Irina Antonova, PhD Independent Critic, a Member of IATC, Unime, Eurodrama the Translation Network, Kazakhstan

Transcription

1 Irina Antonova, PhD Independent Critic, a Member of IATC, Unime, Eurodrama the Translation Network, Kazakhstan Reconstruction of the History in Theatre Criticism The problem of co-presence of a theatre critic in a performance is often considered in terms of the current theatre practice. However, this problem has another aspect that refers to the interaction between the contemporary critic and a performance, whose witness he cannot be because of the time distance. This interaction is achieved by means of written sources and objects, which in this case constitute a documentary basis for scientific reconstruction of any cultural event, including performances. It seems that the indirect nature of perception prevents the critic from participating in the artistic process (as he progresses in his work), so that he presents his considerations on how objective a researcher was, in his attempt to reconstruct a distant event In the process of collecting and analysing evidence and documents, the critic faces numerous issues, and in particular the one of interaction (very often called work") between the author and these documents. The latter are seen as absolute witnesses of the past and, therefore, a priori more competent as those who provide better information than a contemporary historian of the theatre. Recognition of this fact makes the critic accept the documents he found as a basis of his considerations, at the same time underscoring their ambiguity and contradiction, and yet respecting them, and proving his scientific concept on them. The issue of dependence of the theatre historian on documents, on the other hand, and the issue of scientific freedom of critical perception, on the other hand, lead us to raise another practical issue - the issue of adequate establishment of what happened on stage some time ago, either in writing or otherwise.

2 By studying evidence and material traces of artistic activity of a theatre (costumes, puppets, decorative pieces), and testimonies of witnesses (if any), the critic plunges into another era, often very distant in time, with different ideological and aesthetic spirit. The specialist, who does his research on the historical past of the theatre, stimulates and trains his scientific fantasy and his ability to think shrewdly and astutely, i.e. he does everything that usually accompanies any research. His fantasy, inspired by interesting documents, which are sometimes unexpected and sometimes paradoxical (but very often insufficient), raises in his mind a speculative image of a distant event. This image, which he gets relying on the erudition, knowledge and experience of a researcher, inspires the critic to evaluate something he has never seen and will never be able to see. Plunging in the setting that he studies, and in the theatrical atmosphere of that time, and by designing tastes, aesthetic and ethical preferences of people of that time, the critic has been really present" in the performance, but in his imagination. Therefore, regardless of the variety of sources available to him in the research, the evaluation of a reconstructed performance will undoubtedly be subjective. And if we take into account the psychological dependence of a historian on documents, their uniqueness and charm, as they are real antiquities, the evaluation is often more subjective than it would be for a performance seen recently. The critic who does not have the possibility to feel immediate reaction of audience and who, like an actor, does not have his own impressions of the performance, uses the K. Stanislavski s magic if": if I myself had seen that actor, his gestures and movements, about which I have read a lot, if I myself had heard the monologues spoken by him, if I had smelled the backstage, and the presence of the spectators, if I had had the opportunity to talk to directors, etc. Emotional dissatisfaction expressed in "if I had" fosters the critic to lead imaginary dialogues and monologues, whose variety depends on how deep he is immersed in the heart of a problem, exploring, in time, various testimonies and documents, and also on his own interest to solve the problem. That "if I had" captures the critic so much that he begins to feel an urgent need not only to understand the essence of the studied subject (an actor or a performance) but also to convey t to others.

3 By renewing the meaning to a cultural and historical context, and finding the aesthetic and technical aspects of a performance, the critic can recreate, step by step, all stages of the creation of a theatrical piece, "together with" its creators and performers. Penetrating in the concept of a performer of a distant time, the critic is objectively in the position of a co-performer (co-participant), since that is the penetration into the essence of the result of a creator s long mental process, decomposition of ideas of a director and actors into a large amount of fragments, their analysis, and ultimately their resynthesis, but through his own brain and his own emotions. Does this become subjective? It does, beyond any doubt. But precisely this subjectivity is what interests and intrigues a new generation of researchers. Namely, the subjectivity of contemporary theatre historian does not differ much from the subjectivity of His Majesty the document, the silent witness whose services are used by the researcher. The study of an actor s performing, the style of his work, his personality, his character traits and habits, brings close the actor from the past to the contemporary critic, to such an extent that the latter is able to analyse and describe the artistic activity of the actor, and to evaluate his ups and downs, he tries to explain them, and then either accepts or rejects the reviews of the critics and assessments of the spectators of that time. In any case, these opinions and assessments are very important historical sources that influence our perception of an actor or a theatre company. P. Markov, the famous Soviet theatre specialist: "... over the years, we have seen the images of Talma, Rachel, Mochalov and Shchepkin. We judge them as if we had seen them ourselves on stage... forgetting that we repeat obediently the judgement of their contemporaries... In our consciousness, we see the image of Shchepkin, or brilliant Mochalov in the role of Hamlet, according to the accounts of Belinski. But who can say how much this Mochalov, seen by Belinski, by his feelings, sensations and predispositions, really matches the real historical Mochalov who played in the tragedy of Hamlet on the stage of the Maly Theatre in Moscow? " 1. And yet, does not this subjectivity attach particular value to the quotes of Belinski? Should theatre specialists discuss whether Pavel Mochalov is more or less faithful to his historical prototype, according to a particular researcher, if this prototype can never be embodied again? Famous actors reproduce, in this case, the fate of great generals and politicians, based on their biographies, but being written later, they are dependent on the social order and are subjective to that extent. In the middle of last century, the famous Soviet historian, A. Manfred, wrote a very interesting 1 Марков П. Фиксация актерской игры (к вопросу построения науки театра) // Театральная критика: история и теория. Сб. научных трудов. М.: ГИТИС, с.247.

4 book about Napoleon, published in Russian, in Moscow. Is the opinion of A. Manfred about Napoleon the most objective as compared to the opinions of all other researchers interested in the personality of the French Emperor? However, a professional historian will attach the attention to the quantity and quality of sources that A. Manfred used, to their analysis and methods of historical research, based on which he had assessed and reviewed the personality and work of that person. We could accept or not the conception of the author, we could also propose our own scientific concept based on other sources, or even on the same ones, which were analysed in a different way. It is essential to assume that this approach has been present in the history of theatre, in reconstruction of performances and personalities of specific people (actors, directors, painters). In analysing the issue of co-presence of the critic in a performance (but not beyond the limits of the issue of historical reconstruction of a performance), we must admit that a theatrical action, performed only a few days or years ago, cannot be adequately understood today, as it could have been at the precise moment of the actors performing in a concrete room. Given the above, the contemporary theatre historian is in the position of obvious exclusion as regards the object of his research and, therefore, he cannot be a co-participant, not even conditionally. Since he did not personally feel the influence of a performance, and since he did not see "here and now", the critic attempting to reconstruct it on a piece of paper, always uses indirect evidence, and, therefore, he is not objectively involved. His subjective involvement is emotional; it is a result of his interest, his love and sometimes his affection to the object of his study: ah, what a player he was! Oh, how he pronounced his monologues and how high was the level of his scenic speech! Ah, how strong emotions he provoked in spectators! - etc. However, his emotional attitude can also be diametrically opposed. The theatre critic is then in an ambivalent situation. On the one hand, thanks to collected and analysed material, the critic who thinks he is a specialist in this field, can create in his mind a fairly accurate picture of the performance that was given a number of years ago. On the other hand, the critic realizes that the reconstituted performance represents rather his subjective assumption, limited by ideological, political and aesthetic dogmas of the society whose member he is.

5 The performances that were reconstructed more or less professionally (just as the personalities of famous actors of the past), gradually begin to dictate the evaluation criteria for other performances or actors, and theatre specialists are compelled to compare what used to be once with what is now, and this comparison is often not in favour of contemporary theatre, due to the causes that are not quite clear. Perhaps, we are talking about the psychology of a historian, who is so absorbed with his work that he forgets to take into account the contemporary life of the theatre, with all its signs, vocabulary and practice that have changed. Another important question posed during reconstruction of a performance is the question of real freedom of the researcher in respect of ideological dogmas and principles. Resistance to ideological imperatives and expression of own views, sometimes contrary to the rules of the doctrine, put the researcher to the position of a dissident, and very often prevent him from continuing his scientific activity. To avoid this, experts interpret documents based on the point of view of the prevailing doctrine. Given the situation, the critic introduces to his research some ideological corrections, because he is aware that his work will probably not be published. Namely, the historians in Kazakhstan were forced into this position for a long time. A large amount of documents was stored in archives, and to get access to them, the researcher had to prove that his ideological and political principles were unquestionable. A part of the documents was kept secret. This referred not only the areas of political and economic development of the Soviet Kazakhstan, but also to its cultural life, since the authorities were not sure in this ideological sphere. Since the 1990s, the situation has changed, and many documents have now become available for research. However, even today, theatre critics do not show much interest in archival documents, limiting their publications on specific relevant topics. Working with archival documents requires special training that would ensure the ability to assess and use them as evidence for a particular performance. The study of old periodicals helps to reconstruct the context of the era in which cultural events happened. However, some critics are not competent enough to analyse specific historiographical sources.

6 The critical reviews published in the press at end of the last century, which were written by journalists, proved to be topical, but also influenced by the ideology of the new historical realities. It has become fashionable to criticize everything that was done in Kazakhstan during the Soviet period. The objective difficulties and hardships experienced in the sphere of the arts were especially highlighted, idols fell into disfavour, and the names of new heroes and victims of the cultural and political terror of the Soviet era were extracted from archival documents. This was the moment when theatre critics were to re-establish and re-define their position and their professional interests, and think if they were going to stay popular in the society that was aggressive, rebellious, and critical during the early years of independence of Kazakhstan. It was thought that the decisive influence on the establishment and development of professional theatre in Kazakhstan had been made by the Russian theatre, and directives coming from Moscow. Not many persons wanted to rebuild the historical process of the Kazakh theatre scene by scientific methods. Journalists opinions compensated for inadequate historical knowledge, but gaps have remained on the theatrical map of Kazakhstan. These gaps are still very present today. As a theatre historian doing research on puppet theatre in Kazakhstan, I have been working with the documents about 80 years old (actually, the professional puppet theatre in Kazakhstan will celebrates its 80 th anniversary in 2015), but also with their subsequent interpretations. The incredible efforts of the intellectual and creative elite, and by the Soviet Government, to create the puppet theatre in Kazakhstan (and other professional theatres in the country), have often been interpreted in the context of confrontation with the Soviet system: the theatre in Kazakhstan was not created owing to that system but in spite of it. This negative axiomatic premise has made researchers study more deeply the theatrical forms of pre-soviet times, and seek in them the roots of contemporary theatre. The traditional musical and theatrical performances of Orteke, originating in the early Turkish period, today arouse much greater interest among researchers and audiences than the Republican Puppet Theatre in Almaty, established following the Soviet model (and other puppet theatres in the country). The study of archival documents cannot leave any researcher indifferent. We imagine the times when amateur actors of a poor small puppet theatre, earning small salaries, travelled on bad roads, in shabby buses, or even in miserable open

7 trucks, with their rudimentary accessories, and without lighting instruments. They spent long months on tours, in unheated rooms, in small school halls, which made artists despair: discipline became poor, manipulation of puppets was poor, and dialogues were often forgotten. Nevertheless, the testimonies of the main audience - children - were full of optimism, joy and gratitude. The performances and puppets made hastily were received with such amazing spontaneity, and children s comments seemed so sincere that, with no doubt, the performances were quite good in general. Sometimes, archival documents are supplemented, and illustrated by photos and critical reviews from the press. In the pre-war and post-war period, there were not many periodicals in the country, and just one dealt with the issues of culture and art. Under the name "The Literature and Art of Kazakhstan", the magazine did not show any interest in the professional puppet theatre, and it cannot be analysed in that context. The greatest attention was attached to the problems of the puppet theatre and its performances by the newspaper "Pioneer of Kazakhstan", which was addressed to adolescents in the country. It did not contain any more serious articles, or comments relating to problems, but there was something in it called the "spirit of time", or context, which ensured not only the possibility to analyse, but also to feel at personal and emotional level, the time of creation of the Kazakhstan puppet professional theatre. The study of the scripts of theatre pieces has been additionally aggravated because these texts were usually not masterpieces of dramatic art, and they would disappear when the performances were no longer played. It was not necessary to keep these texts because it was clear that these pieces would not be presented again in the puppet theatre. This seems a bit like a paradox, but these brief daily articles, unpolished and non-professional, which described the subject of a given piece, are a very valuable source for reconstruction of the history of the puppet theatre in Kazakhstan, and for understanding of the ideological and literary basis of the pieces that were presented to young spectators. However, it should be noted that the basis of the puppet theatre repertoire was always a fairy tale with the familiar subject, ideologically correct and verified. The fairy tale in the children's theatre is always a winning option. Its story is always based on the

8 fight between good and evil, with the necessary victory of good, which suited every authority. However, now we have a question: Is it possible to reconstruct the performances of the Republican Puppet Theatre s performances of years ago, based on sources and cited documents? Puppet theatre is a form of theatrical performance in which the roles are played not by living actors but by puppets, and therefore, puppets bodies, unlike human ones, can and must be kept as the most valuable proof of a performance. Existence of old puppets has a great cognitive and practical value, for theatre professionals, including critics. But does a puppeteer or the theatre still keep them? Of course not. Puppets can be lost due to many different circumstances. For example, the Kazakhstan Republican Puppet Theatre did not have either its own premises for more than half a century, or conditions to safe keep puppets. Existence of written documents cannot fully compensate for these losses. One would assume that there are still photographs of particular scenes, but there are very few of them, just as there are few sketches of the stage setting and puppets. The emotional and bodily contact with a puppet, its smell, its weight, the peculiarities of its manufacture and handling - all this cannot be replaced by years of work in archives and libraries, because there, the critic is distant from the object of his study. Taking the puppet in his hands, he spites the time, and becomes its contemporary and partner. Thus co-presence of the critic in a performance, which took place several years ago, has been created. Can establishment of the puppeteer s mastery in writing be more or less adequate? Is it possible? Of course, it is. There are manuals that disclose the secrets of puppetry technique mastery. But the technique is spiritualized by the puppetry, its living presence in hands of a puppeteer. Every puppeteer says he is permeated by the influence that exists between him and the puppet. Since he cannot see the puppet, the critic remains in a remote position. By no means, he studies carefully the puppeteer s idea and his technique, researches topics and visual devices for their realization, but only a puppet can be a reviewer of his activity s results.

9 In the first half of the 19 th century, the French writer Charles Nodier, wrote wonderfully about Punchinello. He wrote about this character, revealing the tiniest nuances of its psychology and its behavioural responses, its appearance and how audience perceived it. However, based on this interesting work, we cannot restore any performance of that time, because a professional theatre critic reconstructs the actual performance about concrete Punchinello, manipulated by a specific actor, in the specific historical period, but not any performance about Punchinello". This problem is too complex so, it is possible just to touch upon the topic in a short article, leaving its development for some other occasion. Finally, there is another important issue regarding the problem of the critic s interaction with a performance that used to be given. This matter is also related to puppet theatre, but not only to it. We will talk about the problem of reconstruction of any performance for children. For example, for 70 years, there has been the theatre for young audiences, in Kazakhstan, founded by the famous Soviet director Natalia Sats. Children's world is a world of discovery and imagination. In this sense, theatre can give a child a huge opportunity for reflection, emotionally affect him and form his personality. The child is full of trust, but also critical. He can easily recognize invented situations, but at the same time he rejects the psychological and visual deceit. It may be affected by a simple story in which he can miraculously find something close to himself, something that resembles his tiny life experience. At the same time, he can remain indifferent to a talented performance, with a profound text, if it is not interesting for him. A child experiences the performance emotionally. An adult with his critical mind, especially if his attitude is perceived by him as a necessary part of his professional activity, analyses a children's performance using the same criteria as when analysing the one for adults. It is clear that the critic will not return to his original state that of a child, no matter how much he may wish it. And that is not necessary. By analysing documents and testimonies, the researcher relies on his knowledge of psychology of a child, peculiarities of perception of a child, etc., while using the basics of the common criteria for analysing and evaluating a performance. But there is a specific evaluation criterion children s interest in the performance. The "feedback" of the young audience, comments, deepened analysis of their opinions and documents about a performance, all this has a great scientific and

10 practical relevance. By digging into the archive, I found not only appreciative comments from children, but also their proposals to stage a particular theatre piece and even their designs of future characters. The children were convinced that the children's theatre was theirs, and it would without any doubt fulfil their wishes and listen to their views. By comparing the testimonies of young spectators with official evaluation of the same performance, I noticed their total incompatibility. Realising that the professional criticism, according to which the topics were primitive, acting average, musical accompaniment was missing or décor was neglected, is probably closer to reality, though we would rather believe in cheerful children s comments. The theatre historian that takes into account the opinions of professionals and children, and who tries to remain objective in his judgments and evaluations, will undoubtedly share the views of either of them (of ones or the others): either by agreeing with strict comments of journalists and theatre professionals, or by looking" at the performance through the eyes of a child. I "look" through the eyes of children, and "together with children", I evaluate the performance, based on their judgment, although I have other documentary evidence. Recognizing the vulnerability of my position, yet I believe it brings me closer to my main goal of becoming a co-participant in the performance during its reconstruction, experiencing, at least, the same emotions and feelings I would have felt if I had been in a theatre room with other spectators on one specific day. No performance, either for children or adults, can be restored if it departs from its historical context. This is the cornerstone for the recreation of a performance, the history of theatre, art of an actor. "I am in the given circumstances", this method of K. Stanislavski is as important to a historian of the theatre as to an actor. By placing himself in the context of the study period, and based on the current level of development of the scientific knowledge, theatre critic reconstructs, step by step, theatrical technology of that time, the deeper meaning of the piece and its ideological and emotional significance. Such professional reconstruction does not have only scientific and theoretical value, but also practical value, allowing the researcher to feel as a co-participant in a performance, but also ensuring co-participation of contemporary directors and actors, bringing them closer to old practices, enriching their skills, sparking

11 their interest in artistic perception and creative experience of others. By collecting various testimonies and interpreting personal impressions based on the studied material, the critic confronts different points of views on what happened in the theatre many years before. He tries to reconstruct the history in the most complete way, and according to him, as objectively as possible. Nevertheless, it is the critic who has the last word; he cannot refrain from expressing his own view, and he is nothing more objective in analysing documents and comparing different opinions. The influence of his personal opinion is not an issue here. Here the word is about the documents examined in his research, and his methods of analysis. In other words, the level of scientific arguments for his view will be of essential importance.