|  |
The Journal of Lee Strasberg
Written thoughts from Strasberg's journal during the Group Theatre Years
A few years ago, a study was made of the opinions held by the dramatic critics of various outstanding American actors. These were compared with the opinions held within the profession. One of the illuminating results was the discovery that the high critical evaluation of the performances of one very respected actor was not shared by a good number of fellow craftsmen.
The dissatisfaction of actors with their fellow craftsmen has a long and honorable history. Shakespeare was outspoken about those "players that I have seen play, and heard others praise, and that highly, not to speak it profanely, that neither having the accent of Christian, nor the gait of Christian, pagan, nor man, have so strutted and bellow'd, that I have thought some of nature's journeymen had made men, and not made them well, they imitated humanity so abominably."
Moliere in the "Impromptu at Versailles," wrote a devastating satire on the rival company, a satire based not upon personal jealousy or envy, but dissatisfaction with the principles exemplified in their art.
The modern theatre is in fact the creation of people who turned their backs upon the outmoded acting traditions of their day and called for the formation of a new theatre. Otto Brahm announced his intention with an essay entitled "Old and New Acting." Andre Antoine, founder of the "Theatre Libre," proclaimed the need for a new theatre by explaining that though plays in a modern style were being written, they were being acted in such outmoded fashion that the intention of the author was completely destroyed. Copeau, Craig, Meyerhold–all made the revision of the actor's training the basis of their concern with the modern theatre.
It is out of this concern that the Stanislavski system derives. It is no isolated or foreign phenomenon in the history of the theatre, but grows out of a deep, continuous desire to better the standards of the craft. What the great German critic and dramatist Lessing wrote in the eighteenth century still holds true today: "We have actors but no art of acting."
This situation is aggravated by a fact peculiar to the art of acting. In other arts, standards are formed and maintained by means of the creation of a reservoir of classic precept embodied in the works of the great masters. The 'masterworks' serve as a beacon to the young and old practitioner. It is not intended to be blindly imitated, but it serves as a constant reminder of what has already been accomplished. But in acting, the achievement dies with its creator. Each new generation must constantly rediscover for itself truths previously discovered but always lost. In this situation the teacher of acting and the text books utilized serve an unusual and important function. But if the body of masterworks which serves as a basis on which principles of any art are formed is in this case lacking, where do the teachers of acting and their text books derive the body of precept and advice they hand out? Despite the obvious importance of the subject, no one has ventured to examine the origin of their ideas and the derivation of their systems.
As we examine a variety of manuals from different periods, we become aware of a curious kinship–the same scheme of procedure, the same emphasis upon the bodily expression, and classification of the elements of physical expression, a kind of grammar of expression; and an analysis of the voice and its production, and the means by which it is suited to different ideas, characters, and moods. This has by now become such a generally recognized procedure that it seems to be accepted as the only possible one. A recent catalogue of a dramatic school states quite simply: Speech and body movement are the language of the acting art. Yet Aristotle said, "He who considers things in their first growth and origin will obtain the clearest view of them." An investigation of the rise and origin of manuals for actors may reveal some startling data.
The first modern text we are aware of derives not from theatrical experience, but from the efforts of the French academicians to create an all inclusive aesthetic theory. This book was published in 1657 under the aegis of Conrart, one of the leading lights of the French Academy. It is entitled "Traite de l'action de l'Orateur ou do la Prononciation et du Geste," and went into its third edition before it was followed by a work by Grimarest in 1707. Grimarest improves upon his predecessor who had already declared that it is by means of the voice that we express our inner actions. But Grimarest now succeeds to build the typical classification we still find in our contemporary text books, based upon vocal behavior. Hope, Joy, Grief, Fear, Jealousy, Compassion, Anger–all these are characterized by a vocal expression suitable to each emotion. He demonstrates these by examples from Corneille and Racine. But proper use of the voice is not enough, it is necessary to accompany it with gesture to give the proper semblance and vitality to the action. He does not go into detail but adds the important dictum that each passion has its facial expression. But whereas he lays down rules for the use of the voice, he is content with the remark that an actor who really reels will find the proper facial expression.
The first English handbook in 1710 takes advantage of the recent death of the great tragedian to call itself "The Life of Mr. Thomas Betterton, Wherein the Action and Utterance of the Stage, Bar, and Pulpit, are distinctly considered." While it pretends to give Mr. Betterton's ideas, it carries on where our French authors left off. The author acknowledges his indebtedness to the French but desires to improve upon them. He repeats the previous grammar of vocal expression wherein Love is expressed by a "gay, soft and charming voice; Hate by a sharp, sullen, and severe one; Grief by a sad, dull and languishing Tone; not without sometimes interrupting the Continuity of the Sound with a Sigh or Groan drawn from the very inmost of the Bosom. A tremulous and stammering voice will best express his Fear, inclining to Uncertainty and Apprehension. A loud and strong Voice, on the contrary, will most naturally show his confidence, always supported with a decent Boldness, and daring Constancy. Nor can his auditors be more justly struck with a Sense of his Anger, than by a Voice or Tone, that is sharp, violent and impetuous, interrupted with a frequent taking of the Breath, and short Speaking."
Examples are given from Shakespeare. But our author now continues to build a pyramid of physical expression. Since "the Passions and Habits of the Mind discover themselves in our Looks, Actions and Gestures," he proceeds to describe the action of the eye, the action of the hands, the position of the head, the posture of the body, very much in the manner of most text-books today. Our author is quite aware that actors do not entirely follow this method. He cites a number of examples, amongst them Mrs. Bradshaw, who told a friend of his "that she endeavor'd first to make herself Mistress of her Part, and left the Figure and Action to Nature." But here we are confronted with an interesting problem. If these rules did not derive from the experience of the acting profession, where did they come from, who discovered them, who codified them, and what are they based on? Our author is clear upon this matter. "I have borrowed," says he, "from the French, but then the French drew most from Quintillian and others."
The name Quintillian is well known as is the fact that he is the author of the classic "Institutes of Oratory" written two thousand years ago. But what is not so fully realized is that Quintillian is the direct source for the elaborate structure of vocal and physical expression taken over bodily and literally in the early manuals, and which have found their way down to the present day with slight modifications. But one may argue, does the fact that this author lived two thousand years ago make his conclusions incorrect? Human beings are universal, and the truths of human behavior may transcend the passage of time and space. Quite true! But the important point is that Quintillian's exposition never pretended and was never intended by him to apply to actors! It is a manual for speakers, public orators and lawyers–people who do not act or portray other characters, but must through speech and gesture suitable for platform behavior, convey their meaning to the audience. A good actor may be a good speaker, but the contrary is by no means true. Quintillian himself is never under the illusion that his precepts are intended for actors. Realizing that oratory can learn from acting he utilizes some examples from theatre practice and takes pains to point out on numerous occasions that the behavior of actors is different from that of the orator, and specifically warns that the latter should not try to imitate the former. "For what can be less becoming to an orator than modulations that recall the stage?" Quintillian therefore well knew what he was doing. His remarks are keen and observant. His description of certain details of behavior, for instance the use of the different fingers of the hand in creating emphasis, has never been bettered. But his book was never intended to be a guide for actors! It was mistakenly used as such by the early theoreticians and the Jesuit priests who were very influential in the training of amateur actors in the seventeenth century. And it has formed the basis of most of the current handbooks on acting, though their authors may never directly have read Quintillian. Much of the modern day training of actors is thus based on an error. The early manuals still show the traces of Quintillian's original intention in their subtitles; "Where the action and utterance of the Stage, Bar, and Pulpit, are distinctly considered." But that distinction, so clearly drawn by the Latin author and his master Cicero, has been completely obliterated.
The next important book on acting is an original work by a French journalist Remond de Sainte-Albine, published in 1747. Called "Le Comedien," it is the first to break completely with the previous oratorical school, and to address itself to a systematic discussion of the actor and his school, and to address itself to a systematic discussion of the actor and his art. The work had a great influence and an odd success. Reprinted in a second edition two years later, it was translated into English as "The Actor" in 1750, and went into a second English edition in 1755. This was an enlarged version with many stories and examples from English actors added to the French author's theory. In this form it was then translated back into French in 1769 without any realization that it was based upon a French original. Utilizing Garrick's tremendous reputation it was called "Garrick ou les Acteurs Anglais" and was soon issued in a German version also available in the Scandinavian countries.
Instead of repeating the classic structure which stresses vocal and physical expression, the author addresses himself to the central problem: What qualities are necessary to create an actor? Aware that great actors have often lacked physical or vocal means he builds a new triad. The first requisite is understanding, "for to that he is to owe the proper use of all the rest." The second is sensibility–"a disposition to be affected by the passions which plays are intended to excite." The third is spirit, a vivacity of imagination, and rapidity of thought" but has no connection with noise or blustering though they are too often mistaken for it by the common observer.
"It is to this spirit and fire, that the representation owes its great air of reality. Understanding will make a player perceive properly, and sensibility will make him do it feelingly. But all this may be done in reading the passage; it is this fire and spirit that produce the living character, and he who has judgment to regulate this, can never have too much of it." (The quotations are from the English edition "The Actor," 1755).
It can be seen that the author is struggling to describe in eighteenth century terms and on the basis of insufficient knowledge of psychology what we would today describe as the sensory receptivity and the emotional activity. The author is aware that he is using words to describe vague entities but his discussions are perceptive, observant and cogent. In reference to the question of the actor's intelligence, a matter still doubtfully argued today, he points out that many people hold that the actor need have no understanding. They confuse academic intellectual attainments with craft intelligence. "That kind of sense which gratifies the man of figure for shining in conversion, is very different from that by which the trader amasses a fortune." As to the relation between sensibility and understanding; 'People who feel the most from reading a passionate speech in a play, are not always those who understand it most perfectly; this being the effect of sensibility, a peculiar quality of the mind, not always, as already observed, proportioned to the understanding. Either of these alone therefore will not do for the player; and as it is plain he may possess one without the other. We're to acknowledge the pretensions of that actor great indeed, who has both in such a degree that while the judgement regulates the sensibility, the sensibility animates, enlivens, and inspires the understanding." Here we have a parallel to our own Joseph Jefferson's "a warm heart and a cool mind," and Talma's "la sensibilite extreme et l'intelligence extraordinaire." Our author does not forget recitation, declamation, and how an actor should look. None of these are left out of account but they are given their proper place and proportion. Disregarding the old fashioned verbiage, and the inability to come to grips with certain concepts, due to the level of knowledge existent at that period, the argument of the book is sound and well reasoned. But dealing with imponderables (at least for that age) the book is unable to crystallize its deepening critical understanding into concrete training exercises for the actor. This inability hinders the full effectiveness of that approach. Thus while the understanding and formulation of the acting problem heightens until it reaches in the great French actor Talma's essay its best formulation–the text-books with the same stress on vocal and physical mechanics and exercises continue to deluge the market in ever increasing numbers.
Only one great effort is made to break through the morass. In the nineteenth century the Frenchman Delsarte becomes dissatisfied with the routine acting techniques taught in his time. Aware of its mechanical and stultifying character, he grows to realize that under the stress of natural instinct or emotion the body takes on the appropriate attitude or gesture, and this gesture was not at all what his teachers taught it was. But unable or unwilling to rely on what he had discovered he tried to create a new series of elaborate pictorial descriptions that ended by being just as mechanical as those he originally broke away from. The time was not ready. For the understanding of the conscious and unconscious, the functioning of the senses, the knowledge of the affective behavior, had simply not advanced far enough for it to be utilized in concrete practice.
This was the situation which Stanislavski found and tried to remedy. On the one hand a heightened critical understanding and sensitivity to the actor's problem plus the remarkable achievement of individual great actors who left no heritage but that of inspiration for their followers–on the other a remarkable mediocrity of sameness in the handbooks and textbooks of acting which have by now become legion. Stanislavski himself has stated his purpose well.
"We have retained random thoughts uttered by Shakespeare, Moliere, Ekhof, Schroeder, Goethe, Lessing, Riccoboni, the Devrients, Coquelin, Salvini, and other individual lawgivers in the realm of our art. But all these valuable opinions and advices are not reduced to one common denominator, and therefore the fact remains that fundamentals which might guide the teachers of our art are missing . Notwithstanding the mountains of written articles, books, lectures and theses on the art, notwithstanding the researches of the innovators we had written nothing that might be of practical aid to the actor in the moment of the realization of his creativeness, or that might be of aid to the teacher at the moment he meets his pupil. All that has been written about the theatre is only philosophizing, very interesting, very deep, it is true, that speaks beautifully of the results desirable to reach in art, or criticism of the success or failure of results already reached. All these works are valuable and necessary, but not for the actual practical work in the theatre, for they are silent on how to reach certain results, on what is necessary to do firstly, secondly, thirdly, and so forth, with a beginner, or what is to be done with an experienced and spoiled actor.
"What exercises resembling solfeggi are needed by him? What scales, what arpeggi for the development of creative feeling and experience are required by the actor? They must be given numbers for systematic exercises in the school and at home. All books and works of the theatre are silent on this score. There is no practical textbook."
The Stanislavski "system" is therefore no continuation of the textbooks of the past or present. It represents a sharp break with traditional teaching and a return to actual theatre experience. It tries to analyze why an actor is good one night and bad another, and therefore to understand what actually happens when an actor acts. His actual methods have more than vindicated themselves wherever they have been used. Theatres and actors of great variety and diversified form have created outstanding works on the basis of the training acquired by use of Stanislavski's principles. The works created are never copies or imitations of one another but are original creative achievements. That is the purpose of the Stanislavski idea. It teaches not how to play this or that part but how to create organically.
The material in this collection should therefore be extremely useful. It is written by people who have distinguished themselves in their own right. Vakhtangov was Stanislavski's greatest student, and one of the most original and striking theatre talents of our era. His early death was a great loss to the theatre of the entire world. Zakhava and Rapoport are members of the Vakhtangov Theatre, of which the former is the director. His productions are outstanding examples of the combination of the Stanislavski approach to the actor and a heightened theatric style. Sudakov has directed for the Moscow Art Theatre, and Michael Chekhov was one of its finest talents. Pudovkin is one of the great film pioneers whose remembered works are characterized by amazing reality, sweep, and vitality. What these people say is rich in theory and practical application and should help the actor enlarge his creative potentialities and realize his talent.
|
|
