Home
Artist
Educator
Scholar 

 

 

ON CREATING THEATRE
IN THE REALM OF POETIC REALISM AND ITS PROCESS

DO NOT SEARCH FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR PLACE IN THEATRE,
BUT SEARCH FOR THEATRE IN YOURSELF
Stanislavski

Very often we use the term “process” in our work. But that is an expression that refers to an area that we understand in different ways. We have to understand that there are different processes for different goals and the process is not an endless exercise or experimentation that is its own aim.

What is the process?

The process “is a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result – growth.” or “series of actions or operations conducting to an end” [Webster]. In our theatrical terms “the process” is set of creative practical and productive activities that lead us through a certain line of achievements from position A to position B, and then from B to C, and so on to Z, in order certain discoveries to be made, certain goals to be accomplished or achieved, or in our case a theatre production to be created. And it happens for a certain length of time. When the process is neglected we talk about the product or result oriented work. When the product or the result is neglected then the process is endlessly extended and very often we may get lost in it because we either do not know what are we looking for, what are we after, or how it is done, or we have exhausted ourselves in the process. Where is the balance?

Well, different aesthetics have different processes.

The expression aesthetics is another point of misunderstanding. I would like to mention briefly – because it requires a long discussion - that aesthetics is a discipline in humanities [part of philosophy] – which is not a discussion or theory about the beauty, but in Kantian terms - who actually introduced the aesthetics as a system to the western philosophy - it is a discipline that deals with the essence of art - "What is art?" and "How is art created?". Aesthetics is, therefore, a science about the ways of creation. That is, aesthetics is rather discourse about the process of doing and creating, then disocurse or discussion about arts' results, which is the realm of criticism. Therefore, aesthetics, in our case, is about the ways theatre is created. And there are many ways in which theatre is created.

What are the ways that we use to create a production? What is the aesthetic premise of our work? [Also, think of the word acting which clearly says that it is about action and doing - practice, it is not about talking and discussing– theorizing]

Let me briefly mention some elements that address the aesthetics of poetic realism, which is just one of many approaches to theatre, that we use to work with in the class, and what therefore Aristotle’s and consequently Stanislavski's contribution to that aesthetic is.

The idea of directing and acting in the larger frame of Aristotelian theatre [here the word theatre replaces aesthetics, and this is as if we say Brecht's theatre - which is non-Aristotelian and requires different ways of directing, acting, and creating theatre - or Grotowski's theatre - which on its part requires different process and different means of expression, or post-modern theatre] has specifics and requires particular approach.

Aristotelian theatre in broader terms is already very clearly defined. The point is to understand it, to learn what are its requirements, and to use and apply these elements in our work. Here comes the first question? How to translate a theory in into a stage language or practice. Well, here we have Stanislavski and his extraordinary contribution to theatre directing and acting. And his aesthetics is not only about acting as many would like to believe it or as many teach it. Stanislavski contribution is above all about theatre, and accordingly about directing as well.

As you know, Stanislavski develops his understanding, teachings, and theatre practice under the broader umbrella of Aristotelian theatre, Fraud's investigations in human nature and psychology, and realism in broader sense of its meaning. And that is generally called aesthetics and methodology of psychological realism [some people use the term poetic realism]. And many of the most challenging and most innovative theatre directors today in the world - from Meyerhold to Grotowski, from Harold Clurman and Peter Stein to Peter Brook, from Ariane Mnouchkine to Anne Bogart, from Chaikin to Scheckner have entered the world of theatre wearing Stanislavski's overcoat in their youth. They have learnt the basics first and then started to rebel against them and started to shape their own voice and world.

In the realm of psychological realism there is a very precise system, creative process with methodology and theatrical ways - you may call them rules or laws if you wish - in which directors and actors approach a play, penetrate its world, and consequently, using their talent and imagination, create their theatre production. As we all know, our goal is to create a theatre production - characters are part of it - [directors create - take this in broader terms - the production as a whole, they unite all the elements of the production in one meaningful whole/ entity, we call it very often "big picture", while the actors create the characters and becaome characters - acting on the stage as if they are those characters - and work collaboratively with directors to be part of the production]. The production stands above both of them and above all of them [other creators]. In Stanislavski's theatre the director is a leader, a guide, a friend, a midwife, a person who is a step ahead of everyone else, the critical eye that sees the "big picture" from a distance standing at the center of the events, and the "authority" who has the last word on the behalf of the production. No one is more important than the production. And in this kind of theatre which we call realism, the process used in some other kind of theatre and applied here - that is, other aesthetics - does not necessary bring needed or desired results.

Because of that, the existence of that system, - [the book that is known here as Actor Prepares originally is called Actor’s Work on Himself - System], - there is no any reason for reinventing the wheel. It is rather a matter of learning/acquiring this methodology and then applying/utilizing it in the process of creation of a production. And it is about learning this theatre, not Anne Bogart's viewpoints, or Meyerhold's biomechanics, or Grotowski's poor theatre. Once you learn them, the basics of realism, you may rebel against them and reject them altogather. That is even expected form young theatre artists.

The first issue that has to be addressed here, in Stanislavski’s system, is the CONTENT of the play [what is it that the play deals with; what is the play about] and the FORM [how is that done in the play and consequently, how is that going to be done in the production]. In Stanislavski's theatre the content - the play - is fixed and constant. What is there or what is it, does not change. What changes is the form - the production of the play, the way how that is done - how we give shape to that content. What we do in that process of creation is to discover the content, step by step and in proper order - in order which will protect us from getting lost somewhere on that road. In the search for the content we refer to the content very often as to the world of the play. Well, what do we do, then? In the first instance, as a first key, we use logic analysis based on method of making both deductive and inductive conclusions. These conclusions are almost mathematically proven and accurate - here we are taken in the realm of the exact sciences as Stanislvski suggests- and that is why these conclusions and this method are the most reliable on our road to the core and to the essence of the matter or as we say to the content of the play written in Aristotelian theatre.

In practical terms this looks like this: A = B; B = C; C = A

That will take us to discover [not to randomly chose, even less to make a guess] based on appropriate, accurate, and logic conclusion what is really at the heart of the matter of that given play.

It takes time, reading, thinking, again reading, discovering, reading supporting material, then making conclusions, and practicing, practicing, and practicing.

And the process of analysis is not about us, the directors or actors, it is about the play. That is our map. We have to learn how to read the map - the play. The play gives direction, the director and the actors use them from their own positions on the stage and/or in the house in order to give live form to the production. Our imagination, talent, intellect, knowledge, skills and craft, enable us to be more or less successful in our first discovery of the content - the world of the play - then to give live to the play and to create a production. But we all have to try to do exactly that, not something else. The more we try the better we are. We should count on that, that at the beginning it will be very difficult and the process will start with lot of inaccuracies and errors. But that is how we learn by trails and errors. We work outside of safety and conformity of what is easy and known. Theatre artist take risks.

How does this work in the case of Cherry Orchard for example? How do these things work and where should we as directors and actors start from in order to arrive somewhere - if we want to arrive somewhere or anywhere at all.

Well, if we assume and say that A [our play Cherry Orchard] = B [and B stands here for home, country, land], and if B [country, home, land] = C [and C signifies hera violently changed and transformed land, home, and/or country], then we can say that Cherry Orchard is about violent change, transformation, and transfiguration of that land or of that particular home and country.

This is what I try to urge you to see, understand, and utilize. This kind of analysis will take you to the content of the play, to the theme, ideas, philosophy, and further on to the action, conflict[s], objectives, and consequently to the life of the human spirit on the stage as Stanislavski suggests us to do it. These things have to be clear before you start giving form, shape, and life to the play and the characters. And the actors should understand that these things come before actors' talk about character's choices. And according to this approach, Stanislavski's methodology, there is a way in which things unfold or happen. And once again, the play and production are the most important, not the characters as created by random actor’s choices based only on their opnions and their free will. The actors and their characters are part of the play and the production and they are subordinated to the production, they do not stand above it. There is a system in realistic theatre and there is no need for us to look for something else or "new" instead of learning what has most profoundly worked in the realm of the poetic realism in the twentieth century theatre with great results.

I may also call this the alphabet of theatre. We have to know it and use it before we decide to reject it or reinvent it. If the writer has to know the alphabet in order to write novels, then the director and actor as well have to know their theatre alphabet in order to create productions in the realm of the poetic realism.

Let me explain this process with few analogies. Let assume that you are engineer/constructor who has been chosen by interview or audition to build a house [in our case it is a production] according to a given design and plan [that is our play] by a famous architect whose name is Walter Gropius, or Franck Loyd Wright [our famous name is of course Ibsen or Chekhov]. Well, you as an engineer and constructor [director] with your constructors and builders [actors] look at the plan and say, well this a great plan, we like it, and we will build it our way, making our choices. And you start building from the roof. And you go somehow down toward the ground and along the road you see that there should be some pillar here and there, and you wonder where to put it, and you put some of those pillars there making your choices based on your will or because you feel that way, and there should be doors and windows, and you make choices and put them there, but you put them also in random way on the construction, failing to see where do they fit the best, and according to you, you are making your good and strong choices because you are constructors and you know these things work. Well, all of a sudden along the road, you discover that you need stairs there, and you put them there - beautiful, the most expensive stairs - and everyone likes them, but they don't go anywhere, and so on, and so on. And finally you manage to finish the building [your production] but the foundation is missing and day or two after you think that you have finished it, it collapses no matter that you had the best builders [actors] who knew all the 'tricks of the trade" and made choices that worked the best for them as actors but not for the play and the production.

And one more short analogy: What will happen if the surgeon starts to operate his patient with a serious heart problem - and don't forget, it is an operation of the heart - and he starts to do it from the foot, because that is his and his team choice.

I would like to mention also that in the process of collaboration and creation of the production from A to B to C etc., there is a big difference between how an actor or actress approaches his or her personal process of acting or how she goes about acting - which is very specific individual process - and how an actress goes into discovery of the world of the play, finding the place of her character in that world, and working with others [director and partner actors]. That is, there is a differnce between actor's individual acting process and how he or she creates the character following the main line of action in the play and how he or she defines character's objectives which are part of that action. These important segments and the choices made are based on findings and facts discovered in the play. The characters do not exist isolated outside of the play and the given circumstances in the play. On the other hand, it is also very important that in this process the actors have to bring their individual talent and imagination, and to apply and utilize their acting abilities, skills, and craft in the production. Doing so, they have to be able to transfer all the discoveries about the characters into a living characters on the stage. That is, to transform themselves into active living characters on the stage not in talking heads. That is very, very individual thing, and that makes difference and that is one of the beauties in acting. We go to see Hamlet not to discover something new about him, [we can read the play at home] but to see how Brook directed, and how Olivier, or Kevin Klein, or Kenneth Branagh did him.

Well, while acting is a process of transformation and creation and then process of doing and living believable here and now - within the time frame of the production on the stage, directing is a process of creation of the production and along with that a creative and guiding force in the process of transformation. And rememebr we refer here to the proces of directing. Beacause, if there is no director who is the leader in the search for the direction, then the actress has to be her own guide/director on that road from the play to the stage.