Directing 'A Raisin in the Sun' via a Brechtian adaptation

Q1. Imagine that you are directing Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun and the producer specifically requests an either Brechtian or Artaudian adaptation of the play. Between epic theatre and Theatre of Cruelty, which style would you choose, and why? And how would you stage it? Be sure to use at least THREE specific quotes from the theory and describe in detail the THREE pivotal scenes that would best illustrate your concept in terms of language, mise en scène, costume, acting, music etc. Your answer should demonstrate knowledge of the entire play as well as the theory.

 

 If a mean producer specifically decided to trouble me with such inexorable demand and if, I must choose, I would put my hands on Bertolt Brecht’s epic theatre rather than the Theatre of Cruelty. My decision has keen relationships with both the properties of each adaptation and the significance of Hansberry’s script of the play has.

 

 First of all, let me tell you brief information regarding the important element of epic theatre. Epic theatre is not meant to refer to the scale or the scope of work, but rather to the form it takes. And as the man himself argued that “Art is not a mirror held up to reality but a hammer with which to shape it.”, the theatrical movement is designed to wake up the audience, providing a more intense and essential vision of reality. Well, this is actually in line with Artaud’s understanding of theatre, but we’ll see how they diverge. Epic theatre is about working on an audience’s consciousness and waking them up to the political realities just beyond the trifling sentiments that the drama has. These political discussions what Brecht notably paid attention are to ‘topple exploitive capitalism’ or to ‘create a critical aesthetics of dialectic materialism’. This indeed is what I think matches the essential discourses that the story holds: Materialism vs Spirituality, race conflicts that widens the gap between rich and poor, questioning the validity of the capitalist agenda: American Dream, etc. In contrast, what Artaud tries to work on is an audience’s unconscious and waking them up to myth, magic, violence, and ritual. As Artaud himself stated as “I would like to write a Book which would drive men mad, which would be like an open door leading them where they would never have consented to go, in short, a door that opens onto reality.” , Theatre of Cruelty may arouse people’s subconscious and lead them to confront the reality that has been nowhere to be found, yet the matter we are addressing seems to be more suitable for the other wake-ups. Plus, as a director, I would worry if I may blow the chance to use the strong narrative and story of the play when I choose the Artaudian adaption.

 

 In order to execute the arousal, Brecht mainly applied the Verfremdungseffekt, as known as the V-effect which is a technique or set of techniques to estrange the audience from the play. He believed that an estranged audience would be forced to engage with a play’s content actively and intellectually. Here is how he put it. “The epic theater's spectator says: I'd never have thought it -- That's not the way -- That's extraordinary, hardly believable -- It's got to stop -- The sufferings of this man appall me, because they are unnecessary -- That's great art; nothing obvious in it -- I laugh when they weep, I weep when they laugh.” To do this, he put the various elements of theatre in ways that wouldn’t integrate into harmony but continuously ejecting the audience from the theatrical illusion. Thus, in this kind of theatre, disbelief will not be suspended.

 

 With that being said, my primary focus in directing this play would be to constantly remind the audience the fact that this is a play, not a reality by ejecting them from it, but at the same time, I would try to drive them into the inconvenient problems of reality that is shown in the play such as the manipulative capitalist structure or the slave-based economy at the hand of racial oppression. Furthermore, it would be best to instigate them to take steps further with their own approach to the problems. The three pivotal scenes that would best illustrate my concept here are followed. I will try to focus on ‘describing’ the scenes rather than explaining every purpose of each design since they are all linked to these dominant goals.

 

 The first one is in Act One, Scene Two, where Walter Lee Younger becomes angry and asks Mama how she expects the family to rise from poverty. Above all, this scene shows how capitalist structure and pursuing of the false American Dream can eagerly tear down the already unstable family. So Walter runs into the house full of excitements expressed from his head to toe. His outfit is just the same as he wears at work, but his tie and shirt look a bit messy and he is even wearing his white driver’s gloves. Without even get some dirt off his shoes, his eyes are all sticks to the check from the insurance right after he enters the house. Soon he gets to hold the check with his white-gloved hands and see it’s real, quite a rhythmic drum sound starts to beat. Despite Mama’s words telling he should talk to his wife, Walter’s excitement and the beating of the drums gets intensify. But Mama says no to his investment and the drum stops beating. Walter starts to blame Mama and pushes away Ruth who tries to talk to Walter. Ruth being fed up to Walter, goes to the audience on one side and blows off her steam to them. Meanwhile, Walter tells shortsighted things to Mama like, “What she (Ruth) ever do for me?”, and that is where narration of the play comes out; pouring criticisms to Walter’s lines like, “He obviously became blind by money and not seeing clearly enough to cherish the preciousness of people who love him the most.” From few lines to few lines, this narration now puts comments or rather, interferes with Walter but of course, actors proceed as nothing happened. Walter continuously expresses that he wants to storm out of the house and narration says, “He is clearly avoiding the further conflicts that need to be solved.” Finally, he starts to yell at mama and admits that his dreams and desires drive him crazy. And this time, he turns his body towards the audience and shouts the lines to them, especially when he describes how his ‘job’ is an absurdity. This would totally break the fourth wall and directly touch the audience’s mind. After that, he turns back to Mama and tells her “Money is life and it always was”. Once again, the narration comes out and says, “Is it, really?”. And before she says anything, the big black screen would come down and show vivid white letters: “How would you answer him if you were in her situation?” The stage asks the audience a question and ‘Tick-tock-tick-tock…’ clock ticking sounds would be played and fill the entire theatre.

 

 The next one is in Act Two, Scene One, where Walter gets incensed over George mainly for his inferiority complex. The scene bluntly represents how the monetary gap widely creates a sense of incompatibility and disputes among people within the capitalist structure. So, first of all, George, the young and wealthy black assimilationist is sitting down on the sofa and the figure of this is quite different than usual. Even though he is on the same couch and in the same flat that the family lives in, as soon as he sits down, the height of the sofa, only his seat and its ground would go up in the air just amount of height that he could look down on Walter. And he is well at ease wearing his fancy white suit, spotless white shoes, and luxurious accessories like the gold watch or the shiny belt. Then, on the other hand, Walter comes in, intoxicated, wearing his disheveled shirt, and begins to offend the young man. However, at the same time, he mentions his big dream of business plans which he would like to talk to George’s father but George casually dismisses the request. At this point, as a director myself will go out to the stage, I mean to the audience’s side and standing there, I would tell the actor playing George’s role the stage directions loud and clear. Like, “okay 민영 (actor’s name), respond him [With boredom.]!” or “Okay this time, [look at Walter with distaste, showing you are a little above it all (literally) ]!!” The actor will show me a sign of approval and proceed with the play. This will give the audience the right amount of awkwardness and help them to look directly into the problem one way or another. What is more, I would display the subtitles of both the characters’ lines of quarrel through a big monitor placed on each side.

 

 Finally, the third critical scene is in Act Three, where Walter makes a call to the man-Karl Lindner and brings him to the house. The scene suggests the very first directionality of the attitude of how we deal with the exploitive capitalism and the racial discrimination which is indeed my goal of the Brechtian adaptation of the play. So Travis, who is the key figure of this scene, comes upstairs to say the movers have arrived and he is followed by Lindner. Lindner sits to the table very efficiently and it seems that he is having hard times hiding his grinning face, saying he is glad the people are accepting his offer. When Ruth points Travis to go downstairs, Mama specifically points him and the overall audience to stay and witness what Walter is about to do. Travis, not understanding the situation clearly, first sees each family member’s eyes and then the outsider’s. Then he suddenly goes out to the downstage, and breaks the fourth wall saying, “Do you really think dad is going to cell the house to that hypocritical snob?” Now he waits for a moment, no one would most likely speak and the theatre would become deadly silent. Then again, Travis adds “Never mind, what do you care? I didn’t even expect you to help.” and goes back to his seat; the play proceeds. Well after that, the play goes pretty much faithful to the script which is Walter telling Lindner that they are plain but also very proud people and he finally announces that they are moving into the house their father earned. Lindner gets confused, still has no option but to leave. While Travis, who paid his full attention to listen and witness throughout the whole situation, again speaks out to the audience, “You see? That is our spirit. Watch and learn folks, watch and learn!”. Through this, the audience would at least be educated the fundamental sprit: to face the matter and confront the reality.

 

Answered by 김통렬