![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I don't want to interrupt the name calling and "yo yo yo"s, but I don't understand why there is a redirection from "alienation effect" to this article. Granted, Brecht founded this method, but is it not a subject that can stand on its own? Are there not other uses of the alienation effect employed elsewhere? This is found commonly in many modernist (to include "post-modernist") literary and dramatic works, and certainly not just those written by Brecht. Just a thought. Oh, and did anyone else realize that the Epic Theatre (founded by Brecht to present his plays) is still around? Who would have thought something so counter to the socially acceptable concept of theatre would survive fifty years? Thus proving that "alienation effect" deserves its own Wiki entry. 8) 66.245.200.216A Dead Cat
"After the war he moved to Berlin where an influential critic, Herbert Ihering, brought him to the attention of a public longing for modern theater. Already in Munich his first two plays, Baal and Drums in the Night, had had performances, and he got to know Erich Engel, a director who worked with him off and on for the rest of his life. "
Who is the "he" in the second sentence referring to? Brecht or Ihring Brecht. - Lewis
"He married the opera singer and actress Marianne Zoff in 1922. Their daughter, Hanne Hiob, born in 1923 is a well-known German actress. One year later they had a son, Stefan. In 1930 he married Weigel, and their daughter Barbara was born soon after."
What Happened to the marriage to Zoff? This makes it sound like he had two wives simultaneously. At least one sentence is needed explaining their divorce, and hopefully a word on why.
"Although he lived in the DDR, a copyright on his writings was held by a Swiss company and he received valuable hard currency remittances. "
Remittances? Payments? Clarify please.
scazza 18:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
This refers to Saint Joan of the Stockyards as "Brecht's first great play", but later on it says "Brecht would later uses elements of Happy End as the germ for his Saint Joan of the Stockyards". That's confusing... unless it means that everything before Saint Joan wasn't great. Teiladnam 07:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC) Yeah, that's what it means. From the POV of Brecht's theories regarding the theater, or the POV of Brecht's international reception, it's a valid claim. - Lewis
I added the bit about his influence over the cinema. I am amazed that this point was missing from the page. Anyway, I'm no Brecht expert (hence reading the article), if you can elaborate on his influence on the cinema please do so. I notice that the Godard article had a point about Brecht, as it must, and was shocked to see no Godard reference on this page. As a side note, if you are a Brecht fan or want to see what the alienation effect is all about check out some Godard films or early Fassbinder films. -- Collingsworth 22:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
A cleanup tag was added to this article a couple of weeks ago by an anonymous editor, and there's been no rationale posted to this Talk page. Since the article seems decent and not too messy to me, I am removing the cleanup tag until an explanation of what needs fixing is given. -- Rbellin| Talk 01:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The talk page, though, could use a cleanup...
Is Brecht the source of the quote which goes something like "Art is not a mirror held up to society, it is a hammer by which to shape it."...? A5 01:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
How odd that Brecht, who was an Austrian citizen all his life, is listed among "American communists".
On the East Coast? I seem to recall he lived in Santa Monica. - Lewis
There's a whole section on the term "Brechtian" (which if I'm not mistaken is spelled "Brechtean" anyway) which says nothing except that it is an adjective comparing things to Brecht. Thanks, Wikipedia. How about someone more familiar with the man than I am edits this section to describe what a person would actually mean when they use that term, so, as a good encyclopedia should, it does not require that the casual reader looking up that word read the entire article on Brecht. Also, the word "Brechtian" when linked to other pages does not link to that particular section, but merely redirects to the top of the article. Thanks. Rufusgriffin 22:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see in the list "Herr Puntila und sein Mann Matti". The work is generally known - and often performed - under the title "Herr Puntila und sein Knecht Matti". I don't know whether Brecht revised the title himself, or whether there is simply a mistake here. Anthony Mellor-Stapelberg, Hanover 84.130.162.114 12:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
from the article: "After Adolf Hitler won the election in 1933". Hitler won the election in 1932, and became chancellor and dictator in 1933. I don't know which it is supposed to be, but this is wrong. Mtijn 00:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
A bit hair-splitting, this. According to my Brockhaus, after the election in November 1932 the Nazis held 196 out of 584 seats in the Reichstag. True, they were the largest party, but "winning an election" looks rather different - which is why Hitler didn't become Chancellor until the following year. In March 1933 they won 288 seats. Anthony Mellor-Stapelberg, Hanover
This section is a bit of a mess. Brecht was not one of the Hollywood Ten, he was one of the many people to testify at the same time. He was not cited for contempt for the simple reason reason that, entirely truthful or not, his testimony did not establish that he was in a position to "name names". The chronology needs work as well.-- Dhodges 14:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
In addition, there is increasing evidence since the collapse of the USSR that Brecht was in fact a Soviet agent. His return to East Germany was, in that context, unsurprising, as was his lack of party membership, given his party activism in prewar Germany. His deft handling of the HUAC commiittee does not suggest a political naiif. Mje 12:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I usually hear Brecht's name pronounced "Brekt", but the German language page suggests that "Bresht" is the correct pronunciation, though I've heard only one person use the latter pronunication. Perhaps the proper pronunciation should be given on the page. -- Scottandrewhutchins 05:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually I'm German and you'd never pronounce "Brecht" like a hard k oder like sh or even kh. The way to pronounce "ch" in German is usually something you can't bring over to English because there's no similiar sound in English. At least I can't think of any and almost all people for an Englisch speaking country have big problems with German words that contain "ch" - e.g. Eichhoernchen (squirrel). The "ch" is more like an hissing sound but not really.;-) The best way would be the sh, every German would understand what you mean even if it's not the right way of saying it.
As I understand it, the best way to render his name in English is to use the sound English uses for Loch, as in a Scottish lake. DionysosProteus 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
His name is pronounced with the special sound similar to the Scotish "loch". Listen to the audio file where it is pronounced correctly. The variations of the pronounciation mentioned by Freshacconci apply only to words beginning with a "Ch" e.g. China. -- Enka 10:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The article sounds like something Eric Bentley might have written about his hero in the Fifties. Contemporary scholarship investigates his exploitation of women writers ("collaborators") who wrote works under his name. And we are no longer forgiving people who were still Stalinists long after the purge trials, long after the evidence was out. If we are supposed to stop "goggling Romantically" and evaluate the works on political grounds, they're indefensible, post Communist bloc collapse and confessions of what was really going on. He'd better hope we just relax and enjoy Azdak or the Good Woman. What's really carrying Brecht is Weill's great music. This article is way behind the pitch, by 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.7.222 ( talk • contribs).
I'm curious as to how you decided what counts as a major work for the list there. It seems like a pretty much comprehensive list of all of Brecht's plays, except the plays that are adaptations of existing works (Edward II, Antigone, The Duchess of Malfi). But there is of course one adaptation on the list, Threepenny Opera, so even that rule wasn't adhered to. (And for that matter, St. Joan of the Stockyards owes at least _something_ to Shaw.) I guess the point is that the adaptations (all of them) are Brecht plays in their own right--Brecht took his source material and made it his own--that's why Brecht bothered to "adapt" these plays in the first place. "Adapt" is in quotes there, because the adaptations are always _very_ free-form. _Leben Eduard des Zweitens_ doesn't look a whole lot like Marlowe's version, just as one example. So as long as the list is as comprehensive as it is, shouldn't it include those adaptations?
As a completely different issue with that list, it contains (as far as I can see) essentially no fiction or verse. Brecht wrote a fair quantity of both . . .
But as far as I know, "He who says yes, he who says no" is ONE play, which was adapted from a japanese Noh. Now tell me why the hell it's divided into TWO plays, with different dates?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.2.243.179 ( talk) 18:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
I added an online Brecht bibliography as reference to the production dates, but there are a few deviations from those in the article. Does anyone have other references to back these dates up? The bibliography online follows Brecht publisher Suhrkamp. -- Hahahannes 19:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not exactly necessary for improvement of the article, but does anyone know why he asked for a stiletto to be placed in the heart of his corpse? Was it to prevent the possibility of his being buried alive? -- Saforrest 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Since keeping a "trivia" section in the article seems to invite editors to integrate its material back into the text of the article in places it doesn't belong, I am removing the following text from the article:
None of this seems to me to be important enough to retain in an encyclopedia article on Brecht (see WP:TRIVIA). But editors interested in salvaging this material are invited to connect it more closely with Brecht's ideas or life. -- Rbellin| Talk 19:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I've inserted templates for Brecht's Theories and for his Plays. The links and titles need some work in the old list from the article, which I'll look at later.
DionysosProteus 04:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone direct me to the Wiki article on the convention for citing sources used in this section? Putting the eds. and trans. in as 'co-authors' makes it clumsy visually. If anyone can add the USA editions of On Film and Radio and On Art and Politics, that'd be good, too. Thanks, DionysosProteus 15:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reinserted the template indicating that the introduction of this article is too long, which has now been removed twice. The introduction as it currently stands is entirely too complex, too overburdened with facts and names (many of them only last names, as though a casual reader who is not already familiar w/ Brecht would know who "Jameson" is) and detailed explanation of Brecht's method and influence. The last paragraph, on Brecht's influence should be removed in its entirety. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 14:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I don't want to interrupt the name calling and "yo yo yo"s, but I don't understand why there is a redirection from "alienation effect" to this article. Granted, Brecht founded this method, but is it not a subject that can stand on its own? Are there not other uses of the alienation effect employed elsewhere? This is found commonly in many modernist (to include "post-modernist") literary and dramatic works, and certainly not just those written by Brecht. Just a thought. Oh, and did anyone else realize that the Epic Theatre (founded by Brecht to present his plays) is still around? Who would have thought something so counter to the socially acceptable concept of theatre would survive fifty years? Thus proving that "alienation effect" deserves its own Wiki entry. 8) 66.245.200.216A Dead Cat
"After the war he moved to Berlin where an influential critic, Herbert Ihering, brought him to the attention of a public longing for modern theater. Already in Munich his first two plays, Baal and Drums in the Night, had had performances, and he got to know Erich Engel, a director who worked with him off and on for the rest of his life. "
Who is the "he" in the second sentence referring to? Brecht or Ihring Brecht. - Lewis
"He married the opera singer and actress Marianne Zoff in 1922. Their daughter, Hanne Hiob, born in 1923 is a well-known German actress. One year later they had a son, Stefan. In 1930 he married Weigel, and their daughter Barbara was born soon after."
What Happened to the marriage to Zoff? This makes it sound like he had two wives simultaneously. At least one sentence is needed explaining their divorce, and hopefully a word on why.
"Although he lived in the DDR, a copyright on his writings was held by a Swiss company and he received valuable hard currency remittances. "
Remittances? Payments? Clarify please.
scazza 18:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
This refers to Saint Joan of the Stockyards as "Brecht's first great play", but later on it says "Brecht would later uses elements of Happy End as the germ for his Saint Joan of the Stockyards". That's confusing... unless it means that everything before Saint Joan wasn't great. Teiladnam 07:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC) Yeah, that's what it means. From the POV of Brecht's theories regarding the theater, or the POV of Brecht's international reception, it's a valid claim. - Lewis
I added the bit about his influence over the cinema. I am amazed that this point was missing from the page. Anyway, I'm no Brecht expert (hence reading the article), if you can elaborate on his influence on the cinema please do so. I notice that the Godard article had a point about Brecht, as it must, and was shocked to see no Godard reference on this page. As a side note, if you are a Brecht fan or want to see what the alienation effect is all about check out some Godard films or early Fassbinder films. -- Collingsworth 22:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
A cleanup tag was added to this article a couple of weeks ago by an anonymous editor, and there's been no rationale posted to this Talk page. Since the article seems decent and not too messy to me, I am removing the cleanup tag until an explanation of what needs fixing is given. -- Rbellin| Talk 01:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The talk page, though, could use a cleanup...
Is Brecht the source of the quote which goes something like "Art is not a mirror held up to society, it is a hammer by which to shape it."...? A5 01:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
How odd that Brecht, who was an Austrian citizen all his life, is listed among "American communists".
On the East Coast? I seem to recall he lived in Santa Monica. - Lewis
There's a whole section on the term "Brechtian" (which if I'm not mistaken is spelled "Brechtean" anyway) which says nothing except that it is an adjective comparing things to Brecht. Thanks, Wikipedia. How about someone more familiar with the man than I am edits this section to describe what a person would actually mean when they use that term, so, as a good encyclopedia should, it does not require that the casual reader looking up that word read the entire article on Brecht. Also, the word "Brechtian" when linked to other pages does not link to that particular section, but merely redirects to the top of the article. Thanks. Rufusgriffin 22:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see in the list "Herr Puntila und sein Mann Matti". The work is generally known - and often performed - under the title "Herr Puntila und sein Knecht Matti". I don't know whether Brecht revised the title himself, or whether there is simply a mistake here. Anthony Mellor-Stapelberg, Hanover 84.130.162.114 12:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
from the article: "After Adolf Hitler won the election in 1933". Hitler won the election in 1932, and became chancellor and dictator in 1933. I don't know which it is supposed to be, but this is wrong. Mtijn 00:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
A bit hair-splitting, this. According to my Brockhaus, after the election in November 1932 the Nazis held 196 out of 584 seats in the Reichstag. True, they were the largest party, but "winning an election" looks rather different - which is why Hitler didn't become Chancellor until the following year. In March 1933 they won 288 seats. Anthony Mellor-Stapelberg, Hanover
This section is a bit of a mess. Brecht was not one of the Hollywood Ten, he was one of the many people to testify at the same time. He was not cited for contempt for the simple reason reason that, entirely truthful or not, his testimony did not establish that he was in a position to "name names". The chronology needs work as well.-- Dhodges 14:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
In addition, there is increasing evidence since the collapse of the USSR that Brecht was in fact a Soviet agent. His return to East Germany was, in that context, unsurprising, as was his lack of party membership, given his party activism in prewar Germany. His deft handling of the HUAC commiittee does not suggest a political naiif. Mje 12:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I usually hear Brecht's name pronounced "Brekt", but the German language page suggests that "Bresht" is the correct pronunciation, though I've heard only one person use the latter pronunication. Perhaps the proper pronunciation should be given on the page. -- Scottandrewhutchins 05:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, actually I'm German and you'd never pronounce "Brecht" like a hard k oder like sh or even kh. The way to pronounce "ch" in German is usually something you can't bring over to English because there's no similiar sound in English. At least I can't think of any and almost all people for an Englisch speaking country have big problems with German words that contain "ch" - e.g. Eichhoernchen (squirrel). The "ch" is more like an hissing sound but not really.;-) The best way would be the sh, every German would understand what you mean even if it's not the right way of saying it.
As I understand it, the best way to render his name in English is to use the sound English uses for Loch, as in a Scottish lake. DionysosProteus 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
His name is pronounced with the special sound similar to the Scotish "loch". Listen to the audio file where it is pronounced correctly. The variations of the pronounciation mentioned by Freshacconci apply only to words beginning with a "Ch" e.g. China. -- Enka 10:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The article sounds like something Eric Bentley might have written about his hero in the Fifties. Contemporary scholarship investigates his exploitation of women writers ("collaborators") who wrote works under his name. And we are no longer forgiving people who were still Stalinists long after the purge trials, long after the evidence was out. If we are supposed to stop "goggling Romantically" and evaluate the works on political grounds, they're indefensible, post Communist bloc collapse and confessions of what was really going on. He'd better hope we just relax and enjoy Azdak or the Good Woman. What's really carrying Brecht is Weill's great music. This article is way behind the pitch, by 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.132.7.222 ( talk • contribs).
I'm curious as to how you decided what counts as a major work for the list there. It seems like a pretty much comprehensive list of all of Brecht's plays, except the plays that are adaptations of existing works (Edward II, Antigone, The Duchess of Malfi). But there is of course one adaptation on the list, Threepenny Opera, so even that rule wasn't adhered to. (And for that matter, St. Joan of the Stockyards owes at least _something_ to Shaw.) I guess the point is that the adaptations (all of them) are Brecht plays in their own right--Brecht took his source material and made it his own--that's why Brecht bothered to "adapt" these plays in the first place. "Adapt" is in quotes there, because the adaptations are always _very_ free-form. _Leben Eduard des Zweitens_ doesn't look a whole lot like Marlowe's version, just as one example. So as long as the list is as comprehensive as it is, shouldn't it include those adaptations?
As a completely different issue with that list, it contains (as far as I can see) essentially no fiction or verse. Brecht wrote a fair quantity of both . . .
But as far as I know, "He who says yes, he who says no" is ONE play, which was adapted from a japanese Noh. Now tell me why the hell it's divided into TWO plays, with different dates?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.2.243.179 ( talk) 18:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
I added an online Brecht bibliography as reference to the production dates, but there are a few deviations from those in the article. Does anyone have other references to back these dates up? The bibliography online follows Brecht publisher Suhrkamp. -- Hahahannes 19:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not exactly necessary for improvement of the article, but does anyone know why he asked for a stiletto to be placed in the heart of his corpse? Was it to prevent the possibility of his being buried alive? -- Saforrest 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Since keeping a "trivia" section in the article seems to invite editors to integrate its material back into the text of the article in places it doesn't belong, I am removing the following text from the article:
None of this seems to me to be important enough to retain in an encyclopedia article on Brecht (see WP:TRIVIA). But editors interested in salvaging this material are invited to connect it more closely with Brecht's ideas or life. -- Rbellin| Talk 19:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I've inserted templates for Brecht's Theories and for his Plays. The links and titles need some work in the old list from the article, which I'll look at later.
DionysosProteus 04:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone direct me to the Wiki article on the convention for citing sources used in this section? Putting the eds. and trans. in as 'co-authors' makes it clumsy visually. If anyone can add the USA editions of On Film and Radio and On Art and Politics, that'd be good, too. Thanks, DionysosProteus 15:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reinserted the template indicating that the introduction of this article is too long, which has now been removed twice. The introduction as it currently stands is entirely too complex, too overburdened with facts and names (many of them only last names, as though a casual reader who is not already familiar w/ Brecht would know who "Jameson" is) and detailed explanation of Brecht's method and influence. The last paragraph, on Brecht's influence should be removed in its entirety. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 14:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)