Thursday, 28 February 2013
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Character Profile: Jerzy Grotovski
Born: August 11th 1933
Died: January 14th 1999
Occupations: Theatre Director
Grotovski believed that lighting, sound and costuume etc. were pointless in theatre and strayed away from what theatre truly was. Which was to him a performance of actors. He was a pioneer for experimental Theatre, and pushed all his actors mentally and physcially.
He believed in building up the emotions in an actor so they may be close to their emotions as possible so they can re call it easily and summon them within an instance, he did this by making his actors run for hours. With this their bodies would weaken, meaning their anger levels we're much easier to reach. It also meant every emotion was much more accesible. Because of this an actor could easily give a strong piece of theatre that presented genuine actors with genuine emotions.
Grotowski felt more about devoloping the actor rather than the scene itself.
Sadly Mr. Grotowski died after years of fighting leukemia at the age of 65.
Theatre of Cruelty.
The idea of a theatre of cruelty was first introduced by Antonin Artaud to describe a form of theatre that he hoped would unleash unconscious responses in audiences and performers that were normally inaccessible. Artaud was opposed to theatrical productions based on venerated classical texts or established literary forms and thought they merely represented worlds that were irrelevant and highly artificial constructions. He wanted audiences to find in the theatre not an area for escape from the world, but the realisation of their worst nightmares and deepest fears. He therefore tried to provoke conditions that would force the release of primitive instincts he believed were hidden beneath the civilised social veneer masking all human behaviour. Describing the energy and impact of a radical new way of performing and responding in strong and often dark imagery, he envisioned a theatre that rejected rational interpretation. Instead, he welcomed the irrational impulses that could be stimulated by suffering and pain and argued that every facet of theatricality should be employed to increase a sense of danger, violence and disorientation in the audience. However, Artaud argued that his concept of cruelty was not sadistic. He wanted to stimulate what was honest and true and the cruelty he envisaged required a rigour and determination that was necessary if performers and audiences were to confront and experience the dark and terrifying responses that lay at the heart of each human being.
Albert Bemel provides a useful summary of Artaud's suggestions for creating a theatre of cruelty:
The kind of theatre Artaud envisaged would use the classics but only after subjecting them to a radical overhaul. Lighting, sound equipment and other technical means would no longer subserve the text; they would partially replace it. The noises, music and colours that generally accompany the lines would in places substitute for them. They would be fortified by a range of human noises- screams, grunts, moans, sighs, yelps- together with a repertoire of gestures, signs and other movements. These would extend the range of the actor's art and the receptivity of the spectator. To put it another way, they would enlarge the theatre's vocabulary…They would surrender themselves to a performance, live through it and feel it, rather than merely think about it. (6-7)
Artaud attempted to stage his new approach of theatre with his adaptation of Percy Bysshe Shelley's The Cenci. This first, and only production with ‘Theatre de la Cruaute' opened and folded in 1935 and it did not fully realise Artaud's visions or ambitions. But although he did not launch another production, the concept he had created continued to circulate. And, as Artaud's work and ideas began to receive further attention after his death in 1948, his visions began to inspire and intrigue a new generation of theatre critics and practitioners. In the 1950s, the concept of Theatre of Cruelty was used to describe some of the dark views of human existence evident in the plays of writers like Albert Camus and Jean Genet (their work was also described as Theatre of the Absurd). In the 1960s, a number of influential directors began to explore his recommendations and the celebrated Polish director Jerzy Grotowski began to employ many of his ideas with the actors he worked with at his Theatre Laboratory in Poland. The Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) also conducted experiments with Artaud's theatre of cruelty in a series of workshops directed by Peter Brook. These sessions stimulated much discussion and resulted in very confronting but stimulating productions such as their celebrated version of Weiss's Marat/Sade. While a number of Artaud's ideas have been freely interpreted and often misunderstood, quite a number of theatrical innovations were introduced due to his suggestions for a theatre of cruelty. Some of these include the development of the concept of audience participation, the emphasis on developing a new and viscerally engaging language for the theatre and the use of a stage's three dimensions.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/staffhome/siryan/ac ademy/theatres/theatre%20of%20cruelty.htm
Wednesday, 20 February 2013
Artaud from my view.
Artaud believed in embracing the natural instincts of one's self. To drive our every movement off of simply the impulses we feel in our body. He believed that one should not censor what we truly feel and for that reason we can be as genuine as possible. Furthermore with this we are able to create characters that are realistic and relatable.
I feel he was able to help actors revert back to their original routes of what it is to be a human being, and for this reason created many different theories on how one should portray themselves.
In the society we live in today we are somewhat herded into thinking certain ways about subjects or shown that it is a taboo and should therefore not be touched on. However Artaud believed that although this was supposed to be blocked off from our minds, somewhere. Deep down in our thoughts we thought about these touchy subjects. Such as rape, incest, murder etc.
This was something quite controversial, and still is to this very day is. I feel that this was a reflection of showing how dark we are as people. As where there is light, there must be shadow.
Discuss the differences in devising practices between Frantic
assembly and Grotowski's work.
There are a numerous amount of differences between Frantic assembly and Grotowski's devising practices. However both are based around using the concept of 'Experimental Theatre'. Frantic assembly based there works around a more contemporary field where as Grotowski developed the idea of 'Poor Theatre'.
Frantic assembly are a Physical Theatre Company that produce effective and engaging pieces of Theatre through creating meaning to every moment in a scene, to accompany this they will use all elements of arts and technology possible to accomplish this. Such as using lighting to bewilder an audience, or sound to assist a scenes familiarity with the audience members. They will also use Physical Theatre and text that can be used to experiment with the audiences reactions. They are not as Physical as the other well known Physical Theatre Company 'Complicitate' and prefer to waver along A line in between Physical Theatre and Verbal Theatre.
On the other hand Grotowski was a Director of Theatre that believed in the actor themselves, and not the spectacles surrounding it, for example lighting,sound, costume etc. He was the creator of 'Poor Theatre' which was an evolved form of this ideology he chose to hold on to. He was more concerned about the actor being the centre of attention and saw it as something necessary to create great Theatre. He was a very prestigious director and for that reason when directing a play his view on how a scene should be played out people tended not to question his decision, but rather abide by it.
"This is surely because we make work that reflects topics we are currently talking about, and are of interest to us. As we are inspired by the people and the world around us it is no surprise that the work is contemporary" - Frantic assembly Resource pack
From this quote we can see why Frantic assembly choose to stick towards Contemporary more than anything else. As without not being inspired by something the motive to do/create a piece of art can become dull, boring and seem unnecessary. Because of this broad stimulus they are able to work creatively with this and design a piece of Theatre they seem to be fit. For example, the idea for Stockholm came from one of the members witnessing an argument, and from this their masterpiece was born. This primary stimulus was very powerful to them because not only did it help develop there minds to think about Stockholm Syndrome. But because it was contemporary, it seems to be only a coincidence that a lot of there pieces are contemporary. One could say that it was whatever caught their eye or attention that they chose to work on, so Frantic Assembly can be seen as a Physical Theatre Company that work in the moment and tend to neglect the past unless in need of references towards the play. For example their play 'Stockholm' links to the event of the Stockholm hostage situation and later on Stockholm Syndrome. This event happened a few decades before the play 'Stockholm' was made. When devising something Frantic assembly build off of smaller things to create a much bigger spectacle than expected. They use all means necessary to achieve this, most times through incorporating physical theatre into their pieces and other theatrical devices, as like most Theatre Companies in this current time we're living in.
"Theatre in general became very elaborate and relied heavily on theatrical devices such as light, sound, costume and decor sets to add spectacle to the performance. The skills of the actors were overshadowed and became of less importance." - http://www.helium.com/items/1527718-what-is-poor-theatre
Grotowski saw theatrical devices as a nuisance and chose not to work with them for the sake of not stealing the limelight of the actor themselves. Poor theatre was very powerful as it gave a chance for the actor to emit their emotions on a somewhat blank canvas, to then show to the audience without having to be assisted by light, sound, costume etc. Unlike Stanislavsky whom he admired, Grotowski didn't use theatrical devices to deviate the audiences attention to make them realise the genuine meaning behind the scene that was happening. But rather didn't use anything to show the true potential of an actor and therefore make them the only thing on stage that could acquire any attention whatsoever. So because of this when he devised Theatre he knew that theatrical devices would not be of use, or would not be used to help the audience realise the significance of that scene. This meant that not only would the actors have to be pushing themselves to the limits, but the director, Grotowski himself would have to deal with keeping the energy up for let alone a singular scene. But the whole play itself. From this the actors could not afford to be 'half-assed' on stage and rely on sound, light etc. to carry them through the rest of the scene via audience attention. This was a grueling and very hard process, however when done well was powerful and held great importance.
Grotowski and Frantic assembly both have different methods of how to go about doing exercises. While Frantic assembly works on creating a story, Grotowski works on building an actors skill and character development.
Frantic assembly have an exercise called 'Chair Duets'. In this, you sit with a partner, both next to each other. With this you then begin a type of contact improvisation, but you stay seated. During this period of time it is necessary to go with your instincts to create a genuine response. This is so that it can be seen as interesting to others of how you go about doing something. With this exercise Frantic assembly are able to build off of seeing someone experiment with this exercise, and create a story-line through adapting a particular move with a set of emotions or daily task. Perhaps even a task that can be seen as not common for an average person. Nonetheless they can create something that has meaning through building off of one movement and therefore linking it to creating a scene.
On the other hand Grotowski has an exercise method that focuses on the actor themselves. For example one of his exercise was an actual form of physical exercise. He made his cast run for hours through the forest, sometimes naked. This was used to embrace everything around them to build themselves as a human. Not only that, but to also keep themselves in touch with there emotional side and let there emotions surface. As when you are tired you are much more in tune with them. So when doing a scene you are able to call upon those emotions with ease and therefore create a much more genuine character through the emotions they are portraying. As those emotions are true to the actor. As they are able to summon these feelings they are able to engage the audience as truth can excite an audience member. This can help an actors skill ascend as this process of linking to ones emotional side is a much quicker process and carries a lot of benefits on developing a character. If that character carries one evident emotion at one point/all points in that play.
Frantic assembly find there own stimulus and develop on it with the help of the writer, it is not an individual process. As both are required to work together to complete and efficient piece/script. Where as with Grotowski, he was given a script and only had the power to develop on the characters and the actors portrayal of that character. For that reason Grotowski's character work was much more in-depth than Frantic assembly's.
"This is surely because we make work that reflects topics we are currently talking about, and are of interest to us. As we are inspired by the people and the world around us it is no surprise that the work is contemporary" - Frantic assembly Resource pack
From this quote we can see why Frantic assembly choose to stick towards Contemporary more than anything else. As without not being inspired by something the motive to do/create a piece of art can become dull, boring and seem unnecessary. Because of this broad stimulus they are able to work creatively with this and design a piece of Theatre they seem to be fit. For example, the idea for Stockholm came from one of the members witnessing an argument, and from this their masterpiece was born. This primary stimulus was very powerful to them because not only did it help develop there minds to think about Stockholm Syndrome. But because it was contemporary, it seems to be only a coincidence that a lot of there pieces are contemporary. One could say that it was whatever caught their eye or attention that they chose to work on, so Frantic Assembly can be seen as a Physical Theatre Company that work in the moment and tend to neglect the past unless in need of references towards the play. For example their play 'Stockholm' links to the event of the Stockholm hostage situation and later on Stockholm Syndrome. This event happened a few decades before the play 'Stockholm' was made. When devising something Frantic assembly build off of smaller things to create a much bigger spectacle than expected. They use all means necessary to achieve this, most times through incorporating physical theatre into their pieces and other theatrical devices, as like most Theatre Companies in this current time we're living in.
"Theatre in general became very elaborate and relied heavily on theatrical devices such as light, sound, costume and decor sets to add spectacle to the performance. The skills of the actors were overshadowed and became of less importance." - http://www.helium.com/items/1527718-what-is-poor-theatre
Grotowski saw theatrical devices as a nuisance and chose not to work with them for the sake of not stealing the limelight of the actor themselves. Poor theatre was very powerful as it gave a chance for the actor to emit their emotions on a somewhat blank canvas, to then show to the audience without having to be assisted by light, sound, costume etc. Unlike Stanislavsky whom he admired, Grotowski didn't use theatrical devices to deviate the audiences attention to make them realise the genuine meaning behind the scene that was happening. But rather didn't use anything to show the true potential of an actor and therefore make them the only thing on stage that could acquire any attention whatsoever. So because of this when he devised Theatre he knew that theatrical devices would not be of use, or would not be used to help the audience realise the significance of that scene. This meant that not only would the actors have to be pushing themselves to the limits, but the director, Grotowski himself would have to deal with keeping the energy up for let alone a singular scene. But the whole play itself. From this the actors could not afford to be 'half-assed' on stage and rely on sound, light etc. to carry them through the rest of the scene via audience attention. This was a grueling and very hard process, however when done well was powerful and held great importance.
Grotowski and Frantic assembly both have different methods of how to go about doing exercises. While Frantic assembly works on creating a story, Grotowski works on building an actors skill and character development.
Frantic assembly have an exercise called 'Chair Duets'. In this, you sit with a partner, both next to each other. With this you then begin a type of contact improvisation, but you stay seated. During this period of time it is necessary to go with your instincts to create a genuine response. This is so that it can be seen as interesting to others of how you go about doing something. With this exercise Frantic assembly are able to build off of seeing someone experiment with this exercise, and create a story-line through adapting a particular move with a set of emotions or daily task. Perhaps even a task that can be seen as not common for an average person. Nonetheless they can create something that has meaning through building off of one movement and therefore linking it to creating a scene.
On the other hand Grotowski has an exercise method that focuses on the actor themselves. For example one of his exercise was an actual form of physical exercise. He made his cast run for hours through the forest, sometimes naked. This was used to embrace everything around them to build themselves as a human. Not only that, but to also keep themselves in touch with there emotional side and let there emotions surface. As when you are tired you are much more in tune with them. So when doing a scene you are able to call upon those emotions with ease and therefore create a much more genuine character through the emotions they are portraying. As those emotions are true to the actor. As they are able to summon these feelings they are able to engage the audience as truth can excite an audience member. This can help an actors skill ascend as this process of linking to ones emotional side is a much quicker process and carries a lot of benefits on developing a character. If that character carries one evident emotion at one point/all points in that play.
Frantic assembly find there own stimulus and develop on it with the help of the writer, it is not an individual process. As both are required to work together to complete and efficient piece/script. Where as with Grotowski, he was given a script and only had the power to develop on the characters and the actors portrayal of that character. For that reason Grotowski's character work was much more in-depth than Frantic assembly's.
Character Profile: Antonin Artaud
Born: September 4th 1896
Died: March 4th 1948
Occupations: Playwright, poet, actor and Theatre director.
Artaud believed in rather than developing on the thought process, to take a step back and go to the instincts we consistently cover up. Through this, one could truly unveil a more dark and gritty side to a character, and ensure that their portrayal of something could be controversial, taboo and unthinkable. Different to Grotowski, Artaud saw light, sound and other devices as very effective as he wished to affect and disturb the audience as much as possible through using a mixture of these.
His creation of Theatre of cruelty was not meant to promote sadistic ideology, but shatter a false reality created through Theatre at that time. With this the actors and audience members would have no choice but to respond with unconscious thoughts that had been shackled through social reasons. From this it would revolve around a dark tone of Theatre. As he believed that in all of us, somewhere deep down, there was a dark part of us that thought of rape, murder, incest etc. With this he felt Theatre was more realistic and carried more power as it was familiar to the darkest form of our self.
" In January 1948, Artaud was diagnosed with colorectal cancer. He died shortly afterwards on 4 March 1948, alone in the psychiatric clinic. It was suspected that he died from a lethal dose of the drug chloral hydrate, although it is unknown whether he was aware of its lethality. " - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Artaud
His creation of Theatre of cruelty was not meant to promote sadistic ideology, but shatter a false reality created through Theatre at that time. With this the actors and audience members would have no choice but to respond with unconscious thoughts that had been shackled through social reasons. From this it would revolve around a dark tone of Theatre. As he believed that in all of us, somewhere deep down, there was a dark part of us that thought of rape, murder, incest etc. With this he felt Theatre was more realistic and carried more power as it was familiar to the darkest form of our self.
" In January 1948, Artaud was diagnosed with colorectal cancer. He died shortly afterwards on 4 March 1948, alone in the psychiatric clinic. It was suspected that he died from a lethal dose of the drug chloral hydrate, although it is unknown whether he was aware of its lethality. " - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Artaud
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)