Theatre critic, writer, and director Charles Marowitz believes it's time—indeed, long overdue—for acting theorist Michael Chekhov (1891–1955) to receive the recognition he deserves. It's no accident that Michael Chekhov acting studios are proliferating nationwide, Marowitz points out. Still, Chekhov (a nephew of playwright Anton) is largely unknown in this country. American acting training, according to Marowitz, continues to be identified with Stanislavsky's system, or, more precisely, Lee Strasberg's version of it, known as the Method. Admittedly, there are many variations, but they are all variations on a theme, such as the Meisner technique.
"Michael Chekhov, who was considered a great actor in his own right, is one of the only acting theorists to have evolved a theory of acting training which is valid and consistent and a true alternative to Stanislavsky," asserted Marowitz in a recent interview with Back Stage. "It's not an outgrowth or tangential. While Stanislavsky and his followers emphasized the virtues of personal psychology and the importance of observing true behavior, Chekhov valued the strength of the actor's imagination. And his goal was to ignite the actor's dramatic imagination. It is a much more ambitious philosophy that encourages imaginative leaps and allows the actor to go further and deeper than the three-dimensional acting of naturalism. Chekhov's approach to acting—and writing—produces results that are surreal and epic and metaphysical. Writers like Bertolt Brecht and Max Frisch express his vision.
"Stella Adler and Harold Clurman appreciated what Michael Chekhov was doing and actually wanted him to replace Strasberg when he retired," Marowitz continueed. "But Strasberg said no. He felt Chekhov was altogether too 'mystical.' What most people don't know is just how many major actors were influenced by Michael Chekhov. They include Anthony Quinn, Yul Brynner, Hurd Hatfield, Beatrice Straight, and Marilyn Monroe, who was very much Strasberg's disciple. But Chekhov played an important role in her life, too."
In his readable and informative new book, The Other Chekhov: A Biography of Michael Chekhov, the Legendary Actor, Director, and Theorist (Applause Theatre & Cinema Books), Marowitz attempts to set the record straight. It is also the first biography of Michael Chekhov written in English.
Marowitz traces Chekhov's evolution, from his early years at the Moscow Art Theatre to his theatrical ventures in France, Latvia, Lithuania, and finally England and the United States, where Chekhov garnered an Oscar nomination for his performance in Alfred Hitchcock's Spellbound and served as an acting coach to many Hollywood stars. Throughout, the events of Chekhov's life are set against the ever-shifting social and cultural climates.
"This is no hagiography," Marowitz emphasized. "It's a biography by someone who directs, has taught acting, and has his own acting theories. I'm constantly countering those theories that Chekhov puts forth that I don't agree with. For example, he was very big on the concept of an actor 'radiating.' I feel if you're 'radiating,' you give off steam," Marowitz quipped before adding seriously, "If you're radiant, you have presence, and that can't be taught. It's meaningless to ask someone to radiate. It's like asking a non-beautiful woman to be beautiful."
Marowitz has had a long career as a writer and director. He was the founding artistic director of the Malibu Stage Company and was co-director with Peter Brook of the Royal Shakespeare Company's Experimental Group. He is the author of more than half a dozen books, including Directing the Action: Acting and Directing in the Contemporary Theatre and Recycling Shakespeare.
He has worked as a theatre critic throughout his professional life and is a playwright. A current piece he's wrapping up centers on Shakespeare, presenting the playwright as a "nerdy and ambitious young man who murders Marlowe so he can take his place," Marowitz says. "It's very anti-Shakespeare."
Marowitz is a man of strong convictions. He dubs Strasberg a "monster who destroyed lives," and he has little use for "the blunt and honest approach of many acting teachers. It's a technique that does not succeed in getting the desired results anyway. Cruelty usually makes an acting student withdraw."
No Conflict of Interest
Marowitz launched his writing career at The Village Voice when he was still in high school, becoming, he says, "the youngest theatre critic The Village Voice ever had."
During his tour of duty in the Korean War, he covered theatre abroad—in France and later in England, where he wrote reviews for The New York Times while trying his hand at directing. "That's when I began to get into trouble," he recalls. "Actors resent you if you're working as a director and as a critic. They take the position, you're either in the kitchen or you're having a meal.
"I don't agree that there is any conflict of interest," he continued. "Criticism is a fundamental current behind both activities: writing about theatre and directing it. A director is a critic—a critic of the production."
He is not impressed with the state of criticism today. Indeed, he said, "It's appalling. There is far too much emphasis on consumer advocacy and journalistic skill as opposed to real knowledge about the theatre. The problem is ignorance at the editorial level. Witty prose that is produced quickly is what the editors want to see in their theatre critics, and that's the problem." Critics of the past whom Marowitz feels combined high-level writing and solid background were Eric Bentley and Kenneth Tynan.
Looking back at the evolution of theatre—both commercial and nonprofit—over the decades, Marowitz feels equally disenfranchised: "The greatest enemy to the commercial theatre is technology. It's there to spice up productions and make it increasingly more like television and film."
He views the larger nonprofits "as mass markets that attract most of the foundation money, and that's bad. The smaller theatres are being shortchanged. If more money was given to the smaller experimental companies, the art form would evolve further. The less one develops these smaller theatres, the greater the likelihood that theatre will simply repeat itself with its endless revivals."
A smaller company Marowitz admires is the British group Complicite, with its highly theatrical and physical aesthetic. For the most part he finds companies far more engaging than individual artists: "I always found Peter Brook very interesting, but today I'm mostly drawn to ongoing ensembles that delve into material, using the same actors in each production. And, regrettably, those are precisely the companies that cannot get financed."
That said, he noted that all theatre companies—even those he likes—inevitably boast dogmas and "become institutionalized," producing predictable acting styles and personalities. He believes the great acting personalities of yesteryear and today are highly individual: He cites Marlon Brando, Sean Penn, and Johnny Depp as the ones who have helped foster the acting styles of their respective eras.
In Marowitz's view, a major cultural blight is reality TV, "which has institutionalized Andy Warhol's 15 minutes of fame. It is the death of television realism and the death of theatre. But all of that is part of a larger sociological problem: the vulgarization of culture."
Asked how theatre may evolve, Marowitz asserted, "We need a train wreck, where audiences get so sick of the same recycled material that no one shows up at the theatre. We have to hope for a time when recycled theatre becomes truly unbearable and therefore endangered. We need an impasse. The greatest theatre in Russia, for example, was preceded by a vacuum. In a vacuum, there is always possibility. We need a cultural Twin Towers event to forge a new mindset and kick us into creating a new aesthetic."