Franc Chamberlain MAG – THE NEXT FIVE YEARS 1997 – 2002
In On the Art of the Theatre, Edward Gordon Craig wrote against the idea that literature was at the root of theatre and argued instead that: ‘the Art of the Theatre has sprung from action – movement – dance’ (1980: 139). We can take this idea backwards into history and prove, if we wish, that Craig wasn’t the ﬁrst person to have suggested this. Fine, but the point is that this statement, which was originally published in a 1905 essay, signiﬁes that the attempt to deﬁne theatre in terms of what made it a distinctive art form was underway and that one strand of this deﬁnition is that theatre is not a branch of literature. From that point on, it seems to me, all of the key developments in actortraining have involved a physical-based approach. Stanislavski’s work at the First Studio and his later ‘method’ of physical actions; Meyerhold’s interest in the commedia dell’arte and then his development of biomechanics; Copeau’s interest in the commedia and in the work of the Fratellini Brothers; Michel St Denis’ insistence on the importance of gesture and movement and so on. I could add to the list Michael Chekhov, Grotowski,
4 5 6 7 8222 9 10 1 2 3 4 15 6 7 8 9 20 21 2222 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 40 1 2 3 4
once again we can look at the training and see the importance of starting from the body; the early-morning kathakali eye-exercises for example. Indeed, if we think of it historically in terms of what we know about the importance of gesture in actor-training from previous centuries it becomes difﬁcult to see where our non-physical based theatre lies, at least in terms of the actor’s training. It seems obvious to me that even training someone to act ‘naturalistically’ is to train them in the use of the body in an ‘unnatural’ situation. And where does dance ﬁt in?