Peter Brook Biographical Info
"Peter Brook was born in 1925, the younger son of two Russian scientists who came to Britain in 1914 as refugees, and set up a successful pharmaceuticals company, whose bestselling product was a laxative called ‘Brooklax’. Peter’s older brother became a psychiatrist.
Through his childhood Brook had a serious interest in making films. He went to Magdalen College, Oxford where he read English and Modern Languages. When he failed to join the University Dramatic Society, he set about reviving the Film Society.
He made his first film on a budget of £250, using redundant sets and some fledgling actors from among his friends and classmates – an early indication of his confidence and his ability to attract casts and funding.
Brook’s first job after graduation was as a writer/director with the Crown Film Unit. Although theatre directing was his second career choice, he was soon employed and early classical productions at the Birmingham Repertory Theatre were followed by Shakespeare in London and Stratford.
At an unusually early age he also tackled opera. Seeing the flaws in the traditional, star-based, static way of producing opera, he revolutionised the approach by attaching as much importance to the staging, acting and overall performance concept as to the singing. This did not go down well and, after one particularly scandalous production of Salome, he parted company with the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, where he was Director of Productions from 1947 to 1950.
Brook continued to work successfully in the commerical theatre in London, Europe and the United States. His productions were always noteworthy for their staging and for his holistic approach. They were also avant garde, startlingly unusual and contained a touch of genius. The vocal work and clarity of communication of the text always evoked comment.
In 1962 he returned to Stratford to join the newly formed Royal Shakespeare Company. In 1968, when he wrote The Empty Space, Brook’s focus shifted. He persuaded the RSC to fund the Theatre of Cruelty season, based on the theories of the playwright, actor and manic depressive Antonin Artaud. Twelve actors were paid to experiment. There was no agenda and no performance deadlines. The ‘cruelty’ lay in the discipline of the work.
Since the 1970s most of Brook’s work has been with the Paris-based Centre for Theatre Research. He set up in a derelict theatre (deliberately doing little to improve conditions) and had no difficulty in attracting actors and funding. He travelled widely with the company in Africa and Asia to source and perform experimentally with audiences who had no understanding of western culture.
Brook is firmly in the camp of Interculturalism. He has always thought that there should be a form of theatre that is not language-based, that transcends cultures and is understood by everyone. It works with plays translated from their original languages, for example in French, and he claims that Shakespeare works well in German. In other words, language is not to be seen as a barrier.
In his theatre, Brook is searching for a truth that is holy, metaphysical and universal. His aim is to create for today what he believes Shakespeare achieved in his day. He dissects mercilessly and removes layer after layer of unnecessary theatricality until the play is allowed to speak for itself – it has its own voice, inherent energy and dynamic.
He achieves this by working with actors experimentally. He works from a physical starting point. There is a tremendous amount of research and observation. Using body movements, gesture, rhythm, sounds, chants, etc., he pieces the production together until an ensemble of sound, movement and visuals has been created. His productions are seamless, the acting synthesised, all the characters part of a complete picture. He aims to scorch the meaning of the play through symbol, gesture, sound and image. It will often be assimilated unconsciously and the audience has to have a metaphysical experience; they must go to a ‘holy place’ with the actors, where every theatrical moment has to be worthy.
Brook has always given critics a field day. He claims to do no directorial homework before starting on a new production – it would be unnecessary as, under his experimental hands, and through the work of the actors, the ‘true’ play will emerge. He will admit to having a ‘formless hunch’, often a symbol or motif that stimulates ideas for set and design.
Critics are divided about whether Brook is a theatrical genius or simply a very skilled imitator. He has certainly ‘borrowed’ from several influences throughout his career, and has been commercially very successful. His interest in theatrical expression of interculturalism and performance come under particular attack. Are these true intellectual exercises or shoddy commercialism in poor taste? To be fair to Brook, he has made it possible for actors from different cultural backgrounds to obtain work. By employing them in his own productions, he created a precedent and made a statement about equality that is now the norm. Though still seen as controversial Brook has increasingly won establishment recognition."
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/peter_brook_tcm4-121234.pdf
Notes from videos
Also check out this site for more info.
"Peter Brook was born in 1925, the younger son of two Russian scientists who came to Britain in 1914 as refugees, and set up a successful pharmaceuticals company, whose bestselling product was a laxative called ‘Brooklax’. Peter’s older brother became a psychiatrist.
Through his childhood Brook had a serious interest in making films. He went to Magdalen College, Oxford where he read English and Modern Languages. When he failed to join the University Dramatic Society, he set about reviving the Film Society.
He made his first film on a budget of £250, using redundant sets and some fledgling actors from among his friends and classmates – an early indication of his confidence and his ability to attract casts and funding.
Brook’s first job after graduation was as a writer/director with the Crown Film Unit. Although theatre directing was his second career choice, he was soon employed and early classical productions at the Birmingham Repertory Theatre were followed by Shakespeare in London and Stratford.
At an unusually early age he also tackled opera. Seeing the flaws in the traditional, star-based, static way of producing opera, he revolutionised the approach by attaching as much importance to the staging, acting and overall performance concept as to the singing. This did not go down well and, after one particularly scandalous production of Salome, he parted company with the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, where he was Director of Productions from 1947 to 1950.
Brook continued to work successfully in the commerical theatre in London, Europe and the United States. His productions were always noteworthy for their staging and for his holistic approach. They were also avant garde, startlingly unusual and contained a touch of genius. The vocal work and clarity of communication of the text always evoked comment.
In 1962 he returned to Stratford to join the newly formed Royal Shakespeare Company. In 1968, when he wrote The Empty Space, Brook’s focus shifted. He persuaded the RSC to fund the Theatre of Cruelty season, based on the theories of the playwright, actor and manic depressive Antonin Artaud. Twelve actors were paid to experiment. There was no agenda and no performance deadlines. The ‘cruelty’ lay in the discipline of the work.
Since the 1970s most of Brook’s work has been with the Paris-based Centre for Theatre Research. He set up in a derelict theatre (deliberately doing little to improve conditions) and had no difficulty in attracting actors and funding. He travelled widely with the company in Africa and Asia to source and perform experimentally with audiences who had no understanding of western culture.
Brook is firmly in the camp of Interculturalism. He has always thought that there should be a form of theatre that is not language-based, that transcends cultures and is understood by everyone. It works with plays translated from their original languages, for example in French, and he claims that Shakespeare works well in German. In other words, language is not to be seen as a barrier.
In his theatre, Brook is searching for a truth that is holy, metaphysical and universal. His aim is to create for today what he believes Shakespeare achieved in his day. He dissects mercilessly and removes layer after layer of unnecessary theatricality until the play is allowed to speak for itself – it has its own voice, inherent energy and dynamic.
He achieves this by working with actors experimentally. He works from a physical starting point. There is a tremendous amount of research and observation. Using body movements, gesture, rhythm, sounds, chants, etc., he pieces the production together until an ensemble of sound, movement and visuals has been created. His productions are seamless, the acting synthesised, all the characters part of a complete picture. He aims to scorch the meaning of the play through symbol, gesture, sound and image. It will often be assimilated unconsciously and the audience has to have a metaphysical experience; they must go to a ‘holy place’ with the actors, where every theatrical moment has to be worthy.
Brook has always given critics a field day. He claims to do no directorial homework before starting on a new production – it would be unnecessary as, under his experimental hands, and through the work of the actors, the ‘true’ play will emerge. He will admit to having a ‘formless hunch’, often a symbol or motif that stimulates ideas for set and design.
Critics are divided about whether Brook is a theatrical genius or simply a very skilled imitator. He has certainly ‘borrowed’ from several influences throughout his career, and has been commercially very successful. His interest in theatrical expression of interculturalism and performance come under particular attack. Are these true intellectual exercises or shoddy commercialism in poor taste? To be fair to Brook, he has made it possible for actors from different cultural backgrounds to obtain work. By employing them in his own productions, he created a precedent and made a statement about equality that is now the norm. Though still seen as controversial Brook has increasingly won establishment recognition."
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/Images/peter_brook_tcm4-121234.pdf
Notes from videos
- Wants to create powerful images, dynamic pictures on stage – does not want an audience to sleep.
- Beautiful theatre vs making something banal unusual. Brook wants to use the banal in new and excting ways.
- Experiences must be contemporary – even the classics
- Likes to work with an international cast – an audience is opened up by seeing all people on stage, seeing their own culture represented. Difference is beautiful
- Used Theatre of Cruelty – cruelty is not violence but the cruelty it takes for an actor to completely strip away their masks to show the audience the truth.
- Every tiny movement counts in theatre.
- Minimalism and simplicity is now his style – but it took years of experimentation with the full stage business to come to this. Directors must now discover their own style.
- A single human being is richer than the greatest stage effects.
Also check out this site for more info.