The series of films about Pirates of the Caribbean has become, perhaps, the most successful of Disney projects in recent times. It is a phenomenal success, both in the West and here in Russia, and the main character, the charismatic pirate Jack Sparrow, has become one of the most popular movie characters.
The image of the hero offered to us is quite curious and it did not appear by chance. It’s all the more interesting to take a closer look at it. Jack Sparrow is a pirate, a man without a home, without a homeland, without roots. He is a sea robber. Not Robin Hood, robbing the rich to help the poor. He is only interested in his own enrichment, he does not care about everyone else. Jack dreams of finding a ship on which he could sail beyond the distant seas, “a ship to call at port once every ten years; to the port, where there will be rum and dissolute girls.” He is a classic individualist. In one of the episodes, the pirates turn to Jack for help: “The pirates are going to fight Becket, and you are a pirate... if we don’t unite, they will kill us all except you,” his friends or enemies turn to him. “Sounds interesting,” Jack replies. He does not need friends, he craves absolute freedom from any obligations.
This desire for freedom makes the image of Jack very attractive - especially for teenagers. It is clearly addressed to a greater extent to them, to their desire to break away from their parents and become independent. Interestingly, Hollywood films often exploit some aspects of adolescence while ignoring others. After all, along with the desire to break old connections, teenagers also have a desire to form new ones. They are very willing to unite in various groups and movements. Teenagers make the most dedicated people. They passionately search for meaning like no other. All kinds of fan youth movements are proof of this. This means that along with “freedom from” there is “freedom for”, and the latter is no less attractive. So why aren't Hollywood movie makers turning to it?
“Freedom from” itself, which involves breaking all ties with the world, is destructive. The history of Europe and America since the end of the Middle Ages is the history of the gradual liberation of man, his acquisition of ever greater rights and freedoms. But few people talk about the negative factors accompanying this liberation. Erich Fromm, a prominent German philosopher and social psychologist who studied the influence of political and economic development of society on the human psyche, wrote: “The individual is freed from economic and political shackles. He also gains positive freedom - along with the active and independent role that he has to play in the new system - but at the same time he is freed from the ties that gave him a sense of confidence and belonging to some community. He can no longer live his whole life in a small little world, the center of which was himself; the world has become limitless and threatening. Having lost his specific place in this world, a person also lost the answer to the question about the meaning of his life, and doubts fell upon him: who is he, what is he, why does he live? He is threatened by powerful forces that stand above the individual - capital and the market. His relations with his brothers, in each of whom he sees a possible competitor, have acquired the character of alienation and hostility; he is free - that means he is lonely, isolated, threatened from all sides.”
Along with freedom, a person acquires the powerlessness and uncertainty of an isolated individual who has freed himself from all the bonds that once gave life meaning and stability.
This sense of instability is very evident in the character of Jack himself. He is a pirate - a man literally without ground under his feet. He walks somehow strangely: on his toes and as if swaying. The appearance of such an individualistic hero, breaking ties with the world, running away from obligations, a person who trusts no one and loves no one, a person without goals, attachments and interests is natural. Jack Sparrow is the end product of the modern evolution of social consciousness, a “free man,” so to speak.
To be fair, it should be said that Jack Sparrow does have one goal. He really wants to become immortal. The appearance of such a desire is also quite natural, since an intense fear of death is an experience very typical of people like the charming, cheerful Jack. For it - the fear of death, inherent in everyone - tends to intensify many times over when a person lives his life meaninglessly, in vain. It is the fear of death that drives Jack in search of the source of eternal youth.
Denial of death is a characteristic feature of modern Western pop culture. Endlessly replicated images of skeletons and skulls and crossbones are nothing more than an attempt to make death something close, funny, an attempt to make friendly friends with it, to escape from the awareness of the tragic experience of the finitude of life. “Our era simply denies death, and with it one of the fundamental aspects of life. Instead of turning the awareness of death and suffering into one of the strongest stimuli of life - the basis of human solidarity, the catalyst without which joy and enthusiasm lose intensity and depth - the individual is forced to suppress this awareness,” says Fromm. Jack does not have the courage to realize the inevitability of death, he hides from it.
So, Jack Sparrow's “freedom” turns him into a frightened, lonely man who treats the world with distrust and aloofness. This alienation and mistrust prevent him from resorting to traditional sources of consolation and protection: religion, family values, deep emotional attachment to people, service to an idea. All this is consistently devalued in modern Western culture. “Manifestations of selfishness in a capitalist society become the rule, and manifestations of solidarity become the exception,” says Fromm.
Why does Hollywood so diligently reproduce countless clones of the “maverick hero” model? Why does it replicate the image of a selfish, distrustful person deprived of consolation? According to Fromm, a person deprived of consolation is an ideal consumer. Consumption tends to reduce anxiety and restlessness. Deprived of spiritual sources of consolation, a person rushes to material sources that can only offer temporary peace, a surrogate. Stimulating consumption is one of the main tasks of a market economy. And it doesn’t matter that the joy of an acquisition can drown out anxiety for a very short time, that pleasure is replaced by genuine happiness.
In order to make the goods-pleasure bond stronger, a person’s basest qualities are disinhibited, thereby destroying the soul. Consequently, any idea that professes the priority of spiritual values and disdain for material values must be discredited. Christianity and communism, with their ideas about humanism and dreams of the spiritual ascent of man, are especially fiercely attacked. This is why priests in Hollywood films are often portrayed as either funny and weak or harsh, suppressive individuals, and people of faith as crazy fanatics. Business is not interested in the spiritual growth of a person; it needs a consumer who, in vague anxiety, is forced to wander through hypermarkets in search of peace of mind, just as Captain Jack Sparrow forever wanders the world without purpose or meaning.
Introduction
Creative interaction between director and actor
Introduction
The first thing that stops our attention when we think about the specifics of theater is the essential fact that a work of theatrical art - a performance - is created not by one artist, as in most other arts, but by many participants in the creative process. Playwright, actor, director, musician, decorator, lighting designer, make-up artist, costume designer, etc. - everyone contributes their share of creative work to the common cause. Therefore, the true creator in theatrical art is not an individual, but a team, a creative ensemble. The team as a whole is the author of the performance.
The nature of theater requires that the entire performance be imbued with creative thought and living feeling. Every word of the play, every movement of the actor, every mise-en-scène created by the director should be saturated with them. All of these are manifestations of the life of that single, integral, living organism that receives the right to be called a work of theatrical art - a performance.
The creativity of each artist participating in the creation of the performance is nothing more than an expression of the ideological and creative aspirations of the entire team. Without a united, ideologically cohesive team, passionate about common creative tasks, there cannot be a full-fledged performance. The team must have a common worldview, common ideological and artistic aspirations, and a common creative method for all its members. It is also important that the entire team is subject to the strictest discipline.
“Collective creativity, on which our art is based,” wrote K. S. Stanislavsky, “necessarily requires an ensemble, and those who violate it commit a crime not only against their comrades, but also against the very art they serve.”
Creative interaction between director and actor
The main material in the director's art is the actor's creativity. It follows from this: if the actors do not create, do not think and do not feel, if they are passive, creatively inert, the director has nothing to do, he has nothing to create a performance from, because he does not have the necessary material in his hands. Therefore, the first responsibility of the director is to evoke the creative process in the actor, to awaken his organic nature for full-fledged independent creativity. When this process arises, the second task of the director will be born - to continuously support this process, not to let it go out and direct it towards a specific goal in accordance with the general ideological and artistic concept of the performance.
Since the director has to deal not with one actor, but with a whole team, his third important duty arises - to continuously coordinate the results of the creativity of all actors in such a way as to ultimately create the ideological and artistic unity of the performance - a harmoniously integral work of theatrical art .
The director carries out all these tasks in the process of performing the main function - the creative organization of stage action. Action is always based on one conflict or another. Conflict causes a clash, struggle, and interaction between the characters in the play (it’s not for nothing that they are called characters). The director is called upon to organize and identify conflicts through the interaction of actors on stage. He is a creative organizer of stage action.
But to carry out this function convincingly - so that the actors act on stage truthfully, organically and the audience believes in the authenticity of their actions - is impossible by the method of order and command. The director must be able to captivate the actor with his tasks, inspire him to complete them, excite his imagination, awaken his artistic imagination, and imperceptibly lure him onto the path of true creativity.
The main task of creativity in realistic art is to reveal the essence of the depicted phenomena of life, to discover the hidden springs of these phenomena, their internal patterns. Therefore, a deep knowledge of life is the basis of artistic creativity. Without knowledge of life you cannot create.
This applies equally to the director and the actor. In order for both of them to be able to create, it is necessary that each of them deeply knows and understands that reality, those phenomena of life that are to be displayed on the stage. If one of them knows this life and therefore has the opportunity to creatively recreate it on stage, and the other does not know this life at all, creative interaction becomes impossible.
In fact, let us assume that the director has a certain amount of knowledge, life observations, thoughts and judgments about the life that needs to be depicted on stage. The actor has no baggage. What will happen? The director will be able to create, but the actor will be forced to mechanically obey his will. There will be a one-sided influence of the director on the actor, but creative interaction will not take place.
Now let's imagine that the actor knows life well, but the director knows it poorly - what will happen in this case? The actor will have the opportunity to create and will influence the director with his creativity. He will not be able to receive the opposite influence from the director. The director's instructions will inevitably turn out to be meaningless and unconvincing for the actor. The director will lose his leadership role and will helplessly trail behind the creative work of the acting team. The work will proceed spontaneously, unorganized, creative discord will begin, and the performance will not acquire that ideological and artistic unity, that internal and external harmony, which is the law for all arts.
Thus, both options - when the director despotically suppresses the creative personality of the actor, and when he loses his leading role - equally negatively affect the overall work - the performance. Only with the right creative relationship between the director and the artist does their interaction and co-creation occur.
How does this happen?
Let's say the director gives the actor instructions regarding one or another moment of the role - a gesture, phrase, intonation. The actor comprehends this instruction and internally processes it on the basis of his own knowledge of life. If he really knows life, the director’s instructions will certainly evoke in him a whole series of associations related to what he himself has observed in life, learned from books, from the stories of other people, etc. As a result, the director’s instructions and the actor’s own knowledge, interacting and interpenetrating, form a certain alloy, synthesis. While fulfilling the director’s assignment, the artist will simultaneously reveal himself and his creative personality. The director, having given his thought to the artist, will receive it back - in the form of stage color (a certain movement, gesture, intonation) - “with interest”. His thought will be enriched by the knowledge of life that the actor himself possesses. Thus, the actor, creatively fulfilling the director’s instructions, influences the director with his creativity.
When giving the next task, the director will inevitably build on what he received from the actor when carrying out the previous instruction. Therefore, the new task will inevitably be somewhat different than if the actor had carried out the previous instructions mechanically, i.e., at best, he would have returned to the director only what he received from him, without any creative implementation. The actor-creator will fulfill the next director's instructions, again on the basis of his knowledge of life, and thus will again have a creative impact on the director. Consequently, each director’s task will be determined by how the previous one is completed.
This is the only way creative interaction between director and actor takes place. And only with such interaction the actor’s creativity truly becomes the material of director’s art.
It is disastrous for the theater when the director turns into a nanny or guide. How pitiful and helpless the actor looks in this case!
Here the director explained the specific place of the role; not content with this, he went on stage and showed the artist what he had done. how to do it, showed the mise-en-scène, intonation, movements. We see that the actor conscientiously follows the director’s instructions, diligently reproduces what is shown - he acts confidently and calmly. But then he reached the line where the director’s explanations and the director’s show ended. And what? The actor stops, helplessly lowers his hands and asks in confusion: “What next?” He becomes like a wind-up toy that has run out of power. He resembles a man who cannot swim and whose cork belt was taken away in the water. A funny and pathetic sight!
It is the director's job to prevent such a situation. To do this, he must seek from the actor not mechanical performance of tasks, but real creativity. By all means available to him, he awakens the creative will and initiative of the artist, fosters in him a constant thirst for knowledge, observation, and a desire for creative initiative.
A real director is not only a teacher of stage art for an actor, but also a teacher of life. A director is a thinker and a public figure. He is an exponent, inspirer and educator of the team with whom he works. Proper well-being of an actor on stage
So, the director’s first duty is to awaken the actor’s creative initiative and direct it correctly. The direction is determined by the ideological concept of the entire performance. The ideological interpretation of each role must be subordinated to this plan. The director strives to ensure that this interpretation becomes the inherent, organic property of the artist. It is necessary for the actor to follow the path indicated by the director freely, without feeling any violence against himself. The director not only does not enslave him, but, on the contrary, protects his creative freedom in every possible way. For freedom is a necessary condition and the most important sign of the actor’s correct creative well-being, and, consequently, of creativity itself.
The entire behavior of an actor on stage must be both free and faithful. This means that the actor reacts to everything that happens on stage, to all environmental influences in such a way that he has a feeling of the absolute unintentionality of each of his reactions. In other words, it must seem to him that he is reacting this way and not otherwise, because he wants to react this way, because he simply cannot react otherwise. And, in addition, he reacts to everything in such a way that this only possible reaction strictly corresponds to the consciously set task. This requirement is very difficult, but necessary.
Fulfilling this requirement may not be easy. Only when the necessary is done with a sense of freedom, when necessity and freedom merge, does the actor have the opportunity to create.
As long as the actor uses his freedom not as a conscious necessity, but as his personal, subjective arbitrariness, he does not create. Creativity is always associated with free submission to certain requirements, certain restrictions and norms. But if an actor mechanically fulfills the requirements set before him, he also does not create. In both cases, there is no full-fledged creativity. Both the subjective arbitrariness of the actor and the rational game, when the actor forcibly forces himself to fulfill certain requirements, is not creativity. The element of coercion in the creative act must be completely absent: this act must be extremely free and at the same time obey necessity. How to achieve this?
Firstly, the director needs to have endurance and patience, not to be satisfied until the completion of the task becomes an organic need of the artist. To do this, the director not only explains to him the meaning of his task, but also strives to captivate him with this task. He explains and captivates - influencing simultaneously the mind, feeling, and imagination of the actor - until a creative act arises by itself, i.e. until the result of the director’s efforts is expressed in the form of a completely free, as if completely unintentional, involuntary reaction of the actor.
So, the correct creative well-being of an actor on stage is expressed in the fact that he accepts any previously known influence as unexpected and responds to it freely and at the same time correctly.
It is precisely this feeling that the director tries to evoke in the actor and then support him in every possible way. To do this, he needs to know the work techniques that help accomplish this task, and learn to apply them in practice. He must also know the obstacles that the actor faces on the path to creative well-being in order to help the actor eliminate and overcome these obstacles.
In practice, we often encounter the opposite: the director not only does not strive to bring the actor into a creative state, but with his instructions and advice in every possible way interferes with this.
What methods of directing contribute to the actor’s creative well-being and which, on the contrary, hinder its achievement? The language of directorial assignments is action
One of the most harmful methods of directing is when the director immediately demands a certain result from the actor. The result in acting is a feeling and a certain form of its expression, that is, stage color (gesture, intonation). If the director demands that the artist immediately give him a certain feeling in a certain form, then he demands a result. The artist, with all his desire, cannot fulfill this requirement without violating his natural nature.
Every feeling, every emotional reaction is the result of a collision between human actions and the environment. If the actor well understands and feels the goal that his hero is striving for at the moment, and begins quite seriously, with faith in the truth of the fiction, to perform certain actions in order to achieve this goal, there is no doubt: the necessary feelings will begin to come to him by themselves and all his reactions will be free and natural. Approaching the goal will give rise to positive (joyful) feelings; obstacles that arise on the way to achieving the goal will, on the contrary, cause negative feelings (suffering) - the only important thing is that the actor really acts with passion and purpose. The director should require the actor not to depict feelings, but to perform certain actions. He must be able to suggest to the actor not a feeling, but the right action for every moment of his stage life. Moreover: if the artist himself slips into the path of “playing with feelings” (and this happens often), the director must immediately lead him away from this vicious path, try to instill in him an aversion to this method of work. How? Yes, by all means. Sometimes it’s even useful to make fun of what an actor plays feeling, to imitate his performance, to clearly demonstrate its falseness, its unnaturalness and bad taste.
So, directorial assignments should be aimed at performing actions, not at prompting feelings.
By performing the correct actions in the circumstances suggested by the play, the actor finds the correct state of health, leading to creative transformation into the character. Directing assignment form (Showing, explanation and hint)
Any director's instruction can be made either in the form of a verbal explanation or in the form of a show. Verbal explanation is rightly considered the main form of directorial direction. But this does not mean that display should never be used under any circumstances. No, you should use it, but you need to do it skillfully and with a certain amount of caution.
There is no doubt that a director's show is associated with a very serious danger of the creative depersonalization of actors, their mechanical subordination to the director's despotism. However, when used skillfully, very important advantages of this form of communication between the director and the actor are revealed. A complete rejection of this form would deprive directing of a very strong means of creative influence on the actor. After all, only through demonstration can a director express his thoughts synthetically, that is, by demonstrating movement, words and intonation in their interaction. In addition, the director's show is associated with the possibility of emotional infection of the actor - after all, sometimes it is not enough to explain something, you also need to captivate. And finally, the demonstration method saves time: an idea that sometimes takes a whole hour to explain can be conveyed to the actor within two to three minutes using a demonstration. Therefore, you should not give up this valuable tool, but learn how to handle it correctly.
The most productive and least dangerous director's show is in cases where the artist has already reached a creative state. In this case, he will not mechanically copy the director’s show, but will perceive and use it creatively. If the artist is in a creative state, the show is unlikely to help him. On the contrary, the more interesting, brighter, and more talented the director shows, the worse: having discovered the gap between the director’s magnificent show and his helpless performance, the actor will either find himself in an even greater creative grip, or will begin to mechanically imitate the director. Both are equally bad.
But even in cases where the director resorts to showing at the right time, this technique should be used very carefully.
Firstly, one should turn to a show only when the director feels that he himself is in a creative state, knows what exactly he intends to show, experiences a joyful presentiment, or, better said, a creative anticipation of the stage color that he is about to show. In this case, there is a chance that his show will be convincing, bright, and talented. A mediocre show can only discredit the director in the eyes of the acting team and, of course, will not bring any benefit. Therefore, if the director does not feel creatively confident at the moment, then it is better to limit himself to a verbal explanation.
Secondly, the demonstration should be used not so much to demonstrate how to play this or that part of the role, but rather to reveal some significant aspect of the image. This can be done by showing the behavior of a given character in a wide variety of circumstances not provided for by the plot and plot of the play.
It is sometimes possible to show a specific solution to a certain moment of a role. But only if the director has absolute confidence that the actor, who is in a creative state, is so talented and independent that he will reproduce the show not mechanically, but creatively. The most harmful thing is when a director, with stubborn persistence (typical, unfortunately, of many, especially young directors), strives for an accurate external reproduction of a given intonation, a given movement, a given gesture in a certain place in the role.
A good director will never be satisfied with a mechanical imitation of a show. He will immediately cancel the task and replace it with another if he sees that the actor is not reproducing the essence of what was shown, but only its outer shell. Showing a certain place of the role, a good director will not play it out in the form of a complete acting performance - he will only hint to the actor, only push him, show him the direction in which to look. Going in this direction, the actor himself will find the right colors. What is given in a hint, in embryo, in the director's show, he will develop and complement. He does it on his own, based on his experience, from his knowledge of life.
Finally, a good director in his shows will not proceed from his own acting material, but from the material of the actor to whom he is showing. He will show not how he himself would play a given part of the role, but how this part should be played by a given actor. The director should not look for stage colors for himself, but for the actor with whom he is working.
A real director will not show the same colors to different actors rehearsing the same role. A true director always comes from the actor, because only by coming from the actor can he establish the necessary creative interaction between him and himself. To do this, the director must know the actor with whom he is working perfectly, study all the features of his creative individuality, the originality of his external and internal qualities. And, of course, for a good director, showing is not the main, or even less the only, means of influencing the actor. If the show does not give the expected result, he always has other means in stock to bring the actor into a creative state and awaken the creative process in him.
In the process of implementing the director's plan, three periods are usually distinguished: “table”, in the enclosure and on stage.
The “table” period is a very important stage in the director’s work with the actors. This is laying the foundation for a future performance, sowing the seeds of a future creative harvest. The final result largely depends on how this period proceeds.
At his first meeting with the actors at the table, the director usually comes with already known baggage - with a certain director's idea, with a more or less carefully developed production project. It is assumed that by this time he had already understood the ideological content of the play, understood why the author wrote it, and thus determined the ultimate task of the play; that he understood for himself why he wants to stage it today. In other words, the director knows what he wants to tell the modern viewer with his future performance. It is also assumed that the director has traced the development of the plot, outlined the end-to-end action and key moments of the play, clarified the relationships between the characters, characterized each character and determined the significance of each in revealing the ideological meaning of the play.
It is possible that by this time a certain “seed” of the future performance had been born in the director’s mind, and on this basis, figurative visions of various elements of the performance began to arise in his imagination: individual actor’s images, parts, mise-en-scène, movements of characters on the stage. It is also possible that all this has already begun to be united in the feeling of the general atmosphere of the play and that the director has imagined, at least in general terms, the external, material environment in which the action will take place.
The clearer for the director himself the creative idea with which he came to the actors at the first rehearsal, the richer and more exciting it is for him, the better. However, the director will make a huge mistake if he immediately lays out all this baggage in its entirety in front of the actors in the form of a report or so-called “director’s explication.” Perhaps the director, in addition to professional talent, also has the ability to express his intentions vividly, imaginatively, and captivatingly. Then, perhaps, he will receive a reward for his report in the form of an enthusiastic ovation from the acting team. But let him not be fooled by this either! The passion gained in this way usually does not last long. The first vivid impression of a spectacular report quickly disappears; the director’s thoughts, without being deeply perceived by the team, are forgotten.
Of course, it is even worse if the director does not have the ability to tell a vivid and captivating story. Then, with the uninteresting form of his premature message, he can immediately discredit even the best, most interesting idea in front of the actors. If this plan contains elements of creative innovation, bold directorial colors and unexpected decisions, then initially this may not only encounter misunderstanding on the part of the team, but also cause a certain protest. The inevitable result of this is the director's cooling of his vision, the loss of creative passion.
It is wrong if the first “table” interviews take place in the form of one-sided directorial declarations and are of a directive nature. Work on a play goes well only when the director's vision has entered into the flesh and blood of the acting team. And this cannot be achieved immediately. This takes time, a series of creative interviews are needed, during which the director would not only inform the actors about his plan, but would also check and enrich this plan through the creative initiative of the team.
The initial director's plan is, in essence, not yet a plan. This is just a draft idea. It must undergo a serious test in the process of collective work. As a result of this test, the final version of the director's creative concept will mature.
In order for this to happen, the director must invite the team to discuss issue by issue, everything that makes up the production plan. And let the director himself say as little as possible when putting forward this or that issue for discussion. Let the actors speak. Let them consistently speak out about the ideological content of the play, and about the ultimate task, and about the cross-cutting action, and about the relationships between the characters. Let everyone tell how they imagine the character whose role they are assigned to play. Let the actors talk about the general atmosphere of the play, and about what demands the play makes on acting (in other words, what points in the field of internal and external technique of acting in a given performance should be paid special attention to).
Of course, the director must lead these conversations, fuel them with leading questions, quietly guiding them to the necessary conclusions and the right decisions. But there is no need to be afraid and change your initial assumptions if, in the process of a collective conversation, new solutions emerge that are more correct and exciting.
Thus, gradually becoming more precise and developing, the director's plan will become an organic property of the team and will enter the consciousness of each of its members. It will cease to be the idea of the director alone - it will become the creative idea of the team. This is exactly what the director strives for, this is what he achieves by all means available to him. For only such a plan will nourish the creativity of all participants in the common work.
This is what the first stage of “table” work basically boils down to.
During rehearsals, an effective analysis of the play is practically carried out and an effective line for each role is established.
Each performer at this stage must feel the consistency and logic of their actions. The director helps him in this by determining the action that the actor must perform at any given moment, and giving him the opportunity to immediately try to perform it. Perform at least only in embryo, in a hint, with the help of a few words or two or three phrases of a semi-improvised text. It is important that the actor feels the call to action rather than performs the action itself. And if the director sees that this urge has really arisen, that the actor has understood with body and soul the essence, the nature of the action that he will subsequently perform in an expanded form on stage, that he, for now only for one second, but already for real, ignited by this action, you can move on to analyzing the next link in the continuous chain of actions of this character.
Thus, the goal of this stage of work is to give each actor the opportunity to feel the logic of his role. If the actors have a desire to get up from the table at some point or make some kind of movement, there is no need to restrain them. Let them get up, sit down again in order to figure something out, understand, “pre-justify”, and then get up again. As long as they don’t play around, don’t do more than what they are currently capable of and have the right to do.
One should not think that the “table” period should be sharply separated from the subsequent stages of work - in the enclosure, and then on the stage. It is best if this transition occurs gradually and imperceptibly.
A characteristic feature of the new phase is the search for mise-en-scène. Rehearsals now take place in an enclosure, i.e. in the conditions of a temporary stage installation, which approximately reproduces the conditions of the future design of the performance: the necessary rooms are “blocked off”, the necessary “machines”, stairs, and furniture necessary for the game are installed.
The search for mise-en-scène is a very important stage of working on a performance. But what is mise-en-scène?
Mise-en-scène is usually called the location of the characters on the stage in certain physical relationships to each other and to the material environment surrounding them.
Mise-en-scene is one of the most important means of figurative expression of the director's thought and one of the most important elements in creating a performance. In the continuous stream of mise-en-scenes replacing each other, the essence of the action taking place finds expression.
The ability to create bright, expressive mise-en-scenes is one of the signs of a director’s professional qualifications. The style and genre of the performance is revealed more than anything else in the nature of the mise-en-scène.
During this period of work, young directors often ask themselves the question: should they develop a project of mise-en-scenes at home, in an office way, or is it better if the director looks for them directly at rehearsals, in the process of live, creative interaction with the actors?
Studying the creative biographies of outstanding directors such as K. S. Stanislavsky, Vl. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, E. B. Vakhtangov, it is not difficult to establish that all of them, in their youth as directors, when working on this or that play, usually drew up the score of the play in advance with detailed mise-en-scenes, i.e. with all the transitions of the characters around the stage, arranging them in certain physical relationships to each other and to surrounding objects, sometimes with precise indications of poses, movements and gestures. Then, during the period of their creative maturity, these outstanding directors usually abandoned the preliminary development of mise-en-scenes, preferring to improvise them in creative interaction with the actors directly during rehearsals.
There is no doubt that this evolution in the method of work is associated with the accumulation of experience, with the acquisition of skills, a certain dexterity, and hence the necessary self-confidence.
Preliminary development of mise-en-scène in the form of a detailed score is as natural for a novice or inexperienced director as improvisation is for a mature master. As for the method of desk work on mise-en-scène itself, it consists of mobilizing imagination and fantasizing. In this process of fantasy, the director realizes himself both as a master of spatial arts (painting and sculpture) and as a master of acting. The director must see in his imagination what he wants to realize on stage, and mentally play out what he saw for each participant in this scene. Only in interaction can these two abilities provide a positive result: internal content, life truthfulness and stage expressiveness of the mise-en-scenes planned by the director.
The director will make a huge mistake if he despotically insists on every mise-en-scène invented at home. He must imperceptibly guide the actor in such a way that this mise-en-scène becomes necessary for the actor, necessary for him, and turns from the director's into the actor's. If in the process of working with an artist it is enriched with new details or even changes completely, there is no need to resist it. On the contrary, you need to rejoice at every good discovery at rehearsal. You need to be ready to change any prepared mise-en-scene for a better one.
When the mise-en-scene is basically completed, the third period of work begins. It takes place entirely on stage. During this period, the final finishing of the performance, its polishing, is carried out. Everything is clarified and secured. All elements of the performance - acting, external design, lighting, makeup, costumes, music, backstage noises and sounds - are coordinated with each other, and thus the harmony of a single and holistic image of the performance is created. At this stage, in addition to the creative qualities of the director, his organizational skills also play a significant role.
The relationship between the director and representatives of all other specialties in theatrical art - whether it be an artist, musician, lighting designer, costume designer or stagehand - is subject to the same law of creative interaction. In relation to all participants in the common cause, the director has the same task: to awaken creative initiative in everyone and correctly direct it. Every artist, no matter what branch of art he works in, in the process of realizing his creative plans is faced with the resistance of the material. The main material in the director's art is the actor's creativity. But mastering this material is not easy. He sometimes puts up very serious resistance.
This often happens. The director seemed to do everything possible to direct the actor on the path of independent creativity: he contributed to the beginning of the study of living reality, tried in every possible way to awaken creative imagination, helped the artist to understand his relationships with other characters, set a number of effective stage tasks for him, and finally went on his own onto the stage and showed, using a number of real-life examples, how these tasks can be accomplished. He did not impose anything on the actor, but patiently waited for him to awaken creative initiative. But, despite all this, the desired result did not work out - the creative act did not occur.
What to do? How to overcome this “material resistance”?
It’s good if this resistance is conscious, if the actor simply does not agree with the director’s instructions. In this case, the director has no choice but to convince. Moreover, a director’s demonstration can provide a considerable service: a convincing and infectious visual demonstration can turn out to be a much more powerful means than all kinds of explanations and logical proofs. In addition, the director always has a way out in this case - he has every right to tell the actor: if you do not agree with what I propose to you, then show yourself what you want, play the way you think is right.
The situation is completely different when the actor resists unconsciously, against his own will: he agrees with the director in everything, he wants to fulfill the director’s task, but nothing works out for him - he has not entered a creative state.
What should the director do in this case? Remove a performer from a role? But the actor is talented, and the role suits him. How to be?
In this case, the director must first of all find the internal obstacle that interferes with the actor’s creative state. Once it is discovered, it will not be difficult to eliminate it.
However, before looking for a creative obstacle in an actor, you should carefully check whether the director himself has made any mistake that caused the actor's block. It often happens that the director torments the artist, demanding the impossible from him. A disciplined actor conscientiously tries to fulfill the director's task, but he fails because the task itself is wrong.
So, in the case of an actor's clamp, the director, before looking for obstacles within the actor, must check his own directorial instructions: are there any significant errors there? This is exactly what experienced directors who know their business do. They easily give up on their assignments. They are careful. They try, feel for the right path.
A director who knows the nature of acting creativity loves and appreciates the actor. He looks for the reason for failure, first of all, in himself, he subjects each of his tasks to strict criticism, he ensures that each of his instructions is not only correct, but also clear and precise in form. Such a director knows that instructions given in a vague, vague form are unconvincing. Therefore, he carefully eradicates from his language all floweriness, all “literary stuff”, and achieves brevity, specificity and maximum accuracy. Such a director does not bore the actors with excessive verbosity.
But let’s assume that the director, for all his conscientiousness and pickiness, did not discover any significant mistakes in himself. Obviously, the obstacle to creativity lies in the actor. How to detect it?
Let us first consider what internal obstacles there are in acting.
Lack of attention to the partner and the surrounding stage environment.
As we know, one of the basic laws of an actor’s internal technique states: every second of his time on stage, the actor must have an object of attention. Meanwhile, it very often happens that the artist sees and hears nothing on stage. A stamp instead of live stage devices becomes inevitable in this case. A living feeling cannot come. The game becomes false. A creative squeeze sets in.
The lack of concentrated attention (or, in other words, the absence of an object on stage that would fully command attention) is one of the significant internal obstacles to acting creativity.
Sometimes it is enough to remove this obstacle so that not a trace remains of the creative constraint. Sometimes it is enough just to remind the actor about the object, just to point out to him the need to truly, and not formally, listen to his partner or to see, really see, the object with which the actor deals as an image, how the actor comes to life...
It also happens. The actor rehearses a crucial part of the role. He squeezes out his temperament, tries to play the feeling, “tears passion to shreds,” plays desperately. At the same time, he himself feels all the falseness of his stage behavior, because of this he becomes angry with himself, angry with the director, with the author, quits acting, starts again and again repeats the same painful process. Stop this actor at the most pathetic point and invite him to carefully examine - well, for example, a button on his partner’s jacket (what color it is, what it’s made of, how many holes there are in it), then his partner’s hairstyle, then his eyes. And when you see that the artist has concentrated on the object given to him, tell him: “Continue playing from the point where you left off.” This is how the director removes the obstacle to creativity, removes the barrier holding back the creative act.
But this doesn't always happen. Sometimes indicating the absence of an object of attention does not give the desired result. So it's not about the object. Obviously, there is some other obstacle preventing the actor from gaining control of his attention.
Muscular tension.
The most important condition for an actor’s creative state is muscular freedom. As the actor masters the object of attention and the stage task, bodily freedom comes to him, and excessive muscular tension disappears.
However, the opposite process is also possible: if the actor gets rid of excessive muscular tension, he will thereby make it easier for himself to master the object of attention and become passionate about the stage task. Very often, the remainder of the reflexively generated muscular tension is an insurmountable obstacle to mastering the object of attention. Sometimes it is enough to say: “Free your right hand” - or: “Free your face, forehead, neck, mouth” for the actor to get rid of the creative constraint.
Lack of necessary stage excuses.
The creative state of an actor is possible only if everything that surrounds him on stage, and everything that happens during the action, is stage-justified for him. If anything remains unjustified for the artist, he will not be able to create. The absence of justification for the slightest circumstance, for the most insignificant fact that the actor faces as an image, can serve as an obstacle to the creative act. Sometimes it is enough to point out to the actor the need to justify some insignificant trifle, which through an oversight remained unjustified, in order to free him from creative constraints.
Lack of creative food can also be a cause of creative blockage.
This happens in cases where the accumulated baggage of observations, knowledge and stage justifications turned out to be used in previous rehearsal work. This baggage fertilized the rehearsal work for a certain time. But the work is not over, and the nutritional material has already dried up. Repeating what was said in the first conversations does not help. Words and thoughts, once expressed and giving a creative result at one time, no longer resonate: they have lost their freshness, they do not excite imagination and do not excite feeling. The actor begins to get bored. As a result, a creative clamp occurs. Rehearsals don't move things forward. And it is known that if an actor does not move forward, he certainly goes back, he begins to lose what he has already found.
What should the director do in this case? It is best if he stops the useless rehearsal and starts enriching the actors with new creative food. To do this, he must again immerse the actors in the study of life. Life is diverse and rich, in it a person can always find something that he had not noticed before. Then the director, together with the actors, will again begin to fantasize about the life that is to be created on stage. As a result, new, fresh, exciting thoughts and words will appear. These thoughts and words will fertilize further work.
The actor's desire to play a feeling. A significant obstacle to an actor’s creativity can be his desire to play at all costs some feeling that he “ordered” for himself. Having noticed such a desire in an artist, we must warn him against this by all means. It is best if the director in this case tells the actor the necessary effective task.
Permitted untruth.
Often an actor experiences a creative block as a result of falsehoods, untruths, which are sometimes completely insignificant and at first glance unimportant, made during rehearsal and not noticed by the director. This untruth will manifest itself in some trifle, for example, in the way the actor performs a physical task: shakes snow off his coat, rubs his hands chilled in the cold, drinks a glass of hot tea. If any of these simple physical actions are performed falsely, it will entail a number of unfortunate consequences. One untruth will inevitably cause another.
The presence of even a small untruth indicates that the actor’s sense of truth is not mobilized. And in this case he cannot create.
The director's condescending attitude towards the quality of performance of basic tasks is extremely harmful. The actor faked a small physical task. The director thinks: “Nothing, this is nothing, I’ll tell him about it later, he’ll fix it.” And it doesn’t stop the actor: it’s a pity to waste time on trifles. The director knows that now the artist has an important scene to work on, and saves precious time for this scene.
Is the director doing the right thing? No, that's wrong! Artistic truth, which he neglected in an insignificant scene, will immediately take revenge for itself: it will stubbornly not be given into his hands when it comes to the important scene. In order for this important scene to finally take place, it turns out that it is necessary to go back and correct the mistake made, to remove the falsehood.
From this follows a very significant rule for the director: you should never move on without achieving an impeccable execution of the previous scene from the point of view of artistic truth. And don’t let the director be embarrassed by the fact that he will have to spend one or even two rehearsals on a trifle, on some unfortunate phrase. This loss of time will pay off in abundance. Having spent two rehearsals on one phrase, the director can then easily make several scenes at once in one rehearsal: the actors, once directed towards the path of artistic truth, will easily accept the next task and perform it truthfully and organically.
One should protest in every possible way against this method of work, when the director first goes through the entire play “somehow,” admitting falsehood in a number of moments, and then begins to “finish it off” in the hope that when he goes through the play again, he will eliminate the admitted shortcomings. The most cruel misconception! Falsity has the ability to harden and become stamped. It can become so stamped that nothing can erase it later. It is especially harmful to repeat a scene several times (“run through”, as they say in the theater), if this scene is not verified from the point of view of the artistic truth of the actor’s performance. You can only repeat what goes right. Even if it is not expressive enough, not clear and bright enough, it doesn’t matter. Expressiveness, clarity and brightness can be achieved during the finishing process. If only it were true!
director actor creative ideological
The most important conditions for the creative state of an actor, the absence of which is an insurmountable obstacle. Focused attention, muscular freedom, stage justification, knowledge of life and the activity of fantasy, fulfillment of an effective task and the resulting interaction (stage generalization) between partners, a sense of artistic truth - all these are necessary conditions for the creative state of the actor. The absence of at least one of them inevitably entails the disappearance of others. All these elements are closely related to each other.
Indeed, without concentrated attention there is no muscular freedom, no stage task, no sense of truth; a falsehood admitted at least in one place destroys attention and the organic fulfillment of the stage task in subsequent scenes, etc. As soon as one sins against one law of internal technique, the actor immediately “falls out” of the necessary subordination to everyone else.
It is necessary to restore, first of all, precisely that condition, the loss of which entailed the destruction of all the others. Sometimes it is necessary to remind the actor about the object of attention, sometimes to point out the muscular tension that has arisen, in another case to suggest the necessary stage justification, to enrich the actor with new creative food. Sometimes it is necessary to warn the actor against the desire to “play a feeling” and instead prompt him to take the necessary action; sometimes it is necessary to begin to destroy the untruth that accidentally arises.
The director tries in each individual case to make the correct diagnosis, to find the main cause of creative blockage in order to eliminate it.
It is clear what kind of knowledge of the acting material, what a keen eye, what sensitivity and insight a director should have.
However, all these qualities are easily developed if the director appreciates and loves the actor, if he does not tolerate anything mechanical on stage, if he is not satisfied until the actor’s performance becomes organic, internally filled and artistically truthful.
Bibliography
· “The Skill of an Actor and Director” is the main theoretical work of the People's Artist of the USSR, Doctor of Art History, Professor Boris Evgenievich Zakhava (1896-1976). · B. E. Zakhava The skill of an actor and director: A textbook. 5th ed.
What separates a good actor from a bad one? There is such a famous expression by T. Edison, which has become popular: “Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% effort,” and an equally famous variation of it: “Genius is 1% talent and 99% hard work.” In accordance with the Stanislavsky system, training also begins with long and painstaking work on oneself. It consists, firstly, of developing professional acting qualities, and secondly, of training the ability to use special techniques of stage acting. The first block will be discussed in this lesson, the second - in the next one.
Determining the qualities an actor should have
Actor Qualities- these are the personal characteristics of a person, which together provide the opportunity to successfully play various roles.
Unlike specific skills, for example, the ability to laugh in time or show surprise, professional qualities combine a whole complex of skills and abilities, which is why it is impossible to consider each quality in detail in one lesson. Therefore, this lesson will describe the general features of what qualities and skills a good actor should have. In addition, a stage artist must not only have a certain set of personal and professional characteristics, but also constantly, daily work on himself, improving his skills. Therefore, for each quality, recommendations and exercises for its training and development are given. They will be considered in accordance with the structure, his followers and students:
First group "The qualities of any good actor"- these are the skills that any person needs to use acting in life, regardless of whether he plans to use them for acting in a theater or filming a film, or simply wants to explain his hour-long delay to work. With regard to these characteristics, you can safely apply the “required minimum” - this is what everyone should know and be able to do.
Second group "Professional quality" It is necessary to a greater extent for professionals, for those for whom acting is a craft. These qualities are associated with working on stage, interaction with actors, spectators and many other important components of acting.
Qualities of any good actor
Developed attention
Any person does his work better if he is not distracted by anything, but only on the subject of the current lesson. Actors are no exception, for whom life on stage is impossible without the ability to observe, the ability to switch and focus attention within the stage environment.
In this regard, one of the foundations of an actor’s internal technique is the selective orientation of perception during a performance. Many of our readers who are familiar with will probably notice that at a certain level of training, the ability to concentrate becomes voluntary. This is true, but in the case of the art of acting, everything is much more complicated than it might seem at first glance. The fact is that in everyday life our attention is driven by unconditioned reflexes, in other words - instinctively. During a conversation, we never think about how to stand or sit, how to control our voice, etc. But for the artist this matters, because in a real stage environment he must pay attention to all aspects of the game - speech, gestures, facial expressions, posture, prompter, and when events change, change the direction of his perception.
The following recommendations will help the actor achieve success in developing this quality:
- Don't try to pay attention to too many details. This leads to so-called acting clamps: involuntary actions on stage that betray your insecurity. Remember that the “” rule works for the attention of any person.
- Attention and short-term memory are skills that can be purposefully manipulated using, for example, gaming techniques. Read how to do this in the special lesson “” on our website.
- Attention very much depends on the current and physical state of a person, for example, how much sleep he got, whether personal problems are bothering him today. Try to always perform in a good mood. For this purpose, you can use yoga and.
Also, K. S. Stanislavsky believed that the process of improving a skill should be constant: “When observing life, an artist should look around him not as an absent-minded layman and not as a cold statistician who only needs the factual and digital accuracy of the information collected. The artist needs to penetrate into the essence of what he observes, carefully study the circumstances and actions of people offered by life, understand the disposition of the soul, the character of the one who commits these actions.” In addition, a set of special exercises has been created to teach stage attention:
Exercise 1. Take an unfamiliar picture, look at it carefully for 5 seconds, and then try to remember all the details. In the future, take large canvases with complex patterns.
Exercise 2. Take a pencil in each hand and start drawing at the same time: with your right hand - a circle, with your left - a triangle. It is important to complete both figures at the same time. You can also write different numbers or letters.
Read more about stage attention and the stages of learning this acting skill in our blog. There are more useful exercises for its development.
Oratorical skills
“We hate theatricality in the theater, but we love the stage on stage... the voice should sing in conversation and in poetry, sound like a violin, and not knock words like peas on a board”, wrote K. S. Stanislavsky. The ability to deliver speeches, which have long become rhetoric (and there are many of them in drama), is an important quality not only for university lecturers. The same speech can be delivered in such a way that everyone falls asleep, or, on the contrary, they hang on every word. Much depends on the speaker, so it is important for every aspiring actor to develop his stage speech.
You should also pay attention to the development of your voice and its sound. To do this, you need to perform a set of exercises on breathing, articulation, tonality, and diction. Here are some of them:
Exercise 1. Breathing development. Starting position: standing, arms from shoulder to elbow in a horizontal position (parallel to the floor). From the elbow down (forearms and hands) - hang vertically. Inhale through the stomach, as you exhale we pronounce the sound “p” and make a circular movement with our forearms and hands, the shoulder remains fixed. On the next exhalation we make 2 circular rotations, then 3 and so on until 6. Then we reduce the speed from 6 to 1.
Exercise 2. Diction. Try to reproduce the sound of hammering a nail into a wall, a horse stomping on the asphalt, or releasing a bow string. What you should get is not a banal “tsok”, but something along the lines of “svsa”, “tztsu”, “vzsi”, in other words - break down the action into the sounds that you hear.
Imagination and ability to think creatively
Sense of truth- this is the ability to feel the plausibility (realism) of the action being performed. It is associated primarily with understanding the principles of human actions, logic and incentives for the actions of the played hero. Secondly, this is the actor’s ability to distinguish natural emotions and behavior from unnatural ones, not only those of others, but also his own. “Physical constraints” interfere with the development of a sense of truth - conditions that dull realism and naturalness (the desire to stand out, stiffness, self-control). K. S. Stanislavsky recommended getting rid of them in 2 stages:
- Development of the truth of simple physical actions. In life, we pour boiling water over tea, stir sugar, drink, without thinking about the nature of these actions, performing them automatically. The simplest physical actions are understandable and close to everyone, so it is worth starting with their training within the framework of a stage environment, gradually moving towards the truthfulness of emotions.
- Development of logic and consistency. Physical actions are instinctive, but in the theater events are fictitious and take place, for example, a couple of centuries before our time, and therefore everyday instincts fail. Therefore, actors must subordinate their actions and sequences, performing them as in life, because without this it will not be possible to develop a sense of faith.
As mentioned above, imagination and fantasy play an important role in providing a sense of truth - qualities that allow the actor to explain and justify the actions of his character. The sincerity of the role, experiences and emotions is achieved not only through an emotional response, but also through the ability to believe in the actions of the hero, to stand in his place in order to understand their nature. Without this, there is no good, truthful game.
Emotional memory
Stage freedom
They say that a skilled fencer can always be identified by the way he moves: his gestures are smooth, but quite skillful, confidence is seen in every step, as in any movement - cold calculation. This idea may be a little romanticized, but it reflects the general essence - people of different professions move in different ways. Actors are no exception: their poses, gestures, even banal walking should be distinguished by freedom.
Freedom refers to the natural behavior of an actor on stage, when he is not acting, but living. It is acquired in the process of developing such a component of acting technique as. Both in and his followers, in particular, the movement was given the place of the main means of external technique of the actor. At the same time, they argued that there are no special methods for teaching beginners the art of moving correctly: “You cannot teach the creative use of movement, but you can only educate the neuro-physical apparatus in a direction that is especially beneficial for stage work.”
In this regard, the actor should develop such qualities as plasticity and control over muscle tension. Plasticity - the beauty of movement, grace, expressiveness of the artist - the external appearance of the movement performed. Control of tension allows the actor to perform movements correctly - not mechanically, but also not in a hyperbolic or careless manner. Since the lack of movement has become a common phenomenon for modern people, the actor needs to pay due attention to his performance. Here are some exercises:
Exercise 1. Learn to dance. In theater education, dance is a classic subject. Nothing develops plasticity better than a waltz or polka.
Exercise 2. Puppet doll. Imagine that you are a marionette doll that hangs on a hook in the dressing room after the performance. Try to depict the pose as close as possible to the position of the doll. Now imagine that you are “hung” by the neck, then by the arm, shoulder, and even ear - the body is fixed at one point, everything else is relaxed. Performing this exercise several times a day will help develop body flexibility and free yourself from muscle tension.
Exercise 3. Stand on one leg for as long as you can. Usually, focusing on an imaginary object helps prolong this time. You can, for example, mentally go through the daily journey from home to work or to the store. From excessive stress, the muscles will relax after some time, and muscle tension will disappear after returning to normal.
Other exercises are described in.
Qualities of a professional actor
Charm and charisma
Think about how many actors you know and how many of them you can call charismatic. Not that much, right? Charisma is your own style, something that allows you to stand out from others, a feature and even exclusivity. Charisma is when a role that hundreds of actors have “tried on” is associated with only one name. Ask Bond fans who played James Bond best and most will answer you - Sean Connery.
Nowadays there is a mistaken opinion that an actor must be beautiful. In fact, this is not so: he must be charming. Remember Adriano Celentano, who, with his acting, manner, and style, made an entire generation fall in love with him, without having any extraordinary appearance. Beauty matters, but not nearly as often as charisma and charm, which turn a good actor into a better one.
Communication skills
Acting is a continuous process of communication. This is an internal dialogue to understand the role, professional communication with colleagues and honed verbal and appeal skills. This is the essence of theatrical art and the craft of an actor.
It is not difficult to develop communication skills; it is enough to adopt three simple laws of communication:
- be open and friendly, develop an attitude of mutual understanding;
- smile, show true interest in the interlocutor;
- be able to listen.
Coping with fear
Public speaking phobia is one of the most common among people in the United States. And most of us have probably experienced a feeling of anxiety when faced with the need to speak in front of a large audience (and sometimes in front of a couple of people). It’s even more difficult for actors, because their performance cannot be diluted with informal techniques, and besides, they are associated not only with delivering a speech. Therefore, a good artist must be able to perform in front of the audience and the stage. This quality needs to be developed in oneself by training not only professional skills, but also confidence, concentration,...
Mental balance
Nerves of iron are needed not only to overcome stage fright. The costs of being an actor are such that he is constantly in the field of view of the director, the public, critics, and journalists. Therefore, he needs to be able to take a blow, adequately perceive and respond to criticism, encourage constructiveness in it, which contributes to the development of talents and qualities, and sets the direction for improvement.
Hard work and efficiency
Filming and rehearsals take up a lot of time in an actor’s life, and he needs to be prepared to spend significantly more than the standard 8-hour working day on set, sometimes sacrificing rest and personal interests. Here you cannot do without patience, endurance and stability in terms of heavy loads.
Knowledge of theories, genres and techniques of theatrical art
It is unlikely that you would trust someone who does not understand the difference between an adjustable wrench and a wrench to repair your plumbing. The situation is similar with the craft of an actor. This does not directly affect the ability to play a role, but it is impossible to become a professional without a store of special knowledge. And the first step for anyone who wants to master the art of transformation is getting to know the types and.
Musical and choreographic skills
Music develops hearing - it teaches you to listen, catch tempo and rhythm, which is necessary for the development of stage speech skills and more. An actor cannot do without choreography, which helps to develop plasticity, achieve naturalness, and overcome stiffness in movements.
Taste, aesthetics, sense of harmony
Playwright A. N. Ostrovsky demanded from his actors a developed aesthetic taste, without which it is impossible to understand either the essence of the theater or the nature of the characters. Without it, without a sense of harmony, the actor himself cannot understand beauty, or convey as much as possible what the image and character of the production require. Aesthetic abilities are discerned in every aspect of technique - speech, movements, emotional content of the game.
Striving to improve
An actor must progress his qualities and skills from role to role, leaving the best and getting rid of the unnecessary. The point here is not only in the competitive environment, where there is a constant struggle for the main roles and success, but also in the desire to be realized, which must be there. The experience enriches the emotional baggage, and each role is a step higher in terms of professional development.
Ambition, desire for success and fame, determination
Ambition is a socio-psychological trait of a person, expressed in the desire to perform actions aimed at achieving goals and self-realization. In essence, it is a stable positive motive that forces a person to move towards his dream. Without love for a job, without realizing its significance for yourself and others, without the desire to do what you do well and constantly progress, any job turns into torture, even something as interesting as an actor.
Other qualities
Here we will not really talk about qualities, but rather about the direction of personal development in order to become a good actor.
. We indicated above that stage speech and rhetoric are closely interrelated. Classes on speech technique are a compulsory subject in all theater universities without exception. Therefore, to get a more complete picture and gain the necessary knowledge, we recommend taking training on our website.
Logical thinking.- this is one of the main elements of the artist’s inner well-being. Everything that in life is done instinctively on the basis of everyday logic, in the theater is feigned. But the actor must strive to recreate a logical sequence, not only in actions, but also in the thoughts and aspirations of his hero. “If all areas of the artist’s human nature work logically, consistently, with genuine truth and faith, then the experience will be perfect,” taught K. S. Stanislavsky.
Leadership. an actor must have for a number of reasons. Firstly, being a leader means taking and being responsible for your actions, being proactive, and always looking for opportunities to achieve more. Secondly, leadership is unthinkable without the ability to establish effective communication and build relationships with others, which is very important in terms of teamwork. Thirdly, the main roles are quite often images of extraordinary personalities, leaders, and those who have developed leadership qualities can understand them, and, therefore, play better.
Test your knowledge
If you want to test your knowledge on the topic of this lesson, you can take a short test consisting of several questions. For each question, only 1 option can be correct. After you select one of the options, the system automatically moves on to the next question. The points you receive are affected by the correctness of your answers and the time spent on completion. Please note that the questions are different each time and the options are mixed.
“At rehearsals in 1906-1907. L.A. Sulerzhitsky Stanislavsky's famous paradoxes about acting were recorded for the first time.
The more unexpected and less banal the actor’s physical adaptations for the embodiment of role-playing physical action, the more expressive and vivid the stage task is carried out.
“When you want to express temperament, speak slowly. As soon as you feel that your temperament has gone, grab yourself, stir it up, and when you want to speak with your temperament, hold your words. This obstacle will cause your temperament to rise even more.” “Real rhythm is not a patter, but on the contrary, the higher the rhythm, the slower you speak.” “Higher devices are always of a contrasting nature,” states Stanislavsky. We can recall the first instructions of a paradoxical nature, which we carefully learned from our teachers back in theater school:
When playing the evil one, look for where he is good;
Play with your back to the fact;
Less "craft" - more art;
Work “for yourself” then everyone will be interested;
Fear, pain, and intoxication are not experienced or played, but rather fought against these imagined states.
Examples of paradoxical behavior of an actor in stage tasks, the use of unexpected and strange at first glance devices, will later form the basis of the method of physical actions. Paradoxes of acting creativity, “nonlinear” interaction between the stage task realized by the actor and the form of its implementation born of the subconscious. The skill of the game is demonstrated when the devices are of an interesting rather than trite or sentimental form. As Stanislavsky says at this time: “In order to play a villain, you need to show the moments when he is kind. When they want to show someone strong, they need to find moments when they are weak.” “Before a dramatic scene, make an indifferent face,” Stanislavsky advised the actors.
The art of an actor is woven from paradoxes, and the actor himself creates paradoxes at every step in his work. “Body imagination” and “thinking with the body” is one of the deepest paradoxes of acting practice, which has not yet been studied by psychophysiology to such an extent as to classify this phenomenon on a scientific and theoretical basis. Stanislavsky was the first to implement this in his theory and practice. New generations of actors throughout the world theater are getting used to the paradoxes of acting, as in everyday life. The art of the actor is a perfect example of how the most chaotic, non-linear combination of deep interactions between the mental and physical, consciousness and subconscious, results in a magnificent order. The paradoxical “formula” of transformation become the basis and an integral part of professional skill. The actor gets used to what he should be able to do:
Become different while remaining yourself;
Work consciously to stand “on the threshold” of the creative subconscious;
To be “instrument and performer”, “material and artist”, “Hamlet and spectator” at the same time;
Live and play at the same time;
Be sincere and detached at the same time;
Be sensual and rational at the same time;
Transform “now” into duration and simultaneity;
Transform your entire bodily being into a “concentrated psyche”;
Create fiction using the physical reality of the stage and your own body;
Transform the imagined into the tangible;
Make the imaginary the center of genuine physical perception, the basis of the role’s physical well-being;
Look for plausibility where it cannot exist in principle; see the invisible with “inner vision” together with the viewer; observe “public solitude”;
Observe the principle: the more subjective the actor’s inner world, the brighter its objectification;
Understand that “frontal” communication is less effective than “ricochet”;
Stand with your back to the event;
Master the “logic of emotion” and “emotional logic”;
Transform the time of experience into a space of feeling (into pauses and various combinations of stage tempos and rhythms);
Repeat without repeating yourself even at the two hundredth performance;
Connect the past, present and future in one “now”;
Think with the body, imagine with the body, see with the body, listen with the body;
Create “logical illogicalisms” of behavior and adaptations;
The same reasons for the mental life of a role give rise to completely different external physical consequences;
- “to give up oneself” means “to kill the image”;
What is imagined on stage is as real as everything real (the law of the reality of stage feelings and the unconditionality of stage time);
Believe in the illusory “double” of the theater, since the created image is more durable than the actor himself;
The images of the theater are “more visible” in the void;
- “everything” arises from “nothing” (silence, silence);
There is more meaning in a pause than in long speeches;
Silence is more expressive than noise;
Stillness is more expressive than dynamics;
The more conventional the director’s technique, the more “unconditional” the existence of the actor in it;
Left unsaid - “say everything.” […]
It can be argued that stage paradoxes are a mechanism of artistic expression fine-tuned by nature itself. The paradoxes of acting art are imaginary, since this is an interaction of natural (artistic) categories of the stage that has not been revealed in a rational (scientific) way: time and space in their human-dimensional dimensions, the psyche and physics of the actor. We can also say that all stage paradoxes are generated by incorrect (more precisely: unusual - Note by I.L. Vikentyev) the connection (through an artistic device, a stage image) of the different nature of dimensional objects, their nonequilibrium interrelations, moving nonlinear relationships.
When choosing physical devices to carry out a “line of purposeful physical action,” Stanislavsky always advised focusing on life, rich in all sorts of, sometimes even strange, paradoxical combinations in human behavior of text and subtext, the form and essence of his actions, external behavior and true intentions.”
Yarkova E.N., Formation of method and system in the work of K.S. Stanislavsky, Barnaul, “Agaki”, 2011, p. 106-108.
Current page: 1 (book has 18 pages in total)
Font:
100% +
Larisa Gracheva
Life in a role and a role in life. Training in an actor's work on a role
Instead of a preface...
Tale of the word
I'll bay, bay, bay, and I'll sing a song.
Sleep, baby, go to sleep, imagine life in your dreams.
What you see is what you see.
And you will see what you believe in. And you will see a sweet dream, where you will be proclaimed king, you will begin to do good deeds, and you will stop wars. If you want, you will become a swineherd and fall in love with a beautiful princess. If you want, you will become a doctor and cure all diseases and maybe even defeat death.
Close your eyes, take a few deep breaths and tell yourself: I will be a prince - and you will immediately see in your imagination a fairy tale about you, a prince. Here you are walking through a flowering meadow, the air trembles from the heat and sounds with the voices of dragonflies, grasshoppers and bees. Cornflowers, daisies and bells caress your bare feet and suddenly...
“Called yourself a milk mushroom, get into the back,” says popular wisdom. Who you call yourself is what you will be. Not only in dreams, but also in reality. We always play games - in childhood, in adolescence, in adulthood. Here's a game of hopscotch - you need to jump on one leg along the squares drawn by your hand. Here is a game of school, which has its own “cells”, and here is a game of “profession”, “family”. And you always draw the cells yourself. This is your role in life, you create it “by faith”, and by faith you will be rewarded. You just need to really believe and want to play.
Actors want to act more than other people. Their own life is not enough for them, they are bored of “jumping” over the same cells. If a person has changed several professions in life, wives, husbands, cities where he lived, then he is probably an actor by nature. He probably feels cramped in the space of one life. He changes the pattern of the “cells” as best he can.
The actor takes someone else's "cells" - the text of the play - and lives there during the time allotted by the performance. A real actor enjoys life in the “cells” proposed by the author; he makes them his own. The proposed circumstances “for two hours will constitute the creature that was played out before you.” A true story, just a true story, often more real and sweet stories and pain than those that await after the performance. Why is it that an actor, a creator, while creating other destinies, often cannot create his own successful destiny? He doesn’t do this, it’s the least interesting to him. It happens that for this reason tragedies occur... It happens that because of the boredom of their own lives, actors stop “playing”, washing away with tears the “cells” that they so diligently drew for themselves - “by faith you will be rewarded.” To embody is to give flesh. To give your flesh to Romeo, Hamlet, Voinitsky - another person. Life in a role is embodiment, from the text of the play to the flesh of a living person. A role in life is built according to the same laws: from the text, from the word. Who you “say” is, THAT’S WHAT YOU WILL BE if you believe in it.
That's why, baby, you need to want to be a prince in your dreams. Life is a dream, whatever you want is what you will see.
The fairy tale is over!
Now let's try to figure out what in our fairy tale has to do with the acting profession - life in a role and real life - roles in life. “The fairy tale is a lie, but there is a hint in it, a lesson for good fellows.”
The Laboratory of Psychophysiology of Acting Creativity, created at the St. Petersburg State Academy of Theater Arts together with the Institute of the Human Brain of the Russian Academy of Sciences, has conducted a number of studies identifying the characteristics of acting talent and personal qualities that promote and hinder professional development. On the pages of the book we will often refer to the results obtained; for us they are confirmation of the objective purposefulness of our searches. But we need to start with the results of a survey we conducted of more than a hundred actors, which concerned the essence of the profession and its philosophy. This questionnaire was suggested by our glorious predecessors, scientists, who at the beginning of the 20th century wanted to understand the subjective meaning of acting. And perhaps we would not have known anything about this if one of the actors interviewed had not turned out to be Mikhail Chekhov. Our questionnaire includes several questions from those answered by the great actor, so we will assume that he is also included in our hundred.
The questionnaire consisted of two parts: the first repeated several questions from the questionnaire given in the book by M. Chekhov 1
Chekhov M. A. Literary heritage: In 2 vols. M., 1986. T. 2. P. 65.
And it concerned stage emotions, the mechanism of which we studied, the second was devoted to motivation and studied the needs that are satisfied or not in the profession. It is the first part that is important to us, because its questions and answers to them confirm our fairy tale and make it come true.
So, here are the questions.
1. In your opinion, is there a difference between stage emotions and real-life emotions and how is it expressed?
2. Do you have any techniques to evoke stage emotions?
3. Are there moments in particularly favorite roles when you feel like reality what is happening on stage?
4. Do emotional moments on stage evoke genuine, life-like experiences in you?
5. Do you experience a special feeling of joy while playing on stage and what, in your opinion, causes this special feeling?
Based on this survey, it would be incorrect to insist on statistical patterns: the sample is small, and the questionnaires were not subjected to mathematical processing. The answers to the questions were common, not yes-no, so we won't talk about the percentage of actors who answered one way or the other. Let's say that the majority (with very rare exceptions) answered uniformly in essence, although, of course, varied and individual in form.
Let us give several answers to the third question, because it, like a magic crystal, contains the paradox formulated by Diderot. The actors were directly asked to evaluate their existence on stage. Many of them asked this question for the first time. This means that, while thinking about the answer, they “ran” in their imagination through the happy and unhappy moments of the profession and evaluated and named these moments. And as has already been said, “what you say you will be.”
So, the answers to the third question of the questionnaire 2
The answers retain the author's style.
“Any role is like a ‘thread of life’. If the “thread” is broken, then the reality that circumstances create also fails. Your (my) personal excitement is caused by the reality of what is happening on stage.”
“Yes, when you are internally free.”
“It happens, remember what I was telling you when I suddenly “flew up” above the stage. I suddenly stopped controlling the text; it poured out of me. Sometimes, when my partners return me to the theater, to the stage, I feel bad, I want to again capture the feeling of flight, lightness.”
“It happens, but only for a few minutes and not at every performance.”
“If I’m not stuck in an artificial task, then everything that happens on the stage around me is reality. This is the reality of design and feeling.”
"Happens. Sometimes I really fall in love with my partners because something real happened with them on stage!!! It's impossible for this to be just a game."
“There is some kind of connection between the present, the past and the future. When I kind of look at myself – the character – from above. It’s like, as they say, when the soul flies away and sees everything from above.”
“Not just reality. What really happens on stage affects life.”
“If your psychophysics lives “in truth,” then such moments happen. As a rule, this happens very rarely and is called a “successful performance.”
Among the respondents were actors of different ages, experience and achievements - popular, honored, very young or elderly. The answers given above are not related to experience or regalia. They are only an example illustrating both the originality and uniformity of opinions of all participants in the survey, which showed that GOOD actors know what reality is on stage. This assessment of their professional qualities is correct: the ability to perceive the proposed circumstances and react to them physiologically (that is, to believe in them as genuine circumstances) was revealed, among other things, in the research of our laboratory.
This, of course, acting personality quality can be trained. Acting training in a theater school is a vague concept; each teacher and student understands something different by it. In this book we will talk about acting training as the development of the body and the formation in the student of the ability to physiologically react to the circumstances offered to the actor. Let us note that such a skill can be useful not only in professional acting, but also in the life of any person. After all, the ability to react only to those circumstances that you have chosen for yourself is a way of protecting yourself from the destructive effects of many negative stimuli. In addition, the experience of using training exercises with groups of non-actors has shown their effectiveness for solving personal problems and psychocorrection.
Acting training is not only a means of training future artists, not only “scales and arpeggios” for acquiring and developing professional skills. From our point of view, acting training is the main skill that should remain with the actor throughout his professional life. We call a training teacher a “coach,” but upon graduation, an actor must become a coach for himself if he wants to engage in creativity when he comes to the theater.
Most of the exercises in the cycle we call “Acting Therapy” 3
Gracheva L. V. Acting training: Theory and practice. St. Petersburg, 2003.
(for muscle freedom, for attention, for energy), must enter the daily “actor’s closet” and become a ritual, only in this case is it possible to continue the development of the acting soul after graduation.
It is for this purpose that, from the first course, we introduced mandatory recordings of all exercises and analysis of sensations after their implementation. Students called their training diaries differently, but almost always jokingly (they didn’t believe in the first year that the simple things they do with their muscles, body, breathing, etc., would have to stay with them all their lives), for example , like this: “A unique textbook of “training and drill” compiled by K.R.”, or “Diary of my life in art.”
But two years later, a different attitude towards the entries in the diary arises. The third year is a time of active work on course performances. Everyone has a role, that is, material for individual training related to preparation for this role, for life in the role. New tasks arise in mastering the profession, new connections between training and the content of acting classes. The exercises of the “Acting Therapy” cycle, in addition to a short general warm-up, move into the sphere of individual training.
The content of group training sessions is determined by the methodological requirements of each training period. But there always remain two central directions, bequeathed to us by K. S. Stanislavsky - “Training in working on oneself” and “Training in working on a role.” Some exercises are often difficult to attribute to one or another cycle, because they solve both tasks at the same time. But still, let’s try to define these tasks and analyze some exercises. All exercises have been practically tested, but will probably seem new or unknown to many. Their use is prompted by the discoveries of psychophysiology, psycholinguistics, etc.
The first part of our work is devoted to theory, so that the subsequent description and analysis of exercises do not seem like just new games. These are not games, but ways of self-influence. Moreover, in the Appendix we present the results of a psychophysiological test of the effectiveness of some basic exercises.
In order not to be unfounded in asserting the effectiveness of the proposed exercises, let's start with objective psychophysiological patterns known today. Let us turn to the general theory of determination of human activity - the theory of affordances 4
From English afford- to be able to afford something, affordance - opportunity. See: Gibson J. An ecological approach to visual perception. M., 1988.
Which postulates certain patterns of human behavior and actions. The theory of affordances is important for us because it unites mechanisms of determination of human behavior in life and on stage. In both cases we are talking about the reality imagined by the individual. In the first case, it is about the reality of life circumstances selected by the individual, influencing him, shaping his behavior. In the second case - about an imaginary reality in the proposed circumstances.
Next, consider the psychophysiological mechanism for the emergence of imaginary reality and let's start with the simplest thing - with the perception of imaginary sensations. Then we turn to the mechanism of thinking and behavior in the “other” personality– in the role. And finally, let's consider ways to “immerse” in the proposed circumstances(feelings, thinking, behavior) suggested by psycholinguistics. In the second part we will present a number of exercises of the last period, tested both with professional actors and with groups of non-actors.
Subjective reality and imaginary reality
The “needed future”, human action and behavior are determined not by some objective reality, but by our idea of reality. If this idea is formulated in words (signs), it seems to acquire an independent reality and determines the “needed future.”
Effordances
Effordances are our understanding of the world, formed to realize the required future. The word “needed” in this phrase is very important, because only it connects the future with the past (the need for a certain future is still connected with the past).
Effordance refers simultaneously to the surrounding world and to the individual, because this is the world in the individual’s mind. J. Gibson postulates the independence of affordances from needs and experience. The characteristics of activity (behavior, action) and the set of neurons involved in sensory structures (sensation, perception) depend only on the goal of behavior, changing if another goal arises even under conditions of constant “specific stimulation” (impact on sensory systems). Remember: if we really want something, it becomes hot in any frost. Stage pedagogy uses the reverse course of behavior formation on stage - from physical to mental. True physical life - physical actions and physical sensations - will arouse appropriate reactions, behavior, feelings. Let's consider how possible this is from the point of view of psychophysiology. The fact is that the concept of “effordance” equates stage behavior and behavior in life: in one case we are dealing with the proposed reality, in the other - with the subjective reality of the individual. Therefore, let's listen to what this theory claims.
Behavior is determined only by the goal, only by the “bias” of the reflection of the environment depending on the goal. Images are not “pictures in the head” that arise after the action of sensory stimuli (circumstances here and now: I see, hear, feel), but “anticipations of the future” in the form of acts-hypotheses, including the parameters of the planned results, and only those fall into the specific memory , which were considered “successful” after passing the selection of “trial” acts. That is, imagination is an active process of thinking, as a result of which “pictures” appear and are imprinted in specific memory.
This means, no matter how much experience and real perception of current stimuli “shout” to us: “do this!”, We act in accordance with the goal dictated by the imagination of the future, and perception is determined not by the reality of circumstances, but by “effordances,” i.e. those circumstances that we “allowed” ourselves to think about. It is apparently worth dwelling on the concept of “goal”, since it is so important for behavior. We are talking about a goal chosen consciously, formulated in speech, internal or external, as defined by M. M. Bakhtin - in the text: “Begin your research (cognition of a person - L.G.) a humanist can with a tool, with an act, with housing, with a social connection. However, in order to continue this research and bring it to the person who made the tool, living in the building, communicating with other people, it is necessary to attribute all this to human inner life, to the sphere of plans, to what happened before the actions. It is necessary to understand the tool, the dwelling, and the act as a text. And in the context of real speech texts that preserve the eve of the act" 5
Bakhtin M. M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M., 1979. pp. 292–293.
Thus, the goal controls behavior, and goal setting is determined by thinking.
Motivation
The question of motives for behavior can be resolved in different ways. The author had the opportunity to attend a meeting of representatives of several religious denominations, dedicated to the problems of violence and non-violence. The discussion began with the postulation of the concepts themselves - what is considered violence and what is non-violence - from the point of view of various religions. The speakers saw the mechanism of violence in different ways and, accordingly, identified ways to resist violence. Thus, Orthodoxy and Krishnaism believe that the main engine of violence is feelings of anger, hatred, etc., therefore resistance to violence is possible through the opposite feelings - love, joy. Love your enemy and thereby make him your friend. These religions offer approximately the same method of combating violence. It turns out that behavior is guided by feelings, the change of which is subject to a person.
A representative of another faith - integral yoga Sri Aurobindo - said that behavior is guided by thought, hatred, anger, and subsequent violence arise in it. Consequently, violence can be combated by changing the way of thinking, which, on the one hand, will lead to the elimination of the motive for the emergence of anger and subsequent violence, on the other hand, will allow those exposed to violence not to perceive it as violence, because perception is also guided by thought. It is the source of a person’s entire life, it contains his goals, motives, and actions. Self-improvement from this point of view is the control of thought, consciousness, mind, which is a component of consciousness. The mind and consciousness are responsible for human goals. Life “is an eternal Tree, whose roots are above (in the future. - L. G.), and the branches are facing downwards,” say the Upanishads. “When a person becomes aware of the inner consciousness,” wrote Sri Aurobindo, “he can do a variety of things with it: send it out as a stream of force, create a circle or wall of consciousness around himself, direct a thought so that it enters the head of someone in America." He further explains: “The invisible force producing tangible results both within and without us is the whole meaning of yogic consciousness... this force within can change the mind, develop its abilities and add new ones, master the vital [physical, biological] movements, change the character , influence people and objects, control the conditions and functioning of the body... change events" 6
Satprem. Sri Aurobindo, or the Journey of Consciousness. L., 1989. P. 73.
This argument is the opposite of the one above. As we see, the first point of view (about the primacy of feelings in determining goals) is idealistic; there is no possibility of its practical implementation. And control of the “inner consciousness” is a completely accessible and trainable property of the human psyche.
This, it seems, is the answer to the question about the principles of self-regulation, about the correction of the subjective reality of the individual - thought control.
But! Still, a person’s goals in life and a person’s goals on stage are different things, although we argue that stage action is built according to the laws of life.
Achieving the goal
Let us assume that stage action is precisely the process of achieving a goal. But what kind of goal determines the actor’s behavior in the role? If the goals of the actor and the role diverge, and this is exactly what supporters of a special, aesthetic “artistic truth” claim, then there should be no talk of any immersion in the proposed circumstances and genuine perception-reactivity on stage. We argue the opposite. Does this mean that the behavior, perceptions and reactions of the acting actor are determined by the affordances offered by the role, and nothing more? The actual actor's deep goal - to take on the life of the role he plays - goes into the distant corners of consciousness. But if everything “signified” is just our representation, then the representation specified by the goal of acting in a role in a given period of time is a set of affordances that determine the behavior of a person at a given moment, a person who combines himself and the role.
Sensations (the set of sensory structures involved) can change depending on the goal that is consciously set. This, you see, gives rise to new thoughts about the effectiveness of exercises “for the memory of physical actions and sensations.” Also in the imagination exercises we gave in the article “On training the imagination” 7
How actors are born: A book about stage pedagogy / Ed. V. M. Filshtinsky, L. V. Grachevoy. St. Petersburg, 2001.
Apparently, it is necessary to train the imagination of a person-role not only for the past, but also for the future. It is this that should become a provocateur of “new” behavior in the role. And to force yourself to believe in the reality of this future (character) for yourself (the actor) is the task of the pre-role training exercises.
Psychophysiology claims that the activity of any cell, including a neuron of a sensory structure, is “purposeful” and not determined by “sensory input” (impact here and now), therefore, it can be expected that it will occur when the corresponding result is achieved and in conditions of artificial blockade of this entrance. Thus, by training the memory of sensations and the body’s ability to self-controlled “artificial blockade” of input - that is, non-perception of the true influence of the environment by sensory systems, we train the body’s subordination to imaginary circumstances, at least physical ones. But it is the “artificial blockade” that is very important here. Moreover, the activity of receptors depends on the goal of behavior; receptors “see” what is dictated by the goal of behavior.
At the beginning of the 20th century, S. Ramon y Cajal suggested that the excitability of receptors is determined by the mechanism of attention that regulates efferent influences (internal, not external stimuli).
Convincing examples of how the subjectivity of the reflection of reality manifests itself in the organization of brain activity were obtained by analyzing the dependence of the activity of neurons in sensory structures on the goals of behavior. From the point of view of the theory of functional systems, the activity of a neuron is associated with stimulation of the corresponding receptive surface and the condition for the involvement of this neuron in achieving the result of behavior is the contact of environmental objects with this surface.
However, when the goal changes, even under conditions of continued contact - constant stimulation, the receptive field may “disappear” - the neuron ceases to participate in the organization of the behavioral act. The activity of receptors, and, consequently, perception and sensations depends on the purpose of behavior. The organization of all processes in a functional system is determined by the result. Moreover, it turns out that neurons can be “taught” to form a new behavioral act set by a goal. Specialization (participation in acts of behavior) of neurons means that we perceive not the world as such, but our relationship with it - the subjective world, determined by the structure of the functional systems that make up memory. Note that during transformation processes (change of goal) there is an “overlap” of activations of neurons related to the previous behavioral act.
"Overlap" It is very important, in our opinion, for finding ways of self-government, if it can be carried out consciously, as inhibition of certain neural groups - functional connections that were in past experience.
