In Dialogue: Л. А. Сулержицкий/L. A. Sulerzhitsky

I've been reading bits and pieces from Leopold Antonovich Sulerzhitsky's writings and essays on theater and his experiences with teaching the first Studio.  For those who don't know, Sulerzhitsky (or as Stanislavsky refers to him in 'My Life in Art', "Good old Suler"...) was a contemporary of Stanislavsky's, known for his character, travels, and resolve to do the hard work.  When Stanislavksy opened the first studio, Sulerzhitsky was the headmaster teacher, and in lot of ways was responsible for the original pedagogical application of Stanislavky's then brand new system.  He taught Michael Chekhov, and to a degree Vakhtangov as well.  Going through his notes and lectures, and reading one called "О взаймоотношениях актёра и режиссёра" (On the Relationships Between the Actor and Director), I discovered some surprising and particularly harsh criticism of Meyerhold...

"...Единственный режиссер, попытавшийся проникнуться сферой...декадентских идей,- был Мейерхольд с его условным театром, игрой на плоскости и т.д.  Но ведь попытка эта, как неверно обоснованная, в очень короткий срок исчерпала себя...Но кто же из видевших театр Мейерхольда и знающих остальные театры скажет, что Мейерхольд заразил своим влиянием театр? Если влияние и было, то только отрицательное, так как Мейерхольд, несмотря на громадные теоретические знания, ясно и отчетливо показал, как "не надо"..."

And here we go again with my on-the-fly translation...

"The only director who ever tried to push through to the sphere of...decadent ideas was Meyerhold, with his conventional theater, surface games, and so on.  But this attempt, incorrectly founded as it was from the beginning, very quickly exhausted itself...Who from among those who have seen Meyerhold's theater and who know other theaters will say that Meyerhold infected theater with his influence?  If there was in fact any influence, it was only repulsive, as far as Meyerhold, tremendous theoretical knowledge notwithstanding, clearly and distinctly showed us how 'NOT to work'..."

I laughed out loud when I read this passage, as it is so uncommon nowadays to hear anyone really speak ill of Meyerhold.  Generally in today's theater world, he is one of the few individuals credited with 'inventing the director', however misguided that title may be.  I think it's great that back then the debates were just as fierce and fiery.  Meyerhold was known for having a disagreeable character, and as the essay goes on, Sulerzhitsky makes his critisicm clearer, stating that Meyerhold's 'conventional theater' demanded such precision of his actors that there weren't in fact any actors today (his day, that is...) capable of doing the job...Sulerzhitsky explains further that the ability to repeat with pinpoint precision a perfectly choreographed blocking, and at the same time emote the exact same feelings at the exact same point in that blocking every night on cue was impossible, and there might never be any actors capable of the task.  To him, emotions are things that are so unpredictable and delicate that to demand such pinpoint precision of the actor is a detrement to any show and prove Meyerhold a despot.

So where do we come down on this?  Suler has a point, to be sure, but at the same time it's hard to forget about all of Meyerhold's breakthroughs.  It all seems to come back to the two camps of directors and the eternal debate between them;  those who give the actors relatively more freedom, and those who Stanislavsky called the 'despots', not allowing for any creative contributions from the actor.  Where do I fall, what kind of director do I prefer as an actor, and what kind of director will I end up being?  It's all very interesting to think about....

-A