The Phenomenal Dynamic of Sanford Meisner's Technique of Acting And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Meisner Across Paradigms: The Phenomenal Dynamic of Sanford Meisner’s Technique of Acting and its Resonances with Postmodern Performance. Submitted by James Anthony McLaughlin to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Drama In May 2012 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature: ………………………………………………………….. Page 1 Abstract: The Meisner Technique emerged as a part of the realist, modern theatre of the early- Twentieth Century and extended its influence through the rest of that century, including the 1960s and 1970s when there was an explosion of various forms of postmodern performance. This work will demonstrate that while Meisner’s Technique is a part of the paradigm of modern, realist theatre, it simultaneously challenges this ideology with disruptive processes of the sort that postmodern performance instigates. It is the thesis of this work that the Meisner Technique operates according to a set of phenomenologically-aligned imperatives that create strong resonances with certain forms of postmodern performance. This establishes the dynamic wherein the Meisner Technique is able to enter into discourse with instances of the postmodern paradigm of performance. In the first three chapters I will conduct in-depth analyses of Meisner actors’ relationships with their environment, their fellow performers, and their actions from a range of phenomenological perspectives. In the fourth chapter I will apply the conclusions of these analyses to the operation of the Meisner Technique within the paradigm of modern, realist theatre. In the fifth chapter I will set a backdrop to the postmodern field and suggest the issues from this tradition with which the Meisner Technique might resonate. Chapters Six, Seven, and Eight each take one example of an artist from the postmodern field, Richard Foreman, Michael Kirby, and Robert Wilson respectively, establishes their own particular context, and suggests those processes relating to acting/performing technique that might provoke the most productive exchanges. This juxtaposition suggests the places between the practices where discourse might take root and suggests the beginnings of such dialogues. Page 2 Table of Contents: Table of Contents: ......................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4 Observation ................................................................................................................................. 51 Repetition .................................................................................................................................... 81 Independent Activities .............................................................................................................. 109 Meisner and Phenomenological Realism .................................................................................. 132 The Postmodern Field ............................................................................................................... 166 Richard Foreman ....................................................................................................................... 198 Michael Kirby ............................................................................................................................. 211 Robert Wilson ............................................................................................................................ 222 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 231 Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 243 Page 3 Introduction ‘The actor must not annihilate the deeper intentions of the play which the playwright has written.’ (Meisner and Longwell, 1987: 191) ‘The text is your greatest enemy.’ (Meisner and Longwell, 1987: 137) The Meisner Technique emerged as a part of the realist, modern theatre of the early- Twentieth Century and extended its influence through the rest of that century, including the 1960s and 1970s when there was an explosion of various forms of postmodern performance. This work will demonstrate that while Meisner’s Technique is a part of the paradigm of modern, realist theatre, it simultaneously challenges this ideology with disruptive processes of the sort that postmodern performance instigates. It is the thesis of this work that the Meisner Technique operates according to a set of phenomenologically-aligned imperatives that create strong resonances with certain forms of postmodern performance. This establishes the dynamic wherein the Meisner Technique is able to enter into discourse with instances of the postmodern paradigm of performance. Historically, the Meisner Technique is a close descendent of Strasberg’s Method Acting that is firmly rooted within modern, realist theatre. The Method’s dominance in American theatre from the 1930s for the majority of the century is widely recognised (Schmitt, 1990: 93), and is the cause for much of the criticism it attracts (Krasner, 2000: 6-7). Meisner’s place as a founding member of The Group Theatre, where this acting methodology was developed, put him at the centre of the American Theatre in the 1930s and supplied him with the experience and the credentials necessary to develop his own Technique for training actors. As David Krasner notes, the paradigm of modern, realist theatre resonated with an American desire for authenticity, as opposed to the ‘deception’ that more stylistically ornate forms of theatre were Page 4 seen to support (Krasner, 2000: 25). Value was attached to authenticity because of a number of cultural factors. The increasing cultural diversity of America at the time made it necessary to seek forms of expression that appeared to be accessible to all (Krasner, 2000: 26). The pursuit of capitalist enterprise encouraged personal freedom and resulted in a celebration of the individualistic gratification that its rewards facilitated (ibid). An increased fascination with psychoanalysis promised access to the inner truths of individuals’ psyches and to reveal ‘authentic selves’ that could be taken as a truthful foundation of behaviour (Krasner, 2000: 27). In this climate, the authentic behaviour that Stanislavsky seemed to exhibit in the Moscow Arts Theatre tours of 1922 and 1923 was welcomed with open arms by American audiences. The Method derived much of its credibility from its claims to be an American interpretation of The System that Stanislavsky developed in the Moscow Arts Theatre and thus an inheritor of the authentic behaviour Stanislavsky fostered. The history of Stanislavsky’s influence on American Theatre has been well established, but is worth restating here insofar as it establishes Meisner’s centrality to the paradigm of modern, realist theatre. The relish with which American theatre practitioners embraced Stanislavsky’s principles is detectable in Strasberg’s assertion that, ‘The Stanislavski “System” is ... no continuation of the textbooks of the past or present. It represents a sharp break with traditional teaching and a return to actual theatre experience’ (Strasberg, 1947: 16). Working in The Moscow Arts Theatre at the turn of the Twentieth Century, Stanislavsky formalised the acting craft he practiced and taught into what became known as The System. The terrain of American theatre was irrevocably altered by The Moscow Arts Theatre’s two acclaimed tours of the United States in 1922 and 1923. Boleslavsky and Ouspenskaya from this troupe relocated to New York in 1924 and founded The Acting Laboratory where they passed their version of Stanislavsky’s system on to Sanford Meisner, Harold Clurman and Lee Strasberg (Gray, 1964: 28). Stanislavsky’s first acting manual, An Actor Prepares, was not translated into English until Page 5 1936, twelve years after The Acting Laboratory’s first classes (Gray, 1964: 38) and so it was an earlier understanding of Stanislavsky’s System, frozen at the time of the American tours and transmitted from teacher to student that went on to influence The Group Theatre and therefore Strasberg’s Method Acting and Meisner’s Technique. In order to avoid perpetuating misunderstandings about Stanislavsky, it is necessary to make clear here that Stanislavsky’s work was not confined to the body of work that Strasberg (mis)interpreted as The Method. As Carnicke asserts, the transmission of Stanislavsky's ideas to the U.S., their linguistic and cultural translation, and their transformation by the Method created a pervasive veil of assumptions through which we in the West commonly view Stanislavsky. While this filter has illuminated some of the System's premises (most notably those that involve psychological realism), it has also obscured others (such as those drawn from Symbolism, Formalism, and Yoga). (Carnicke, 2009: 7) Not only did Method Acting highlight those parts of Stanislavsky’s work that were most applicable to modern,