Reviewed by:

• Staged: Show Trials, Political Theater, and the Aesthetics of Judgment by Minou Arjomand
• Evleen Nasir

In this timely book, Minou Arjomand braids together philosophical writings, theatrical events, and legal proceedings from the post-Holocaust historical moment to illuminate the lessons of the past and apply them to the present. Calling back to the premiere of Aeschylus’s The Oresteia at the Great Dionysia Festival in 458 BCE, Arjomand sets up the foundational theory of this book: theatre is a space that has the ability to manifest multiple publics, and “trial plays have a particular capacity to reflect on how publics are constituted through the act of judging” (2). It is through judgment, both in the postwar trials and postwar trial plays, that new postwar societies were able to constitute themselves.

The book examines pre– and post–World War II German theatre spanning a time period from about 1918 to 1968 with a focus on postwar theatre. This analysis of postwar theatre and philosophy is delivered in five chapters. Chapters 1 through 3 are each devoted to historical figures, Hannah Arendt, Bertolt Brecht, and Erwin Piscator, respectively. The fourth chapter is an examination of the documentary theatre play Trial in Nuremberg and the conclusion uses Anna Deavere Smith’s 2016 play Notes from the Field: Doing Time in Education to reflect on how new forms of documentary theatre can “stage the relationship between justice and law” (173).

The chapter on Arendt argues that much of the scholarship about Arendt and her work Eichmann in Jerusalem lacks historical contextualization. Therefore, her use of theatre as a philosophical tool can be misunderstood as a rejection of all theatricality when what Arendt is really doing in her writing is “criticizing one mode of dramaturgy while elevating another” (27). Arjomand rectifies this oversight by detailing how theatre is the foundation of Arendt’s conceptions of politics and the public realm. This chapter highlights how Arendt specifically rejected the “Aristotelian dramaturgy of fate, pity, and catharsis” but embraced an epic dramaturgy à la Brecht that is oriented “toward judgement and action” (26). This rejection by Arendt and her contemporaries of the postwar idea that the Holocaust was inevitable underpins the remaining chapters of this book.

In the second chapter on Brecht, Arjomand treads through familiar territory to any theatre or performance scholar. She posits that the model of courtroom [End Page 261] testimony is the base of Brecht’s epic theatre, stating, “In many of his plays Brecht includes trial scenes that emphasize the injustice of courtroom proceedings. Indeed, what is so often put on trial on Brecht’s stage is, first and foremost, the courtroom itself ” (59). This chapter illuminates the historical context behind Brecht’s Moscow Trials essays on formalism in the late 1930s and his appearance before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947 as a way to position Brecht as an artist who rejected the rigidity of the printed word in favor of the flexibility of theatrical interpretation. The bulk of the chapter is a deep dive into the 1954 premiere of The Caucasian Chalk Circle. Here, Arjomand details the rehearsal process, staging, and the program book to show how Brecht made The Caucasian Chalk Circle work to his advantage both politically and aesthetically. Politically, it was a plea to the German Democratic Republic to let artists have artistic freedom so that they can support the GDR’s political party (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands or SED). Aesthetically, it was a call to artists to not be held hostage by text. The final section in this chapter is a defense of the criticism surrounding Brecht’s relationship to the East German regime. Arjomand argues that rather than fall silent, as Arendt accuses Brecht of doing, Brecht spoke through his theatrical work: “If the 1953 uprising registered dissatisfaction with the party-controlled judiciary, Brecht positioned theatre as an institution that could provide another outlet for thinking and judging that would quell dissatisfaction with the regime” (92).

In the third chapter, Brecht takes a back...

审核人：

• 上演：秀场审判，政治舞台和审判的美学，米努·阿约曼德（Minou Arjomand）
• 埃夫琳·纳西尔

在这本及时的书中，Minou Arjomand将大屠杀后历史时刻的哲学著作，戏剧活动和法律诉讼编织在一起，以阐明过去的教训并将其应用于现在。回顾公元前458年埃斯库洛斯（Aeschylus）在大酒神节（The Diorsiasia Festival）上首演的《奥利斯特亚（Oresteia）》时，阿约曼德（Arjomand）建立了这本书的基本理论：剧院是一个能够表现多个公众的能力的空间，而“审判剧具有特殊的能力通过审判的行为反思公众是如何构成的”（2）。通过在战后审判和战后审判中的判断，新的战后社会得以组建自己。

该书研究了1918年至1968年这段时期的第二次世界大战前后的德国剧院，重点是战后剧院。对战后戏剧和哲学的分析共分五章。第1章至第3章分别讨论历史人物，分别是汉娜·阿伦特（Hannah Arendt），贝托特·布雷希特（Bertolt Brecht）和Erwin Piscator。第四章考察了纽伦堡的纪录片戏剧《审判》，结论使用了安娜·迪弗雷·史密斯（Anna Deavere Smith）2016年的戏剧《实地笔记：在教育中做时间》来反思新型纪录片戏剧如何“上演正义与法律之间的关系”。 ”（173）。

关于阿伦特的一章认为，关于阿伦特及其作品艾希曼在耶路撒冷的许多学术研究缺乏历史背景。因此，当阿伦特在写作中真正在做的是“批判一种戏剧方式而另一种提升方式”时，她把戏剧作为一种哲学工具被误解为对所有戏剧的拒绝。（27）。Arjomand通过详细说明剧院是Arendt的政治和公共领域概念的基础来纠正这一监督的。本章重点介绍阿伦特如何特别拒绝“命运，可怜和宣泄的亚里士多德戏剧”，却接受了布莱克特的史诗般的戏剧，即“朝着判断和行动迈进”（26）。阿伦特和她的同时代人对战后认为大屠杀是不可避免的观点的拒绝是本书其余各章的基础。

在关于布雷希特的第二章中，阿霍曼德（Arjomand）穿越熟悉的领地，前往任何戏剧或表演学者。她认为法庭的模式[End Page 261]证词是布雷希特史诗剧院的基础，他说：“布雷希特的许多戏剧都包括强调审判程序不公正的审判场景。确实，在布雷希特的舞台上经常受到审判的，首先是法庭本身”（59）。本章阐明了布莱希特在1930年代末发表的关于形式主义的莫斯科审判论文背后的历史背景，以及他在1947年参加众议院美国非裔美国人活动委员会的活动，以此作为布雷希特作为一位艺术家的一种方式，他拒绝印刷文字的刻板性，而赞成戏剧解释的灵活性。本章的大部分是对1954年“高加索粉笔圈”的首映的深入研究。在这里，Arjomand详细介绍了彩排过程，阶段和程序手册，以展示Brecht的制作方式高加索粉笔圈在政治上和美学上都对他有利。从政治上讲，这是德国民主共和国的一项要求，让艺术家享有艺术自由，以便他们可以支持东德政府的政党（Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands或SED）。从美学上讲，这是在呼吁艺术家不要被文字扣为人质。本章的最后一部分是对围绕布莱希特与东德政权关系的批评的辩护。阿约曼德（Arjomand）辩称，布莱希特（Brecht）不像阿伦特（Arentt）指责布雷希特（Brecht）做的那样保持沉默，而是通过戏剧表演说：“如果1953年的起义对党控制的司法机构表示不满，布雷希特（Brecht）将剧院定位为可以为思想和实践提供另一个渠道的机构。认为这将消除对政权的不满”（92）。

在第三章中，布雷希特退后一步……