A Gypsy at Heart

"It would mean nothing has been learnt in here this afternoon, and there was a hell of a lot of teaching going on..."  These words uttered by Sam, towards the conclusion of the play, can be seen as a summation of the thematic message of the entire play.

It is said that Master Harold and the Boys is an autobiographical account of what happened in the life of the author, Athol Fugard. In writing this play he apologises to Sam and reveals that he, Fugard, has eventually learned.  As and adult and acclaimed writer most of his play written during the Apartheid years focused on reporting the ill treatment black people received.

Master Harold and the Boys uncovers the relationship between Hally, a seventeen year old white boy, and two black men.  Hally's mother owns a tearoom and Sam and Willie work for his mother. Hally's father is a disabled drunk with whom Hally has a very difficult relationship. The play is set in the Apartheid years in South Africa. Willie and Sam are more of a family to Hally than his own parents. Hally is, however, torn in two about this. He loves and hates his father. What makes it more complicated is that his father is a racist and doesn't approve of Hally's relationship with the two black men.

Teaching in Master Harold and the Boys is layered.  Sam and Willie, as black men in an Apartheid South Africa didn't have the same opportunities at schooling as Hally.  Hally takes it upon himself to share his knowledge with Sam. Since he was a small boy he hid from his mother, in Sam's room. Their first lesson was about South Africa and Sam is proud that after all the years he can still remember it.  He recalls the rivers and products to a point where Hally says to him "You've got a phenomenal memory."

It is clear that both Hally and Sam are intelligent individuals. Hally finds school boring and Sam would have liked more educational opportunities.  

Their conversation about "a man of magnitude" shows that both of them are philosophers with a good general knowledge of history. Sam's wisdom shows in the way he provides sensible arguments to motivate his choice for "a man of magnitude"

For a short period of time they enjoy reminiscing about the past and the good times they had. They laugh about the kite Sam made and the fun they had flying it in park. Hally remembers that Sam had to leave and how scared he was taking care of the kite on his own. He will only later learn the real reason why Sam had to leave.

Ballroom as escapism becomes a learning process for Hally. To him ballroom seems boring until Willie and Sam explain the perfect world in which ballroom lives. Hally chooses this as a topic for his essay. He called it "A World Without Collisions." It is such a pity that a few minutes after that he had the biggest collision of his life with the one person that truly cared for him.

After Hally spoke to his father on the phone the happy mood in the tearoom changes immediately. Hally is angry because his father is coming home from the hospital. Life with his father, at home, is all but pleasant. When Sam reprimands him about his attitude he directs his anger towards Sam and spits in Sam's face. He suddenly sides with his father and tells Sam and Willie the racist joke his father always tells. He also instructs Sam to call him "Master Harold" in future. This is the turning point in the relationship between Sam and Hally.

It is ironic that the black man Sam for who Hally's father has only racist remarks, is the one that had to rescue him from the bar, when he was too drunk to get home by himself.  Sam was hurt by what Hally did and in an attempt to make him understand he said these words, "A crowded main street with all the people watching a little white boy following his drunk father on a kaffir's back."  It is obvious that Hally's father didn't learn anything. Sam, however, hopes that Hally will now learn from it, but it doesn't happen.

In a final attempt to help Hally to see, he tells him why he had to leave the afternoon they flew the kite. The bench on which Hally sat were for whites only. The bench becomes a strong metaphor and Sam hopes he can get Hally to walk away from the bench. "You don't have to sit up there by yourself. You know what the bench means now, and you can leave it any time you choose. All you've got to do is stand up and walk away from it."

This deeper layer of learning doesn't happen.  Sam might not be educated but he is a wise man. His attempt to teach Hally lessons about life and values fails. The information is given, but no learning occurs.

In Greek tragedies the tragic hero had very distinct characteristics that set him or her apart from the other characters. The play Antigone by Sophocles, however, seems to have two tragic heroes with Antigone and Creon as possibilities.

A tragic hero is always from noble birth. Creon is the King of Thebes and Antigone is a princess, the daughter of Oedipus, the late king of Thebes. Therefore both Antigone and Creon fit the profile of the tragic hero, in this instance.

An error of judgement is normally what leads to the downfall of a tragic hero. Again, can it be argued that both Creon and Antigone made an error of judgement.

 Antigone was prepared to go against Creon's will to bury her brother Polyneices. To her it was more important to obey the laws of the gods. She believed that Polyneices would not be able to rest unless he had a proper burial with the appropriate burial rites. As burials were very much the responsibility of the women, Antigone knew it was up to her and Ismene to ensure Polyneices got buried.  She stood alone in this as her sister Ismene was too afraid of Creon to stand up to him. 

Creon on the other hand appeared to be the villain that refused Polyneices this right. It is true that he was a typical Greek male of the times and had no regard for a woman's views. He believed, as all males of the time, that woman should be out of sight and not interfere in the matters of the country and definitely not go against any decree from the king. What cannot be ignored here is that as a Greek man and the king, his main task was to protect his kingdom from the enemy. To him, Polyneices was the enemy as he attacked Thebes. For enemies there are no burial rights.

Both Antigone and Creon were very stubborn in their views. Being Antigone and Polyneices� uncle the audience expects more empathy from Creon but he was adamant in punishing whoever went against his decree. Not even Haemon, his own son who was engaged to Antigone, could soften his hart.  

Antigone was prepared to die for burying her brother and stayed stubborn until the end when Creon had her locked up and she eventually committed suicide.

Creon didn�t at first want to listen to the prophet Tiresias and it was only after his conversation with the elders, who formed the Chorus, that he started doubting his decision. Strangely enough he insisted on burying Polyneices first before he went to free Antigone. One has to wonder if it was still his pride that stopped him from going to Antigone first.

It was only after Antigone, Haemon and Eurydice (his wife and Haemon's mother) killed themselves that he realised what he did. Only then, he showed remorse which brings us to the other characteristic of a tragic hero. A tragic hero must learn from his mistakes. On this point it can be argued that Creon was the actual tragic hero and not Antigone. She never once showed remorse. She died for what she believed in and Creon had to live with the consequences of his decision.

It is also assumed that the protagonist would normally be the tragic hero. In Antigone it is again difficult to establish who the protagonist is. Antigone seems to be the protagonist with her main goal being burying her brother. Therefore Creon would be the antagonist opposing her goal. It can also be argued that Antigone was the antagonist opposing Creon�s goal to not have Polyneices buried.

Sophocles chose to name his play Antigone and not Creon leading the reader to assume Antigone being the protagonist and the tragic hero. Even though Antigone might not have had remorse she definitely realized the effect of her decision in her monologue, when she called death her bridal chamber.

At the end, even though Creon suffers severely at the hand of his decision, Antigone is the one receiving the most empathy from the audience. She had to make a very difficult decision at a very young age with no hope of any support. Her tragedy lies in the fact that she really had no other choice, where Creon was stubborn and did not think about the outcome his decree might have.

A tragic hero has no control over his or her fate; it is destiny which cannot be changed.  Creon made his choice out of pride whereas Antigone made her choice according to the spiritual laws. She had no real choice and is therefore, most likely, more of a tragic hero than Creon.

Before one can fully comprehend what Epic Theatre is, it is necessary to understand the period of Realism.

During the 1800s the philosophy of Positivism gained a lot of ground. This philosophy was based on the concept of the five senses. Only objects that can be experienced with your five senses existed. Spirituality got left behind. Where plays about heroes, kings and gods were very typical during the previous theatre time periods, writers now started to concentrate on the tragedy of the common man.

In other words, every day people. Inside the theatre a 'slice of life' was recreated. Scenery was very realistic, all technical aspects were hidden from the audience and the audience was suppose to believe they are watching a piece of real life happening.

Bertolt Brecht, the playwright and Irwin Piscator, a Marxist director are perceived to be the initiators of Epic Theatre. Brecht was in the medic corpse during World War 1 and realized that the science they believed in so much is killing their people now. With automatic weapons being used for the first time more than 15 million people were killed in this war. Brecht lost his believe in science and realism.

Epic Theatre was born. Brecht's main goal was to move away from Realism. Where in Realism, plays happened over a very short period of time to create the illusion of reality; Brecht had his plays happening over months and even years. In Caucasian Chalk Circle the events happen over more than two years. No attempt was made to let the audience believe they are watching a 'slice of life'.

Where plays of Realism followed a linear structure and events happened in a chronological order, Epic plays normally had an episodic structure. In an episodic structure events do not happen chronological and there can be big jumps in time. In Caucasian Chalk Circle's first scene the Grand Duke flees and the governor got killed. Until close to the end of the play, nobody knows what happened to the Grand Duke and only finds out when the play returns to that specific night.

He never wanted his audience to forget that they are in a theatre and made use of a technique called Alienation to ensure this. He used this in the dialogue and characters of his plays. His plays had many characters where most were known by their occupation rather than their names for example in Caucasian Chalk Circle characters were called 'The Kitchen Maid, Cook, Ironshirt (soldier) etc. Characters would sometimes refer to themselves in the third person. Grusha would for instance call Simon the soldier instead of Simon.

During performances Brecht also defied the idea of Realism and left theatrical devices open for the audience to see. No light or sound devices were hidden. He seldom used pure white light and left the auditorium lights on during a performance. Where Realism never had scene changes that could break the illusion of real life happening, in Epic Theatre scene changes happened in full view of the audience. Using a narrator that remained on stage was a useful Alienation technique.

Another characteristic of Epic Theatre was Historification. This means that stories from the past were taken and turned into a play. Brecht believed theatre should be educational and was a follower of the philosophy of Expressionism which main point was cultural renewal. Brecht believed his audience should learn from what happened in the past and take that knowledge to change their own world.

It is widely believed that Epic Theatre had a vast influence on modern theatre where a combination of styles and influences from different time periods are evident.

SHORT HISTORY OF PERFORMING ARTS

Performing arts is as old as the world itself. The common belief is that theatre, as we know it today in the Western World, evolved from the ritual, and more specifically, the Greek rituals at the Dionysus festivals. Dionysus was the god of wine and fertility. It started with the Dithyramb, a song chanted by a chorus of up to 50 men, in honor of Dionysus.

It is believed that Thespis (6BC), a singer in the dithyramb, was the first person to step forward as an actor. He used masks to portray different characters. Eventually the characters grew from one to three. During Ancient Greek Times only men were allowed to act. They portrayed all the different characters by swapping masks and costumes. The Greek Tragedy was the first play to be performed.

Acting was stylized and spectacular with dance and movement. Specific movements and gestures were used to depict emotions like crying and praying.

Roman and Greek Theatre bloomed until the fall of the Roman Empire around 500- 600AC. Political instability, barbaric invasions and diseases terrorized the world. Theatre declined to the odd wandering performer doing juggling tricks and mime. Formal theatre didn't exist anymore.

The Roman Catholic Church gained more and more ground during these times and was opposed to the pagan element in theatre and performance.

It is ironic that the church, at the end, was responsible for the Revival of Theatre.

During Medieval Times people were mostly illiterate. All church services were conducted in Latin and not in the vernacular. In an attempt to make church services more accessible to the common man, the church introduced Mystery and Morality plays into their service. Certain Bible stories were performed like the birth of Jesus or the Crucification.

As the stories became less and less biblical, plays were moved outside the church to fixed stages and Pageant Wagons.

In the early Renaissance period, the Commedia Dell' Arte became a popular art form. It was a very physical form of theatre with a lot of clowning and comic movements from the characters. Like in Eastern Theatre, actors performed the same character for many years.

Shakespeare and the Elizabethan theatre must certainly be the best known theatre from the Renaissance period. Spectacle was of utmost importance as theatre was open to all classes. Shakespeare�s eloquent language was not understood by everybody, so a lot of action and spectacle was necessary to entertain everybody. It was still only men that were allowed to act. The well-known motion picture Shakespeare in Love explores this issue very well.

With the Industrial Revolution and the emphasis on science during the 1900s, the theatre underwent a massive change. Stanislavsky, the Russian director, started to place emphasis on the emotions of the characters. He believed that the actor should experience the emotion of the character on stage and explore the idea of "sense memory".

Dramas changed from stories about heroes and Noble figures to stories about everyday people and their tragedies. Acting became more realistic and believable. Spectacle made space for real emotion on stage.

World War One and Two brought another turn about in Theatre. Science failed the world. What should have saved the world is now killing people. Brecht, the revolutionary playwright, together with Erwin Piscator, a Marxist, began a movement against realism, called Epic Theatre. Here it was required of the actor to distance himself from the character. Instead of asking " Who am I'? as in the times of Realism, the actor should ask "What am I?" The person became less important than what he represented in society. A character would be referred to as the soldier, instead of Simon, as in Caucasian Chalk Circle.

After World War Two, the world was in turmoil and people started questioning their existence. Absurd Theatre made its entrance into the world. The best known play of these times must be Beckett's, Waiting for Godot. Two characters waiting at the roadside for Godot, who never shows up. Acting techniques changed. The dialogue was dark and without hope, where characters would talk senseless lines with little emotion just to contrast this with clowning actions.

Modern theatre is believed to have started with Epic Theatre and today we have a wonderful eclectic acting style. Classical plays are done either true to the time period or in a modern version. Many of Shakespeare's plays have been adopted very successfully into a modern setting making them more accessible to modern man.

I have a clear memory of my own fetal existence. It was an existence where no voice, no possible movement could free me from the agony and darkness I was subjected to. (Samuel Beckett)

These words uttered by Beckett relates directly to feelings and emotions portrayed in his characters in Waiting for Godot.

As with most periods in theatre, Absurd Theatre is a response to the times.  After WW2 people lost their believe in God and in science. Everything they previously believed in was suddenly pointless and cruel. Science failed them with the killing of millions of people in the two world wars so very close to each other.  Absurd playwrights were strongly influenced by the philosophies of the Existentialists who believed that existence is pointless and illogical. Absurd plays reflect these feelings of despair and futility in plots, characters and themes.

In the structure of the play there are no plotted crises, no climax and no discoveries or reversals. The structure does not adhere to the well made play structure of the plays from the period of Realism and before. There are no unities of time, place or action. In Absurd theatre the unities are dislocated to show a world out of harmony with itself. Most plots are circular and repetitive action emphasizes the meaninglessness of live. No progress is made and no resolutions to problems found.  At the end of Waiting for Godot, Vladimir and Estragon are still waiting for Godot to come. There problems are not solved and there was no significant improvement in their struggle against the world.

The characters are stereotype and represent mankind in general. The audience has no information on the history of the character and focus is mostly on one or two personality traits with little knowledge about the rest. In Waiting for Godot we know that Vladimir has a bladder problem and Estragon has trouble with his feet. We also know that they are tramps waiting for Godot to save them. Who Godot is, nobody knows and we never find out.  Characters normally come in pairs, so do Vladimir and Estragon. Even though they think they will be better off alone they never seem to be able to exist without each other. They need each other to prove their own existence. There is also the slave - master relationship which is obvious in Pozzo and Lucky. This can be argued as the relationship between the world and man. Man became the slave of an uncaring and cruel world. Where gods and heroes were evident in the preceding time periods, the hero has now become the anti-hero. Character flaws are exaggerated and characters appear to be dull and boring.

Thematic, Absurd theatre focuses on a world that is void and empty. Man seems to lack the ability to find purpose in the vacuum left by the loss of faith in everything that defined their existence before. Beckett focuses on this futility in waiting by taking his characters back to the place where they wait for Godot. Even though he never comes they keep on going back as there is nothing else to do.

Absurd playwrights never attempted to add to their audiences' despair but rather to motivate them into finding their own meaning in a meaningless world. There is no meaning to be found in a hostile and cruel word except the meaning we give to it.

Contrary to how it may sound, Poor Theatre has nothing to do with the lack of funds.

The concept of Poor Theatre started with the Polish director Jerzy Grotowski (1933 - 1999). Theatre in general became very elaborate and relied heavily on theatrical devices such as light, sound, costume and decor sets to add spectacle to the performance. The skills of the actors were overshadowed and became of less importance.

Motion pictures added sound and colour to their repertoire and it was impossible for theatre to compete with this new genre.

Grotowski's argued that there was no point in trying to compete with film but that theatre should rather convert back to its roots. In his own words, "If it [the stage] cannot be richer than the cinema, then let it be poor."

The actor's voice and body skills should be the primary spectacle on stage.  In his quest Grotowski did away with everything that could distract the audience from the actor. No more elaborate sets, lights and sound.  The relationship between the audience and the actor became, once more, the emphasis of the production.

In his actor's workshops, which he called a laboratory, the focus was on the actor. It was, however, very different from his predecessor Stanislavski, who aimed to teach his actors method acting. Grotowski appreciated Stanislavski's work but he (Grotowski) was not attempting to supply his actor with a "bag of tricks" as he called it. He focused on stripping down the actor into his essential self. It is, therefore not a collection of skills but an eradication of blocks. The techniques and exercises used in Grotowski's laboratory required serious concentration and commitment. The actor needed to find the strength of his natural voice and body. The perfection of the techniques was not as important as the awareness of the process.

During a performance the actor would awe the audience with his portrayal of the character without the help of any theatrical devices.  The spectacle came from the actor and the actor alone.

South African playwrights, Athol Fugard, Mbongeni Ngema and Percy Mtwa were all fascinated by the concept of Poor Theatre, after reading Grotowski's book, Towards a Poor Theatre. In Fugard's Boesman and Lena the Poor Theatre setting emphasizes the desolate and futile circumstances of the characters. Ngema and Mtwa's production of Woza Albert was performed as Poor Theatre with the minimum theatrical devices. The actors were dressed in tracksuit pants alone while decor consisted of two tea chests. A few functional props were used like a piece of cloth and clown noses. The cloth had multiple uses as a shawl, table cloth or blanket. The noses were used to depict the white people.

In South Africa Poor Theatre productions had an advantage, during the Apartheid years. Theatre companies producing Protest Theatre were not popular with the government of the time and therefore got no funding and had to stage their production in informal places. There was no money for costumes, light and decor sets and not always enough space either. In this sense it was poor theatre and Poor Theatre.

A quest to find the best theatre musical is not only a vast one, but most probably an impossible one.

There will be as many choices and answers as there are questions asked. We all have our favourites. Do you prefer Sondheim, Rogers and Hammerstein or Andrew Lloyd Webber?  Do you go to theatre to laugh or cry, or maybe a little bit of both?

Very few people haven’t, at some point in life, been exposed to the energetic Sound of Music nun, Maria, who eventually ends up in the militaristic Von Trapp household.

 The heartrending sound of the violin in Fiddler on the Roof is evocative.

During the 80s Fame was every high school adolescent’s, dream. To be able to sing and dance like that would give you the ultimate teenage power. The theme song is still popular today and a new version of the film has just been released.

Once you have seen a live Andrew Lloyd Webber production, you would have a hard time to choose a favourite.

 The curtain lifts and a magnitude of tiny eyes greet the audience; some from somewhere high up on the rubble, others right down on the floor.  The costumes and make up techniques are overwhelming and you can’t stop looking at the cats. Graceful actors with immaculate flexibility and stamina let you believe they are a Mungojerrie or a Rum Tum Tugger.

Phantom of the Opera is in a class of its own. The audience becomes part of the scene right at the start with a chandelier swerving into the audience. The phantom appears at unusual places and you look around with anticipation for him to appear next to you. The spectacle is phenomenal and there can be no more haunting sound than those initial organ notes, sending chills through an auditorium. The emotion sensed is neither frightening nor exciting but it is an emotion you want to experience over and over again. It sets the tone for the next two hours of spellbound enslavement of the senses.

With so much available to refresh you as an auditory and visual being, it would be irresponsible to try and claim that one musical is better than another. The mere creativity from the director and cast to all the production designers is, each and every time, newer and more exiting than before.

 The goal of the musical is to awe the audience and when you walk out, knowing you have been in the presence of great art, you have seen one of the best musicals, ever produced.