Empathy?

In his essay Aristotle’s Coercive System of Tragedy, theater practitioner Augusto Boal describes the way in which the structure of Greek tragedy with its elements as defined by Aristotle. He describes how the system created by applying the Aristotelian structure of a tragedy, which involves a character that possesses both a certain amount of social ethos (so that one may relate to them) and hamartia – a “tragic flaw.” The character then undergoes peripeteia, a “reversal of fortune” where the character’s situation changes for the worse. Then there is anagnorisis, a “recognition” the character undergoes where they realize the reality of their situation. There is then an inevitable catastrophe that takes place, which causes the audience to experience catharsis. The idea Boal describes is that of a plot structure where the audience identifies with the main character, being seeing themselves in it. Boal states in his conclusion that when seeing a “Western” film, “[The villain] does all the evil he possibly can, and we empathize with him and vicariously we do the same evil,” while relating “Western” films (through the perspective of the villain) to the Aristotelian structure of tragedy. He also mentions that “‘Westerns,’ like children’s games, serve the Aristotelian purpose of purging all the spectator’s aggressive tendencies.” Which demonstrates that his understanding that through the feeling of sympathy towards the “tragic hero” we are “purged” (catharsis) of our immoral desires, because we see ourselves in the catastrophe.

In his conclusion, Boal also makes a point of saying that Aristotle’s “coercive system of tragedy” can never be used during a social revolution. He states this because during a revolution there is no clearly defined social ethos that the audience can identify with and thus it is not as effective in this situation.

Empathy can to a great extent be used to make a performance more engaging and more impactful. For instance, Anton Chekhov’s Uncle Vanya is a play which relies foremost on the audience feeling empathy for the characters in the story. Louis Malle’s film of André Gregory’s production of this play is an interesting example of techniques used to increase the level of empathy felt by the audience. The production itself has a generally realistic performance style: the movement of the actors are naturalistic, and the costumes are realistic (according to a contemporary era). This allows the audience to empathize more easily with the, as they would be more capable of seeing themselves in the situation of the characters, since it is portrayed in a realistic way. The film makes it easier to empathize by allowing us to observe the detail in the actors’ expression. While the typical un-naturalistic change of viewpoint of film may make the experience less realistic, the closeness to the actors’ faces allows an immersion into the scene which would not be possible if the audience was simply sitting in front of the performance like in a typical proscenium arch stage.

However, the production also has various elements that make it more difficult to empathize with the production. In the production, any element of comedy in the script was enhanced to the point that the performance felt like a tragicomedy. The comedy detracted from the seriousness of the performance, but did not do so in the same way that comic relief does, where it “refreshes” the audience’s mind in order to make it easier for them to be involved in the more dramatic parts. The comedy in the production felt out of place, since uncle Vanya and Aastrov were the only ones who seemed to carry it out, and the rest of the characters did not react so positively to it. In the film, the performance space and the cut between acts was also a problem when it came to empathizing. In the live performance, it is possible that the setting – the run-down theater in 42^nd street – could have given a sensation of nostalgia to the audience, thus priming them to feel more emphatic towards the performance. Through the film this is not the case, as it is much more difficult to grasp that “atmosphere of nostalgia” that would be perceived in real life, where one is completely surrounded by the theater. Between every act in the film, there was an explanation from the director to a woman, explaining that between each act there is a time lapse. Through these explanations the audience gets a sense of this time lapse, but they are far too short for this purpose, and at times simply seem to be intruding the performance itself. They take the audience out of the narrative, which makes it difficult to get back into the narrative and empathize with the characters.