What do you think?
Rate this book
Der aufhaltsame Aufstieg des Arturo Ui
“Der aufhaltsame Aufstieg des Arturo Ui,“ subtitled "A Parable Play," is a 1941 play by German playwright Bertolt Brecht. It chronicles the rise of Arturo Ui, a fictional 1930s Chicago mobster, and his attempts to control the cauliflower racket by ruthlessly disposing of the opposition. The play is a satirical allegory of the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in Germany prior to World War II. Brecht’s decision to frame the rise of Hitler as the story of Al Capone in Prohibition-era Chicago was an attempt to provide a milieu familiar to American audiences. The work was meant for the American stage as a warning against the dangers of fascism.
133 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1941
66 people are currently reading
2495 people want to read
About the author
Bertolt Brecht
1,608 books1,921 followersEugen Berthold Friedrich Brecht was a German poet, playwright, and theatre director. A seminal theatre practitioner of the twentieth century, Brecht made equally significant contributions to dramaturgy and theatrical production, the latter particularly through the seismic impact of the tours undertaken by the Berliner Ensemble—the post-war theatre company operated by Brecht and his wife and long-time collaborator, the actress Helene Weigel—with its internationally acclaimed productions.
From his late twenties Brecht remained a life-long committed Marxist who, in developing the combined theory and practice of his 'epic theatre', synthesized and extended the experiments of Piscator and Meyerhold to explore the theatre as a forum for political ideas and the creation of a critical aesthetics of dialectical materialism. Brecht's modernist concern with drama-as-a-medium led to his refinement of the 'epic form' of the drama (which constitutes that medium's rendering of 'autonomization' or the 'non-organic work of art'—related in kind to the strategy of divergent chapters in Joyce's novel Ulysses, to Eisenstein's evolution of a constructivist 'montage' in the cinema, and to Picasso's introduction of cubist 'collage' in the visual arts). In contrast to many other avant-garde approaches, however, Brecht had no desire to destroy art as an institution; rather, he hoped to 're-function' the apparatus of theatrical production to a new social use. In this regard he was a vital participant in the aesthetic debates of his era—particularly over the 'high art/popular culture' dichotomy—vying with the likes of Adorno, Lukács, Bloch, and developing a close friendship with Benjamin. Brechtian theatre articulated popular themes and forms with avant-garde formal experimentation to create a modernist realism that stood in sharp contrast both to its psychological and socialist varieties. "Brecht's work is the most important and original in European drama since Ibsen and Strindberg," Raymond Williams argues, while Peter Bürger insists that he is "the most important materialist writer of our time."
As Jameson among others has stressed, "Brecht is also ‘Brecht’"—collective and collaborative working methods were inherent to his approach. This 'Brecht' was a collective subject that "certainly seemed to have a distinctive style (the one we now call 'Brechtian') but was no longer personal in the bourgeois or individualistic sense." During the course of his career, Brecht sustained many long-lasting creative relationships with other writers, composers, scenographers, directors, dramaturgs and actors; the list includes: Elisabeth Hauptmann, Margarete Steffin, Ruth Berlau, Slatan Dudow, Kurt Weill, Hanns Eisler, Paul Dessau, Caspar Neher, Teo Otto, Karl von Appen, Ernst Busch, Lotte Lenya, Peter Lorre, Therese Giehse, Angelika Hurwicz, and Helene Weigel herself. This is "theatre as collective experiment [...] as something radically different from theatre as expression or as experience."
There are few areas of modern theatrical culture that have not felt the impact or influence of Brecht's ideas and practices; dramatists and directors in whom one may trace a clear Brechtian legacy include: Dario Fo, Augusto Boal, Joan Littlewood, Peter Brook, Peter Weiss, Heiner Müller, Pina Bausch, Tony Kushner and Caryl Churchill. In addition to the theatre, Brechtian theories and techniques have exerted considerable sway over certain strands of film theory and cinematic practice; Brecht's influence may be detected in the films of Joseph Losey, Jean-Luc Godard, Lindsay Anderson, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Nagisa Oshima, Ritwik Ghatak, Lars von Trier, Jan Bucquoy and Hal Hartley.
During the war years, Brecht became a prominent writer of the Exilliteratur. He expressed his opposition to the National Socialist and Fascist movements in his most famous plays.
From his late twenties Brecht remained a life-long committed Marxist who, in developing the combined theory and practice of his 'epic theatre', synthesized and extended the experiments of Piscator and Meyerhold to explore the theatre as a forum for political ideas and the creation of a critical aesthetics of dialectical materialism. Brecht's modernist concern with drama-as-a-medium led to his refinement of the 'epic form' of the drama (which constitutes that medium's rendering of 'autonomization' or the 'non-organic work of art'—related in kind to the strategy of divergent chapters in Joyce's novel Ulysses, to Eisenstein's evolution of a constructivist 'montage' in the cinema, and to Picasso's introduction of cubist 'collage' in the visual arts). In contrast to many other avant-garde approaches, however, Brecht had no desire to destroy art as an institution; rather, he hoped to 're-function' the apparatus of theatrical production to a new social use. In this regard he was a vital participant in the aesthetic debates of his era—particularly over the 'high art/popular culture' dichotomy—vying with the likes of Adorno, Lukács, Bloch, and developing a close friendship with Benjamin. Brechtian theatre articulated popular themes and forms with avant-garde formal experimentation to create a modernist realism that stood in sharp contrast both to its psychological and socialist varieties. "Brecht's work is the most important and original in European drama since Ibsen and Strindberg," Raymond Williams argues, while Peter Bürger insists that he is "the most important materialist writer of our time."
As Jameson among others has stressed, "Brecht is also ‘Brecht’"—collective and collaborative working methods were inherent to his approach. This 'Brecht' was a collective subject that "certainly seemed to have a distinctive style (the one we now call 'Brechtian') but was no longer personal in the bourgeois or individualistic sense." During the course of his career, Brecht sustained many long-lasting creative relationships with other writers, composers, scenographers, directors, dramaturgs and actors; the list includes: Elisabeth Hauptmann, Margarete Steffin, Ruth Berlau, Slatan Dudow, Kurt Weill, Hanns Eisler, Paul Dessau, Caspar Neher, Teo Otto, Karl von Appen, Ernst Busch, Lotte Lenya, Peter Lorre, Therese Giehse, Angelika Hurwicz, and Helene Weigel herself. This is "theatre as collective experiment [...] as something radically different from theatre as expression or as experience."
There are few areas of modern theatrical culture that have not felt the impact or influence of Brecht's ideas and practices; dramatists and directors in whom one may trace a clear Brechtian legacy include: Dario Fo, Augusto Boal, Joan Littlewood, Peter Brook, Peter Weiss, Heiner Müller, Pina Bausch, Tony Kushner and Caryl Churchill. In addition to the theatre, Brechtian theories and techniques have exerted considerable sway over certain strands of film theory and cinematic practice; Brecht's influence may be detected in the films of Joseph Losey, Jean-Luc Godard, Lindsay Anderson, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Nagisa Oshima, Ritwik Ghatak, Lars von Trier, Jan Bucquoy and Hal Hartley.
During the war years, Brecht became a prominent writer of the Exilliteratur. He expressed his opposition to the National Socialist and Fascist movements in his most famous plays.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 148 reviews
January 25, 2025
I first saw a production of this play in—I think—1979 in Williamsburg, MA, a summer festival production, and I knew nothing about it. I was not at all worried at the time about the rise of fascism in this country, which was exactly Brecht’s point, that in the tradition of Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here, everyone smugly believed Hitler couldn’t happen here. The production was consistent with Brecht’s approach: Don’t let the audience sit back and treat this as a comfortable entertaining night out at the theatre. This “play” is for him about political realities we have faced globally many times and allowed to happen: The rise of fascism. But in this play, a darkly hilarious satire, we see cheap, crude and inarticulate gangster Arturo Ui not living in some “exotic” location like Germany (!) or Italy or Russia, but living in Chicago, in the 1930’s, as a Hitlerian character intent on taking over the city and country. Ridiculous little buffoon, who does he think he is?! It’s laughable that he would ever want to be president! He’s a joke!
In the Williamsburg production, the set is from the outset multicolored, as one might expect a set to be, but throughout the play as gangster crimes of robbery and murder and extortion increase, painters are gradually whitewashing the set until at the end, with Ui’s triumph, every inch is white. The effect was both subtle, gradual, and finally visually electrifying/terrifying. And to remind us that the comedy we were watching was specifically tied to the rise of Hitler’s Third Reich, placards accompanied each scene to show the parallels.
Now, Hitler wasn’t a gangster, not exactly. Or was he? No one initially took him seriously at all, until socio-economic conditions helped him argue that it was time to Make Germany Great Again. Ui, as the proto-fascist of this drama, works hard to get popular, against all odds; he takes elocution lessons, acting lessons, and his coach helps him ape Shakespearean language and tones so that he can sweet talk his way into strong-arming the city until he corners the cauliflower market. There are terrific echoes of Richard III and Macbeth in this play.
At the conclusion of the production I saw, the actor playing Ui runs down to the edge of the stage, ripping off his moustache, and his costume, addressing the audience directly, telling us his (actual) name, telling us he is an actor; hey, talk about “breaking the plane” of the understood separation between audience and stage! He tells us in no uncertain terms that this happened in Germany and unless we are vigilant will happen again, and very possibly here. Precisely as Brecht would have wanted, we who saw that play went out and talked about the issues in the “play” as it pertained to the old US of A. We agreed that Brecht was decidedly not merely “play”-ing around with political realities.
I am not sure as a play that this political staire measures uo to Three Penny Opera or Mouther Courage, but for me it seized me by the shoulders and shook me.
Wanna read the version I read? Here it is:
https://waldentheatre.files.wordpress...
What would it be like to see such a production, now, today, with a returning President with his powerful billionaire corporate cabinet backing him?
“If we could learn to look instead of gawking,
We'd see the horror in the heart of farce,
If only we could act instead of talking,
We wouldn't always end up on our arse.
This was the thing that nearly had us mastered;
Don't yet rejoice in his defeat, you men!
Although the world stood up and stopped the bastard,
The bitch that bore him is in heat again.”--Brecht
Rachel Maddow’s Prequel: An American Fight Against fascism (2023), that I also reviewed, makes it clear that millions of Americans supported Hitler, who was elected with over 85% of the vote, a vote for a strongman who died by suicide in his luxury bunker. One hopeful thing is that fewer than fifty percent of voting Americans voted for 47, so there are numbers for resistance.
This is what I opened my review with on 1/25/2017:
The Resistible Rise of Fascism in 2017
“Art is not a mirror held up to reality but a hammer with which to shape it.” --Brecht
1. Trump claims because he is famous he has premier access to any woman he wants; he can just grab her pussy or whatever he wants.
2. Several women from his past claim sexual harassment.
3. Trump denies all claims of above and commits to defund Planned Parenthood and other organizations devoted to women’s equality, at the same time claiming he “loves all women, and they love me.”
4. Trump elected President (with a majority of white college-educated women voting for him, confirming for him and some others his claim in #3)
5. In his Inaugural address he mentions his desire to unify the country. Behind him, he means, bending loyally to his will.
6. The next day 2.9 million women from around the planet protest his election, proving his claim in #5, the first sentence?
7. Trump’s own tiny hands count more people at his Inauguration than any other one in history, and when there is widespread media pushback on this claim forces WH mouthpiece Sean Spicer to assert this as one of his increasingly prevalent “alternate facts.”
8. Massive ridicule in response to such claims from the media and various women’s groups.
9. Trump doubles down on his vow to defund Planned Parenthood and vows to defund organizations dedicated to the prevention of violence against women. The new Republican Senate votes 51-48 to remove discrimination protection for women in healthcare and against ACA contraceptive coverage and maternity care provision. And this is just one part of what he did in the first week!
But in round two things initially (week two) seem even worse. Perhaps reviews such as this will be cut soon by Jeff Bezos's Amazon.
In the Williamsburg production, the set is from the outset multicolored, as one might expect a set to be, but throughout the play as gangster crimes of robbery and murder and extortion increase, painters are gradually whitewashing the set until at the end, with Ui’s triumph, every inch is white. The effect was both subtle, gradual, and finally visually electrifying/terrifying. And to remind us that the comedy we were watching was specifically tied to the rise of Hitler’s Third Reich, placards accompanied each scene to show the parallels.
Now, Hitler wasn’t a gangster, not exactly. Or was he? No one initially took him seriously at all, until socio-economic conditions helped him argue that it was time to Make Germany Great Again. Ui, as the proto-fascist of this drama, works hard to get popular, against all odds; he takes elocution lessons, acting lessons, and his coach helps him ape Shakespearean language and tones so that he can sweet talk his way into strong-arming the city until he corners the cauliflower market. There are terrific echoes of Richard III and Macbeth in this play.
At the conclusion of the production I saw, the actor playing Ui runs down to the edge of the stage, ripping off his moustache, and his costume, addressing the audience directly, telling us his (actual) name, telling us he is an actor; hey, talk about “breaking the plane” of the understood separation between audience and stage! He tells us in no uncertain terms that this happened in Germany and unless we are vigilant will happen again, and very possibly here. Precisely as Brecht would have wanted, we who saw that play went out and talked about the issues in the “play” as it pertained to the old US of A. We agreed that Brecht was decidedly not merely “play”-ing around with political realities.
I am not sure as a play that this political staire measures uo to Three Penny Opera or Mouther Courage, but for me it seized me by the shoulders and shook me.
Wanna read the version I read? Here it is:
https://waldentheatre.files.wordpress...
What would it be like to see such a production, now, today, with a returning President with his powerful billionaire corporate cabinet backing him?
“If we could learn to look instead of gawking,
We'd see the horror in the heart of farce,
If only we could act instead of talking,
We wouldn't always end up on our arse.
This was the thing that nearly had us mastered;
Don't yet rejoice in his defeat, you men!
Although the world stood up and stopped the bastard,
The bitch that bore him is in heat again.”--Brecht
Rachel Maddow’s Prequel: An American Fight Against fascism (2023), that I also reviewed, makes it clear that millions of Americans supported Hitler, who was elected with over 85% of the vote, a vote for a strongman who died by suicide in his luxury bunker. One hopeful thing is that fewer than fifty percent of voting Americans voted for 47, so there are numbers for resistance.
This is what I opened my review with on 1/25/2017:
The Resistible Rise of Fascism in 2017
“Art is not a mirror held up to reality but a hammer with which to shape it.” --Brecht
1. Trump claims because he is famous he has premier access to any woman he wants; he can just grab her pussy or whatever he wants.
2. Several women from his past claim sexual harassment.
3. Trump denies all claims of above and commits to defund Planned Parenthood and other organizations devoted to women’s equality, at the same time claiming he “loves all women, and they love me.”
4. Trump elected President (with a majority of white college-educated women voting for him, confirming for him and some others his claim in #3)
5. In his Inaugural address he mentions his desire to unify the country. Behind him, he means, bending loyally to his will.
6. The next day 2.9 million women from around the planet protest his election, proving his claim in #5, the first sentence?
7. Trump’s own tiny hands count more people at his Inauguration than any other one in history, and when there is widespread media pushback on this claim forces WH mouthpiece Sean Spicer to assert this as one of his increasingly prevalent “alternate facts.”
8. Massive ridicule in response to such claims from the media and various women’s groups.
9. Trump doubles down on his vow to defund Planned Parenthood and vows to defund organizations dedicated to the prevention of violence against women. The new Republican Senate votes 51-48 to remove discrimination protection for women in healthcare and against ACA contraceptive coverage and maternity care provision. And this is just one part of what he did in the first week!
But in round two things initially (week two) seem even worse. Perhaps reviews such as this will be cut soon by Jeff Bezos's Amazon.
July 23, 2016
Not and I have this long-running argument about translations. In nearly every case, I think it's better to read the original, even if my knowledge of the source language isn't particularly good: it means I'm hearing what the author actually said, as opposed to what the translator thought they said. Not disagrees, but I find her arguments unconvincing.
Or, to be more exact, I find her arguments unconvincing in most cases; there are a few rare exceptions. I think this is one of them. Brecht had the wonderful idea of retelling the story of Hitler's rise to power as a mock-Shakespearian tragedy, in the style of Richard III, about a Chicago gangster who takes over the city's vegetable trade. It works extremely well, and the play has huge energy and inventiveness; it's an absolutely first-rate black comedy.
Having just read both the German original and the brilliant translation I found here, it seems to me that that the translation is better. It's possible that this is due to my indifferent German - though, just before, I read Der gute Mensch von Sezuan and greatly enjoyed it. I liked the German version of Arturo Ui too, but it seemed to me that Brecht, genius though he may be, was trying to do something that was basically impossible.
The humour of the play derives from the mixing of several different registers, of which the most important are Shakespeare's magnificent blank verse and the flat, vulgar speech of the Chicago underworld; even if these can be transposed to German (and Brecht gives it his best shot), they are essentially English in their nature. There are other linguistic jokes as well, including substantial borrowings from Faust, and these passages don't work so well in translation. But the core of the play is the contrast between the Bard and Al Capone, and it's hardly surprising that they achieve their full potential in English.
Enough generalities; take a look at some of the passages I liked most, and judge for yourself. To start, a speech by Ui, who's just initiated his hostile takeover of the cauliflower business:
Or, to be more exact, I find her arguments unconvincing in most cases; there are a few rare exceptions. I think this is one of them. Brecht had the wonderful idea of retelling the story of Hitler's rise to power as a mock-Shakespearian tragedy, in the style of Richard III, about a Chicago gangster who takes over the city's vegetable trade. It works extremely well, and the play has huge energy and inventiveness; it's an absolutely first-rate black comedy.
Having just read both the German original and the brilliant translation I found here, it seems to me that that the translation is better. It's possible that this is due to my indifferent German - though, just before, I read Der gute Mensch von Sezuan and greatly enjoyed it. I liked the German version of Arturo Ui too, but it seemed to me that Brecht, genius though he may be, was trying to do something that was basically impossible.
The humour of the play derives from the mixing of several different registers, of which the most important are Shakespeare's magnificent blank verse and the flat, vulgar speech of the Chicago underworld; even if these can be transposed to German (and Brecht gives it his best shot), they are essentially English in their nature. There are other linguistic jokes as well, including substantial borrowings from Faust, and these passages don't work so well in translation. But the core of the play is the contrast between the Bard and Al Capone, and it's hardly surprising that they achieve their full potential in English.
Enough generalities; take a look at some of the passages I liked most, and judge for yourself. To start, a speech by Ui, who's just initiated his hostile takeover of the cauliflower business:
Well, what to do, you must be wondering.A stream of invective from a woman who's just seen her husband killed before her eyes by Ui's thugs:
So listen to me careful. First things first.
The way you're acting just ain't good enough,
Hoping that all will turn out hunky-dory,
Grinding your lazy bums behind the counter
And fainting every time you see a thug.
You're disunited, splintered and without
Some Big White Chief to give you firm protection.
So first comes unity. Then sacrifice.
You scum, you monster, oh, you crock of shit!A pathetic piece of equivocation from Betty, who's foolish enough to think she can negotiate with Ui:
No, even shit would shudder seeing you
And if you touched it, cry out, Let me wash!
Whoever touches Ui is defiled!
You louse of all the lice! And everyone
Will let him get away with it! You there,
They're hacking us to bloody pieces! Help!
It's Ui, Ui, Ui and the rest!
Where are you? Help! Will no one stop this pest?
Clark has told meAnd, finally, the chilling conclusion to the play:
That Ui's youthful revels are now ended.
- The best of us have gone through Sturm und Drang -
He's sown his wild oats, so to speak and shown
His manner and his grammar much improved:
He hasn't murdered anyone for weeks.
Though if you do persist, attacking him,
You might revive his baser instincts yet.
And put yourself in jeopardy, Ignatius.
But if you keep your mouth shut, they'll be nice.
The actor who plays ARTURO UI comes forward and takes off his moustache to speak the epilogue.Check out this play if you've got nothing better to do over the weekend; it only takes a couple of hours to read. And, oh yes, it's just possible you may find some vague resonances with things that are happening in the world right now. If you're that way inclined.
If we could learn to look instead of gawking,
We'd see the horror in the heart of farce,
If only we could act instead of talking,
We wouldn't always end up on our arse.
This was the thing that nearly had us mastered;
Don't yet rejoice in his defeat, you men!
Although the world stood up and stopped the bastard,
The bitch that bore him is in heat again.
April 18, 2018
"Bada bing bada boom..."
Considering how long ago Bertolt Brecht wrote this play, it sure packs a punch, and is still very valid.
I wanted to read this as I'll be seeing a production by the Sydney Theatre Company shortly. I don't make a habit of reading the plays that I'm about to see, as the element of surprise is always nice. But I'd seen a production around twenty years ago, and it's one of those plays that gets under your skin, and has always stuck in my mind.
Arturo Ui is a gangster with a vision. A racketeer who wants to provide protection to the cauliflower growers of Chicago. To help the good people buy their vegies more cheaply. To be a one-stop shop. I found it wryly amusing and sometimes bizarre that Bertolt Brecht used this humble vegetable to tell his tale of thuggery. But also very clever.
”No-one’s talking about me anymore. This town’s got no memory. Ah, how fleeting fame is. Two months without a murder, and they forget you ever lived.”
-Ui
John & Joan Citizen have little choice but to agree to Arturo Ui’s schemes. The few who do stand up to him, find themselves mysteriously shot by their own hand, poisoned or their business burnt to the ground.
”Clearly I’m a socialist – which I prove by taking money from the rich.”
-Ui
I believe the translation of this play is a good one, as it deftly captures the playwright’s intentions. The dialogue is sharp and snappy. It’s a quick read and interesting in that it goes to show you just can’t change the greed of human nature.
Considering how long ago Bertolt Brecht wrote this play, it sure packs a punch, and is still very valid.
I wanted to read this as I'll be seeing a production by the Sydney Theatre Company shortly. I don't make a habit of reading the plays that I'm about to see, as the element of surprise is always nice. But I'd seen a production around twenty years ago, and it's one of those plays that gets under your skin, and has always stuck in my mind.
Arturo Ui is a gangster with a vision. A racketeer who wants to provide protection to the cauliflower growers of Chicago. To help the good people buy their vegies more cheaply. To be a one-stop shop. I found it wryly amusing and sometimes bizarre that Bertolt Brecht used this humble vegetable to tell his tale of thuggery. But also very clever.
”No-one’s talking about me anymore. This town’s got no memory. Ah, how fleeting fame is. Two months without a murder, and they forget you ever lived.”
-Ui
John & Joan Citizen have little choice but to agree to Arturo Ui’s schemes. The few who do stand up to him, find themselves mysteriously shot by their own hand, poisoned or their business burnt to the ground.
”Clearly I’m a socialist – which I prove by taking money from the rich.”
-Ui
I believe the translation of this play is a good one, as it deftly captures the playwright’s intentions. The dialogue is sharp and snappy. It’s a quick read and interesting in that it goes to show you just can’t change the greed of human nature.
August 23, 2018
A dark comedy on US gangsters. It is a powerful play in as far as it acts as an allegory of how a corrupt world creates monsters of violence in general. But I don't think it is a very powerful metaphor for particular case of Hitler (who seems to be refered directly in epilogue).
November 3, 2023
"The Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui" depicts Hitler's rise to power in the American gangster milieu as a parable. The characters can easily be assigned to their historical likenesses and the individual scenes reflect the historical stages of Hitler's violent rise: the parallels between fiction and reality - according to the epic theatre - are openly explicated at the end of the scenes by display boards with corresponding texts.
Brecht's punning wisdom is also present in this play, albeit less pronounced than in most of his other dramas, which is probably due to the fact that he did not finalise the play.
Thematically, the content unfortunately retains universal validity through its parabolic mask:
"The womb is still fertile from which this crawled."
Brecht's punning wisdom is also present in this play, albeit less pronounced than in most of his other dramas, which is probably due to the fact that he did not finalise the play.
Thematically, the content unfortunately retains universal validity through its parabolic mask:
"The womb is still fertile from which this crawled."
March 29, 2017
Brecht, Arturo Ui nezdinde aslında Hitler'in yükselişini anlatıyor. Hitler'in Almanya'da iktidar oluş çabaları ve yaşanan olaylar günümüz Türkiye'siyle o kadar örtüşüyor ki şaşırmamak elde değil.
April 25, 2019
No matter the translation, the epilogue is the point:
Therefore learn how to see and not to gape.
To act instead of talking all day long.
The world was almost won by such an ape!
But don't rejoice too soon at your escape -
The womb he crawled from still is going strong.
November 16, 2017
Storie di gangster, cavolfiori e totalitarismi
È il 1941, e Brecht trasforma in «commedia parabolica» l'avvento del nazismo, traslando e semplificando eventi storici di modo da rendere comprensibile al mondo capitalistico la presa del potere da parte di Hitler.
L'azione viene spostata negli Stati Uniti, la Germania diventa Chicago, l'Austria Cicero; i personaggi principali dell'opera sono il gangster in ascesa Arturo Ui/Adoolf Hitler, i suoi sgherri Ernesto Roma (Ernst Röhm), Emanuele Giri (Hermann Göring) e Giuseppe Givola (Joseph Goebbles). L'ascesa, chiaramente resistibile ma quasi indisturbata, di Arturo e della sua cricca parte dallo sfruttamento del malcontento e dei problemi dei capi del trust dei cavolfiori (gli Junker prussiani e gli industriali tedeschi) alla ricerca di prestiti statali, passa per la corruzione del politico Dogsborough (il cancelliere del Reich Heindenburg), in un crescendo di minacce, violenze, diffidenze interne che porteranno alla "conquista" di Chicago e della vicina Cicero, ma anche all'eliminazione fisica di avversari e amici pericolosi (Roma/Röhm, ovvero la notte dei lunghi coltelli).
Lo scopo di Brecht è dichiarato, spiegare al mondo capitalistico l'ascesa di Hitler trasportandola in circostanze a quel mondo familiari, la rappresentazione deve essere in stile grandioso...naturalmente va evitata la pura e semplice parodia, e anche in chiave di grottesco non deve mai venir meno l'atmosfera di orrore. L'Autore, andando contro un parere diffuso all'epoca, pensa che i grandi delinquenti politici vanno denunciati, esponendoli soprattutto al ridicolo. Giacché essi anzitutto non sono grandi delinquenti politici, bensì autori di grandi delitti politici, il che è assai diverso. Non si tema la verità banale, purché sia vera! Come il fallimento delle sue imprese non fa di Hitler uno stupido, così la mole di queste imprese non ne fa un grand'uomo. Per Brecht, soprattutto, bisogna liberare l'umanità dall'ammirazione per il delitto, per gli assassini (cita come esempi Napoleone I e Gengis Khan, ma anche un massacratore di nome Kneisel tanto ammirato nella città natale dell'Autore).
Una «commedia parabolica», dal fine didattico, dunque. Incompleta, oltretutto: venne pubblicata postuma, prima che Brecht potesse procedere alla revisione definitiva del testo (tra le possibili correzioni, ad esempio, la risoluzione del problema della "assenza del popolo" nel testo, o la pericolosa trasformazione di Roma/Röhm in un semi-martire). Lodevole. Inventiva. Sicuramente didattica (si veda l'autoaccusa di Dogsborough/Heindenburg, o la speranza dei negozianti di verdura di Chicago e Cicero, dei tedeschi e degli austriaci, che qualcuno - qualcun altro - fermi i gangster). Commedia, indubbiamente, perché mira a mettere in ridicolo i nazi-fascisti, gli assassini. Ma tutto fuorché divertente, quanto meno sulla carta: magari sul palcoscenico il risultato è diverso, più potente e allo stesso tempo divertente. La mera lettura è più che altro deprimente, perché il 1941 è passato, e si è ben consci delle conseguenze della resistibile ascesa di Arturo Ui.
Le valutazioni servono da mera indicazione: per quel che vale, l'intento sarebbe da punteggio pieno, il risultato - a mio modestissimo parere - da tre stelle e mezzo, quasi quattro.
È il 1941, e Brecht trasforma in «commedia parabolica» l'avvento del nazismo, traslando e semplificando eventi storici di modo da rendere comprensibile al mondo capitalistico la presa del potere da parte di Hitler.
L'azione viene spostata negli Stati Uniti, la Germania diventa Chicago, l'Austria Cicero; i personaggi principali dell'opera sono il gangster in ascesa Arturo Ui/Adoolf Hitler, i suoi sgherri Ernesto Roma (Ernst Röhm), Emanuele Giri (Hermann Göring) e Giuseppe Givola (Joseph Goebbles). L'ascesa, chiaramente resistibile ma quasi indisturbata, di Arturo e della sua cricca parte dallo sfruttamento del malcontento e dei problemi dei capi del trust dei cavolfiori (gli Junker prussiani e gli industriali tedeschi) alla ricerca di prestiti statali, passa per la corruzione del politico Dogsborough (il cancelliere del Reich Heindenburg), in un crescendo di minacce, violenze, diffidenze interne che porteranno alla "conquista" di Chicago e della vicina Cicero, ma anche all'eliminazione fisica di avversari e amici pericolosi (Roma/Röhm, ovvero la notte dei lunghi coltelli).
Lo scopo di Brecht è dichiarato, spiegare al mondo capitalistico l'ascesa di Hitler trasportandola in circostanze a quel mondo familiari, la rappresentazione deve essere in stile grandioso...naturalmente va evitata la pura e semplice parodia, e anche in chiave di grottesco non deve mai venir meno l'atmosfera di orrore. L'Autore, andando contro un parere diffuso all'epoca, pensa che i grandi delinquenti politici vanno denunciati, esponendoli soprattutto al ridicolo. Giacché essi anzitutto non sono grandi delinquenti politici, bensì autori di grandi delitti politici, il che è assai diverso. Non si tema la verità banale, purché sia vera! Come il fallimento delle sue imprese non fa di Hitler uno stupido, così la mole di queste imprese non ne fa un grand'uomo. Per Brecht, soprattutto, bisogna liberare l'umanità dall'ammirazione per il delitto, per gli assassini (cita come esempi Napoleone I e Gengis Khan, ma anche un massacratore di nome Kneisel tanto ammirato nella città natale dell'Autore).
Una «commedia parabolica», dal fine didattico, dunque. Incompleta, oltretutto: venne pubblicata postuma, prima che Brecht potesse procedere alla revisione definitiva del testo (tra le possibili correzioni, ad esempio, la risoluzione del problema della "assenza del popolo" nel testo, o la pericolosa trasformazione di Roma/Röhm in un semi-martire). Lodevole. Inventiva. Sicuramente didattica (si veda l'autoaccusa di Dogsborough/Heindenburg, o la speranza dei negozianti di verdura di Chicago e Cicero, dei tedeschi e degli austriaci, che qualcuno - qualcun altro - fermi i gangster). Commedia, indubbiamente, perché mira a mettere in ridicolo i nazi-fascisti, gli assassini. Ma tutto fuorché divertente, quanto meno sulla carta: magari sul palcoscenico il risultato è diverso, più potente e allo stesso tempo divertente. La mera lettura è più che altro deprimente, perché il 1941 è passato, e si è ben consci delle conseguenze della resistibile ascesa di Arturo Ui.
Le valutazioni servono da mera indicazione: per quel che vale, l'intento sarebbe da punteggio pieno, il risultato - a mio modestissimo parere - da tre stelle e mezzo, quasi quattro.
E così io, l'onesto Dogsborough,
ho acconsentito a tutto ciò che questa
banda di sanguinari ha perpetrato
dopo avere vissuto con onore
ottanta inverni! [...]
Tutto questo io sapevo, e tutto questo
ho tollerato, io, l'onesto Dogsborough,
per sete di ricchezza, e per paura
che dubitaste della mia onestà.
March 20, 2016
3,5* | Ένα θεατρικό που, σύμφωνα με τον Μπρεχτ, γράφτηκε για να εξηγήσει στον καπιταλιστικό κόσμο την άνοδο του φασισμού και γι' αυτό τοποθετείται στο οικείο περιβάλλον ενός τραστ. Εμένα βέβαια ακριβώς αυτό ήταν και το κομμάτι που με δυσκόλεψε -αγνοώ τους τρόπους λειτουργίας του καπιταλιστικού συστήματος της εποχής.
Σε κάθε περίπτωση, πρόκειται για μία σαφή αλληγορία που γίνεται ακόμη σαφέστερη από τις επεξηγηματικές πινακίδες που εμφανίζονται στο τέλος κάθε σκηνής. Στην πραγματικότητα, είναι ένα βιβλίο που σε πρώτο επίπεδο μιλά για τη σταδιακή κατάληψη της εξουσίας από τον Χίτλερ, αλλά σε δεύτερο -και ουσιαστικότερο, θα 'λεγα- για το μέσο άνθρωπο που μπορούσε να αντισταθεί αλλά δεν το έκανε.
Σε κάθε περίπτωση, πρόκειται για μία σαφή αλληγορία που γίνεται ακόμη σαφέστερη από τις επεξηγηματικές πινακίδες που εμφανίζονται στο τέλος κάθε σκηνής. Στην πραγματικότητα, είναι ένα βιβλίο που σε πρώτο επίπεδο μιλά για τη σταδιακή κατάληψη της εξουσίας από τον Χίτλερ, αλλά σε δεύτερο -και ουσιαστικότερο, θα 'λεγα- για το μέσο άνθρωπο που μπορούσε να αντισταθεί αλλά δεν το έκανε.
June 19, 2019
صعود ممانعت پذیر آرتورو اوئی/ برتولت برشت/ ترجمه ی فرامرز بهزاد/ انتشارات خوارزمی/ تاریخ اتمام کتاب: 21 مرداد 1395
این کتابو خیلی سال پیش (حدود 6 یا 7) از کتابخونه دبیرستانمون برداشتم. جزو کتابایی بود که میخواستن بریزن بره و ما یه سریش رو با دوستا برداشتیم که حیف بودن از بین بره.کتاب خیلی قدیمیه، قیمت روی جلدش 450 ریال هست و من ندیدم این کتاب تجدید چاپ شده باشه...شایدم شده و من ندیدم. موضوع نمایشنامه توصیف فضای گانگستری دوره ای از تاریخ آمریکاست که گانگستر ها میومدن کاسب ها رو میزدن و تهدید می کردن و دزدی می کردن بعد میومدن پیشنهاد حمایت می دادن ... میگفتن ما شما رو حمایت می کنیم از این حمله ها در صورتی که خودشون اون حمله ها رو انجام داده بودن ! خودشون نیاز رو ایجاد می کردن و از فساد پلیس و سیستم قضایی استفاده می کردن که به قدرت برسن و اتفاقا رسیده بودن همونطور که توی یک سری فیلم ها هم نمایش داده شده مثل پدرخوانده و goodfellas... خانواده هایی از گانگستر ها بودن که پلیس هم جرات در افتادن باهاشون رو نداشته. توی این نمایش نامه روند به قدرت رسیدن یکی از همین سبک گانگسترها به نام آرتورو اوئی توضیح داده شده از موقعی که هیچی نبوده تا موقعی که قدرت زیادی کسب می کنه و می خواد گسترشش هم بده به شهر های مختلف. طرز فکر گانگستر و گفت و گوهایی که بین خودشون اتفاق میفته با جزئیات خوبی نوشته شده، همینطور گفت و گو هاشون با دیگران و نحوه چرب زبونی و تهدید و ... . طرز فکر ها و حرف هایی که توی این دیالوگ ها گفته میشه خیلی جالبن...آدم با جهان بینی یه گانگستر آشنا میشه، اینکه چجوری کارشو جلو می بره و با هر آدمی چجوری میره جلو که همیشه تهش خودش نفع ببره. درباره موضوعات مختلف هم هست این دیالوگ ها. زیرکی برشت در این است که هدفش از نوشتن این کتاب فقط توصیف فضای اون دوران نیست. بلکه این کتاب می گوید که گانگسترها هنوز هم بین ما وجود دارند، به شکلی دیگر، در لباسی دیگر. چه بسیار حکومت ها که به همین روش های گانگستری ایجاد شدن که یک نمونه از آن ها با جزئیات بسیار مشابه به روندِ نمایشنامه در انتهای کتاب اومده. اونقدر تاریخ نخوندم که بتونم بگم کدوم حکومت ها با همین روش ها تشکیل شدن ولی کاملا با برشت موافقم که میگه هنوز توی دنیا بستر اینکه گانگستری به قدرت برسه هست.
نمایشنامه ی فوق العاده ای هست و ترجمه ای فوق العاده رَوون و دلچسب داره که باعث میشه خوندن کتاب برای آدم مثل خوردنِ یه کیک خوشمزه باشه ! خیلی زود میشه تمومش کرد... کتاب فوق العاده ای هست. کاملا ترغیب شدم از برشت کارای دیگه هم بخونم.
این کتابو خیلی سال پیش (حدود 6 یا 7) از کتابخونه دبیرستانمون برداشتم. جزو کتابایی بود که میخواستن بریزن بره و ما یه سریش رو با دوستا برداشتیم که حیف بودن از بین بره.کتاب خیلی قدیمیه، قیمت روی جلدش 450 ریال هست و من ندیدم این کتاب تجدید چاپ شده باشه...شایدم شده و من ندیدم. موضوع نمایشنامه توصیف فضای گانگستری دوره ای از تاریخ آمریکاست که گانگستر ها میومدن کاسب ها رو میزدن و تهدید می کردن و دزدی می کردن بعد میومدن پیشنهاد حمایت می دادن ... میگفتن ما شما رو حمایت می کنیم از این حمله ها در صورتی که خودشون اون حمله ها رو انجام داده بودن ! خودشون نیاز رو ایجاد می کردن و از فساد پلیس و سیستم قضایی استفاده می کردن که به قدرت برسن و اتفاقا رسیده بودن همونطور که توی یک سری فیلم ها هم نمایش داده شده مثل پدرخوانده و goodfellas... خانواده هایی از گانگستر ها بودن که پلیس هم جرات در افتادن باهاشون رو نداشته. توی این نمایش نامه روند به قدرت رسیدن یکی از همین سبک گانگسترها به نام آرتورو اوئی توضیح داده شده از موقعی که هیچی نبوده تا موقعی که قدرت زیادی کسب می کنه و می خواد گسترشش هم بده به شهر های مختلف. طرز فکر گانگستر و گفت و گوهایی که بین خودشون اتفاق میفته با جزئیات خوبی نوشته شده، همینطور گفت و گو هاشون با دیگران و نحوه چرب زبونی و تهدید و ... . طرز فکر ها و حرف هایی که توی این دیالوگ ها گفته میشه خیلی جالبن...آدم با جهان بینی یه گانگستر آشنا میشه، اینکه چجوری کارشو جلو می بره و با هر آدمی چجوری میره جلو که همیشه تهش خودش نفع ببره. درباره موضوعات مختلف هم هست این دیالوگ ها. زیرکی برشت در این است که هدفش از نوشتن این کتاب فقط توصیف فضای اون دوران نیست. بلکه این کتاب می گوید که گانگسترها هنوز هم بین ما وجود دارند، به شکلی دیگر، در لباسی دیگر. چه بسیار حکومت ها که به همین روش های گانگستری ایجاد شدن که یک نمونه از آن ها با جزئیات بسیار مشابه به روندِ نمایشنامه در انتهای کتاب اومده. اونقدر تاریخ نخوندم که بتونم بگم کدوم حکومت ها با همین روش ها تشکیل شدن ولی کاملا با برشت موافقم که میگه هنوز توی دنیا بستر اینکه گانگستری به قدرت برسه هست.
نمایشنامه ی فوق العاده ای هست و ترجمه ای فوق العاده رَوون و دلچسب داره که باعث میشه خوندن کتاب برای آدم مثل خوردنِ یه کیک خوشمزه باشه ! خیلی زود میشه تمومش کرد... کتاب فوق العاده ای هست. کاملا ترغیب شدم از برشت کارای دیگه هم بخونم.
Read
October 5, 2024"Verrat ist schlechter Dünger!"
November 25, 2019
3.5, rounded down.
I've never much cottoned to the plays of Brecht, considering them for the most part the 'glue' one needs to put up with to hear some beautiful Weill songs. And the one production of this I've seen was long and boring, a one note screed against fascism. I actually read this only because I am such a HUGE fan of Bruce Norris, who did the adaptation here, as I wanted to see what he came up with - and it's clever, but still rather long winded and doesn't go much further than the central conceit.
Here, however, Norris slyly trades the titular character's homage to Hitler to make it more contemporary, including some choice fascistic quotes from the current scourge of the USA, our own Mango Mussolini. The two things I really enjoyed were the rhyming couplets for the introduction, and the dragging up out of the audience of a hapless victim to play the Defendant in act two. Still not my cuppa, but am glad I read it anyway.
I've never much cottoned to the plays of Brecht, considering them for the most part the 'glue' one needs to put up with to hear some beautiful Weill songs. And the one production of this I've seen was long and boring, a one note screed against fascism. I actually read this only because I am such a HUGE fan of Bruce Norris, who did the adaptation here, as I wanted to see what he came up with - and it's clever, but still rather long winded and doesn't go much further than the central conceit.
Here, however, Norris slyly trades the titular character's homage to Hitler to make it more contemporary, including some choice fascistic quotes from the current scourge of the USA, our own Mango Mussolini. The two things I really enjoyed were the rhyming couplets for the introduction, and the dragging up out of the audience of a hapless victim to play the Defendant in act two. Still not my cuppa, but am glad I read it anyway.
February 26, 2022
Lu il y a 20 ans déjà. Mais d'une terrifiante actualité... Vraiment peur que l'adjectif se transforme en irrésistible...
April 12, 2022
Zum ersten Mal gelesen als Schullektüre in der 10. Klasse. Theaterstück in Berlin gesehen.
Als junger Mensch (und noch dazu im Deutschunterricht) ist es schwer den richtigen Zugang zu diesem Text zu finden; Literatur in der Schule empfindet man oft als Tortur, selbst wenn man eigentlich gerne liest.
Dabei verdient es dieses Parabelstück in der Schule vernünftig besprochen zu werden, damit SchülerInnen auch wirklich den Kern vermittelt bekommen, warum es immer noch relevant ist, was das Phänomen "Faschismus" bedeutet und warum dieser Text auch in Zukunft aktuell bleiben wird.
Brecht vertritt die Meinung, dass man die Gräueltaten der Geschichte ins Lächerliche ziehen müsse, da Diktatoren (die eigentlich klein und schwach sind) mit ihren Kriegsverbrechen bei den Leuten Respekt hervorriefen. Diese Manie und Schizophrenie ist furchteinflößend und würde daher als Stärke interpretiert. Man dürfe dies nicht zulassen und aus Angst einfach Teile der Geschichte vergessen und ignorieren wollen (Stichwort Erinnerungskultur).
Faschismus existiert immer noch, aber wir als Gesellschaft scheuen uns mittlerweile weniger davor uns über furchteinflößende Diktatoren lustig zu machen als zu Brechts Zeiten. Dies ist auf jeden Fall eine positive Entwicklung.
Wie sonst soll man im Angesicht von Kriegsverbrechen und grauenhaften Nachrichten, die im digitalen Zeitalter unaufhörlich scheinen, nicht den Verstand verlieren?
Brechts Sprache ist wie aus Stein gemeißelt: jedes Wort an der richtigen Stelle, kein Wort zu viel, keine ungeschickten oder übertriebenen Verwendungen, die merkwürdige Assoziationen hervorrufen (wie das der Fall sein kann bei einem weniger geschickten Schriftsteller). Ein Meister.
Ich kann nicht behaupten, dass Arturo Ui eins meiner Lieblingsstücke ist, aber ich glaube, wenn man es sich richtig erarbeitet, kann es auch sehr interessant sein, es im Unterricht zu lesen.
Vielleicht wissen die LehrerInnen, die jetzt unterrichten, es anders anzugehen als mein Deutschlehrer im Jahr 2008 (immerhin hat sich die Welt inzwischen stark verändert), und schaffen es ihren SchülerInnen die Relevanz dieses älteren Textes zu vermitteln.
Als junger Mensch (und noch dazu im Deutschunterricht) ist es schwer den richtigen Zugang zu diesem Text zu finden; Literatur in der Schule empfindet man oft als Tortur, selbst wenn man eigentlich gerne liest.
Dabei verdient es dieses Parabelstück in der Schule vernünftig besprochen zu werden, damit SchülerInnen auch wirklich den Kern vermittelt bekommen, warum es immer noch relevant ist, was das Phänomen "Faschismus" bedeutet und warum dieser Text auch in Zukunft aktuell bleiben wird.
Brecht vertritt die Meinung, dass man die Gräueltaten der Geschichte ins Lächerliche ziehen müsse, da Diktatoren (die eigentlich klein und schwach sind) mit ihren Kriegsverbrechen bei den Leuten Respekt hervorriefen. Diese Manie und Schizophrenie ist furchteinflößend und würde daher als Stärke interpretiert. Man dürfe dies nicht zulassen und aus Angst einfach Teile der Geschichte vergessen und ignorieren wollen (Stichwort Erinnerungskultur).
Faschismus existiert immer noch, aber wir als Gesellschaft scheuen uns mittlerweile weniger davor uns über furchteinflößende Diktatoren lustig zu machen als zu Brechts Zeiten. Dies ist auf jeden Fall eine positive Entwicklung.
Wie sonst soll man im Angesicht von Kriegsverbrechen und grauenhaften Nachrichten, die im digitalen Zeitalter unaufhörlich scheinen, nicht den Verstand verlieren?
Brechts Sprache ist wie aus Stein gemeißelt: jedes Wort an der richtigen Stelle, kein Wort zu viel, keine ungeschickten oder übertriebenen Verwendungen, die merkwürdige Assoziationen hervorrufen (wie das der Fall sein kann bei einem weniger geschickten Schriftsteller). Ein Meister.
Ich kann nicht behaupten, dass Arturo Ui eins meiner Lieblingsstücke ist, aber ich glaube, wenn man es sich richtig erarbeitet, kann es auch sehr interessant sein, es im Unterricht zu lesen.
Vielleicht wissen die LehrerInnen, die jetzt unterrichten, es anders anzugehen als mein Deutschlehrer im Jahr 2008 (immerhin hat sich die Welt inzwischen stark verändert), und schaffen es ihren SchülerInnen die Relevanz dieses älteren Textes zu vermitteln.
February 17, 2021
Well-written by a clearly experienced playwright, it still is a bit disappointing. For a satire or parable to succeed it needs to exaggerate, to ridicule otherwise it is just reality in disguise and what's the sense of that (unless written under pressure of censure)? In the case of this play the exaggeration is missing.
April 6, 2015
Found it very hard to get into initially, I think it would be a lot easier in performance. It would function perfectly well on its own terms without any knowledge of what it is representing (Hitlet's rise), which I think is part of good theatrical allegory or metaphor.
October 14, 2025
4/5- Wieder sehr gut! In diesem Stück zeigt Brecht den (un-)aufhaltsamen Weg des Gangsters Ui, welcher vor allem durch seine Überzeugungskraft und den Glauben des Kapitals „ihn kontrollieren zu können“ an die Macht kommen kann. Klingt bekannt? Ist auch so gedacht.
October 12, 2025
Brillant et glaçant.
December 22, 2024
Interesting premise, horrible execution
February 10, 2025
Sehr gute Parabel wobei ich einiges erst durch dieses Buch über den Aufstieg Hitlers gelernt habe
May 20, 2025
bro ich check nix
May 1, 2023
"E voi imparate che occorre vedere
E non guardare in aria; occorre
Agire e non parlare".
E non guardare in aria; occorre
Agire e non parlare".
October 11, 2013
I read this because I was obliged to, but I can tell I loved Brecht's parallelism. Having read various biographies of Hitler, this was supposed to be no different, but instead this was definitely my favourite. It must have been the wit, the characters, even the catchy setting or the language used. My personal favourite bit is when Ernesto Roma tells him (read it in Albanian so the following is my adaption) "Step on the world, but not on your same feet", inferring Ui's betrayal to him, as part of his own clique since the very beginning.
I liked how every character fitted perfectly into the real-life person's shoes and how it was so easy to make the whole book out. Not engaging, nor complicated, neither boring or clustered with details. This is what I will, from now on, suggest to everyone wanting to learn Hitler's rise in no time at all! Nice epilogue and very actual too!
I liked how every character fitted perfectly into the real-life person's shoes and how it was so easy to make the whole book out. Not engaging, nor complicated, neither boring or clustered with details. This is what I will, from now on, suggest to everyone wanting to learn Hitler's rise in no time at all! Nice epilogue and very actual too!
August 29, 2016
I've never read any Brecht before, and he takes a little getting used to, if this is anything to go by.
A funny; both ha-ha and odd, parody of Hitler's rise to power, and more importantly the circumstances that allowed it, using an Al Capone stand in taking over the cauliflower business in Chicago.
Chilling, mechanical, smart, emotionally distancing, controlled, didactic, selective, political...there is a lot going on, even before noting that the play has Shakespeare references galore and is written blank verse. Yet it is somehow simplistic too and perhaps to its credit.
The epilogue is, I believe, famous and understandably so. It is a chilling and sadly relevant reminder of how easy it is to produce both the circumstances and monsters to drag us all to hell again.
A funny; both ha-ha and odd, parody of Hitler's rise to power, and more importantly the circumstances that allowed it, using an Al Capone stand in taking over the cauliflower business in Chicago.
Chilling, mechanical, smart, emotionally distancing, controlled, didactic, selective, political...there is a lot going on, even before noting that the play has Shakespeare references galore and is written blank verse. Yet it is somehow simplistic too and perhaps to its credit.
The epilogue is, I believe, famous and understandably so. It is a chilling and sadly relevant reminder of how easy it is to produce both the circumstances and monsters to drag us all to hell again.
May 28, 2020
If you are looking for a complete depiction of Hitler's rise to power, this play neither does that, nor does it claim to. But what it does do, and does really well, is outline the significant events leading up to Hitler's rise to power: seemingly insignificant events that have not received their due mention, making this play unique in that sense.
Brecht also reminds us that the second world war is not the last of its kind. In the current climate of nationalistic fervor, it is imperative that we remember our history and not repeat our earlier mistakes.
After all, the rise to power is, in fact, "resistible."
Brecht also reminds us that the second world war is not the last of its kind. In the current climate of nationalistic fervor, it is imperative that we remember our history and not repeat our earlier mistakes.
After all, the rise to power is, in fact, "resistible."
September 5, 2016
not my kinda book
December 30, 2022
Якщо чесно, то п‘єса не дуже цікава для читання. Проте варта була того, щоби потім побачити сценічне рішення у виставі київського театру Франка — «Кар‘єра Артуро Уї, яку можна було спинити». Так, Брехт класик, але паралель між чиказькими ґанґстерами (ділками тресту «Цвітна капуста») і шляхом Гітлера до влади вкрай натягнута, а паралелі з сьогоденням тим більше складно відчитати.
«Про гангстера нащадки й не згадають.
Юрба зрадлива - їй нових героїв
Давай щоразу. А герой вчорашній
У безвість кане, і його ім'я
Запишуть лиш в архівах поліційних».
«Актор проходить коло по сцені.
Джівола. Але ж не будеш ти отак виступати перед торговцяни городиною! Це неприродно!
Уї. Що значить неприродно? А де ти бачив нині щось природне? Коли я йду, то хочу, щоб усі знали, що я таки йду».
Крізь переклад Володимира Митрофанова ще треба пробратися, а от робота художника Григорія Коваленка — прекрасна!
«Про гангстера нащадки й не згадають.
Юрба зрадлива - їй нових героїв
Давай щоразу. А герой вчорашній
У безвість кане, і його ім'я
Запишуть лиш в архівах поліційних».
«Актор проходить коло по сцені.
Джівола. Але ж не будеш ти отак виступати перед торговцяни городиною! Це неприродно!
Уї. Що значить неприродно? А де ти бачив нині щось природне? Коли я йду, то хочу, щоб усі знали, що я таки йду».
Крізь переклад Володимира Митрофанова ще треба пробратися, а от робота художника Григорія Коваленка — прекрасна!
February 4, 2017
Als jemand, der 50 Jahre nach dem Ende des zweiten Weltkriegs in Österreich aufgewachsen ist, hatte ich irgendwie - vielleicht verständlicher-, vielleicht verurteilungswürdigerweise - in meinen frühen Erwachsenenjahren eine ziemliche Abneigung gegen jegliche Form von Bellestristik entwicklet, die sich des zweiten Weltkriegs als Thema bedient. Mein damaliger bester Freund hat mir daraufhin unhaltbaren Lesesnobbismus vorgeworfen und gemeint meine Aversion sei ebenso absurd wie wenn ich sämtliche Bücher mit grünen Einbänden meiden würde. Das wiederum fand ich absurd: ich habe im zweiten Weltkrieg als Setting abgesehen von historischer und kulturbewusstseinsbezogener Wichtigkeit in erster Linie eine überverwendete, einerseits reißerische, andererseits ausgelutschte, und damit fast schon kitschige Literaturtrope gesehen. Dass es allerdings nicht nur ein formales Kriterium war, war mir schon klar (und vielleicht war das ja sogar das versteckte Argument meines Freundes). Heute sehe ich vieles anders und obwohl mir die immer noch gängige literarisch letztklassige Aufarbeitung der Kriegsgeschichten des Großvaters, ein lebensinhaltliches Plagiat in Ermangelung eigener Ideen und/oder eines eigenen Lebens unter dem fadenscheinigen Deckmantel von Geschichtsbildung, immer noch gestohlen bleiben kann, habe ich doch im großen und ganzen meinen Frieden mit Hitler und den seinigen als Romanfigur gefunden.
Ich beschreibe das alles hier nicht nur, weil ich ohne diese Entwicklung dieses Brecht-Stück vermutlich nie gelesen hätte; und auch nicht nur, um festzustellen, dass sich Der aufhaltsame Aufstieg des Arturo Ui gerade dadurch von den oben genannten Ergüssen unterscheidet, dass es Hitler nicht wie einen Hollywood-Star auf dem Promo-Poster für einem Blockbusterfilm glorreich und aufmerksamkeitsheischend in den Vordergrund rückt, sondern ihn gezielt verfremdet, um ihn (wenn auch vielleicht überzeichnet) menschlich und schmutzig und glorienlos zu machen, wobei das schon näher an die Sache kommt; ich wollte vor allem fogendes sagen: Hitler realistisch zu fiktionalisieren ist fast nicht möglich mit all dem Promi-Schein, dem Horror und der Gewichtigkeit, die ihm anhaftet; die soziale Verantwortung der Literatur im "in Erinnerung behalten" und "nicht vergessen" ist schwierig zu halten, wenn man bedenkt dass sowieso ständig neue Grausamkeiten geschehen und die Menschheit eine beachtliche Vorliebe für die Verdammung der Oberfläche (Hitler und Hakenkreuze) aber dann doch Tolerierung der tiefergehnden Symptomatik (nicht nur Antisemithismus, nicht einmal nur Rassismus oder Faschismus, sondern schlicht und einfach schamlose, rohe, organisierte, rhetorisch aufgewiegelt und gestützte Gewalt) an den Tag legt; als literarische Trope ist Hitler verkitscht und so oft verwendet und verrissen worden, dass er fast schon dem bösen Wolf in Rotkäppchen gleichkommt - warum also überhaupt weitervesuchen und suchen und stirln in diesen Hitlertexten?
Ich glaube Der aufhaltsame Aufstieg des Arturo Ui (obwohl ja sowieso zeitgenössisch geschrieben und somit ohnehin vom Vorwurf der endlosen Iteration befreit) zeigt in gewisser Weise was es bringen kann und wie und warum es versucht worden ist: Hitler wird in dem gesamten Stück kein einziges Mal benannt (zumindest in der Schriftversion, wo die am Ende der Szenen auftauchenden "Schriften", die historische Parallelen zum Auftsieg Hitlers aufzeigen, erst nach dem Haupttext als "Zeittafel" im Anhang angeführt werden), es wird einem die Tragik und Tragweite der Situation nicht wie so oft mit dem Vorschlaghammer eingehämmert, man kann die Satire also komplett ignorieren, und gerade dadurch ist man selber versucht die Implikationen bar zu legen. Wie üblich bei Brecht, sagt er alles geradeheraus, zeigt, deutet nichts an, ist sogar fast schon befremdlich simplistisch und gerade dadurch denkt man nach über die Hintergründe nach. Natürlich ist die Satire (auch wie üblich) mindestens so düster und bedrückend wie zynisch-amüsant, natürlich geht der Wirklichkeitsbezug auch nicht immer perfekt auf (Brecht macht sich zum Beispiel genauso einer indirekten Dämonisierung und also Glorifizierung der rohen Gewalt schudlig indem er den bei weitem nicht unschuldigen, totalitären österreichischen Kanzler Dollfuss durch den aufrichtigen und unbeugsam der Wahrheit verschriebenen Journalisten Dullfeet spielen lässt), aber Brecht ist eben Brecht und selbst in diesem nicht finalisierten und zur Aufführung überarbeiteten Stück zeigt er doch deutlich, wie klein und zufällig diese großen Figuren des Nationalsozialismus doch alle waren und wie groß und platt und vorhersehbar die Geschichte der organiserten Gewalt ist im Vergleich; wie lächerlich und gerade deshalb herzzerreißend, dass die wirtschaftlcihe Bredullie eines Karfioltrusts der Anfang vom Ende sein kann.
Der Epilog zum Stück, der so leicht zur moralisierenden Holzkeule hätte werden können, ging für mich voll auf, eben weil das ganze davor konsequent ohne Moralisierung oder Sentimantalisierung als Gangster-Story durchgezogen wurde, weil es sprachlich wirklich gut zusammengebaut ist, und letztlich leider auch, weil man nicht umhin kommen kann auch heute, über 70 Jahre später, noch die Relevanz zu sehen:
Ihr aber lernet, wie man sieht statt stiert
Und handelt, statt zu reden noch und noch.
So was hätt einmal fast die Welt regiert!
Die Völker wurden seiner Herr, jedoch
Daß keiner uns zu früh da triumphiert –
Der Schoß ist fruchtbar noch, aus dem das kroch!
Ich beschreibe das alles hier nicht nur, weil ich ohne diese Entwicklung dieses Brecht-Stück vermutlich nie gelesen hätte; und auch nicht nur, um festzustellen, dass sich Der aufhaltsame Aufstieg des Arturo Ui gerade dadurch von den oben genannten Ergüssen unterscheidet, dass es Hitler nicht wie einen Hollywood-Star auf dem Promo-Poster für einem Blockbusterfilm glorreich und aufmerksamkeitsheischend in den Vordergrund rückt, sondern ihn gezielt verfremdet, um ihn (wenn auch vielleicht überzeichnet) menschlich und schmutzig und glorienlos zu machen, wobei das schon näher an die Sache kommt; ich wollte vor allem fogendes sagen: Hitler realistisch zu fiktionalisieren ist fast nicht möglich mit all dem Promi-Schein, dem Horror und der Gewichtigkeit, die ihm anhaftet; die soziale Verantwortung der Literatur im "in Erinnerung behalten" und "nicht vergessen" ist schwierig zu halten, wenn man bedenkt dass sowieso ständig neue Grausamkeiten geschehen und die Menschheit eine beachtliche Vorliebe für die Verdammung der Oberfläche (Hitler und Hakenkreuze) aber dann doch Tolerierung der tiefergehnden Symptomatik (nicht nur Antisemithismus, nicht einmal nur Rassismus oder Faschismus, sondern schlicht und einfach schamlose, rohe, organisierte, rhetorisch aufgewiegelt und gestützte Gewalt) an den Tag legt; als literarische Trope ist Hitler verkitscht und so oft verwendet und verrissen worden, dass er fast schon dem bösen Wolf in Rotkäppchen gleichkommt - warum also überhaupt weitervesuchen und suchen und stirln in diesen Hitlertexten?
Ich glaube Der aufhaltsame Aufstieg des Arturo Ui (obwohl ja sowieso zeitgenössisch geschrieben und somit ohnehin vom Vorwurf der endlosen Iteration befreit) zeigt in gewisser Weise was es bringen kann und wie und warum es versucht worden ist: Hitler wird in dem gesamten Stück kein einziges Mal benannt (zumindest in der Schriftversion, wo die am Ende der Szenen auftauchenden "Schriften", die historische Parallelen zum Auftsieg Hitlers aufzeigen, erst nach dem Haupttext als "Zeittafel" im Anhang angeführt werden), es wird einem die Tragik und Tragweite der Situation nicht wie so oft mit dem Vorschlaghammer eingehämmert, man kann die Satire also komplett ignorieren, und gerade dadurch ist man selber versucht die Implikationen bar zu legen. Wie üblich bei Brecht, sagt er alles geradeheraus, zeigt, deutet nichts an, ist sogar fast schon befremdlich simplistisch und gerade dadurch denkt man nach über die Hintergründe nach. Natürlich ist die Satire (auch wie üblich) mindestens so düster und bedrückend wie zynisch-amüsant, natürlich geht der Wirklichkeitsbezug auch nicht immer perfekt auf (Brecht macht sich zum Beispiel genauso einer indirekten Dämonisierung und also Glorifizierung der rohen Gewalt schudlig indem er den bei weitem nicht unschuldigen, totalitären österreichischen Kanzler Dollfuss durch den aufrichtigen und unbeugsam der Wahrheit verschriebenen Journalisten Dullfeet spielen lässt), aber Brecht ist eben Brecht und selbst in diesem nicht finalisierten und zur Aufführung überarbeiteten Stück zeigt er doch deutlich, wie klein und zufällig diese großen Figuren des Nationalsozialismus doch alle waren und wie groß und platt und vorhersehbar die Geschichte der organiserten Gewalt ist im Vergleich; wie lächerlich und gerade deshalb herzzerreißend, dass die wirtschaftlcihe Bredullie eines Karfioltrusts der Anfang vom Ende sein kann.
Der Epilog zum Stück, der so leicht zur moralisierenden Holzkeule hätte werden können, ging für mich voll auf, eben weil das ganze davor konsequent ohne Moralisierung oder Sentimantalisierung als Gangster-Story durchgezogen wurde, weil es sprachlich wirklich gut zusammengebaut ist, und letztlich leider auch, weil man nicht umhin kommen kann auch heute, über 70 Jahre später, noch die Relevanz zu sehen:
Ihr aber lernet, wie man sieht statt stiert
Und handelt, statt zu reden noch und noch.
So was hätt einmal fast die Welt regiert!
Die Völker wurden seiner Herr, jedoch
Daß keiner uns zu früh da triumphiert –
Der Schoß ist fruchtbar noch, aus dem das kroch!
February 7, 2017
Brecht's comedic look at how Hitler came to rise. Hitler is in the form of Arturo Ui, a man who claims to be "for the people," especially those in the cauliflower trade. Ui does bad things and allows bad things to happen, but people doubt it could be him because he is interested in protecting "The common man."
It is a serious look into what can happen if people don't learn their history.
It is a serious look into what can happen if people don't learn their history.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 148 reviews