文獻 深入探尋Grotowski

這篇論文探討了多大程度上能準確地歸納出 GROTOWSKI所採用的主要原則和實踐方法，（1）針對他各個戲劇實踐的階段

（2）針對他整個戲劇實踐生涯？一個當代英國戲劇表演教練能在多大程度上成功地將這些原則或實踐融入到主流戲劇學校環境中？

簡介

GROTOWSKI被公認為是戲劇領域的主要人物，但對於他在戲劇界扮演的角色卻並沒有準確的定位。他的作品是「被眾人熟知同時卻又模稜兩可的」（Schechner，1997d：xxv）。很多問題層出不窮：「 『Grotowski究竟在幹什麼呢？』似乎總是出現」（Wolford，2001：118），或更具體地：「Grotowski表演訓練方法的基本特徵是什麼？」和「有什麼要素從始至終貫穿在他工作的各個階段？」（Wolford，2003:193）。除了這些，「我們一直在追隨Grotowski，從他對戲劇工作的思考與實踐中找到價值」（Allain，2005：58）。答案仍在被繼續探索。此外，作為有著波蘭戲劇背景的年輕當代英國表演教練，深入了解Grotowski是對我來說至關重要的；即，我能明確他的基本原則和工作方法，並在此基礎上，分析他在我未來的戲劇實踐中可能會發揮的作用。基於Grotowski對於個人探索的推崇，他很可能會認同這種深入探尋的合理性。但是，他會認同其工作是可以被 「使用」的么？

Grotowski是我在格拉斯哥大學和克拉科夫雅蓋隆大學讀本科的時候，學習戲劇和波蘭語的重點研究對象（雖然比較淺顯）。然而，Grotowski似乎沒有被我曾學習過的倫敦音樂戲劇藝術學院或者是曾觀摩過的華沙戲劇學院所重視。 Miroslaw Kocur，他曾參加Grotowski的超戲劇階段，也同意Grotowski完全沒有被波蘭的戲劇學校所承認。他指出，雖然Grotowksi的工作得到了國際讚譽，但在華沙並沒有人邀請他做工作坊。

然而，我在皇家中央演講與戲劇學院的學習過程中，Grotowski回到了主流框架內。研究生階段的表演歷史課中，Grotowski在國際上的重要性被重申。讓我感到驚訝的是中央學院的研究生研討會上很多報告都參考了Grotowski或其他波蘭戲劇從業者/團體（如Gardzienice 和Piesn? Koz?a）的工作。與此同時，我還在本科二年級的表演課中，觀察到了Grotowski曾用過的的一些表演訓練要素。我們研究生表演訓練的課程中也有安排一整天的『Grotowski』工作坊。然而雖懷揣對講師的尊重，我仍然質疑這些練習的有效性和價值（或是道德性）。我問自己，這些練習是否可以（或應該）自稱是「Grotowski」，以及這些練習與接下來的表演訓練是否有真正的聯繫。我似乎在這些課程和工作坊中看到了不同的Grotowski，有時是從未認識過的。我開始質疑他究竟是怎樣的。因為我的波蘭戲劇背景，我覺得我貌似知道Grotowski，但我開始不確定起來。我開始懷疑 1「教學Grotowski」 本身是否可能，2「教學Grotowski」可否作為常規表演培訓的一部分。這一切形成了本研究的動機和理由。

當我開始進一步探索Grotowski的工作時，我發現我不是一個人在迷茫。這篇論文首先會搜集各方證據來證明Grotowski戲劇實踐有著廣泛的不確定性和模糊性以及伴隨的一些非議。我會著重寫出造成這些困惑的主要原因。接下來，我會給出關於Grotowski生平的一些簡短的傳記資料。我將勾勒出Grotowski作品的主要階段，然後詳細研究每個階段。然後，我將研究每一階段的原則和實踐方法（評估可以在多大程度上揭示它們），並推敲這些原則和實踐方法能被當代英國表演教練在主流戲劇學校環境中使用到何種程度。我將總結和評估貫穿Grotowski工作整個階段的主要原則和實踐方法。然後研究Grotowski的工作與其他表演實踐之間是否存在相關性，並探討其他關於Grotowski工作是否能納入到當代英國表演培訓體系的贊成和反對意見。最後，我會提出我的結論Uncertainties and Ambiguitie

不確定性和模糊性

Grotowski的作品有一種「公認的深奧維度」。(Wolford, 2001: 193)。Peter Brook說：「在Grotowski盛名的周圍，就像滾石周圍一樣，有很多附加的東西，很多嫁接的東西，各種各樣的困惑，衍生物和誤解。」（Brook，1997：379）。

布魯克將Grotowski描述為「…一個非常簡單的人，進行的研究相當地純」，他問：「隨著時間推移，為甚麼這種一開始是簡單的東西會造成複雜和混亂？（(Brook, 1997: 381）。Thomas Richards非常強烈地認為，這些困惑由各種命名為「Grotowski 工作坊」帶來的。 「打個比方，有些工作坊被只是被在二十五年前跟Grotowski學習了5天時間的人帶領，顯然，這樣的「導師」往往會傳遞嚴重的錯誤和誤解。（Richards 1995: 4）

任何戲劇表演大師的工作都有被誤解的危險，但對Grotowski而言這種情況尤為突出，因為其深奧並有時深具個人經驗的作品。這裡再說一次，Peter Brook指的Grotowski工作坊是被沒有相應資質的導師帶領地「超快速擴散」的那些工作坊（Brook，1997：191）。

就像 Richards說的那樣，這種誤解意味著 「Grotowski的研究可能會被錯誤地解釋為是雜亂和無結構的，在那裡人們把自己丟在地板上，不停地尖叫，假裝釋放體驗。」（Richards, 1995: 4）。

.不幸的是，那些（少數）跟隨Grotowski有深入學習的人，很少記錄他們的經驗。這對研究他後戲劇階段的工作造成了很大的問題，我們之後會看到。「知道的人沒有說話–至少沒有公開說話，至少不是現在，可能永遠也不會。」

Grotowski自己是非常有選擇性的傳播有關他的作品的信息，在1968年《走向樸實戲劇》出版之後他意識到人們開始歪曲他的用意。他決定停止錄製實驗室劇場的練習，在他生命的最後階段，他小心地正式公開繼續他工作的人選為Thomas Richards。

這裡還存在著一個根本性的問題：研究者為什麼要在還沒有找到結論之前宣傳他自己的工作呢？也許Grotowski並不認為他已經找到他的結論，直到他生命的最後幾年–他從未停止探索。也許他是在不斷改進他的工作，直到它準備好了，也許他有權對他戲劇研究的早期階段進行保密。然而，出版《走向樸實戲劇》是保密變成不可能，正是這本書的出版使得Grotowski的樸實戲劇階段被眾人熟知。

可以推測，Peter Brook，Lisa Wolford，Richard Schechner，和Thomas Richards都對Grotowski的工作能有效地、真實地被納入他人戲劇教學實踐的程度有所懷疑。Grotowski本人也有同感，所以他寧願直接教授他的工作，而不是讓它變得失去力量或者被曲解。

顯然，構建Grotowski戲劇教學的要素是有些困難的，不管是他的基本原則還是實踐方法。事實上，「…即使他的直接同事有時也難以理解他說的是什麼意思」，因為他 「經常性的神秘」（Benedetti，2005：231）。一些新的研究造就了2009年的「Grotowski年」，這些研究可能對Grotowski的工作提供了新的見解。例如Paul Allain目前正主導調研的towski在英國被接受的程度和產生的影響。與此同時，這種不確定性使我相信，即使在眼下，任何當代表演教練 「教授Grotowski」或者使用Grotowski的技巧元素都應非常謹慎，並應深入了解他工作的每個階段以及當時的社會歷史背景。Grotowski各階段的原則和做法只能在一定程度上被確定，他的第一個戲劇階段可能會是最容易被確定的。我將在一個簡短的傳記之後概述其每個戲劇階段。

Grotowski 1933年生於波蘭東部的熱舒夫市，並一直待到第二次世界大戰結束。1951年，波蘭社會深受斯大林主義束縛，Grotowski開始在克拉科夫戲劇學院學習表演。從1948到1953年，社會主義現實主義是波蘭所有媒體的官方藝術形式，並且嚴格的審查制度妨礙了藝術自由。任何形式的藝術都必須支持社會主義意識形態。

隨著1953年斯大林死亡，束縛的解禁對波蘭文化產生重大影響，雖然審查權力仍然很強大。1955年Grotowski 畢業，隨後去莫斯科國家戲劇學院學習導演課程。1956年他到中亞旅行並對東方哲學產生了興趣。

從1956到1959年 Grotowski 在克拉科夫參加導演培訓，他作為職業導演的首部作品Lonesco的《椅子》在Stary劇院上演， Stary劇院是克拉科夫主要的幾個傳統鏡框式舞台劇院之一。這件事會讓那些因為「樸實戲劇」階段而熟知Grotowski的人來說感到驚奇，因為「樸實戲劇」摒棄了傳統舞台、道具、化妝等等，還有戲劇是娛樂的這種概念。而Stary劇院實質上是主流戲劇陣地，在那裡Grotowski做的是傳統意義上的導演工作。在我看來， Grotowski這段工作經歷有些人並不知道，也被很多人遺忘或忽視了。Grotowski說，他離開這種劇院是因為覺得他的導演工作自動開始變化；他一直在考慮下一個項目怎麼做。Grotowski開始尋找一種更大的真實，這個我們將在之後探究。他選擇從戲劇行業的傳統框架內突破，無論在形式還是內容上。

1959年，Grotowski在巴黎遇見了Marcel Marceau並且對他的戲劇工作印象深刻。人們可以推測Marcel Marceau影響了Grotowski對使用演員身體創造道具和場景的重視。其他影響將在本文之後展現Grotowski相關生平細節時重點提到。

Grotowski在戒嚴令頒布的時候離開了波蘭，並於1999年去世。

就Grotowski 所有的學術研究而言，想要明確他工作的主要階段並不簡單。他工作階段的相關學術名稱和時間點有些不一致的地方。因為我們的目標是儘可能清晰準確，我們會將重點放在一致的地方，並且將Grotowski的原始資料集作為他工作階段名稱和日期的權威來源。

在原始資料集里，Richard Schechner和Lisa Wolford給五個工作階段中的第一個工作階段命名為「演齣劇場」，時間是1957年到1969年。Sally Mackey稱之為「表演劇場」，並將日期定為1959 至1969年，但是我們可以推斷他們在談論同樣的階段。這是在十三排劇院和實驗劇場（同一個公司使用的不同名字） 里產出的工作。這個階段也被一些人稱作樸實戲劇階段。

第二階段被稱為參與劇場，但更普遍地被被稱為「類戲劇」（1970-1975）。其次是「溯源戲劇」 (1976-1982),，「客觀戲劇」（1983-1986），和「藝乘」，從1986年起（Schechner and Wolford, 1997）。現在我們將詳細討論每個階段，並在可能範圍里確定每一階段的主要原則和做法，以及探討當代英國表演培訓師在主流戲劇教學背景下能多大程度地運用這些原則和方法。

「演齣劇場」，1957-1969年

Grotowski第一階段的作品無疑是他最著名的。正是在這一階段Eugenio Barba 在1961年作為Grotowski的助手加入了實驗劇場。在第一階段快結束地時候Barba編輯了《走向樸實戲劇》，並在1968在丹麥首次出版。在1965年，公司搬到?Wroc aw並更名為實驗劇場：表演方法研究所。在同一年，演員Ryszard Cieslak在實驗劇場所演出Calderond的《忠貞的王子》獲得了國際認可。

1966年Peter Brook邀請Grotowski為他導演的一部美國劇目的演員舉行工作坊，這些演員隸屬於英國皇家莎士比亞劇團。結果「這個工作坊讓受到英國傳統訓練的演員們感到不舒服」，Sally Mackey說，但遺憾地是她並沒有展開講述。（Mackey, 2000: 333）這其實說明了peter brook並沒有預見到Grotowski的工作（這裡很明顯指最原生的工作坊）可能並不能順利地運用在有主流英國戲劇院校背景的人身上。1967年Grotowski在紐約大學藝術學院做工作坊，在那裡他遇見了了Richard Schechner和Joseph Chaikin，這兩人受他影響深遠。

現在我們將探索「演齣劇場」這個階段的主要原則和實踐。Richard Schechner指出，在第一階段的十二年里，Grotowski「發展出一套表演培訓的方式，一種場面調度的風格，一種文本蒙太奇的方法」。他警告說：「人們應該注意不要混淆」這三個概念–「他們是互相關聯卻不同的東西。」（Schechner，1997b：26）。人們還應該認識到Grotowski的觀點和實踐在十二年期間一直在變化著，他一直都在實驗哪些可行哪些不可行。第一階段的一個主要的清楚可辨的原則是演員是戲劇活動的核心人物。Grotowski認為，戲劇不要試圖與電影或電視競爭，而是應關注什麼造成了它的獨特性——觀眾與觀眾之間的當場「交融」。這種聯繫是Grotowski所有工作階段的主要關注點。

現在我們將更詳細地研究Grotowski的演員訓練方法（包括身體，自我和角色三個方面）。我們還將考慮他對文本、演員與觀眾的關係和舞台演出的處理方法。這些領域的原則和做法可以相對清楚地確定，從而使我們能夠考慮被當代英國演員培訓師所使用的可行性。Grotowski的演員訓練方法因注重身體而著稱。然而，它不僅僅是身體上的，更是精神上的。在即興創作後和身體訓練時，演員們不僅被鼓勵去注意他們做了什麼，並且去注意他們在想什麼。Grotowski告誡說不能只注重身體但是忽略聯想。然而，我認為忽略心理聯想而只重視身體訓練正是Grotowski的方法被誤用的主要形式。應該指出的是：「和記憶和意向共事的目的不是把它們演出來……而是作為一種內部投射，到達一種不事先預測或規定什麼樣的細節將會出現的狀態」。(Wolford, 2003 :203). Grotowski用過一種很特別的練習，即結構化的即興表演訓練。他認為在開始之前演員們需要知道即興表演將要去向何方，也就是說，演員們事先知道他們必須在某些點上與別人有接觸。Grotowski認為如果沒有這個，工作就會陷入混亂。他說，這樣的「得分動作」也是演員在扮演傳統語境下的角色所必需的。這點稍後會再提到。這種結構化即興表演訓練，我相信可以脫離語境進行簡單地應用。

Grotowski認為「神聖演員」的身體技巧能夠給人留下深刻的印象，並且會在舞台上顯露出他最真實最私密的自我：「如果[演員]身體本身限制了表達——一些普通人都能做到的事情——那麼這樣的身體並不能作精神性表達的良好容器（Grotowski in Wolford,2003: 197）。這背後的原理是，演員作為觀眾的榜樣，會激發他們看到自己也是有能力改變的。延伸來講，這將啟發觀眾做政治思考並在社會中做出改變。正如Shomit Mitter所確認的，Grotowski的戲劇有著社會和倫理使命。它「致力於進步，提出一種新的世俗和理性的倫理觀」（Mitter, 2005: 80）。Grotowski所創造的身心交融的表演方式和成熟的發聲技巧 「綜合了Stanislavsky的『對本性的工作』，Meyerhold的生物力學、法國和波蘭的啞劇，瑜伽，太極拳，以及 Grotowski與演員們在經年累月的工作坊實踐中設計的原生動作。」（Schechner，1997b：26）。

Grotowski根據每人不同的特質，修改並制定了超出他們本身能力的特殊訓練，這樣他們才能不斷地挑戰自己。當代英國表演培訓師並沒有特權可以與演員長時間的磨合一種技巧。這是妨礙我們成功地使用Grotowski方法的真正原因之一–這些技巧需要長時間專註地去磨練。此外，在今天的社會中，我們必須考慮把人們推向身體極限所產生的安全性問題（更不用說他們的心理極限了）。Grotowski的身體訓練似乎並不適合塞進現代人每周繁忙的時間表裡 。然而，我們可以在培訓的時候，和他一樣重視身體表現力，並且堅信心理－身體方法的有效性。

To what extent is it possible to identify Grotowski』s main principles and practices, (a) in each phase of his practice, and (b) running throughout all phases of his practice? To what extent might it be possible for a modern British actor trainer to successfully incorporate any of these principles and/or practices into his/her own work in a mainstream drama school environment?

Introduction

Jerzy Grotowski is widely acknowledged as a protagonist in the field of drama, yet there is widespread uncertainty as to the nature of his role. His work is 「well known and obscure simultaneously」 (Schechner, 1997d: xxv). The question: 「』What is Grotowski actually doing?』 seems to recur」 (Wolford, 2001: 118), or more specifically: 「「What are the essential characteristics of Grotowski』s approach to actor training?」 and 「What elements can be seen as consistent throughout the various phases of his work?」 (Wolford, 2003:193). Despite these questions having been asked, 「we are still after Grotowski in the sense of tracking him down and working out the value of his reflections and practices」 (Allain, 2005: 58). Answers are still sought. Moreover, as a 『fledgling』 contemporary British actor trainer with a background in Polish theatre, it is crucial that I 『get to grips with Grotowski』; i.e., that I identify his essential principles and practices, and, on the basis of this, analyse the extent to which Grotowski might play a role in my own future practice. With his emphasis on individual exploration, Grotowski would agree that a thorough personal investigation is justified. But would he agree that his work could be 『used』 at all?

Grotowski featured (as one would expect) in my undergraduate studies in Theatre Studies and Polish at the University of Glasgow and the Jagiellonian University, Krakow (albeit relatively briefly). However, Grotowski did not seem to feature - at least not by name - in my training at LAMDA or in classes I observed at the PWST Theatre Academy in Warsaw. Miroslaw Kocur, who participated in the paratheatre phase of Grotowski』s work agrees that Grotowski was completely unrecognised in Polish theatre schools. He points out that whilst Grotowksi』s work was gathering international acclaim, no-one invited him to do a workshop in Warsaw.

Yet over the course of my studies at Central School of Speech and Drama, Grotowski has come back 『into frame』. The international significance of his work was reiterated in the History of Acting classes on my MA course. A surprising number of presentations at the Central Postgraduate Conference made reference to Grotowski and/or other Polish theatre practitioners/groups (such as Gardzienice and Piesn? Koz?a). Whilst on a placement with a second year BA Acting class at Central, I observed elements of Grotowski exercises being used. Our MA Actor Training and Coaching class had a one day『Grotowski』 workshop. With due respect to the actor trainers, in each of these situations, I questioned the validity, worth (and sometimes the ethics) of the use of these exercises. I asked myself whether the work could (or should) claim to be 『Grotowski』, and whether it had any real connection to the rest of the work being done. I had seemed to 『meet』 a different Grotowski in each of these situations and at times I didn』t recognise him. I began to ask what he really 『looked』 like. I felt that with my background in Polish theatre, I ought to be sure about Grotowski, but my uncertainties began to mount. I questioned whether it was possible, or desirable, to 『teach』 Grotowski (a) at all, and (b) as part of a general actor training programme. All this forms the motivation and justification for this study.

As I began to explore Grotowski』s work further, I was relieved to find that I was not alone in my confusion. This actor training enquiry will firstly set out evidence from a variety of sources to support the notion that there is widespread ambiguity, uncertainty, and sometimes disagreement surrounding Grotowski』s work. I will highlight the main causes of this confusion. Next, I will give some brief biographical information on Grotowski. I will then outline the main phases of Grotowski』s work, before going on to look at each phase in detail. I will examine the principles and practices of each phase (assessing the extent to which it is possible to uncover them), and continually question the extent to which these principles and/or practice may be of use to the modern British actor trainer in a mainstream drama school context. I will then summarise and assess what I see as the main principles and practices running throughout the phases. I will then consider critical opinion on therelevance of Grotowski』s work to other practice and discuss remaining arguments for and against the incorporation of Grotowski』s work into modern British actor training. I will then present my conclusions.

Grotowski』s work has an 「admittedly esoteric dimension」. (Wolford, 2001: 193). Peter Brook states that: 「around the name of Grotowski – like a rolling stone – have come to attach themselves, to graft themselves, all kinds of confusions, excrescences and misunderstandings」 (Brook, 1997: 379).

Brook describes Grotowski as 「...a deeply simple man, who carries out research which is profoundly pure」, and he asks:「[h]ow is it possible, then, that over the years, the result of this simplicity has been to create both complications and confusion?」 (Brook, 1997: 381).

As Thomas Richards strongly and clearly puts it, these confusions have been spread through 『Grotowski workshops』, 「conducted by someone who studied with Grotowski in a session of five days, for example twenty-five years ago. Such 『instructors』, of course, often pass on grave errors and misunderstandings.」 (Richards 1995: 4)

There is always the danger that any theatre practitioner』s work may be misinterpreted, but this seems particularly pertinent in the case of Grotowski given the esoteric and at times deeply personal nature of his work. Again, Peter Brook refers to an 「ultra-rapid diffusion」 of Grotowski』s work which 「has not always gone through qualified people」 (Brook, 1997: 191).

As Richards states, this misrepresentation means that 「Grotowski』s research might be mistakenly construed as something wild and structureless, where people throw themselves on the floor, scream a lot, and have pseudo-cathartic experiences.」(Richards, 1995: 4).

Unfortunately, those (relatively few) people who studied with Grotowski in depth have rarely documented their experiences. This is particularly problematic when researching the later 『post-theatrical』 phases of his work, as we shall see later. 「The people who know aren』t talking – at least not openly, at least not now, and possibly not ever.」 (Wolford, 1997a: 4)

(Wolford, 1997a: 4)。Grotowski himself chose to be very selective as to how he disseminated information about his work once he realised, after the publication of Towards a Poor Theatre in 1968 that people were beginning to misinterpret and misrepresent his practices. He decided to stop recording the exercises of the Laboratory Theatre, and towards the end of his life he was careful to formally and publicly pass on responsibility for continuing his work to Thomas Richards.

There is also a fundamental question here: why should any researcher conducting his/her own private study publicise his work before s/he has drawn his/her conclusions? Perhaps Grotowski did not feel he had reached his conclusions until the last years of his life – he never stopped investigating. Perhaps he was constantly refining his work until it was ready, and maybe he has a right to privacy over the earlier stages. However, the publication of Towards a Poor Theatre rendered that impossible, and this book is one reason why Grotowski is mainly known for his Poor Theatre phase.

One can surmise already that Peter Brook, Lisa Wolford, Richard Schechner and Thomas Richards all have doubts over the extent to which Grotowski』s work can effectively and authentically be incorporated into other people』s practice. Grotowski himself shared these concerns, and preferred to pass on his work directly rather than allow it to become diluted or distorted.

It is clear that there is some difficulty in establishing exactly what Grotowski』s work entailed, both in terms of his principles and practices. In fact, 「...even his immediate colleagues at times had difficulty in understanding what he meant 」 because he was so 「frequently enigmatic」 (Benedetti, 2005: 231). New research projects leading up to 「the Year of Grotowski」 in 2009 may provide some new insight into Grotowski』s work. Paul Allain, for example, is currently heading a research project investigating Grotowski』s reception and influence in Britain. For the meantime, however, this uncertainty leads me to believe even at this stage that any modern actor claiming to 『teach Grotowski』 or even to 『use Grotowski』s techniques』 ought to do so with caution, and with a thorough understanding of each of the phases of his work and their socio- historical context. It is possible only to a certain extent to identify the principles and practices of each phase, though this is possible to a comparatively far greater extent with the first phase. All the phases will be outlined after a brief biographical framework is presented.

A Brief Biography

Born in 1933 in Rzeszow, Eastern Poland, Grotowski remained in Poland throughout the Second World War. In 1951, whilst Poland was caught in the stranglehold of Stalinism, Grotowski began studying as an actor at the PWST Theatre Academy in Krakow. From 1948 until 1953 Socialist Realism was the official artistic doctrine governing all media in Poland, and stringent censorship prevented artistic freedom. Art of any kind had to endorse the ideals of Socialist society. With Stalin』s death in 1953, the stranglehold began to weaken, having a significant impact on Polish culture although the censor continued to exert power. Grotowski graduated in 1955 and then attended a directing course at the State Institute of Theatre Arts (GITIS) in Moscow. In 1956 he travelled to Central Asia and became interested in Eastern philosophy.

From 1956-1959 Grotowski trained as a director in Krakow, and had his professional directorial debut at the Stary Teatr in Krakow with Ionesco』s The Chairs. The Stary Theatre is one of the main traditional, proscenium arch theatres in Krakow. This may come as a surprise to those who associate Grotowski mainly with his 『Poor Theatre』 phase, which rejected traditional staging, props, make up and so on, along with the notion of theatre as entertainment. The Stary Teatr is essentially a mainstream venue, where Grotowski worked as director 『in the classical sense』. It seems to me that this aspect of Grotowski』s working life is either not known about by some, or is forgotten or overlooked by many. Grotowski stated that he moved away from this kind of theatre because he felt his work was beginning to become automated; that he was constantly thinking about the next project. He began to search for a greater truth, as we shall explore later. He chose to break out of the traditional structures of the theatre industry, in terms of both the form and content of his work.

In 1959, Grotowski met Marcel Marceau in Paris and was impressed by his work (Mackey, 2000: 332). One might suppose that this had some influence on Grotowski』s emphasis on the use of the actor』s body to create sets and props. Other influences will be highlighted throughout this study, as will further biographical details as relevant.

Grotowski left Poland when Martial Law was declared in 1981, and he died in 1999.

The main stages of Grotowski』s work – an overview

As with all scholarship around Grotowski, establishing the main phases of his work is not straightforward. There is some inconsistency over the names, dates, and number of phases. Since we are aiming at clarity here, we will focus on points of agreement and take The Grotowski Sourcebook as an authority in the matter of names and dates of the phases of work.

In The Grotowski Sourcebook, Richard Schechner and Lisa Wolford give the first of five stages as 「Theatre Of Productions」 , 1957-1969. Sally Mackey calls this the 「Theatre of Performance」 and gives the dates as 1959 – 1969, but we can assume that they are talking about the same work. This is the work at the Theatre of 13 Rows, and (with the same company under a different name), the Laboratory Theatre. This phase is also referred to by some as the Poor Theatre phase.

The second phase has been referred to as the Theatre of Participation, but is widely known as 「Paratheatre」 (1970-1975). This was followed by 「Theatre of Sources」 (1976-1982),「Objective Drama」 (1983-1986), and 「Art as Vehicle」, from 1986 onwards (Schechner and Wolford, 1997). We will now look at each stage in detail, establishing the extent to which it is possible to identify the main principles and practices of each phase, and asking to what extent a modern British actor trainer might be able to make use of any of these principles and/or practices in a mainstream drama school context.

「Theatre Of Productions」, 1957-1969

This first stage of Grotowski』s work is undoubtedly his best known. It was during this phase that Eugenio Barba joined the Laboratory Theatre company as Grotowski』s assistant, in 1961. Barba later edited Towards a Poor Theatre, which was first published in Denmark in 1968, near the end of this phase. In 1965, the company moved to Wroc?aw and changed its name to 『Laboratory Theatre: Institute of Research into Acting Method』. In this same year, actor Ryszard Cieslak received international recognition for his performance in the Laboratory Theatre』s production based on Calderon』s The Constant Prince.

In 1966, Peter Brook invited Grotowski to conduct a workshop with RSC actors whom he was directing in a production of U.S. The result 「was profoundly disturbing to actors trained in the English tradition」 , says Sally Mackey, but unfortunately she doesn』t elaborate. (Mackey, 2000: 333) This would, however, suggest that Peter Brook didn』t foresee that it might not be possible to successfully use Grotowski』s work (and here it is clearly the genuine article), with people from a mainstream British drama school background. In 1967, Grotowski gave workshops at New York University』s School of the Arts, where he met Richard Schechner and Joseph Chaikin, whom he influenced greatly.

Now we will investigate the main principles and practices of the Theatre of Productions phase. Richard Schechner states that over the twelve years of this first phase, Grotowski 「evolved a way of actor training, a style of mise-en?scene, and a method of textual montage」. He cautions that 「one ought to be careful not to confuse or conflate」 these three – they are 「in conversation with each other, but are distinct.」 (Schechner, 1997b: 26). One should also be aware that Grotowski』s opinions and practices changed over these twelve years as he experimented and found what worked and what didn』t.

One of the main, clearly discernible principles of this first phase was that the actor was at the core of the theatrical event. Grotowski believed that theatre should not try to compete with film or television, but to focus on what makes it unique – the live 『communion』 between audience and spectator. This relationship is a key concern throughout the phases of Grotowski』s work.

We will now look in more detail at Grotowski』s actor training (including the role of the body, the self and character). We will also consider the approach to text, the audience-performer relationship, and staging. The principles and practices of these areas can be identified relatively clearly, allowing us to consider the extent to which they might be of use to a modern British actor trainer.Grotowski』s actor training is famously physical. However, it is not just physical, it is psycho-physical. After improvisations and during physical exercises, actors were always encouraged to note not only what they did, but also what associations came to mind. Grotowski warned against focusing only on the physical and omitting the associations. I would suggest, however,doing the exercises without the psychological associations could be considered one of the main misuses of Grotowski』s work. It should be noted:

「The purpose of the work with memories and images was not to play them out…as a type of internal projection, but rather to arrive to a state in which one does not anticipate or prescribe what details will emerge」(Wolford, 2003 :203).

One particular practice that Grotowski used was that of structured improvisation. He believed that actors needed to know where the improvisation was going to go before it began, i.e. that they knew certain points of contact they had to make with others. Without this, the work would descend into chaos, he felt. He said that such a 『score of actions』 was also necessary for an actor playing a role using a traditional text. This will be returned to later. This practice of structured improvisation is one that I believe could survive out of context and could be applied very simply.

Grotowski』s 「holy actor」 was one whose body was capable of impressive physical feats, and who would reveal his true, most intimate self on stage:

「If [the actor』s] body restricts itself to demonstrating what it is –something that any average person can do – then it is not an obedient instrument capable of performing a spiritual act」 (Grotowski in Wolford, 2003: 197).

The principle behind this was that the actor would set an example to the spectator, provoking them to see themselves as capable of change. By extension, this would inspire the spectator to think politically and to make changes in society. As Shomit Mitter confirms, Grotowski』s theatre had a social and moral mission. It was 「committed to progress, proposing a new secular and rational ethic」 (Mitter, 2005: 80).Grotowski』s psychophysical acting and highly developed vocal technique

「synthesises Stanislavsky』s 「work on the self」, Meyerhold』s bio?mechanics, French and Polish mime, yoga, tai chi chuan, and original movements devised by Grotowski and his actors during long hours and months of workshop research.」 (Schechner, 1997b: 26).

Grotowski amended the physical exercises he used for each individual, giving them prescribed, specific exercises just outside of their abilities, so that they constantly had to challenge themselves. A modern British actor trainer does not have the privilege of working with actors on one technique over a long period of time. This is one of many things preventing us from using Grotowski』s techniques honestly and successfully – they require a lot of time and focus on one way of working. Also, in today』s society, one has to consider the safety issues surrounding pushing people to their physical limits 12(let alone their psychological limits). Grotowski』s physical training does not seem suited to a weekly slot on a busy, varied timetable. However, we can share the principle of the importance of having an expressive body, and the belief in the effectiveness of psycho-physical methods

戲劇的療愈性、治療性最早可以追溯到亞里士多德：在戲劇中認同劇中人物具有情緒宣洩的作用；

一百多年前，莫雷諾發展出以戲劇的形式用於心理諮詢和治療的方式；

到上世紀七十年代，戲劇治療作為一門學科，被確認和大力發展起來。

加入舞動微信群，了解最新資訊

喜歡這篇文章嗎？立刻分享出去讓更多人知道吧！