Trends in Twentieth-Century Theatre: A Very Simplified Introduction

Subhendu Sarkar
By the eighteenth century the process of modernization which began in the fifteenth was almost
complete. Bourgeoisie had become powerful enough to dominate the European socio-economic
scenario by that time. It was natural, therefore, that the new masters would also influence the
cultural world. They went on to create a new form of literature —the novel— to suit their
experiences and aspirations and along with it a new literary movement —realism—as its most
convenient vehicle. The new social conditions that emerged as a result of the Industrial
Revolution were rife to cater to the needs of an ever-growing middle-class reading public. A
class that gained ascendance through confronting concrete empirical problems and overcoming
them through a systematic scientific approach would prefer no method of representation but
realistic. Thus we have novels that not only attempt to recreate reality in great detail but also
show it as something changing and, of course, changeable to a large extent (exemplified mostly
in an individual’s successful upward social mobility). Thus realism of the bourgeoisie came to
replace romance of the feudal/medieval aristocratic class as the chosen literary form.

It took quite some time for realism to establish itself in the world of theatre, though. The
bourgeoisie ultimately took control of the European stage towards the end of the nineteenth
century and opera (the favourite form of the aristocracy) came to be rejected. As in the case of
novels, plays too recreated reality on the stage, complete with the tensions that pervaded the
society, with an eye to alter it according to convenience. Some noteworthy playwrights (Henrik
Ibsen, Anton Chekhov and Bernard Shaw) and directors (Constantin Stanislavsky) changed the
course of the European theatre at the turn of the century.

Of course, realism soon came to incorporate even contradictory approaches to representation.

Driven by the theories of Charles Darwin, Naturalism, on the one hand, attempted to present “a
slice of life” on the stage as something where individuals are influenced by heredity and social
environment. No matter significant issues (including socio-economic conflicts) of the age were
taken up but the Naturalist plays ultimately presented a pessimistic world-view: humans are
almost puppets, unable to control and change their surroundings. Too much emphasis on the
outward details made Naturalism take a lopsided view of science as it presented a world which
appears deterministic and where human free will remains futile. Naturalism survived for many
years and it goes without saying that it produced quite a few outstanding plays. A faithful
representation of life on the stage is no mean feat. It is somewhat comparable to the critical
realism (a concept propounded by Geörg Lukács) practiced by some novelists.

There are other forms of realism as well. Symbolist movement which later culminated in
Expressionism opted for a non-realistic representation to conjure up a true picture of life. It
started as a revolt against Naturalism and emphasized the subjective perspective of the world to
represent absolute truths in art. Thus metaphors, symbols and dreams came to play a
 2

predominant part in the works of Maurice Maeterlink, W.B.Yeats, J.M.Synge, T.S.Eliot and
August Strindberg. Parallel approaches have also been made in other forms of literature, painting
and even music.

Realism was dealt with in yet another manner in political theatre. Relying on the centuries-old
concept of art to educate (apart from entertaining), it tried to make the audience aware of the
realities of the class-divided society and the need to create a just world. In the twentieth century
the term ‘political theatre’ has come to mean the theatre which promotes leftist (or more
specifically Marxist) ideology. Marxist theatre has an incredible range: from the didactic
agitprop to the Epic theatre of Bertolt Brecht and Theatre of the Oppressed by Augusto Boal.
The Marxists believe that the world controlled by the bourgeoisie leaves out the majority of the
people and therefore art must be used as a weapon in bringing about a revolutionary change in
the society.

Reactions against Naturalistic theatre took many forms. And they were prompted by a host of
different philosophical orientations. If the Marxists presented a realist representation with a
contrary optimistic worldview, the proponents of Avant-Garde theatre had a non-realist approach
in mind. With alternative uses of language, space for performance and methods of using body of
actors and playing upon the minds of the audience in a non-conventional way, the Experimental
theatre has questioned Naturalism and carried forward the legacy of the earlier attempts by the
Symbolists. But it remains to be said that the Experimental theatre, for the most part, has either
precipitated into a quagmire of esoteric propositions relying too much on the subconscious or
propagated a pessimist view showing the world as unchangeable and human existence as
purposeless. Therefore, in such plays instead of logical construction we have irrational and
illogical speech. The world living under the shadow of the Cold War and nuclear holocaust was
perhaps responsible in giving birth to the Theatre of the Absurd. Samuel Beckett, Eugène
Ionesco, Jean Genet and the early Harold Pinter have exhibited similar views.

In the final analysis, the twentieth-century theatre can, therefore, be broadly divided into two
categories that are prompted by two mutually incompatible philosophical positions: one that
considers ill-fated humans to be trapped in an unalterable world and another which advocates
that we are shaped by circumstances that, in turn, are changed by us. Like all other forms of art,
theatre, too, has remained a battleground of ideas concerning our relationship to nature.