IRENA
FILOZOFÓWNA
THE
PSYCHOLOGY OF THE ACTOR
Contents
of Article: Introductory Remarks, The Issue and Method of Work, Review and
Characteristics of the Collected Material: The Attitude of Actors to Research,
The Attitude of Actors to Acting and its Consequences, Experiences during Acting According to Actors, Tests
on Being Taken Over by the Role, The Technique of “Believing” in the
Fictional Stage World and the Conditions for Acting by Being Taken Over; The
Research Results: Types of the Actor’s Experiencing on Stage, Actor Types;
Conclusion; Notes.
INTRODUCTORY
REMARKS
There is an ongoing dispute between theatre theorists and actors themselves
about the aesthetical and ethical value of the feelings the actor experiences
during acting. From the aesthetical point of view, there is a question
concerning norms: whether in order to act well, the actor needs to “be taken
over by the role”, or “be experiencing it” as they say, or on the contrary,
he should “play coldly” and “stand above the role”. Usually, as a result
of this case, but also separately, from the ethical point of view, they examine
the question whether the actor lies while on stage.
As a result
of the above mentioned issues, they attached more attention to the actor’s
experiencing during acting. This has left a particular imprint on the research
on the actors’ experiences. The question of valuing was not omitted, and it
was unjustly used in determining the results of the psychological analysis. The
hitherto deliberations were not based on a sufficient amount of real evidence.
They did not take into account the opposing opinions of many actors (1).
Especially actors themselves made this mistake very often.
A theorising
actor is very often subjective. He takes his own experiences as a point of
departure and establishes upon them the postulates of good acting. He settles
the problem in favour of his own way of acting, usually disqualifying actors
that perform differently, even depriving them of the right to be called actors.
The correct solution to these issues that occupy the practical aesthetics of
theatre, seems to be brought above all, by an objective philosophical analysis
of what the actor is experiencing during acting, and next, establishing the
permanent coincidence between good acting and a particular kind of experiencing.
If it turned e.g. that the actor always and only then acts well when he “acts
coldly”, one could come to the conclusion that he need not “be taken over by
the role”, if he is to act well.
The
psychological issue of the actor’s playing is the main topic of this work. It
was not possible to find enough support for it in strictly psychological
research of this field (2). It was thus somehow necessary to start from the
beginning. It was essential to formulate the issue and choose the method of
analysis, collect and elaborate the material, infer a few general conclusions.
All this is presented in this paper.
THE
ISSUE AND METHOD OF WORK
The
Issue.
The
psychological issue of acting deals with the question concerning the kind of
experiencing the actor goes through during acting: is he “taken over by the
role” or does he “act coldly”. After a closer analysis, this issue breaks
down into a lot of other smaller questions, i.e. does an actor on the stage
forget who he is and where he actually is, and does he believe he really is the
character on the stage, that his partner is one as well, that the decorations
are e.g. a real forest or ship, that e.g. the soda water with lemon juice is
sparkling champagne, or lastly is he affected by the feelings that – it
would seem – he is showing.
These and
many other similar questions contribute to the matter in question. Some of them
refer to the intellectual domain of experiencing, others to the emotional one.
Some concern the actor’s attitude towards a stage character that he himself is
playing, and others concern his attitude towards the characters that his
partners are playing, including the decorations, props, etc. This issue also
comprises questions concerning the influence of other factors on the actor’s
experiencing during acting.
The
Method.
The experiences of actors while on stage, embraced in the psychological issue of
acting, are not accessible to experimental research due to technical problems. It
would rather be possible to reach the experiences they have during acting by
referring to published letters, all types of diaries and theoretical
deliberations of actors themselves about their art, as well as original
biographical works about actors. However, using this material, does not produce
much, because the usually scanty details about experiences during acting,
disappear among the diary-historical facts, and are further obscured by
entangling into them, theoretical generalizations of often uncertain value.
More direct
details can be derived from observations during spectacles and rehearsals. This
way, which is also technically difficult, long and not economical, does not lead
to a sufficient understanding of the actor’s experiencing on stage; insights
from the outside have to be supplemented by introspection. Instead of observing
the actor for a long time and be sentenced to insights of occurrences without
any selection, one could also ask the actor for comprehensive and exhausting
information, gathering it with a plan and aim. That is why, in this work, the
survey method was selected with a special consideration for one of its forms –
the interview.
However,
realising that limiting oneself to one method only, is not recommended for this
work, it is advisable to use a few methods to advance the research, and for it
to be a stronger guarantee for the rightness of the results. Apart from
gathering information by using the main method, it was also obtained in other
ways – by making observations during rehearsals and during the actual playing
on stage, from the auditorium and backstage, as well as making use of diaries,
various publications of the actors themselves, biographical sketches, theatrical reviews, etc.
The contents
of the questions forming the psychological issue of acting, with time expanded
into an extensive questionnaire (3). The first points of the questionnaire
concern the essence of the acting issue. The points further on consider if the
experiences during acting have a uniform course and character throughout the
spectacle. A large set of the points concerns the influence of different factors
on experiencing while acting. The points at the end, aim to get to know the
person who is being analysed closer, as well as his attitude towards theatre and
acting, and the influence of this attitude on acting.
Apart from
that, the introduction and some of the questionnaire’s points contain certain
information which is meant to bring the person being analysed into the right
mindset and prevent misunderstandings. Most of the points are made up of a few
questions concerning the same issue, in order to avoid automatic answers
“yes” or “no”, and to incline the respondent to concentrate, to
thoroughly fathom the contents of the questions, and to, as extensively as
possible, formulate well thought out answers.
All these
points are connected, some even overlap, which has the good side to it, that the
person analysed approaches the same issue from different angles, thinks about it
a few times, and can thanks to that give a more complete and reliable answer. A
multiple reapproaching of the same matter can verify if the person analysed, is
answering the questions with due consideration, carefully, truthfully, or
sloppily, in a slapdash way and with changing answers. To be even more certain
that no thought of the analysed person has been twisted when taken down, that he
has taken the responsibility on himself for the psychological document
concerning him, the notation of the conversations were returned to him to be
checked, corrected and supplemented
By means of
this questionnaire, answers from 30 Polish actors were obtained (4). Two of them
were made in written form, while the other 28 consist of spoken statements that
were written down.
REVIEW
AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COLLECTED MATERIAL
The basic material collected in this research, i.e. the actors’ statements,
does give an answer to the main issue taken up in this work, though, in
accordance with its character, not directly. In order to extract it, one has to
be conscious how actors approach the research, how they reply in their statements,
what they think about the art of acting, about their work in the theatre and
their experiencing on the stage, what would they desire to be like and who would they
like to be thought of, what would they prefer to leave out on the stage and
erase consciously or unconsciously. Then, it will be clear how to look at their
statements, what to consider as the unquestionable truth, and what as dubious,
unclear, uncertain, or even false.
The
Attitude of Actors to Research.
Even though all actors know from everyday life the experiences that are the
subject of this research, when they are to describe them, they seem to sort of
slip out of their fingers. These difficulties are above all expressed in the
actors’ statements. Thus, Solska, for example, says that her experiences while
acting on stage resemble magic, and Jaracz says that they are something
mysterious and hard to understand. The actors underline and emphasize these
difficult to grasp factors of their experiences, and they often treat them as
individual hallmarks.
The tendency
to conceal their experiences in an aura of mystery and individuality is a common
and typical trait. Almost all the respondents, before setting about to answer
the questionnaire, declared that they experience completely differently to all
other actors, and that their statements due to their uniqueness, can bring
confusion into the psychological research concerning acting, which strives,
after all, to some sort of systematization.
When
comparing these statements, one can notice certain analogies in the descriptions
of their experiencing during acting, even when the actors were not familiar with
each other and had not exchanged thoughts with one another. The later on quoted
fragments of their statements will reveal this. Of course, various odd facts do
occur (5), important rather for the individuals’ psychographics. There are
major individual differences in the experiencing of various actors, when taking
into account the mere contents, subject, length of time, amount and condition in
which the experiencing takes place. But differences as such are not found in the
experiencing on stage e.g. due to their psychological construction. In research
on acting, it is possible to come to certain general assertions that will
concern all actors, or at least some larger uniform group.
The
Attitude of Actors to
Acting
and its Consequences.
Almost all actors strongly emphasize a most highly emotional, as if religious
attitude towards acting, and they are even quite oversensitive about it. They
are afraid of the word “pretend” as if it was a plague, treating it as an
insult, but it is not entirely right to assess it negatively. They deny that
they pretend, and they assure that on stage they really become the characters of
the play, and that they believe in everything that happens on it. In their
opinion, only such acting is worth something. If the acting is deprived of the
moment of belief, due to this, it becomes something worse. “Those are sins –
says Romanówna. I would be ashamed not to be taken over [by the role]” – says
Eugenia Drabik. This
attitude of the actors is also signified by the ironic, dismissive, contemptuous
epithets, with which they describe the other actors who are not taken over by
the role: “he’s a craftsman” or “comedian”.
“An »artist« who just »pretends«,
»copies,
»imitates«,
»prattles
on«
– in music »plonks«,
in art »grotesques«
– is either a dilettante, a parrot, or a cynical person, or one who we call a »buffoon«”.
With these sharp words Juliusz Osterwa reviles the actors who are not taken over
by the role. Jaracz on the other hand, states his view in a solemn tone: “The
ideal would be for the actor to lose himself in this fiction and become a high
priest of art”.
Only a few
actors take the opposite stance. They are proud that they are not experiencing
their roles on stage. They consider it as something unworthy and even
unbelievable to let themselves be drawn into a lie like that. They accuse their
opponents of claptrap and assuming a pose of nobility. They see the real
hallmark of their profession in commanding artistic modes “coldly”. Among
the analysed actors, such an attitude was most clearly expressed by Tadeusz
Frenkel: “Theatre is just theatre, and it is not about actors believing or for the
audience to consider everything as true… These are just stories from »Poison
Ivy« (»Bluszczu«) that somebody acts without remembering it. This could just last for
seconds”. A typical, classical representative and exponent of this point of view
is Coquelin. His extreme stance, among artists, remains rather isolated.
Apart from
the two camps, that have been fighting for centuries and have been discrediting
themselves of adoration and artistry, there are more understanding individuals.
They look clear-mindedly at their own and others people’s experiences on stage,
absolving themselves and others from the “offence” of acting coldly or being
taken over by the role.
Very often,
due to their artistic ambitions and aspirations, actors say things about
themselves that they consider to be good in their opinion, or things that are
supposed to make them look good in other people’s eyes. That is why the
statements were influenced by the common phrase that the actor should be taken
over by his role, that he should play with belief, genuinely and truly. This
alleged ideal of acting has been suggested and has exhilarated them to such an
extent, that they themselves cannot really recognize how they are truly experiencing
during acting, and they are not at all intending to mislead anybody consciously.
Some actors think that regardless of all external and internal conditions, they are taken over by the role, because they consider it desirable and valuable. They find in themselves a great ease in themselves in overcoming resistances that inhibit the experiencing of the role, and even a complete indifference to such obstacles. They bypass similar barriers as if automatically. It is all the same for them – they say – in what kind of a drama they are playing, with what partners, in what decorations and props, or for what kind of audience. Wysocka says: “For me only the world on stage exists. I see everything as I want to. I do not care for the wig, or the attached mustache, just the eyes. I care nothing for my own worries. I do not care whether I am playing the role of someone happy or sad, that or another kind... For me, where there are three elbows of floor, there is already a stage. What does prop have to do with it? Prop is an aid for a bad actor... I’m talking about the creative actor who does not even need a costume and makeup... A creative actor can do without music, he does not need such pieces”. So usually, under the pressure of questions demanding concrete facts, they correct and change their statements. They do not, however, disavow what they have said about themselves before and what seems beautiful, noble and precious to them. That is where, amongst others, the numerous contradicitons in these statements come from.
Of course, it is difficult for an eminent actress to admit to her experiences, which in her opinion, only bad actors have. But actually, she does not only call a spade a spade, she also notices that “on the stage I am twofold, I believe in everything I say, I see and feel, and beyond that belief, there is in me the controller...”, i.e. she is not deeply absorbed by the role.
It is understandable that the actor’s intellectual and especially emotional attitude to art, theatre and playing, drives him to trigger in himself those experiences that seem more precious to him, and because of this he determines largely the experiences themselves and he shapes them accordingly; this also leads to introspective delusions, to too hasty generalizations, overlooking or ignoring facts that do not correspond to his wishes or views, and tingeing the statements. Therefore, one cannot take the statements quite literally, as they come from an actor, who ensures that he completely forgot that he was a character on stage, that he was acting and that around him, they were also acting. The actors’ statements are merely psychological material, which should be looked upon critically. Sometimes they are more favourable self-portraits than accurate photographs.
Experiences during Acting According to Actors. There is not one such person who would admit to playing coldly in all circumstances, i.e., who claimed that he never believes in what he says as a character on stage, that he always remembers he is on stage and acting, that he always pretends the feelings which he is allegedly manifesting, and that he does not believe that his partner is a character on stage. Among the respondents, there was no such person who in this spirit, consistently answered all the questions of the survey. For example, Mieczysław Frenkiel says: “...it’s out of the question for me to believe. I also present feelings with inner indifference. In general, while on stage, I don’t forget for a moment that I’m acting”.
Further on,
however, he makes some changes, analysing his experiences deeper: “I have to
be affected by the feelings that I express, I have to forget that I’m on stage.
But I keep my experiences in check. I honestly do everything on stage without
forgetting. And the best proof of how strongly I have my nerves strained during
the play, is that I come off the stage sweaty and wet”.
There is an
insignificant number of actors, who strongly and unreservedly claim to be taken
over by the role. There are two persons whose laconic statements do not cover
all the points of the questionnaire. One of them, Maria Dulęba, writes: “I
know how to be influenced by the role. The auditorium is the fourth wall for me.
The same suggestion makes me believe in the stage character of my partner... I
experience the feelings that I show”. Ordonówna says similarly: “I believe
unconditionally (in the stage world). When I assume a skin for myself, I become
a different human being. It cannot even go through my head on the stage that I am Hanna Ordonówna
or something similar. .. I believe that my partner is a stage character... I
honestly laugh and cry on the stage”.
The rest of
the people give a mixed response, often introducing a certain new factor. For
example, among others, Jaracz says: “The stream of mental life is never
uniform. Although I do forget that I’m playing, in the subconscious, there is
some sort of »eye«
On the same
subject, an eminent German actor, Kayssler, writes: “It seems to me that the
foundation of all the good and pure art of acting is forgetting about oneself;
despite this, in the brain of the actor who is totally immersed in his role,
there is a somewhat small watchful eye, a small, steel tensioned will on the
border between the conscious and the subconscious, the will in which the playing
actor has turned himself and who watches over every word and movement of the
actor absorbed in his role, as if over a lunatic, and he is the master of the
situation. Therefore, there is something which is not compatible, which is not
absorbed by the role, the remains of the watchful brain. This tiny
“something” must fulfil a hundred functions on the border of consciousness,
without at the same time, destroying in the slightest somnambulistic state of the
actor (6)”.
Many other
actors also use similar metaphors to describe their mental state during playing.
For example, Maria Gellówna says that “always during acting there is a double
mind in the actor”. “I can – she goes on further – correct, check,
observe myself and yet be taken over [by the role]”. Strachocki says again
that he needs to separate a certain reserve from his “self”, which stands as
a guardian of his consciousness, and that is why he cannot completely forget
about the stage.
Zofia
Modrzewska puts it again in these words: “Some portion of the consciousness
takes care that I don’t forget what I have to do on stage... It is out of the
question to forget completely... In the subconscious there has to be a guardian”.
Stanisława Wysocka states that, apart from belief on stage, there is in her a
“controller”. The coexistence of “belief” and the “controller” in a
single experience seems like a contradiction. This is caused by the excessive
squandering of the words “belief”, “I believe” and their derivatives in
the descriptions of experiences, which for the psychologist are not states of
conviction at all.
Actors
become impatient when it is pointed out and doubt is cast on the fact whether
they are right to speak in this way. Maria Brydzińska, in relation to some
reservations whether she believes in what she says as a stage character,
responded with this remark: “I use different concepts than you do, and in my
concept, I can say that I believe in what I say on stage”. We are concerned
precisely about this aptly pointed out difference in meaning. After all, in
these reviewed experiences, we are usually just dealing with something that
Tadeusz Frenkiel vividly expresses in the following comparison of actors’
experiences with religious experiences: “If someone only at the sight of the
pope in a ceremonial dress, says that he believes in God – this is not true.
This is just a shallow, moody pseudo-belief, the same mood in which the actor
believes in the stage world”.
Tests
on Being Taken Over by the Role.
Taking all the caution
and criticism, it is still visible however, that experiences during acting often
truly do reach deeper into the soul of the actor. Sometimes what happens, for
example, is that the actor, being absorbed in the role, does not hear the loud
applause, and that the role repeated several times without error is forgotten by
him, or, contrary to the agreement during rehearsals, he unconsciously plays
completely differently in the spectacle. This seems to prove that, indeed, the
actor sometimes forgets that he is playing on stage.
As an
example, let us take what Wiktor Biegański says, “In this play (7), I throw
myself in some scene at Węgrzyn, we wrestle, he snatches my walking stick,
breaks it and throws it in the corner. Several times, despite the most accurate
study of this scene during rehearsals, I did not give him the walking stick and
I did not realise this after coming off the stage, for which he was right to
have reproached me”. As you can see from this description, Biegański was
extremely taken over by reluctance to his partner in the role given to him, and
feeling his strength in the fight, he did not give up, because he forgot that he
was supposed to just act, and he reacted contrary to the intentions of the play,
which he was well aware of before. Did he really have to believe in this scene,
that he and his partner are stage characters? This is difficult to inquire.
Yet another
test of the role of experience, are statements concerning the traces of the
role. One the basis of these statements, it is possible to conclude objectively,
let us say even behaviouristically, whether one is playing by being taken over
by the role. Under the assumption of course that the statements are true, and
there is no reason to doubt them all. Brydzińska, for example, describes such a
fact: “I played once, I actually recited a poem about a boy who gives up his
life in defence of Lviv, and at the moment of his death, he summons his mother.
I was so taken over by the role that I got nervous hives”.
A frequent,
apparent manifestation of being taken over by the role is a shorter or longer in
change in mood, exceeding the time of the spectacle. Ćwiklińska gives an
example: “More than once have I caught myself that after a scene of irritation,
I was still angry behind the scenes and I even asked myself »why
are you actually irritated?«”.
Halska says again: “If I am taken over by the role deeply, then after
the play I am under its influence. Until the end of the spectacle and after it,
I am in the same mood. This is entangled in my life, it follows me. I cannot
recover from this. In “Fanaticism”, when going down the stairs from the
cemetery, I was still in this terrible mood. I do shake myself off it in the end,
e.g. if I go dancing. But even then and for some time the cheerfulness annoys me
after such a role”.
The
experiences during playing have a strong effect on Ludwik Solski’s mood:
“When I play a predatory, harsh, dramatic role, I’m like that at home. If I
play a cheerful role, then I’m happy at home. When I played Jowialski, I was nice at
home. “False Dmitriy I”, “Frederick the Great”, “The
Surprise” made me angry, vulgar, grim, brutal at home”.
Irena Solska confirmed this in an interview she gave. She was not only not acquainted
with what Solski said, but she did not know that he had given an interview:
“Marrying him (Ludwik Solski), I knew he was composed and calm. Once he began
to swear like a bargee. It turned out that he was to play the role of Gert in
“Hope” by Heijermanns and he had begun to rehearse it”.
Such facts
are not so uncommon. Emil Jannigs in an interview in the “Scherls Magazin”,
stated: “The whole time, until the spectacle I’m under the control of this
character! It is not me who controls it, but it controls me! This is what my
wife sings about in the song. If I’m to act an evil man in my next play, she
suffers all the time, until the spectacle takes place, due to the character’s
reactions. Then, in my private life, I am as unbearable as I am on stage, and
that’s why my wife is very happy whenever I play a good, noble man” (8).
As it can
been noticed, the effect of the role is not limited in time in triggering
emotional experiences, emerging and disappearing along with the role, but it
does not last permanently. Konrad Lange’s far-reaching thought does not seem
to be right “the actor who today plays one, and tomorrow another role loses in
the end, as experience tells us, all the strongly marked traits of his character”
(9).
The
Technique of “Believing” in the Fictional Stage World and the Conditions for
Acting by Being Taken Over.
The effects of the role convince one that acting can strongly shake the
actor’s psyche. The nature of these emotions, called “experiencing the
role” is highlighted when we look at the path which leads to them and the
conditions under which they may persist.
When an
actor approaches the role with the intention to be taken over by it, his attempt
leads him in the direction of “believing” in the fictional stage “reality”.
Learning the role at home and then at rehearsals, he tries to arouse those
feelings in himself, which should occur according to the play’s text. For this
purpose, he brings to his mind events tinged emotionally like the relevant moments
of the role or he fantasizes about the subject. He produces in himself such a
psychological constellation, which suggests to him the relevant expressive
movements, the right facial expressions and tone of voice.
When, for
example, Wanda Siemiaszkowa in “Mirli Efros” addresses her partner with the
words “my beloved son”, she imagines her own live son, and – as she states
– she sincerely says these words, believing what she is saying. There is a lot
of work in this “sincerity”, which the actors themselves acknowledge, for
example, Strachocki: “I commit a series of swindles to get out the sincerity
of my feeling for that person”.
The
technique of getting to believe in the fictional world on the stage is described
in greater detail by Juliusz Osterwa: “Such belief can be attained, as
Leonardo da Vinci created his Judas. He did not look for one model, but
collected different elements and created a synthesis. I need to get a number of
details out from my past or reach to the imagination, which constructs the
future as something real. Don Juan can be played by someone who has had many
women in his life, or none – through longing. I take something for the role
from life, the past or only possibilities of the future. And when this is what I
have in mind, when I play the role, I believe it. For example, an ugly actress,
that I don’t miss, plays my beloved. With the help of suggestions I manage to
believe that she really is her. I stare at a tiny detail of her character and I
need to see traits of the person that I truly love”.
From Maria
Dulęba we find out moreover: “Anything that the author states as well as what
he did not state, I must fill out in my imagination, I have to decompose it in
my imagination. I create a whole film for the text, of which only certain scenes
are carried out on stage”. Detailed principles of this “experiencing” role
creation was first developed by Constantin Stanislavsky, a prominent Russian
actor and director, co-founder and director of the famous Moscow Art Theatre
(10).
Once after a
series of rehearsals an actor goes on the stage before the audience, he tries to
narrow the field observations to those things and issues that take place in the
fictional world of the play or have a direct connection with it. This focus on
the subject of his work has a significant meaning when the actor is taken over
by the role. The mechanism for achieving the state of “believing” in the
fictional stage world consists of the fact that the actor detaches himself from
reality and thanks to that, in his partners surrounding him, in the decorations
and finally in himself, he “sees” other people and other items. It does
not bother him that he knows everything as something else, because he does not
almost think about it. He has reached this state through a series of ancient and
contemporary psychological and physical operations. “I try to isolate those
characters that I play from my private life” – says Ordonówna.
Helena Buczyńska
thoroughly examines this state: “On stage, I lose consciousness of where I am.
I can isolate myself from the outside world. I separate myself from external
things and I focus my mind on the world of art. I lose consciousness of time and
place when I want. I acquired this ability a very long time ago when in my
school years I was studying in the classroom, where thirty people were doing
their homework together. I learned to not hear anything. If I want, I can be
insensitive to what is happening around me. But on the stage one cannot achieve
the belief
that children have when playing games. It is rather like with an
adult, intelligent, clever man who hides his religious doubt in the corner.
While acting, I’m on the border between sleep and real life. I wake up and
fall asleep. I have the feeling that I’m walking over a precipice on a rope
and I tilt in one direction and another. I experience the greatest tragedies,
and I have next to it a feeling of unheard happiness and bliss”.
The
elimination of one’s own life from the start of the play occurs in some people
spontaneously. Others must strive for it, and they do not always manage to
forget that they are playing to be taken over by the role. Some transitional
arrangements affect it, like e.g. one’s own mood and attitude to the partner
in one’s private life, as well as
– previously gained experience, and finally, a number of external factors, of
which the most important are: 1. type and value of the stage work, 2. the
partners’ acting, 3. characterization of the partners, 4. art exhibition, i.e.
decorations, props, costumes, 5 number of previously played spectacles, 6.
mastery of the role, 7. audience, 8. music, 9. specially used substances, such
as drugs, perfumes, flowers.
All this can
encourage being taken over by the role, or prevent and weaken it. Thus, if the
actor wants to be taken over by the role, he tries to manage these factors in
such a way for them to not be obstacles, but can be helpful or at least neutral,
and his efforts, beginning with the elaboration of the role, lasts throughout
the performances given to the audience.
So first,
the actor takes care to technically master the role and thus gains a feeling
that he can perform it. If during his playing he knows that he must listen to the
prompter because he does not remember the text – he cannot take the liberty
to be taken over by the role. His attention is divided, it is directed to what
should be done at the time, and on how he should proceed and what to say later
on. In the centre of the consciousness, judgments appear which clearly state the
unreality of the stage world, and this excludes being taken over the role.
All actors
are of the conviction that this is usually the effect of not mastering the role,
but some find a way to avoid this, and for example, Józef Karbowski improvises
when he does not know the role. Janina Romanówna repeats the text of the
prompter in the way that often in life we pick up someone else’s words that
accurately reflect our own thoughts, not expressed before, due to the lack of
the appropriate words. Thanks to this, being taken over the role may not
disappear. A similar thing happens with regard to other factors. In order not to
impede or even prevent the actor from being taken over by the role, they must
somehow go along with him. A number of examples drawn from the actors’
statements will explain this.
Tadeusz
Frenkiel says that he prefers to play in contemporary plays, because then the
world on stage is closer to that of his private life. The actor then puts less
effort to gain “belief” and the “sincerity” of feelings. It is a
well-known fact that “Reduta” [translator’s note – a theatrical company
founded in 1919 by J. Osterwa and M. Limanowski in Warsaw] going in the
footsteps of the Stanislavsky system, specifically sought here that its actors
were close with each other, for them to have a big reserve of common experiences,
to which they could reach, if they were playing something similar on stage.
Anthoni Różycki
“becomes taken over by each role, unless it is stupid...”. Strachocki
regards “a good partner as three quarters of the role”. Karbowski is a
strong foe of lipstick: “Just as I don’t accept painting decorations –
only everything in three dimensions, thus I hate painting faces in terms of
bulges, concavities, wrinkles, etc.”. Irena Solska emphasizes the music’s
effect on playing. Maszyński “always smokes at work,… never at home”.
Buczyńska thinks that “the actor is dependent in two thirds on the audience”.
Zofia Modrzewska “in the course of the spectacles, acts more routinely and
with less feeling”.
The quoted passages are, at first glance, not connected with each other. They
all testify that for the actor, under certain conditions, it is easier, while
under others it is more difficult to be taken over by the role. All this is
facilitated by the increase of emotional excitability, e.g. music, beautiful
flowers, perfumes, etc., or by what gives rise to illusions, e.g.: the
partner’s good playing, the analogies between the stage world and his own life,
realistic decorations, real props. Whereas what is hindering, is all that
provokes comparisons between the fictional world of art and reality, and offends
the actor the most in a play compared to the real world.
He can be
offended by e.g.: some fantastic moments in a realistic play, the misused pathos
of a partner, – he then thinks “how horribly is he playing!” – and due
to this he reminds himself of the fictional stage world. Such troubles are
weakened, if you get used to them. The actor says to himself that it cannot be
otherwise, he diverts his attention from what irritates him and despite all he
becomes taken over by the role. But it is almost impossible to keep oneself in
the role, if an obstruction occurs unexpectedly. “It happened once in »The
End and the Beginning«
that the prop man prepared instead of “champagne”, a violet liquid which was
not sparkling” – says Maszyński. “I was surprised by this. I kept on
thinking that I have to drink that muck three more times”.
Aleksander Węgierko also stresses the importance of unexpected events on the stage: “I
try to avoid surprises during the play. If my partner changed her hairstyle
without warning me, it would evidently bother me. When one evening I put on a
different tie, I show it to my partner beforehand, so she doesn’t suddenly
start to stare at it on the stage.... On the stage everything must be as I’ve
become accustomed to it, so that no marginal thoughts can appear, so that this
random event doesn’t become the dominant fact which distracts me from the
theatre world and sets my mind on a completely different track”.
Being taken
over by the role is also made difficult by that which lowers the emotional
excitability, as for instance the repeating of the same role and blunting
one’s interest for the play, due to the appearance of more significant
emotional issues in the mind, e.g. one’s own concerns in life.
And so this
happens that the actor often is not taken over by the role when he is absorbed
too much by his private life, his own sorrows and joys. Wiesław Gawlikowski
describes such an event: “I had such an incident. On the day of my father’s
death, I was playing in a dramatic one-act play »Patronage«.
I didn’t succeed. I felt that it didn’t work out as in the previous shows. I
was taken over less [by the role] then”.
Something
similar happened to Karbowski: “I had such an accident during a performance of
some farce in Cracow – a clownish role. It was careless that I found out that
my daughter died. I did finish the performance, but there was no acting.
Apparently, I had tears in my eyes the whole time, and not only myself, but also
the others couldn’t play with me. Some reveal more of what is happening inside
them, while others know how to hide it”.
Solska finds
in herself an independence of acting from her private experiences: “I know
nothing about myself on stage. All worries disappear, I regain my health if I
come sick to the theatre. Of course, if I like the role... My own mood has no
effect on being taken over by the role, it ends in the dressing room. On the
stage an indifference appears to what is mine”. Osterwa gives specific
examples of such states: “...On the stage, my head stops aching. My sorrows
find relief. I don’t think about my personal life on stage. The stage is
capable of soothing even the most severe toothache. Last year, I had a difficult
experience. I was playing in “The Prodigal Brother” of Wilde the whole time
then. It was as if one was tormented by frost, but he does not feel it. However,
during the line “Bumbery died”, unpleasant associations came over me, but I
was able to recover from them too. Once I had another – as it turned out after
the performance – appendicitis attack in the theatre. I was playing a cheerful
role, I jumped, sang and I did not feel anything. During the intervals, behind
the scenes, I writhed and twisted in pain”.
However,
despite such cases, one can express the impact of various factors on being taken
over by the role in such a way that it does not arouse any thoughts in the actor
about the unreality of the stage world, it does not tear him away from this
world.
THE
RESEARCH RESULTS
From the interviews obtained, statements found in literature, and theoretical
deliberations as well as my own observations from behind the scenes and the
auditorium – results the fact that actors play “coldly” and “are taken
over by the role”, which largely takes place regardless of the artistic level
and the suggestive power of their playing. The collected material also gives
rise to something more. On its basis, I have attempted to analyse the actors’
experiences, which so far without greater detail have been described as
“playing coldly”, or “experiencing the role”, and I have attempted to
establish a typology of actors with regard to those experiences of theirs.
Types
of the Actor’s Experiencing on Stage
(11). The actor “plays coldly”, which means he realises the entire unreality
of the performing arts world. He talks about himself as a stage character
trained in the author’s words, which are not an expression of his belief in
what he is allegedly saying. With gestures, facial expressions and his voice he
deceptively reveals feelings which are not affecting him. The actor then plays
with full consciousness of his objectives and resources of art. He knows that he
is on stage in front of an audience and that he is playing. “To fulfil a
thought, image, or portrait of a man, he uses himself. He is his own key, he
plays on his own strings, he delayers himself like a cake, carves and paints
himself ... The actor is inside his creation. He pulls strings from the inside,
which makes his characters express a whole range of human emotions ... The actor
should not be moved by anything. There is no need ... The actor knows the
feeling, he opens his clavichord, and moves you” (12).
The most
important component enlivening the entire inner state of the actor playing in
that way, is a conviction located in the centre of the consciousness that gives
the stage world a fictional character. Further away from the centre and closer
to the circumference of the consciousness, thoughts can be distracted with
matters not connected with the play and stage. The actor, by not forgetting that
he is playing and that he is not a character from a play, cannot be affected by
those feelings that he is manifesting as a character on stage.
The phrase
“being taken over by the role” corresponds to two different types of complex
experiences. In one meaning, this phrase signifies that the actor completely
forgets about his playing and the audience, that he considers the fictional
world of art as reality and refers to this world as if it were the real, and
reacts with real feelings to the fictional stage situations. Such experiences
occur in very few actors, and if so, they are rare and short lived.
Actors
believe themselves that these are dangerous and undesirable moments of acting on
stage, because – as Jaracz says – one loses from the stream of one’s
psyche a grain, which ensures the spiritual equilibrium of the artist.
“Forgetting totally is a disability” – says Modrzewska. There is much
reason in what they say, because the actor, in moments of complete oblivion,
changes the text of the role, and can even be dangerous for others. “August
Klingemann tells the story of one of his actors in Braunschweig, that »his own nervous system – was passed on to his work of art, ... that is
also why in instances of crime on stage, I could not let a sharp dagger or sharp
knife be given to him as prop, because he himself was afraid that one day, in a
passionate ecstasy he will confuse appearance with fact«”
(13).
Even though
such experiences should be evaluated in regard to the creativity of acting, they
cannot be considered as playing, despite the fact that they do occur on stage
during performances. When an actor believes to the core, even briefly, that he
is a character on stage – he is not playing. It is as if he has temporarily
become insane. We will henceforth call these exceptional conditions as “being
taken over insanely”.
The third
type of experience of the actor on stage, for which we preserve only the name
“being taken over by the role” or “experiencing it”, is not explained as
clearly as the two other types described. The actor “is taken over by the
role” means here that on the stage he is more or less aware of the fictional
character of the whole situation, but “he feels in some way” like a stage
character, he “accepts somehow” that he is one and that his partners are
also stage characters, though designated by the author and the director, e.g. he
is worried or glad, perhaps too deeply and sincerely, but eloquently, when as a
stage character something bad or good happens to him.
We are
talking here about all those situations which the actors describe as a time when
in the mind there is a “double thought”, a “controller”, “guardian”,
“watchful eye”, etc. Without a doubt, in these kind of experiences there
seems to be a more or less vivid stimulation of emotional life. And
interestingly enough, reminding oneself from time to time about the unreality of
the stage world, does not extinguish the emotions associated with the role.
Sometimes the young actor, playing among the smart theatre guys, especially on a
provincial stage, is ashamed of his emotions, he would be glad to hide them, so
he deliberately recalls that he is on the stage and that he is playing – and
often enough, however, he is still choking on something and tears crowd his eyes.
Similar experiences may also catch any excitable theatre or cinema viewer and
reader.
Experiences
of this third type are a bit puzzling, they require more detailed clarification.
Although they appear the most, they are extremely difficult to describe, and the
opinions of aestheticians and psychologists are divided as to what the essence
and individuality of these experiences consist of.
It seems
that they owe their peculiar nature to the simultaneous occurrence of
supposition, relating to fictional stage world, on the intellectual, and on
emotional side – more or less strong feelings. These suppositions are in the
centre of the consciousness, and the convictions of the unreality of the world
move to the peripheral region.
The role of
supposition (Annahme) in mental life in general, and among others, in the
experiences of an actor during playing, was remarked by Meinong (14).
Supposition is supposed to be something between representation and belief.
Supposition is devoid of the moment of belief or disbelief, it is a
“pretend” judgment (15). With judgments that have been given, it has this
common trait that it is always affirmative or negative (16). Nevertheless, real
feelings can arise based on supposition, but usually on its basis, the so-called
ostensible feelings arise, that Meinong prefers to call fantasy feelings.
Some
scholars doubt whether you can experience e.g. a genuine feeling of fear, not
believing that it is threatening, but only supposing; against such doubts
speaks one’s own and other people’s introspection. Colloquial phrases also
have such meaning, like e.g. “The mere thought of that makes me scared”.
Thus the represented, fantasy or ostensible feelings do not necessarily have to
be connected with supposition.
Real
feelings that arise on the basis of supposition probably differ from the real
conviction feelings; but it is difficult to strictly and fully define these
differences. It seems that the feelings associated with suppositions are
generally less deep, they last less time, and they do not lead to unforeseeable
motor consequences. It never occurs on stage that the most short-tempered actor
kills his partner, when he should according to his role. Something else happens
(17).
The
escalation of emotional life, as if disproportionate to intellectual acts devoid
of moments of belief, probably takes place by direct suggestion. The words of
the dramatic work, the behaviour of partners, often music, dim lights have
influence on feeling, regardless even of any belief in the whole world on stage.
Of course these are quite individual matters, dependent on the certain permanent
dispositions: on the imagination, fantasy, emotional excitability and the
ability to focus attention on the fictional world of the stage.
In addition
to the differentiated types of experiences there are states which are less
determined. These are experiences which are not yet “playing coldly” and no
longer fall under the phrase “being taken over by the role” because less
vivid are the suppositions in them referring to the fictional world of art, and
less intense are the feelings. And closer to the centre of the consciousness is
the conviction of the fictional character of this world.
There are
different experiences, which are not yet “being taken over insanely”, but it
is difficult to call them an ordinary “being taken over by the role”,
because instead of supposition, there are more or less strong convictions, which
however, do not reach their peak point of believing (18).
Actor
Types.
When one wants to characterise the actors in terms of the distinguished
experiences, two quite clear separate types appear. One can be described briefly
as “playing coldly”, while the other as
“experiencing the
role”.
The first
type consists of actors who on the stage experience mostly inner states,
described as “playing coldly”. One has to take into account that this type
of actor can sometimes give in to the deceptive workings of his own and partners’
playing; but with him it will be a secondary, usually unintentional
manifestation. For example, he will hear his own trembling voice or see his partner’s tears,
and this will move him.
In relation
to these cases only, Dessoir says rightly that: “Being moved innerly, the
simultaneous co-existence is not so much the assumption, but rather the result
of proper playing. Miss Talma says about herself, that as Andromache, she did
actually shed tears. But
it should be noted that she adds: »Ce qui me touchait, c’était
l’expression que ma voix donnait aux douleurs d’Andromaque, non pas ces
douleurs elles-memes...«” (19).
When an
actor has mastered the role well and does not need to constantly watch over his
own play – when the appropriate gesture, tone, facial expressions show up as
if by themselves to his services – it may happen that he will focus his
attention on one of the peripheral elements, and to such an extent, that he will
be completely torn away from the task. One of the actors told me that at a later
performance of a play after a long soliloquy about the beauty of nature that
unfolded before his eyes – behind the window on the stage, his thoughts ran
onto a private matter and he was so absorbed by it that eventually in the middle
of his role he stopped – then he woke up, but did not know what he had ended
on and what to say next. One hears also of such actors who barely recovering
from the excitement of the premiere, amuse themselves during the play by telling
stories, playing various jokes for colleagues on the stage.
The actor
“playing coldly” does not have to mechanise his acting, but he can develop
it over the performances, change it for the better. While letting himself be
kidnapped into the fictional stage world, he can be fully committed to playing.
The second
type of actor – the “experiencing actor” is characterised by the fact that
his inner state during playing is usually as it was described in the third point
of the possibilities of experiences of actors’ playing. This does not mean
that whenever he plays, he experiences like that. The actor who has the best
capabilities to have a chance to experience can play coldly. Factors that hinder or prevent the
identification, being taken over by the role, influence the actor’s psyche
quite strongly (20). However, the playing would develop, this type of actor will
seek to fight it off, and his efforts, in most cases, will be crowned with the
desired effect of a lively imagination and fantasy, a significant emotional
excitement and the ability to focus attention on the fictional objects of the
world of art.
As long as
in the centre of the consciousness of the actor playing like this, there are
suppositions that grasp the stage world, so long the actor is taken over by the
role and is able to experience real feelings in connection with the play’s
plot. The more the judgments made about the unreality of the stage world,
existing even in the minds of actors so immersed in the role, move to the
peripheral region of the consciousness, the greater is the tendency of the
suppositions from the centre of the consciousness to transform into the
appropriate convictions.
It happens
to a few actors, and it is very rare that the judgements made about the
unreality of the world of art disappear completely from the consciousness, and
then the suppositions from the centre turn into judgements made of the same
content and quality. But in those cases the actor is no longer acting. Jaracz
apparently had such moments in Tetmajer’s “Judas”: “I stood in silence
or I babbled some incomprehensive words” – he stated.
Even the
“experiencing actor” is not capable for a long period without a break to
last in a role being taken over by it deeply. He is not able to constantly focus
his attention on the stage world. In accordance with the laws governing
attention, he sometimes also focuses on the various peripheral elements of the
consciousness, not concerning the plot of the play. The cross section of the
stream of consciousness is different at various times. Hence, inter alia, there
are some ostensible contradictions in the statements; the subject of the
statements is changing so much that it forces one to say things which seem to be
incompatible with each other.
The
difference between the two types of actors is marked not only in the actual
experiences on stage, but it goes deeper and concerns a range of dispositions.
The efforts of the actor being taken over by the role, aim to evoke images in
himself of either past or simply non-existent events and their own mental states,
to pretend to believe, and sometimes to believe deeply that the objects of these
images belong to the real world; to worry, or enjoy their fate, and only in this
way to
stimulate their body to produce the appropriate facial expressions, gestures and
tone.
While
playing like this, a ratio of expression takes place between the actor’s
psyche and his behaviour as a stage character. This takes place, however,
normally under the control of the peripheral elements of the consciousness,
watching over the artistic side of the acting. Something else takes place in the
actor who “plays coldly”. His creation stems from the observation of the
manifestations of different mental states. He studies them, follows them, or
builds new systems out of them. Fully conscious of his artistic tasks, he
constructs and plays the role. He may feel indifferent or he may hate the
created character, for example, if he is playing someone with contrary political
beliefs, because he is only interested in his external image.
In practice,
it is impossible to mark a sharp demarcation line between the two types.
There are individuals that definitely belong to one of the two groups, but there
are some that are indecisive.
When the
actor reveals a greater or lesser tendency and ability to completely lose
himself in the fiction of the stage world, or he easily or with difficulty
liberates himself from the influence of any resistance that hinder the
experiencing of the role, or also when off the stage, he falls into the mood of
the character that he played – he is an actor who is more or less taken over
by the role. There is within the type of actor, an entire scale of possibilities,
or a whole long degree of strength and frequency of experiencing the role. They
are transitional links, whose number is impossible to determine. The
differentiated types are important polar points of orientation (21).
CONCLUSION
The attempt presented here to analyse the art of acting, naturally did not give
a comprehensive answer to the questions raised, and rather pointed out the paths
which the field of psychology of this area of mental life may follow. Not only
the set tasks were not brought to an end, but moreover many specific issues were
not touched at all, e.g. the interesting problems connected with the
differentiated typology of actors. A few of them should be at least mentioned,
for example: Are the distinguished types of actors something fixed when it comes
to the same person, or do they change with age or after working in the theatre
for some time (22)? Are both types evenly distributed in different periods (23),
races (24), nations (25) countries and social classes (26)?
In
considering the psychological issue of acting, there is the belief that many
mental states outside the scope of acting have a similar structure (27).
Research on acting can be a contribution to the debate on a more general
psychological issue, concerning the mental states associated with unreal objects
and situations.
NOTES
(1)
For example, Diderot in “Paradoxe sur le comédien” claims that the actor
should play coldly. Later on among actors, Coquelin
takes his stance (“L’art et le comédien”, IV ed. Paris.
“L’art
du comédien”, II ed. Paris, 1894). When Coquelin was still alive, a German
actor Speidel published a polemical article “Schauspieler über
Schauspielkunst” (included in Vol. IV of his works titled “Schauspieler”,
Berlin, 1911), which refers to the essay “L’art et le comédien” and takes
a negative stance towards it.
(2)
Only a few remarks on this subject are given by e.g. Dessoir (“Ästhetik und
allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft”, Stuttgart 1906), Lange (“Das Wesen der Kunst”,
Berlin, 1911), Meinong (“Über Annahmen”, Leipzig, 1910). Francis
Baumgarten in the article “Die
Lüge im Beruf” (reproduced in the book “Die
Lüge”, edited by Lipmann and Plautus, Leipzig, 1927) moves, inter alia, the
problem of lies in acting and he mentions that James conducted a survey among
actors, in which he received contrary answers. There is a note about a similar
survey carried out among actors in Moscow in Nechayev’s study (“Inspiration,
Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie”, Vol. 68). Mirski undertook an extensive
psychological work on actors, publishing a “Survey
on the Psychology of the Polish Actor” in “Theatre
Life” (“Życie Teatru” – Year V, no. 8, Warsaw 1927). Apparently
Mirski’s project failed, mainly because nobody filled in the survey.
(3)
When I was carrying out the research, the questionnaire expanded and also
underwent other changes, which were made under the impact of conversations with
actors. Due to its considerable size now, it is impossible to quote it here. In
its original form, entitled “Questionnaire
of the Psychological Institute of the University of Warsaw” it was published
by “The Polish Theatre”
(“Scena Polska” – Year IX, Issue 16, Warsaw, 1929) and reprinted in the
“Warsaw Newspaper” (“Gazeta Warszawska” – 1st IX. 1929) entitled “An
Interesting Actor Survey of the University of Warsaw”.
(4)
The following persons were so kind enough to answer the questionnaire: Wiktor
Biegański, Maria Brydzińska, Helena Buczyńska, Mieczysława Ćwiklińska,
Eugenia Drabikówna, Maria Dulęba, Mieczysław Frenkiel, Tadeusz Frenkiel, Wiesław
Gawlikowski, Maria Gella, Mieczysław Gielniewski, Alina Halska, Stefan Jaracz,
Józef Karbowski, Jan Kurnakowicz, Mariusz Maszyński, Zofia Modrzewska, Hanna
Ordonówna, Juliusz Osterwa, Zula Pogorzelska, Janina Romanówna, Antoni Różycki,
Wanda Siemaszkowa, Irena Solska, Ludwik Solski, Władysław Staszkowski, Janusz
Strachocki, Aleksander Węgierko, Stanisława Wysocka, Aleksander Zelwerowicz.
This is not the place to post these interesting statements in their complete
form; It may be published another time (“The Psychological Quarterly”, Vol.
VII, 1935).
(5) Antonio Aliotta (“L’Estetica del e la Crisi del idealismo del moderno”, Napoli 1920, p. 24) gives an interesting, amazing detail from the experiences of the famous French actor, Talma: “Talma, walking on the stage, could with the force of his will make the cloths of a numerous and selected audience disappear from his sight, and instead of them he could place a crowd of skeletons. When in this way, his imagination filled the room with this strange audience, the emotion that he drew from it, gave his acting such a strong power that thanks to it, simply amazing results often arose”.
(6)
F. Kayssler, “Das Schaffen des Schauspielers, Kongress für Ästhetik
und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft”, Berlin, 1913, Stuttgart, 1914.
(7)
This concerns the “The End of the Wandering” (“Kres Wędrówki”) of
Sheriff. The interview cited was carried out during the performance of this play
behind the scenes.
(8)
Dr. Thoma, “Wie Jannings Menschen formt? - Impressionen von einer
Schauapielprobe”, “Scherls Magazin”, Berlin, December 1930.
(9)
K. Lange, “Das Wesen der Kunst”, Vol. II. Berlin 1901, p. 175.
10)
An attempt to explain the Stanislavsky method from the psychological perspective
is included in my article “Notes On the So-called »Stanislavsky
System«”,
“Philosophical Review” (“Przegląd filozoficzny” – XXXV Yearbook,
1932).
(11) The distinguished types of actors’ experiences on stage are based on W. Witwicki’s deliberations on the construction of dreams. Cf. “Psychology”, Volume I. Second Edition, Lviv 1930, p. 380 et. seq.
(12)
C. Coquelin, “L’art et le comédien”, p. 6, 28 and 32.
(13) M. Dessoir, “Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft” p. 344
(14) A. Meinong (“Über Annahmen”, Second Edition, Leipzig, 1910). In particular, §§ 16, 54 and 55
(15)
With this phrase, borrowed here for the characterization of supposition, W.
Witwicki describes the statements that have been put forward. “Psychology”,
Volume I., p. 384.
(16)
On account of the theory of supposition, the hitherto not considered conception
of the imaginational type, i.e. the imaginational images should be mentioned.
Above all, what is expressed in it, according to this conception, are fictional
objects of the art world, and only on their basis, suppositions are experienced.
The author of this concept is Leopold Blaustein (“The
Imaginational Perceptions” - “Przedstawienia
imaginatywne”, Lviv 1930). In “The Philosophical
Review” (“Przegląd filozoficzny”), Year XXXIV, XXXV, there was a
discussion on it, which did not lead, however, to an agreement of opinions as to
the existence of this new element of mental experiences.
(17)
It is described how in the era of the convention, prohibiting killing on the
stage, the actor Beaubourg, in the role of a betrayed lover, madly jealous
chases with a dagger in his hand, the unfaithful played by Miles Duclos, who
gets entangled in her dress, and falls on the edge of the backstage. Beaubourg
gracefully helps his partner up, allows her to run off the stage – to as it
was required by artistic traditions – to sink his blade in the heart of the
unfaithful only when backstage, from where the audience hear the cry of the “victim”.
(18)
Some aesthetic theories, taking into account the actor’s experience during
acting, but without the support of empirical material, try to put the entire
variety of experiences into one schema. For example, Lange extends onto these
experiences, his theory of conscious self-delusion (“Das
Wesen der Kunst”, p. 85 et seq. 106 et seq., 40 et seq.) Conscious self-delusion (die
bewusste Selbsttäuschung) consists of fluctuating between two lines of
perception, one of which states that we are dealing with reality, and the second
– that only with its appearance. This pendular theory at first glance already
raises serious reservations. It was sharply and widely criticized. It was
accepted by a few, in application to the experiences of the actor Ferdinand
Gregori (“Der
Schauspieler”, Leipzig-Berlin 1919). Lange himself speaks out against the
concept of Dessoir’s “Doppel-ich” (“Ästhetik
und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft”, p. 194, 247), which was taken up in Poland
by Juliusz Tenner in “About the Art of Acting” (“O twórczości
aktorskiej”, Lviv 1912).
(19)
M. Dessoir, o. c. p. 344.
(20)
For example, Osterwa writes: “You have to bend a bit more than usual – your
thoughts, convictions, etc. when I have before me a drunkard who says in my
presence (on the stage): »I
have never drunk in my life«
– or also, even for the moment, when one has to say to a person who is
privately disagreeable: »I
love you angel, baby«.
In such cases – «one falls out of the role»”.
(21)
On the typology of actors, formulated from a different perspective than here –
in respect to the kind of people actors are – is
described in the book of E. Jaensch and E. Schnieder (“Der des Berufstypus
Schauspielers”, Leipzig 1932). (Cf.
also the report in “Psychotechnique” - “Psychotechnika”, Year VII, 1933, p. 130
et seq.) Based on the
typology of integration, the authors distinguish four types of actors –
idealistic, synaesthetic, hysterical and comedy. When characterizing these types
they include the experiences during acting, but they discuss them in general
terms. Another typology of actors is given by F. Stiepun (“Osnomnyje probliemy
tieatra”, Berlin, 1923 & “Theater und Kino”, Berlin, 1932). , In
German, Stiepun calls the differentiated types: Imitator, Spiegelspieler,
Selbstdarsteller and Improvisator. As a rule of the division he puts forward,
inter alia: the experiences during playing, analysed mainly from the perspective
of their artistic value. Although the analysis of experiences is not devoid of
an apt intuition, it lacks an explicit conceptual apparatus.
(22)
Talma writes about it: “J’ai joué longtemps d’inspiration,
m’abandonnant à mes sensations du moment et oubliant tout-à-fait
que j’étais Talma, pour me croire Achille ou Orosman; mais sans parler de
l’épuisement où me laissait cette méthode, j’étais inégal; bon
quand j’étais bien disposé, mauvais lorsqu’un souci personnel me ramenait
malgré moi à la réalité”. Excerpt
from H. Tb. Rötscher, “Die
Kunst der Darstellung dramatischen”,
Berlin, 1919. pp. 53-54. Footnote.
(23)
Adolf Winds characterizes, inter alia, in this respect some epochs (“Der
Schauspieler in seiner Entwicklung vom Mysterien-zum Kammerspiele”, Berlin,
1919).
(24)
Hugo Rosenthal writes about this in short (“Die schauspielerische Begabung bei
den Juden”, in Internationale Zeitschrift für Individualpsychologie VIII,
1930). See also E.
Jaensch and E. Schnieder o. c.
(25)
H. Rosenthal, o. c., cf. J. Kotarbiński (“From the World of Delusion” (Ze
świata złudy”), 1926, p. 105), and Winds, o. c.
p. 257
(26)
It is considered by Hedwig Schulhof, (“Der Schauspieler” in “Handbuch der
Individualpsychologie” by Wexberg, Vol.
II, München 1926, p. 142 & et seq.)
(27)
Above all, there is a striking similarity of the issue of acting with the
widespread among German aestheticians (e.g. Lange, Lipps, Müller-Freienfels)
issues in the psychology of the reception of works of art, the so-called issues
of the aesthetic reality, or the aesthetic appearance or aesthetic illusion.
[Translation
of a text originally published as “An Attempt of a Psychological Analysis of
Acting” (“Próba badań psychologicznych nad grą aktorską”) in the
“Psychology Quarterly” (“Kwartalnik Psychologiczny”), Vol. VII, 1935.]