stanislavski chekhov merlin

7/22/2019 Stanislavski Chekhov Merlin

1/11

New Theatre Quarterlyhttp://journals.cambridge.org/NTQ

Additional services for New Theatre Quarterly:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

Which Came First: The System or The Seagull?

Bella Merlin

New Theatre Quarterly / Volume 15 / Issue 03 / August 1999, pp 218 - 227

DOI: 10.1017/S0266464X00013014, Published online: 15 January 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0266464X00013014

How to cite this article:Bella Merlin (1999). Which Came First: The System or The Seagull?. New Theatre Quarterly, 15, pp218-227 doi:10.1017/S0266464X00013014

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NTQ, IP address: 212.219.153.42 on 05 Nov 2013


2/11http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 05 Nov 2013 IP address: 212.219.153.42

Bella MerlinWhich Came First:The System or The Seagull ?Anton Chekhov s dissatisfaction with Konstantin Stanislavsky s early productions ofhis plays is well known and oft-discussed. However, it may be argued that the detailedanalysis to which Stanislavsky subjected the script of The Seagull though offensive tothe author s intentions, led to the germination of Stanislavsky s acting system as well aslaying the foundations for the success of Chekhov s own dramatic career. Bella Merlin,Lecturer in Drama and Theatre Arts at Birmingham University, explores this avenue ofdebate by assessing the possible reasons for the Alexandrinsky Theatre s failure in itspremiere of The Seagull in 1896 . Thereafter, the mutual dependency of Chekhov andStanislavsky is discussed with reference to the success of the Moscow Art Theatre sproduction of 1898. In the following article in this issue, she links these reflections on theplay s early fortunes to its relevance to the Method of Physical Actions developed byStanislavsky towards the end of his career.

Theatrical life is entering a new phase. A hardstruggle lies ahead with the advocates ofobsoleteforms of stagey superficiality, but the essentialpoint is that the first step has been taken.1

MORE THAN one hundred years ago, theMoscow A rt Theatre's first produ ction ofTheSeagull elicited this response from the criticGnedich. The 'first step' was towards a chal-lenging, innovative theatrical form and aprovocative new acting style. Looking backover the century, the tremo rs sent by this pro-duction through dramatic works and actingprocesses may be traced from east to westacross the gamut of genres and styles.However, The Seagull proved to be asuccess almost in spite of itself. Alarmingcrises of confidence h ad been exp erienced bythe author, cast, and directors before, du ring ,and immediately following the event; diredisagreements ensued within the triad ofStanislavsky, Nemirovich-Danchenko, andChe khov in sub sequ ent years. Yet in spite ofthis a theatrical legend had emerged and amethod of acting had developed which has

since come to und erpin contempo rary perfor-mance. Theatrical life had certainly entered'a new phase'.The Seagullbecame legendary as muc h forits failure as for its success. There were ma ny

established performers in the Russian the atrewhose creative understanding failed tograsp Chekhov's new style. Lensky refusedto give a critique of The Seagull finding itentirely unstageable. He ad vised C hekhov tostop writing for the theatre, as it was simplynot his genre. The Maly Theatre, in whichLensky was a leading m ale, was a bastion ofcontemporary theatrical acclaim followingthe precedents of Shchepkin and Gogol. Yetone of its principal practitioners could dam nso incontrovertibly a new play which waslater to be seen as a turning point in mod erndrama.The world prem iere of the play in 1896 atthe Alexandrinsky Theatre, St. Petersburg,was an infamous failure. Under YevtikhyKarpov's direction, the production receivedcritical notices which rival one another incondem nation. The play is impossibly ba d',slated one, while another declared that'From all points of view, whether of idea,literature or stage, Chekhov's play cannoteven be called bad, but absolutely absurd.' 2What can have possibly prompted suchunequivocal reactions?One answer is that, intentionally or not,Chekhov broke theatrical conventions with-in a social and artistic climate w hich w as no tprepared for such an innovation. These were

218
http://journals.cambridge.org/http://journals.cambridge.org/



the conventions which had tripped up theAlexandrinsky company in their attempt tostage Chekhov's play, and the conventionsupon which Nemirovich-Danchenko andStanislavsky had declared war during theirinitial discussion in 1897 at the SlavyanskyBazaar. Then, among their revolutionary pro-posals, they advocated that the preparationof each new production must be extendedbeyond the usual few days of rehearsal to aperiod of some weeks. Therefore, plans forthe Moscow Seagull began in August 1898with the premiere taking place in December.By contrast, the Alexandrinsky Theatre hadallocated a mere seven days' rehearsal forChekhov's new play. It would have beenimpossible in so short a time for the cast anddirector to appreciate that they were con-fronting a revolutionary dramatic style andthat consequently new performance tech-niques might be needed.Added to this, the one person who mighthave provided invaluable help - the author -wa s curiously absent from the first rehearsal,at which he himself w as du e to have read theplay to the assembled cast. His replacementby the prompter, followed by the actors'confusion at the end of the read-through,revealed the hiatus between the 'new tones'which they realized to exist and their in-ability to manifest them .After all, there was no 'system' as yet todep end on. This was an era of casting to typeor emploi: 'the normal actor would specializein one standard character and reproduce . . .the young hero and lover, as long as he w asphysically able.'3This was one reason whyonly a brief rehearsal period was thoughtnecessary: short cuts to a role were the orderof the day. The upshot of this practice wasthat actors were stymied when presentedwith all the psychological complexities of aMasha or the anti-heroism of a Konstantin.Chekhov had rendered the type 'seeminglysuperfluous by the individualizing psycho-logical treatment that he gave to each of hischaracters'. 4

This break with convention may alsoaccount for the constant changing of rolesamong the Alexandrinsky actors during thebrief seven-day rehearsal period. Savina was

due to play Nina, from w hich she w ithdrewand took Arkadina, from which role she alsowithdrew and subsequently took over therole of Masha from the actress Chitau. It wa snot un til the costume-fitting that Chitau d is-covered that Savina had now withd rawn fromthe role of Masha and that Chitau herselfwou ld be needed for this part.Evidently, Savina lost confidence as shestruggled fruitlessly to identify her emploiam ong the available female characters inTheSeagull.Co nventions and formulae were justnot available to sustain the actors' 'temper-aments', and with little rehearsal time inwhich to develop other strategies, they wereleft floundering. The material with whichChekhov was presenting them was delicate,suggestive, provocative, and they simply didnot possess the tools with which to unlockthe text.

Chekhov himself was ill-equipped to offerthem advice. Since he was neither an actornor a director, he had no vocabulary withwhich he might speak to them in order toawaken the style of playing that his scriptrequired. This might explain his absence atthe initial read-through: perhaps he foresawthe difficulties that would arise from hisstrange new play, and chose to stay away.Enter the Moscow Art TheatreMan y of the clues as to how to enter the lifeofThe Seagullcan in fact be seen q uite clearlyin the text, although it requires critical skillsas well as artistic skills to access these clues.Nemirovich-Danchenko's background pro-vided the necessary combination of literaryanalysis and an appreciation of acting pro-cesses. Added to this, his belief that newwriting was crucial for the advancement ofpopular theatre proved pivotal in the nextstage, that of integrating The Seagull into therepertoire. Stanislavsky was fascinated bythe classics, and by comedies, notably thoseof Shakespeare and Moliere. Nemirovich-Danchenko sought to divert Stanislavsky'sartistic tastes from fantasy and history and'plunge him into the most ordinary every-day realities, filled with our most ordinaryeveryday emotions'.5

219



Chekhov's play challenged the Russiantheatre's staple diet of usually third-rateEuropean melodramas, and with this playNemirovich-Danchenko strove to challengeStanislavsky's theatrical appetite. Once hehad allied the creative forces of Stanislavskyand Chekhov, the onus was then on Stanis-lavsky to manifest the text in a theatricallydynamic way.In 1898 Stanislavsky's skills as a directorwere in their infancy. He was baffled by thenew dramatic forms presented by Chekhovin The Seagull later confessing that 'to myshame I did not understand the play'.6Creating the mise-en-scene from his solitarystudy in the Ukraine, he wrote feverishly toNemirovich-Danchenko, declaring: 'I cannotsay whether the planning of The Seagull isgood or worthless. ... I could be heading inentirely the wrong direction.'7 Given thislack of confidence in the process, the pro-duction might not have proceeded ha d it notbeen for Nemirovich-Danchenko's faith inhis colleagues' w ork.His artistic matchmaking continued withhis response to Stanislavsky's experimentalprompt-copy, declaring that the mise-en-scene has turned out perfectly. Chekhov wasin raptures about it.'8 Stanislavsky's timespent devising themise-en-sceneenabled himto perceive and unlock the clues within thetext, many of which lay directly within thestage directions. Throug hout the script ofTheSeagull,Chek hov supp lied details of char-acter, action, and even decor that demandeda revitalization of staging practices. Since itwas common for most theatres to allocate ashort preparation time to each play, props,sets, and costumes (usually provided by theactors themselves, with the leading ladydictating colour and cut) were regularlyrecycled.

Making the Intangible SpecificIt was not appropriate with Chekhov's playto drag the stock canvas garden or receptionroom from the theatre storeroom. Theintimate stage directions ofTheSeagull withthe 'broad avenue [leading] away from theaudience into the depth s of the park towards

the lake', and 'a stage which has hurriedlybeen run up for some home entertainment',indicated the arrival of an 'innova tion' w hichwas devoured by Stanislavsky - namely, thecreation of 'atmosphere'.9 The ambienceevoked so particularly by Chekhov wouldclearly have been jeopardized by the re-hashing of storeroom backcloths: he soughtthe specific, not the general.Stanislavsky chose to create atmosphereveryspecifically. Here again,The Seagullwas asuccess in spite ofitself since Stanislavsky'sincessant soundtrack of corncrakes andcroaking frogs became infamous for itsintrusiveness. Yet this was simply his firstnaive attempt to manifest tangibly theintangible atmosphere resonating throughthe 'half-tones' of Chekhov's writing - anaspect of his unavoidable inexperience ashe struggled with the new theatrical stylewhich had scuppered the AlexandrinskyTheatre two years earlier. In retrospect,Stanislavsky acknowledged and defendedthis creative naive ty as part of his ow n learn-ing process.10His later attempts to make tangible thesubtleties of the writing were thus evidentlyconfounded by Chekhov's own inconsis-tency with regard to detail. Having insistedon a military general being present at therehearsals forThree Sistersto ensure absoluteaccuracy of interpretation, Chekhov wasunhelpfully vague with the specifics of theProzorovs' house, maintaining that he 'feltonly the atmosphere of each room separ-ately, but not its walls'.11 With such evasive-ness on the part of the writer, Stanislavskycan be forgiven for making unsophisticatedchoices in these early, pioneering days ofnaturalism.

Both practitioners knew that they werestriving for something new, but were not yetable - or in Ch ekh ov's case entirely willing -to state in certain terms the m anne r by w hichit could be achieved. The result of this wasthat a universal misconception w as p erpetu-ated regarding 'atmosphere', construed byStanislavsky as the Chekhovian 'mood' - aterm officially chronicled in his notes onThreeSisters in 1899.12 The confusion betw een'atmos phere ' (as suggested by Chekhov) and220



The Moscow Art Theatre production of The Seagullin 1898. Top: V. A. Simov s set for Act One. B ottom: Arkadina(Olga Knipper, seated) as the focus of attention

'm oo d' (as created by Stanislavsky) serves asan illustration of a dra m a's affective com mu-nication with its audience: in brief whatmoves the audience may not always be wha tthe author intends. The 1898 production was

a success almost in spite of itself due to thedirector-producer's reading of the play inthe light of its social and political vibrations.Unwittingly, Stanislavsky presented aninterpretation of The Seagull with which the

221



audience could empathize. As a member ofthe educated classes to which theatre is tradi-tionally most readily available, Stanislavskyunconsciously identified its prevailing m oodof depression, melancholia, and monotony.Chekhov's native roots were of theworking class, and his popular successesto date had been through the channels ofvaudeville, prose fiction, and writing anewspaper column. Stanislavsky inevitablyidentified with the classes which Chekhovwas undoubtedly, albeit subtly, satirizing.Stanislavsky's need to break hollow actingcliches combined with the spectators' ownidentification with the material, and led tothe unanimous success (with the audience, ifnot with the author) of the play's 'mo od'.In time, the political climate underwentradical changes. The result of Stanislavsky'ssocial angle on Chek hov's plays w as that by1925 the works were considered bourgeoisanti-government propaganda. The politicaland social 'mood' had changed, and the playsas interpreted by the Moscow Art Theatrewere no longer palatable. The directors wereleft with little choice but to retire C hekh ov'scanon gracefully from the repertoire.'Mood' and doom, however, were notStanislavsky's sole concern, even in 1898.Clearly his political and social empathy wasdifferent from Chekhov's, but it would beunfair to accuse Stanislavsky of overlookingallthe au tho r's w it and hum our. In fact, itwas Nemirovich-Danchenko who had initiallysuppressed Stanislavsky's own choice ofcomic details in the 1898 mise-en-scene. Ashe explained to Stanislavsky, T thought Ishould take out anything w hich disposes theaudience to unnecessary laughter so thatthey may be ready to receive the best pas-sages in the play.'13In consequence, he askedthat the on-stage audience should restraintheir acting during Konstantin's play, soas to avoid pulling focus from the 'tense,decadent, sombre mood' of Nina andKonstantin.

This clearly exposes Nemirovich's mis-understanding of the nature of this scene -as not an examination of the new theatricalsymbolism as explored in Konstantin's play,but a comic scene juxtaposing 'the play

within the play' with the reactions of the on-stage audience. Stanislavsky und erstoo d this,and yet was quashed by his co-producer'sdiffering and misconceived interpretation.Contrary to Nem irovich-Danchenko'sbeliefthe 'decadent, sombre mood' must no t'dominate the frivolous mood of the othercharacters':14they are co-existent an d contra-puntal. Thus it was Nemirovich-Danchenkowh o in some respects laid the foundation forthe eternal debate regarding the comedy inChekhov's dramas.Realism versus NaturalismDespite the conflicts of intention and inter-pretation, the Seagull 'legend ' somehowdeveloped against the odds. From anobjective point of view, the practitionersclearly had different aims: on the one hand,the co-founders of the Moscow Art Theatrehad consciously formulated an artisticagenda which they hoped to pursue. Onthe other hand, Chekhov 'did not givethe slightest thought to revolutionizing thetheatre. He did not even give a thought tobeing more original than someone else.'15Instead his desire was to devise interestingroles for actors, through which they couldreveal 'the beauty of the ordinary, theinconspicuous, everyday beauty of life'.16It was this interest in character andhumanity which was mutual to both parties,in spite of their differences in artistic goals.They were both seeking a theatre of 'truth'.Chekhov achieved this by challenging actorand audience alike with his move from themelodramatic hyperbole of external action -with exposition, denouem ent, and a plethoraof traditions in betw een - toindirectaction orinneractivity. With no exposition of dram aticaction, the logic of plot and intrigue wasreplaced by the logic of sensation andemotion, as beh ind the app aren t inactivity ofeach character lay a complex inner life. Thisshift into the realm of psychological beha-viour initiated a theatre of contradictionswhich drew upon the incongruity of humanbehaviour. It was these nuances and sug-gestions, along with the universal 'everydaybeauty' within each character'sparticular

222



The famous posed picture of Chekhov reading The Seagull to the Moscow Art Theatre company. Olga Knipper sitson his right, Stanislavsky on his left, and Nemirovich-Danchenko stands at the far left.

life, that Stanislavsky sought to present inconcrete dramatic actions on the stage.Following Shchepkin's instruction to 'takeyour models from life', and 'always keepnature in your sights', Stanislavsky began toexamine the implications of 'natural' beha-viour for the theatre practitioner.17 Veryquickly the emotional and psychologicalstates into which the actor constantly con-torts himself becam e evide nt. He is forced tocry when he is not unhappy, forced to laughwhen he is sad, and essentially to embark ona series of strains, violations, and false stageconventionalities to coerce the public intoaccepting his deceit.In an attempt to overcome these contor-tions, Stanislavsky turned to 'slice-of-life'evocation. Perhaps it was his attentiveanalysis of Chekhov's stage directions in TheSeagullwhich, at this stage in his artisticdevelopm ent, caused Stanislavsky to perceivenaturalistic details as a key to liberating theactor from convention and contortion. Withnaive fervour, he took su ch details to excess,with tolling bells, crashing storms, breakingglass, and barking dogs. This is particularlyapparent in Act Four when Nina leaves

Konstantin towards the climax of the play.Here is another example of the 1898production succeeding in spite of itself.Chekhov had described the play as endingpianissimo, 'contrary to the rules of dramaticart', and yet Stanislavsky's tolling bell andbreaking glass overruled the playwright'sdecision.18 None the less the curtain fell touproariou s app lause. Stanislavsky had strucka chord with the audience despite ignoringChekhov's directive.So whose success was it? Chekhov andStanislavsky were clearly striving fordifferent ends at this point in theatre history.Stanislavsky was seeking to alleviate theunnatural processes of the acting craft bytaking his models from life. Chek hov wishe dto illuminate the everyday beauties of life,and so filled his text with stage directionsdetailing decor and environment. Stanislavskyfollowed Chekhov's suggestions, but ratherover-enthusiastically for Chekhov's taste.

The result was a production that Chekhovabhorred and the audience adored. There-fore - as J. L. Styan asks - was it reallyStanislavsky who had earned the applauseor was it Chekhov?19Had Chekhov brought

223



Stanislavsky success, or had Stanislavskysaved Chekhov from a repetition of theAlexandrinsky disaster? The dialogue bet-ween the practitioners and, perhaps moresignificantly, between the audience and thematerial was in a very delicate balance.Although Chekhov detested much of thenaturalistic d etail chosen by Stanislavsky forthis production, it earned him success. Hadthe directors pursued the author's desiresmore closely, perhaps such success wouldhave eluded him.In effect, C hekho v w as tw o steps ahe ad ofhis time and one step ahead of Stanislavsky,who (mercifully for the play's success) wasonly one step ahead of his contempo raryaudience. In other words, Stanislavsky wasseeking a theatrical revolution through thenaturalistic barking of dogs and croaking offrogs, and the public were (for a short time)excited by the innovation. However, Chek hovwas developing a redefined notion ofrealism:the unive rsal in the particular. Without Stanis-lavsky's literal presentation of the details ofdaily life, the nuances of Chekhov's realismmight have eluded the contemporary audi-ence, as Siegfried Melchinger believes:[Stanislavsky] led the R ussian the atre in a differ-ent direction from the one Chekhov had in mind .Perhaps even, considering the course of history,his was the only direction possible. Chekhov'sgoals were perhaps too much in advance of thetimes to be comprehensible to his contempor-aries.20Stanislavsky was presenting his audiencewith a style and 'atmosphere' with whichthey could identify and to which they couldrespond. It was not to Chekh ov's taste, but itdrew the audience to (rather than alienatingthem from) a significant innovation in thetheatre.Developing an Acting SystemIt was not enough for Stanislavsky that healone should have the artistic insight toreach into Chekhov's text. The company ofactors would also need new skills, sinceChekhov's dramatic structure was 'madeand p lanned according to its own laws (such

laws as balance, rhythm, conciseness, andcontrol) that are not applicable to life - andthis structure is a work of art'.21 His playswere not melodramas and vaudevilles withrecognizable forms; if they were to be per-formed with the beauty with which theywere w ritten, they w ould require actors witha similar understanding of the laws ofbalance, rhythm, conciseness, and control.Formu la had to be replaced w ith the specific,stock characterization with individuality,representation with psychology, and theshort cut wi th detailed analysis. Tools wou ldbe needed by the actors to create such com-plex characters and to tackle such detailedanalysis.The Seagullwas the catalyst which pro-voked Stanislavsky into applying new lawsto theacting processin order that it too mightbe structured as an art form. As he struggledto make theatrical and psychological senseof Chekhov's play, he forged certain 'tools'which later became part of his system.Amongst these tools were subtext, tempo-rhythm, ensemble interaction,a n d inner action.

Nemirovich-Danchenko and Stanislavskyintroduced during rehearsals of The Seagullthe term 'subtext' or padtekst as a means ofrevealing and expressing the psychologicalmotives hidden beneath Chekhov's lines,which only occasionally surface - as withArkadina's jubilant declaration, 'Now I'vegot him', as she concludes her seduction ofTrigorin in Act Three. Stanislavsky's skill indevising themise-en-scenewa s his instinctiveunderstanding of psychological subtext.In describing The Seagull, Nemirovich-Danchenko had asked: 'How was one toutter these simplest phrases simply and yetretain the sense of the theatre and avoiddesperate tedium?'22 Through the detail ofth e mise-en-scene, Stanislavsky shifted atten-tion from the literalness of the text, with theresult that the simplest of phrases revealedunspoken but textured human responses.Characters no longer directly confronted orovertly confessed, bu t rather sought to avoidthe personal connection.Thus N ina's q uestion 'W hat kind of a treeis that? ' in Act One illustrates her need to im-personalize a situation in which Konstantin

224



does try to confront her and confess. Thecontradiction between her subtext and histext - 'I love you' - offer the spectator bothdramatic tension and comic release. Thesubtext is the pulse that inspires the actor.Through it, he or she can find a personalconnection with the character and thereforean authentic desire to embark on the char-acter's journey. It provides the springboardfrom actor into character, and as such it is theactor's opportunity to co-create with thewriter.Since the concept of subtext was new tomembers of the early Moscow Art Theatre,metho ds w ere invented to assist the actors intheir understanding of the 'tool', and its useand application. To this end, Nemirovich-Danchenko encouraged the cast to create an'inner monologue', a constant stream ofthought alerting the actors to the discrep-ancies betwe en wh at they say and w hat theymean in response to the on-stage partner'swords. The channelling of concentrationonto one's fellow actors was of furthersignificance in that it actively broke th e 's ta r'system of acting. No one actor was in aleading role: all roles were supporting in thesense that every character (and every actor)became mutually depend ent on the others.Thus subtext played an important part inthe development of the ensemble interactionupon which Chekhov's plays depended.This was assisted in part by Stanislavsky'stransference of the actors' attention fromtheir own subtext to understanding afellowcharacter s subtext: for he maintained that,while each actor's subtext was of courseautomatically clear to its author, 'it is allnew' to the on-stage partner; therefore, 'itmust be decoded and absorbed'.23Thus, the actors were not only encour-aged to speak their text as informed by theirow n subtext, bu t also to be in a constant stateof decoding their partner's subtext whilelistening to the words which were actuallybeing spoken . This should create in effect animmediate and dynamic connection andtension between the performers, both asactors and as characters. Each actor is attend -ing to the other performer's unspo ken inten-tion as well as the actual spoken words. In

the light of Stanislavsky's later explorations,this process of listening and 'decoding' nowseems dangerously intellectual. But in 1898any subtextual interaction, however cerebral,wa s new an d challenging to the Moscow ArtTheatre company, a significant departurefrom usual acting techniques.For Stanislavsky, the first rule of dialoguewas that an actor directed 'limitless atten-tion' to his on-stage partner.24The result w asthat the western world was astounded bythe ensemble playing of the Moscow ArtTheatre actors, as dem onstrated during theirAm erican tour in the1920s. Stanislavsky andNemirovich-Danchenko's desire to fight thestar system, combined with the style ofChek hov's p lays, had necessited a new levelof comm union on-stage.Non-Verbal CommunicationPerformers and critics alike have drawnattention to the profundity of human inter-action in these texts. Maria Knebbel, whohad played Charlotta in the Moscow ArtTheatre's production of The CherryOrchardmaintained that 'it demands an ideal en-semble'.25AndJ.L. Styan ha s suggested that'because of Chekhov's submerged characterrelationships, few other dramatists havedemanded ensemble playing of such a highorder'.26While such communion would not havebeen tangible to Stanislavsky as he sat insolitude writing his mise-en-scene, his speci-fication of physical activities and pauseswith in the spoken text illustrates his intuitivecomprehension of the unseen connectionsbetween one character and another. Heunde rstood the correlation between theinneraction experienced by one character and itsouter expression as comm unicated to another.Again, he was helped by the clues providedin the playwright's text. Chekhov includedfifty pauses in h is text ofTheSeagull therebyacknowledging the psychological and dram-atic potential of silence: and this numbe r w asenthusiastically doubled by Stanislavsky inhis mise-en-scene.As Nemirovich-Danchenkoacknowledged, such non-verbal communi-cation wa s a major inn ovation:

225



the nearer to life, the farther from the gliding,uninterrupted 'literary' flow so characteristic ofthe old theatre. . . . [Pauses] were to manifestthe completion of an immediately experiencedperturbation, to prepare for an outburst of anapproaching emotion, or to imply a silencecharged with intensity.Pauses are the real filter of subtextual infor-mation. It is only in the moments of silencethat the actor can truly listen to his psycho-physical apparatus, which comprises body,imagination, and emotion. It is only in zonesof stillness that the actor can truly hear thewo rds of his on-stage partner a nd respond tothem on a psycho-physical level.

If the pauses provided a means by w hichthe actor might begin to monitor his innerlife, they also served an important functionin the tempo-rhythm of the play as a wholeand of individual characters. Stanislavsky'sawareness of the importance of tempo-rhythm stemmed from his work at theBolshoi Theatre in 1888 with the direc-tor Fyodor Komissarzhevsky. Together theyexplored ways of sitting and walking to theaccompaniment of a pianist who varied therhythm and tempo of the music - 'tempo'suggesting the speed at which an action isexecuted, and 'rhyth m ' relating to the inten-sity of the action or experience.Following certain textual references pro-vided in The Seagull Stanislavsky's mise-en-scenedescribes va rious ph ysical activities forparticular characters which are suggestive oftheir inner tempo-rhythm and consequentlytheir psychological being. Thus, M edvedenk osmokes a lot, Masha takes a pinch of snuffand Arkadina impetuously folds her armsbehind her back when she's angry. Each ofthese phys ical activities is ultimately relatedto a speed and an intensity, and intendednot as 'vulgar naturalism ' but 'to reveal per-sonality, the inner state of thought andemotion'.28

In some respects, this was an embryonicversion of the Method of Physical Actions.Here, however, the director imposed thephysical actions on the actors; later theywould discover them themselves as a textwas explored psycho-physically throughimprovisation - as was the practice in the

1920s and 1930s when Stanislavsky wasformulating the Method of Physical Actions.None the less, his emphasis on physicalityeven in these early days demonstrates hisawareness that emotion was not subject todirection. As he subsequently wrote in AnActor Prepares, 'for the feelings we must seekout the tempo-rhythm that underlies theinner emotions and the external actions of apart'.29External action even includ ed simplystanding: to 'stand and watch for a mouse -that is one rhythm; to watch a tiger that iscreeping up on you is quite another'.30

If Stanislavsky was developing an embry-onic Method of Physical Actions with the1898 production of The Seagull,one stagedirection in particular would have providedhim w ith a useful insight into the integrationof pause, physical action, tempo-rhythm andinner action - namely, Chekhov's directionconcerning Konstantin's reaction to Nina'sfinal departure:Over the next two minutes he silently tears upall his manuscripts and throws them under thedesk.31

The effect of two minutes of silence on stageis not to be underestimated; if the zone ofsilence is the actor's means to connect hisinner m otive-forces of imag ination, em otion,and body, this is just such an extendedopportunity for the actor who is playingKonstantin. The physical action of tearingthe manuscripts - his life's work - is atangible manifestation of the inner tearing ofhis hope, his life, and his love. That theoperation lasts two minutes suggests a sus-tained rhythm, undoubtedly full of passionand pain, and containing an emotion whichleads Konstantin to the ultimate action ofdestruction: suicide. In one stage direction,the play wrig ht hints at physical action,inner action, subtext, tem po-rhy thm - and astyle of psychological drama new to theRussian theatre of the 1890s.

Ensemble InterdependenceThrough his attention to the playwright'stext and his hunger for a psychologicaltheatre, Stanislavsky found in The Seagull a

226


11/11

mine of resources which prompted him toexplore naturalism and thereafter developthis into a realistic style of theatre. As heacknowledged:From the sum total of dem ands mad e by the play-wright, the producer, and the artist, an entirelynovel stage atmosphere was created for ourac to rs ... . [The] theatre succeeded in finding newtechniques of scenic interpretation, based onthe behest of Shchepkin and the innovation ofChekhov.32Within such an exploratory climate, Chekhovin turn was provoked to develop his newdramatic style. It was undoubtedly Stanis-lavsky's attention to the acting processwhich, in the words of theorist, DivadelniUstav,made possible, either directly or indirectly, thecreation of dramatic works which their authorsmight never have created, if they had not beenconvinced that is was possible to interpret truth-fully the finer shades of various psychologicalprocesses.33To return to the question, 'Which came first -the system or The Seagull? , it was of coursethe publication ofThe Seagullwhich precededthe system's formal notation. An apter con-sideration m ightbe:who developed whom -the author or theamateur?It wou ld appea r tobe a case of mutual, if somewhat fortuitous,ensemble interaction.Notes and References

1. Polyakova, E., Stanislavsky, trans. Liz Tudge(Moscow: P rogress, 1977), p. 109.2. Nemirovich-Danchenko, V.,M y Life in the RussianTheatre, trans. John Cournos (Boston: Little Brown,1936), p. 65.3. Kleberg, L., and Nilssen, N. A., eds.,Theatre andLiterature in Russia, 1900-1930 (Denmark: Armq uist,Wiksell, 1984), p. 27.4. Ibid.

5. Nemirovich-Danchenko, V.,M y Life in the RussianTheatre,p . 148.6. Cited in Benedetti, J. N.,Stanislavsky: a Biography(London: M ethuen , 1990), p. 74.7.Cited in Polyakova, E.,Stanislavsky,p.99-101.8. Ibid., p. 101.9. Chekhov, A., Th e Seagull trans. Michael Frayn(London: M ethuen , 1993), p. 1.10. Gorchakov, N. M., Stanislavsky Directs,trans.Miriam Goldina (New York: Limelight, 1991), p. 143.11. Stanislavsky, K. S., The Stanislavsky Legacy:Comments on Some Aspectsof an Actor sAr tandLife,trans.Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgoo d (London: Max Reinhardt,1958), p. 98.12. Benedetti,J.N. ,Stanislavsky:a Biography,p . 107.13. Benedetti, J. N., trans., Th e Moscow Art TheatreLetters(London: Me thuen, 1991), p. 33.14. Ibid.15. Nem irovich-Danchenko , V., My Life in theRussianTheatre,p . 19.16.Yermilov. V.,Anton Pavlovich Chekhov, trans. IvyLitvinov (Moscow: Moscow Publishing House, 1946),p.147.17. Polyakova, E.,Stanislavsky,p. 29.18. Letter to Suvorin cited in Styan,J.L.,Realism andNaturalism: Mode rn Dram a in T heory and Prac tice, 1(Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 77 .19. Styan,J.L.,Realism andNaturalism,p. 77 .20. Melchinger,S. Anton Chekhov(NewYork:Ungar,1972), p . 67.21. Ibid., p. 9.22. Nem irovich-Danchenko , V., My Life in theRussianTheatre,p. 63.23. Stanislavsky, K. S., Building a Character trans.Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood (London: Methuen, 1988),p.121.24.Gorchakov, N. M.,StanislavskyDirects,p. 318.25. Cited in Magarshack, D., The Real C hekhov: anIntroduction to Chekhov s Last Plays (London: Allen andUnwin, 1972), p. viii.26. Styan,J.L.,Realism andNaturalism,p. 89.27. Nem irovich-Danchenko , V., My Life in theRussianTheatre,p . 162.28. Benedetti, J. N.,Stanislavsky:a Biography,p. 76.29. Stanislavsky, K.S., An Actor Prepares, trans.Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood (London: Methuen, 1980),p.250.30. Cited in Toporkov, V. O., Stanislavsky inRehearsal:the Final Years,trans. Christine Edwa rds (NewYork: Theatre Arts, 1979), p. 62.31. Chekhov, A.,TheSeagull p. 65.32. Stanislavsky, K. S. Selected Works, trans. V.Yankilevsky (Moscow: Raduga Press, 1984), p . 126.33. Theatre Institute, Prague, 48th Publication,Konstantin Sergeyvich Stanislavsky, trans. Jean Eisterava(Prague: Thea tre Ins titute, 1963), p. 44.

227

stanislavski chekhov merlin

Documents