A Theatre Manifesto of an Old Man
By Christopher Vened Szwaja
In Character
What was your reason to write the acting book, In Character: An Actor’s Workbook for Character Development?
In the first place, it was a practical reason.
Which was?
Well, I need to explain it.
Please, do.
You see, I got into teaching acting and movement after being a professional performer for ten years in the Polish theater.
What kind of the performer?
Most notably, as an actor-mime in the Wrocław Pantomime Theatre, but not only…
So?
So I was teaching or directing, as actors do.
How does the actor direct?
By showing the other actors how to do it.
Ha, ha, ha.
I would find the form of expression for them. And then they were imitating me. It worked, sometimes perfectly well.
So what was the problem then?
This approach to teaching acting is considered not quite correct.
Why?
It is because the actors might become merely copies of the teacher, or director. It might result in fake acting. In particular it might happen with inexperienced actors, who don’t have the sense of themselves yet.
Why?
They just imitate and it looks false.
Oh, I see.
I realized that and gradually changed my approach from showing to verbally directing the actor. I wanted to activate the actor to be individually creative. I wanted to do it not in an arbitrary manner but methodically. So I wrote a textbook for the students of my acting classes.
Why didn’t you use someone else’s textbook?
I tried to find one that would be suitable for my classes. But there was no such textbook that would be practical for the actor to use in the process of preparing the role.
Why not?
All the great acting books out there are good to study before hand, but it is difficult to use them during the process because they are either too lengthy, or limited in scope, covering only one aspect of acting.
What were you looking for?
I needed a textbook that was both thorough and concise. So I wrote one. In fact, first I wrote a Character Chart that was only six pages long, and I used it successfully in my classes for a few years before I decided to write an acting book.
What was the decisive factor to write the book?
My Character Chart looked to me as a ready outline for the book. So, in certain moment, when the idea for the book had ripened in my head, I made a commitment to write it. First I wrote three chapters and together with the already mentioned Character Chart, I sent the proposal for the book to seventeen publishes. Eleven of them reviewed my proposal. Four of them accepted it and expressed interest to publish it. Wow! It surpassed my expectation.
What publisher did you end up going with?
I had chosen to go with Heinemann Drama.
Why?
It is because they focused on acting techniques, and also it was a reputable drama publisher at that time. Besides, they gave me a contract to write the book, which was amazing considering that I was a first time writer.
How do you explain that?
I think it was more than a stroke of luck. They simply liked my proposal, and the few chapters I send them. Since many publishers wanted it, I thought it was a book that was really needed. So I took it as a good omen and got to work on it as if it ware my destiny.
How long did it take for you to write this book?
It took me twelve months from the moment I got the contract (though I wrote a big chunk of it before that.) I was rushing with it and submitted the finished version of the manuscript half a year before the preliminary deadline.
Why would you do that?
That is characteristic of me; I like to be ready in advance in case something goes wrong, so I would still have time to fix it.
Was there something wrong?
No, there wasn’t. They accepted it. But they would not do the editorial correction until the deadline. I was waiting and waiting. And regretted submitting the manuscript before the deadline because I could have still written something more, such as adding a chapter I had in mind, or so. Of course, I could do that anyway, but I didn’t.
Why not?
It was a novice’s anxiety, not knowing how the system works. Anyway, the extra chapter was not really needed. The idea was to keep the workbook concise.
How was it to work with your editors?
I was mainly working with the senior editor, Lisa Barnett, who was also the director of Heinemann Drama. She was very competent and knowledgeable about acting methods and techniques. There was no misunderstanding between us. She was helpful stylistically but not intrusive to the content. She changed many pronouns from he to she, so it would be fifty-fifty. I had no problem with that. Besides, she was very friendly. I flirted with her.
Did she put up with it?
Yes, she did. Those were different times. I thought that she was flirting with me a bit too, which was funny because a few years later I found out that she was a lesbian.
You didn’t pick up on that?
No, I had not the slightest idea. Anyway, we talked only on the phone, but mostly communicated via emails.
What was her final word to you?
At the end of our cooperation, just at the day the book got published, she told me that In Character: An Actor’s Workbook for Character Development is the smartest book she ever worked on. It flattered me but only now I begin to believe that she was telling the truth.
What is your final word about her?
I was very lucky to have her. She accepted the proposal for my book. She corrected, published, and promoted it. I always felt that I had a special understanding with her. This time I mean it only professionally. She will be sincerely missed.
What happened to her?
She died of a malignant brain tumor.
I’m sorry to hear that.
After she departed, Heinemann Drama gradually went down. She was the driving force and the brain of that publishing house.
How would you describe your book, “In Character: An Actor’s Workbook for Character Development?
It is a textbook in which I describe the principles, direction, assignments, techniques, exercises, and examples needed for the mastery of the actor’s craft and the art of interpreting and portraying character.
That sounds like enormous undertaking.
It was. Ha, ha, ha.
What?
There was one publisher who rejected my proposal for the book on the ground that it was impossible to cover all the subject matters I proposed in one volume.
But you proved them wrong.
Yes, I did.
To whom is this book addressed?
This book is primarily addressed to the actor, both the beginner and professional. I advise the beginner actor to study it first from cover to cover to thoroughly learn the method, to understand how one aspect of the character relates to the other. Then it would be easier to know how to use it selectively in practice, when needed, as an experienced, or professional actor would do.
Who else would find this book useful?
This book is no less useful for directors and dramatic writers. When I direct, I always use this book myself. There are readymade questions and assignments I use to direct the actor. This approach is more objective, less arbitrary because both the director and the actor follow the same method. As far as writing is concerned, the same rules are obligatory for interpretation of the character as well as writing it. I also write plays and this book is helpful to write the characters, to construct them, and also to write the plot-action structure of the play. There is one part of the book that is just about that.
How does this book relate to other acting methods out there?
While writing this book I tried to be compatible with recognized acting schools by using the same terminology, and incorporating techniques that I thought to be useful. However, I did that progressively, developing them further, or fine-tuning those where it was needed. Where the techniques and/or approaches were quite undeveloped, or even lacking, I would worked it out and/or create them anew.
What is most innovative in your book?
My method combines the “external” and “internal” approaches to character study into one complementary system, consisting of various psychological methods and movement techniques, because the different aspects or dispositions of the character require different approaches.
What do you mean by that?
Some of those approaches are strictly mental, others are physical, and yet another, psychophysical.
Can you give me an example?
Yes, I can. The strictly psychological approach would be, for example, to establish elements of action, which are the motivation, objective, and consequence. Or the thought process of the character. But physical approach would be, for example, to establish the character’s posture, walk and gestures. But psychophysical approach would be, for example, to find the means of expression of the character’s attitude, which is the physical expression of thoughts.
How does this approach differ from naturalistic acting?
“Naturalistic” acting is a materialistic conception, which postulates that the human being is entirely natural, both body and mind. I disagree with this assumption. Although humans are partly natural, in the sense that we have physical bodies as all other living creatures, animals and plants, have, but we are also partly metaphysical, in the sense that we are also able to think and speak, which is not natural, not materialistic at all.
That’s true. It’s self-evident.
More so, humans are able to imagine things and consequently to create culture and civilization, which are not quite natural either.
If at all.
Humans also make up stories, myths, fictions, fantastic creatures, spirits, and demons. None of it is naturalistic.
Not at all.
It appears, and so it is, that naturalistic acting is limited merely to realism, a tendency that started at the turn of nineteenth and twentieth centuries, on the wave of the materialistic philosophies, mainly of Marxism and existentialism, which were taking over the world like a storm at that time. And this is why actors merely trained on naturalism and realism are not able to play classics well, which is all that was created for more than four thousands years of human written culture, up until the end of the nineteenth century. The merely naturalistic actor also has problem to play in the modern plays that are unrealistic, such as science fiction and fantasy.
Do you reject the naturalistic approach to acting as a fallacy?
No, I don’t. I only point out that it is limited to realism, and does not work beyond that. To remedy that the actor must compliment it with different techniques and approaches that are not realistic.
So, this is why you wrote the book?
Yes. My book is a good remedy because it is complementary to both the psychological approaches of Stanislavski’s system and his American apostles, namely, Uta Hagen, Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, Sanford Meisner, and Richard Boleslavsky – to mention a few, on one hand, and to the movement-based methods of Jerzy Grotowski, Tadashi Suzuki, and Ann Bogart, on the other. However, my book is the most complimentary to the Michael Chekhov’s method, whom, if anyone, I shall consider my predecessor.
What was his approach about?
He came from the tradition of Stanislavski’s System, but he tried to expend it with movement techniques, borrowed from mime. I did opposite, I came from mime and tried to expend it with psychological approaches.
Who else influenced you in writing this book?
On the movement techniques, Rudolf Laban influenced me. I found his movement techniques and theoretical work on movement the most sound, even though somewhat obscured. So, it was not an easy read.
Nevertheless, the main credit I give to the Wrocław Pantomime Theatre, where I was an actor-mime for eight years, and its founder, Henryk Tomaszewski, who was a theatrical wizard. I mostly acquired movement techniques from that theater, how to find the means of expression and form, in relation to psychology. Without the experiences and training in the Wroclaw Pantomime Theatre I would not be able to write this book with such competence. However, Henryk Tomaszewski never wrote an acting book. Everything I acquired from him was through practice and direct work with this brilliant director.
How many acting books did you read to write your own?
It seems as if I read hundreds. I still have about one hundred acting books on my shelves, in my private library, which once I read from cover to cover, making sure I didn’t miss anything. But since I wrote my acting book, I don’t read them anymore.
Why?
I am done with it. Now I read only mine.
Ha, ha, ha. So it goes!
Yes, I made my conclusions and that’s it.
You moved on!
Yes.
What?
Before we go on, I have to point out that to write this book I studied many other types of books other than acting and movement books. I studied philosophy, psychology, and read plenty of literature. My method or research was formed by the fact that I always like to go to the source of an idea, which in practice meant to ancient sources like Greek philosophy and drama, but not only them. And then I would study how the idea developed throughout the centuries, until modern times. So in my book I refer to and/or quote, for example, Aristotle, who was the first to conceive a comprehensive theory and methodology of drama, which I think still holds firm. And I use examples from and quote William Shakespeare a lot. But on other hand, I refer and/or quote modern thinkers, for example, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Carl Jung. I also have to confess that study of Charles Darwin helped me a lot to understand the biological concept of the character.
What was your driving force to write your book, In Character?
Search for meaning.
How so?
It was personal. I was in a professional crisis. After having an illustrious career as a performer, in the seventies and early eighties, I lost a desire to act. So I stopped acting. I could not make myself. I lost an inspiration. It did not make sense to me anymore.
Why?
The times had changed (and my time had passed too). I was doing theater in the seventies. It was the time of Cultural Revolution. The attraction to doing theater was to break all the barriers and to liberate oneself to be free and open. It was a Dionysian dance. And I was cast as Dionysus in one show for four years. It conditioned me.
How?
Performing meant for me to make people excited and crazy. And they were. It was exciting. It went like that, in high spirit, for ten years for me. But then, it seemed suddenly, that the liberating spirit started to disappear, and in the middle of the eighties it was entirely gone. People became rational and square again. You could not seduce anyone with a Dionysian dance anymore. So I started to feel out of my element and stopped acting already in 1983, despite of getting many propositions. People could not understand it because I was in the peak of my career. Neither did I. But I started to feel ashamed to stand on front of the audience without full conviction. I felt I had no close rapport with the audience anymore and it made me feel uncomfortable. Something was wrong. I would probably quit the theater altogether for good, but I didn’t know anything else. The theater was my whole life in the first decade of my adulthood. I did not know how do to anything else for a living. So I stayed in the theater and became a teacher of movement, mime, and acting. I had no problem with that. I was teaching instrumental skills that are universal and don’t change. But artistry does change, because it involves both the individuality of the artist and the spirit of the time that is in the audience.
So you were in surviving mode, teaching.
Yes, I was.
What was the solution?
I had to find myself again.
Were you lost?
No, I can’t that, I was not lost because I still had my craft, the techniques. But the theater got lost.
How so?
The irrational God of theater, Dionysus, ran away in a panic. He lost his power. The Dionysian dance was over. We danced and liberated ourselves in the sixties and seventies. It was a beautiful but reckless ride. We broke all the rules and taboos, as if we were drunk. Many people lost their minds. Everything got destroyed. There was nothing left to break. And the dance became heavy because the spirit was gone. Then it stopped. The theater was taken over by different people, who did not know how to dance. Had no talent for it. No inspiration, no calling.
You are getting both poetical and bitter.
Am I?
Yes.
I have to stop then.
No, go on, it is interesting, a diagnosis of the time. But let’s go back to the subject of the book, how all that made you to write it?
Already then I realized that the theater became meaningless. The twentieth-century avant-garde was smashing the fourth wall of the theatre, in their revolutionary fiver. For the while it was exciting because destruction is exciting and it is theatrical. But then nothing was left but destruction. They broke not only the fourth wall but all four walls of the theatre, metaphorically speaking, though some of them did it literary. The theater gradually became insignificant. False gurus and reformers popped up as mushrooms after the rain. The theatrical manifestos multiplied. Usually recycling the old avant-garde – there is nothing more boring in the theatre than avant-garde with a gray beard. They were still preaching smashing the fourth wall and being against stereotypes. They had false ideas of freedom; they uncritically embraced the ideology of relativism, and postmodernism. So they did what they pleased, with no obligatory rules, no principles, no structure, and no sense of form. It all became insignificant and still is, even more. The result, the audience stopped coming to the theater.
What is the remedy?
I decided to straighten it up! I was hungering for meaning. And I did. I rebuilt all four walls of the theatre, metaphorically speaking.
Of Course.
Not in my book, but on my website I wrote: “First take a look at this picture of an ancient theater (over there is a photo picture of an ancient theatre). I find it inspirational. That is what theater essentially is: a magical circle reserved for the actor to perform, surrounded by the audience where everybody is invited. Between them there is an invisible barrier, the primary condition of the theater. This barrier is a taboo, if you cross it, the illusion is gone, and there is no theater anymore. For the theatrical inspiration comes from within, not from without.”
What do you have against relativism?
Don’t take me wrong, as a term it is useful. Some things are relative, but some are not. I am against the philosophic concept that everything is relative. If so, there is no truth. Truth cannot be relative, but lies can. There is only one truth and many lies.
It is a catchy slogan.
Thank you.
What is the alternative to relativism?
The alternative to relativism is absolutism.
Are you an absolutist?
If I think about it, yes, I am an absolutist. Curiously, it is the first time I declare it.
You are coming out!
Yes, I am and it will outrage and shock all the relativists, all the postmodernists, and all the anarchists.
Do you mind?
I mind to reform them.
What do you have against postmodernism?
It is a mistake in art.
Why?
Postmodernism is a travesty of art. It deconstructs the original play and falsifies it. It is nihilism that brings theater down.
What is their main fault?
Lack of authenticity, in other words, indulging in falsehood.
What is your message to the postmodernists?
To the directors I say: Do the play as written because the author knows better. To the actor I say, portray the character as exactly as possible. Be strict and specific in the interpretation of the character. Do not indulge in free interpretation of the character. Be authentic.
Will they listen?
Postmodernist will not, unless they change; but others will.
What is the key to be authentic on the stage?
Lastly I found a quote from William Shakespeare, “If we are true to ourselves, we can not be false to anyone.” It’s perfect. In other words, if the actor is true to himself on the stage, he will not appear false to the audience.
How did you address the issue of authenticity in your book?
I addressed it somewhat in a playful manner. Here is the quote: “There’s always only one right way to do it, and that is my way. The point is to find it. Maybe it sounds to you as a lack of flexibility on my part. Well, I must assure you that’s not it. If I am to be authentic, I am not able to do it any other way than my own, Acting is an act of self-identity in the fictional circumstance of the stage, and it can be accomplished only if my acting is authentic, true to myself. I may cheat my mother, my father, my lover, my child, even my audience, but I will never cheat myself.”
Is it enough to be authentic on the stage to be a good actor?
No, it is not enough. Authenticity is only a good prerequisite to be a good actor, which is not that rare. Naturally, most of my acting students understand the concept of authenticity and don’t have much problem to achieve it. Only one student in twelve on average has an inherent problem with authenticity. He or she always plays false. And you can see it but they can’t. They have falsehood in them, they created a false persona, it is their mask that they are not able to take it off, so it seems. Or it would take a lot of therapeutic work to tear it down. That kind of a person is not a good candidate to be a good actor. However, all others, so to say, eleven out of twelve on average, are able to be authentic. Some of them not at once but they are able to arrive to it. Nevertheless, to be authentic it is not enough to be a good actor. One has to have competence and craft in character development.
What is the perfect actor?
The perfect actor is one who is ‘an expert on human nature, especially, character.
What is the purpose of acting?
Essentially, it is to reveal human identity.
Why?
It is because human beings do not know who they are, not really, not entirely. A human being is a puzzle to oneself that needs to be solved to figure out how to conduct oneself in life, so to speak, to figure out one’s destiny.
How does the actor resolve this puzzle?
I say to the actor, “Find yourself in the character and the character in yourself.”
How does it work in practice?
The actor portrays the character from the play as exactly as possible and expresses oneself at the same time. It is a duel process. The actor needs to find himself in the character because he does not know who he is in that role yet. And it is what is fascinating in acting — that the actor discovers herself anew in each role. Each role is a new adventure; each character is a new quest for human identity.
What was your reason to write the acting book, In Character: An Actor’s Workbook for Character Development?
In the first place, it was a practical reason. I got into teaching acting and movement after being a professional performer for ten years in the Polish theater, most notably, as an actor-mime in the Wroclaw Pantomime Theater. So I was teaching or directing, as actors do, showing the other actors how to do it. I would find the form of expression for them. And then they were imitating me. It worked, sometimes perfectly well. Yet this approach to teaching acting is considered not quite correct, because the actors might become merely copies of the teacher, or director. It might result in fake acting. In particular it might happen with inexperienced actors, who don’t have the sense of themselves yet. They just imitate and it looks false.
I realized that and gradually changed my approach from showing to verbally directing the actor. I wanted to activate the actor to be individually creative. I wanted to do it not in an arbitrary manner but methodically. So I wrote a textbook for the students of my acting classes.
Why didn’t you use someone else’s textbook?
I tried to find one that would be suitable for my classes. But there was no such textbook that would be practical for the actor to use in the process of preparing the role. All the great acting books out there are good to study before hand, but it is difficult to use them during the process because they are either too lengthy, or limited in scope, covering only one aspect of acting. I needed a textbook that was both thorough and concise. So I wrote one. In fact, first I wrote a Character Chart that was only six pages long, and I used it successfully in my classes for a few years before I decided to write an acting book.
What was the decisive factor to write the book?
My Character Chart looked to me as a ready outline for the book. So, in certain moment, when the idea for the book had ripened in my head, I made a commitment to write it. First I wrote three chapters and together with the already mentioned Character Chart, I sent the proposal for the book to seventeen publishes. Eleven of them reviewed my proposal. Four of them accepted it and expressed interest to publish it. Wow! It surpassed my expectation. I had chosen to go with Heinemann Drama, because they focused on acting techniques, and also it was a reputable drama publisher at that time. They gave me a contract to write the book, which was amazing considering that I was a first time writer.
How do you explain that?
I think it was more than a stroke of luck. They simply liked my proposal, and the few chapters I send them. Since many publishers wanted it, I thought it was a book that was really needed. So I took it as a good omen and got to work on it as if it ware my destiny.
How long did it take for you to write this book?
It took me twelve months from the moment I got the contract (though I wrote a big chunk of it before that.) I was rushing with it and submitted the finished version of the manuscript half a year before the preliminary deadline.
Why?
That is characteristic of me; I like to be ready in advance in case something goes wrong, so I would still have time to fix it.
Was there something wrong?
No, there wasn’t. They accepted it. But they would not do the editorial correction until the deadline. I was waiting and waiting. And regretted submitting the manuscript before the deadline because I could have still written something more, such as adding a chapter I had in mind, or so. Of course, I could do that anyway, but I didn’t.
Why not?
It was a novice’s anxiety, not knowing how the system works. Anyway, the extra chapter was not really needed. The idea was to keep the workbook concise.
How was it to work with your editors?
I was mainly working with the senior editor, Lisa Barnett, who was also the director of Heinemann Drama. She was very competent and knowledgeable about acting methods and techniques. There was no misunderstanding between us. She was helpful stylistically but not intrusive to the content. She changed many pronouns from he to she, so it would be fifty-fifty. I had no problem with that. Besides, she was very friendly. I flirted with her.
Did she put up with it?
Yes, she did. Those were different times. I thought that she was flirting with me a bit too, which was funny because a few years later I found out that she was a lesbian.
Ha, ha, ha, you could not see?
No, I had not the slightest idea. Anyway, we talked only on the phone, but mostly communicated via emails.
What was her final word to you?
At the end of our cooperation, just at the day the book got published, she told me that In Character: An Actor’s Workbook for Character Development is the smartest book she ever worked on. It flattered me but only now I begin to believe that she was telling the truth.
What is your final word about her?
I was very lucky to have her. She accepted the proposal for my book. She corrected, published, and promoted it. I always felt that I had a special understanding with her. This time I mean it only professionally. She will be sincerely missed.
What happened to her?
She died of a malignant brain tumor. After she departed, Heinemann Drama gradually went down. She was the driving force and the brain of that publishing house.
How would you describe your book, “In Character: An Actor’s Workbook for Character Development?
It is a textbook in which I describe the principles, direction, assignments, techniques, exercises, and examples needed for the mastery of the actor’s craft and the art of interpreting and portraying character.
To whom is this book addressed?
This book is primarily addressed to the actor, both the beginner and professional. I advise the beginner actor to study it first from cover to cover to thoroughly learn the method, to understand how one aspect of the character relates to the other. Then it would be easier to know how to use it selectively in practice, when needed, as an experienced, or professional actor would do.
To whom else is this book useful?
This book is no less useful for directors and dramatic writers. When I direct, I always use this book myself. There are readymade questions and assignments I use to direct the actor. This approach is more objective, less arbitrary because both the director and the actor follow the same method. As far as writing is concerned, the same rules are obligatory for interpretation of the character as well as writing it. I also write plays and this book is helpful to write the characters, to construct them, and also to write the plot-action structure of the play. There is one part of the book that is just about that.
How does this book relate to other acting methods out there?
While writing this book I tried to be compatible with recognized acting schools by using the same terminology, and incorporating techniques that I thought to be useful. However, I did that progressively, developing them further, or fine-tuning those where it was needed. Where the techniques and/or approaches were quite undeveloped, or even lacking, I would worked it out and/or create them anew.
What is most innovative in your book?
My method combines the “external” and “internal” approaches to character study into one complementary system, consisting of various psychological methods and movement techniques, because the different aspects or dispositions of the character require different approaches. Some of those approaches are strictly mental, others are physical, and yet another, psychophysical.
How does this approach differ from naturalistic acting, if so?
“Naturalistic” acting is a materialistic conception, which postulates that the human being is entirely natural, both body and mind. I disagree with this assumption. Although humans are partly natural, in the sense that we have physical bodies as all other living creatures, animals and plants, have, but we are also partly metaphysical, in the sense that we are also able to think and speak, which is not natural, not materialistic at all. More so, humans are able to imagine things and consequently to create culture and civilization, which are not quite natural either, if at all. Humans also make up stories, myths, fictions, fantastic creatures, spirits, and demons. None of it is naturalistic. It appears, and so it is, that naturalistic acting is limited merely to realism, a tendency that started at the turn of nineteenth and twentieth centuries, on the wave of the materialistic philosophies, mainly of Marxism and existentialism, which were taking over the world like a storm at that time. And this is why actors merely trained on naturalism and realism are not able to play classics well, which is all that was created for more than four thousands years of human written culture, up until the end of the nineteenth century. The merely naturalistic actor also has problem to play in the modern plays that are unrealistic, such as science fiction and fantasy.
Do you reject the naturalistic approach to acting as a fallacy?
No, I don’t. I only point out that it is limited to realism, and does not work beyond that.
What is the remedy?
To complete it with different techniques and approaches that are not realistic, as I did in my book. My book is a good remedy because it is complementary to both the psychological approaches of Stanislavski’s system and his American apostles, namely, Uta Hagen, Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, Sanford Meisner, and Richard Boleslavsky to mention a few, on one hand, and to the movement-based methods of Jerzy Grotowski, Tadashi Suzuki, and Ann Bogart, on the other. However, my book is the most complimentary to the Michael Chekhov’s method, whom, if anyone, I shall consider my predecessor. He came from the tradition of Stanislavski’s System, but he tried to expend it with movement techniques, borrowed from mime. I progressively incorporated some of his techniques in my book.
Who else influenced you in writing this book?
On the movement techniques, Rudolf Laban influenced me. I found his movement techniques and theoretical work on movement the most sound, even though somewhat obscured. So, it was not an easy read.
Nevertheless, the main credit I give to the Wrocław Pantomime Theatre, where I was an actor-mime for eight years, and its founder, Henryk Tomaszewski, who was a theatrical wizard. I mostly acquired movement techniques from that theater, how to find the means of expression and form, in relation to psychology. Without the experiences and training in the Wroclaw Pantomime Theatre I would not be able to write this book with such competence. However, Henryk Tomaszewski never wrote an acting book. Everything I acquired from him was through practice and direct work with this brilliant director.
How many acting books did you read to write your own?
It seems as if I read hundreds. I still have more than hundred acting books on my shelves, in my private library, which once I read from cover to cover, making sure I didn’t miss anything. But since I wrote my acting book, I don’t read them anymore.
Why?
I am done with it. Now I read only mine.
Ha, ha, ha. So it goes!
Yes, I made my conclusions and that’s it.
You moved on!
Yes.
What?
Before we go on, I have to point out that to write this book I studied many other types of books other than acting and movement books. I studied philosophy, psychology, and read plenty of literature. My method or research was formed by the fact that I always like to go to the source of an idea, which in practice meant to ancient sources like Greek philosophy and drama, but not only them. And then I would study how the idea developed throughout the centuries, until modern times. So in my book I refer to and/or quote, for example, Aristotle, who was the first to conceive a comprehensive theory and methodology of drama, which I think still holds firm. And I use examples from and quote William Shakespeare a lot. But on other hand, I refer and/or quote modern thinkers, for example, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Carl Jung. I also have to confess that study of Charles Darwin helped me a lot to understand the biological concept of the character.
What was your driving force to write your book, In Character?
Search for meaning.
How so?
It was personal. I was in a professional crisis. After having an illustrious career as a performer, in the seventies and early eighties, I lost a desire to act. So I stopped acting. I could not make myself. I lost an inspiration. It did not make sense to me anymore.
Why?
The times had changed (and my time had passed too). I was doing theater in the seventies. It was the time of Cultural Revolution. The attraction to doing theater was to break all the barriers and to liberate oneself to be free and open. It was a Dionysian dance. And I was cast as Dionysus in one show for four years. It conditioned me. Performing meant for me to make people excited and crazy. And they were. It was exciting. It went like that, in high spirit, for ten years for me. But then, it seemed suddenly, that the liberating spirit started to disappear, and in the middle of the eighties it was entirely gone. People became rational and square again. You could not seduce anyone with a Dionysian dance anymore. So I started to feel out of my element and stopped acting already in 1983, despite of getting many propositions. People could not understand it because I was in the peak of my career. Neither did I. But I started to feel ashamed to stand on front of the audience without full conviction. I felt I had no close rapport with the audience anymore and it made me feel uncomfortable. Something was wrong. I would probably quit the theater altogether for good, but I didn’t know anything else. The theater was my whole life in the first decade of my adulthood. I did not know how do to anything else for a living. So I stayed in the theater and became a teacher of movement, mime, and acting. I had no problem with that. I was teaching instrumental skills that are universal and don’t change. But artistry does change, because it involves both the individuality of the artist and the spirit of the time that is in the audience.
So you were in surviving mode, teaching.
Yes, I was.
What was the solution?
I had to find myself again.
Were you lost?
No, I was not lost because I still had my craft, the techniques. But the theater got lost.
How so?
The irrational God of theater, Dionysus, ran away in a panic. He lost his power. The Dionysian dance was over. We danced and liberated ourselves in the sixties and seventies. It was a beautiful but reckless ride. We broke all the rules and taboos, as if we were drunk. Many people lost their minds. Everything got destroyed. There was nothing left to break. And the dance became heavy because the spirit was gone. Then it stopped. The theater was taken over by different people, who did not know how to dance. Had no talent for it. No inspiration, no calling.
You are getting both poetical and bitter.
Am I?
Yes.
I have to stop then.
No, go on, it is interesting, a diagnosis of the time. But let’s go back to the subject of the book, how all that made you to write it?
Already then I realized that the theater became meaningless. The twentieth-century avant-garde was smashing the fourth wall of the theatre, in their revolutionary fiver. For the while it was exciting because destruction is exciting and it is theatrical. But then nothing was left but destruction. They broke not only the fourth wall but all four walls of the theatre, metaphorically speaking, though some of them did it literary. The theater gradually became insignificant. False gurus and reformers popped up as mushrooms after the rain. The theatrical manifestos multiplied. Usually recycling the old avant-garde – there is nothing more boring in the theatre than avant-garde with a gray beard. They were still preaching smashing the fourth wall and being against stereotypes. They had false ideas of freedom; they uncritically embraced the ideology of relativism, and postmodernism. So they did what they pleased, with no obligatory rules, no principles, no structure, and no sense of form. It all became insignificant and still is, even more. The result, the audience stopped coming to the theater.
So?
So I decided to straighten it up! I was hungering for meaning. And I did. I rebuilt all four walls of the theatre, metaphorically speaking.
Of Course.
Not in my book, but on my website I wrote: “First take a look at this picture of an ancient theater (over there is a photo picture of an ancient theatre). I find it inspirational. That is what theater essentially is: a magical circle reserved for the actor to perform, surrounded by the audience where everybody is invited. Between them there is an invisible barrier, the primary condition of the theater. This barrier is a taboo, if you cross it, the illusion is gone, and there is no theater anymore. For the theatrical inspiration comes from within, not from without.”
What do you have against relativism?
Don’t take me wrong, as a term it is useful. Some things are relative, but some are not. I am against the philosophic concept that everything is relative. If so, there is no truth. Truth cannot be relative, but lies can. There is only one truth and many lies.
It is a catchy slogan.
Thank you.
What is the alternative to relativism?
The alternative to relativism is absolutism.
Are you an absolutist?
If I think about it, yes, I am an absolutist. Curiously, it is the first time I declare it.
You are coming out!
Yes, I am and it will outrage and shock all the relativists, all the postmodernists, and all the anarchists.
Do you mind?
I mind to reform them.
What do you have against postmodernism?
It is a mistake in art.
Why?
Postmodernism is a travesty of art. It deconstructs the original play and falsifies it. It is nihilism that brings theater down.
What is their main fault?
Lack of authenticity, in other words, indulging in falsehood.
What is your message to the postmodernists?
To the directors I say: Do the play as written because the author knows better. To the actor I say, portray the character as exactly as possible. Be strict and specific in the interpretation of the character. Do not indulge in free interpretation of the character. Be authentic.
Will they listen?
Postmodernist will not, unless they change; but others will.
What is the key to be authentic on the stage?
Lastly I found a quote from William Shakespeare, “If we are true to ourselves, we can not be false to anyone.” It’s perfect. In other words, if the actor is true to himself on the stage, he will not appear false to the audience.
How did you address the issue of authenticity in your book?
I addressed it somewhat in a playful manner. Here is the quote: “There’s always only one right way to do it, and that is my way. The point is to find it. Maybe it sounds to you as a lack of flexibility on my part. Well, I must assure you that’s not it. If I am to be authentic, I am not able to do it any other way than my own, Acting is an act of self-identity in the fictional circumstance of the stage, and it can be accomplished only if my acting is authentic, true to myself. I may cheat my mother, my father, my lover, my child, even my audience, but I will never cheat myself.”
Is it enough to be authentic on the stage to be a good actor?
No, it is not enough. Authenticity is only a good prerequisite to be a good actor, which is not that rare. Naturally, most of my acting students understand the concept of authenticity and don’t have much problem to achieve it. Only one student in twelve on average has an inherent problem with authenticity. He or she always plays false. And you can see it but they can’t. They have falsehood in them, they created a false persona, it is their mask that they are not able to take it off, so it seems. Or it would take a lot of therapeutic work to tear it down. That kind of a person is not a good candidate to be a good actor. However, all others, so to say, eleven out of twelve on average, are able to be authentic. Some of them not at once but they are able to arrive to it. Nevertheless, to be authentic it is not enough to be a good actor. One has to have competence and craft in character development. The perfect actor is one who is ‘an expert on human nature, especially, character.
What is the purpose of acting?
Essentially, the purpose of acting is to reveal human identity.
Why?
It is because human beings do not know who they are, not really, not entirely. A human being is a puzzle to oneself that needs to be solved to figure out how to conduct oneself in life, so to speak, to figure out one’s destiny.
How does the actor resolve this puzzle?
I say to the actor, “Find yourself in the character and the character in yourself.” In other words, the actor portrays the character from the play as exactly as possible and expresses oneself at the same time. It is a duel process. The actor needs to find himself in the character because he does not know who he is in that role yet. And it is what is fascinating in acting — that the actor discovers herself anew in each role. Each role is a new adventure; each character is a new quest for human identity.