Stanislavsky had a chart that he developed and sometimes used as a teaching tool in explaining his "System." Now a chart is just a chart. It is representational of some inter-working ideas and is meant, by its visual nature, to put the relationship of these ideas in working perspective. As is necessary with any good chart, Stanislavsky's requires a little explanation - the fun part.
Keep in mind Stanislavsky's chart and its ideas are representative of his kind of theatre, his kind of acting. Stanislavsky often in writings or talks distinguished three kinds of theatres and the acting of each type. The first one would be like the false and cliche ridden type. The second would be the kind that is a skilled presentation of what life looks and sounds like, but is not really alive itself. This is the most common type of theatre, of acting. The third is the type of acting and theatre that actually acquires its own life, literally. This type of theatre is very, very rare and is the kind that Stanislavsky sought.
Two notes about that quick description. One, Stanislavsky knew and said there could be and is overlap between the three. Its not always a clear and definitive matter in that regard. Two, having "life" does not necessarily mean realism in terms of theatrical style. I mention that because many people for some reason assume that Stanislavsky equates with realism only. Silly people.
I ain't going over the whole chart in this post (even though I would like to) but I want to cover the three foundational elements, the three foundational qualities on the chart. The chart btw, which I can't fully reproduce here because I don't have it in the proper electronic format, is a cool little drawing with words and images. Removing the images, as some people do in their translations/explanations, takes away a significance. I will try later to reproduce it here properly so you can see this if you haven't seen it before. (Some of you though have copies hanging in your bedrooms I bet). At the bottom of the chart are three blocks so to speak, the foundations of the System, its reason for being.
The first one, the cornerstone on the left side, says "aktivnost,deistvenost." (I am using English language characters to approximate the Russian in unofficial form for the moment). Before I explain more, let me mention that there is often criticism of Elizabeth Hapgood Reynolds, Stanislavsky's original English translator for the books An Actors Prepares, Building a Character, and Creating a Role - the titles as we know of them here. The rap is that the books are misleading, confusing, incomplete, too abridged, etc. Anyone reading them, young actors for example, are likely to be unsure of what to make of the material they say. I wonder then, if it has gotten any easier over the years what with all the new material available to us all in terms of actual work and history to put more precise translation into place. Lets take three of our current popular Stanislavsky Scholars who have published copies (or approximations) of the chart we are referring to in their books and see how they translate this first foundational block. Sharon Carnicke calls it "Dynamism." Jean Benedetti calls it "Physical Action." And Rose Whyman calls it "Activeness." Hmm. I don't think its going out on a limb to say it hasn't gotten any easier - at least for the young actors trying to grasp it -trying to make sense of these various terms in translation.
I will digress a little further for the moment and say that in the interpretations/translations of that one item, the foundational block of the chart, you can see the overall bias and personality of each of those scholars clearly. Sharon Carnicke's book is filled with trendy jargon and terms and popular concepts, from the late eighties and nineties in the original issue and from the two-thousands in the new reissue of her book "Stanislavsky in Focus." There is even a section called "Flow" in the original and a new chapter on Yoga in the new reissue. (One funny note about the chapter on Yoga, it's very first sentence is completely wrong and totally misleading). Under Carnicke, Stanislavsky becomes confusing hip hogwash. Jean Beneditti on the other hand has a knack for removing all complexities, details, and soulfulness from Stanislavsky's work. If you like things dry, see Benedetti. He is one who for example, takes out the images of the chart, leaving only the words in their most isolated and mundane interpretation - in this case "physical action."
If you are Stanislavsky, are you going to lay one cornerstone, one reason for being, of your very rare form of theatre as "dynamism" or "physical action?" Of course not. No one can decipher "dynamism" even with plenty of talk around it. And every theatre and acting has "physical action." That does not distinguish anything at all. Rose Whyman, our third scholar in this example, calls it "Activeness" and offers one of Stanislavsky's brief descriptions "The art of the dramatic actor is the art of internal and external action." Closer. But I think you, I or Stanislavsky would still have a difficult time rousing anyone to our cause if that was all we had for one of our cornerstones. It is by far the the most complete and logical of the three though.
I'm skipping to the second cornerstone before I offer more explanation of the first because the second is just too good of an example to wait any longer. The second cornerstone block on the right side of the chart says "aphorism Pushkin." Or as we would say in English "Pushkin's aphorism." Both Sharon Carnicke and Jean Benedetti tell us this is "given circumstances." They list it as "i.e. given circumstances." Now every actor knows what "given circumstances" are -facts about the characters or the play. So for now we have from Sharon Carnicke "dynamisn" and "given circumstances" and from Jean Benedetti we have "physical action" and "given circumstances." Neither of them actually tells us which aphorism of Pushkins Stanislavsky might be referring to or what that aphorism actually is or says in full. It is as follows: "The truth concerning the passions, a verisimilitude of feelings experienced in given situations - that is what our intelligence demands of a dramatist." That is how Rose Whyman interpets it. In other interpretations of that quote you may see "reason" in place of "intelligence" for example and other small changes, but the point is Whyman gives us the complete thing. Stanislavsky changed it from writer or dramatist to actor. In its completeness it refers to much more and means much more than mere "given circumstances."
Back to the first block. The first word in the block does refer to "activity." It harkens back to the Greek word for "drama" and "to do." The second word in the block refers to "dramatic action" but with an implication of effectiveness or effective dramatic action. The question then is what constitutes or signals effective dramatic action for Stanislavsky. In his description of the three types of theatres, three types of acting, Stanislavsky says that in the first one the activity of the actor works on the periphery of the spectator, perhaps makes him laugh or wince. In the second one the activity of the actor creates "special people," ones that spectators recognize and admire and eventually accommodate themselves to conditionally. "The actors depict the images and passions created by the poet." The influence of the actors activity on the spectator is deeper and more profound than in the first type of theatre. Afterward spectators will go out and talk about what they have seen. The activity of the actor in the third type of theatre is completely different and is the type of activity that Stanislavsky is referring to in the block. The activity of the third theatre stirs the soul of the spectator and the souls of each of the actors all together. Afterwards, spectators want to go home and think about what they have experienced. Stanislavsky describes this activity of the actor as harmonious, sound, natural and simple and says the beauty of such creations lies in their integrity He also explains that that the noble feelings take preponderance over the petty ones and this relation of noble to petty is preserved in the very manner of projection of the emotion and in the outer proportions of the characters.
Dramatic action comprised of noble activity that stirs the soul - that's the summary of what makes effective dramatic action as far as Stanislavsky is concerned. Its not totally concrete but its not yet supposed to be. The rest of the chart is for that. These foundational blocks are to indicate this third type of theate, its characteristics, its qualities, that Stanislavsky is seeking. If we now put this understanding of effective dramatic action together with Pushkin's full aphorism, we start to have a better picture of what Stanislavsky is after here - and it obviously ain't just physical action and given circumstances.
Stanislavsky goes so far as to say that those who engage in the second kind of theatre, which he speaks highly of really, do not truly believe that the third kind of theatre can actually exist. It would be too real they say. The thoughts and feelings of the actors would be too alive and they would get carried away and jump over the footlights. Stanislavsky dispels that myth and goes on to explain just how an actor can have such strong living and real feelings and thoughts and continue with every step of the way to be in complete control of their art.
Two blocks down and what's emerging for the actor is not your everyday acting tasks. The third foundational block, the center piece, says the "Subconscious through the Conscious." I believe Jean Benedetti wishes this part had never happened. He translates this "through the conscious to the unconscious." Un vs Sub is a subtle bastardization and makes it sound like the actor is going to go into a deep sleep. Sharon Carnicke translates it as "The Subconscious by means of the Conscious." Not bad really. She errs considerably though when she compares the chart at large to a Chakra chart in her zest to put all of Stanislavsky in an "Eastern" context. It makes for a completely confusing view of the chart as a whole. Rose Whyman translate the block as "the subconscious creativity of nature itself - through the artist's conscious psycho-technique." The first part is weird how she has it worded. She actually means that creativity is subconscious in its nature for artists - and that through conscious work in psycho-physical activity the creative subconscious mind of the artist is activated. At least I hope she means that because that what Stanislavsky had in mind, and with a few more additional thoughts to go along with it.
I am going to offer a long quote from Evgeny Vakhtangov, Stanislavky's pupil, one of his favorite actors and teachers of his ideas. This quote best summarizes and describes this phenomenon of subconscious creativity for the actor that Stanislavsky embraced. Here it is, from Vakhtangov's journal:
The conscious mind never creates anything. It is the subconscious mind that is creative. Apart from the subconscious mind's independent ability to make selections without the conscious mind being aware of it, it can receive material for creation through the conscious mind. In this sense, no rehearsal can be productive unless it seeks or provides material for the next rehearsal; it is in the intervals between rehearsals that the creative work of processing material received is carried out in the subconscious. Nothing can be created from nothing, which is why no role can be played simply "by inspiration," without work being put in.
Inspiration is the moment when the subconscious mind has combined the material from the previous work and, without the participation of the conscious mind - simply when called upon to do so by the latter - moulds everything into form.
The fire that accompanies this moment is a natural state, as natural as heat produced during the fusion of several chemical elements.
Mental elements, combined into a form accessible to the given individual, give rise to an influx of energy at the moment of revelation. It brings warmth, light and spirit to the form. Everything consciously thought-out lacks this fire. Everything created in the subconscious and formed unconsciously is accompanied by the discharge of this energy, this is also infectious.
It is infectiousness, i.e. the unconscious enthusiasm of the subconscious mind of the perceiver, that is the sign of talent.
He who consciously nourishes the subconscious and unconsciously reveals the results of the working of the subconscious mind is truly talented.
He who unconsciously nourishes the subconscious and unconsciously reveals its results is a genius.
He who does this consciously is a master.
He who is without the ability to consciously or unconsciously apprehend and yet dares to create lacks any talent for he has no face of his own. For dipping nothing into the subconscious mind, the sphere of creativity, he comes up with nothing.
In that description you see the combinations, the relationships of this idea to the other two blocks - the infectiousness of the moment of inspiration - the perciever, the spectator becoming subconsciously enthused themselves - soul to soul dramatic action so to speak - moulded into form - as Pushkin's aphorism insists. (What Vakhtangov wrote in his journal there is a clear case of a student grasping fully and deeply Stanislavsky's ideas and making them his own).
Well, that is a lot of information in this post to leave you with. The last thing to mention again are those boats. Stanislavsky was one of those people who kept sending bigger and bigger and bigger and more and more and more boats along - just in case - as needed - with his writing, his teaching, his work.
Hope to see everyone again this Monday night at 730 pm at Prescott College!
No comments:
Post a Comment