What do you think?
Rate this book
Theater der Unterdrückten
‘So remarkable and so ground-breaking ... [it is] the most important [book] on the theatre in modern times.†George Wellwarth
Paperback
First published January 1, 1977
173 people are currently reading
3320 people want to read
About the author
Augusto Boal
55 books68 followersAugusto Boal was a Brazilian theatre director, writer and politician. He was the founder of Theatre of the Oppressed, a theatrical form originally used in radical popular education movements.
His books are very influential. With 22 published works, translated to more than 20 languages, his views are studied in Theatre schools all over the world.
His books are very influential. With 22 published works, translated to more than 20 languages, his views are studied in Theatre schools all over the world.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews
November 3, 2016
6 stars. Super highly recommended if you are of the type that likes to do things differently. If you just like to roll with the roles and chill and float with the times you will not like some of the simple suggestions this book makes about changing the status quo which the world is currently frozen in. In a nutshell it’s by a South American dude who suggests the use of theatre to start a revolution. He basically surmises that theatre has typically and conventionally been created by the bourgeoisie for a bourgeoisie who then go ahead and foist the ideas they have learnt and come across subliminally and subconsciously and I dare say in some cases consciously onto their sequacious minions who work for them – the common people essentially. The book gives multiple examples of how theatre can be used as a blueprint for true revolutionary action. The book was published in 1974 when all things were not that hunky dorey in South America and all sorts of "dick"tators were doing their rounds in that region. Boal’s theory was that the physical rehearsal of spectators getting up off their backsides in theatres and directing and potentially even joining in the plays could be a precursor for them to act our more larger and more directed forms of resistance in the real world. When you read something cool you may post it on Facebook / twitter and wait patiently for all the likes and feel vaguely happy about your proactive cyber self. When you act out an action in some form of theatre environment you have rehearsed the act itself –it’s a step close to carrying out the real thing. Some of the key bits in the book were as follows:
• Poetry is the first lesson that the State must teach the child; poetry is superior to philosophy because the latter is addressed to a minority while the former is addressed to the masses.’ Plato, on the contrary, thought that the poets should be expelled from a perfect republic because ‘poetry only makes sense when it exalts the figures and deeds that should serve as examples; theatre imitates the things of the world, but the world is no more than a mere imitation of ideas – thus theatre comes to be an imitation of an imitation’.
• If there is inequality, no one wants it to be to his disadvantage. It is necessary to make sure that all remain, if not uniformly satisfied, at least uniformly passive with respect to those criteria of inequality. How to achieve this? Through the many forms of repression: politics, bureaucracy, habits, customs – and Greek tragedy.
• In the film It Happened One Night, in a certain scene the actor Clark Gable takes off his shirt and reveals that he does not wear an undershirt. It was enough to bring several manufacturers of this article to bankruptcy as they lost those customers who were members of the various Clark Gable fan clubs and anxious to imitate their idol. The theatre influences the spectators not only with respect to clothing but also in the spiritual values that can be inculcated in them through example.
• We must emphasise: What Brecht does not want is that the spectators continue to leave their brains with their hats upon entering the theatre, as do bourgeois spectators.
• Brecht wants the theatrical spectacle to be the beginning of action: the equilibrium should be sought by transforming society, and not by purging the individual of his just demands and needs. Therefore we must repeat: catharsis takes away from the character (and thus from the spectator, who is empathically manipulated by the character) his ability to act.
• In this case, perhaps the theatre is not revolutionary in itself, but it is surely a rehearsal for the revolution. The liberated spectator, as a whole person, launches into action. No matter that the action is fictional; what matters is that it is action! I believe that all the truly revolutionary theatrical groups should transfer to the people the means of production in the theatre so that the people themselves may utilise them. The theatre is a weapon, and it is the people who should wield it.
• Instead of taking something away from the spectator, evoke in him a desire to practise in reality the act he has rehearsed in the theatre. The practice of these theatrical forms creates a sort of uneasy sense of incompleteness that seeks fulfilment through real action.
• Poetry is the first lesson that the State must teach the child; poetry is superior to philosophy because the latter is addressed to a minority while the former is addressed to the masses.’ Plato, on the contrary, thought that the poets should be expelled from a perfect republic because ‘poetry only makes sense when it exalts the figures and deeds that should serve as examples; theatre imitates the things of the world, but the world is no more than a mere imitation of ideas – thus theatre comes to be an imitation of an imitation’.
• If there is inequality, no one wants it to be to his disadvantage. It is necessary to make sure that all remain, if not uniformly satisfied, at least uniformly passive with respect to those criteria of inequality. How to achieve this? Through the many forms of repression: politics, bureaucracy, habits, customs – and Greek tragedy.
• In the film It Happened One Night, in a certain scene the actor Clark Gable takes off his shirt and reveals that he does not wear an undershirt. It was enough to bring several manufacturers of this article to bankruptcy as they lost those customers who were members of the various Clark Gable fan clubs and anxious to imitate their idol. The theatre influences the spectators not only with respect to clothing but also in the spiritual values that can be inculcated in them through example.
• We must emphasise: What Brecht does not want is that the spectators continue to leave their brains with their hats upon entering the theatre, as do bourgeois spectators.
• Brecht wants the theatrical spectacle to be the beginning of action: the equilibrium should be sought by transforming society, and not by purging the individual of his just demands and needs. Therefore we must repeat: catharsis takes away from the character (and thus from the spectator, who is empathically manipulated by the character) his ability to act.
• In this case, perhaps the theatre is not revolutionary in itself, but it is surely a rehearsal for the revolution. The liberated spectator, as a whole person, launches into action. No matter that the action is fictional; what matters is that it is action! I believe that all the truly revolutionary theatrical groups should transfer to the people the means of production in the theatre so that the people themselves may utilise them. The theatre is a weapon, and it is the people who should wield it.
• Instead of taking something away from the spectator, evoke in him a desire to practise in reality the act he has rehearsed in the theatre. The practice of these theatrical forms creates a sort of uneasy sense of incompleteness that seeks fulfilment through real action.
June 24, 2011
Reviewing the comments here on Good Reads, one clearly gets the impression that although first published in 1979, Boal's book on a radical dramaturgy remains very much essential reading today. I'd like to add some of my own reflections to those noted here. First, as others have stated, Boal begins with a lengthy treatise on classical theatre as a form of social organization. Here he interrogates Aristotle's poetics. Boal offers a most useful corrective to the standard reading of catharsis. Typically, catharsis is understood as a purging of emotion. This pithy description is exactly the one Walter Benjamin cites when describing Brecht as anti-Aristotelian. However, Boal argues (drawing on Arnold Hauser's, SOCIAL HISTORY OF ART) that the unwanted substance to be purged in classical drama is, in fact, anything that qualifies as resistance to the status quo.
Boal makes the important point that the entire theatrical apparatus of empathic identification, tragic flaw and catharsis functions as a coercive system of obedience to the state. Thus, Aristotelian art portrays reality as a static given that has neither changed nor is changeable. This, after all, is the very portrait of the world that serves the interests of the ruling classes. For the rulers, questions about how the world came to be are only interesting as long as origins are raised to the level of mysticism or that it affirms the natural rights of the rulers to rule. Even though Aristotle believed that theatre had a direct relationship to change, that which needed to be changed was the individual and not the structure of society itself. This critique has tremendous importance in establishing why conventional modes of theater are not just a style that one can choose to observe or not. Rather, Boal wants to argue that classical drama has a political effect and serves specific political interests; that of the status quo. In the case of Aristotle, the status quo was the ruling aristocracy. By the 18th Century, the status quo was the ruling mercantile classes or bourgeoisie.
But perhaps it is when Boal moves to Brecht that the reader begins to appreciate the fine points of his argument. Tradition has established that Brecht is the most important practitioner and theorist of political art produced in the 20th Century. His impact on theater, film, visual art, experimental art, etc. is without comparison. Part of Brecht's innovation was a refusal to represent the world as it is but as it is becoming. In Boal's terms, Brecht dramatizes the reality beneath appearances rather than the appearance of reality. Thus, in his most important contribution to theate, Brecht demonstrates that reality can be changed. In one of the ways he does this Brecht presents the audience with problems demands decisions, not on the part of the characters but among the audience themselves. How would they act? How would they resolve the contradiction represented on the stage? For Boal, this approach to theater challenges an art of the status quo.
However, Brecht is not without his limitations. Namely, for Boal, Brechtian theater stops short of the point where the audience acts upon their decisions. The protagonist in Brecht's plays remains the actors on the stage. The audience may or may not enter into the decision-making process demanded by the theatre. But that is not the business of the theatre itself. Boal argues otherwise. Here it is clear that Boal demands that theater become relevant to the larger social processes of liberation from colonialism and imperialism. Practicing his art at a time of tremendous turmoil due to US-sponsored military coups and the forced extraction of resources for the benefit of European and American corporations, Boal joins those who argue that the protagonist of social change will be the people themselves. This theme permeates all of progressive Latin American thought of that moment; from querillismo to popular education, Paulo Freire to Third Cinema, Latin American conceptual art to liberation theology.
Boal begins to outline his notion of a poetics of the oppressed where those who struggle for liberation are protagonists both in the world and in the theater. Thus, the drama calls upon the audience to become directly involved in writing the drama even as it happens. As Boal testifies from his own practice, this kind of theater leaves the safe confines of bourgeois patrons and moves out into the everyday life spaces where the poor their everyday lives. The theater comes to them and, in the process, invites them to respond to the characters, argue with the narrative and propose changes to the outcome. In this sense, Boal practice is an experiment in translating Paulo Freire's popular education of codifications and decodification into the theatrical space. But a more rigorous study needs to be done to explore where that translation falls short of Freire's methodology and where it actually opens the methodology in new ways. For this reason I am skeptical of those who refer to Theater of the Oppressed as a theatrical practice of Freire's ideas. The contradictions between the two forms of popular education have as much to teach us as where they are similar (beyond the similarly titled books).
It is also worth reflecting on the extent to which Boal underplays the larger context of organizing. This will appear in his later books. But while the theater of the oppressed locates protagonism in the audience, how that audience is organized and organized in relationship to what remains largely mysterious here. This leads Boal to make certain unfortunate claims that the theater of the oppressed is a rehearsal for revolution because it gives the audience the experience of taking collective action. I appreciate the sentiment here but am painfully aware that not all action is a rehearsal for revolution. Some action rehearses counter-revolution. Clearly for action to have a prepartory role in emancipatory social change, then it needs to exist within a context of analysis where the regressive elements of that action can be distinguished from its progressives elements. Here is where Freire far exceeds the kind of formalist activist described by Boal.
In Freire's popular education, action occurs within a unity of critical reflection. The analysis produced in that reflection is then tested in action. The context of this is a specific community and its struggles. This has the potential to realign the institutional framework in which cultural practices like theater of the oppressed take place; from the institutions of theater to the labor of social movements. This subtle fact is an important point to remember if one reads Boal for ideas on how to import political content or method in a theater practice that is otherwise commitment to its legibility as theater to existing bourgeois institutions of culture. The codification and decodification practice, theatrical or otherwise, are performances that only have revolutionary effect within the context of organizing for profound social change. This is the nature of the rehearsal and not merely giving audiences an experience of action.
Boal makes the important point that the entire theatrical apparatus of empathic identification, tragic flaw and catharsis functions as a coercive system of obedience to the state. Thus, Aristotelian art portrays reality as a static given that has neither changed nor is changeable. This, after all, is the very portrait of the world that serves the interests of the ruling classes. For the rulers, questions about how the world came to be are only interesting as long as origins are raised to the level of mysticism or that it affirms the natural rights of the rulers to rule. Even though Aristotle believed that theatre had a direct relationship to change, that which needed to be changed was the individual and not the structure of society itself. This critique has tremendous importance in establishing why conventional modes of theater are not just a style that one can choose to observe or not. Rather, Boal wants to argue that classical drama has a political effect and serves specific political interests; that of the status quo. In the case of Aristotle, the status quo was the ruling aristocracy. By the 18th Century, the status quo was the ruling mercantile classes or bourgeoisie.
But perhaps it is when Boal moves to Brecht that the reader begins to appreciate the fine points of his argument. Tradition has established that Brecht is the most important practitioner and theorist of political art produced in the 20th Century. His impact on theater, film, visual art, experimental art, etc. is without comparison. Part of Brecht's innovation was a refusal to represent the world as it is but as it is becoming. In Boal's terms, Brecht dramatizes the reality beneath appearances rather than the appearance of reality. Thus, in his most important contribution to theate, Brecht demonstrates that reality can be changed. In one of the ways he does this Brecht presents the audience with problems demands decisions, not on the part of the characters but among the audience themselves. How would they act? How would they resolve the contradiction represented on the stage? For Boal, this approach to theater challenges an art of the status quo.
However, Brecht is not without his limitations. Namely, for Boal, Brechtian theater stops short of the point where the audience acts upon their decisions. The protagonist in Brecht's plays remains the actors on the stage. The audience may or may not enter into the decision-making process demanded by the theatre. But that is not the business of the theatre itself. Boal argues otherwise. Here it is clear that Boal demands that theater become relevant to the larger social processes of liberation from colonialism and imperialism. Practicing his art at a time of tremendous turmoil due to US-sponsored military coups and the forced extraction of resources for the benefit of European and American corporations, Boal joins those who argue that the protagonist of social change will be the people themselves. This theme permeates all of progressive Latin American thought of that moment; from querillismo to popular education, Paulo Freire to Third Cinema, Latin American conceptual art to liberation theology.
Boal begins to outline his notion of a poetics of the oppressed where those who struggle for liberation are protagonists both in the world and in the theater. Thus, the drama calls upon the audience to become directly involved in writing the drama even as it happens. As Boal testifies from his own practice, this kind of theater leaves the safe confines of bourgeois patrons and moves out into the everyday life spaces where the poor their everyday lives. The theater comes to them and, in the process, invites them to respond to the characters, argue with the narrative and propose changes to the outcome. In this sense, Boal practice is an experiment in translating Paulo Freire's popular education of codifications and decodification into the theatrical space. But a more rigorous study needs to be done to explore where that translation falls short of Freire's methodology and where it actually opens the methodology in new ways. For this reason I am skeptical of those who refer to Theater of the Oppressed as a theatrical practice of Freire's ideas. The contradictions between the two forms of popular education have as much to teach us as where they are similar (beyond the similarly titled books).
It is also worth reflecting on the extent to which Boal underplays the larger context of organizing. This will appear in his later books. But while the theater of the oppressed locates protagonism in the audience, how that audience is organized and organized in relationship to what remains largely mysterious here. This leads Boal to make certain unfortunate claims that the theater of the oppressed is a rehearsal for revolution because it gives the audience the experience of taking collective action. I appreciate the sentiment here but am painfully aware that not all action is a rehearsal for revolution. Some action rehearses counter-revolution. Clearly for action to have a prepartory role in emancipatory social change, then it needs to exist within a context of analysis where the regressive elements of that action can be distinguished from its progressives elements. Here is where Freire far exceeds the kind of formalist activist described by Boal.
In Freire's popular education, action occurs within a unity of critical reflection. The analysis produced in that reflection is then tested in action. The context of this is a specific community and its struggles. This has the potential to realign the institutional framework in which cultural practices like theater of the oppressed take place; from the institutions of theater to the labor of social movements. This subtle fact is an important point to remember if one reads Boal for ideas on how to import political content or method in a theater practice that is otherwise commitment to its legibility as theater to existing bourgeois institutions of culture. The codification and decodification practice, theatrical or otherwise, are performances that only have revolutionary effect within the context of organizing for profound social change. This is the nature of the rehearsal and not merely giving audiences an experience of action.
June 22, 2022
This is such a beautiful merger of psychodrama and epic theatre.
From psychodrama, Boal takes the insight that conflict must be relived, in the here and now, for it to be processed properly. Instead of interpreting memories, dreams, and encounters symbolically, we must act them out, feel through them bodily and affectively, so that we may overcome our reified responses and reclaim our spontaneity.
Boal, however, is less interested in individual spontaneity, than political imagination. Boal understands Aristotelian tragedy as a tool of repression; through identification with the hero, we become passive spectators. Through catharsis, we empty ourselves of dissenting emotions. We identify with the virtues of the hero and examine ourselves in light of their vices; however, what is depicted as virtue or vice goes unspoken. For Aristotle, justice was his empirical observations: an economic system that subjugated slaves and women. Theatre then, operated to justify these conditions.
Boal argues that Machiavelli rids us of such traditional virtues and vices. However, he replaces them with bourgeois values: self-interest, rationality, pragmatism. Characters no longer good nor bad, but varying levels of successful in a market society. We move from virtuous heroes punished due to their vices, to singular individuals free as the strength of their wills.
For Boal, Brecht challenges these idealistic forms of theatre by situating such characters into a social field. No one is born with this or that essential trait; rather, traits, dispositions, and behaviours emerge through socialisation. Brecht understands consciousness as arising through material conditions, the ways we relate to one another. Whether we met our employers in the eyes or look down at our feet. Whether we shrink in the face of authority or expand with pride. Brecht explores how "Sociology becomes psychology". We move from identification and catharsis, to estrangement and defamiliarisation. From passive empathy to active critique.
Despite these advances, however, creative control remains in the hand of the singular writer (Brecht). While epic theatre reveals class antagonisms, it give no agency to its spectators. As with classical psychoanalysis, epic theatre generates only symbolic mastery. What is needed for change, however, is collective action, a theatre whose characters and events are generated by the oppressed themselves, so that, in re-enacting their oppression, they discover new forms of resistance.
In the theatre of the oppressed, there is no distinction between writer, actor, and spectator. Everyone is a co-participant in a dialectic of collective possibilities. Real world conflicts are staged; exploitative factory conditions, racial tensions between immigrant and local labourers, the public torture of political dissidents by authoritarian dictators. Everyone takes part playing the characters, from workers, to managers, to military personnel. After reproducing the scene, all are encouraged to suggest solutions, however, these suggestions must be acted out (a pragmatic way to avoid armchair socialism). Others may intervene, change the script. What matters is not a perfect answer, but everyone's growing capacity to act otherwise. Stuck in exploitative factory conditions, a man suggests blowing up the factory. However, he doesn't know how to make explosives. Another suggests going on strike. The manager simply hires more men from town (reserve army of labour). Another suggests sabotaging the machinery. The manager is forced to hire an engineer, and the factory workers finally get a few hours of rest. Not only are different tactics for resistance enacted out, those playing the managers begin to understand how their oppressors think.
In sum: theatre moves from a poetics of morality (virtue), to psychology (individual will), to sociology (material conditions). Similarly, the spectator's privileged mode of experiencing shifts from affect (a purging of negative emotions), to thought (a critical reflection on fiction's ideological force), to action (a participation in collective organising).
Consciousness raising through an ever expanding dialectic between various class positions (we must be more than proletarian to succeed as proletariats). Embodied experience over theoretical reifications (Boal's way of bridging the illiteracy rampant in Brazil in the 1960s). Pretend praxis as theory crafting. This is my beautiful dialectics of the concrete.
From psychodrama, Boal takes the insight that conflict must be relived, in the here and now, for it to be processed properly. Instead of interpreting memories, dreams, and encounters symbolically, we must act them out, feel through them bodily and affectively, so that we may overcome our reified responses and reclaim our spontaneity.
Boal, however, is less interested in individual spontaneity, than political imagination. Boal understands Aristotelian tragedy as a tool of repression; through identification with the hero, we become passive spectators. Through catharsis, we empty ourselves of dissenting emotions. We identify with the virtues of the hero and examine ourselves in light of their vices; however, what is depicted as virtue or vice goes unspoken. For Aristotle, justice was his empirical observations: an economic system that subjugated slaves and women. Theatre then, operated to justify these conditions.
Boal argues that Machiavelli rids us of such traditional virtues and vices. However, he replaces them with bourgeois values: self-interest, rationality, pragmatism. Characters no longer good nor bad, but varying levels of successful in a market society. We move from virtuous heroes punished due to their vices, to singular individuals free as the strength of their wills.
For Boal, Brecht challenges these idealistic forms of theatre by situating such characters into a social field. No one is born with this or that essential trait; rather, traits, dispositions, and behaviours emerge through socialisation. Brecht understands consciousness as arising through material conditions, the ways we relate to one another. Whether we met our employers in the eyes or look down at our feet. Whether we shrink in the face of authority or expand with pride. Brecht explores how "Sociology becomes psychology". We move from identification and catharsis, to estrangement and defamiliarisation. From passive empathy to active critique.
Despite these advances, however, creative control remains in the hand of the singular writer (Brecht). While epic theatre reveals class antagonisms, it give no agency to its spectators. As with classical psychoanalysis, epic theatre generates only symbolic mastery. What is needed for change, however, is collective action, a theatre whose characters and events are generated by the oppressed themselves, so that, in re-enacting their oppression, they discover new forms of resistance.
In the theatre of the oppressed, there is no distinction between writer, actor, and spectator. Everyone is a co-participant in a dialectic of collective possibilities. Real world conflicts are staged; exploitative factory conditions, racial tensions between immigrant and local labourers, the public torture of political dissidents by authoritarian dictators. Everyone takes part playing the characters, from workers, to managers, to military personnel. After reproducing the scene, all are encouraged to suggest solutions, however, these suggestions must be acted out (a pragmatic way to avoid armchair socialism). Others may intervene, change the script. What matters is not a perfect answer, but everyone's growing capacity to act otherwise. Stuck in exploitative factory conditions, a man suggests blowing up the factory. However, he doesn't know how to make explosives. Another suggests going on strike. The manager simply hires more men from town (reserve army of labour). Another suggests sabotaging the machinery. The manager is forced to hire an engineer, and the factory workers finally get a few hours of rest. Not only are different tactics for resistance enacted out, those playing the managers begin to understand how their oppressors think.
In sum: theatre moves from a poetics of morality (virtue), to psychology (individual will), to sociology (material conditions). Similarly, the spectator's privileged mode of experiencing shifts from affect (a purging of negative emotions), to thought (a critical reflection on fiction's ideological force), to action (a participation in collective organising).
Consciousness raising through an ever expanding dialectic between various class positions (we must be more than proletarian to succeed as proletariats). Embodied experience over theoretical reifications (Boal's way of bridging the illiteracy rampant in Brazil in the 1960s). Pretend praxis as theory crafting. This is my beautiful dialectics of the concrete.
May 17, 2013
Recognizing that humans have a unique ability to take action in the world while simultaneously observing themselves in action, Boal believed that the human was a self-contained theatre, actor and spectator in one. Because we can observe ourselves in action, we can amend, adjust and alter our actions to have different impact and to change our world.
Theatre of the Oppressed engages people in discovery, critical reflection and dialogue and the process of liberation! Through Theatre of the Oppressed we can better understand ourselves, our communities and our world. There are several series of techniques, tools and expressions of Theatre of the Oppressed.It enables and allows participants/readers to stretch the limits of their imaginations, demechanize habitual behaviors and deconstruct and analyze societal structures of power and oppression. Plus, game playing is fun and builds community.
Theatre of the Oppressed engages people in discovery, critical reflection and dialogue and the process of liberation! Through Theatre of the Oppressed we can better understand ourselves, our communities and our world. There are several series of techniques, tools and expressions of Theatre of the Oppressed.It enables and allows participants/readers to stretch the limits of their imaginations, demechanize habitual behaviors and deconstruct and analyze societal structures of power and oppression. Plus, game playing is fun and builds community.
May 31, 2018
I can't say this is a very good piece. The claim that it is as important as Artaud or Grotowski is spurious. It's a disjointed book that brings up some fascinating perspectives on how narratives are coercive but its way of correcting that is like most movements in the theatre somewhere between the Polish school and crazy yelling on the street corner. Neat perspective but an unfinished book.
July 27, 2007
a tricky, wordy, sort of confusing read, but chock full (chalk full? chockful? what does chock mean really? anyway it's full) of intriguing theory on the oppressor and the oppressed, how to use theater as a rehersal for revolution, and why we should be concerned with oppression at all.
July 10, 2014
A man after my own heart. A book that explores the true power of the theatre and its ability to free people and change and challenge power systems.
August 3, 2025
interesting read, more in line w something i would have read in my political theory class than anything else. it pretty much charts the history of theater from ancient greece to dictatorship-era brazil, and all its possible functions (aristotle’s poetics - coercive tragedy, meant to purge audience members of flaws that conflicted w society’s accepted morals; machiavelli - the dawn of the capitalist era, focus on characters working their way up [virtù]; hegel - saw characters’ situations as a result of their personal actions; brecht - marxist, historical materialist, saw characters’ economic and social situations as influencers of their actions). then boal proposes a new system of theater designed for revolutionary times. lots of references to works of theater i haven’t read or seen performed. still i’m glad i read it, even if it wasn’t incredibly engaging. i definitely learned a lot, it got me thinking, and i feel more knowledgeable for having read it.
read for summer research 2025
read for summer research 2025
January 15, 2018
** Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları'ndan çıkan çevirisini okudum. Güzel, akıcı bir çeviriydi. **
5 bölümden oluşan kitapta Augusto Boal tiyatronun gelişim evrelerini politik bir şekilde okur ve bu okumaların üzerine Boal, Freire'nin Ezilenlerin Pedagojisi çalışması üzerine kurduğu Ezilenlerin Poetikası'nı okuyucuya tanıtır. Politik bilgim çok gelişmiş olmadığı için bu okumalara ne yazık ki eleştirel bir şekilde yaklaşamıyorum. Fakat Ezilenlerin Tiyatrosu tekniğini Aylin Vartanyan aracılığıyla deneyimleme fırsatım olduğu için bu kitabın bu tekniğe oldukça faydalı bir giriş olduğunu söyleyebilirim.
Tiyatro üzerinden yaptığı politik tartışmalar da oldukça tatmin ediciydi.
5 bölümden oluşan kitapta Augusto Boal tiyatronun gelişim evrelerini politik bir şekilde okur ve bu okumaların üzerine Boal, Freire'nin Ezilenlerin Pedagojisi çalışması üzerine kurduğu Ezilenlerin Poetikası'nı okuyucuya tanıtır. Politik bilgim çok gelişmiş olmadığı için bu okumalara ne yazık ki eleştirel bir şekilde yaklaşamıyorum. Fakat Ezilenlerin Tiyatrosu tekniğini Aylin Vartanyan aracılığıyla deneyimleme fırsatım olduğu için bu kitabın bu tekniğe oldukça faydalı bir giriş olduğunu söyleyebilirim.
Tiyatro üzerinden yaptığı politik tartışmalar da oldukça tatmin ediciydi.
May 20, 2021
Acho q tá um 4 bem acertado. Gostei bastante da temática desse livro, até porque eu li num período em que estava numa vibe mais de teatro e atuação e peças, num tipo bem interessante de reflexão. Gostei muito da combinação filosofia, política, literatura, teatro e ciências sociais. Gosto demais, e foi uma leitura interessante demais pra aprender, refletir e pnesar no que é esse tipo de cultura. A linguagem foi fácil, tranquila, e apesar de ficar um pouco entediad em alguns momentos (culpa minha mesmo) o assunto foi super interessante, coisas que nem tinha refletido antes. Gostei muito dessa perspectiva diferente do teatro.
October 2, 2025
4 weeks of coursework readings about “spect-actors” has led up to the point where in my tutorial four other uncomfortable students and I get to repeat after some lady in a 2014 TedX video and say: “I am an agent of change”, and it makes me want to kill myself in the most brutal way.
March 22, 2025
A very good book, touching on aspects of the philosophy of theatre connected with oppression and how to keep society in check. With also trying to teach u how to break free from the “bourgeois-theater” although I wish I could have given it 5 stars, the last chapter was a dread to read. I don’t see the purpose of it just yet, I am gonna reread it at a later time maybe I just don’t understand that part yet on why it is included.
It is still a must read for anyone in theatre, if you care about actual activism and fighting against a capitalistic society built to destroy everything that goes out of the small box of conformity.
Even if you don’t care about activism in theatre this will make u care!!!!!
It is still a must read for anyone in theatre, if you care about actual activism and fighting against a capitalistic society built to destroy everything that goes out of the small box of conformity.
Even if you don’t care about activism in theatre this will make u care!!!!!
August 21, 2017
A lot of excitement going into this book based upon he author's reputation and he pedigree of his progenitor (Freire still being a big theorist in most academic circles, yet being so encircled, much of his Pedagogy of the Oppressed has been problematized). Boal's theatre remains its entertaining values with its own pedantic purpose. Establishing a chain of theory from Artistotle, Machiavelli, Hegel and Brecht, the people are increasingly under the thumb of the state hat puts on the show (patrons of the arts have always been part of the patriarchy) while Boal's own blend of open theatre activities are meant to get others outside of the oppression, or at least playing the part of the Joker and winking at the audience at significant moments.
December 20, 2017
Yooooo my mind is blown for many reasons, although I was sick at my stomach of all the references to European perspectives subject of theatre. Reading on I learned and fully understood why those references were so important. I won't give away the details but I urge any one who is conerned with the conditions of the impoverished people in their communities and want change to read this book! We in the artistic community have power to influence great change and I was more encouraged to continue using my talents in this way, I hope other artists will read this book and implement the concepts in everything thy do. Revolutionary Reading!
June 28, 2020
A brilliant and pointed investigation of theater, its social function, and a vision of how theater can be revolutionary. In times when creators are looking for how they can help foster change, this ought to be a primary source. Boal’s vision of the purpose of theater is so incisive, it begs to be explorers. I can’t wait to own this book and dissect it for a long time to come.
January 2, 2014
A nice re-read of Boal in preparation for writing about my work with TNT.
March 12, 2021
Quite frankly I don't think I can add that much to dont's thorough review.
The two things I would add are:
1. Understanding Theater of the Oppressed within the context of Peru's 1973-74 radical literacy program, ALFIN, enhances your appreciation for what Boal's methodology intends. Nothing, of course, that Boal was Brazilian and his ideas predated the program itself. It's not just an attempt at organizing (arguably not even primarily an attempt at organizing) so much as it's an attempt at consciousness raising, which seems clearer within the Maoist tradition Boal himself refers to in the book. ALFIN is important, I think, because it uses Freire's educational framework from Pedagogy of the Oppressed and explicitly collaborated with Boal's People's Theater (noted in chapter 4). A fairly direct connection. According to Anthony Burton in his post-mortem of the program, ALFIN's framework used an ethnographic lens that puts one in mind of Spivak's speechless subaltern - it assumed a fundamental incommunicability from those it was trying to teach literacy to. This is a very bad position to begin from, as you can imagine, and you can see how this contradiction became apparent in Boal's ideas as they were readily adapted into simple therapeutic models.
That said, it's important to keep in mind that, as Alfonso E. Lizarzaburu's notes in his post-mortem, a key problem was the inability to materially provide for the people in the program. He specifically notes that literacy teachers gained trust only "by their conduct." This kind of contradiction between receiving material needs and performing material needs is fundamental to ALFIN's failure, and the potholes that Theatre of the Oppressed drives over. One might agree with what Lizarzaburu says about ALFIN, except about Boal: "a premature programme, launched before the revolutionary process had advanced sufficiently."
2. An element of Boal's methodology that seems to be forgotten in the reviews I've seen so far is the meta-cognition element. Which is to say, in chapter 4, Boal notes that during one excercise:
It's not a "rehearsal of revolution," but the idea that one can visibly create the imprint of one's biases to be evaluated collectively is an idea that hasn't been utilized nearly enough. If you watch this Forum theatre performance you can arguably see this very bias when the potentially well-off woman decides to take on the role of the aggressor in the first act - reflecting the thoughts of those that Boal calls "the people who believed in magical solutions or in a ‘change of conscience’ on the part of the exploiting classes." Keep in mind that this is not to call an angry customer the "exploiting class" - one would have to argue for that in a breakdown of the scene - but to explain how the method can be fruitful in exploring our impulses. Which is especially interesting to keep in mind since an issue both Burton and Lizarzaburu point to is the class contradictions among even those employed by ALFIN.
Overall: a fruitful read whose structure - 3 chapters of historical context and 3 chapters of practical explanation - reveals a thoroughly underexplored idea that seems more practical than ever in the 'Internet Age.' It puts me in mind of Twitch streams where the streamer hands control of the game over to chat itself - obviously not revolutionary itself, but there's a potential there for something which Theatre of the Oppressed points to. So I agree with dont's critiques and I'd even extend the critique that Boal "underplays the larger context of organizing" to the larger context he was working in. Yet, perhaps because a decade has passed since dont's review, I'm ending my review more optimistically, that I think that the degree of political consciousness and the potentials of technology (Twitch was launched in 2011) create unseen possibilities for the concept of a "rehearsal of revolution. Acknowledging, of course, that "for action to have a preparatory role in emancipatory social change, then it needs to exist within a context of analysis where the regressive elements of that action can be distinguished from its progressives elements."
The two things I would add are:
1. Understanding Theater of the Oppressed within the context of Peru's 1973-74 radical literacy program, ALFIN, enhances your appreciation for what Boal's methodology intends. Nothing, of course, that Boal was Brazilian and his ideas predated the program itself. It's not just an attempt at organizing (arguably not even primarily an attempt at organizing) so much as it's an attempt at consciousness raising, which seems clearer within the Maoist tradition Boal himself refers to in the book. ALFIN is important, I think, because it uses Freire's educational framework from Pedagogy of the Oppressed and explicitly collaborated with Boal's People's Theater (noted in chapter 4). A fairly direct connection. According to Anthony Burton in his post-mortem of the program, ALFIN's framework used an ethnographic lens that puts one in mind of Spivak's speechless subaltern - it assumed a fundamental incommunicability from those it was trying to teach literacy to. This is a very bad position to begin from, as you can imagine, and you can see how this contradiction became apparent in Boal's ideas as they were readily adapted into simple therapeutic models.
That said, it's important to keep in mind that, as Alfonso E. Lizarzaburu's notes in his post-mortem, a key problem was the inability to materially provide for the people in the program. He specifically notes that literacy teachers gained trust only "by their conduct." This kind of contradiction between receiving material needs and performing material needs is fundamental to ALFIN's failure, and the potholes that Theatre of the Oppressed drives over. One might agree with what Lizarzaburu says about ALFIN, except about Boal: "a premature programme, launched before the revolutionary process had advanced sufficiently."
2. An element of Boal's methodology that seems to be forgotten in the reviews I've seen so far is the meta-cognition element. Which is to say, in chapter 4, Boal notes that during one excercise:
Another young woman made all kinds of changes, leaving untouched only the five persons with their hands tied. This girl belonged to the upper middle class. When she showed signs of nervousness for not being able to imagine any further changes, someone suggested to her the possibility of changing the group of tied figures; the girl looked at them in surprise and exclaimed: ‘The truth is that those people didn’t fit in! …’ It was the truth. The people did not fi t into her view of the scheme of things, and she had never before been able to see it
It's not a "rehearsal of revolution," but the idea that one can visibly create the imprint of one's biases to be evaluated collectively is an idea that hasn't been utilized nearly enough. If you watch this Forum theatre performance you can arguably see this very bias when the potentially well-off woman decides to take on the role of the aggressor in the first act - reflecting the thoughts of those that Boal calls "the people who believed in magical solutions or in a ‘change of conscience’ on the part of the exploiting classes." Keep in mind that this is not to call an angry customer the "exploiting class" - one would have to argue for that in a breakdown of the scene - but to explain how the method can be fruitful in exploring our impulses. Which is especially interesting to keep in mind since an issue both Burton and Lizarzaburu point to is the class contradictions among even those employed by ALFIN.
Overall: a fruitful read whose structure - 3 chapters of historical context and 3 chapters of practical explanation - reveals a thoroughly underexplored idea that seems more practical than ever in the 'Internet Age.' It puts me in mind of Twitch streams where the streamer hands control of the game over to chat itself - obviously not revolutionary itself, but there's a potential there for something which Theatre of the Oppressed points to. So I agree with dont's critiques and I'd even extend the critique that Boal "underplays the larger context of organizing" to the larger context he was working in. Yet, perhaps because a decade has passed since dont's review, I'm ending my review more optimistically, that I think that the degree of political consciousness and the potentials of technology (Twitch was launched in 2011) create unseen possibilities for the concept of a "rehearsal of revolution. Acknowledging, of course, that "for action to have a preparatory role in emancipatory social change, then it needs to exist within a context of analysis where the regressive elements of that action can be distinguished from its progressives elements."
Read
June 28, 2025“Aristotle did not advise the tragic poet to portray vicious characters. The tragic hero should suffer a radical change in the course of his life—from happiness to adversity—but this should happen not as a consequence of vice, but rather as a result of some error or weakness. Soon we shall examine the nature of this hamartia. It is necessary to understand also that the presentation of the error of weakness was not designed to make the spectator, in his immediate perception of it, feel repugnance or hatred. On the contrary, Aristotle suggested that the mistake or weakness be treated with some understanding. Almost always the state of “fortune” in which the hero is found at the beginning of the tragedy is due precisely to this fault and not to his virtues. Oedipus is King of Thebes because of a weakness in his character, that is, his pride. And indeed the efficacy of a dramatic process would be greatly diminished if the fault were presented from the beginning as despicable, the error as abominable. It is necessary, on the contrary, to show them as acceptable in order to destroy them later through the theatrical, poetic processes. Bad playwrights in every epoch fail to understand the enormous efficacy of the transformations that take place before the spectators’ eyes. Theater is change and not simple presentation of what exists: it is becoming and not being.”
“The Marxist poetics of Bertolt Brecht does not stand opposed to one or another formal aspect of the Hegelian idealist poetics but rather denies its very essence, asserting that the character is not absolute subject but the object of economic or social forces to which he responds and in virtue of which he acts.”
“Empathy must be understood as the terrible weapon it really is. Empathy is the most dangerous weapon in the entire arsenal of the theater and related arts (movies and TV). Its mechanism (sometimes insidious) consists in the juxtaposition of two people (one fictitious and another real), two universes, making one of those two people (the real one, the spectator) surrender to the other (the fictitious one, the character) his power of making decisions. The man relinquishes his power of decision to the image. But here there is something monstrous: when man chooses, he does so in a real, vital situation, in his own life; when the character chooses (and therefore when he induces man to choose), he does so in a fictitious, unreal situation, lacking all the density of facts, nuances, and complications that life offers. This makes man (the real one) choose according to unreal situations and criteria.”
“Each human being creates his own character in real life. He has a particular way of laughing, walking, speaking, with habits of language, thought, and feeling: the rigidity of each human being is the character that each one creates for himself. However, each one is capable of seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking, and being moved more than in everyday life. The actor, once he is freed of his daily conditioning—extending the limits of his perception and expression—restricts his possibilities to those required by the interrelations in which his character is involved.”
“Art is a form of knowledge: the artist, therefore, has the obligation of interpreting reality, making it understandable. But if instead of interpreting, he limits himself to reproducing it, he will be failing to comprehend it or to make it comprehensible. And the more reality and art tend to be identical, the more useless will be the latter. The criterion of similarity is the measure of inefficacy.”
“The Cid, for example, heroically risked his life in defense of Alfonso IV and heroically endured humiliation as a reward. Today the Cid, very heroically, would take his lord to a Labor Court and organize pickets in front of the factory doors, in the face of tear gas bombs and police bullets. The Cid-vassal was not foolish for having done what he did, nor would the Cid-proletarian be foolish for doing what he would. He was and will be a hero.”
“The Marxist poetics of Bertolt Brecht does not stand opposed to one or another formal aspect of the Hegelian idealist poetics but rather denies its very essence, asserting that the character is not absolute subject but the object of economic or social forces to which he responds and in virtue of which he acts.”
“Empathy must be understood as the terrible weapon it really is. Empathy is the most dangerous weapon in the entire arsenal of the theater and related arts (movies and TV). Its mechanism (sometimes insidious) consists in the juxtaposition of two people (one fictitious and another real), two universes, making one of those two people (the real one, the spectator) surrender to the other (the fictitious one, the character) his power of making decisions. The man relinquishes his power of decision to the image. But here there is something monstrous: when man chooses, he does so in a real, vital situation, in his own life; when the character chooses (and therefore when he induces man to choose), he does so in a fictitious, unreal situation, lacking all the density of facts, nuances, and complications that life offers. This makes man (the real one) choose according to unreal situations and criteria.”
“Each human being creates his own character in real life. He has a particular way of laughing, walking, speaking, with habits of language, thought, and feeling: the rigidity of each human being is the character that each one creates for himself. However, each one is capable of seeing, hearing, feeling, thinking, and being moved more than in everyday life. The actor, once he is freed of his daily conditioning—extending the limits of his perception and expression—restricts his possibilities to those required by the interrelations in which his character is involved.”
“Art is a form of knowledge: the artist, therefore, has the obligation of interpreting reality, making it understandable. But if instead of interpreting, he limits himself to reproducing it, he will be failing to comprehend it or to make it comprehensible. And the more reality and art tend to be identical, the more useless will be the latter. The criterion of similarity is the measure of inefficacy.”
“The Cid, for example, heroically risked his life in defense of Alfonso IV and heroically endured humiliation as a reward. Today the Cid, very heroically, would take his lord to a Labor Court and organize pickets in front of the factory doors, in the face of tear gas bombs and police bullets. The Cid-vassal was not foolish for having done what he did, nor would the Cid-proletarian be foolish for doing what he would. He was and will be a hero.”
July 17, 2023
I knew there was a reason I never liked a single Western Imovie I have been unfortunately subjected to!
Pg 46-47 in my copy:
"On the other hand, to understand how the system functions often becomes difficult because one places himself in a false perspective. For example: the stories of "Western" movies are Aristotelian (at least, all the ones I have seen). But to analyze them it is necessary to regard them from the perspective of the bad man rather than from that of the "good guy," from the view- point not of the hero but of the villain.
A "Western" story begins with the presentation of a villain (bandit, horse thief, murderer, or whatever) who, precisely because of his vice or tragic flaw, is the uncontested boss, the richest or the most feared man of the neighborhood or city. He does all the evil he possibly can, and we empathize with him and vicariously we do the same evil we kill, steal horses and chickens, r**e young heroines, etc. Until, after our own hamartia has been stimulated, the moment of the peripeteia: the hero gains advantage in the fist fight or through endless shoot-outs and re- establishes order (social ethos), morality, and honest business relationships, after destroying (catastrophe) the bad citizen. What is left out here is the anagnorisis, and the villain is allowed to die without feeling regrets; in short, they finish him off with gunshots and bury him, while the townspeople celebrate with square dances. . . .
How often remember? our sympathy has been (in a certain way, empathy) more with the bad guy than with the good one! The "Westerns," like children's games, serve the Aristotelian purpose of purging all the spectator's aggressive tendencies. This system functions to diminish, placate, satisfy, eliminate
all that can break the balance - all, including the revolutionary,
transforming impetus. Let there be no doubt: Aristotle formulated a very powerful purgative system, the objective of which is to eliminate all that is not commonly accepted, including the revolution, before it takes place. His system appears in disguised form on television, in the movies, in the circus, in the theaters. It appears in many and varied shapes and media. But its essence does not change: it is designed to bridle the individual, to adjust him to what pre-exists. If this is what we want, the Aristotelian system serves the purpose better than any other; if, on the contrary, we want to stimulate the spectator to transform his society, to engage in revolutionary action, in that case we will have to seek another poetics!"
Pg 46-47 in my copy:
"On the other hand, to understand how the system functions often becomes difficult because one places himself in a false perspective. For example: the stories of "Western" movies are Aristotelian (at least, all the ones I have seen). But to analyze them it is necessary to regard them from the perspective of the bad man rather than from that of the "good guy," from the view- point not of the hero but of the villain.
A "Western" story begins with the presentation of a villain (bandit, horse thief, murderer, or whatever) who, precisely because of his vice or tragic flaw, is the uncontested boss, the richest or the most feared man of the neighborhood or city. He does all the evil he possibly can, and we empathize with him and vicariously we do the same evil we kill, steal horses and chickens, r**e young heroines, etc. Until, after our own hamartia has been stimulated, the moment of the peripeteia: the hero gains advantage in the fist fight or through endless shoot-outs and re- establishes order (social ethos), morality, and honest business relationships, after destroying (catastrophe) the bad citizen. What is left out here is the anagnorisis, and the villain is allowed to die without feeling regrets; in short, they finish him off with gunshots and bury him, while the townspeople celebrate with square dances. . . .
How often remember? our sympathy has been (in a certain way, empathy) more with the bad guy than with the good one! The "Westerns," like children's games, serve the Aristotelian purpose of purging all the spectator's aggressive tendencies. This system functions to diminish, placate, satisfy, eliminate
all that can break the balance - all, including the revolutionary,
transforming impetus. Let there be no doubt: Aristotle formulated a very powerful purgative system, the objective of which is to eliminate all that is not commonly accepted, including the revolution, before it takes place. His system appears in disguised form on television, in the movies, in the circus, in the theaters. It appears in many and varied shapes and media. But its essence does not change: it is designed to bridle the individual, to adjust him to what pre-exists. If this is what we want, the Aristotelian system serves the purpose better than any other; if, on the contrary, we want to stimulate the spectator to transform his society, to engage in revolutionary action, in that case we will have to seek another poetics!"
April 1, 2024
I came to Theater of the Oppressed through a friend of a friend. Reading Pedagogy of the Oppressed opened my eyes, not only to how teaching is done in oppressive systems, but how it might be done in revolutionary ones. When I heard of this book, I was eager to dive in. Augusto Boal spends the first three sections of this book laying the framework for the role and function of theater, specifically tragedy. The first is Aristotelian, where the (spectator surrogate) protagonist's tragic flaw is cleansed, coercively facilitating the ideals of the ruling class. The second mirrors the rise of the bourgeoisie, which promoted the virtú of exceptional aristocrats, again coercively facilitating the ideals of the expanding ruling classes. As he arrives at describing Brecht's work, with characters becoming objects which social forces act upon, he surmises that there is the possibility that audiences can question the ideas of the ruling classes. Boal takes this further though in the final two chapters, insisting that to prevent dramatic action substituting for real action, the masses should become literate in theatrical language and the theater should become a place of rehearsal for revolutionary acts. In chapter four he proposes methodology for instructing folks into theatrical literacy and deconstructing the role/place of theater, bolstering it as a tool for establishing revolutionary ideas within and for a community. His final chapter is a methodology for running a theater called "The Joker" system, which I admit is the least clear to me, partially based on the theatrical references he makes which I am mostly unfamiliar. Ultimately, I found his overview of the construction of Aristotelian to Brechtian tragedy invigorating. I was able to apply it to both modern works of theater as well as other mediums, such as television and film. I also see the push and pull of his ideas in technologies like social media, where newspaper theatre is done one day and hidden because they espouse "political content" the next. I am excited that Boal centers theater as the tool for rehearsal for revolution, as it is possibly the most direct communal form of artistic literacy. I would recommend this book to those interested in organizing revolutionary theater, teachers of the arts, and those interested in the role of media in revolutionary movements.
October 21, 2019
Nagyon érdekes könyv, egy nagyon haladó színházszemlélet nem éppen friss (’70es évek vége) visszatekintésben, szóval kicsit kapkodtam a fejem, hogy most akkor kontextus. Mert amúgy nem könnyű hovatenni, hogy itt bizony mintha egynagy lélegzetű melegvízfeltalálás találkozna egy (szintén levegős) hatalmi-politikai színházelmélettel. És ez ráadásul mind jó!
Szóval mérséklődő zavarodottságomon túllépve, van egy hosszú bevezető Arisztotelésztől Brechtig mindenbajával, hogy mi mindent művelt a színház-és-politika-elmélet az idők során. Ebből pl Machiavellire különösen kíváncsi voltam (és nem csalódtam), Hegelt mint rendesen most is inkább gyors átlapozásra méltattam (bocs Hégel!), aztán jött az elnyomottak színháza, és az már sokkal érdekesebb, ám mindössze kb 40 oldal .Na ezt mindenképp érdemes volna magyarra lefordítani, mert 1) úgy tűnik nincs ilyenünk és B) szerény és roppant foghíjas színházi ismereteimből egyik-másik-sőttöbb elem visszaköszön, vagyis ezt már tarthattták páran olvasásra méltónak és azóta sem járt el fölötte rendesen az idő, és III.) az angol fordítás eléggé nehézkes és néhol kifejezetten akadályoztatott, szóval egy portugálos kolléga ha nekivágna, innen is köszönet.
Amúgy az egész angol szöveg fenn van letölthetős-elektronikusan angolul, feltettem a linket, tananyag, szóval tessék bátran olvasni.
Lábjegyzet: a napokban láttam ilyen színházi produkciót élőben, nagyon klassz volt – a demokráciának nagy szüksége van a színházra, és viszont.
Szóval mérséklődő zavarodottságomon túllépve, van egy hosszú bevezető Arisztotelésztől Brechtig mindenbajával, hogy mi mindent művelt a színház-és-politika-elmélet az idők során. Ebből pl Machiavellire különösen kíváncsi voltam (és nem csalódtam), Hegelt mint rendesen most is inkább gyors átlapozásra méltattam (bocs Hégel!), aztán jött az elnyomottak színháza, és az már sokkal érdekesebb, ám mindössze kb 40 oldal .Na ezt mindenképp érdemes volna magyarra lefordítani, mert 1) úgy tűnik nincs ilyenünk és B) szerény és roppant foghíjas színházi ismereteimből egyik-másik-sőttöbb elem visszaköszön, vagyis ezt már tarthattták páran olvasásra méltónak és azóta sem járt el fölötte rendesen az idő, és III.) az angol fordítás eléggé nehézkes és néhol kifejezetten akadályoztatott, szóval egy portugálos kolléga ha nekivágna, innen is köszönet.
Amúgy az egész angol szöveg fenn van letölthetős-elektronikusan angolul, feltettem a linket, tananyag, szóval tessék bátran olvasni.
Lábjegyzet: a napokban láttam ilyen színházi produkciót élőben, nagyon klassz volt – a demokráciának nagy szüksége van a színházra, és viszont.
Read
November 28, 2023This book was clearly in the background of the theatre I was taking part in in the 80s. Since then it has, at least for me, disappeared into the background of my privileged North American life.
As with all great books, the ideas within have bided their time and bear re- examining now in our current times. I appreciate the breaking down of the bones of a style that no longer is alive or serves us, in order to make way for new and essential possibility.
Live theatre has a power film and cinematography can never hope to achieve.
I hope I can discuss this book with others, in order to really sink into its meaning and potential.
As with all great books, the ideas within have bided their time and bear re- examining now in our current times. I appreciate the breaking down of the bones of a style that no longer is alive or serves us, in order to make way for new and essential possibility.
Live theatre has a power film and cinematography can never hope to achieve.
I hope I can discuss this book with others, in order to really sink into its meaning and potential.
May 21, 2025
My daughter had me read this to prepare for my role as the dramaturg. Now I see why—Boal don’t play.
This isn’t your regular theatre theory snooze-fest. Boal basically kicks down the stage door and yells, “The audience has rights too!” He questions everything—Greek drama, emotional manipulation, and why we just sit there letting actors make us cry on command.
It’s giving activist, intellectual, and slightly chaotic energy. A must-read for anyone who loves theatre, justice, and flipping the script—literally.
This isn’t your regular theatre theory snooze-fest. Boal basically kicks down the stage door and yells, “The audience has rights too!” He questions everything—Greek drama, emotional manipulation, and why we just sit there letting actors make us cry on command.
It’s giving activist, intellectual, and slightly chaotic energy. A must-read for anyone who loves theatre, justice, and flipping the script—literally.
February 10, 2018
This book floored me. Taking readers through the historic roots of theater, Boal highlights the uses and limitations of the stage, explaining Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hegel and Brecht.
Studied this book while a community organizer, and the theory allowed me to set an organizing context where we could push past the day to day constraints we were living in and reimagine a new theater for our lives.
Studied this book while a community organizer, and the theory allowed me to set an organizing context where we could push past the day to day constraints we were living in and reimagine a new theater for our lives.
October 11, 2023
Wonderful insight into the aesthetic history and philosophy of theatre as Boal challenges conventions, adapting both the form and content of the stage for the masses of Brazil. There are several connections to be made regarding pedagogy, literacy, and politics. Boal’s initiatives to re-contextualize the fundamental dynamics of theatre are very compelling, and this text is generally suitable for readers who aren’t especially well-versed in dramatic studies such as myself.
April 15, 2024
I skimmed the book so this review is should be taken with a grain of salt. I picked the book up because I was hoping it would be a kind of instruction manual with literal exercises and hot-tos. It is much more a treatise, a description of a literature and weaving of Boal's argument and philsophy. If I have time, I may return to the book, but for now I feel that I got what I needed out of the skim. Hoping to find more about the application of the theory/philosophy.
September 22, 2024
I read this for my Masters Course placement. It was fascinating to read. It helped having a knowledge of theatre and philosophy in ancient Greece. Seeing how the theatre has been, and can be used is fascinating.
This was well written. I do have some knowledge of the theatre, but I am not an expert. It was written in a way that was understandable to an amateur, but also included a lot of critical thinking and reflection with the information that got me thinking myself.
This was well written. I do have some knowledge of the theatre, but I am not an expert. It was written in a way that was understandable to an amateur, but also included a lot of critical thinking and reflection with the information that got me thinking myself.
May 10, 2021
It’s a good book, I read it for an essay in political theatre, a module I do in my degree, it’s intense as in I think it’s not an easy read where it’s full of so much academic writing and philosophy but it is interesting and the author himself is very interesting too especially if you check him out more! It’s fairly inspiring but I will have to read it again to take things in properly I think 🤔
December 1, 2021
I did not actually finish this book (yet), only reading the first 1/3 or so, but through skimming around and discussions in class I got a decent idea of Boal’s theatre - and it’s AMAZING. The part I read read was his analysis/breakdown of aristotelian theatre as coercive and generating inaction - every moment was very illuminating.
January 18, 2025
Genuinely one of the most inspiring and forwarding thinking books I’ve ever read. While his systems are very contextual and perhaps imperfect, his way of utilizing theater as a tool for unlearning socialized behaviors, analyzing oppression, rehearsing revolution ignites a powerful belief in me that theater can adapt to the modern world and become a tool for liberation. More to come.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews