Shakespeare, Stanislavski and This Blog

Reviewing my blog to date has made me aware of a glaring omission in my explanations of Shakespeare as I understand him.

 

The problem is to do with contemporary theatre productions.  How they are rehearsed, constructed and performed.

 

It matters not whether the subject is Shakespeare, Chekhov or Ayckbourn, the approach of contemporary practitioners is largely underpinned by Stanislavskian concepts of what theatre is and should be.

 

So prevalent is the Stanislavskian vision that we sometimes may not even notice his influence at work…

 

Blacked out auditoria? Stanislavski.  No latecomers admitted?  Stanislavski.  Rehearse in a room for an extended period prior to performance?  Stanislavski.  Look for the character’s motivation or objectives?  Stanislavski.  Provide a complete three dimensional stage picture which is lit three-dimensionally? Stanislavski.  Make the staging look and feel ‘natural’? Stanislavski.  Focus on the emotion of the actor/character? Stanislavski.

 

But, without doubt, the most insidious of all Stanislavski’s concepts – which has somehow been adopted so completely that we view absence of it as somehow ‘strange’ or ‘unique’ – is the fourth wall.

 

The fourth wall – only possible because of advances in lighting and theatre design – was seen by Stanislavski as the fundamental tool of the actor working towards a great performance.  For it is the way in which the actor separates him or herself from the distraction of the audience and immerses their attention in the world of the play.  Worse even than this, the fourth wall – for Stanislavski – represents the route to the highest forms of audience experience.  This, in his mind, is theatre where the audience can become so absorbed in the ‘real’ world of the stage before them, that they forget who they are and simply experience another life.

 

This sounds wonderful but it is nonsense.

 

Theatre is not, and – until Stanislavski came along – never was, about the divide between actor and audience.  It is and was about the complete connection and communication between them.

 

And this connection is so much deeper and more fundamental than simply ‘breaking the fourth wall’ can ever allow.

 

When a speaker goes onto a platform to address a crowd, he or she should – if they are doing their job properly – focus on ensuring that the crowd see, hear, understand and ultimately connect with what they are saying.  This involves continual assessment of the crowd from before the speech, through the speech and, finally, after the speech.

 

Failure to assess the crowd means that the speaker cannot possibly know if their speech is being heard, making sense, being accepted or rejected.  In an extreme situation, failure to assess the crowd could mean the crowd walking away disinterested and having heard nothing, without the speaker even realising.  At the other extreme the crowd could be getting so angry with the speaker that they advance on the stage ready to lynch the speaker… again without him/her noticing.

 

Clearly neither of these alternatives is likely to happen in real life – certainly not if the speaker has even a modicum of common sense.  But what about in the theatre?

 

In the contemporary theatre the audience is not only put into darkness (little hope of the actor assessing this crowd directly then!) but it is taught that it must be quiet and respectful of the actors, even if it does not understand what they are saying or doing.  Darkness and quiet are both Stanislavskian constructs.

 

In other words, our modern theatre demands the very things that are, in reality, anti-theatre: lack of real-time assessment of the audience by the actors and lack of real-time feedback from the audience to the cast.  Add in the ‘fourth wall’ and you have a situation where ‘the highest order of acting’ is one in which actors deliberately focus not on the audience but on the stage.  Add the importance of ‘true-seeming emotion’ [in the actor, of course!] and you even relieve the cast of responsibility for generating true emotion in the audience.

 

You see, Stanislavski has infected every level of our contemporary theatre performance.  So much so that Brechtian ‘Epic Theatre’ ideas are seen by many as ‘weird’ and ‘unconventional’, whereas they are, in fact, the traditional and timeless features of theatre which our post-Stanislavski theatre community has failed, on the whole, to grasp.

 

And so back to Shakespeare and contemporary productions…

 

As the modern theatre is founded upon Stanislavskian principles, so it cannot do Shakespeare justice.

 

I frequently hear of Shakespeare productions that transcend the Stanislavski boundaries and become brilliant pieces of theatre.  But on the nights I visit, it seems, this freedom to act is temporarily mislaid.  And I end up seeing yet another example of actors believing that there is immense value in their ability to create a role, build a character and prepare a performance in the Stanislavski mould.  Yes, they throw down the fourth wall occasionally.  But no, they do not transcend the Stanislavski ethos.

 

That modern actors might be blinded by Stanislavski has  – thankfully - been picked up by David Mamet, among others.  But against this common sense there remains a tremendous amount of folly.  Like the actor who refused to even audition for my 2010 production of Macbeth because ‘I only do quality work and you can’t produce a quality performance in a week of rehearsals – especially with Shakespeare’.

 

Within a week my actors on that production were informing me that they knew and understood the play better than any play they had previously worked on.  But how can this be with only a week’s rehearsal?  Because, as we all know, it’s not how long you spend trying to solve a problem; it’s how effectively you tackle the problem in the first place.

 

Stanislavski does not tackle the problem of theatre.  Shakespeare does.

 

Modern theatre adheres, ultimately, to too many principles of Stanislavski’s for it to be able to decipher and present Shakespeare appropriately.  And yet it claims, and - in its own context – appears, to do just that.

 

It takes a certain perspective to understand that you are on a stationary train when the train on the next track passes you.  And it takes a certain perspective to see that the modern theatre is so intrinsically Stanislavskian that it is distorting Shakespeare.

 

It is why some of the content of this blog may, alas, not make its full sense unless – and until – the reader sees what I mean in practice.