bentley 1964 - stanislavsky and brecht

Upload: bodoque76

Post on 06-Jan-2016

245 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

theater Brecht Stanislavski

TRANSCRIPT

  • Are Stanislavski and Brecht Commensurable?Author(s): Eric BentleySource: The Tulane Drama Review, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Autumn, 1964), pp. 69-76Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1124779 .Accessed: 04/04/2011 08:17

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

    Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress. .

    Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

    JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

    The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Tulane DramaReview.

    http://www.jstor.org

  • Are Stanislavski and Brecht Commensurable?

    By ERIC BENTLEY

    "How does Brecht's system differ from Stanislavski's?" I have often heard this question asked, sometimes in exactly these words, and probably we shall all live to see the question appear in much this form on college examination papers. I recall, too, that as a young admirer of Brecht's, nearly twenty years ago, I myself de- scribed an actor in one of his plays as having gone "beyond Stanislavski." Will the acting profession soon be divided between Method actors and Brechtians?

    Possibly it will, so far as nomenclature is concerned, and so far as the actors' declared allegiances are concerned. It is obviously possible for some actors to love Stanislavski, others, Brecht. What I would question is whether there are indeed two systems, two ways of life, presenting the actor with an either-or choice.

    At least some of the differences between what the two men said stem from the fact that they addressed themselves to different subjects; that they differed about the same subject remains to be proven. Take Stanislavski's alleged preoccupation with subjec- tive elements and Brecht's alleged preoccupation with objective elements. Brecht speaks of what is done in a finished performance. As a director, he tells actors to do what is presumably to be done "on the night." Some Method actors will protest that it is wrong of him to tell them this: he is "working in terms of results" instead of stimulating their subconscious. Some Brechtian actors will retort that theatre is results, that drama is action, that the notion of a subconscious is bourgeois and decadent.... And so the issue is joined.

    But it is an imaginary issue. We can side-step it by remember- ing that Brecht was a playwright, Stanislavski an actor. For

    69

  • Tulane Drama Review

    Brecht, actors were the means toward the full realization of his plays. Because he had the good luck to work in a highly pro- fessional environment and with actors of very great talent, he could with reason take it that the actor's craft was simply there to be used. At worst, it only needed adjusting to a new kind of playwriting. At best, it could give the new playwright ideas on playwriting. (Some of Brecht's "theories" are deductions from the work of particular actors.) In short, Brecht, who regarded his scripts as forever unfinished, forever transformable, and his dram- aturgy as young and developing, tended to regard the actor's craft as given and as already there in finished form. Thus Brecht assumed that the actor in one of his shows was an actor, and had his training behind him, while he made a different assumption about playwriting: namely, that he was constantly giving himself an education in it. Hence, Brecht's rehearsals, while they trained the playwright, did not, in any such direct way, train the actor. This is but another way of saying that, in a playwright's theatre, the actor is there to do what the playwright says, and he better know how to do it pronto and not hold the playwright up: that's what he's paid for. For Stanislavski, on the other hand, it was the play which was a fait accompli. We do not read of his reworking his scripts either in the manner of Brecht or of the Broadway directors. He was too busy reworking the actors. I suppose every director looks for clay to mold. For Stanislavski, the clay consisted of actors; for Brecht, of his own collected writings.

    I know that the antitheses I am using oversimplify. What an- titheses don't? In his last years, Brecht was beginning to mold actors, beginning, in fact, to learn to mold actors, and beginning to talk of acting schools and the younger generation. And con- versely, perhaps, examples could be given of Stanislavski's editing and adapting plays. Such factors, however, imply only slight modifications of the point I have made. And by consequence what Brecht, in his theoretical pronouncements, is talking about is what actors, finally, can and should do, while what Stanislavski is talking about is the question of how they may be brought to the point where they can do this or anything else. Brecht is talk- ing about the end result; Stanislavski about education, about the

    70

  • ERIC BENTLEY

    actor's training. To say this does not provide us with all the answers. Rather, it opens up new questions.

    For example, did Brecht assume that the present-day actor can give him just the result he wants? Stanislavski, it is well known, presupposes just the opposite. In his view, it is because the actors cannot produce the right results that the Method is needed and that the emphasis on education and training is justified. Hence, when the Brechtians protest that a director must not degenerate into an acting coach, the Stanislavski-ites can retort: "Yes, he must-at a time when the actors are not perfected professionals but still need coaching." And indeed that our "professional" actors attend acting schools and the like until middle age testifies less to their modesty than to the fact that we do not have a profession any more. Was this not true in Brecht's Germany? Another hard and ambiguous question. I would say it was on the whole not true of the Germany of Brecht's youth and therefore that his reliance upon a realized professionality was justified. That he began to get interested in training young people after World War II represents not a change of heart on his part but a change of situation in his country. It was not to a land of well- trained Weigels, Homolkas, and Granachs that he returned, and so in his latter days Brecht acquired an interest in what had been Stanislavski's lifelong concern: the development of young people into actors.

    If the generalization still stands-that by and large Brecht is concerned with getting the play produced, Stanislavski with training the actor to be in it-would it necessarily follow that an actor trained by Stanislavski would be a bad actor for Brecht's plays? Were Stanislavski alive today, one can be reasonably sure he would answer this question in the negative, for it was his aim to create an instrument which could be used for any honorable theatrical purpose. And it is clear that he regarded this aim as attainable.

    The Brechtians have their doubts-or should, if they wish to tread in the Marxian steps of the Meister. Stanislavski's notion of a universally valid training and a possibly omnicompetent kind of acting they will (or should) describe as bourgeois. And they

    71

  • Tulane Drama Review

    will call for a more historical view of things, according to which Stanislavski belongs to one class and one epoch, the Brechtian theatre to another class and another epoch.

    Nonetheless the record indicates that while Brecht's efforts show a single direction, Stanislavski, like Reinhardt, produced all kinds of plays, and could train actors to excel in each of them. In my view, this is only to repeat that he was a director (a di- rector has to work with the whole repertoire) while Brecht was a writer concerned with writing (chiefly his own). It has been the tendency of the Berlin Ensemble to impose Brechtianism upon plays by other authors; but the results are unfortunate except when the other authors are quite Brechtian. Stanislavski on the other hand was by no means the servant, let alone the prisoner, of one style or school. It is true that he created stage Naturalism in Russia. But equally he might be said to have created stage Sym- bolism there, by his productions of Maeterlinck and Andreyev. Given a few more years of life, would he have created a Brechtian theatre? The dangers of historical "If's" are notorious. And who would wish to overlook the obvious: that Stanislavski and Brecht were such utterly different men-different personally, as well as in nationality? And though they both came of the upper bour- geois class-which is amusing-their relation to that class is dif- ferent in quite an ironic way. Stanislavski-prize exhibit of Stalin's Russia as he lived to be-remained genteel to the end. Acquiescent in the New Society, all that he was he brought from the old. He did not like the new Communist plays, and his theatre became a museum for the best in "bourgeois" drama. While Stanislavski was not even a rebel against his own family back- ground, Brecht was nothing if not just that; and his love of "the people" is pale indeed beside his rage against his own class. Hence, while it is ironic enough that Stanislavski should be the darling of a terrorist regime, it is doubly ironic that supporters of that regime should champion him against an artist who had gone out of his way to praise Stalinist terrorism.

    That part of the story would be irrelevant to my present argument except that the Communists, for their own reasons, have so handsomely contributed to the confusion that reigns con- cerning this Stanislavski-Brecht relationship. In 1953, a spokes-

    72

  • ERIC BENTLEY

    man for the German Communist Party declared Brecht's theories to be "undeniably in opposition to everything the name Stanis- lavski stands for. The two leaders of the Ensemble must surely be the last people to hide their heads in the sand when faced with these facts." 1 At that time the "two leaders" of the Berlin Ensemble were Brecht himself and his wife, Helene Weigel. Frau Weigel attended the Stanislavski Conference of 1953 with the laudable aim of showing that Brecht and Stanislavski were not as incompatible as all that. But if, as I gather, all she had to offer was a rehash of the Nine Points her husband had printed the year before in Theaterarbeit, she could only have made the con- fusion worse. For like the Party leaders, the Brechts identified the word "Stanislavski" with the word "Soviet." And one notes that the New Society is as given as any American orator on Com- mencement Day to orotund platitude. Stanislavski believed in Man, Brecht believed in Man; Stanislavski regarded Truthful- ness as a duty, Brecht regarded Truthfulness as a duty; Stanis- lavski had a sense of responsibility to society, Brecht.... Since only seeing is believing, I will reproduce Brecht's Nine Points at the foot of this article.

    When Brecht was not busy blotting himself out (like his Young Comrade) in order to be Stalin's organization man, he was apt to express hostility to Stanislavski, as in two passages which Mr. Willett rightly cites in Brecht on Theatre along with the Nine Points. In the first of these passages, the target is Naturalism:

    What he [Stanislavski] cared about was naturalness, and as a result everything in his theatre seemed far too natural for anyone to pause and go into it thoroughly. You don't normally examine your own home or your own feeding habits, do you?

    In the second, the target is not only the strictly Naturalistic theatre but any theatre that depends too heavily on empathy. Brecht finds in the hypnotic kind of theatre a soporific intention based on fear of the audience's intelligence: "The audience's sharp eye frightens him [Stanislavski]. He shuts it." Such pas- sages remind us that Brecht knew very little about Stanislavski and, like the rest of the world, thought of him as the lackey of

    1 Martin Esslin, Brecht: The Man and His Work (New York: Double- day, 1961), pp. 179-80.

    73

  • Tulane Drama Review

    one style of theatre. If the word "Soviet" does not define Stanis- lavski's general outlook, neither do words like "naturalistic" and "empathic" define his theatre as a whole.

    To revert to the question of whether Stanislavski, had his health been better and had h,e lived on, would have proceeded to create a Brechtian theatre, or at least to have achieved some authentically Brechtian productions, one would probably be wise to answer: No, he belonged too unalterably to the pre-1914 world. He would not have been any more at home with Brecht than he had been with the Russian Communist playwrights-or with his own rebellious sons, such as Meyerhold. The difference be- tween generations is a difference of spirit and temper. But this is not to say that Stanislavski's approach to acting will have to be discarded if Brecht's plays are to be well performed. First a man can become an actor-with the help of the Method. Then he can learn to adapt himself to different kinds of plays-in- cluding Brecht's. Is the difference between Brecht and all other playwrights greater after all than other differences which actors have already learned to confront-say, between Shaw and Shake- speare, Wilde and Arthur Miller? Brecht's assault upon the idea of Empathy and his defense of Alienation sound more threaten- ing in their abstract theoretic grandeur than in practice they turn out to be. The "Alienation Effect" is not alien to the tradition of comic acting as Stanislavski and everyone else know it-what Brecht is attacking is the tragic tradition in its attenuated form of domestic, psychological drama of pathos and suspense. But the Charlie Chaplins and Zero Mostels practice Alienation as Monsieur Jourdain composed prose. Perhaps it takes a German intellectual to make such heavy weather of the thing.

    Incidentally, Brecht never considered that "epic" acting had really been achieved either by the Berlin Ensemble or anyone else. So there is his own authority for saying: there are no Brechtian actors. Evidently what he had was a vision of what acting might become, given not only changes on stage, but also in the auditorium. Should that vision ever be realized, it is con- ceivable that Stanislavski may prove to have been one of the contributors to it.

    74

  • ERIC BENTLEY

    SOME OF THE THINGS THAT CAN BE LEARNT FROM STANISLAVSKI2

    1. The feeling for a play's poetry. Even when S.'s theatre had to put on naturalistic plays to

    satisfy the taste of the time, the production endowed them with poetic features; it never descended to mere reportage. Whereas here in Germany even classical plays acquire no kind of splendor. 2. The sense of responsibility to society.

    S. showed the actors the social meaning of their craft. Art was not an end in itself to him, but he knew that no end is attained in the theatre except through art. 3. The star's ensemble playing.

    S.'s theatre consisted only of stars, great and small. He proved that individual playing only reaches full effectiveness by means of ensemble playing. 4. Importance of the broad conception and of details.

    In the Moscow Art Theatre every play acquired a carefully thought-out shape and a wealth of subtly elaborated detail. The one is useless without the other. 5. Truthfulness as a duty.

    S. taught that the actor must have exact knowledge of himself and of the men he sets out to portray. Nothing that is not taken from the actor's observation, or confirmed by observation, is fit to be observed by the audience. 6. Unity of naturalness and style.

    In S.'s theatre a splendid naturalness went arm-in-arm with deep significance. As a realist he never hesitated to portray ugliness, but he did so gracefully. 7. Representation of reality as full of contradictions.

    S. grasped the diversity and complexity of social life and knew how to represent it without getting entangled. All his productions make sense.

    2 From Theaterarbeit (Dresden, 1952), p. 413. Translated by John Wil- lett, Brecht on Theatre (New York: Hill and Wang, 1964), pp. 236-37. Reprinted by permission of the publishers.

    75

  • 76 Tulane Drama Review

    8. The importance of man. S. was a convinced humanist, and as such conducted his theatre

    along the road to socialism. 9. The significance of art's further development.

    The Moscow Art Theatre never rested on its laurels. S. invented new artistic methods for every production. From his theatre came such important artists as Vakhtangov, who in turn developed their teacher's art further in complete freedom.

    Article Contentsp. 69p. 70p. 71p. 72p. 73p. 74p. 75p. 76

    Issue Table of ContentsThe Tulane Drama Review, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Autumn, 1964), pp. 1-5+9-196+200Volume Information [pp. 1 - 1]Front Matter [pp. 2 - 4]TDR CommentStanislavski Triumphant [pp. 9 - 17]Disservice to the American Theatre [p. 18]

    Stanislavski in America [pp. 19 - 21]The 225th Studio [pp. 22 - 23]Meyerhold to Chekhov [pp. 24 - 25]Director's Diary, 1905: The MAT Production of Ibsen's "Ghosts" [pp. 26 - 41]"The Three Sisters" at the MAT [pp. 42 - 56]Director and Actor at Work [pp. 57 - 62]Stanislavski Changes His Mind [pp. 63 - 68]Are Stanislavski and Brecht Commensurable? [pp. 69 - 76]Stanislavski and Shakespeare [pp. 77 - 84]The Notion of "Action" [pp. 85 - 87]Stanislavski and Freud [pp. 88 - 111]The American Lab Theatre [pp. 112 - 116]Working with Live Material [pp. 117 - 135]The Reality of Doing [pp. 136 - 155]TDR John Golden Play SeriesA Song for All Saints [pp. 156 - 196]

    Back Matter [p. 200]