An Examination of Prominent Theatre Practitioners of the Twentieth Century
Ever since playwriting emerged as a subject distinct from the conducting and composition of spiritual ceremonials, and arguably even before that, there has been disagreement refering what makes the best theater. This difference of sentiments has ranged signifier the simply aesthetic to the political and even the religious, and can frequently best be seen as the consequence of different personal and cultural experiences every bit good as a witting difference in the agencies and intents for making theater for the first topographic point. An scrutiny of four different theater practicians and their methods and ends in the creative activity of theatrical merchandises makes it clear that a broad fluctuation of thoughts on the topic emerged and flourished during the 20th century, with continuing branchings for the current century.
Constantin Stanislavski can in many ways be thought of as the male parent of modern moving technique. His moving system, which was to the full developed ( though continuously evolved, even when out of his custodies ) in 1906, included some of the rudimentss of what is thought of as moving today—emotional replacing of the character ‘s feelings with one ‘s ain, and the emotional memory and callback to entree these emotions on a regular basis were extremely of import and new reachings ( Benedetti 2004 ) . The thought that passion and emotion for the histrion came from within might look straightforward now, but was radical at the clip Stanislavski suggested it.
Lee Strassberg met with Stanislavski several times, and put his thoughts to work in America where the developed into what is by and large known as the “ Method. ” Though based on Stanislavski ‘s work, Strassberg ‘s Method shortly took on its ain alone accents, including a much stronger accent on the internal wellhead of emotional handiness and entree that each person histrion has ( Strassberg 1988 ) . It was above all of import for the histrion to mostly see emotionally what the character being portrayed was sing, every clip the portion was done ; dry run was a clip to happen the entree and picks needed, and each public presentation would see the histrion live overing the experience anew ( Strassberg 1988 ) . This is a much more utmost version of some of Stanislavski ‘s recommendations.
A really different system of making theater and moving came approximately in Poland a decennary after the stopping point of World War II, under the counsel of Jerzy Grotowski. Grotowski saw theatre as an inherently political act, non simply a signifier of artistic look, and his “ hapless theater ” emphasized the pure animalism of the histrions and their relation to the audience more than any personal experience for the histrion or even the portraiture of specifically selected “ realistic ” emotions ( Grotowski 2002 ) . Coming from an wholly different historical and cultural position and holding wholly different purposes, it is small admiration that Grotowski ‘s theater became so natural while the Method worked on refinement technique.
Possibly one of the greatest theatrical pioneers of the latter part of the 20th century is the Nipponese manager Tadashi Suzuki. His theory of theatrical creative activity and of moving can be seen as something of an amalgam of the rules behind the Method and System every bit good those of Grotowski ‘s hapless theater. Suzuki emphasizes non the personal, but instead the communal experiences that can be incorporated into theater ; the really traditional Nipponese civilization besides lends his productions a extremely stylized and ritualistic presentation, with precise motions and forms that build a relationship between the histrions themselves and between the performing artists and the audience ( Suzuki 1986 ) . He draws on a similar emotional power to that which is sought by Stanislavski and Strassberg, but besides desires a control and even the purposeful artificiality that is more kindred to Grotowski ‘s ends. The consequence is something wholly advanced, alone and radical.
Theatre will doubtless go on to germinate as different theater practicians come to the field and do their ain accommodations and inventions. The four listed here are non the lone outstanding practicians of the 20th century, but are simply representative of some flights and urges that were taking topographic point in theater during the clip. Equally disparate as some of their thoughts and patterns might hold been, nevertheless, their indispensable end was the same: to rouse and animate an audience through the trade of theater.