William Walker Atkinson (1862-1932) was an American who at times wrote under the pen name Yogi Ramacharaka. Among his works under this name are "Science of Breath," "Hatha Yoga," and "Series of Lessons in Raja Yoga." Published first here in the United States, these books eventually were translated and published in various countries around the world, including Russia. Stanislavsky, a very wealthy man who kept an up-to-date library, owned and read these books. (These books are still in print and available today from various sources btw). Ramacharaka's writing is not that of ancient or pure practice but rather as you might expect from that time and place, (Chicago, Ill. - School of New Thought) is full of reference and example of then current day philosophers, writers, artists, and scientists.
In his lifelong quest to understand and control the creative nature of an actor's work, Stanislavsky drew upon many resources, many ideas. First and foremost was his own work, his own experience as an actor as well as the work of actors whom he greatly admired. Eventually he came to the conclusion, and kept to the conclusion throughout his life, that the fundamental basis of an actors creativity was a process he called "Affective Memory," a term he borrowed from the French psychologist Theodule Ribot.
Affective Memory - you know, that "magical" way that our bodies and minds make the connection between the fictional circumstances of a play and our past and current experiences.
I don't mean as an intellectual exercise. I mean viscerally, instinctively, where the body begins to function "as if" the fictional circumstances are true, thereby becoming alive, real, not as a representation or mechanical copy of life, but as its own living theatrical presence - literally live theatre. When that Affective Memory process kicks in big time, all us actors know that everything becomes "easy" at that point. It just happens for us. Our bodies, our voices, our thoughts, movements, reactions, etc on the stage come correct. Short of that big time kick in, we are always struggling in some sense, thinking too much, trying, too aware, self-conscious, all to varying degrees. (Since it seems so "magical" when this 'as if" it were real process happens, Stanislavsky, in his simple genius, made what he called the "magic if" one of his first steps in helping an actor to facilitate his/her affective memory process. The "magic if" is the simple question - "what would I do if I were in these circumstances?").
Stanislavsky recognized and identified certain qualities, certain factors, about himself and other actors when the affective memory process seemed to be in full creative bore. Us actors know these now by terms such as relaxation, concentration, imagination, sensorally active and aware. In other words, when everything kicks in and comes correct, the actor is "relaxed," moving, speaking with ease and precision. The actor is "concentrated," doing tasks and activity with meaning. The actor is "imaginative" in the manner in which they do the tasks and activities, and the actor is connected to everything around him/herself on stage, the imaginary circumstances and everything they are doing, through moment by moment sensory awareness and feeling.
But the question is/was and forever will be "which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" Does the Affective Memory process lead to "relaxation" or does "relaxation" as one of the factors within help lead to the Affective Memory process fully engaging. The answer is actually "some of both."
They are mutually promoting. Which leads me now back to William Walker Atkinson, Yogi Ramacharaka! Almost. And more on the "chicken and egg" later.
Stanislavsky came to believe that this Affective Memory process, this meshing of life experience with fiction, turning then into artistic form and expression, sometimes called "inspiration," happened in the subconscious levels of the mind. In an earlier post, I wrote of Stanislavsky's three foundations for the type of theatre and acting he wanted to create - one of them you remember was the "Subconscious through the Conscious." This refers to the question that Stanislavsky posed for actors and actor training over and over in various forms. I'll paraphrase. "Is there not a conscious means by which to instruct and guide the creative subconscious process?" "Is there not some way to set the creative conditions so that Inspiration may come more frequently for the actor?" Again, Stanislavsky believed the answer to be yes. That question and his subsequent yes answer made/makes possible "The Stanislavsky System."
Now to the Yogi for real. In Series of Lessons in Raja Yoga, in the Eight Lesson, Ramacharaka gives a long explanation of the creative powers of the subconscious, quoting even, from among several others, Ribot (Remember Ribot? Affective Memory?). The Tenth Lesson, is how the subconscious mind may be activated by direct orders, instruction, from the conscious mind and conscious activity. This puts us back in the "chicken and egg" discussion. Now Stanislavsky is ready to work on "relaxation" for example as a way of instruction for the creative subconscious -or Affective Memory process as Stanislavsky has termed it in the case of actors and acting. Remember, that means Life Experience (Mental and physical processes) meshed with fictional circumstances which then turns into real, in the moment, living artistic form and expression.
Here is one short example, quote, from Lesson Ten:
The yogi takes the student when the latter is much bothered by consideration of some knotty and perplexing philosophical subject. He bids the student relax every muscle, - take the tension from every nerve - throw aside all mental strain, and then wait a few moments. Then the student is instructed to grasp the subject which he has had before his mind firmly and fixedly before his mental vision, by means of concentration. Then he is instructed to pass it on to the sub-conscious mentality by an effort of the Will, which effort is aided by forming a mental picture of the subject as a material substance, or bundle of thought, which is being bodily lifted and dropped down a mental hatch-way, or trap-door, in which it sinks from sight. The student is then instructed to say to the sub-conscious mentality: "I wish this subject thoroughly analyzed, arranged, classified (and whatever else is desired) and then the results handed back to me. Attend to this."
Actors will instantly recognize in that description, Relaxation, Concentration, Engaging the Will, and Imagination for example. How many of us in various formats, standing, sitting, laying down, have worked to "relax every muscle, take the tension from every nerve?" How many of us have had to focus on some "object" in our mind by means of concentration? How many of us have had to engage our will and turn that object, which we are "holding" fully in our being, by means of mental imaging and/or sensory awareness into an action of some sort? A wish? A desire? A want? An activity? We are in Lee Strasberg's class here as much as we are in Yogi Ramacharaka's.
In writing this post, I am not claiming or saying that Yogi Ramacharaka and these books are the sole or the main source of Stanislavsky's ideas on acting. (Nor are they his only and sole source of yoga or "eastern" thought). I am saying they are one of the influences, just one of many that make up the total of Stanislavsky's research and thinking on the subject.
What I will say more, though briefly, is that the details of this type of work, this real specific attention to body-mind-soul in acting, as a Stanislavsky tradition, is best represented in America by the line of Boleslavsky and Strasberg. They understood it in purpose, in specifics, and in practical application. Strasberg himself further developed the body-mind-soul connection with incorporation of ideas from others such as Moshe Feldenkrais - keeping the practical simplicity but preserving the depth and complexities of the work most akin to Stanislavsky and Ramacharaka - re-education of the self through movement, sound, imagery, and thought. Others co-opted the work and perverted it in various forms. The Soviets for example when they came into power used their understanding of Pavlov's ideas to turn the basis of the work into what became known as "The Method of Physical Action." In America, "The Method of Physical Actions" was propagated by Sonia Moore, after she learned about it from the Soviet Scholars when they came for a visit to the U.S. in 1964.
In his lifelong quest to understand and control the creative nature of an actor's work, Stanislavsky drew upon many resources, many ideas. First and foremost was his own work, his own experience as an actor as well as the work of actors whom he greatly admired. Eventually he came to the conclusion, and kept to the conclusion throughout his life, that the fundamental basis of an actors creativity was a process he called "Affective Memory," a term he borrowed from the French psychologist Theodule Ribot.
Affective Memory - you know, that "magical" way that our bodies and minds make the connection between the fictional circumstances of a play and our past and current experiences.
I don't mean as an intellectual exercise. I mean viscerally, instinctively, where the body begins to function "as if" the fictional circumstances are true, thereby becoming alive, real, not as a representation or mechanical copy of life, but as its own living theatrical presence - literally live theatre. When that Affective Memory process kicks in big time, all us actors know that everything becomes "easy" at that point. It just happens for us. Our bodies, our voices, our thoughts, movements, reactions, etc on the stage come correct. Short of that big time kick in, we are always struggling in some sense, thinking too much, trying, too aware, self-conscious, all to varying degrees. (Since it seems so "magical" when this 'as if" it were real process happens, Stanislavsky, in his simple genius, made what he called the "magic if" one of his first steps in helping an actor to facilitate his/her affective memory process. The "magic if" is the simple question - "what would I do if I were in these circumstances?").
Stanislavsky recognized and identified certain qualities, certain factors, about himself and other actors when the affective memory process seemed to be in full creative bore. Us actors know these now by terms such as relaxation, concentration, imagination, sensorally active and aware. In other words, when everything kicks in and comes correct, the actor is "relaxed," moving, speaking with ease and precision. The actor is "concentrated," doing tasks and activity with meaning. The actor is "imaginative" in the manner in which they do the tasks and activities, and the actor is connected to everything around him/herself on stage, the imaginary circumstances and everything they are doing, through moment by moment sensory awareness and feeling.
But the question is/was and forever will be "which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" Does the Affective Memory process lead to "relaxation" or does "relaxation" as one of the factors within help lead to the Affective Memory process fully engaging. The answer is actually "some of both."
They are mutually promoting. Which leads me now back to William Walker Atkinson, Yogi Ramacharaka! Almost. And more on the "chicken and egg" later.
Stanislavsky came to believe that this Affective Memory process, this meshing of life experience with fiction, turning then into artistic form and expression, sometimes called "inspiration," happened in the subconscious levels of the mind. In an earlier post, I wrote of Stanislavsky's three foundations for the type of theatre and acting he wanted to create - one of them you remember was the "Subconscious through the Conscious." This refers to the question that Stanislavsky posed for actors and actor training over and over in various forms. I'll paraphrase. "Is there not a conscious means by which to instruct and guide the creative subconscious process?" "Is there not some way to set the creative conditions so that Inspiration may come more frequently for the actor?" Again, Stanislavsky believed the answer to be yes. That question and his subsequent yes answer made/makes possible "The Stanislavsky System."
Now to the Yogi for real. In Series of Lessons in Raja Yoga, in the Eight Lesson, Ramacharaka gives a long explanation of the creative powers of the subconscious, quoting even, from among several others, Ribot (Remember Ribot? Affective Memory?). The Tenth Lesson, is how the subconscious mind may be activated by direct orders, instruction, from the conscious mind and conscious activity. This puts us back in the "chicken and egg" discussion. Now Stanislavsky is ready to work on "relaxation" for example as a way of instruction for the creative subconscious -or Affective Memory process as Stanislavsky has termed it in the case of actors and acting. Remember, that means Life Experience (Mental and physical processes) meshed with fictional circumstances which then turns into real, in the moment, living artistic form and expression.
Here is one short example, quote, from Lesson Ten:
The yogi takes the student when the latter is much bothered by consideration of some knotty and perplexing philosophical subject. He bids the student relax every muscle, - take the tension from every nerve - throw aside all mental strain, and then wait a few moments. Then the student is instructed to grasp the subject which he has had before his mind firmly and fixedly before his mental vision, by means of concentration. Then he is instructed to pass it on to the sub-conscious mentality by an effort of the Will, which effort is aided by forming a mental picture of the subject as a material substance, or bundle of thought, which is being bodily lifted and dropped down a mental hatch-way, or trap-door, in which it sinks from sight. The student is then instructed to say to the sub-conscious mentality: "I wish this subject thoroughly analyzed, arranged, classified (and whatever else is desired) and then the results handed back to me. Attend to this."
Actors will instantly recognize in that description, Relaxation, Concentration, Engaging the Will, and Imagination for example. How many of us in various formats, standing, sitting, laying down, have worked to "relax every muscle, take the tension from every nerve?" How many of us have had to focus on some "object" in our mind by means of concentration? How many of us have had to engage our will and turn that object, which we are "holding" fully in our being, by means of mental imaging and/or sensory awareness into an action of some sort? A wish? A desire? A want? An activity? We are in Lee Strasberg's class here as much as we are in Yogi Ramacharaka's.
In writing this post, I am not claiming or saying that Yogi Ramacharaka and these books are the sole or the main source of Stanislavsky's ideas on acting. (Nor are they his only and sole source of yoga or "eastern" thought). I am saying they are one of the influences, just one of many that make up the total of Stanislavsky's research and thinking on the subject.
What I will say more, though briefly, is that the details of this type of work, this real specific attention to body-mind-soul in acting, as a Stanislavsky tradition, is best represented in America by the line of Boleslavsky and Strasberg. They understood it in purpose, in specifics, and in practical application. Strasberg himself further developed the body-mind-soul connection with incorporation of ideas from others such as Moshe Feldenkrais - keeping the practical simplicity but preserving the depth and complexities of the work most akin to Stanislavsky and Ramacharaka - re-education of the self through movement, sound, imagery, and thought. Others co-opted the work and perverted it in various forms. The Soviets for example when they came into power used their understanding of Pavlov's ideas to turn the basis of the work into what became known as "The Method of Physical Action." In America, "The Method of Physical Actions" was propagated by Sonia Moore, after she learned about it from the Soviet Scholars when they came for a visit to the U.S. in 1964.
For those of you interested, I encourage you to get the books and take a look.
ps - see comments section under "Habima" post for reference on another great book/artist.
No comments:
Post a Comment