Jerzy Grotowski

In 1963, Jerzy Grotowski's Theatre Laboratory in Opole, Poland— an industrial town of 50,000 some sixty miles from Auschwitz— produced Marlowe's Doctor Faustus. Not one word was changed in the script, but the text was reordered into a “montage,” as Grotowski calls it, drawing on all the Quartos and rearranging the sequence of scenes, creating new ones and eliminating some others. We are printing the program notes to this production, including the sequence of scenes as Grotowski conceived them,. Although the play was performed in Polish, Grotowski wrote the program in French. The Theatre Laboratory is small, seating only sixty, and productions are mounted only when they are ready. For Faustus the long, low theatre room—about forty by fifteen feet—was painted black, and the set consisted of two long tables running the length of the room and one smaller table at one end of the room. In a future issue, we shall have an article about the Theatre Laboratory's work and an interview with Grotowski by Eugenia Barba, who spent some months in Poland with Grotowski's company. We would like to thank Mr. Barba for sending us the program and photographs printed below. —The Editor

Jerzy Grotowski was a visionary Polish theatre director, producer, and educator whose groundbreaking work in experimental theatre redefined the very nature of performance. He made his directorial debut in Kraków in 1957 with a striking production of Eugène Ionesco’s The Chairs, heralding the emergence of a bold and uncompromising theatrical voice. From the outset, Grotowski challenged conventional forms, crafting a radical approach to theatre that would profoundly influence modern performance practices across the world. At the heart of Grotowski’s philosophy was the belief that the soul of theatre resided not in ornate sets or technical spectacle, but in the sacred and immediate exchange between actor and audience. He championed what he termed ‘Poor Theatre’—a stripped-down aesthetic that placed the performer’s physicality, voice, and emotional truth at the centre of the dramatic experience. His rigorous actor training demanded discipline, vulnerability, and complete surrender to the creative process—pushing the boundaries of human expression. Grotowski stands as a towering figure in the history of modern theatre, a relentless seeker whose revolutionary ideas continue to ignite the imaginations of actors, directors, and scholars. His work at the Laboratory Theatre, and later his explorations into ritual, culture, and performance, have deeply influenced contemporary theatre-making, particularly within the realms of physical and devised theatre. This research offers a structured exploration of the practical application of Grotowski’s theories, performance methods, and directorial vision within academic contexts—illuminating how his enduring legacy continues to shape and elevate theatre education today.

This article is part discourse, part story: an act of ‘fictional-criticism.’ ‘Motley Cow’ was the name that Friedrich Nietzsche gave to the town in Thus Spake Zarathustra; this town represented everything that was small, trivial, cowering, and slave-like in the modernity he saw around him. The first two sections of the article are set in a modern city, one of Nietzsche's present-day Motley Cows, the city of Wrocław in Poland, where Jerzy Grotowski's Theatre Laboratory had its home from 1964 to 1984. Grotowski shared Nietzsche's contempt for much of the insubstantial fabric of modernity: ‘The rhythm of life in modern civilisation is characterised by pace, tension, a feeling of doom, the wish to hide our personal motives and the assumption of a variety of roles and masks in life .. We suffer most from a lack of totality, throwing ourselves away, squandering ourselves’ Grotowski wrote in the ‘Statement of Principles’ he drafted for the Theatre Laboratory [Towards a Poor Theatre (Methuen, 1969) p.255]. Yet, as Ludwik Flaszen has noted, ‘Nietzsche . was actually disliked by Grotowski’ [Grotowski & Company (Holstebro/Malta/Wroclaw, 2010) p.212]. The second section of the article enacts the witnessing of a meeting between the ghost of Nietzsche and the ghost of Grotowski, as they debate their legacies. The third and final section, in a more conventional critical mode, looks at some recent samples of the Grotowski legacy – Piesn Kozła's Macbeth and particularly Chorea's Grotowski – an Attempt to Retreat (2010). There is also consideration given to the legacy of Nietzsche in Modernist theatre. Finally the questions raised are about the problems of legacies and the failures of heirs.

The connection between Konstantin Stanislavsky and Jerzy Grotowski is often overlooked or underplayed because there are substantial distinctions between them in terms of practices and approaches. In Part I of this essay, I examine Grotowski’s reflections on Stanislavsky’s final experiments, which the Polish director considered to constitute the culmination of the System, as well as the starting point for his own work at the Laboratory Theatre. In Part II, I explore the implications of the Stanislavsky-Grotowski lineage and its legacy for contemporary performance research by relating Stanislavsky’s idiosyncratic usage of the term perezhivanie, translated by Martin Kurten as “conscious experience,” to the neuroscientific investigation of embodied experience, discussed by Rhonda Blair, and to Grotowski’s own conception of consciousness as a form of embodied awareness. I then focus on a crucial point of convergence between the Russian and Polish directors’ respective approaches lying beyond the purview of neuroscience, namely, the correlation between the physical and the spiritual, prompting Sharon Carnicke to invent the neologism “physiospiritual.” I infer that the legacy of the Stanislavsky-Grotowski lineage consists in an expanded notion of perezhivanie that I relate to philosopher Alva Noë’s phenomenological understanding of the interrelation of consciousness and experience.

Feasts in Time of the Plague: Polish Theatre and Drama, Post-Solidarity E.J. CZERWINSKI The classics are back and East European theatres are feasting on them. It is that time again when the winds ofresistance die down and the ominous calm spreads across the theatre community. It has happened before, each time signaled by the censorship of Adam Mickiewicz's Dziady (Forefather's Eve), a nineteenthcentury class.ic· that straightforwardly excoriates the old Russian regime. Unfortunately, things have not changed much and Mickiewicz's diatribes against the Russians translate fortuitously into criticism of the Soviets. The present state of theatrical ennui in Poland, however, was precipitated not by Mickiewicz's poetic abuse, but rather by General Jaruzelski's prosaic convening of ZOMO - the Polish equivalent of Hell's Angels. Polish actors, directors and producers responded with their own convocation - a total boycott of television (one channel continues to drone on, attempting to give a semblance of normality to a catastrophic cultural situation). The television boycott has had its reverberations in Poland's theatres. When Jan Pawel Gawlik was appointed director of Warsaw's Dramatyczny Teatr (Dramatic Theatre), the actors and staff, led by the actor Gustaw Holoubek, resigned their positions. J6zef Szajna took an early retirement, resigning from his post as director of Teatr Studio, rather than compromise the dictates of his conscience. Adam Hanuszkiewicz is no longer director of Teatr Narodowy (The National Theatre). Of the respected figures in the theatre, only Kazimierz Dejmek created a controversy within the theatrical community when he assumed the directorship of Warsaw's Polski Theatre. By comparison, it came as no surprise that Jerzy Krassowski and Krystyna Skuszanka, the husbandwife team of Nowa Huta fame (in the fifties and early sixties Szajna was their scene designer), quickly stepped in to fill the void created by Hanuszkiewicz's resignation from The National Theatre. As a result of the theatre boycott and the actors' insurgency, the government quickly abolished all unions and called upon the aging former president of 42 E.1. CZERWINSKI SPATIF/ZASP (Union of Polish Artists), Henryk Sletynski, to form a new "house union." The effort, of course, was unsuccessful: actors, artists and professionals - as if answering in perfect hannony -:- refused to join any governmentsponsored organization. Ifone group in Eastern Europe is following the spirit of Solidarity, it is those whose moral duty is to create a country's culture. The best artists have proved to be the finest citizens. On 4 May 1983 Andrzej Wajda was dismissed as head of Group x, the movie production unit. His activities as spokesman for Polish artists during Solidarity's too brief halcyon days and his film Man of Iron, which won the Golden Palm Award of the Cannes Film Festival, stressed too blatantly the cynical shifts in Polish politics. Wajda remains in France, where he is completing work on Danton's Affair, based on the Polish play by Stanislawa Przybyszewska. During the same period Poland's finest actor, Daniel Olbrychski, star of several international productions including Giinter Grass's The Tin Drum, was requested to leave the country because of his criticism of the tactics employed by the government. Other artists have been directed - ordered - to conform, to create for a dubious posterity "sermons in stones." Some have succumbed; the majority, despite insidious harassment, continues to hold on to what one director has referred to as "a still and quiet conscience."I I The plethora of classics, whether by design or not, has turned into swan songs for various directors. Jozef Szajna retired, leaving behind him three productions which will continue in Teatr Studio's repertory: Replika (1973), Dante (1974), and Cervantes (1976). His premature retirement (he now devotes his time to painting) startled the professional community. Vibrant and filled with a lust for life, despite the fact that he spent his youth (from age seventeen to twenty-two) in several death camps, Szajna has always been proud ofhis role as Poland's Hound of Heaven. For this reason one takes his alleged retirement with a grain of salt. In contrast, Jerzy Grotowski's exit from the theatre, especially with the recent abolishment of his Laboratory Theatre in Wrodaw, has an air of...

The article presents political interpretations of Hamlet in Poland in the turbulent period of politcal changes between the mid-1950s and mid-1960s. The author discusses the relationships between Shakespeare’s tragedy and Polish political context as well as the influence of audience expectations in the specific interpretations. The selected performances are: Hamlet by Roman Zawistowski (at the Old Theatre in Cracow 1956) and Hamlet Study by Jerzy Grotowski (at the Laboratory Theatre of 13 Rows in Opole 1964). They both were hugely influenced by major commentators of Hamlet, i.e. Stanisław Wyspiański and Jan Kott. The author argues that up-to-date readings of Hamlet, which started with Wyspiański’s study in 1905, flourished in the mid-1950s and mid-1960s when concerning specific political events: the Polish Thaw of 1956 and March 1968, when the Jews were expelled from Poland. Thus Hamlet of that time was updated and must be seen through the prism of political events.

Until the late twentieth century, courses in voice and diction were a staple of the field of communication studies. Increasingly these classes are disappearing from departments around the country, largely over concerns regarding the prescription of strict speech standards. At the same time, an interest in vocal training has increased in BFA and MFA actor training programs. This study looks to the shared history of voice training between the fields of communication studies and theatre instruction to provide a critical pedagogy for vocal performance, specifically for the area of performance studies, but also for use in other disciplines. Informed by feminist and queer theory, this dissertation examines the history of vocal instruction in the U. S. from the publication of Dr. James Rush’s Philosophy of the Human Voice in 1823 to the present. The study examines the major works of the elocution and expression movements in the U.S., recovers the voice instruction of twentieth-century theatre practitioners Konstantin Stanislavski and Jerzy Grotowski, and explores training in the “natural voice” as described by Kristin Linklater. Grounded in such a lineage of vocal pedagogy, the study provides an outline for voice instruction that honors the unique vocal qualities of the student performer while providing the student with tools for being heard, understood, and for maintaining healthy vocal usage over multiple rehearsals and performances.

One of the most frequently encountered words in the avant-garde theatre community has become the term “workshop.” Everywhere one turns, there is talk of a new workshop being offered, or of so-and-so's workshop of last summer, or desperate inquiries of young actors concerning whether so-and-so is giving another workshop soon, and if so how does one get in? Clearly, the experimental theatre workshop is now a popular phenomenon rather than the exclusive domain of a select few. Publications such as Viola Spolin's Improvisation for the Theatre (1963), Jerzy Grotowski's Towards a Poor Theatre (1968) and Robert Pasolli's A Book on the Open Theatre (1970) have been responsible for disseminating workshop ideas to mass audiences, while many groups' early touring efforts helped to reach audiences and actors who might never have found out that an alternative form of theatre existed.

Across the different periods of Jerzy Grotowski´s trajectory, from Poor Theatre to Objective Drama, the article detects and examines the close connection between action, space and place within both the con- ceptual and the practical framework of each one of them. The approach concerns, in particular, the flagship spaces and places of each period, that is, the Laboratory Theatre of Wroclaw, of Poor Theatre, the buildings and the surrounding countryside of Brzezinka, of Paratheatre, and the Barn and the Yurt of the University of Irvine, of Objective Drama. Being theYurt the only building constructed for Grotowski in his trajectory and according to his precise instructions, it deserves special attention as model space with respect to the pretensions of his work.

Ludwik Flaszen was the cofounder and literary adviser of the Polish Laboratory Theatre, and a collaborator of Jerzy Grotowski. This Jewish kaddish and Dionysian dithyramb offers a glimpse of his life and work.

Reviewed by: Rhythm in Acting and Performance: Embodied Approaches and Understandings by Eilon Morris J. Ariadne Calvano Rhythm in Acting and Performance: Embodied Approaches and Understandings. By Eilon Morris. London: Bloomsbury Methuen Drama, 2017; pp. 296. To start, Eilon Morris informs the reader that they will not find a simple definition or universal concept of rhythm in this book. Instead, through a well-balanced dose of theory and practice as research from his years in rehearsal and training rooms as a theatre practitioner, percussionist, educator, and scholar, Morris adeptly unpacks the complex relationship with rhythm in training and performance. With risk of sounding overly effusive, as an acting instructor this is a book I have been wanting for years. Its value comes from Morris’s approach. While he may at times seem to prize an empirical rather than the rational interaction with rhythm, he does accept that analyzing rhythm for performance requires deconstruction of its use in performance both from embodied and logical experiences: “this book offers up a collection of ways in which rhythm is approached and worked with. This includes some of the ideas, metaphors and associations attributed to rhythm, as well as the practical means by which performers have looked to develop rhythmic qualities in their work” (24). “Part One—Establishing a Pulse” contains chapters 1–2. The first one begins with an etymology of rhythm from the ancient Greeks, and incorporates the term’s use by many European and Russian artists. Chapter 2 delves into the history of foundational studies in rhythm, especially from the twentieth century onward. Morris calls for an awareness of the Western lens in analysis of rhythm; yet, it is difficult to deny that influence and background in the featured practitioners. Both chapters serve as an introduction and at times feel ambitious and sporadic, jumping from rhythm in movement, to writing, to emotional inspiration, but they relay the density of the topic and its myriad of performance aspects. “Part Two—Stanislavski on Rhythm” consists of a single chapter focused on Constantin Stanislavski’s work, especially his focus on physical action. Here, Morris attempts to untangle the various ways that Stanislavski, and those who continued his work, defined tempo and rhythm. This chapter marks the inclusion of exercises to demonstrate ideas in practice; they continue through the fifth part, supporting Morris’s belief in the embodied approach to understanding rhythm. While including exercises in the book is vital to his pedagogical focus, they will be most useful for those familiar with rhythm work. For example, even being trained myself in a Grotowski-based approach, I am still unsure that I could recreate the plastique exercise (159) from his description, but others are more clearly fleshed-out and articulated. Parts 3–5 focus more concretely on current modes of working with rhythm in rehearsal and training rooms throughout Europe, Australia, and the United States. Morris pays particular attention to the ways in which these modes blend into one another, and how readers currently engaged in an explorative practice of rhythm, time, dynamism, and so on can approach practical work from complementary perspectives. “Part Three—Structure and Spontaneity” contains four chapters, each framing a conversation around a particular practitioner’s work: Suzanne Bing, Vsevolod Meyerhold, John Britton, and Anne Bogart and Tina Landau, respectively. Overall, this part examines the connections between “notions of risk-taking and liveness” with structure in both ensemble and individual sense of rhythm (135). A short introduction before each chapter situates the relationship to the overarching theme of the part. Morris’s detailed attention to structure and guidance through this multifarious conversation is admirable. I appreciate the inclusion of important female practitioners’ voices, especially Bing’s, whose work tends to lose focus to her artistic partner Jacques Copeau. “Part Four—The Ecstatic Performer” frames the conversation through the lenses of the works of various practitioners, with an additional chapter that considers work done in scientific and anthropological studies of rhythm’s effects on the psychological state. Chapters 9–11 discuss the work of Jerzy Grotowski, Nicolás Núñez, and Morris’s own work, respectively. The latter two’s past experiences with Grotowski’s work resonates strongly with “the unification of...

In this Preface to Pikes’ description of her work with the pre-verbal voice, Campbell briefly introduces key concepts pertaining to Pikes’ praxis, such as the vocal sources and the belly, chest and head regions. He then goes on to reflect upon how Pikes’ use of these terms differs substantially from the concept of vocal register in Bel Canto, approaches to physiovocality developed amongst the Grotowskian diaspora of laboratory theatre practitioners and mainstream voice training for actors within the Anglo-American conservatoire system. Finally, Campbell argues that Pikes’ approach to Wolfsohn-Hart voice work offers a vital contribution to professional vocal training in theatre and performance, given the unique ways in which she holistically braids artistic expressivity with emotional catharsis and release in her pedagogical practice.

The text presented here deals with the possibility of using participatory theatre as a site for constructing identity, and thus using it as a tool for the sociologist. The starting point for the presented considerations will be the theatrical experiments of Jerzy Grotowski, who initiated in Poland the tradition of using theatre as a tool for scientific analysis. In the context of his achievements, the author of the text seeks to answer the questions: whether and to what extent the activities of participatory theatre can constitute a research laboratory for the contemporary sociologist? Can participatory theatre serve as a tool for building personal identity? Following the thinking of contemporary scholars (Anthony Giddens, Peter J. Burke et al.), we know that, as a result of the changes associated with globalisation, the acquisition of personal identification has become a life-long task for individuals. Moreover, this process has become considerably complicated in the sense that participants in social life have to cope with a situation of too many choices and, consequently, are confronted with more risks in social situations. They need a variety of competencies in the processes of assuming and playing social roles and the ability to deal with emotions, of which participatory theatre seems to be a natural laboratory. In the author's opinion, it can be a potential basis for the study of group processes. It is therefore worth reflecting on the role of participatory theatre in the construction of collective identities.

Jean Genet: Performance and Politics is intended for an English-speaking audience, and the logic for doing so is compelling. Despite endorsements from avant-garde practitioners in theatre and film (Richard Schechner, Peter Sellars, Todd Haynes), 'alternative' rock stars (Patti Smith, David Bowie, Shane MacGowan), and television makers (Nigel Williams, Melvyn Bragg), Anglo-American culture has paid little attention to Genet's performance work since the 1970s, preferring instead to read him as a gay novelist.1 When Genet's theatre is taught and staged in Anglophone countries, the texts in question are predictably—and somewhat tediously—Deathwatch and The Maids, early plays which are best regarded as apprentice pieces to his more challenging and experimental theatre of the 1950s and 1960s. Although the film Un chant d'amour is a major exception in that it is taught on many undergraduate courses, Genet's crucial influence on contemporary theatre, film, dance and performance art has been seriously underestimated and misrepresented in North America and the United Kingdom.KeywordsPolitical TheatrePolitical SignificanceUnfinished BusinessPalestinian Liberation OrganizationAnglophone CountryThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Examining the development of avant garde theatre from its inception in the 1890s right up to the present day, Christopher Innes exposes a central paradox of modern theatre; that the motivating force of theatrical experimentation is primitivism. What links the work of Strindberg, Artaud, Brook and Mnouchkine is an idealisation of the elemental and a desire to find ritual in archaic traditions. This widespread primitivism is the key to understanding both the political and aesthetic aspects of modern theatre and provides fresh insights into contemporary social trends. The original text, first published in 1981 as Holy Theatre, has been fully revised and up-dated to take account of the most recent theoretical developments in anthropology, critical theory and psychotherapy. New sections on Heiner Muller, Robert Wilson, Eugenio Barba, Ariane Mnouchkine and Sam Shepard have been added. As a result, the book now deals with all the major avant garde theatre practitioners, in Europe and North America. Avant Garde Theatre will be essential reading for anyone attempting to understand contemporary drama.