notes on stanislavski

Notes on StanislavskiAuthor(s): Bertolt Brecht and Carl R. MuellerSource: The Tulane Drama Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Winter, 1964), pp. 155-166Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1125107 .Accessed: 30/09/2013 18:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

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

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.129 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:09:26 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

dTr DOCUMENT SERIES Notes On Stanislavski

By BERTOLT BRECHT

What follows is taken from volumes 3 and 7 of Brecht's Schriften zum Theater (Frankfort: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1963-1964). "On the Stanislavski System," "The Treacherous Vocabulary," "On Rapo- port's 'The Work of the Actor,' " "On the Expression: 'Complete Transformation,' " and "The Incomplete Transformation-An Apparent Step Backward" are from Schriften volume 3, pp. 206- 217. The rest of the material is from Schriften volume 7, pp. 187- 219.. The material has been edited. Notes to the Schriften indicate only that the work in volume 3 is "early." The material from volume 7 was written mostly in the years 1951-1953. The Stanislav- ski Conference which Brecht mentions was held in 1953. During that summer, Brecht read a rough translation of Gorchakov's Stan- islavski Directs, which had been published in Moscow in 1951.

On the Stanislavski System Its progressiveness. Stanislavski's System is an improvement, first of

all, because it is a system. The method of playing which he suggests systematically compels the empathy of the spectator; it is not a result of chance, mood, or ingenuity. Ensemble playing is improved because even the smaller roles and the weaker actors can, with the aid of such a system, contribute to the empathic involvement of the audience.

Its cultish character. Studying Stanislavski and his System, one can see that considerable difficulties arose in forcing the empathy: it became increasingly harder to bring about the necessary psychic act. An ingeni-

155


156 Tulane Drama Review

ous educational process was created to prevent the actor from "slipping from his role"; it permitted no interruption of the suggestive contact between actor and audience. Stanislavski naively treated these interruptions as purely negative weaknesses which could be removed. Thus the art became more and more a forcing of empathy. The thought never occurred that the interruptions could be coming from changes in the consciousness of modern man which are no longer remediable. The alternative in the face of such inconsistencies would have been to raise the question whether or not total empathy was still desirable.

The theory of epic theatre did raise this question. It took the interruptions seriously and traced them back through historical social varia- tions, taking pains to find a method which could completely disclaim empathy. The contact between actor and audience had to be realized in a manner other than the suggestive. The spectator had to be released from his hypnotic state and the actor relieved of the task of totally transforming himself into the character. A definite distance between the actor and the role had to be built into the manner of playing. The actor had to be able to criticize. In addition to the action of the character, another action had to be there so that selection and criticism were possible.

Necessarily, this was a painful process. A gigantic superstructure of conceptions and prejudices lay in the way as debris; a cool-headed ap- praisal of the Stanislavski vocabulary brought to light its mystical and cultish character. The human soul appeared no different from what it is in a religion. There was a "priesthood" of art, a "congregation," a "captivated" audience. "The word" had something mystically absolute about it, and the actor was a "servant of art." Truth was at the same time a fetish and something quite common, nebulous, and impractical. There were "impulsive" gestures which needed "justification." Mistakes, prop- erly speaking, were "sins," and the spectator had an "experience" such as the Disciples of Jesus had at Pentecost.

The Treacherous Vocabulary A character should be "creative." The creator is God. Art is "sacred." The actor is to "serve." Whom? Art. The actor "transforms himself," just as in the Mass the bread is trans-

formed into the Body of Christ. What happens on stage must be "justified," just as at the last Judg-

ment all must be justified that has happened on earth. Concentration is the "withdrawal into the self" of the mystic.


BERTOLT BRECHT 157

The imagined fourth wall permits the actor to be "alone" with his God, art.

It is a question of "truth"; it arises through genuine feeling, but that itself can be produced through exercises.

The audience must stare "captivated" at the stage. "The soul." This is an age when man is handled as though he were a motor, when

the collective is established and truth bartered with and destroyed. The actor who does not withdraw into the self is dismissed and the one who does cannot play in an ensemble. Only the man who is free of illusions, who compels the exploiter to reveal himself without justification, can direct his own life. The working man alone is creative, and while he is defeating his masters he must transform himself into his own master, and that not only in his imagination. Nor ought he to stay alone with his God, but unite himself with his fellows in misfortune and burst every constraint. He should not withdraw into himself, but fight his enemy. He need not save his soul if only he save himself. He can in no way whatever empathize with every member of the human race. The sentence, "Act so that your actions might be a maxim for the actions of all" must be amplified to read, "Bring about a state of existence in which your actions might be a maxim for the actions of all." That is something completely different.

On Rapoport's "The Work of the Actor" How is the spectator to be made to master life when all that happens

masters him? The man in a trance may believe that his will is all-power- ful. His impulse to eat the apple before him (which is actually a paper ball) is very strong. Perhaps it is one of his favorite satisfactions. But, naturally, he is not satisfied; his stomach is not served. His critical faculties are set aside and he is not able to act in his own self-interest.

Characters and events appear by means of definite "stage attitudes." The actor must convince the audience "along with himself." Now it is perfectly clear to those not yet convinced by the "stage attitudes" that the "events" put together by the playwright and presented by the actors might be falsely put together and falsely presented. It is evident that if one is a clever playwright or a "convincing" actor, one can fool the audience. But let us suppose that one were to mount an accurate, very true-to-life production. The spectator would still be totally enclosed in the specific character into which he, "along with the actor," had trans- formed himself. The spectator would see everything not with his own eyes, but with those of the character.



On the Expression: "Complete Transformation" This needs clarification. Stanislavski supports, theoretically and in

exercises, the actor's effacing of his own person and his transformation into the character. The spectator identifies himself completely (posi- tively or negatively) with the character. But Stanislavski knows that civilized theatre begins when the identification is not complete. The spectator always remains conscious that he is in a theatre-the illusion he enjoys comes to him that way. If Stanislavski does not know this, his student Vakhtangov does, for he opposes Stanislavski's dictum, "The spectator must be made to forget that he is sitting in a theatre" with, "The spectator sits in the theatre and never forgets that he is there." Such contrary thoughts can exist side by side in the same school of art.

Tragedy lives off this contradiction. The spectator should at least pass through the heights and depths without real danger; take part in the thoughts, moods, deeds of high-placed persons; live out his instincts to the full, etc. Even a method of acting which does not strive for an identification of the spectator with the actor (epic) is in its turn not interested in the complete exclusion of identification. It is a question of working out the differences. In the usual method of acting the spectator is insecure when faced by the transformation; in epic acting the transformation is neglected. Complete transformation is desired only in the usual method of acting.

The Incomplete Transformation-An Apparent Step Backward

By not transforming the actor completely into the character, we have in a sense taken a step backward. The ability to master this incomplete transformation measures the actor's talent. If he fails, everything fails. Children fail when they play at theatre, and novices fail. There is something false from the very start. The differences between theatre and reality become painfully apparent. The actor does not give himself entirely; he holds something in reserve. The actor who intentionally does not complete the transformation makes one think he was not able to complete it. The spectator who "in real life" is at times forced to act a part recalls his unsuccessful attempt to play sympathy and anger without actually experiencing them. Too much is as great a hindrance to a complete transformation as too little: the unconcealed and blatant in- tention to make it work is disruptive. There are at least three factors which destroy the illusion: (1) it becomes obvious that the event is not taking place for the first time; (2) that which happens here on stage is not what happened there in the world; (3) the effects do not occur in a


BERTOLT BRECHT 159

natural way but are artificially produced. It is absolutely necessary for us, if we are to progress beyond it, to recognize that complete transformation is a positive, artistic act, a difficult matter, an advance by means of which the identification of the spectator with the actor is made possible. Seen historically, this is a new human triumph, a new expression of man's intimate nature. If we leave transformation behind, it will not be a total abandonment.

Perhaps it is unfair to call usual theatre a religious function. Nonethe- less, it rests on the same social basis as religion. The social function of religion is becoming more and more the process of rendering the faithful passive. The same can be said of the theatre.

Building a Character

(1) Before you assimilate or lose yourself in a character you must first become acquainted with it without understanding it. This happens both when a play is first read and during early rehearsals. You look resolutely for contradictions, deviations from the typical, ugliness side by side with beauty and beauty side by side with ugliness. The most important gesture during this first phase is shaking your head. You must shake your head like a tree losing its fruits until each lies on the ground ready to be gathered up.

(2) The second phase is that of empathy, the search for the character's truth in the subjective sense. In other words, you leave it to its own voli- tion, you permit it to do what it wants, how it wants. But this is not yet a headlong plunge. You allow your character to react to other characters, to its environment, and to the plot. All this in a simple and natural manner. Such gathering up is a tedious process, but eventually the plunge does come and you fall headlong into the final form of the character, becoming one with it.

(3) And then there is the third phase in which you try to see the character from the outside, from the standpoint of society. At the same time you must try to recall both the distrust and the admiration you felt during the first phase. After the third phase you are ready to present your character to society.

(4) It is perhaps necessary to add that once working rehearsals have begun, all things do not necessarily progress so cleanly, according to a pre-established schedule. The evolution of character knows no set rules. The phases will repeatedly displace and intertwine with each other. While some characters will have almost reached the third phase, others will still be meeting difficulties in the second or even first phase.



Physical Action Stanislavski's "method of physical action" is most likely his greatest

contribution to a new theatre.? He devised it under the influence of Soviet life and its materialistic tendencies. This method is not difficult for us of the Berliner Ensemble. B. always asks that at the first rehearsals the actor show the plot, the event, the business, convinced that feeling and mood will eventually take care of themselves. He is vigorously op- posed to the practice of many actors who use the plot as an insignificant basis for their emotional acrobatics, just as the gymnast uses the bar to prove his versatility. One has the impression-particularly in view of Stanislavski's statements in his later years-that B., quite unknown to himself, is very simply allying himself to the search for a realistic form.

The method of physical action, if I understand it correctly, means that emotions, outbursts, and soulful manifestations of character must emerge from the events of the play and not be allowed to disturb them. It is not a question of how to make manifest through external action the private mental life or attributes of the character. Rather, the emotions which are not necessarily derived from or dependent on the action of the play must be subordinated to the action or released through it.2

Speaking Verse Stanislavski speaks of rhythms which sweep across scenes. To find them

one has to study the "logic of events" (the same applies to prose scenes). Furthermore, these rhythms are used by the actor whether or not he follows them. Delivery is alive when here the rhythms carry the voice and there they are used as an opposing force. Just as in music, the voice rushing ahead can drag the rhythm along or let itself be dragged by it. Where? Toward the logic of character and events.

Stanislavski suggests that actors discover other images and expressions in prose to give them a better understanding of the verse. And then when the verse is spoken it will be backed up by the improvised images and expressions. Good. But one thing more. The verse must finally--despite the alienation it undergoes-be spoken quite specially: not at all in an improvised manner, but exactly as it is. Not as one of three possible statements, but as the only one.

1 See Leslie Irene Coger's "Stanislavski Changes his Mind," TDR, Volume 9, No. 1 (T25, Fall 1964), pp. 63-68. *This last paragraph is a collation of material which appeared in the original under the headings "Some Thoughts on the Stanislavski Conference" and "The Stanislavski Conference."-R.S.


BERTOLT BRECHT 161

"Falsehood" and Empathy Are for Rehearsals It is interesting how Stanislavski admits falsehood-at rehearsall In

the same way I admit empathy-at rehearsall (And both of us must admit them in performance, albeit in differing mixtures.) The question often comes up about Stanislavski's portrayal of Famusov. Did he give a satiric performance or did he also "justify" this classic figure of Russian satire by making it "universally human"? Gorchakov answered that it was a satiric portrayal very "subtly" done.3 In short, an epic performance depends upon whether one wants the arrogant and uncultured official to be condemned or justified-and of course he must be satisfactorily motivated as a human being.

The Truth W. It is said of Stanislavski that at rehearsals he often called to an

actor from the auditorium: "I don't believe that!" Do you often not believe actors?

B. Not too often. Generally only beginners and pure technicians. More frequently I don't believe an event, that is, part of the plot. And this results in making me and the actors strain. Although any truth is difficult to discover-I should say, easily injured-it is all the more difficult to discover a truth which is socially useful. It is precisely this truth we need. For what is the public to do with a beautiful but useless truth? It might indeed be true that when a man beats his wife he either wins or loses her. But does that mean we ought to beat our wives to win or lose them? The public has been fed on such truths long enough. Truths like these are worth no more than lies and less than fantasies.

W. Stanislavski speaks of the truthfulness of the actor's sensibilities. B. I know. But if I recall correctly, doesn't he also believe that an

actor-made aware that his sensibilities (or, more correctly, those of the character) produced an untruthful effect-could by sheer technique make it truthful?

W. What does he have to do? B. He must understand more thoroughly the event taking place be-

tween his character and the other characters. Once he has grasped the I See Gorchakov's Stanislavsky Directs (New York: Grosset and Dun-

lap, 1962), pp. 123-198. Brecht is referring to Alexander Griboyedov's Much Woe From Wisdom which the MAT did in 1906 and which Stanislavski revived in 1925 when he played Famusov.-R.S.



truth of the event he will succeed relatively easily in grasping the truth of his character and presenting it in a believable manner.

"Attributes" One thing I have never understood about Stanislavski's working

methods is how he derives the particular social attributes of those characters upon whom the action depends. Let's take Othello's jealousy. It is not enough to define jealousy as a passion which seeks with zeal what torment can accomplish. Jealousy is not an "eternal" passion. It does not always exist to the significant degree used by Shakespeare. It is not universal today and it was not universal then. (As I understand it, the Eskimos offer their wives to their guests and are insulted when the guests are so ungracious as to refuse them.)

Othello possessed not merely Desdemona, but the rank of general as well. He had either to defend this post or lose it. Shakespeare expressly chooses a general who did not inherit his rank but won it through achievement and in so doing very likely divested someone else of it. In short, Othello lived in a world of battles for property and position. His position is a property. Therefore, his relationship to his beloved wife developed as a relationship to a property. When this is shown, the passion of jealousy is not lessened but deepened. And at the same time there are indications of how society might possibly intervene. I should add that the goal of a production of Othello is not realized by the mere possibility of this perception; rather its realization is thereby made possible.

Methods of Concentration

Stanislavski's methods of concentration have always reminded me of psychoanalysis. Both are concerned with fighting a social disease, but neither uses social means. Thus only the results of the sickness can be fought, not its bases.

Empathy Because a Stanislavski Conference was being prepared, B. invited the

directors, dramaturgs, and actors to his house. He had a great pile of Stanislavski literature on his table and he asked the actors what they knew about Stanislavski.

Hurwicz. I read his An Actor Prepares. Much of it was too soaring for me. Yet I found parts which appeared quite important, which I have made use of for years now. He says that one must devise concrete ideas


BERTOLT BRECHT 163

for character portrayal and into these interpolate imagination. But of course you, Brecht, are against empathy.

B. I? Not at all. I'm for it at a certain stage of rehearsal. But then something must be added to it: a focusing on the character with which you empathize, a social evaluation. I recommended to you yesterday, Geschonneck, that you empathize with the peasant you were playing. It appeared to me you were giving only the criticism of the character and not the character. And this morning when Weigel sat down beside the tile stove and froze with all her might, she must have empathized.

Danegger. May I take note of that and mention it when the question comes up again? You must know that you are accused of completely rejecting empathy and in general of refusing to have any full human being on stage.

B. You may, by all means. But you might add that empathy does not appear to me to be sufficient, except perhaps for naturalistic plays in which a total illusion of actuality is to be presented.

Danegger. But Stanislavski was satisfied with it, and even more: he demanded complete empathy even for non-naturalistic plays.

B. I didn't get that impression from what I read. Stanislavski speaks continually of the "super-objective" and insists that all be subordinated to the idea. I think that he emphasizes empathy only because he detests the despicable practices of certain actors who curry favor with the audience instead of concentrating on the portrayal-in short, he insists on that which he so sternly and impatiently calls the truth.

Geschonneck. There's no such thing as complete empathy during performance. There's always the audience in the back of every actor's mind. At least that.

Weigel. Naturally an actor plays a person who is different from himself. That's the way it is and why shouldn't he be aware of it? And as for Geschonneck's "at least that," how, for example, am I as Courage at the end of the play, when my business dealings have cost me the last of my children, to deliver the sentence: "I have to get back into business," un- less I am not personally shattered by the fact that this person I am playing does not possess the capacity to learn?

B. Let me add this as a final note. How, Geschonneck, were it other- wise, could I tell you that in the final scene of Katzgraben you should play the peasant with complete coarseness, almost, in fact, as a caricature- as the author intended?



The "Short Organum" and the Stanislavski System P. During the Stanislavski Conference, Weigel indicated several simi-

larities between your methods and Stanislavski's. Where do you see the differences?

B. At a rather high level of acting theory. It has to do with the disposi- tion of the actor's consciousness during performance. What is it to con- tain and what is to take precedence? As I see it, Stanislavski developed methods by means of which the actor eliminates his own consciousness and replaces it with that of the character. At least this is the way the system is understood by those who attack the "Short Organum." The "Short Organum" describes a way of playing in which total identification does not occur; and it gives reasons why it shouldn't.

P. Is Stanislavski correctly understood? B. I can't say. Few of his works have beent published. At least an

important part of his theory-the super-objective-indicates that he was conscious of the problems discussed in the "Short Organum." The actor is both actor and character and this contradiction takes precedence in his consciousness. If the actor understands the super-objective he is representing society and stands outside of his character to that extent.

P. But how is it possible to simplify a system this way when people maintain that Stanislavski believes in a mystical transformation on the stage?

B. How is it possible to simplify the "Short Organum" when people maintain that it demands pallid reportorial creatures on the stage, sche- matic creations of the mind? Why everyone can see for himself that on the stage of the Berliner Ensemble Puntila and Mother Courage are living, vitally exuberant human beings. The false impressions of Stani- slavski arose because he lighted on an art which after great high-points had sunk to stereotype. He therefore had to underscore everything that led to the creation of rounder, more contradictory, and more real human beings.

P. And what about the "Short Organum"? B. It attempts to infuse the portrayal of human beings on the stage

with a bias. But of course the people are always rounded, contradictory, real human beings.

P. Do you consider this difference a small one? B. By no means. My statements have attempted only to hinder the

vulgarization of the problem and to show at what an advanced point the


BERTOLT BRECHT 165

differences in realistic productions appear. The working out in the "Short Organum" of the contradictory nature of characterization demands that the actor take a somewhat new approach. The physical action, to use Stanislavski's term, no longer serves merely to build up a role realistically. It has become the chief focus of the role's orientation, mainly in the form of a plot. This must be very painstakingly thought through, because it concerns a most essential step. An examination of this sort is impossible as long as one thinks in terms of a choice between a full-blooded and a bloodless theatre. No one whose aim is realistic theatre could think this way.

Stanislavski and Brecht P. You have recently pointed out similarities between yourself and

Stanislavski. What about the differences? B. It is easier to talk of similarities, because both these systems-and

let us call these working methods systems so that the inner connection of individual elements will be grasped-are concerned with different results and therefore different questions. One cannot, therefore, measure them easily against each other.

P. Isn't your system concerned with the working methods of the actor? B. Not principally. Not as an end result. Stanislavski when directing is

first of all an actor. When I direct I am first of all a playwright. P. But Stanislavski subordinates the actor to the writer. B. That's right. But he begins from an actor's point of view. He devises

studies and exercises for him; he helps him form a real human being. On the other hand, you can hear said of me that while everything depends on the actor, I begin completely from the play, its needs and demands.

P. The theatre therefore has two divergent systems before it, with divergent but overlapping assignments?

B. Yes. P. As you see it, do you think these systems might complement one

another? B. Yes. But I say that cautiously. We must become more familiar

with Stanislavski. I have never yet worked with actors who were acquainted with the exercises. I unlderstand they do away with signs of weariness. Perhaps you don't agree with me, but I think that many of the famed exercises were answers to the question of how it would be



possible to produce plays on such shaky ground, before things were stable. During Stanislavski's life the material out of which an actor creates his character changed. The most thoroughgoing criticism of the communal existence of mankind took place: the Russian Revolution. Even before the Revolution came, the manner and mode of thought and feeling went through increasingly severe crises. In the master- works of the Russian realists the life of the spirit was portrayed either as that of parasites or insurgents. Actors had to winnow out their artificial means. The individual was given form from the individual. But now that is more difficult. And the other method is easier-nowadays we can form an individual from society.' Stanislavski's System, it seems to me, is always in need of another which would do what mine purports to do.

P. Could an actor using your working methods benefit from using Stanislavski's as well?

B. I believe so. P. But doesn't he need things that he can't get from Stanislavski? B. That is assumed. P. Let us consider the question of critical attitude vs. justification. B. From the playwright's viewpoint this contradiction is dialectical.

As a writer I need an actor who can completely empathize and absolutely transform himself into the character. This, indeed, is what Stanislavski holds to be the first goal of his System. But at the same time and before all else I need an actor who can stand away from his character and criticize it as a representative of society.

P. How are these expressed in both systems? B. Stanislavski has the super-objective. I have the act of empathy... P.... which Stanislavski brings about... B. . . . during another stage of rehearsal. P. From the standpoint of the Stanislavski System, could one describe

yours as a system concerned with the super-objective? B. Yes, presumably.

Translated by CARL R. MUELLER ' The material from "I have never yet worked with actors who were

acquainted with the exercises" to the footnote is taken from the section which in the original appeared under the heading "Numerous Rehear- sals."-R. S.


Article Contentsp. 155p. 156p. 157p. 158p. 159p. 160p. 161p. 162p. 163p. 164p. 165p. 166

Issue Table of ContentsThe Tulane Drama Review, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Winter, 1964), pp. 2+1-2+15-230Front Matter [pp. 2-2]TDR CommentTwilight of the Gods [pp. 15-17]Pro "Anti-Obie" [pp. 17-20]Ted Hoffman [pp. 20]

Stanislavski and America: A Critical Chronology [pp. 21-60]Look, There's the American Theatre [pp. 61-83]Theory and Practice [pp. 84-96]Would You "Please" Talk to Those People? [pp. 97-113]The Bottomless Cup [pp. 114-130]Lee Strasberg: Burning Ice [pp. 131-154]TDR Document SeriesNotes on Stanislavski [pp. 155-166]

The Celebratory Occasion [pp. 167-181]Exploding Time and Space [pp. 182-190]The Open Theatre [pp. 191-197]Stanislavski at School [pp. 198-211]TDR John Golden Play SeriesSlumming [pp. 212-229]

Corrections: Reading De Filippo [pp. 230]

notes on stanislavski

Documents