I’ve long imagined what it would be like to stand as an audience member in Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre. Ever since I first learned about it in my sophomore-year English class, I’ve been fascinated by the idea of being so close to the performers that you could almost reach out and touch them, all while standing in a faithful reconstruction of the space where Shakespeare’s plays were once performed. (More on that in the blog post later specifically about the globe!)
For years, it felt like a wild dream. So resting my hands on the very front of the stage while watching Mother Courage was both thrilling and a little daring, especially as the play unfolded in a direction I had not expected.
I went into this play blind as well, and by intermission I found myself googling and researching everything I could because I was so intrigued in setting and the time-frame of which this play was set in, if any. When I discovered that it was written in 1930s Germany at the beginning of World War II and set in the Thirty Years’ War in the seventeenth century, I quickly realized this production was a kind of modern, dystopian adaptation, and I loved it all the more for that.
That was when it finally clicked for me… this play, and the themes it explores, do not need to be confined to one specific time period or war. Instead, it serves as a broader commentary on war, peace, family, and courage itself. These are ideas that withstand any era or political climate. And in my opinion, that is the true measure of a play’s impact especially with the social commentary category: its ability to remain urgent, relevant, and timeless.
And while things are quite different in today’s age and we in the United States are not in the midst of a large-scale war, peace still eludes us.
And I think that Brecht’s use of “alienation” or “distancing” was meant to prevent the audience from simply becoming passive observers. It pushes us to think critically about what we were watching and to become active judges of the situation and the characters, their choices, and the larger message of the play.
I thought the globe was the perfect stage. Seeing the performers exit through the crowd on the ground and pop out through the middle section reminded one that this is a show, and it is actively taking place around you. But also with proximity comes connection, and I think that standing that close provided a sense of duty for the characters, to pay attention as their stories unravel, to not blink when they look into your eyes for fear of missing their emotion, to provide them a sense of understanding that you are desperate to know what happens next. I thought that Brecht’s use of narration and directly addressing the audience did more than establish a connection between the performer and the audience, but it also gave the audience a sense of responsibility to stay engaged as the show unfolded. In doing so, the play encourages audience members not only to pay attention in the moment, but also to carry its message with them long after they have left the theatre.
But I also think this specific production invited audiences to feel the story’s emotion at times. Through the music, the songs, and the raw intensity of the death scenes with visible faces, blood, and suffering. The production made the consequences of war feel personal and real. And I think that was needed in a day and age when we have become desensitized to these kinds of images because we see them on our screens (phones, TikTok, TV) almost every day. Sometimes, emotion is what can be the final push to action, and I think this play balanced critical distance and emotional impact beautifully!
Theatre in London U of A 