Play Reflection: The Caucasian Chalk Circle Critique By Bertolt Brecht
The play, Caucasian Chalk Circle, by Bertolt Brecht was a heartwarming story that grasped my attention once I walked into the play. The play overall had Grusha as the protagonist and Natella as the antagonist. The way this was set up was through the personalities and actions of each characters. Grusha was the servant who took in and protected baby Michael when he had no one whereas Natella was the lady who left behind her own child. Thus, the problem of the play centered around Michael.
From being wanted and killed, to the divide between who takes care of him, Michael was the center point for the problem of the play. Additionally, there were many aspects of the play that helped me understand it as a whole and overall emphasized the theme of morality. For instance, Grusha taking on the role of being the mother to Michael showed how despite everyone wanting the baby Michael killed, she instead fought to protect him. Thus, this was one of the moments that emphasized the theme of morality.
Additionally the set, lighting, score and costumes were aspects that emphasized the theme, complimented the story, and provided depth for the characters. The set created a great atmosphere for the play because it was creative and easy to follow. Many aspects of it made the play feel real such as the river with the bottled water trash and the use of the upper layer for some scenes. The way the layout was and the props that were used made it enjoyable as the reader to follow the play.
Furthemore, by adding such props, it made the story feel real which I believe is essential in pulling in the audience and keeping them interested. For me, I enjoyed the set and layout because it was pleasing to my eye and made me appreciate the hard work that was put into making the play what it was. It’s important to create a good set because without one, the audience wouldn't be able to believe the scenes that were happening, let alone be interested in what they see. All in all it made me feel as if I were immersed into the story. The lighting added another layer to the overall performance and function of the play through the way it was used. For instance, when a character went into a soliloquy, everyone would pause and the light would shine on the character. This aspect emphasized the thoughts and feelings of that character, and the way that the light isolated everything but us and the character, made me feel as if there were a connection between the character and I.
Furthermore, the light was used as a prop to convey feeling. There were instances where there were red lights that flickered during chaotic events which set the mood as dramatic and thus made the play more enjoyable. On the other hand there were aspects of realism such as the little amount of light during night scenes and the yellow/blue lights that conveyed a calm mood. All in all, the lights were essential in setting the mood and atmosphere through the uses such as color and motion. The costumes were essential in conveying what the time period of the play was. In this case, the farm clothes and the pre-war clothing, the audience was able to distinguish the social class divide.
Furthermore, the costumes and make-up added to the overall performance of the play. For example, the dirt on Grusha while she was struggling showcased the hard time she was having. Little details like this made the play enjoyable for me as the audience because I understood what Gursha was going through. The score was amazing because music can convey emotions. For this play, music was essential in conveying the emotions of the characters as well as the mood of the setting. The guitar strumming during soft scenes invoked a calm setting and the loud trash cans and drums during chaotic scenes helped emphasize the chaos. Furthermore, the faster paced music helped draw in the attention of the audience to the play whereas the slower paced music helped the audience to relax. As such, there were clear cut distinctions between the type of score and sound used for various scenes. Because of this, the play was able to successfully immerse the audience. After experiencing the play, I believe that the best actor is Dean Courtis who played the Narrator and Azdak.
My conclusion came to this based off of the way he was able to successfully envision himself as each character. He was able to switch between the two roles without it being unnatural. In one instance he’s the narrator, and in the other he is Azdak. It was as if he were two different people altogether. He in fact sold the characters of both when he was taking on each role. He had a very loud tone as the narrator and was able to create a sense of direction of which the audience could follow. As Azdak, he would switch to a charismatic personality with the way he was speaking and through the jokes that he would say. Because he was able to take on the roles of two characters and successfully portray them, he is the best actor of the pay.
On the other hand, the worst actor would be Ethar Lyvers who is Simon the lover. I’m not attacking the way that he is as an actor but I just felt like I had more criticism for his acting. As the soldier and husband to Grusha, I felt that he wasn’t able to successfully sell that relationship. In fact, I felt like it was forced rather than natural, and as an actor, it’s important to sell what’s being shown. He did do good though in conveying the soldier within his character, but his awkward moments, which were unintentional with the actress of Grusha, far outnumbered his good moments.
