagt z.B. nicht: ich verzeihe

dir, sondern: das wirst du mir bezahlen.So when, in Scene 3 of the1951 production ofDie Mutter, the factory police asked the workerSmilgin where he had found an illegal pamphlet, Smilgin hesitated andlooked at the real culprit, the Mother, before deciding not to betrayhera class comradeand claiming instead that it had lain on thefloor.

Brecht also promoted self-conscious, stylized acting through his

technique ofGestus. This is a problematic and complex term which

The actors [do] not [transform] themselves completely, but [retain] a dis-tance from the character they are presenting; indeed, they clearly [invite] criticism.Vergngungstheater oder Lehrtheater,BFA, xxii.1. 10616 (108).

At every essential point, the actor should, in addition to what he does, make theaudience discover, note, and sense what he does not do. For example, he does not say:I forgive you, but: youll pay for this. Anweisungen an die Schauspieler, BFA, xxii.2.6678 (667).


19/274

6 Introduction

Brecht used in a variety of contexts, but in relation to acting it isbest understood as a physical action or spatial configuration which

reveals the ideological, social and economic relations between two ormore characters. In Scene 8 of the 1951 production, for example,Brecht placed his Communist heroine at the opposite side of thestage to the nationalistic strikebreakers, so that this physical distanceillustrated the ideological gulf between them. And in Scene 6, theteacher stood right underneath the Tsars portrait while declaring thatit would be senseless to educate the masses. This configuration exposedthe teacher and, by extension, the Russian education system as a

mouthpiece for the Tsars ideology and a bulwark against politicalchange. By thus drawing the spectators attention to ideological andsocio-economic factors, gestic acting suggests that human behaviour isnot the inevitable result of innate psychology. Together, Gestus andthe Nicht, Sondern Prinzip show that there is a dynamic relationshipbetween humans and society: humans influence, and are influencedby, society.

The most famous, and most frequently misunderstood, of Brechtstechniques isVerfremdung, a term which entered his theoretical writingsin 1936.It is best translated as estrangement or defamiliarization,and it aims to make spectators see familiar phenomena and peoplefrom fresh anglesjust as acquiring a stepfather forces a man toview his mother in a new light: as another mans husband. Brechtexplains:

Einen Vorgang oder einen Charakter verfremden heit zunchst einfach, demVorgang oder dem Charakter das Selbstverstndliche, Bekannte, Einleuchtendezu nehmen und ber ihn Staunen und Neugierde zu erzeugen. Damit istgewonnen, da der Zuschauer die Menschen auf der Bhne nicht mehr als ganzunnderbare, unbeeinflubare, ihrem Schicksal hilflos ausgelieferte dargestelltsieht. Damit ist gewonnen, da der Zuschauer im Theater eine neue Haltungbekommt.

Cf. Gestik, BFA, xxiii. 187 8. For a detailed analysis ofGestus, see Meg Mumford,Showing the Gestus: A Study of Acting in Brechts Theatre (unpublished doctoral thesis,University of Bristol, 1997).

See Jan Knopf, Verfremdung, in Brechts Theorie des Theaters, ed. Werner Hecht(Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 1986), 93 141.

Kurze Beschreibung einer neuen Technik der Schauspielkunst, die einen Verfrem-dungseffekt hervorbringt,BFA, xxii.2. 64159 (656).

Estranging an event or a character simply means, in the first instance, divestingthe event or the character of all its self-explanatory, familiar, strikingly clear qualities,and arousing astonishment and curiosity about it. It ensures that the spectator no


20/274

Introduction 7

The Verfremdungseffekt (estrangement effect) is thus another methodof provoking critical reflection and prompting spectators to question

phenomena which they usually take for granted. As such, it is animportant tool for promoting political consciousness.Although Verfremdung is often translated misleadingly as alien-

ation, it does not imply any rejection of emotion. The characters inepic theatre experience the full range of emotions, and Brecht simplywants the spectator to retain sufficient critical detachment to analysethese emotions: Das epische Theater bekmpft nicht die Emotionen,sondern untersucht sie und macht nicht halt bei ihrer Erzeugung.

By preventing total identification, epic theatre gives the spectatorthe freedom to experience different emotions from the characters:Er kann Zorn empfinden, wo die Bhnenfigur Freude empfindetusw.

Despite common preconceptions, Brechts theatre actually combineshis radical claims for the epic form with more traditional dramatictechniques. Even thoughDie Mutterfeatures epic devices prominently,

it still relies on a complex interplay of the dramatic and the epic.In Chapter 1, I compare the play to Brechts own contrasts betweendramatic and epic theatre, which were first included in his notes on

Mahagonnyand then reprinted in the programme for the 1932 premireofDie Mutter. My analysis reveals that the plays dramaturgy is farsubtler than Brechts polemical statements about epic theatre, or indeedmost literary critics interpretations, suggest.

Brecht also strove to transform the theatre apparatus. His most radical

experiments occurred between 1929 and 1932, when he developed theLehrstck (learning play), as a pedagogical exercise for performers.By transferring the emphasis from the performance to the staging

longer sees the human beings on stage as completely unchangeable, incapable of beinginfluenced, helplessly exposed to their fate. It ensures that the spectator experiencesa new attitude in the theatre. ber experimentelles Theater, BFA, xxii.1. 54057

(5545). Epic theatre does not combat emotions, but investigates them and does not stop

short at producing them. Kleine Liste der beliebtesten, landlufigsten und banalstenIrrtmer ber das epische Theater,BFA, xxii.1. 31516 (315).

He can experience anger when the character on stage experiences joy, etc.Nachtrag zur Theorie desMessingkaufs,BFA, xxii.2. 7012 (701).

AlthoughLehrstckhas often been translated as teaching play or didactic play,Brecht preferred the term learning play. This term emphasizes that the performers areactive participants, rather than the passive recipients of pre-fabricated lessons. See TheGerman Drama: pre-Hitler,BFA, xxii.2. 93944 (941).


21/274

8 Introduction

process, Brecht challenged the dominant concept of theatre as thesupplier of a product. Indeed, he even argued that the Lehrstckdid

not need an audience: performance was only a possible by-product,not an essential end-product, of rehearsals. These experiments withthe theatre apparatus stalled during Brechts exile when, as I show inChapter 4, his plays were staged relatively infrequently and in conditionsover which he had little control. Nevertheless, when Brecht establishedhis own company in the GDR, he placed in-house political andtheatrical education at the heart of his project to transform professionaltheatre from within. In order to understand the nature and significance

of his theatrical practice and the reasons why it became a modelfor subsequent practitioners of political theatre, we therefore need todevote as much attention to the staging process as to the finishedproductions.

3 . DIE MUTTER: THE TE XT AND PLOT

Brecht wrote Die Mutter in 19312 in collaboration with the writerElisabeth Hauptmann, the composer Hanns Eisler, the Bulgarian dir-ector Slatan Dudow, and the playwright Gnther Weisenborn. Theteams literary sources were Gorkys 1907 novel (Mother),in Adolf Hesss German translation, and a dramatization completedin 1931 by Weisenborn and Gnther Stark, a dramaturge from the

Volksbhne.Although most literary critics interpretDie Mutteras if it existed asa single text, directors actually have to choose between five versions,only two of which are included in the new edition of Brechts collectedworks, the Berliner und Frankfurter Ausgabe. This diversity existsbecause Brecht revised the text after each of his three productionsand fed the changes into the 1933, 1938 and 1957 editions. In1951, the Berliner Ensembles version was published for the exclusive

use of theatres, and in 1970, the dramaturge and director Joachim

Zur Theorie des Lehrstcks,BFA, xxii.1. 3512. Maxim Gorky, Die Mutter, trans. Adolf Hess (Berlin: Malik, 1927); Gnther

Stark and Gnther Weisenborn, Die Mutter, ed. Emma Lewis Thomas,Brecht heute, 3(1973), 64 105.

A rare exception is John Fuegi, who notes that a major difficulty in discussingTheMotheris the fact that there really is no single definitive text. Fuegi,The Essential Brecht(Los Angeles: Hennessey & Ingalls, 1972), 51.


22/274

Introduction 9

Tenschert published another version that incorporated some of thechanges that had been made during the productions long run. Far

from presenting any edition as definitive, Brecht actually encourageddirectors to experiment with the text. For instance, in 1933 he suggestedthat they might place choruses in the audience to comment on theaction, and in 1938 he published an optional scene set in a railwaycarriage, which was based on an idea by Paul Peters, the Americantranslator of the 1935 production.The following outline is based onthe 1933 edition.

Brechts play charts the transformation of an apolitical Russian widow,

Pelagea Wlassowa, into an active revolutionary. Scene 1 presents herdesperate plight: the wages of her son, Pawel, have been cut, and shecan see no way to make ends meet. But even as she resigns herselfto her fate, Pawel is already actively seeking redress: in Scene 2, heand his comrades print leaflets calling for a strike. Wlassowa is deeplysceptical of this political activity and hostile towards Pawels comrades,but she volunteers to deliver the leaflets in order to protect him from

danger. In Scene 3, she skilfully smuggles the leaflets into the factoryand watches the police arrest an innocent bystander simply for readingone. This arbitrary arrest sparks Wlassowas curiosity: in Scene 4, sheengages the revolutionaries in debate, learns about their motivation,and overcomes her suspicion. In Scene 5, she joins the strikers MayDay demonstration. When Smilgin, the worker bearing the flag, is shotdead by the police, Wlassowa carries it in his place. The contradictionbetween her apolitical outlook and her political activity is thus resolved

in favour of revolutionary commitment.The next phase sees Wlassowa become an independent revolutionary

as she takes over from Pawel, who is now in prison. In Scene 6, shegoes to live with the bourgeois teacher Nikolai Wessowtschikow, thebrother of Pawels comrade Iwan, because she has been evicted from herown home. Wlassowa converts her new neighbours to Communism andcajoles Nikolai into teaching them how to read and write so that they

can print their own leaflets. In Scene 7, Wlassowa visits Pawel in prisonto discover which peasants support the strikes in the countryside. Shedelivers propaganda to them in Scene 8 and convinces the local butcherto join the strike.

Brecht, Die Mutter (East Berlin: Henschel, [1951]), Berliner Ensemble Archive(henceforth BEA), box file 132;idem,Die Mutter: Bhnenfassung des Berliner Ensembles,ed. Joachim Tenschert (East Berlin: Henschel, 1970).

BFA, iii (1988), 3918.


23/274

10 Introduction

The final phase presents pivotal episodes from Wlassowas biographyand typical examples of her revolutionary activity. In Scene 9, Wlassowa

is reunited with Pawel for the last time. Their previous roles are reversed:Wlassowa prints political leaflets while Pawel prepares his own food.In Scene 10, she tries to win over customers in a shop; however, thisscene was written after the 1932 premire and was omitted from the1938 edition, Brechts own productions, and all the major stagingscovered in this book. This omission allowed Brecht and his successorsto move straight from the joyful reunion in Scene 9 to Scene 11, inwhich Wlassowa learns of Pawels death. Despite her grief, she continues

her political struggle by agitating against rent prices and superstition,turning down her landladys offer of the loan of a Bible. When the FirstWorld War breaks out, Wlassowa campaigns against it: unsuccessfullyat the street corner in Scene 12 and with better results at the coppercollection point in Scene 14. She battles against personal illness andinjury, struggling from her sickbed in Scene 13, and is rewarded inScene 15, in which she leads a demonstration in the 1917 Revolution.

Brechts selective adaptation of Gorkys novel emphasized the paral-lels between the situation in pre-revolutionary Russia and the WeimarRepublic, focusing on the topical issues of wage cuts, strikes, and policebrutality. By extending the action to 1917, Brecht reminded his spectat-ors that Communism had already triumphed in Russia and challengedthem to fight for a revolutionary solution to Germanys political andeconomic crisis. Eislers music heightened the plays political impact:the songs distilled the plays arguments and were performed separately

at concerts and rallies in 1932.Brechts version of Die Mutter combined different genres, like

agitprop, the biography play,Lehrstck, and historical drama. In fact, heassigned different generic labels to it on separate occasions, dependingon his theatrical interpretation as a director. In the 1933 edition, hewrote that the play was im Stil der Lehrstcke geschrieben (writtenin the style of theLehrstcke), and four years later the Russian writer

Sergey Tretyakov argued that it would be wrong to regard it as ahistorical play about a Russian working woman.Yet in 1951 Brecht

BFA, xxiv (1991), 115; Sergey Tretyakov, Bert Brecht, inBrecht: A Collection ofCritical Essays, ed. Peter Demetz (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1962), 1629(25).


24/274

Introduction 11

did precisely this when he called Die Mutter eigentlich einfach einhistorisches Stck (really just a historical drama).Ernst Schumacher

and Klaus Vlker follow Brechts first statement by arguing that DieMutter is aLehrstck, whereas Henning Rischbieter calls it aChronik(chronicle), and Werner Mittenzwei and Karl-Heinz Schoeps see it asa transitional work influenced by, but distinct from, the Lehrstck.In contrast, Petermichael von Bawey argues thatDie Muttershould beseen as a tragicomedy because the optimistic promise of a Communistvictory relieves the tragedy of the deaths of Smilgin and Pawel.

By attempting to pin down Die Mutter to a single genre, these

literary critics have overlooked one of the texts major features: itscomplex combination of a variety of genres and forms, which dir-ectors have exploited in different ways in performanceas Brechtsown comments indicate. This generic interplay is complicated fur-ther because the effect of the plays ending depends on the spec-tators knowledge of the outcome of the Russian Revolutionanoutcome that changed between 1932 and the most recent produc-

tion in 2003. So although the left-wing spectators of 1932 couldcelebrate the final demonstration as a Russian triumph and a prom-ise of future German success, audiences aware of Stalins Purgesand the collapse of the Soviet Union were unlikely to share theiroptimism.

4 . RE -I NT E RPRE T I NGDIE MUTTERFOR NEW AUDIEN CES

Although the plays initial topicality might suggest that it would bedifficult to transfer to other historical and cultural contexts, it has since

Werner Hecht (ed.), Materialien zu Bertolt Brechts Die Mutter (Frank-furt/Main: Suhrkamp, 1976), 125.

Schumacher, 381; Klaus Vlker,Bertolt Brecht: Eine Biographie (Munich: DTV,1978), 219; Henning Rischbieter, Brecht, 2 vols (Velber: Friedrich, 1966), i. 117;Mittenzwei, 94; Karl-Heinz Schoeps, Brechts Lehrstcke: A Laboratory for Epic andDialectic Theatre, inA Bertolt Brecht Reference Companion,ed.SiegfriedMews(Westport,Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1997), 7087 (701).

Petermichael von Bawey, Dramatic Structure of Revolutionary Language: Tragi-comedy in BrechtsThe Mother, inCritical Essays on Bertolt Brecht, ed. Siegfried Mews(Boston, Mass.: G. K. Hall, 1989), 96106.


25/274

12 Introduction

sustained a remarkable variety of interpretations and weathered politicaland cultural change even into the twenty-first century. These new

interpretations include Brechts own staging at the Berliner Ensemble(BE) in 1951, when he transformed the play into a historical drama,altered the balance between the epic and dramatic devices, and mademajor concessions to the political and cultural sensibilities of the GDRauthorities and audience.

In liberally revising and re-interpreting texts for the stage, Brechtdisplayed his flagrant disregard for Werktreue, the concept of fidelityto the original work, which conservatives have cited in defence of

dominant literary interpretations and traditional modes of performance.In his theoretical writings, Brecht argued consistently that directorsshould adopt a fresh approach towards the classics. For example, in anessay of 1929, he wrote:

Diese ehrerbietige Haltung hat sich an den Klassikern sehr gercht, sie wur-den durch Ehrerbietung ramponiert und durch Weihrauch geschwrzt. Eswre ihnen besser bekommen, wenn man ihnen gegenber eine freiere Hal-

tung eingenommen htte, wie die Wissenschaft sie zu den Entdeckungen,auch zu groen, eingenommen hat, die sie doch immerfort korrigierte odersogar wieder verwarf, nicht aus Oppositionslust, sondern der Notwendigkeitentsprechend.

Brechts view is now widely accepted by performance theorists as wellas directors. Whereas Werktreueassumes that a work has a stable andaccessible essence, reception theorists emphasize that a work can be

perceived only by individual subjects whose readings will differ. AsRichard Sheppard comments: a texts signified is not some kind ofGnostic essence that has been trapped within a fleshly prison of wordsand awaits its redemption there by a soteriological literary criticor,indeed, by a director.

This reverential attitude has taken a terrible toll on the classics; they have been

knocked about by reverence and blackened by incense. They would have fared better ifpeople had adopted a freer attitude towards them, just as science has adopted towardsdiscoveries, even to great ones, which it has constantly corrected or even refuted, notfrom sheer cussedness but from necessity. Gesprch ber Klassiker,BFA, xxi. 309 15(31011).

Richard Sheppard, Tankred Dorsts Toller: A Case-Study in Reception (NewAlyth: Lochee, 1989), 8. For two of the most influential contributions to reception theory,see Wolfgang Iser,Der Akt des Lesens: Theorie sthetischer Wirkung (Munich: WilhelmFink, 1976); Hans Robert Jau, Literaturgeschichte als Provokation der Literaturwis-senschaft(Konstanz: Universittsverlag, 1967).


26/274

Introduction 13

Even so, Brecht tacitly re-asserted Werktreue when he presentedhis postwar stagings as definitive and required other theatres to copy

them, a policy which his heirs continued. By ignoring the manypolitical and aesthetic compromises that Brecht had made in his 1951production of Die Mutter, this policy obscured one of the centralprinciples of his theatrical practice: his insistence on tailoring plays tothe context in which they were performed. The imposition of the 1951

Modellinszenierung(model production) caused stagings ofDie Mutterto stagnate in the 1950s and 1960s, and it was only in the 1970s thatdirectors began to re-interpret the play for their own times.

Although directors rarely copy Brechts postwar productions today,these stagings are still widely regarded as authoritative interpretationsof his plays and definitive statements of his theatrical practice. Forexample, in Brecht and the West German TheatreJohn Rouse extrapolatesBrechts staging methods exclusively from his work at the BE. Thisapproach replicates the teleological assumptions of literary critics likeMartin Esslin and Ernst Schumacher who interpret Brechts career as

a progression towards the mature plays. Moreover, it ignores thefact that Brechts postwar productions were designed for a uniqueand delicate situation, when epic theatre was under sustained attackfrom conservative aestheticians in the GDR. Instead of continuing toregard Brechts postwar productions as authoritative, scholars now needto examine them critically in their historical, political and culturalcontext.

The BE faced particular challenges in dealing with the model, as the

company experienced conflicting pressures after Brechts death: on theone hand, to preserve his achievements, and on the other, to continuethe process of innovation. My analysis of the BEs four productions ofDie Mutterreveals how, and how far, the companys priorities shiftedbetween 1951 and 2003 in response to changes in internal management,external state controls, and the broader theatrical, cultural and politicalcontext. These new insights are important, because no authoritative

history of the company has yet been published.The question of Brechts influence on twentieth-century theatre is cru-cial, because so many postwar practitioners use him as a reference point,

John Rouse, Brecht and the West German Theatre: The Practice and Politics of Interpretation, Theatre and Dramatic Studies, 62 (London: UMI, 1989).

e.g. Martin Esslin, Brecht: A Choice of Evils(London: Mercury, 1965), esp. 61,102.


27/274

14 Introduction

whether positively or negatively. His name has become synonymous withpolitical theatre: after 1968, Western left-wing practitionerslike Peter

Steinexplicitly invoked Brecht as their model, whereas in the 1990spostmodern directorslike Frank Castorfpresented their work asa reaction against Brechts political theatre of reason. Even so, SarahBryant-Bertail and Meg Mumford have both suggested that postmodernperformance actually exploits the radical potential of Brechts experi-ments. By examining contrasting productions since Brechts death,this book assesses the different ways in which directors have respondedto his legacy.

5 . METHODOLOGY: RECONSTRUCTINGPAST PRODUCTIO NS

Reconstructing past productions is, in the first instance, a historicaltask. Indeed, once performance is viewed as a social and historical

event as well as an aesthetic phenomenon, then it is clear that thereis no difference in principle between performance analysis and anyother form of historical investigation. Even though the theatre historianhas no direct access to the production, she or he can use a widerange of evidence to reconstruct the participants textual and aestheticchoices.

This study exploits an immense range of archive material from Ger-many, Britain, and the USA. It relies chiefly on archives in Berlin: the BEArchive, Brecht Archive, Bundesarchiv (Federal Archive), SchaubhneArchive, and Stiftung Archiv der Akademie der Knste (Academy of ArtsArchive). The BE Archive is a particularly rich resource because Brechtinsisted that copies of all correspondence, rehearsal notes, promptscripts, and set designs be deposited there, a policy which his successorshave continued. Even so, scholars have only recently begun to exploitits vast holdings: Bryant-Bertail has analysed the use of space and time

in Brechts stagings ofDer Hofmeister(The Tutor) andMutter Courage(Mother Courage), and Mumford has examined the role ofGestusacrossseveral productions.

Prompt scripts are central to my investigation, for they contain theedited text, together with notes on the actors movements, lighting,

Sarah Bryant-Bertail, Space and Time in Epic Theater: The Brechtian Legacy(Rochester, NY: Camden House, 2000), 153207; Mumford, 2046, 23757.


28/274

Introduction 15

music, and sound. I have collected prompt scripts of twelve productionsofDie Mutter. Even after directors have chosen which edition to use,

they may make changes for entirely pragmatic reasons, deleting lines toshorten the production, doubling up roles, and cutting minor charactersto fit their available cast: after all, Brechts 1951 production lastedthree hours and required a cast of forty-four actors. Such pragmaticchanges already interpret the text by deciding what is expendable, evenbefore directors add or rewrite lines in order to emphasize their ownproduction concepta tendency which became increasingly commonand important during the twentieth century.

Video recordings are the best visual and aural guide to past produc-tions, and I have collected recordings of four stagings ofDie Mutter.Such recordings are still far from ideal, for they transpose the livetheatrical performance into a different aesthetic medium, presentingviewers with virtual images rather than a physical presence, distortingthe lighting effects, and forcing the cameras perspective on the viewer.Consequently, even where video recordings are available, I have also

consulted photographs and set designs. I have obtained audio recordingsof a further two productions, which supply valuable information aboutthe music, line delivery, and audience response.

Whilst these sources provide evidence about the finished productions,it is also important to analyse the staging process and reception. Itrace each production from the initial discussions through to the finalperformances, using notes made by the director and his or her assistants,correspondence and records of discussions between the participants,

and nightly reports on performances (Abendberichte), wherever these areavailable. I examine how each company presented its production to theaudience through the programme, posters, press releases, and interviews,and then assess how theatre critics and other spectators responded,using newspaper reviews, questionnaires, and records of post-showdiscussions. Where appropriate, I examine how the authorities reacted

Die Mutter, dir. Bertolt Brecht, film dir. Manfred Wekwerth, DEFA, 1958 (Goethe-Institut, London);Die Mutter, dir. Wolfgang Schwiedrzik, Patrick Steckel, Peter Stein,film dir. Uwe Reuter (Akademie der Knste am Robert-Koch-Platz, henceforth AdKRKP);Die Mutter, dir. Hans-Joachim Frank, 1998 (Centre for Performance Research,

Aberystwyth, henceforth CPR);La Mre, dir. Jacques Delcuvellerie Groupov, film dir.Michel Jakar, Wallonie Image Production, 1997 (AdK RKP).

Cf. Marco de Marinis, A Faithful Betrayal of Performance: Notes on the Useof Video in Theatre,New Theatre Quarterly, 1.4 (Nov. 1985), 3839.

Audio recordings of the BEs 1974 production (BEA) and 1988 production(Manfred Wekwerths personal copy).


29/274

16 Introduction

to productions, using censorship reports and, in the case of the GDR,internal government records which have been made available since

reunification. This close attention to the changing reception ofDieMutter, by the authorities, theatre critics, and audiences, complementsBrechts own interest inZuschaukunst(the art of spectating).

The range and depth of this study far exceed those of most productionhistories. Indeed, one of the books central tenets is that productionhistories should be far more ambitious in their source material and scope.Like many production histories, Peter ThomsonsMother Courage andherChildrentheonlyotherproductionhistoryofaBrechtplayrelies

primarily on newspaper reviews, discusses none of the textual changesmade for productions, and pays surprisingly little attention to music,aesthetics, and set design.Whilst reviews can be valuable, they provideevidence of professional reception and inevitably reflect the critics pre-existing views of the writer, director, genre, or play. In this study, theyare therefore treated as just one among many other forms of evidence.The scope and detail of this evidence enable me to comment not only

on theatrical interpretations ofDie Mutter, but also on the process ofstaging and reception, and on broader issues of cultural, political andinstitutional history.

6 . STRUCTURAL OUTLINE

This production history focuses on the development of Brechts polit-ical theatre, the dissemination and reception of his staging methods,the institutional development of the BE, and Brechts influence ontwentieth-century political theatre in and beyond Germany. Accord-ingly, it concentrates on productions by Brecht and subsequent leadingGerman directors, Peter Stein, Ruth Berghaus, Manfred Wekwerth,and Claus Peymann, all of whom were committed to political theatrebut practised it in different ways. After Brechts own stagings, those by

Stein, Berghaus, and Peymann stand out because the directors inter-preted Die Mutter in new ways and produced high-quality stagings

e.g. [Die Schauspielkunst wird fr gewhnlich nicht in Bchern gelehrt], BFA,xxii.2. 61820.

Peter Thomson,Brecht: Mother Courage and her Children(Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1997). Cf. Douglas A. Joyce,Hugo von Hofmannsthals Der Schwierige:A Fifty-Year Theater History (Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1993); Egil Trnqvist,Ibsen: A Dolls House(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).


30/274

Introduction 17

that challenged the 1951 model. My broadly chronological approachallows me to identify lines of development, continuity, and change in

German political theatre, but I interrupt this account with a themat-ic chapter on translation and transference in order to compare whatproductions in different countries and continents reveal about theseissues.

In Chapters 1 and 2, I analyse Brechts two contrasting Berlinproductions. In Chapter 1, I investigate the plays genesis and 1932premire, exploring how Brecht collaborated with other artists and howhe responded to contemporary events through the text and its staging.

Then, in Chapter 2, I turn to Brechts 1951 staging at the BE andshow how he transformedDie Mutterinto an uncontroversial historicaldrama in order to overcome his audiences hostility to the Russiansubject-matter, make the play conform broadly to the principles ofSocialist Realism, and comply with the official line that the GermanRevolution had been completed in 1949.

The rest of the book examines how later directors have related Die

Mutterto the experiences of new audiences. In Chapter 3, I compare twoproductions in West and East Berlin, by Peter Stein at the Schaubhneam Halleschen Ufer in 1970 and by Ruth Berghaus at the BE in 1974.These stagings are particularly significant because Stein and Berghausdeveloped Brechts staging methods selectively and subversively to servetheir own political and artistic purposes. I examine how the broadercontext and internal theatre politics influenced these productions andtheir reception before considering what the case studies reveal about

cultural and political developments in both states. Next, in Chapter 4, Iexamine foreign-language productions in Europe and the USA. Afterproviding an overview of the plays international performance historyand explaining the patterns that emerge, I explore the different waysin which directors have negotiated the cultural difference between thetext and their audiences. I have deferred Brechts 1935 staging at theTheatre Union to this chapter because it is a clear example of failed

cultural transference.In Chapter 5, I consider four German productions between 1988 and2003, two of which were staged at the BE by Wekwerth and Peymann,and two of which were staged at smaller theatres, theater 89 in Berlinand the Stadttheater in Konstanz. Although the two latter productionsattracted less interest from theatre critics at the time, they are historicallyand politically significant because they provide contrasting perspectiveson Die Mutter after German reunification and on East Germanys


31/274

18 Introduction

attempts to come to terms with its recent past. The comparison of thesefour productions reveals how directors have thus far enabledDie Mutter

to survive the political system that it came to uphold. This is one of themost pressing challenges now facing not only this particular Communisttext but Brechts entireuvre.


32/274

1From Nizhni-Novgorod to Moabit: The

Genesis and Premire ofDie Mutter,

193121 . I NT RO D UC T I O N

1.1 The Analytical Focus

The genesis and premire ofDie Mutterprovide significant insights

into Brechts authorial and theatrical practice in the Weimar Republic,engagement with Communist ideas, and responses to contemporaryevents. He and his co-workers addressed topical, far left-wing debates,using dramatic, musical and aesthetic techniques that were stronglyinfluenced both by more widely practised recent experiments and byhis own ideas on epic theatre. In turn, the production and its receptionhelped Brecht to develop and articulate his aesthetic theories still further.

In political and aesthetic terms, Die Mutter is more complex thanBrechts presentation of it in 1932 suggests. Although he conceived theplay as a contribution to the political struggle of the German CommunistParty (KPD), certain aspects contravened the Party line and offendedCommunist commentators. These differences indicate the limits ofBrechts political grasp in 1932 and explain the Partys ambivalencetowards him. In the programme, meanwhile, his polemical claims forepic theatre obscured the substantial interplay between the epic and the

dramatic techniques in the text and its staging. In addition to exploringthe political and aesthetic complexities ofDie Mutter, my contextualanalysis of the premire provides a central point of comparison withBrechts postwar practice at the BE and productions in other historicaland cultural contexts.

1932 programme, Bertolt-Brecht-Archiv (henceforth BBA) SBbba 1797.


33/274

20 From Nizhni-Novgorod to Moabit

1.2 Source Material

Although the 1932 script has not survived, I have discovered substan-tial evidence about the staging in Brechts published and unpublishednotes, his collaborators testimonies, the set designs, photographs, news-paper reviews, censorship reports, and programme. By comparing the1933 edition of the text with these sources, I have established that itcorresponded closely to most of the 1932 script.

Scholars agree that Brecht made two changes for the 1933 edition:

he added a new scene, set in a shop, after Scene 9 and introduced a newcharacter, Smilgin, to Scene 5. However, he probably made another twomajor changes after the premire. Astonishingly, in over seventy reviews,not one theatre critic mentioned either Pawels death or the Bible scene(Scene 11 of the 1933 edition)not even Paul Brand, who devotedover 900 words to summarizing the action. The fact that no criticsmentioned Pawels death is remarkable, not just because of the eventsintrinsic significance in the plot, but also because it is revealed in an

epic reportthe Grabrede (Funeral Oration)that departs from thedramatic tradition just as strikingly as the demonstration scenes, whichdid elicit considerable critical comment.The Bible scene is the onlyscene of which no known photographs exist, andwith the obviousexception of Wlassowathe cast list in the programme does not men-tion its characters, the landlady, her niece, and the female worker, where-as it does list the secondary characters from other scenes. Moreover, even

though the reviewer in the Katholisches Kirchenblatt(Catholic ChurchNews) strongly objected that Wlassowa relinquishes her private life,delivers agitational leaflets, and joins demonstrations, she or he made noreference to Brechts anti-religious propaganda.So, in contrast to everyother scene in the play, there is absolutely no evidence that either theGrabrede or the Bible scene were performed at the premire, or indeed

e.g.BFA, iii. 482; Albrecht Dmling, Die Mutter, in Brecht Handbuch, ed. Jan

Knopf, 5 vols (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 2001), i. 294309 (297). Paul Brand, Brechts Lehrstck ein groer Erfolg,Die Rote Fahne(henceforthRF;

Berlin), 19 Jan. 1932. e.g. Herbert Jhering, Komdienhaus: Gorki, Pudowkin, Brecht,Berliner Brsen-

Courier, 18 Jan. 1932; Florian Kienzl, Veraltetes Zeittheater, Dresdner Anzeiger, 26Jan. 1932; Heinz Ldecke, Die Mutter,Illustrierte Rote Post, 4/1932; P[aul] W[iegler],GorkisMutter,Berliner Zeitung, 18 Jan. 1932.

H. B. [possibly H. Bachmann], Im Komdienhaus hat sich wieder einmal dieGruppe Junger Schauspieler breit gemacht, Katholisches Kirchenblatt (Berlin), 7 Feb.1932.


34/274

From Nizhni-Novgorod to Moabit 21

that Pawel died while attempting to escape in this version. It is possiblethat Brecht introduced these sections later in the run, after the reviews

had been published, for his essay and notes on the production mentionWlassowas anti-religious propaganda and a poem that reported Pawelsdeath.In any case, the fact that scholars have overlooked the reviewersomissions indicates how far, in the 1933 edition, Brechts Grabrededeparted from dramatic convention: in epic theatre the death of theheroines son no longer provided the all-important climax and catharsis.

2 . THE GENESIS OF THE TEXT

2.1 Of Course, Brecht has Always had his Collaborators

Although Brecht always presented Die Mutteras a collaborative project,he was characteristically lax about crediting his co-workers; at thepremire, the programme acknowledged just Brecht, Eisler, and Weis-enborn. We can only speculate why Brecht failed to cite his two

other collaborators, Hauptmann and Dudow. Perhaps the plays genesisalready seemed unusually complicated, given his acknowledgement ofthe teams sources. As it was, Ferdinand Junghans commented in a lead-ing nationalist newspaper: Die Entstehung ist diesmal so kompliziert,da man nicht genauer davon berichten kann.

ThediscrepanciesbetweentheacknowledgementsindifferenteditionsofDie Mutterhave subsequently created further confusion. Since the1933 edition followed the credits in the 1932 programme, Dudowwas first acknowledged in the 1938 Malik edition. In 1949, Brechtexplained that he had ordered his publisher to remove references toWeisenborn and the earlier adaptation from the 1938 edition, asthey could have exposed Weisenborn to danger: unlike Brechts othercollaborators, he was still in Germany in 1938.After the War, Brecht

[Das StckDie Mutter],BFA, xxiv. 11014 (112), 121. Er [Brecht] hat ja immer seine Mitarbeiter gehabt (trans. in subheading 2.1).

H. Bachmann, Die kommunistische Mutter, Germania (Berlin), 19 Jan. 1932. OnBrechts collaborative working practices and the genesis ofDie Mutter, see also Bradley,Collaboration and Cultural Practice: The Brecht Version of Die Mutter, BrechtYearbook, 28 (2003), 189 208.

The genesis is so complicated this time that we cannot go into it in any detail.Ferdinand Junghans, Man sieht nur noch die Trmmer rauchen, Neue PreuischeKreuzzeitung(Berlin), 18 Jan. 1932.

Brecht, DieMutter;GeschichtenausderRevolution,Versuche1516(Berlin:Kiepen-heuer, 1933), 64;idem,Gesammelte Werke, 2 vols (London: Malik, 1938), ii. 150.

BFA, xxix (1998), 563.


35/274


credited Weisenborn alongside Dudow and Eisler in the programmes forthe Leipzig production in 1950 and the Berlin staging in 1951, and the

1957 edition also acknowledged all three collaborators. Even so, Brechtrepeatedly failed to acknowledge Hauptmann, which suggests that shemay not have been credited for her work on other projects, either.

News of Hauptmanns involvement inDie Mutterwas not publisheduntil 1964, in Weisenborns autobiography. But even though hercontributions were acknowledged again by Fuegi in 1972, Jan Knopf in1980, and Heinz-Dieter Tschrtner in 1986, many critics have remainedunaware of them. For example, in 1983 John Willett asserted that

she was not among the principal collaborators on [Brechts] mostopenly Communist works, whilst Astrid Horsts 1992 biography ofHauptmann does not even mention the play, and volume iii of theBFA(1988) does not acknowledge Hauptmanns involvement. Indeed,although Paula Hanssens 1994 biography notes Fuegis claims about hercontributions, they were not corroborated until 1997, by Sabine Kebir.

The persistence of this confusion owes as much to the often

parochial nature of (auto-)biography as to Brechts inconsistent andinsufficient acknowledgements. Weisenborns biographers have ten-ded to focus exclusively on his testimony, whilst Hanssen mistakenlythought that Brecht and perhaps Hauptmann worked with a dram-atist called Eisenborn. Some critics even seem to have overlookedkey published primary sources: for instance, Emma Lewis Thomassignorance of Dudows and Hauptmanns involvement suggests that shewas unfamiliar with Weisenborns autobiography and the 1938 and

Programmes from the Stadtgeschichtliches Museum Leipzig and the BEA; Brecht,Stcke, ed. Elisabeth Hauptmann, 14 vols (Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 195367), v(1957), 6.

Gnther Weisenborn, Memorial: Der gespaltene Horizont: Niederschriften einesAuenseiters(East Berlin: Aufbau, 1982), 415, 540.

Fuegi, Essential Brecht, 228 n. 20; Jan Knopf, Brecht-Handbuch: Theater(Stutt-gart: J. B. Metzler, 1980), 119; Heinz-Dieter Tschrtner, Die Mutterfr das Theater,Neue Deutsche Literatur, 34 (1986), 16872 (170).

John Willett, Bacon ohne Shakespeare? The Problem of Mitarbeit,Brecht Year-book, 12 (1983), 12137 (128); Astrid Horst, Prima inter pares: Elisabeth Hauptmann:

Die Mitarbeiterin Bertolt Brechts(Wrzburg: Knigshausen & Neumann, 1992);BFA,iii. 479.

Paula Hanssen, Elisabeth Hauptmann: Brechts Silent Collaborator(Frankfurt/Main:Peter Lang, 1994), 10; Sabine Kebir, Ich fragte nicht nach meinem Anteil: ElisabethHauptmanns Arbeit mit Bertolt Brecht(Berlin: Aufbau, 1997), 2367.

Tschrtner, 1689; Roswita Schwarz,Vom expressionistischen Aufbruch zur InnerenEmigration: Gnther Weisenborns weltanschauliche und knstlerische Entwicklung in derWeimarer Republik und im Dritten Reich (Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 1995), 2047;Hanssen, 70.


36/274


1957 editions, despite having undertaken a detailed comparison ofDieMutter and its sources. Because of this basic oversight, one of her

conclusions is based on an entirely false premise: Weisenborn remainedthe only playwright on the list apart from Brecht; therefore, he had theopportunity to exert more influence on this version than he has perhapsbeen given credit for.In the absence of drafts ofDie Mutter, othercritics have made even bolder, largely unsubstantiated claims. Thusin 1986 Tschrtner declared that Gnther Weisenborn ist von denKoautoren mit Abstand der wichtigste, whereas in 1994 Fuegi calledDie Mutterthe HauptmannBrecht adaptation.The first significant

attempt to synthesize some of the published evidence was made only in2001, by Albrecht Dmling in theBrecht-Handbuch.

2.2 Contributions Towards the Text

All the available evidence suggests that Brecht was ultimately in chargeofDie Mutter, which was written during the summer and autumnof 1931. On 23 August 1962 Weisenborn told Hans Bunge, thenhead of the Brecht Archive: Kurz und gut: er bernahm bei diesemStck die Fhrungaufgrund viel besserer Einsichten in die ganzeProblematik des Klassenkampfes.Indeed, an entry in one of Brechtsnotebooks even suggests that his interest in Gorkys novel precededthe StarkWeisenborn adaptation. Dated to 1929, it reads: 1) Lobdes Wissens / 2) Unausrottbarkeit des Kommunismus / 3) Lingen / 4)

Begrung der Wlassowa.Evidence from Eislers and Hauptmannspapers confirms that the collective comprised four core members besidesBrecht. For example, Weisenborn told Bunge: Zuerst war ich mit

Emma Lewis Thomas, The Stark Weisenborn Adaptation of GorkysMutter: ItsInfluence on Brechts Version, Brecht heute,3(1973),5763(62).Seealsoidem, BertoltBrechts DramaDie Mutter: A Case of Double Adaptation (unpublished doctoral thesis,Indiana University, 1972).

Gnther Weisenborn is by far the most important of the co-authors. Tschrtner,172; John Fuegi,Brecht & Co.: Sex, Politics, and the Making of the Modern Drama(New

York: Grove, 1994), 269. Dmling, Die Mutter, i. 2957. In short: he took charge of this playbecause he had far better insights into all

the problems of class struggle. Conversation between Weisenborn and Bunge, 23 Aug.1962, Hanns-Eisler-Archiv (henceforth HEA) 2875/2, AdK RKP.

1) In Praise of Knowledge / 2) Inexterminability of Communism / 3) Lingen / 4)Wlassowas Welcome. BBA 804/35, also quoted by Dmling, Die Mutter, i. 295. Theorthography of quotations from Brechts manuscripts has been standardized.


37/274


Brecht alleindann kam Eisler dazu, dann Dudow, Elisabeth Haupt-mann. This testimony is corroborated by a letter that Hauptmann

wrote to Weisenborn on 6 July 1967 in which she recalled: [ich traf Sieerst wieder], als Brecht Die Mutterdramatisierte. Eisler war dabeiund Dudow.

The testimonies of Brechts collaborators also offer significant cluesabout the nature and extent of their respective contributions. Despite theevidence in Brechts notebook, Hauptmanns letter indicates that Weis-enborn initiated work on the new dramatization: Das war Ihr Vorschlag,und es wurde von Ihrer ersten Fassung ausgegangen.On two separate

occasions, Weisenborn himself laid claim to the copper collection scene.In 1962, he told Bunge da ich die Szene mit der Kupfersammelstellein [Brechts] Abwesenheit schrieb, und er hat sehr wenig darangendert.Three years later, in the GDR weekly newspaperSonntag,Weisenborn recalled: Ich brachte eines Morgens die Kupferkesselszenemit, die von den beiden zurechtgezupft und gebilligt wurde.In a sub-sequent interview with Joseph-Hermann Sauter, Weisenborn stated that

Eisler had contributed significantly towards the text, not just the music:Als Dramaturgen schtze ich ihn darum, weil er das tat, was einen gutenDramaturgen ausmacht, er hilft einem bei der Arbeit, er hilft dichten .Eisler fragte: Warum denn diese Szene? Dieser Charakter hat ja nur dreiEigenschaften, warum hat er nicht vier? Ein Mensch ist doch reicher, als nurdrei Eigenschaften aussagen. Und in der vierten Eigenschaft kann man dochdiese und diese Szene dann verstrken.

Eislers own testimony supports Weisenborns statement: on 18 Septem-ber 1961, he told Nathan Notowicz how much the characterization

At first Brecht and I were on our own then Eisler joined us, followed by Dudow,Elisabeth Hauptmann. HEA 2875/2.

[I did not meet you again], until Brecht was dramatizingThe Mother. Eislerwas present and so was Dudow. Hauptmann to Weisenborn, Berlin, 6 July 1967,Elisabeth-Hauptmann-Archiv (henceforth EHA) 627, AdK RKP.

It was your suggestion, and we proceeded from your first draft. I wrote the scene with the copper collection point in [Brechts] absence, and he

altered very little of it. HEA 2875/2. One morning I brought along the copper kettle scene, which they both straightened

out and approved. Weisenborn, Hanns Eisler,Sonntag(East Berlin), 10 Jan. 1965. I rate him as a dramaturge because he lived up to the definition of a good

dramaturge: he helps you with your work, he helps to write literature . Eisler wouldask: What is the point of this scene? This character has only three qualities, why doesnthe have four? After all, a human being is richer than only three qualities suggest. And wecan then use the fourth quality to strengthen these particular scenes. Joseph-HermannSauter, Gesprch mit Gnther Weisenborn,Sinn und Form, 20 (1968), 71425 (718).


38/274


of the teacher owed to his memories of his father, a neo-Kantianphilosopher der sich seine Lebzeit bemht[,] Idealismus mit Material-

ismus zuvershnen. (Er ist das Urbild des Lehrers aus derMutter. Ichgab Brecht diesen Bericht ber meinen Vater.)Significantly, Brechtacknowledged Eislers contribution to the text, crediting him both as acollaborator and as the composer in the programmes for the 1932 and1951 Berlin productions and in the 1933 and 1938 editions.

Although Brecht never credited Hauptmanns contributions, Weis-enborn considered them invaluable. In his conversation with Sauterhe spoke of her as someone die man nie vergessen sollte, wenn von

unserer Arbeit die Rede ist, da sie durch ihre sehr konkrete Klugheit dasliterarische Gewissen darstellte.Similarly, when interviewed in 1972for the documentaryDie Mitarbeiterin(The Collaborator), Hauptmannargued that her political experience had been crucial and that her namehad been omitted purely by chance:

Mein Beitrag zur Bearbeitung von Gorkis Die Mutterbedarf einer kleinenErluterung, denn mein Name steht nicht (das war purer Zufall) bei diesem

Stck. Der Beitrag war hier ein besonderer. Und kam bei mir auch aus einerganz anderen Ecke. Ich hatte etwas Neues kennengelernt und war voll davon.Ich meine damit, da ich politisch etwas mehr wusste, was natrlich sehr wichtigwar, und in die Partei eingetreten war und ziemlich bald mit Funktionen betrautwurde. Sonst htte ich mich garnicht ernsthaft mit der Heiligen Johanna, mitderAusnahme und die Regelund vor allem mit derMutterbefassen knnen.

Interestingly, Hauptmanns claim was not included when the doc-

umentary was broadcastperhaps another pure coincidencewiththe result that critics have overlooked these comments. As this omission

Who strives his whole life to reconcile idealism and materialism. (He is theprototype of the teacher fromThe Mother. I gave Brecht this report about my father.)Hanns Eisler, Briefe an Nathan Notowicz, inSinn und Form(Sonderheft Hanns Eisler),ed. Deutsche Akademie der Knste (East Berlin: Rtten & Loening, 1964), 27881(280).

Cf. nn. 1, 9, 11. Whom one should never forget when talking about our work, since her intelligence

and common sense enabled her to act as our literary conscience. Sauter, 718. My contribution to the adaptation of GorkysMotherrequires a short explanation,

as the play does not bear my name (this was a pure coincidence). Here I made a specialcontribution, drawing on a completely different part of my life. I had become acquaintedwith something new and was full of it. What I mean is that I knew more politically,which was naturally very important, and that I had joined the Party and been entrusted,fairly quickly, with responsibilities. Otherwise I certainly would not have been able todeal seriously withSaint Joan, The Exception and the Rule, and above all The Mother.Interview forDie Mitarbeiterin, EHA 354.


39/274


suggests, Brecht does not bear sole responsibility for the long delay inacknowledging her input.

On at least three occasions Hauptmann made more precise claimsabout her contributions. According to Fuegi, she told him in 19667that she had suggested openingDie Mutterwith a direct address tothe audience. This claim has recently been corroborated by Kebirsdiscovery of a will which Hauptmann had drawn up in 1962, stating:Dabei sei vermerkt, da bei einigen Stcken, in die ich auch eineganze Menge (fast erkennbar) hineingesteckt habe (Mann ist Mann,Der Jasager, Die Mutter, vor allem hier die 1. Szeneder 1. Maidie

Bibelszene) ich nicht beteiligt bina reference to royalties.Haupt-manns letter to Weisenborn contains a similar claim: Ich selber durftezur Eingangsszene (die zuletzt geschrieben wurde), zum Bericht vom 1.Mai und zur Bibelszene etwas beisteuern. These claims are entirelyplausible, for the epic reports in the opening scene and May Daydemonstration were influenced by Japanese Noh drama, which Haupt-mann knew well from her work on Arthur Waleys translations. Finally,

the fact that Hauptmann subsequently wrote a commentary on theBible scene suggests that she may well have had a vested interest in it.The above evidence casts serious doubt on speculation by Thomas and

Tschrtner that Weisenborn was Brechts most significant collaboratoron this project. Eislers recollections undermine their claims even further,since he told Bunge that Weisenborn hatte keine Ahnung and machtedie komischsten Vorschlge, weil er einfach den Arbeitsstil Brechts

Fuegi,Essential Brecht, 227 n. 15, and 228 n. 20. Here it should be noted that I do not have a stake in several plays, into which I

(almost recognizably) put a great deal (A Mans a Man, He Who Says Yes, The Mother,in this case above all Scene 11 Maythe Bible scene). EHA 462, quoted by Kebir,2367.

I myself was able to make a contribution to the opening scene (which waswritten last), to the report of 1 May and to the Bible scene. EHA 627. In theshort autobiographical story Gedanken am Sonntagmorgen (Thoughts on SundayMorning), Hauptmanns narrator recalls: Wir [Brecht und ich] haben auch oft bis

spt gearbeitet. Die Vielfraszene usw. aus Mahagonny, die Bibelszene aus derMutter,viele Gedichtealle wurden spt am Abend, manches noch spter geschrieben. (We[Brecht and I] often worked late too. The glutton scene etc. from Mahagonny, the Biblescene fromThe Mother, many of the poemsthey were all written late in the evening,some later still.) Elisabeth Hauptmann,Julia ohne Romeo: Geschichten, Stcke, Aufstze,Erinnerungen, ed. Rosemarie Eggert and Rosemarie Hill (East Berlin: Aufbau, 1977),22632 (230).

Bertolt Brechtet al.,Theaterarbeit: Sechs Auffhrungen des Berliner Ensembles, ed.Berliner Ensemble and Helene Weigel, 3rd rev. edn (East Berlin: Henschel, [1966]),1446.


40/274


noch gar nicht zur Kenntnis nehmen konnte. It thus seems likelythat both Thomas and Tschrtner fell prey to Weisenborns occasional

tendency to distort the facts. For example, inSonntaghe referred onlyto his work with Brecht and Eisler, whereas we know that Dudow andHauptmanndie man nie vergessen sollte (whom one should neverforget)were also involved. Likewise, in a lecture given on a Russiancruise in 1968, Weisenborn told his listeners:

Vor 35 Jahren haben drei Theaterleute aus Berlin durch ihre Arbeit an derMutter ein wenig dazu beigetragen, die Gedanken Gorkis in der Welt zuverbreiten. Als allein noch Lebender von ihnen erlaube ich mir, den Dankvon Brecht, Eisler und von mir dieser neuen, vernderten Welt gegenberauszusprechen, die uns hier hchst lebendig umgibt.

Although the above evidence suggests that some critics have under-estimated Hauptmanns involvement, it still does not justify Fuegisdescription ofDie Mutteras the HauptmannBrecht adaptation since,besides implyingwronglythat Hauptmann was in ultimate control,this description marginalizes the contributions of Dudow, Eisler, andWeisenborn. Moreover, in the absence of any evidence about the natureand extent of Dudows involvement, it would be unwise to claim thatany one of Brechts collaborators was more important than the others.

2.3 Brechts Practice of Collaboration

Despite their limitations, Weisenborns accounts offer a fascinating

insight into Brechts working methods, which closely resembled thecollaborative approach commonly found in theatre. In fact, the adhoc improvisation that Weisenborn describes suited the project well,for it allowed Brecht and his collaborators to create dramatic dialoguecollectively, through dialogue with each other. In an unpublishedsection of the manuscript for Memorial Weisenborn reveals: Wir

Didnt have a clue, made the most bizarre suggestions, simply because he wasnot yet able to take Brechts way of working on board. Hans Bunge (ed.),Gesprche mitHans Bunge: Fragen Sie mehr ber Brecht: Hanns Eisler im Gesprch(Leipzig: DeutscherVerlag fr Musik, 1975), 38.

35 years ago, three theatre practitioners from Berlin played a small part inspreading Gorkys ideas around the world, through their work on The Mother. As theonly one of them alive today, I would like to express the thanks of Brecht, Eisler,and myself towards this new, changed world which surrounds us here, brimming withlife. Weisenborn, Wie wir GorkisMutterdramatisierten, Gnther-Weisenborn-Archiv(henceforth GWA) 107, AdK RKP.


41/274


spielten einander auch die Szenen vor in verschiedenen Fassungen, wiesie jeder von uns dachte. He recalls that Brecht often invited his

collaborators to discuss scenes that he had written in advance, whilston other occasions the group wrote completely new ones or sketchedout the dialogue together. Weisenborn also remembers that Brechthad a blackboard in his studio and that they would each write a line ora scene on it, an account which accords with a photograph of Brecht,Dudow, and Eisler using a blackboard to map out their ideas forKuhleWampe.

Ever the pragmatist, Brecht sought advice on Die Mutter from

all quarters. For instance, Weisenborn recalls that occasional visit-ors to Brechts apartment, including the critic Herbert Jhering, thedirector Erich Engel, and the actors Theo Lingen and Peter Lorre,were invited to express their opinions. During rehearsals, Brechtlistened to suggestions from the cast and crew, and the technicianHelmuth Morbach claims that his comments prompted Brecht to alterone line:

In der Mutterwar ein Vers ber die Polizisten und Soldaten, die viel Geldbekommen und zu allem bereit sind. Ich sagte, da ich nicht der Meinungsei, da sie viel Geld bekommen, ein Arbeiter verdient doch mehr als einPolizist. Brecht hat gendert, die wenig Geld bekommen, doch zu allembereit sind. Ich wute doch: im Arbeitsnachweis in der Gormannstrae liefder Luxemburgmrder rum. Viel kann er nicht bekommen haben fr seinenMord.

These examples support the impression given by Brechts more theoret-ical writings: that his overriding concern was the quality of the play, notthe proprietary authorship of each line. As Weisenborn commented:

We performed the scenes to each other in different versions, as we each imaginedthem. Weisenborn, draft manuscript ofMemorial, GWA 306/151.

HEA 2875/2 and 5;Memorial, 415. HEA 2875/2; Werner Hecht,Brecht Chronik(Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 1997),

311. Weisenborn,Memorial, 415. InThe Motherthere was a line about policemen and soldiers, who receive alot

of money and will go to any lengths. I said that in my opinion they didnt receive alot of money; after all, a worker earns more than a policeman. Brecht changed it to:who receive little money, but will go to any lengths. After all, I knew that [Rosa]Luxemburgs murderer was hanging about in the job centre on Gormannstrae. Hecant have received much for his murder. Kthe Rlicke, Dreizehn Bhnentechnikererzhlen, in Sinn und Form (Sonderheft Bertolt Brecht), ed. Deutsche Akademie derKnste (East Berlin: Rtten & Loening, 1957), 46577 (471).


42/274


Brecht kannte berhaupt keinen Besitz-Instinkt; Szenen, die gut waren,nahm er.

3. PREPARATIONS FOR THE PREMIERE

The rehearsals for the premire highlight the contradictions in Brechtstheatrical practice towards the end of the Weimar Republic. Althoughaccounts of Brechts development often imply a chronological shift fromthe operas Die Dreigroschenoper(The Threepenny Opera) andMahagonnyto the more austereLehrstckeand the overtly Communist works, therehearsals forDie Mutterand the revised version ofAufstieg und Fallder Stadt Mahagonny (The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny)actually took place at the same time and in the same building, theTheater am Kurfrstendamm. They were even financed by the samebusinessman, Ernst Josef Aufricht, who had backed Die DreigroschenoperandHappy End. Although Aufricht had no sympathy for the political

aims ofDie Mutter, he considered his investment a small price to pay forBrechts absence from the rehearsals forMahagonny, where his constantarguments with Kurt Weill were threatening to ruin the production.

Most of the actors for Die Mutter came from the Gruppe JungerSchauspieler(Group of Young Actors), a collective that had adapted tothe economic crisis by renting out empty theatres and dividing profitsamongst its members. Although the group had lower overheads thanpermanent companies, it was still short of funds: Gerhard Bienert, whoplayed the teacher inDie Mutter, received only ten marks for the entirerun. As many of the members had previously worked with Piscatorand acted inKuhle Wampe, they were familiar with recent, far left-wingcultural experiments. Their social commitment was evident from theirrepertoire, which included plays by Peter Martin Lampel, FriedrichWolf, and Theodor Plivier.Since the production ofDie Mutteralsoinvolved lay actors, including Brechts future collaborator Margarete

Steffin, it bridged the gap between professional and amateur theatre.

Brecht had absolutely no proprietary instincts; he took scenes which were good.HEA 2875/2.

Ernst Josef Aufricht,Erzhle, damit du dein Recht erweist(West Berlin: Propylen,1966), 1267.

Gerhard Bienert, Ein Leben in tausend Rollen, ed. Dieter Reimer (East Ber-lin: Henschel, 1989), 80.

Ibid. 5780.


43/274


Like the genesis of the text, the production demonstrated Brechtsskill in gathering together talented co-workers, many of whom would

subsequently collaborate on his postwar productions at the BE. Mostnotably, theGruppe Junger Schauspielerwas joined by the actors ErnstBusch, Theo Lingen, and Helene Weigel. Busch had already acted inDie Dreigroschenoper, Die Manahme(The Decision), andKuhle Wampe,whilst Lingenwho was married to Brechts former wife MarianneZoffhad played the clown at the controversial premire of DasBadener Lehrstck vom Einverstndnis(The Baden-Baden Learning Playon Consent). Although Weigel had also performed in several of Brechts

productions, including Mann ist Mann (A Mans a Man) and DieManahme, he still doubted her suitability for the part of Wlassowa,a wonderful irony given her success in the role between 1932 and1971. Brecht also appointed his long-standing collaborator CasparNeher as the set designer and Emil Burri as the director. A keen amateurboxer and aspiring playwright, Burri had collaborated with Brecht andHauptmann onDie heilige Johanna der Schlachthfe(Saint Joan of the

Slaughterhouses) and assisted with the 1931 production ofMann istMann. Even though Brecht attended all rehearsals from 22 Decem-ber onwards,the programme credited Burri as sole director and didnot mention Brechts involvement. Since this omission contradicts thethesis that Brecht systematically exploited his co-workers, Fuegi ingeni-ously suggests that he lacked the courage to assume responsibility fora Communist production.Nevertheless, the fact that he was alreadyresponsible as co-author suggests that the omission more probably

resulted from his lack of Besitz-Instinkt (proprietary instincts).Starting on 12 January, four closed performances of Die Mut-

ter were held in the Wallner-Theater, which was situated near theJannowitzbrcke, seated 1,300 and had recently housed the thirdPiscatorbhne. Then, on 17 January, the production opened to the pub-lic in the Komdienhaus am Schiffbauerdamm, which had a capacityof 1,100, before transferring on 25 January to the Lustspielhaus, which

had 633 seats and was located on Friedrichstrae near Hallesches Tor.Although the production closed on 10 February, Weigel recalls that one

Werner Hecht,Helene Weigel: Eine groe Frau des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts(Frank-furt/Main: Suhrkamp, 2000), 65.

Hecht,Brecht Chronik, 182, 195, 303, 340. Ibid. 316. Fuegi,Brecht & Co., 283. Karl Baedeker, Berlin und Umgebung, 20th edn (Leipzig: Karl Baedeker, 1927),

1516.


44/274


further performance took place on 29 February in a community hall inthe working-class district of Moabit.Since the collective capacity of

these venues suggests that

[laura bradley] brecht and political theatre

Documents