Radovan Lukavský and the Stanislavsky’s method of an actor’s work

Abstract

ABSTRACTRadovan Lukavský (1919–2008) was an important representative of modern Czech acting, a long-time National Theatre drama ensemble member in Prague, and a teacher at the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague (AMU). As a teacher, he persistently espoused the legacy of Konstantin Sergeyevich Stanislavsky. Lukavský made considerable efforts to defend the latter’s ideas against the “vulgarization” that had infested Czech theatre and the Theatre faculty of AMU at the beginning of the 1950s, as a clash took place between the socialist-realist ideologisation and the creative interpretation of the Stanislavsky “System.” In this essay, the author draws attention to Lukavský’s approach to Stanislavsky’s methods and the basic principles Lukavský addressed in other professional publications and studies.KEYWORDS: Radovan LukavskýAcademy of Performing Arts in PragueStanislavskyCzech theatre of the 20th centuryacting pedagogy Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. In Czech, the terms “system” and “method,” in relation to Stanislavsky, are used without differentiation.2. Czech universities were closed for three years from 17 November 1939, based on the decree of Reich Protector Konstantin von Neurath – we are in the Nazi-occupied “Protectorate of Böhmen und Mähren.” The pretext was that student demonstrations connected with nationwide protests, which took place from 15 March 1939 and culminated on the anniversary of the founding of the Czechoslovak Republic on 28 October 1939. The last student demonstration took place during the funeral of the student Jan Opletal on 15 November. On the night of 16–17 November there were mass arrests of students and teachers by the German Ordnungspolizei and SS units; 9 students were shot in the military barracks in Prague-Ruzyně, while in the following days 1,200 students were transported to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. More than 15,000 students lost the opportunity to study, and more than 1,300 teachers found themselves without work.3. The Czech Directorate of State Railways organized an action to rescue university students, who were exposed to possible persecution for participating in the demonstrations, and immediately called them into “state service” at their place of residence.4. After avant-garde beginnings on small studio stages, Jiří Frejka (1904–52) joined the Drama ensemble of the National Theatre in Prague in 1930, with Karel Hugo Hilar (1885–1935), the most important representative of the modern theatre. In the years 1945‒50, he was director of the Municipal Theatre, which had two stages – the Vinohrady Theatre and the Chamber Theatre. In his directing work, Frejka combined the tradition of comedy and dramatic theatre, which became a starting point even for Lukavský’s generation and which he reflected on in his articles.5. Jaromír Pleskot (1922–2009), actor and director, was an outstanding personality of the generation entering Czech theatre after World War II. When Frejka moved to the Municipal Theatre as artistic director in 1945, he engaged Pleskot as a director. The lively talent of the lyrical mime captivated young and old members of the ensemble. In the first years, Pleskot had great success with the audience and critics, not only with his work as a director, but also with his acting performances. However, he made enemies with the orthodox communists in the theatre and had to leave in 1950. After several years in regional theatres, Pleskot was hired in 1956, under more favourable conditions, by the then head of Drama at the National Theatre, his peer Otomar Krejča, whom Pleskot had already met at Frejka’s Vinohrady Municipal Theatre. During his 30-year career, Pleskot created a number of excellent productions at the National Theatre with the leading actors of the ensemble: among the most successful, in addition to the classic comedy repertoire, were Shakespeare’s Hamlet with Lukavský in the title role, Miller’s Death of a Salesman, Brecht’s The Caucasian Chalk Circle and The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui.6. Emil František Burian (1904–59), like Frejka, had started on studio stages. A poet, playwright, director, actor, and jazz singer, as well as an important modernist music composer, Burian founded Theatre D 34 in 1933, where he also set up an acting school in which he realized his own vision of lyrical theatre. Burian was strongly influenced by the emerging young generation of theatre artists. This left-wing artist, friend, and supporter of Vsevolod Meyerhold, was arrested in the spring of 1941 and imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps.7. For details, see Sílová, Radovan Lukavský, 32.8. Jiří Mahen (1882–1939), a poet, journalist, playwright, and theatre actor, who committed suicide in June 1939 in connection with the German occupation.9. The Music Department of the Conservatory also had its master class – the last year of study, where chosen virtuosi studied. In 1946, it was from this Department that the Music faculty (HAMU) at AMU developed.10. For details, see Sílová, Radovan Lukavský, 33.11. The main professors who prepared the transformation into the Academy of Performing Arts were Frejka, his peer, the leading Czech scenographer František Tröster (1904–68), and the dedicated organizer of the school’s operations, the poet and translator Dr. Miroslav Haller (1901–68).12. With the transition to the university model of acting education, the Drama Department of the State Conservatory coexisted with the Theatre Faculty of the Academy of Performing Arts until 1948, after which it was abolished. The study of acting was transferred to the Theatre Faculty, which already started regular classes in the academic year 1946‒47 in the Departments of Dramaturgy and Theatrology, Stage Directing and Scenography. From the 1960’s, the Music-and-Drama Department of the State Conservatory revived (thanks to the period’s demand for an actor who “speaks, sings, and dances”) the original secondary school model of acting education, where some important graduates of the post-war DISK came to teach. In 1975, Lukavský was also invited.13. Kratzerová, “O splněném přání,” 12.14. This was two years after the chapter “Discovery of truths long since known,” which analysed the actor’s mental state in search of a creative state, was published in the programme bulletin of Burian’s Theatre D 38. A Czech translation of Работа актера над собой [An Actor’s Work on Himself] by Josif Rapoport (1901–70), an actor and director of the Vakhtangov Theatre and long-time teacher of the VGIK and GITIS, was also available since 1936. The individual chapters of the slim volume, whose title refers to Stanislavsky, are a selection of elementary insights from the field of acting, as developed and refined by “Stanislavsky’s student” and Rapoport’s teacher Yevgeniy Vakhtangov.15. Honzl was a Czech theatre theoretician and director who worked in the avant-garde Liberated Theatre and later also on the big stages like the National Theatres in Prague and Brno. He was a promoter of Alexander Tairov, Vakhtangov, and Meyerhold, whose productions he knew from several trips to the Soviet Union. In addition to a number of articles in newspapers and magazines, Honzl contributed portraits of these practitioners in the book Moderní ruské divadlo [Modern Russian Theatre] (1928). His article “The Actor’s Character” returned to Stanislavsky’s text Ремесло [“Craft”] (1921), and also commented on Stanislavsky’s focus on the task of creating a character. It was published in 1936. “The Actor’s Inspiration,” a critical delineation of some physiological assumptions of Stanislavsky’s system, was written in 1941 and published only after the war. Since he was not yet familiar with Stanislavsky’s posthumously published notes on the method of physical actions, Honzl argued against focusing on (mere) bodily relaxation, which leads to inactivity and lack of action, while stressing that desirable feelings can also arise from physical impulses or actions. He further developed the polemic in the study “Mimetic Sign and Mimetic Signal” from 1948, where he examined the methodological assumptions of psychological realism. Instead of Stanislavsky’s concentration of the actor on corporeal sensations and relaxing tendencies, he preferred the free activity of the body organism, which is its natural function and which the actor’s body can express freely on stage. (He became acquainted with Stanislavsky’s views on physical actions only in 1951, when An Actor’s Work on the Role began to be published in the Soviet Theatre magazine.)16. The opening speech of the conference applied to the field of culture and art the conclusions of the 11th Congress of the Communist Party of 1946: “Our basic Marxist-Leninist line in the field of artistic creation is generally that we consistently uphold socialist realism, as it was formulated in the fundamental speeches of Comrade Zhdanov.” A. A. Zhdanov (1896–1948) was Stalin’s chief ideologue in the field of cultural policy; his extremely simplistic, dogmatic doctrine (zhdanovshchina) would also serve Czech communist ideologues in their attack of artists who expressed themselves in an “individualistic” and “cosmopolitan” way. See Půlpánová, “B. Příspěvek ve sborníku materiálů z konference československých divadelníků o odkazu K. S. Stanislavského 28. 11. 1951.”17. Ibid., 109.18. Ibid., 110.19. The “struggle against cosmopolitanism,” declared according to the model of Stalin’s Soviet Union, took place in Czechoslovakia in the years 1949–53 (i.e. until Stalin’s death). It was connected with political trials conducted against some Czech political leaders of the time, but also with the persecution of the intelligentsia (mainly, but not only Jewish) and artists. Václav Kopecký, then Minister of Information and ideologue of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, gave an extensive explanation of this concept in the brochure “Against Cosmopolitanism as an Ideology of American Imperialism.” Cosmopolitanism, in his words, meant the acceptance of the ideological, cultural, moral, and social influences of the great-power capitalist nation that strove to dominate the world. Accusations of cosmopolitanism often became a pretext for personal persecution even in the environment of the Theatre Faculty.20. Kopecký, “O divadelní fakultě AMU,” 416–17.21. Frejka had been perceived for some time as a persona non grata at the school he founded: not only because he criticized, as a recognized authority, the “self-salvation” potential of physical actions presented by Toporkov, but also in connection with his humiliating departure from the position of director of the Municipal Theatre, caused by a behind-the-scenes political struggle. He was also considered the author of an article criticizing the current state of theatre in Prague, which was signed by one of his students; for this he was expelled from the teaching staff of DAMU. On 16 October 1952, he fatally shot himself, and died 10 days later. For more details, see Sílová and Bár, Frejkovy Schovávané na schodech, 86–87.22. The “advisory,” specifically – in terms of ideology – conceptual and supervisory body of the Ministry of Education, Science and Arts that existed in the years 1949–53.23. Representatives from the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague (AMU), the Janáček Academy of Performing Arts in Brno (JAMU), and the Academy of Performing Arts in Bratislava (VŠMU) attended.24. Divadlo 3, 954–55.25. “Teaching acting cannot be like sewing shoes in a single pattern,” he literally declared when discussing the new study plans.26. Plachý died on the 2 December 1952 (the day of Frejka’s funeral) after falling from a window for unexplained reasons, and after being repeatedly interrogated by the State Security.27. Zich deals with the general laws of a dramatic work, by which he understood a theatre production as a unique stage interpretation of the playwright’s work. He formulated theoretically the tasks for the director and for the actors in terms of dramatic action on the stage and the creation of a dramatic situation. What was important for Lukavský’s teaching were the passages in which Zich examined the creation of an actor’s character as a unique piece of acting that was created during rehearsals in collaboration with the director, and in which the actor’s psychology participated. In many ways, his approach corresponded with the ideas of Stanislavsky and his concept of the actor’s role.28. Lukavský, Zpráva o výuce herectví při studiu filmové režie, 4.29. Lukavský, “Diskusní příspěvek z pedagogické konference divadelní fakulty Akademie múzických umění v Praze,” 39. Emphasis added.30. Lukavský, “Příspěvek v anketě,Čelem k divadelnímu školství,” 368.31. Ibid., 368.32. Frejka, “Divadelní škola,” 118.33. Poetism expressed one of the modernist artistic tendencies, and originated from the interwar avant-garde movement. Under the ideological leadership of theorist Karel Teige (1900–51), it was the artistic current of the Devětsil Union of Modern Culture, uniting left-leaning artists and theorists. Poetism was characterized by playfulness, the celebration of life’s vitality, and the joy of ordinary things. In the case of theatre, it was a unique stage poetry which in its scenic form combined the procedures of Dadaism and Constructivism.34. Josef Čapek (1887–1945), an important Czech painter, scenographer, and writer, was the older brother of the most important interwar writer Karel Čapek (1890–1938). Several dramatic texts were written by the brothers together, among them this comedy skit from their theatre beginnings in 1910, and which can be considered the “elder sister” of theatrical poetism.35. Adolf Hoffmeister (1902–73), a man of many artistic and literary professions, was a collaborator of the Liberated Theatre, which formed the “theatre section” of Děvětsil and of which Hoffmeister was also a member.36. A reference to Tairov’s book The Unleashed Theatre.37. Machonin, “Disk, mladé a současné divadlo,” 5.38. Nt. “Dvě hry o lásce v Disku,” 3.39. Sílová, Radovan Lukavský, 58.40. For both of these stages of coming to terms with the Stanislavsky phenomenon, see Hyvnar, “Stanislavského ‘systém’ v českém divadle: dogma a inspirace”41. Krejča can be considered as the most important representative of the post-war generation, a leading actor and theatre director, head of the Drama ensemble at the National Theatre (1956–61), and founder of Theatre Behind the Gate in 1965, which was liquidated for political reasons in 1972. From the mid-1970’s to the end of the 1990’s, he could only work abroad (Belgium, France, Germany, Sweden), where he successfully staged world classics and modern drama, especially plays by Chekhov. Already in 1952, on the occasion of an article about the Prague productions of visiting Soviet directors, Krejča openly criticized the Czech vulgarizers of Stanislavsky’s acting-directing work, which “become an obstacle to successful development and delay it because they fight for the power to which, according to the quality of their artistic work they are far from having the right, and they recklessly pursue their careers, not their art. Their ideological maturity usually has its shallow roots – it starts and ends with a phrase – in their work, one would not find it in their creations. These people then spread vulgarizing tendencies in their circle, both within the theatre organisms and around them, they stifle the life of the theatre organisms, they impose impermeable working and organizational templates on it, they dictate, they ‘convince’ by accusations and intimidation.” Krejča, “Nad prací A. V. Sokolova,” 443.42. Alfréd Radok was an extraordinary figure in Czech theatre and film direction, the co-creator of Laterna magika for the international exhibition EXPO in Brussels (1958). After August 1968, he emigrated to Sweden, got a job in Gothenburg (Folkteater), and directed in Austria, Germany, Belgium, and Norway.43. At the time I am writing about, Jaroslav Vostrý was the editor-in-chief of the magazine Divadlo [Theatre], co-founder and artistic director of the Drama Club, which in the second half of the 1960’s and the beginning of the 1970’s successfully toured in a number of European countries. He was a playwright and director. From the beginning of the 1960’s until 2021, he served as a leading pedagogue at Prague’s DAMU, practically and theoretically connecting acting with dramaturgy and directing. He authored a number of publications, and became rector emeritus of the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague. He still returns to Stanislavsky’s ideas today. It is enough to recall his monograph Stanislavského objev herecké kreativity a jeho sociokulturní souvislosti [Stanislavsky’s Discovery of the Actor’s Creativity and its Socio-Cultural Context] and most recently the study “Od prožívání k umění” [From Experiencing to Art], which puts Stanislavsky’s concept of experiencing in a new light in confrontation with the results of contemporary neuroscience, namely the theory of Antonio Damasio, and also in connection with the overall development of the Stanislavsky “system.” The study is accompanied by a selection of Stanislavsky’s early and late writings which were not yet published in Czech, entitled Od prožívání k jednání. Předpoklady a cíle Stanislavského reformy [From Experiencing to Action. Prerequisites and Objectives of the Stanislavski Reform].44. In the article “Herec není sám” [The Actor is not Alone], published in April 1962, Krejča focused on the conditions and processes of artistic creation in his explanation of Stanislavsky’s legacy as an ensemble art. He described the “system” not as an ordered set of techniques and axioms but as a lively and long-term systematic effort to transform acting. In the same spirit, and focused on his own experience as a director working with actors, Radok’s articles “Patologie herectví” [The Pathology of Acting] and “Divadelní novověk” [The Theatre of Today] for the January and November issues of the same year examined the relation between “internal and external technique” – Stanislavsky’s terms of experiencing and embodiment – in the relation between the actor’s action and everything that exists on the stage, including the technology connecting live actor’s stage action with film projection.In his “Přiznání ke Stanislavskému” [Allegiance to Stanislavsky] (October 1967), Vostrý compared Sergei Eisenstein’s notes from the famous study Монтаж 1938 [Montage 38] to Stanislavsky’s perception of the creative process. He also commented on the critical views of the Jindřich Honzl on Stanislavsky’s conception of acting technique.45. Lukavský,“O malých věcech velkého umění,” 15–16.46. In one interview, Lukavský mentioned that his articles earned him the label of “an intellectual” among his acting colleagues. They did not expect that when one was interested in the theory of his profession he could also create spontaneously: “Most ‘intellectuals’ did not know that Stanislavsky did not invent a theory of acting, but that he was discovering the laws of the natural creative process and thus the way to spontaneous acting. So I was legitimately attracted to him.” Sílová, Radovan Lukavský, 155.47. Lukavský, “Živý průsečík.” Quote is from Konstantin Sergejevič Stanislavskij, 8.48. Lukavský, Stanislavského metoda herecké práce, v. The Teacher here is a reference to Stanislavsky.49. Ibid.50. Ibid., xiv.51. The Czech translation of the Russian original was only published in 2022 in Stanislavsky and Vostrý, Od prožívání k jednání: předpoklady a cíle Stanislavského reformy, 69–76.52. “It was precisely the implacability and relentlessness towards every injustice committed by man against man, precisely the strength and courage to assert and defend the truth – these were the strings that our time resonated in Hamlet. Radovan Lukavský made them sound to the full. The driving force of his noble and complex struggle was the purest effort for complete unity between individual and social existence, for human integrity. That was why his performance impressed as sharp and disturbingly contemporary, that is why it brought many spectators to ponder.” These were the words by which the critic Helena Suchařípová described her impressions generated from the production. Suchařípová, Radovan Lukavský, 29.53. Lukavský, Být nebo nebýt, 234.54. This is how we students referred to his Stanislavsky’s Method of an Actor’s Work.55. Bechtoldová, “Radovan Lukavský: neprekážať životu v sebe,” 23.56. Kopáčová, “O divadle a citové výchově,” 5.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Academy of Performing Arts [TA 290/01-89_011].Notes on contributorsZuzana SílováProf. Zuzana Sílová works at the Department of Dramatic Theatre of the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague, where she leads the division of history and theory. Furthermore, she is in charge of the Institute for Theory of Creation in Scenic Arts DAMU. There she participates in the project “Scene and Drama,” in which she studies the history of Czech theatre, especially acting. Sílová is the editor of Czech academic edition series Disk; she is focused on books and collective monographs on scenic art, especially those reflecting on the issue of specific and non-specific scenic creation; and editor of Study Texts, which is dedicated to the important phenomena of Czech and European theatre. She also participated in selecting and preparing the publication of K. S. Stanislavsky’s articles, which have not yet been translated into Czech. These materials are dedicated to both the first and the last phase of his artistic-pedagogical research and published under the title From Experiencing to Action: Preconditions and Objectives of Stanislavski’s Reform (2022).