Brecht After Brecht: The Transformation of Alienation in Charlie Kaufman’s I’m Thinking of Ending Things

“Art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it.”

— Bertolt Brecht

Introduction

This paper examines the ways in which contemporary cinema has adapted and transformed Brechtian aesthetics within a cultural and historical context that differs significantly from that of Bertolt Brecht’s time.

 While Brecht developed techniques such as naivete, alienation, episodic narration, and social gestus to encourage critical reflection on social and class relations, contemporary filmmakers often employ similar strategies within political, economic, and cultural conditions shaped by globalization, digital technologies, consumer capitalism, and increasing forms of individualization. These conditions have altered the relationship between individuals and collective social structures, shifting cultural attention from questions of class and social position toward identity, memory, and subjective experience.

As a result, Brechtian techniques frequently shift from exposing collective social structures toward exploring questions of identity, subjectivity, and psychological experience. Has the question of where we stand within the social structure been replaced by the pursuit of personal fulfillment ?

Figure 1 Charlie Kaufman photographed by Amanda Demme (2015). Source: Vulture.

And to what extent have Brechtian strategies in contemporary cinema shifted from revealing collective social relations to exploring the fragmented experience of the individual subject?

Among contemporary filmmakers, Charlie Kaufman, filmmaker/screenplay writer, offers a particularly revealing case study of this transformation. His films, Often associated with postmodern cinema, surrealist storytelling, and auteur filmmaking,  retain many of the self-reflexive and distancing devices associated with Brechtian aesthetics, yet they frequently redirect these techniques toward the exploration of consciousness, the alter ego ,memory, loneliness, and fractured identity rather than explicit political critique.

Kaufman’s films challenge conventional narrative structures through fragmentation, self-reflexivity. Although his work does not directly pursue Brecht’s political objectives, it frequently employs techniques that create distance or a self-conscious premises between the audience and the narrative, inviting critical engagement rather than passive emotional identification.

He forces the spectator to acknowledge that they are watching a constructed story, sometimes using time wormholes to adapt the nonlinear storytelling rather than a pure illusion.

Identity in postmodernism is often understood as a construct rather than a fixed essence, something performed, negotiated, and continuously reshaped. Kaufman frequently explores the anxieties that emerge from this condition.. In his interviews, he has noted that this comes from a very real, existential anxiety of looking at the world and feeling like you don’t belong, or constantly being told you have to change yourself to earn your place on the planet.

 In Being John Malkovich, for example, he examines the desire to escape one’s own identity and inhabit another person’s reality. This theme reflects a broader concern that appears throughout his work: the feeling of being uncomfortable with oneself and struggling to find a place in the world. In an interview with The Guardian, Kaufman described Being John Malkovich as being “about being unhappy with who you are” and connected this idea to the individual’s search for belonging (Barton, 2009). His films repeatedly return to characters who experience alienation, self-consciousness, and uncertainty about their own identities, presenting the self not as a stable reality but as something fragmented, constructed, and constantly in the process of becoming.

However, unlike classic Brechtian theater—which often distances an audience to force intellectual or political critique—Kaufman uses this distance as a paradox. He separates the audience from the illusion so they can focus on the raw, psychological truth of the character’s pain, creating moving response.

In his words the artist had mentioned that “I do want to play up the artifice because I’m interested in the Brechtian idea of presentation, but I also want an emotional interaction with the audience. It’s very important to me that the characters are recognizable and identifiable — not likable, I don’t care about that, but that there’s something presented that is honest in my mind in terms of human interaction.”(Sternbergh, 2015)

 This paper will explore how Kaufman’s film I’m Thinking of Ending Things can be read through the lens of Brechtian aesthetics and whether its use of alienation represents a continuation, adaptation, or transformation of Brecht’s original project.

Brechtian Aesthetics and Critical Distance

The fundamental concepts of Brechtian aesthetics should be understood not as separate categories but as a dialectical system organized around exposure, interruption, 

and critical distance (Parkan, 2020, p. 35).  Brecht developed dialectical theatre not as a rejection of Aristotelian theatre in its entirety, but as a critique of the effect it produces on the spectator.

In Aristotelian tragedy, the theatrical illusion is constructed to appear as “life itself,” encouraging emotional identification between the spectator and the characters. This process culminates in catharsis, understood by Aristotle in Poetics as the emotional purging or purification experienced through tragedy (Aristotle, 2013, p. 25).

Within this framework, characters tend to be perceived as coherent and self-contained entities, which reinforces emotional absorption and stabilizes interpretation.

Brecht challenges this model by arguing that emotional immersion can lead to passive spectatorship, where critical thought is suspended in favor of affective release. Instead of allowing the audience to lose itself in identification, Brechtian aesthetics seeks to maintain awareness of theatrical construction.

The spectator is continuously reminded that what is being presented is not reality itself, but a representation of social relations.Through the mechanisms of exposure, interruption, and critical distance, Brecht transforms theatre into a site of critical observation rather than emotional consumption. The spectator is positioned not as a passive receiver of experience, but as an active observer capable of analyzing and questioning what is shown.

Charlie Kaufman’s I’m Thinking of Ending Things destabilizes narrative continuity through shifting temporal and subjective frames, where identity is not presented as stable but continuously rewritten through processes of memory, perception, and narrative contradiction. The film constructs experience not as a coherent sequence of events, but as a layered structure in which meaning is constantly revised through discontinuity.

Figure 2. Poster for Charlie Kaufman’s I’m Thinking of Ending Things (2020).

Short introduction to the movie plot

Charlie Kaufman’s I’m Thinking of Ending Things follows a young woman who travels with her boyfriend Jake to visit his parents during a winter evening. As the narrative unfolds, identities shift, memories contradict one another, time becomes unstable, and the distinction between reality, imagination, and recollection gradually collapses. Rather than presenting a coherent sequence of events, the film constructs a fragmented subjective experience that constantly challenges the spectator’s perception of what is real.

This formal instability recalls Brechtian strategies of interruption and exposure(Naivete, Episodic Narrative, Gestus, Alienation) yet its function is oriented toward the fragmentation of subjective experience itself.

Naivete

Naivete, in Brechtian theory, lays the foundation of his aesthetic approach. It refers to an attitude that presents social reality in a way that exposes its hidden contradictions. It involves questioning what appears natural, obvious, or already explained by common sense and everyday perception, and instead treating it as unresolved, unfamiliar, or even alien. In this mode of perception, the viewer discards prior assumptions and observes the event as something not fully explained or self-evident.

While Brecht employs naivete to reveal the hidden contradictions of social reality, Kaufman redirects this attitude toward the instability of subjective perception.

Kaufman repeatedly places the spectator in a position of uncertainty, where familiar narrative conventions cannot be trusted. The changing names of the female protagonist, who is alternatively referred to as Lucy, Louisa, Lucia, and other identities, prevent the audience from accepting character identity as fixed or self-evident. Similarly, the film blurs the boundary between imagination and reality through surreal moments such as the talking billboard, the animated pig, and the recurring visual motifs that reappear across different temporal layers of the narrative. Rather than providing explanations, Kaufman encourages the viewer to approach these events with the same questioning attitude that Brecht associated with naivete, treating what appears familiar as strange and unresolved.

Episodic Narrative

In Brechtian aesthetics, episodic narrative refers to a structure in which scenes appear relatively independent from one another, each functioning as a self-contained unit rather than a continuous flow. Each sequence becomes an argument that invites reflection rather than emotional absorption. Instead of focusing on what happens next, the viewer is encouraged to question why a particular scene appears at a specific moment. Rather than following a linear progression from beginning to climax and catharsis, traditional in classical cinema, the structure shifts toward a nonlinear arrangement in which events do not follow clear causal continuity and require the viewer to actively interpret and construct meaning.

Although Kaufman’s narrative structure resembles Brecht’s episodic organization, its discontinuities do not primarily expose social processes but the fragmented logic of consciousness itself.

The narrative structure of I’m Thinking of Ending Things frequently abandons conventional causality in favor of a fragmented and episodic arrangement. Scenes often function as independent reflections, connected less by plot progression than by association, memory, and psychological states. For instance the ice cream booth sequence functions as a self-contained moment that interrupts narrative continuity and resists integration into a clear causal chain. 

The conversation between Jake and Lucy unfolds with a sense of temporal suspension, as if the scene exists slightly outside the logic of the surrounding journey. What appears at first to be a simple stop becomes structurally significant because it offers no clear narrative consequence, only an extended moment of awkward exchange, foreign atmosphere and emotional hesitation. 

The spectator is continually encouraged to question why a particular conversation, memory, or image appears when it does. The transitions between the farmhouse, the car journey, the school, the ballet sequence, and the final theatrical performance do not follow a straightforward narrative logic but require active interpretation. As a result, the viewer’s attention shifts from anticipating future events to analyzing the meaning of the events already presented.

In this way, the scene operates less as progression and more as a fragment of experience that asks the viewer to register meaning without expecting resolution.

Gestus

Gestus refers to the social meaning expressed through behavior, posture, speech, and interaction. Brecht’s aim was for the audience to perceive social relations such as class, power, labor, and domination through bodily actions and gestures rather than psychological interiority alone. Through this process, the viewer becomes aware that what is being observed is constructed performance rather than an unmediated reality, and the character is understood as a representation shaped by social conditions rather than a purely natural individual.

Kaufman preserves Brecht’s emphasis on behavior as a producer of meaning, yet the social dimension of Gestus is transformed into an expression of psychological and existential conditions. His use of gestus in bodily performance remains central to the film’s construction of meaning. The awkward pauses, repetitive conversations, shifting personalities, and uncomfortable interactions between characters reveal internal psychological conditions through external behavior. 

The spectator often becomes aware of the performative nature of the characters themselves, particularly as identities begin to change and contradict one another. Rather than exposing class relations, these performances expose instability, loneliness, aging, and the fragmented nature of memory.

Alienation

In Brechtian theory functions as a technique that creates distance between the viewer and the event being represented. Its purpose is not emotional immersion but reflective awareness, opening a space in which the viewer can question and analyze behaviors, actions, and situations rather than passively absorbing them.

Alienation represents the point at which Kaufman’s appropriation of Brecht becomes most visible, though the purpose of the technique undergoes a significant transformation.

Kaufman employs numerous techniques that prevent complete immersion in the narrative illusion. The voice-over narration frequently transforms the story into a reflection of interior consciousness rather than an objective reality. On several occasions, thoughts and spoken dialogue overlap, while certain scenes allow characters to seemingly hear private thoughts merge in the dialogue. The film also disrupts audiovisual continuity when dialogue temporarily disappears despite visible lip movement, drawing attention to the constructed nature of cinematic representation. Through montage techniques that modern viewers have become so accustomed to that they now feel natural, he extends the same principle into the audio layer, using sound to reinforce fragmentation and disruption.

In addition, characters frequently stare directly toward the camera, creating an unsettling awareness of spectatorship and preventing the viewer from becoming entirely comfortable within the fictional world. These techniques generate distance similar to Brechtian alienation, yet their purpose is not primarily social critique. Instead, they immerse the spectator in the instability of subjective experience, forcing them to confront the uncertainty of perception itself.

Conclusion

This analysis has shown that Charlie Kaufman’s I’m Thinking of Ending Things employs several key elements associated with Brechtian aesthetics, including naivete, episodic narrative, gestus, and alienation. Yet the film does not simply reproduce Brecht’s original project. Rather, it transforms these techniques in response to a cultural context in which questions of identity, memory, and subjective experience increasingly occupy the space once dominated by concerns of class and collective social relations.

Through unstable identities, fragmented narrative structures, performative behavior, and persistent disruptions of cinematic illusion, Kaufman encourages a mode of spectatorship that remains analytical and self-conscious. However, the object of that analysis differs significantly from Brecht’s. Instead of exposing social contradictions and material relations, the film directs critical attention toward the instability of perception, the construction of memory, and the fragmentation of the self.

The film therefore demonstrates how Brechtian strategies continue to operate within contemporary cinema while undergoing a significant shift in purpose. The distancing effects that once revealed the social production of reality are redirected toward revealing the constructed nature of subjective experience. In this sense, Kaufman neither rejects nor fully continues Brecht’s project; he adapts it to a historical moment shaped by individualization and psychological self-reflection.

The case of I’m Thinking of Ending Things suggests that contemporary cinema has not abandoned Brechtian aesthetics but has reconfigured them. The question of where the individual stands within a social structure has increasingly been displaced by questions of who the individual is, how identity is formed, and how reality is experienced. Kaufman’s film illustrates this transformation, showing how techniques originally designed to make social relations visible can be repurposed to explore the uncertainties and contradictions of contemporary subjectivity.

Sources

• Sternbergh, Adam. “In Conversation: Charlie Kaufman.” Vulture, 16 Aralık 2015, vulture.com⁠

• Parkan, Mutlu. Brecht Estetiği ve Sinema. İstanbul: Hayalperest Yayınevi, 2020.

• Aristotle. Poetics. Translated by Anthony Kenny. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

• Barton, L. (2009, April 17). It’s just a big mess inside my head. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/apr/18/charlie-kaufman-interview

• Riley, J. (2020, August 31). Can Charlie Kaufman get out of his head? The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/can-charlie-kaufman-get-out-of-his-head

• Koresky, M. (2020, August 31). I’m Thinking of Ending Things review: Charlie Kaufman’s relationship horror. Sight and Sound, British Film Institute. https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/reviews/im-thinking-ending-things-review-charlie-kaufman-jessie-buckley-relationship-horror⁠

• Ebert, C. (2020, September 4). I’m Thinking of Ending Things movie review (2020). RogerEbert.com. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/im-thinking-of-ending-things-movie-review-2020⁠

• Diaz, R. (2024, July 14). I’m Thinking of Ending Things ending explained. Collider. https://collider.com/im-thinking-of-ending-things-ending-explained/⁠

• Reddit user. (2021, May 21). I’m Thinking of Ending Things (2020): The tragedy of self-consciousness [Online forum post]. Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/nhytfn/im_thinking_of_ending_things_2020_the_tragedy/⁠