The Power of Storytelling: Brecht's Caucasian Chalk Circle

One of the most powerful yet underappreciated person in society is the storyteller. As a society, we see stories as a luxury and a means to escape. They are so much more. Stories move us to action. They help us understand the connections that we have to each other despite the many barriers, natural and fabricated, that may divide us. Stories are how we discover what it means to be human. 

Storytellers come in many different varieties. We tell our tales through song, the written word, as actors. Of course, there is a place for these stories to engage in the frivolity of humanity. They can act as an escape. There is value in this. However, I think back on what Sam said to Frodo on their journey to Mordor about the power of stories:

It's like in the great stories Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were, and sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something. Even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back only they didn’t. Because they were holding on to something. … That there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for.

We find ourselves in a time where the stories we tell matter. There’s still room for pure entertainment, but it’s also imperative that we create art and tell stories that bring us together in our common humanity. This is perhaps why I feel so privileged to be working on a production of Bertolt Brecht’s Caucasian Chalk Circle. It’s a story that matters, and I do feel the weight of its importance.

In this production, I am playing the Singer, the embodiment of the storyteller. Most productions this part is played by a man, which I am most certainly not. We are in the early stages of rehearsal, and the ensemble of actors around me are truly incredibly storytellers in their own right. Our director has such a strong point of view for this piece. It is her passion project. I want so much to do justice to the story. 

Brecht believed in the power of stories to teach. Theater to him was a means by which we could enact social change. This is evident from the very beginning of the story he is telling Caucasian Chalk Circle. This particular tale comes from a Chinese story and has elements of the King Solomon story in two mothers sought custody of a child and the wise king said that the baby should be cut in half to give each mother a piece.

Throughout the play, Brecht reminds us about the corruption of the rich. As the Singer comments early on in the play:

When the house of a great one collapses

Many little ones are slain.

Those who have no share in the good fortunes of the mighty

Often have a share in their misfortunes.

Much the Chorus in the tragedies of the Greeks, Brecht uses the Singer and a Chorus to fill in the gaps in the story and comment upon the action. It is also the task of the Singer and Chorus to act as the inner monologue of the characters. 

The story of the Chalk Circle demonstrates the timeless nature of stories and our desire to connect with one another through time and space. It is the job of the artist to encourage those connections, to hold the mirror up to society, and pursue something better.

But you who have listened to the Story of the Chalk Circle,

Take note of what men of old concluded:

That what there is shall go to those who are good for it,

Children to the motherly, that they prosper,

Carts to good drivers, that they be driven well,

The valley to the waters, that it yield fruit.

Prenzie Players' presents Brecht's Caucasian Chalk Circle 
July 14th, 15th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd - 8 pm.  
July 16th - 2 pm
QC Theatre Workshop - 1730 Wilkes Ave Davenport, IA

A Room of One's Own: The Women-Only Wonder Woman Controversy

The Wonder Woman film opens on June 2^nd. This film is highly anticipated. I am looking towards its opening with excitement and trepidation. In celebration of this film finally getting made, The Alamo Drafthouse in Austin, TX have decided to set aside two showings on Tuesday, June 6^th of the film for audiences of people who identify as women. Of course, this was met with angry men complaining about how there are no male-identifying only showings.

On some level, I can understand that this is less than PC, but this idea that somehow men are being excluded from the film-going. Let’s be clear. This is a single day with just two showings of the film. It’s not even a preview showing where women are getting an opportunity to see the film before its scheduled release date. 

I see the reaction as something that happens time and time again in nerd culture and really in culture in general. Women, in this case, but really minorities of the sub-culture in general have to constantly fight for inclusion. The honest truth is that men don’t have to fight for inclusion in the same way. Of course, there are some exceptions for male-identifying persons because trans-rights are still an issue. Those exceptions aside, the comic book community is very much geared towards the male experience. 

While Wonder Woman is for all people, she is something more than just another superhero to many women. She is a feminist icon in many ways. When we trace the history of the Wonder Woman, her involvement with the Justice League started with her acting as their secretary. As gender roles evolved, Wonder Woman was leading the way as she was equal to her male counterparts. She has been a source of female power and a female voice in the male-dominated nerd culture. 

Now comes the point where I may anger some men (although if you are man who reads my blog, this is probably less likely). I get that you may feel excluded from these two showings. However, you aren’t being excluded from the opportunity to see the film at all. Face it, men, in nerd culture, you are the majority. You are catered to in a variety of ways from the sexualization of female superheroes to the fact that majority of superheroes are cis-gendered white males. This is an arena where you have ruled the roost for decades. I get that those angry men feel like something is being taken away from them, but it isn’t. Making some special event for a sub-group within the community doesn’t take away your rights. It doesn’t lessen your standing. What it does is actually demonstrate to that group of people that they matter to the community at large, that they are seen, and they are respected.

Basically, it all boils down to this. Those men who are angered by this you already given so much in terms of nerd culture. Events are catered to you. Let women have just two showings that are theirs. Is that really too much to ask?

The Final Days of Anne Boleyn Pt 7: Anne Boleyn's Legacy

When we look at the re-telling of Anne’s story throughout history, we are struck by two very different versions of this woman. Much of what we know has been shaped, not by her own writings, but by those who knew her. The Spanish ambassador, Eustace Chapuys, wrote extensively about the court of Henry VIII. As Katherine of Aragon was the aunt of King Charles of Spain, Chapuys was heavily biased against Anne. Much of the rumor and innuendo we have about Anne comes from his letters back to the Spain as he was prone to gossip. Despite his sympathy for the Lady Mary and her mother Katherine and his intense disapproval of Anne (he wouldn’t even write her name in letters, simply referring to her as the “concubine” or “putain”), he nevertheless reported that Anne was likely innocent of the crimes for which she had been executed. That being said, he did believe that Katherine of Aragon’s death was due to poison and laid much of the blame on the Boleyns, particularly Anne. 

Then there was the issue of Catholicism in England. Prior to his marriage to Anne, Henry had been a staunch Catholic, even writing a pamphlet denouncing Luther and the Protestant heresy. For this, Henry had been given the title of Defender of the Faith by Pope Leo X. Because his desire for an annulment so he could marry Anne Boleyn was denied, Henry broke England away from the Catholic Church. This schism caused a great divide in England. Rather than placing the blame on Henry, Catholics blamed Anne for this rift. She was soon characterized as a witch who had cast a spell on the King. Nicholas Sander, a staunch Catholic who sought to depose Elizabeth I and re-establish Catholicism in England, was the first record that Anne had six fingers on her right hand in 1585. Of course, this was not true. When her body was exhumed in 1876 and examined, she was found to have no physical deformities.

In direct conflict with the Catholic view on Anne, there is the Protestant view. To reformers, she was seen as a saint. Her primary biographer was John Foxe, who published his account of her story his Book of Martyrs. It was his belief that Anne’s downfall had been brought about by a Catholic conspiracy against her. He wrote that her execution had come about because:

some secret practising of the papists here not to be lacking, considering what a mighty stop she was to their purposes and proceedings, and on the contrary side, what a strong bulwark she was for the maintenance of Christ’s gospel, and sincere religion, which they then in no case could abide.

He praised her patronage of reformers like Thomas Cranmer and Hugh Latimer. In his perspective, Anne was a devout woman who had great respect for the “new religion” and believed that all should have access to the Word of God. He also believed that Elizabeth’s ascension to the throne was proof of her innocence and virtue.

During the 18^th and 19^th centuries, portrayals of Anne tended toward the romantic victim. To this group of historians, Anne was simply a strong-willed and beautiful woman who fell victim to her tyrannical brutish husband. This idea would persist into the latter half of the 20^th century when she became less the victim of Henry and more the victim of her own ambition and intelligence. Her political and religious sympathies as well as her patronage network and influence over foreign policy put her at odds with Thomas Cromwell and others at Court. American historian, Retha Wernicke, took a less sympathetic approach, acknowledging firs the gender prejudices of the early 16^th century which would have made Anne a pawn in her family’s quest for power before she became a willing participant in the power grab. There are some ideas in her work that most historians find unlikely such as the idea that George was a homosexual and part of a clandestine group of homosexuals at Court that included some of the men with whom Anne was accused of adultery as well as the idea that Anne might have been so desperate to produce a male heir that she could have been capable of sleeping with her brother to do so.

So what is the true version of Anne Boleyn? Protestant martyr? Scheming social climber? Whore? We may never know, but her story continues to fascinate. 

For further reading: 

The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn: Family Politics at the Court of Henry VIII by Retha M. Wernicke

The Creation of Anne Boleyn: A New Look at England’s Most Notorious Queen by Susan Bordo