April the 22rst in the Year of our Lord 2024.
Why am I doing this to myself? I went to the Greek National Opera to see Kurt Weill's -Bertolt Brecht's The Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny. I went prepared to see this, and I quote:
The work describes the rise and fall of a city built for profit and pleasure, and is a critique of the capitalist system, as considered from within the ideological framework of interwar Germany’s Weimar Republic.
But it wasn't about that. And don't get me wrong. The music was phenomenal. Sets and costumes magnificent. The singers divine. But the story didn't make any sense. A city built for profit and pleasure inhabited by lumberjacks who chopped trees for seven years and got loaded with money? In what universe? Where are these Alaskan forests and did they have trees with branches and trunks made of gold or something? Take me there please and I promise I will put my money in good use because my desire is for books and enough free time to read them. Because nothing in this city of Mahagonny generates money and this is not how capitalism works, if we were to assume that Brecht's criticism points towards this direction.
Mahagonny is neither an Utopia nor a Dystopia it seems more like a Biblical Sin City. Did Brecht want to describe a modern era Babylon? If so then he failed miserably. Poor folk suffering from rich man's ennui? Really? In what universe? Did I miss something?
So this is not a review. I will take the time to study and collect material to understand and then I will come back here to write a proper review. I just wanted to document the angst this terrible libretto has caused me, damn you Brecht, I mistook you for somebody else.
The rating is indicative of my current mood. I'll change in due time. I was prepared to see the work of a Marxist. I ended up confronting the absurdities of a religionless religious fanatic.
I'm desperate for some context.
Update Sunday June 16th 2024
With all this unbearable heat it's so hard for me to think properly and do my research. So far I managed to complete a general historical context that doesn't directly connect with the opera Mahagonny but it was necessary for me to understand the environment that created Brecht the author. My next step is to read and try to understand the Brechtian works that predate the creation of the opera, since I fell into this rabbit hole I must remain calm and hydrated.
The German unification ensued after three wars (1864 -1871) against Denmark, Austria and France. What came to be known as Second Reich, (the First Reich having been disbanded by Napoleon in 1806) was founded on January 18th 1871, at the Palace of Versailles. Wilhelm I, King of Prussia from the House of Hohenzollern, was proclaimed Emperor (Kaiser) and Otto von Bismarck, Minister President of Prussia, became Reich Chancellor, head of government, until his dismissal in 1890. At first, this seemed as a time of profound prosperity and progress due to:
The general optimism engendered by the long rise in output during preceding decades, the exhilaration following victory over France and fulfillment of national unity [...] optimism, speculation and fraud were rampand as millions of citizens from scullery maids to titled aristocrats gambled in securities.
Source: Otto Pflanze, Bismarck and the Development of Germany, Volume II, The Period of Consolidation, 1871-1880, Princeton University Press 2014
But soon everything came to a halt because Poco dura de'matti la festa:
The bubble of what was known as Gründerzeit (founder's years) burst in 1873, when a collapse of confidence brought an inevitable economic crush [...] depression set in with worsening economic conditions for many Germans. With the competition of cheap foreign grain, as well as manufactured goods, both industrialists and landowners began to clamour for import tariffs. The shift to protectionism was consolidated in 1879, with the introduction of tariffs and indirect taxes [...] The crush of 1873 also stimulated a revival of anti-semitism in Germany [...] claiming that external enemies were being aided by an "enemy within" Bismarck launched a sustained and wide- ranging attack on Catholicism [...] the new conservatism of 1880s was accompanied by a double pronged strategy in relation to socialism and the working class [...] at the same time as the socialists were being politically persecuted, quite progressive social insurance legislation was being exacted.
Source: Mary Fulbrook, A Concise History of Germany, Cambridge University Press 2019
In practice the working class received pennies to keep quiet:
Bismarck's social policy has traditionally been considered from the public law perspective, the first step towards the construction of the welfare state. In fact this is technically incorrect, as the Second Reich never actually implemented a system of public welfare sustained by taxpayers, but only obliged private citizens to take out concrete insurance policies. It is clear, however, that Bismarck's social policy set an important precedent, because from a political perspective [...] the welfare state arose less as the result of worker's victories over employers than from initiatives by conservative governments to guarantee social accord by implementing cross- class concessions.
Source: Heikki Pihlajamäki, Mark Godfrey, Markus D. Dubber, The Oxford Handbook of European Legal History1, OUP Oxford 2018
What was peculiar to Germany was that the processes of nation building, industrialization, urbanization and many other features of modernization were compressed into so short a period of time that they became more of less simultaneous. Therefore there were exceptional problems and stresses. In many countries the growth of a numerous class of industrial workers, the proletariat, led to the rise of socialist parties and trade unions, but in Germany political socialism grew in importance before trade unionism and confronted middle class liberalism before the latter had a chance fully to assert itself. Middle class liberals felt challenged by the threat from the proletariat before liberalism had completed triumphed, which it never did. This explains much about the rightward turn of liberals as well as about the illiberalism of the increasingly numerous white collar workers.
Source: Edgar Feuchtwanger, Imperial Germany 1850-1918, Taylor & Francis 2002
The national unity was thus forced and rushed, most unifying attempts favored assimilatation instead of integration and any resistance was more or less crushed under the iron feast of the Reich's austere leadership eager to create internal and external enemies.
Bismarck [...] focused on internal enemies against whom he could unite the majority of the German population. The new state now encompassed many ethic minorities against which Bismarck could create the contrast of German citizenship. When compared to a Frenchman, Germans would see themselves as Germans rather than Bavarians or Prussians. By secularising German society, Bismarck sought to replace religion with national sentiment, thereby creating new identity references and reducing differences between Germans. Lastly the internationalism of the socialist movement seemed a dangerous counter-current to national identity.
When Wilhelm II took to the throne in 1888, the tumultuous year of the three Emperors, he quickly clashed with Bismarck over the issue of German unity. He recognized the same problem - economic and cultural common ground would not be enough to hold the second Reich together- but found Bismarck's solution of Germans battling each other abhorrent. Wilhelm wanted to be the Kaiser of all Germans, beloved by his subjects. If his grandfather Wilhelm I refused to be the incarnation of Friedrich Barbarossa, it would fall to him to lead his people back to greatness. Instead of looking for enemies within the Reich, he argued, Germany must fight for its place among the great nations externally.
Source: Katja Hoyer, Blood and Iron, The Rise and Fall of the German Empire 1871–1918, History Press 2021
Germany's incapacity to resolve and de-escalate crises was a recipe for disaster. When a situation is critical, seeking for scapegoats or taking a self righteous stance villyfying others can only lead to further divide inside and outside a state. The German working class, lacking the means to negociate with the power of elites and corporations, was caught between Scylla and Charybdis, no actual results could come neither from their desultory sympathizers nor from their delusional government officials and employers. But they had an abundance of breadcrumbs... provided they behaved themselves. Loyalty, obedience and order at all costs was Second Reich's categorical imperative. Everything was clean and tidy because all the mess was swept under the rug:
Ray Stannard Baker , an American traveler to Germany at the turn of the century, exclaimed: " From the moment of landing on German soil , the American begins to feel a certain spirit of repression which seems to pervade the land. Intellectually and visibly struck by the omnipresent guiding and rather militaristic hand of the German government - erect, militarily dressed and heavily armed policemen on nearly every corner, statues and sculptures honoring and commemorating German leaders and soldiers o the rooftops of city buildings, in public parks, at important and sometimes unimportant intersections and uniformed soldiers constantly on drill or parade - Baker concluded that he never before knew "what it really means to be governed" and that he agreed with the sarcastic remark of a German socialist who had said: "It takes half of all the Germans to control the other half".
More vexing of all to Baker were the ever- visible signs posting the comprehensive government and police regulations that seemed to deal with nearly all forms of human behavior, prescribing what was allowed and more often prescribing what was verboten. Feeling the "wild west in me slowly suffocating" he eventually came to amuse himself by making a curious game of trying to discover what was not yet forbidden but no doubt, soon would be.
Source: Eric A. Johnson, Urbanization and Crime, Germany 1871-1914, Cambridge University Press 2002
For the artists under such a paternalistic regime there were two options, they could either comply and work to keep their audience entertained or react and oppose against the regime:
The art scene also experienced Dramatic upheaval. Both in Berlin and Munich artists rebelled against the conservative art establishment and seceded from the Association of German Artists. In Berlin in 1898 a group of the modernists including Max Liebermann (1847- 1936), Max Slevogt (1868 – 1932), Lovis Corinth (1856 – 1925) and Käthe Kollwitz (1867- 1945) challenged the Association by holding an independent exhibition of art. In fur course the Secessionists, as they called themselves, broke into rival groups, the most famous of which were the Blaue Reiter and Die Brücke.
Literature and poetry ceased to give a uniform message. Some poets and writers like Stefan George (1868 – 1933) advocated the retreat to the inner self, while others, like Thomas Mann (1875 - 1955) in Buddenbrooks, explored the fragility of the bourgeois world or else like his brother Heinrich Mann (1871-1951), Carl Sternheim (1878 - 1942) and Ludwig Thoma (1867 - 1921), the hypocrisy of Wilhelmine Germany. this message of increasing diversity and uncertainty was reinforced by contemporary science. The work of Heinrich Hertz ( 1857 – 1894) on electric waves, Wilhelm Röntgen (1845 - 1923) on X-rays and Einstein's potentially revolutionary idea that radiation consisted of totally independent particles of energy destroyed the old ideas of a static universe and led to questioning whether there were actually any laws of nature. Like the writes znd artists, scientists were coming to the conclusion that everything was relative.
These literary and artistic experiments were not widely understood by the general public. Wilhelm II who showed great interests in modern developments in science and engineering lost few opportunities to denounce modern art as "loathsome" or un-German and the authorities at his instigation attempted to stop the Secessionists's work being exhibited at 1904 World Fair, in St Louis, USA. The Kaiser and the traditionalists, were, however, fighting a losing battle. The Reichstag condemned his meddling, and in the words of the SPD deputy, Paul Stinger (1844 - 1911) declined "to have a republic of the arts with Wilhelm at its head". Above all, two factors combined to defeat efforts by the artistic establishment to suppress the modernist movement: The federal nature of Germany ensured that if pressure on an artist or director of an art gallery in Berlin, for example, became too intimidating, Munich, Stuttgart or Dresden might well be more accommodating and, similarly, playwrights could circumvent a ban on their work by having it performed privately.
Source: David G. Williamson, Germany Since 1789, A Nation Forged and Renewed, Bloomsbury Publishing 2015