A Research of Russian Theatre after Naturalism

Naturalism took European theatre stages by storm in the end of the nineteenth century. It resulted in many plays, theoretical works and stage productions that are the foundation for theatre as we know now, because of the ideas that naturalist suggested and because of the reaction it evoked from people who disagreed with it. Theatre culture in Russia is closely associated with Stanislavsky’s Method that was adapted around the world in different variations. However, in this essay I will explore the ways in which Stanislavsky’s landsmen, namely Vsevolod Meyerhold (1874-1940) and Evgeny Vakhtangov (1883-1922) renounced naturalism or reconsidered Stanislavsky’s Method in practice of the theatre of the grotesque. To begin with, I will introduce naturalism and possible reasons for its decline, then I will present Vsevolod Meyerhold, his use of past theatrical traditions in breaking away from naturalism, after I will examine Evgeny Vakhtangov’s Fantastic Realism and end with unifying elements of those two theatre directors.

The beginning of naturalism as a literary and artistic style can be marked by the publication of Emile Zola’s essay Naturalism on the Stage in 1880. Inspired by Auguste Comte to create a scientific approach to representation on stage, Zola explained naturalism in this way:

“The writer and the scientist have had the same task. Both have had to replace abstractions with realities, empirical formulas with rigorous analysis. Thus no more abstract characters in books, no more lying inventions, no more absolutes, but real characters with true histories, and the relativity of everyday life. It was a matter of starting all over again, of coming to know man at the very sources of his being, before drawing conclusions in the manner of the idealists, who invented types; and writers henceforth had only to take hold of the construction at the base, providing as many human documents as possible and presenting them in logical order. That is naturalism, which originated in the first thinking brain, if you will, but the broadest development of which — the definitive one no doubt — took place in the last century.”

So, naturalism is return to the study of the complexity of the man and the environment. In theatre it is an exact depiction of characters and events as they are, with all the good and bad aspects to the story there might be A. Strindberg, A. Chekhov and H. Ibsen are the names of the most famous naturalistic playwrights in Europe in the beginning of 20 century.

However, naturalism did not flourish for long, as new generations as the world started to progress very fast and naturalism was not enough for theatre audiences. There are several reasons for the decline of naturalism. According to Rahv, the increasing interest in psychoanalysis changed the way people think and gave more space for reflective inner monologue, “which combines the naturalistic in its minute description of the mental process with the anti-naturalistic in its disclosure of the subjective and the irrational.” Theatre directors and writers sought to create imaginative prose where reality would be just one of the components of the story rather than the essence of it. Rahv marks down that:

“From a social-historical point of view this much can be said, that naturalism cannot hope to survive the world of 19th-century science and industry of which it is the product. For what is the crisis of reality in contemporary art if not at bottom the crisis of the dissolution of this familiar world? Naturalism, which exhausted itself in taking an inventory of this world while it was still relatively stable, cannot possibly do justice to the phenomena of its disruption.” 

Naturalism was a no longer suitable method to portray the problems of modern life it simplified reality and made it too familiar, leaving little space for self-awareness on part of the characters. What came next is the spirit of discovery in imagination of artists that was driven by the ever-growing problems of contemporary human.

Vsevolod Meyerhold is one of the most innovative theatre directors of USSR who left a big impact on the development of theatrical life in Europe. He had written many texts that rethink past and foreign traditions in a new way. He studied theatre of ancient Greeks, Italian commedia dell’atre, oriental theatres of India, China and Japan as well as other theatre practitioners such as Gordon Craig and his puppet theatre. Meyerhold drew from many different sources to create his own conception of theatre which is more dependent on the physical body than in naturalism, which relies on words and authentic emotions. C. Moody describes Meyerhold’s style and his main inspiration mainly in regards to commedia dell’arte:

“With its emphasis on the actor not the play, acting rather than speaking, and movement instead of intellect, the importance of technique and the example of improvisation which it offered, the commedia dell'arte was the inspiration Meyerhold sough”.

Meyerhold did not want to simplify the characters to moving bodies, but he believed that theatre stripped down from the props and speech is still theatre that should be capable of telling a story and evoking an emotional response from the audience thought physical expression. That is why he chose the stock characters from commedia dell’arte who despite of being a generalization of a “type” of people, still have complicated lives and problems to express on stage, rather than individualistic character of naturalist theatre. In 1906 Meyerhold director The Fairground Booth of Alexander Blok where they used those stock characters to show the synthesis of “romantic duality and evil irony”. 

After staging the Fairground Booth, Meyerhold wrote an article that reflected his vision about theatre for that time. There he believed that new theatre should be based on returning to its origins of Ancient Greek traditions. Moody summarizes the theatrical elements emphasized in the article as heavily influenced by commedia dell’arte, even though Meyerhold himself did not directly refer to it:

“The absence of the division caused by the footlights, the need to liberate the actor from scenery and do away with complicated stage machinery, the dance and the mask were all inherited by the medieval and later comedians.”

Meyerhold sought to free theatre from psychological realism and gave into the mechanized efficiency and created the notion of biomechanics in theatre that can be understood as scenic constructivism. He would push actors to automatized action, almost trying to turn them into marionettes (here the admiration for Craig is evident). 

Another theatre practitioner of USSR that has to be dissected when talking about innovation is Evgeny Vakhtangov. He was yet another theatrical practitioner who drew inspiration from past theatre traditions and on-going theatrical changes he witnessed in his time. He created the notion of Fantastic Realism that he explained by rejecting naturalism and realism in theatre, he claimed that “they should be substituted with Fantastic Realism. The correct theatrical means when discovered, enhance the author's work with true reality on the stage. These means could be learnt; the form, however, must be created. It must be forged through fantasy. Hence I call it Fantastic Realism. It exists and should be found in every form of art.' He based his teachings on exercises on concentration though etudes and improvisations, focusing on action rather than emotion.

Gozzi’s Turandot, a commedia dell’arte play staged in the last months of his life was one of his most notable productions in style of Fantastic Realism. He aimed to produce a play that would combine joy, improvisation, human emotion with irony and humour. Vakhtangov used every little stage prop as an active part of the play that could be transformed from one thing to another, for example, a towel was turned into a beard and instead of a head attire there were fruit baskets. He sought for actors to create an atmosphere of a fairytale land that would spread beyond the borders of stage, but he encouraged the actors improvise and perform all around the theatre building and even outside. 

Orani describes Vakhtangov as a practitioner who: “never even considered negating the lessons of the past. Although constantly striving to reflect contemporaneity in his productions, he always did so seeking the answers through his deep roots in the M.A.T. He did not renounce the past for the future, but rather incorporated what was useful in his new endeavours. In so doing, Vakhtangov delineated and bridged the gap between the psychological realism and relief, structurally expressive movement of biomechanics.”

“Most important for the director is his ability to identify himself with the actor,' Vakhtangov wrote in his diary in 1918 and the director’s job, as he saw it, was to “create physical and psychological obstacles which would force the actors to play as vividly as possible. All such obstacles had to be 'justified' by the play and by the circumstances, but the end was a new theatricalism, a synthesis of Stanislavsky's naturalism and Meyerhold's constructivism.” 

Contradictory to Meyerhold, Vakhtangov was in line with Stanislavsky in seeing acting as the main element of theatrical art. Vakhtangov did use Stanislavski’s method for teaching, however it was hardly committed to naturalism. 'On the stage,' he wrote, 'the actor works in an atmosphere of untruths. ... He calls a comrade father, he makes the words of others his own, he pretends the scenery is a real landscape. The moments when he makes this untruth truth are moments of creation and art.'

Both Meyerhold and Vakhtangov were working using grotesque element in theatre. In Vakhtagov’s Turandot the use of masks, the attempts to evoke a response from audience (cheers, applause or negative reaction) can be seen as grotesque. Vakhtangov did not let the audience forget they were in theatre and for people at that time it was quite shocking. As for Meyerhold, the stock characters in his plays, for example Pierrot, who has two faces was called a grotesque element drawn from past traditions of Italian theatre.

“Grotesque is a method which enables the actor and the director to justify inwardly the vivid, condensed content of a given play. It is, I would say, the height of expressiveness, the most appropriate form of the scenic presentation of the content. For the director it is the achievement of his creative quest for harmony of form and content.”

After Vakhtangov’s death, Meyerhold showed up in his theatre as a visitor and an advisor. He helped stage new productions, however following the method of Vakhtangov’s working style, which kept the Vakhtangov theatre alive.

To conclude, naturalism that studies man and nature did not strive for long, because of the ever-changing world that required new ways of coping with reality and representing it on stage. V. Meyerhold firmly believed in grotesque and constructivist in theatre, inspired by commedia dell’arte and oriental theatres. E. Vakhtangov’s Fantastic Realism was the synthesis of Stanislavsky’s and Meyerhold’s methods that continue to be practiced in Russia. These two theatre directors brought revelations about past theatrical traditions as well as innovations into the theatrical practices.

Reference list:

• Becker, G. (Ed.) (2015). Documents of Modern Literary Realism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Retrieved 7 Jan. 2019, from https://www-degruyter-com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/view/product/474678
• Moody, C. 'Vsevolod Meyerhold and the 'Commedia Dell'arte'.' The Modern Language Review 73, no. 4 (1978): 859-69. doi:10.2307/3727599.
• Orani, Aviv. 'Realism in Vakhtangov's Theatre of Fantasy.' Theatre Journal 36, no. 4 (1984): 463-80. doi:10.2307/3206735.
• Symons, J.M. “Meyerhold’s Theatre of the grotesque” (1973). River Press Limited Cambridge.
• Turner, W. L. 'Vakhtangov: The Director as Teacher.' Educational Theatre Journal 15, no. 4 (1963): 318-26. doi:10.2307/3204850.