Comparing Stanislavski and Bertolt Brecht - Essay Example

DESCRIBE, COMPARE AND ACCOUNT FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH TWO OF THE PRACTITIONERS (STANISLAVSKI AND BERTOLT BRECHT) APPROACHED THE RELATION BETWEEN SPECTATORS AND PERFORMERS. Students Name Course Professor’s name University City/state Date Describe, compare and account for the ways in which two of the practitioners (Stanislavski and Bertolt Brecht) approached the relation between spectators and performers. The context below is about great and famous actors, directors and authors of the theatre industry of the twentieth century. They both had different views on the relationship between performers and spectators which are discussed below. The differences and similarities of their beliefs are also summarized. Stanislavski was a seminal theatre practitioner who was widely known and recognized as an outstanding actor. He directed many productions and gained a reputation as one of the best theatre directors in his time. His fame was due to his actor training and rehearsal method. He acted and directed and later co-founded the Moscow art theatre and later focused on teaching, writing and directing. Bertolt was a poet, theatre director and writer. He was born in February 1898 in Germany. He contributed to theoretical production and dramaturgy. Related presentational acting and presentational acting are different and directly opposite ways of building the relationship between spectators and performers. In presentational acting, the performer acknowledges the audience and in representational acting, the spectators are ignored by the performer and treated as if it does not exist. In theatre performances, the way each actor individually treats the spectator varies, sustains or establishes a specific kind of performer-spectator relationship. Presentational acting is therefore the kind of relation acknowledging the spectators indirectly such as through the use of gestures showing that the performer is aware that the audience is present or by direct address. In representational acting the audience remains ignored and the actor focuses on the dramatic action. Stanislavski finds more useful to focus on the fictional reality of the character and not concern himself with the theatre external realities. He believed that on the side of the performer, these interactions with the spectators lead to false mechanical acting and do not help in the performance. He argued that the actor only needs to explore the subjective part of the playwright. Brecht in the assumption of a direct however made use of presentational theoretical relations. He believed in the assumption of a direct and natural contact with the spectators. Brecht views the interaction between presentational and representational dimensions form an important part of dramaturgy. It was said that Brecht’s intention was that it should always be about the performer’s subjective reality which included direct spectator addresses. Stanislavski in the twentieth century went ahead to develop a system to train actors that was named Stanislavsky’s system. He proposed that training of actors should not just be physical and vocal. This system cultivated the of experiencing which involved bringing together the performer’s conscious thought to activate the less-controllable processes that are psychological such as subconscious behavior and emotional experiences indirectly. During rehearsal, the performer looks for inner motives to justify the actions of what the character wants to achieve. He argued that the best play analysis is taking of action in the said circumstances. He elaborated his system further with a physical rehearsal process to minimize table discussions and encourage active analysis which is improvised in the sequence of dramatic situations. His system was developed and promoted by teachers who were his former students therefore the Stanislavsky’s system acquired cross cultural boundaries and spread internationally leading to debates about acting and drama in the west. His ideas have been accepted as the common and right thing to do and actors have continued to use them without questioning. It has become a routine for many performers to equate the Americas method with his system. [Stanislavski 1913] `A character is sometimes formed psychologically, i.e. from the inner image of the role, but at other times it is discovered through purely external exploration`. Throughout his acting career he focused his direction to a process of self reflection and self analysis artistically. He persistently made efforts to remove the limitations he experienced in his acting performances. His system was not used during the creation of his early productions. He introduced a period of discussion in to the production process by his cast in his first success internationally. This approach brought a lot of success especially with naturalistic stagings but he still remained unsatisfied. In the brechtian theatre, the audience must have awareness of the character’s fiction of the play and only through this can the actions of the characters be judged objectively. [Brecht 1978], gestus is conveying particular attitudes adopted by the speaker towards other men and allowing conclusions to be drawn about the social circumstances. The philosophy he brought out and inspired was to make the audience aware of their ability and potential to influence and be part of the change process. Bertolt Brecht argued that involving the audience was important in achievement of a critical response which was a requirement for several forms of entertainment. [BRECHT 2001], As we cannot invite an audience to fling itself into the story as if it were a river and let itself be carried vaguely hither and tither, the individual episodes have to be knotted together in such away that the knots are easily noticed. The episodes must not succeed one another indistinguishably but must give us a chance to interpose our judgment. Brechtian approaches and techniques play an important role in facilitation of the role of talking to the audience. The theatre should engage the audience in dialogue since the presenting of a problem alone is insufficient. [Williams 1999], `Brecht is not a form, it is a vision of theatre` [Brecht 2001], the effectiveness of theatre lies in its capacity to lead people into believing that they too can act upon their reflections and actively participate in the process of change as the present day world can only be described to present day people if it is described as capable of transformation`. Brecht believed that theatre should be a political ideas vehicle being a committed Marxist. It had to be adapted to social needs that arose from political situations. Brecht’s work was usually referred to as social experiments and not plays and the success of the experiments was determined by the audience’s reaction. Creative collection is described by [Kiernander 1993] `They know they must watch. They know it is valuable for them to watch others. To watch the others properly`. Collective creation thus is beneficial to both the audience and the performers. By empowering performers, the audience too is made to believe that they can also have a say in their society and influence change progress. Through his theatre techniques, Brecht tries to awaken the critical thinking of the spectators which is seen as a direct benefit to action. He aims to produce ideas and judgments that have been deduced logically on ideas that have been presented to them and act on them. His aim with his artistic partner Mnouchkine, was apart from entertainment, educate the spectators. Music in theatre was also used as an informative and educative tool and the audience got encouraged to question the real situations on the ground. Stanislavski focused on traditional theatre while Brecht challenged the traditional theatre notion by refusing to use any kind of device he views not to be relevant to his goals. Dramatic theatre unlike Stanislavski is not appealing to Brecht. According to Mnouchkine [Kiernander 1993], `imitating reality turns actors into living pieces of furniture`. Stanislavski loves using naturalist approach during his presentation while Brecht argues that a naturalistic approach encourages observation only on the audience and not critical enquiry. Brecht says that a naturalist approach only creates an impression of a reality that is inescapable not leaving room for change. He therefore renounces illusion which leaves the audience passive and cannot awaken the audiences’ critical thinking. Traditional theatre is the way to go for Stanislavski but according to Brecht, it can only weaken the reasoning abilities of spectators and hypnotizes the audience. Brecht uses the Verfremdung effect as his most powerful tool to awaken critical thinking. The V-effect uses the concept of creating distance between spectators and the audience, an emotional and not physical distance. The audience does not suspend its disbelief and it moves further away from the play’s inner reality. They become aware of the difference between their reality and that of the play. [Martin Esslin 1990] `theV-effect is non-emphatic distancing`. The consciousness of the audience at this point makes the able to pass unbiased and objective judgment on the presented problems. Use of the V-effect encourages the spectators to act on their reflections. [Esslin 1990] `The sudden devastating cry from the depth of their soul that in their terms constituted the climatic moments of drama`. The actor’s reality is reviewed by the spectators and the consequences of these reviews applied to their real world. During the demonstration of this technique, the V-effect, Mounchkine says, [Kiernander1993] `for a long time, Europeans have not represented anything. Europeans present everything`. Brecht thus wants to present ideas not people and events by use of parables. The gestus concept is revealed by Brecht by exposing contradicting social situations and leaves it to the spectators to identify the behavior the character meant to represent. The V-effect is visible in the plays physical structure and does not only reflect through acting. The structural discontinuity of the play makes the spectators to see clearly and logically the problems presented. Stanislavsky’s system leaves the spectators suspending their disbelief but Brecht uses the gestus approach to avoid leaving the audience suspending their disbelief. Stanislavski influenced greatly the study of theatre and the acting practice. He aimed at bringing in professionalism in the acting world. Brecht being a Marxist, imposed on the idea of using theatre as a way of teaching. Stanislavski was therefore interested in theatre as an art while Brecht was interested in theatre as a tool. Though both believed in theatre as an art, Brecht thought it was more than that. [Brecht 1948] `If art reflects life, it does so with special mirrors`. Brecht would have most likely referred to Stanislavski; Stanislavski was a poet who practiced dramatic poetry. [Brecht1959], `the epic poet presents the event as totally past, while dramatic port presents it as totally present`. Brecht wanted the audience to find an action unbelievable and protest against a character’s actions. Stanislavski argued that all stage actions were justifiable in the inner sense but Brecht insisted on bringing out the injustice in those actions causing the audience to protest against them. Both of them had goals they wanted to achieve with theatre and both had just reasons to support the different spectator-performer relationships as they did. Stanislavski assumed that every actor was true to their roles. He wanted them not to just pretend but be truthful with their emotions while playing the part. He trained them to be intuitive. He suggested that the actors use emotional memory by remembering an event that had happened in their real life and show an emotion that closely corresponded to the character they played. Brecht’s main objective was for the audience to see the actor’s character objectively while Stanislavsky’s technique made the audience see the actor’s characters objectively. Brecht did not want the spectators to empathize with the actors but rather see the reality in the social and political happenings in their communities and know that they could be objects of change. Both are seen to believe that theatre is an art only that Brecht believes that apart from being an art, it is something else. Both also seem to agree that there is reality and performance. Stanislavski agreed that there is a difference in artistic and inartistic truth and said that a photograph produced everything while a painting produced what is only essential at the time. In conclusion, Stanislavski and Brecht were both successful and famous playwrights who just had a different approach towards achieving of their individual goals in the acting world. Facts about them have been discussed in the context above and their ways of working in the theatre have been compared. They both were prolific teachers in the acting world and left a legacy in the theatre and acting world. Brecht worked to achieve his goals through epic poetry while Stanislavski believed he would achieve his goals through dramatic poetry. References Bertolt Brecht, Metheun 1970, `Bertolt Brecht: collected plays`. Brecht 1948, A short Organum for theatre. Dort, Bernard 1990, `Crossing the desert: Brecht in France in the eighties`. Interpreting Brecht. Maarten, Van 1990, ` Blocking Brecht. re-interpreting Brecht: His influence on contemporary drama and film`. Rufinni, Franco 1986, `Horizontal and vertical montage in the theatre`. New theatre quarterly. Salino Brigitte 1981, `Ariane Mounchkine: Activism, Formalism and Cosmopotalism. Contemporary`. European theatre directors. London. Stanislavski 1913. The imaginery invalid. Stanislavski, Konstanin 1961, Creating a role. London. Thomas James 2016, `A director’s guide to Stanislavsky’s active analysis`. London. Toporkov 2001,`Stanislavski in Rehearsal: The final years`. London. William, David 1999, `Collaborative theatre`, The Theatre du soleil Sourcebook. London. Worrall Nick 1996, `The Moscow art theatre`, Theatre production studies. London. Read More

His system was developed and promoted by teachers who were his former students therefore the Stanislavsky’s system acquired cross cultural boundaries and spread internationally leading to debates about acting and drama in the west. His ideas have been accepted as the common and right thing to do and actors have continued to use them without questioning. It has become a routine for many performers to equate the Americas method with his system. [Stanislavski 1913] `A character is sometimes formed psychologically, i.e. from the inner image of the role, but at other times it is discovered through purely external exploration`.

Throughout his acting career he focused his direction to a process of self reflection and self analysis artistically. He persistently made efforts to remove the limitations he experienced in his acting performances. His system was not used during the creation of his early productions. He introduced a period of discussion in to the production process by his cast in his first success internationally. This approach brought a lot of success especially with naturalistic stagings but he still remained unsatisfied.

In the brechtian theatre, the audience must have awareness of the character’s fiction of the play and only through this can the actions of the characters be judged objectively. [Brecht 1978], gestus is conveying particular attitudes adopted by the speaker towards other men and allowing conclusions to be drawn about the social circumstances. The philosophy he brought out and inspired was to make the audience aware of their ability and potential to influence and be part of the change process.

Bertolt Brecht argued that involving the audience was important in achievement of a critical response which was a requirement for several forms of entertainment. [BRECHT 2001], As we cannot invite an audience to fling itself into the story as if it were a river and let itself be carried vaguely hither and tither, the individual episodes have to be knotted together in such away that the knots are easily noticed. The episodes must not succeed one another indistinguishably but must give us a chance to interpose our judgment.

Brechtian approaches and techniques play an important role in facilitation of the role of talking to the audience. The theatre should engage the audience in dialogue since the presenting of a problem alone is insufficient. [Williams 1999], `Brecht is not a form, it is a vision of theatre` [Brecht 2001], the effectiveness of theatre lies in its capacity to lead people into believing that they too can act upon their reflections and actively participate in the process of change as the present day world can only be described to present day people if it is described as capable of transformation`.

Brecht believed that theatre should be a political ideas vehicle being a committed Marxist. It had to be adapted to social needs that arose from political situations. Brecht’s work was usually referred to as social experiments and not plays and the success of the experiments was determined by the audience’s reaction. Creative collection is described by [Kiernander 1993] `They know they must watch. They know it is valuable for them to watch others. To watch the others properly`. Collective creation thus is beneficial to both the audience and the performers.

By empowering performers, the audience too is made to believe that they can also have a say in their society and influence change progress. Through his theatre techniques, Brecht tries to awaken the critical thinking of the spectators which is seen as a direct benefit to action. He aims to produce ideas and judgments that have been deduced logically on ideas that have been presented to them and act on them. His aim with his artistic partner Mnouchkine, was apart from entertainment, educate the spectators.

Music in theatre was also used as an informative and educative tool and the audience got encouraged to question the real situations on the ground.

Read More