ed the challenge of presenting such an elaborate play within the margins of a stage. Brook could have chosen, as many directors converting plays and musicals into film versions have done before, to expand on the setting in which the action was taking place. Yet while viewing the film, we notice that there are few aerial shots of the asylum and its surroundings, no long tracking shots of the halls or cells, no added characters, dialogue, or action taking place anywhere outside of the main performance. Brook has decided, instead, to remain true to both the original text and to the stage production of the play within the film, something which, if not done correctly, may have caused the viewers attention and involvement in the events transpiring to suffer. But Brook manages to follow through without sacrificing the least bit of interest in the proceedings or the characters. Though a question is raised as to Brook’s purpose behind confining such a large cast and amount of action to such a small area for performance without making use of the creative benefits that film offers, such as bird’s-eye views or tracking shots, the answer is within the question itself: Brook purposely confined the play to just one room of the asylum, as scripted and performed on stage, while creating a film version as yet another way to emotionally involve the viewer in something that, for all intents and purposes, they were completely disconnected from. He wanted those watching the film to feel as trapped within the walls of the asylum as the inmates themselves, to feel the claustrophobic and threatening atmosphere that such a performance would merit to anyone present. When Marat/Sade was produced on stage, the audience in the theater served a greater purpose than just simply viewing the play; they were incorporated into it, at first unknowingly, playing the roles of the aristocrats who would come to the Asylum of Charenton to be entertained by de...
