한국과 일본에서의 브레히트 수용 小考

송희영 한국독어독문학교육학회 2008 獨語敎育 Vol.43 No.-

Im Zentrum dieser Arbeit steht die Analyse der Brecht Rezeption in Korea und Japan. Brecht wurde in Korea erst in den 1980er Jahren aktiv aufgenommen. Die japanische Brecht‐Rezeption hat im Gegensatz zu der in Korea sehr früh eingesetzt. Schon im Jahre 1932 erschien Die Dreigroschenoper in der Fassung des Filmregisseurs Pabst auf der japanischen Kinoleinwand. Die Brecht Rezeption in Korea hängt mit der Sondergeschichte Koreas eng zusammen. Brecht hatte keine Chance in der streng antikommunistischen Atmosphäre in Süd-Korea. Mit der Globalisierungspolitik, die man anlässlich der Olympischen Spiele im Jahr 1988 praktizierte, kam jedoch die Gelegenheit, Brecht auf der offiziellen Bühne zu sehen: Die Dreigroschenoper war zum ersten Mal auf der koreanischen Bühne. Im akademischen Bereich kann man jedoch schon seit 1970er Jahren Brecht-Forschungen betrachten. Während in den 1970er Jahren insgesamt 9 wissenschaftliche Forschungsarbeiten, in den 1980er Jahren 61 und in den 1990er Jahren 211 publiziert wurden, erschienen in den 2000er Jahren 113 Forschungsaufsätze. Seit dem Jahr 2000 bis heute verringerten sich die Zahlen der Forschungsaufsätze wieder langsam. Die Brecht Rezeption in Japan wurde hauptsächlich durch einige Theater-Experten und -Pioniere geführt. Koreya Senda hat in den 1930er Jahren und 1950er Jahren Brechts Dramen inszeniert, und eine wichtige Terminologie von Brechts “Verfremdungseffekt” in Japan verbreitet. Er hat in seinem Haiyuza-Theater höchstens 62 mal die Dramen Brechts inszeniert. Tatsuji Iwabuchi, Schüler von Koreya Senda, hat Brechts Theorie in japansiche Dramen produktiv eingeführt: 1n den 1960er Jahren versuchte er, im “Angura-Theater” durch Körpersprache Brechts Werke auf internationalem Niveau in zeitgemäßer Umsetzung zu bringen. In 1998, rechtzeitig zum 100. Brecht-Jubiläum, konnte die japanische Gesamtausgabe von Brechts Dramen in 8 Bänden von Iwabuchi der Öffentlichkeit vorgelegt werden.

브레히트의 독자, 랑시에르 -"불화"의 연극과 리얼리즘의 갱신-

김겸섭 ( Kyoump Sup Kim ) 대구가톨릭대학교 인문과학연구소 2013 인문과학연구 Vol.0 No.20

This paper will try to look into Jacques Ranciere` Reading of Brecht who was a theatre practitioner of the 20th century and innovator. In his speech on The Emancipated Spectator, Jacques Ranciere examines the ideas of the spectator and the theater. He aligns Artaud`s, Brecht`s criticisms of the theater and spectacle with Plato`s fulminations against mimesis(representation and art) and spectatorship with passivity. He explains that the actor-spectator relationship is too much like traditional pedagogy: hierarchical, passive, stultifying. Brecht and A. Artaud hoped their innovative theatres can awaken a intelligence and sensibility of passive spectators. But Ranciere argues that these theatrical reformers failed to make new audiences because they couldn`t change unequal relationship between the stage and audience. For Ranciere, Brecht and Artaud are no different than reformative schoolmasters who have been reform-minded, but adhered traditional relation between teachers and students. Ranciere argues that all of the members within theatrical ecology have equal intelligence and creativity, such as students of Joseph Jacotot who was described in The Ignorant Schoolmaster. So one must accept premise of equality and construct new theatrical practices on the basis of it. But Ranciere, reader of Brecht, misreads Brecht` the epic theatre and artistic perspective. Brecht believed all spectators have potential power to become rational and change their problematic situation. He worked from this premise of equality, as his theatre and culture theory have shown. Of course, Ranciere also admits theatrical authenticity when he translates Verfremdungseffekt(“making strange” effect) into ‘deplacement’ and seeks practical possibilities of such a translation. One may construct an alternative artistic discussion, by appropriating Ranciere`s translation of V-effekt. Brecht` opened Realism can help we construct new critical art. It complements vacuum of Ranciere` Brecht-reading. Brecht was open realist who actively accepted heterogeneous artistic tendencies and the socialistic realism that was designed by Stalin` totalitarian political system and was schematic, ideological. Though Ranciere misunderstands Brechtian the epic theatre, he can go with Brecht, because Brecht was open to a heterogeneity and challenging and experimental arts. Especially, they stress that art should be on accord with the development of politics. One can imagine new critical thoughts that might help to overcom contemporary thoghtlessness.

문화콘텐츠로서의 브레히트 - 뮤지컬 <That Bastard Brecht 잡(雜)놈 브레히트>를 중심으로

이상복 한국브레히트학회 2019 브레히트와 현대연극 Vol.0 No.40

The musical <That Bastard Brecht> recreates Brecht as cultural content. This work, which examines the defects of Brecht, censures Brecht’s problems from various perspectives. Can the relationship with the women who collaborated with him be acceptable? At what level can he understand the abuse of their talents and labor force? Obviously, Brecht used his fame and authority to impair thair human dignity. It is also true that their talents have been used without reasonable compensation. This musical produces critical new content based on historical facts relating to Brecht’s outstanding theatrical work. There is a clear distinction between historical facts and fictional truths. Brecht is a pure function of ‘Brecht as a cultural content’ in this musical to raise an opportunity to reflect on the true meaning of historical fact through this gap. In this sense, the musical <That Bastard Brecht> can be regarded as a work of enhancing the critical transformation of prototypical content in the overcrowding of cultural contents.

[서평] 망명상황에 대한 브레히트의 미학적 대응 : 시 「왜 내 이름이 불리어야 한단 말인가」

이승진(Lee, Seung Jin) 한국외국어대학교 외국문학연구소 2011 외국문학연구 Vol.- No.44

독일 현대시인 브레히트 Bertolt Brecht(1898-1956)의 삶과 문학은 그가 살았던 20세기의 역사와 분리해서 생각할 수 없다. 그는 문학을 통해 역사의 흐름에 간여하려 했기 때문에 그 흐름이 변하면 자신의 문학 역시 변모시켰다. 브레히트의 문학에 가장 큰 변화를 요구한 것은 무엇보다도 망명이라는 특수한 상황이었다. 16년간(1933-1949)의 망명생활은 동시에 히틀러와의 투쟁의 시간이었으며, 그의 문학의 가장 중요한 목표는 독일인을 히틀러의 압제로부터 해방시키는 것이었다. 이와 같은 실천적인 목표를 위해 그는 자신의 문학, 특히 전파력이 강한 시에서 많은 변화를 시도한다. 내용적으로는 시를 주관적인 정서의 문학이란 좁은 틀에서 해방시켜 사회적·실천적인 소통의 수단으로 기능 전환시키려 하였으며, 형식적으로도 이를 뒷받침할 수 있는 사실적인 운율형식인 '불규칙 리듬을 갖는 무운시'를 개발하였다. 본 논문은 망명이라는 외적 상황에 대응하는 브레히트의 미학적 변모를 연구하기 위해 1936년에 쓰여진 시 「왜 내 이름이 불리어야 한단 말인가」를 분석한다. 이 시에서 시인은 특히 문학의 영속성을 화두로 삼아 자신의 변화를 과거와 현재로 구분해 제시한다. 과거의 그는 비록 문학의 영속성에 대한 부르주아적 관념을 받아들이지는 않았지만, 그래도 인류를 위해 압제와 투쟁하는 실천적인 시들을 써왔기 때문에 독자들이 자신의 이름을 잊지 않으리라고 생각했다. 하지만 이제 망명이 심화되고, 히틀러의 만행이 전 유럽을 삼키려는 시점에서 브레히트는 자신의 명성에 대한 모든 욕심을 버린다. 그리고 히틀러와의 싸움에서 자신의 시가 사용될 수 있다면, 문학의 영속성이란 개념도 포기할 수 있는 것이며, 자신의 이름도 잊혀질 수 있다는 점에 동의한다. 망명 시작 3년 후에 쓰여진 이 시는 그 후 13년간이나 지속된 브레히트의 망명문학의 미학적 태도를 예견케 하는 작가의 선언적 텍스트이다. The life and literature of the poet Bertold Brecht cannot be separated from the history of the 20th century. Brecht wanted to intervene in history with literature. Therefore, his works reflect the socio-historical change and upheaval he lived through. Forced into exile by the Nazis, Brecht turned the turbulent crisis in life into a radical turning point in his literary career. The long sixteen year exile period for him was the time of the militant fight against Hitler, and, as he defines, "the bad time for lyric poems!" He nevertheless kept working on his literature and literary experimentations, because the goal of his literature was the liberation of the German people from Hitler. In order to achieve this goal, he came up with a different way of composing his works, particularly his poems, which had broad and comprehensive social contents and, for that reason, exerted a profound influence on the general readership. Intending to liberate his poems from a private, enclosed space of personal affects, Brecht made them function politically and practically as an active means of communication. He also developed a type of poetry with a more practical, irregular rhythm with no constraints of any rhyme scheme. With a view to examining the aesthetic changes caused by Bertold Brecht's exile, this essay analyses the poem: "Warum soll mein Name genannt werden?" (Why should my name be called?). By bringing up for discussion the topic of the eternity of literature, Brecht in this poem compares the present and the past in terms of his changed literary views or beliefs. Even though he did not embrace the bourgeoisie concept of the eternity of literature, Brecht in the past believed that his name would not be forgotten, for he had consistently written politically active, practical poems fighting against social oppression. After the turbulent historical upheaval, however, he now rejects the civil eternity value (Ewigkeitswert) of poetry and replaced it by the use value (Gebauchtswert) of poetry. His poetry is to be used in the fight against any type of oppression of humanity and can then to be "forgotten." At a critical point where Hitler is about to jeopardize and destroy the entire Europe, Brecht in his exiled condition no longer has any personal ambition for his literary reputation. Therefore, he asks, "Why should my name be called?" Written by Brecht three years after the beginning of his exile, this poem, like a literary manifesto, sums up Brecht's changed view and principle on art. The poem, thus, can be seen as an exemplary work representing his exile literature and the aesthetic attitude he sustained for his exile years.

브레히트와 현대연극 : 프랑스에서의 브레히트 연극 수용 -베를리너 앙상블 순회공연을 중심으로-

임재일 ( Jae Il Lim ) 한국브레히트학회 2015 브레히트와 현대연극 Vol.0 No.32

Arthur Adamov, Jean Vilar, Roger Planchon, Benno Bensson and Ariane Mnouchkine, they all are theatrical people that represent the French theatre in the late 20th century. They took the lead on innovation of the French theatre through variety of creative works in the field of playwriting, directing, theory of acting, etc. There seems to be no similarities among them because they had been active in their respective ways of producing creative works along with individual interest however, interestingly enough, they all developed their own artistic abilities under the influence of Brecht. During the 1940s, the French theatre was mainly concentrated on play focused on text, rejecting realism and commercialization because it was influenced by Jacques Copeau. In 1954, the Berliner Ensemble showed Mother Courage and Her Children by Brecht on stage at Paris. The French theatre was shocked and fascinated by the unfamiliar play by a German playwright that the theatre had never encountered before. The theatre discovered that the play interferes with the audience`s flow of attention and attracts rational reflection caused by several points such as explanation of scene using sign, continuous intervention of song and narrator, rejecting development of empathy by audiences, and removing the fourth wall between actors on stage and the audience. The play was performed four times in the 1950s and this helped Brecht to earn a reputation in the world. The work of Brecht gained recognition in France through these shows and it had a great impact on the French theatre practitioners along with the unfamiliar terms from his play such as epic theatre, alienation effect and anti-illusionistic drama. Especially after the late 1950s, there was a Brecht craze and many of his works were performed. He became one of the famous playwrights who had many of his works shown at theater following those from Moliere and Shakespeare. This craze happened not only because of a refreshing jolt that the play of Brecht brought, but because of the great effort into this play made by the French theatre. The magazine, Theatre Populaire took the lead in introducing the play of Brecht and L`Arche, a publisher had continuously printed a book of poems, novel, complete dramatic works of Brecht and theoretical book. Furthermore, the craze continued after the death of Brecht and even influenced the 1960s, a time period that social unrest of people from all walks of life erupted. The influence by Brecht for this time period can be identified into two main streams. Jean Vilar and Roger Planchon promoted the popularization of play. Armand Gatti and Ariane Mnouchkine searched for a space other than a stage as they actively intervened into social issues. Their respective characteristics are a bit different, however they all were affected by Brecht`s theatre and developed his influence into plays in their own way.

베르톨트 브레히트와 하이너 뮐러의 ‘행복신’ 소재 작품 비교연구 1

최은녕 ( Choi Eun Nyoung ) 한국독어독문학회 2021 獨逸文學 Vol.62 No.2

뮐러는 ‘브레히트를 비판하지 않고 브레히트를 사용하는 것은 배신’이라고 규정하는 자신만의 기본원칙에 기초하여, 브레히트의 사상을 자신의 문학 창작을 위한 전제 조건으로 삼으면서도, 의도적으로 브레히트로부터 일정한 거리를 유지하면서 그를 비판한다. 이 과정을 통해서 브레히트와 뮐러의 문학 사이에는 서로 유사하면서도, 서로 상이한 상호텍스트성의 관계가 성립된다. 미완성 작품 『행복신의 여행』에서 브레히트는 행복에 대한 가르침을 전파하기 위해 지상에 내려온 행복신이 다양한 인간의 유형들을 만나는 가운데, ‘개인주의적 기쁨에 대한 행복론’을 전하는 자에서 ‘사회주의적 기쁨에 대한 행복론’을 전하는 자로 발전해가는 주인공의 모습을 그린다. 그의 죽음 이후 작곡가 데사우로부터 브레히트의 『행복신』의 퇴고를 부탁받은 뮐러는 원작자의 텍스트를 전제하지만, 자신의 비판적 풍자를 결합시킨 ‘제2의 행복신’을 창조한다. 1950년대에 최초로 작성된 『행복신』의 초안은 여전히 고전적인 극형식의 전통을 준수하는 가운데, 온건한 방식으로 브레히트의 원작품을 풍자한다. 그러나 1975년에 간행된 『행복신』의 출판본은 아방가르드 연극의 색채를 띠는 가운데, 극단적으로 상반되는 맥락에서 브레히트의 원작품을 재해석한다. 브레히트의 오페라가 동독에서 사회주의적 유토피아의 실현을 낙관적으로 묘사한다면, 뮐러의 오페라는 동독의 사회주의적 디스토피아의 현실을 비관적으로 보여준다. Heiner Müllers Rezeption des Stückes von Bertolt Brecht basiert auf seinem Grundprinzip, das besagt: Brecht gebrauchen, ohne ihn zu kritisieren, ist Verrat. Mit anderen Worten: Einerseits nimmt Müller Brechts Ideen als Voraussetzung für sein literarisches Schaffen, aber andererseits kritisiert er Brecht, indem er eine absichtliche Distanz zu Brecht hält. Durch diesen Prozess entsteht ein besonderes Verhältnis der Intertextualität zwischen Brechts und Müllers Werken, die einander ähnlich, sondern auch klar voneinander unterschieden sind. Im Opernfragment Die Reisen des Glücksgottes beschreibt Brecht, wie der Glücksgott als die Hauptfigur dieser Oper vom Missionar der Glückslehre vom individualistischen Vergnügen zum Missionar der Glückslehre vom sozialistischen Vergnügen umgestaltet wird, indem er für die Verbreitung der Lehre über das Glück auf die Erde kommt und danach verschiedenen Arten von Menschen begegnet. Nach dem plötzlichen Tod Brechts wurde Müller von Paul Dessau beauftragt, das unvollendete Manuskript der Brechtschen Oper auszuarbeiten. Er geht dabei zwar vom originalen Text des Autors aus, schafft aber ‘einen zweiten Glücksgott’, der mit Müllers eigenen kritischen Satire kombiniert wird. Der erstmals in den 1950er Jahren verfasste Müller‘sche Entwurf des Glücksgotts hält sich weiter an die Tradition der klassischen Dramenform und parodiert das Originalwerk Brechts, jedoch in gemäßigter Weise. Die im Jahre 1975 erschienene Textfassung ist ein Werk, das in das Originalwerk Brechts von einem äußerst divergierenden Standpunkt aus eingreift. Diese Fassung kritisiert den Ansatz des ursprünglichen Textes radikal, indem sie mit der Tradition der klassischen Dramenform bricht. Während die Brecht‘sche Oper die Realisierung der sozialistischen Utopie in der DDR in optimistischer Sicht vorausnimmt, berichtet die Müller‘sche Oper von der Realität der sozialistische Dystopie unter einer pessimistischen Perspektive.

브레히트와 현대연극 : 브레히트와 음악

이승진 ( Seung Jin Lee ) 한국브레히트학회 2016 브레히트와 현대연극 Vol.0 No.34

Bertolt Brecht hinterlasst einen massiven Textkomplex, der aus 48 Stucken, ca 2300 Gedichten, 3 Romanen, mehr als 200 Kurzgeschichten, der grossen Literaturtheorie, Journalen usw besteht. Grundelemente, die unter diesem Textkomplex fließen, sind avantgardistische Experimente, Musik, Medienexperimente und Ideologie. Diese Studie versucht, die Musik in der Literatur Brechts in 5 Perspektiven zu analysieren: 1) den Umfang der brechtschen Texte, die komponiert sind 2) Brecht als ``sing a song writer`` 3) Brechts Songs 4) Brecht in der ``Deutschen Kammerusik Baden-Baden`` v.a. < Lindberghflug > als eine Originalkomposition fur den Rundfunk und < Lehrstuck > als ein Experiment fur ``die offene Singstunde`` 5) die gestische Musik (Misuk) Diese Studie fur die Musik, v.a. fur die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Brecht und dem Komponist Paul Hindemith in der ``Deutschen Kammermusik Baden-Baden``, sagt uns, dass die Behauptung, dass die Ideologie Ende der 20er Jahren des 20. Jhs die Literatur Brecht beschlagnahmte, falsch ist. Je breiter das Spektrum der Brecht-Forschung wird, desto starker wird die Aufforderung, Brecht frei von der Ideologie zu lesen.

사진과 문학 - 브레히트와 클루게의 문학작품에 나타난 사진과 텍스트 비교 연구

천현순 한국독일현대문학회 2013 뷔히너와 현대문학 Vol.0 No.40

Der Schwerpunkt der vorliegenden Arbeit liegt in der vergleichenden Untersuchung der Beziehung von Text und Fotografie bei Bertolt Brecht und Alexander Kluge. Für die konkreten Textbeispiele nehme ich in meiner Arbeit Brechts Fotoepigramm Kriegsfibel (1955) und Kluges Prosatext Der Luftangriff auf Halberstadt am 8. April 1945 (1977/2000). In ihren literarischen Werken beschäftigen sich Brecht und Kluge mit der Beschreibung des Zweiten Weltkriegs und verwenden gemeinsam Text und Fotografie zur Darstellung der vergangenen Geschichte. Dennoch ist es hier ersichtlich, dass Text und Fotografie bei den beiden Autoren in unterschiedlicher Weise miteinander verbunden sind. Die Kriegsfibel Brechts besteht insgesamt aus 69 Fotoepigrammen, und jedes Fotoepigramm beträgt in sich wiederum die Fotografie aus den zeitgenössischen Illustrierten und den vierzeiligen Epigramm zur Erläuterung des Bildes. Bei Brecht gelten Text und Fotografie für die wichtigen Elemente zur Darstellung der Geschichte. Durchgängig ist ein dialektisches Spannungsverhältnis zwischen der Fotografie und dem kommentierenden Epigramm charakteristisch für die Kriegsfibel Brechts. In seinem literarischen Werk versucht Brecht weiterhin durch die Umfunktionierung der Fotografie die Bilder zum Sprechen zu bringen. Änlicherweise bei Brecht verwendet Kluge in seinem Prosatext Der Luftangriff auf Halberstadt eine Fülle von Fotografien, die in die fiktive Gesamttextur eingebaut werden. Die Fotografien werden bei Kluge für den Text ausgewählt und im Hinblick auf die dem Text zugrundeliegende Thematik neu arrangiert. Die Fotografien bleiben bei Kluge somit vom Text abhängig, während der Text prinzipiell ohne die Bilder lesbar und verständlich ist. In seinem literarischen Werk versucht Kluge Text und Fotografie in willkürlicher Weise miteinander zu verknüpfen, um eine bestimmte Bedeutung hervorzuheben.

브레히트와 영국 문화 - 베를린 앙상블의 런던 공연부터 1960년대 BBC 드라마까지

윤종욱 한국브레히트학회 2022 브레히트와 현대연극 Vol.- No.46

As a political writer, Brecht had a full-fledged influence in England after 1968, but after a first performance by the Berliner Ensemble in 1956, Brecht established himself as an important playwright also in England. The period from 1956 to the mid-1960s, when Brecht was first accepted in earnest, was also a period of great change in the field of British performing arts. Brecht’s influence was prominent in theater, especially in television dramas, as it coincided with the changes in British culture at the time. New Wave artists represented by “angry young men” and “kitchen sink drama” were well aware of Brecht’s plays. However, Brecht’s influence in Great Britain was most prominent in the television drama sector of the 1960s. Since the mid-1960s, a number of innovative dramas using the “Verfremdungseffekt” were produced centered on the BBC’s <The Wednesday Play>, which drew the attention of many viewers at the time. Most of the young producers and directors working in television at the time came from theatre, and they introduced Brechtian experimentation into television dramas known as non-naturalism. Overall, it took some time for the Brecht drama to be accepted as a political play, but through the 1950s and 1960s, the techniques of the Brecht epic drama became familiar to British artists, and it was a powerful tool to practice the new art they were pursuing. recognized and used. 주로 노동자 극단을 중심으로 산발적으로 공연되던 브레히트의 연극은 1956년 베를린 앙상블의 공연 이후 영국에서 본격적으로 수용된다. 1956년부터 1960년대 중반은 영국 예술계의 변혁의 시기이기도 했다. 문학과 연극에서 시작된 새로운 문화적 흐름인 앵그리 영 멘과 키친 싱크 드라마로 대표되는 젊은 예술인들은 브레히트의 연극을 잘 알고 있었다. 브레히트의 영향은 무엇보다 1960년대 텔레비전 드라마 부문에서 두드러지게 나타났다. 생소화 효과를 사용한 혁신적인 드라마는 1960년대 중반부터 BBC의 <수요 극장>을 중심으로 다수 제작되어서 당대 많은 시청자의 관심을 끌었다. 당시 텔레비전계에서 활동한 젊은 제작자와 감독들은 대부분 연극계 출신이었으며, 이들은 비자연주의라는 이름으로 알려진 브레히트적 형식 실험을 텔레비전 드라마에 도입했다. 전체적으로 봤을 때 정치적 연극으로서의 브레히트 드라마가 수용되기까지는 좀 더 시간이 필요했지만, 1950년대와 1960년대를 거치면서 브레히트 서사극 기법은 영국의 예술인들에게 친숙했으며, 젊은 예술가들이 추구하던 새로운 미학을 실천하는 강력한 도구로 인식되고 사용되었음을 알 수 있다.

브레히트 해설가로서 벤야민

김용대 ( Yong Dae Kim ) 한국독일언어문학회(구 독일언어문학연구회) 2011 독일언어문학 Vol.0 No.51

Brechts Werk war fur Benjamin die unvermutete Erscheinung einer großen modernen nicht-auratischen Kunst, noch dazu in deutscher Sprache-ein Eindruck, der selbst die starke Wirkung der surrealistischen Texte auf Benjamin verblassen ließ. Unstreitig jedenfalls, daß er unter allen in Deutschland Schreibenden der einzige ist, der sich fragt, wo er seine Begabung ansetzen muß, sie nur da ansetzt, wo er von der Notwendigkeit es tun zu mussen uberzeugt ist, und bei jeder Gelegenheit, die diesem Prufstein nicht entspricht, es sein lasst. Benjamin nahm Brecht, wie Hannah Arendt gesagt hat, wahr als den diese Zeit gemaßen Dichter. Hierin stimmte Benjamin mit Karl Kraus uberein, der Brecht als den einzigen deutschen Dichter ansah, der heute in Betracht zu kommen hat, weil er das Zeitbewußtsein der Nachkriegswelt gultig gestaltete und versuchte, sprachlich uber die Banalitat des abgeschilderten Lebens hinauszugelangen. Die Aufgabe jeder politischen Lyrik, so Benjamin, sei am strengsten in den Gedichten von Brecht erfullt. Brechts Theater, argumentierte Benjamin, verandere die Funktion des Theaters von der Unterhaltung zur Erkenntnis, womit auch das politische Thesenstuck uberwunden werde. Benjamin sah in der von Brecht angestrebten Verknupfung von politischer Intention und kunstlerischer Gestaltung etwas Neuartiges. Brecht verkorpere den wichtigsten Zug der heutigen Literatur: die innige Durchdringung jeder großen dichterischen Leistung mit der schriftstellerischen. Es war ein Ungluck fur die gesamte Brecht-Rezeption, daß Benjamins engagiertes und luzides Votum seinerseits nicht an die Offentlichkeit gelangte.