Physical Theater - Research Paper Example

Introduction Physical theater has been a method of acting that owes its origin to the approaches of famous dramatists like Stanislavsky and Grotovsky. The basic concept of this style of acting is that any emotional experience has a manifest physical expression. It is also based on the notion that in order to enable the actor to have better control over his enactment of emotions, and also to enhance the effectiveness of acting, there needs to be a physical aspect to acting. This is in view of the exaggeration inherent to acting as such. There is a limit to exaggerating a facial expression. The theatrical form requires that even the audience in the last row catch the emotion expressed by the actor without it being rendered awkward due to the element of exaggeration involved. This is the context where physical acting can save the occasion. Also, physical action involves movement that can be weaved into the movement of the plot of the play itself to bring about a kind of doubled impact. Simon McBurney categorized human behavior into seven levels of tension, namely, coma, relaxed, neutral, alert, suspense, passionate and explosion so that there can be a level of standardisation on how the actor can express emotions in the form of physical actions on stage. Stanislavski on the other hand had much earlier developed the method of physical actions by which an actor supplements his/her emotional acting with corresponding physical actions. Both these approaches to physical acting have been lauded as systems that immensely help methodical acting yet criticized as well as constrictive to the real spirit of the total emotional experience involved. This has been a criticism raised against all kinds of physical theater. Yet, even the critics will agree that relying on facial expressions and internal feelings alone will render theater motionless and boring. While Stanislavski has more or less tried to provide just a physical actions-based loose framework corresponding to emotional states, the McBurney method prescribes specific physical actions for different emotions and thereby faces the risk of reductionism. Hence, Stanislavskys method of physical actions can be said to be imparting more freedom to an actor than McBurneys method. Method of physical action- Stanislawsky Method of physical actions was not merely a directive of physical training for Stanislavsky but the the psychological aspects of any physical action was also accounted for in this method (Chushkin, 1998, p.16). It was acknowledged by this theater maestro that the actor necessarily needed to have an “inner justification” and logic for what he/she was doing (Chushkin, 1998, p.16). It is also observed that method of physical action was not an ultimate dictum as far as Stanislavsky was concerned but only tools “which help the actor go from the simple to the complicated” (Chushkin, 1998, p.17). Critics have observed that the political climate in communist Soviet Union might have been a factor that compelled Stanislavsky to focus attention on physical acting and yet he had never lost sight of the importance of emotional evolution and inner logic (Chushkin, 1998, p.18). The historical relevance of Stanislavskys physical action-oriented acting is that it partially replaced the analysis-oriented rehearsals that prevailed in that period (Whyman, 2008, p.35). The method of physical actions can be defined as “a rehearsal method where the actor develops a logical sequence of actions for his or her role in order to fulfill the tasks demanded by the given circumstances of the play” (Whyman, 2008, p.35). This enables the actor to express the emotional state of the character not only using his/her “emotional memory” but also certain standardized physical activities (Whyman, 2008, p.35). Here, it has to be reminded that “action is internal and external, psychological and physical and the actor executing such an action is active” (Whyman, 2008, p.36). Seven levels of tension: Simon McBurney The seven levels of tension approach of Simon McBurney to acting is based on the notion that “the very nature of our personalities and the way we engage with the world around us has a natural level of tension” (“Measure for Measure Workpack”, n.d.). It is also assumed that “at any point in our daily lives we hold a certain level of tension in our bodies” (“Measure for Measure Workpack”, n.d.). By understanding the varying nature of physical tensions associated with each and every emotion possible, the actor is supposed to develop an “emotional vocabulary” that he/she can use while acting (“Measure for Measure Workpack”, n.d.). This is a kind of reverse thought process by which it is asked, what emotion does a particular kind of physical action represent or evoke?. This is like trying to find an alphabet for emotions. It is not clear by which parameters did McBurney limited his level of tensions to the number, seven. What about the gray areas of tension in between these seven categories? Though McBurney has kept each of his categories open to broad interpretations of a wide spectra of emotions, the subtle variation within have been left unattended. Approaches to physical acting: Stanislavsky and McBurney It can be seen that while Stanislavsky was trying to translate emotions into actions in an organic manner, leaving enough space for personal variations and infinite manifestations, McBurney is trying to find just physical correlates for emotional states. For Stanislavsky, physical action was not synonymous with simple physical activity (Merlin, 2001, p.205). It has been observed that “physical activity becomes physical action by the introduction of a psychological/dramatic effect, which the executor of the action (activity) wishes to have on his or her partner” (Merlin, 2001, p.205). In other words, for Stanislavsky, there is least disconnection between an emotion and its corresponding physical action. Both co-evolve and enrich each other. The process is further enriched by the subjective contribution of the actor also. Hence, this whole process has an ability to account for the complex mental states and emotions involved. This is not to say that McBurney did not consider the subjectivity element in acting. What Stanislavsky and McBurney both attempt is an actor-specific physical interpretation of emotions. Both these outstanding theater personalities have been careful to acknowledge the lived experience that is involved in acting. They knew acting as a constantly evolving emotional process at the core. The physical actions and definitions they provide to represent emotions are just meant as certain frame works within which an actor can hope to have a degree of control over his/her emotional manipulations of the self. Yet, in the framework provided by Stanislavsky, there is unlimited scope for interpretation, but in McBurneys frame, there are stricter rules limiting creativity. By working in reverse order to create emotions out of physical states will leave the actor devoid of the much-important inner logic that forms the soul of any emotion. It can be seen that Stanislavsky and McBurney had in mind, different contexts and perspectives while they tried to develop the connections between physical activity and emotions. Stanislavsky was trying to find the universal syntax of emotions while McBurney was attempting to develop a physical alphabet of emotion. Both these approaches, though related to the language of acting, differ in purpose and content. It is the structure that Stanislavsky is talking about- a structure that can give immense freedom regarding content. McBurney is more concerned with the content that evolves into structure but by limiting the content, even the structure is reduced to its bare minimum. It was in 1935 that Stanislavsky first attempted to change his “attention from inner emotion to on-stage action” (Merlin, 2001, p.16). While doing this, he had no precedence to rely upon. In the case of McBurney, there already was in existence a tradition of physical acting within which Stanislavsky stood as a well-established legacy. It is sure that Stanislavsky was not an ignorable presence for McBurney. The very act of finding physical correlations for emotions belong to the Stanislavskian tradition indeed. It has to be agreed that as methods that can be adopted in the rehearsal stage, both approaches have great relevance. The actor needs to take these as a channels to connect his/her inner self with the body. There has to be an alertness within the actor to always undertake the inner journey from emotion to body and back. In such a dynamic context, both these methods can be highly useful. Sawoski (n.d) has explained how Stanislavsky “developed points of reference for the actor, which are now generally known as units and objectives” (p.6). These two concepts can be defined as given unit below: A unit is a portion of a scene that contains one objective for an actor. In that sense, a unit changed every time a shift occurred in a scene. Every unit had an objective for each character. This objective was expressed through the use of an active and transitive verb; for example, to seduce her or to annoy him. This active (action driven) objective then had corresponding physical action(s) that would help to achieve the objective. The objective was directed towards another person in order to ensure interaction (Sawoski, n.d., p.6). Further by arranging the objectives in a logical sequence, a “through line of action was mapped out for the character” (Sawoski, n.d., p.6). A “superobjective” envisaged by Stanislavsky as the vehicle of this through line of action, representing the overall objective of the play (Sawoski, n.d., p.6). This “superobjective” was also seen as the ultimate goal of the play (Sawoski, n.d., p.6). When looking at McBurneys seven levels of tension, each of the seven levels actually happen as a result of one of the objectives that is there within a play, and also in one unit of the play. When this active objective gets translated into action, a certain emotion happens and a corresponding level of tension happens. By naming this level of tension as coma, relaxed, neutral, alert, suspense, passionate or explosion, McBurney is actually limiting the physically action choices for an actor. As loose frameworks, these levels are convenient for the actor to locate and correlate the physical action called for. Yet, if this frame work is misunderstood as a rigid rule, the lived emotional experience faces the danger of being reduced into a series of mechanical expressions. While the objective in Stanislavskys scheme is directed towards the other person thus inclusive of the co-actor and the audience as well. In McBurneys method of physical acting, the different levels of tension concerns only the actor involved. The interactive element is lacking. There is no connection or continuity of action here and hence the actors are isolated in their own subjective performances. In this manner, McBurney fails to see the whole picture. To conclude, the method of physical actions developed by Stanislavsky has the potential to evolve according to the contemporary needs of modern theater as it incorporates the action and emotion in a well-balanced and complementary manner. McBurneys seven levels of tension fails to find this kind of an organic connection between the two. References Chushkin, N. (1998) Foreword, In V. O. Toporkov, Stanislavski in rehearsal: The final years, London: Routledge. Measure for Measure Workpack, n.d., [pdf document] . Retrieved from www.complicite.org/pdfs/Measure_for_Measure_Workpack.pdf Merlin, B. (2001) Beyond Stanislavsky: Psycho-physical approach to actor training, London: Nick Hern Books. Sawosky, P. (n.d.) The Stanislavsky system: Growth and methodology, Retrieved from homepage.smc.edu/sawoski_perviz/Stanislavski.pdf Whyman, R. (2008) The Stanislavsky system of acting: Legacy and influence in modern performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Read More