Brecht vs. O’Casey, or Brecht & O’Casey?

Abstract

Brecht and O’Casey have always seemed to represent extreme poles of mutually exclusive intellectual positions and theatrical methods. The one or two remarks made by each of them referring to the other’s work are not at all appreciative.¹ This appears strange since both shared basic convictions on the dramatist’s commitment towards revolutionary change in society. Modified by their own social, cultural and national traditions, both grew to maturity under the same conditions of the impact of the October Revolution in Russia, the world economic crisis, the fight against fascism, World War II, the pernicious effect of the Cold War, and the fate of the exile. At the end of his career, Brecht even came to share O’Casey’s lifelong problem of the divided country, with the important difference that in the German Democratic Republic he could not only found his own theatre and company, but also a political home and the prospect of an alternative society. The apparent disregard of the other one’s work is the more surprising as both held and implemented the same view that there should be no split between the artist and the revolutionary, and that theatre had a political function, even though they had divergent opinions as to the ramifications of that function. Moreover, the work of both Brecht and O’Casey was a continuous and persistent practical and theoretical struggle against, or discussion of, contemporary dramatic concepts, which is widely reflected in their letters, note books and criticism.