Practical applications of director's skills, even in classes like "Fundamentals of Direction," ask for answers about basic
principles of structuring show. This paper includes some thoughts
on the Semiotics of Directing. Most of the terminology and ideas
are derived from Vsevolod Meyerhold's[3] writings on theatre.
Meyerhold, throughout his director's career, had concentrated on
position of director in relations between stage and audience, and
made the first attempt to define director's artistic function and
"director's text."
SPECTATOR DIRECTS
The director's position in theatre not only allows but asks
for his aesthetic presence within the show. What is his role in a
theatre communication model? Not long ago we knew
"actor--spectator" relations, or the "writer--actor--spectator"
model. The technological revolution in the past century has
placed a new figure, the "director" into the "sender--receiver"
model. Is the director a modem between a show and a public? Or a
new link between a writer and an actor? A new connection between
actors on stage? Or all of the above?
The public gives birth and life to theatre. How can we judge and understand this sphinx -- the audience? What do I direct -- script or actors? Whereas the writer arranges life into a play, the director arranges text and actors into a show. And the show
is experienced by a public which actually "performs" the spectacle. In short, I direct actors to direct audiences; to direct a play is to arrange an audience's "reading" of this play.
How do we direct spectators? I am a spectator. The director
is the ultimate spectator. He didn't write the script, he doesn't
perform it, yet he is the Alpha and Omega of theatre; he is the
"audience of one."
A new spectator asks for a new director. In the Age of
Cinema we are used to "composing" our own dramatic experience out
of combinations of shots and cuts; not only are we visually
oriented, but active public. The director is a new spectator, and
the "first spectator." As a "professional" spectator he is the
last in the creating of the show, and therefore he is the first
in command. Director is a model of spectator. He contains all
theatrical structures which exist in a public:
WRITER
ACTOR
INDIVIDUAL
The last "Live People" category (INDIVIDUAL) is non-theatrical, but any theatrical message is based on historical, social, cultural references and life experiences of the audience.
(MONOLOGUE)
The basic theatre disposition is obvious in acting classes;
we have three fundamental elements involved -- actor, text,
spectator. Monologue (character) is the link between the audience
and the actor. The dramatic text (monologue) asks for performance
(acting), but both texts are born because of one presence --
audience. The stage messages can be sent only after the stage has
received the spectator's message: I'm here to watch theatre.
What is usually missing in monologues presentation is a
director. Dramatic texts are not staged (and therefore couldn't
be performed). But by definition we have three lingual entities
(text, actor, viewer), connected and separated because of the
media they use (words, voice and movement, and the life of those
messages in the spectator's imagination). In order for me to
understand the mechanics of this perception process in
me-the-spectator, I have to notice what I do after the presentation. I leave my seat to direct the actor. I begin to arrange his voice and movement in such a way that the words will have a greater dramatic effect on me. All my suggestions are concerned with the space and time in which the character's words exit; I'm not a reader or listener. I direct the dramatic (theatrical) event in front of me, according to my previous dramatic experience during the monologue presentation. Usually, my most visible action is blocking (structuring and "stopping" the actor's performance). Monologue is the simplest form of mise-en-scene, and I construct the director's text, imposing on the actor (and character) new restrictions in space and time.
THREE CONSTRUCTIONS
1. Triangle or Line?
Meyerhold sees three different texts (constructions) in
every performance (Brown 50): the playscript, the directorial
"PARTITURE" (staging), and the actor's composition (performance).
In his discussion of "Theatre-Triangle" vs. "Theatre of the
Straight Line" he offers two model of theatre communication with
a spectator. In formula A (Theatre-Triangle), the first to meet a
spectator is the director:
Formula A:
Spectator
Director
/\
/__\
Writer-----Actor
We know this model as a "Director's Theatre." Through
directorial concept (including all designs; set, light, costume,
etc.) the director introduces both Text (Writer) and Performance
(Actor). As a spectator he is the author of his dramatic
experience, which positions him as the author of a show and makes
dramatic text as well as a performer into his "material." The
public gives him rights and obligations as a first viewer to
direct their future theatrical experience. He represents all
three of the modes of spectator, audience and public. Since he is
an active viewer, he constructs "his" show the way a (passive)
spectator would do it later in his imagination. Of course, we
could turn the triangle around and make the actor the first link
(or last messenger of theatre), and we would have "Actor's
Theatre."
Formula B:
Spectator
Actor
/\
/ \
Writer---Director
In Formula B, the Actor is in a position of Author; the Writer and Director provide their material for his creation (performance). The same could be done with the Writer (the tradition of Dramatic Literature as a main form of theatre is the longest). It is more important to remember that all three variations of the Theatre Triangle co-exist in every show and stay together in a dynamic inter-exchange of priorities. The basic communication model of theatrical message(s) could be seen as three constructions (inter-related), going to the audience simultaneously:
Writer----(verbal language)-----------------Spectator (1)
Director--(space)------------------Spectator (2)
Actor-----(time)-------------------Spectator (3)
All three constructions (texts) are included in the Spectator's
final text, and as a summary of 1+2+3, make the spectator the
final Author of a theatrical composition. To emphasize the
Spectator's authorship, "Theatre of the Straight Line"
(Stanislavsky) places three main constructions, not in parallel,
but in one line:
Writer----Director----Actor----Spectator (Model A)
or
Writer----Actor-------Director---Spectator (Model B)
As Meyerhold explains it, "The actor reveals his soul freely
to the spectator, having assimilated the creation of the
director, who, in his turn, has assimilated the creation of the
actor" (Meyerhold ? ) This Model A is based on Stanislavsky's
concept that the actor must totally identify himself with the
character, and, in his turn, the director must "die" in his
actors. Of course, this formula cannot exit in absolut purity,
and in reality both Triangle and Straight Line are present in
theatre communication.
Model B represents Director's Theatre, with all elements of
a show controlled by the director's designs. The director is a
designer and brings with him all others: lighting, sound,
costume, makeup designers.
2. Competition of Messengers
Director's Text (Mise-en-scene). In his lecture "About
Intermission and True Time on Stage," Meyerhold points out that
we must differentiate, in every show, the playwright's text, the
directorial construction and the actor's text (performance).
(Tvortcheskoe "Sozdanie Elementov Explikatzii" 58) The director
through stage designs organizes "empty space" into a "stage
machine" (Meyerhold's term) for the actor to perform (or to react
to). Set design is the first physical organization of space
(physical "given circumstances" for the actor), which is followed
by the lighting design and the sound design. The director's
construction in based on the playscript, but it could be in
counter position to it: "If a playwright writes a play for
staging, it is necessary to add this second text (PARTITURE), and
therefore a competition occurs in construction." (Tvortcheskoe 58
"Creation of Explication's Elements"). Meyerhold insists on
calling the second (director's) text a New Text, and, as a
result, we have to take the subtext idea one step further: the
conflict between Writer's and Director's Text could be seen as a
mise-en-scene text functioning as a counter-text.
Playwright-Director relations are direct, indirect, and
intervening connections within the show. The competition of
constructions gives the spectator the power of composing three
main different lingvistic messages in a new text -- a dramatic
experience which is decoded in its final individual form.
Actor's Text (Performance). The actor carries a playscript's
verbal message, which, according to communication theory, counts
only for seven percent of the total message. The rest is
paralingual and body language. Therefore, the actor must
interpret the first text. The subtext idea is built into the very
concept of performance. The performance is the event occurring
within a context of stage space (director's structure), and,
again, by definition, has its independent language -- the actor's
body. The actor is responsible for movement in space and he is
the one who organizes dramatic time. He is in charge of using
both texts (Writer's and Director's) as material for his
performance; after all, he is the last messenger. He is the
expression of the audience's experiencing drama. He is Agent and
Agency of performance.[4] Meyerhold made Biomechanics a part of
his bigger frame theory of "Scenometrics." The Actor's Text is
the one the Audience identifies itself with. We know theatre
without scripts, without scenery, but not without actors.
Spectator (Life of Drama)
"What could be a model for theatre? Types, human habits, moods?
No, all that isn't enough. . . . Seems to me, that the nature,
which theatre must follow in its composition, is only
imagination, imagination at large..." (Pasternak's letter to
Meyerhold) Imagination of Actor? Director? They all represent
Spectator and it is HIS IMAGINATION where action actually takes
place. If imagination is the nature of theatrical experience,
imagery is the main form of appealing to audience. "I couldn't
imagine that METAPHOR COULD BE EXECUTED IN THEATRE." Meyerhold's
departure from Symbolism to Constructivism never was a break but
a development of his devotion to new relations with the audience.
He understood needs for a different mode of theatre composition,
and a new role of the Actor in this theatre.
From Eisenstein's notes on Meyerhold we read:
"An actor's creativity drastically different from a playwright's or a director's: he creates in public, and having his improvisational possibilities influenced by the audience -- his creativity could not all be foreseen (e.g., rejection by the public -- necessity to overcome it immediately, or to redesign it right away, to adapt, etc.).
Contact with the public visibly sensed (breathing, noise, etc.). This way the public gives `its lines,' which the actor must receive and to make use of." (Source )
The presence of the audience transforms the stage space into
a pool of energy, an "empty space" full of time -- the watched
space (here's he is a sender of the theatre's message, he forms
the theatre-situation, makes the stage by positioning himself as
audience). The moment the actor enters this (their) space, he's
obliged to act differently (compared with non-theatrical space);
he becomes an actor by definition. Directorial blocking is
organizing the watched space according to the audience (and their
interpretations of the play). Controlling space and time could be
done only through movement; the audience "reads" changes, expects
changes -- and the actor responds to their expectations.
As Meyerhold explains, "The actor immediately reacts through
improvisation to all demands of the public."[5] Acting is
articulated dramatic sense of the public. The actor is an
expression of the spectator's impulse to perform. The director
provides the newly "designed" space-time universe of the show for
the audience, and the actor materializes their experiences.
Spectator as Organizer and Medium. Spectator is a role which
we play in theatre. But the material we use to experience a show
are our emotions, memories, associations. (Very much similar to
the actor's duality). There, on a non-theatrical life level we
are equal, we are reunited after experiencing life in aesthetic
forms (catharsis). The director is the one who can develop both
sides of his nature: stage sense and audience sense.
Thus, the director is one spectator, but he represents many.
How does he direct that Many -- more than one Actor, more then
one Spectator?
SCENE: FOURTH WALL and EPIC THEATRE
If we move from one actor on stage to two and more, the
dominance of the director in theatre communications become even
more visible. The basic triangle in two-scene should be added to
a basic triangle of actor communicating with two (at least)
spectators.
Spectator's Triangle:
Spectator
/\
Actor A Actor B
but Actor A and Actor B have been directed, their links
determined by script and mise-en-scene. In fact, they are related
to each other as characters, and therefore must be seen as:
Actor A--Character A (writer-director) Character B--Actor B
in short,
Actor---Character---Spectator[6]
but we have to remember that by the nature of directing,
connection between the actor and his character involves the
director as well:
Actor---Director---Character
The director happens to be involved in every link in the
theatre message, and this position gives him control over all
messages of the show. Here again he does on stage what the
spectator is doing in his imagination.
Now,
Actor's Triangle:
Actor
/\
Spectator A Spectator B
The Actor's Triangle is the beginning of audience formation
(theatre-public-tonight). Two triangles would illustrate the
complicated connections between two spectators:
Spectator A
(Director)
/\
Text 1/ \Text 2
/ \
Actor A --------- Actor B
\ /
Text 3\ /Text 4
\/
(Director)
Spectator B
in short: Spectator A---Director---Spectator B
"Text 1" represents "Writer," or a playscript's interpretation of Spectator A. "Text 3" is the same thing through the interpretation of Actor A's performance, but in Spectator B. How could all the four texts be formatted so the audience with all the varieties of interpretation nevertheless would follow the same pattern of the show? The playwright gives the first construction to be expressed within the Director's Text (staging). That's a ground for the STYLE of the show. Mise-en-scene organizes each scene in such way that relations between two actors are not only direct but indirect as well. The latter forms the AESTHETIC LEVEL of the theatrical message.
Meyerhold's objections to Stanislavsky's realism (naturalism)
were based on the System's removal of the director (he must die
in his actors), resulting in freezing THEATRICALITY. The Fourth
Wall concept eventually leads to a screen (that's why Method
Acting became so popular), and the loss of LIVE THEATRE's
expressive means.
The Fourth Wall concept is only a formula which couldn't be
fully executed (every act is staged, not real), and the same
could be said about Epic Theatre. In actuality both concepts are
always present in each performance. A balance of the two ways of
communication creates the Theatre Game which is the essence of
live theatre; the rules of communications are dynamic and change
many times during the show. The audience has to recognize the
actor and character's existence, and to experience the switch
between the two. Each spectator experiences the show on several
levels, including the Critic's horizon, which allows him to move
from one (theatrical) reality to another (non-theatrical). The
director is the strongest representative of critical segment
within the spectator.
Could a show be done without a director? According to
Meyerhold's definition such a show wouldn't be Theatre as far as
aesthetics are concerned. The director creats Theatricality[7] as
a unique life-theatre-method. Meyerhold was aware that this
concept would require theoretical re-definition of Acting. He
offered a view the actor in his duality: Actor as Artist
(Creator/Organizer) and Actor as Medium (Material/Body of the
First). This is present in every artist and every figure creating
theatre.
According to Meyerhold, the basis of play-makersis that "Never is there an equality of personal mood between an actor and his character." The director represents the Actor-Artist. Actually, Artist in Actor could be seen as a director within each actor. There's no contradiction in this concept with Stanislavsky' System; the difference comes when the duality of actor is shown to the public. But this is a matter of stylistic choice of theatre.
The duality of the actor's life on stage is a reflection of
the spectator's dichotomy. The director makes it more visible; he
helps to control two natures of theatre artists by separating and
reconnecting them under aesthetic laws.
Actor As Trickster. "The actor lives a double life on stage; he lives in two worlds -- in the world of his role, the one he
created; and in a world of his own `I'. He is an executive, a
manager; sometimes an adventure seeker, sometimes a prophet, he
knows how he has to re-distribute all he needs." ( 144) The
spectator's identification with the actor exits on both levels,
and the duality makes theatre messages incomplete. The director
advances the playscript but he doesn't complete it; actors carry
the process further. Only mise-en-scene is fixed (similar to
playwright's text). But the same incompleteness occurs in the
actor's text; his performance must be interpreted by the
audience. Each of them opens an original theatre message wider
and wider with each step to the public. The director adds the
extra meaning, enriches the play, makes the original message more
complex (counter-text as director's method). The final message in
the audience's minds and hearts wouldn't be complete either.
That's why theatre exists in the first place; not only to answer
but to raise questions. In such an incomplete nature of art is
the beginning of another cycle of theatre.
MESSAGE AND MESSENGER
The director is both messenger (sender) and message
(medium). He very much reflects the same Actor's (or Spectator's)
duality; he carries the playwright's message and by creating the
staged space is formatting a new message (mise-en-scene). Without
such a dichotomy the very concept of sub-text (actor) wouldn't be
possible. But the director isn't present on stage to point to his
interpretation, and he goes further than sub-text: Meyerhold
introduced the directorial equivalent of sub-text -- the
counter-point.[8] By placing a play within a new (his) context,
the director not only interprets the script, but also makes it
into material for his own message. According to the counter-point
theory, in order to "make the invisible visible" we have to
position a message within contrasting environment. If the actor
creates "subtext" by emphasizing the conflict between the spoken
text and his action (intonation, body language, etc.),
counter-point makes it possible to elevate an image to the level
of metaphor. By getting in between of all interactions of actors
on stage, the director transforms their "realistic" characters'
relations into aesthetic statements. Moving them from one acting
area to another with different designs (using lighting, for
example), the director changes the "reality" of their relations.
The choice of green, blue or red light is a manifestation of an
aspect of a director's narrative, and the positioning of colored
space is a creation of a new situation for the "same" spoken
line. The director is an image-maker (this is extremely obvious
in film-making) and the only way he has to transform live bodies
in three-dimensional space into symbols is to contradict the
reality, to overcome his material. That is where the borderline
between stage and audience comes in as a formative principle with
linguistic potentials. The director is a division between life
and staged life. He is the point at which life is transformed
into reflections on life.
Summary
If the director represents the public, his text must be followed by his public no less than the playscript. The very choice of script is his expression of public instincts. Since the director is absent from the stage,[9] he must express his text through space (set) and time (actors). The show is his medium: live actors in dramatic (designed) space. Meyerhold called the directorial structure of the show STAGEMETRICS [SCENOMETRICS or Stagematrix].
[ direct.vtheatre.net = stagematrix ]
WORKS CITED
Notes are lost. Some references could be found on my directing and theory pages: Meyerhold, Direct and Performance. Also, see SPECTATOR and DOUBLES pages.
