Jerzy Grotowski is a renowned advocate for an acting style wherein the actor is propelled by an innate force rather than conforming to the ‘alphabet’ of accepted human motions in order to replicate the act. However, in 2004 The Wooster Group, a New York experimental theater company, staged a production entitled ‘Poor Theater: A Series of Simulacra’ in which the performers simulated video images of Jerzy Grotowski’s Akropolis. The production was extremely controversial and was met with consternation, particularly so at the Warsaw Theatre Festival in October of 2004. One commentator, speaking “in the name of those people who had the opportunity to see Grotowski’s group live,” called Poor Theater merely a “faded carbon” and an “embarrassing” example of “artistic chutzpah.” Some even went so far as to call the production “blasphemous” (Dunkelberg, 2005; 49). This comment denotes how Growtowski’s followers zealously believe that his theatre is Christ-like. Grotowski’s work is imbued with religious imagery, symbolism, and terminology. He speaks of theater as Revelation leading to Grace. He considers his actors ‘holy’, refers to the theater as a temple, views performance as confession and considers art to be a ‘calling’ leading toward spiritual and political salvation (Croyden, 1974; 144).
This essay will consider why Grotowski used spiritual references in his work particularly in the case of Akropolis. Akropolis manifests many of Grotowski’s notions of “poor theatre” such as a minimalist design, non-representational acting, an intense actor-spectator relationship and a distinctive staging style. By illustrating how The Wooster Group’s Poor Theater deviates from these notions, I hope to show why their production was considered by many critics to be sacrilegious. Also, putting Grotowski’s work in a comparative framework should serve to make his concepts all the more pronounced.
In 1968 Grotowski wrote his influential text Towards a Poor Theatre in which he poses the question ‘What is the theater?’ By systematically eliminating all that proved superfluous, Grotowski found that theater is defined by one thing only: the actor-spectator relationship (Grotowski, 1968; 18). That is to say that lights, make-up, scenography and costumes are all unnecessary. Without this additional pomp, theater still exists: a distilled pure form of theatre. This essence is what Grotowski called poor theatre. He chose the word ‘poor’ to express the renunciation of extravagance (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970). Believing that theater has something unique to offer that other disciplines do not, Grotowski denounced what he called ‘artistic kleptomania… constructing hybrid-spectacles, conglomerates without backbone or integrity’ (Grotowski, 1968; 19). Turning Grotowski’s use of the term ‘poor theatre’ on its head, The Wooster Group uses the expression as a pun. Their Poor Theater was far from Grotowski’s poor theatre, which sought to penetrate the conventions of representation in order to tap an existential core. Instead, they used the term in a comic manner to suggest that their production was poorly executed, poorly funded and to be lamented (Dunkelberg, 2005; 43).
Under the direction of Elizabeth LeCompte, The Group strayed from Grotowski’s concept of a poor theatre in more ways than one. LeCompte began her artistic career as a painter and so, orientated towards the visual arts, she used technology freely in her Poor Theater. Much like other directors of her generation such as Robert Wilson, Richard Foreman and JoAnne Akalaitis, she developed a theatrical language very different from the actor-centered, Grotowski approach (Dunkelberg, 2005; 44). These directors often use artistic eclecticism, which is wholly irreconcilable with what Grotowski advocated. He believed that “the integration of borrowed mechanisms (movie screens onstage, for example)…is all nonsense” and a transparent compensation. “No matter how much theatre expands and exploits its mechanical resources, it will remain technologically inferior to film and television. Consequently, [he] propose[d] poverty in theatre” (Grotowski, 1968, 18).
Grotowski’s philosophies were best adapted by an ensemble of skilled artists, known as the Teatr Laboratorium (1959-1984). Of all their productions, Akropolis is widely considered to be their most harrowing work and is a fine example of the concepts of poor theatre (Akropolis; 1985). Akropolis is a poignant dramatization of the atrocities of Auschwitz. It renders the dreams and imaginings of condemned prisoners, as they build their own crematorium. The wretches take the names of Biblical and Homeric heroes and indulge in daydreams by acting out their own version of these legends.
The inmates are the protagonists and, in the name of a higher unwritten law, they are their own torturers… The throbbing rhythm of the play underscores the building of a new civilization. (Wolford and Schechner, 1997; 64)
Because the actors play both the protagonists and the torturers the action is condensed. It does not rely on intermediary sources as the Wooster Group’s Poor Theater did. There are no screens or mirrors in Grotowski’s Akropolis.
In Akropolis the relationship between actor and audience is established by sheer corporal proximity. However, physical contact is never actually made and the viewers are not expected or encouraged to participate in the performance. The action of the play takes place in all areas of the auditorium and performers move among the spectators creating a suggestion of an undefined space. The viewers represent the world of the living and the actors are dream-like characters that rise from the smoke of the crematorium. They are the dead (Osinski; 1986; 69).
These are two separate and mutually impenetrable worlds… These are the living and the dead. The physical proximity… helps confirm the separateness. The viewers… are provocatively ignored. The dead appear in the dreams of the living, strangely and incomprehensively. And, as in a nightmare, they surround the dreamers on all sides. (Teatralny cited in Osinski; 1986; 68)
For Grotowski, this physical propinquity is an essential facet of poor theatre. The Teatr Laboratorium would only perform in small venues such as the Theater of Thirteen Rows. Grotowski strongly objected to the suggestion that he should increase the audience capacity of his performances. In an interview with Margaret Croyden, he retorted that the spectators are an integral, composite part of the performance and a bigger venue would destroy the authenticity of the work (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970).
This intimate actor-spectator relationship was cultivated so that the actors could “teach people to think politically… and to be masters of their own fate.” In other words, close proximity was used to help the spectator to internalize a social problem presented by the actor so as to inspire the audience to find a politically constructive response (Mitter, 1992; 81). This element of the poor theatre is reminiscent of what Bertolt Brecht termed ‘alienation.’ However, it is important to note that Grotowski differentiated his approach from that of Brecht. Grotowski wished ‘to draw attention’ but was also wary that alienation could inadvertently have ill effects. Rather than inspire the audience to adopt faith in the feasibility of change, he warned that it might unsettle the audience to the point of cynicism (Mitter, 1992; 81).
With this in mind, returning to the example of the 2004 Wooster Group performance, it is evident that the disapproving reaction of critics to the piece was due, in part, to the disregard of the artists for the actor-spectator relationship. Although the piece was held in a small setting (The Performing Garage, 33 Wooster Street, New York), it did not resonate with the same haunting effect. The play began with a video documentary of The Wooster Group actors watching a video of an early documentary film of the Polish Laboratory Theatre. The artists intentionally distanced themselves from the audience by starting the play with a video of people watching people (Dunkelberg, 2005; 45). It was considered distasteful by some that The Wooster Group should have the effrontery to pay lip service to poor theatre, and then so blatantly contradict it.
Also, the staging style used by the Wooster Group was quite unlike that which Grotowski promoted. The entire ‘set’ of Akropolis’ comprised of rusted pipes, wheelbarrows, bathtubs and pieces of scrap metal. These items served multiple purposes throughout the play and nothing could be introduced into the scene that was not present on the stage from the beginning. This imposed a sense that, beyond the space of the play, nothing else exists. From this wasteland of junk, the prisoners built an absurd civilization and a labyrinth of gas chambers (Schechner and Wolford, 1997; 63). Traditional lighting techniques were abandoned and, instead, Grotowski played with natural shadows. All existing luminous points were deliberately extinguished, so that the ultimate vision of hope was vanquished with ‘blasphemous irony’ (Grotowski, 1968; 63). The costumes were basic; heavy wooden shoes, identical berets and tattered sacks covering naked bodies. This uniform was suggestive of the apparel worn by prisoners in Nazi death camps. The sacks obscured any discriminating signs of sex and the gaping holes in the thin material brought forth images of torn skin and mangled flesh (Schechner and Wolford, 1997; 64). This effectiveness of the simplistic design concept is in itself a testimony to the merits of poor theatre. The audience did not need elaborate death camp costumes in order to understand the play. In many ways poor theatre shows a higher level of respect for the intelligence of the spectator than traditional theater does.
Grotowski believed that expensive costumes, sophisticated lights and elaborate scenery are trivial facets of theater. Design was not a determining concern for the Teatr Laboratorium and minimalist staging styles were considered superior. Acting style was emphasized more in Grotowski’s work. He intended that his actors would not rely on the use of pretence but instead play their characters by playing themselves (Mitter, 1992; 79). The Wooster Group actors literally did not play from their own experience but instead tried to imitate the actors in Akropolis. It was hoped that the simulated video images would be more than just a representation in itself, but instead would transmute into a new being all of its own (Baudrillard, 1994; 2). This belief is epitomized by the writings of German dada and surrealist artist Max Ernst, who introduced the practice of frottage (placing paper over an object and rubbing with a pencil or charcoal) into his work.
I was becoming obsessed by the sight of the grooves in that floor. The floor itself stayed completely alive [...]. [A]s soon as I started rubbing, it instantly wasn’t parquet anymore. I mean, as soon as I started rubbing, suddenly I had these shapes. And I think these are the forms that were the source of my obsession in the first place. This must have been what I was seeing before...]. [T]he floorness of the floor was gone, and the images were so clear: and it dawned on me: ‘My God!’ (Ernst cited in Dunkelberg, 2005; 45)
Many critics of The Wooster Group’s Poor Theater did not value this form of creation and called it “a specious imitation,” and a “sham” (Dunkelberg, 2005; 45). Their resistance stems from what can be called an artistic dogma: an imposed belief that the authenticity of the original work must be preserved. Admittedly, Grotowski’s work was not entirely original either. The foundation of his method is a core idea in other schools of thought, such as that of the Stanislavski tradition. Grotowski was trained under Konstantin Stanislavski and this background influenced his work greatly. Grotowski analyzed critically the techniques of his predecessors and expropriated the elements of their work that he considered of value. However, rather than simulating past work, Grotowski expanded upon the preexisting ideas to create a new mode of acting (Richards, 1995; 4).
Grotowski pushed his actors toward a “total act.” This required an actor to confront him/herself with complete sincerity and thereby strip away his/her social mask. Although these methods share elements with Stanislavski, Grotowski did not intend phychological realism. He believed that the way people express themselves is a convoluted form of communication and hoped that his performers would act without referring to socially typical modes of expression. That is to say, that in the moment when the Stanislavski-trained actor makes an objective decision about a rational reaction, Grotowski’s actor instead acts on impulse (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970). By eliminating the opportunity to rationalize an action, Grotowski ensures that the actor can not settle for an inauthentic representation.
Furthermore Grotowski’s theories are in stark contrast with the methods espoused by many theorists who came before him and Stanislavski. Edward Gordon Craig, for example, did not share Grotowski’s concentration on the performer but rather worked towards “doing away with the actor.” Craig believed that actors “confuse us into connecting actuality and art” (Craig, 1996; 142) unlike Grotowski, who believed that actuality is art. What is more, Craig alleged that an actor’s tendency to vie for admiration could damage the work of the playwright by obscuring the meaning of the piece with their crowd-pleasing ostentations. Grotowski was criticized at times for disregarding the playwright. He defended his adaptations as confrontation with a text, rather than a subservient interpretation of it. Instead of a “faithful” rendering of Stanislaw Wyspianski’s play, in Akropolis he presented his autonomous directorial vision using the individual life experiences of his actors (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970).
Grotowski believed that the fixed vocabulary of symbolic actions and gestures that are used in contemporary society are not inherent, but learned. He held that an actor should disregard the ‘alphabet’ of actions, so that a new, more primal way of moving could develop. If the actor’s ‘blocks’ were removed, then he or she could act as a complete entity, combining the body with the soul (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970). This notion was manifest in Akropolis, as he stated in Towards a Poor Theatre:
The different parts of his body give free rein to different reflexes, which are often contradictory… All the actors use gestures, positions and rhythms borrowed from pantomime... The actors become stereotypes of the species… Remnants of sophistication are juxtaposed to animal behavior. (Grotowski, 1968; 77)
In the absence of stage make-up the Laboratory actors instead wore organic masks composed entirely of facial muscles. Each actor painfully held a grimace throughout Akropolis, serving as a powerful expression of the internalized oppression of the concentration camp. These were no ordinary masks. They were honest expressions of pain in that they did not attempt of express an emotion through an intermediate gesture but make the gesture the emotion itself (Richards, 1995; 26). The significance of Grotowski’s masks justifies why many considered the Wooster Group Poor Theater offensive. They simultaneously present the black-and-white images of the Laboratory actors’ faces with color images of their own actors imitating the grotesque poses. The Wooster Group faces draw laughter from the audience. The Laboratory faces do not (Dunkelberg, 2005; 46). This apparent mockery is what caused critics to call the piece “blasphemous.”
Grotowski’s work is viewed by many as having a spiritual nature. This may be due, in part, to his desire to heal the world through his art (‘theatre is therapy’). He believed that “civilization is sick with schizophrenia, which is a rupture between intelligence and feeling, body and soul” (Grotowski cited in Mitter, 1992; 82). The actor’s healing ability is his capacity for self sacrifice (Kumiega, 1985; 143). Grotowski’s actors scourged themselves in order to cleanse society. In this respect, Grotowski concurred with Antinon Artaud who posed that “actors should be like martyrs burnt alive, still signaling to us from their stakes” (Mitter, 1992; 82). Building on this idea, Grotowski conceived of the theatre as “a place of provocation” in which the holy actor, revealing a level of truth that transgresses accepted stereotypes and comfortable lies, provokes the spectator “to undertake a similar process of self penetration” (Wolford, 1996; 5). This approach led viewers to the conclusion that Grotowski’s poor theatre was more like a religious sect than a theater company. His actors were compared to fakirs “flagellat[ing] themselves until they have red welts on their backs” (Osinski, 1986; 86).
Religious imagery is ubiquitous in Grotowski’s works, and of these Akropolis is no exception. In Akropolis the Teatr Laboratorium used the story of Isaac, Jacob, and Esau from the book of Genesis. There are many possible hypotheses as to why Grotowski chose this story to stage the Holocaust. One rather literal explanation is that Grotowski selected this proverb because it can be used as a biblical justification for the extermination of the Jews during WWI, just as biblical justifications were used to rationalize Apartheid in South Africa (Fawcett, 2000: 24) The parable used in Akropolis, from Genesis 25, contains the Lord’s speech to Rebekah: “Two nations – in your womb, two people from your loins shall issue. People over people shall prevail, the elder, the younger’s slave.” Theoretically these two nations could be construed as the Aryan race (descended from Esau) and the Jews (descended from Jacob). While Esau is depicted as strong and hard working, Jacob is sly and manipulative (Genesis; 25). These are classic stereotypes that were used during the Holocaust. The story in Genesis describes how Jacob cons his brother into selling him his birthright (Genesis 25:31-34) and tricks his father into giving him the blessing meant for Esau (Genesis 27:20-29). As Esau puts it “My birthright he took, and look, now, he’s taken my blessing” (Genesis 27:36). As a result of Jacob’s treachery, Esau wishes him dead but never seeks revenge (Genesis 27:41). By exterminating the sons of Jacob the Nazis could be said to be rebalancing the natural order in society and regaining their birthright.
However this may be too simplistic an explanation for Grotowski’s decision to use this proverb in Akropolis. It is more likely that the recurring ‘crucifixions, flagellations, liturgies, and masses’ in Grotowski’s art result from what is known as the ‘Polish Experience,’” which is characterized by bitterness and despair caused by the devastating effects of Nazi brutality (Croyden, 1974; 142). Grotowski and his associates emerged from this milieu and their work was inevitably influenced by this history. Traditionally, artists from the period of Polish Romanticism, which predated Grotowski’s work, also used religion as a form of expression against disenfranchising political censorship. Their impassioned patriotism became expressed using Polish Catholicism because they could not express themselves in the political sphere, and religious mysticism merged with revolutionary narratives. Poets such as Adam Mickiewicz (1798-1855) compared Poland’s suffering with that of Christ and dramatized Poland as crucified. In this respect, Grotowski’s use of parables in Akropolis is entirely in line with the writings of his predecessors (Croyden, 1974; 140).
Conversely, another explanation for Gotowski’s use of the story of Isaac, Jacob, and Esau to stage the Holocaust may in fact be a criticism of the romantic poets who went before him. The use this parable in the context of Auschwitz is, in itself, a criticism of these artists. Polish people have for many decades used romantic-religious ideas as a substitute for organized political action. By setting the story in the context of the Holocaust, Grotowski makes a scathing attack on the apathy of the Polish people. Their preoccupation with religious romanticism has led to the present state of the political system. Hiding behind fantastical myths and daydreams and making beautiful poetry from pain, they have allowed their society to become sick (Croyden, 1974; 141). By offsetting revered religious mysticism with the ugly truths of the ‘Polish Experience,’ Grotowski hoped to
teach people to think politically, to understand their interests, to fight for bread and democracy and for justice and truth in everyday life…We must fight for people to speak their minds with out fear of being harassed. We must fight so stupid and corrupt individuals won’t hold positions of responsibility. (Osinski,1986; 19)
The Acropolis was a site in Ancient Greece of the highest religious importance. The word ‘akropolis’ itself has particular significance in Grotowski’s work. It was repeatedly chanted throughout the performance in the manner of a Hebrew prayer. The actor’s repetition of the phrases ‘our Akropolis’ and ‘the cemetery of tribes’ could be used to parallel Auschwitz with a religious pinnacle of civilization. Furthermore, Stanislaw Wyspianski’s original production of this play was set in a church near the crematorium. Grotowski transforms the church into the crematorium. From these directorial choices, one could infer that Grotowski uses religion in Akropolis to assert that society has through some perverted worship played a part in its own demise (Schechner and Wolford, 1997; 62).
Of course the conclusions that Grotowski reached are not universally agreed upon. In many ways the Wooster Group’s Poor Theater is a confrontation with its ancestor and a response to the history, reception, rejection and appropriation of Grotowski’s work in the United States (Dunkelberg, 2005; 43). Although The Group did not adopt many of the notions of “poor theatre” such as were manifest in Akropolis—which include minimalist staging and design as well as an emphasis on acting and the actor-spectator relationship—Grotowski might not have objected to their interpretive license. Grotowski strongly advocated the right of artists to make personal interpretations rather than subservient recreations of what came before, much as he did with Wyspianski’s original script (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970). Despite criticisms, Grotowski’s reformulation brought new depth and meaning to Wyspianski’s piece, particularly by drawing connections between the Holocaust and the stories of Genesis. Artistic dogma could have stifled this artistic enhancement, a threat that still exists today.
Grotowski’s philosophies were best adapted by an ensemble of skilled artists, known as the Teatr Laboratorium (1959-1984). Of all their productions, Akropolis is widely considered to be their most harrowing work and is a fine example of the concepts of poor theatre (Akropolis; 1985). Akropolis is a poignant dramatization of the atrocities of Auschwitz. It renders the dreams and imaginings of condemned prisoners, as they build their own crematorium. The wretches take the names of Biblical and Homeric heroes and indulge in daydreams by acting out their own version of these legends.
The inmates are the protagonists and, in the name of a higher unwritten law, they are their own torturers… The throbbing rhythm of the play underscores the building of a new civilization. (Wolford and Schechner, 1997; 64)
Because the actors play both the protagonists and the torturers the action is condensed. It does not rely on intermediary sources as the Wooster Group’s Poor Theater did. There are no screens or mirrors in Grotowski’s Akropolis.
In Akropolis the relationship between actor and audience is established by sheer corporal proximity. However, physical contact is never actually made and the viewers are not expected or encouraged to participate in the performance. The action of the play takes place in all areas of the auditorium and performers move among the spectators creating a suggestion of an undefined space. The viewers represent the world of the living and the actors are dream-like characters that rise from the smoke of the crematorium. They are the dead (Osinski; 1986; 69).
These are two separate and mutually impenetrable worlds… These are the living and the dead. The physical proximity… helps confirm the separateness. The viewers… are provocatively ignored. The dead appear in the dreams of the living, strangely and incomprehensively. And, as in a nightmare, they surround the dreamers on all sides. (Teatralny cited in Osinski; 1986; 68)
For Grotowski, this physical propinquity is an essential facet of poor theatre. The Teatr Laboratorium would only perform in small venues such as the Theater of Thirteen Rows. Grotowski strongly objected to the suggestion that he should increase the audience capacity of his performances. In an interview with Margaret Croyden, he retorted that the spectators are an integral, composite part of the performance and a bigger venue would destroy the authenticity of the work (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970).
This intimate actor-spectator relationship was cultivated so that the actors could “teach people to think politically… and to be masters of their own fate.” In other words, close proximity was used to help the spectator to internalize a social problem presented by the actor so as to inspire the audience to find a politically constructive response (Mitter, 1992; 81). This element of the poor theatre is reminiscent of what Bertolt Brecht termed ‘alienation.’ However, it is important to note that Grotowski differentiated his approach from that of Brecht. Grotowski wished ‘to draw attention’ but was also wary that alienation could inadvertently have ill effects. Rather than inspire the audience to adopt faith in the feasibility of change, he warned that it might unsettle the audience to the point of cynicism (Mitter, 1992; 81).
With this in mind, returning to the example of the 2004 Wooster Group performance, it is evident that the disapproving reaction of critics to the piece was due, in part, to the disregard of the artists for the actor-spectator relationship. Although the piece was held in a small setting (The Performing Garage, 33 Wooster Street, New York), it did not resonate with the same haunting effect. The play began with a video documentary of The Wooster Group actors watching a video of an early documentary film of the Polish Laboratory Theatre. The artists intentionally distanced themselves from the audience by starting the play with a video of people watching people (Dunkelberg, 2005; 45). It was considered distasteful by some that The Wooster Group should have the effrontery to pay lip service to poor theatre, and then so blatantly contradict it.
Also, the staging style used by the Wooster Group was quite unlike that which Grotowski promoted. The entire ‘set’ of Akropolis’ comprised of rusted pipes, wheelbarrows, bathtubs and pieces of scrap metal. These items served multiple purposes throughout the play and nothing could be introduced into the scene that was not present on the stage from the beginning. This imposed a sense that, beyond the space of the play, nothing else exists. From this wasteland of junk, the prisoners built an absurd civilization and a labyrinth of gas chambers (Schechner and Wolford, 1997; 63). Traditional lighting techniques were abandoned and, instead, Grotowski played with natural shadows. All existing luminous points were deliberately extinguished, so that the ultimate vision of hope was vanquished with ‘blasphemous irony’ (Grotowski, 1968; 63). The costumes were basic; heavy wooden shoes, identical berets and tattered sacks covering naked bodies. This uniform was suggestive of the apparel worn by prisoners in Nazi death camps. The sacks obscured any discriminating signs of sex and the gaping holes in the thin material brought forth images of torn skin and mangled flesh (Schechner and Wolford, 1997; 64). This effectiveness of the simplistic design concept is in itself a testimony to the merits of poor theatre. The audience did not need elaborate death camp costumes in order to understand the play. In many ways poor theatre shows a higher level of respect for the intelligence of the spectator than traditional theater does.
Grotowski believed that expensive costumes, sophisticated lights and elaborate scenery are trivial facets of theater. Design was not a determining concern for the Teatr Laboratorium and minimalist staging styles were considered superior. Acting style was emphasized more in Grotowski’s work. He intended that his actors would not rely on the use of pretence but instead play their characters by playing themselves (Mitter, 1992; 79). The Wooster Group actors literally did not play from their own experience but instead tried to imitate the actors in Akropolis. It was hoped that the simulated video images would be more than just a representation in itself, but instead would transmute into a new being all of its own (Baudrillard, 1994; 2). This belief is epitomized by the writings of German dada and surrealist artist Max Ernst, who introduced the practice of frottage (placing paper over an object and rubbing with a pencil or charcoal) into his work.
I was becoming obsessed by the sight of the grooves in that floor. The floor itself stayed completely alive [...]. [A]s soon as I started rubbing, it instantly wasn’t parquet anymore. I mean, as soon as I started rubbing, suddenly I had these shapes. And I think these are the forms that were the source of my obsession in the first place. This must have been what I was seeing before...]. [T]he floorness of the floor was gone, and the images were so clear: and it dawned on me: ‘My God!’ (Ernst cited in Dunkelberg, 2005; 45)
Many critics of The Wooster Group’s Poor Theater did not value this form of creation and called it “a specious imitation,” and a “sham” (Dunkelberg, 2005; 45). Their resistance stems from what can be called an artistic dogma: an imposed belief that the authenticity of the original work must be preserved. Admittedly, Grotowski’s work was not entirely original either. The foundation of his method is a core idea in other schools of thought, such as that of the Stanislavski tradition. Grotowski was trained under Konstantin Stanislavski and this background influenced his work greatly. Grotowski analyzed critically the techniques of his predecessors and expropriated the elements of their work that he considered of value. However, rather than simulating past work, Grotowski expanded upon the preexisting ideas to create a new mode of acting (Richards, 1995; 4).
Grotowski pushed his actors toward a “total act.” This required an actor to confront him/herself with complete sincerity and thereby strip away his/her social mask. Although these methods share elements with Stanislavski, Grotowski did not intend phychological realism. He believed that the way people express themselves is a convoluted form of communication and hoped that his performers would act without referring to socially typical modes of expression. That is to say, that in the moment when the Stanislavski-trained actor makes an objective decision about a rational reaction, Grotowski’s actor instead acts on impulse (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970). By eliminating the opportunity to rationalize an action, Grotowski ensures that the actor can not settle for an inauthentic representation.
Furthermore Grotowski’s theories are in stark contrast with the methods espoused by many theorists who came before him and Stanislavski. Edward Gordon Craig, for example, did not share Grotowski’s concentration on the performer but rather worked towards “doing away with the actor.” Craig believed that actors “confuse us into connecting actuality and art” (Craig, 1996; 142) unlike Grotowski, who believed that actuality is art. What is more, Craig alleged that an actor’s tendency to vie for admiration could damage the work of the playwright by obscuring the meaning of the piece with their crowd-pleasing ostentations. Grotowski was criticized at times for disregarding the playwright. He defended his adaptations as confrontation with a text, rather than a subservient interpretation of it. Instead of a “faithful” rendering of Stanislaw Wyspianski’s play, in Akropolis he presented his autonomous directorial vision using the individual life experiences of his actors (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970).
Grotowski believed that the fixed vocabulary of symbolic actions and gestures that are used in contemporary society are not inherent, but learned. He held that an actor should disregard the ‘alphabet’ of actions, so that a new, more primal way of moving could develop. If the actor’s ‘blocks’ were removed, then he or she could act as a complete entity, combining the body with the soul (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970). This notion was manifest in Akropolis, as he stated in Towards a Poor Theatre:
The different parts of his body give free rein to different reflexes, which are often contradictory… All the actors use gestures, positions and rhythms borrowed from pantomime... The actors become stereotypes of the species… Remnants of sophistication are juxtaposed to animal behavior. (Grotowski, 1968; 77)
In the absence of stage make-up the Laboratory actors instead wore organic masks composed entirely of facial muscles. Each actor painfully held a grimace throughout Akropolis, serving as a powerful expression of the internalized oppression of the concentration camp. These were no ordinary masks. They were honest expressions of pain in that they did not attempt of express an emotion through an intermediate gesture but make the gesture the emotion itself (Richards, 1995; 26). The significance of Grotowski’s masks justifies why many considered the Wooster Group Poor Theater offensive. They simultaneously present the black-and-white images of the Laboratory actors’ faces with color images of their own actors imitating the grotesque poses. The Wooster Group faces draw laughter from the audience. The Laboratory faces do not (Dunkelberg, 2005; 46). This apparent mockery is what caused critics to call the piece “blasphemous.”
Grotowski’s work is viewed by many as having a spiritual nature. This may be due, in part, to his desire to heal the world through his art (‘theatre is therapy’). He believed that “civilization is sick with schizophrenia, which is a rupture between intelligence and feeling, body and soul” (Grotowski cited in Mitter, 1992; 82). The actor’s healing ability is his capacity for self sacrifice (Kumiega, 1985; 143). Grotowski’s actors scourged themselves in order to cleanse society. In this respect, Grotowski concurred with Antinon Artaud who posed that “actors should be like martyrs burnt alive, still signaling to us from their stakes” (Mitter, 1992; 82). Building on this idea, Grotowski conceived of the theatre as “a place of provocation” in which the holy actor, revealing a level of truth that transgresses accepted stereotypes and comfortable lies, provokes the spectator “to undertake a similar process of self penetration” (Wolford, 1996; 5). This approach led viewers to the conclusion that Grotowski’s poor theatre was more like a religious sect than a theater company. His actors were compared to fakirs “flagellat[ing] themselves until they have red welts on their backs” (Osinski, 1986; 86).
Religious imagery is ubiquitous in Grotowski’s works, and of these Akropolis is no exception. In Akropolis the Teatr Laboratorium used the story of Isaac, Jacob, and Esau from the book of Genesis. There are many possible hypotheses as to why Grotowski chose this story to stage the Holocaust. One rather literal explanation is that Grotowski selected this proverb because it can be used as a biblical justification for the extermination of the Jews during WWI, just as biblical justifications were used to rationalize Apartheid in South Africa (Fawcett, 2000: 24) The parable used in Akropolis, from Genesis 25, contains the Lord’s speech to Rebekah: “Two nations – in your womb, two people from your loins shall issue. People over people shall prevail, the elder, the younger’s slave.” Theoretically these two nations could be construed as the Aryan race (descended from Esau) and the Jews (descended from Jacob). While Esau is depicted as strong and hard working, Jacob is sly and manipulative (Genesis; 25). These are classic stereotypes that were used during the Holocaust. The story in Genesis describes how Jacob cons his brother into selling him his birthright (Genesis 25:31-34) and tricks his father into giving him the blessing meant for Esau (Genesis 27:20-29). As Esau puts it “My birthright he took, and look, now, he’s taken my blessing” (Genesis 27:36). As a result of Jacob’s treachery, Esau wishes him dead but never seeks revenge (Genesis 27:41). By exterminating the sons of Jacob the Nazis could be said to be rebalancing the natural order in society and regaining their birthright.
However this may be too simplistic an explanation for Grotowski’s decision to use this proverb in Akropolis. It is more likely that the recurring ‘crucifixions, flagellations, liturgies, and masses’ in Grotowski’s art result from what is known as the ‘Polish Experience,’” which is characterized by bitterness and despair caused by the devastating effects of Nazi brutality (Croyden, 1974; 142). Grotowski and his associates emerged from this milieu and their work was inevitably influenced by this history. Traditionally, artists from the period of Polish Romanticism, which predated Grotowski’s work, also used religion as a form of expression against disenfranchising political censorship. Their impassioned patriotism became expressed using Polish Catholicism because they could not express themselves in the political sphere, and religious mysticism merged with revolutionary narratives. Poets such as Adam Mickiewicz (1798-1855) compared Poland’s suffering with that of Christ and dramatized Poland as crucified. In this respect, Grotowski’s use of parables in Akropolis is entirely in line with the writings of his predecessors (Croyden, 1974; 140).
Conversely, another explanation for Gotowski’s use of the story of Isaac, Jacob, and Esau to stage the Holocaust may in fact be a criticism of the romantic poets who went before him. The use this parable in the context of Auschwitz is, in itself, a criticism of these artists. Polish people have for many decades used romantic-religious ideas as a substitute for organized political action. By setting the story in the context of the Holocaust, Grotowski makes a scathing attack on the apathy of the Polish people. Their preoccupation with religious romanticism has led to the present state of the political system. Hiding behind fantastical myths and daydreams and making beautiful poetry from pain, they have allowed their society to become sick (Croyden, 1974; 141). By offsetting revered religious mysticism with the ugly truths of the ‘Polish Experience,’ Grotowski hoped to
teach people to think politically, to understand their interests, to fight for bread and democracy and for justice and truth in everyday life…We must fight for people to speak their minds with out fear of being harassed. We must fight so stupid and corrupt individuals won’t hold positions of responsibility. (Osinski,1986; 19)
The Acropolis was a site in Ancient Greece of the highest religious importance. The word ‘akropolis’ itself has particular significance in Grotowski’s work. It was repeatedly chanted throughout the performance in the manner of a Hebrew prayer. The actor’s repetition of the phrases ‘our Akropolis’ and ‘the cemetery of tribes’ could be used to parallel Auschwitz with a religious pinnacle of civilization. Furthermore, Stanislaw Wyspianski’s original production of this play was set in a church near the crematorium. Grotowski transforms the church into the crematorium. From these directorial choices, one could infer that Grotowski uses religion in Akropolis to assert that society has through some perverted worship played a part in its own demise (Schechner and Wolford, 1997; 62).
Of course the conclusions that Grotowski reached are not universally agreed upon. In many ways the Wooster Group’s Poor Theater is a confrontation with its ancestor and a response to the history, reception, rejection and appropriation of Grotowski’s work in the United States (Dunkelberg, 2005; 43). Although The Group did not adopt many of the notions of “poor theatre” such as were manifest in Akropolis—which include minimalist staging and design as well as an emphasis on acting and the actor-spectator relationship—Grotowski might not have objected to their interpretive license. Grotowski strongly advocated the right of artists to make personal interpretations rather than subservient recreations of what came before, much as he did with Wyspianski’s original script (Jerzy Grotowski; 1970). Despite criticisms, Grotowski’s reformulation brought new depth and meaning to Wyspianski’s piece, particularly by drawing connections between the Holocaust and the stories of Genesis. Artistic dogma could have stifled this artistic enhancement, a threat that still exists today.
Bibliography
• Akropolis. Dir. Ewa Miodonska-Brookes. Perf. Rena Mirecka, Ryszard Cleslak,
Zbigniew Cynkutis, Zygmunt Molik et al. Zakład Narodowy im: Ossolińskich, 1985.
• Baudrillard, Jean. “The Precession of Simulacra” (1994): 1-42
• Craig, Edward Gordon. “The Actor and the Uber-Marionette.” (1996): 142-149
• Croyden, Margaret. Lunatics, lovers, and poets; the contemporary experimental
theatre. New York: MacGraw-Hill. 1974.
• Dunkelberg, Kermit. Confrontation, Simulation, Admiration: The Wooster
Group’s Poor Theater. New York: New York University Press, 2005.
• Fawcett, L. Religion, Ethnicity and Social Change. St. Martins Press, New York,
2000.
• Genesis. Trans. Robert Alter. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996.
• Grotowski, Jerzy. Towards a Poor Theatre. New York: Routledge, 2002.
• Jerzy Grotowski. Dir. Merrill Brockway. Perf. Jacques Chwat, James Macandrew,
Jerzy Grotowski, and Margaret Croyden. Creative Arts Television, 1970.
• Kumiega, Jennifer. The Theatre of Grotowski. New York: Northumberland Press Ltd, 1985.
• Mitter, Shomit. Systems of Rehearsal; Stanislavsky, Brecht, Grotowski and Brook.
London: Routledge, 1992.
• Osinski, Zbigniew. Grotowski and His Laboratory. New York: PAJ Publications,
1986.
• Richards, Thomas. At Work with Grotowski on Physical Actions. New York: Routledge, 1995.
• Schechner, Richard and Wolford, Lisa. The Grotowski Sourcebook. New York: Routledge, 1997.
• Wolford, Lisa. Grotowski’s Objective Drama Research. Jackson: University Press
of Mississippi, 1996.
No comments:
Post a Comment