|
The Moscow Art Theatre (MAT) production of ''Hamlet'' in 1911–12, on which two of the 20th century's most influential theatre practitioners—Constantin Stanislavski and Edward Gordon Craig—collaborated, is particularly important in the history of performances of ''Hamlet'' and of 20th-century theatre in general.〔Bablet (1962, 134) and Senelick (1982, xvi).〕 The story of Craig and Stanislavski began in 1908 when the eccentric American dancer Isadora Duncan, who had birthed a son with Craig, introduced the two to each other. Craig, an English theatre practitioner, had garnered interest for the symbolist and simplistic designs he brought to plays like Henrik Ibsen’s The Vikings at Helgeland. On the other end of the spectrum Constantin Stanislavski was creating a world of theatre based upon realism, the internal complexities of the mind, and the rise of psychology. As Benedetti stated, “Stanislavski hoped to use the production to prove that his recently developed 'system' for creating internally justified, realistic acting could meet the formal demands of a classic play”.〔Benedetti, Jean. Stanislavski. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 1988. Print.〕 After their meeting Stanislavski decided to invite Craig to help produce Hamlet for the 1910 season at the Moscow Art Theatre. Though one early setback of their attempt was how Stanislavski contracted a serious case of typhoid fever which saw him take a leave of absence and consequently pushed back the opening night eventually opening on .〔See Benedetti (1998, 188–211). Bablet gives the opening date as 8 January 1912; (1962, 134).〕 The duo tackled this project when they were at the peak of their influence but also still crafting new unconventional ways to bring life to the stage. At times this led to conflict between the entire cast and crew but eventually gave birth to one of the most unique, polarizing, and impactful productions of all the twentieth century. Despite hostile reviews from the Russian press, the production attracted enthusiastic and unprecedented worldwide attention for the theatre, with reviews in Britain's ''The Times'' and in the French press that praised its unqualified success; the production placed the Moscow Art Theatre "on the cultural map for Western Europe" and it came to be regarded as a seminal event that influenced the subsequent history of production style in the theatre and revolutionised the staging of Shakespeare's plays in the 20th century.〔Bablet (1962, 134), Benedetti (1999, 199), Innes (1983, 172), and Senelick (1982, xvi).〕 It became "one of the most famous and passionately discussed productions in the history of the modern stage."〔Bablet (1962, 134).〕 ==Aesthetic approaches== When Stanislavski extended his invitation to Craig in April of 1908, he was completely overcome by his eagerness to work with progressive theatre artists. However, Stanislavski was unaware of was how vastly different his vision for the future was from Craig’s. Following his failed experiment with Meyerhold and the studio, Stanislavski began to emphasize the importance of the actor. He believed that “neither the set, nor the director, nor the designer can carry the play…it is in the hands of the actor”. 〔 Morgan, Joyce Vining. Stanislavski's Encounter with Shakespeare: The Evolution of a Method. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research, 1984. Print.〕 It was this principle that drove him to significantly reconsider the approach of the actor. By the time Stanislavski became aware of Craig, he was beginning to develop the concepts that would later serve as the backbone for his “system”. He was determined that good acting came from internal motivations rather than outward shows. While Stanislavski’s ideas centered almost entirely on the role of the actor, Craig’s vision of a new theatre minimized the actors’ importance to that of an instrument through which the director’s vision is brought to life. “The actor must no longer express himself, but something else; he must no longer imitate, but indicate”.〔 Morgan, Joyce Vining. Stanislavski's Encounter with Shakespeare: The Evolution of a Method. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research, 1984. Print.〕 In Craig’s opinion good theatre required a unity of all elements under the control of one person. In line with a tendency within the Symbolist movement to view Shakespeare's play as a work of poetry rather than as one for the stage, Craig wrote in his influential manifesto ''The Art of the Theatre'' (1905) that it "has not the nature of a stage representation."〔Bablet (1962, 133). Craig's book had been published in a Russian-language edition in 1906.〕 The playwright Maurice Maeterlinck (whom Stanislavski visited in the summer of 1908 to discuss his forthcoming production of ''The Blue Bird'') had argued 15 years earlier that many of the greatest dramas in the history of theatre, including ''Hamlet'', were "not stageable."〔Maeterlinck also included ''King Lear'', ''Othello'', ''Macbeth'', and ''Antony and Cleopatra'' in this category; Maurice Materlinck, writing in ''La Jeune Belgique'' in 1890; quoted by Braun (1982, 40).〕 In 1908, Craig again insisted that an adequate staging of the play was "impossible."〔Bablet (1962, 133).〕 When he suggested the play to the MAT, he wanted "to test my theory that the Shakespearean play does not naturally belong to the art of the theatre."〔Quoted by Bablet (1962, 157).〕 Craig conceived of the production as a symbolist monodrama in which every aspect of production would be subjugated to the play's protagonist: the play would present a dream-like vision as seen through Hamlet's eyes. To support this interpretation, Craig wanted to add archetypal, symbolic figures—such as Madness, Murder, and Death—and to have Hamlet present on-stage during every scene, silently observing those in which he did not participate. Stanislavski overruled him.〔On Craig's relationship to Russian symbolism and its principles of monodrama in particular, see Taxidou (1998, 38–41); on Craig's staging proposals, see Innes (1983, 153); on the centrality of the protagonist and his mirroring of the 'authorial self', see Taxidou (1998, 181, 188) and Innes (1983, 153).〕 Stanislavski wished the actors to accompany the text with raw palpable emotion, of course, never straying far away from his system. Meanwhile, Craig sought for the actors to not try and make their characters emotional state present. This did not mean he wanted a dead show but on the contrary he believed the text clearly stated each character's motives and feelings. He strove for simplicity that Kaoru Osanai, in the Educational Theatre Journal, calls “simplicity in expression not in content.” So in some scenes where Stanislavski wanted many actions to take place Craig wished for little to no movement to let the poetry take the lead. Despite this apparent opposition between Craig's symbolist aesthetic and Stanislavski's psychological realism, however, the two did share some artistic assumptions; the 'system' had developed out of Stanislavski's experiments with symbolist drama, which had shifted the emphasis of his approach from a naturalistic external surface to the inner world of the character's "spirit".〔Bablet (1962, 133) and Benedetti (1999, part two).〕 Both had stressed the importance of achieving a unity of all theatrical elements in their work.〔Bablet (76–80), Benedetti (1989, 18, 23) and Magarshack (1950, 73–74).〕 In a letter written in February 1909 to Liubov Gurevich about his recent production of Gogol's ''The Government Inspector'', Stanislavski confirmed his "return to realism" but expressed the belief that this would not hinder the collaboration: Of course, we have returned to realism, to a deeper, more refined and more psychological realism. Let us get a little stronger in it and we shall once more continue on our quest. That is why we have invited Gordon Craig. After wandering about in search of new ways, we shall again return to realism for more strength. I do not doubt that every abstraction on the stage, such as impressionism, for instance, could be attained by way of a more refined and deeper realism. All other ways are false and dead.〔Quoted by Bablet (1962, 135–136); see also Magarshack (1950, 294).〕 Craig's and Stanislavski's interpretations of the central role of Shakespeare's play, however, were quite different. Stanislavski's vision of Hamlet was as an active, energetic and crusading character, whereas Craig saw him as a representation of a spiritual principle, caught in a mutually destructive struggle with the principle of matter as embodied in all that surrounded him. Hamlet's tragedy, Craig felt, was that he talks rather than acts.〔See Benedetti (1998, 190, 196) and Innes (1983, 149).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Moscow Art Theatre production of Hamlet」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|