Mamdouh Adwan's theatre "The Trial of the Man Who Did Not Fight" is considered one of the most prominent theatrical works reflecting the social and political tensions in the Arab world. This study aims to analyze how Mamdouh Adwan employs epic theatre elements, based on Bertolt's theory, to embody these tensions on stage. This reflects the reality of Arab society and its intertwined issues. It also analyzes the main characters and their developments to demonstrate the reflection of social and political conflicts in the theatrical work. The study relied on a critical analytical approach. The study's findings reveal that the theatre prominently reflects social and political tensions through the development of the characters and conflicts. The theatre begins with a side conversation when the chamberlain addresses the audience. The dialogue is short and to the point, such as this dialogue between Abdullah and Abu Salim. The most important external conflict encountered in the theatre is the conflict between the public prosecutor and the defense attorney, which triggers the conflict that follows it, each conflict being stronger and more intense than the one that preceded it. The theatre consists of two acts. In the first act, it presents the threads of the crisis, namely the trial of the man who did not fight. We are introduced to the characters and the relationships between them. We also get to know all the characters in it, such as Abu Shukr, the public prosecutor, the judge, and the defense attorney, and understand their intention to be present in court. In the second act, the conflict escalates until it reaches its peak when the public prosecutor accuses Abu Shukr of lacking any human feelings. Adwan begins to alienate the title by introducing the apparent contradiction between the words "trial" and "did not fight," meaning that the act was not committed, which raises questions in the reader. Adwan manipulates the name of the play's most frequently recurring character, Abu al-Shakr, who symbolizes the Arab people, and uses historical manipulation against him, mockingly calling him "Adnani" once and "Ghassani" another time.
 
Keywords: the Syrian theatre, epic theatre, Bertolt Brecht, Mamdouh Adwan, the theatre “The Trial of the Man Who Did Not Fight.
 
Extended summary

Introduction

The play "The Trial of the Man Who Did Not Fight" by Mamdouh Adwan is an epic theater work inspired by historical events, such as the Tatar invasion, with symbolic projections onto the contemporary Arab reality. It centers on Abu al-Shukr, an ordinary citizen tried for not resisting the enemy. The play highlights psychological and social conflicts between national duty and familial responsibilities, emphasizing contradictions in power and justice. Adwan employs Brechtian alienation techniques to encourage critical thinking among the audience, exposing the oppressive nature of the court representing authority. The use of classical Arabic reinforces the historical tone, while Baghdad symbolizes afflicted Arab capitals. Through dialogues between characters like Abu al-Shukr, the bailiff, and the judge, the play addresses issues of justice, class struggle, and identity. It aims to raise questions about individual responsibility toward society and authority, serving as a mirror to Arab challenges. The work invites the audience to reflect on the complexities of moral and social obligations in times of crisis, making it a powerful commentary on both historical and modern contexts.

Materials and Methods

The play "The Trial of the Man Who Did Not Fight" adopts the epic theater approach, utilizing Brechtian alienation to emotionally distance the audience and stimulate critical reflection. Mamdouh Adwan employs side dialogues, starting with the bailiff addressing the audience, to break the barrier between stage and viewer. Classical Arabic enhances the historical context, while events symbolize contemporary issues. The characters are symbolic: Abu al-Shukr represents the people, and the judge embodies corrupt authority. Historical events, like the Tatar invasion, form the dramatic framework, with invented events, such as the trial, reinforcing the message. Dialogues between characters, such as the public prosecutor and defense attorney, highlight social and moral contradictions. The use of theater-within-theater, as seen in the wheat monopolization scene, deepens the dramatic impact. The play’s scenes are designed to connect events sequentially, with each event leading to the next, reflecting the causal relationship between war, monopolization, and the trial. This structure underscores social injustice, using dialogue and staging to expose power dynamics and engage the audience in questioning societal structures and individual roles within them.

Research Findings

The play "The Trial of the Man Who Did Not Fight" reveals deep psychological and social conflicts. Abu al-Shukr, the protagonist, grapples with an internal struggle between his patriotic duty and his desire to protect his family. This conflict is evident when he receives weapons but lacks the knowledge to use them, reflecting hesitation and unpreparedness. Dialogues expose the contradictions of authority, as the judge pretends to uphold justice but issues a predetermined verdict, highlighting systemic corruption. Contradictory witness testimonies obscure Abu al-Shukr’s case, prompting the audience to seek the truth. The play portrays a power struggle between authority and the people, with the court representing oppression and Abu al-Shukr symbolizing the oppressed citizen. Alienation techniques encourage the audience to question justice and Arab identity. Baghdad, depicted as a symbol of afflicted Arab capitals, links historical events to contemporary realities, enhancing the play’s relevance. The findings underscore the tension between individual intentions and capabilities, exposing societal injustices and the complexities of moral responsibility in times of crisis, making the play a profound critique of power dynamics.

Discussion of Results and Conclusion

The play "The Trial of the Man Who Did Not Fight" demonstrates Mamdouh Adwan’s use of epic theater to analyze psychological and social conflicts, focusing on contradictions in power and justice. Abu al-Shukr’s internal struggle between national duty and familial emotion reflects individual suffering amid crises. The use of alienation, through side dialogues and classical Arabic, encourages critical thinking over emotional engagement. The judge’s hypocrisy, claiming morality while acting corruptly, exposes the facade of authority. Baghdad’s symbolism as a devastated Arab capital connects history to the present, making the play a mirror for contemporary Arab issues. Dialogues between characters, like the bailiff and Abu al-Shukr, highlight class struggles and social injustice. In conclusion, Adwan successfully presents a work that prompts reflection on justice, identity, and individual responsibility toward society. By employing simple yet powerful language and alienation techniques, the play challenges conventional drama, engaging the audience in critical analysis of reality. It serves as an effective tool for critiquing societal issues and inspiring social change, reinforcing its relevance as a commentary on both historical and modern challenges.