Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book
Rate this book
A timeless classic on the art of theatre from the most influential stage director of the twentieth century.In this seminal and iconoclastic book, groundbreaking director and cofounder of the Royal Shakespeare Company Peter Brook draws on a life in love with the stage to explore the issues facing a theatrical performance. He describes important developments in theatre from the last century, as well as smaller scale events, from productions by Stanislavsky to the rise of Method Acting, from Brecht’s revolutionary alienation technique to the free form Happenings of the 1960s, and from the different styles of such great Shakespearean actors as John Gielgud and Paul Scofield to a joyous impromptu performance in the burnt-out shell of the Hamburg Opera just after the war. Along the way, Brook provides theatre-makers with an indispensable guide to creating exhilarating and fresh performances.Passionate, unconventional, and fascinating, The Empty Space shows how theatre defies rules, builds and shatters illusions, and creates lasting memories for its audiences.

144 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1968

Loading interface...
Loading interface...

About the author

Peter Brook

95 books119 followers
Peter Brook is a world-renowned theater director, staging innovative productions of the works of famous playwrights. A native of London, he has been based in France since the 1970s.

Peter Brook's parents were immigrant scientists from Russia. A precocious child with a distaste for formal education but a love of learning, Brook performed his own four-hour version of Shakespeare's Hamlet at the age of seven. After spending two years in Switzerland recovering from a glandular infection, Brook became one of the youngest undergraduates at Oxford University. At the same time he directed his first play in London, a production of Marlowe's Dr. Faustus. Brook made his directing debut at the Stratford Theatre at the age of 21, with a production of Love's Labours Lost.

Over the next several years, Brook directed both theater and opera, as well as designing the sets and costumes for his productions. He eventually grew disillusioned with opera, calling it "deadly theater." He directed prominent actors, including Laurence Olivier in Titus Andronicus and Paul Schofeld in a filmed King Lear. He also directed a film adaptation of Lord of the Flies. In 1962, he was named a director of the Royal Shakespeare Company.

Despite his popular successes, Brook sought out alternative ways to create vibrant, meaningful theater. He directed a season of experimental theater with the Royal Shakespeare Company, inspired by Antonin Artaud's "Theatre of Cruelty." He sought to turn away from stars and to create an ensemble of actors who improvised during a long rehearsal period in a search of the meaning of "holy theater."

Out of this search came Brook's finest work. In 1964 he directed Genet's The Screens and Peter Weiss' Marat/Sade, for which he received seven major awards and introduced Glenda Jackson to the theater. Influenced by Brecht and Artaud, Marat/Sade shocked the audience with its insane asylum environment. In 1966 he developed US, a play about the Vietnam experience and the horrors of war. Jerzy Grotowski, one of the most important theater directors of this century and a man who profoundly influenced Brook, came to work with the company during this production. Brook also did an adaptation of Seneca's Oedipus by poet Ted Hughes, a who continued to collaborate with him for many years. The culmination of this phase of Brook's work was his production of A Midsummer Night's Dream (1970). Using trapezes, juggling, and circus effects, Brook and his actors created a sense of magic, joy, and celebration in this interpretation of Shakespeare's play.

After this, Brook moved to Paris and founded the International Center of Theatre Research. He wanted to find a new form of theater that could speak to people worldwide--theater which was truly universal. He also wanted to work in an environment of unlimited rehearsal time in order to allow for a deep search-of-self for all involved. The first production that came out of this phase was Orghast (1971), which employed a new language developed by Ted Hughes. This production, performed at the ruins of Persepolis in Persia, used actors from many different countries.

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
2,036 (45%)
4 stars
1,543 (34%)
3 stars
709 (15%)
2 stars
154 (3%)
1 star
50 (1%)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 240 reviews
Profile Image for Elisabeth M.
34 reviews11 followers
August 17, 2009
Alternately brilliant and boring. I think that Peter Brook is actually a profound man, but his writing on the theory of theatre gets tedious when he starts soliloquizing and forgets to include any means for the reader to put his abstractions into practice. At those times the book gets a self-infatuated tone, and loses believability. I spent most of the book slogging through, one paragraph at a time. That said, there are penetrating insights lodged within, and many times I felt he had unearthed a real gem.
Profile Image for Cari.
114 reviews
March 24, 2011
This book is excellent, but it's hampered by two things. One is Peter Brook's fault and one isn't:

1. It's a book about the current state of theater, written in 1968. As I was born in 1984, the author has literally no knowledge of any performance I have ever seen in my life, nor have I seen any of the performances he describes. So it's hard to relate his opinions about the state of theater to today, not knowing if I agree with his assessment of 1968.

2. The book is inscrutable and high-minded to a fault. I can't decide if I agree with him if I can't understand what the hell he's saying.

Still, it's a book about aiming high, so he's not going to dumb down his language for the groundlings. If you can fight your way through it and you're in the mood for some griping about theater, give it a shot. Of course, the book offers a lot of criticism without any suggestions for improvement (other than what basically amounts to "do better"), so you might just end up frustrated at the end. But I found myself wanting to highlight certain passages, and I never do that. He hits a lot of important points, and I'd love to read an updated version for 2011.
Profile Image for Rosanna Threakall.
Author 0 books95 followers
March 30, 2017
This was suggested reading for my acting class and I was told it would probably be too deep for our standards but I actually really enjoyed it and got a lot from it. I must read for any fellow drama nerd.
Profile Image for Jamie Grefe.
Author 18 books58 followers
March 2, 2012
Having seen Brook's televised "The Tragedy of Hamlet," and his filmed version of "King Lear," not to mention, the idea of his most recent "Love is My Sin," I take his word for what it is: clear thoughts from one perspective of what the theater could be, how it should be, and what is should not be.

Brook separates theater into four slices: Deadly, Holy, Rough, and Immediate. In doing so, he opens up possibilities for the Dramatist and gives us a solid grounding in the more metaphysical aspects of the theater. He shows us how these modes overlap and divide, gives numerous examples, and spills his thoughts on the page as a master to a student.

I am most interested in Brook's interpretations of Shakespeare and this book expostulates on the possibilities of what a Shakespearean play could be or how it could be staged, or how it so often, to the chagrin of Brook, falls into the realm of Deadly Theater (gaudy, costumes, overly heightened, etc.) and how to move away from that. Taking Brook on his own terms and then reading Shakespeare will transform your understanding of Shakespeare, at least it did to me. If anyone knows of any other great imaginers of the Bard, please do let me know.

Brook leaves us with a simple formula for what theater could be. This is a man that believes in the power of the stage, the infinity of a moment, and the saving grace of theater, but is also well aware of the pitfalls, too. He's been there. He's still out there. For that, I'm glad.
52 reviews3 followers
January 17, 2023
“Pole kahtlustki, et teater on väga eriline paik. Ta on nagu suurendusklaas ja ühtlasi nagu vähendav lääts.”
Profile Image for Philippe.
655 reviews576 followers
August 7, 2021
A brilliant book that peers deeply into the heart of modern theatre. It's somewhat less systematic than the subtitle, with its hint of a rigorous typology, might lead us to expect. More a string of reflections that gravitate towards three main themes: the Context of modern theatre (Deadly Theatre), its Core Contribution (with Holy and Rough offering two complementary energies infusing life in theatre), and finally issues of Craft (wrapped into observations about Immediate Theatre). Brook's perspicacity is phenomenal. And his way of communicating these insights is very authoritative. There is much to learn also for readers who are not directly involved in theatre, but are dealing with challenges in teamwork and complex partnerships, or are, alternatively, involved in performances of all sorts.
Profile Image for Luke Reynolds.
660 reviews
February 19, 2020
Actual rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars

Although there were some useful tidbits of information, at this point, I want to move past historical examples and ravings of directing in the field and just learn some tips directly. Despite an interesting format, theatre divided by four types, Brook broke too much down and made me uninterested. These historical texts don't seem right for me, and I feel like I'm kind of done with older white men ranting about their experiences in theatre when they could be much more meaningful from people of color and other marginalized groups.
Profile Image for Bryn.
153 reviews30 followers
Read
May 19, 2011
I like my theater like I like my men: deadly, rough, holy, and immediate.
Profile Image for Nandakishore Mridula.
1,261 reviews2,386 followers
Read
October 2, 2017
I am abandoning this. Nothing to do with the book or Brook's erudition, though - I am stuck in a reading slump and this is not the ideal book for revival.

Not rating It, either.
Profile Image for Roman Brasoveanu.
33 reviews1 follower
February 9, 2024
As a great director, Peter Brook is unquestionably an authority on theatre, but The Empty Space doesn’t reflect his artistic talent and comes across as an unsuccessful attempt at philosophy, full of platitudes and anecdotes which carry little theoretical value. Still, this book has merit as an intentionally poetic reflection on the life and career of a passionate lover and defender of drama as a medium.

Despite its aesthetic claims and artistic prescriptions, this book is not theoretical, as Brook says in the beginning of the fourth and final chapter. “But if anyone were to try to use it as a handbook, then I can definitely, warn him- there are no methods… anyone who attempts to reproduce them from my description is certain to be disappointed.”

The book begins with a chapter on ‘Deadly Theater,’ the author asserting that the theater needs to be ‘reborn’; it can no longer approach “the classics from the viewpoint that somewhere, someone has found out and defined how the play should be done.” This is vague and means only that theatre requires innovation. His following example will reveal the lack of meaning that the exhortation carries.

In a certain unknown opera, put on by two rival Operas, one from Formosa and the other from Pekin, “nothing was reborn” in the Formosan performance which made it a failure, compared to the rival, Pekin Opera which was “creating its ancient patterns afresh each night.” The discussion ends here, and what that could mean is unclear, however poetic it might be.

The gist of his argument is that theatre requires innovation, and for the same play to have vitality, it must experience change in attitude, rather than merely in scenery, costumes, and music.

“Grand opera, of course, is the Deadly Theatre carried to absurdity.” For the reason that it resists all change. What is needed in theatre is ‘experimenting’ and ‘real risk’- advice which lacks application.

Much consideration is given to economic factors unrelated to the theory of theatre. Consider his discussion of John Arden’s Sergeant Musgrave’s Dance which had received much bad press and offered free performances, attracting such enthusiastic crowds that the actors, “cheered by the warmth of the house, gave their best performance, which in turn earned them an ovation.” Are we to believe that actors performing at the Athenee are so emotionally volatile that the strength of their performances depends on the enthusiasm of the spectators?

Apparently so, and I have no authority against his experience, to dispute this claim, but it hardly makes sense. “In a sense there is nothing a spectator can actually do” and we agree, but he says “and yet there is a contradiction here that cannot be ignored, for everything depends on him.”

He tries on page 24 and 25 to explain the role of the audience in crafting the performance that the actor gives. He relays an ‘experiment’ done in an acting lecture he delivered. The book is full of these anecdotal experiments. What he ends up describing is merely a change in the actor’s emphasis when reading his lines after being advised to do so in front of his peers. Nothing is proven about the nature of the audience, nor is there shown to be an interaction between the audience and the actor.

He discusses how Stanislavsky’s method has proven dominant, but “In America today, the time is ripe for [Vsevolod] Meyerhold [‘biomechaniscs’] to appear, since a naturalistic representation of life no longer seems to Americans adequate to express the forces that drive them.” An interesting theoretical topic, but discussion ends immediately without elaboration.

On page 34. Without using the term, there is a discussion of French dissatisfaction with monologism in the novel, but Brook will never actually get to the point of discussing dialogic imagination and the hint is only there available to readers who are aware of other critics like Bakhtin who explain this shortcoming of the form of drama.

Brook suggests a dialectic between what we see and what we apprehend is captured by Shakespeare, which makes him the Bard par excellence. But is there really such a dialectic? How is this dialectical? There is no explanation.

Common are aphorisms not strictly related to the topic and too abstract to carry meaning, such as “If you just let a play speak, it may not make a sound. If what you want is for the play to be heard, then you must conjure its sound from it.”

“We may make a personality cult of the conductor, but we are aware that he is not really making the music it is making him- If he is relaxed, open and attuned, then the invisible will take possession of him; through him it will reach us.”

He asserts that “theatre Is the last forum where idealism is still an open question” but this isn’t justified.

The Holy Theatre that Brook describes is a drama which can convey the sublime and deliver a transcendent experience. But it's not clear how that might come. He offers more aphorisms of little meaning: “the theatre working like the plague, by intoxication, by infection, by analogy, by magic, a theater in which the play, the Event itself, stands in place of a text.”

Praising Artaud, and surrealism as a means by which the theatre could become Holy again, he says Artaud ” wanted an audience that would drop all its defenses, that would allow itself to be perforated, shocked, startled and raped so that at the same time it could be filled with a powerful new charge.” The implication is a functionalist analysis of theatre and that it is shock, in this case, which ‘makes the invisible visible.’ He goes to give examples of three ‘visionaries’ who practice this manifestation, concluding that “we have exposed the sham [that the sublime isn’t the aim of the theatre, and that theatre must convince its audience that the art is holy rather than becoming holy] but we are rediscovering that a holy theatre is still what we need. So where should we look for it? In the clouds or on the ground?”

But who has ever said that theatre should not attempt to realize the sublime? With whom is he polemicizing?

The ‘Rough Theater’ is the anti-bourgeois and anti-decadence theatre that saves the day. This is a theme running through the book. Theatre, apparently, has been corrupted by a class of people who enjoy and augment the stuffiness and inaccessibility of the form. “The popular theatre, freed of unity of style, actually speaks a very sophisticated and stylish language” meaning that it somehow disarms its foolish audience and presents “what to regular theatregoers was incomprehensible.” Anarchy has freed the otherwise locked imagination.

The Holy and Rough Theatres reach for different, base, and infinite, energies in man’s soul.

The suggestion that Shakespeare is exceptional because he, and seemingly only most fully he, can “present man simultaneously in all his aspects: touch for touch, we can identify and withdraw.” The meaning of this statement is unclear, unfalsifiable, and certainly not justified by the immediately preceding analysis. The book is filled with lines like these. He ends the third chapter with another cryptic statement with no immediate relation to what he had been discussing: “To [capture the attention of the audience and compel its belief] we must prove there will be no trickery, nothing hidden. We must open our empty hands and show that really there is nothing up our sleeves.” This means nothing.

The fourth chapter is the least disagreeable and the most personal. Brook’s experience as an accomplished director to rub elbows with other greats is interesting by its lonesome.

The book carries infectious enthusiasm for theatre in its vignettes of stages across the world, actor and audience types, and shows gone right and wrong, but what it teaches is unclear and it has limited value to a person attempting to understand drama.
Profile Image for Cecilia.
94 reviews6 followers
August 11, 2010
I've only been trying to get around to reading this book for 7 or 8 years...

Brook explores his experience of theatre, though is very specific to state that it is only his experience so far and that everything will change, as theatre is always changing. He breaks theatre down into 4 categories, Deadly, Holy, Rough and Immediate. These, of course, can overlap and interplay at any time. Deadly theatre is theatre that is predicable, set in its ways, repetitive, passionless. It is theatre that does not speak to its audience and that the performer takes for granted. Brook says this is most theatre. Holy theatre is that theatre that touches something in its audience that causes them to experience ritual. In this section he speaks of Grotowski and Beckett. Rough theatre is the theatre of the masses. It is improvisation as well as theatre that allows for direct interaction with an audience. This is theatre that revels in sharing the room with its audience. He also includes most comedy and musical theatre in this section. He also discusses Brecht and his method of alienation of constantly reminding the audience that they are in a theatre. The Immediate theatre, Brook is less clear about. The importance of his immediate theatre is its nowness and its reaction to those watching it. He says theatre will only succeed when it becomes necessary in the lives not only of those who perform but those who watch. He gives the example of psychodrama.
Profile Image for Esteban.
202 reviews25 followers
July 29, 2016
Brook organiza sus ideas sobre el teatro con una metafísica de entrecasa. La aprovecha muy bien. No se molesta en aclarar si lo mortal, lo sagrado, lo tosco y lo inmediato son etapas o aspectos. Pero no le impide apelar a casos, y algunos de esos elementos se pueden llevar a otras formas de expresión. Lo mortal, por ejemplo, parece un peligro al que está expuesto el principiante que imita, y el profesional asimilado a un capital cultural decadente. Escribiendo desde el corazón de la tradición shakespearana, Brook conoce muy bien delgada pero crucial zona de exclusión entre ser conservador y ser reaccionario. Por eso, lo mortal tal como él lo define no es algo especifico del teatro. es algo que se traslada muy fácilmente a la música, la escritura y la política. También se pueden encontrar correspondencias para las dos categorías siguientes. La relación complicada entre lo mortal y lo tosco, por ejemplo, es una forma metafísica (y en este caso muy superior) de repensar la diferencia entre cultura de masas y cultura popular discutida en ciencias sociales. El último capítulo es donde Brook intenta encontrar lo específico del teatro. Habla de la posibilidad que ofrece de explorar contrafácticos, de volver a empezar, de borrar la pizarra de lo vivido. Concluye que en definitiva "una obra de teatro es juego".
Profile Image for Carolyn Page.
1,540 reviews33 followers
November 6, 2019
More weighty than its page count would indicate, this slim volume is divided into the four sections indicated by the subtitle. Too long to be chapters, they're almost like long essays. What is good theatre? What is bad acting? There were some parts where I rolled my eyes to myself and thought "what hippy -dippy hooey is this?" , but by the end of the book I was left feeling like I'd just read a textbook, a learned treatise on the science and art of communicating inner truths. Peter Brook wrote this in the 60s, but it feels like it was written yesterday. Contrary to his closing words, this book is not going out of date. It never will. A must-read for those involved in the theatre.
Profile Image for Mariana.
63 reviews52 followers
October 31, 2018
It is very difficult, maybe even impossible, to write a book like this and not sound pretentious at times. I rolled my eyes quite a bit along the way; but the final chapter, in which Brook finally admits he doesn't actually have any answers, but that he's just trying to ask the right questions, managed to endear itself to me. It turned what could easily have been a dated, forgettable book into an essay on the wonder and magic of the theatre. It reminded me of why I fell in love with it in the first place. And I really needed that today.
Profile Image for Aurelija.
15 reviews3 followers
November 27, 2018
Pats autorius ir knyga su visom nuorodom į teatro pasaulio grandus gal ir nėra iš lengvųjų, ypač žmogui, tiesiog įšokusiam į teatro teorijos lauką, bet knyga visai susiskaitė. Gal buvo kiek sudėtinga relate'inti, nemačius kokių tai klasikinių pastatymų ir vertinti autoriaus įžvalgas. Ir ne tik dėl to, kad jaučiuosi gan žalia teatro reikaluose, bet ir todėl, jog parašytos prieš pusę amžiaus tos įžvalgos gali pasirodyti nebe tokios auktualios. Bet vis dėlto, įstrigo kai kurie momentai, liečiantys grynai jausminį ir psichologinį išgyvenimą atliekant ar dalyvaujant teatro pasirodyme, aktoriaus santykį su savo amatu, draminiu kūriniu, publika. Tai va, visai nais.
Profile Image for Casper.
227 reviews17 followers
June 7, 2020
Many people can easily go through life reading nothing but novels. I admit that is better than not reading at all, of course, but it wouldn’t do for me. While the novel is still my favourite genre, I always need to mix it with other reading matter: history, travel, short stories, graphic novels, essays, drama. I don’t think I’ve ever read a collection of essays on theater before, though.
The empty space is apparently an essential text for drama students; I’d never heard of it. Its idea is simple, to give an overview of the position of theatre at the end of the 1960’s. Writer Peter Brook, a celebrated director who worked with many famous actors and companies, divides his topic into four parts:
Read the rest of my review here
Profile Image for Jason Griffith.
52 reviews2 followers
February 3, 2018
What I found most interesting was Brook's examination of the role of the audience/spectator in theatre and how a "good house" can empower and participate with performers while a "bad house" can spoil a performance. While much of the book is more advice for actors and directors from the performance side, the parts which spoke to the connection between performers and audience members helped me to imagine what can be socially constructed between both groups within and during a live performance.
Profile Image for Janine.
69 reviews
March 17, 2021
This book is mind-blowing. Brook builds a vivid conception of what theatre is and what it could be. As Brook describes the Deadly Theatre, he lays out a pointed critique of art under capitalism, and the rest of the book is masterfully imagining what play could be instead: play. I have a feeling I will be coming back to this again and again in my life.
Profile Image for Peter.
44 reviews
June 7, 2022
I first read this book decades ago, and have only dipped into it now and again since. In 1980 I thought this was the theatre book to end all theatre books; the most essential read. Now I think such a thing doesn't exist (and Brook suggests the same at the end). This remains one of not-very-many essential reads for thinking about theatre. It is of its time - the mid-twentieth century - and yet Brook uncovers archetypal conceptions of theatre that are indispensable. In the chapter on "Rough Theatre" his reading of Shakespeare's Measure for Measure, Winter's Tale, and Lear are piercing and insightful. In the chapter on "Holy Theatre" his selection of Merce Cunningham, Samuel Beckett, and Jerzy Grotowski are good examples of writing "of its time" and also "beyond its time." And his reflection on the relation of stage to audience, and the question of the living audience, in the final chapter remains, as he says, the most essential concern of the theatre of the future. Mostly I'm struck by how profoundly human Brook's approach to art and artists is. Is it the best book about theatre ever written? There's no such thing. Is it one of the best books about theatre ever written? It absolutely is.
Profile Image for Bryan Edelmann.
63 reviews1 follower
August 13, 2022
Definitely a great book on theatre theory. Occasionally Peter Brooks metaphors would be a bit overwhelming and oftentimes overly long, but for the most part very engaging with interesting ideas presented very well. Two things I want to say about it.
1. As I said, it's a great book for theatre theory. However, because it's effectively just one man's perception on the types of theatre, there isn't much actionable advice or much to gleam in terms of actually producing theatre. Which is totally fine, but just know what you're getting into.
And 2. You have to have at LEAST read King Lear before you read this one. My dude loves King Lear and won't shut up about it. And if you're like me and you've never seen, read, or put on a production of King Lear, you're going to be missing out on quite a bit of this book.
8 Lears out of 10
Profile Image for Louise Van Cleemput.
48 reviews4 followers
November 26, 2023
3.5 - 4

Tijdloos!

“We have largely forgotten silence. It even embarrasses us; we clap our hands mechanically because we do not know what else to do, and we are unaware that silence is also permitted, that silence also is good.”

“There is no doubt that a theatre can be a very special place. It is like a magnifying glass, and also like a reducing lens. It is a small world, so it can easily be a pretty one. It is different from everyday life so it can easily be divorced from life.”
Profile Image for Lorne.
57 reviews1 follower
February 1, 2021
3.75

This book was a really interesting take on theatre!
The book was separated into four sections, the first being absolutely incredible and most rememberable. In addition to this the book was filled with beautiful quotes and interpretations which were wonderful to read about. However, in the last three sections these positive gems were scattered around and they didn't compare to the first.
However still very much enjoyed!
Profile Image for Laramie.
66 reviews3 followers
October 18, 2019
Every time I read this book, I learn something new about myself as a creator.
Profile Image for Teresa.
9 reviews
August 27, 2022
Definições de tipos de teatro muito interessantes. Forma de escrever muito cativante
Profile Image for Clive F.
180 reviews15 followers
June 22, 2019
This slim book sets out to be an analysis of theatre, from one of the most significant directors of the second half of the 20th century. Actually, it's not about that: it's about life. Peter Brook analyses theatre performances into four categories, while acknowledging that any performance can flip from one to another category in a few words. It's completely timeless, by the way - it was written 50 years ago, but could have been written last year.

The first is Deadly Theatre. Theatre as "tradition" and "heritage" and "because that's just how it's done". This was brilliantly caricatured in the third series of the wonderful Blackadder, where two actors try each the befuddled Prince Regent (Hugh Laurie) to improve his public speaking, explaining to him how you need to thrust your groin forward, throw out your arms, and start every declamation with a loud "Aaaaaahhh!!!". It means theatre as a caricature of itself, acting with an arch view of how acting "ought" to be. In life, I see this all the time: meetings held "because this is when we have this meeting", corporate decisions guided only by the dead hand of expectation, dismal social conventions because that's how it was done 20, 30, 50 years ago.

Then there is Holy Theatre. This is when, as Mr Brook puts it:
it could be called The Theatre of the Invisible-Made-Visible: the notion that the stage is a place where the invisible can appear has a deep hold on our thoughts
. It's when we see theatre
performed with beauty and with love (which) fires the spirit and gives them a reminder that daily drabness is not necessarily all
. Life as it out to be lived, for the moment, or for the value we bring to others.

Next comes Rough Theatre. Theatre not necessarily performed in traditional venues, but less formal, truer perhaps to the original spirit, more energised by improvisation. It is contrasted with Holy Theatre in that the former tries to look at hidden motives, while the Rough looks at real events and actions that directly affect the viewer.

Finally comes Immediate Theatre. He describes this as theatre that "asserts itself in the present", which I think means theatre that connects and reflects directly to what's in our hearts at the moment. He certainly talks more of the interaction with the audience in this chapter, and how much they bring to the experience. Contemporary satirical comedy, with an emphasis on the current political and social climate, and heckling from the audience turning into part of the act, seems to fit in here. More formally, Mr Brooks talks about working with actors to see how the pacing of a speech from Shakespeare might sound in modern prose, and to use that phrasing to connect and convey feeling to the audience. It's very much about directly engaging with the audience.

Although the boundary between these four isn't always clear, it does seem to me that if you think of them as four overlapping circles*, rather than four squares with a clear division between them, then it does make a deal of sense. And, I think, this is a very interesting perspective to bring to the world of work, and of our lives. Experiences where advertising seeks to create false "deadly" aspirations, moments in nature that are "holy", or when we find flow in a "rough" DIY task, or when our interactions with a child are "immediate".

Four stars for powerful stuff.

(*OK, technically to get each one of four things to overlap with the other three, you need to think of it as four overlapping spheres in a pyramid, but people look at me oddly when I say things like that, and I think you all knew what I meant anyway)
Profile Image for Initially NO.
Author 29 books33 followers
November 28, 2015
A funny provocative dated sociological text on theatre that has spawned a billion student essays.

I think I read this chap-book manifesto 25 years ago. I know it was talked about a great deal by teachers of drama who got their degrees/ diplomas in the 1970s.

It is very much a sales spiel, and, the author admits to making up 'successful productions' that didn't actually happen, when he first started directing theatre. It's on this basis, you've got to regard Peter Brook's enthusiasm and social activism, as spin, and his text, has to be regarded as rather blatantly misogynist, in its male-focused momentum.

p33 relays, 'Outstanding actors, like all real artists, have some mysterious psychic chemistry, half conscious and yet three-quarters hidden, that they themselves may only define as "instinct", "hunch", "voices", that enable them to develop their vision and their art'. This is refreshing to hear, as at least the author is not psychiatrist, recognising such things as 'voices' as a necessary part of artistry. All too often theatre is sprinkled with psychiatrisms, which in many ways are far worse than misogyny.

No real hope in making changes through the theatre, even to Peter Brook’s mindset, and, certainly an excuse for not stopping things like misogyny, racism, the psychiatric regime, through a production, but rather perpetuating ridiculous stereotypes through Peter Weiss Marat/Sade productions. P111, ‘In most regimes, even when written word is free, it is still the stage that is liberated last. Instinctively governments know that the living event could create a dangerous electricity – even if we see this happen all too seldom.’

Sometimes a book like this one, is a good wall of words to think through. And through this book, on this read, I came to the conclusion that it is because theatre is dominated with arrogant flawed characters, played by actors, that are perpetuating excuses for oppressing sections of the community, that it is never an activist, only an escapist act. Theatre puts the audience in the dark, and as Peter Brook says, theatre demands that the audience give a robotic clap. Brook wants to get the audience to break away from the polite ritual, but if an audience member were to start heckling/booing the misogynist, or psychiatrist, or racist, they’d be asked to leave the theatre. People get away with coughing in lectures… but they don’t get away with such things in theatres. So, the whole premise of allowing the audience to be interactive – is only a given in children’s theatre (and even then it is ritualised and controlled.)
175 reviews3 followers
May 29, 2011
Um, good... I don't know. I've only been slightly exposed to Peter Brook. I wanted to know more about his experiments with the Theatre of Cruelty but the book offered not much in the way of information. He organizes it around types of theater: deadly, which means empty; holy, which means transcendent maybe but also not necessarily possible; rough, which means accessible and effective, but lacking a bit in polish/grace; and immediate, which while its discussion formed the book's longest chapter, was given no discernible definition. I wanted data, Brook wrote theory and some observation. I just get annoyed when I walk away from a non-fiction book addressing something I care about--like the state of theater today, what makes it most effective, what its point even is, etc.--and feel that I've gained no practical knowledge of how to even daydream about resolving my concern. What he wrote about Artaud was, logically, what I found most compelling. But he didn't detail his work on T.o.C. He gave adages and brief accounts, some strong scholarly explanations of great artists, and much musing about, like, everything? This just wasn't the book I wanted. I should go finish Artaud's book. It gave plenty of theory, but with specifics and explanations and goals. But then Brook never claimed to have invented anything. Sigh. I wanted to hear some insights...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 240 reviews

Can't find what you're looking for?

Get help and learn more about the design.