The Caucasian Chalk Circle - An Interesting Take on Society’s Problems

The other night, on the 9th of November, 2017, I viewed the play The Caucasian Chalk Circle, written by Bertolt Brecht. It was also translated into English by this man. The play begins with two farming villages, the goat village and the fruit village, debating over who is best fit to have control of the valley. The fruit village has hired a famous Singer and a play to prove their point. The first of five closes with the introduction of the Singer. The rest of the scenes are showing the story that the Singer tells, called The Chalk Circle. This story is about a wealthy family with a baby boy named Michael. When the Governor (baby’s father) is killed, the town is thrown into chaos and the baby is left behind in the wife, Natela’s, haste to flee. She chose to save her dresses over her child. When a kind laundress named Grusha discovers the baby abandoned, she stays with it against her better judgement. Then, she takes it in herself when no one claims it. Over the course of the story, Grusha goes through many trials to keep the child safe. This includes risking her life crossing a bridge, staying at her brother’s house for the winter against his wife’s liking, marrying a “dying” soldier, and facing trial to find out who the child's true mother is. One scene in the play tells the backstory to the judge, Azdak. He gained his seat through sharp wit and cunning. He puts her through trial by Chalk Circle, where he drew a circle of chalk around Michael and had both ‘mothers’ stand on either side of the circle. They each took a hand and whoever pulled the child out of their side of the circle would prove who the child’s true mother was. Both times that they did this, Grusha let the child go rather than risk hurting him. This shows one major theme, which is that although the biological mother typically has the right to keep the child, it is the person that truly raises him that really matters. The play ends with Michael ending up with the mother who raised him.

This play had many interesting choices with stage setup and costume design. One thing I noticed was that between scenes, the lighting would turn dim blue. This was a nice way to let the audience know that time was passing at that something new would be happening soon. Another thing I noticed was the the stage was very versatile. Just by changing the props. Or shifting the position of the platforms that served as houses, the location that the scene was taking place would visibly change. For example, by having soldiers seated on the stained area, it suddenly became the bridge which Grusha ended up crossing. Or by adding a chair in the steps, and moving the right platform forward, the scene became a courtroom. The stage was not the only versatile part of the play. The costumes were also cleverly done. By adding a hat or a coat, the actors became different characters. It was a smart way to utilize a small cast to encompass a large amount of characters. Although everyone’s costumes were similar at their base, the layers added allowed them to constantly change without much wasted effort. The costumes also helped show the similarities and differences between characters. The wealthier or more successful ones wore expensive fur coats and hats, and had a more confident way of walking. Meanwhile, the poorer characters walked more timidly and had simpler clothes. They also typically showed more kindness than the spoilt wealthy characters.

My favorite character in this play was the Singer. I feel that the actor playing the Singer had a very clear voice that allowed the audience to understand the story well. Without the Singer, the rest of the play wouldn’t have happened, since it is framed as the Singer’s telling of the story. The emotion and narration displayed by the character also allowed the other characters to be better understood. One scene that this was done especially well was when the Singer told the audience what each person was thinking when Simon and Grusha finally saw each other after the war, but Grusha was unhappily married. My favorite actor was Samantha Weed, who played Grusha. I feel that she did a very good job of showing the kind, compassionate nature of her character. Her facial expressions and body language showed her emotions clearly. For example, when she had to cross the bridge, Samantha really did well with wobbling as if unsteady, and her face showed the fear that her character was feeling.

Overall, I enjoyed the play very much. It showed an interesting take on real issue in the world with power and the division between wealthy and poor people. It opened the audience’s eyes to the effects of selfishness as compared to compassion. Grusha could have saved herself a lot of pain if she had left the baby, but she didn’t because it was not right. The selfish Nattela could have gotten the baby, but she did not because she did not truly care for it. This play has a very fresh way of showing us our world’s problems.