B. A. (Hons.

) English – Semester VI Core Course

Paper XIII : Modern European Drama Study Material

Unit-5
Background Readings
(a) August Strindberg (b) Bertolt Brecht (c) Eugéne Ionesco
(d) Dario Fo (e) Konstantin Stanislavski

Edited by : Dr. Seema Suri

Department of English

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

University of Delhi
Paper XIII – Modern European Drama
Unit-5
Background Readings

Edited by:
Dr. Seema Suri
School of Open Learning
University of Delhi
Delhi-110007

 
SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
5, Cavalry Lane, Delhi-110007
 Paper XIII – Modern European Drama
Unit-5
Background Readings

Contents

S. No. Title Writer Pg. No.

(a) August Strindberg, Preface to Miss Julie Tanvi Garg 01

(b) Bertolt Brecht: Selections from Bertolt Brecht: Tanvi Garg 05

The Development of an Aesthetic

(c) Eugène Ionesco, Selected Readings Pragya Anurag 12

(d) Dario Fo, “Against Jesters Who Defame and Insult” Pragya Anurag 15

(e) Konstantin Stanislavski, “Faith and a Sense of Truth” Pragya Anurag 17

 
SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
5, Cavalry Lane, Delhi-110007
 Unit-5 : Background Readings
(a) August Strindberg, Preface to Miss Julie
Tanvi Garg

1. Introduction
August Strindberg (1849-1942), one of the first modern European playwrights, invented a
new form of theatre, Expressionist drama, that combines psychology with naturalism. His
writings can be classified into two different phases; in the first half, the dominant themes are
strife between the sexes as well as class conflicts, whereas his later writings deal with themes
of religion, atonement, and reconciliation; thus, widening the horizons of modern drama to
expressionism. He is considered one of the pioneers of expressionism in modern European
theatre. In naturalistic drama, multiple factors are identified for the tragedy of the protagonist;
combined with the multiple motives and socio-economic pressures on the characters, it goes a
step ahead of realism in an attempt to create an accurate picture of reality. For example, in
Miss Julie, Strindberg shows the inevitable laws of heredity and environment - through the
dialogues, atmosphere, and behaviour of other characters - leading to the downfall of Miss
Julie in the end. In Henrik Ibsen’s Ghosts (1881), the character of Oswald goes crazy when
he realizes that he cannot escape the truth and is burdened by the pain of living.
Expressionism, on the other hand, originating in the twentieth century in Germany, was
concerned with depicting inner states of mind. It was not limited to literature but spread to
many other art forms.
August Strindberg based his works on political conventions as well as contemporary
caricatures. Apart from this, he was also a renowned novelist and short story writer. Miss
Julie (1888), Creditors (1888), Red Room (1872) and A Dream Play (1902) are some of his
major works. However, as Helen Cooper explains in the Introduction to Miss Julie, he was
not a great supporter of the women’s movement, was a misogynist, and created women
characters who were subjected to sceptical observations and callousness. Ironically, while
doing this, he has created women characters who were taken quite seriously (x). For example,
in the play Miss Julie, it becomes quite difficult to differentiate between his sympathy and
hatred for Miss Julie. Though he started with writing novels, he is mostly remembered for
being a dramatist of contemporary problems and as one of the founders of the modern prose
play. Some of his works are a satire on Swedish society while others are a critique of social
conventions during his time.
2. Objective
This unit aims to introduce students to August Strindberg’s views on theatre in the Preface to
one of his most notable works Miss Julie.

1
3. Summary
A Preface generally refers to an introduction to the work and gives an insight into what is
about to happen. But the Preface to Miss Julie is less about the events of the play and more
about playwriting and the need for the emergence of new themes and forms in theatre.
Miss Julie was written in 1888 while the Preface to it came out in 1893. In this author’s
Preface, August Strindberg shares his thoughts and perspective on writing and theatre. He
begins by comparing theatre to a picture bible as it has become a medium of entertainment
for the middle classes, rather than being a challenging and thought-provoking art form. He
talks about the purpose of theatre and, according to him, it serves a didactic purpose. He
likens theatre to an elementary school, as the latter’s purpose is to set directions for life,
especially for young children, semi-educated people, and women because they are flexible in
their approach and understanding of things. Lack of people’s interest in challenging their
minds has almost led to the extinction of theatre as an art form, just like religion. New theatre
forms fail to flourish because a great number of theatre-goers are not ready to accept anything
that goes beyond their comprehension as they are occupied with controversies.
Strindberg believes that he has not done anything innovative in Miss Julie, only
modernized its form. He wanted to talk about the problems of “social accent or decline” and
he mentions how he was inspired to write this play from a true story, though he was saddened
by the tragic end. He finds it fascinating how people are interested in the tragedies of the
upper class. Since Strindberg had to go through a lot of financial and psychological upheavals
in his own life, most of his work deals with social class in some way or the other.
Strindberg explains why some people might feel pity for Miss Julie; it is because they are
scared of something similar happening to them in the future. Different people have different
reactions to the ending of the play; some may not agree with the ending while idealistic
spectators may suggest positive measures to correct the evil. The latter is not quite possible
because there is nothing called “absolute evil” as someone’s fall may become the cause for
another’s ascent (xii). This is how society works and being emotional about it serves no
purpose. This part brings out Strindberg’s philosophical side as he talks about the uncertainty
of life. Poetic justice does not exist in real life. Society works on economic wheels rather than
on moral significance.
Strindberg is critical of the audience that found his tragedy The Father, too depressing.
He says that he finds the “joy of living” in portraying the harsh circumstances of life so that
people can learn something from it. Strindberg accepts that in theatre, as in real life, every
event has a multiplicity of motives and spectators choose the explanation that is easier for
them to relate to. He explains this further by giving the example of suicide. Different strata of
society view it differently. One from the upper class will think it is because of financial
issues, a woman may think it’s because the person’s love failed him, while some may think of
other reasons such as illness or too high aspirations for the future. But the reason behind a
suicide could include all the above factors or none at all and this “multiplicity of motives” is

2
a characteristic of naturalist drama. He points out how protagonist in Miss Julie also has
numerous reasons to account for her downfall.
He, then, proceeds to talk about his characters as he has made them “characterless” and
this is so because the meaning of the word character has changed over time: from a notion of
fixed personality traits to a more fluid entity (xiv). He has amalgamated different layers and
values in his characters to make them more modern as they are a composite of various
factors, a “conglomeration of past cultures as well as present ones.” Being a naturalist
dramatist, he is critical of authors who judge and stereotype people as naturalism demands an
understanding of the human psyche, which is a complex domain.
Strindberg’s misogynist ideas come to light when he talks about his character Miss Julie;
he portrays her as a modern, educated, and wealthy woman but cites these reasons for her
downfall as well. His misogynistic attitude is reflected in the fact that he categorizes women
like Miss Julie in derogatory terms such as “the half-woman,” “degenerate,” and “unhealthy”
and sees them as bad elements and a threat to society because such women take control of
men and produce children who live an agonizing life (xvi). He has portrayed Miss Julie as a
woman from a noble family for whom honour is the most valuable possession. She also
stands for the traditions of the old aristocracy who functioned with the same ideals for
centuries and even in modern times. It’s this “innate or acquired sense of honour” that leads
to her downfall.
Jean’s character is juxtaposed with Miss Julie’s character. He is a man of the lower class
but since he wishes to become a part of the upper class, he breaks his ties with his
background. So, he does not have to worry about his honour and is adaptable to his
surroundings. He has learnt how to behave like an aristocrat. In Strindberg’s view, Jean’s
superiority arises from the fact that he is a man. But despite having such advantages, he has a
slave mentality. Strindberg is critical of the conditioning of the working-class and believes
that the fall of the aristocracy in Europe marks the beginning of a new social era. However,
not all lower-class people can aim for and achieve a place among the upper-class, as in the
case of Christine. She highlights the hypocritical nature of servants who take refuge in
religion to absolve themselves of any guilt.
Strindberg also talks about the construction of dialogue in his play. Unlike the French
playwrights who focus on proper “symmetrical, mathematical construction” of dialogue, he
has made conversations between the characters sound more realistic. He says that the
dialogues in his play resemble interactions between real people and are not over-dramatic.
Strindberg was influenced by the Goncourt brothers who followed a naturalist style of
writing, focusing on the psychological process. He points out how the plot of Miss Julie
centres around two people, Jean and Miss Julie, whereas the Count’s presence is symbolically
conveyed through his shoes; to maintain a psychological background. Strindberg focuses on
the psychological aspect of the characters to highlight the reasons behind any action in the
play. He believes that the audience has become more inquisitive about the deeper motivations

3
of the characters. For example, Miss Julie’s dilemma over her position leads to her tragic fall
and Jean’s ambitious nature leads to a better adaptability in him to climb the social ladder.
To keep the audience engaged in the play and to refrain from breaking their illusion,
Strindberg uses three different art forms to substitute for breaks in play: the monologue, the
pantomime, and the ballet - which give the actor scope to improvise. In this regard,
Strindberg stands in complete contrast to Brechtian theatre, whose main aim was to break the
illusion of the audience and make them face reality. With such forms, the illusion remains
intact and people will be able to sit through the performance. He explains other details of
stage settings as he has used minimal settings, with actors using minimal make-up. The play
begins with a scene in the kitchen, without any extravagant scenery or set-up to give the
audience scope to imagine things. Other elements include showing a part of the object instead
of the whole, the removal of footlights to highlight the actor’s facial expressions, and
arranging furniture in such a way that all the characters are visible. Strindberg moved away
from conventional theatrical practices of giant sets, heavy costumes, and music to make it
more realistic. He gives the actors freedom to improvise, even if it means turning their back
towards the audience. Strindberg wishes for a theatre where the emphasis would be on the
action being performed on stage rather than the orchestra and flashy lights. In the end he
hopes that, in the future, new theatrical reforms might make theatre a place for the
“entertainment of the educated.”
4. Conclusion
The Preface to Miss Julie serves as a manifesto for a naturalist style of writing. Strindberg
aims to create a theatre that challenges the audience by presenting identifiable characters in a
close-to-home setting. He tries to understand his characters and their actions based on their
social class but still believes that men are superior to women, irrespective of social class.
Strindberg feels that, in the “modern psychological play” the production aspects, like
lighting, stage props, and make-up need to be simplified so that the focus remains on
understanding the characters’ motivations: a key feature of naturalist drama.
Questions
1. Discuss August Strindberg’s views on theatre and its changing meaning.
2. How is naturalist theatre different from traditional theatre?
3. Write a critical note on key points of theatre as discuss by August Strindberg in Preface
to Miss Julie.
Works Cited
“Expressionism.” New World Encyclopedia, www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/
Expressionism#Expressionist_theater. 25 Jan. 2022.
“Miss Julie Author’s Preface: Summary and Analysis.” LitCharts, www.litcharts.com/lit/
miss-julie/author-s-preface. 27 Jan. 2022.

4
Strindberg, August. ‘Strindberg’s Preface to Miss Julie.’ Miss Julie: A Naturalistic Tragedy,
edited by Helen Cooper, Methuen, 1992, pp. xi–xxv.
The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. “Miss Julie | Play by Strindberg.”
Encyclopedia Britannica, Britannica, www.britannica.com/topic/Miss-Julie. 27 Jan.
2022.

(b) Bertolt Brecht: Selections from Bertolt Brecht: The Development of an Aesthetic
1. Introduction
Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956) was a renowned German playwright, poet and reformer in the
early-mid twentieth century and was also associated with many artistic and literary
movements. His path-breaking epic theatre movement reformed conventional theatre
practices and themes. He advocated, in his terms, a non-Aristotelian drama that replaces the
principal rule of catharsis with the alienation effect. Brecht believed that theatre should be a
platform to highlight social and ideal causes rather than just being a medium for sensory
pleasure and entertainment.
Brecht’s objective in epic theatre is to push the audience to engage with drama and
themes differently, allowing them to judge it from an objective point of view and
acknowledge the issues brought forward. This essay was published posthumously and the
exact date of writing it is still unknown. The essay uses the term Entfremdung which means
estrangement and was used by Karl Marx and Hegel. Brecht coined the term
verfremdungseffekt, German for alienation effect, as he wanted the audience to look beyond
the obvious by keeping themselves at an objective distance from the performance.
2. The Street Scene: A Basic Model for an Epic Theatre
In this section, Bertolt Brecht lays the foundation for a definition of epic theatre and how it
should operate. The Post World War years saw a rise and shift in new methods of acting in
many German theatres. Its use of vivid description, songs by choruses, and projections led to
a new term, ‘epic theatre.’ The actor did not immerse himself/herself in the character by
acting as if the actor and character are one but remained detached. This technique forced the
spectator to look at the play from a different angle, one which allowed scope for criticism. It
became possible to portray social processes “as seen in their causal relationships.”
Brecht explains the basic elements his model of epic theatre through the example of a
scene on a street. A man, whom Brecht calls a demonstrator, who has witnessed an accident
tries to explain to other people how it took place. The witness does not take any side or
particular opinion, either of the victim or the driver, and explains it objectively. The
bystanders who may have not witnessed the incident, may or may not agree with the witness
but with his description, they get a chance to form the whole picture and then decide or
criticize accordingly.

5
 According to Brecht, epic theatre is the theatre of the scientific age. It may appear
complex and intricate but, at the core, it is like a street scene with all its elements. The
techniques discussed are meant primarily for the performers and not the spectators. The
performer or witness in the street scene need not be performing the role but he should be able
to explain it. There is no need for him to have years of experience or expertise; just the basic
skills to describe what and how the incident took place would be enough. The actor or
demonstrator should look real but not too real. Brecht asserts that the audience should be able
to criticize the action instead of getting carried away by the performance.
What sets epic theatre apart from ordinary theatre is that epic theatre does not try to
create an illusion of reality. In the street scene, the demonstrator draws attention to the
incident after it has happened, so it becomes a repetition of the incident and does not pretend
to be original. The experience is created for the spectator. The demonstrator in the street
scene does not communicate his own experience to the audience, not even of the people
involved in the accident; nor does he try to make the demonstration a fun and enjoyable
experience. The purpose of the demonstration is not to arouse any emotion of fear, horror, or
pity in the audience, and if the demonstrator tries to evoke such emotions, then he is failing
his purpose. Another most important element of the street scene, necessary for epic theatre, is
its “socially practical significance” (122). The demonstration must be able to “fix social
responsibility,” irrespective of the viewpoint (if any) the demonstrator chooses: that of the
driver, the victim, one who’s been injured or the audience. It is not important for the
performer to enact the entire scene or take up all the characteristics of the character but just as
much that will give a vivid picture of the incident.
In epic theatre, a character is played differently from the traditional theatre, where
characters are more fully defined. In epic theatre, the demonstrator has to detach himself from
the character and performance in order to make space for criticism, leaving judgement to the
audience. The character is treated as an independent entity, highlighting that particular aspect
of the play that holds social relevance. Brecht admits that this model of performance, based
on the street-corner demonstration, can be limiting if followed on stage. However, showing
other dimensions of the characters is permissible, as long it serves the social purpose.
Another key aspect of the presentation is the natural attitude of the demonstrator; this
aspect is bi-fold as the demonstrator has to act naturally and the act should also look natural:
“He must not go so far as to be wholly transformed into the person demonstrated.” So, the
demonstrator and demonstration stand as two separate entities without merging into one.
Another important element of epic theatre is the “A-effect” or the alienation effect.
Brecht explains this as;
. . . a technique of taking human social incidents to be portrayed and labelling
them as something striking, something that calls for an explanation, is not to be
taken for granted, not just natural. The object of this ‘effect’ is to allow the
spectator to criticize constructively from a social point of view. (p. 125)

6
The purpose is to provoke the spectator’s criticism from an objective as well as social
perspective. One could incorporate this in the street scene demonstration by showing what
happened, by concentrating on minute details and, if needed, then showing them in a way that
stands out from the rest of the demonstration so that its importance can be realized. The use
of choruses, projections, and direct addresses to the audience is all a part of this strategy. For
example, in The Good Person of Szechwan, the character of Wong is a narrator for the action
in the play. But these techniques do not imply that epic theatre is devoid of artistic elements.
Though the artist in epic theatre need not have any special abilities, imagination and group
feeling are all an integral part of it. Costumes play an important part but the demonstrator
does not need to wear the exact same uniform or clothes as the character, s/he might use some
props to show that character and his situation; like a crooked hat to show a drunk driver, or
torn shirt to indicate the victim.
Thus, the street scene provides a basic model for epic theatre. The most important aspect
is the objective of the performance – to make it easier to give a judgement on the incident.
Epic theatre is more complex, with many technical aspects involved, but the street scene
provides it with a clear criterion to follow; its social function.
3. Theatre for Pleasure or Theatre for Instruction
At one point, modern theatre referred to theatres only in a few specific places like Moscow,
Berlin, Paris, and New York. Though Russian, American, and German theatres were different
in themes, technical innovation and artistic creativity made them quite similar. This led to a
stylistic resemblance among these theatres as they gained by using technology and being in
big capitalistic industrial places that were progressive. However, theatre in Berlin was quite
slow to progress as compared to others but still, it led others or rather, modern theatres by
being “most mature and strongest in expressions.” Epic theatre was the last development in
this trend.
The Epic Theatre
The terms “epic” and “theatre” have completely different meanings as the former is a written
form and the latter is performed. As such, the words in the term “epic-theatre” contradict
each other. In addition to this, the manner of storytelling or narrating is completely different.
According to Aristotle’s definition, the prime difference between epic and theatre lies in their
distinct methods of construction as both forms belong to different aesthetic categories. As
independent sources, epics had a “dramatic element” and drama had an “epic element.” A
drama usually has a strong central storyline with separate sub-plots emerging out of it,
sharing a common relationship. Doblin, a prestigious epic writer, explained the relationship
between the epic and dramatic work with the metaphor of scissors and cloth. As a cloth can
be cut into several pieces and still be useful, an epic work is similarly capable of being
understood in the separate individual scenes, thus, it becomes a montage of scenes forming a
whole play.
Over time, the epic and drama lost their rigid individual traits and became reconcilable.
Technical advancements played a major role in enabling dramatists to incorporate alternative
7
styles of narration, such as projectors, film clips or news reels. This enhanced the experience
of scenic visuals for the audience and eliminated the need to personify any abstract concept
or scene, not leaving anything to the audience’s imagination. Earlier, the environment was
visible to the audience only from the protagonist’s point of view and not as an independent
component. The central figure’s opinion created the whole environment and then the
audience also looked at it from the same perspective. However, in epic theatre it has its own
identity; not dependent on the character’s subjectivity.
The stage setting was done in such a way that it had a narrative of its own. Stage
machinery was made visible to the audience to break the illusion of reality. Mostly, the
setting was kept simple, such as at the beginning of The Good Person of Szechwan where the
character introduces himself in a minimal background of the evening. Various signs and
placards are used to show what is about to happen and the events that will follow. This also
helped in breaking the illusion for the audience; allowing them to scrutinize the context and
issues being raised in the play. The actors did not completely get into their characters but left
some scope for speculation. So, the spectator started watching and experiencing actions on
stage but without getting involved in it or identifying with the situations and characters
presented in the play. This whole process of alienation was imperative to properly understand
what was happening on stage. Brecht was of the view that anything that had an element of
being ‘natural’ must be accompanied by an element of amazement and shock.
So, there was a huge transition from the dramatic theatre, with catharsis as the end
effect, to the epic theatre, with alienation effect as the final purpose. The difference between
the two can be explained by how the spectators feel or what they go through while watching
actions on stage. In the former, the spectator is able to empathize with characters or
situations, and understand the motives behind the character’s actions; feeling similar
emotions as felt by the character on stage. However, in epic theatre, the spectator began to
question the actions and situations while simultaneously interrogating social issues being
presented, by not getting caught up in the emotions.
The Instructive Theatre
Brecht points out that the subject matter of theatre changed as it became instructive. The
production was styled in such a way that it appeared to be commenting on society. From
economic to social, inflation to deprivation, family to religion, every aspect of society and
culture became a subject of scrutiny on stage. Choruses, films, and statistical material was
used to add background information.
Instead of giving moral lessons, people were shown what is right or wrong through
projections and background on the stage. In addition to being a place and platform for
entertainment, it became a place for philosophers to highlight their social concerns and also
hope to change them. In this light, epic theatre seemed to be a mode for learning and not
entertainment but that is not the case. Brecht argues that without the element of
entertainment, the theatre would eventually lose its importance; thus, the objective of the epic

8
theatre was not to give moral lessons alone but to be instrumental in bringing about social
change, while still being entertaining.
Since Brecht was a Marxist, it greatly influenced his ideas of learning and knowledge.
He believed that learning and knowledge have ceased to be social skills and have become
aspects of commercial transactions. The usefulness of learning depends on many factors that
are beyond a learner’s control. Learning plays different roles for different classes of society;
for the upper classes learning is not perceived to be of much value but there is a
“discontented” strata that values learning. Whatever the case, good theatre will both instruct
and amuse.
Theatre and Knowledge
It is not necessary that every theatre performance should be amusing or every performance
serve as a source for knowledge. According to Brecht, art and knowledge are distinct
disciplines. But if modern knowledge is combined with science and then both together are
used for art and specifically theatre, it would add to the value of theatre.
Modern knowledge and science can prove to be of immense help in art and specially for
theatre. Art and science work in quite different ways but an individual cannot get along as an
artist without the use of one or two sciences. People see poets as unique and slightly
unnatural beings who easily recognize those things that most people have to work hard to
recognize. The scientific occupations being talked about are not side interests for a poet.
Goethe was interested in natural history and Schiller in history and even if it is assumed that
both did not need these sciences for their poetry, their poetry was somehow enhanced with
the knowledge of these subjects. For instance, one important field for the playwright is
psychology. It is taken for granted that a poet can dive deep into his imagination and extract
motives for a murderer as if he himself is one. The challenge with this arises because the poet
cannot possibly imagine all the motives which the press and scientific reports show to have
been observed in people. Then, modern psychology, from psychoanalysis to behaviorism,
acquaints the poet with facts that lead him/her to judge the case quite differently.
Is Epic Theatre Some Kind of ‘Moral Institution?’
Friedrich Schiller, the renowned German playwright and poet was of the view that theatre is
an institution to teach moral values to people. For Schiller, it was a great idea to use theatre as
its tool and he found it something that could amuse the audience but for Neitzsche it meant
depressing the audience as it meant showing affairs like debt or the breaking up of families,
that would remind the audience of their real-life problems.
However, epic theatre is more about letting the audience observe than preaching moral
lessons. Undoubtedly, society is not utopic and moral lessons simply make it harder for
people to bear problems like hunger, cold, and suppression. So, the goal is to find a solution
on how to eradicate such problems instead of just making people morally conscious about
them. Epic theatre works for victims rather than for the sake of morality as moralists often
preach acceptance and contentment with what they have, even if is problematic.
9
Can Epic Theatre be Played Anywhere?
Didactic tendencies have always been an integral part of theatre; from mystery plays in
medieval times to the theatre of the Jesuits, and classical Spanish theatre. Along with this, the
element of being descriptive in settings and characters, and an emphasis on virtue has existed
in theatre since old Asian performances. Epic theatre has elements of all these but the most
common element in different theatrical movements has been temporality. Theatrical
movements passed with their time and similarly modern epic theatre is associated with trends
of its time, so it can be performed only where conditions are favourable. Epic theatre can only
thrive in a situation where society is willing to change to freely and fearlessly.
4. Dramatic Theatre v/s Epic Theatre
Theatre has always been one of the most important performing arts. The origin of theatre can
be traced back to ancient Greece, during the time of Aristotle who believed that the aim of
drama is the purgation of emotions in the audience.
Epic theatre’s prime focus is the narrative - where the objective is to turn a spectator into
an observer, in order to arouse his capacity for action rather than entangling him in the action
on the stage. The main emphasis of dramatic theatre is always on the plot, with an aim to
engage the spectators. The dramatic theatre places the spectator in a subjective position where
he can identify with the character and may also share a similar experience. On the other hand,
in epic theatre, the spectator is placed in an objective position, from where he can scrutinize
and study characters and their actions. There are some major differences between dramatic
theatre and epic theatre. Dramatic theatre and epic theatre focus on different aspects; the
former aims to evoke purgation of emotions in the audience, and the latter is based on reason;
it’s aim is to engage the audience in a way that they can question the action. In dramatic
theatre, scenes are linked with one another and follow a linear progression but in epic theatre,
each scene stands for itself, resulting in a montage-like structure.
Brecht’s The Good Person of Szechwan, first performed in 1943, is considered a
masterpiece of epic theatre. The prologue sets the theme of the play, and the use of songs, the
struggle of goodness trying to survive, the diminishing importance of morals, economic
struggle, and the absence of poetic justice, make it a prime example of epic theatre. The play
is divided into loosely connected episodes, to prevent the spectators from getting completely
lost in the action and story. Apart from this, the plays also incorporate a running commentary
about what has happened in the previous scene and what might follow in the next. The
character of Wong introduces himself to the audience in a direct conversation as there is no
scope for a monologue. In the conclusion, Brecht gives the play an open ending, questioning
the audience about the conclusion they would like to draw.
Questions
1. Explain the concept of epic theatre with reference to any text in your syllabus.
2. How does the function of theatre extend beyond social pleasure?

10
5. Conclusion
Drama as performing art dates back to ancient times but its performing strategies and themes
have evolved over the centuries. The genre ranges from tragedy to comedy, naturalistic to
Gothic, fictional to political, and still continues to amuse audiences. Bertolt Brecht made a
breakthrough with his epic theatre movement which went beyond entertainment as it
highlights political and socio-cultural issues. He defied Aristotle’s and Stanislavsky’s
concepts of theatre and established modern ideas. Brecht introduced epic theatre as an
instrument of social protest/change, aligned with his Marxist ideas. Its theories differ from
dramatic theatre and so do its techniques, right from the stage settings to the actors’
performance. In epic theatre, the narrative follows a fractured pattern as scenes are not
connected in linear progression. It ends without providing any logical solution for issues
raised in the play. This leads to an active engagement of the audience as it provokes their
critical observation. For this, Brecht used various techniques such as sudden breaks in action,
and the use of mechanical technology. The prime focus of epic theatre is on the alienation
effect in such a way that audience is made to disassociate with the action on stage.
Works Cited
‘Bertolt Brecht | Biography, Plays, Epic Theater, Poems, and Facts’. Encyclopedia
Britannica, Britannica, www.britannica.com/biography/Bertolt-Brecht.19 Jan 2022.
Brecht, Bertolt. Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic. ‘The Street Scene’,
‘Theatre for Pleasure or Theatre for Instruction’, Dramatic Theatre vs Epic Theatre’,
edited by John Willet, Methuen, 1992, pp. 121–28, 68-76, chart p. 31.
‘Epic Theatre of Brecht’. Encyclopedia Britannica, www.cs.brandeis.edu/%7Ejamesf/
goodwoman/brecht_epic_theater.html. Accessed 20 Jan. 2022.

11
(c) Eugène Ionesco: Selected Readings
Pragya Anurag
1. Introduction
A Romanian born French playwright; Eugène Ionesco (1909-1994) was one of the pioneers
of the avant-garde theater of the twentieth century. His play The Bald Soprano (1949) started
a dramatic revolution and helped form what is now known as the Theater of the Absurd; a
term coined by Martin Esslin. His plays deal with the absurdities and meaninglessness of
bourgeoise life, where human communication has become blatantly redundant, exposing its
futility. A number of his plays, such as The Lesson (1951), are one-act plays that explore the
fear of death. Despite the term- absurdism- bestowed upon his theatre, Ionesco describes the
themes of his plays as improbable rather than absurd. Ionesco was able to popularize a
number of surrealistic techniques through the medium of his plays, which represent bizarre
situations and the mechanical nature of life. Along with his other classics, Rhinoceros (1959)
is an allegory that protests against totalitarianism in the face of violation of human rights.
Though Ionesco wrote in French, his work found success worldwide and has been translated
into many languages. In his last years, Ionesco wrote The Hermit (1973), a novel which was
later transformed into a play, A Hell of a Mess (1975). He was elected to the Académie
Française in 1970 and is one of the most prominent dramatists of the twentieth century.
2. Analytical Summary
2.1 Still About Avant-Garde Theater
[Prescribed Reading: Ionesco, Eugène. Notes and Counter Notes: Writings on the Theatre,
trans. by David Watson. New York: Grove Press, 1964, pp. 53-58]
Ionesco defines avant-garde as “a kind of drama that opens the way to another kind of
drama.” However, like everything else, theater cannot be definitive. Avant-garde theater is a
developing theatre - it is not just what it encompasses in the present but also has the potential
to incorporate the necessary changes in the future. However, in this shift from the present to
the future, there is always an apparent change. Ionesco gives an example of a fractured
regime which, when it realizes its brokenness, rebuilds the structure in order to regain
control. The surface can be restored but the reality remains fragmented. Although a negative
analogy, Ionesco tries to establish a similarity between the basic structure of a society or
government and that of art. Art too, in its revolution (when old structures are exhausted),
witnesses an apparent change. The basic structure however remains the same and without this
basic material “any work of art is valueless.” The basic material is “untopical” or permanent
while the change or the revolution is topical. Ionesco then equates the avant-garde with the
untopical. He says that avant-garde is like the basic material but the quest for basic material
must not come at the expense of the topical because that might result in an outdated style.
The purpose of the avant-garde is to acclimatize “the forgotten truth - and to reintegrate it, in

12
an untopical way, into what is topical.” Often, such works will be misunderstood and remain
unpopular, as was the case with many avant-garde plays.
Ionesco’s own work was labelled absurdist as it disregarded conventional structures and
adopted a form more suited to the themes of his plays; such as alienation and the redundancy
of communication. He believes that absurd theater “fulfils a mental requirement” and has its
value, even if it is followed by a very small number of people. Ionesco calls the avant-garde
indispensable and underlines the need to save it from jealousy, politics, and malice - which
seek to overthrow its revolutionary form.
2.2 Remarks on my Theater and on the Remarks of Others
[Prescribed Reading: Ionesco, Eugène. Notes and Counter Notes: Writings on the Theatre,
trans. by David Watson. New York: Grove Press, 1964, pp. 59-82]
In this particular section, Ionesco describes his encounters with numerous critics who have
written about his work or have approached him, asking about the intention behind a phrase, a
scene or the play. Amidst so many things being written about the work, the work loses its
essence. The voice of the text is suppressed. Readers often depend upon the popular opinions
of acclaimed critics and lose their own power of interpretation in the process. On one such
occasion, Ionesco realizes that his audience seems to know little about his work, either as text
or as performance but echo the judgement of others. He observes contrasting remarks by
various critics upon their reception of his plays, The Chairs and Rhinoceros. After the first
performance of The Chairs, one critic approached Ionesco and told him the recipe to become
the greatest playwright: “Be a Marxist, be Brechtian!” Ionesco goes on to explain why he
cannot follow his advice. The critic, however, cannot forgive him and it reflects in his review
of another performance of the same play. Some writers, says Ionesco, conform to the critics’
opinions of their work and start writing to appease them. He doubts the “objectivity” of these
critics, whose opinions change according to the behaviour of the playwright. Ionesco suggests
that we should not allow the subjective opinions of intellectuals, the “intellectual nets,” to
close our minds to the “infinitely varied points of view possible to the human spirit.”
Ionesco discusses the remarks of numerous intellectuals who advise him to either
conform or write plays that give a clear message. Of many, one example is of a critic, who
comments on Rhinoceros ;“the philosophy of this play is brief . . . as in all this author’s other
plays,” while another goes on to describe the philosophical significance of the play as
considerable. Ionesco is astounded and confused by critics, who once found his plays dreary
and him a fraud, suddenly calling Rhinoceros “a clinical study of conformism, of
contamination” and claiming to have understood the meaning of the play. Ionesco admits that
he too is tempted to believe the critics’ opinion of his own play. He is caught between the
perplexing reviews on Rhinoceros: comments such as “crude inventiveness of these un-
French plays,” monotonous, and “symbolism as puerile as it is old fashioned” to “the author .
. . swings into his satirical stride with superb nonchalance.” Ionesco is able to resist believing
“the latest article” about himself by reading articles that express contrary opinions so that he

13
does not fall into the trap of being swayed by either the benevolence or the malevolence of
the critics.
Ionesco believes that it is not necessary to always agree with a writer, for it can become
“very disquieting.” What bothers Ionesco is the falseness of the critics’ opinions. In forming
an opinion, one must have read the text, for what it is, attentively. Ionesco finds it amusing
those critics expect him to listen to their opinions and agree with them; and when he hasn’t,
they have once again criticized him.
Ionesco believes that literature is fictional and “a construction of the imagination.” The
work is then supplemented with real or historical events. In literature, it is possible to be
ambiguous and incorporate propaganda; something that cannot be done with music or
painting. The confusion in appreciating a work of art arises because people do not understand
the true purpose of literature. For Ionesco himself, it answers a “profound spiritual need.”
Ionesco’s problem lies in his works being judged by moralists and fanatics, whose
opinions are subjective. It is essential to arrive at “absolute objectivity” perhaps by keeping
aside our ideology and opportunistic thoughts because literature should never be didactic. It is
not the aim of theatre to instruct; a literary work acquires a life of its own, beyond the
writer’s control. Ionesco believes that the avant-garde theatre can play a special role in
helping the artist in the “rediscovery of freedom” from oppressive forces.
2.3 Present Past, Past Present
[Prescribed Reading: Eugène Ionesco. Present Past, Past Present, trans. Helen R. Lane.
Boston: De Capo Press, 1998, pp. 77-82]
It is a memoir comprising commentary and self-analysis on who and what we have become
as a society. In this section, Ionesco talks about people turning into rhinoceroses, echoing the
theme of his play Rhinoceros in which everybody but the protagonist turns into what the
dominant ideology intends them to, as he resists and stares in bewilderment. Ionesco believes
that God and man are above the State which is just “an administrative machine” but for the
people who have metamorphosed into these wild beasts, the state has replaced God. Ionesco
observes, “all my anti- Fascist friends have become absolute, fanatic Fascists because in the
beginning they gave in on one little detail.”
In the play, Berenger’s perplexity mirrors Ionesco’s dilemma, watching his friends lose
their ability for critical thinking. Ionesco mourns the loss of his friends and explains that he
cannot follow their example because he cannot tolerate the ugliness of the society that they
inhabit. Ionesco’s comments refer to the antisemitic attitude in Romania propagated by the
Iron Guard, a movement and far right party in Romania. However, his thoughts can be
applied to any form of totalitarianism that seeks to suppress democratic elements and upholds
fascism.
Questions
1. What does Ionesco mean by the avant-garde?
2. How, according to Ionesco, must a reader/audience evaluate a play?
14
3. Why is Ionesco unhappy with critics who write about his plays?
4. What is the theme of Ionesco’s play, Rhinoceros?

(d) Dario Fo, “Against Jesters Who Defame and Insult”

[Prescribed Reading: Dario Fo. “Against Jesters Who Defame And Insult: The Nobel
Lecture.” NobelPrize.Org, The Nobel Foundation, 7 Dec. 1997,
www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/1997/fo/lecture. Translated from Italian by Paul
Claesson.]
1. Introduction
Dario Luigi Angelo Fo (1926-2016) commonly known as Dario Fo was an Italian actor,
comedian, singer, theater director, and a playwright born in Lago Maggiore, Italy. Some of
his most famous and critically acclaimed plays are Accidental Death of an Anarchist (1970),
Tale of a Tiger (1978), Mistero Buffo (1969), and Can’t Pay, Won’t Pay (1974). Fo’s take on
corruption, violence and injustice of the social system and his staunch support of the Italian
Left is often reflected in his writing. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1997.
The Swedish Academy bestowed the honour on him for his ability to emulate “the jesters of
the Middle Ages in scrounging authority and upholding the dignity of the downtrodden.” The
news of Fo being awarded the Nobel prize was criticized by The Vatican, which regarded
him as the author of “questionable works.”
2. Analytical Summary of “Against Jesters Who Defame and Insult”
Dario Fo begins the lecture by drawing attention to his use of images in the text of his speech.
The audience was given copies of a manuscript before the commencement of the speech,
which contains drawings related to the subject matter of the speech; allowing him “to
improvise, to exercise my imagination.” This was done especially for those in the audience
who did not understand Italian or Swedish, as specified by Fo. His wit often conceals the
seriousness of the matter through ironic statements. In claiming why English speakers would
have an advantage over the rest, he reasons that they would “imagine things I’ve neither said
nor thought,” ironically indicating their habit of inefficiently interpreting his writings. He was
banned from entering the United States because of his Leftist ideology, and elsewhere too,
received similar treatment. The title of his speech “contra jogulatores obloquentes” which
translates as “jesters who defame and insult” refers to a law issued in Sicily in 1221, by
Emperor Frederick II, that permitted anyone to insult, beat and kill jesters, without running
the risk of punishment.
Fo’s reference to sublime poets, men of letters, and intellectuals, who have often scorned
writers of other genres is filled with disguised contempt. Fo’s theater, though based on
contemporary forms, includes clowns, slapstick, and sight gags that are not considered
indicative of serious, mature or sublime literature. Highlighting the condemnation of jesters,
he jokes that the news of the Nobel Prize was not welcomed by the elite, who “fell face and
belly down in the mire of normality.” There is a drawing of poets and writers falling and
15
landing on their nether parts in the text of his speech. He applauds the academy on their
courage at defying, not just the men of letters but also members of the clergy who have
condemned the act and “have gone through the ceiling, to the point that they’ve petitioned for
the reinstatement of the law that allows jesters to be burned at the stake.”
Fo’s remarks draw attention to the artist’s difficulty of freedom of expression, especially
against traditional institutions rooted in a centered authority. However, Fo points out that
there are people who have celebrated with joy at the news of him receiving the Nobel Prize.
These comprise storytellers, jesters, and clowns - who have, through decades, been ignored or
laughed at. He expresses his gratitude to the Italian playwright Ruzzante Beolco (1496-1542)
and the French playwright Moliére (1622-1673), both of whom, like himself, brought the
everyday on to the stage. They were master jesters and were often ridiculed by the mighty
men of letters, much like Dario Fo. Ruzzante is credited with using the rural dialect, “the
rambling nonsense speech” of the poor peasants, to depict their problems in his plays.
Small towns like Lago Maggiore, where Fo was born and raised, had a strong oral
tradition. The storytellers or fabulatoris were glassblowers, fishermen, or vendors, who
would often tell stories while they worked. His earlier performances were sketches based on
the tales told by fabulatoris. Fo’s inclusion of sketches in the 25-page booklet, with his Nobel
Prize acceptance speech showcases his indebtedness to these storytellers. Fo’s plays are also
influenced by the oral tradition, as noted by Antonio Scuderi: “although Fo’s plays are
eventually published as fixed texts, they do not begin strictly as an act of writing,” modifying
themselves through each performance. His one-man shows, often performed in local dialects,
are examples of performance art closely related to the oral traditions all over the world.
In keeping with this oral tradition, Fo narrates the story of the Rock of Calde that he had
grown up listening to, as told by an old glassblower. The joy of the tale is that it can be
interpreted in multiple ways, one of the most prominent being the willing ignorance of people
to go about living their senseless lives, irrespective of what happens around them. The theme
of the story is reiterated by Fo in his account of his visit to a number of universities where he
and his wife Franca Rame held workshops and seminars for young audiences. It was during
one such visit that he talked about a massacre in Sivas, Turkey, that took place on July 2,
1993, at a hotel where thirty-seven of the country’s intellectuals had gathered to honour a
“famous medieval jester of the Ottoman Empire.” The hotel was set on fire in the middle of
the night, resulting in many casualties. Fo was shocked to learn that no one in the audience
was aware of this incident, a violent assault on free speech. Fo says “the fire was the
handiwork of a group of fanatical fundamentalists that enjoyed protection from elements
within the government itself.” The retelling of the incident left the students shocked but Fo
notes that it is not the young students who are at fault but those who teach and guide them.
Even the teachers were unaware of what is happening in the world, just a few kilometers
from them. Ignorance of world events is a major concern. Much like the residents of the little
town in the glassblower’s tale, most learners are living in a bubble. Fo goes on to elucidate

16
how “young people easily succumb to the bombardment of gratuitous banalities and
obscenities that each day is served to them by the mass media . . .”
At another university, Fo and his wife spoofed a project that was then still underway. In
the 1990s, the Eurocrats were on a mission to patent organs produced in pigs: through genetic
manipulation, the organs of a pig are made to resemble human organs and then transplanted
in a human body. These organs would be patented and money earned from the copyright.
This plan was condemned by the Pope as “monstrous genetic witchcraft.” The irony is, as
pointed out by Fo, that a famous American scientist, who is a member of the Vatican
Academy of Sciences, has carried out experiments to transplant a baboon’s head. The
students were amused, thinking that he was telling “fantastic stories.” It is disappointing for
Fo that his audiences at these various universities were ignorant of the implications of events
happening around them.
His own works often depict the problems encountered by people on a daily basis;
satirizing the government, politicians, and organized crime He mentions that to write
Accidental Death of An Anarchist (1970), he studied the documents of a case that required
him to know the ins and outs of an Italian court. The case resulted in “three left-wing
politicians” being sentenced to 21 years of imprisonment for “having murdered a police
commissioner.” The audience, once again, was unaware of what Fo was talking about. He
recounts in his speech, “they knew nothing about the massacres . . . the trains that blew up,
the bombs in the piazza or the farcical court cases that have dragged on since” and the
problem is not Italy’s alone, but the world’s. According to him, it is important for the
playwright to produce works that educate audiences about contemporary events because
theatre “that does not speak for its own time has no relevance.”
In a touching gesture, Fo concludes his speech by dedicating and sharing the Nobel Prize
with his wife, Franca Rame, a theater actress, activist and playwright without whom, he feels,
his work would not have been fit for such an honour. He pays tribute her hard work through
countless performances in parks, prisons, and schools; university sit-ins and even while
facing violence, as a price for their “solidarity with the humble and the beaten.”
Questions
i) Dario Fo refers to himself as a “jester” and a “clown” in his speech. Do you agree?
ii) Comment on the inclusion of images in Fo’s Nobel Prize Speech.
iii) Write a few lines about Dario Fo’s observations about the younger generation.
iv) What, according to Fo, is an artist’s major responsibility?

(e) Konstantin Stanislavski, “Faith and a Sense of Truth”

1. Introduction
Born on 17th January 1863, Moscow in the erstwhile Russian empire, Konstantin Sergeyevich
Stanislavski (1863-1938) was a Russian theater practitioner, actor, and producer. He started
17
acting at the young age of fourteen by joining a theater group run by his parents. He was
influenced by the playwrights Henrik Ibsen, Anton Chekov, Alexander Ostrovsky and Leo
Tolstoy. When the February Revolution (1917) witnessed the overthrow of absolute
monarchy in Russia, Stanislavski celebrated this turn of events and hoped that the social
upheavals might lead to the formation of a Russian popular theater. He was praised by
Vladimir Lenin as “a real artist” who also upheld his method of training. Stanislavski’s
method was very much established even before An Actor Prepares (1936) was published.
He, along with Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko, a director-writer laid down the
foundation of a people’s theater, the Moscow Art Theater. MAT has strived to fight
conventions that build up over time and do not allow fresh art to flourish, by following
Stanislavski’s method and presenting a character’s “inner repercussions with convincing
psychological truthfulness.” The theater primarily aimed to establish new forms of art and
train actors to perform realistically. It staged its first play, Tolstoy’s Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich,
in 1898. Stanislavski, after years of trial and error, developed a system of acting called the
Stanislavski method. The main components of Stanislavski’s system are an actor’s reliance
on past experiences, emotional memory, and empathetic observation. This style of acting was
practiced in the Soviet Union and was recognized in the United States in the 1920s.
An Actor Prepares (1936), originally written in Russian, elaborates on Stanislavski’s
method. It takes us along with a fictional student, Kostya and his fellow students, who are
learning the basics of acting from their teacher Tortsov. The book is largely autobiographical
and is divided into sixteen chapters. For the purpose of our analysis, we will delve into
sections i, ii, vii, viii, ix from chapter eight, “Faith and a Sense of Truth.”
2. Analytical Summary: “Faith and a Sense of Truth”
[Prescribed Reading: Stanislavski, Konstantin. “Faith and a Sense of Truth.” An Actor
Prepares, trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. New York: Routledge. 1964, pp. 121-125,
137-46.]
Section 1
As Kostya walks through the school, he notices a placard that says “Faith and a Sense of
Truth” perhaps indicating the exercise they would be doing in class that day. Before the class
can commence, they all search for another student, Maria’s purse. The director observes them
quietly and interrupts them. He asks them to reenact the exact movements of searching for the
purse. However, as the purse has already been found, the reenactment becomes a banal
exercise. The purpose of this exercise, notes the director, is to teach them to act with truth.
Kostya’s puzzlement is natural because the first time they were in a real situation. The second
time they are already aware of where the object is and cannot repeat the same actions with
sincerity; what the students call “reality at first and a false imitation of it the second time.”
(140) Tortsov elucidates the nature of truth and belief for an actor. An actor must be aware of
the two kinds of truth; one - where the performance is natural because it stems from an actual
fact and the second - that “which is equally truthful” but works on imagination and fiction.

18
The first does not need to be created, the second however, needs an active imaginary plane in
the actor’s mind to prepare a story; either based on or stemming from reality. The actor
should be able to create a reality on stage that is believable; “something that is not actually in
existence but which could happen.” (140) Although theater is fictional, it is not a lie. Actors
can make a fictional scene believable if they are able to imagine a reality and believe in that
reality. The reality or actual truth means little when on stage. If anything, it should be used to
paint the imagined circumstances to lend validation to the actions of a performer. The actor
should then be able to awaken their “sense of faith” in this reality. This process of satisfying
the sense of both truth and faith is what Stanislavski calls “justification of a part.”
Stanislavski’s method expounds the relationship between belief and truth; the second
form of truth needs to be believed such that there remains no difference between the two with
the actor believing in what he does on stage and only then it will be possible for an actor live
their part and be convincing to the spectators.
Section 2
After expounding his theory on the role of truth in the creative process, Stanislavski dedicates
this section to explaining the necessity to be untruthful as well. In this section, Stanislavski
talks about the need for an actor to keep a check on their representation on stage through a
“process of self-study,” and by moderating the truth because a “sense of truth contains within
itself a sense of what is untrue as well.” (142) A good actor must have both. However, both
are present in varying proportions. Stanislavski suggests that if an actor refuses to see the lies
and negates falseness altogether that in itself is a major lie. Too much truth might lead to
losing the sense of belief, as discussed in the previous section. In fact, falseness might even
be helpful in determining what must not be done. Having a sense of falseness helps an actor
to stay within the boundaries of that which might be conceivable and thus, believable to the
audience.
While performing, Stanislavski notes, an actor might feel the pressure to perform too
much and “to give out an unnecessary amount of effort and motions that are supposed to
represent feelings.” This excess has to be removed in order for the actor to perform better. An
actor must not only depend upon someone else to point out the falseness in his acting, in
order to correct himself, but must have an inherent sense of truth in order to push the
falseness out. What this suggests is that an actor must build a base of truth and work upon it.
If he goes overboard with his acting, he can always return to the basic seed of truth within
himself to realise his mistake and make amends. It is a process of self-study. The actor should
be aware of himself even if he has someone to check his excessiveness because often one is
able to criticize others through a sense of truth but is unable to apply the same to their own
acting. In this part, Stanislavski lays down self-study as another method that an actor must
follow, so that he does not fall into extremes while trying to be truthful on stage.

19
Section 7
This section explains the “creation of the human soul” while performing. With a combination
of truth and falseness in appropriate proportions, and self-study, an actor becomes conscious
of the movements of his body while performing. These movements can only be convincing if
he believes in the action he is performing. In such a performance, the body and soul become
indivisible. Most actors might do it naturally, without realizing it. Stanislavski, through
Trostov, tries to explain his method with examples.
Though the outward physical movements are a good guide for the actor while performing
on the stage, what really interests him is “the inner circumstances and conditions of life to
which the play has led him.” Using an example of a scene from the play they are rehearsing;
Kostya is able to improvise by imagining the character’s hunched back brother-in-law’s
situation. He imagines that the beauty of the main protagonist’s wife came at the cost of the
deformity of her twin brother. Kostya’s attitude towards his on-stage brother-in-law changes
through the use of imagination and feeling; he now feels compassion, which is reflected in
the performance. This is what Stanislavski calls the “inner source of feeling.” This feeling
makes movements easier. Stanislavski has a pronounced understanding of human emotions
and empathy, even though they are not the primary gears of his method.
In yet another scene from the play, Kostya kills Vanya’s brother and remains motionless
as his mind is racing through a number of scenarios that would occur if people knew he had
killed his wife’s brother. In that moment he is acting even when he is still. Thus, a good actor
need not perform exaggerated movements in order to convey his horror or grief. He must be
able to make the audience believe the truth of his feeling.
In this section, the author has focused on the path to create “the subconscious life of the
spirit of a role.” As Kostya realizes, the success of these exercises lies in “the magic ifs and
given circumstances.” However, there are hurdles to these exercises and one of them is the
prompt arousal of imagination. Not always will an actor be able to imagine and work through
a scenario. In order to achieve success in such situations, says the director, the actor must
base the situation on their own feelings. The soil for the imaginings must be one’s own
experience.
Section 8
In this section, Stanislavski talks about the technique an actor needs to follow in order to
appear authentic on stage. He should focus on small physical acts (as Shakespeare did in
Lady Macbeth’s act of washing hands in Macbeth). Trostov draws an analogy between
travelling and acting. While travelling there is a constant change in what one sees and feels,
similarly actors find themselves in contact with new people and experiences. On this path,
there are many directions that an actor can take to fulfill their journey but one needs to
protect oneself from going in the wrong direction. Once again, the actor must tap into their
sense of truth and faith in order to understand whether the path they are on, is the correct one.
Both these virtues in conjunction act as a signal man, showing the actor the green light.

20
 The next question is the use of the right equipment to undertake this journey. For an
actor to succeed it is of course important to have feeling, but it is not the sense of feeling
alone that an actor must rely upon. Emotions are transitory and are not be as substantial as
physical action. Small actions should complement the feelings within, in order for the actor to
build a rapport with the act and the audience. Stanislavski reiterates the importance of
believing in the actions. The action is important but more important is the actor’s belief in the
action. While feeling could be the primary motive through which an action arises, an actor
must strive to build on the truth of his action and an emotion will naturally arise. Simple
physical actions that we perform in our real lives; like walking, running, throwing our arms
around, sitting, or holding a pen can be enough to indicate feelings. Lady Macbeth washing
her hands, he says, is the perfect example of a small action conveying internal turmoil.
However, it is important to limit such actions because they signify real feelings.
At the same time, a lack of limited physical action might lead an actor to become too
involved in his feelings, and strive to act out in excessive passion. Stanislavski does not
believe in giving in to emotions that border on the theatrical. In stating this, Stanislavski
likens the actor to a machine, or acting to mechanical work which must be practiced and
comprise small movements rather than grand emotions and passion. This too runs the risk of
mechanical acting which is not the goal here but the gradual arrival of an actor at a situation
or emotion. The outcome therefore must not seem sudden or unnecessary and, on the other
hand, it must not seem mechanical and laboured. It must be a process of little actions building
into an act of emotion. Thus, when faced with tragic situations, an actor must not think of his
emotions but the small physical actions they have to perform on stage.
Section 9
The section begins with a description of the psycho-technique, as described by Kostya in
action. A student, Dasha, is enacting a scene from Brand. Dasha is able to recreate the scene
with utmost sincerity because she draws upon her own experience. As Kostya tells us, she has
recently lost a child. The performance is so moving that the wood in her arms is taken for an
actual baby and everyone’s eyes fill with tears. Before she can finish the scene, the director
shouts cut. Trostov explains once again that such a performance is possible because of true
inspiration which lies in the actual reality. However, one cannot strive to create the same
impact each time the scene is performed. This happens because emotions are transitional,
they change and they are also fleeting. The actor cannot rely upon sincere emotions at all
times. Thus, the second time when Dasha acts the scene, it barely comes close to her first
performance. This time, Dasha has not just abandoned or failed to draw from her emotional
experience but also failed to use her imagination. The piece of wood remains a piece of
wood. The performance is not convincing. With imagination, an actor would need to
skillfully apply the necessary movements to the scene.
In earlier sections, Stanislavski has stressed upon this need. With great effort, Dasha is
“finally able to recall consciously what she had felt unconsciously the first time she played
the scene.” Kostya insists that though the scene is not as effective as her first performance,
21
however, the groundwork for a more effective performance has been laid. Dasha has not just
drawn from her emotions and experiences but tapped into the imaginative plane of what she
might have had done had she found a baby and has been able to execute her movements
accordingly. Since one cannot always tap into one’s emotions, it is necessary to create small
movements with the help of the imagination. Stanislavski’s sense of truth and faith,
appropriate falseness, imaginative plane, body movements, and drawing on experience and
emotions tie up neatly, through Dasha’s third enactment of the same scene. For the fourth
time, the director asks Dasha to imagine how she would react if she had lost her baby and
then found an abandoned child at her doorstep. This time Dasha starts sobbing and this time
the scene is more effective than the previous performance. In effect, Stanislavski feels that
inspiration alone cannot sustain good acting but “imaginative suggestion” can.
3. Conclusion
The five sections dealt with here largely sum up Stanislavski’s method, explaining how an
actor must perform in order to deliver a believable performance. The magic ifs enable an
actor to create believable characters by imagining the given circumstances a character finds
himself in and incorporate that into their performance. His method is used by theater
practitioners all over the world and is often synonymous with method acting. In spite of being
written in 1936, Stanislavski’s method remains one of the best guides for actors to unlock
their skills on the stage. It has influenced playwrights like Lee Strasberg, Sanford Meisner
and Stella Adler to develop their own versions of Stanislavski’s method.
Questions
1. What is the function of “falseness” in Stanislavski’s method?
2. The text is in the form of a Socratic dialogue. What is the purpose of such a form?
3. How important are emotions to Stanislavski? Where has he placed emotions in his
method?
4. According to Stanislavski, an actor’s small physical movements on the stage form the
basis of reality for the audience. Discuss.

22