Theatre of the Oppressed Forward and Reaction

Theatre of the Oppressed—Augusto Boal

© 1974 © 1979 English Translation

Translation by Charles A. & Maria-Odilia Leal McBride

Forward

Note: After studying theatre at Columbia University and through his work at Arena Stage in São Paolo, Brazil, Augusto Boal developed Theatre of the Oppressed. He was influenced by his Brazilian countryman and friend, Paulo Freire, and based his theatrical method on Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

In the forward of Theatre of the Oppressed, Augusto Boal asserts that theater is an activity of man and all the activities of man are political, so theater is political.  This position is the point from which all his contentions about the structure of theater are based.

He prompts us to remember that theater began with people freely singing and that the theatrical performance was created by and for the populace. “It was a celebration in which all could participate freely” (p.ix). All people could be a part of the event and contribute in ways that were meaningful to them and that supported the efforts of the group as a whole.

Later, the aristocracy gained control over theater and divisions were established.  Those separations included certain people on stage who were allowed to act, while the rest of the people would remain seated as spectators, receptive to the performance, but passive to its creation.  The aristocracy also included the tenet that the spectacle would reflect the dominant ideology, with some of the actors portraying the protagonists—the aristocracy and the rest of the performers would be the chorus. Boal lays this groundwork to introduce Aristotle’s coercive system of tragedy which explains this type of theater.

After the aristocracy’s influence on theater came the bourgeoisie who changed the nature of the protagonists.  No longer were they objects which embodied moral values, but multidimensional subjects and exceptional individuals, still separated from the people as new aristocrats. This perspective, Boal offers, is that of the poetics of virtù of Machiavelli.

Boal continues to lay out his thinking by introducing Bertolt Brecht. Brecht’s reaction to Machiavelli’s poetics was to take the concept of character as absolute subject as theorized by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and alter and restore the qualities of an object within those characters.  Only this time, characters are objects of social forces—social beings that determine thought.

Once these philosophic positions have been made, Boal completes the forward by highlighting what was happening in Latin America at the time of his writing.  He mentions how barriers created by the ruling class were being destroyed and how, in theater, that model was being torn down through the concept that “all must act, all must be protagonists in the necessary transformations of society” (p. x).  He continues on to describe that all must be the chorus and the protagonists simultaneously.  He calls this system poetics of the oppressed.

Reaction

            The late Augusto Boal has been a compelling personality in theatre for years.  Only recently have I made it a priority to read Theatre of the Oppressed completely, rather than excerpts and interpretations from others on Boal’s work.  From the forward, I realize that reading this text will be less of a challenge for me that reading Freire’s work.  However, mentioning philosophers whose names I recognize but whose work is new to me will provide me an opportunity to reflect not only on Boal, but connections at a more human level.

            Throughout the short forward, Boal presents a general progression of not only theatre, but of society.  The connections between theatre and society (and politics) he introduces make the structure of theatre and its evolution clear to me.  I am eager to explore the details of what he has presented.

            The one thing that remains at the back of my mind is that Boal has submitted for consideration the relationship of western theatre and western society/politics.  I question the development of the theatrical art form in cultures other than the one with which I am a product and most familiar.  Is that other development the same?  Did the “aristocracy” in other cultures commandeer theatre to control the populace and further the political ambitions of a select few?  Perhaps my knowledge of other forms of theatre is limited and I will need a different source of material to explore those questions.