STYLETASTERS 1 : Stanislavski, Artaud, Grotowski
| Contents: | Page: |
| INTRODUCTION | 4 |
| STANISLAVSKI | |
| CAUSES AND EFFECTS | 6 |
| THE THEORIES WHICH LEAD TO THE SYSTEM | 9 |
| THE THEORIES EXPLORED THROUGH PRACTICE | 14 |
| IMAGINATION | 14 |
| BELIEF | 16 |
| MAGIC IF AND GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES WITH IMAGINATION | 17 |
| CONCENTRATION AND RELAXATION | 20 |
| TECHNICAL CONTROL OF BOTH BODY AND VOICE | 22 |
| COMMUNICATION | 24 |
| THE APPROACH TO A ROLE IN A TEXT: A FINAL PROJECT | 25 |
| ARTAUD | |
| CAUSES AND EFFECTS | 30 |
| THE THEORIES | 33 |
| THE THEORIES EXPLORED THROUGH PRACTICE | 38 |
| BEING CRUEL TO ONESELF | 38 |
| LARGER THAN LIFE | 40 |
| RHYTHM AND RITUAL | 42 |
| BREATHING | 43 |
| THE PROBLEM WITH LANGUAGE AND WESTERN THEATRE | 44 |
| FINDING A CONCRETE LANGUAGE OF SYMBOLS | 46 |
| THE AUDIENCE: THEATRE AS LIFE | 49 |
| THE AUDIENCE 2: TOWARDS TOTAL THEATRE | 51 |
| ARTAUD'S TREATMENT OF TEXT: A FINAL PROJECT | 53 |
| GROTOWSKI | |
| CAUSES AND EFFECTS | 55 |
| THE THEORIES | 58 |
| THE THEORIES EXPLORED THROUGH PRACTICE | 66 |
| STRIPPING AWAY THE MASKS | 66 |
| THE HYPER-SENSITIVE STATE - WORKING AS A TEAM | 69 |
| CORPOREAL EXERCISES | 70 |
| PLASTIQUE EXERCISES | 72 |
| VOCAL WORK | 73 |
| EXPLORING DIALECTICS | 74 |
| USING THE BODY TO CREATE THE ENVIRONMENT OF POOR THEATRE | 77 |
| APPROACHING A TEXT: A FINAL PROJECT | 79 |
Introduction
With an awareness that some syllabuses require less detailed knowledge of practitioners but rather an understanding of different styles in more general terms, this series is designed to serve that purpose. The emphasis, as in all my work on practitioners, is on understanding the work through practice. Once again, theories are dearly explained in terms that any student can understand and each theory is then explored and tested through practical exercises. The practical work helps fix the understanding of the theory.
The work of Artaud and of Grotowski are in some ways very similar but you may find the grouping of these two with Stanislavski an odd choice. In my view, though, any practitioner can be bracketed with Stanislavski, even if their end-styles are completely dissimilar because, consciously or unconsciously, every twentieth century practitioner's starting point is Stanislavski. No one before Stanislavski had investigated and identified the art and technique of acting in such a complete way so that no practitioner after him can be unaware of his findings and theories. He is thus a starting point for all the practitioners, who often use him as a platform either from which to spring out or against which to react.
The main link I see between the three practitioners introduced in this handbook is that all three are concerned with the inner state of the actor. The theatrical effect of the end-result springing from this central concern is very different in each case but nonetheless these three practitioners are interested in the actor's personal journey whilst most other practitioners are more concerned with the medium of theatre and its role in society or of the theatrical result of which the actor is merely a part.
The format of the book is as follows:
- Such biographical details as help with an understanding of the practitioner are given and followed by a clear exposition as to how those details help explain the theories.
- The essential theories of each practitioner are clearly explained. These are easily photocopiable should you want students to have a copy in front of them.
- Each theory is then explored with one or two excercises. Students should be encouraged to try the theories through practical work in an enquiring manner, seeking to understand the reasons for the practitioner's emphasis on such and such a theory, but not being afraid to find the limitations of a theory either.
- A final project is set in which the students are expected to explore the practitioner as fully and as 'truthfully' as possible.
The work on each of these practitioners should take between four and six weeks. This is sufficient for an informed tester but may not have enough detail for an 'A' level in-depth essay on that practitioner alone; it would be sufficient, though, for comparisons between practitioners and the work throughout invites this approach.
Note: should you want to cover a particular practitioner in more depth there are Study Programmes on Stanislavski, Brecht and Artaud where all the theories are very thoroughly explained and explored through a wealth of practical exercises. The work in each of these Study Programmes is sufficient for one term's exploration of that practitioner. The Study Programmes apply the theories in each case to a variety of texts, something which this series can do no more than suggest.
Two samples from the Stanislavski section
1. STANISLAVSKI [1863 - 1938]: CAUSES AND EFFECTS
There are many biographies of Stanislavski in existence and many text-books too that give excellent resumes of his life, influences and the progression of his ideas. In the present context, I believe that this just confuses students who then do not know how to pick and choose amongst the material for those facts that are relevant to them when answering essay questions in an examination. I propose only to put down those facts that tell us something important about Stanislavski as a practitioner.
1. He had a passion for the theatre from his earliest years. Born into a privileged family, he put on amateur theatricals from an early age. All his own acting experience until he was into his twenties was in the amateur theatre.
These facts tell us:
- a] He had to start from scratch exploring the art and techniques of theatre. Having no professional training [and at first little skill but a tendency to 'ham] he started from the most basic 'what's and 'how's and 'why's of the actor's craft. His passion and youthful lack of skill were the two vital ingredients to carry him through a prolonged period of trial and error to come up with a detailed analysis of the problems actors face and, eventually, ideas on how to tackle those problems - problems with which, because of his own early ineptitude he himself had had to grapple and through which he had had to work.
- b] The fact that his family was wealthy gave him both the financial backing for a life devoted to such an expensive 'hobby' - which it was at first - and the social status to allow him to meet influential backers and theatre 'buffs' of all kinds, vital to the trial and development of his ideas.
2. The theatre of his time was a mixture of the broad over-the-top gestures of those one-dimensional characters suitable for melodrama and the early 'realism' of playwrights like Gogol as explored by actors like Shchepkin, who believed in finding the source for his characterisations by studying life itself. There was no actor training as such; actors were adopted into a company and served apprenticeships where they observed older actors and their techniques. This, of course, encouraged a perpetuation of the same style of acting; few young actors would dare risk being expelled from a company by 'doing something different;' far more likely, they would copy 'tricks' that an older actor had found effective - in, for instance,gaining a laugh or creating an impression of grandeur.
In addition, apart from one or two exceptions, most popular theatre made actors into stars, known for particular types of role whilst writers were often hacks, often forgotten and there simply to create the roles for the star actor.
Costumes and settings were taken from the theatre stock without reference to historical authenticity or suitability to the play. A scene in a forest, for instance, would bring out the stock 'trees' and painted backcloths used many times before.
This state of affairs in the theatre of his time explains:
- a] why Stanislavski set out to put down a detailed actor's training, identifying all the areas of body, voice and approach to a character that he would need to use in playing a role effectively and believably.
- b] his emphasis on studying life and his search for truthfulness in portraying a role rather than resorting to empty "tricks' and tried and tested methods from the past.
- c] his work towards creating ensemble work with all actors equally important within the team. Stanislavski refused to use the idea of the 'star' actor to draw in an audience. Whether playing Hamlet or a gravedigger each actor was of equal importance to the creative unity of the finished production.
- d] his insistence on the importance of the playwright and his text. He made every effort always to be true to the text and what he perceived to be the intentions of the playwright [This is despite arguments with Chekhov over interpretation, which stemmed from a basic misunderstanding of Chekhov's intentions - something he only gradually came to understand. Nonetheless, his intentions were always honourable even when wrong!]
- e] his insistence on historical accuracy and the research that a company should make into the background of any play. Settings, costumes, properties, should be accurate and created fresh for the particular production.
- f] At first this obsession with detail led him to become overwhelmed by these minutiae, to the detriment of sincere characterisation. In other words, external details became for a time, in the earlier part of his career, more important, until he realised that truth comes from an understanding of the inner workings of a character, i.e. what a characters says is less important than why he says it. It took Stanislavski a little time to understand this.
3. In 1897 Stanislavski met Nemirovich-Danchenko, a theatre critic, teacher and director, very well-connected in both the social and theatre world and together they devised a manifesto for a new type of theatre. Nemirovich-Danchenko also put Stanislavski in touch with Chekhov, recognising that here were two kindred spirits in their aspirations for theatre. The new theatre was called the Moscow Art Theatre and it took as its symbol a seagull, which was the title of the first Chekhov play performed there.
The Moscow Art Theatre became a centre for the growth of the Naturalistic style of acting but this was not easily achieved. First the earlier training of the established actors they invited to form the ensemble group at the new theatre had to be broken down. This took years of work, not always successful, and caused Nemirovich and Stanislavski to realise that a new type of actor was needed for the 'slice of life' style of playing. Thus the Studio was formed, the first of a number, as a means for practical experimentation into the art of acting and into discovering new ways to approach character. In addition, Stanislavski started to formulate what became known as 'the System', which for the rest of his life he experimented with, using it to improve his own acting and to teach other actors and acting students.
These facts tell us that:
- a] Stanislavski's System arose out of practical trial and error over a long period of time
- b] though he often seems to present-day students 'old hat' and 'obvious' he was truly innovative in his own time
- c] the System was constantly evolving and elements of it were being tested out all through his life. This explains the contradictions that are within much of Stanislavski's writings - he changed his mind about a number of things, most notably the use of Emotion Memory.
- d] his long life devoted entirely to theatre and the improvement of acting practice tells us that he was a true enthusiast and it is this obvious passion for his subject that made him a great teacher and that inspires us when we read his books today.
2. COMMUNICATION
The actor is of course in the business of communicating at all times. His body needs to be so finely tuned that he can communicate a world of meaning just by the shrug of a shoulder or a flicker of the eyes.
Practical Exercise
Using the same pairs as before, ask the group to go back to the previous idea of the two people locked in a room. They are to try the following brief scenarios:
- One person notices a poisonous snake above the other's head. Not wanting to alarm the other in to making a sudden move that might cause the snake to strike, alert him to the danger and direct him out of harm's way.
- A guard [imaginary] comes in. One is to approach the guard and make friendly overtures [the guard is not allowed to speak], whilst the other tries to work his way round to the escape route whilst trying to look as natural and casual as possible.
- Last night, the two had a terrible argument. Now one wants to make up but the other is still huffy and difficult. Gradually the difficult one is wooed into changing, but it is an uphill struggle.
Watch a few of these and try them both with and without words, so as to observe the role of body language and faical expressions as well as the role of vocal tones. Ask the group to analyse the tones of voice used. When is the 'sub-text' different from the actual words spoken? How does this subtext communicate? For example, I would expect the audience to be aware of the change of heart of the difficult one in the last scenario before the actual words of reconciliation are voiced.
Stress that the feelings inside must be genuine for any of the above to work properly. If anyone has imposed, say, fear of the snake, from the outside, it should be obvious to the audience. Ask the group to analyse the difference between those that are believable in performance of any of the above and those who are not and try to determine why.
Two samples from the Artaud section
1. BEING CRUEL TO ONESELF
Artaud says ..."cruelty means strictness, diligence, unrelenting decisiveness, irreversible and absolute determination."
Practical Exercise 1
Taking this as a starting point, try an exercise where they imagine the whole room divided up in large squares like a huge grid. They can move only along the imagined straight lines.
Each student is to think of something that they want to reach - something that is so important that it is imperative they keep it uppermost in their minds. For example, they could have a loved one they are trying to reach, or a desperately important object such as the medicine that will save a loved one's life.
Whatever they choose as the person or object they are trying to reach, It is an impossibly long way off. Nonetheless it must be reached and this can only be done by keeping that thought uppermost in the mind: focus on the thing being attempted with the whole concentration. And then start walking along any of the straight lines of the grid, avoiding all obstacles and not bumping into people, nor stopping on the way for any reason.
The pace of the movement must be steady and relentless.
Most importantly It must carry on beyond the point when the students would want to stop.
Keep them moving with strictness; keep them focusing on what they are striving for. They must keep moving until they are exhausted mentally and physically.
Then stop them and talk about the breaking down of barriers, mental and physical. What does this mean in fact? Did they begin to get a glimmer of the rigour of concentration needed? If they were Artaudian actors what would they need to improve on?
This exercise is good for breaking down those physical and mental barriers as well as for the discipline needed to stick to walking in straight lines without bumping into anything or anyone. Part of the mind is concentrated on the desired object, part on keeping in touch with the surroundings and avoiding accidents.
Practical Exercise 2
Try further pushing the limits by giving the students a series of actions to repeat over and over again.
For instance, stretch towards the ceiling, down to touch the floor, push out to one side with both arms stretched and then the other.
Repeat and keep repeating, establishing a fast rhythm in which to do this, until well beyond the point where they are looking fed-up and exhausted.
If you keep going they will go beyond the point of being fed-up and move onto a different physical plane where they are acting under a sort of automatic pilot.
Two samples from the Grotowski section
6. EXPLORING DIALECTICS
In a sense the plastique exercises are already exporing the realm of dialectics: the parts of the body are put in contradiction to each other. Grotowski was particularly fond of exercises that used opposites in the plastique exercises, such as beautiful versus ugly or fast versus slow.
Practical Exercises
1. Start with an idea that is In Grotowski's section called "Exercises in Composition.' In it he suggests an exercise that in its early stages will be familiar to all drama students: walking over a variety of different surfaces [imaginary] with bare feet and then with shoes but reacting as if with bare feet. Thus, one can start on familiar ground:
- walk over Ice;
- hot coals;
- on a slippery surface;
- on a sticky surface.
Try as far as possible to stick to opposites like this: wet and dry, hard and soft, and so on.
Ask the students to show their reaction with their feet and let it reverberate from feet up through the whole body, a section at a time.
2. Next try to react with hands to touching different Imaginary surfaces; once again stick to opposites:
- rough and smooth;
- furry and scaly;
- wet and dry;
- soft and hard.
3. Then try reacting with feet and hands alone to, say, a prickly surface or a slimy one.
4. Finally try to use hands and feet reacting at the same time but to opposite stimuli, e.g. :
- the hands react to touching a furry surface while the feet experience slime;
- the hands pack snow Into a snowball whilst the feet dance on hot coals.
These exercises will seem intensely difficult and even perverse to some students. Perhaps there are some pianists amongst them. It is common practice for a pianist to be moving their fingers to one rhythm with their right hand whilst following another with their left. Reminded of this, the pianist will realise that he doesn't even think about this skill. In fact, it is a mistake to think too consciously about what one is doing - that is when the blocks start preventing you from achieving. If you can block out the mind which tells you the skill is difficult then you will achieve far more.
5. Move on to some visual Images which explore opposttes. An example might be a tableau in which some are starving to death whilst others are feasting. Perhaps the tableau could be made more powerful still if those who are feasting are mindlessly eating the body parts of the starving. Make sure that facial expressions contrast the greed and jollity of the feasters and the agony and horror of the starving.
This could be done as a frozen picture, a tableau, or as a moving 'moment'. Personally, I prefer the latter because then sounds can be employed and the contrasting movements of the two factions can be explored.
Try some others too:
- guilt and innocence
- creation and destruction
- freedom and repression
Bear in mind whilst producing these that Grotowski is keen to expose the contradictions within our society - and by society I mean the society of the whole world. Is there a way of showing the fatness' of the West to put it in cruel contrast to the starving masses in the third world? This way of working is a shockingly visual way of exploring the ills in society.
Note that before attempting this work it might be a good idea to go through the short part on symbolic language in the Artaud section. Just as pertinent to Grotowski is this way of working through powerful visual imagery which leaves a lasting impression on the audience's mind.
Working 'dialectically' is a very immediate theatrical way of using irony. Take for example, a scene where a politician meets his potential voters and speaks sincerely about all he is going to do for them; add someone, or a number of people, jeering and undermining everything he says, casting in doubt the sincerity of what he is saying through mockery.
We have social comment; we are offered more than one viewpoint. But Grotowski is not really like Brecht, trying to lead an audience to a particular point of view; rather we are being shown alternative viewpoints, different truths. Grotowski, just as he wants actors to strip the masks away from themselves wants them to expose the masks in the world around us and attempt to strip them away too to find whatever truths, even uncomfortable ones, lie behind the fabric of society.
