Close

2018-01-11

Theory: the object of imitation Part 2

Still, before adopting a point of view on a theater piece, not bad once again to question it. And the question is, Yes not one.

Usually we do without malice, regarded a favorite expression “the stage incarnation” as a requirement of maximum trade note actor and character. But we are equally unconsciously go back to a literal understanding of the term: after all, reincarnation is the transmigration of souls.

Course, everyone is clear that, no matter how deep you looked, but not in the dark secrets of the psyche, no matter how fascinated by the East, he was never invited to the primitive, “the metamorphosis” was to him the closest, the most similar to what he had dreamed, in a word. He thought and talked about conditional reincarnation. We (and he himself sometimes) more often than did in fact believe that the actor, at first, does not and cannot have any other purpose besides becoming the character, and second, that he is able to do it that this goal is actually attainable. Isn’t here, worn down from use, but has not lost the charm of the old criteria to evaluate actor’s work: was the actor or the character did not, and only cleverly pretending?

Meanwhile, the idea kind of continues in the other key for his ideas to the formula “the magic “if””. Of course, not without magic, she could remember that; but, of course, “if”. How to translate this formula with, technical into ordinary language? The entire spiritual and physical nature of the actor should be aspiring to what is happening with the depicted strictly demanded, but not in the article of 1928, intended for the Britannica when he weighed the words.

What happens to the represented person, as evidenced by the analysis and, most importantly, a strong tenacious imagination of the actor that portrays the character, feelings and behavior of the hero. The tendency, apparently, is reflected in the fact that the actor behaves as if he had been imagined and depicted person was in the circumstances of that person.

All seems clear. Stanislavsky, it seems, does not allow to doubt who is master and who is servant. Actors have to find some “grain” of the play, and then each will seek to implement the artistic goal, which stood in front of the playwright and implemented them in the plane of its verbal poetic.

Does not leave the actor’s own goals, obviously. Less obvious, but no less important: is there enough correct to compare an actor and a writer? 17 In the era of Stanislavsky with the playwright still more logical to compare the Director: he and the other authors of the whole play and spectacle. The actor in this situation is to associate with the character. But the goal of the actor, even if she matches, as claimed, with the aim of the playwright, with the aim of the character, which the artist will transform roughly, decisively not the same.

A character is someone or something, to pretend, to dissemble, to act. But in such instances its purpose is not necessarily in the mummery. On the contrary, they are closer to the purposes of any other, not character. They to affect the neighbors on the play, to change the situation in their favor, resolve conflicts in their understanding. The actor is always another goal. With whatever it was associated, whether conceived as the only or as part of other, larger, always, in all the theatre options actor comes on the scene in order to portray the Other or Both.

As can be seen, the difference between the two main components of stage actor and picture them on stage in person (in the theater, which is called drama; in other theatres it may not be the “face”, and something else), is fundamentally more than the difference in the material: it is not confined to the fact that in one case we have before us a living man, and in another combination of words (or of sounds, or of movements), “system phrases”. It is first and foremost in the fact that both participants of the process of transformation are on the scene with targets of different type and meaning. One goal of the “life”, another art; one is to get involved in a controversial situation and to receive from it his own, the other to depict participating in the dramatic action of the person.

If so, we have to go back to the old question, whether a General event of the actor and his character or there are two different being? And the answer to this question must now: there are two different phenomena, they occur in our eyes in parallel and at the same time, however, we do not know how they connected.

Presumably, there must be some principles that connect them with each other, pass these principles impossible. Hence, we do not pass, but yet, when it comes to theatrical subject, 18 it is sufficient to record that on the stage in all known cases of this mysterious subject responds with something difficult, ambivalent: it is always the actors represent, broadly speaking, not himself; on stage two people, one who depicts, one who (or what) he portrays the role.

Remember immediately and what the actors it is also always, in all cases, represent the Other in the presence of the audience, and not just in their presence, and for them and with their participation (the latter require proof, they come). So, the art of the theatre is done at least three forces at the same time living in time and space of the play actors, roles, and audience.

Think about it now over the other, “methodical” side of the question: how are defined and determined objects of the other arts? As, for example, justifies your conclusion that the subject of the drama is the co-existence of human beings in complex and contradictory circumstances? Logical to assume that the course is not speculative logic, and the empirical experience of the drama. In fact, the drama never, never contained and does not contain anything in addition to the complex relations that tied people. Here the most General characteristic of matter plays.

But if we continue to presume that the content of the artwork is not arbitrary, that it is “pushed” in this work some properties or aspects of reality (that is, in General, recognize the existence of the subject), it is easy to assume that only more and only more clearly to this artistic image of the complex relations are reflected, of course, indirect is also difficult conflicting relationship between the people in your life.

It is clear that in this train of thought is the logic of reality as if inverted: we are moving from drama to its subject, when in fact quite the contrary. This, however, does not mean that the first was the subject, and then came drama. Of course, not a drama invented the complicated relationship between people in difficult conflicts, people were uneasy with each other before they began to write plays. But artistically, these a relationship in deep the specifics for the time being has not been assimilated, digested, and appreciated. Drama and became the instrument through which society 19 found that his life was dramatic. Learned that every self-realized person and the doer in its own right and in its own way one sided. Or that relations between people ever since people have become, as Hegel would say, the lonely individuals were subject to some strange, sad act.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *