By Omar Abdul Karim Sabagh
2022
Between the platform world and the viewers
Lupe de Vega defined theater as human beings, emotions, and platforms (1). This definition presents theater as a relational field. However, there is a relationship that is not conveyed by this definition, a relationship with another component of the fundamental components of theater: the audience. In fact, it can be said that there is no theater without an audience. The following is an attempt to explore this relationship between the world of the platform and the world of the audience.
The study of this relationship began long ago with the final section of Aristotle’s definition of tragedy. (This simulation takes place in a dramatic form, not in a narrative form, with events that evoke pity and fear, thus leading to catharsis) (2).
Aristotle defines this relationship through emotional reception and purgative action. The audience experiences emotions of pity that allow them to empathize with the protagonist on a subconscious level. This creates a simulation between the actor and the audience. Fear, on the other hand, is an action performed by the audience that mirrors the actions of the actor on the stage. During the process of catharsis, the audience rids themselves of these heavy emotions, either through the cathartic process of identification, where the audience purges their heavy emotions and replaces them with a sense of joy when the actor overcomes obstacles, or through educational means that maximize the audience’s errors and acknowledge them.
Bertolt Brecht, influenced by his Marxist beliefs, observed this negative relationship, as he called for a theater that uses and encourages ideas to change the field itself (3). Brecht began by changing the terminology of the relationship and proposed an alternative to catharsis called “Verfremdungseffekt” or “alienation effect”. Alienation arises from presenting reality in a strange and unfamiliar way that keeps the audience constantly engaged. In his view, the negativity lies in the audience’s identification with the actor, as proposed by Aristotle, and the belief that such identification hinders the critical thinking of the audience. This hindrance does not lead to real change in the public sphere. To bring about change beyond the walls of the theater, we need a relationship in which the audience plays an active role, demolishing the fourth wall, the imaginary barrier that exists between the world of the stage and the audience.
Augusto Boal took this process of demolition even further. In traditional theater, we present images of the world to be contemplated. However, in the Theater of the Oppressed, these images are presented in order to be destroyed and replaced with others (4). In fact, it is the audience who presents the drama in the Theater of the Oppressed. The demolition in the practice of the Theater of the Oppressed is a real demolition of the fourth wall. The audience is no longer a passive spectator but an active participant. They watch and are prepared to enter the world of the stage as agents of change within the dramatic event. Boal considers this readiness itself as an action. He tells us about the angry woman who built this bridge between the world of the stage and the audience. When using the technique Boal called “instant theater” before it transformed into Forum Theater, the actors would represent the suggestions of the audience themselves. The woman expressed repeated anger and frustration towards the representation of her suggestion. Boal then offered her the opportunity to enter the stage and perform her suggestion herself (5). This offer represents catharsis in the Theater of the Oppressed. It is the relationship that unifies the world of the stage and the audience to become one world. Catharsis in this context is not a conditioning catharsis but a transformative one. The audience actively engages in catharsis, changing the reality of the theater, in order to transfer this change to their lived reality.
Through this analysis, it becomes clear how the relationship between the world of the platform and the world of the audience has evolved. Initially, it was a psychological relationship with a singular dimension, where the receiver passively and negatively received the world of the platform according to Aristotle. Then, it transformed into an active and conscious participation, where the audience becomes aware of this relationship and engages critically in order to change their reality through the symbolic demolition of the fourth wall, as proposed by Brecht. Finally, Boal took this process further by physically demolishing the wall between the two worlds, by allowing the audience to enter the world of the platform and expanding the platform to encompass the world of the audience. This can be referred to as aesthetic training.
Sources:
1. Augusto Boal, “The Rainbow of Desire,” translated by Nora Amin, Arab Theatre Authority, p. 30.
2. Aristotle, “Poetics,” translated by Ibrahim Hamada, Anglo Egyptian Bookshop, p. 95.
3. Bertolt Brecht, “The Little Organon,” translated by Farouk Abdulwahab, Sharjah Center for Intellectual Creativity, Hala for Distribution and Publishing, p. 43.
4. Augusto Boal, “The Rainbow of Desire,” translated by Nora Amin, Arab Theatre Authority, p. 97.
5. The previous reference, p. 18-20.
