ABSTRACT
As late as 1902, the theatre historian and critic, Petr Morozov, was criticising traditional methods of Russian acting and particularly its dependence on notions of emploi: ‘When a play is produced, each of the performers selects a role according to his “emploi” and essentially acquaints himself with his own part whilst concerning himself very little with the content of the play as a whole’ (Obrazovaniye 1902: No. 33:103-4).1 Nemirovich and Stanislavsky rejected the standard definitions of ‘hero’, ‘lover’, ‘fop’, ‘simpleton’, etc., which produced narrow specialisation and reinforced clichéd acting styles. Stanislavsky noted that narrowness of emploi: ‘depends on low intelligence in the actor. Thanks to narrowness of feeling and thought, these actors are deprived of subtlety and insight’ (Stanislavskiy 1954-61: vol. 5:180). In a letter to Suvorin, Nemirovich made the point that the contemporary repertoire demanded a different kind of actor: ‘For example, if you were given permission to stage two of the most interesting plays in Russian dramaThe Power of Darkness and Tsar Fedor Ioannovich, then you would need to find actors and actresses for these plays rather than lovers, ingenues, grandes dames, etc.’ (Nemirovich-Danchenko 1979:80).
