Politisches Theater nach 1950 (review)

With the tumultuous political developments in twentieth-century Germany have come similarly seismic shifts in our understanding of literature as an inherently political medium with sociopolitical relevance and revolutionary potential. The period after World War II has fueled especially trenchant debates about the politicization of art and its ideological function, be it as a reaction or response to the Holocaust, as an educative tool for sociopolitical enlightenment, or as a means of exploring new avenues of signification. From this multifaceted but paradigmatic marriage between art and politics, theater scholar Brigitte Marschall traces the colorful history of postwar German-language political theater from its ideological inception in the early stage work of Erwin Piscator, and in the reconceptualization of art in European Surrealism and Dadaism, to its outgrowth as happenings and performance art in the 1970s.

Occupying the foreground of this accessible narrative reference work are two constellations specific to German theatrical history: the documentary theater of Rolf Hochhuth, Heinar Kipphardt, and Peter Weiss and the more extramural happenings and performance art of Wolf Vostell, Joseph Beuys, and the Viennese Actionists. By intertwining the institutional canon of socially and politically conscious playwrights with the independent avant-garde in the visual and performing arts, Marschall weaves a compelling account of developing performance practices, novel conceptions of art and meaning, and disparate attitudes toward the theater as a vehicle for political commentary and change. Her welcome, convincing link between these two historical figurations opens new territory for future investigations into notions of theatricality and performance, while also putting earlier figures like Piscator and Marcel Duchamp in productive dialogue with one another.

Marschall’s book is unburdened by ponderous lucubration on secondary criticism, preferring primary source material. Politisches Theater nach 1950 does not aim at a readership of initiates, but the sociopolitical and historical context it provides for the works it discusses, as well as its discussion of these works’ Entstehungsgeschichten and reception histories, will doubtless make it a useful reference for students of literature and theater alike. As an introduction to the history and development of twentieth-century political theater in general, however, Politisches Theater nach 1950 may promise more than it can deliver. Indeed, the link between documentary theater and later performance art that Marschall takes such pains to establish is at once its Achilles’ heel, for despite its title, Marschall’s study does not purport to offer a comprehensive treatment of political theater, nor does it adequately reflect upon the relationship between politics and theater.

What, precisely, is political theater? To what extent is all theater, particularly in the postwar period, political by definition? How does one delimit the field, and what selection criteria are used? Without addressing such fundamental questions from the outset, the text neglects to establish a coherent theoretical framework, leaving the reader to question Marschall’s omission not only of Bertolt Brecht—for whose absence she makes a brief apology in her introduction, only to cull from primary sources that cite his influence explicitly—but also of Heiner Müller and all East German theater. One might also quibble with the title, which establishes 1950 as the historical point of departure (while beginning with Piscator in 1920s Berlin) and, tantalizingly, implies a sweep to the present (though Marschall proceeds no further than the 1970s). One wonders where more recent political theater like that of Heiner Müller, Elfriede Jelinek, or Thomas Bernhard fits into the larger narrative; how artists like Frank Castorf, Christoph Schlingensief, René Pollesch, Dimiter Gotscheff, or Thomas Ostermeier have influenced the stage and the political discussion in and through theatrical institutions; and how the many private and state-financed German theatrical institutions themselves have shaped political theater over the years. Such questions attest to the desire for expanding the scope and depth of research on this important topic. Misgivings notwithstanding, Marschall’s more limited treatment supplies a desideratum within the ongoing endeavor of writing the history of twentieth-century political theater.