Theatre of the Oppressed

Theatre of the Oppressed has been an interesting read. As I first read it, I wondered why Boal begins by discussing so many European authors. As I trudged through the section on Aristotle, it seemed more like a history book than any book working toward justice for the oppressed. Concepts like catharsis seemed old hat to me. Then once in a while Boal would throw out a comment about oppression. It seemed out of place.

Eventually Boal reveals the trajectory of the work, showing that the history of theatre is one in which the ruling class creates divisions. It is a fascinating thesis to me, and very Marxist. "In the beginning was the mass..." Then the mass was separated into actors and spectators, followed by separating actors into protagonist and chorus. Boal aims to work against this series of divisions toward a theatre in which all can be actors.

As intriguing as the thesis is, I do have questions about it. Is structure always bad? I tend toward a practice that balances structure and fluidity, where structure can enable social action but too much disables it. I don't think Boal necessarily sees structure as bad, as the theatre of the oppressed is highly structured with characters like the Joker. And at the same time, there is a great amount of agility in this structure. There is a "redo" button so that social scenes can be replayed several times to discover different outcomes.

I am working my way through the final set of essays, so there is still more to come...