Friedrich Dürrenmatt and the Tragedy of Bertolt Brecht.: An Interpretation of Die Wiedertäufer

FRIEDRICH DURRENMATT AND THE TRAGEDY OF BERTOLT BRECHT. AN INTERPRETATION OF DIE WIEDER TAUFER 1 RELATIONS BETWEEN FRIEDRICH DURRENMATT and his critics have never been good, and they worsen, considerably, whenever the question is raised of the dramatist's debt to Bertolt Brecht. In view of the numbers who seem intent on proving that Brecht still dominates the German stage, there can be little wonder that a writer as independent as Diirrenmatt should seek to free himself from influence, though, in so doing, he has only strengthened the argument of those who are convinced of his preoccupation.2 There can be little doubt that he owes much to Brechtian stage-technique, but most writers on the subject have displayed a tendency to separate form and content, to treat the manner of expression as something apart from what is expressed . Thus, Joseph Strelka, conceding that DiirrenmatCs style is Brechtian, goes on to say that the contents of the plays have been anti-Brecht from the start,S a view maintainable only if one insists on placing the two dramatists in opposite camps, Communist and non-Communist, and ignoring the humanistic elements in both, something one is less inclined to do, once it has been realised that Brecht was poised precariously between the two and at home in neither. In fact, he has-paradoxically-become a tragic figure, a situation lucidly described by Martin Esslin in his book: Brecht~ The Man and His Work (New York, 1960). It might even be claimed that one purpose of Durrenmatt's Paradox Theatre is to intensify the tragedy, in which case it is certainly not correct to speak of direct opposition. It is very difficult to establish, exactly, what form Durrenmatt's preoccupation with Brecht takes. It is found in his conception of the stage as an institution and in his views on the relations of actors and audience; it is mirrored in the picture he paints of the world, a world which is not to be reformed, but simply portrayed. Durrenmatt is, as he has often said himself, a commentator, and to this purpose he takes Brecht, as Elisabeth Brock-Sulzer has penetratingly 1 Verlag der Arche (Zurich, 1967). Premiere 16.3.67. Schauspielhaus, Zurich. 2 See: Hans Mayer: Bertolt Brecht und die Tradition (Pfullingen, 1961). Pp. 124-5. Also, Hans Banziger: Frisch und Dilrrenmatt (Bern, 1960). 3 Joseph Strelka: Brecht, Horvath, Dilrrenmatt (Wien, 1962), p. 145. 204 1969 DURRENMATf AND BRECHT 205 remarked, as the "conversation-partner" he needed.4 His stage, the theory of which is based on a realistic assessment of the impact a playwright can have on an audience, might-with definite reservations -be called a return to the Theatre of Illusion. Discussing his public in "Notizen fiir Kurt Hirschfeld," he remarks as follows: "Es ist zwar falsch, anzunehmen, das es (das Publikum) nur geniessen und nicht belehrt werden mochte, aber jede Gesellschaft neigt dazu, sich zu entschuldigen und nicht, sieh beschuldigen zu lassen. Dem Publikum wohnt eine hartnackige Kraft inne, zu horen, was es will und wie es will. Gerade jene, die eine Gesellschaftsordnung andern wollen, Hefern ihr daher nur allzu oft unfreiwillig die Ausreden, die sie zum Weiter· wursteln benotigt."5 Max Frisch, commenting in 1964 on the possibility of influencing an audience, cited Hamlet's successful attempt to "influence" his uncle by re-enacting his father's murder, remarking that Shakespeare was working on the assumption that the murdererking possessed a conscience. Similarly, Brecht had assumed-naively, according to Frisch-that a public-conscience, if it existed at all, was strong enough to be moved by drama.6 Diirrenmatt appears to share Frisch's opinion. Yet he is convinced that the theatre is still in need of new blood. His plays bear testimony of a search for something Brecht never found. What it is we can only surmise from a few hints given. His distaste for the Culinary Theatre, in which a hypnotised audience allows itself to be drawn into situations that feign naturalism, is as strong as Brecht's. But whereas Brecht gave up the pretence completely, exposing the theatrical device, and asking his audience to think along the same lines as the dramatist, Diirrenmatt tries...