by Sonia Moore
An actor’s conscious watching of the character’s behavior does not harm the quality of the performance. Stanislavski emphatically demanded that an actor have uninterrupted, conscious control of his behavior on stage. Reactions of the audience can help an actor to be aware of the result of his work and sometimes to correct his faults on the spot. “The audience is a huge mirror reflecting the actor’s creativity,” said Stanislavski. “We must learn to look into this mirror and see what we create. An actor must act as the character and listen as an actor.” And the famous Italian tragic actor Tommaso Salvini (1829–1916) said, “An actor lives, cries, and laughs on stage, but he never stops watching his tears and his laughter.” An actor without self-control is not acceptable on stage.
It is especially important to point out this demand for conscious control because of a tendency among actors to consider their creativity as the expression of “subconscious” and “unconscious” strivings. The Stanislavski System never permits an actor to be in the power of a blind and accidental intuition. The System is indeed conscious activity at its height, preparing a favorable ground for inspiration, or for subconscious creativity, when the actor’s whole psychophysical apparatus is involved. Such subconscious activity is the goal of an actor’s art, and is achieved by the actor who has mastered his technique. Stanislavski’s demands for conscious activity kept increasing.
Stanislavski did not believe in ready-made results for an actor’s creativeness. He demanded that the actor create anew at each performance the live organic process after carefully studying and developing the character’s logic of actions. An actor should not repeat yesterday’s performance: he should create each day a new, true life as if it were happening on stage for the first time. The Stanislavski formula “Today, here, now” makes every performance different, when every gesture, intonation, and facial expression will be fresh.
Some actors insist on using their small, charming clichés. An actor is often tempted by what he has already found to be successful; he thinks this makes his work easier. New, even brilliant discoveries for one role may become clichés that hurt another role. It requires courage to experiment and to reject what has already been found successful; only if an actor fights repetition will he be able to bring out each time his real creative individuality. While working on a character, an actor must forget all the roles he has created previously, and must build a completely new one each time.
In preparing his role, besides improvisations on his actions an actor should play improvisations on various situations in which the character might find himself but which are not in the play. Lines that are not given by the author, but which the character might say, should be spoken in improvisations. Thoughts, actions, and images must be prepared by the actor at home, where he should say the text in his mind only, not aloud. He must see in his mind his partner and what he says.
Physical characterization, which must express the inner life, will come gradually as an actor works on his role. External characteristics are the result of deep penetration into the character’s inner world. An actor should learn to sit, to walk, to dress as an old man, as a fat or a weak one, and so on. At home he should practice his everyday activities as the character—dressing, eating, washing, reading, as the character would.
An actor’s mastership, his ability to perform in various kinds of plays—for instance, the tragedies of Shakespeare or Schiller—will depend on the union of his inner and external techniques.
There is danger in an actor’s trying to set a definite form for his role too early. He must bear in mind that at no time has he reached the limits. “Art is search, not final form,” said Vakhtangov. If what an actor finds is good, it will be easy to find something better. Even after the opening of the play the role should grow.
Stanislavski demanded a creative attitude toward each performance. An actor should arrive at the theater well ahead of his entrance. Besides putting on his costume and makeup, he must go over the important points of his role. He must make inner readjustments, “the toilette” of an actor, as Stanislavski called it.
Looking at the stage and orienting himself will put the actor into the proper relationship to the objects on the stage; seeing why they are there will make him feel comfortable. An actor must know the whole day’s activity of his character and what might have happened to him before he appears. The actor should start playing a minute or two before he goes on, and move gradually and logically to the moment of his entrance. He should think only of one action at a time.
P. M. Ershov, in his Directing As Practical Psychology, writes, “No matter how important sincerity is in art, it is not sufficient. Every sleeping man is absolutely sincere, as is every person who experiences physical pain…. For art, there must be expressive form.”
THE SUBTEXT OF
BEHAVIOR
The term subtext came to birth during the Moscow Art Theater’s productions of Chekhov’s plays. It has usually been understood as a means of helping the actor to comprehend and to project what he is to say. For Stanislavski and Nemirovich-Danchenko it made possible the subtle expression of the character’s emotions and thoughts. The subtext became an instrument of conscious creativity for the actor.
In order to express his interpretation of a play, the director must reveal its subtext, words which the mise en scène and sets alone cannot express. The subtext will vary with every director, since each director may have a different interpretation. Selection of the subtext is a powerful means of treatment of the play and, when correctly chosen, is an impulse for purposeful action. Subtext reveals the character’s relationships, his behavior, and the meaning of his words and actions.
Without the subtext even a truthfully executed action remains flat and will not involve the spectators, who must be concerned with the developing causes of the characters’ behavior, causes of their emotions and thoughts. Assimilation of the profound causes and of the inner reasons for action and expression is decisive in the creative process of the actor. To make an action effective, the actor must master the subtext, which is often in contrast to a superficial interpretation of the text.
When a play has strong dramatic collision, it has an artistic subtext. In order to understand it, actors and directors must study the play and the interrelationships of the characters; they must depart from the play’s super-objective and the through line of actions and assimilate the super-objective and the through line of actions of the character they will build, and their particular inner world and individuality. When the actor, from his own point of view, has a profound understanding of the character’s motivations for his actions, as well as an understanding of his own attitude toward the character, then he will understand the subtext.
A good performance creates a confrontation between text and subtext—that is, between what the character says and what he really thinks and feels but for some reason cannot say directly. It creates a confrontation between the character’s real striving and what he says. This makes the subtext the principal means of dramaturgy in the theater.
Psychologists use the phrase subtext of behavior to refer not only to verbal action but also to what a person means by his behavior. It is used in interpreting the behavior, meaning, and significance of the object which serves as motivation; it is used in interpreting the inner conditions of an action in relation to the intent as a whole and to the character’s entire life. Therefore, it is obvious that the subtext of the lines is only a part of the subtext of the whole behavior of a person.
The words spoken by an actor cannot alone express the depth, conflict, and striving of the character. The actor must search for contrasts between text and subtext. Contradiction between text and subtext makes the unexpected word vivid and significant. Stanislavski said, “Life’s direct actions, when it is easy to foresee what is taking place, are not interesting and should not be used on stage…. Avoid the clichés of directness of your objectives and of your adaptations.” For example, Stanislavski told of a woman who almost beat her chil
d to death because he was nearly killed by a trolley. To justify herself, she said to the passersby, “He is my only child.” A correctly chosen subtext creates contradictions within the text and expresses the text’s depth.
In real life, people cannot always find words for what they wish to express. The assimilation of words is even more difficult on stage than in life because they are spoken before an audience, because they must be projected, and because they belong to the character and have been written by an author who has a particular style. The noted theater scholar and critic P. Markov writes that Chekhov’s dialogue resembles a lyrical poem whose true meaning is revealed not only through the words. Shakespeare’s speech is even more difficult to assimilate. The striving of the actor-creator and of the character must be strongly united. Words become verbal actions when they are justified by the inner need of the person who speaks them and are directed toward another character.
A word is assimilated when it is influenced by the subtext. Subtext makes the word unique. The same words can have different meanings depending on the individual who speaks them and on the situation in which he speaks them. Different subtexts make the words sound different. Stanislavski said, “The value of the words is not in the words themselves but in the subtext contained in them—The meaning of stage creativity is in the subtext, without which words have nothing to do on stage.”
Stanislavski and Nemirovich-Danchenko disagreed as to whether lines should be learned by the actor from the beginning of work on the role. Russian theater scholars today support the opinion of Nemirovich-Danchenko, who thought that lines must be learned by the actor from the very beginning in order for him to understand and penetrate the dramatist’s language and style—his unique peculiarities. Even if the actor understands the character’s actions and motivations, without the text he will not understand the relationship between text and subtext. Thoughts will not arise independent of the text.
In current studies of subtext, important changes occur in the understanding of the use of the inner monologue. The idea accepted sometime ago that a thought is always verbalized has now been reversed. We all know that it is often difficult to find words to express a thought. The actor needs other means to express mental processes during silences on stage or in the pauses occurring in his own lines. Inner experiences must reach the spectator before the words are said. Inner monologue is important because during silences it continues the flow of the action on stage. But since the words which are spoken do not incarnate thoughts, the inner speech is condensed and amorphous, not fluid but broken up.
It is important to remember that drama by its very nature is dialogical; therefore, it includes inner dialogue. Inner speech, although condensed, is always dialogical; it is a kind of polemic with oneself. According to the scientist D. Dubrovski, the character’s “I” is also a “you” with whom he is in dialogue. Today, Russian psychologists find that the term inner monologue is not satisfactory because it obscures the dynamic and inner polemic which reflect the struggle of a character’s motivations during the processes of making a decision. Every response is at least a micro-decision. Therefore, it is more correct to say inner diaogue.
The actor’s body must be trained to extreme sensitivity. Subtle internal processes can be projected only through the actor’s sensitive body. To be able to express the subtext the actor must be capable of executing a psycho-physical action. He must be capable of achieving the psycho-physical state. An action is not artistic without a subtext.
In theater, in contrast to what happens in life, the expression of the subtext through nonverbal means must be sharpened; it must influence the actor’s partner and the spectators. The inner life of the character must be seen by the spectators. The actor must understand the most important subtext of the lines (the key subtext) during silences on stage. The correct gesture, the correct intonation do not often happen spontaneously on stage. With the help of conscious calculation, the actor must find a willful push which will make them happen.
The subtext can be expressed through a synthesis of expressive means: verbal formulation of active thoughts and nonverbal expressive means such as a movement of the spine, a body gesture, a glance, rhythm, a pause. Expressed subtext gives the spectators knowledge of impressive unexpected details of the character’s behavior and reveals the essence of his whole behavior—that is, his through line of actions.
Spectators must see the movement of the character’s thoughts when the actor is silent. A movement of the spine, eyes alive when the actor really thinks, project these thoughts. A pause during a speech without movement of the body perceived by the spectators can create dead moments on stage. A gesture of the body expressing feelings and thoughts gives direct visual information to the spectators and projects the subtext. Gestures of the body which externally reveal subtext, in contrast to text, build dramatic and comic effects. Gestures and movements must never merely illustrate the words—that is, they must not repeat the word’s superficial meaning. The director should suggest the subtext to actors, since interesting solutions do not come easily. Picturesque and psychologically precise revelation of the subtext is a strong stimulus to the actor’s imagination and, later, to the spectator’s imagination.
Although in life we often do not reveal a subtext, in theater actors and directors must work to reveal expressiveness of the subtext. The subtext must be incarnated in visual signs. Without it, there is no theater.
THE DIRECTOR
The director must die within an actor.
VLADIMIR I. NEMIROVICH-DANCHENKO
The director is the organizer of a performance, the interpreter of a play. He creates new values by transposing a play from its literary form into its theatrical form. The director must know life; he must be a psychologist with an artist’s sensitivity. He must be able to evaluate and analyze the play; to express the main idea of the author; to explain the play to the actors and stir their interest; to suggest ways of realizing specific problems; to make use of the conflicts in the script; to demonstrate if necessary; to find the right rhythm; to give brief, concrete instructions; and to foresee the audience’s reactions.
The director must have imagination and be capable of invention; he must have culture, taste, tact—and principles. A director sometimes tries too hard to establish his own prestige. He has no right to distort the idea of the author for the sake of his own inventions, but he has a right to insist on the realization of his ideas.
A director who knows acting technique is likely to be more patient than others, because he knows what is easy and what is difficult for an actor. Work with actors is the important part of the director’s task of creating a performance; his guidance should help the actor even in future work in other plays.
The director must sense an actor’s individuality and be able to create the whole with various individualities. This, however, does not mean that he should adapt himself to an actor. The director should not demand the same colors from different actors. Neither should he demand definite results, a definite expression or gesture or intonation, at the very start. Rehearsals will proceed well after the director’s idea has reached the actors. This will be achieved through discussion, when the director checks his ideas with the group. All the parts of the production should be discussed one by one. Actors must be given the opportunity to talk about the play—its main idea, its events, its through line of actions, and the relationships among its characters. However, I heard Stanislavski impress on actors that rehearsals exist for work, for action, and for search—not for protracted discussions, as some followers of the System insist on today. If an actor has mastered the technique and is able to analyze a play through consecutive actions in the given circumstances of the author, he will not wander in his independent work, and will not waste time in meaningless discussion.
Even a director with the most unconventional ideas must make sure that his actors live the characters’ experiences through the laws developed by Stanislavski. In early rehearsals only the truth of an act
or’s behavior should be watched. Organic truth is vital, but the director must see that everything has a vivid form and that the truth is interesting and expressive. A director must see the play in terms of actions and should speak of them, not of feelings; he should suggest at once that actors analyze actions even while reading the play the first time, in order to avoid monotonous intonations.
Blocking out the play forces the actor to analyze the actions; the director should be able to help the actor to determine them and try them out. The method of analysis through events and actions must be applied throughout the play. The director must lead actors to logical, purposeful actions leading to the super-objective of the play and help them to understand all the nuances in their partners’ behavior.
The director may have a preliminary pattern for his production, but staging is a creative process, and he must be able to improvise. Each mise en scène will be expressive when—even without words—it projects the content, the situation.
Actors and the director must go through a process similar to that of the playwright, completing the life of each character in order to understand the thoughts and feelings that dictate the characters’ words. They must understand the subtext.
If an actor is incapable of executing a direction, the director must make sure that he himself is not at fault. He might have given the actor the wrong task, and suggested an inappropriate attitude toward an event. The actor’s problem may be a lack of justification for a specific action, and it is the director who must see that every action is justified. The actor’s difficulty may be a lack of creative “nourishment,” and talks with the director about the life to be portrayed may be helpful. An actor’s trying to act an emotion, or even a little falsehood in some detail, could be another problem.
