Stanislavski

At the beginning of the 19 th Century, Russian theatre

had been placed under censorship. Stanislavski found
that the professional theatre was full of problems-
drunkenness backstage, punctuality, fights, and
rehearsals were unorganised and experienced actors
would stand DSC (down stage centre) and deliver their
lines out to the audience rather than to each other.

Sets were drawn from stock, costumes were provided

by whatever the actor themselves could provide or
anything the theatre just happened to have backstage.
So, when Stanislavski went to Vienna to source stock
for Othello in 1894, this was totally unheard of.

Stanislavski came from a rich family. Arguably one of the richest in Russia. They
had a theatre in each of their family homes and it’s with this wealth that he
managed to create a professional attitude to theatre, even founding the Society of
Art and Literature in 1888. He started his assault on outdated and outmoded
practices in theatre.

He always insisted upon experimentation, both for the actor and the texts. His
close relationship with Chekov is evidence of this as he breathed new life into his
works. This was one of Stanislavski’s greatest characteristics, that he had a quest
for knowledge and a desire for perfection that led him out from the traditional
process of production of plays and away from his previous semi-professional
theatres and into the national and, eventually, the international arena. With little or
no training, he devoted his life to a quest for truth in his art.

His legacy was a System of approaching a text. He attempted in a systematic

manner to lay down rules to create a character and how the actor would use their
voice, body and mind in that creation. Actors would no longer use the stage in an
arrogant manner. Instead they would have to draw upon their personal experiences
and create a personal character on stage. The actor’s own experiences in life was
part of the process. Importantly, he stressed the ‘ Ensemble’ acting style, the use
of the whole company, rather than having star-driven performance s.
 The Moscow Art Theatre (MAT)
In 1897, he, Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko and a group of exceptionally
talented actors including Olga Knipper (later to become Chekov’s wife) and
Meyerhold (later to become a founding member of Stanislavski’s Studio
theatre that showed experimental new theatre), set up the policies for a
new theatre. After an 18 hour meeting, they had the basis of their theatre
and it was here that Stanislavski used his famous line when vetoing actors

‘She is a good actress but not for us… she does not love
art, but loves herself in art’. (MLIA, p.295).

Stanislavski would continue as director, actor and devising production plans,

while Nemironvich-Danchenko would look after literary matters. They would
also follow a series of qualities that would separate them from other
theatres.

 Theatre was to be a moral instrument

 Its function was to civilise
 It was to increase sensitivity
 It would heighten perception The MAT logo
 It should ennoble the mind and uplift the sprit

In their 5th season, they moved into, what became known as The Moscow Art
Theatre. The stage was functional, the orchestra pit abolished, and the most
up-to-date technical and lighting equipment installed. Above
all, the two men wanted to bring unity and freshness to all
aspects of production and presentation. While they chose
classical works, they encouraged new writing. Actors would be
treated with respect and, in return would be expected to
respond with total dedication to the new discipline and all
plays would be rehearsed for a specific amount of time with
all productions using new sets and costumes.

During the Russian revolution in 1917, MAT was desperate to be seen as

sympathetic to the revolution created by the new artistic and social
upheaval. It worked, and Stanislavski’s methods were even taught in schools
throughout all of Russia. From then on, it became a bench mark of modern
theatre across the world.

Vladimir Kirshon's Bread was staged at the Moscow Art Theatre in

1931. Note the realism of the costumes.

Hamlet at MAT
Edward Gordon Craig & Stanislavski
(1872-1966) (1863-1938)

in their innovative production of…

Hamlet
 Who is Craig?...

Craig was born into a theatrical family, his mother encouraged him to become an actor and, at 17, he
joined his her in the theatre company she was working with. The move to becoming a designer was
a gradual one. He was a successful actor, playing lead roles and soon he played the role that
fascinated him the most…Hamlet. However, even though he was acting, he also managed to pursue
a new found pleasure and skill, that of designing.

He wanted to create a new form of theatre design that challenged the way that the audience and
actors saw the performance space. He believed that direction and design should work together,
they should compliment each other.

With the help of Martin Shaw (a prominent music director) he enjoyed considerable success with
their new style of presentation. His work was largely with amateur theatre companies as
professional actors were not used to his new techniques. He found them incredibly difficult to
work with.

His relationship with the dancer Isadora Duncan led him to formalise his working ideology. She, in her
own right, was a visionary dancer, often dancing without the traditional ballet attire, instead
freeing herself from traditional restraints. After their meeting, he expressed the desire that
‘rhythm alone could form the basis of theatrical art’. He created a series of etchings known as
Scene, which were frozen, dramatic images of her with abstract settings. Using these as a
template, his next task was to make the settings move as well, thus creating a truly innovative
statement, marrying the technology of theatre to a figure in motion.

In 1911, with Stanislavski, at the Moscow Art Theatre, he was able to realise his ideas for a kinetic
(moving) theatre form linked to the symbolic realisation of the text. That means he wanted a
set-design that was more than just a setting for the play. His set was to be a monodrama (a
single character’s perspective) and more akin to a dream seen through Hamlet’s eyes with the
other characters and actions distorted as they were seen by Hamlet. Symbolism was a new
movement in the arts at this time and very much in vogue in Russia. Essentially, it was anti-
realistic, appealing to the senses. Thus Craig defined Hamlet in a semi-mystical way as ‘…a lonely
soul in a dark place’ (quoted in Styan, J., Modern Drama in Theory and Practice, Vol 2. p.18).

Also, the set wouldn’t just be a passive part of the play; it wouldn’t be a
backdrop that hung aimlessly at the back
of the stage. It would be part of the play,
actors would interact with it. It would
transport both actors and audience to new
places. It would be dynamic. And no one had
ever attempted this before.

Previously, set designs had been little more than

painted backdrops, as illustrated here in
 the naval battle and palace scene from Elkanah Settle's The Empress of Morocco (1673) at the
theatre in Dorset Garden.

Sadly, while theatre itself was developing and evolving, the sets were doing so incredibly slowly. Craig
wanted to challenge this and introduce symbolism into his performance and push the boundaries
of theatre design.

But what of Stanislavski? Did his realistic approach fit with Craig’s symbolism?

They did clash. It wasn’t a perfect partnership. Stanislavski found it difficult to come to grips with
Craig’s artistic vision and, in addition to that, Craig spoke no Russian and Stanislavski no English.
However, through an interpreter, they managed to collaborate together.

In his "Hamlet", Gordon Craig aimed to create a highly personal,

almost symbolist drama. Stanislavski directed the actors on the basis
of what he believed Craig's wishes to be -- and this at a time when he
was still feeling his way towards his "method", which was much more
naturalistic. Perhaps their approaches could never be reconciled, but
at least they made this valiant attempt...
(Crossraods of 20th Century Theatre,
June, 2003).

With Stanislavski’s objective of creating a wholly natural character onstage we can imagine that they
had difficulties. Not least because the actors were not used to working with a set like Craig’s-a
set that was so different to anything else they had worked with. Craig’s set was marked by
simplicity and unity of concept, with the emphasis being placed on the movement of actors coming
into and out of the light. Now, the focus of attention was taken away from the performers and
given to the ‘performance’.

These designs illustrate his ideas. If you compare them with the traditional
painted scenery, you can see how radical they really were.

In Craig's opening scene, the stage was

completely covered in the golden robe
that flowed from the shoulders of
Claudius seated on a high throne, with the
heads of all the courtiers poking through
it. In this illustration of Act I, Scene Two we can see how Craig is
revolting against the surface orientation of naturalism. This
illustration is heavy with suggestion and mystery. It is the scene
where Hamlet first meets the Ghost on the battlements. The design
suggests an atmosphere of fear and terror.

Hamlet "To be or not to be..."

In another example, Stanislavski's dramaturge recorded that in 1912

at the end of the "To be or not to be" soliloquy, "Hamlet stands
behind [a scrim] with an enormous shadow to his back. On the side screens shadows are continually
moving around him and with him, like black fumes".

To achieve these effects, he

experimented with folding flats.
This brought the scenery forward,
making it 3-Diemionsional and, as
mentioned earlier, dynamic. Craig's
screens were neutral, given
expressiveness and colour by
lighting, and were intended to be
mobile, on castors so that the
architecture and perspective of any
scene could change to follow the
requirements of the action. He used
the most modern techniques and
even projected his actors' shadows
onto their surfaces. However,
Stanislavski insisted on weighting
them down (fearing they might be
knocked over) which rather
diminished their flexibility

If you look closely at the figure in

his sketch you can see how
exaggerated and expressive Hamlet
is; almost to the extreme.
 If we compare that figure with the photograph right of the famous Sarah Bernhardt taken in 1899
(only 13 years previous to S & C’s production) with the photo left, we gain an appreciation of how
revolutionary Craig and Stanislavski’s Hamlet was.

Also, note the backdrop in the photograph that was typical of the day.

Vasily Kachalov as Hamlet at MAT (much

to Craig’s disappointment who wanted to Sarah Bernhardt as Hamlet
play the part himself!)
How did he create his sets?

Craig believed that his ideal "Art of the Theatre" could only be realized as the work of a single
creator: the director (a completely new figure at that point) who would be responsible for every
aspect of a production.

In more conventional terms this translated into a completely flexible performance space with non-
illusionist scenery: Craig's screens, allowed "1000 shapes" to be created out of a single "scene". His
idea was to use neutral, non-representational screens as a staging device. They were complex and
unique. In 1910 Craig filed a patent which described in considerable technical detail a system of
hinged and fixed flats that could be quickly arranged to cater for both internal and external scenes.

Craig’s second innovation was with stage lighting. Doing away with the traditional footlights, Craig lit
the stage from above and projectors were also placed at the back of the auditorium to light the
actors from above the heads of the audience. Colour and light also became central to Craig’s stage
conceptualizations.

“ …Under the play of this light, the background becomes a deep

shimmering blue, apparently almost translucent, upon which the green and
purple make a harmony of great richness.” (Craig in Bablet 1981).

The remarkable aspect of Craig’s experiments in theatrical form were his attempts to integrate
design elements with his work with actors. His mise en scene (what is seen in a scene-the total
picture) sought to articulate the relationships in space between movement and sound, and line and
colour.

All of his life, Craig sought to capture “pure emotion” or “arrested development” in the plays he
worked on. Craig brought the painter’s perspective to directing and the director’s perspective to stage
design harnessing mood, movement and emotion in set design. He tried to consider the whole
atmosphere of the stage. Craig believed that a director should approach a play with no preconceptions
and he embraced this in his fading up from the minimum or blank canvas approach (Walton 1983).
This was very similar to Stanislavski’s method of working, where the actor would create the character
through rehearsals and their own experiences.

Craig pointed out that audiences go to the theatre to ‘see’ not hear ‘plays’. Of primary importance to
Craig, was that a director must find the rhythm, movement, tone and colour of the text and that
these elements are more fundamental than the play’s scene and staging details

What did the critics say?

They were mixed to say the least. At the time the majority were not terribly favourable. This Hamlet
was something that was so new, so radical that it rejected many of the old/traditional ways of
staging Shakespeare-much to the horror of some of the critics. "Shakespeare in Production:
Hamlet", called the production "unlikely and bedevilled". Selenick called it a "brilliant failure". It
was avante-garde, a complete change from the elaborately pictorial, historically based
productions of the 19th century.

While their Hamlet was certainly an innovation, and apparently a commercial failure, it was also part of
the beginning of a whole new approach to theatre, so it was certainly not an artistic disaster.

It (the production), scraped away the encrustation of antiquarian,

veristic stage business that encumbered the Shakespearian canon, it
subordinated the star performer to the total intellectual import of
the play and, in doing so, revealed a fresh was of approaching tragedy.
(Senlick, 1982, p.189).

Stanislavski and Craig

The combination of Craig’s vision and Stanislavski’s work with the actors and his application of the
‘Method’ (although still in development) meant that the work was wholly new and challenging.
It was a landmark in modern theatre.
The interesting question is why did these two pioneers work together when we expect them to be so
different? Craig-the symbolist, Stanislavski-the realist?
Obviously, there were differences of opinion, however, the performance of Hamlet is proof of how
two seemingly different styles can work together.
A character, as Stanislavski would argue, needs to live in the Truth. His world may be disjointed and
dreamlike, but he still works and inhabits a world that he needs to comprehend. As an actor, we need
to believe in the world that we’ve created on stage. Completely. The stage/space/time etc. highlight
different emotional aspects of our complicated psyche (consciousness).
 Stanislavski
Actor Prepares

Mechanical acting is similar to rubber stamping.

Acting without thought. Actions that seem to fit the
scenario because they have become clichéd, such
as the hand over the heart to express love. The
actor does not experience the feelings of the
character, therefore they do reproduce any their
external truths. There is no connection between the
inner and the external emotions.

Overacting is acting without internal thought, this leads to mechanical acting.

Showing what you believe you should be showing on stage. For example,
depicting Othello as a savage, and not as Shakespeare intended, as a person
who has experiences to show. A role built upon truth will grow, whereas one
built upon a stereotype will shrivel.

Everything we do on stage must be done for a purpose; it must have a

reason and it must have a consequence. Only the dead feel nothing. So,
when an actor enters a room, he must ‘feel’ something. You may sit in a
chair without motion and, at the same time, be full of action. This is achieved
by sitting with a purpose.
The pit-fall many actors fall into is to try to carry out an action without an
inner foundation. This will not hold your attention as an actor and nor for the
audience.

Imagination and the ‘Magic If’:

This is vital! It should be as free as a child’s and it propels us as artists, for
we rely upon imagination to surround us in a new world on stage. We should
always be tapping into our imagination, even when we are walking down the
street.

An exercise to develop our imagination is the Magic If.

The use of the word ‘If’ is carefully considered. ‘If’ is not a deception. It is a
supposition. ‘What if there was a madman behind the door?’. How would your
character react? By asking these questions, we learn more about the
character and how they would behave. The actions and thoughts become
second nature. Now, if the director said, there IS a madman behind the door,
the actor would not believe him. Of course there cannot be a madman there
so, because ‘if’ is not a lie, it arouses an inner and real activity.
‘If’ helps us to create a world in which we understand the character. It
become part of the subconscious for the actor. Every time an author writes a
play, he uses the word ‘if’ in his planning (‘If the main character lived next to
the beautiful neighbour, how would he react?’) and so, we should as well.

Given circumstances
This is EVERTHING! Lights, props, plot, facts, actions, interpretations, etc. All
the circumstances that are given to an actor to take into account as he
creates his role. The use of Magic If is the starting point. Just as the Given
Circumstances cannot exist without Magic If, Magic If cannot exist without
the Given Circumstances.
The combination of the Given Circumstances and Magic If, creates in the
actor an Inner Stimulus.

We, as actors, can develop the Given Circumstances by creating a Sincerity

of emotions which are feelings which the actor themselves have felt. These
are then used to create a deeper and well rounded character based upon
actual emotions.

The Given Circumstances are all the circumstances that surround the
character’s life which make him act/perform/feel the way he does at that
particular moment in time. Simply, it’s the outline of his life and the actor
HAS to believe in all these circumstances wholly. Sincere emotions or
‘feelings’ that seem true to the actor will continue to develop and grow within
him. There is, however a fine line. Forget about your feelings. How you feel.
These are in the subconscious and not subject to direct command. Instead,
direct your feelings to the character and the Given Circumstances. You use
your feelings to develop your character, but they are not yours when you are
on stage. They belong to the character.

Obviously, your imagination will give you the opportunity to ask ‘What could
happen?’. Fantasy invents things that do not yet exist. It is vital that they are
used and, as a director, you must use the imagination of the actors,
otherwise they are nothing more than pawns.
Imagination cannot be forced. It must be coxed with interesting subjects.
First, you must create the internal imagination, then the external. Imagine
the situation, then perform it.

The imagination relies upon who you are, where you are and what you see
and hear (your inner ear).

An actor must always remember that every movement you make on stage,
every word, is the result of your imagination. If you speak lines mechanically,
without realising who you are, where you come from, you will be acting
without imagination, you will only be a machine.

But, an actor is sometimes reminded that they are on stage in front of a

large audience. How can the actor use their imagination clearly on stage and
get away from the thought of the audience? Simply by focusing attention on
something on stage. By being interested in something. This is a point of
attention, and it must NOT be in the audience. Otherwise, the actor is
constantly referring to the audience, checking with them that his
performance is acceptable to them. An actor must build an imaginary story
behind every object on stage. We must not just stare at an object, but LOOK
at it. An actor’s attentive eye will, naturally, draw the attention of the
audience. A blank eye, just staring at an object, will let the audience’s
attention waiver. The focus of attention must be on stage, in he the play, in
the role.

Circle of attention:
This is the area that the actor pays particular close attention to. Imagine a
single beam of light on stage lighting a small circular table with a lamp on it.
This is the circle of attention. It can define shade, feeling and thought. The
mood you create for yourself while focusing upon this circle is the ‘Solitude in
Public’. You are in public because you are on stage and in solitude because
you are separated from the audience by a small circle of attention. Within a
performance, like a snail in its shell, you can enclose yourself here.

You can increase the circle. Expanding it to encompass the table and the
chair-then the wall, then the chimney, etc. The largest circle is limited only
by the horizon, but, once again, it does not enter the auditorium or the
audience. As soon as your attention starts to waiver, you must go back to
the smaller circle.

You don’t have to be in the centre of the circle. You can create a circle of
attention away from you. Imagine a beam of light following your movements
and creating a circle of attention with everything illuminated. As you move,
so it does. It follows you, it is dynamic, it is essential.

This can be practised daily, in a busy street. Try to create a solitude in public
in a crowd, on a bus, etc.
A story goes that the Maharajah of an Indian state wanted to choose a new
minister. He asked people to volunteer. All they had to do was to carry a
saucer of milk over the city walls without spilling it. Many people failed.
Finally, one man stepped up and started to walk over the walls. He was
concentrating so hard, he didn’t even hear the captain of the guards shout
out ‘Fire’ to his men to try to put him off. Nor did any of the jeers or taunts
from the crowd distract him. He succeeded in it and the Maharajah chose him
as he could concentrate on the task set him even while people were
shouting. That is what we must aim to do.

‘Inner attention’.
This is what we see, hear, touch and feel in our imaginary circumstances.
Recall the taste, arrangement, smell of your last meal as you lie on your bed
to sleep. This exercise will require continuous work. Recall friends, create
sharp images and, avoid looking at the 4 th wall until you can focus on not
seeing it an audience member. The eyes will, of their own accord turn to the
direction of the 4th wall, but you will not see the audience. Only then, will it
be natural.

In order to do this, an actor must learn to be observant in all his life, not just
on stage. When looking at a petal, describe it, what is it that makes it so
beautiful and gives us so much pleasure? This will develop our observational
techniques. Look for the beauty in the marshland, a swamp, a rubbish dump.
Find the beauty in everything. This will also develop your emotions and, by
seeing something in a new light, you give it a new story. It may not be
truthful, but so what? To you as an artist it is true and you can use it whilst
you are on stage.

‘freeing our muscles’.

Tensed muscles restrict us. Our movements become static, our voice hoarse
and facial expressions turn to stone.
Muscular tension interferes with inner emotional experience. Try to lift a
heavy object and do maths or describe your last meal. It cannot be done
accurately.
It is impossible to rid our bodies of all tension, but we must know how to
control it subconsciously. At times of great tension on stage, of great
excitement, we should still be relaxed. When on stage, we can let tension
into our bodies, but we must immediately remove it. These are our controls,
that we only use the necessary tension in our bodies. But, if we only employ
our controls during exercises on stage and in rehearsals, then they do not
become mechanical.

Exercises can be carried out in bed or on a floor. Make a note of the muscles
that are tense. Immediately relax them when you notice them. Try lifting
your arm whilst only using the muscles in the shoulder.
Only use the muscles that are necessary for your particular action. Make a
note where your centre of gravity is when you sit down, crouch, lie, stand,
jump, etc.
When a pose incorporates self-observation and is enhanced by the Given
Circumstances, it becomes an action.

If you believe in the fiction that you are inventing, a lifeless pose (sitting on a
chair) immediately becomes real with real objectives.
Every pose has 3 moments.
1st: a pose on stage has tension
2nd: Use the controller to rid that tension
3rd: The pose must have a purpose

Units and objectives:

These are the parts of the play that are broken down. Large parts are
separated, then divided.
Imagine you are walking home from work. Walking is an objective, what
you do to get home are the units.
Getting ready for bed is an objective, washing, undressing and units.
But they are all TEMPORARY! The play cannot remain in fragments. The less
divisions you put into your play, the easier it is to fuse them together.
Objectives are like buoys in the channel. They show the way. Details, should
not guide you. So don’t break up the play with too many objectives.
To find the objectives, ask what is the core of the play? What is it that,
without it, the play cannot exist?

A creative objective:
A creative objective is one that attracts the actor to it, making him want to
carry it out.
Objectives can, themselves, be divided into major and minor steps.
There are 3 common types of subdivisions.
 Mechanical objective. (Shaking someone’s hand to greet them).
 Ordinary objective. (Holding a hand to express love although this does
involve a psychological objective too).
 Psychological objective. (Shaking hands with someone after an
argument and saying that you were wrong. Psychological as you have
to overcome your emotions to do this).
Physical acts all contain physiological acts and vice-versa. A man about to kill
himself has both physical and physiological acting upon him. To pick up the
gun and, finally, to fire it.
An actor must name the units. This gives them an essential quality. It should
always be a verb, not a noun. A noun will only show the image of the
objective, i.e. the mother’s love, would mean that the actor would only show
the image of the action not the love.
The verb should start with ‘I wish…’
However, it must not be general, i.e. ‘I wish power’, for how do you achieve
it? Also, it needs to be an active verb. ‘I wish to be powerful’, is not useful for
how can you act ‘to be?’ Instead, you can say, ‘I wish to kill the king in order
to obtain power’. If you want, you can ask a question, ‘What can I do in
order to obtain power?’ The answer gives you your action.
Additionally, don’t make the objectives too large for the actor and character
so they are useless, so, ‘I wish for peace on earth’, is pointless.

Faith and sense of faith:

Art and actuality are very separate things.
There are 2 types of truth, one created automatically and is actually fact
(that the Titanic did sink) and the other is equally truthful but is imaginative
(how would I have acted if I were on the Titanic?
The 2nd is not a lie, otherwise, art itself is a lie.
Truth on stage is whatever we believe in with sincerity, whether in ourselves
or in our colleagues. Truth cannot be separate from belief nor vice-versa.
‘Justification’ of a part is when the actor’s ‘sense of truth’ (putting life into
the imagined word of the play) and sense of faith (a reality of your
sensations) are joined together. So the actor puts life and belief into what he
is doing to create a justification for his character’s actions.

Falseness can, too, play a role too. If it is ‘too’ truthful, then it is an

exaggerated performance as it overplays the truth. You need truthfulness for
as long as it is believable. (Falseness-over gesturing, etc.).

You must always be aware of your acting and, always test yourself to make
sure you are not acting in an untruthful manner. When you test yourself, the
critic, (yourself or a fellow actor), should not nag over the trivial, but you
should concentrate upon the substance. Start with the good points-were they
believable? Remember, an audience wants to believe what is being
presented.

Psycho-technique:
Physical action will create a life of a human ‘body’. This will then create the
‘human soul’. It is a natural progression. Don’t focus upon the large, tragic
elements in a character’s life. The physical action, the Given Circumstances,
the magic ifs, the small details of the physical action will lead you to the act
out the tragic situations clearly and truthfully. Don’t think about your
emotions; think about what you have to do on stage.
In essence, you act as the character, therefore, your thoughts govern your
actions. Your actions will, also, govern your thoughts. It’s a big circle!
Movements and thoughts are inseparable.

Emotional Memory:
An actor must ‘feel’ something on stage. Otherwise they are dead! But you
have to ‘feel’ what is true. Every action we do is a result of mood or feeling.
The way we sit, the clothes we wear, the food we eat.
Smell, taste, touch, sight and sound are all used by Emotional Memory. But
we have to be able to recall these memories, even though they happened to
us a long time ago. Time purifies even the most painful memory. So how can
we keep the memories fresh? We need to keep recalling them and devote
ourselves to this. For these memories influence inspiration. The exercises we
use in theatre, encourage the conscious to reach the subconscious.
However, even though we are dealing with strong emotions, we must not
lose ourselves on stage. We act in our own person, we cannot escape from it.
As soon as you do, you lose yourself and this is the start of exaggerated or
false activity.
On the other hand, if you do not use your emotions, you deprive your
character of a soul. There has to be a fine balance.
As an actor, the broader your emotional memory, the richer your material for
inner creativeness. We cannot hold all the emotions of a particular character
(Hamlet), so we study other people’s emotions. We can become witness to
their emotion. That’s what we do when we study for a new role. We examine
people, how they react and learn from them. We try to capture and emulate
their emotions.

Communion.
Every second we are in mental communication/contact with some kind of
object.
Objects are in communication with use all the time.
When we are on stage we must not forget this. We must always listen to
each other’s lines. They must be as if they are fresh.
Sometimes on stage, we have to react with something that we have never
experienced before like a ghost. Some people try to SEE the ghost. This is
not necessary. It is only necessary to react to it. Listen to your inner relation
to it, what would you do if a ghost appeared?
Actors usually replace ‘real emotions’ with imitations. However, actors should
aim for 3 types of communication.
 With an object on stage and indirect communication with the audience
 Self-communication
 Communication with an object or imaginary object

Silent communication:
We have ‘rays’ or ‘irradiation’ that allow us to communicate with each other
silently. Catching someone’s attention in a busy room, portraying that you
are annoyed/in love. We do this naturally, and we can do it on stage.
However, we must never just stare at an object. It should remain natural.
If we can send out these ‘rays’ we can also receive them. The outgoing ‘rays’
are called ‘irradiation’ and when the receiver of collects these, it is called
‘absorbing them’

Adaptation:
In our life, we naturally adapt and deceive. We adjust ourselves to fit into a
variety of different situations. When we arrive in a foreign country we adapt
to it, or when we are at a party. These are made consciously and
subconsciously. On stage, we must constantly adapt to the different
situations as if they were happening to us.

Inner motive forces:

Psycho-technique.
The mind gives rise to the imagination, imagination leads to feeling. But we
must also have WILL. We must not allow will, mind nor imagination to
overpower any of the other 2. They must not be crushed by each other, they
must not fight. They must all work perfectly together.
The actor must not remain passive in anything on stage and the director
must acknowledge this. Physical action is psychophysical. This means that
internal feeling and character identification could be stimulated by pure
movement, action and rhythm.
(By the end of his career, Stanislavski would call for everything to be
converted to action. Action not imagination, not feeling was the ‘material’ of
the actor. In other words, Stanislavski himself finally agreed that too much
time in rehearsal was given over to the actor’s preparations. Feelings are still
vital, but action just as much so). By only using physical actions that can be
seen by an audience, only these will remain. So, a character in love could not
merely be acted out through feeling, a physical action had to express it. If
you are in love, how would you physically act? This will give rise to your
feelings.
Many things will help you achieve the Method of Physical Action on stage.
Through

• improvisation
• given circumstances
• gesture
• facial expression
• text/sub-text
• rhythm
• stimulating the imagination through action
• tasks and super task

The unbroken line:

When an actor is given a part, he usually goes home and uses his Inner
Forces to feel out the soul of the character. Reading it, breaking it into units,
etc. At this moment, in the beginning of the process, when his objectives are
unclear and vague, his character is developing. The flow of thoughts, desires
and emotions appear and disappear. The line is broken.

Only when he comes to a deeper understanding of his part and his objective
then a line gradually appears. At this point, the creative work begins.
In a line, there are some necessary breaks. Therefore, we need more than
one line to represent various inner activities. This is because, in a person,
more than one line (objective, thought) exists. For example, one day we
want to be a pilot (One line), then we find the love of our life (another line)
then we change our mind about being a pilot and want to become a fireman
(one line finishes another starts). Therefore, lines are never totally whole.
However, if this is repeated on stage, then the character has neither desires
nor emotions. The lines need to be alive. They can die, but they must be
revived. However, this must not happen too frequently. A role must have a
continuous being and an unbroken line.

A short, independent process (changing one’s clothes) is a ‘short line’. If you

are going over your day to stimulate your imagination for a role, you start
with the most recent and then go back in time, collecting various short lines.
Then, when you have created this backwards history and gone over it so it is
clear, reverse it so it runs from the past to the present. This process creates
an intellectual, or emotional, imprint upon you. This is an extended ‘line of
your life’. It’s a collection of small lines, glued together. Lines of feelings,
thoughts and sensations. This line gives goes on into the future too. Where
there will be feelings, responsibilities, joy and grief. It can extend over a
lifeline.
The sequence of objects we focus upon too forms a solid line and this line
cannot stray into the audience. They are lined to the characters thoughts.
They reflect them, so they must too be linked to a line. This will assist in
your focus of attention.

The inner creative state:

We cannot see inner defects in the actor, only sense them. If we lose any
part of the process which creates an inner creative state, then the whole
process is flawed. We need to build a full history that is accurate and
believable for the actor. At any stage, if this is missed or skimmed over, then
you go into mechanical acting and the whole part will fail.
Inner artificiality must be avoided at all costs.
To create an inner creative state we must
 Relax
 Focus upon an object give it a history
 Put yourself in the situation you have created
Once again, you cannot have artificiality, you must believe in everything that
you have created. Just as you would not function as well with a false leg, arm
or eye, so too you will not function as well with an artificial inner creative
state.

The super-objective
It’s a common bond, so strong, that any insignificant detail will be
immediately noticeable to the audience. If the super-objective is used as a
theatrical device, then it will only be approximately in the right direction.
When it is a human and for the basic purpose of the play, it is like an artery
providing life.
The super-objective too needs a verb to describe it. The line of action that
guides the action from beginning to end is called Continuity or Through going
action. It unifies all the small objectives and units and directs them to the
super-objective.

The Super-Objective
The Through Line of action

Units with no ultimate purpose (Super-objective). They are in various

directions. Impossible to create a solid unbroken line. All the parts may be
excellent, but it is uncoordinated.

The Super-Objective
When an extraneous theme is introduced, the play is deformed.

External works deal with love, justice freedom, great joy, grief and suffering.
Momentary works only deal with today and tomorrow. It cannot live forever,
it will be forgotten. Sometimes a new tendency can be introduced, but it
becomes part of the main theme.

The Super-Objective
This is the only way you can introduce a new dimension,
tendency to a classic play and ‘modernise’ it. Tendency

We know that every action meets with a reaction and, therefore, interferes
with it. In every play we find the opposite of the main action. The
Counteraction.
A character can be in rebellion of the natural theme. Don’t worry if you find
yourself in this situation.

The System encompasses 3 main themes.

 Inner grasp
 The through line of action
 The Super Objective
It will not provide inspiration, but it will prepare the ground for the seed to
germinate.

On the threshold of the Subconscious:

The objective of the psycho-technique is to put you in a creative state which
our subconscious will function naturally.
Before we reach the threshold of the unconsciousness, we have ‘true
seeming feelings’, afterwards ‘sincerity of emotions’. An actor experiences
‘reality’ on stage just as they would off stage. On stage we are often
reminded we are performing in front of an audience, but there are moments
when an actor can be lost in the ‘region of the subconscious’.
Sometimes a single ‘external occurrence’ can inject a bit of real life into the
theatre and sweep us into a state of subconscious creativeness. If, for
example, an actor drops a handkerchief by mistake, this has not been
rehearsed, but the actor picks it up, not as an actor, but as an ordinary
human being. He must believe in the truth. This truth will stand out to his
conditioned surroundings. The other option open to him is to ignore it, or
step out then back in role as he picks it up. However, if he really believes in
spontaneous occurrence, it will help him, it will put him on the road of the
‘threshold of the subconscious’. Use these opportunities, don’t let them slip
you by!
When you are in the character’s shoes, living his life, this state is called ‘I
am’.
A solely intellectual theme will lack charm for the actor. It must not do this.
It must entice the actor as then it will also entice the audience. The actor
must have the ‘Will’ to perform and, whilst creating the character, find the
emotional objective. Because it must be of interest to the actors, it must be
created by them. The director can help and guide but not create it. This is
because the actors give methods and motives to the Super Objective so it
must be relevant to them. To achieve this, you put it to the extreme limit of
truthfulness then subconscious comes naturally.

A director will announce the main theme of the play. Some of the actors will
understand and achieve it, mostly by accident. Others will use it to achieve
the external formal way and later ignore it. This will leave a play without a
Super Objective or one that has lost all its significance. Therefore, an actor
must find the main theme for themselves. If it is given out by the director,
he must filter it through his emotions until his emotions are TOTALLY affected
by it.

To get to the Super Objective the actor must know the play, but not study it
to get only an intellectual understanding. It must be real.

A supreme objective is the role the play has in the actor’s career. It is to
elevate and entertain the audience.