Brecht and Stanislavski

Stanislavski and Brecht sought to challenge the theatrical conventions of the day. Compare the specific ways they attempted to do this.

© Sarah Marchant

Source: http://www.dreamdust.co.uk/work/compare/

As Stanislavski and Brecht began to develop their own ideas on theatre practice, they faced the conventions of the theatre that had gone before. Neither Stanislavski nor Brecht wished to educate actors or audiences with the existing practices and so developed their own systems to challenge what was before them. As Stanislavski worked against the melodramatic theatre that disgusted him, Brecht later sought to undo some of Stanislavski’s methods. The ways in which Stanislavski and Brecht challenged the theatre that preceded them can be compared and contrasted as in some areas, the two practitioners held similar beliefs, while in other places, such as the truth or symbolism of a character, differed widely.

Theatre before Stanislavski was undisciplined and the actors appeared to have little respect for their work. Although they often had a very limited repertoire, star actors had ultimate power in productions. This kind of actor was unsuitable for Stanislavski’s work, he said of one “she does not love art, but herself in art.” Rehearsals were disorganised. Actors would turn up late and sometimes not be in a fit state to act. The theatre lacked the integrity that Stanislavski introduced as he developed his System. The rehearsal system was a vital part of the whole process of a production. Instead of actors playing their roles in their own melodramatic way, Stanislavski introduced exercises that developed an actor’s entire physical, emotional and psychological being. Actors explored their own pasts to recall emotions that they could apply to situations in the script. This Emotion Memory served to make the characters more believable. Concentration on vocal and physical techniques concerning specific characters also worked to this end.

Stanislavski wished to show a truthful expression of life on stage. The declaiming of lines to the audience was brought to an end as a fourth wall between the audience and the stage was imagined. The audience was seeing into a piece of reality, a show was not being “performed”. The gestures were replaced with a need to act with a purpose. Every movement was justified and related to the circumstance and character. Extensive research was done on the character, its part in the production and what its life would have been like in the time in which that play was set. While the previous style of theatre had commonly performed farces, Stanislavski looked towards classical theatre and also encouraged new writings. The function of theatre was now considered to be to civilise, educate and instruct morals. The actors now worked for the audience in a different way. They were educators, heightening the audience’s perception of events around them, but also uplifting their spirits.

More effort went into productions, not just on the part of the actors, but from the technical side too. Stanislavski resisted the tradition of using sets of previous productions. Detailed and realistic sets were produced. Costumes were produced to be accurate for the production, rather than being a well used costume from the company or pieces of the actor’s own clothing.

Each actor continuously evaluated his development during the rehearsal process. He could chart his work on the given circumstances of the character and develop the character’s psychological truth. With other members of the cast, improvising off text was a way of becoming more familiar with the character. The exploration of the subtext would also familiarise the actor with his character’s motives and how he really felt about the other characters. The exercises that Stanislavski introduced were designed to enable the actors to live the life of their characte even when they were off stage. During rehearsal, the text would be split into units and each character’s objectives could be identified. By working with his character’s aims and motives, an actor could use the Magic If to further develop the character’s psyche. The simple exercise of hotseating a character would give the actor opportunities to develop their knowledge of the character and their ability to react to the event around them. Rather than the unrealistic performances of theatre that went before Stanislavski, every performance was slightly different and so each actor reacted differently, creating afresh and lively performance.

Moving away from the more undisciplined theatre, the actors worked on the physicality of their role, rejecting gestures. Each actor would identify the inner and outer tempos of his character. These would determine the movements made and the use of tools such as the voice. As part of the extensive research carried out, the actors could watch people around them who may relate to their role. For instance, an actor playing Arkadina from Chekhov’s The Seagull would watch a faded star in public. She would see how she held herself and how she spoke and moved.

Treating his actors with respect, Stanislavski in return expected dedication to the System. The production became part of the actor’s life as he would do daily exercises to relax into his role. Developing Circles of Attention would aid relaxation and concentration on stage as the actor could encompass the whole stage at one point, or withdraw into himself to concentrate on his character if it was physically or mentally isolated.

Stanislavski had made a complete break from the disorganised theatre that had preceded him. Actors were now working in detail on their parts and the audience watched a realistic performance in carefully crafted and researched roles, sets and costumes.

Brecht was faced with what he felt to be the dull bourgeois realism of Stanislavski’s work. The actors related in depth to their roles and the spectators played only a passive part. From their presence and applause being acknowledged before Stanislavski’s influence, they could now only be sympathetic to plight on stage and accept any outcomes as inevitable. Brecht rejected this idea wholeheartedly as the productions were not an attempt to recreate reality. The imaginary fourth wall was eliminated and the spectators were once more a part of the production. However, it was not for the spectators’ relaxation. They now had to be conscious of the political implications and the consequences of any choices and decisions they made. Theatre was no longer the simple uplifting experience that it was under Stanislavski. The spectators were required to react to suffering and leave the theatre determined to make a difference.

Like Stanislavski, Brecht rejected the idea of stars in a performance. His emphasis was on a closely knit ensemble. The rehearsal technique was somewhat different and embedivity was Brecht’s aim. Actors would swap roles, even crossing genders, and play around with different accents and dialects, giving them a different perspective on the production. The same importance was placed on vocal techniques and physical flexibility however. While there was dedication to the theatre, there was also dedication to Brecht’s political beliefs – it was through theatre that Brecht could see a way of politically educating the masses.

The main idea of the Epic Theatre was the Verfremdungseffekte – distancing. While Stanislavski moved against the previous conventions of theatre by encouraging a very realistic style of acting, Brecht in turn moved against this realism and encouraged embedivity. There was a return to the idea of the actor as a presenter. Scenes could be narrated and actors could adopt third person remarks. They would be able to describe themselves saying lines and even their own stage directions. The focus was placed on telling a story rather than living it.

The use of placards with messages such as “Stop goggling like a lot of romantics” and the narrative chorus that addressed the spectators showed how Brecht believed the social message to be more important than the characters within the production. He challenged Stanislavski’s established method of splitting the text into units, allowing more natural breaks that were then titled.

The Distancing effect was extended to the spectators as the realistic staging of Stanislavski’s theatre was dismissed in favour of an auditorium where the house lights remained on and there was a brightly lit stage that revealed the technicalities of the production; thus ruining the magical illusion aimed for in Stanislavski’s theatre. The set was designed to look as though it would only last as long as the production and many items were purely representational. The use of sparse sets, placards and montage were all calculated to distance both the actors and the spectators from the emotion of the story in order for them to consider the political and social implications of every part of the action. When not participating in a scene, an actor could also remain on stage to observe the play. This was once again distancing the actor and the spectators from the comfortable idea of a night out.

As both Stanislavski and Brecht developed their own systems for theatre, they challenged what had gone before them if they could see a better way of achieving what they aimed to do. Stanislavski challenged the melodrama and lack of respect for the theatre by developing a system that involved detailed research and commitment. The audience was provided with an event they could observe while leaving their real life worries at the door. The System required dedication and hard work on the part of the actors, directors and technical crew to produce this naturalistic piece of theatre. As Brecht came behind Stanislavski, he moved against this naturalistic performing and developed his own techniques, centred around his political stand and the idea of Distancing. Theatre became a much more involving experience for the spectators. However, this was not a return to the undisciplined theatre that preceded Stanislavski. The spectators were forced to think and react, rather than to heckle.