by Sonia Moore
Mortally ill, Vakhtangov demanded joy and infectious gaiety from the actors. “Actors must have joy in their hearts from the feeling of the stage. Without this, theater is a layman’s pastime”—that was his belief. Occasionally he would grasp his side and swallow some bicarbonate; often, as soon as the pain eased a little, he went on stage to demonstrate to actors, moving with lightness. Vakhtangov hurried; he knew that he was not going to live long. I shall never forget his rehearsals: never satisfied, he sometimes canceled in a second what had been achieved during long nights; continually searching for truth and force, he made each rehearsal new.
In February 1922, Vakhtangov was ill with pneumonia. He was in the Third Studio with a temperature of 103 degrees, working on the lighting for Turandot. At four a.m., when the young actors were utterly exhausted, he ordered a run-through of the whole play. He seemed to know that this would be the last time he would see his masterpiece. After the run-through, when everyone else had gone home, Vakhtangov, too tired too move, lay down in his office for a few hours.
On February 27, 1922, a solemn dress rehearsal was held—the first performance of Turandot, ordered by Vakhtangov for Stanislavski. Vakhtangov’s teachers and students were present: Stanislavski, Nemirovich-Danchenko, the actors of the Moscow Art Theater and of its Studios, including the Habima Studio group. Vakhtangov himself was at home, dying.
At the first intermission Stanislavski telephoned to Vakhtangov, and at the second break he hired a sleigh and went to his home. The performance was not to continue until Stanislavski’s return.
“I wanted the actors to live truthfully, really cry and laugh. Do you believe in them?” Vakhtangov asked Stanislavski.
“Your success is brilliant,” Stanislavski replied. He returned to the theater, and Turandot went on. At the end Stanislavski said to the actors, “In twenty-three years of the Moscow Art Theater’s existence, there have been few triumphs such as this one. You have found what many theaters have sought in vain for a long time.”
On the next evening, February 28, Turandot had its opening. “Having conquered stage naturalism, Turandot, with all its theatricality, is impregnated with true inner life, is filled with soul to the brim….” wrote a drama critic.
“Fantastic” or “theatrical” realism was the name Vakhtangov gave to the art that he strove for. He believed that an actor who lives the inner experiences of a character must embody them with creative imagination. That is what Stanislavski teaches us, he said, and he quoted the master: “The truth on stage is not what happens in real life, but what could happen.” Vakhtangov believed that the means for building the inner life had to be learned, and that the form and expression, dictated by contemporary life, had to be created with the help of imagination.
Vakhtangov could not endure formlessness. He always strove for the most precise, rich, inwardly full, and expressive external form for the particular dramatic work in question. He strove to eliminate triviality and to create new forms through the most imaginative means. His aim was the synthesis of imaginative sculptural form and inner truth. “Inner content dissipates if the controlling form is weak,” he said. “Never stop searching, and cherish the form which discloses the inner content.” Humor, a carefree smile, tragedy, deep thought—all nuances we’re united in an artistic whole in his acting and his staging. He impressed his audience with the depth of thought in his productions.
It should be noted that during the short years of Vakhtangov’s creative life he was extremely interested in the work of Vsevolod Meyerhold (1874–1940), the famous experimenter whose daring productions provoked heated arguments. * This brilliant director left the Moscow Art Theater to fight a revolution of his own. Meyerhold’s ambition was to invent sensational new stage laws. He never repeated himself. Contrary to Stanislavski, who wanted the spectators to lose themselves in the atmosphere of the play, Meyerhold wanted the audience never to forget that they were in a theater. Vakhtangov thought that Meyerhold, in his own way, strove for the same objective as Stanislavski: that of eliminating everything trivial. Meyerhold’s extraordinary imagination and feeling for form impressed Vakhtangov, who wrote in his diary, “Each of his productions is a new theater. Every one of them could have a whole new theatrical direction.” However, Vakhtangov thought that Meyerhold often acted purely from a desire to destroy the old, that he often imposed a form which had little to do with the essence of the play, and that his greatest handicap was in his work with the actors, because he was not always able to attain the truth of genuine experience. Meyerhold, who was himself an actor, did not, however, know an actor’s organic nature. He could give an actor a brilliant external pattern but could not help him to fill the role with inner life. Though Meyerhold eliminated triviality, Vakhtangov thought his theater dead, without emotion.
Vakhtangov was a great, daring artist who left his own distinctive mark on all his creations. Whereas Stanislavski searched more than forty years for answers to the problems of actors and directors and built a theater of true significance, Vakhtangov’s creative life lasted only five enormously fruitful years. But his achievement was a product of his understanding of the vital value of Stanislavski’s teachings.
There never was any break between the two great artists. Both strove for truth of content, truth of meaning, and both dreamed of a vivid theatrical form. Vakhtangov continued the search for form started by Stanislavski, who, amazed by his own discoveries, dedicated his life to developing and formulating his miraculous laws for the inner technique of acting. Those who speak of a break between Stanislavski and Vakhtangov are those who do not understand Stanislavski. Vakhtangov fought on Stanislavski’s side with passion. Stanislavski discovered a scientific theory which pointed the way to endless experiment and further discoveries. Vakhtangov followed the signs faithfully and helped to move the Stanislavski System forward. The deductions which he made from the System have given the theater greater techniques of acting. Although Vakhtangov’s productions were experimental, his work was a milestone in the history of the Moscow Art Theater, and he had a profound influence on world theater.
Vakhtangov wrote to Stanislavski: “March 29, 1919…. I thank life for the opportunity of knowing you…. I do not know … anyone superior to you. In art I love the truth of which you speak and which you teach…. You said once, ’The Moscow Art Theater is my citizen’s service to Russia.’ … The symbol of every artist is in your words. I am your humble student…. I feel unworthy to show you my work….”
On a photograph of himself which he gave to Vakhtangov, Stanislavski wrote: “To my dear friend, beloved disciple, talented colleague, the only heir, the first to answer the call, who believed in new ways in art, and who worked hard to introduce our principles into life, wise teacher who created schools and educated actors, the inspirer of many groups, the talented director and actor, creator of new principles of the revolutionary art, the future leader of the Russian theater.” Stanislavski was known never to flatter. He meant what he said. Vakhtangov was not one of Stanislavski’s disciples; he was the disciple.
Vakhtangov died at the age of thirty-nine, on May 29, 1922, at nine fifty-five p.m. The news of his death reached the Moscow theaters at once, and all audiences rose in tribute.
* This group was called the Mansurovskaya Studio.
* Vakhtangov had staged the first version in 1918.
* Meyerhold’s theory of “biomechanics” was based on the teachings of the American psychologist William James.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
My Life in Art, by K. S. Stanislavski (1925, 1928). Actors Discuss Vakhtangov, compiled by H. Khersonski (1940). Glikeria Fedotova, by Georg Goyan (1940). Complete Works of Stanislavski, eight volumes (1945–1961). Ivan Moskvin on the Stage of the Moscow Art Theater, by V. Y. Vilenkin (1946). Stanislavski at Rehearsal, by V. Toporkov (1950). Maria Nokolaevna Ermolova, by S. N. Durylin (1953). Vassily Ivanovitch Kachalov, compiled and edited by V. Y. Vilenkin (1954). The Moscow Art Theater, edited by N. Chuskin (1955). Stanislavski’s Theatrical
Legacy, edited by E. Grabar, S. Durylin, and P. Markov (1955). The Directorial Lessons of Vakhtangov, by N. M. Gorchakov (1957). The Directorial Lessons of K. S. Stanislavski, by N. M. Gorchakov (1958). K. S. Stanislavski on the Director’s Work with an Actor, by N. M. Gorchakov (1958). Museum of the Moscow Art Theater (1958). Eugene Vakhtangov: Materials and Articles (1959). Technology of an Actors’ Art, by P. Erchov (1959). Theater Ethics of Stanislavski; by Y. Kalashnikov (1960). In the Contemporary Theater, by A. Anastasiev (1961). The Mastership of an Actor, by M. A. Venetzianova (1961). The Director’s Art Today, by Y. Zavadski, A. Popov, K. Knebel, B. Pokrovski, A. Lobanov, N. Slonova, G. Georgievski, K. Ird, O. Efremov, V. Kommissarjevski (1962). The Method of K. S. Stanislavski and the Physiology of Emotions, by P. V. Simonov (1962). Discussions about Stanislavski, by Vladimir Prokofiev (1963). Innovations in Soviet Theater, by A. Anastasiev, G. Boyardjeff, L. Obraztzova, K. Rudnitzki (1963). Recollections and Reflections about Theater, by Alexei Popov (1963). The System of Stanislavski and the Problems of Dramaturgy, by VI. Blok (1963). Vakhtangov, by K. H. Khersonski (1963). Mastership of an Actor and Director, by B. V. Zakhava (1964; second edition, 1969). The Word in an Actor’s An, by M. O. Knebel (1964). Traditions of Realism on Stage, by Y. S. Kalashnikov (1964). On the Art of the Theater, by Yuri Zavadski (1965). The Truth of the Theater, by P. Markov (1965). The Aesthetic Ideal of K. S. Stanislavski, by Y. S. Kalashnikov (1965). William Shakespeare, Our Contemporary, by Grigori Kosintzev (1966). Shakespeare in the Soviet Union (collection of articles, 1966). The Nemirovich-Danchenko School of Directing, by M. O. Knebel (1966). The Art of the Word, by N. K. Gey (1967). Soviet Film Actors (collection of articles, 1968). The Training of an Actor in the Stanislavski School of Acting, by Grigori V. Kristi (1968). The Key to the Character, by Y. Smirnoff-Nesvitski (1970). From the Studio to Theater, by L. Shikmatov (1970). Drama As an Aesthetic Problem, by A. A. Kariagin (1971). The Life and Creativity of K. S. Stanislavski: Annals, by I. Vinogradskaya (two volumes, 1971). The History of Soviet Dramatic Theater (six volumes, 1966–1971). Directing as Practical Psychology, by P. M. Ershov, forewords by Oleg Efremov and P. V. Simonov (1972). Stanislavski, by E. Poliakova (two volumes, 1977). The Image of a Performance, by Alla Mikhailova, (1978). Drama As a Phenomenon of Art, by V. Khalisev, (1978). Alla Tarassova (Documents, 1978). G. A. Tovstonogov, Problems of Directing, by Y. Rybakov (1977). P. A. Markov, About Theater, Diary of a Drama Critic, (four volumes, 1976). Side by Side with Cherkassov, by N. Cherkassova (1978). VI Iv. Nemirovich-Danchenko, Selected Letters, (1979). Through the Eyes of an Actress, by N. Belevzeva (1979). Essays on the History of the Drama of the 20th Century (1979). Profession of the Director, by Anatoly Efros (1979). Novellas of My Life, by Nataly Satz (1979). Truth of the Character, by Alexei Gribov (1979). Fates of Dramaturgical Genres, by V. Frolov (1979). Theatrical Pages (Articles, 1979). Theater of Mochalov and Shchepkin, by B. Alpers (1979). Minor of the Stage, by G. Tovstonogov (two volumes, 1980). A Point of View, by Maya Merkel (1980). Stanislavski’s Directorial Volumes (1980, 1981). Babanova, by M. Torovskaya (1981). Meyerhold, by K. Rudnitzki, (1981). Our Conversations, by Anatoly Smelianski (1981). About Theater, by N. Abalkin (1981). Reminiscences and Comments, by V. Vilenkin (1982). History of Russian Dramatic Theater (six volumes, 1982). Boris Zakhava: Reminiscences, Productions and Roles (articles, 1982).
Also, Theater, monthly publication of the Union of Writers and the Ministry of Culture of the U.S.S.R. (articles, 1963–1983).
INDEX
The page numbers in this index refer to the printed version of this book. To find the corresponding locations in the text of this digital version, please use the “search” function on your e-reader. Note that not all terms may be searchable.
adaptations, 38–40, 47, 48, 63, 74
Adashev, A. I., 77, 78
affective memory, see emotional memory
analysis (of play), 21, 28, 46–48, 56, 59–60, 66, 73, 74–75, 78
Anski, S.: The Dybbuk, 84–85
audience, 5, 8, 14, 16, 29–30, 41, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 73, 78, 88; actor’s contact and communication with, 11, 12–13, 14, 29–31, 33, 35, 36–37, 39, 47, 58, 59, 65, 71, 72, 81
Berger, H.: The Deluge, 80, 85
Bialik, Chaim: The Dybbuk, 84–85
body, training of, 53–54, 71. See also physical technique
Brecht, Bertolt, 15
Chaliapin, Feodor, 13, 20
Chaplin, Charlie, 26n
character: analysis of, 47–48, 60–61, 66 [See also analysis (of play)]; emotions, 4; emotions, forcing of, 10, 33, 44; and main object of struggle, 48, 63–64; playwright’s conception of, 13, 50, 58, 60, 61; purpose of, 50–51, 58, 59; relationships with other characters, 36–37, 62–63, 64, 66
character, building of and portrayal of, 8, 9, 12–14, 26–27, 33, 35–36, 41–42, 43, 46–51 passim, 55–67, 78–79; biography completed, 27, 37, 60, 66, 75 (see also imagination); and ensemble work, 14, 41; inner monologue, 63, 65; reincarnation, 61, 78, 80; “second plan,” 60, 65; super-objective, 49–51; through line of actions, 50–51. See also actions; images; intuition; psychophysical process
Chekhov, Anton, 6, 7, 14, 68, 70, 82
Chekhov, Michael, 83
circles of attention, 31
circumstances (given circumstances), 19, 26–27, 29, 32, 33, 39, 40, 44, 46, 48, 50, 56, 61. See also imagination; “magic if”
clichés, 66, 69
commedia dell’arte, 35
communion (between actors), 7, 35–37, 38, 41, 58, 60; ensemble work, 14, 41
concentration, 29–32, 33, 36, 40, 53, 57, 63
conflict, see struggle and conflict
costumes, 54, 75, 80
Cricket on the Hearth (Dickens), 80
criticism, 21–22
dance and dance training, 64
Delsarte, François, 19, 64
Deluge, The (Berger), 80, 85
Dickens, Charles: Cricket on the Hearth, 80
dilettantism, 15
director, 8, 14, 15, 26, 41, 49, 73–76; and actors, 15, 39, 60, 72, 73, 74, 75; analysis of play, 47, 59, 68, 69, 73; and playwright, 15, 73
discipline, 4
Dubrovski, D., 71
Duse, Eleonora, 15
Dybbuk, The (Anski and Bialik), 84–85
emotional memory, 41–45, 60, 62
emotions, 12, 33; of actor, 9–10, 14, 18–19, 26, 27, 28, 31, 39, 41, 42–43, 44, 47, 58, 60, 64, 81; of audience, 14; of character, 5; of character, and forcing, 9–10, 33, 44; logic of, 45. See also subconscious creativity
ensemble work, 14, 41. See also communion (between actors)
environment, 26, 62
Erik XIV (Strindberg), 83
Ershov, P. M.: Directing as Practical Psychology, 23–24, 67
ethics, 4
exercises, 22–24, 31–32, 33
“expressive movement,” 19
Fedotova, Glikeria, 6, 16
Festival of Peace (Hauptmann), 79
film, 22
Genet, Jean, 15
given circumstances, see under circumstances
Goethe, Johann von, 62
Gogol, Nikolai: The Inspector-General, 83
Gorki, Maxim, 14
Gozzi, Carlo: Turandot, 85, 86–87
groups: ensemble work, 14, 41; exercises, 32; mass scenes, 37, 64
Habima Studio, 83–84, 86
Hauptmann, Gerhart: Festival of Peace, 79
Ibsen, Henrik, 7; Rosmersholm, 80
“if,” see “magic if”
images, 7, 29, 35, 57, 58, 59, 65, 66
imagination, 87; of actor, 27–31 passim, 33, 35, 36, 37, 60, 66–67, 75, 87; and adaptation, 39; of director, 73; and improvisation, 34. See also “magic if”
improvisation, 11–12, 19, 21, 22–24, 27, 28–29, 34–35, 37, 40, 41, 66, 74
inner dialogue, 71
inner monologue, 20, 63, 65, 71
Inspector-General, The (Gogol), 83
inspiration, 5, 11, 12, 39, 65
intuition, 11, 39, 56, 60,
61, 65
James, William, 88n
“kernel,” 59
key subtex, 71
Lanin’s Estate (Zaitsev), 80
Leonardo da Vinci, 13
lighting, 14, 26, 75
logic: of actions, 7, 14, 19, 21, 26, 28, 29, 33, 35, 39, 41, 45, 46, 49, 50, 53, 55, 56–57, 61, 66, 81; of emotions, 45; of through line of actions, 50–51, 57, 58; of verbal actions, 59
Maeterlinck, Maurice: The Miracle of Saint Anthony, 82
“magic if,” 25–26, 33, 35, 36
main action, 50
Mansurovskya Studio, 80
Markov, P., 70
mass scenes, 37, 64
memorization, 46, 58
memory, emotional, see emotional memory
method of physical actions, 10–11, 17–45, 64
Meyerhold, Vsevolod, 64, 75, 88
Miracle of Saint Anthony, The (Maeterlinck), 82
monologue, 36, 62, 63; inner monologue, 63, 65
Moscow Art Theater, 5, 6, 7, 29, 68, 77–80 passim, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
music: with improvisations, 41; with performance, 75
musical comedy, 64
naturalness and naturalism, 13, 14, 61, 87
Nemirovich-Danchenko, Vladimir Ivanovich, 6, 60, 68, 70, 78, 80, 86
obstacles, overcoming, see adaptations (adjustments)
O’Neill, Eugene, 7, 14
overacting, 33
pantomime, 20
Pavlov, Ivan Petrovich, 9, 17
physical technique, 52–54, 64; dance and dance training, 64; speech and voice training, 13, 52, 53, 54, 58, 64
playwright, 8, 27, 48, 49, 50, 59, 60; characters created by, 13, 50, 58, 60, 61; and director, 15, 73
