LAURIN MANN
This article describes an initial investigation into the influence of modern acting theory on the ideas and practices of contemporary performance teachers in Toronto, Canada. The study consisted of both a mail-out survey and an in-depth examination of the theory and practice of six influential Toronto acting teachers working in a private studio/conservatory context.
While the paper reveals that performance teachers in this Canadian city utilize ideas and practices of such modern theorist/practitioners as Spolin, Brook, Brecht, Chaikin, Grotowski and Artaud in the classroom, the main focus is on the particular evolution in Toronto of Stanislavski-based approaches to actor training.
Cet article décrit une première recherche sur l'influence de la théorie de l'art dramatique moderne sur les idées et les pratiques suivies par des professeurs d'art dramatique contemporains à Toronto, Canada. Cette étude a consisté non seulement d'un sondage par le courrier mais aussi d'un examen détaillé de la théorie et de la pratique de six professeurs d'art dramatique éminents de Toronto travaillant dans le contexte d'un studio ou conservatoire privé.
Tandis que cette communication indique que les professeurs d'art dramatique dans cette ville canadienne utilisent les idées et les pratiques de tels théoriciens et praticiens modernes comme Spolin, Brook, Brecht, Chaikin, Grotowski et Artaud dans la salle de classe, le souci principal de l'auteur est de décrire l'évolution particulière à Toronto des approches de Stanislavski à la formation de l'acteur.
Most acting starts with the premise that acting must be believable and emotionally truthful. We have decided that the best way to achieve this is an approach that starts with the internal, the inside, out, way of working. As most of our mentors are American, we tend to use their way of doing this, which was strongly influenced by Stanislavski. (Kevin McCormick, Toronto director and acting teacher, Oct. 1997)
The subject of acting is a little explored area of research in English Canadian theatre studies. We have no definitive history of Canadian acting, and no studies of the techniques and ideas of contemporary Canadian acting teachers such as are available to our American and British counterparts. No articles by Canadian performers are included in Cole and Chinoy's Actors on Acting, and articles and books on Canadian actors and their art are few and far between. It is vital to Canadian theatre scholarship that acting and the means of training our performers be documented, even if, in the initial stages, that documentation be less than comprehensive. This article describes an initial investigation into the influence of modern acting theory on the ideas and practices of contemporary performance teachers in Toronto, with particular attention to the development of North American Stanislavski-based actor training as utilized by six Toronto acting teachers.
In order to determine the acting theories of Toronto teachers, two types of research were used for the study: a general survey concerned primarily with acting theory, which was sent out to all the acting teachers I could discover in the city; and a study of the theory and practice of six individual teachers, who were interviewed and observed in classroom teaching situations. For the case studies, I chose to limit the field to studio teachers. There were two reasons for this, both having to do with the time available for the research. In order to study six teachers, I spent no more than two months in any one class during my year of observation. Had I spent this length of time in a class offered by a college or university, most of which develop two-to-four year integrated programs with a number of separate teachers and courses, I would have emerged with an extremely limited and lopsided view of the curriculum, teaching methods, and theory. Also, when a teacher knows that he or she may be the only acting teacher a particular student may ever have and that there are only six or eight weeks in which to inspire or train that student, the teacher tends to focus on fundamentals-both theory and practice. For my purposes, that distillation was most revealing.
The case study aspect of the research consisted of eighteen to thirty-five hours of in-class observation of each teacher followed by an interview with each teacher studied. In each case, all sessions of one or two entire courses were attended (except where the teacher disallowed certain sessions). I quickly discovered that courses aimed at beginners elicit the most overt discussions of theory, so I attended these classes whenever possible. If a particular teacher taught several courses at different levels, I attended two, when possible.
I could have chosen a group of teachers at random; however, I decided to look at the work of the type of individuals Burnet Hobgood refers to as "Master Teachers." For me, the term connotes respect within the theatre community, a decided influence, and mastery of acting theory and its practice. I approached a number of theatre artists for their recommendations. This group included three members of the Toronto professional theatrical community: Martha Mann, designer and theatre professor; Karen Hazzard, casting director and teacher; and Anna Migliarisi, actor and academic. Four administrators for theatre arts organizations in Toronto were also consulted: Diana Belshaw, Professional Theatre Coordinator for Theatre Ontario; Christine Moynihan, Artistic Producer for Equity Showcase Theatre; Neil Daynard, Head of Professional Development at ACTRA; and David Caron, Communications and Special Projects Coordinator at Canadian Actors Equity. All of these individuals communicate with large numbers of theatre professionals and students, and have first-hand knowledge of the training opportunities in Toronto.
Each individual was asked for a list of teachers he or she considers to be well-respected in the Toronto theatre community who have been teaching in the city long enough to have had an impact on a significant number of students. The seven lists were compiled. The ten teachers who had been recommended most often were contacted. Of these ten, the six acting instructors who agreed to be studied became the six case studies for the project. They were Rosemary Dunsmore, Karen Hazzard, Bernadette Jones, Alan Jordan, Kevin McCormick and Tony Pearce.
Of these six teachers:
1. Three are female; three are male;
2. All are English-speaking, appear to be white and have no obvious physical disabilities;
3. Based on the responses to interview questions, four appear to be in their mid-forties; one in the late thirties; one in the late fifties;
4. Four are from Ontario; one from Quebec; one from the Maritimes;
5. The number of years teaching in Toronto ranges from five to thirty-plus years;
6. Although all six instructors teach independent studio classes, four also teach, or have taught, at colleges and/or universities;
7. Three currently work as professional actors as well as teachers; two are professional directors as well as teachers; one is a casting director as well as a teacher;
8. The majority coach privately as well as teach group lessons;
9. Three began their formal theatre training with university degrees in drama; one has a degree in Classics; another obtained a college diploma in radio and television;
10. Four trained for an extensive period of time with a "Master Teacher": Meisner (2), Kurt Reis (1), Michael Shurtleff (1);
11. Three obtained some of their training in the United States.
All of the eight courses attended would be considered professional training; however, the levels of training differed. as did the experience of the participants. Jordan and McCormick both taught an acting fundamentals course, as well as a scene study course aimed at experienced performers. Dunsmore's scene study course and Hazzard's and Jones's on-camera acting courses were also aimed at professional actors skilled in acting fundamentals. Pearce's acting class was directed towards relatively inexperienced performers who had already taken an introductory course with him.
To obtain an overview of acting theories held by performance teachers in Toronto, I chose to employ a mail-out survey, which I tried to make available to every acting teacher currently training professionals, amateurs, or youth in the city. This process was hampered by the fact that there is no central registry of such teachers in Toronto. Partial lists were obtained (some of them, years out of date) from Theatre Ontario (a provincial government agency) and Equity Showcase Theatre (an independent training and producing organization). I spoke to office personnel, picked up brochures and checked for posted "classes offered" notices at popular actor meeting and greeting spots: in theatre greenrooms, the offices of Theatre Ontario, Equity Showcase, ACTRA, Actors Equity, and at Theatrebooks (Toronto's most prominent arts book store). I perused the local arts newspaper, Now Magazine, for ads and scanned locally published actor information guides. I contacted the drama departments of the following Toronto-based educational institutions and mailed out surveys to be distributed by departmental secretaries to each acting teacher: George Brown College, Sheridan College, Ryerson Polytechnic University, Humber College, Seneca College, University of Toronto, York University, and the Etobicoke School of the Arts.
In addition, I mailed out surveys to forty-two individuals and contacted groups such as the Toronto Association of Acting Studios, the Theatre Resource Centre, the Actors Lab, the Beach Arts Centre, Second City, and the Young People's Theatre School. Batches of surveys were mailed out to each of these institutions.
A notice was posted and a bundle of surveys dropped off at the offices of Theatre Ontario, ACTRA, Canadian Actors Equity, and Equity Showcase for drop-in pick-up. A notice was also posted at Theatrebooks, and ads were placed in the newsletters of Theatre Ontario, ACTRA, and Actors Equity, requesting all teachers to contact me by phone or e-mail to obtain surveys. Although I believe the range of distribution to have been wide, as well as balanced, because of the manner of distribution the total number of surveys to have come into the possession of acting teachers is not known. As I was also unable to determine the number of teachers in Toronto, no statistics are available on percentage of surveys returned. Because of this lack, the results of the teachers' survey must be considered, to some extent, tentative, and further research in this area will be needed to verify my findings. I also assume that those individuals who responded are the Toronto acting teachers most interested in research into actor training and acting theory-an inclination which may also affect the study results.
For this survey, it was deemed necessary to define "acting teacher" in order to focus the research. Setting certain parameters was a straightforward process; instructors of acting courses only were to be considered. This eliminated teachers of academic subjects (such as dramatic literature and theatre history) as well as teachers of non-actor-based theatre areas (design, technical theatre, etc.). But when it came to performance-related courses, the decision was more difficult. Dance may be considered a separate art form from theatre, but is clowning, for example? Then there are the "adjunct" classes that are useful in actor training but which are not normally considered acting arts, such as tai chi, fencing, and gymnastics. The decision was made to include teachers of two types of training in this study: 1) instructors of performance areas usually titled "acting classes," for example, acting fundamentals; audition technique; scene study; theatre for young audiences; improvisation; creative drama; and styles and period techniques areas such as commedia, clown, Shakespeare, comedy, and Method acting; 2) Although teachers with a narrow adjunct focus were eliminated (those who teach only dance, singing, stage fighting, for example), instructors who teach these areas in addition to more broad based acting classes were included in the study, as were all teachers who claim that their acting classes have a specific focus, such as "physical theatre" or "text and the performer." Although based on certain preconceptions of what actor training is (before completing this study I would not necessarily have considered "tax preparation," "personal development," and "entrepreneurship" particular study areas for performers) I do not consider that the parameters set restricted the data unduly.
Fifty surveys were completed and returned. Six were disqualified for use in this study because the instructor either does not teach in Toronto, or does not fit the research definition of an acting teacher.
Like the case study participants, the majority of the performance teachers who responded to the survey teach private studio-type classes with almost half teaching in more than one venue. These acting instructors received their training primarily in the 1970s and 1980s. Most of the training was undertaken in Canada, with the majority of institutions attended situated in Ontario and Alberta. Of these teachers, eighty-five percent attended university, sixty-seven percent have taken studio classes, and fifty-seven percent attended a theatre school. Approximately one quarter of respondents claimed training through "experience of doing theatre;" another twenty-five percent took classes with a theatre company. A small number of respondents trained at a college. Few of the respondents shared "memorable teachers," and just over half of the memorable teachers listed by respondents taught or teach in the city of Toronto.
For the survey participants, theoretical influences were determined primarily by the responses to two questions. In the first, respondents were provided with the names of fourteen prominent theorists/practitioners of the past century and asked to note which, if any, have had either a "strong influence" or "some influence" on their work. Theorists listed, in random order, were: Jerzy Grotowski, Bertolt Brecht, Constantin Stanislavski, Viola Spolin, Sanford Meisner, Michel Saint-Denis, Julian Beck, Richard Schechner, Vsevolod Meyerhold, Lee Strasberg, Peter Brook, Antonin Artaud, Joseph Chaikin, and Eugenio Barba. Survey participants were also encouraged to write in the names of theorists not listed whom they felt had influenced their teaching. These were included in the survey results. The second question asked the respondents to place a mark next to any of twenty techniques (commonly associated with one or another of the theorists mentioned in the previous question) which they typically use in their actor training. The six teachers studied in depth were asked for their theoretic and practical influences; their training techniques were determined by in-class observation and interview questions.
The survey responses revealed two prominent findings: 1) 89% of the teachers who participated in the study claim to have been influenced by Stanislavski's theory and practice to a greater or lesser degree, and teach certain of his internal techniques in acting classes. In the area of "strong influence," Stanislavski received more than twice as many mentions as any other theorist listed or written in by respondents. His American followers Uta Hagen, Lee Strasberg, and Sanford Meisner all showed strongly as well, particularly Hagen (who was not on the list of 14 choices; thus, each of her mentions was a "write in" by a respondent). 2) Many of the teachers surveyed have also been influenced by a large number of modern acting theorists with contrasting theories to Stanislavski, and incorporate some of these theorists' practices in their acting classes. Those who responded claimed that the modern theorists, other than Stanislavski and his American followers, who have had the most influence on their actor training in Toronto are Spolin, Brook, Brecht, Chaikin, Grotowski, and Artaud.[1] Prominent theorists whom most participants claimed to have had little or no influence on their work are: Meyerhold, Saint-Denis, Beck, Barba, and Schechner.
Since the short-answer survey format does not lend itself to the acquisition of detailed or thorough contextual knowledge, I turned to the case studies for clarification. Unfortunately, the work of the six teachers chosen for study did little to enhance my understanding of the specific influence of theorists not working in the Stanislavski tradition. Although the majority of the teachers interviewed recommend training with other teachers or in diverse approaches, only one of the six teachers studied in depth (Jordan) actually made use of non-Stanislavski-based techniques in the classes observed, and none in class mentioned modern theorists other than Stanislavski and those influenced by the Russian.
However, five of the six teachers who formed the case studies for this research project claim theoretic descent from Stanislavski, and the sixth (Karen Hazzard), though professing no allegiances, is obviously working from a modern realistic acting base and her approach to actor training shows the influence of Stanislavski-based philosophy and methods. Consequently, by examining their work, I felt it should be possible to extrapolate what the majority of Toronto teachers actually mean when they say they have been "influenced by Stanislavski."
Almost everything we know of Stanislavski and his work has come to us indirectly, primarily from three sources: performances of the Moscow Art Theatre seen during its infrequent tours abroad, Stanislavski's writings which have been published in English, and the teachings in North America of his ex-patriot pupils. The Moscow Art Theatre (MAT) performed in North America on only three occasions: in 1923, 1924, and 1964. The early performances particularly had a strong impact on those who saw them-even though the productions were staged in Russian. A larger reading audience was influenced by impressive write-ups at the time in such publications as Theatre Arts Monthly.
Stanislavski dedicated a substantial portion of his creative energy to passing on his knowledge to succeeding generations. Unfortunately, of his four most famous books-My Life in Art, An Actor Prepares, Building a Character, and Creating a Role-only two were published in North America before his death in 1938, and we now know that all were extensively edited by translator Elizabeth R. Hapgood (Carnicke, "Stanislavski: Uncensored and Unabridged" 22-37).
Much of Stanislavski's acting theory has been conveyed to us by his students-or by pupils of the MAT after his time-who emigrated to North America and became acting teachers. The most famous of these were Richard Boleslavsky, Maria Ouspenskaya, Michael Chekhov, and Sonia Moore. Boleslavsky is credited as the first person to teach aspects of the Stanislavski system in North America, and his book, Acting: The First Six Lessons (first printed as articles in Theatre Arts Magazine from 1923), is the first written account of Stanislavski's objectives and principles published on this continent.
Although of those practitioners/theorists listed above only Moore has taught in Canada, generations of Canadian theatre students have studied their acting textbooks and, through them, re-discovered Stanislavski. Some Canadian actors have chosen to train in the United States with one or another of these influential teachers or their well-known pupils, such as Morris Carnovsky, Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, Harold Clurman, Sanford Meisner, and Robert Lewis. Many of the acting textbooks popular in Canada and the United States during the past thirty years were written by the succeeding group of Stanislavski followers, which includes Uta Hagen, Robert Benedetti, Charles McGaw, Robert Cohen, and Michael Shurtleff. Today, fourth and fifth generations of Stanislavski-based acting teachers are making names for themselves on both sides of the forty-ninth parallel.
Although recent scholarship has pointed out areas in which our perception of Stanislavski's theory is flawed (Carnicke, "An Actor Prepares/Rabota aktera nad soboi Chast'" 481-494), like most of the English-speaking world the Toronto teachers' understanding of Stanislavski's theory is based upon his written works which have been published in English, and on the written and practical work of his American followers. As previously mentioned, three of the Canadian teachers observed trained in the United States with Stanislavski-based practitioners-Jordan and Pearce with Meisner, and Jones with Shurtleff. Dunsmore studied in Toronto with Robert Benedetti and then with Kurt Reis, who had worked extensively with Charles McGaw. When asked to recommend acting textbooks, various of these teachers suggested works by Stanislavski and by the following prominent American practitioners: Hagen, Lewis, Meisner, Cohen, Shurtleff and McGaw.
Like their colleagues the world over, these teachers have interpreted the theory and practice advocated in Stanislavski's texts to suit their contemporary sensibilities and needs. In order to isolate the acting theories of the Toronto teachers, it becomes necessary to compare and contrast the theory and practice of the six teachers observed with those of their American predecessors and their understanding of the theories and practices of the Russian master. Upon examination, it became clear that when these Toronto teachers say they have been influenced by Stanislavski and utilize his techniques and exercises in class, they are responding primarily to two areas of the published theory. These are the advocated approaches to the actor's internal work on the self, as outlined in An Actor Prepares; and advocated teaching methods. Physical and technical approaches to character creation, the training of the actor's physical and vocal apparatus, and techniques of selection and presentation are not covered in these acting classes, although all three elements appear to have been significant to Stanislavski's actor training and theory.[2]
The following discourse examines general areas of confluence and dissimilarity between the Toronto teachers, their understanding of the Russian master as revealed by the English-language versions of his written texts, and a number of his American followers in the general subject areas of perceived function of the theatre and of the actor, questions of representation, relationships between the actor and other elements of the performance process, and education and training of the actor.[3]
From his translated texts, it appears that for Stanislavski the theatre had both social and aesthetic functions. Although he claimed that the theatre must always be a place of entertainment rather than a political platform, he was dedicated to two particular philosophical stands: that the theatre should enlighten and ennoble society and that theatre practitioners should strive to produce great art.[4] While agreeing that theatre should not be overtly political, the Toronto teachers for the most part privilege the function of enlightenment over those of entertainment and aesthetics. In the interviews and acting classes observed, only Jones claimed that theatre should be entertaining, and only McCormick spoke of acting as art.
Another difference, in degree, is the development of the concept of theatre as "experience." Stanislavski's texts in translation state that the strongest impact on the audience is made through the emotions, and that this is best achieved unconsciously and indirectly, with the audience members swept along by their empathy for, and identification with, the characters created by the performers (Stanislavski, Handbook 40). While most of the Toronto teachers claim that affecting the audience emotionally is a primary function of theatre, these teacher/practitioners seem to have expanded the concept of the experiential nature of theatre by speaking of the theatre also as a means of release, as an experience which energizes and transports the spectators, or as a celebration of life. Two of Stanislavski's American disciples, Strasberg and Meisner, speak of theatre as experiential, but their concentration is on the performer rather than the audience or on the shared event. Meisner claims that "art expresses human experience," while Strasberg states that for acting to be considered art, it must "[reveal] what is experienced" (Strasberg, Dream 105).
Most of Stanislavski's American followers have concerned themselves primarily with the utilitarian functions of theatre. Generally, this seems to involve interpretation and communication of ideas central to the human condition. For Boleslavsky, Chekhov and Adler, this function is expansive-theatre reveals universal truths or encourages an audience to think about the larger questions of life. For Carnovsky, Strasberg and Meisner, focus on the actor's individuality has an effect on individual audience members. Carnovsky claims that the actor's understanding of self assists each spectator to attain a similar awareness (Carnovsky, The Actor's Eye 34). For both Strasberg and Meisner, the revelation of human experience to the audience by the actor's unveiling of his/her private being is what constitutes art.[5]
Stanislavski would have agreed with most of the qualities which the Toronto teachers feel actors should possess in order to effectively fulfil the theatre's functions, such as intelligence, vulnerability, free access to the emotions, strong creative imagination, empathy, commitment to the art, curiosity, and talent. Of equal importance to the master, however, were concepts of artistic selection and presentation, elements noticeably absent from current realistic performance discourse in this Canadian city (Gorchakov 52, 193-194).
In his work with, and observation of, actors, Stanislavski came to believe that what marks the geniuses of the profession is their ability to effortlessly tap into their own subconscious minds and act out of intuition and inspiration (Stanislavski, An Actor Prepares 13). His interest in the intuitive nature of the actor's creative state developed in his North American followers into an increasing valuation of spontaneity, reaching its zenith in the work of Meisner. Meisner's acting theory is focused on two primary ideas: the privileging of actor instinct and impulse in acting, and the importance of performing real action. Meisner's famous "repetition exercise," in which a pair of students repeat simple observations back and forth until an inner impulse forces a change in wording or tone, forms the basis of his teaching technique. Its aim is to force actors to connect truly with their fellow actors in the present. Meisner's influence on actor training in Toronto is obvious; most of the teachers observed use variations on the repetition exercises in class, and a valuation of spontaneous response is pervasive.
Stanislavski's translations specify that actors represent human beings on stage-characters. And there is an insistence that performers not simply show their characters to the audience, but try to transform themselves physically and spiritually into the characters, utilizing personal emotions and creative impulses (Stanislavski, Legacy 18-19). While all of his followers have embraced this concept, over the years interest in the actuality (physical, mental, instinctual and emotional reality) of the actor has grown steadily in North American Stanislavski-based actor training. Various American teachers have required actor-emotion, thought in character, the use of personal memories, and real action in performance. Although the Canadian Meisner-trained teachers (Jordan and Pearce) are the most vocal in calling for actor-truth on stage-particularly spontaneity and "the reality of doing" (for example, drinking actual coffee if the situation calls for this, rather than pretending to drink, or enhancing coke with imaginary 'heat')-there is a definite movement amongst all the teachers observed towards a valuation of performer actuality. All of the teachers interviewed expect actors to make use of their own thoughts and emotions on stage, there is an increased use of substitution of personal events, circumstances and relationships as a supplement to the imagination; and the ability to react spontaneously, particularly between performers, is a required rehearsal and performance skill.
Although these teachers, like Stanislavski, see character as a synthesis of the actor's self with the author's conception, not all of these teachers would agree that the actor should submit to the playwright's notions of the character (Gorchakov 41). The preeminence of the playwright in Stanislavski's discourse seems to have been compromised by the concept of the importance of the performer. For example, of the Toronto teachers studied in depth, only Dunsmore and McCormick urge their students to read the entire play before deciding on character objectives, relationships, and subtext in any given scene or moment. According to Jordan, the playwright should not be allowed to dictate what the play or character is about. The actor makes these decisions. Jones states that no play contains within it some definitive meaning; the director, actors, and production team should work together to decide this.
In general, the Toronto teachers conform to the Stanislavski translations' conception of the "magic if" as it applies to character creation: "You must say to yourself, 'What would I do if all that happens to this character, happened to me?'" (Gorchakov 120). Thus, one starts with the idea of the self in the character's circumstances, and the initial creative impulse is one of searching for similarities between actor and character. Many American and the majority of the Toronto practitioners studied, however, tend to ignore the second section of Stanislavski's premise in which it is stated that the actor must also take into account (once the imagination is engaged by the "magic if") the differences in behaviour between the self and the character, and all the circumstances affecting the character's actions. This includes cultural, historical, and biographical information, as well as the immediate circumstances of any particular situation (Stanislavski, qtd. in Gorchakov 85, 120). Although it is acknowledged that courses aimed at beginners, and possibly those concentrating on on-camera skills, might focus on making connections between actor and character through a concentration on shared characteristics, the fact that this proclivity was observed in all of the courses attended, even those aimed at working professionals, is significant.
This tendency to concentrate on the similarities between actor and character (as well as between actor's and character's circumstances) rather than the differences is one of the most significant developments in modern Stanislavski-based theory. It may be the result of growing interest, in the contemporary theatre, in both actor instinct and emotion (again, aspects of the actuality of the performer), both of which are easier to achieve when there is a perceived psychological connection between the actor and the character being performed. This concentration on correspondence over divergence has had far-reaching effects in Toronto, from a trend towards type-casting based on personality and age, to the predominant use of modern realistic plays for acting class scene study, to an indifference towards external aspects of character creation, such as selection of body shape and movement, costume, make-up, and personal properties.
Although several of Stanislavski's early followers (most notably Michael Chekhov) experimented with physical means of developing character, that practice in Toronto today seems primarily the province of classes aimed at training performers in Second City-type improvisation, physical comedy, or clown. Of the teachers profiled, only Jordan and Jones suggested using physical approaches to character formation-and for Jones, this was deemed necessary only when attempting a character far removed from the self.
Although, through the years, the name Stanislavski has become synonymous with emotion, his translations articulate a triumvirate of "inner motive forces" (the basis of a human being's psychological life and the internal elements needed, therefore, by an actor in order to create a live human being on stage). These three inner motive forces are translated as mind, will, and feelings (Stanislavski, An Actor Prepares 229-236). However, in analyzing the three inner motive forces, Stanislavski appears to have spent the most creative energy struggling with the subject of emotion, since he considered feelings to be the one psychological element which cannot be consciously controlled. For this reason, he spent decades searching for methods with which to evoke emotions in his actors (Stanislavski, Legacy 187; Gorchakov 85).
Although the evocation of emotion has been considered an important element in all North American Stanislavski-based actor training, it became the focus of Strasberg's Method. Like Carnovsky before him, Strasberg felt that the only truth the actor can access is his/her own truth-and for Strasberg, this meant primarily the truth of personal emotions (Strasberg 173). He set out to find the most efficient means to recreate and control the actor's emotions on stage. All six Toronto teachers expect their students to make use of actor-emotion in their work, but the importance of emotion is less emphasized than it is with Strasberg devotees.
Like some of their contemporary American colleagues, such as Michael Howard, Michael Schulman, John Strasberg, and Allan Miller (Mekler 6, 52-53, 106, 222) the Toronto teachers are more open-minded than many of their American predecessors to alternate approaches to the evocation of emotion, such as Strasberg's development of Stanislavski's concept of emotion memory.[6] Although only two of the Toronto teachers interviewed used specific emotion memory exercises in the classes observed, four of the teachers claim to be receptive to the use of that technique. Other approaches to emotion advocated by these teachers are imagining (promoted in the United States by Adler, Lewis and Chekhov, among others) or daydreaming (Meisner), substitution of an idea or situation that one can relate to more easily than that presented by the script (Strasberg, Meisner), and through the use of memory of the five senses (Strasberg).
Although Stanislavski's translations advocate an integrated approach to training, (Stanislavski, Life 84; Handbook 31) much modern North American Stanislavski-based actor training leans toward separation and thus isolation of the performer's physical and vocal apparatus and psychological being. Also, Stanislavski contended that the actor's training should be equally divided between internal and external instruction (Stanislavski, Life 480). Many North American Stanislavski-based acting classes (particularly those influenced by Strasberg and Meisner) have tended to concentrate on the internal, psychological aspects of the craft, with development of the expressive qualities of the body and voice, when available, relegated to classes considered supplemental to actor training. All of the Toronto teachers interviewed claim that voice and movement training are essential, but most do not include any of this work in their acting classes.
Although Stanislavski himself (and his followers Adler and Moore) appears to have concentrated on a blending of external (physical) and internal (psychological) action in his pursuit of a creative process and emotional truth (Stanislavski, Legacy 11-12), and Vakhtangov, Meyerhold, and Chekhov focused on physical action, many of Stanislavski's North American advocates have stressed psychological action (with a concentration on objectives or intentions-that is, what the character wants). For most of the Toronto teachers observed, internal action (particularly thoughts and desires) coupled with tactics (how you as character go about getting what you want) have become the focus in acting classes. And, owing to the increased interest in actor impulse among these teachers, these inner actions have come to be partner-centred in order to result in a dynamic give-and-take between the performers on stage. For example, Stanislavski's use of inner monologue-thinking the character's thoughts--has been largely superseded by the notion of inner dialogue-sending the thought out to another actor/character. Thus, "You interest me," rather than "That is interesting."
Stanislavski's published works stress the importance of subtext (Stanislavski 109), and for his North American followers a valuation of subtext over text has been a continuing trend. Strasberg and Meisner centred much of their work around attempting to prevent the author's words from inhibiting actors from having authentic experiences. Both made extensive use of improvised situations, and Strasberg carried this concept further into the paraphrasing of scripted dialogue. Strasberg's "anti-literary bias" extended beyond the words of the text to the play scripts' themes and ideas. According to his son John, "He would tell actors 'Express yourself, forget about the story'" (Hirsch 222). There was dissent amongst Stanislavski's early American adherents over whether the content of the play (Adler, Lewis), the actor's emotion (Strasberg), or the actor's instinctive reactions (Meisner) are more important. For the Toronto teachers observed, a similar process seems to be in effect, with the playwright's ideas and concepts on one side and the physical presence of the actors with their organic impulses and actions, on the other. Several of the teachers interviewed seemed quite willing to give up form and continuity, facilitated by such techniques as superobjectives (analysis of the character's function in the play) and through line of action (the main line of the play which determines the behaviour of the characters and their choice of problems in order to fulfil the play's theme) (Gorchakov 401) for spontaneity, the central concept in Meisner's acting theory.
Stanislavski insisted that his approach to acting could be applied to any mode of theatrical presentation, and there were attempts among certain of his American followers (particularly Carnovsky and Lewis) to prepare their students for plays and styles other than realism. For the most part, the Toronto teachers observed are preparing their students for productions in which psychologically-based human beings are placed in true-to-life situations, as is seen in most contemporary television and film. Again, one must note that this focus is to be expected in the two courses concerned with on-camera techniques and also, possibly, in the two courses aimed at less experienced students, since North American actor training tends to be approached incrementally, starting with the "self" and adding other techniques as the performer develops. In all of the classes observed, however, the emphasis was on the actor being emotionally, physically, and vocally "lifelike." The only noticeable concession made to the theatrical seemed to be the general consensus that there be a sense of urgency or emotional intensity to the work in order to make the action and conflicts exciting for the audience.
In terms of the actor's relationship to the director, to fellow performers, and to the audience, the modern teachers' views seem very similar to those articulated in Stanislavski's texts. Generally, the director is seen as facilitator, someone with a vision of the entire project who helps the actors to coordinate their efforts into a unified whole (Stanislavski, Handbook 98). Ensemble is still considered of prime importance, and actor communion (intense actual communication between actors) and adaptation (give and take between performers) are, if anything, more strongly pursued in contemporary Toronto than in Stanislavski's time, owing to the value currently placed on the physical presence of the actors with their organic impulses and actions.
As previously mentioned, Stanislavski's texts call for an indirect relationship between actors and audience, with the audience identifying with the characters created by the performers-a bond that would be disturbed by any loss of focus or breaking out of character by the actor. All of Stanislavski's followers have agreed with the master's contention that the audience is drawn imaginatively into the action by the extent of the actor's commitment to the work. But while he focused on the actor's depth of concentration, the Toronto teachers also consider intensity of emotion, and ability to connect with fellow-performers as additional lures.
In the Toronto theatre today, there seems to be a trend away from actors participating in the choice of technical elements, such as costumes and properties. Performers also often have little time to rehearse with and absorb creative influences from make-up, set pieces, lighting, sound, costumes, and properties. This tendency is reflected in contemporary actor training in this city. In the acting classes observed, no attention was paid to any of these areas except properties. Generally, students were encouraged to use actual physical objects if the scenes called for props, rather than miming them. Simple set pieces were also used by the students, but their use, choice, and position in space were never specifically addressed. Is it possible that the contemporary focus on the internal aspects of the art of acting has been codified to such an extent that all other aspects of production-from external characterization (including body shape, costume, and make-up), to blocking, properties, set pieces, sound, and lighting-are now considered outside of the actor's sphere and, therefore, extraneous to actor training?
Perhaps the shift has been caused by budget or time constraints. Internal actor training requires no technical resources beyond a fair-sized room and a few pieces of furniture. Independent studio courses, the primary mode of actor training in Toronto today, tend to run from 4-8 weeks duration; only a certain number of concepts can be taught in so short a period of time. Nevertheless, the instructors chose actor training areas on which to focus, and those choices set up a perceived hierarchy. And that hierarchy seems to place internal acting techniques at the top and technical and external techniques lower down. If this phenomenon is occurring in other North American actor training centres (as I believe it may be), this could be a significant development in modern actor training and, possibly, theory.
One of the two areas of the published English-language Stanislavski theory that are most conscientiously followed in Toronto today concerns education and training of the actor. Training concepts employed by these contemporary Toronto teachers include a consensus that performers need training and that an actor's education should include more than theatrical training; a view of teachers as facilitators whose goal is to provide students with a safe space in which to create; a belief in experiential learning, with lectures reserved for supplement; and training that starts with simple concepts, activities, and scripts, and builds incrementally towards more complex processes and material. All of these approaches were advocated by Stanislavski (Life 37-38; Handbook 78).
The Toronto teachers and Stanislavski shared various teaching methods (Stanislavski, Handbook 78; Gorchakov 191). Improvisation (popular not only with Stanislavski but with a number of modern theorists including Saint-Denis, Spolin, Chaikin, Brook, and Littlewood) is a developmental mainstay with all of the teachers observed, as it was with most of Stanislavski's American followers-particularly Strasberg. So is "side-coaching" during exercises and scene rehearsals-having the students remain in character and emotionally present, while incorporating the teacher's quietly-spoken suggestions from the sidelines. Other techniques employed by both Stanislavski and the Toronto teachers observed include stopping the action to deal with problems as they occur, or waiting until the students have completed a scene or exercise before reworking or discussing the material. Many of the internal techniques developed to help actors achieve a creative state which are identified in Stanislavski's texts are still central to actor training in contemporary Toronto, such as subtext exploration (pursued through the use of active questioning in character, such as "Who am I? What do I want?"); imaginative development of the given circumstances; use of "magic if;" improvisation; objectives; sense of first time (actor's ability to separate character's reality-that is, lack of knowledge of plot events-from that of the performer); evocation of emotion; thinking the character's thoughts; enhancement (for example, reacting to a doll as if it were a baby); substitution (when a character speaks of "mother" the actor may visualize a real person s/he cares for); communion; and adaptation. Concepts and techniques utilized to some extent, but which were more stressed in the earlier American training include: concentration, relaxation, observation, sense awareness, sense memory, and memory of emotion.
Techniques employed by the Toronto teachers which appear not to be Stanislavski-based, include Meisner's repetition exercises, emotional preparation techniques (the use of non-script-related daydreams to bring performers to the emotions called for in a particular scene), and independent activities (a scene improvisation technique); character development based on animal imitation (developed by Boleslavsky and Strasberg); the use of "secrets" (an Elia Kazan device popularized by Meisner in which actor/characters avoid telling their scene partners what they are thinking in order to provoke spontaneous interaction); specific business advice and training; and on-camera work.
Stanislavski concepts and exercises, described in An Actor Prepares and Building a Character, which were not generally emphasized in the Toronto acting classes observed are script analysis by units and beats, analysis of the character's function in the play and through line of action, character histories, vocal exercises, external characterization, exercises in vocal and physical tempo-rhythm, movement to music, and exercises in plasticity (the harmonizing of movement and form) (Gorchakov 400).
Shifts in focus in Stanislavski-based theory in the last seventy-five years are not unique to Toronto. However, the particular development of the theory and practice in this Canadian city have resulted in Stanislavski-based actor training in Toronto that tends to advance internal technique over external, spontaneity and impulse over structure, actor as character over scripted character (based on concentration on similarities between scripted character and actor rather than differences), "doing" over "being" (action rather than essence) as a method of character revelation, intention over motivation (behaviour generated by the future rather than the past), and outward, rather than inward-directed energy (use of inner dialogue, and emphasis on give-and-take between performers).
The spiralling interest in the actuality of the performer in Toronto's Stanislavski-based actor training is one of the most significant findings of this research. This is evidenced by the tendency for actors and their teachers to concentrate on the similarities between the self and the character, rather than the differences; the importance placed on spontaneity, impulse, real action, on playing "in the moment;" the use of partner-centred, short term objectives; the focus on the give-and-take between performers on stage; and the evocation of largely uncontrolled emotion. Note also the lack of contemporary interest in the training of acting elements that expand performers beyond their immediate reality: verse, tempo-rhythm, external characterization, and work with non-realistic play scripts.
Should this trend become the dominant practice in Toronto acting, a fascinating new theatre form could emerge. Plays may no longer be needed, only situations which allow for actor interaction. Characters will not be needed; actors will play only themselves. Actor training will continue to concentrate on releasing actors from any psychological inhibitions they have to accessing their intuitive and emotional natures. Peripheral training in voice and movement may continue, as North American theory has tended to view these elements as part of the actor's instrument, which must be kept supple and strong in order to properly reflect that which is going on inside the performer. We could end up with a theatre in which individual actor/characters (who will become known to the audiences, as each will be unique and unchanging) will interact improvisationally with other actor/characters in ever changing scenarios.[7]
Although Stanislavski claimed that North Americans would have to find their own "way in" to the actor training approach that he designed for Russian performers at the end of the nineteenth century, it has taken 75 years for many North American theatre practitioners to trust in Stanislavski and themselves and do just that. In Toronto (as I am confident is happening in countless centres across Canada and the United States), it would appear that, slowly, Stanislavski-based training is evolving. Perhaps the cause is simply time itself; or the unprecedented demands of, and opportunities available to, the modern theatre; or contemporary challenges to the canonicity of the Stanislavski texts by such scholars as Carnicke. Whatever the cause, as noted above, Stanislavski-based training today and the theatre it generates have the potential to move in diverse and interesting directions.
At this time, a lack of non-Stanislavski-based case studies has prevented the pinpointing of specific instances of influence of other modern acting theorists which survey participants claim have had an impact on their Toronto actor training. However, when the results of the examination of Stanislavski-based training in Toronto are incorporated with the very general results obtained by the teachers' survey, several distinct tendencies are suggested concerning acting theories held by performance teachers in this Canadian city. These are an appreciation of the value of theatre as the sharing of an "experience," in addition to its function of providing enlightenment into the human condition; the primacy of the actuality of the actor, particularly as it relates to qualities of instinct and impulse; the predominance of internal approaches to actor training and practice; a devaluation of the primacy of the play text and, thus of the author's intent; a dismissal of the technical areas of theatre as elements of actor study; and an open-minded approach to actor training, suggesting a similar attitude towards theory.
At first glance, it appears that the eclecticism in training suggested by the results of the teachers' survey is not sufficiently supported by the case studies to be accepted as an unequivocal trend. Note, however, that only one of the trends listed above, the predominance of internal psychologically-based actor work, is exclusive to Stanislavski-based theory. Although further study will be necessary to determine the extent of the influence of other non-Stanislavski-based modern acting theories on actor training in Toronto, the tendencies listed above certainly suggest a more diverse range of influence than might be immediately apparent. To obtain a complete picture of the complexities of theoretical influences on actor training in Toronto, further study of both individual teachers and actor-training institutions is required.
Notes
Fall/Automne 1999 Vol 20 no.2
1. It appears that most of these "influences" (other than single mentions) were transmitted via books or through training at least one instructor removed from the original inspiration. Of the 297 responses to this question, only eleven respondents claim to have studied or worked with any prominent theorists listed as influences: Chaikin (3), Adler (2), Keith Johnstone (2), Hagen (1), Meisner (1), Schechner (1), and Strasberg (1).
Return to article
2. Constantin Stanislavski, An Actor's Handbook, trans. and ed. Elizabeth R. Hapgood (New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1963) 33, 60; Building a Character, trans. Hapgood (New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1977) 264; Creating a Role, trans. Hapgood (New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1961) 104.
Return to article
3. This examination is based on an analysis of seven of Stanislavski's books available in English translation: My Life in Art, An Actor Prepares, Building a Character, and Creating a Role; two books of collected quotes, Stanislavski's Legacy, and An Actor's Handbook; and Stanislavski Directs, which consists primarily of quotes from the master, transcribed by his protege, Nikolai Gorchakov, during Stanislavski's lectures and rehearsals between 1924 and 1936. The writings of nine of Stanislavski's followers prominent in the United States have also been examined: Richard Boleslavsky, Maria Ouspenskaya, Michael Chekhov, Morris Carnovsky, Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, Sanford Meisner, Robert Lewis, and Sonia Moore.
Return to article
4. Constantin Stanislavski, My Life in Art, trans. J.J. Robbins (New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1952) 249; Nikolai M. Gorchakov, Stanislavsky Directs, trans. Miriam Goldina (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1954) 19; Stanislavski, Stanislavski's Legacy, ed. and trans. Hapgood (New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1968) 2.
Return to article
5. Strasberg, 105; Sanford Meisner and Dennis Longwell, Sanford Meisner on Acting (New York: Vintage Books, 1987) xviii-xix.
Return to article
6. Adler, Meisner and Moore claimed Strasberg's approach could cause psychological damage to actors, while Lewis warned that it could lead "to emotional indulgence in performance.
Return to article
7. The development of Theatresports, founded by Keith Johnstone at Calgary's Loose Moose Theatre Company in 1977, was a movement in this direction.
Return to article
WORKS CITED
Carnicke, Sharon Marie. "An Actor Prepares/Rabota aktera nad soboi Chast' l: A Comparison of the English with the Russian Stanislavsky." Theatre Journal 36.4 (1984).
-. "Stanislavski: Uncensored and Unabridged." TDR 37.1 (1993).
Carnovsky, Morris. The Actor's Eye. New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications, 1984.
Gorchakov, Nikolai M. Stanislavsky Directs. Trans. Miriam Goldina. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1954.
Hirsch, Foster. A Method to Their Madness: The History of the Actors Studio. New York: Da Capo Press, 1984.
Hobgood, Burnet M., ed. Master Teachers of the Theatre: Observations on Teaching Theatre by Nine American Masters. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois UP, 1988.
Meisner, Sanford and Dennis Longwell. Sanford Meisner on Acting. New York: Vintage Books, 1987.
Mekler, Eva. The New Generation of Acting Teachers. New York: Penguinbooks, 1987.
Stanislavski, Constantin. An Actor Prepares. Trans. Elisabeth R. Hapgood. New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1948.
-. An Actor's Handbook. Trans. and Ed. Hapgood. New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1963.
-. Building A Character. Trans. Hapgood. New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1977.
-. Creating A Role. Trans. Hapgood. New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1961.
-. My Life in Art. Trans. J.J. Robbins. New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1952.
Stanislavski, Constantin. Stanslavski's Legacy. Trans. and Ed. Hapgood. New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1968.
Strasberg, Lee. A Dream of Passion: The Development of the Method. Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1987.