Re-interpreting Brecht: His Influence on Contemporary Drama and Film ed. by Pia Kleber and Colin Visser (review)

Book Reviews 577 political regimes no matter how repressive. Tairov and Meyerhold paid dearly for their artistic intransigence. Had he lived. Vakhtangov would probably have suffered a similar fate. Indeed, the formalist tendencies in Vakhtangov's productions make it tempting to conclude that the timing of his death was fortunate. Okhlopkov, on the other hand, was a proponent of socialist realism whose productions seem to have been conceived at the RolfHochhuthschool ofexcessively graphic,melodramatic overstatement. Worrall calls Okhlopkov the "true heir ofMeyerhold," but although he studied with Meyerhold, it is not clear how Okhlopkov carried on his teacher's legacy. There are other problems with Modernism to Realism, and perhaps the most damaging is the scarcity of photographs. Given the fact that this is primarily a production history, it is odd that photographs are not only scarce, but of poor quality. How is it possible genuinely to appreciate Tairov's visual genius without photographs? Perhaps Worrall's case for Okhlopkov would be stronger if there were more photographic evidence. Again, it is tempting to compare Worrall's book with Rudnitski's. Modernism to Realism also left many unanswered questions. For example, why did Vakhtangov experiment with cross-gender casting in The Dybbuk; why was Tairov relieved of his responsibilities at the Kamerny Theatre and what was Alicia Koonen's role in the founding and eventual success of the theatre; why, if Okhlopkov's natural affinity was for mass spectacles, did he stage so few of them? I wonder whether these and other questions are not answered because, judging by the nOles and bibliography, Worrall did not use archival material. Because it is still difficult to obtain access to Soviet archives, Worrall can be forgiven for not using them, but because apparently he has not, there is still work to be done on all three directors. Finally, because Modernism co Realism is intended for the general reader, Worra1I, quite naturally,tends to oversimplify. This is particularly bothersome in the introduction. Like so many Western scholars, Worrall gives a cursory nod to Gogol, Ostrovski, and Shchepkin, then proceeds to credit Stanislavski with all significant theatrical reform. Stanislavski did not spring like Athena from the head of Zeus. There were progressive entrepreneurs (Anna Brenko and Mikhail Bordai, among others) who attempted to change the repertoire and refoon production practice long before the Moscow Art Theatre appeared. Perhaps it is time to direct attention to these earlier innovators.In spite of a few weaknesses, Modernism to Realism on the Soviet Stage is a valuabJe contribution to Russian theatre scholarship and will be of interest to readers wishing to become conversant with development during and after the revolution of 1917. CATHERINE SCHULER, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND PIA KLEBER AND COLIN VISSER, eds. Re-interpreting Brecht:His Influence 011 COlllemporary Drama and Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1990. pp. xiii, 220. $39·5°· The years that have intervened between these essays being written for the 1986 Toronto Brecht Conference and now their publication some four years later have not served this Book Reviews volume well. The Eastern Europe and GDR that a number of these essays faithfully mirror has been so radically reshaped since 1986 as to make a number of these essays appear either extremely naive or downright duplicitous. Apparently no effort was made to update this volume to reflect what had happened since the papers were first delivered. The essays by Manfred Wekwerth, Joachim Tenschert, and RolfRohmer suffer the most. With what we meanwhile know of the influence of the GDR's ubiquitous spy-agency, the Stasi. we simply cannot read "cultural essays" from 1986 in the same way. Norean we really argue for ignorance of all this at least on the part of Manfred Wekwerth. He was, after all, not only Artistic Director of the Berliner Ensemble until quite recently, but was for a number of years a member of the Central Committee of the GDR government. He was, as I know from my personal experience in many years of dealings with him, perhaps the most open member of the Central Committee. But he was also, at all times, under the discipline of that body. Since the full collapse ofthe government guided by that...