Dario Fo in context : Accidental Death of an Anarchist

Dario Fo is an Italian actor-playwright, and director.  Fo's work, influenced by Bertholt Brecht and Antonio Gramsci, was political.  Fo was inspired by 'illegitimate' theatre and used it to his advantage of creating satirical plays towards right-winged parties.  Illegitimate theatre is exceptionally useful for social change, to provoke emotional reactions, discussion, reflection, and allows interaction between performers and spectators.

As Dario Fo is a communist, and has been likened to the 'jesters of the Middle age', he is able to produce works that express his views that poke fun at authority while 'upholding the dignity of the downtrodden'.
Dario Fo believed in social equality, and had a concern for where there was unjustified assumptions and inequality which I assume helped him to produce 'An Accidental Death of an Anarchist', as well as the real event that occurred.   Although we only do a little of the beginning of the scene and not the whole play, which I feel doesn't allow Dario Fo's views to be relayed upon the audience, but rather just gives the audience something to laugh at and be entertained, we as actors are able to understand what Dario Fo truly intended to put across when we get our scripts and go away and do our research, we come back more knowledge of the world around us.

A farce is a light, humourous play in which the plot depends upon a skillfully exploited situation rather than upon the development of character.
A satire is the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement.  The Daily Show, South Park, Family Guy, newspapers exemplify the use of satires to educate uniformed audiences of political matters.
John Cleese said:

'If I can get you to laugh with me, you like me better, which makes you more open to my ideas.  And if I can persuade you to laugh at the particular point I make, by laughing at it you acknowledge its truth'.

Dario Fo's use of farce and satires allows Fo to express his views successfully towards his audience by using the emotional lever of humour, thus opening their minds to ideas they wouldn't directly face and rather reject.

Accidental Death of an Anarchist is a farce, a play designed to expose the lies and conflicting stories of each story relayed by the police about the 'accidental death of an anarchist' who fell to his death from a fourth-story window, while at the same time entertain the audience by highly exaggerating the situation.
Dario Fo bases the play around the events of on an anarchist railway worker, Giuseppi Pinelli, who was arrested in connection with a terrorist bombing in Milan while being interrogated at Police Headquarters fell to his death from a fourth-story window.  Fo believed that Pinelli's death was a plot executing a string of bombings, made by right-wing extremist to undermine the Italian Communist Party that they were leftists terrorists.
Having watched the play on Youtube, the Maniac, who seems to have a personality disorder, carries out a number of impersonations after being called in questioning for fraud but decides to be the interrogator to find out what really happened after stealing the file on the anarchist's death.  As the play is satirical, there is no development in the main character, the maniac, but rather we focus on the events.  The only development one can say is used, is the development of the Maniacs dream of becoming a judge.  Fo uses the Maniac to reveal the attempts made by the police to cover up the truth.  Fo stated that by 'injecting absurdity into the situation, the lies become apparent.'
In my research further into the play and stumbling on Dario Fo's article in American Theatre, my understanding became more transparent to the Maniacs interest in impersonating a judge.  As the maniac explains what's going on about wanting to be a judge, a edge of seriousness has to be imparted as it gets political.  There seems to be a link to the higher you grow the less you are linked to the real world but the maniac and the judge are closely relateable as the maniac seems to have a severed link to the real world although he understands what's going on he isn't exactly normal.  Although the Maniac explains how he'd love to impersonate a judge, Dario Fo allows the Maniac to actually become a judge to 'accuse, convict, judge, and pass sentence' on the police.
Dario Fo uses wit to create a normal interrogation scene to connect with a real life event, and make the maniac appear facetiously which captures the audience attention especially when they see that the maniac is too smart for his own good, and causes a disturbance within the station.  Dario Fo is able to impart his views that Pinelli was murdered due to conflicting statements about how he had died in this piece of theatre, adding onto the Brechtian style, and certainly getting the audience to laugh, then make them think, allowing him to make his cake and also eat it.

While reading the play and learning my lines, I noted that the Maniac seems to be fond of Sigmund Freud and proud in the fact he is a 'certified psychotic'.  I didn't understand the Maniacs reference of the fee being important to a treatment and Sigmund Freud.
On my research of Sigmund Freud and money, I came across that Sigmund Freud believed that treating a patient in analysis for free created a transference-countertransference problem that might doom the treatment to failure.  As the Maniac agrees with Freud that 'a fat bill is the most effective panacea especially for the doctor', my interpretation was that there was a correlation between the doctor receiving money for the treatment given, and the treatment given by the doctor.  Presumably I thought that mentally, one must feel that if a doctor charges very high for his treatment that his treatment is very beneficial.  A doctor could take advantage of a patients mindset if his family believe in 'the best care only' and charge whatever price for the treatment and the patient would gladly pay it because they believe they are getting better.  It is almost like a placebo effect, the more I pay, the better I will be.  This allowed me to understand the maniac that as a character, he is more than just a maniac.  He is a smart maniac.  Although he is labelled by society as a maniac and probably stupid, which society tends to steer clear from, he uses this to advantage by obviously being very knowledge, knowing Penal Codes,  making 'normal' people look stupid instead as when one does not know something, it is easier to confuse them which is probably how he has been able to get away with fraud twelve times.  By being proudly labelled a 'certified psychotic' he has used this to his advantage of getting away with crimes and getting the police to admit their heinous crime of covering up the truth.

Friday 5th December 2014

Today we did Accidental Death of an Anarchist, as I haven't been in due to not being well, this was my first rehearsal with the group, however as Mihali wasn't in, Sarah filled in as which was beneficial somewhat with helping with cue lines and as she is also a Constable.
Subtext the meaning behind what is being said.  Bertozzo (Emma) is talking to the audience for the first part of her lines and is breaking the fourth wall.  She is informing the audience of what is going on and what they'll see.  It is similar to Sharney's role in "Fear and Misery of the Third Reicht".  Rob wanted us to be more over the top as it is very Brechtian so suggested that she be obnoxious as a police officer she has seen everything.  We have to think of pantomimes as this will cause her to capture the audiences attention as it will engage the audience.

To personify me being a Maniac, Rob suggested that I be overdramatic and engage the audience when I can.

It was very beneficial to have rehearsed with the group as I could do so much more with my character to really personify and exaggerate being a Maniac.  I did notice that I was forgetting my lines, even though I knew them.  I believe this was due to not having rehearsed in a while because of being ill and knowing that the performance was next week so I felt under pressure to try and do well and show to my group and Rob that I was serious and open to constructive criticism and that I would take on board feedback to make the scene and my character better.
I really liked my character and the scene, but it is a shame that I didn't have enough time to rehearse but regardless the show must go on.

Friday 24th October 2014

Today was our final rehearsal and performance and we are reminded that just because we are playing the character doesn't mean that our energy levels and commitment to the character should not be low.  As we are just playing the characters, we are allowed to be over the top.  The characters are to be character coutured. 
I had actually forgotten and hadn't taken into account in playing the character.  As I am an old woman, in rehearsals I should give 100% regardless and I wasn't playing an old woman, I just remained as myself on stage.  To bring an element of truth to my character, I personified an old woman by being hunched over, talking slow and frail, and having a stick I use for reliance.  Feedback on my character was that it was better and believable than before. 
Despite there being no emotional attachment between character and actor this does not entail that we shouldn't play in the moment.  As actors we are to bring everything alive, so it is essential that we understand what's going on.  Although this might seem contradictory in understanding the role and what's going on, what Brecht wanted was for the audience to have their eyes opened and to be able to express his views through his style of theatre.  As actors we have to do our research on not the character, but Brecht himself, what caused him to write the play, what was going on at the time, what point is he trying to get across?  So we are to understand what is going on and bring alive Brecht's voice against fascism and cause the audience to be engaged and think.

At the end of the play Rob told Sharney to say:
If we want to live and therefore thrive, we must seek to smash the fascist hive. 
To make it more Brechtian, it would've been better as a placard which she could've read out aloud but show to the audience. 

Friday 3rd October 2014

From the suggestion of Sharney formerly remaining on stage throughout the play since she is the narrator, Sharney was to sit in the audience seats.  When it was her turn to speak, she would stand up.  As she is saying her lines, this gives the actors the chance to change scene and set up while on stage.  This strongly puts an emphasis on breaking the fourth wall literally as she engages the audience as part of the production by being seated with the audience and the audience can see the actors changing scene and putting props away to further remind them they are still watching theatre.  Sharney is to not just say it but understand what she is saying by emphasising with an attitude.  Brechts obvious intentions was to make the audience react; cognitively engaged.  It is on Sharney's shoulders to create that for the audience before the scene started.

During 'Charity begins at home' (Scene 16), I was advised to directly address/play to the audience by making them 'Erna' (the young woman, daughter of the old woman), 'Young Man'.  To do this while saying, 'you must take an apple, young man...' and 'Go on, Erna, you take one too...' I am to give the apple as if I am giving it to the audience then the actors who I am addressing take it.  This breaks the fourth wall and destroys any illusion of reality.

Evidence to promote epic theatre is within the script, the use of representation of characters and the linguistic use of third person.  There are no names at all assigned to the characters the actors play, the only suggestive idea of who they are to play is if they are male/female, young/old, husband/wife ect.  This resonates Brechts style of epic theatre of the actors not becoming one with their character; they are to just play it.  With the use of third person, reference can be imposed upon the audience as the actor is addressing anyone or anything other than the ones being addressed.  This breaks the fourth wall reminding the audience this isn't a sociable event but a political chance to cause a reaction in the audience to reflect and hopefully change society.

Friday 26th September 2014

Today was the first rehearsal in the Theatre for our Brecht play, "Fear and Misery of the Third Reich".  Rob wanted us to think about is how to make the play as Brechtian as possible.
To begin with the Brechtian theme, all the actors were placed on stage close to the wings but still evident to the audience that they were on stage. 

Rob set up the stage, placing three chairs equidistant, facing opposite the audience, helping to create further effectiveness to the awareness of the audiences perception that they are watching a play.  The set on stage is to present a suggestive idea rather than realistic although authentic props are used, on a naturalistic set props would be backstage as would the actors be. This is one of Brecht's Epic Theatre's techniques called the alienation effect to create detachment for the audience.

We suggested placards so each scene is introduced and that Sharney would read it or the actors from the previous scene hold it up for the next scene which I felt could be confusing for the audience because the audience might think the placard is for that scene instead of the scene afterwards.
Instead Sharney was made to stand on the side of the stage and read out the prologue but was suggested to stand in the middle of the stage with a spotlight on them which I feel is very Brecht because it engages the audience on a personal level, eliminating the fourth wall as if she is talking to the audience and has stepped out the play to narrate the background of what is going on at the time.
This is evident after the playlet: 'Judicial Process' (Scene 6), just before 'The Jewish Wife' (Scene 9), Sharney is to Break The Fourth Wall, by engaging with the audience by telling them 'Now we see how families are affected'.  Sharney is playing the part of a presenter, presenting what went on behind closed doors of the life of normal people during the rise of Hitler.  The use of narration is to remind the audience they are watching a presentation of a story which eliminates the audience becoming emotionally involved because they are forewarned of the outcome already.

To maintain the theory of Epic theatre so the audience know exactly what's going on, Rob suggested that to link the playlets together we could hang the placards up behind the props, and that Wendy and Parys (the SS men), could be involved in setting up the scenes.
In the playlet 'Charity begins at home' (scene 16), Sharney steps out of the character of being a narrator and becomes the young woman.  Unlike ordinary theatre where there is a character for every actor, Brecht had actors play different characters in Epic Theatre and making the play more Brechtian.
You can cleary see the contrast between the theories of Brecht and Stanislavsky as Brecht plays against the naturalistic style of Stanislavsky.  Stanislavsky wanted the actors assigned to their character to become one with that character thus absorbing the audience into the play while also allowing the audience to relate.  While Brecht wanted the actors to just play the character and not become the character thus the actor has the ability to easily play multiple characters because the actor has no connection to the previous character he played because he has easily disposed of that character to play another one.  Although Brecht and Stanislavsky had different approaches towards the style of theatre, they agreed on the embodiment of truth of that character; despite there being no connection with the character, Brecht wanted the actor to play the character with truth.

Friday 19th September 2014

To help further understand Brecht, we had to do research of Brecht in our own time and in class we came together and wrote a mind map of facts about Brecht.

For our assignment we need to find out more about Brecht and his theories of the Alienation Affect and his creation of Epic theatre and link it to "Fear and Misery of the Third Reich".

On my further research of Brecht, I found out that:
• He developed a style of theatre known as epic theatre.
• One important principle was 'Verfremdungseffekt' roughly translating into 'defamiliarisation/distancing/estrangement effect'.  To achieve Verfremdungseffekt, one must: strip the event of its self-evident, familiar, obvious quality, creating a sense of astonishment and curiosity about them.
• Brecht wanted to use theatre as a form of showing current affairs, everything relating to society and politics
• Epic Theatre is political drama intended to appeal to reason rather than emotion
• Brecht wanted the audience to not connect emotionally to a play but logically, they shouldn't sit back and feel, but sit forward and think
• Actors should 'demonstrate' rather than 'become' a role e.g. Accident eyewitness
• Actors are storytellers, playing many parts
• Character is determined by circumstance
• Brecht agreed with Stanislavsky's principle of becoming one with the character and showing emotions but Brecht doesn't want that to happen
• Actors must always be in control of their emotions

Theatrical techniques (anti-illusionary):
• Mechanics of the theatre shown to the audience
• Audience must know they are watching a play
• Placecards and projection was also used to change scene quickly
• Lighting was only used to illuminate not to create mood, so lighting was very hard
• Actors direct address to the audience
• Actors changed on stage instead of off stage
• Use of songs which would interrupt stage action
• Actors were made to recite stage directions out loud during the play itself. These elements discrouaged the audience from identifiying with characters, losing detachment, actions must continually be made alien/separate.
• The director must use any devices that preserve or establish distancing

We got the script for the play, and on the first scene, we see an elemental practice of Brecht where Sharney reads the prologues before each scene begins.  We was finding out what scenes we was in and who we were in the play.  I am doing Scene 16: Charity Begins At Home and playing the old woman.

On reading the script further, there seems to be a contradiction of Brecht's style of Epic Theatre of the character and actor being distance.  In scene 9, where the wife is packing to leave her husband because she has no choice in the possibility of her going to a concentration camp, there is obvious emotion within that scene.
The dialogue is written to a third person to engage audience, is not very naturalistic in writing; it's written as if you are commenting on your own acting.

The task now is to make the play as Brecht as possible now.
We started off with the first scene, and at The First SA man (Parys): Wait till we've coaxed German Man out from among all those filthy subhumans.  Parys can engage the audience; break the fourth wall by making the audience the subhumans by spitting at them.  There is a emotional detachment to the line and just blatantly calling the audience filthy subhumans which should cause the audience to react or speak out.
Jade picked up on her scene, 'Scene 11: The Black Shoes' and noticed that it is very Stanislavsky.  Rob explained that it's fine you can be emotionally engaged in the piece but the audience will have the emotional detachment.  Jade felt that her scene is like The Three Sisters where there is more subliminal messages instead of being straight forward as Brecht would like it to be.  After reading the scene I disagreed with Jade somewhat as I feel the scene explains that the mother is stating she has the money to buy her daughter new shoes but not to send her to the Hitler youth.
In Jades' scene, all she needs to do is obviously show her hesitation/reluctance in giving money to her daughter to go to camp but is fine with getting her new shoes which will make the audience question how come she is reluctant for her daughter to go? which is the intention of Brecht because he wants the audience to think.  I went onto explain that there is no initial attachment to the character you don't have to dig deep to understand the character.  I felt Jade was confused with her understanding of emotional detachment with the character so I explained that just because Brecht wanted emotional detachment that doesn't mean no emotions at all, you're going to convey emotion regardless, but with Stanislavsky you have to find emotional memory to relate to that point in time, you have to understand what's going on before/after the scene.  There is no attachment to the character itself you are playing, because the actor and character is separate, two different people whereas Stanislavsky wanted oneness with the character.
It is pretty straightforward and with Brecht there is no need for digging deeper and trying to understand the psychological aspect of what's going on which I explained to her.
We have to understand we are playing the lines of the character in that moment of time, we aren't doing any exercises that look at the relationship between mother and daughter or the throughline of the play (before and after their scene).  We just perform the play.

Friday 12th September 2014

On the week back with Rob, Rob made us watch a Documentary to help further our understanding and history of Brecht. Rob hoped that watching the documentary would help us as actors have a clearer reason as to why we want to become actors.

I managed to take notes.

Notes taken from Documentary we watched:

• There were those who chose to explore the landscape of society and those that explored the landscape of the soul.  Brecht explored the landscape of society
• Brechts' energy was directed outwards towards politics and institutions, seeking to change society and theatre
• Samuel Beckett explored memory and the meaning of existence
• Becketts' work had no effective purpose it simply 'is'.
• Brecht and Bechet created a new language of theatre, inspiring a generation of writers.
• Brecht lived the last part of his life in East Berlin
• Brecht's house is a museum commemorated to preserve the memory of his life and works
• By the age of 30, Brecht was successful, notorious and a communist 
• Brecht wanted his audience to react to scenes on stage as if they was at a boxing match. He wanted the audience to think and analyse and of course take side.  Above all he wanted clarity
• A play he wrote, Mother Courage who was played by his wife, is about a small time profiteer living on the small pickings of war, it analyses what was going to happen in Germany
• Brecht liked to follow small intimate scenes with big public ones, jumping notions, spanning decay simply by telling the audience what was happening
• He wanted his plays to reveal the social reality of characters and situation and to criticise the politics of the day.
• Brecht is known as a theorist about theatre, his theory of alienation meant that audiences were not to be alienated but they were made to look at familiar things in a fresh but accurate standpoint
• In 1933 the Reichstag gave Hitler the opportunity to eliminate his opponents causing Brecht to flee the country. He moved with his family to Denmark, Finland the Russia. In May 1941 they stayed in California.
• Brecht enjoyed America, something he had fantasised about whereas Beckett thought the people was strange
• While in America, Brecht worked on his play Galelao with English actor Charles Law
• The questions actors asked in Beckett's plays were: "why am I doing this?" "Where have I come from?", to which he had no answer to the questions about the characters offstage lives because he didn't believe the characters offstage lives existed.  • Beckett licenced the British theatre to dispense with naturalism; to allow it's potential metatheatrical to breathe.
• Brecht encouraged the theatre to inject realism into productions of Shakespeare, the classics and of contemporary plays and to be ambitious about form and content.  A play could be whatever you wanted it to be.  
• Brechts style of Epic Theatre was reborn in Britain when playwrights like Edward Bond discovered it's roots lay in Shakespeare
• The permanent legacy of Brecht and Beckett was that now as in all the arts there was no hierarchy of form. You can use whatever necessary to say what you want to say. It's a world as Beckett suggested where "anything is possible".

After the documentary, Rob then went over the assignment with us.
We're going to be rehearsing scenes from Brecht's play 'Fear and Misery of the Third Reich'.  It is a very good play that shows Brecht's approach to theatre which was very diatetic.  It contains a variety of short scenes that show how different families and peoples lives were affected during the the rise of Nazism and Hitler.  This play will hopefully help us as actors gain an appreciation and understanding of the style of Brecht.

To help us prepare for the style of Brecht, in the morning in the theatre Rob instructed us to do a variety of exercises in which we are to just show us doing or being something.  We all had a partner and we had to be a cat and mouse, Romeo and Juliet, poor and rich.
Afterwards with our partner we stood in two lines opposite one another on the other side of the stage and we had to pick a nursery rhyme and then had to shout at our partners our nursery rhyme with a dire need that we wanted to be heard.  As everyone was doing this, it sounded like a riot so you really had to shout loud enough just to hear yourself.
These exercises reflected and compared Brecht's theories in which he studied the social landscape of society and politics while Stanislavsky studied the landscape of the soul.  Brecht's style of theatre while acting is more demonstrating (the exercises where we became something) and getting your point across (the exercises of shouting our nursery rhymes and also the first exercise where we were to show who was who). Brecht believed that character and actor was not to become one; there is no need to understand the background of the character; you are to just play/represent the character, while Stanislavsky believed the character and actor was to become one; you need to understand the psychological subject.
However we are not to misjudge Brecht's theories with it being non-emotional, the actor should not be connected emotionally, and mentally with the character, but to the audience who can see the characters situation and circumstances can empathise with the character but always remember they are to think outside the theatrical box that theatre is not for entertainment but for reflection and change.  Example Brecht's play Mother Courage, when the mother loses her children, the audience is able to empathise with her loss but have to ask why she lost her children? It is the result of the war.  How are we to stop the war? Brecht intended for his plays to have a knock on effect with the audience of always questioning and trying to find answers even after you've left the theatre.

Rob then made a statement and then asked us what we thought it meant:

Art is not the mirror to reflect society, but a hammer in which to shape it.

Some comments from the class - 

Tutu: I don't know.

Christina: it's more to change peoples views on the way things are going.

Gifty: it's like Nade Bansky. His art isn't pretty art to look at, his art is for you to look at it and think. It's made to change your perspective.
Rob expanded and said He uses a juxtaposition of images and that's what Brecht does with theatre.

Francis: a lot of people go and see stuff to get away from reality, to laugh at, just to get away from their own un-comfort with their reality, what we put on stage is how we interpret and make us have our own opinion not have someone else's opinions forced on us.

Jade: it's a wake up call.  You're shaping your society, you're shaping what's around you today.  Don't just look at it and let it go pass you, take it in and shape your own future.  We're the only people that can change society otherwise we're gonna be accepting with how society is.

Abigail: I just want to reflect on Francis and Jade's point - art is not a mirror, we see things differently.

Rob then said we aren't in a vacuum, we're all shaped by what goes on.

Sam: it can mean what Francis was saying, or it can mean to send a message out to everyone what we feel is wrong politically but there is no right or wrong.  Rob then argued that Brecht would argue that there is a right or wrong depending where you are politically.

Akele: the mirror is basically yourself, I think it empowers you and what can you do with that. I think it is how you think and how it affects the world.