Samantha Davidson

Response Paper: Brecht, Three Penny Opera (Part II)

 

The Three Penny Opera picks up in Act III with Peachum’s beggars preparing to disrupt the QueenÂ’s coronation.  Jenny and her women arrive to receive their compensation in the arrest of Mac the Knife from Mrs. Peachum, and Brown comes to arrest her husband.  Peachum expertly turns the tables on Brown and insinuates the trouble for Brown should he proceed to arrest all the beggars, so instead, Brown sends his men to find and arrest Mac the Knife.  Elsewhere, Polly visits Lucy and the two discuss their respective relationships with Mac and ultimately realize the man has stood them up and let them down once more when neither knows where he is staying.  Lucy also reveals her pregnancy was all a ruse.  The scene shifts to Mac in his jail cell, shortly before his scheduled execution.  Mac tries bribing an officer in order to escape from jail, orders his last meal, and visits with his two wives, Jenny and her women, and his men Jake and Matthew.  Mac professes his final farewells, and in turn lands on the scaffold.  Then, rather than fulfill MacÂ’s death sentence, to appease the audience, Brecht employs a deux ex machine—a Latin phrase for an unexpected and improbable device to resolve a situation—and saves MacÂ’s life by decree of the Queen.  Mrs. Peachum best conveys the irony of the situation with “So it all turned out nicely in the end.  How nice and easy everything would be if you could always reckon with saviours on horseback” (Brecht 79). 

 

With this act, one continues to witness the class struggle within the play, and the power even beggars can possess over the law.  This becomes apparent through Peachum’s manipulation of Brown into arresting Mac yet again.  This continues to occur in a fantasy-like universe, evident with the ending of the play.  This device again showcases the triumph of the lower class and the power they wield from their friendships.  As part of Brecht’s epic theater, this conclusion helps further his agenda to point out contradictions in society and challenge his viewers.  By utilizing an ironic conclusion contrary to what the viewer believed they would and expected to witness, he forces the viewer to think, consider more of his political themes, and the ending resonates with the viewer longer than one that would have neatly completed the play.  Additionally, the conclusion convinces the audience to terminate any remaining sympathy they may have had for the life of these poor characters.  Mac’s pardon provides a catalyst for this sentiment.

 

The commentary following the play is also of interest in this reading.  Brecht offers additional songs as well as notes pertaining to the proper portrayal of the play.  His objective in composing this opera was to make it exceptional for performance as well as to change the theater out of his mistrust of the norm.  Brecht discusses elements such as comparing Polly to a Bible as a potential aid, and the relationship between Mac and Peachum in relation to crime, society, and Polly.  This insight from the playwright provides a subtext to the play, a resource of much worth to any actor tackling these roles.  Brecht also discusses staging and other key choices he made for his epic theater piece.  From a theatrical perspective, this information has the potential to prove invaluable to a directing and production staff.  When beginning a show, a director, producer, and actors naturally conduct research to assist in their successful presentation of the playwright’s words.  With such in-depth perspective from the playwright, the cast has the opportunity to successfully and accurately portray this innovative example of epic theater and Brecht’s take on bourgeois society. 

 

Questions:

 

What is the importance to having the official who arrives to pardon Mac arrive on a horse?

 

Do you agree with BrechtÂ’s employment of a deux ex machine ending? How do you expect his audience would have reacted to this conclusion?

 

What evidence exists to Brecht’s underlying idea “criminals are bourgeois: are bourgeois criminals?” within the context of the play, especially Act III?

 

Do you feel the final commentary Brecht provides following the conclusion of the play proves helpful to future ensembles tackling this piece or harmful, preventing them from fully conveying their own interpretation?