Demands for Empathy
By Martin Harries
The Threepenny Opera
By Bertolt Brecht and Kurt Weill
Brooklyn Academy of Music
(closed)
1.
A still:
What first person demands this, and of whom? Is
this a symptom of the incoherence those hostile to the occupy movement
seek in its manifestations, or is it the core of the call for economic
justice? This positive demand for an affective response does not accept
the blindness to consequences that describes the signature of the invisible
hand. Its dislocation of a struggle over economic injustice to the sphere
of affect might also, however, defuse the force of the critique: if
you feel my pain, I will go home and occupy the private space where
you think I belong. Further, the demand for empathy might undo the material
basis of the movement's protests against massive inequality.
And yet one might also give the sign credit for
a more mischievous canniness, about finance, politics, and empathy alike.
Far from the naïve call for palliative fellow-feeling, for the corporate
citizen condescending to stoop to imagine my place as his, her, or its
own, the sign's demand may register precisely the impossibility of such
recognition: such empathy does not belong to the corporate world. For
the mere act of asking for it reveals the inhuman autism of the corporate
"person" and mocks the idea that any such empathy might ever take meaningful
or material form. The demand for this empathy includes the demand for
economic justice that would make empathy meaningful. Until then, there
can be no empathy: it doesn't belong in this theater.
2.
Brecht famously complained that the established
theatrical apparatus of his day could neutralize any content. In notes
he wrote in the connection with The Threepenny Opera, he famously
complained:
The theater apparatus's priority is a priority
of means of production. This apparatus resists all conversion to other
purposes, by taking any play which it encounters and immediately changing
it so that it no longer represents a foreign body within the apparatus
-- except at those points where it neutralizes itself. The necessity
to stage the new drama correctly -- which matters more for the theater's
sake than for the drama's -- is modified by the fact that the theater
can stage anything: it theaters it all down.
Brecht was worried that the opera he, Kurt Weill,
Elizabeth Hauptmann, and others had produced might have neutralized
itself on the way to its success, might have become something other
than the subversive "foreign body" inside the apparatus that they had
hoped to lodge there. The play's political purpose had become the purpose
of the apparatus, "theatered down" to entertainment. Robert Wilson's
encounter with The Threepenny Opera raises similar questions:
Will the Wilson machine resist "conversion to other purposes" or will
it change in response to the "foreign body" of Threepenny?
The spotlights, the elegantly lit cyclorama with the complicated sequences
of perfectly calibrated sheets of color, the entr'actes played before
the curtain, the almost tortured choreography of angular bodies, the
late expressionist glitter and doom making up the actor's faces: could
anything give? In short: no. The Wilson apparatus proved invulnerable
to any potential subversion that Brecht and Weill's piece might yet
hold.
What, then, of the much-repeated notion that
Wilson was in some way intended to direct The Threepenny Opera?
"My own opinion is that Robert Wilson was destined to confront the superior
ensemble work of the Berliner Ensemble and to wrestle with the material
of Threepenny Opera," said Joe Melillo, Executive Director
of the Brooklyn Academy of Music. This is puffery, of course, but maybe
more than puffery, and it points to another question. Maybe a better
question. Not: in what way does The Threepenny Opera change
the apparatus that is the Wilson stage machine? Rather: in what way
might the essence of the work have been lurking there all along?
Wilson has for some time now been searching for
his Brecht and Weill: collaborations with Tom Waits and William S. Burroughs,
with Lou Reed and Edgar Allan Poe, and other such confabulations, have
visited Brooklyn and toured the world, but none has yet caught fire
in Wilson's era as Threepenny did in Brecht and Weill's. (It's
true that the recent collaboration between Lou Reed and Metallica began
with songs Reed wrote for Lulu, a Wilson production based on
Wedekind, so maybe Wilson has found his Bobby Darin. Probably not.)
He's clearly looking for the edgy-popular, and longing for a commercial
hit. Imagine, say, Alice -- the 1992 collaboration between
Waits, Wilson, Paul Schmidt, and Lewis Carroll -- running for two years
on Broadway and you have something like the shock of the initial success
of Threepenny.
All the productions just mentioned might be seen
as would-be successors to Threepenny, which invite us to ask
what Brecht (or the emulation, or envy, of Brecht) makes newly visible
in Wilson. Those whited sepulchers passing for characters, that frigid
precision that makes stage pictures as alluring as they are isolating,
those stabs at humor that seem like slapstick for an audience that has
forgotten how to laugh: the Wilson apparatus has always appeared to
resist incursions from a political or social world outside it. The sheer
ease with which that apparatus subsumed Threepenny into itself,
then, might lead one to think, to paraphrase Brecht, that Wilson wilsons
the politics all down: the foreign body of political content becomes
part of a formal experiment that neutralizes it.
Such an indictment raises larger questions about
what political force can possibly survive the festival circuit and the
ever-receding, ever-returning next waves of the Brooklyn Academy of
Music. These are beyond the scope of this essay. But let me nibble at
the corner of them via a face.
3.
Right now, in late 2011, this face has a particular
pop-culture referent. With its exaggerated eyebrows, the goth outlining
of the eyes themselves, the deathly whiteness of the skin, it recalls
nothing more vividly than the petrified mask of V in V for Vendetta,
the comic mask of the revolt against the security state. The revivified
Guy Fawkes of graphic novel and film is omnipresent nowadays: in the
global reoccupations of public space, his mask -- "the jokey icon of
festive citizenship," as Jonathan Jones calls it in The Guardian
-- has appeared everywhere in assemblies. This evocation of V recalls
especially the climactic scene of the film, where thousands of anonymous
Londoners don identical masks in preparation for V's explosive demolition
of the Houses of Parliament. Yet the iconological roots of the mask
go much deeper, as Jones argues, deep into the carnival culture of Europe.
And these roots inform Wilson's pale creatures. Why these white masks
now?
Consider the women in Wilson's Threepenny.
The superbly agile performers of the Berliner Ensemble made Wilson's
exaggerated versions of gendered movement all the more startling. The
abjection of the women, coerced into absurd postures, emphasized the
isolation into petrified gender roles that is one feature of Brecht's
text. In the opening scene, Mrs. Peachum (Traute Hoess) was especially
constrained, moving as if in some Teutonic rendition of a geisha's movements,
with touches of a shorebird's shuffling and pecking. Then her transition
into song was striking: singing of the moon over Soho at the end of
that scene, Hoess was transformed into someone very different, powerful
and enlivened.
"When an actor sings," Brecht wrote in his commentary
on Threepenny, "he undergoes a change of function." Here that
change included a female performer refusing the femininity Hoess had
evoked and exaggerated a moment before. "His aim," Brecht writes further
of the actor who sings, "is not so much to bring out the emotional content
of his song (has one the right to offer to others a dish that one has
already eaten oneself?) but to show gestures that are so to speak the
habits and usage of the body." With Hoess and all the show's performers,
their change of function during singing brought out habits and usages
of a potential body, of a self sometimes quite radically different from
the one seen constrained at other times. The songs did contain the charge
of "emotional content," as expected in musicals, but this content was
also the site of a political charge: masks fell, or different masks
became visible.
It is strange that Polly Peachum sings one of
the most beloved of Threepenny's songs, "Pirate Jenny"--strange
because soon enough we also encounter a character named Jenny, who might
just as well sing the song. This repetition, as though there weren't
enough names to go around, is part of the point: in singing from the
standpoint of the harassed barmaid who knows that a ship with eight
sails and fifty cannon is soon to come in and rescue her, Polly sings
for Jenny, too. The actress Stefanie Stappenbeck, whose "Pirate Jennie"
was one of the highlights of the evening, owned this song, so to speak,
by giving it away--by understanding the deep engagements implied by
Brecht's understanding of the songs. The political content didn't have
to do with the actor, in the theatrical or the political sense, but
rather with a potentiality to change one's place, which belongs to everyone
and anyone. For all its frozen style and the elaborate control over
the choreography of every movement, this production brought home the
destabilizing force of this ability to change one's skin. It may be
that the Wilson apparatus, with its Grand Guignol parade of pale masks
of the neoliberal order, has always contained a ghastly suggestion of
something like this power to transform.
The carnival promise--you become the mask you
wear--is also always a kind of threat: you may be not Polly, but the
pirate incognito.
Furthermore: a lack of certainty about who the
other might be always complicates empathy. What connects the occupation
under the sign of V and a rarefied production of Brecht is not only
a carnivalesque challenge to certainties about self and other, but also
the latent threat that comes with that challenge.
-----------------------------
Threepenny Opera photos copyright Stephanie
Berger.