PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
THE CAUCASIAN CHALK CIRCLE
by Bertolt Brecht

German, 1947 (roughly)
World Premiere at Carleton College in Minnesota, 1948

PART ONE - GENERAL INFORMATION

PLOT OUTLINE
The play is actually in three parts.  The first part, as published, includes a prologue where members of a post-World War II community in Russia meet to decide who will reside on a particular parcel of land.  The prologue ends when the entire group decides that the group who will claim the land is the group who will put it to the best use, indicating that ownership is not an essential characteristic or birthright, but rather something that should come only after consideration of what might be best for the thing in dispute.  The townspeople decide to celebrate by inviting a renowned storyteller (The Singer) to recount an old Caucasian legend.  The story begins.

The next section of the play introduces us to Grusha, a young kitchen maid engaged to an honorable soldier.  As a bloody revolution breaks out, Grusha discovers that the Governor's only son, Michael, has been left behind by his mother (who is more concerned with her dresses and possessions as she flees town).  After an agonizing decision, she takes the child and flees, unable to leave him behind to his death.  First, she tries to give the child to a peasant woman, who seems willing until the soldiers arrive.  Grusha hits the corporal on the head, knocking him out, and flees with Michael.  To escape the soldiers, she crosses an abyss into the Northern Mountains and runs to the home of her brother.  Married to an ultra-conservative and shrewish wife, Lavrenti, Grusha's brother, lies to allow Grusha to stay, but will not stand up to his wife, or tell her the truth about how Michael is not Grusha's biological child.  Instead, Lavrenti arranges to have Grusha marry a nearby peasant on his deathbed to legitimize her child.  The peasant's mother is eager that Jussup (the peasant) be married to someone who will arrange to have her son's assets diverted to her when he dies.  The marriage is arranged.  Shortly after Grusha is wed to Jussup, the war ends.  Jussup springs out of bed and we learn that he was only pretending to be ill to avoid the draft.  Grusha is stuck with a healthy husband who despises her.  Meanwhile, Simon (Grusha's fiancé) returns to discover her married with a child.  He leaves.  As Simon departs, Grusha discovers soldiers leading Michael away.  His biological mother has returned and is laying claim to him.

The third part of the story introduces us to Azdak, a village recorder who unwittingly houses the Duke as he is fleeing the armed guards. Azdak is a revolutionary who despises the Duke: he turns himself in to be punished for harboring him.  As he arrives at the prison in chains, the Fat Prince (one of the princes who overthrew the Duke in the rebellion) brings his nephew in to take over the role of judge, and in a mock show of good will, tells the soldiers that the people should decide who will rule.  The soldiers take this seriously and hold a trial, with Azdak playing the Duke.  The soldiers are taken with Azdak's comic portrayal of the Duke and grant him the position of judge.  Azdak travels the countryside deciding cases.  He is anything but fair and impartial: he drinks and takes bribes and decides cases arbitrarily, but most often in favor of the poor.  The war ends.  Azdak is terrified that he will be put to death for his antics on the bench when the old government returns to power.  He is given one last case to decide: the case of Grusha versus Natella Abashwili in the custody of Michael.  Before he steps up to decide the case, he learns that the Duke has permanently appointed him to the position of judge as a "thank you" for harboring him during the rebellion.  Azdak steps up to decide the case.  During the arguments we learn that Natella can only claim her husband's fortune should she be awarded custody of Michael.  Azdak decides to apply the chalk circle test: he draws a circle in chalk on the floor, places Michael in the center, and whoever pulls him out is to be awarded custody.  Grusha cannot pull, for fear of hurting the child.  She is awarded custody.  While he's at it, Azdak also signs divorce papers so that Grusha may be married to Simon.  All ends happily, in the Brechtian way ...

THEMATIC CONCERNS - WHAT WILL THE AUDIENCE THINK ABOUT?
Through its detailed investigation of issues of ownership, this play addresses an issue that resides deeply in my heart--family advocacy in the face of a materialistic society.  My role as a mother will play heavily in the choices I make in this production, and I feel a visceral emotional tie to the story.  I strongly believe that, despite the talking points and rhetoric fed to us by every politician and corporate CEO, we are not a society that values caring or family life.  The time needed to care for and raise a family is viewed as "lost productivity" rather than quality time essential to the livelihood of every citizen.  When we take time to parent, we make investments into the future of our society.  Unfortunately, profit and productivity rule over unquantifiable entities such as caring and family in organizations that span the corporate world to academe and beyond.  In The Caucasian Chalk Circle we are drawn into a war world that values materialism over caring: we aren't even given the reason for the bloody skirmish, beyond the fact that the carpet weavers have revolted, and the princes have overthrown the governors (giving us a basic power struggle akin to all wars).  Grusha is faced with numerous choices along her journey: she is told time and time again that caring for Michael is not in her own best interest, that she should abandon him and look out for her own skin.  She does not--she chooses caring over self-preservation.   This might lead us to discount the complexity of Grusha and label her an altruistic hero, but Brecht presents her to us in all of her faults and contradictions--her reasons for caring for Michael are as much selfish as they are altruistic.  She grows to love him and considers him a worthy investment of her time and affection.  This, to me, is the biggest reason that this play is still relevant today.  We find ourselves today in a world misdirected in its priorities, one driven by materialism and profit.  Shouldn't caring for a family and investing in the future be as valuable to a society as material wealth?  The play seems to say this, but the ending is stamped with a question mark.  We understand this theme, but how do we apply it once we leave the theatre?

Larger ideas of ownership are also important in this story; it tells us that ownership should not come only from a sense of entitlement.  Birthright, material wealth and even biological ties should not overrule the investment in and use of the thing itself.  The prologue tells us quite specifically that the group who deserves the land is the one who will put it to the best use. The parallel of the prologue to the story of Grusha is that we can clearly see that Grusha herself is who is best for the child, not the biological mother.  While this idea may seem almost a given in today's society (children are removed from their biological parents when they are abused or neglected), a parent like Natella in today's society wouldn't be deemed an unfit mother, just an inattentive one.  Brecht uses this story with its emotional punch to encourage us to think about ownership.  From his Marxist perspective, Brecht believed in the means of production even as they relate to noneconomic entities, and seems to say that the world would be a better place if we paid attention to what we DO with what we own (and, in this case, who we parent), rather than just what we own.

"In the bloodiest of times, there are kind people."  Brecht believed that true characters and visceral stories emerged from contradictions rather than absolutes; indeed, absolutes don't exist.  It would be easy for us to stamp a label on Grusha: HERO, KIND, COURAGEOUS.  These may certainly apply, but trying to figure out her character is doing her a disservice.  Bringing Simon into the picture also complicates matters--why would she agree to marry Jussup when she's waiting for him?  Self-preservation--not necessarily a noble characteristic in this particular story.  The kindness of human beings is arbitrary, and it "represents the brute refusal of nature to be submerged in history and therefore, the possibility that the creature should, at some future point, subdue history"  (Bentley, "Introduction").

History and our place in it: In all of his major plays, Brecht uses a historical story (in this case, a twist of a Biblical legend and a Chinese legend) to illuminate situations in the present.  He does this for several reasons, but his idea of verfremdungseffekt suggests that an audience is less likely to fall into the "trance" of realism when watching a story far removed from contemporary life.  Audiences are less likely to be drawn in and lose themselves in the emotional plight of the main character in a historical tale.  This was an unusual idea when Brecht started writing--the dominant style of realism encouraged contemporary settings in characters, so the audience could really believe that what was happening on stage was real, investing in the plight of the protagonist.  Brecht was not interested in this; rather, his quest was to encourage the audience to think outside the theatre (not to disinvest in the story as so many have suggested) but to participate in the action onstage and not ONLY the emotional struggle of the protagonist.  History, then, plays an important role in the plays of Brecht--the past illuminates the present.  Are we always doomed to replay the mistakes of the past?   Can we rise beyond what history says we WILL do and offer, instead, those contradictions and arbitrary actions that resist definitions?  Can we subdue history instead of vice versa?  Suppose we don't bow to what history tells us is inevitable?  This suggests to me several possibilities for exploring the play's world in light of both historic and contemporary images.

AFFECT - WHAT WILL THE AUDIENCE FEEL?
Brecht's "alienation effect" has led to countless dry and emotionless productions of his plays.  He suggested that the audiences with "Realism" (the dominant style when he wrote) were not connected to the story, but rather drawn up in the emotional life of the main character.  They felt for him, were concerned for his well-being, followed his struggle through to the resolution, then promptly forgot about the struggle when they left the theatre.  The protagonist was someone pulled out of their world, and the story, while compelling, does not affect their lives.  Brecht did not want this.  He felt that theatre should provoke more social change and more connection to the world outside the theatre space.  In order to combat the "trance," he suggested a style of theatre that was the antithesis of realism, a theatre that encouraged a detached engagement with the story rather than the identification with the emotional lives of the characters.  The word for this is verfremdungseffekt, loosely translated as the "alienation effect."  The word alienation, unfortunately, is misleading, and seems to suggest that the audience is somehow alienated from what's going on onstage.  This couldn't be further from the truth.  The theatre Brecht envisioned was full of life, full of contradiction, color, light and sound, challenging and always entertaining.  The audience was only to be alienated from the emotional lives of the characters.  The STORY should drive the emotional response, not the struggle of the main character. This is the driving force of the epic theatre.

That being said, the audience for this play will certainly feel.  Any story centered on a child will invoke a variety of responses, and every parent in the audience will naturally put themselves in Grusha's place.  This is practically unavoidable, and although I consider myself a Brechtian director in most everything I do, this is something I don't want to discourage.  I want the audience to feel for Grusha, Simon, Azdak and the others, but also be surprised by them, sometimes shocked and sometimes puzzled.

I want the world of the play to be dazzling and surprising, sometimes terrifying and always provocative.  At the very least, the audience should feel that the play is "cool" and the production always engaging.  All elements serve the story.

PART TWO - DESIGN IDEAS
GENERAL DESIGN THOUGHTS
Given some of the thematic concerns outlined above, I'd like the design for the show to emerge from the juxtapositions of histories.  We're telling a historical story within a contemporary context for a reason: I want the audience to think about the situation NOW and relate it to the themes of the play.  Brecht originally wrote the prologue in order to set the play within a more contemporary framework.  The play premiered after the Second World War, and the land dispute outlined, albeit fictional, was plausible.  The audience understood that the Chalk Circle story was being enacted by a company of actors, and, while our prologue will change, this will stay the same for us.  The design within the Chalk Circle tale, therefore, should not be rooted in one history, one society or one time, but rather shift from one time to another, perhaps so seamlessly that we don't realize it's happening.  It's a play, and the theatrical nature of what we're doing is not to be hidden.  In addition, times can be juxtaposed and put together, anachronisms rule the day.  Perhaps Grusha's journey is also a journey through time?  The designers and I need to work together to create a world that is not confusing to the audience, but successfully communicates the shifting, looping, and three-dimensional nature of history and our role in it--we control the span of time, not the other way around.

The primary difficulty, then, becomes the need to communicate a "whole" world.  While the play is certainly intentionally fragmented into scenes (which will be broken apart by including the scene titles as projected legends across the space (see below), I still want consistency throughout.  If we're juxtaposing time periods to comment on both past and present, we run the risk of being arbitrary and random--randomness gets in the way of the audience believing the story.  We need to find a way for choices from both past and present to come together to create a fictional, unified, strange yet compelling whole.

(**Note that at this point in my process I'm "swimming in ideas."  I'm using this preliminary analysis as a way to begin sorting through some of them, and launching design discussions.  Some of these ideas may or may not work, or may not work together; hence, the number of question marks that follow.  The ideas below should be read as ideas, springboards for discussion.  Nothing is set in stone.)

MULTIMEDIA IDEAS
Brecht was a huge fan of technology.  Taking his inspiration from German constructivism and the emerging cinema of the time, he sought to incorporate technology and media into his productions.  In his own productions of his plays, he incorporated still projections, slides, film clips and sound effects.  He expanded the idea of "letting the wires show" into his epic theatre.  As he was reacting against realism, he asked that the audience never forget that they were in a theatre.  The nuts and bolts of the technology were visible at all times.

Multimedia seems to be a natural fit for this production.  I want to embrace technology as Brecht did, using it to both underscore and challenge the narrative.  The story in a Brechtian play is always interrupted with commentary and narrative.  In Caucasian the story is interrupted by music (the singer) and scene changes where time and location shift.  We can effectively make those shifts by using technology.  Multimedia should underscore every scene, helping to shape the world and define it.  Some specific ideas are outlined below.

PROLOGUE
This production will have a prologue, but not the one that Bentley wrote (condensed from Brecht's original).  I'd like to honor the spirit of the original prologue by using it to set the story in a contemporary framework.  Perhaps the prologue is a media montage of images of families juxtaposed with materialist icons, stories of disputes (perhaps a land dispute like the original prologue).  Something reflecting some of the thematic ideas outlined above?  The actors will emerge from the prologue to address the audience and explain that the Chalk Circle story is a tale designed to illuminate some of the issues at stake.

OR … AND I JUST THOUGHT OF THIS … IS THE POINT OF THE PROLOGUE TO SHOW US A UTOPIA, WHERE THINGS REALLY DO WORK OUT FOR THE BEST?  IN THE PROLOGUE, THE TWO SIDES COME TO A REASONABLE AND FULLY-SUPPORTED ARRANGEMENT THAT WORKS WELL FOR BOTH SIDES.  IS THE POINT HERE TO SHOW US THAT THE WORLD OF THE CHALK CIRCLE STORY IS REALLY OUR WORLD, AND THE PROLOGUE IS THE UNATTAINABLE FANTASY?  HMMMMMM ….

LEGENDS & TEXT
I'd like to emphasize the scene breaks and fragmentary nature of the narrative.  In all of his plays Brecht advocates using titles somewhere on the set (either placards or projections) to effect the transitions.  Perhaps we might also use text projections to highlight some of the more thematic moments of the singer ("In the bloodiest of times, there are kind people?").

MUSICAL NUMBERS
All of the songs represent commentary on the major decisions and moments of the play.  Perhaps these serve as our primary guide as to when the media should happen as well?

THE WAR (pg. 18)
As the rebellion breaks out in the first scene, Brecht dictates that the "sky turns red."  Multimedia projections could inform us of the ferocity of the conflict through images and sound.  Perhaps images from various wars (or is that cliché?).  During the war a soldier emerges with the governor's head ... might there be a way we could use technology for this moment as well?

THE DECISION (pg. 26)
Some way to highlight Grusha's decision before she takes the child?  Using text to ask the question, perhaps?

THE CHRISTENING (pg. 39)
Grusha undertakes a little ritual in the stream while fleeing the Ironshirts.  She uses water in the stream to make Michael her own, and changes his garments from the fine linen he wore to rags.  This is a pivotal moment, one where she takes the child as her own.  From this moment on, their interests are linked.

THE ABYSS (pg. 40)
On her way to her brother's house, Grusha takes the child across a rotten bridge over an abyss.  The risking of two lives here also shows us that Grusha and Michael are inexorably linked.

THE SNOW MELTING (pg. 48)
When Grusha stays at her brother's house through the winter, she knows she has to leave when the snow melts (Aniko won't let her stay longer).  Brecht calls for a "glockenspiel" of snow melting drops to indicate that spring is coming all at once for Grusha, and she must leave--find another solution.

BED WITH MOSQUITO NETTING (pg. 50)
I don't know--if we're going to have mosquito netting on the bed it just screams for some sort of projection ... I don't know what, though.

SIMON'S FACE IN THE STREAM (pg. 58)
"As she sat by the stream to wash the linen, she saw his image in the water.  And his face grew dimmer with the passing moons." 

THE STREAM THAT SEPARATES SIMON AND GRUSHA (pg. 58)
This is the same stream that she washes the clothes in.  Water separates them so they can't be together.

JUDGE HANGING FROM THE BEAM (pg. 66)
Might there be a way to do this with media?

MONTAGE OF AZDAK'S CASES (pg. 75-85)
After Azdak is made judge, he decides several cases in succession, in almost a montage sequence.  Verses by the singer separate the various cases--might media work here as well?

CHALK CIRCLE TEST
??  This is the climax of the play--something should most certainly happen here, but I'm still unclear about it….

ENDING
The play ends with a question mark--while there is dancing and joy with the storybook happy ending, the framing device of the prologue should somehow reappear to set the play again within the contemporary context.  The dancing will also most certainly be stylized. …

SET & PROPS
The main dynamic of the set for me also rest in this idea of juxtaposing past and contemporary ideas.  Brecht roots his drama in German constructivism, so it seems appropriate that the set have a stark, ultra-practical and constructivist feel.  I think it also feels rustic to me, which will highlight the story's roots in past legends.  Despite its ruggedness, the set should also have some contemporary qualities to it.  This will obviously occur with the projections, but I'm also thinking that some of its constructed ruggedness can be offset by something contemporary, perhaps?  Not quite sure how yet … thoughts, Kip?  Regardless of this element, it's essential that everything is still a unified whole. …  I don't want the projections fighting the rustic qualities of the set--when projected, they should look completely intentional, like a part of the world.

COSTUMES
Hyun-Sook and I have already discussed some preliminaries here, primarily involving ways to incorporate imagery from a number of wars and times in the costumes.  Originally, I thought that individual costumes could borrow silhouettes from a number of periods, but again I worry about being arbitrary here.  Another thought might be to combine time periods within the individual scenes (for example, actor A has a silhouette that is roughly Napoleonic, actor B has a silhouette that is WWII).  My discussions with Tony have also led me to consider the possibilities of projecting images across the bodies of the actors, which suggests that perhaps more neutral tones in the costumes might be interesting.  Heck, going even further (because I LOVE bold choices), I've been thinking of those incredible images in Hyun-Sook's portfolio of her exhibition of entirely white costumes.  What if we did the entire show in white?  Would that just drive us too crazy?  For some reason I definitely see Grusha in white, but what about the rest of the actors?  Something to consider. …

LIGHTING
The lighting in this show to me is provocative, rich and very three-dimensional.  Each scene to me has a different primary hue--the war is definitely red, the abyss is blue, the Northern Mountains perhaps white and icy-clear?  The projections will have to be worked into the lighting design certainly--our high-lumen projector should allow for that to happen with a limited amount of washing out (if any).  I see the plot as very area-specific … the lights should easily allow the unit set to effectively transform from one location to another.

SOUND
The sound is provocative and ethereal, again combining elements of past and present.  I feel that the sound could be used to highlight anachronisms--sounds of a bomber plane during the war, perhaps, machine gun fire offstage, etc.  (This might appear strange if the costumes have more of a peasant feel.)

MUSIC
Jody and I have already discussed that the music will have a vaguely eastern-European feel (the tale takes place in the pre-Soviet Georgia).  The instruments will have an acoustic feel to them, but will be generated electronically.  We don't need to hide that these instruments are electronic!!  This completely supports the theme of juxtaposing past/present that I spoke of earlier.  The music should have both an early and contemporary feel to it, one that perhaps varies from scene to scene.

All songs represent major moments of decision or direction in the play.  The singer is almost the consciousness of the characters, as he says out loud what they're thinking and feeling.  These moments will be underscored as moments of narrative in the play, third-person omniscient commentary (as in a novel).

ACTING
I've already had several conversations with actors interested in auditioning for the show.  They're worried about choosing appropriate "Brechtian" monologues, and this concerns me that they're already thinking about "theoretical Brecht" rather than the play.  That said, I am not at all going to emphasize verfremdungseffekt with these young actors.  I am, instead, going to concentrate on encouraging them to be truthful in every moment, highlighting the contradictions in the characters.  The actors should not seek to "figure out" these characters ("Grusha is good", "The Fat Prince is the bad guy"); rather, they should commit to each moment and realize that these people do not always behave in a way dictated by decorum, or what we may think of them.  Grusha makes choices unbecoming a Saint; Azdak, for all his worth as an advocate for the poor, is a drunkard who takes bribes.  Characters emerge in contradictions, and I'm going to work with the actors on developing well-rounded characters, not two-dimensional images.  That said, these characters are larger-than-life, with somewhat of a musical theatre feel to them.  They will be heightened and stylized as appropriate.  While a more two-dimensional approach may be appropriate for companies of actors skilled in Brecht and similar styles, I believe that applying that much style will be deadly here.  The last thing I want to see is a bunch of actors completely separated from their characters, playing what they understand to be "alienation."  While Brecht was, in fact, looking for emotional distance between actor and character, I believe we can effectively achieve this by highlighting the STORYTELLING aspect of this experience.  The actors portraying the Chalk Circle story never really forget that they are ACTING.  Using this tactic, I believe I can encourage the actors to commit to the story without bogging down in emotion and distancing themselves too much.

MOVEMENT & FIGHTS
All of my productions heavily incorporate movement, and this is no exception.  I can see several stylized, and actors will take on roles of inanimate objects to set the scene.  Some examples of movement and fight moments are below.

MUSICAL NUMBERS
Action that takes place during the musical numbers represent moments of change and decision.  The narrator comments on the thoughts of the characters and puts them out there for the audience to consider.  Movement could perhaps set these musical moments in context?

TRANSITIONS
The actors will negotiate any changes to the setting to effect all transitions (no blackouts or stops in the action).  Actors will bring on whatever props or furniture pieces are necessary to change the scene, and this movement will be stylized into the action of the play.

PROCESSION INTO CHURCH (pg. 14)
I envision a gaggle of people all craning to see the child and get the Governor to hear their petitions.  Same going out.  This could be similar to that wonderful scene in the movie "Brazil" where all of the office clerks are following the supervisor.

GRUSHA KNOCKS OUT THE CORPORAL (pg. 39)
Grusha violently knocks the corporal out and flees with Michael

CROSSING THE ABYSS (pg. 41)
I have an idea now to utilize the actors with pieces of wood to somehow simulate the creaky suspension bridge.

THE END OF THE WAR (pg. 54)
Brecht writes an overlapping montage of text that the guests utter during the funeral/wedding party. This suggests the possibility of some stylization to clarify the discovery for the audience that the war has ended.

SLAPPING AZDAK AND SHAUWA (pg. 70)
The Ironshirts smack Azdak and Shauwa to let them know who's in charge.

THE MONTAGE OF CASES (pg. 75-85)
An earlier translation of the play suggests that Azdak is carried around in his judge's chair from case to case.  Bentley doesn't suggest this in his, but I love this idea and I'd like to see if we could do it!  Perhaps at the end he can be tossed out of the chair?

BEATING AZDAK (pg. 89)
Before he is restored to the judge's seat by the Duke, Azdak is going to be hanged.  The soldiers beat him and tie a noose around his neck.  He is seriously bloodied, and can't see by the end of it.

RESTRAINING NATELLA (pg. 97)
Natella Abashwili almost tears Grusha apart before she is restrained.

THE CHALK CIRCLE (pg. 97-98)
This will have to be very specific, but I doubt I'll go for any stylization … I think it says everything it needs to be staged very simply.