SPECIAL SECTION APPROACHES TO THEATRE TRAINING 2005

THEMICHAELCHEKHOV

TWISTAnton'sBRILLIANT nepheW TRIED TO

capture ACTING s transcendentDIMENSIONS

by CHARLES MAROWITZ

THE FIRST 30 YEARS OF THE 20TH CENTURYproduced a creative explosion whose reverberations are stillbeing felt today. Konstantin Stanislavsky, Vsevolod Meyerhold,Yevgeny Vakhtangov, Michael Chekhov in Russia; Max Reinhardt,Erwin Piscator and Bertolt Brecht in Germany; Jacques Copeau,Jean-Louis Barrault and Antonin Artaud in France collectively demol-ished the 19th-century aesthetic and, in their wake, created themodernity' thar is the hallmark ot today's theatre.

Most of these men have already been turned into modem icons.There is no shortage ot biographies on the pioneers of theMoscow Art Theatre, and the achievements of Copeau, Barrault,Reinhardt, Brecht and Artaud are chronicled and archived for pos-terity. Only one of these artists remains murky and ill-defined. Heis Michael Chekhov (1891-1955), nephew of Anton; the manStanislavsky put in charge of the Moscow Art Theatre's First Stu-dio and described as "the most brilliant actor in all Russia"; anactor and director who challenged many of his mentor's treasuredprinciples; and the only acting-theorist who developed a viableand thoroughly fleshed-out alternative to the Stanislavsky systemand the Method that is its offshoot.

My desire to try to write the first English-language biographyof Michael Chekhov came about slowly. Tt wasii't until I was grantedaccess to the Chekhov archives in Dartington Hall in Devon thatI felt I had enough biographical ammunition to contemplatethe task, it took me imaginatively (if not literally) to Moscow, St.Petersburg, Berlin, Paris, Riga, Vilnius, Ridgefield, N.Y., and Hol-lywood, and, in the process, provided a map that led me into thelabyrinthine mind of one of our greatest actor-theorists. The fol-lowing excerpts are part of my attempt to define precisely whereMichael Chekhov's place is in the theatrical pantheon. There isno question in my mind that he belongs there.

J A N U A R Y 2 0 U 5

IN TRYING TO BE SCRUPULOUSLY OBJECTIVEabout Michael Chekhov and his achievements, I have to begin byacknowledging his debts both to Stanislavsky and Vakhtangov.

From Stanislavsky he appropriatedthe notions of "actions" and "objec-tive," "concentration" and "atmo-sphere"; he decidedly gave them hisown twist, but the categories were ini-tially carved out by his mentor. As forhis "sense of the whole," that is as

much Aristotle as it is Chekhov. His strictures on what one mightcall "bipolar characterization" (the assimilation of contradic-tory traits) are an extension of the Stanislavsky dictum toavoid one-dimensionalism, urging the actor to find complementaryaspects of the role. Of course, that insight is not exclusive toStanislavsky either; examples of it can be found in character-izations drawn from some of the greatest works of the Eliza-bethan and Jacobean canon. It is simply an acknowledgementof the fact that people are complex rather than single-celled. Mor-ris Camovsky, the accomplished Group Theatre actor, was a greatadmirer of Chekhov, but was also aware of his debt to his mostinfluential teacher. "Where Stanislavsky spoke of 'relaxationof muscles,'" Carnovsky has written, "Chekhov did not hesi-tate to call it 'feeling of ease.' Where Stanislavsky broke off hisbrilliant observations on 'action' and 'objective,' Chekhovcombined them with 'character' in his marvelous intuition ofthe 'psychological gesture.'"

From Vakhtangov, Chekhov inherited a sense of external the-atricality, the conscious use of stage imagery to insinuate mean-ing and convey dramatic insights. Vakhtangov added innumerablecolors to the actor's palette and went further in demolishing thefourth wall than any Russian innovator, save Meyerhold.Chekhov's improvisational flair was influenced by the exampleof his earliest collaborator; the inventions, of course, wereentirely his own.

Deirdre Hurst du Prey's book Michael Chekhov: Lessons forTeachers of His Acting Technique, a transcription taken inshorthand of Chekhov's lectures from Dartington Hall in 1936,is sprinkled with quotations such as: "You radiate very vividlyin life. Try to find out how to capture that power for yourart...always be conscious of radiating," and "Keep thinking con-stantly, 'I am a creative person.' I am radiating and doingeverything in a creative way." "Radiation" is passionatelyexhorted and rigorously advocated, but the means by which thismagical force can be engendered are never articulated. Itremains an intriguing abstraction.

An actor who is powerfully playing his "action," expressinghis "want" and pursuing his "objective" is going to be radiat-ing energy more effectively than one who is uncertain of his

From the book The Other Chekhov: A Biography of MichaelChekhov by Charles Marowitz. Copyright © 2004. Reprintedby arrangement with Applause Theatre & Cinema Books.All rights reserved.

A M E R I C A N T H E A T R E 4 8

SPECIAL SECTION APPROACHES TO THEATRE TRAINING 2005

"action," unclear about his "want" and half-heartedly pursu-ing his "objective." To the extent that an actor is radiating theseenergies, he will be more defined, more compelling, morewatchable than one who isn't. But that quality is the result ofnothing more than concentrated intent, technically fueled andimaginatively embellished. In that sense, every successful per-formance radiates from the stage to the audience. But to designateradiation as a quality distinct from the actor who is conveyingit as an integral part of his performance is like saying every actorusing his larynx and vocal cords is vocalizing. Of course he is.That's what acting is all about.

The best of Chekhov's techniquestands in relation to acting theory

as space probes do to knowledgeof the known universe."

Certain actors, because of the force of their personalities, becausethey innately possess "presence," cannot help but radiate a kindof personal magnetism, because it is rooted in their metabolism.Others not so endowed always appear to be playing in poor lightsimply because, as personalities, they are less defined. To be fer-vently induced to radiate when you lack this personal magnetismis like being urged to be beautiful when you are incontrovert-ibly plain. We have all had the experience of being mesmerizedby a gifted performer with a dazzling personality (i.e., starquality) and left cold by a mediocre player who does not stir ourinterest or command our attention. Here, Chekhov's theory seemsto be relying more on exhortation than elucidation.

Although "The Higher I" is an idea from Rudolf Steiner incor-porated into the Chekhov technique, it is sufficiently removedfrom its source to qualify as an original concept. It points theactor away from the mundaneness of his own personal makeuptoward a more elevated plateau where unexpected characteristicscan be explored and appropriated. It is responsible for thosestartling transformations that are sometimes found in the workof actors such as John Barrymore, Paul Muni, Laurence Olivier,Orson Welles, Michael Gambon and Anthony Hopkins, wherewe feel possession has taken place and another being has takenresidence in the psyche of the actors. The recorded perfor-mances of Chekhov himself are the personifications of thisidea; had these examples not existed, it might have remained anabstract concept.

In the classes conducted both at Dardngton and in Hollywood,Chekhov constantly warns the actor against being seducedonly by the mind. This disparagement of the intellect is usuallycoupled with a strong advocacy of feeling. This begs the ques-tion: Can a theory of acting, which is essentially an intellectualconstruct, be embodied in anything but suggestive, theoreticallanguage directed to the intellect? Can an injunction made to tbeconsciousness to feel be acted upon by any process other thanratiocination, and is there any route to sensibility that does notinvolve mental process? This does not deny the fact that someof the most effective acting comes from some area beyondhuman cognition.

When we are swept up by an actor's performance andattempt to describe it, we use words such as "extraordinary,""fabulous," "divine," "fantastic" and "out of this world," andnone of these are empty hyperbole. When we are transportedby great acting we are in the presence of something otherworldly,something that our language cannot easily define except by ref-erence to preternatural causes. Chekhov's theories are theonly ones 1 know of that have actively gone in search of thattranscendent quality; that have identified it and attempted tofind a practical means of achieving it. The best of his techniquestands in relation to acting theory as space probes do to

knowledge of the known universe. By goingdeeper they take us further, and by taking usfurther, they add an extra dimension to anart that, from the very beginning, has probeJthe profoundest secrets of human experience.For this alone, there is a certain reverence dueto Chekhov that cannot be paid toStanislavsky, Meyerhold, Vakhtangov orany other of the treasured pioneers whoexperimented in earIy-20th-century Russia.

Chekhov's most significant contributions are in definingthe psychological gesture and directing the aaors' energy to forcesbeyond the ostensible truth. Tlie psychological gesture is in manyways the most ambiguous of his insights, and the words them-selves are rather misleading. It is not so much a psychologicallycrafted physical gesture per se, although it may take that form;it is more like a seedbed from which all physical characteriza-tion stems. Unlike the spine, which is an extension of Stanislavsky'sidea of a "super objective," the psychological gesture is like thequintessential genetic code that determines tbe differencebetween one person and another. By discovering a character'smost fundamental drives, it shapes the physical life of thatcharacter in ways that become consistent with that discovery.

Chekhov has written:

The psychological gesture is your own secret. It is the basis on

which you stand, but how you act is quite a different thing. If

you act without the psychological gesture, it may seem rhat

your acting is pieced together. If you have the psychological

gesture, you can act freely without paying attention to whether

it is shown outwardly or not. In almost all cases, the psycho-

logical gesture must not bo shown outwardly, because then it

has more chartn, more power.

But once that link between the character's psychology and hisbody has been made, it automatically conditions all aspects of thecharacter's behavior: stance, posture, moral attitude, socialdemeanor, as well as physical gestures.

Like Henri Bergson's elan vital, George Bernard Shaw's "lifeforce" or Wilhelni Reich's "Orgone energy," the psychologicalgesture is an all-encompassing concept in no way restricted tohuman functionality. It can just as readily be found in nature andthe inanimate world. (A tree, a cloud, a building, a neighborhoodare all perpetually making their psychological gestures in space.)From the actor's standpoint, it is imaginatively derived from var-ious aspects of the play in question, and as with many ofChekhov's theories, appears intellectually elusive until expenenced—

continued on page 122

4 4 A M E R I C A N T H E A I R E .1 A N LI A R Y 2 0 0

The Michael Chekhov Jms\ continued from page 44

at which time it becomes crystal clear.Chekhov's work, both as actur and

theorist, opened up the minefield thatlay beneath subtext. He was boldenough to assert what the ancientshad earlier professed; namely thatgreat acting was allied to extra mun-dane causes that, though difficult todefine, were unquestionably present inthe work of great performing artists.In doing that, he widened the horizonof acting theory, and today we are allscanning the heavens to locate some ofthe extraterrestrial bodies he intuited.He encouraged the actor to practiceyoga and meditation, and to look Intoclairvoyance and the supernatural andall locked chambers of the imagination.He reaffirmed the supremacy of thespirit over matter, and, like Artaud,added a philosophical dimension to anaesthetic that tended to be fixated onthe reconstruction of plausible behav-

ior. Chekhov, and Chekhov's ideas,will be sending out signals into thefuture for centuries to come. Becausethere was a Chekhov, we will neveragain be satisfied with a simulacrum ofhuman nature. We will always be striv-ing for a glimpse of that othernessthat we look for in religion, postu-late in metaphysics and encounter indreams.

BY THE EARLY'50S, WHENhe was coaching actors ni Hollywoodand fluttering through, on the whole,unremarkable films, Chekhov had beenseparated from his homeland for agood quarter of a century. We knowfrom the fate of artists such as Stravin-sky, Solzhenitsen and Nabokov that thetug of Mother Russia is a great one.Americans like Henry James, ErnestHemingway and Henry Miller couldbecome expatriates and still retain

NaCLCatskill Performer Training RetreatJune 2005Expand your craft at NaCL's scenic Catskill Mountain work center,2 hours from New York City. Learn rigorous exercises designed tomaximize physical presence, vocal ability, and creative potential.For actors, creator/performers, directors.

(845) 557-0694

EXPERIENCE A TOTAL TRAINING

www.nacl.org 1nacl@nacl.org

their native culture, but the umbilicalcord with Russia is not so easily severed.

Looking back, Chekhov could visu-alize the fond fraternity of the Maly Tlie-atre, the inspiring days at the MoscowArt and the stimulating collaborationwith Sulerzhitsky and Vakhtangov. Hecould vividly recall playing Khiestakov,Eric XrV and Hamlet to wildly enthu-siastic houses, and he still Iiad an inti-mate association with the genius ofwriters such as Gogol, Strindberg,Shakespeare and Anton Chekhov—allstewing in a culture where almost everyproject represented some bold exper-imental gamble or innovative leap.Surveying his life at 50, he would havehad to recall a tangential episode in Ger-many, an abortive experience in France,a frustrating detour to Latvia andLithuania, and a checkered career as ateacher, theorist, actor and coach in aland where he was ineradicably anemigre. The deeply rooted lack of seri-ousness in his adopted land wouldhave had to enforce a heavy depressionas he rehearsed often ungifted actors inproductions like Gogol's The InspectorGcncrat (in which he had gloried underStanislavsky's direction), or expostulatedidealized theories tostarstuck studentswho had no sense of ensemble andscant knowledge of the rich traditionof European classics on which Chekhovhad been bred.

The City of Angels, where actorsdesperately sought to be included Inmediocre projects tbat dashed theirsprits and offended their intellects evenas they spurred on their ambitions, wasas alien to Chekhov's Russia as theNevsky Prospect was to HollywoodBoulevard. Many of his studentsacknowledge that, genial as he alwayswas, Chekhov could not shake off thefrustration that had become a stapleof his life in America. Tiie ebullience, thefastidious approach, the scrupulousdelineation of character that sporadicallyilluminate his film appearances are likesparks from an engine that cannot quitemanage to ignite. It is the classic case ofthe fish out of water, except tbat this fishis a beached great white whale.

1 2 2 A M E R I C A N T H t: A T R E J A N U A R Y 2 0 0

Chekhov's power in America wasalways immanent rather than mani-fest. What he represented was moreimpressive than what he was allowedto deliver. The theories and the tech-nique, except when related to his ownpast performances, remain abstract;an augury rather than hard evidence ofa proven system. Even to the mostgifted of his students, what their men-tor was proselytizing seemed vagueand elusive—something that might bepossible to achieve in a different milieuand under very different circumstancesthan those that existed in Hollywood.Perhaps that was their reason for beingin those classes in the first place—toescape the contines of a certain tanta-lizing drudgery by becoming a differ-ent kind of actor and, ipso facto, moreliberated human beings.

There is no shortage of performerswho exemplify the Stanislavsky systemor its Strasbergian counterpart. Start-ing with the pioneers of Tlie Group The-atre, actors such as Garfield, Cobb,Carnovsky, Meisner, Lewis, Stella andLuther Adler, etc., extending outwardto film stars such as Brando, Dean,Newman, Tandy, Clift, Stanley, Wallach,etc. But one would be hard-pressed toassemble a comparable list of Chekho-vian artists; that is, actors and actresseswho not only adhere to the principlesof Chekhov's approach but clearlyexemplify them in an aggregate of per-formances in either medium. This ismainly because Chekhov's ideas existto underpin members of an ensem-ble—an acting style in which individ-ual qualities, like so many hues on apalette, contribute to the overall textureof the entire canvas. Does that mean thatChekhovian technique cannot strengthenand enhance the skills of individualperformers? Obviously not. We knowfrom the work of actors such as JackNicholson, Clint Eastwood, AnthonyHopkins and Patricia Neal that theChekhovian approach can produceexemplary results in performers who pri-vately apply its precepts to particularroles in specific projects. But Chekhovhimself, first at the Maly, then the

Eirst Studio, and then the SecondMoscow Art, honed his talent withina collective framework, and the purposeof realizing, sharpening and extendinghis talent was to enrich the group ofwhich he was an integral part.

There are some acting techniquesthat, like rules of grammar and syntax,enable artists to perfect their personalpowers of expression in whatever workthey undertake. Stanislavsky was amasterful actor who had the abilityto research his own experience in orderto codify a system of acting that couldthen be generally applicable. But he, to(̂ ),was doing so within the context ofensemble work. The assumption inthe cases of both Chekhov andStanislavsky was that the actor wassimultaneously donor and recipient ofthe training for the greater glory ofthe collective. If this was the basis onwhich Chekhovian technique first took

shape, it raises an alarming question:Can it ever be fully realized by dis-parate actors wandering through playsand films where no shared aestheticunites all the participants? I believethis was one of the doubts that gnawedaway at Chekhov when coaching hisdiverse collection of Hollywood students.Could individual artists, no matterhow skilled they became in ChekhovianTechnique, ever truly realize those pre-cepts in television sitcoms, unhomog-enized movies or loosely assembled,one-off stage productions containing avariety of artists of very different act-ing backgrounds? And, i( not, what wasa technique but a kind of aestheticoddit}' that served as a beacon to shipsbeyond the sight of its signal? AT

Charles Marowitz is a director, criticand playwright.

DEPARTMENT OF

THEATRE AND DANCEOffering BFA and BA degreeprograms in:

• Dance• Design• Performance

"...with a focus on undergradu-ate training, the University ofWyoming paves the way to aprofessional career in theatre,"

STAGK

Great things arc happening arLiAX T̂hcaiTc and Dance! VXtinvite you to learn more aboutour award-winning programs,accomplished faculty, and state-of-the-art facilities.

Tel;307»766«2198Fas:307»766«2197www.iiwyo.edu/th&d/

Reaching New Heights

II A H Y 2 U A M H K I L A N T H !• A I ft 1 3 3