Thursday, 24 March 2011

Chris Port Blog #142. Evaluation of devising and performance of Un-Happy End

© Chris Port,Central School of Speech and Drama, 2000

This evaluation should be read in conjunction with the playscript for Un-Happy End.

This notebook takes the form of a summative analysis and evaluation of key moments in the following areas:

  1. Basic considerations.
  2. The group dynamic.
  3. Designation of roles.
  4. Choosing the theme and learning objectives.
  5. Researching and writing the script.
  6. The rehearsal process.
  7. The performance product.
  8. The workshop.
  9. The teacher’s pack.
  10. Strengths and weaknesses measured against learning objectives.

Please refer to the portfolio for appendices where stated in the notebook.

1.  Basic considerations.

Basic considerations were dictated by the unit outline, assessment criteria and preliminary briefings by unit tutors ***** ******* and ***** ***** on 27th September 1999. The most basic consideration was the time-constraint of 2 weeks, which militated against lengthy group debates. Also, much of the internecine debate in the drama community about the agenda of Theatre-in-Education (c.f. England 1990; Jackson 1993) was pre-empted by the early emphasis laid on this being a Theatre and Education project focused on the post-16 curriculum.

Although this still left opportunities to explore the social (and, by implication, political) issues beloved of left-wing TIE in the past, the prerequisite of post-16 curricular learning objectives militated against learning through theatre in favour of learning in theatre. The tacit working definition of theatre for this project was therefore precisely that ‘redefinition’ of drama warned against by the chair of National Drama in 1993 as ‘... a body of knowledge made up of theatre crafts, genres and skills’ (cited in Hornbrook 1998:54).

The specificity of the unit outline did not remove a political agenda for the project, however; it only concealed it. England (1990) observes that apolitical playwrights can be accused of ‘ implicit ‘conservatism’ ’ (England 1990:12), or, as Brecht put it, ’For art to be “unpolitical” means only to ally itself with the “ruling” group’ (cited in Willett 1974:196).

This cynical observation and apposite quote is not included as an adverse criticism of the unit (negotiations in collaborative units are often intense enough without having to consider the various political opinions of individual group members, let alone the current neo-positivist climate in schools). Rather it surfaced in my memory from my undergraduate studies and thus suggested Brecht as an interesting proposition: a key practitioner in the post-16 Theatre Studies written examination (c.f. Associated Examining Board 1998:6) with a built-in political agenda (albeit neutered by emphasis on the art form rather than the agitprop). As McCullough (1998) put it:

‘The mainstream critical approach to Brecht ... has been to appropriate the man and his plays away from the offensive political ideology, with the intention of rescuing the art from the politics.’ (McCullough 1998:174).

The choice of Brecht also appealed to my sense of curiosity; although I have often quoted and used his theories, I have always suspected either that I never properly understood them or that there was something inherently paradoxical in trying to grasp his practices as an art form while sifting out the underlying Marxist theory. Perhaps in trying to persuade the group to teach his theories to others, I could resolve this paradox for myself before being let loose in the classroom as either an unsure teacher or a closet Marxist.

Whether or not I could or should persuade the group to adopt Brecht as a focus depended to a large extent on what ideas other people might have and the group dynamic itself which is analysed next.

2.  The group dynamic.

With regard to early devising in collaborative devised work, Liles and Mackey (Mackey 1997) advise that the group should elect a chairperson or leader for each session and suggest that people should be allowed to take the lead if they ‘have a particular flair and vision for theatrical structure, ideas and so on...’ (Liles and Mackey 1997:146). As soon as the group came together I assumed the role of chairperson (without prior discussion) and set the various agendas. I compiled brief biographies of group members, listing their dramatic preferences and summaries of their host school details. I then proposed various co-ordination roles and conducted the bartering process leading to their designation (please refer to Appendix 1. Minutes of Session 1. and Chapter 3. Designation of roles).

It was noticeable at this early stage that a) there was a marked aversion to Brecht among some group members (ironic in retrospect) and b) my pleasant but assertive tactics offended democratic sensibilities among some group members. My main concern at this point was to pre-empt lengthy debates and chivvy the group into focusing on basic thematic options. Although this may have given the appearance of treating the project as a personal vehicle for my ego, my motives were more servile. I was aware (from previous experience working in the city as an ‘administrative fixer’ for the Board of Directors and also as a writer-in-residence for a youth theatre) that my talents would be of most benefit to the group in these early stages, giving the project a clear structure and being able to rapidly produce an original script if this route was chosen. A point I frequently made to the other group members was that I was only making suggestions: the final decision process lay with the group as a whole.

I was also adamant at this early stage in my opposition to suggestions from some group members that we should agree a mission statement to the effect that we would work together supportively, respectfully and professionally as a team. My objection was not to the suggested behaviour. It was to the idea that such behaviour was a matter for debate. We were all ‘mature’ post-graduates undertaking an educational project. Such behaviour was therefore expected and actually formed part of the assessment criteria for the unit. The idea of a written group constitution seemed to me, at best, a waste of valuable time and, at worst, an ominous hint of a potential lack of professionalism. You cannot legislate for human behaviour; you can only legislate against some of its excesses.

It is pertinent, at this point, to remind ourselves that, when dealing with human beings, there are always discrepancies between theory and practice analogous to the concept of friction in Physics (the discrepancy between idealised movement and real movement is due to the fact that objects never move in idealised circumstances). Any evaluation that does not allow for these discrepancies is simply describing the ideal rather than the real.

The initial friction in the group was undoubtedly between myself and, at various times, the majority of the group as I strongly advocated an early decision to focus on a key practitioner (preferably Brecht) and a list of specific learning aims and objectives which would simplify the devising process and evaluation. Ultimately, all of my recommendations were accepted (unanimously) but not without heated (and often personalized) debate.

The two main causes of friction seemed to be:

a) some group members did not fully understand Brechtian theory (again ironic, as I confidently expounded Brecht’s theories while privately doubting my own understanding) and 

b) I discerned a feeling among some group members (with one eye on the assessment criteria) that unless their ideas were included, they would not be seen as having contributed to the project.

I frequently made the point that there was no ownership of ideas (perhaps a little hypocritical in retrospect, given that the assessment criteria turn the evaluation into an unseemly scramble to claim credit wherever possible). However, it is true that ideas outgrow their parents and the contribution of others in developing an idea is at least as important as its original conception although often ‘... transient and ephemeral, which makes the documentation of the form difficult’ (Oddey 1994:21).

Also, as a writer-in-residence for a youth theatre, I have long since lost the tendency to be ‘precious’ about my ideas, adopting the anonymous writer’s advice to ‘murder your darlings’ (be prepared to get rid of your favourite parts if they do not serve the work as a whole).

In retrospect, my somewhat breezy familiarity with rapid devised script work and strong assertion of preferences probably came across as arrogance but, on the other hand, my words and actions were always reasonable (in my opinion) while the behaviour of some group members often fell short of the respectful code of conduct they had advocated as a mission statement (in my opinion).

This friction in the group dynamic shifted after I withdrew from later group discussions to work on a first draft script. Particular members of the group now shifted and intensified their resistance to suggested direction from the performance co-ordinator (director) which brings us to the designation of roles.

3.  Designation of roles.

During the first group meeting on 27th September I suggested designating co-ordination responsibilities to individual group members in the following roles:

  • Performance Co-ordinator (responsible for directing the performance).
  • Workshop Co-ordinator (responsible for collating activities for the workshop).
  • Teacher’s Pack Co-ordinator (responsible for collating activities for the teacher’s pack).
  • Schools Liaison Co-ordinator (responsible for arranging performances and workshops at the various schools).
  • Group Information Co-ordinator (responsible for collating the structured record of all group activities).
  • Procurements Co-ordinator (responsible for obtaining props and costumes).
  • Script Co-ordinator (responsible for writing any script).

The process of allocating the roles was started by using a tick box grid (please refer to Appendix 2. Role preferences) which clarified the shortlists for bartering (n.b. one member of the group was absent through illness and was allocated the School Liaison role by default). The bartering process itself was (in view of some of the tensions that followed) remarkably well mannered; if someone expressed a strong preference for one particular role then other contenders would defer for the sake of group harmony. It is noticeable that only one group member opted for the onerous role of director (performance co-ordinator) and that this was the role that later attracted such opprobrium from some of the other group members. I deliberately avoided consideration for this role, suspecting that this was where a future clash of egos might lie (the term ‘mature student’ often seems to refer to age more than temperament). I wonder whether other group members avoided this role for the same reasons?

In retrospect, it is difficult to see any reason for the tensions that followed other than a clash of personalities and unreasonable behaviour.

During the role designation phase I stressed that (in my view) these were co-ordinating roles, meaning that we would all contribute where necessary in different areas with the co-ordinator overseeing that area and accepting ultimate responsibility. The director was not tyrannical (far from it, he often acted as a moderator) and although, as scriptwriter, I did not entirely agree with his direction (it is rare that writers and directors agree on everything) I saw no reason for the tantrums and rudeness exhibited by some others. The conclusion I draw from this experience is that, as drama teachers, it would be hypocritical of us to claim that our art form can improve our students’ behaviour if it has the reverse effect on our behaviour.

4.  Choosing the theme and learning objectives.

The second group session was held on Tuesday 28th September (chaired by the performance co-ordinator). One problem identified during this session was that, although this was a post-16 educational project, only 2 out of the 6 possible audience schools had post-16 students (in the end, due to reasons of travel and cost, we did not perform to a post-16 audience).

Concern was expressed by some group members at this stage that, although our project was aimed at a post-16 audience, it should also be accessible and of some use to a Key Stage 4 audience as this was likely to be our client group (this is a possible flaw in the unit criteria: if many of the host schools do not have a post-16 curriculum, is it useful to insist that this should be the focus area for the project?). Again after heated debate, it was decided to focus on Brecht as a key practitioner, highlighting some of the key elements of Epic theatre (the verfremdungseffekt and gestus) by comparing and contrasting these in a devised piece with elements of heightened realism.

There were repeated concerns expressed by some members of the group that the learning area of Brechtian theory and practice, although suitable for the unit criteria post-16 curriculum, may be inaccessible to our actual likely audience in Key Stage 4. However, I reassured the group that I had conducted workshops on Brechtian theory and practice with 13 to 16 year olds at a youth theatre with no problems (even going so far as to write and stage a pseudo-Brechtian parody of Romeo and Juliet as a futile palliative to teenage girls infatuation with Leonardo DiCaprio!).

Hornbrook (1998) recommends that Key Stage 3 students as young as Year 8 be introduced to both naturalism and realism and Brecht in his ‘map’ of drama for the first 3 years of secondary school (c.f. Hornbrook 1998:63).

As a sop to concerns that our post-16 project would not be relevant to a Key Stage 4 audience, we decided to configure the workshop in such a way that it would also be of use to GCSE Drama students in their practical component if they opted for the polished improvisation unit (c.f. Southern Examining Group 1998:13).

As a consequence of the above, I drafted the learning aims and objectives for the project and these were agreed by the group (please refer to Appendix 3. Learning Aims and Objectives).

In retrospect, these aims and objectives were overly ambitious. Although the comparison between Realism and Epic Theatre was intended simply to highlight the latter, we actually complicated the situation by introducing another specific and complicated genre (Realism) without debating and agreeing exactly what we meant by this.

I cited a general working definition of Realism as a ‘selection and distillation of the detailed observation of everyday life, not the life itself’ (Cooper and Mackey 1995:228) and the emphasis on subtext as a way of deepening meaning. However, Brecht’s comparison of Epic Theatre was with the much more nebulous conventions of Dramatic Theatre (c.f. Cooper and Mackey 1995:296-297). Although Realism fits into the general category of Dramatic Theatre and the world of illusion which Brecht detested, the neat distinctions between Naturalism and Realism, together with experiments in New Realism in British Theatre from 1956 onwards, demand greater specificity than a bland blanket term of ‘Realism’. As Styan (1981) put it, ‘ ‘Realistic’ is a slippery term in dramatic criticism ’ (Styan [1] 1981:1). Whether or not we actually did compare Epic Theatre with ‘Realism’ is discussed later in Chapter 10. Strengths and weaknesses measured against learning objectives) but in my scramble for credit in drafting the group’s aims and objectives it is only right that I should also accept much of the responsibility for this slip in our dramatic critical vocabulary.

5.  Researching and writing the script.

It was agreed (again, after much heated debate) by the group that we would compare and contrast ‘Realism’ and Epic Theatre by portraying a similar scenario twice, using the respective conventions of each genre. The scenario agreed upon (eventually) was that of a courtroom as this would be reasonably familiar to the students (both post-16 and Key Stage 4) from television realism/naturalism criticised by Hornbrook for being nearly all pervasive and uncritical in classroom practice (c.f. Gangi 1998:159). It also lent itself to Epic Theatre as Brecht frequently uses court scenes in his plays: there are trials in The Measures Taken, The Exception and the Rule, The Good Person of Szechwan (c.f. Willett and Manheim 1970) to name the main examples, and mock trials in Man Equals Man and Mr Puntila and his Man Matti (Ibid); the theme of justice is also central to that stalwart A Level Theatre Studies text, The Caucasian Chalk Circle (Ibid).

Research into the theme was fairly perfunctory in that we relied on our general understanding of the basic tenets of Epic Theatre (the V-effect and Gestus; please refer to the perfunctory definitions stated in Appendix 3. Learning Aims and Objectives) from our degree studies. Research into our intended audiences was also fairly perfunctory in that we relied on individual group members for accounts of their client groups.

With regard to the inspiration for the script, Liles and Mackey (1997) observe from interviews with professional companies that ‘ the most effective way of initiating ideas is to ‘play’ ’ (Liles and Mackey 1997:136). We started the devising process by suggesting basic character types or social roles, allocating these by a bartering system according to preference, inventing character names, and then inventing a basic plotline (the husband’s murder of his unfaithful wife) which lent itself both to an emotional subtext (jealousy, inferiority) inherent in Realism and a social context (the external pressures on individuals caused by capitalist values and notions of property).

With regard to the actual writing of the script, in the main it was not a collaborative process. I made notes on some of the improvised dialogue then simply went away and wrote the script over 3 days, delivering the first (and only) draft in half-daily instalments so that cuts could be made and rehearsals could start while the rest of the script was being finished.

The ‘Realism’ version was based on cliches familiar to audiences from the conventions of murder mysteries and courtroom dramas on television; with the Epic Theatre version I tried to incorporate as many of the Brechtian conventions we had discussed as possible; overall I tried to balance both genres with the acting strengths and preferences of the cast, throwing in enough comedy to keep it entertaining for our actual audiences of 16 year-olds who may be slightly bemused, while also keeping an eye on our learning aims and objectives.

The result (in my opinion) was a hybrid script, recognizably realistic in parts, recognizably pseudo-Brechtian in parts, but dramaturgically illegitimate, a generic bastard with an eclectic mix of literary references (e.g. the ironical sonnet The Poem of the Middle Class Marriage). The opening commentary by the Usher in the Epic Theatre version, was a direct allusion and homage to Brecht’s ‘street scene’ analogy (c.f. Thomson and Sacks 1994:197).

The scripts and their attendant paraphernalia were my main contribution to this project (please refer to Appendix 4. The 60 Minute Theatre Company, Appendix 5. Un-Happy End Programme, Appendix 6. Un-Happy End Realism Script and Appendix 7. Un-Happy End Epic Theatre Script).

6.  The rehearsal process.

Rehearsals were interspersed between other activities (e.g. research for the Teacher’s Pack and the Workshop). Blocking and characterization in the Realism version were perfunctory, and opportunities for Gestus in the Epic Theatre version were usually overlooked.

As remarked earlier, there were often tensions between particular members of the cast and the Performance Co-ordinator which had an unfortunate inhibiting effect upon the process (the Performance Co-ordinator and other members of the cast were often too nervous or exhausted to make suggestions for fear of antagonising the others - a totally unreasonable and unacceptable situation).

The rehearsal process, as such, mainly consisted of line learning in situ and deciding on the optimal choice of staging. We started with a thrust stage but decided that there were sightline problems with parts of the audience mainly seeing the backs of the prosecution and defence counsels (rearranging the courtroom would have made it too unfamiliar for our ‘Realism’ version). Instead, we opted to change to a corridor/traverse stage that enabled us to keep members of the audience on the edge of the courtroom (like jurors weighing the evidence) while removing the problematic sight line row.

7.  The performance product.

Due to the 2-week time-constraint of the project, and the sacrifice of the first week to producing a fairly wordy script for line learning, this was always going to be an under-rehearsed production. That said, the performances in themselves went remarkably well (barring the occasional mangling of meaning when lines were occasionally misspoken).

We did not end up performing to our prescribed post-16 curricular audience. Instead, (apart from performing to our peer group at Central during the presentations) we performed to Year 11 (and, in one case, Year 10) Drama students at three host schools in the London area.

The responses from all audiences were favourable. While our peer group at Central (admittedly not the target audience) was the most appreciative in terms of discerning our exposition of basic Epic Theatre, our Key Stage 4 audiences at least enjoyed the experience. It would be overly optimistic (and objectively improvable) to say that our Key Stage 4 audiences fully understood the learning aims and objectives, but they had been introduced to two key concepts and identified some differences between ‘Realism’ (Dramatic Theatre) and Epic Theatre.

Both the script and the performance were deliberately biased in favour of the Epic Theatre version (the ’Realism’ version being relatively static and dull). Out of the three different audiences, the first and third audiences voted the Epic Theatre version their favourite on the grounds that it was funny and unusual. Curiously enough, the second audience voted the ‘Realism’ version their favourite because (ironically) it was what they were used to. I did unpick this response a little in the workshop but was wary of challenging a Key Stage 4 audience too much over a post-16 curriculum learning area.

8.  The workshop.

Elwell (1997) observes that workshops tend to comprise two areas of activity: the teaching of skills and the exploration of concepts or themes of the performance. Unfortunately, no plan for our workshop in either area ever really materialized. Instead, we hurriedly tagged-on an eclectic mess of exercises vaguely connected with improvisation skills in order to make the project useful to our Key Stage 4 audiences.

The first exercise (conducted by myself) was a relatively energetic and entertaining memory game facilitated by the association of gestures/actions with disparate items. The ostensible justification for this exercise was that gesturing was synonymous with Gestus (a connection so tenuous as to snap under any critical scrutiny). In fact, the only real justification for this exercise was that it got the audience involved in an enjoyable and confidence-boosting game. The association of gesture/action with narrative and disparate items as a memory-aid may have been of some use as a drama skill (remembering lines, possibly) but did nothing to address our learning aims and objectives.

Subsequent exercises fared little better. Tableaux with themes such as Money, Poverty, Marriage and Justice perhaps came a little closer to the alternation between presentation and commentary inherent in Gestus, and addressed some of the themes in Un-Happy End, but were hardly a revelation. Perhaps the most wince-worthy moment in the workshop came when one group member tried to fix unfamiliar words in the minds of the students by explaining that Gestus sounded like ‘guesthouse’ and Verfremdungseffekt contained the word ‘dung’. The mind boggles at what the students might have taken away from this: possibly that Gestus was something to do with hotels and Verfremdungseffekt was something to do with shit? An unfortunate error of judgement in humour, no doubt, but also indicative of a deep failure in planning. This was our lowest point.

In a subsequent workshop I tried to redeem our learning aims and objectives by getting the students to repeat the words Gestus and Verfremdungseffekt a few times to become familiar with them, explaining briefly what they meant, and then citing examples from the performance. This approach had a limited success (students began to pick out differences between the ‘Realism’ and Epic Theatre versions such as the use of flour to represent fear, the use of representational props, speaking in the third person etc.). However, this feedback element to the workshop was often in danger of becoming a seminar (and sometimes a lecture on my part) and never achieved that balance between practical skills and exploration of themes that characterizes a successful workshop. I never saw a workshop plan and doubt if there ever really was one.

This was undoubtedly the most disappointing element in the project. Perhaps if there had not been so much tension in the group dynamic we might have had the courage to tackle this failure in planning and co-ordination at a much earlier stage.

9.  The teacher’s pack.

It was suggested by the Teacher’s Pack Co-ordinator that, in view of my role in drafting the Learning Aims and Objectives and writing the script, I should be excused from submitting lesson plan activities for the Teacher’s Pack. My main contribution to the Teacher’s Pack therefore consisted of participating in some of the discussions as to suitable elements for incorporation.

However, keeping an eye on the assessment criteria for the unit, I should point out that I also played a key role in determining the format of the Teacher’s Pack by providing an exemplar of a Teacher’s Pack I compiled as an undergraduate (c.f. Appendix 8. Cover, Contents and Introduction to Un-Happy End and Appendix 9. Cover, Contents and Introduction to Sense of Worth).

On evaluation, the lesson plans on textual analysis (theory and practical) and creating the Verfremdungseffekt (practical) are useful resources for drama teachers. However, the two similar practical lessons on Gestus are little more than inflated tableau work from Key Stage 3 with a little semiotic reading thrown in. Likewise with the workshop discussed earlier, we never really got to grips with explaining the importance of Gestus in creating the Verfremdungseffekt by teaching student-actors how to demonstrate a social attitude, deriving ‘character’ from ‘ the actions of the person ... portrayed, not, as is usual in drama, from the character, which ... ‘shields actions from criticism’ (Styan [3] 1981:141). Our explanation of Gestus was frozen in presentation and never came to life in the necessary transition to commentary and back again.

10. Strengths and weaknesses measured against the learning objectives.

The main strengths of this project were twofold: 

  1. on the whole, the performance worked as an instructive and amusing piece of theatre; 
  2. the modest learning aims and objectives (introducing and identifying key concepts and exploring techniques in improvisation) were technically fulfilled.

The main weaknesses of this project were threefold:

  1. We did not contrast Epic Theatre with an accurate portrayal of Realism.
  2. We did not adequately show Gestus in terms of ‘the basic meaning underlying every (silent) sentence’ (Willett cited in Thomson and Sacks 1994:196), paraphrasing it instead as an occasional clarity of gesture.
  3. Our workshop did not develop practical skills or explore the themes of the performance in any great depth.

Overall, our project was a modest success but would have achieved greater depth if we had taken more time defining our terms of reference and planning our workshop activities more precisely.

In conclusion, I now think that Brecht can be taught as a political playwright without political indoctrination of the students. The anti-capitalist and post-feminist revisionist dialectics in the Epic Theatre version of Un-Happy End were quite explicit but (to the best of my knowledge) they did not attract any adverse criticism from any of the host schools. Then again, this may just mean that the arguments were so amusing and harmless that no offence could be taken. Was it educational theatre or just amusement? As Brecht said:

‘... the contrast between learning and amusing oneself is not laid down by divine rule... Theatre remains theatre, even when it is instructive theatre, and in so far as it is good theatre it will amuse.’ (Brecht cited in Jackson 1993:34).

Christopher Port
January 2000


Appendix 1.  Minutes of Session 1.
Appendix 2. Role preferences.
Appendix 3. Learning Aims and Objectives.
Appendix 4. The 60 Minute Theatre Company.
Appendix 5. Un-Happy End Programme.
Appendix 6. Un-Happy End Realism Script.
Appendix 7. Un-Happy End Epic Theatre Script.
Appendix 8. Cover, Contents and Introduction to Un-Happy End.
Appendix 9. Cover, Contents and Introduction to Sense of Worth.     


Associated Examining Board (1998), AEB GCE Advanced Level Theatre Studies
Syllabus for 2000 Examinations, Guildford, Associated Examining Board.

Cooper, S. and Mackey, S. (1995) Theatre Studies: An Approach for Advanced Level, Cheltenham, Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd.

Elwell, C. (1997) ‘Theatre and Education’ in Mackey, S. (Ed.) Practical Theatre: A post-16 Approach, Cheltenham, Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd.

England, A. (1990) Theatre for the Young, Hampshire, Macmillan Education Ltd.

Gangi, J.M. (1998) ‘Making Sense of Drama in an Electronic Age’ in Hornbrook, D. (Ed.) On The Subject of Drama, London, Routledge.

Hornbrook, D. (Ed.) (1998) On The Subject of Drama, London, Routledge.

Jackson, T. (Ed.) (1993) Learning Through Theatre: New Perspectives on Theatre in Education, London, Routledge.

Liles, S. and Mackey, S. (1997) ‘Collaboration: Devising Group Work’ in Mackey S. (Ed.) Practical Theatre: A post-16 Approach, Cheltenham, Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd.

McCullough, C. (1998) ‘Building a Dramatic Vocabulary’ in Hornbrook, D. (Ed.) On The Subject of Drama, London, Routledge.

Oddey, A. (1994) Devising Theatre: A Practical and Theoretical Handbook, London, Routledge.

Southern Examining Group (1998), SEG GCSE Drama and Theatre Arts, Guildford, Associated Examining Board.

Styan, J.L. (1981) Modern Drama in Theory and Practice 1: Realism and Naturalism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Styan, J.L. (1981) Modern Drama in Theory and Practice 3: Expressionism and Epic Theatre, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Thomson, P. and Sacks, G. (Eds.) (1994) The Cambridge Companion to Brecht, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Willett, J. and Manheim (Eds.) (1970) Brecht: Collected Plays: Volumes I to VIII, London, Eyre Methuen.

Willett, J. (Ed.) (1974) Brecht on Theatre, London, Methuen.

No comments:

Post a Comment