Emma Joy Hill

Epic Theatre & Violence Against Women Onstage in the 21st Century

Emma Joy Hill

“Art is not a mirror with which to reflect reality, but a hammer with which to shape it.”

— Bertolt Brecht

There is an ongoing question regarding what is appropriate to put onstage. The censorship of theatrical material requires careful consideration, with theatres often rejecting plays of a risqué nature or sanitizing content to attract audiences and increase ticket sales. The role of theatre is often reduced to that of a mundane entertainment outing—a place where people check their phones and mentally check out despite the curtain speech’s request for silence. It becomes a place to escape the struggles of reality when, in fact, it should serve the opposite purpose.

The Brechtian model of theatre argues that art should inspire change and force people to confront the atrocities of the world. Theatre must draw attention to injustice and create outrage. In today's world, some of that outrage should be directed toward sexual assault, violence against women, systemic inaction, and the silencing of women's voices. Twenty-first-century society often turns away from the disturbing realities of how women are treated and frequently disregards violence against women because it is uncomfortable to confront.

For change to occur, voices must be heard, women must be seen, and violence must be understood. Seeing and hearing violence against women onstage forces audiences to pay attention and reflect on the reality of its prevalence. In the wake of the countless incidents of sexual misconduct that continue to emerge, elements of Epic Theatre must be utilized to give voice to women's experiences of violence and, ultimately, to advocate for change.

Art and media shape the world by presenting a variety of perspectives on society and its current issues. Art poses questions and encourages audiences to question for themselves. The kinds of theatre presented onstage influence the topics audiences consider and affect how social issues are understood and addressed.

Unfortunately, contemporary theatre often abandons this purpose and instead functions primarily as entertainment. Bertolt Brecht sought to create theatre driven by a desire for change and consistently questioned the role theatre should play in everyday life. He challenged the notion that theatre exists solely for pleasure, arguing instead that it could serve as a powerful tool for instruction.

In the early twentieth century, Brecht's desire to demonstrate that change was possible motivated his reinvention of modern theatre. Rather than ignoring social problems, he sought to place them at the center of the stage. Epic Theatre emerged as his departure from Dramatic Theatre, which he viewed as ineffective because it presented outcomes as inevitable and unchangeable. Furthermore, Brecht believed that Dramatic Theatre encouraged audiences to become passive observers rather than active thinkers (Epic Theatre and Brecht, 7). In this way, the role audiences assume in Dramatic Theatre mirrors the passive role many people occupy in everyday life. Dramatic Theatre becomes problematic because it accepts passivity and fails to encourage meaningful dialogue about social issues, whereas Epic Theatre actively seeks to create change.

Dramatic Theatre's presentation of a "stable and unchanging" world stands in direct contrast to the philosophy of Epic Theatre. While Dramatic Theatre permits stagnation and does not call for any revision of events or social conditions, Epic Theatre transforms the spectator into a critical observer (Epic Theatre and Brecht, 8). Although audiences remain separated from the action, they witness events unfold, critically evaluate them, and begin to consider what they might do differently. In this way, audiences become participants in the broader social conversation. They are no longer detached from the theatrical experience; they become part of the community itself.

Epic Theatre does not allow audiences to passively disengage. Instead, it demands that spectators think critically about the consequences of the events they witness onstage (Epic Theatre and Brecht, 5). An audience member's ability to question the behavior of characters and their responses to the world can ultimately carry over into their own lives.

Brecht believed that, in order to question social realities, audiences needed to maintain critical distance from the play. One technique he employed was historification, which involved depicting historical events onstage and encouraging audiences to consider how they might have acted under those circumstances and what they would have done differently. By highlighting how contemporary circumstances differ from those portrayed onstage, audiences begin to recognize that change is possible and has occurred before (Epic Theatre and Brecht, 9).

While distance and separation are important for encouraging analysis, Epic Theatre today should not limit itself to portraying only historical events. In fact, it can be most effective when used to expose audiences to the realities they currently inhabit.

Brecht also proposed the concept of alienation, which helps establish critical distance between audiences and the play. This idea rests on the belief that spectators should not become so emotionally immersed in a story that they lose their capacity for critical thought. Epic Theatre argues that audiences should avoid identifying completely with characters because maintaining critical distance is necessary for social development.

However, while this separation is important, emotion should not be discarded. After all, twenty-first-century society often suffers from a lack of concern for others and a diminishing sense of collective responsibility. Empathy and emotional engagement are frequently suppressed, making it easier to turn away from the suffering of others. Emotion is not separate from rationality; rather, it is deeply connected to it.

Even Brecht eventually recognized that his belief that audiences should remain emotionally detached was flawed, because critical thinking is difficult without emotional response (Epic Theatre and Brecht, 10). Theatre should inspire change, but it should also amplify voices and cultivate empathy among its audiences.

Empathy creates change.

Empathy is the twinge of discomfort. It is the shock and awe of recognizing that another human being has endured suffering. It serves as connective tissue among people. Everyone experiences suffering, and when people begin to recognize one another's pain, change becomes possible.

However, suffering must first be seen before empathy can emerge and before change can occur.

Theatre that depicts violence, reflects reality, and exposes brutality becomes a vehicle for that realization.

There are many forms of violence and many communities that experience it. All deserve representation and exploration onstage. If theatre is to function as an educator, then it should point directly toward the problems facing contemporary society. Every story deserves attention.

Yet while all suffering has value, violence against women has too often been ignored, dismissed, minimized, or misunderstood.

In the twentieth century, Bertolt Brecht objected to the way the world saw itself, so he created theatre that forced audiences to see differently. He envisioned a space where audiences became thinkers—where they critically examined both the play and the social systems it reflected. He proposed that what audiences witnessed onstage should inspire action beyond the theatre.

In the twenty-first century, society continues to struggle with how it perceives violence against women. Women are often silenced, and their experiences frequently go unheard and unseen. Today's world needs the kind of theatre Brecht envisioned: a theatre that transforms spectators into thinkers and compels them to confront the realities they may otherwise ignore.

Censorship supports societal ignorance.

Censorship allows audiences to turn away from uncomfortable truths. It prevents stories from being told honestly and hinders meaningful change. Without visibility, empathy cannot develop, and without empathy, change cannot occur.

Censorship is often justified as a means of protecting audiences. It is also frequently driven by concerns about maintaining ticket sales. Yet theatre should not prioritize protecting audiences from discomfort; it should prioritize helping them see.

In Ancient Greece, violence occurred offstage. The horror existed primarily within the audience's imagination. Spectators were forced to imagine the suffering for themselves (Swift). In doing so, audiences retained control over how violence was visualized and interpreted.

While violence must be seen to inspire change, the complete recreation of violence can be counterproductive. Violence should never be treated as entertainment. Instead, it must serve a meaningful purpose.

The violence depicted in Greek tragedy has often been understood as a form of communal healing:

“The violence in Greek tragedies is about helping the community come to terms with the violence they’ve experienced, and the violence they’ve perpetuated” (Doerries).

In this sense, violence becomes a means of helping victims tell their stories while encouraging perpetrators and communities to confront their actions. Violence can function as a form of education and healing (Mandell).

The depiction of violence onstage must serve a meaningful purpose rather than existing as spectacle. It should encourage conversations about how violence is understood and addressed in society.

Violence against women cannot be censored in the same way that women themselves have historically been silenced.

Violence against women must be given space onstage.

It must be given a voice.

It must be witnessed by audiences if meaningful change is to occur.

The violence portrayed onstage should contribute to healing for victims and understanding for perpetrators. By witnessing brutality, audiences can develop empathy. They can carry that empathy beyond the theatre with the understanding that, although they are watching a performance, the events depicted are realities for many people.

By moving away from the assumptions of Dramatic Theatre, audiences can reject the notion that social conditions are "stable and unchanging." Instead, they begin to understand that change is possible and that suffering does not have to remain permanent.

The world must confront the brutal treatment of women.

There must be meaningful conversations about why it happens, why it is tolerated, and how it can be changed.

Theatre is one of the most powerful ways to begin that conversation.

Art is a vehicle for change.

Theatre is one of its most effective forms because it allows for the physical and emotional exploration of people, events, experiences, and social issues.

Theatre depends upon action.

Theatre depends upon seeing.

Epic Theatre calls upon audiences to absorb what they witness onstage, engage with it critically, and transform that engagement into action. It requires spectators to remain alert, attentive, and involved.

By employing Brechtian techniques, theatre can compel audiences to confront the same violence women experience. They are forced to see it, and through seeing it, they may develop empathy. That empathy—and the discomfort it produces—sparks conversation.

Conversation sparks change.

Censored theatre is easy.

That is not the kind of theatre that should be created.

The theatre is not a place to disengage.

It is a place to grow.

Women who experience sexual and physical violence are constantly forced to question their reality.

It is time the rest of us question ours.

Works Cited

“Epic Theatre and Brecht.” Rhodes University , www.ru.ac.za/media/rhodesuniversity/content/ facultyofeducation/creativearts/documents/Epic%20Theatre%20and%20Brecht.pdf.

Hu, Elise. “Why Some Survivors Of Sexual Harassment And Assault Wait To Tell Their Stories.” National Public Radio, 15 Nov. 2017, www.npr.org/2017/11/15/564443807/why-some- survivors-of-sexual-harassment-and-assault-wait-to-tell-their-stories.

Mandell, Jonathan. “Violence on Stage: Healing or Titillating?” HowlRound, 25 June 2015, howlround.com/violence-on-stage-healing-or-titillating.

Markman, Art. “Seeing Things from Another's Perspective Creates Empathy.” Psychology Today, 6 June 2017, www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201706/seeing-things- anothers-perspective-creates-empathy.

Soloski , Alexis. “Why Plays About Sexual Assault Are Too Murky for Our Own Good.” New York Times, 27 Nov. 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/theater/sexual-assault- plays.html.

Swift, Laura. “How Far Should We Go When Depicting Violence on Stage?” The Theatre Times, 15 June 2017, thetheatretimes.com/far-go-depicting-violence-stage/.