a) El GATT: principales funciones, características, principios

References to radical and mainstream European theatre contexts that are relevant to applied theatre directing are selective. Evidence will largely be drawn from literature describing alternative, participatory and devised theatre. The ‘bond between actor and director and the research carried out by both’ will be considered in order to discover more about the evolving identity of the applied theatre director (Mitter and Schevtsova, 2005: (xviii). It is suggested that the relationship between actor and audience is shaped by audience role, actor’s interpretation and directorial decisions concerning purpose and intention.

The first director with ‘overall artistic responsibility’ for the interpretation of a play was the Duke of Saxe-Meiningen who, with the producer Ludwig Chronekg, directed the Meiningen Theatre Company at the end of the 19th _{century (Braun, 1977: 7). The role, if not the title,}

was not a new concept and there are references to directorial practise by Aeschylus in the theatre of 5th _{century Athens (Braun, 1977: 5).}

There are also references in descriptions of the role of actor-managers in theatres of the 17th ₁₈th _{and early 19}th _{centuries (Neelands and}

Dobson, 2000: 88). However, it was to be developments in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that continue to be strong influences on contemporary directorial practice (Hodge, 2000). The emergence of the concept of a director radically changed the whole nature of theatre-making, bringing a ‘seismic shift’ in respect of textual interpretation and actor-audience relationships (2000: 2).

The productions of the Meiningen theatre company were inspirational for three directors who observed them, Konstantin Stanislavski, in Russia, Otto Brahm, in Germany, and Andre Antoine, in France. They were all committed to visions of new theatre practice and principles of artistic coherence through disciplined rehearsal processes (Read, 1992: 280). In striving to achieve their aims, Brahm and Antoine found it necessary to remove their work from the mainstream theatres and establish independent theatres in which artistic-experiment and theatrical-risk could be attempted. The social issues presented in the plays of Henrik Ibsen, unsurprisingly, were attractive material to both of these directors.

As new forms of approach and experimentation were adopted, there were signs of a more collaborative director-actor relationship. Directors urged actors to take more responsibility and draw upon their personal resources (Hodge, 2000: 3). The ‘new directors’ also began to adopt a teaching role, as studios, conservatoires and academies for actor

training began to be established (2000: 2). Stanislavski, Director of the Moscow Arts Theatre, was both a teacher and a director and his acting company were often referred to as ‘students’ and his system of rehearsal techniques were defined as teaching strategies, as well as a means of actor preparation (Benedetti, 1998: 15).

By 1909, Stanislavski had devised a formal, innovative system of actor preparation and training, with the intention of making performances more convincing and believable (Hapgood, 1967: 3). Stanislavski’s theories linked physical actions to particular psychological states of mind (Mitter, 1992: 23). He aimed to develop techniques which would enable actors to portray characters in a more ‘truthful way’ in productions which took account of the historical and the cultural implications of the text. Stanislavski’s techniques enabled actors to experience emotions that would facilitate a simultaneous fusion of actor and character. He wanted actors to develop a ’sense of self’, developing character from a process of exercises, improvisations and mental preparation, based on textual evidence.

Stanislavski’s legacy is that his exercises and techniques continue to be studied in international contexts of actor training (Hodge, 2000: 4). There are elements of the ‘method’ which continue to offer invaluable strategies for workshops: ‘emotional memory’; ‘circles of attention’; ’objectives’; ‘units’; ‘through-lines’; the ‘magic if’; ‘given circumstances’. All are invaluable facilitative strategies for textual exploration and character development (Martin, 2007). Stanislavski did not see the system as fixed. His hope was that actors would adapt and interpret it to meet their purpose. He wanted actors to be inventive with the system, to use the techniques as a way of selecting pathways which would enable them to discover the ‘truth’ about their character and the social context of the play (Carnicke, 2000: 33);

The System is a guide. Open and read. The System is a handbook, not a philosophy. The moment when the System begins to become a philosophy is its end.

[…]

My lifelong concern has been how to get ever closer to the so called ‘System’, that is to get ever closer

to the nature of creativity. (Stanislavski, 1990: cited in Hodge, 2000: 33)

Although analyses of Brecht and Stanislavski are often presented as oppositional, this is misleading. Division is based more upon their political ideologies than their theatre practice (Mumford, 2009: 43). Brecht openly acknowledged the value of Stanislavski’s work, particularly in the early stages of rehearsal when character building is a priority; in his advice to the company about process and building roles, Brecht advocates a search for empathy, truth and perspective (Mitter, 2005: 54).

Brecht, as previously suggested, was not alone in explicitly seeking a more critical and questioning theatre. Vsevold Meyerhold, a contemporary of Stanislavski, also sought ways of revitalising the prevalent ‘psychological naturalism’ that was evident in the Moscow Arts Theatre (Mitter, 2005). Meyerhold found this acting restrictive in terms of audience ‘contribution’. He (also) wanted audiences to be critical, to ask questions and to contribute via their imaginative interpretation of the narrative. He sought to instil an engagement ‘in the material of the production in a consciously enquiring manner (Pitches, 2003: 3). The ‘spectator mental state’, Meyerhold’s term, was to be achieved through a more individualistic and freer creative role for both actors and directors.

One of Meyerhold’s theoretical actor-director-author-audience articulations is presented via two diagrams; Figure 2.4 Theatre triangle, which illustrates a restrictive model in which the director is the prime mediator and interpreter of the playwright’s text. In this model, actors and authors are subject to the director’s interpretation in equal measure.

Figure 2.4 Theatre Triangle

In Figure 2.5 Theatre of the straight Line, the actor has more responsibility and independence, freedom to develop a more intense ‘performance experience’ for spectators. The director is more clearly one member of the artistic team. In Figure 2.5 the spectator

SPECTATOR

DIRECTOR

ACTOR AUTHOR

The Theatre Triangle

comprehends the author and the director through the prism of the actor’s art – theatre is the art of the actor (Meyerhold, 1913). The implication of this change of emphasis is the increased responsibility for the actor in terms of responsibility.

The relationships in Theatre of the straight line mark a radical change in the director-actor-audience relationship to that being proposed, at the same time, by Stanislavski (Bradby and Williams, 1988). The relationships present an oppositional approach to mainstream theatre directing which centres on the director as sole interpreter of the text. The theatre of the straight line offers a model in which greater equality of contribution prevails and in which the director’s role is to develop a style of theatre in which ‘every element became a significant bearer of meaning’ (Bradby and Williams, 1988: 15);

Theatre of the straight Line

AUTHOR DIRECTOR ACTOR SPECTATOR

(Meyerhold, 1907: 266)

Cited in Bradby and Williams, 1988: 14

Figure 2.5 Theatre of the straight line

Meyerhold’s criticisms of actor training led to him devising of a physical regime of exercises which he defined as ‘biomechanics’. Biomechanics were developed as a means of exploring and creating relationships in performance; they involved actors acquiring balance, rhythmic awareness and responsiveness to other actors, audience and external stimuli (Leach, 2000: 43). Meyerhold’s philosophy acknowledged the influence of physical performance styles such as commedia dell’arte, masks, clowns, marionettes and the comedic film performances of the silent movies (Leach, 2000: 42). Meyerhold’s writing was confiscated in

Stalin’s regime and he was murdered in prison in 1940 (Pitches, 2003: 42). In 1955, he received official ‘rehabilitation’ and his directorial process has been disseminated by previous students. Much of his innovatory work has continued relevance. His affiliation to popular forms, the collaborative relationship of actors and directors and the centrality of the actor-audience-director relationship were qualities strongly recognised by later generations of alternative theatre workers.

2.13 A propertyless theatre for a propertyless class