Pirooz Aghssa has been a Theater Professor at Eastern Michigan University since 1992. In 2008 he directed a production of George Tabori’s Brecht on Brecht (published 1967). The production ran from March 28 through April 5, 2008 at the Quirk Theater on the EMU campus. We, unfortunately, were asleep at the wheel and missed reviewing the production, so we decided to catch up with Professor Aghssa fresh off of his most recent production, Tony Kushner’s Angels in America I: Millenium Approaches, and asked him to share his “recovered memories” of the Brecht on Brecht production from 2008.

 

Brecht on Brecht was conceived by the Hungarian playwright George Tabori in the early 1960s and performed Off Broadway to great success throughout the 1960s. Along with the translations of plays and poetry by Eric Bentley, Ralph Manheim, and John Willett as well Willett’s Brecht on Theatre (1964), Tabori’s anthology of poems, play excerpts, and excerpts of HUAC Testimony was one of the key texts in regards to the post-WWII Brecht reception in America. CIBS is engaged in a project evaluating the future of Brecht in American Culture for the 21^st Century and so is highly interested in how a canonical text of this reception is still working on the contemporary stage.

 

What was your background in Brecht and what was your attitude toward his theory and praxis before you mounted the Tabori work in 2008? We noticed that your previous productions at EMU did not include Brecht and that your music theater productions tended more toward Sondheim than Brecht/Weill/Eisler, etc… Was this just happenstance, or did you consciously work outside of the Brecht orbit before 2008?

 

My initial contact with Brecht happened around 1972 when I was a 12 year old boy growing up in Tehran, Iran. My aunt came upon two tickets to a production of Brecht’s The Visions of Simone Machard. This production was presented by a group of students at the University of Tehran. These students were not “theatre majors” and they were not putting on a play in order to sharpen their acting skills in the hopes of future theatre careers. For these young people living in a country that did not offer freedom of speech, a theatre experience was one of the few means of having a dialogue about important issues in a sublimated way as to not arouse the suspicions of the authorities. Even though I was too young to fully understand the play or the relationship of the actors to it, I felt a sense of commitment and purpose emanating from the stage and fully shared by the audience. This was real political theatre in a country where there was and is a great deal of repression. In such a society the relationship between a work of art and its audience is shaped in ways that are unimaginable in America. Many years later I was fortunate enough to see a production of Tony Kushner’s Homebody/Kabul in New York City shortly after 9/11 and I was overwhelmed because it had the same atmosphere and energy of performance/audience relationship that I experienced with the Visions of Simone Machard in Tehran. This too was real political theatre in a country where there is freedom of speech and theatre is not the primary venue for political discussion.

 

Shortly after seeing Simone Machard my parents took me to see an Iranian play, Shahre Gheseh (City of Stories) by a wonderful Iranian playwright, Bijan Mofeed, who unfortunately has since passed away. This play was extremely popular and it used Brechtian techniques of alienation to critique the influence of the Islamic clergy in Iran. Of course it is only in retrospect that I recognize the Brechtian techniques used in that play. At the time of viewing it (along with many other audience members) I thought the production was wonderfully entertaining and absorbing but it also had important issues to explore.

 

You are absolutely right that my music theatre work has tended more toward Sondheim than Brecht/Weil. There has been a great deal of discussion about the Brechtian structure of Sondheim’s shows even though he himself denies any such influence. My attraction to Sondheim has always come from what I consider his separation of the traditional musical comedy format from its traditional context. To me that is one possible definition of ‘alienation’. But beyond all that, I am a theatre person and the theatricality and non-illusionistic techniques of Brecht have always been very much a part of my aesthetics. I firmly believe that it is impossible to be a serious theatre artist at this point in time without some substantive grounding in the theories of Brecht.

 

And here’s a follow up to the first question. Since Brecht on Brecht in 2008 you have followed it up with Angels in America. Tony Kushner is a self-proclaimed Brechtian playwright. Did your work with Tabori/Brecht influence you with Angels in America? Does this represent a conscious change in the type of productions you want to direct or just an arbitrary occurrence?

 

My work on Brecht on Brecht was sort of like an etude that prepares one to play a concerto that is Angels in America. My work on Angels was very much informed by Tony Kushner’s (and my own) Brechtian influences. What inspired me about working on a script such as Angels in America was immersing myself in the work of a writer who is already politically committed. In his search for communicating his ideas he has found that theatre is the form that can contain his political content. The last scene of Perestroika has that non-sentimental open-ended quality that leaves the doors wide open for future exploration and progress (both onstage and off). And after all is that not what Brecht wanted to communicate in his theatre? I find that incredibly moving and reassuring.

 

As far as future productions, I have this sense of anxiety that I may not find material as strong as my last two shows. In the fall I am actually directing A Funny Happened on the Way to the Forum which is as far away from Brecht on Brecht and Angels in America as one can go. I am setting the play in a rehearsal room where the company is preparing the production. I have found that audiences love when something unexpected happens onstage and the illusion of reality goes out the window. They love to be invited into the process and theatre never allows them to. I want to show what might happen when a production is in rehearsal and what kinds of relationships and conflicts may arise.

 

We noticed that you have an interest in Anne Bogart’s Viewpoints “Method.” We just interviewed Anne about her 1988 production of No Poetry, No Plays in which she used Brecht’s theoretical works to construct a type of performance anthology. She knew the Tabori piece, but consciously avoided copying its use of poetry and plays. Were you aware of this production and did it influence you?

 

Although I am not familiar with No Poetry, No Plays, I am a passionate admirer of Anne Bogart’s theatre work and her writings. I was present at a Viewpoints Symposium in New York City a few years ago where Anne Bogart mindful of the common belief that Stanislavski is the father of the American theatre, proposed that perhaps Martha Graham should be called the ‘father’ of the American theatre. Her statement resonated with me not just because of its opposition to the long-held tradition of realism in the American theatre as the only way of doing theatre, but because it radically shifts the whole notion of what theatre is and how much more it could possibly include and address. I use Anne Bogart’s books as required reading for my directing classes and it is very encouraging to see the immediate connection that my young students have with her writings and her worldview.

 

You also have an interest in the Meisner Technique. Brecht, of course, had some issues with Stanislawski and by extension Method Acting. This tension continues in the academic work of David Krasner for example. Do you see the Meisner Technique as a branch of Method Acting? Do you see Brechtian Method in conflict with Meisner?

 

Meisner had some issues with Stanislavski and by extension Method Acting as well, which I think is why he devised his own acting technique. Fundamental to the Meisner technique is the notion of embracing the moment for what it is and not for what one wants it to be. Also central to this technique is listening and reacting to one’s fellow actor. Meisner teaches actors to remain alert and constantly direct their energy outward. He also teaches the actor to tell the truth and refuse to communicate in that coded language that the society requires of us. Although there is a perception that the Meisner technique may be more suitable for realism and film work, I think that the preliminary foundation of it is necessary to any method of acting and performance. The Neighborhood Playhouse where Meisner developed his theories has always been a testing ground for cutting edge and interdisciplinary work. Remember that Martha Graham had her beginnings there.

 

Ok, let’s talk about the play: Why did you decide to do Brecht on Brecht in 2008 for a student production? Did the text seem timely? Did a Cabaret / Introductory Anthology on Brecht seem timely? Did the conservative political climate since 9/11 seem ripe for “alienation”?

 

In the preface to Brecht on Brecht, George Tabori encourages directors to select, add, cut, etc. from the existing script in order to make a statement about their own time. I found that extremely liberating. I wished to work with a script that was not entirely structured by the playwright. I had also just returned from a one-year sabbatical in New York City where I studied cabaret performance techniques and performed my own one-person show. Cabaret performers do not take refuge behind a character. They confront the performance material directly from their own point of view. This particular approach radically changes the traditional audience/performer relationship which exists in the theatre. To me that is quite “Brechtian.” I felt that Brecht on Brecht would offer a wonderful opportunity for experimenting with some the cabaret techniques that I had learned.

 

As I picked and chose material from the published text of Brecht on Brecht (without thinking about a theme in advance) I realized that the theme that eventually emerged was mostly about displacement and marginalization which resonated well with me because of my immigrant experience and because of the post 9/11 after-shocks and the ways they were dealt with by the Bush administration.

 

So, Brecht on Brecht took me beyond the sphere of directing a finished text whose parameters were clearly set by the playwright. I had become bored with the predictability of theatre production in this country and wanted to work on something that would allow me to explore expanding some boundaries. What I found most exciting was the sense of ownership of the material that the student’s found during the course of the rehearsals. They fully understood that their critical attitude toward the text was the source of that ownership. Several of them expressed to me afterwards that they had found freedom in their work that previously eluded them.

 

Did it seem like an easier way to present Brecht to both actor and audience in Tabori’s form rather than a full play like Mother Courage?

 

From the audience perspective this was not an easier way at all. Many viewers who were used to more traditional theatre had a hard time connecting one episode to another and even a harder time watching the episodes individually without trying to find an arc in the totality of the script. I think some people were bothered by the fact that there was no proscribed through-line that one usually gets in a realistic play.

 

I had seven actors some of whom were freshmen and as a result they were still too young to be fully indoctrinated in the ways of “the method.” They were ready to jump in, play, and explore. My challenge was to make sure that they had a political point of view about the lines they were saying and not supplying them with my own. So throughout the rehearsal process I would interview them informally to see what kind of critical stance they had in connection with Brecht’s material that they were entrusted.

 

I would love to direct Mother Courage which I think because of the Iraq war (and other wars currently being fought) has an eerie resonance and relevance. I am not sure if Brecht on Brecht is an easier or more difficult way to present Brecht instead of a full-length play such as Mother Courage. I think Brecht demands a specific kind of participation from the audience (and the actors) that is demanding in a totally different way than other forms of theatre. So in whatever incarnation Brecht presents certain difficulties but ultimately rewarding ones.

 

How did you introduce Brecht to the students? Did you work purely through the poetic and dramatic material or did you supply the students some of the theoretical writings? Was there some difficulty for actors and audience in getting BB? Did you have them draw contrasts with Aristotle, Stanislavski?

 

We used a variety of ways to introduce the students to Brecht. They were given reading material that required them to do a lot of historical research. We also worked very physically in rehearsals. I had a movement specialist (trained in the lecoq technique) and we made sure that the acting impulse was first and foremost physical and not purely psychological. We had a lot of discussions trying to delve into the political layers of Brecht’s writing and finding contemporary parallels. The students were asked to take each piece of material and supply it with their own political commentary. In that way, we were trying to engage the students’ own critical mechanism with regards to the material. For me the most important thing was for the production to be alive and contemporary instead of a reconstruction of the past. There was no reason to draw contrasts with Aristotle and Satnislavski. Acting is more about doing and less about theorizing. If a student actor needed to approach the material less ‘realistically’ then they were told to do so and they often found the necessary dimensions.

 

To what degree, if any, were you influenced by the original production of the 1960s? Did you research any other productions from the 1970s on?

 

I researched the original production but only to the degree that I would draw inspiration and enthusiasm from it. I did not want to know how the production was structured, designed, or performed specifically as that would color and influence my personal confrontation with the text. One thing that I have been aware of for many years is the way Brecht is sometimes done at universities. Some of these productions look as if the director read a Brecht Rule Book and tried to follow a list of already existing practices: barbed wire fences, light bulbs hanging from the ceiling, and some such visuals that are frankly overused and cliché. My goal was to find a new way of arriving at the idea of alienation. My question was “can a theatre audience in 2008 really be alienated? And from what do we want them to be alienated and distanced? For many people in America who do not come from a theatre going background, the idea of being in the theatre is already alienating. For traditional theatre goers subverting their expectations can be alienating. I find that the majority of dramatic works in the United States are written to get ONE specific reaction from the audience. The writing is seldom open enough to allow the audience to make a decision about how they want to perceive and react. I think that limits the possibilities of a theatre experience enormously. I believe the audience can be put in a position where they have to choose how to react to a theatre production rather than the production choosing the reaction for them. For an audience that has been spoon-fed, that can we very alienating. I wanted the work on Brecht on Brecht to open possibilities for decision-making on the part of the audience, the actors, the designers, and indeed myself.

 

Did you use all the material or only selections? What vignette worked particularly well? What did not work so well?

 

I have already explained my process of selection. I just would like to add that I had to be aware of how much each individual actor had to do and that there was a balance among the cast in terms of the distribution of the selections. Even though there was a “theme” many of the vignettes were self-sufficient. I made sure that the selections were placed next to one another in order to create a certain degree of variety. But I also made sure not to explain the transitions from one piece to another to the audience. That was their business.

 

 

Can you paint a composite picture of the production for us? Feel free to include and refer to production or rehearsal photos for these questions. What did the stage look like? What kinds of props were used? What kind of mise en scene were you shooting for?

 

The stage was essentially bare. The concept for the production was a post-apocalyptic circus with a variety of clowns. The costumes and make-up were highly stylized to the degree that some of actors were not recognizable by their friends. As the production progressed and as discoveries were made, elements of costume and make-up disappeared until the actors ended up in their own street clothes. So it was a journey from a highly theatrical mask to the actor’s own persona. I guess my aim was to create a mise that combined the theatrical the other in order to show the process of masking and unmasking.

 

How was the production received?

 

The reception of the audience was varied. If they were theatre people or theatre-going they were more receptive to it. If they were intellectually inclined and knew history and current events then they had an easier way into the production. If they were hoping to see Oklahoma! they were disappointed.

 

I read an article recently written by Tony Kushner about “difficult art”: The kind of art that is not readily accessible to a large majority of the people. The educational system in America has failed on a grand scale in the last few decades. Additionally, we just came through eight years of the Bush presidency where a lack of intellect and learning was extolled as desirable. There was an insidious attempt to create suspicion toward intellectual inquiry and education. We who work in the theatre are the unfortunate recipients of that kind of backward thinking in terms of who comes to see our productions. A theatre production cannot supply the audience with all the answers. An audience member has to bring something to the table before he or she attends a performance of Mother Courage. The educational system in America has abandoned the responsibility of supplying the students with what they need to bring to the table.

 

When I was growing up in Iran, two long-running productions in Tehran in the 1970s were The House of Bernarda Alba and The Cherry Orchard. These productions were seen by masses of people who were hungry to explore serious questions because their lives had placed them directly in the center of historical events that they could not control or escape. Can you imagine the House of Bernarda Alba running for over a year on Broadway? It is a tremendous statement.

 

Would you do it again? Would you want to mount another Brecht production?

 

I would love to do another Brecht production. I am passionate about Mother Courage and its contemporary resonances. I am also fascinated by the shorter “learning plays” which I think ask very significant questions.

 

This is probably the most important series of questions for the interview. Do you think there needs to be a new Brecht on Brecht for the 21^st century? What texts would you keep from the original, what would you add? How would your version of a new text look like?

 

A few years ago there was an article in the American Theatre that asked whether Brecht was relevant after the fall of the Soviet Union and the triumph of the capitalism. With the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, and with the collapse of our economy, Brecht is once again frighteningly relevant! But what Brecht has confirmed for me is the possibility of theatre being a valid and necessary venue for political discussion and activism. And frankly if the theatre in a country is unable or unwilling to explore serious sociopolitical questions, then some disconnection has occurred that needs to be analyzed seriously. So I do believe that there needs to be a Brecht on Brecht for the 21^st century. This new version might attempt to embrace history and cultures (Western and Non-Western). The text might include not only Brecht but playwrights who influenced him and are influenced by him. I would include old and new. I would include texts from other cultures and languages. I would even include non-Brechtian pieces to create a deeper and wider sense of context. I believe that we live in a world that one person’s story is ultimately another person’s story and vice versa. In order for me to absorb your story, however, I have to surrender my arrogance and extend outward from my world to other worlds. Brecht on Brecht for the 21^st century could very well reflect some those issues.

 

Do we need Brecht? Especially now? More than ever? Or, is he a museum piece?

 

I do not see Brecht as a museum piece at all. There is something about his theatricality that will always remain relevant. There also the theoretical assumption that human progress is a possibility. I cannot imagine that such an assumption could ever become a museum piece.