Extended Essay in Theatre
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Extended Essay in Theatre Japanese Noh and the Stanislavski method meet Shakespeare How do Eastern and Western theatrical approaches, Japanese Noh and the Stanislavski method, make an audience see the same play differently? Word Count: 3623 Table of Contents I. Introduction……………………………………………………….…………1 II. Main Body A. Part 1. Similarities and differences in the Stanislavski method and Japanese Noh….....................................................................................4 B. Part 2. Effects of the Stanislavski method and Japanese Noh and the conveyance of its themes and ideas…………….........................….....8 III. Conclusion……………………………………………………...………......16 IV. Works Cited………………………………………………………...…........18 Introduction As Amy Cook saliently states in her essay titled, ‘Staging Nothing: ‘Hamlet’ and Cognitive Science’, “in Hamlet, few things are as powerful as nothing. ... The presence of nothing in the text calls attention to what nothing is supposed to stand for” (83). Indeed, the idea of nothing pertains to existential crisis and nihilism: the former is defined as a state of panic or feeling of intense psychological discomfort about questions of existence (Existential-Crisis) and the latter is defined as a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless (Nihilism). Shakespeare’s Hamlet explores the psychological processes which Hamlet experiences throughout the play alongside the concept of nothing. In referring to the presence of nothing as “powerful” in her essay, Cook identifies that the existence of nothing asks the audience to imagine and contemplate what their motive and point of life are. The audience is allowed to acknowledge the artistic intention through witnessing the development of Hamlet’s mental state. The tragedy of Hamlet displays Hamlet’s psychological state, which entails Hamlet’s languishment along with existential crisis and nihilism. According to Vernon Elso Johnson, he states, “Early in 1601, when Shakespeare was supposedly still working changes into Hamlet, a series of dramatic events took place that complicated his view of corruption and affected him deeply”. In that period, Robert Devereux, the Earl of Essex, was executed for treason – he tried to usurp the throne forcibly; in order to strike terror of God and the government to everyone’s heart, the government exhibited Devereux’s head at the Tower for a year. Furthermore, Shakespeare’s son, Hamnet, died in 1596. Around that time, Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, which examined “the dark recesses of the human soul” and showed “how corruption – “rottenness” – spreads through the realm of Denmark” (9-10). Perhaps Shakespeare’s plays’ mirroring of 1 British society is what enables it to be more flexible and played in different times and different regions. Shakespeare’s play, it seems, is inherently flexible to the imposition of contrasting theatrical styles from different cultural backgrounds, perhaps the most vivid dichotomy being between the Eastern theatrical approach Japanese Noh, and the dominant Western theatrical approach, the Stanislavski method. Although both styles effectively communicate the emotions of the characters on stage to the audiences, they are distinguished from apparent differences, namely that the Noh performance incorporates artificial elements, whilst realism is deep-rooted within the Stanislavski method. Indeed, the ghost of Hamlet’s father stimulates a sense of dramatic irony throughout the play; however, the Stanislavski method still enables the audience to believe that Bernardo, Horatio and Marcellus are actually seeing the ghost. It could be said that this focus of the Stanislavski method on the actor-audience connection creates a gulf between the stage and the audience, giving imagination a pivotal role. The Stanislavski method is reliant on the use of physical and realistic acting to build and evoke true sentiments from the audience, thereby maneuvering the audience’s imagination. “Physical action is the “bait” for an emotion” (Moore 92). As for Japanese Noh, Charles Inouye states, “As reflected in the sparseness of the Noh Stage, this “empty-mindedness” was consonant with the way of the warrior, whose path (at least until Tokugawa period) was disciplined by battle and death” (68). This historical influence in the Noh Stage spontaneously excites imagination in the audience, thus facilitating the audience’s understanding of the play. 2 This examination of the effects of different theatrical approaches on the audience is significant to both this author and the society. Different theatrical approaches have distinct characteristics that distinguish them from each other; this indicates that each theatrical method will have different effects on the audience when communicating their ideas to the spectators. Thus, how we, supposing that we are in the perspective of the audience, understand and accept a performance’s important artistic intention will be reliant upon types of theatrical approaches. This research will facilitate the understanding of the audience in the communication of different theatrical approaches, thereby allowing this research to become critical to our society. 3 Part 1: Similarities and differences in the Stanislavski method and Japanese Noh Before beginning a thorough examination into the fundamental links shared by the Stanislavski method and Japanese Noh, the origins of the two disparate conventions must be clarified. The Stanislavski method is a modern system of acting created by the Russian theatre practitioner, Konstantin Stanislavski. As a suitable acting style to the greater realism of the 20th- century, the Stanislavski system thus proposes the use of physical actions to allow the actors to reflect all states of emotions, thus becoming a replica of their character themselves (Stanislavsky System). However, Japanese Noh was employed much earlier in 14th century Japan. Originally derived from the Sino-Japanese language, Noh literally means “skill” or “talent” (Noh theatre). These meanings of Noh are pertinent to its dispositions, as Japanese Noh largely relies on heavy costumery, and is embedded with musical elements. The traditional Noh performance typically follows a five act structure with a Kyogen interlude and (Noh theatre), as Inouye identifies, the audience is led through “a process of questions and answers, a chain of clarifications that build to the eventual fullness of a highly lyrical [...] spiritual reconciliation” (66). Shakespeare’s Hamlet also consists of five acts: perhaps this similarity in the number of acts is one factor that allows Hamlet to be played in the Noh style and thus fit together. Furthermore, this ‘question and answer’ quality of the Noh is identified during a Kyogen interlude, as the first line of Hamlet begins with Bernardo’s very question, “Who’s there?”, to which Francisco replies “Bernardo?”. In creating a sense of chaos through these questions, Japanese Noh succeeds in providing a comic tone during the Kyogen interlude from the play’s beginning. Possibly, Kyogen, a light- 4 hearted interlude that juxtaposes with solemn Noh, is what separates it so distinctly from the Stanislavski method. The rudimentary similarity between the Stanislavski and the Noh is the shared prioritization in building, portraying and delivering the characters’ emotions. This is evident in the aspect of Stanislavski’s theory, as “when an actor experiences a role, [...] the actor’s own personality virtually disappears”. In this quote, Hobgood affirms that an “experience” bifurcates the actor’s own natural personality and the persona of their given character, eliciting the full, latent spectrum of emotions from the actor. (150) Thus, the Stanislavski Method is a method that allows the actors to present or become two or more distinct personalities. Similarly, Japanese Noh facilitates the portrayal of emotions by substituting any awareness of reality with aestheticism. “The splendor of the costumed actors create [...] an otherworldly atmosphere where the logic of the moment prevails,” states Inouye. (68) Through contrasting the artificial “splendor” with the “otherworldly” effect, Inouye highlights the vital aesthetic facet of Japanese Noh in terms of its ability to foster and articulate ambience. The influence of Noh on the arts in modern Japan is especially apparent in Akira Kurosawa’s (1910-1998) work Kumonosu-jō (“Castle of the Spider’s Web,” also known as Throne of Blood, 1957), which is based on Shakespeare’s ‘Macbeth’. Traditional elements of a Noh play, masks, robes and the conception of the stage space in relation to the audience, are used as vehicles to create dramatic effects by Kurosawa. For instance, the film begins with a chant: “Look upon the ruin Of the castle of delusion 5 Haunted only now Of those who perished A scene of carnage Born of consuming desire”. Through the use of a lexical set of diction pertaining to damage: “ruin”, “delusion”, “haunted”, “perished” and “carnage”, this short introductory chant provides an initial image of General Washizu’s longing for gaining power, and the tyrannical threats of his ambition (Savas 19-20). Through entailing a musical element, this provides both aural and visual images through which the film is played: the effect becomes more of a performance, and the emotion is amplified. Despite their shared abilities to convey emotion, both methods are rather rigid and controlled in their acting style: Japanese Noh for its strict five-act structure and spatial conception; the Stanislavski