Active Analysis in Context

I recently re-read the following

"Vahktangov Directs The Dybbuk" by Joseph Yzraely.
"Stanislavsky at Work on the Play Woe from Wit," by Nikolai Gorchakov.
"On the Action Analysis of Plays and Roles" by Maria Knebel
"Journey Without End" by Lev Dodin

I can't pretend to summarize the all details of these works in this post. There is however a profound thread, an obvious tradition, that runs through the four which is easily recognizable. The books span the time from 1922 to 2004 and they cover the approaches of four directors/teachers - Vakhtangov, Stanislavsky, Knebel and Dodin. At hand is how these director/teachers work with actors in analyzing a play and how they then turn that analysis into production.

You may or may not have in your lifetime heard such terms as "Active Analysis" or "Method of Physical Actions" or even the more general "Improvisational Approach." The specifics of names may seem inconsequential to some but we all know that words have meanings and implications and suggest certain activities and interpretations. Therefore we should be clear and specific in this case. Stanislavsky referred to this type of rehearsal work as "Analysis through Action" or as "Active Analysis." He did not use the phrase "Method of Physical Action." He did suggest and practice that "a line of physical action" is one part of the overall approach in terms of this kind of analysis but he did not suggest or practice that it was the only line of action nor the definitive line of action, nor the key line of action that ultimately sets everything else in motion. It was but one part of the whole.

"Active Analysis" is a rehearsal technique, a way for actors and directors to analyze, interpret and format a play using "living material" i.e. thoughts, sensations, physical actions, and feelings. It is not and was not intended as a primary training technique for actors in the details of their craft. In regards to actor training, it is again one part of the whole, but it is not the fundamental basis - at least it wasn't considered as such by Stanislavsky.

Lest I run the risk of making "Active Analysis" sound like an anything goes kind of process, I want to mention certain features or requirements, goals of "Active Analysis." The first requirement is a clear appraisal of the basic facts of the play, the who, what, when, where type of stuff. The next requirement is a clear understanding and conception of the basic story line, or sequence of events and activities. Next is a determination of the "main event" of the play followed by a determinations of the "secondary events" of the play. Then an "initiating event" is determined. That is the kind of thing that could and probably did happen before the actual story dramatized in the play happens. For example, Hamlet's father gets killed prior to the first line of the script and during the play itself we hear tell of it. That could be considered the "initiating event" of the play in the sense that if Hamlet's father had not been killed, the play itself, the story, would never occur as it does. Next is determining how the relationship between "initiating event" and the "main event" of the play is pieced together through the activities and actions of the characters. In other words, the actors as characters, individually and collectively, must create or have logical actions that take into account the influence of both of these events. All of that is accompanied by or followed by an appraisal of the language of the play, its style, its use, etc. as well as an appraisal of various themes inherent in the play. That's a lot of activity and analysis so far and I have yet to really touch on the appraisals of each individual character. The point is, there is specific method in the madness as they say. It is an intelligent and thorough examination of the play, of the authors words, the authors intent.

Various ways of working come into play with each of these requirement and goals. For example, "the line of physical action" can be helpful in determining the basic story or sequence of events. The First Act of Hamlet, the Hamlet character himself for example, when he walks out on the platform before the castle because he has been told he may see the ghost of his father there - the actor playing this part could go through the process of tracing the physical line thus - I walk up the steps, stop, hesitate when I feel the wind at the top, pull my cloak around me tightly, try to peer through the fog, hear the canon sounds, (Shakespeare is a dream of a writer btw when it comes to sensory elements), walk forward, talk to Horatio, etc. The actor actively doing this begins then to get a visceral sense of the story line, begins to understand those basics. Later on, as the "initiating event" or the "language" is taken into account for example, the actor may make adjustments as to how he walks, where and how he looks, etc.

Having analyzed a sequence like that, the actor is instinctively prompted on - "oh, yes, I have been on the Danish coast. I know how those winds are there. You have to almost yell for the other person to hear you. And the winds freeze your lips, your tongue. The sounds of words are strange to your ears through that wind, almost muffled. Is that the sound of someone next to you, someone real, or is it the sound of a ghost far away, in the distance? Its confusing like that. And the light and the fog plays tricks on your eyes."

Now when the actor does the sequence again he pauses before getting to the top, because he knows Hamlet has made this walk before and knows the impact the wind will have, so he stops below the top and adjusts his cloak in advance, in anticipation of the wind and cold. Words spoken to one another are adjusted, the last thing said for example before descending to the top. The volume, the tempo, is adjusted as the characters, actors arrive at the top of the platform. Now the "beauty" of Shakespeare is begin to be seen and understood not just in words and language but in time and place and circumstance. The actors are not busy trying to conjure up mental intentions and obstacles but rather are sensing and creating tangible and viscerally understandable activities. Now the actors and director have arrived at point where they can use Shakespeare's language not merely as vocal gymnastics but as precise and specific verbal actions due to circumstance and conditions. The overall effect can be as "theatrical' as they choose or want. It could be as "comical" as they want trying to talk and hear each other in the wind and cold and the canon sounds. Options abound. Such is the work of "Active Analysis."

Following the four particular books in the order that I listed them, presents a chronological, developmental and "passing on" sequence of this type of work. Its a nice reminder to the possibilities and an indication of how and why this type of work was used in rehearsal by these individuals. These four works are just a small part of numerous writings on the subject, including various first-hand accounts and these four individuals are just some of the theatre artists who have successfully adopted this technique and who happen to have a large and thorough grasp of its whole.