1. Theatre is a device in which society talks to itself:
Discuss
by Jennifer Richards
In this essay I will be discussing how theatre as a device reflects culture and society as well as
communicating with it. Touching upon historical examples as well discussing the work of Anton Chekhov,
William Shakespeare and Bertolt Brecht, more specifically the three plays 'Macbeth', 'Fear and Misery in
the Third Reich' and 'Three Sisters'. I will also be talking about how theatre funding can play its role in
the reflection of society. Theatre acts as an informative mirror held up to various cultures and civilisations
through which ideas and concepts are formulated, inspiration is shed and can provide us with the
opportunity to reflect upon our world.
Taking a look at Greek plays to begin with, they were some of the earliest theatrical devices in history
and were often used as ways to portray fables and epics that prior to that were only heard. However as
they advanced they served to reflect various aspects of their society. Examples would include oppression
of the patriarchy, as seen in Medea by Euripides, the juxtaposition between working class, peasants and
the nobility and lastly how totalitarian religious rule played a major role in the shaping of ancient Greek
civilisation. During the period of 550 and 220 BC the political and military power within Greece was a
central theme in most theatrical productions and it is also where the origin of western theatre can be
found. Most plays we see today are cultural remnants and echoes influenced by ancient Greek plays and
the society it reflected.
Looking now in more depth at how theatre has enabled or encouraged society to talk to itself, two
example in particular, the play 'Justice' by John Galsworthy inspired Winston Churchill to move to change
the law on solitary confinement and the Marriage of Figaro by Beaumarchais was described as being “The
French revolution in action”, by Napoleon. Michael Billington claims that “What theatre can do is shift
attitudes, articulate discontent, and reflect, often with microscopic accuracy, the mood of the nation.”
Theatre acts as a device in which society can see itself, sparking inspiration or change in the mindset of
the general public yet it is less direct or catatonic in its influence. Prior to the commercial use of the
internet, theatre was the primary component in the evolution of society and culture. He continues to
outline the relationship between theatre and society during the Attlee period in England, discussing the
labour party and their national socialist ideas in conjunction with J. B. Priestly's work, Billington explains
“(he) penned a brilliantly polemical book, Theatre Outlook, that called for measures to counter the power
of fat-cat theatre owners.” as well as the play 'Uranium 235' by Joan Littlewood intended as a
demonstration of nuclear fission.
Another play worth noting for its reflection and communication with society is Shakespeare's Macbeth,
the work of Shakespeare as a whole often embodied powerful or strong female roles which could be seen
as an homage to Queen Elizabeth during his time. Contrary to that and more specifically within Macbeth,
especially when considering the villainous light his female lead is cast under, if we are to associate lady
Macbeth with the Queen at that time, the intention was more likely to be a role that mirrored what he
may have felt to be an unfit ruler that would inevitably lead to chaos. “Shakespeare implicitly suggests
the danger of women's involvement in politics at the sovereign level.” Jane Dall explains in her essay 'The
stage and the state'. The play reflects a sense of criticism and exaggerated turmoil that Shakespeare

2. believed was ensuing within the government due to a woman being in power, perhaps this served to
spread discontent by implying the existence of tyranny within the government, akin to early subliminal
messaging. Audiences are given the impression that a woman with power can only lead to downfall and
destruction which could encourage anarchy within society. Shakespeare's command went beyond the
stage and beyond the script, as can be said with many dramatists, their influence had more power than
one might first assume. Within the play we see Lady Macbeth exhibit a mad lust for power and she
convinces her husband to commit treason by murdering the king and usurping his throne, this could be
Shakespeare's way of insinuating a number of things: that despite her sovereign status Elizabeth still
can't be revered as a figure of power or that it should simply be passed onto a man, it was never lady
Macbeth that went after the throne for herself and she lamented being born a woman. It could also
insinuate that having a woman in a position of power or seeking power will cause tensions, plotting or
revolting within a power struggle that wouldn't exist if the status quo of the patriarchy remained in tact.
Lastly it promotes negative stigma toward female sovereignty or female leaders, taking away any
credibility and encouraging the public to question the Queen's right to rule.
Shakespeare's Macbeth reflected a very prevalent fear in the minds of many, regarding the uncertainty of
a female ruler and through this play, as well as many others, he created an atmosphere in which society
began to stir.
It would seem that a complete lack of theatre and performances says just as much, if not more, about
society than individual plays themselves. During Cromwell's rule in England we see then more than ever
how important the device of theatre was to the community, an abolishment of theatre made many realise
the value it held in society, as without it a freedom of speech or creativity and a sort of awareness was
lacking, one could argue that theatre maintained a balance, it served to subtly educate the public on how
their country was being run, or how society behaved, it gave them introspective thought and the ability
to be entertained whilst also be aware of what was at work throughout their nations and the world.
Another key aspect to note that ties in to the conversation of society brought about by theatre, is the
funding of various production houses and companies.
It works both ways, how the financial state of the government or society reflects upon theatre and how
the financial state the theatre reflects upon on society. Beyond how theatre itself sways and intermingles
with our thoughts throughout society, the funding for a play, or lack thereof, can paint a picture of how
the community it exists within behaves toward the performing arts or even just the financial state of the
country/nation at that time. For example: during Margaret Thatcher's time as priminister, subsidies were
reduced and theatres were asked to find private funding, this could be seen as a representation of the
financial crisis and unemployment England faced during that time. In present day society, seeing as
commercial funding is the primary source of funding, the artistic integrity of the theatre has all but
disappeared in most cases, as sponsors and conglomerates have monopolised the funding for most
theatrical shows. The lack of substance, art and meaning within performances could be a reflection upon
how consumerism and capitalism have risen within first world countries.
Looking back to the late 19th
and early 20th
centuries, prior to the revolution, it was popular amoung
Russian dramatists to have their work revolve around a bittersweet theme of both hope and despair. Even
though Chekhov's play, the Three Sisters, predates the Russian revolution there are definitely hints of
risen tensions and apprehension within the characters and their nation, there is a longing sense of
nostalgia presented and a miserable apathy about the characters' current lives, yet hope for the future,

3. or perhaps just a pipe dream for better days. This can all be considered a mirror held up to the
livelihoods of the people of Russia during that time.
Known for his theatrical voice toward anti-fascism and his disdain for war, Brecht's Fear and misery in the
third Reich was one of the more notable anti-war pieces, displaying the tragedies and travesties that went
on during the second world war, but taking a different perspective to what is usually written about;
Brecht focused his play on how Hitler's reign affected the economy, German citizens not focusing solely
on Jewish citizens and the horrors they were subjected to. Taking a different approach was a much more
effective way of getting his audience to think about the situation as it would have been relatable, as well
as his tendency to distance the audience from the play. This prevents the public from forming emotional
connections with the characters and subsequently biased points of view, Brecht clearly wanted his
audience to think but he didn't want to convince them one way or another, his goal was to inform and
educate but not to argue. The focal point of Fear and Misery was the origins of the fascist regime, how
did it happen? Brecht has always been very clear about his feelings toward fascism, as Mark Ravenhill
states in his article arguing against critics and nay sayers of Brecht's work, “Before the Nazis came to
power, Hitler's brown shirts were disrupting performances of Brecht and Weill's 1930 opera Mahagonny,
claiming that it brought the contamination of black and Jewish musical influences into the German opera
house.” The lack of any inherent or consistent plot within the play works to distance itself from the notion
of fiction, if audiences were consciously aware of a plot it would make it easier to remain complacent to
the message Brecht intended on sharing. Having the scenes played out like a montage of events as
opposed to the cohesive scene changes accompanying a clear storyline allows the audience to remember
this is real, what is happening in the play is happening on their doorsteps. “The scenes have a
disturbingly everyday feel to them, as though we are looking at lives through a distorted prism” Lindsey
Oldham describes in her review of Fear and Misery in the Third Reich for The Oxford Student. It is well
known that Brecht as a dramatist has used his plays as a device to convey a message or to hold up a
mirror to the society he was subject to and lived through. In his play Mother Courage he has claimed the
intention was to warn society of the impossibilities of remaining neutral in the upcoming war. Identifying
society's tendency to remain complacent or to bury their heads in the sand and urging them that this war,
unlike any others, will make that impossible. One could say Brecht foresaw the devastating affect this war
would have on the world and Mother Courage was his attempt at shaking his audience into changing their
attitudes and reactions in preparation for this.
Looking back throughout history it is hard to believe our civilisations and cultures would be anything like
what they are today without the use of theatre. Before the rise of social media and communication via
the internet, before television and cinema, theatre held a position in society that was the tool for
evolution, the evolution of thinking, action, movements and politics. Some government officials or figures
of power remained unaffected by theatre, others fell to revolutions through movements sparked by
theatre. As previously stated the affect of drama and performances does not come with overwhelming
force and it doesn't happen overnight, it is the device in which society talks to itself and through talking
and thinking, actions arise, movements are born and change takes place. In conclusion the art of theatre
plays a more major role in our world than mere entertainment, it is a reflection of our cultural ideals and
political status, or even just personal fears. It is also what encouraged and still encourages audiences to
think and create change.

4. References
Bbc.co.uk, (n.d.). BBC - Higher Bitesize English - Background : Revision. [online] Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher/english/macbeth/background/revision/1/ [Accessed 12 Dec. 2014].
Billington, M. (2007). Michael Billington on how British theatre holds up a mirror to who we are. [online]
the Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2007/oct/24/theatre1 [Accessed 12 Dec.
2014].
Dall, J. (n.d.). The Stage and the State: Shakespeare's Portrayal of Women and Sovereign Issues in
Macbeth and Hamlet. [online] History.hanover.edu. Available at:
http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/00/hhr00_2.html [Accessed 12 Dec. 2014].
Dresen, F. (n.d.). Anton Chekhov: The Role of Author in Russian Society. [online] Wilsoncenter.org.
Available at: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/anton-chekhov-the-role-author-russian-society
[Accessed 12 Dec. 2014].
Ravenhill, M. (2008). Don't bash Brecht. [online] the Guardian. Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2008/may/26/dontbashbrecht [Accessed 12 Dec. 2014].