Krzysztof Musial. Against all odds, 2023 / singulart.com
Philosopher Serhii Forkosh delves into the profound aspects of acting and the process of creating a stage character. The author explores how an actor’s encounter with the character they are to portray becomes a powerful catalyst for transformation and self-discovery, inspiring them to delve deeper into their roles.
He offers a journey through the intricate path of forming a character, beginning with the analysis of the actor’s inner self and culminating in the moment when the character comes to life on stage. Forkosh provides unique insights into how an actor’s real experiences intertwine with the imaginary, creating a fascinating and engaging theatrical experience.
Particular emphasis is placed on the distinction between the perception of a character in theater and in film, where theater becomes a space for live interaction «here and now.» At the same time, cinema turns into a plane of objectified imagination.
This revelation is for those who seek to understand what happens on stage and behind the scenes and how the art of acting reflects and shapes human identity.
FORMATION OF A CHARACTER
The director creates the image of the play, while the actor, embodying that image, performs the role assigned to them. In this brief study, we will focus on the latter — specifically, on the actor’s image, the formation of their self-image, and how this act of embodiment is possible in the first place. To do so, we must analyze the fundamental aspects of how an image is formed in consciousness in order to clarify the conditions that make possible the encounter between the actor and the image they are to embody.
The actor’s image and the embodiment of the character they present to the audience offer an intriguing subject for a phenomenological investigation. The actor’s image, its potential, and the character portrayed by the actor point to a unique genealogy of the image. By tracing this genealogy, one can uncover the direct connection between the image and the self and the significance of «the other» in the formation of this foundational self-image.
The next stage involves describing the encounter (and the conditions that make it possible) between the actor and the new character they are to portray. In short, the task is to describe the image that forms our self, revealing its original significance. This extends beyond the issue of the actor’s development and encompasses the encounter between the actor’s original image and the image they embody.
It is this embodiment of a character by the actor that is truly remarkable! In the process of embodiment, the initial modes of a person’s engagement with the unfolding events not only gain sharp clarity but also transition into one another in such a way that a unique individuality of the portrayed character is born.
By embodying and experiencing a character, the actor reveals the boundaries of their individuality. Through this embodiment, while playing the role, the actor creates an illusion of events that, layering upon the actual reality, also expose the mechanism of the debate between the real and the imagined.
First and foremost, the actor prepares for the role. The character is already defined for them, for example, the role of Henry V, and the preparation involves making possible the «encounter» with the character, for it is only through such an encounter that the embodiment of the character can occur. But embodying the character presupposes the actor’s performance. By living out the character on stage and by playing the role, the actor creates an illusion that overlays the actual events taking place.
Thus, the focus of our study shifts to the phenomenon of the actor’s «encounter» with the character as a possibility striving to become a reality within the actor, and primarily for the actor, and only then to the audience’s encounter with the character, now objectified on stage, where the illusion of reality is layered upon what is truly happening.
In the first encounter, we speak of the boundaries of individuality and the transformation of the actor’s self-image and the anticipated character, who is as active in the «encounter» as the actors themselves. In the second encounter, we discuss the transformation of the boundaries of reality, which is consistently supplemented or even replaced by the imaginary.
It is also worth noting that in the first encounter, the problem is further complicated by the fact that the initial image of the self, which possesses its internal structure — where, incidentally, «the other» is one of the essential elements — is the starting point for this encounter with the character to be portrayed.
Therefore, the first encounter is between, so to speak, the spontaneous self-image in its individual and social manifestations and the stage character. The second encounter is already an event of the world, where the transition itself is enacted, and temporal shifts are revealed. What is presented to the audience is both the created work and the act of creation, which is not hidden but is fully manifested.
In theater, there exists a certain physical distance between the audience and the performance, a distance that is repeatedly overcome by the imaginary, by the content of the performance itself. The dialectic of distance reveals bodily presence, establishing proportions of perception against the backdrop of the imaginary. Conversely, the imaginary is highlighted by bodily localization, which is always embedded in real-time events.
This does not happen in cinema, where distance is given virtually. In this way, cinema is closer to the imaginary, more directly connected to our contemplative state, making it more intrusive and more intimate. Cinema transitions into a plane, becoming a territory of objectified imagination.
For this reason, understanding cinema is much more difficult. To understand cinema, one must first free oneself from it — yes, one must forget cinema. Theater, on the other hand, is always the space of the theater or, more precisely, a place, something where the «here» and «now» are united. Therefore, the theater is also a filled atmosphere of play, a relation of bodily figures, their movements, and positions, and their voids.
TO BE ONESELF
It may turn out that the actor, the one who embodies a character and plays a role, is not merely a profession or a form of creativity but a fundamental, ontological feature of a human being as a human being — something that can be traced back to the very earliest stages of the development of self-consciousness.
Here, we will briefly describe the formation of the original image, the image of oneself, and also highlight the significance of «the other» in this process. In other words, we will attempt to show the first hidden encounter between «myself» and «the other», which, in fact, makes this «self» possible.
A person is always themselves; they are permanently embedded in the world’s environment as an unavoidable reality. They are enveloped by the natural flow of situations and events. They necessarily respond to what is happening, either by actively engaging with it or by withdrawing from it. In this sense, they cannot be «the other». They are always just themselves.
On the other hand, through imagination, which delineates the contours of their present, the boundaries of which do not coincide with the experiences of actual events, defined as a step of «retreat» from what is happening and as a step of «stepping beyond» actual events, a new, non-synchronous field of events emerges. Through imagination, new temporal flows are liberated, each of which makes new images of oneself possible.
The image of oneself is primarily derived from the ever-receding past and the never-arriving but ever-pressing future. The image of oneself is possible through this overcoming of reality in its rigid sequence of the disappearing and the impending. This overcoming is, in essence, an overcoming of real-time.
The act of overcoming itself is ongoing, which means that it involves overcoming the intensities of becoming (points of real temporal flow), which in turn shape experience (community). The act of overcoming real time is at the core of the self-image as a certain sensuous community.
In the position of «I am I», the initial I is still boundless and is only defined as a support and point of reference; the second I is a defined, limited I, which, by receiving limitation through the act of relating to itself, removes the first, initial I. The I «finds» itself in this transcendental movement, which was first thoroughly conceptualized by Fichte and Schelling.
Such a movement is directly related to the formation of the self-image, as it unfolds, although abstractly and without considering sensory content, the dialectic of the finite and the infinite, which is necessary, though insufficient, for understanding the image. But this is not all — the image of myself is not merely an act in which creation and cognition are combined but also manifests the phenomenon of the image as an image. When I talk about the self-image, the image here is not only the image of the I but also the «image» of the I.
Although the image has its place in the overall genealogy of self-consciousness, it also possesses, so to speak, an independent life, something that allows us to encounter the image, grasp it, and treat it as an autonomous entity, even when it concerns the image of oneself. Clearly, this limits the transcendental approach to the imagined, since the image here appears as a transcendental entity.
However, this initial image does not yet know itself; at this level, it is only free from the real course of events and does not know its own definition or boundary. The image at this point only emerges as «from» or «THIS — not I», with the I here being an indelible preservation of the negative, which has only appeared as negation. The further development of the self-image then changes direction to «I — not this». At this stage, each distinction from «this» has an affirmative-positive significance.
TO BE OTHER
It is important to note that our study focuses not on the formation of self-perception or on the concept of self but rather on the image of oneself, placing us firmly in the realm of the imaginary. Here, we understand the image as an ontological structure, not merely as one of the conditions of cognition (Kant).
Therefore, we will not insist on the distinction between the transcendental schema and the empirical image. At this stage of our research, this brief clarification suffices, and the issues related to our understanding of the image’s ontology will be discussed elsewhere.
As the self recognizes itself, it simultaneously becomes other to itself, yet it remains within itself, defined only as the condition of itself. However, this initial «self» is already mediated by the «other» in this relationship to itself. This first relationship to oneself establishes the possibility of the image. Here, the image is already marked by the «relationship» to oneself, but also as the «overcoming» of this relationship. In brief, the formation of the primary self-image can be schematized as the other is me, the other is not me, and I am not the other.
The first act remains a mystery, something not yet revealed but necessary as a moment for further movement. In the second act, a relationship arises, but without boundaries; in the third, the relationship is overcome by the boundary, by its revelation.
This is why «I am not the other» already contains the encounter, which becomes an encounter only through the overcoming of the relationship, that is, through the boundary. Then, «boundary» and «relationship» synthesize into a particular space — this dynamic space is the formal condition of the original self-image.
Thus, the «other» is already formally present in the «self», but only as a formal condition of the «self». The other becomes concretized, becoming the «external» image of oneself at the stage where the «self», which has spontaneously distinguished itself from the environment, once again immerses itself in the environment, but this time in the social environment. Here, the «other» is already the emerging social image of oneself formed in the field of communication.
Of course, when we speak of the social self, we have the right to speak of the social role, that is, what and how the individual performs while participating in social interaction. Circumstances often compel one to play a social role. Still, the act itself must remain hidden, for only under this condition can one convincingly demonstrate the reality (truth) of one’s nature, such as genuine bravery or real courage.
The source of the social role often lies in the desire to compensate for the deficiencies of the original, spontaneously arisen self-image in comparison with the representations that are valued and established in the social environment. Between the original and the performed social image, there remains a gap, which is filled either by the transition of the actual image into the imaginary or by the imaginary image dissipating through the acceptance of oneself in the original representation.
In the context of our research objectives, it is essential to note that the social role does not allow for art, as there is no free encounter with the image, which is necessary for creating a work of theatrical art.
The social image is, in a sense, imposed and grafted onto the original self, which excludes the necessary creative distance, the free space. One has to engage in a direct struggle with the social image, either suppressing it or submitting to it.
