Naturalism conquered European theater stages at the end of the 19th century. The result was many plays, theoretical works and theatrical productions that form the foundation of theater as we know it today, due to the ideas suggested by naturalists and the reaction it evoked in people who did not agree with it. Theater culture in Russia is closely associated with the Stanislavski Method which has been adapted around the world in several variations. However, in this essay I will explore the ways in which Stanislavski's landmen, namely Vsevolod Meyerhold (1874-1940) and Evgeny Vakhtangov (1883-1922), renounced naturalism or reconsidered Stanislavski's method in the practice of theater grotesque. To begin with, I will present naturalism and the possible reasons for its decline, then I will present Vsevolod Meyerhold, his use of past theatrical traditions to break away from naturalism, then I will examine Evgeny Vakhtangov's Fantastic Realism and conclude with the unifying elements of these two theater directors. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe beginning of naturalism as a literary and artistic style can be marked by the publication of the essay Naturalism on the Stage by Emile Zola in 1880. Inspired by Auguste Comte to create a scientific approach to stage representation, Zola explained naturalism in this way : “The writer and the scientist had the same task. Both had to replace abstractions with reality, empirical formulas with rigorous analyses. So no more abstract characters in books, no more lying inventions, no more absolutes, but real characters with true stories and the relativity of everyday life. It was a question of starting over, of knowing man at the very origins of his being, before drawing conclusions in the manner of the idealists, who invented types; and the writers now had no choice but to take over the underlying construction, providing as many human documents as possible and presenting them in a logical order. This is naturalism, which originated in the first thinking brain, if you will, but whose broadest development – ​​the definitive one undoubtedly – ​​took place in the last century.” man and environment. In the theater it is an exact representation of the characters and events as they are, with all the positive and negative aspects that there might be in the story. A. Strindberg, A. Chekhov and H. Ibsen are the names of the most famous naturalistic playwrights in Europe all beginning of the 20th century. However, naturalism did not flourish for long, as new generations as the world began to progress very quickly and naturalism was not enough for theater audiences. There are several reasons for the decline of naturalism. According to Rahv, the growing interest in psychoanalysis has changed the way of thinking and given more space to reflective interior monologue, “which combines the naturalistic in the detailed description of the mental process with the anti-naturalistic in the revelation of the subjective and the irrational”. .” Theater directors and writers sought to create imaginative prose in which reality was only one component of the story rather than the essence of it. Rahv emphasizes that: “From a socio-historical point of view this can be said: naturalism cannot hope to survive the 19th century world of science and industry of which it is the product. Indeed, what is the crisis of reality in contemporary art if not, ultimately, the crisis of the dissolution of this familiar world? Naturalism, which exhausted itself in making an inventory of this world when it was still relatively stable, cannot possibly do justice to the phenomena of itsdisintegration". Naturalism was a method no longer suitable for representing the problems of modern life, it simplified reality and made it too familiar, leaving little space for self-awareness on the part of the characters. What came next is the spirit of discovery in the imaginations of artists, driven by the ever-growing problems of contemporary humanity. Vsevolod Meyerhold is one of the most innovative theater directors of the USSR who left a great impact on the development of theatrical life in Europe. He had written many texts that rethink past and foreign traditions in a new way. He studied theater of the ancient Greeks, Italian comedy of atre, oriental theaters of India, China and Japan, as well as other theater professionals such as Gordon Craig and his puppet theater. Meyerhold drew from many different sources to create his own conception of theater that depends more on the physical body than naturalism, which relies on authentic words and emotions. C. Moody describes Meyerhold's style and his main inspiration mainly regarding commedia dell'arte: “With its emphasis on the actor and not on comedy, on acting rather than speaking, and on movement rather than intellect, l 'importance of technique and the example of improvisation it offered, commedia dell'arte was the inspiration Meyerhold sought." Meyerhold did not want to simplify the characters into moving bodies, but believed that theater stripped of props and speech was still theater that should be capable of telling a story and evoking an emotional response from the audience through physical expression . This is why he chose the standard commedia dell'arte characters who, despite being a generalization of a “type” of people, still have complicated lives and problems to express on stage, rather than the individualistic character of naturalist theater. In 1906 Meyerhold directed Alexander Blok's The Fairground Booth, where they used those stock characters to show the synthesis of "romantic duality and evil irony." After setting up the fair's booth, Meyerhold wrote an article that reflected his vision of the theater for that time. There he believed that the new theater should be based on returning to the origins of ancient Greek traditions. Moody summarizes the theatrical elements highlighted in the article as strongly influenced by commedia dell'arte, although Meyerhold himself does not refer to them directly: “The absence of the division caused by the footlights, the need to free the actor from the stage and to do away with complicated stage machinery, the dance and the mask were all inherited from medieval and subsequent comedians. "Meyerhold tried to free the theater from psychological realism and gave in to mechanized efficiency and created the notion of biomechanics in the theater which can be understood as stage constructivism. He pushed the actors into automated action, almost trying to transform them into puppets (here it is evident admiration for Craig).Another USSR theater professional who needs to be analyzed when talking about innovation is Evgeny Vakhtangov who drew inspiration from the theatrical traditions of the past and the ongoing theatrical changes a which he witnessed in his time. He created the concept of Fantastic Realism which he explained by rejecting naturalism and realism in theatre, arguing that “they should be replaced with Fantastic Realism. Correct theatrical means, once discovered, enhance the author's work with true reality on the scene. These means could be learned; the form, however, must be created through imagination. This is why I call it Fantastic Realism. It exists and should be found in every art form.' He based histeachings on concentration exercises through studies and improvisations, focusing on action rather than emotion. Gozzi's Turandot, a commedia dell'arte staged in the last months of his life, was one of his most important productions in the style of Fantastic Realism. He wanted to produce a show that combined joy, improvisation, human emotions with irony and humour. Vakhtangov used every small stage object as an active part of the show that could be transformed from one thing to another, for example, a towel was transformed into a beard, and instead of a headdress there were fruit baskets. He sought out actors to create an atmosphere of a fairytale land that extended beyond the confines of the stage, but encouraged the actors to improvise and perform throughout the theater building and even outside. Orani describes Vakhtangov as a practitioner who: “never even considered denying the lessons of the past. Although he constantly strived to reflect the contemporary in his productions, he always did so by seeking answers through his deep roots in the MAT. He did not give up the past for the future, but rather incorporated what was useful into his new endeavors. In doing so, Vakhtangov outlined and bridged the gap between psychological realism and movement relief, structurally expressive of biomechanics." "The most important thing for the director is his ability to identify with the actor," Vakhtangov wrote in his diary in 1918 and the The director's job, as he saw it, was to “create physical and psychological obstacles that forced the actors to perform as vividly as possible. All these obstacles had to be “justified” by the work and the circumstances, but the result was a new theatricalism, a synthesis of Stanislavski's naturalism and Meyerhold's constructivism”. In contrast to Meyerhold, Vakhtangov was in line with Stanislavski in seeing acting as the main element of theatrical art Stanislavski's method of teaching, however he was not at all committed to naturalism. «On the stage», he wrote, «the actor works in an atmosphere of falsehood the scenario is a real landscape. The moments in which he makes this lie truth are moments of creation and art. Both Meyerhold and Vakhtangov worked using grotesque elements in the theater. In Vakhtagov's Turandot the use of masks, attempts to evoke a response from the audience (applause, applause or negative reactions) can be seen as grotesque. Vakhtangov did not let the audience forget that they were in the theater and for the people of that time it was quite shocking. As for Meyerhold, the typical characters of his works, for example Pierrot, who has two faces, were defined as a grotesque element taken from the past traditions of Italian theatre. “The grotesque is a method that allows the actor and director to internally justify what is vivid, condensed content of a given play. It is, I would say, the pinnacle of expressiveness, the most adequate form of scenic presentation of the content. For the director it is the achievement of his creative search for harmony of form and content.”After Vakhtangov's death, Meyerhold showed up at his theater as a visitor and advisor. He helped stage new productions, however following the method of Vakhtangov's style of work, which kept the Vakhtangov theater alive. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay To conclude, naturalism which studies man and nature did not struggle for long, due to the ever-changing world that required new ways of dealing with:10.2307/3204850.