Augusto Boal

Frances Babbage

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138592001
• eBook ISBN: 9780429939433
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Theatre

This newly-updated volume looks at the scope of Augusto Boal's career from his early work as a playwright and director in Sao Paulo in the 1950s, to the development of his ground-breaking manifesto in the 1970s for a 'Theatre of the Oppressed'. Offering fascinating reading for anyone interested in the role that theatre can play in stimulating social and personal change, this useful study includes:

• 
  
  

• a biographical and historical overview of Boal's career as theatre practitioner and director

• 
  
  

• an in-depth analysis of Boal's classic text on radical theatre

• 
  
  

• an exploration of training and production techniques

• 
  
  

• practical guidance to Boal's workshop methods

This is an essential introduction to the work of a practitioner who has had a tremendous impact on contemporary theatre. As a first step towards critical understanding, and as an initial exploration before going on to further, primary research, Routledge Performance Practitioners are unbeatable value for today's student.

1
Biography and Context

Augusto Boal (1931– ) is unquestionably one of the most important and influential of contemporary theatre practitioners. Early in his career he achieved critical recognition for his innovative work as playwright and director at the Arena Theatre of São Paulo. His now classic text Theatre of the Oppressed, written when the repressive political climate of Brazil in the late 1960s and early 1970s had forced him into exile, could be considered essential reading for anyone engaged with the question of whether theatre might be able to effect transformations in people’s lives. The flexibility and accessibility of Boal’s methods have encouraged widespread dissemination. Theatre of the Oppressed techniques have been applied, adapted and reinvented by practitioners all over the world. Directly and indirectly, his practice has entered contexts as diverse as political protest, education, therapy, prison, health, management and local government, as well as infiltrating the mainstream theatre establishment – and the list goes on.

This book provides an introduction to Boal’s work in its various manifestations. The principal focus is upon the Theatre of the Oppressed, since it is this above all which has established his reputation. This first chapter outlines Boal’s life and career to date, contextualising Theatre of the Oppressed’s birth and subsequent developments. Chapter 2 examines Boal’s most famous – and controversial – work of theatre theory and explains its relationship to his practice. Chapters 3 and 4 focus on the direct application of Theatre of the Oppressed, the former through analysis of Forum Theatre as practised by two companies, and the latter by providing a structure for workshop exploration of techniques.

Context for a Theatre of the Oppressed

In stable countries, artists know where they stand – serene and unperturbed. They know what they want and what is expected of them. In a Brazil cast adrift, everything was and is possible: we asked where we were, who we were, where we wanted to go.

(Boal 2001: 264)

It is always helpful to know something of the context in which artists have developed their practice. Sometimes, however, it is essential. Boal is one such case. The body of ideas and techniques that constitutes the Theatre of the Oppressed was not born from purely, or predominantly, artistic decisions and experiences, but grew out of a determined battle to make socially engaged, life-affirming theatre in a climate of extreme repression.

The history of Brazil in the twentieth century is one of economic chaos, instability and unrest. Brazil is a huge country, occupying almost two-thirds of South America, and supporting a population of over 170 million; São Paulo, centre of the manufacturing industry, is the second largest city in the world (after Tokyo). Within Brazil, the gap between rich and poor is immense. Nowhere is this reflected more clearly than in the pattern of land distribution. A 2000 statistic indicated that around 1 per cent of the population owns half the agricultural land (much of it bought for speculation and left unplanted), a glaring inequity which contributes to the country’s extremes of poverty and wealth and has long been a source of violent conflict. For much of the century, Brazil has been ruled by a series of military dictatorships. While some of these governments introduced measures intended to redress economic imbalance, the tension between social reform and the need to increase production and maximise profit means that these have frequently been unsuccessful, with the initiatives of one government abandoned by the next.

The theatre practice of Boal and his contemporaries must necessarily be understood in relation to this context. It is possible to identify a series of distinct periods within Brazil’s recent history, each with their consequences for the country’s cultural development. The 1950s and early 1960s were a time of economic instability, with ambitious plans for industrial development – supported by large foreign loans – foundering on sinking coffee prices. This, coupled with chronic inflation, provoked unrest resulting in strikes and riots from workers and students. The artistic activity of this time was marked by a critical, reformist consciousness, and strongly nationalist sympathies. My discussion of Boal’s years at the Arena Theatre of São Paulo shows how the company attempted to produce artistically innovative and politically radical theatre, and especially to foster the work of Brazilian playwrights and establish a genuine ‘Brazilian aesthetic’, all the while struggling against heavy financial constraints. The military coups of 1964 and 1968 were key points in a period of severe repression that continued, with fluctuations, throughout the 1970s. The power of the (military) government increased with civil liberties correspondingly restricted; oppositional parties were outlawed or refused to participate in the corrupt electoral process. All forms of cultural expression came in for heavy censorship. However, while this period saw the arts under attack, it also witnessed the rise of a theatre actively opposed to the dictatorship in the work of such groups as Arena and Teatro Oficina, both based in São Paulo, and Opinião, based in Rio de Janeiro. The process of redemocratisation began in the late 1970s, with civilian government restored in 1985 and a new constitution formed in 1988. (This was by no means the end of Brazil’s economic problems; indeed the late 1980s saw the country’s worst recession in years.) Boal was invited back to Brazil in 1986 after fifteen years in exile, during which time he had consolidated the techniques now famous as the ‘arsenal of the Theatre of the Oppressed’ (Boal 1992: 60).

Although censorship had considerably relaxed by the late 1970s, it has taken some time for Brazil’s theatre to recover from its effects. Writing in 1989, Severino João Albuquerque describes a situation whereby older playwrights such as Boal and his contemporary Plínio Marcos (1935– ), both of whom suffered the full harshness of the authoritarian regimes, were still recovering from the impact of years in exile. At the same time a younger generation of writers, who grew up in an atmosphere of oppression, had yet to make a distinctive contribution (Albuquerque 1989). In 2001 Weinoldt reflects on the 1980s and 1990s as a period of artistic diversity marked by a shift away from overt political commitment towards a focus on individual experience, evident in the work of Maria Adelaide Amaral (1942– ) and Luís Alberto de Abreu (1952– ), among others. Weinoldt considers that cultural resistance remains an important feature of the Brazilian theatre, most notably in the continued efforts to develop genuine alternatives to mass-mediated culture. The ambitions of Arena, Oficina and Opinião in the 1960s to create a theatre rooted in Brazilian culture for a popular audience are carried on by now well-established groups such as Tá na Rua (You in the Street) and Teatro União e Olho Vivo (Union and Live Eye Theatre), both of which seek audiences in the poorest areas (Weinoldt 2001).

Augusto Boal: Early Years

Augusto Boal was born in Rio in 1931, son of José Augusto Boal and Albertina Pinto Boal. His parents were Portuguese, his father exiled from his homeland in 1914 following his refusal to support Portugal’s involvement in the First World War. José Augusto went back briefly in 1925 to marry his fiancée and take her to Brazil, but the Boals never returned to Portugal as a family. When Augusto Boal grew up, Brazil was under the dictatorship of Getúlio Vargas. The Vargas government, officially styled Estado Novo (New State), was totalitarian in character yet maintained friendly relations with the United States and other democracies (Bethell 1994: 7–11). Diplomatic relations with Germany were broken off in 1938 when evidence was uncovered of Nazi involvement in an earlier revolt against the Vargas government by Brazil’s ultra right-wing Integralista organisation, and once the Second World War had been declared Brazil came down firmly on the side of the Allies. But whatever the country’s declared allegiances, Boal recalls inconsistencies of behaviour among adults he knew; he notes that many members of the violent movement Justiceiros Contra O Nazismo (Upholders of Justice Against Nazism) were formerly active within Integralista, switching their loyalties to ensure they were ‘always on the side of the strong’ (2001: 91).

Boal’s early years were happy ones. His parents were economically comfortable and their attitudes liberal. Boal’s love of theatre found expression in shows staged in the family dining room by the ten-year-old Boal, his siblings and their cousins, and in the first plays he wrote, using his mother’s sewing machine as a table. As Boal represents it, his attitude then was characteristic of the approach he would later adopt as an adult practitioner. In the staged shows, no individual ‘owned’ their character; whoever was available to take on a role at the critical moment would do so, interpreting it as they saw fit. On his childhood literary efforts, he comments: ‘When I read a story and did not like it, I would rewrite it’ (2001: 89), hinting at the philosophy he would later develop in the Theatre of the Oppressed. From the practice of Simultaneous Dramaturgy, where the audience have the power to propose developments away from a given script that the actors then concretise, through to Forum Theatre, where they can intervene at any point in the drama, Theatre of the Oppressed emphasises that that which is prescribed – literally, already written – is always open to interrogation.

In 1948 Boal began studies at the National School of Chemistry, University of Brazil. His choice arose from a wish to gratify his father, and an impulse to stay close to a current girlfriend who intended to pursue the subject – a plan foiled when he passed the entrance exam, but she didn’t (Boal 2001: 105). At no point did Boal abandon his theatrical ambitions. While doing enough to pass his degree, much of his time was absorbed by his duties as director of the School’s Cultural Department, a post entitling him to free tickets at local theatres and opportunities to meet writers, actors and directors. In this way Boal broadened his experience of performance, seeing productions by foreign practitioners as well as the work of Brazilian companies. Equally importantly, he made contacts that would crucially shape his later career. He met Nelson Rodrigues (1912–80), a playwright widely credited with having revolutionised the Brazilian theatre by his experiments in dramatic form and style. Rodrigues introduced Boal to the prestigious critic Sábato Magaldi (1927– ), who in turn would recommend Boal to José Renato (1926– ) of the Arena Theatre.

In New York

Following his graduation in 1952, Boal undertook a further year’s study at Columbia University in the US. Seeking to please both his father and himself, he pursued courses in chemistry and theatre simultaneously. New York was attractive to Boal because it presented the opportunity to study playwriting with drama critic, historian and artist-producer John Gassner (1902–66), whom he greatly admired. Initially, Boal’s engagement with both New York and his studies was overshadowed by overwhelming feelings of cultural dislocation, but involvement in the University’s cultural programme and organisations such as the Writers’ Group in Brooklyn helped overcome this. Since many of the artists Boal knew from his time at the University of Brazil were highly regarded in America, he was able to forge further connections. Through his friendship with the playwright Abdias Nascimento (1914– ) – founder of the group Teatro Experimental do Negro (Black Experimental Theatre) – Boal met author and activist Langston Hughes (1902–67) and discovered the black literature and theatre of Harlem. The year ended but Boal was not ready to leave, and with his father’s support embarked on a further year of study. If the first had been dominated by new experiences, the second allowed Boal to pursue specific ambitions. He combined what he had been learning in playwriting and directing by staging two of his own plays in 1955 – The Horse and the Saint and a comedy, The House Across the Street – at the Malin Studio in New York, assisted by a group of friends. In characteristically provocative mode, Boal champions the uninhibited creativity of the inexperienced: ‘As I was not a director, I had no fear of directing. [. . .] And as the actors were not actors, they were not afraid to act: they were great’ (Boal 2001: 136).

Theatrical Influences

While in New York, Boal had the opportunity to see an immense variety of plays and production companies. Given the experience already gained in Brazil, there can be no doubt that by this point he had been exposed to a wide range of artistic influences. It is always problematic to trace the effects of ‘influence’ on an artist, however. The playwright for whom Boal has probably expressed admiration most frequently is William Shakespeare. As for practitioners, Boal’s most evident debt is to Bertolt Brecht (1898–1956). Theatre of the Oppressed makes frequent reference to Brecht’s proposals for an Epic Theatre; Brecht’s political themes and anti-illusionist, ‘critical’ production style have found renewed expression in Boal’s practice. But, less obviously, his work is also influenced by Konstantin Stanislavsky (1863– 1938). Given that Stanislavsky’s theatre is generally associated with realism, the combined inspirations might seem mutually contradictory. To bring these diverse expressions of theatricality into a coherent framework, it is helpful to consider the education Boal would have received while in New York from the man to whom he had come to study playwriting: John Gassner.

In 1956 Gassner’s important study Form and Idea in Modern Theatre was published. Gassner’s range of reference is broad, as in his other writings. From this, and from Boal’s autobiography, it is plain that Boal engaged with work by virtually all major modern European and American dramatists, as well as Shakespeare and the Greeks, and the broad dramatic ‘movements’ of realism, symbolism, surrealism and expressionism. Equally significant is Gassner’s interpretation of the condition of mid-1950s theatre, which he depicts as unstable and eclectic, a crisis born of an unresolved conflict between realism and what he termed ‘theatricalism’, or anti-realism. Gassner recognised realism as a hugely important and largely positive influence in the modern American theatre, arguing that learning the principles of realistic playwriting – for example, that the main function of dialogue is to advance action rather than be quotable as ‘literature’ – would lead to better drama. He abhorred ‘naturalistic clutter’, advocating instead a sharper-edged, selective realism of the kind he observed in director Elia Kazan’s 1955 production of Tennessee Williams’ Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, which Boal also saw and admired (Gassner 1956: 124–5; Boal 2001: 128). But too often, suggests Gassner, the imitative qualities of realism are adopted by playwrights without the driving force of ideas and commitment. In an essay two years earlier he comments that writers were understandably disenchanted with both society and theatre but had ‘not yet learned to make anything out of their disbelief ’ (Gassner 1954: 25).

The principal alternative to realism available at this time was theatricalism/anti-realism, but this appeared equally problematic. Gassner applauds the Brecht-inspired rejection of bland realism, which offered no more than a reflection of contemporary life, but argues that the antirealists had as yet found little of substance to offer in its place. The dramatic forms explored to date seemed to him ‘tentative, elusive, or fractured’ (Gassner 1956: 141). Theatricalism had most effectively been deployed in the contexts of music hall, musical comedy and vaudeville, he considered; it was least successful when departures from realism became freakish for the sake of it, pompously self-conscious, or too playfully arch.

For Gassner, the necessary invigoration of the contemporary theatre was therefore to be achieved by moving beyond false perceptions of realism and theatricalism as opposed polarities towards an integration of the two in ‘active and secure partnership’ (Gassner 1956: xiii). In his final chapter, ‘The Duality of Theatre’, Gassner argues that theatre by its nature exploits both illusion and anti-illusion. Audiences need not, therefore, be given either realism or theatricalism, but can enter into a performance’s sense of reality at one moment and, at the next, appreciate an effect that they know to be ‘theatrical’ rather than lifelike. Equally, audiences can experience something as simultaneously ‘theatrical’ and ‘real’. Gassner sought a creative synthesis. He urged playwrights to consider the full vocabulary available to them, and in so doing to challenge the assumption that certain types of dramatic subject belonged to specific theatrical forms.

It is illuminating to consider Boal’s work, in New York and afterwards, in the light of this debate. Certainly, Boal was deeply influenced by realism and impressed by the detailed and disciplined approach to rehearsal demanded by the Stanislavsky System, which he saw practised at the Actors’ Studio in New York. He watched some of the Studio’s rehearsals as well as public performances and comments:

Since those Actors’ Studio sessions, I have had a fascination for actors who truly live their characters – rather than those who pretend to. To see an actor transforming him/herself, giving life to his/her dormant potentialities, is marvellous. It is the best way to understand the human being: seeing an actor create.

(2001: 129)

The valuing of a broadly Stanislavskian process is very evident here. It is useful to remember this, for while Theatre of the Oppressed is heavily informed by the anti-illusionist principles of Brechtian dramaturgy this does not mean that all tenets of realism are rejected. Far from it: like Gassner, Boal does not make a case for either/or but aims to combine both. The observation quoted is also of interest for the emphasis placed on seeking the ‘other’ within oneself (‘giving life to his/her dormant potentialities’), a principle that would become fundamental to the Theatre of the Oppressed. Finally, if watching an actor create is ‘the best way to understand the human being’, the Theatre of the Oppressed proposes, by extension, that participation in the creative processes of theatre is the best way to reveal the human being, and through this to understand one’s self and one’s society. Theatre of the Oppressed does not use performance to investigate matters of social or personal concern simply because it is Boal’s preferred medium. Rather, the method is founded on the belief that theatre encourages this investigation because of its inherent duality. Boal’s position is close to Gassner’s, even though the latter could not have anticipated the direction Boal’s work would take. Boal returned to Brazil from New York with a developed awareness of theatre’s potentiality, a broadened theatrical vocabulary and an approach to theatre-making informed by principles of actor creativity, detail and discipline. All this is evident in his early work at Arena, and specific aspects would later be adapted in necessary respo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• Preface to the reissued edition
• Acknowledgements
• 1 BIOGRAPHY AND CONTEXT
• 2 THEATRE OF THE OPPRESSED
• 3 FORUM THEATRE IN PRODUCTION
• 4 WORKSHOP PROCESS
• Glossary
• Bibliography
• Index