Corporeal Expression and the Paradox of Acting in the German Theater Discourse Around 1800
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Carolina Digital Repository STAGING SPONTANEITY: CORPOREAL EXPRESSION AND THE PARADOX OF ACTING IN THE GERMAN THEATER DISCOURSE AROUND 1800 Matthew West Feminella A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department Germanic and Slavic Languages and Literatures (German). Chapel Hill 2016 Approved by: Clayton Koelb Eric Downing Jonathan Hess Gabriel Trop Inga Pollmann © 2016 Matthew West Feminella ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT MATTHEW WEST FEMINELLA: Staging Spontaneity: Corporeal Expression and the Paradox of Acting in the German Theater Discourse Around 1800 (Under the direction of Clayton Koelb) This dissertation explores how theories of spontaneity and the body are integrated into acting discourses on the German stage. I argue that the spontaneity of the human body represents a recurring feature in the acting discourses around 1800, which provoked a variety of responses from theorists of the theaters. These responses range from theorizing how to utilize corporeal spontaneity for the benefit of the theater to how to diminish its potential inimical effects on dramatic production. Theorizing about actors and spontaneity led these thinkers to re-conceptualize their notions of anthropology, semiotics, media, and human agency. Chapter 1 examines how Gotthold Ephraim Lessing in his correspondences and dramaturgical writings develops acting techniques that seek to reconcile intentionality and spontaneity: actors create mental images of bodies through poetic language that in turn are integrated into their own affective and bodily motions, thus artificially producing the impression of spontaneous natural action on stage. Chapter 2 explores the evolution of Friedrich Schiller’s conception of acting and spontaneity from his early dramaturgical writings on the affect of actors to his notion of theatrical grace in “On Grace and Dignity.” Chapter 3 examines Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s attempts in his “Rules for Actors” to mitigate the uncertainty generated by spontaneity by introducing corporeal regimes of iii bodily discipline that regulate actors both inside and outside of the theater. Chapter 4 investigates how Heinrich von Kleist frames spontaneity as a solution to an anthropological and theatrical problem in “On the Puppet Theater,” in which the human body’s ability to react without prior thought can accomplish otherwise elusive physical and mental tasks. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………...1 The Emergence of the Natural Acting Paradigm…………………………………………4 Corporeal Spontaneity…………………………………………………………...…….....8 Methodological Approach and Research Overview……………………………………..12 Outline of Dissertation…………………………………………………………………...15 CHAPTER ONE: Mediated Movements: Spontaneity, Gesture, and Lessing’s Theories of Acting………………………………………………………………………….............................19 The Body as Mediator in Lessing’s Theory of Acting……………………………………23 From Actor to Poet: Lessing’s Second Theory of Acting…………………………..……..36 Acting as Verstellungskunst and Containing Spontaneity in Miss Sara Sampson…….…44 CHAPTER TWO: “Die Werkzeuge des Willens”: Corporeal Spontaneity and the Disharmony of Schiller’s Actor…………………………………………………………………………………..65 Im Fall eines Nachtwandlers: Acting and Mastering Spontaneity in the Early Schiller...69 Complications of Acting: Der Geisterseher.......................................................................85 Kalliasbriefe……………………………………………………………………………...92 Über Anmut und Würde………………………………….…………………....………...102 CHAPTER THREE: Expunging the Spontaneous: Goethe’s Weimar Theater and Regimenting Actors’ Bodies…………………………………………………………………….………….…118 Secondary Literature……………………………………………….…………………...121 Weimar Theater and “Über Wahrheit und Wahrscheinlichkeit der Kunstwerke”….….124 Regeln für Schauspieler...................................................................................................134 v Goethe’s Reintroduction of the Theatrical Mask………………………..…...…………142 Die Wahlverwandtschaften..............................................................................................150 Goethe’s Legacy………………………………………………….……………………..158 CHAPTER FOUR: Relinquishing Sovereignty: Kleist, Improvisation, and Corporeal Reactions…………………………………………………………………………………….….160 Über das Marionettentheater...........................................................................................164 Amphitryon……………………………………………………………………………...176 Von der Überlegung.........................................................................................................182 Über die allmähliche Verfertigung der Gedanken beim Reden.......................................188 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………198 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………201 vi Introduction In 1976 Paramount Pictures released Marathon Man, a film that stars two of the most prolific and prominent actors of their time: Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman. While both received critical acclaim for their performances, with Olivier earning an Academy Award nomination, the two actors were noted for approaching their roles with opposing acting methodologies. The contrast between their styles is illustrated in this well-known, if somewhat apocryphal anecdote. The role called for Hoffman to play a man at the end of his physical and psychological rope since most of the film involved double crosses and shady killers out to get him. To put himself in the mindset of a man losing control Hoffman didn't sleep for days at a time and let his body become disheveled and unhealthy. Finally, after all this work Hoffman notices his co-star Sir Lawrence Olivier sitting comfortably on a stage chair without a care in the world. Surprised that he is the only one on set who has gone to such rigorous lengths, he asks Olivier how he's able to make his performance look so real. The confused Olivier stops, takes a breath and calmly responds, “Dear boy, it's called acting.”1 Hoffmann’s style, called Method Acting, derives originally from acting theories and practices from Constantin Stanislavski. Stanislavski’s system became one of the dominant schools of acting in the twentieth century and constitutes an innovation in the art of acting whose impact is felt to the present day, with Hoffmann being just one of many celebrated actors who have been trained according to its principles. Method Acting attempts to create the appearance of affect by cultivating similar emotional states in the person of the actor as portrayed in the character. While 1“Method of Madness: Why Do Actors Insist on Method Acting?,” FirstShowing.net, accessed November 4, 2015, http://www.firstshowing.net/2010/method-of-madness-why-do-actors-insist-on-method-acting/. 1 Hoffman does not fully identify with his character, he does place himself in comparable situations in order to invoke the desired physiological response in his body. Conversely, Olivier demands absolute control over his performance and is unwilling to relinquish sovereignty over his person for the sake of appearing emotionally charged. The opposition between Hoffman and Olivier’s acting practices is a part of a rich acting tradition that spans both film and the theater and features one of the most enduring debates in acting discourse: the question of the actor’s emotional commitment to the role. Stanislavski’s championing of the emotionalist position represents a twentieth-century manifestation of a centuries long debate. Shortly before Stanislavski in the late nineteenth century, the acting world was rocked by an international controversy in which the acting theorists Constant Coquelin, Henry Irving, Fleeming Jenkin, and William Archer hotly contested the dilemma: “Do actor’s feel? and ought they feel?”2 Many of the terms of the debate are virtually unchanged from when it first rose to prominence in the eighteenth century among the likes of Denis Diderot and Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. There is a deeper underlying issue at stake in this discussion, as an actor who strives to assume the emotional state of the character he portrays does not do so for its own sake. The emotional state of the actor conceals itself from the audience and is only relevant insofar as it manifests as expression in the body. The audience then reads the corporeal expressions as signs of the emotional state of the character the actor is portraying. Corporeal expressions require a corresponding emotional state because they evade deliberate attempts at creation. They occur spontaneously, being dependent on the emotional state of the actor rather than on intentionality. This tension between mind and body is particularly acute for the theater, a medium specifically 2Toby Cole and Helen Krich Chinoy, Actors on Acting; the Theories, Techniques, and Practices of the Great Actors of All Times as Told in Their Own Words., New rev. ed. (Crown Publishers, 1970), 363. 2 dedicated to the representation of human interaction. For instance, on the stage an actor might try to produce the appearance of anger by banging his fist on a table, but the redness of the face associated with anger flouts intentionality, since its cause lies in automatic mechanisms in the body that are independent from the will. An ideal actor would be one who is capable of achieving the elusive goal of freely and intentionally depicting spontaneous corporeal expressions on