Grotowski and His Laboratory. Osinski

A BRIEF PREAMBLE by Lillian Vallee and Robert Findlay

AUTHOR'S NOTE by Zbigniew Osinski

INTRODUCTION TO THE THEATRE

FIRST INDEPENDENT WORKS IN THE THEATRE

TOWARDS A POOR THEATRE Opole 1959-1964

"THE RELIGION OF MANKIND" Wroclaw 1965-1970

· "IN SEARCH OF ACTIVE CULTURE" Wroclaw 1971-1976

1976-1986: A NECESSARY AFTERWORD by Robert Findlay

APPENDIX: PERSONNEL OF THE LABORA TOR'{ THEATRE 1959/1960 through 197611977

Contents

7

11

13

21

36

83

128

166

181

7

A Brief Preamble

The text which follows by Polish theatre historian and criticZbigniew Osin· ski was originally published as Grotowski i jego Laboratorium in Warsaw in 1980 by Panstwowy lnstytut Wydawniczy. Osinski's discussion covers the period from Jerzy Grotowski's youth through the eighteenth year (1976) of the Laboratory Theatre's existence. It is only fair to note that the original book is a much larger work than appears here in English translation. The original is in two major parts: (1) an essentially chronological calendar of events dealing with Grotowski and his work with the Laboratory Theatre, and (2) a series of speculative and theoretical essays on Grotowski and his work, most of which are densely written and in essence untranslatable. Such a statement in no way disparages Osinski as critic or scholar: his excellent essays on both Grotowski's Akropolis and The Constant Prince (in Teatr Dionizosa [1972]) are thorough and highly perceptive.

But it is Osinski's chronological calendar which is published here, and it . covers Grotowski's early schooling and influences, his early theatrical ex

periences, his rise to prominence as a youthful anti-Stalinist political figure in the mid-1950s, and his founding in Opole in 1959 (with critic Ludwik Flaszen) of the theatre group that eventually was to become the world-famous Teatr Laboratorium (or, as it has been traditionally referred to in English, the Polish Laboratory Theatre).

Osinski's calendar covers in detail those difficult years in Opole (1959-1965), when Grotowski and the group were fighting for survival. During these years, it seemed that a large portion of the 'critical (and political) community in Poland, fearful of the aesthetic and perhaps ultimately political implications of this new enterprise, would have gladly seen it go out of existence. But then, as Osinski

Grotowski and His Laboratory 8

shows, in the mid-1960s, as the group began to gain some recognition outside Poland and moved to the large metropolitan city of Wrodaw, the atmosphere began to change, if ever so slightly. Still occasionally "the old game," as Grotowski himself has referred to this vituperative critical barrage, would crop up again. Then in the late 1960s, on tour with productions of Akropolis, The Constant Prince, and Apocalypsis cum figuris, Grotowski and his Laboratory gained· worldwide recognition and acclaim. International fame came largely as a result of the frequently awesome quality of Grotowski's actors and the training methods he had developed to bring them to this level. An actor such as Ryszard Cieslak almost overnight became known throughout the world as the most physically adept and emotionally transcendent performer seen in the twentieth century. As Osinski clearly documents, by the late 1960s and early 1970s the Laboratory Theatre was recognized internationally as the major theatrical ensemble in the world and its director as the foremost theatrical figure since Brecht.

It was, of course, at this point in the early 1970s that Grotowski announced nis so-called "exit" from the theatre. Rather than repeat past theatrical suc:esses, rather than become his own follower, he chose another direction, :award what he called "active culture" and "paratheatrical experiences," a :lirection still not adequately understood today by most theatre practitioners md critics. It is with the first truly tangible and publicly demonstrable fruits of :his new direction-the so-called Research University of the Theatre of Nations n Wrodaw (1975) and preparations for "Project: the Mountain of Flame" -that Osinski's account ends in 1976. Much, of course, has happened in the Jast ten years to Grotowski, members of his troupe, and to Poland generally. )ne of the major purposes of the added section following Osinski's text, titled 1976-1986: A Necessary Afterword," is to account for these past ten years and :o bring matters more up to date.

A word needs to be said about Osinski's methods in developing his text and tlso about the methods followed by the translators and editors in rendering the ext. In his chronological calendar, Osinski, by his own admission in the 'Author's Note" that follows, has attempted a very factual account; in general, 1e is a documentarian rather than interpreter. His account depends heavily 1pon the reports of others-newspaper, magazine, and journal critics especially. \!though Osinski uses accounts of Grotowski's work from all over the world, 1is chief sources of information are Polish. Thus there is a great deal of quoted naterial here from sources never before appearing in English. Osinski's ac:ount, interestingly, is a very "Polish reading" of the phenomenon of Jerzy :Jrotowski and his Laboratory Theatre. Critics from other parts of the world, >ecause they never understood the language spoken by Grotowski's per:>rmers, most often concentrated on the actors' obviously incredible vocal and 'hysical skills. The Polish critics, on the other hand-individuals such as Jerzy ;alkowski, ]6zef Kdera, and Tadeusz Burzynski-often wrote of premieres from

9 Zbigniew Osinski

a more informed and sophisticated perspective. Because often the Laboratory Theatre developed its productions from Polish classics generally unknown outside Poland-Mickiewicz's Forefathers' Eve, Srowacki's Kordian, Wyspianski's Akropolis, for example-these Polish critics often wrote with a much more intimate awareness of the originals than, say, French or Italian or American critics.

Thus Osinski's method of quoting extensively from his sources happily increases the amount of Polish material on Grotowski now available in English. Being a scholarly account of the work of Grotowski, Osinski's book contains innumerable detailed footnotes, all based upon a numbering system generally unfamiliar to English-speaking readers. The translators and editors, in the interest of developing a more easily readable text, have thus dispensed with Osinski's footnotes but have added at the conclusions of quotations parenthetical allusions to author, source, and year of publication. Those who wish more precise documentation of a particular source should go to Osinski's original text in Polish. Additionally, all editorial additions to Osinski are placed in square brackets ([ ]).

Something must be said about the handling of the Polish language in this English version. All Polish accents on Polish words have been maintained. Titles of most Polish plays, essays, articles, etc. have been rendered in English. But the sources in which essays, reviews, articles, etc. appear have kept their Polish titles. While it might be helpful to know that newspapers such as Gazeta Robotnicza means "Workers' News" and Sf.owo Polskie means "Polish Word," it is simply more accurate documentation to cite the source in its original language. A comparable situation that is almost inconceivable is to imagine the New York Times being rendered by a Polish writer as "Czasy nowojorsksie." And Polish sources, often-cited, such as Literatura, Kultura, or Polityka are simply clear enough as they stand.

One final word: Osinski's is not really a very intimate portrait of Grotowski, and certainly the members of the Laboratory Theatre company hardly emerge as distinct individuals in their own right, which they certainly are (for a complete listing of company members, season-by-season, see the appendix, "Personnel of the Laboratory Theatre"; for brief notes on what they are doing today, see "1976-1986: A Necessary Afterword."). But Osinski's account, undoubtedly in keeping with his intent, seems always to view the group from the perspective of a total outsider, despite the fact that he clearly over the years has had innumerable contacts with members of the group. What emerges from Osinski's account is a portrait of Grotowski as chiefly public figure: a brilliantly intelligent, articulate, talented, courageous, unique and charismatic individual, hated and resented by some, nearly deified by others; but a man who, in the post-World War II period, has done more than anyone else to bring about a reevaluation of the theatre and the premises upon which theatre has stood, not simply in the twentieth century but for all time.

----·- . - --- -------- ----· .... -- ---- .


The translators and editors would like to thank Daniel Gerould for first suggesting this project several years ago; Gerald Rabkin for his perennial good counsel in matters connected to the Laboratory Theatre; Michael Mullins for his assistance in providing Australian reviews of the Laboratory Theatre;

Halina Filipowicz, who did the original translation of the first two sections, "Introduction to the Theatre" and "First Independent Works in the Theatre," and who has given considerable support and assistance to the project since its beginning; Marian Barnett, administrator of Grotowski's work in California, for

her assistance in understanding the administrative organization of "Objective Drama"; Ellen Walterscheid for her considerable editing assistance; Zbigniew Cynkutis for his endless support; and particularly Jerzy Grotowski, whose discussions in New York (August/September 1984) and Irvine and Long Beach, California (March 1985) helped greatly in the clarification both of Osinski's text and of his own work since 1976.

Lillian Vallee Modesto, California

Robert Findlay Lawrence, Kansas

1 July 1985

11

Author's Note

When in the years 1970-1973 I decided to write a collection of articles about the Laboratory Theatre, I felt a lack of publications which could document the activities of Grotowski's new center. Neither of the already published books, Eugenio Barba's Alla ricerca del Teatro perduto: Una proposta dell'avantguardia pollacca ["In Search of the Lost Theatre: A Proposal of the Polish Avant-Garde" (1965)] nor Raymonde Temkine's Grotowski (1968), were able to supply this information. In addition, these works, which were doubtlessly valuable and useful in their time, are no longer up to date. The task of this book is to fill the gap. Grotowski i jego Laboratorium includes the situation up to 1976 inclusively, even though I have added items from 1977 to the appendices. I have deliberately taken on the role of documentor. Let the facts and testimonies speak for themselves; the authorial comment is there where it is needed. This is an informational book first of all. One of the results of this method is the lack of exhaustive authorial descriptions, analyses, and interpretations of the successive works-theatre performances by Grotowski and his troupe. A monographic treatment demands a separate publication.

I would in all likelihood not have written this book if not for the understanding and concrete help of many people. Allow me, therefore, to thank Barbara Bosak, Teresa Gabrys, Irena Jun, Barbara Majeska, Maria Krzyszstof Byrski, Wiesfaw Gorecki, ]6zef Grotowski, Tadeusz Kudlinski, Henryk Lipszyc, Roger Pulvers, Marian Stepien, Bolesfa.w T aborski, ]6zef Wieczorek, and the Laboratory Theatre company. I also used the periodicals and xerox copies of materials supplied to me by Natella Baszyndzagian, Carla Pollastrelli, and the American and Australian Centers ofiTI in New York and Sydney, respectively.


The comments of Janusz Degler, Ludwik Flaszen, and the editorial board of Teatralia PIW made after the first draft of the manuscript appeared had an important influence on the present form of this book. To all whom I have and have not mentioned, my heartfelt thanks .

One more thing. This work is an outllne. It is, therefore, a point of deparrure for more detailed analyses and deeper reflection.

Zbigniew Osir\ski Warsaw, Poland

8 April 1978

.,, 'f:}

r ... ,~·;:>,;,.<

13

Introduction to the Theatre

Jerzy Marian Grotowski was born on 11 August 1933 in Rzeszow, Poland. His father, Marian Grotowski [1898-1968], was a forest ranger and painter who died in Paraguay, where he had been residing since the close of World War II. His mother, Emilia Grotowska nee Kozlowska [1897-1978], was a teacher. An older brother, Kazimierz, was born in 1930.

Until September 1939, when Poland was invaded, the Grotowski family lived in Przemysl. When World War II broke out [the father was an officer in the Polish army and later in the Polish army in England], Emilia Grotowska and her two sons moved to Nienad6wka, a peasant village about 12 miles north of Rzeszow, where they spent the rest of the war. Jerzy Grotowski enrolled in a Nienadowka grade school where his mother was hired as a teacher. As Grotowski himself admits, the Nienad6wka years were an important formative period for him. He discovered various forms of folk rites and beliefs, and he was first exposed to the personality of an inspired prophet:

My mother went to town ... and brought back a book called A Search in Secret India by an English journalist named [Paul] Brunton. He talked about the people he met in India, mainly about some unusual man. He lived on the slopes of Arunachala, a holy mountain, or the Mountain of Flame. His name was Maharishi [Bhagwan Shri Ramana]. He had a peculiar custom. When someone came to him to seek explanation about the essence or meaning of life, he would ask: "Who are you?" But the question was phrased as a direct statement: "Ask yourself who you are." (Interview, A. Bonarski, Kulcura [1975])


After the war, Grotowski completed his grade school education with honors in Rzeszow. In 1950, the Grotowski family moved to Krakow, where Emilia Grotowska got a job as a clerk in a district court for insurance claims. In 1951, Grotowski graduated summa cum laude from the Fifth High School in Krakow.

While still in high school, Grotowski frequently gave poetry recitals in Rzeszow, Krakow, and nearby towns, and he participated in poetry recital contests, often walking away with the first prize. In a letter of recommendation, his high school teachers described him as "diligent, very talented, and a dedicated volunteer worker. He puts a lot of effort into the students' self-help system. He has considerable interest in the art~." Grotowski's application to the acting program of the State Theatre School in Krakow mentions his difficult financial situation and his need of financial support. His mother's meager salary was not enough to support three -people, and -Grotowski had assisted the family income through receiving a scholarship while in high school.

Grotowski took entrance examinations at the Theatre School in September 1951. His results were: physical appearance, C; diction, F; voice, B; ex· pressiveness, C. The examination committee included a note about Grotowski's diction: "Wrong pronunciation of sounds Its!, lz/, /s/, /rh/, and /sh/," but he was allowed to take the written test. The applicants were asked to write on one of the following topics:

I . How can theatre contribute to the development of socialism in Poland? 2. How do you understand the actor's task in the theatre? 3. Discuss one of the award-winning works at the Festival of Contemporary Polish Plays.

Grotowski [gamefully] chose the first topic and received an "A" for his essay. On the basis of his written test and his high school recommendation, he was accepted on probation with an overall grade of "C." However, he was denied any financial aid.

Grotowski was enrolled in the acting program of the Theatre School in Krakow from 1 October 1951 until 30 June 1955. But he also continued to cultivate his interest in the Orient, going to lectures, studying on his own, giving talks, and consulting with specialists. Among them was Professor Helena Willman-Grabowska (1870-1957), an authority on Indian and Iranian culture, and Dr. Franciszek Tokarz (1879-1973), an outstanding specialist in Indian philosophy. While a theatre student at Krakow, Grotowski seriously considered transferring to the East Asian program or to the medical school.

In his second year, Grotowski became president of the Students Research Club at the Theatre School. The Krakow club was considered by many the most active among similar organizations at other theatre schools throughout Poland. As a club representative, Grotowski traveled to regional and national conferences. In December 1954, during the 13th meeting of the Arts Council in ,,

l

15 Zbigniew Osinski

Warsaw, Grotowski urged the authorities to be more supportive of the young generation of theatre artists. In his statement, according to one report:

Grotowski was concerned that the sickly atmosphere in theatres is beginning to infiltrate theatre schools. Moral cynicism, careerism, and the pursuit of material values are the most dangerous symptoms of demoralization. But Grotowski is no pessimist. He sees evil, and he wants to do something about it. Young theatre artists, Grotowski said, want romantic and heroic ideals. Those who are better and wiser are still in the majority. But that's where the bitterness creeps in. Young actors are left largely to themselves. Rarely do they meet with understanding from directors or older actors, and the authorities, including the Ministry of Culture, couldn't care less. Grotowski called for a congress of young theatre artists, which would allow them to solve many difficult and complex problems. (J. Timoszewicz, Po prostu [1954])

As a fourth-year student, Grotowski was also involved in the master's projects of the graduating class at the Theatre School. In a production of Schiller's Love and Intrigue, he served as assistant to the faculty supervisor, Professor Wladysi.aw Krzeminlski. The production opened on 17 January 1955 at Krakow's Theatre of Poetry and was performed 68 times to full or nearly full houses. In Gorky's The Smug Citizens, shown on 26 May 1955, Grotowski played Pyotr, and he directed Love Scenes, a collage of excerpts from plays by Juliusz Sfowacki (Balladyna, Beatrice Cenci, Kordian, Mazepa, and Mary Stuart, among others).

In early 1955, Grotowski emerged as a free-lance writer. His first article, "The Red Balloon," published in a supplement to the Krakow Dziennik Polski, called for the establishment of a Young Artists' Club in Krakow. Alluding to the tradition of the Green Balloon cabaret in Krakow, Grotowski wrote:

We must pay tribute to tradition with actions, not words. We must cultivate the seeds of the past, which may flourish into new values on modern soil. ... We wish to influence man and the world with our art. We've got the courage to fight openly and fervently for the most important issues, because only such issues are worth fighting for.

The responses to Grotowski's article are of interest. Critic and playwright Jan Pawel Gawlik wrote: "I don't know Grotowski personally, but I know that his head is on fire. In his article, there's plenty of nonconformism, bragging, and cliches, and a pinch of complacency, typical of youth. But there's also something that commands attention." Writer and actor Leszek Herdegen openly criticized Grotowski: "It's not enough to have a firm ideology, it's not


enough to be a member of the Polish Youth Union, it's not enough to be a volunteer worker in order to be an artist. . . . You must have your own, unique artistic program .. .. You've got to know what you want to accomplish as an artist." Playwright S~;;womir Mroiek attacked Grotowski even more violently:

Let's assume that Grotowski is really on fire. Unfortunately, nobody really knows what's burning there. Pray, Grotowski, why didn't you give us some specific examples? You signed yourself a theatre student but there's not even a small mention, for example, of what you're trying to accomplish in the theatre. Grotowski, you want to knock something over or go somewhere, you shake your fists at someone, but pray, tell us what, where, who.

Grotowski's response to such criticism is his "Dream of the Theatre," which appeared in Dziennik Polski on 23 February 1955. Here he developed his vision of a theatre of grand emotions:

A performance may be well acted and directed, yet the audience feels there's something missing. We must, then, thoroughly revise the very idea, style, and artistic impact of the theatre .... To us, the strength of the theatre lies in action, in the enactment of life in front of us .... Therefore we need means especially suitable for producing an emotional effect. ... I'm talking about the poetic structure of a theatre work not in isolation from, but in close connection with, the dramatic text. The theatre of grand emotions . .. requires the great romantic repertory: from Shakespeare, Mickiewicz, and Slowacki to Wyspianski, Vishnevsky, and Pogodin.

Grotowski chose Hamlet to illustrate his concept of "the theatre of grand emotions,'' which demands "courage, persistence, and hard work":

A production of Hamlet is especially suitable to emphasize, for example, "an obsessive drive to revenge leading to self-destruction." One would then play up those moments which show the protagonist motivated by his will to revenge, getting himself entangled in dangerous circumstances, and eventually becoming destroyed by his mounting "obsession." But this drama may be also staged as a psychological tragedy of a weak individual. Hamlet's philosophical deliberations would be then reduced to mere complaints of a powerless thinker.

In the theatre of grand emotions, we can use Hamlet to evoke in the audience a cult of heroic and human greatness. "There's something

r ;t -]

'i '1 :J

1 ~~ ·~ 4

~ I

I ;I

I i ;;

I

i

17 Zbigniew Osinski

rotten in the state of Denmark": the court's corruption, intrigues, hypocrisy, villainy, exploitation, and the unscrupulousness of those in power. But we can juxtapose this corruption with the young man's heroic struggle against fraud and inhumanity, challenging the sacred laws of the monarchy, family, and tradition. Hamlet sacrifices everything for his struggle, including his own life. . . . If we communicate this in our production, then we ·have accomplished our goal, and the desired grand emotions will be evoked in the spectators' hearts. The famous monologue, "To be or not to be," will not be a weak man's helpless whining but an expression of the inner struggle of a man who must decide "Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer I The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune I Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, I And by opposing end them?"-a man who discards vacillation and chooses action.

When we compose the scenic action from the point of view of grand emotions, we must abandon all real life details in Hamlet whenever they aren't absolutely necessary to evoke the emotions or to clarify the action .... Natural acting and conscious structuring of the action don't exclude one another, but are a measure of the actor's art .... The poetry of action in its emotional impact should be reinforced by music, light and color, evocative rhythm, and synthetic spatial architecture, helpful for the actor's movement. Each of these elements should be realized not naturally, "as if it will seem to be in the reality of time," but in a way which will reinforce the emotional impact of the action.

In June 1955, Grotowski graduated from the theatre school with an actor's certificate. In keeping with the regulations, he was assigned to the Stary [Old] Theatre of Krakow. The contract he received guaranteed him employment in the theatre from 1 October 1955 until 30 September 1958, but his appointment was delayed when Grotowski received a scholarship to study directing at the State Institute of Theatre Arts (GITIS) in Moscow.

Grotowski was enrolled in the GITIS directing program from 23 August 1955 until 15 June 1956. Under the supervision of Yuri Zavadsky, he directed The Mother by Jerzy Szaniawski at the Theatre Institute. He was Zavadsky's assistant in the production of Alpotov by L. G. Zorin, which opened on 27 April 1956 at the Mossoviet Theatre. He also directed productions at the Mossoviet and the Moscow Art Theatre, and he studied the techniques of Stanislavsky, Vakhtangov, Meyerhold, and Tairov.

At that time, he was especially interested in Stanislavsky. As he himself says, he already knew "the method of physical actions." When he was leaving for the Soviet Union, he was known as "a fanatic disciple of Stanislavsky." But it was precisely this fanaticism that distinguished Grotowski from his fellow students.


Following the current fad and the official directive, they also claimed to be "disciples of Stanislavsky," but their commitment was to be questioned. Grotowski was different. To him, the Stanislavsky method was a serious matter and he wanted to know it thoroughly. He went to Moscow to study the method at its source. But his stay brought more than he'd hoped for. He discovered Meyerhold. He studied his legacy, especially the documentation of Meyerhold's production of The Inspector General, and he left Moscow fascinated by what he'd found. But in this confrontation with Meyerhold, Grotowski did not lose interest in Stanislavsky. To him, Stanislavsky now appeared more multi-dimensional than before. It was probably then that Grotowski finally accepted Stanislavsky as a role model.

In the summer of 1956, Grotowski went on a two-month trip to Central Asia, his first direct contact with the East. Several years later, he wrote:

During my expeditions in Central Asia in 1956, between an old Turkmenian town Ashkhabad and the western range of the Hindu Kush Mountains , I met an old Afghan named Abdullah who performed for me a pantomime "of the whole world," which had been a tradition in his family. Encouraged by my enthusiasm, he told me a myth about the pantomime as a metaphor for "the whole world ." The pantomime is like the world at large, and the world at large is like the pantomime. It occurred to me then that I'm listening to my own thoughts. Nature-changeable, moveable, but permanently unique at the same time-has always been embodied in my imagination as the dancing mime, unique and universal, hiding under the glittering of multiple gestures, colors, and the grimace of life. (Ekran [1959])

Grotowski returned to Poland in late summer 1956 and was accepted as a fifth-year student in the directing program at the Theatre School inKrak6w. He also received an assistantship at this time and served as assistant director for a production of Anouilh's Antigone, directed by ]erzy Kaliszewski, which opened on 12 January 1957 at the Theatre of Poetry.

In Poland, the years 1956 and 1957 were a period of radical political change [particularly in the development of a massive anti-Stalinist movement], and the main drama was taking place outside the theatre. Although the Polish Youth Union was still in existence, other youth organizations emerged in 1956: the Revolutionary Union of Youth (RZM) and . the Union of Working Youth (ZMR). In preparation for a congress, which would unite both organizations, the National Center was set up with Grotowski, a RZM or.ganizer, serving as vice chairman. But the congress never took place. In early 1957, the Polish Youth Union was dissolved. Left-oriented, [anti-Stalinist] youth activists then joined the Provisional Central Committee of the Union of Socialist Youth, with Grotowski as one of the members of its governi~gbody, the Secretariat.

19 Zbigniew Osinski

Thus, out of the fusion of RZM and ZMR, a new organization, the Union of Socialist Youth (ZMS) was founded.

During the second plenary session of ZMS in January 1957, Grotowski was among those who withdrew from the Secretariat because of differences of opinion. As Pawel Dubiel, Jr. reports in an article published in April 1957 in Co dalej? (What Next?):

In the second general meeting, Grotowski gave a speech. In his proposal he suggested that ZMS be restored to the anti-Stalinist movement that gave it birth . . . . There was even a term, "the Grotowski line," reportedly the most radical one within the Provisional Central Committee, which was rejected by the Second Plenum. Although Grotowski probably meant well, his views support the dissident tendencies within the ZMS and thus undermine its integrity .. . . Although Grotowski, with his enthusiasm, courage, and "inflexibility" of opinion, is a likeable person, his views and attitudes must be criticized, for they are dangerous to the new Union of Socialist Youth. "The Grotowski line" is a curved line. Following this line, you cannot move ahead.

In reply to this article, Grotowski published in W alka Mlodych a statement entitled "What Else Do I Do?":

Since Pawel Dubiel, Jr., with his enthusiasm, courage, and inflexibility of opinion, is a likeable person (I would be glad to meet him in person), I am anxious to complete the list of my transgressions against the youth movement in People's Poland:

1. In accord with the struggle between generations, I castrate little old men. 2. I chew on telegraph poles to bring about anarchy. 3. Every week I add a new floor onto the Palace of Culture in Warsaw [to confuse authorities even more than they seem to be?]. 4. During my sinful expeditions at night, I greet comrades "Good Morning" in order to wreak havoc with ideology. 5. I buy out milk wholesale in order to lower the standard of

living.

When ZMS came into being, Grotowski was instrumental-in March 1957-in founding the ZMS Political Center of the Academic Left (POLA ZMS) and in developing its program. In Gazeta Krak6wska, Grotowski and Adam Ogorzalek thus explained the program of POLA ZMS:

We want an organization that will teach people to think politically, to understand their interests, to fight for bread and democracy and for


justice and truth in everyday life. We must fight for people to live like humans and to be masters of their fate. We must fight for young people's right to work, learn, and to have a career. We must fight for workers' universities, against employment of minors in hard and demanding jobs, for fair allocation of summer leaves , apartments, and bonuses, for equal rights for blue and white collar workers, for fair work standards, for the primacy of specialists. We must fight for young people to live a better and more satisfying life. We must fight for people to speak their minds without fear of being harassed. We must fight so that stupid and corrupt individuals won 't hold positions of responsibility.

In April 1957, at a congress of ZMS in Warsaw, Grotowski was among speakers in a discussion. His remarks focused on the struggle for a "a system in which civilization, democracy, and justice have a common denominator." In order for the system to become reality,

People must understand that if they don't stop pouting, join in the life of the country, and work for the common cause, then we may expect a catastrophe, bloodshed, destruction, and a takeover of despotism .. .. No one can give us bread, civilization, and freedom. We must make bread, just as we must make freedom and civilization happen. It's not true that one can hide away in one's private little world and go on living . . .. In our country, young people look forward to civilization, to a decent standard of living, to justice, to decision-making about their own lives, to technological progress. Ours is a road to civilization and freedom. (Walka Mlodych [1957])

Thus Grotowski was entering public life in Poland not so much as an artist but rather as a national-level activist of a youth organization. The experience must have been crucial for him, for even as late as 1975, he still recalled this period:

In a different time of my life, during the Polish October and the period immediately following, I wanted to be a political guru, and a very dogmatic one at that. I was so fascinated with Gandhi that I wanted to be like him. I found out that's impossible for objective reasons, and besides it would be against my nature, which is capable of fair play but cannot fully ·believe that everyone has good intentions. (Interview, A. Bonarski, Kultura [1975])

'·';!'1<:;:-

21

First Independent Works

in the Theatre

During the period between April1957 and summer 1959, Grotowski worked mainly in Krakow, carrying out his responsibilities as an assistant professor in the Theatre School, directing his first productions in repertory theatres and for, the Polish Radio Theatre, and giving public lectures on Oriental philosophy at what was called Theatre 38.

His first production was of The Chairs by lonesco, co-directed with Aleksandra Mianowska at the Theatre of Poetry (later known as the Kameralny Theatre, a studio stage of the Stary Theatre). Rehearsals began on 24 April 1957, and the play opened two months later.

The publication of the Polish translation of The Chairs in April 1957 was a significant cultural event. After years of isolation from the West, Poland was now frantically trying to catch up with Western culture. Playwrights such as Adamov, Beckett, Camus, Diirrenmatt, Genet, lonesco, and Sartre were suddenly discovered by Polish theatre artists and playgoers. Small wonder that before the premiere of The Chairs, Dziennik Polski covered one of the final rehearsals in a special story. Grotowski's co-director Aleksandra Mianowska described the underlying concept of the production:

lonesco usually includes the most important ideas at the very end, so we've tried to put special emphasis on the conclusion. There are two things which all people can communicate about. It's a longing for good and beauty, expressed here by the mute Orator with a poster saying "Angel." The other is expressed by a poster with the word "Bread."

According to reviewers, the directors were successful in conveying the play's

- --- - - - ·--- -----------


philosophy. Jozef Gruda wrote: "The invisible directors, Jerzy Grotowski and Aleksandra Mianowska, have tactfully removed themselves from the actors' path. They are absolutely right." Stefan Otwinowski called the production "an avant-garde experiment," and Olgierd J~drzejczyk spoke of the performance as a "great theatre of moral and political o.llusions." Tadeusz Kudlinski described the production as follows:

It strikes a balance between the naturalistic and non-realistic. The actors are "natural," while the unusual twists and disjunctions of action have been successfully translated into expressive lighting and music .... The play's symbolism has been carefully preserved, and it is up to the audience to interpret the symbols. Both in terms of acting and directing, there were powerful moments, but there were also weak spots .... In spite of the naturalistic acting, one senses a different plan of reality, especially in the perceptively acted scenes with invisible guests asking for empty chairs. The cast was able to evoke the invisible and to suggest non-existent relationships. (Tygodnik Powszechny [1957])

However, the production was not popular with audiences and closed after only 39 performances. [The Krakow critic] Ludwik Flaszen wrote: "Even a good production couldn't draw a crowd, not even the acting of Halina Gallow a and Jerzy Nowak-focused, technically skillful, at times perfect. Krakow hasn't seen such a flop in a long time, since the first socialist realist duds. But then theatres were giving free tickets to army battalions. Now we've got democracy, so no one can corral the audience anymore" (Przeglt;td Kulturalny [1957]).

In July 1957, Grotowski took part in the annual Jean Vilar International Youth. Festival in Avignon. It was Grotowski's first visit to France and his first encounter with Vilar. He saw three of Vilar's productions: Pirandello 's Henry IV, Beaumarchais's The Marriage of Figaro, and Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral.

Following the festival and a brief stay in Paris, Grotowski returned to Krakow. At the time he was thinking of directing a Brecht play or an adaptation of Kafka's The Trial as his master's directing project. But neither plan materialized. He either changed his mind or failed to receive the censor's approval. But his interest in works that focused on ethical problems and which attacked the imagination of the contemporary spectator remained.

In fall 1957, Grotowski's work in the POLA ZMS came to an end. Marian Stypein writes:

At first, the POLA ZMS was tolerated by the political power structure as one of the organizations born during the events of 1956. Then, together with other organizations, it became part of the ZMS. But soon its status changed from a legal and tolerated organization into one which was not accepted by the political power structure, and

23 Zbigniew Osinski

eventually it was disbanded. In fall 1957, Grotowski was called by the Krakow political authorities to justify his participation in the activities of the POLA ZMS. His explanation was accepted only partially, and he was later criticized and attacked for his association with the organization. But at the time Grotowski had a new field of activity and a different passion. (Letter to author [1976])

On 14 December 1957, Dziennik Polski reported that the Student Club "Pod Jaszczurami" was sponsoring a series of Sunday lectures on Eastern philosophy presented by Jerzy Grotowski. Announcements about the lectures were posted throughout the city. The lectures were organized into two series: "On the Foundations of Hindu Philosophy," scheduled for the period between 15 December and 26 January, and "The Philosophical Thought of the Orient," scheduled for the period between 30 March and 1 June. The lectures always took place at Theatre 38, next to the "Pod Jaszczurami Club," and were all very well attended.

The first series included seven lectures: 15 December, "Basic Systems of Hindu Philosophy" 22 December, "Philosophy of Buddha" 29 December, "Philosophic Systems of Buddhism" 5 January, "Philosophy of Yoga" 12 January, "Philosophy of Upanishad, the System of Siankara" 17 January, "Philosophy of Upanishad, the System of

Ramanudja" 26 January, "Contemporary Schools"

The second series included nine lectures: 30 March, "Basic Trends of Chinese Philosophy" 4 April, "Basic Trends in Japanese Philosophy" 13 April, "Confucius" 20 April, "Taoism (general characteristics)" 27 April, "Taoism (Lao-Tse, Chuang-tse, Lie-tse)" 11 May, "Zen-Buddhism" 18 May, "Basic Trends in Indian Philosophy" 25 May, "Philosophy of Advaita-Vedanta" I June, "European Analogues"

During the season 1957 I 1958, Grotowski took part in Emil Frantisek Burian's theatre seminar in Prague and Karlovy Vary. He also directed two theatre productions, The Woman is a Devil by Prosper Merimee and Gods of Rain, based on a play by Jerzy Krzyszton. In addition, he directed three radio plays: The White Elephant, an adaptation of Mark Twain's short story; Sakuntala, based on the dramatic poem by Kalidasa; and a play entitled Marriage. For


his production of Sakuntala, Grotowski received an honorable mention in a 1958 annual competition for radio and television productions.

The production of Merimee's The Woman is a Devil was Grotowski's master's project at the Theatre School, and he directed it as part of.his teaching duties. The play was performed by a quartet of actors against a backdrop of black curtains. The costumes were limited to black sweaters and street clothes. A stu::lent at the Krakow Music Academy, Aviles-Villegas Librado of Mexico, provided guitar accompaniment. The entire set consisted of four classroom desks ~nd a colorful poster upstage saying "Kill Rats."

Gods of Rain opened on 4 July at the Kameralny Theatre. It was based on (rzyszton's play, The Ill-Fated Family. Beginning with this production through :he final version of The Constant Prince in 1968, all of Grotowski's works were to Je simply based on [or "after"] plays rather than being faithful renditions of the >riginal scripts.

In the production of Gods of Rain, Grotowski used poems by Andrzej Bursa, ~ohdan Drozdowski, and T adeusz R6iewicz; quotations from Shakespeare's 'lays, including a Hamlet monologue; and newspaper stories by Jerzy Lovell nd Stanislaw Manturzewski. A filmed prologue was built from scenes in -adeusz Makarczynski's experimental film titled Life Is Beautiful plus other film Jotage including newsreels. Konrad Eberhardt wrote:

Grotowski threw himself on the Krzysztor'l script aggressively, cut it apart, and adapted it for his purposes. Small wonder that the program notes for the production carry this epigraph from Meyer hold: "To choose a play does not necessarily mean to share the playwright's views." Grotowski strove to transform this fairly traditional, small-cast play without excessive intellectual overloading into a more universal statement about the younger generation, modeled on the work of Piscator. (Ekran [1958])

Critic ]erzy Falkowski said of the performance:

One senses a gap between the plot and the mise-en-scene, which was probably not intended by the director. At times it is like shooting a fly with a cannon. (Wsp61czesnosc [1958])

fhe playwright Krzysztor'l [many years later] himself observed:

Grotowski staged this good-natured, realistic comedy, which preserves the three unities and deals with the ill-fated love of two very immature young people as an attack against the ills of the century, as a manifesto, a morality play, and a warning. (Teatr [1973])

\s author of the adaptation and director of the orodurtinn Grntr"mJ...; ;~

-~

25 Zbigniew Osinski

traduced a number of alterations. He used a stage divided into three performing areas. The central area, called "the action of the play," was the scene of events from Krzyszton's drama. One side area, called "the problem analysis," was used for more universal statements. The third area became "a tower of longing," and was used for intimate reflections . The actors performed in masks. Grotowski explained: "The dramatist wrote a play about young people who dress like you, whose faces resemble yours. But the theatre has chang-ed the actors' faces into the faces of clowns in search of the meaning of existence, clowns moving in a vacuum between game-playing and difficult experience" (Program notes [ 1958]).

Reviewers pointed out that although Krzyszton's original script was quite weak, Grotowski in developing the performance displayed erudition and inventiveness together with a knowledge of avant-garde theatre techniques and great skill and versatility in reconciling seemingly discordant elements. Reviewers noted Grotowski's indebtedness to Meyerhold, Vakhtangov, and Piscator and called the production a belated example of constructivism. Gods of Rain was performed 47 times, and on 2 October at the Krak6w Journalists Club there was a public discussion of the production.

Grotowski started the 1958/ 1959 season with a work he titled The Ill-Fated, still another version of Krzyszton's The Ill -Fated Family, at the Theatre of 13 Rows in Opole. In an interview for Trybuna Opolska, Grotowski said: "I believe that a dramatic script should provide only a theme for the director who will use it as the basis for a new, independent work, a theatre production." This time Grotowski interwove the Krzyszton script with fragments of memoirs by Algerian journalist Henri Alleg. Titled Tortures, Alleg's memoirs are set during the war between France and Algeria. Each act of The Ill-Fated began with a reading of different fragments from Alleg's reminiscences of his tortures in prison.

The opening night was followed by a heated discussion of the production. Summing up the debate, Grotowski gave an extensive presentation of the chief cornerstones of modern art and said that "in spite of very valuable criticism, if he were to direct The Ill-Fated again, he would do it the same way." In response, "several people hissed . . . and someone with connections and position said that this is an example of arrogance and a rejection of criticism by the masses" Q. Falkowski, Wspolczesnosc [1958]) .

The program notes for The Ill-Fated included Grotowski's statement titled "Theatre and the Grail," which read in part:

My theatre does not bow down when the audience is kind enough to

applaud. In my theatre, emotions are not artificial, tears are not faked, and pathos is not pitiful because they serve a purpose-they show, to

quote Hamlet, "the very age and body of the time his form and pressure." ... Man is full of anxiety and fear. He knows that he will pass away, and he does not want to know that he will pass away. He


knows his weaknesses. He is victimizer and victim. But faced with time, he is alone .... Man searches for the Grail, a chalice molded out of infinity, which delivers man from weakness and death.

A week after the opening night of The Ill-Fated, the literary magazine Wsp61-czesnosc printed an interview with Grotowski by Jerzy Falkowski. The interview was introduced by the following statement by Wtadyslaw Krzeminski, dean of the Directing Program at the Krak6w Theatre School and director of the Stary

· Theatre of Krak6w:

]erzy Grotowski's skill and intuition as a director reveal a major artistic talent. Not without solid reason do theatre artists see in him someone capable of highly innovative work on stage and with the actor. This young man is a director/philosopher, fond of synthesis and aggressive means of expression, but he uses them not to conform to a new fad but to infuse the audience with his own socially passionate and intellectually fascinating attitudes on life. I, his professor, wish him success and believe in his success.

Falkowski characterized Grotowski as follows:

Jerzy Grotowski is a very impatient and aggressive director. He is aggressive towards the audience, attacking it with the Brechtian temperament of a theatre agitator and ignoring its artistic preferences straight from the nineteenth-century drama or pseudo-experimentation. He is aggressive toward the play he is working on, tearing it apart, stitching it together, touching it up, transposing, supplementing, etc .... Grotowski wants to say a great deal in the theatre .... He is impatient, he is in a rush, he wants to show as much as possible in every production. (He perhaps even talks too much at times, and he occasionally overdoes it when he strives to apply additional philosophical meanings.) The two versions he has done of the Krzysztor'li play were perhaps the first attempts to quench his anxiety by making a statement in the theatre about the generations. These two productions have revealed the wealth of creative inventiveness in this youngest of Polish directors as well as his talent in utilizing all means of expression in the modern theatre and in his mature work with the actor.

n the interview, Grotowski said:

I have chosen the artistic profession because I realized quite early that I am being haunted by a certain "thematic concern," a certain "leading

r~

27 Zbigniew Osinski

motif," and a desire to reveal that "concern" and present it to other people .... I am haunted by the problem of human loneliness and the inevitability of death. But a human being (and here begins my "leading motif') is capable of acting against one's own loneliness and death. If one involves oneself in problems outside narrow spheres of interests, ... if one recognizes the union of man and nature, if one is aware of the indivisible unity of nature and finds one's identity within it, ... then one attains an essential degree of liberation.

Grotowski also said that dramatic works of great playwrights "are a suitable material for inventive adaptations in the theatre," for in contrast to mediocre plays they offer "an excellent and unique basis for the director's mise-en-scene." Moreover, he said:

In my artistic explorations, I intend to fight against "creating moods" on stage and against real-life imitations which carry no meaning. I will fight against emotionalism on stage and in the audience, if it does not serve our understanding. The acting convention (or several conventions within a single production), the use of performance space, the sets and props-all these, apart from real-life and situational functions, should also- serve a purely theatrical function.

He also warned:

I have never chosen a permanent artistic "program," calculated in advance in cold blood. I do not intend to stick to any ready-made theories. I am a young director. Life and the work of others are my teachers.

In early 1959, Grotowski was in Paris. He met Marcel Marceau, whose art left a great impression on him. He even wrote an essay on Marceau. He would not be himself, however, if he did not smuggle into the essay his artistic credo: "Modern man, placed by science in a cosmos without heaven, gods, and demons ... can find some hope, psychologically rooted in the unity and immortality of nature" (Ekran [1959]).

On 14 March 1959, Grotowski's production of Uncle Vanya opened at the Kameralny Theatre in Krakow. His article in the program notes and especially the promptbook indicate that Grotowski did extensive research in preparation for the production. He definitely cut himself off from the Chekhovian tradition of evoking "Russian life and manners during the second half of the nineteenth century," "mood," or "the poetry of little details." The production confronted two opposing attitudes:


The first attitude is of someone who is shielded by convention · · alienated from nature and society, a paranoic closing himself off in~ circle of myths and patterns artificial and contrary to biological and social norms .... The second attitude is of someone who seeks spontaneous values and norms, who accepts work as a chance to join society consciously and thus the continuum of life. (Program notes [1959])

These two attitudes were reflected in the production by two different performance areas, "construction" and "nature." Each of the characters was ascribed to one or the other. Serebriakoff, Elena, and Mme. Voinitskaya belonged to the first, while Astroff, Vanya, Sonia, the Nurse and Telegin belonged to the second. "The conflict between 'nature' and 'construction,'!' wrote "between those who 'participate in nature' and 'help create it' and those who, alienated and lifeless, poison themselves and others-this opposition is the leading conflict in the production." Grotowski used a revolving stage with two settings representing nature on the one hand and construction on the other. Costumes were "an imitation of present-day dress." As in the earlier productions of Krzyszton's play, Grotowski's intention was to render the play's meaning universal.

The action was set between the two planes, with the characters moving back and forth between them. According to the promptbook, the setting should be non-realistic but not abstract. "There is no room for a drama of 'garrulous intellectuals' or 'provincial Russian Hamlets,'" wrote Grotowski. Instead, "there is room for the 'provinces,' cruel, devouring people's strength, sad and dirty .... Thus Astroff is a man worthy of respect, who fights and carries out his responsibilities to other people, loves the forest, and sees light in the abyss of night. At the end, Vanya will not be, as tradition has it, a beaten dog who revolts but then goes back to his muzzle."

This interpretation of Uncle Vanya was used by Grotowski to support his views on the relationship between a playtext and a theatre production: "The creative theatre ... neither cuts itself off from drama nor negates it. It does not want merely to illustrate the dramatic text mechanically and slavishly. The theatre wants to be a creative art using dramatic theme as its basis."

Grotowski's Uncle Vanya met with a very cool reception and was largely considered a failure. Henryk Vogler, one of few critics who at least partially accepted the production, wrote:

When the curtain rises, we see a set designed by Julitta Fedorowicz, which has absolutely nothing to do with the traditional poetics of Chekhov's theatre. We see a world created by a rational imagination ... a world of rolling lines precisely describing the dimensions of the visible. The subtle and delicate yet clear and precise delineation of reality by the set design reflects a modern, intellectual imagination.

29 Zbigniew Osinski

This set design is something more than merely an abstract arrangement of forms. Seemingly nonrepresentational, it succeeds in conveying the synthesis of the woods, the garden, the trees .. . . We are in a pure and aloof world of ideas .... Grotowski presents conflicts of ideas, not conflicts among people. In this closed world, structured with almost mathematical precision, there takes place an intellectual discussion, not a moving drama. Astroff, Serebriakoff, Sonia, and others are above all spokesmen for specific worldviews. The whole wealth of petty naturalistic detail of gesture and situation, the poetics of the mundane, the "tea drinking" or "guitar strumming" have been replaced by rhythmical stage arrangements. . . . The sentimental "laughter through tears" has been changed into a modern grotesque .... It is a theatre of rational analysis, a theatre without fake moods and sentimental tear-jerking. It is an anti-romantic theatre of the twentieth century. (Dziennik Polski [1959])

According to Zygmunt Gren, Grotowki's Uncle Vanya was "artificial and naive. It deprived Chekhov's bitter drama of all meaning ... . The structure of the play was turned upside down by the arrogant director . ... The actors were required to perform impossible and nonsensical tasks." (Zycie Literackie [1959]).

Defending Chekhov's play against Grotowski's interpretation, critic Ludwik Flaszen wrote:

Grotowski strove to show Chekhov our contemporary, who could speak to the audience directly, without the costumes of time and place. Hence Grotowski got rid of-whenever possible-all Russian local color and stressed instead universal values. He toned down-whenever possible-the period characteristics and thus emphasized the timeless nature of the play. Thus he secured the first stipulation of the truly modern theatre: a non-realistic form which is not a literal imitation of life.

Moreover, since only high spheres of reason, rather than temperament, emotions, or perceptions have a truly universal character, Grotowski stripped the Chekhovian characters of their emotional charm and lyricism. Thus he achieved the second condition for the modern theatre: a rational discipline of thought, alien to all emotionalism and psychological acting. In other words, the protagonists are not characters. Rather they are carriers of pure extracts of human attitudes to life; they are the very essence of thought. And thus Astroff directly addresses the audience, lecturing in all seriousness on the advantages of forestation. Was the Society for the Protection of Nature behind the whole thing? And Uncle Vanya comes to the conclusion that only work makes life meaningful. ... Grotowski is mainly con-


cerned with a clash of ideas, and he sees his Vanya almost pathetically, as a sublime rebel. .. .

Grotowski's Chekhov is non-realistic, disciplined, and intellectual. He got rid of the naturalistic detail and toned down the moods and emotionalism, and thus his Chekhov is no longer a modernist explorer of souls but rather a young village teacher from the positivist era.

The Krakow Uncle Vanya lacks only one virtue from the "modern" code, that is, distance and a simple sense of humor. Let's get rid of this! Let's get rid of that! ... People are thinking here! ... 1 was rushed by the director to the high sphere of pure intellect, but I wished there had been more guitar strumming, moonshine, and soul searching. Chekhov should be played the way it ought to be played, or it mustn't be played at all. (Echo Krakowa [1959])

During his Krakow period, Grotowski published several articles [in Tribune lnternationale (1959), Wsp6lczesnosc (1959), Dziennik Polski (1959), etc.]: "Theatre and the Cosmic Man," "On the Theatre of the Future," "The Death and Reincarnation of the Theatre," "What is Theatre?," "Good or Bad: On Theatre Schools." In "Theatre and the Cosmic Man," he discussed "the simultaneous death and triumph" of the theatre. In its present form, the theatre is doomed to die, for it is no match for film or television. The theatre can survive only as an art born of immediacy:

At its best, the art of mise-en-scene has partially freed the theatre from the form of docudrama. Possibly not quite intentionally it has provided a chance for the theatre to become a place of direct contact between artists and spectators, where the attention, thought, and will of the participants are united in a communal "plunge" into existential problems of human fate, interpersonal connections, and the relationship of man to Cosmos in order to find a seed of hope .... The transition from contemporary anachronistic theatre of the present, theatre as "an art of the stage," to the theatre of the future is ... a gradual metamorphosis of the performance whose role as a "show" (actors showing an action to spectators) will diminish, while its role as a "dialogue" between the stage and the audience will increase.

In "Death and Reincarnation of the Theatre," Grotowski again talks about 1e death of theatre in its present form. The mise-en-scene, relying on the resence of live people on each side of the footlights, he says, may consciously :ad to a direct contact between them:

The trump card for the theatre, its last chance and the basic premise of the "theatre of the future," or thf' "n...,-~ho~-~ " ' - . .1 -

31 Zbigniew Osinski

direct contact, togetherness, and dialogue between the stage and the audience. This possibility, which is inherent only in the theatre, can produce the "neo-theatre." ... The "neo-theatre" will stop being theatre in the present meaning of the word. It will become a new branch of the arts.

In "Good or Bad," Grotowski points to the weaknesses of Polish theatre schools: their alienation from their specific audience, their graduates' decreasing sense of artistic responsibility, the uneven quality existing among students. He recommends a master / disciple system and the institution of research and developmental programs in theatre schools. The goal should be "to carry on research into applied aesthetics (trends, methods, theories, styles, and formal developments in theatres past and present) and applied psychology (psychodynamics of the actor's work and audience psychology)." In the same article, Grotowski explains his understanding of "artistic responsibility":

The theatre is more than a place where one earns one's living .... Moreover, one cannot accept the theatre as it is but as it should be.

With some exaggeration one might say that the eventual form and nature of the Polish Laboratory Theatre were shaped during Grotowski's early years of exploration.

36

Towards a Poor Theatre

Opole 1959 .. 1964

The 1959/1960 Season

When authorities in Opole contacted Ludwik Flaszen (b. 4 June 1930 in Krakow) in early spring 1959 with the proposal that he take over the Theatre of 13 Rows, that theatre was in a hopeless state. Flaszen at the time was a highly respected theatre and literary critic, author of the famous book Head and Wall, and had in 195411955 served as literary director of the Slowacki Theatre in Krakow." Flaszen believed that the Theatre of 13 Rows should be run by a fledgling director and thus offered the job to Grotowski. The two men quickly found much upon which to agree: they were both bored with the present state of theatre in Poland, and they both sensed that theatre as an art form trailed distantly behind other artistic disciplines, especially poetry and the plastic arts.

By the end of May and early June 1959, Flaszen, Grotowski, and representatives of the artistic community in Opole had defined the new operation with some specificity. Grotowski proposed the following repertoire for the 1959/1960 season: Cocteau's Orpheus, Mayakovsky's Mystery-Bouffe, Byron's Cain, Eliot's The Cocktail Party, Kalidasa's Sakuntala, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Kurczyna's Vice-King and Plush Couches. Of the group, only The Cocktail Party was opposed by the Central Administration of Theatres. There also would be a tour of larger Polish cities such as Krakow, Lodz, Warsaw, and Wrodaw. Grotowski said that in order for the theatre to function efficiently, he would need a number of full-time positions fol"actors, a literary director, a free hand in choosing the repertoire and members of the company, a steady income, and an operating budget that would enable the group to work without constant surprises. He got everything he requested. While the existing name of the opera-

,., .. :; ...

37 Zbigniew Osinski

tion-the Theatre of 13 Rows-would be retained temporarily, it was understood that the newcomers from Krakow were creating an entirely new enterprise-a professional research theatre . Grotowski became the artistic director, Flaszen the literary director.

An article by Boiena Zag6rska appearing on 29 July in Echo Kmkotl'a named the members of the troupe: Malgorzata Darecka from the Slowacki Theatre; Antoni Jaholkowski from the V ariety Theatre; as well as Irena Mirecka, Tadeusz Batkowiak, Barbara Kurzej6wna-Barska, and Stanislaw Szreniawski (all graduates of the Theatre School in Krakow). ]erzy ]elenski of Krakow

/ would be the first scenic designer, but other scenographers from Krakow would be invited in future. As it turned out, Darecka did not become a member of the group, and Adam Kurczyna (the only member to remain from the previous Theatre of 13 Rows) and Zygmunt Molik were not mentioned.

Zag6rska's article also stated the following:

The theatre in Opole is to be the only pro(essional experimental theatre in Poland, and it is being formed under the auspices of artists' unions in Opole. The founders of the theatre assume that the group will stage only premiere performances and modern interpretations of traditional plays. The aim of the repertoire is to open a progressive dialogue with the public concerning basic philosophical and moral questions .... The theatre is to become an active and fiery cultural kiln. There will be art exhibits in the lobby. The first will feature the works of Mikulski and Mroz. In the programs in addition to the usual information about the production, there will be controversial essays by theatre critics from all over Poland.

When the above article appeared in Echo Krakowa, Grotowski was traveling through Greece, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt, so his open letter of response did not appear until 2 September. In his letter Grotowski said that the reorganization of the Theatre of 13 Rows did indeed constitute the creation of a new theatre. This admission drew an avalanche of press response. Some questioned the wisdom of creating a professional experimental theatre; others called Grotowski "irresponsible," "a charlatan," "a mystifier," "blackmailer," "an artistic impotent," and "a person with a distorted sense of proportion and balance." Some, however, came to his defense. The most prophetic of these turned out to be Falkowski:

The initiated claim that Grotowski considers himself an apostle. A s'mall number of zealots claim he is an apostle. It seems that the Theatre of 13 Rows will augur a world revolution on the stage .... Then Opole will advance to the rank of Stratford or Avignon and a plaque will be hung to commemorate Grotowski. (Wsp6fczesnosc [1959])


Cocteau's Orpheus opened on 8 October 1959. Grotowski treated the text as a springboard for a debate both with Cocteau and with the audience. The dual rhythm of the performance drew attention to itself: grotesque sequences alternated with very serious moments. In general, the production was treated as an announcement of the theatre's intentions. Reviewers received the production generally well though cautiously. ]6zef Kelera wrote:

It is worthwhile (and probably inevitable) to debate with Grotowski. We already know that the trust he has had on credit is justified and that it should be extended for as long as it takes to build this new and difficult edifice. I agree to endorse this undertaking, though with limited responsibility. (Odra [1959])

Henryk Vogler, however, accused Grotowski of disregarding the poetry of Cocteau's original and found a certain finesse lacking in the presentation. The reason, he suggested, was in the directorial personality of Grotowski himself:

It is the director's rapacity, his quick and greedy devouring of the most delicate fabric of the work. He evidences a dislike of circling, bypassing, and balancing a text that is carefully wrought from the most contradictory elements. Instead of a careful approach, we have a stubborn plowing through the text, a ruthless haste to make a statement immediately, loudly, and once and for all. This is rape with no tender foreplay. (Zycie Literackie [1959])

Two weeks after the premiere of Orpheus, Echo Krakowa printed an interview with Grotowski and Flaszen. The unique character of the troupe and the quest for new forms of communication between those on stage and those in the audience were points emphasized in the interview:

It seems, said Grotowski, that we have the smallest troupe in Poland: nine people, and, of that, two women. It is a pleasure to say that the actors work with great seriousness of purpose and personal sacrifice .... The originality of our theatre is that we are a stage without a prompter; we do no sitting rehearsals, only situational ones; and our budget is one-tenth the sum needed by your average theatre ... . We do not choose to focus on the "absurdity of life." We see and want to find some hope. In the language of theatre, that hope lies somewhere between two extremes of reality-the tragic and the grotesque. Such an attitude demands that texts be adapted.

Many initiatives were undertaken to gain the support of audiences: meetings, poetry readings, and public discussions of the repertoire. In November, the

39 Zbigniew Osinski

Theatre of 13 Rows performed Orpheus thirteen times in Poznan, the first of the group's many forays into various Polish cities. Most important in this period, however, were the rehearsals for Byron's Cain, the premiere of which occurred on 30 January 1960. This was the first Polish production of the play, and Grotowski explained his interest in this way: "I came across the text accidentally, and it interested me because it was as if the whole world and the entire life of mankind were contained in it. It was like Forefathers Eve or Faust" (Quoted in B. Taborksi, Byron and the Theatre [1972]).

There was no curtain on the stage but only an altar facing the audience and set up like a triptych of monstrous organic forms on the order of Bosch. The relationship of the stage to the audience had a ritual character, except that conventional cult forms and cult ethics were reduced· to absurdity in the production. God's place was taken by Alpha, the personification of the elements and the powers of nature. Lucifer's place was represented by Omega, the personification of reason and the uneasiness of the human consciousness. In the story of Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel, the production mocked the shallowness of those who have not gained the maturity necessary to have doubts about their views of the world. These Were typical philistines, content with their lot: Adam and Eve did trivial musical numbers that were a parody of a bourgeois cabaret; Abel was a dull but ruthless boy of the Hitler youth type. Byron's poetry was treated variously: sometimes fragments were handled seriously; at other times they were parodied; sometimes the text was sung like an operatic aria; occasionally the rhythm was suppressed entirely to sound like ordinary speech. At times there were fights with tennis racquets or hand wrestling or even boxing. The atmosphere was pugnacious, physical, and the form of the performance kept changing from tragic to grotesque, from seriousness to derision. Cain was always in the forefront: a modern young man seeking the meaning of life but treated both grotesquely and tragically.

The final act was an ecstatic dance honoring "the world of unity." Alpha turned out to be Omega, and everyone then put on Alpha-Omega masks. Grotowski's Cain was called a "philosophical cabaret":

Practically all known theatrical media can be seen in this production. Philosophical discussion passes into derision; . . . the demonic becomes a circus; tragic horror changes into a cabaret; and lyricism transforms into clowning and triviality. In addition there is caricature, parody, satire, opera, pantomime, and ballet. Not to mention the flippant attitude toward the text .... There were constant shifts in the acting; a thousand ideas; aggressive and deafening music; and a loudspeaker speaking for the actor on stage. An actor would appear in the audience, speak to the public, and improvise during scene changes. A real tower of Babel and mixing of tongues. The setting matched the production except that it also suggested a certain symbolic surrealism


and wanton humor. (T. Kudlinski, Dziennik Polski [1960])

Cain was based on rich visual elements and n!chnico-theatrical tricks than on the craft of the actor. It was, as Grotowski said later, more an aimed against the conventional theatre than the statement of a new program. But this was significant later on. There were elements afloat in which later surfaced as pure tragedy, as attitudes toward the rebel-hero, for ample. How should he be treated, grotesquely or seriously? Cain did not plot structure. It was closer to montage, in which each scene was a unit ed to produce a given effect. Critics saw Grotowski as creating his p with the passion of a strategist, as someone who plans and organizes the reaction in the auditorium.

After the series of performances in Opole, the Theatre of 13 Rows went tour with the productions of both Orpheus and Cain: to Katowice, Kr and Warsaw. The tour produced much critical response, much of it extre negative. Maria Kosinska in Zycie Warszawy said: "There is probably a p somewhere where real theatre and genuine art count. But not in the Theatre 13 Rows." ]erzy Zagorski in Kurier Polski wrote: "Unfortunately their complishments tend to move in the direction of technical amateurism. If o wanted to give them some good advice, it would be: perfect the acting." Eberhardt in Ekran found Grotowski a director with too much faith theatre and too little faith in the playwright:

It is impossible to invest such great trust and independence in theatre: the director is always dependent on the individuality of author, the creator of the text. . . . The theatre about Grotowski dreams will be a myth as long as the author is not creator of the spectacle itself. Otherwise, a compromise between imagination of the theatre and the imagination of the writer is evitable. . . . That is why Grotowski's directorial successes Ionesco's The Chairs and Cocteau's Orpheus, while his flops are Chekhov's Uncle Vanya and Byron's Cain. The successful productions were undoubtedly determined by the convergence of theatrical and literary language. This is worth remembering.

Zofia Jasinska's article, "The Young Seek" in Wit:i contained an analysis both productions, perhaps the most thorough discussion of the work of t Theatre of 13 rows to that point:

Cain is definitely the more interesting production. Why? The acting had nothing to do with it, because the acting was pretty much the same in both productions. This theatre is "upheld" by the ideas of director, not by the acting, which still seems quite raw and un-

41 Zbigniew Osinski

distinguished. This is partly owing to the youth of the troupe .... Cain is a hard nut to crack, so the struggle with it demands great toil, creative intelligence, and innovation. This struggle enhanced the total production. Even in artistic rebellion, theatre is always the slave of a literary text. ... In spite of everything, Grotowski the artist is more eloquent than Grotowski (and Flaszen) the theoretician. But in the end, Byron emerges as victor, because it is his word that raises a creative, intellectual restlessness.

On 11 April, directly after the ~Jerformances in Warsaw, there was a discusof this very subject in the editorial offices of Dialog. Flaszen, Andrzej

and Krzysztof Teodor Toeplitz were invited. The editorial board was -~~~PcPntPr1 by Konstanty Puzyna and Adam Tarn.

Flaszen: Grotowski emphasizes the staging means and acting style rather than the plastic arts.

Puzyna: I am afraid that our theatres have been ossifying of late, and that they have been duplicating their initial performances. Experiment changes into pattern or into a prescription for experimentation;

Tarn: Ultimately, if an experiment does not work, one must draw certain conclusions. If a chemist in a laboratory ended every experiment with an explosion, but insisted that theoretically he was right, he would be reasoning like our colleague, Flaszen, whose failures in the Theatre of 13 Rows convince him of nothing. The productions, however, are proof that there is something wrong here, either in principle or in the realization of that principle, and something should be done about it.

I have included these remarks not only as documentation but also to question the unequivocally negative reaction to the first performances of Grotowski's and Flaszen's troupe in the capital. Grotowski himself has the following memories of that period:

I remember when we were in Warsaw in 1960 and there was that terrific press campaign unleashed against us. It was then that I received a letter from the Byrskis [Here Grotowski refers to T adeusz and Irena Byrski, former actors with the famous Reduta company of Juliusz Osterwa of a generation earlier. It was this company upon which Grotowski at least partially modeled his own.] (I did not know them at the time), who wrote: "Don't be afraid and don't give up. People will laugh at you. When someone does something original for the first time, others burst with laughter." Very important words. For years


they have followed everything we've done .... It is said more or less openly but it is always the same: fraud, charlatan. They say: you, my friend, know how to arrange things wonderfully because you are a magician and a charlatan.

When we were a small troupe living in the countryside, far from big cities, in the small town of Opole, our more successful colleagues from those large cities snickered and poked fun at us. They called our theatre a fraud and accused us of trying to oppose ourselves to all of theatrical life in Poland. We heard that nothing would come of it and that it would be over in one season. A lot of effort was put into closing us down after one or two seasons. (Odra [1972])

In January, Grotowski was in rehearsals for a production of Goethe's Faust at the Polski Theatre in Poznan . The premiere took place on 13 April and was the only work directed by Grotowski away from the Theatre of 13 Rows and its troupe after the founding of the group. He prepared the production in collaboration with the outstanding painter Piotr Potworowski. The man-shaman interested Grotowski as someone who sells his soul to demonic powers in exchange for full knowledge and a full life. The interior of a steel structure representing the earth was an egg-shaped form in which, on a moveable platform, sat old Faust playing with a cybernetic turtle. Faust spoke of his disappointment at the dose of his life in Goethe's classical lines. Mephisto, essentially the alter-ego of the protagonist, promises new horizons through a regaining of Faust's lost youth and its emotional vitality. The agreement of the two is handled in a very material and commercial manner. Margaret was a red-haired girl in a fashionable skirt, and Martha was an aged vamp. In the final act, Faust, in keeping with the text, set about draining the swamps, producing a future free earth for future free people. This deed, however, was undermined by Faust's blindness and death . He dies uneasily, yet finding some solace in his final Dionysian vision. His last words, taken from fragments of Faust and Goethe's Legate, express the Dionysian perspective and his view of death as an inevitable link in the life process:

Time has passed. "Has passed." What stupid words .... And so the harvest of ripened, perfect grapes is done. The juice is mixed in rolling foam Dionysus has cast off his robes and empties the old skins To fill them with new wine .... Nothingness will conquer nothing .... Dionysus!

These words are the "essence" of Grotowski's Faust. The production in Poznan took on the character of a provocation. Maria

43 Zbigniew Osii

Kofta wrote:

I will examine Grotowski's performance in its objective effects: radical unhistoricization of the costumes, intellectual brevity, loadi the Goethe text with contemporary philosophical problems (Fret existentialism), and the elimination of mythology from the heavens. this production of Faust, the director wants to wrench Goethe out his time and place. Grotowski wants Goethe to be alive today and p( tinent to the youngteneration whose restlessness was born amidst tl disintegration of th~ postwar world .... The text is recited artificiall recited rather than played, which in the end begins to weary the a dience member. Theatrical execution takes first place over the plot , the drama and over the acting .... But in spite of the cracks in d vessels of Goethe's drama, the performance fascinates and keeps or in suspense. (Nowa Kultura [1960))

Jerzy Kmita accused the production of irrationalism, of lacking faith science and optimism:

In Grotowski's Faust, Wagner practically crawls across the stage like : reptile. And it is precisely the Wagners and not the Fausts who hav created the modern science that gives humanity power over nature Grotowski is asking: So who is right? The lofty individualist, the "superman" carrying out experiments for his own murky and irra tiona! ends? The modern world has had enough Fausts, enough vi sionaries battling common sense. It is such people who are responsiblt for almost all mankind's unhappiness .... Modern times are becom· ing more and more the times of the Wagners not the Fausts, and this is what allows us to be optimistic. Commonsensical workers and soundly thinking professionals have more and more to say. The modern is the victory of Wagner over Faust. (Togodnik Zachodni [1960))

Meanwhile in Opole, some performances had to be cancelled for lack of an audience. A performance took place whenever a dozen or so people showed up, and often a performance took place for even two or three people. In May an organization called Friends of the Theatre of 13 Rows was formed, consisting of about eighty people who chose ]6zef Szajna as their honorary chairman. The organization and the directors of the theatre decided to begin a series of discussion meetings. Seminars were held every two weeks and were devoted to discussing the theatre's artistic program in the light of modern theatrical problems. The very existence of this group of Friends and the seminars that developed were factors positively contributing to sustaining the work of the performers as well as fostering the theatrical education of the audience.


The final production of the first season, Mayakovsky's Mystery Bouffe, opened on 31 July. Mayakovsky's dramaturgy and Meyerhold's theatre, which was associated with that dramaturgy, were close to what Grotowski and his group were then seeking. The script and direction were Grotowski's and the scenography by "Hieronymous Bosch in collaboration with Wincenty Maszkowski."

Mystery Bouffe joined elements of two of Mayakovsky's texts: Mystery Bouffe and The Bath House, with the latter dominating. Also included in the prologue and epilogue were authentic fragments of Polish medieval mystery plays. The production was a scathing polemic on the meaning and form of art that occurs in conditions inundated by petty bourgeois tastes pretending to be official ones. A jeering tone and a demonic humor pervaded. Mystery Bouffe thus was a production openly waging battle. Kudlinski accurately observed: "The center of gravity is shifted in this production. In Mayakovsky's play, derision predominates. But Grotowski is dead serious" (Dziennik Polski [1961]).

Falkowski reported the following:

The actress who starts out as a Grand Lady returns in a moment as a rebellious Unclean One. She will also be an Angel and Devil, later a secretary, and also ... a typewriter and a telephone. A tin washtub, depending on its location, might play the role of an ark, desk, table in the theatre's foyer, or one of the component parts of the "time machine." ... Six actors, a few colored cards, the above-mentioned tin washtub, a black bench: that's all. The mathematical consistency of the director, however, governs the microscopic stage of the Theatre of 13 Rows .... The whirlwind changes in the actors possess their own rhythm and mark clearly changes in place and action. This allows the viewer to accept the logic of simplest associations. Mayakovsky's text becomes extremely dense and provocative. (Wsp6lczesnosc [1960])

Mystery Bouffe was an attempt to merge a new autonomous theatre with political theatre. In a sense, the production was an overt thrust against opponents of the Theatre of 13 Rows. But at the same time as most reviewers spoke favorably of the performance, another reviewer in Trybuna Opolska called Mystery Bouffe a "theatrical misunderstanding of unusual proportion"; "Nonsense! And nonsense of the highest order!" "an interpretation that diminishes the ideological eloquence of the great poet's art," etc. In essence, the reviewer considered the performance to be one of the "greatest theatrical scandals of our day" and recommended that those subsidizing the Theatre of 13 Rows call an immediate meeting of the Artists' Council, which would have the clearest view of Grotowski's work and management.

Somewhat later, Bogdan Loeb! made the following comment: "Now it seemed that killing the thirteen-row dragon would pose no problem."

49 Zbigniew Osinsk


On 10 October, Jerzy Grotowski received a diploma in Fine Arts and also a professional director's diploma from the State School of Dramatic Arts. He submitted a script titled Gods of Rain [from Krzyszton] to the diploma committee for directors. His theoretical statement was titled "Between Theatre and the Attitude Toward Reality: Krak6w-Opole 1958-1959." Included with the fortypage typescript were several Grotowski essays: "The Creative Ambitions of Theatre," "Theatre and the Cosmic Nlan," "Between 'Play' and the Attitude Toward Reality." In addition, Grotowski had to write a directorial analysis of Aleksander Fredro's Maidens' Vows, to which he appended a typescript titled "Playing Shiva," developed from the opening seminar of the Theatre of 13 Rows. This statement had been written as marginal ideas while Grotowski had been working on the text of Kalidasa's Sakuntala:

The mythological patron of the old Indian theatre was Shiva, the Cosmic Dancer, who, dancing, "gives birth" to all that is and who "shatters" all that is; and who "dances the whole." .. .

If I had to define our theatrical quest in one sentence, with one term, I would refer to the myth about the dance of Shiva. I would say: "We are playing at being Shiva. We are acting out Shiva." ...

This is a dance of form, the pulsation of form, the fluid diffusion of the multiplicity of theatrical conventions, styles, acting traditions. It is the construction of opposites: intellectual play in spontaneity, seriousness in the grotesque, derision in pain. This is the dance of form which shatters all theatrical illusion, all "verisimilitude to life." ...

The ancient Indian theatre, as the ancient Japanese and Greek theatres, was not a "presentation" of reality (that is , a constructing of illusions), but rather a dancing of reality (a false construction something on the order of a "rhythmic vision" that refers to reality) ....

We do not demonstrate action to the viewer; we invite him ... to take part in the "shamanism" in which the living, immediate presence of the viewer is part of the playacting ....

To all appearances, we "heal" ourselves with tautology: the necessity of death explains itself through the necessity of death, the fate of man through the fate of man. But the tautology is seemingly apparent, because between the question and the confirmation, the perspective from which we see has changed. Now we try to see as if from the outside, as if from "all sides."

There is the mythological quotation: "Shiva says ... I am without name, without form, and without action .... I am pulse, movement, rhythm" (Shiva-Gita).

--------- --- -----


The essence of the theatre we are seeking is "pulse, movement, and rhythm."

In November, while the group was working on Sakuntala, an article appeared in the new weekly, ITD [literally "ETC.") with the tide "The Theatre Which Still Shocks." Its author, Jerzy Falkowski, sought to place the accomplishments of the Theatre of 13 Rows within the tradition of theatrical reform. He also sought to characterize the creative personality of Jerzy Grotowski:

The avant-garde is numerically small in Poland, but it radiates far and wide. Directors usually mentioned are Krystyna Skuszanka from Nowa Huta and Kazimierz Dejmek from },.6di; and the scenographers ]ozef Szajna and T adeusz Kantor from Krakow. Jerzy Grotowski's name is being mentioned more and more ....

This man's looks are somewhat infantile: sparse beard, rosy complexion, the chubbiness of a baby. Yet immediately after exchanging a few words with him, you are struck by his great energy, impatience, and aggressiveness. The same thing happens on his stage.

The premiere of the ancient Indian fable, Kalidasa's Sakuntala, took place on 13 December. The creators of the performance intended it as "folklore." Grotowski's collaboration with the designer Jerzy Gurawski began with this production. In each performance developed after this, Grotowski and Gurawski sought a different spatial relationship between the actor and audience member. Searching for ways to organize the ritual occurring between the actors and audience, both, according to Grotowski, "set off for an uncompromising conquest of space."

They used a center stage in Sakuntala: the audience was located on two opposing platforms; the action took place between the platforms; and behind the audience were two yoga-commentators. The stage architecture was a large divided half hemisphere and a tall phallic pillar. 'The scenography," wrote Flaszen in the program, "is in two phases: it associates the symbols of sleep (the Freudian shape in the center of the stage) with symbols of childhood (the costumes were designed by children)." There were many cuts in the text and fragments added from the Kamasutra (the ancient Indian guide to the art of love), the Book of Manu (a collection of ancient Indian customs), and additional ritual texts.

Grotowski used very few performers [six) in Sakuntala. Kalidasa's original calls for thirty-four people plus hermits, pupils, courtiers, and the king's retinue. The actors often used conventional sacral sounds and liturgical allusions in contradiction to the everyday meaning of Kalidasa's language. Each gesture also was composed and artificial. Similarly to the production of Mystery Bouffe, there was no mechanical or recorded music used. Instead, the director sought "actor-music": rhythmic clapping of the body; echoes of footsteps, etc.

51 Zbigniew Osinski

In 1968, Grotowski spoke as follows about the significance of this particular production:

We noticed quite early that one could seek the sources of ritual acting in this play, a ritual acting still existing in some countries. Where? Mainly in the Eastern theatre. Even a lay theatre like the Peking Opera contains a ritual structure, developing a ceremony through articulated signs set by tradition and repeating these in the same way with each presentation. This as a kind of language, an ideogram of gesture and behavior. We did Sakuntala to study the possibility of creating similar signs in the European theatre. . . . We wanted to create a performance which would give the idea of Eastern theatre-not an authentic Eastern theatre-but rather the kind that Europeans imagine. It was an ironic approach. But under the surface of the irony, aimed against the viewer, was a hidden intent: to discover a system of signs appropriate to our theatre, our civilization. We did this through small vocal and gestural signs. This proved to be quite fertile ground in the future. We introduced voice training into our troupe, because it was impossible to create vocal signs without special preparation. The play was produced and it turned out to be a unique work in its suggestiveness. But I saw that it was an ironic transposition of stereotypes, patterns. Each gesture, composed of a specially constructed ideogram, became what Stanislavsky called a "gesture pattern." This was not "I love you" with a hand over the heart, but in the end it came down to something similar. It became clear that this was not the way .... After Sakuntala, we undertook a search in the domain of organic reactions of people, in order to be able to structure these. This opened the door to the most fruitful adventure our group has had; that is, research in the field of acting. (Dialog [1969])

Critic Jerzy Lau spoke of the production of Sakuntala as perhaps having "too much mathematics and conceptualizing, too little poetry," but nonetheless of importance within the context of contemporary Polish theatre.

In January 1961, the Theatre of 13 Rows went to Krakow, where it presented seven performances of Sakuntala and one performance of Mystery Bouffe. While in Krakow, Grotowski gave an interview in which he talked about the progress of the Theatre of 13 Rows:

Our troupe is somewhat conditioned now. Alternate jets of hot and cold water are supposed to strengthen, and that is the kind of shower our critics subject us to constantly. This is the end of our second year. Opole, which is ambitious but which doesn't have a snobbish cafe crowd to influence and pressure the theatre, is a good place for


laboratory work. When we began, we had an average of eight viewers to a performance. It is a little better now, and the situation seems to be improving. We've always had good attendance at guest appearances in Poznan, Katowice, Krakow, 2.nd Warsaw, even at the very beginning . . . . We assumed that progress in art demands not only an uncompromising attitude on the part of the artists, but, equally important, it demands work in preparing and educating one's audience. (Dziennik Opalski [1961])

Still, while the stubborn battle for an audience was being waged, efforts to liquidate the Theatre of 13 Rows continued. A critic describes the events of the time:

It often seemed a hopeless situation. The group was rescued by very good reviews from the central press and by the actions of a few social and Party activists. This had a decisive influence on the fate of the theatre .... It is understandable that Grotowski aroused uneasiness and opposition in those incapable of understanding what he was up to. He did not fit into the surrounding "landscape"; he was, like it or not, the grain that ferments ....

In spite of the two-year credit of confidence granted officially to .the theatre, a few people engaged in the organization and evaluation of the cultural life of the city of Opole ... indicated their impatience more and more frequently .... These individuals denied the theatre its right to exist. It was an experimental theatre and, therefore, elitist, even among the small circle of artists in Opole.

They used numbers as arguments, and numbers were Grotowski's worst allies in the early stages of his theatre. Nor did the label "elitist" arouse confidence, even though the point of the experiment was to create an elite theatre (and this sounds paradoxical) for a mass audience-a theatre in which the audience member would feel like a seriously considered intellectual partner.

As of February 1961, the actors of the Theatre of 13 Rows have been playing to full houses. The work of educating the audience lasted about a year and a half in what seemed like conditions of absolute social isolation. This effort can be adequately gauged only when one takes into account that the theatre has no room for its administrative offices or scene shop. As a result, rehearsals are often at night. Their lilliputian dressing room has no warm water, and the actors have to spend their second year living in an unheated hall in the theatre during the winter. (B. Loeb!, Odra [1962])

The famous poet Wladyslaw Broniewski spent four days in May 1961 in Opole. Attempts were made by some to use his authority to suooorr th<> li-

. .i

53 Zbigniew Osinski

quidation of the Theatre of 13 Rows. It was explained to the poet that the theatre's work was "gibberish," "a sham," and "charlatanism." On 22 May, Broniewski came to see Sakuntala and the performance of a very brief montage of World War Ilimages titled The Tourists. The result was the opposite of what had been expected: the poet was charmed by the performance and became a warm friend of the group: "He discussed Meyerhold and the avant-garde in theatre for a long time with the young actors. He looked at their small, crowded 'laboratory.' Together they took walks on the streets of Opole while Broniewski recited his beautiful poems" a. Falkowski, Dookola Swiata [1962)). This friendship lasted until Broniewski's death, while the attempt to close down the theatre using Broniewski's influence ended in complete defeat. The poet's spontaneous reaction to what he had seen was first published in fragments in the programs for Forefathers' Eve and A Silesian Memoir. The entire statement appeared only years later after Broniewski's death:

The Theatre of 13 Rows in Opole is a real phenomenon in Poland! Those people, that troupe, are apostles of a kind. Apostles of what? Of art with a capital "A." They speak wonderfully; they are agile; they know how to feel their way into the texture of human fate with their voices and bodies. They speak in an old-fashioned way: they are good actors. I don't know which gestures were required for ancient India, but the gestures used by this theatre were convincing.

The Tourists was devastating. We, the older folks, lived through that. The young should know about it .... These actors should be seen by all in Poland. That devastating performance, created by Jerzy Grotowski with the help of Ludwik Flaszen and a splendid cast, should become a document that goes beyond the confines of Art. Even if only at Eichmann's trial.

My dear actors and comrades! I wish you well in the name of my deceased wife, a prisoner of Auschwitz, Maria Zarebinska. (Dialog [1974))

Mickiewicz's Forefathers' Eve was the first work by the Theatre of 13 Rows to be taken from the repertoire of great Polish national classics. In the program given out for the premiere on 6 June 1961 were Waldemar Krygier's sketches of rehearsals, Jerzy Gurawski's architectural drawings of the setting, and the following text by Ludwik Flaszen:

Why Forefathers' Eve? Because it shows how theatre is born of ritual. The fate of individuals plays itself out in full view of society, which actively participates in that fate: society summons, emanates, and judges .... We do not want to show a world separated from the spectator by the frame of the stage, but instead we want to create the world anew with the spectator. Surrounded by our mutual presence and


aroused by our mutual participation in a collective act, we will feel ourselves to be masters of our house.

Grotowski explained why Mickiewicz's work fascinated him and outlined the play's main, assumptions:

First of all, sorcery. If Forefathers' Eve is a ritual drama, then we draw very literal conclusions : we arrange the collectivity, which is not divided into viewers and actors but rather into participants of the first and second order. The point is to have a collectivity subordinated to the rigors of ritual. In Forefathers' Eve we eliminated the stage (and we do not intend to return to it). The actors turned directly to the audience, treated the audience as co-actors, and even encouraged the audience to participate in the stage action.

Secondly, ... the actors began the sorcery with something like a game. They designate the first "leader of the chorus" (a spirit who is later Konrad) from the circle of viewers and actors . This game grows into something sacred as the participants summon the dead and then act out their roles. Taking an unsuspecting person from the audience (as with the shepherdess pursued by a spirit) is intended as a return to ritual theatre.

Thirdly, the Great Improvisation. This section of Forefathers' Eve is normally treated as a great metaphysical revolt full of pathos and as an individual struggle with God. This seemed good material to demonstrate the tragic and naive qualities of saviors, their Don Quixotism ....

Gustav-Konrad's monologue was made similar to the Stations of the Cross. He moves from viewer to viewer, like Christ .... His pain is supposed to be authentic, his mission of salvation sincere, even full of tragedy; but his reactions are naive, close to a childish drama of incapacity. The point is to construct a specific theatrical dialect: of ritual and play, the tragic and the grotesque.

We concentrate the meaning of the production in the Great Improvisation. In a narrow sense, one could talk about how suffering gives birth to the supernatural world or how lone rebellion encompassing everything is hopeless. In a broader and more important sense, one could identify the suffering with the object of our constant searching-what Wladyslaw Broniewski has described as our "feeling our way into the texture of human fate with our voices and bodies." (Interview,] . Falkowski, Wspolczesnosc [1961])

The sub-title and epigraph for the performance were the Priest's words:

,,;

This blasphemous ritual, full of sorcery Confirms our people in their deepest ignorance; This is the source of their tales and superstitions About night spirits, vampires, and magic.

(Forefathers' Eve, Part IV)

55 Zbigniew Osinski

From Mickiewicz's original text, Grotowski chose to keep all that was connected to ritual, romantic rebellion, and romantic love: Parts II and IV, fragmentsofPart 1, and the Great Improvisation from Part III. There were also added mottos from Shakespeare and Sartre together with sections from Mickiewicz's preface describing the folk character of ritual. Some of Mickiewicz's commentary also was used to introduce the setting and the events .

The performance was theatrically distinctive. The division between stage and audience was eliminated and replaced by a homogenous theatrical space enclosing both performers and audience members. The action took place throughout the entire theatre. Chairs were located at various levels and arranged in groupings that made viewers surprised at their own presence within the performance. Instead of period costumes, the actors wore seemingly makeshift garments: Gustav-Konrad in a cheap rug draped like a romantic cape; the Priest in a quilted comforter instead of a cassock; the men in trousers, shirts, and cravats from Mickiewicz's time, but in suspenders, without frock or dress coats; and the women with curtains draped over their shoulders like romantic mantles. In addition, each character was given an ordinary kitchen pot and candles. Light came from above-from black, cylindrical lamps, which the actors lighted and extinguished during the action. As Flaszen explained it, "The performance was conceived as a series of studies joined by the unity of several elements: the story of the spiritual experiences of a romantic young man; the obliteration of the division between actors and audience members through ritual participation; and the stylistic oscillation between tragic and grotesque" (Pami~tnik Teatralny [1964]).

The chorus was an undifferentiated mass of actors, and viewers were given specific roles appropriate to the needs of the action. The production was governed by the principle of counterpoint-a sharp play among contradictory elements. Gustav-Konrad (played by Zygmu~t Malik) in the Great Improvisation showed various iconographical poses of Christ on the way to Golgotha. He circled the theatre, bending and falling under the weight of his cross, which was an ordinary household broom. In the final throes of the Improvisation, a Promethean revolt in extreme form, Gustav-Konrad fell and lay prostrate in an act of humility mixed with blasphemy. "Grotowski's production," commented Flaszen, "wants to save everything that can be saved, in spite of contemporary skepticism and the reevaluation of tradition .... By negating ritual with irony, the romantic with derision, one becomes conscious that truth can never be grasped in its ultimate form ."


Both Forefathers' Eve and Slowacki's Kordian , developed immediately after, led clearly to the staging of Wyspianski's Akropolis. Some of the techniques and moments in Forefathers' Eve clearly evoke remembrance of scenes from later productions. The scene in which spirits are summoned and Gustav-Konrad is designated as savior clearly echoes the scene in Apocalypsis cum figuris in which the Dark One or Simpleton is selected. Forefathers' Eve began for Grotowski a fascination with the Polish romantic tradition, and, as Flaszen later said, "a steady wandering over the great expanse of romanticism."


The premiere of The Idiot was on 22 October 1961, a performance developed and directed by Waldemar Krygier. In the program, Flaszen wrote: "Of course the play is not Dostoevsky's The Idiot. It is rather a theatrical fantasy based on selected motifs from the novel of the great Russian writer. The object of our interpretive endeavor is not just to present one of Dostoevsky's works but rather to explore the whole contemporary climate of 'dostoevskyism.' "

The critic Falkowski wrote: "If Forefathers' Eve is viewed as a clear and creative synthesis of the group's two years of work, then The Idiot in Krygier's adaptation and direction is a fun-house mirror, a caricature of the 'theatrical solemnity' of the Theatre of 13 Rows" (Wsp6~zesnosc [1962]). Presenting himself as an "uninvited defender of the artistic gropings" of the troupe, Falkowski believed that the production of The Idiot was a "watering down and undermining of the group's deeply intellectual concerns" and ultimately a vulgarization of Dostoevsky.

In mid-November, the group gave a number of performances in Wroclaw of both Forefathers' Eve and The Idiot. By the close of the year, Flaszen's important descriptive essay, "The Theatre of 13 Rows," was published in both French and English in The Theatre in Poland, thus bringing the work of the troupe to recognition outside its national boundaries. In Poland itself, there were a number of important articles published on the group's struggles and achievements: Falkowski's "The Meaning of the Experiment" (Kalendarz Opolska [1962]) and "13 Rows" (Dookota Swiata [1962]) and Loebl's "High Priests of the Black Mass" (Odra [1962]). The group clearly had strengthened its position, according to Falkowski: "Today we can speak of victory . . .. Each production is a step ahead for the experiment .... The Theatre of 13 Rows is on the attack." The idea of "attack" did not go unnoticed by others: "Grotowski's Offensive" was how Kudlin5ki titled his article on the group when the Theatre of 13 Rows next appeared in Krakow (Dziennik Polski [1962]).

But the most important premiere of all took place on 14 February I 962 in Opole. This was the production of Juliusz Slowacki's early nineteenth-century play, Kordian, directed by Grotowski. In one of the scenes of Slowacki's original (Ill, vi), the hero and title character is committed to a mental institution as a

.I"" ;

' ·;.•'

]'' · ...

.

.. 1;: · ~ ' '

·~

I

63 Zbigniew Osins1

sacrifice for the sufferings of his people and homeland. Grotowski's entire pro duction took place in this setting: a "hospital for the mentally ill." It i: worthwhile noting that Grotowski's production predated by a number of year: both the writing and first production of Peter Weiss's Marat!Sade.

Grotowski altered and abridged Sfowacki's original text. "The play," wrot< Flaszen, "is thought of as a mutual penetration, a mutual play of reality and fie· tion. The action is played out on three levels. The theatre is reality in a litera l sense: there is the auditorium into which the audience comes to see the play. The first level of fiction is constructed on that theatrical reality: the role of psychiatric patients is thrust on every member of the audience, not just the actors. Another layer of fiction then is constructed on the hospital reality: the actions ofKordian become the collective hallucinations of all the peorle who are ill" (Pami~tnik Teatralny [1964]). ·

In the theatre, representing a psychiatric clinic, the audi<:nce sat on metal beds placed in three different locations. The viewers were treated like patients in a hospital ward. The beds served as locations for important actions by the performers, who played on the beds in a highly acrobatic manner. Costumes were hospital gowns and uniforms, and props were quite literal: a scalpel, a straight-jacket, bowls, mugs, towels. But there were also objects that looked as if they had been taken from the prop room of the Great Theatre: a crown for the Czar, a tiara for the Pope, etc.

Sometimes drastic means were used to force the audience to act: the Doctor hummed a song and forced all the actors and viewers to sing along. The disobedient were sought out and threatened with a cane. This, however, was the last production of the Theatre of 13 Rows in which the viewer was urged to participate by "provoking him into specific types of behavior, movement, song, verbal replies, etc." (Gi.-otowski, Dialog [1969]).

In this production, the romantic idea of self-sacrifice as personified by Kordian (and as played by Zbigniew Cynkutis) was put to the test of a contemporary perspective. Kordian's famous monologue from the peak of Mt. Blanc was a key scene which occurred about halfway through the performance. After his visit to the Pope, Kordian suddenly stiffens and falls lifeless into the hands of the orderlies. Kordian shouts the words of his monologue as the orderlies carry him, rigid and high above their heads, across the entire performance hall. They place him on the top bunk of one of the beds, tie him up and remove his shirt. A rubber tube is tied around Kordian's wrist, and a bowl is held forth to catch his blood. The doctor raises a lancet and aims precisely for the vein of the sick man. These actions are cool, efficient, and specific-a sharp contrast to the desperate euphoria of Kordian. Finally his shouting changes into a hoarse whisper. Then the doctor drives in the lancet and Kordian verbally explodes once again: "My people! Winkelreid is alive! Poland is the Winkelreid of nations!" But the operation is over, and Kordian awakens as if from a crazy dream, speaking in a quiet and subdued voice. The great scene of self-sacrifice

- --------- -- --- -··- ------


of the individual is countered by the prose of the medical operation. Literal blood mixes with metaphorical blood, imagined sufferings with real physical and spiritual sufferings, and bodily contortions with poetic flight .

Kordian was conceived as a grotesque tragedy, encompassing both the poverty and greatness of human strivings. Through the madness of the romantic hero was revealed the "deformed shape of truth." Similarly, the "deformed truth" of the others was revealed by their ruthless pretensions. As· Flaszen wrote, "It is not always wise for society, smug in its own practical experience, to deride the noble madman. What is order worth if the act of the individual is severed from a moral dimension and common sense is deemed the sole source of ethics? This is just a step away from philistinism" (Pami~tnik Teatralny [1964]). This idea was later taken up by Grotowski:

The essence of this play is that he who is the most sick, that is, Kordian, is sick by virtue of the fact that he is noble. The person who is .. least ill, the Doctor who handles the treatment, is one who is reasonable and full of common sense, but insidiously healthy. Of course, this is the paradox or contradiction we often encounter in life: whenever we want to directly realize great values, we become mad, crazy .... Yet if we want to remain sensible, we are not in a position to realize great values. Therefore, we walk the seemingly right path with our common sense. We do not become madmen; we remain healthy and are pleased with our good health. I believe that when we ask basic questions, or even one basic question because perhaps only one really exists, it is easy to end up being considered a madman, just as Kordian is in the play. And maybe we will be madmen, which is what happens to Kordian, in spite of his loftiness. (Dialog [1969})

Kordian led directly to Wyspianski's Akropolis. At the same time, the treat· ment of the protagonist, who sees his essence in saving others, an act leading to his own self-destruction, prefigured Faustus in Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, · Fernando in The Constant Prince, and the Simpleton in Apocalypsis cum figuris. The primitive shaman and wizard are identified with the modern theatre magician, and the Polish romantic seer and savior is identified with a folk saint or "a fool of Christ." The shaman, wizard, seer, saint, savior, and fool, as personified by protagonists in Grotowski's productions from Cain to the Simpleton, are only variants of the same theme.

Of the post-opening press releases, Jerzy Kwiatkowski's article deserves special mention. He saw Kordian as "an unusual artistic phenomenon, ... one of the most interesting in the period after 1956." He saw a great chance for this par· ticular theatre "to distinguish itself from the commonplace." He was, however, opposed to the efforts of the Theatre of 13 Rows to involve the audience so directly in the performance:

65 Zbigniew Osinski

Let us leave the role of passive viewer to the audience member, and let us not try to change him into the resolute boy in the audience of a puppet show nor into the terrified stranger, tearing himself from the arms of a beautiful chorus girl in a Parisian music hall. (Wsp6lszesnosc .

[1962])

Kwiatkowski and Kudlinski were impressed by the level of acting by Cynkutis and the entire cast. The latter wrote:

The entire ensemble of the Theatre of 13 Rows is only nine people. This number is significant if one considers the amount and variety of characters created by this small group. This is a cast of striking efficiency and physical fitness: the mastery of memorized material when one considers the frenetic pace of the actors' speeches; the unusually complex stagfng situation; the scaiing of the voice from shout to song to whisper; the incessant alterations in color and intonation; the certainty and freedom apparent in .attacking problems and risky situations; and finally the concentration it takes to create character-these are rare demands and unusual achievements to be found in the theatre today. (Dziennik Polski [1962])

recognized the basicaily romantic character of the performance:

There is no poking fun here: parody and pathos, the grotesque and the tragic, do not negate themselves but, instead, make up the sum of one shocking experience .... Flaszen's and Grotowski's Kordian is subjective, expressionistic, and even comes close to surrealism when it comes to its principle of "convulsive" beauty. This is drama made of contrasts, contradictions, and clashes. It strives to achieve maximum aesthetic effect and to creat maximum experience through shock ....

. Just as that which is the most interesting in the new poetry, just as that <'<f-~t.;!lr,;~' ·' .. ' ll

~k'i)(1 which is the most interesting in the new cinema, this work is based on \· .c<•'.\' ~;:;;.;;zit·Lc ,..... . sharp new aesthetic means.

§' ·' ·· .. .. ;! i::., ~:\>·;· : ' _-_ . : ·>::·:>·, ,' { ;.. .. ,. ! /. ~. -. ·~ - - ~ -. <-· .. , :.,, ...•

~ii;:,\5)'l4Jn late July and early August, Grotowski was part of the Polish delegation to ~~;.,!•tt\.;• : th~. Eighth World Festival of Students and Youth in Helsinki. He took part in ~;:(:XJf''~ '·the ,international seminar on experimental theatre, during which time he spoke ~•;;;;~;;·, ··about the experiences and artistic achievements of the Theatre of 13 Rows. ' ·•'-'!:?> . . t:::f;;i 0Qe of the participants was Raymonde Temkine [who later wrote a book, titled ~·:·;,,.. . Gmtowski, about Grotowski and his work]. After the meetings in Helsinki, ~ ;'. .... e;,Ahose interested participants visited Opole. Thus articles on the group's work

\~~~gan to appear in the foreign press of Denmark, Finland, France, Spain, Nor¥:'· )Y.f:Y·· Rumania, Switzerland, Sweden, and Hungary. ~-~[;\~-


Upon his return from Helsinki, Grotowski spent a month in the Republic of China as a_ delegate of Theatre Affairs from the Polish Ministry Art and Culture. While in China, Grotowski made a number of contacts contemporary Chinese theatre artists and studied the style, form, and tions of Chinese theatre.


Akropolis, after Stanislaw Wyspianski's play of 1904, premiered on tober 1962. Stefan Bratkowski later published a description of Grotowski one of the performances:

He is heavyset and has the full face of a well-fed only son. His sparse like that of a boy; his hair is parted on one side, and he has tired, peering eyes of someone who is near-sighted. Glasses. fashionable coat and sloppy shoes which seem ready to fall off his He doesn't seem to notice.

Until now he has been: an actor, a journalist, a leader in the movement, a lecturer on Hindu and Chinese philosophy, a heckler, and the youngest professor in the higher schools of acting. is currently a theatre director. In Opole, far from Warsaw or Kra he is in charge of something called a "laboratory theatre," which, side of Poland, is the most highly acclaimed theatre of Europe.

Some have called him a charlatan; others consider him the most teresting innovator of the Polish stage if not the most theatre innovator in the entire world. There is something of the notist in him and something of the street urchin who loves When he explains his viewpoint to someone, he does so with the tience and understanding of a teacher explaining the mysteries of 2 x to an undeveloped child. When he laughs, you detect a note of in pulling off a good joke. The joke might be taking place in such regions of humor that the butt of it often doesn't realize until the what his own role has been. On the other hand, Grotowski can also · create a joke at his own expense. When he was not able to teach actors psychic concentration before the performance, he imposed half-hour mandatory silence before each showing. He too had adhere to the ruling ....

Wyspiar_1ski's play is performed in a concentration camp Now Grotowski has made a duality of the entire classical repertory his workshop .... Akropolis is a play of mystical illusions and hopes, Grotowski sunders their meaning and packs everything into a tration camp. The final coming of the Savior will mean liberation by way of an Auschwitz oven! (Podr6Z na peryferie [1965])

67 Zbigniew Osinski

the new name of the group-the Laboratory Theatre of 13 being used officially in connection with the production of Akropolis.

on the new project as follows:

action of Wyspianski's play takes place on Wawel Hill [in ], which is to Poles what the Athenian Acropolis is to the

of Europe. During the Easter Sunday vigil, figures step out of tapestries in order to re-enact great myths, ancient tales, and Bible : ·- ··-the Trojan War, Paris and Helen, Jacob's battle with the

. Jacob and Esau, and the Resurrection. Grotowski sees ~ . : Akropolis as the graveyard of European and Polish civilization, the sum

its inspiration and motifs. And that graveyard of tradition con· verges with the graveyard of peoples generally and European culture in

century, with the sum of the "civilization of ovens," and with the of the extermination camps. (Komentarz do przedstawienia

962])

Grotowski's idea, and his inspiration grew from the concentration of the outstanding writer and former inmate of Auschwitz,

·.,"'Hnrnwski, who died prematurely, and from whom Grotowski borrowfor his production:

us All that will remain is a heap of scrap metal

the empty, jeering laughter of generations.

·-<iiMnwskt focused on the text of Wyspianski's play, rearranging parts of it. obsessive repetition, he hammered out the phrases "our Acropolis"

~cemetery of the tribes," which turned into catch words governing the of the production. "Wyspianski's work is conceived as a vision of

culture, whose characteristic motifs converge on Wawel Hill, Acropolis. Here, in this graveyard of.the tribes, according to Wys·

's designation, these motifs of European culture are to undergo, in a Vistulan synthesis [the Vistula is the river of Krak6w], a test of their " (Flaszen, Pami~tnik Teatralny [1964]). "In the play, the reality is difthe reality of the extermination camp is created poetically, from allu-

!··.short-cuts, and metaphors. These are the timeless myths and motives b1.lt by what remains of human beings at the extremes of experience .the twentieth century thrusts upon us" (Aaszen, Komentarz do przedsta[1962]). production is conceived as a poetic paraphrase of an extermination

action takes place in the whole auditorium, among the audience. , the viewers are not drawn in to participate. They are treated as

of living people. The actors, on the other hand, act out dream-like


characters who rise from the smoke of the crematorium. There is no direct contact between the actors and viewers. As Flaszen explains:

These are two separate and mutually impenetrable worlds .... These are the living and the dead. The physical proximity this time helps confirm the separateness. The viewers ... are provocatively ignored. The dead appear in the dreams of the living, strangely and incomprehensively. And, as in a nightmare, they surround the dreamers on all sides. The dead appear in various places in the auditorium, sometimes separately, sometimes all at once, and this is supposed to create the suggestions of undefined space and unrelenting omniscience. Just as in a bad dream. (Pami£tnik Teatralny [1964))

The production of Akropolis by the Theatre of 13 Rows contained no individual hero but simply the image of human society caught in an extreme predicament . The actors were an ensemble which pulsated with a changing rhythm through song, language, and noise. In the middle of the auditorium stood a large box on which were piled stovepipes, wheelbarrows, a bathtub, hammers, and nails. As the action unfolded, the actor-inmates built a civilization of stovepipes which gradually encompassed the whole auditorium. The costumes were tattered sacks on bare flesh, large work boots, and dark berets. All of the actors looked alike, deprived of sex, age, and social standing to differentiate them one from another. They performed slavish, absurdly senseless tasks as dictated by camp rules . ... Wyspianski's play ends with the Resurrection and apotheosis of Christ. Grotowski's production closes with a procession of dancing inmates who carry a dummy corpse [of Christ) triumphantly. The corpse is their Savior and a symbol of their desperate hope. One by O'ne they disappear into the crematorium oven [the dark box in the center of the space].

Akropolis is a step toward what later came to be called "Poor Theatre." According to Flaszen, "The performance was based on a principle of strict selfsufficiency. The main tenet is: don't introduce anything into the action not there from the beginning. There are these people and a certain number of objects collected in the performance space. This must be sufficient for all circumstances and situations in the play, the sound and decor, the time and space . . .. The poor theatre means to use the least number of objects to obtain maximum effect" (Pami£tnik Teatralny [1964]).

Akropolis was a summing up of all that had been attempted earlier by the Theatre of 13 Rows, particularly through performances such as Forefathers' Eve and Kordian. The first press reaction to the performance was an attack by a critic calling himself/herself "Aunt Agnes." Falkowski wrote a dignified reply in his "Letter to Aunt Agnes," to which "Aunt Agnes" answered with a "Letter to Mr. Falkowski." This went on in the pages of Trybuna Opolska, and it was only Jan Pawel Gawlik's essay, "Akropolis 1962," that placed the performance in proper context. Gawlik suggested that the production was one of the most

iF 69 Zbigniew Osinski

radical ever seen in the Polish theatre:

Radical not only in the context of hallowed practices of "traditional" theatre but also in relation to our own artistic tradition .... The Opole experiment is consciously related to the doctrine and practices of Witkacy . . . . This is a theatre of special category . . . with its own means of expression and its own specific poetics .... One of the most interesting modern theatrical experiments is taking place in a small Opole theatre. That in itself is a measure of the effort this group has expended and entitles them to respect. (T rybuna Opolska [ 1962])

With the production of Akropolis, a myriad of publications on both this specific performance and the working methods of the group appeared. Interest in Grotowski's experiment both in Poland and abroad was growing. More and more students appeared in Opole: "a new aspiring actress from Norway (Tune Bull) and two stipendists from Switzerland are to appear any day now . .. ," wrote Grotowski to Kudlinski on 18 October. In November and December, there were performances of Akropolis in Wrodaw, Poznan, Gliwice, and Katowice. Grotowski was requested to write a paper detailing his methods by the director of the Theatre Institute in Budapest for publication in Hungarian. A similar request of Grotowski was made by well-known French theatre historian and director of the Bibliotheque de !'Arsenal, Andre Veinstein. And Raymonde Temkine in December announced that there would be a world-wide biennial in Paris of avant-garde theatre, initiated by Grotowski. But in spite of these acknowledgments, the situation in Opole was becoming more critical for the Theatre of 13 Rows. As }6zef Klimczyk reported:

This type of theatre in relatively small Opole (approximately 60,000 inhabitants) is limited by the fact that Opole has no theatrical tradition , which might assure a steady audience. The Theatre· of 13 Rows can, therefore, count on a maximum of only 1500 audience members to come to each new production, which means about 30 performances. The audience is a relatively young one (the majority are older high schoof pupils and university students). The middle-aged and older generations avoid the Theatre of 13 Rows, most often dismissing its undertakings with an indulgent smile .... The group is working under very difficult physical conditions . . .. At this time, the Theatre of 13 Rows has the smallest budget of any theatre in the country for its work. (Kwartalnik Opalski [1963])

The basic. problems of the Laboratory Theatre of 13 Rows in 1962-1963, which would remain to the end of its stay in Opole, were the following: the problem of having only a small circle of loyal audience members; a lack of loyal support from social or youth organizations (with the exception of ZMS [Union

Grotowski and H is Laboratory 70

of Socialist Youth] which consistently supported the group); a complete lack of interest by the group's sponsor (the Culture Section of MRN [People's Town Council] and the Creative Artists Union House). Grotowski complained that "Every detail, every step, every idiotic little thing must be fought for with an absurd amount of effort and risk." (Quoted by Kudliri.ski, Teatrala [1975]) It was something 'like a boycott of the theatre by a large sector of the theatre-going public and press in Poland, and this boycott seemed to grow stronger in proportion to the increasing interest abroad in this Polish theatre.

Toward the end of the year, the group began rehearsals of Tragical History of Doctor Faustus after Marlowe. In late February and March there were twentytwo performances of Akropolis in Lc1di together with four public discussion meetings. Each day, whether the group was in Opole or on tour, the actors did exercises organized by members of the troupe. Mirecka was instructor for plasticity of gesture and movement. Molik taught breathing and vocal exercises. Cynkutis taught rhythm exercises, and Ryszard Cidlak taught acrobatics and mastery of the body. In addition to this, Grotowski conducted so-called "etudes" or vocal composition exercises. The ideal for him was the "actor/ master craftsman":

In our theatre, special attention is paid to the actor's training and to examining the laws that govern his craft. In addition to rehearsals, the actors do physical exercises two to three hours every day .... This is similar to scientific research. We try to uncover the objective laws that govern human expression. The introductory materials are the acting systems already elaborated in the methods of Stanislavsky, Meyerhold, and Dullin; the specific training systems we find in classical Chinese and Japanese theatre, the dance-dramas of India, the research of the great European mimes (Marceau, for example), ... and the studies of psychologists who have done research on the mechanism of human reactions Oung, Pavlov). It is possible to say without the slightest exaggeration that each "laboratory" premiere is bought with the hard, almost "slave" labor of the eight-member cast . (Interview,]. Falkowski, Odra [1964])

And that is how things remained for sever<~.! years. Grotowski was, in his own way, obsessed with the problem of acting technique. Another idee fixe of both Flaszen and Grotowski was the understanding of the performance as a "specific moment," "an out of the ordinary" and singular moment. This ties in directly with their fascination with a "theatre of magic."

It was this intellectual ground that gave birth to Tragical History of Doctor Faustus. Marlowe's drama was merely the backdrop for Grotowski's version of the Faustus theme. The framework for the performance was the final scene: a banquet (with students) during which Faustus settles accounts with his con-

71 Zbigniew Osinski

science just moments before his death. In Opole, the production was conceived as a meal taken in a refectory. During the meal, Faustus (played by Zbigniew Cynkutis) relates episodes from his life. The audience members are guests invited by Faustus to a great farewell banquet. The spectators were seated on benches next to long tables arranged in a horseshoe, on ·which the action took place. At the same time, the setting forced the spectator into yet another role: when Faustus begins his public confession, the spectator is his confessor.

All characters were dressed in priestly garb-cassocks or habits. Faustus wore a white habit. In his story of Faustus, Grotowski saw an analogy to the lives of the saints. Faustus was treated like a saint, as one who follows an uncompromising quest for truth and who is willing to espouse an unpopular position. But this was a saint who opposed God as the creator of Nature, which Faustus saw as governed by laws contrary to morality and truth. The sequence of Faustus's life followed the form of medieval hagiography: baptism, mortification, struggle with temptations, miracle working, martyrdom, to the point where Faustus reveals the inhumanity and indifference of God. Mephisto played a dual, ambivalent role that was both tnale (Antoni Jaholkowski) and female (Rena Mirecka): Mephisto was a temptor against God while punishing in God's name and praising God's work.

Michael Kustow had this to say about the production:

The actors perform very close to us, not more than five meters away. They appear behind us, under us, and among us. Two of them sit together with the spectators on the benches and pronounce crude, comical verses from the text .... One hears strange vocalizations: Christian hymns are accompanied by pagan practices and prayers sound like threats. There is one terrifying sequence in which Benvolio (Ryszard Cie5lak) goes mad, begins to run about the auditorium, and tears apart the folding tables .... For a moment it seems the wo.rld is falling apart .... "May the fathers that conceived me be damned!": Faustus is in a state of ecstacy, literally possessed, a lay saint acting like a religious fanatic. At the moment when his body freezes in a triumphal trance, the words of the Polish religious song, "People, My People," echoes forebodingly throughout the auditorium. The dualistic Mephisto, dressed like a priest, leads the funeral procession: the man picks Faustus up like an object and carries him on his shoulders. A woman hurries after them, singing. Faustus lets out a terrifying, inhuman cry and inarticulate sounds. Faustus is no longer a man, but a sweaty, suffering animal, caught in a trap, a rag deprived of all dignity. The saint who is against God ... attains a moral victory and pays for it well: the martyrdom of eternal damnation, in which he is deprived even of his dignity. (Encore [1963])


Tragical History of Doctor Faustus took place in an aura of dark night and uncertainty. The actors, especially Cynkutis, got close to some kind of extreme ecstacy and trance. The production was widely talked abQut, analyzed, and interpreted. Eugenio Barba discussed it in his articles and in his book, Alia Ricerca del Teatro perduto (In Search of the Lost Theatre, 1965); Grotowski wrote about it in an artiCle that appeared in The Drama Review (1963-64); and Raymonde Temkine wrote about it in her book Grotowski (1968). After its premiere, Tragical History of Doctor Faustus inspired about one hundred reviews, essays, and studies in the West. This was in sharp contrast to the performance's reception in Poland: the press in Opole remained silent, and there was no publication that carried a single decent discussion of the play. The work was clearly the first production, however, to bring Grotowski and his troupe international renown. But this was a result of very specific circumstances, created by the Tenth International Congress of the Theatre Institute (ITI), which was held from 8 through 15 June 1963 in Warsaw. At the time, the Laboratory Theatre of 13 Rows was performing in L6dz. Thanks to the efforts of Eugenio Barba, who organized what was actually an illegal bus trip to L6dz at his own expense, a sizable group of Polish and foreign participants to the Congress were able to see a performance of Tragical History of Doctor Faustus. Some of those who viewed the production were Jean Darcante, Hubert Gignoux, Michael Kustow, Alan Seymour, and Raymonde Temkine. There were also Scandinavian, Dutch, and Italian spectators who saw the production. After the Congress, Grotowski's Tragical History of Doctor Faustus was recognized as the most outstandingly innovative production of its time, and the company received an invitation to perform the play at the Theatre of Nations during the 1964 season and in Paris in 1965. Neither of these invitations, however, were realized for reasons beyond the group's control.


In a January 1963 issue of Polityka, Jerzy Falkowski and Edward Pochron wrote about the situation of the Laboratory Theatre of 13 Rows:

For the past five years there has been an establishment in Opole which people in Warsaw, Paris, Krakow, Barcelona, Budapest, London, Prague, Lausanne, Bucharest, and Stockholm have written about. . . . There have been articles in the majority of Polish cultural magazines and newspapers as well as in dozens of serious foreign periodicals. Various things are written: there are attacks, polemical statements, and, more and more, articles full of genuine enthusiasm and admiration for the artistic courage of this establishment. We speak of the experimental Laboratory Theatre of 13 Rows. The name con-

"'" r

77 Zbigniew Osinski

ceals an eleven-member troupe, a microscopic auditorium without adequate storage space, and three to four arduously prepared productions per season .... The Laboratory Theatre works in Opole and travels around Poland with its "blasphemous" productions of great national and foreign classics. It has many friends in the artistic and intellectual communities ... (W!adyslaw Broniewski was one of them). In keeping with the law of experimentation, the Laboratory Theatre also has many zealous polemicists and enemies. This is where the problem arises: should the result of the polemics about this indisputably essential but controversial artistic phenomenon be a cluster of ques· tions marks about the fate and existence of the group itself? ... It is true that Minister Galinski (during his stay in Opole) personally called for the continued activity of the Theatre of 13 Rows, but recent budget problems have opened up the matter once again. There should be an appropriate place for a modest laboratory theatre . . . , especially since it has become a mature and interesting cultural fact. It should have a place next to the venerated State Theatre of Opole, which satisfies the needs of the mass public.

The Hamlet Study was prepared under exceptionally difficult circumstances, because the future fate of the Theatre of 13 Rows was uncertain. The managers and actors had no guarantee they would receive their next month's salaries. Some could not stand the pressures and left the troupe. It was only because Grotowski could infect his co-workers with his own heroic tenacity that a public "rehearsal" took place on 17 March 1964 after a period of extraordinarily intensive and nerve-racking work.

The performances of The Hamlet Study, based on the texts of Shakespeare and Wsypianski, were, in keeping with the intentions of its creators, not to have the character of a finished production but rather the atmosphere of open rehearsals in which the public participated. This was based on the principle that "theatre is not a normal service activity but rather an activity that ex· amines and studies." The "performance" was billed as follows: "The scenario and direction: the troupe under the direction of Jerzy Grotowski." As Flaszen explained:

The director makes suggestions as to the direction. But only enough to arouse the creative impulse in the actor. The actors in rehearsal improvise entire scenes, thus stimulating both the director's inven· tiveness and their own. The work relies upon a collective drawing out of what is psychologically hidden and expressively effective and in organizing these discoveries around the main thought which gradually forms itself. (Pamphlet published by Laboratory Theatre [1965])


In a sense, the public "rehearsal" was a study in the acting methods and collective direction of a production. Using fragments of Shakespeare and Wyspianski as a springboard, the production in Opole was, says Flaszen, "our own version of the story of the Danish Prince, that is, variations on the subject of selected themes from Shakespeare. A study in motivation."

The Hamlet Study was played in an empty auditorium to an audience seated against the walls. Hamlet (played by Zygmunt Molik) was the personification of abstract reflection. He was an intellectual who stood in contrast to the mob: the production juxtaposed his attitudes, behavior, and reactions to the attitudes, behavior, and reactions of those surrounding him. Hamlet's otherness was underscored throughout. In the bath scene, where Hamlet maintains his provocative otherness, the death of Queen-Ophelia (played by Rena Mirecka) occurs amid sensual gasping and perverse games. In the final scene, there were detachments moving out to battle, singing ancient and hallowed battle hymns. Though Hamlet seemed a spineless weakling in the face of the vitality and grit of the mob, it was on the battlefield that he expressed a longing for collectivity, for human solidarity. Critic ]6zef Kelera claimed:

The Opole version of Hamlet is a very specific sociological creation. The simplest way to conceive of it is with the formula Hamlet and Others . ... The main point is the relationship, not the individual · Hamlet. The Hamlet-intellectual among "the others" is the prototype and model for "the outcast," and is therefore the psycho-sociological creation which is the main obsession of contemporary literature, sociology, and "the philosophy of man." Conceived of in this way, it is not important who Hamlet really is but rather what he is as seen through the eyes of "the others ." He is mystified by their view of him, and he is deformed by their pressure. And the production is about who these others are, who are also mystified and deformed by Hamlet's view of them. The creators of The Hamlet Study suggest that both sides are mistaken. The mistake is in the socially-formed and layered mystification of that bond: Hamlet and others. (Odra [1964])

Critics like Kelera and Zbigniew Raszewski shared the opinion that this production was not a "top-notch achievement" of the Laboratory Theatre. Comparisons with Akropolis and Tragical History of Doctor Faustus always worked to the detriment of The Hamlet Study. The judgment holds to this day. For the group, however, Hamlet was an exceedingly important experience, without which it would have been. impossible to prepare The Constant Prince, not to mention Apocalypsis cum figuris. The Hamlet Study was the first attempt to create what Grotowski has called a "total act" with the participation of the entire ensemble. It was an attempt not quite successful in its realization, but it did point a direction for the next few years. For Grotowski and the group, The

79 Zbigniew Osinski

Hamlet Study was something of a revelation. It was performed only twenty times to a total audience of 630 viewers. It was shown only in Opole, since the group, owing to the financial circumstances, had to abide by the administrative ruling that forbade them to tour with its productions. Without funds, the company could not print its usual extended Materials-Discussions to accompany the premiere. There were only two small flyers: one listed the cast and the other contained Flaszen's commentary. No photographs of the performance were taken, since the group lacked funds even to do that. In June 1964, Wilhelm Mach wrote:

The two Opole theatres have divided up their assignments very sensibly. The very dynamic Teatr Ziemi Opolskiej makes a classic and contemporary repertoire accessible to the whole region. The Theatre of 13 Rows is a small research theatre and the enfant terrible of local patriotism. The latter galvanizes artistic discussion with each of its productions. We have just seen its latest opening of The Hamlet Study, which is disturbing, controversial, but rich in ideas-a formally innovative philosophico-moral tract on Shakespearean themes. It is an unusual work, very modern and very Polish. (Zycie Warszawy [1964))

What The Hamlet Study really was can be seen only from today's perspective. Then it seemed to be something of a nightmare about persecuted people. It seemed the troupe, Grotowski included, found itself caught in a vicious circle from which there was no exit. Wojciech Gr~tkowski wrote the following about the problems besetting the group:

The arguments surrounding the Theatre of 13 Rows sometimes lead to drastic results, which could determine whether the theatre is to be or not to be. The Laboratory Theatre in Opole, funded (rather modestly) by WRN [People's Provincial Council] and licensed by the Ministry of Culture, lives in constant uncertainty whether or not those opposing voices will affect its sponsors' support. (Kultura [1964))

It was in these circumstances, and owing to the growing interest abroad in the creative research of the Laboratory Theatre, that critic ]6zef Kelera made the following direct appeal to Wroclaw authorities:

Lately the troupe is having serious difficulties, which jeopardize the existence of this unique and marvelous institution. More and more critics on several continents are writing in superlatives about this group. Many creative theatrical artists come from various European countries to gain practical experience. The city of Opole, the quiet corner and island of genuinely industrious laboratory work for many


years, has stopped being the appropriate base for this pioneering theatrical enterprise. I also know there is a realistic chance of moving the group to Wrodaw.

I admit the fate of the Laboratory Theatre concerns me. I think, however, that this is, first of all, an opportunity for Wrodaw. It is an op-portunity to have a cultural center in the largest city in western Poland. I hope that the enlightened and most honorable fathers of our city will understand this ....

Grotowski's troupe is all of ten people, including the artistic and literary directors. They do not need much. They have all been through a rough period, making many sacrifices, but they still have a lot of enthusiasm. But it is not inexhaustible. This opportunity may not come again.

I turn to the Presidium of the Wrodaw People's Council and to the Cultural Section with this ardent appeal: Do not delay! Do not bypass this opportunity!

March 1964

In April, the work of the Theatre of 13 Rows was under discussion by a special commission. The group included Jerzy Jasienski, director of the Committee on Theatre Affairs in the Ministry of Art and Culture, and the theatre critics Konstanty Puzyna and Jan Pawel Gawlik. What emerged from this commission was the general attitude that the city of Opole was not the proper environment for the kind of research Grotowski and his people were doing and that the city of Wrodaw might be a more appropriate home for the group. But ultimately the question of whether the theatre was to be or not to be was fii)ally settled in summer 1964 when Professor Boleslaw lwaszkiewicz officially propos-

' ed that Grotowski and Flaszen move their group to Wrodaw. The proposal was accepted and preparations for the move began almost immediately.

In the process of moving, many things happened which deserve some notice. In April 1964, 600 copies of a large pamphlet with numerous photographs and illustrations of the work of the group, written by Eugenio Barba, were published in French: Le Theatre-Laboratoire "13 Rzedow" d'Opole au le theatre comme auto-penetration collective (The Laboratory Theatre of 13 Rows, or Theatre as Collective Self-Penetration). It contained selections from both Barba's and Flaszen's writings as well as Polish and foreign reviews. Also in April, Grotowski was a member of the international jury for the First World Festival of Student Theatres occurring in Nancy, France. While there he presented a lecture titled "The Forming of the Theatre Actor." Grotowski talked about his group's experiences and the lecture was illustrated by exercises performed by Rena Mirecka and Ryszard Cieslak. Their work was received with long applause. From Nancy, Grotowski went to Paris, there holding a press conference in the context of activities related to the Theatre of Nations. Then in June,

f

81 Zbigniew Osinski

rehearsals began on The Constant Prince, and thereafter this work became the main activity of the troupe. In early November, Polish Radio broadcast a fragment ofthe performance of the Laboratory Theatre's version of Wyspianski's Akropolis. The program was called "Our Akropolis" and included an interview with Grotowski by Jerzy Falkowski.

The fall issue of Pamifitnik Teatralny had articles on the Laboratory Theatre by both Flaszen and Zbigniew Raszewski. After the appearance of these articles, ]. A. Szczepanski published an attack titled "If It's So Great, Show Us in Warsaw":

Perhaps the Theatre of 13 Rows is known throughout the world, but it certainly is not known in Warsaw. Every month the better theatrical productions come to Warsaw from all over Poland. They are attended by audiences from the capital and discussed in the central press. How is it then that such an excellent, prize-studded theatre like 13 Rows has been carefully avoiding the capital for five years? We would certainly like to get acquainted with it, at least so we could believe the praise of such a learned periodical as Pamifitnik Teatralny. And because we cannot count on mass excursions organized by Orbis [the official Polish travel agency] in Warsaw (u"0der the heading: "Get to Know the Theatre of 13 Rows!"), we clamor all the more loudly for an end to its concealment. We are impatiently awaiting the theatre's appearance in Warsaw. (Trybuna Ludu [organ of the Central Committee of the Party, 1964])

This perhaps sarcastic "invitation" becomes better understood in light of the fact that one of the leaders of the press attack on the group in its visit to Warsaw in 1960 signed himself "Jaszcz." Probably this time he knew nothing of the Wrodaw proposal and perhaps believed he could provoke another attempt to liquidate the Theatre of 13 Rows. Less than twenty-four hours after Szczepanski's attack, an article by Jeremy Czulif1ski appeared in Zolnierz Wolnosci. Co~rnenting on Akropolis, Czulinski said: "I am afraid that, after the Opole experiment, perhaps only a 'heap of scrap metal and the empty, jeering laughter of generations' will remain."

It was not until 6 January 1965 that there was notice of the group's move to Wrodaw in Trybuna Opolska, the official newspaper of Opole. This was the first and last time the matter was mentioned:

The experimental Laboratory Theatre, founded a few years ago in Opole and supported by local artists' groups, has changed its horne base, and, as of the first of January, is residing in Wrodaw.

As sad as it is for us to part with this unique institution, which has made our city famous not just in Poland but abroad, the theatre's deci-


sion to move to the capital of Lower Silesia, a c_i!y of half a million people, seems a good one. Opole, with its population of sixty thousand, could not assure Grotowski's theatre, which had one to two premieres annually, of enough attendance. The interesting but difficult works of the Theatre of 13 Rows could not attract wider interest. For a long time, the theatre had been counting on audiences in larger cities it visited: lodz, Krakow, Poznan, and Wrodaw.

The lack of resonance in Opole deprived Grotowski's theatre of a reason to be here in its home city. Considering the circumstances, further support and subsidy of the theatre would have had no rational basis.

We hope that the troupe from 13 Rows, which has had enough time to get attached to Opole and its residents, will visit us from time to time with its new productions, because it does leave behind perhaps a modest but faithful group of well-wishers.

Right after the theatre left Opole, the black auditorium on the town square was repainted and turned into a coffee house. The theatre's identification plate was smashed with hammers. One other sign which hung over the doors leading to the theatre auditorium was also destroyed. On it had been a quotation from the "dark" Heraclitus of Ephesus: "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."

F ~ 83 f

"The Religion of Mankind" Wroclaw 1965-1970

I believe that Grotowski's theatre is an apt reaction to the mini-culture of our times . ... It is an attempt to un

prostitute the profession of actor and director.

-Konrad Swinarski [acclaimed contemporary Polish director, b. 1929, who directed the first production of Marat!Sade (1964), died 1975 in plane crash flying

to Shiraz theatre festival]


On 28 December 1964 [five days before the fact], Grotowski wrote the follow. ing to the author of this book:

We have been installing ourselves in Wrodaw since 2 January .... Our move is an event ripe with possibilities (good and bad) and almost like a biblical exodus.

As far as exercises and rehearsals go, we are working on our new phase (which began in Opole). As far as living conditions go, they are rather makeshift for now .... For the time being, we are residing in the Town Hall.

In spite of certain reservations in the city, the Wrodaw authorities fulfilled their obligations to the Laboratory Theatre in model fashion. Thanks to them, the first performance of Akropolis took place on 10 January 1965 at 9:00p.m. in the auditorium of the Creative Artists Union House, located on the third floor


of the Town Hall and near the Town Square where the troupe is housed t0 this day. The performance was geared to a student audience and officially inaugurated the work ofGrotowski's theatre inWrodaw. Later there were performances of Akropolis every Saturday and Sunday until 1 April.

In the meantime, the international prestige of the group was increasing. One sign of this was the publication in 1965 of Eugenio Barba's book in Italian, Alia ricerca del teatro perduto: una proposta dell'avanguardia pollacca [In Search of the Lost Theatre: a Proposal of the Polish Avant-Garde]. The book consisted of observations made during the author's two-year stay at the Theatre of 13 Rows and his consultations with Grotowski. The book summarizes the achievements of the theatre from its inception through 1963. The first section contains a general description of the director's and actors' methods. The second contains a program of actors' exercises as well as supplementary materials (Flaszen's essay on Akropolis and selections of articles from the Polish and foreign press). Until 1968 [when Grotowski's own Towards a Poor Theatre and Raymonde Temkine's Grotowski were published], Barba's work was the chief source of information about Grotowski's theatre in the West.

The Constant Prince, based on Calderon and Slowacki, had three different premiere dates, of which the first (a "closed" premiere) took place on 20 April. The work had been in preparation for about a year. The performance was a study of the phenomenon of "constancy" as personified by the title character, Don Fernando, played by Ryszard Cieslak. Grotowski eliminated the conflict between the Portuguese and the Moors, moving the action from the historical plane to the more universal. He contrasted the phenomenon of constancy and a figure oriented to higher values with the attitude of "fanatical social conformity. He also juxtaposed the cruel actions of the surrounding collective (at whose head stood the King-Antoni Jaholkowski, and his daughter Feniksana-Rena Mirecka) with the purity, devotion, and uncompromising faith of the Prince himself. "Their world, provident and cruel, actually has no access to him. The Prince, who surrenders himself as if in compliance with the unhealthy manipulations of his surroundings, remains independent and pure to the point of ecstacy" (Flaszen, Materialy i Dyskusje [19651).

The differences were also expressed in the costumes. The king and his followers were dressed in high-topped boots, riding breeches, and judges' robes as a sign that these people have all the privilege plus a liking for sharp action and judgment. The Prince, on the other hand, was dressed in a white shirt, the naive symbol of innocence; a red coat, which became a shroud at the end; and his human nakedness, "a sign of his defenseless, human identity, which wields nothing but its own humanity in its defense" (Flaszen, ibid.).

The arrangement of space was reminiscent of a circus runway for animals as well as an operating room. Here are the words of the director: "The spectators are removed from the actors and placed behind a high fence, behind which one can only see their heads. From there, from above, from this especially crooked perspective, they follow the actors as if they were animals in a runway at the

r 85 Zbigniew Osinski

zoo . They are like spectators at a corrida, like medical students who watch an operation, or, finally, like those who eavesdrop and thereby impose a sense of moral transgression onto the action. In The Constant Prince, the spectators are relegated to the role of students carefully observing an operation, a mob watching a bloody spectacle, collectors of impressions, tourists demanding sensations, or eavesdroppers on some secret ritual which they watch from a safe corner and to which no intruder is allowed access" (Odra [1965]). In the center of the acting space was a small elevated platform, which, according to the needs of the action, could be associated with a prison bed, an executioner's platform, an examination table, or a sacrificial altar.

The extraordinary impact of the production was owing largely to R yszard Cieslak, about whom Kelera wrote:

At the very core of Grotowski's program ... is the problem of forming the personality and technique of the actor. In The Constant Prince, the results of this work were exemplified .. . in the splendid and versatile characterization of Ryszard Cidlak .... As much as we have been following the incredible technical achievements of Grotowski in his work with actors and have been acclaiming it, we have been equally skeptical in accepting his talk about the actor's creative work as a psychic "act of transgression," as exploration, sublimation, and transfer of deeply buried psychic content. This skepticism must for all purposes now be questioned in the face of Ryszard Cieslak's creation.

In my entire career as a theatre critic, I have never had the desire to write something having the appearance of cheap and ridiculous banality, but at this moment I have the desire to write that this creation is inspired. I look at this word before me with amazement and scrutinize it. If it still has any meaning in criticism, especially theatre criticism, I would find no better occasion to apply it. And if till now I have accepted with disbelief Grotowski's terms such as "lay holiness," act of humility, purification, I have to admit that they have currency in this stage characterization of the Constant Prince.

There is in this character, in this characterization of the actor, some kind of psychic luminosity. It is difficult to describe it differently. All that is technique becomes, at culminating moments, illuminated from within ... . Just a moment more and the actor will rise from the ground .... He is in a state of grace. And all around him, the entire "theatre of cruelty," blasphemous and excessive, is transformed into a theatre in a state of grace . . .. (Odra [1965])

Cieslak's creation was an example of a "total act" consummated in creative action, just as Grotowski understood it:

This act can be attained only out of the experience of one's own life,

- ---------------------------- -


this act which strips, bares, unveils, reveals, and uncovers . Here an actor should not act but rather penetrate the regions of his own experience with his body and voice .... At the moment when the actor attains this, he becomes a phenomenon hie et nunc; this is neither a story nor the creation of an illusion; it is the present moment. The ac

-tor exposes himself and ... he discovers himself. Yet he has to know how to do this anew each time . .. . This human phenomenon, the actor, whom you have before you has transcended the state of his division or duality. This is no longer acting, and this is why it is an act (actually what you want to do every day of your life is to act). This is the phenomenon of total action. That is why one wants to call it a total act. (Dialog [ 1969])

After seeing the performance of The Constant Prince , the outstanding Polish actor, Jan Kreczmar, had this to say:

Whoever has seen Grotowski's production can value the incredible toil of the actors and the director. ... I am full of admiration for my colleague Cieslak . . . . I am full of admiration for the director-teacher who was able to lead himself and his company to such results by way of"laboratory" inquiry .... I want only to share the thought that this novum in the art of acting depends on, for me, the eliciting of primal and elementary, beyond-the-rational instincts, passions, and human emotions, conceived in the strict rigor of sound, , plasticity, and rhythmic harmony. (Teatr [1968])

The Constant Prince, which proved the impossible possible, began a long period of research. The goal of this research was to be the attainment of the "total act" not simply by one actor but by the entire troupe. Wojciech Dzieduszycki, shortly after the premiere of The Constant Prince, compared Grotowski's and Flaszen's troupe to the famous Polish Reduta Theatre of Juliusz Osterwa and Mieczyslaw Limanowski of a generation earlier:

This is not a theatre! This is a sect! This is a monastery of theatre arts yogis. I do not know if the adepts are chosen through a three-step initiation trial-by air, fire, and water-but I am convinced that the actors are able to transport themselves into a trance by means known only to Grotowski. This is a means similar to that used by fakirs who can sleep on nails, pierce their eyelids with needles, or douse themselves with gasoline and burn themselves alive. The actors of 13 Rows flagellate themselves until they have red welts on their backs. . . . What in the world kind of stimuli does one need to get one's body into this state of submission? This is a contemporary

~~:~

~· ~ -

f fl::· l~ ;c.

~·. ~;;;.; ~:.··«<·~·

87 Zbigniew Osinski

crusade of flagellants, phallus worshippers, yogis, and fakirs in one cell submitted to an incredible collective discipline. We have already had an equally disciplined group in the history of Polish theatre: Osterwa's Reduta ... with the difference that the Reduta stood at the other extreme of aesthetic tendencies.

The principles of Red uta ... led to the idealization of beauty, to the apotheosis of flights of loftiness, and the striving for complete hegemony of mystic spirit over material body. Osterwa immersed himself in transport over the beauty of theatre art. He made a temple of theatre ... but not for a moment did he lose sight of the public. 13 Rows apotheosizes suffering and pain, it idealizes ugliness, it eats its way into the interior of the actor, rends and abuses him in order to attain the meaning and expression of the play .... What an appealing surrender to art! Fanaticism worthy of the highest recognition, regardless of whether someone likes this type of theatre or not! . ..

The actors of 13 Rows are undoubtedly dead serious! Alarmingly serious! Like the high priests of a sect fighting for the new art .... I do not know whether Grotowski's theatre will have multitudes of followers, but I am convinced that something from this Laboratory Theatre will seep into the regular theatre. Some chemical bond arising from a synthesis of cruelty and love of the stage. (Odra [1965])

The Constant Prince was discussed in approximately a thousand articles in Poland and (mainly) abroad. An explication of the work's principles was prepared by Flaszen, and the attempt to do a detailed analysis and interpretation was undertaken by a Moroccan, Serge Ouaknine (Les voies de la creation theatrale [ 1970]). In 1968, large segments of The Constant Prince were filmed . At the beginning of 1970, Flaszen wrote about the reception given this production:

From the moment we began to tour (at the beginning of 1966), foreign opinion about our work was shaped by The Constant Prince. Maybe simply because we toured a lot with that play .... I have to say that the image of that production as the most representative of our work modeled public opinion in other countries, so that for a long time we had to publicly deny that it was the only pattern of our research. (Letter to editor, Radar [ 1970])

In the Laboratory, the exercises were evolving. Until the end of the theatre's stay in Opole and later in Wrodaw, the search was for techniques that would allow the actor, as Grotowski described it, to "overcome the resistance of his body." The most important thing was the process taking place in the organism. The repetition and tempo of the exercises were dictated by this process. One could say that it was the training of the personality through organic action or,


in other words, the attempt to consummate the "total ace" in the domain of the exercises. One had to ask: who is doing the exercise? The answer was: not the actor but the actor as a human being.

One of the consistent misunderstandings in theatre criticism was, for example, the interpretation of Cieslak's performance in The Constant Prince as being a result of the exercises which he did. Grotowski always cast off this perception:

It is a mistake to think that there is preparation for and a preface to creating, to "the act," and that it depends on some kind of training. No training is capable of changing into "the act." I am not talking about improvisation as training; that's a different matter. I am speaking of certain types of exercises, about an almost creative gymnastics. Exercises make no sense at all if together with them the human act, the deed, does not take place ... . We know from experience that exercises can make sense somewhere on the peripheries of the search . . . . In the course of our research it was clear that the difficulties and inhibitions that appeared were different in each of us. The exercises were useful when each could train supported by those elements of the exercises which were indispensable to him. And what each person received as a result of the exercises was different in each case. Each individual met with different obstacles . . .. Wh~t I am saying is especially relevant for those who would take

those sections of my book that deal with the exercises . .. because these exercises were selected as tests and not something to bring about miracles. The exercises were always very relative. They made sense because of what was being done; they were ordered into a discipline and demanded precision . But the discipline, the precision, and also the experience, were completely devoid of meaning if their foundation was not in the spontaneity of the human being. That is, the human being maintained a certain precision of elements, each time making them anew in his own way .... The exercises could not and cannot make any sense as some kind of preparatory devices to "the act." (Dialog (1972))

From late April through early May 1965, Grotowski was both a member of the international jury and of the Honor Committee for the Second World Festival of Student Theatres in Nancy. He led a seminar on "Working Face Muscles and Vocal Resonators" with a demonstration by Mirecka and Cieslak. This was Raymonde Temkine's report:

Grotowski had two lectures (with demonstrations) which he delivered to a full and very interested audience made up of directors, critics, and other people of the theatre, mainly participants in the Festival.

After Grotowski introduced his concept of the "poor theatre,"

89 Zbigniew Osinski

which locates the essence of theatrical experience in the relationship between actor and spectator, we were shown an entire gamut of exercises by the two young actors. Local critics acknowledged these exercises as "dazzling." Then Ryszard Cieslak did the final scene from The Constant Prince, and Rena Mirecka a scene from Akropolis . . . . The last demonstration ended with Grotowski's presentation of methods using vocal resonators. The pupils of the Drama School at Strasburg, run by Hubert Gignoux (who was present) served as ... guinea pigs. They submitted themselves gladly to the experiment. (Teatr [1965])

A similar seminar took place in Paris directly following the Festival, this time under the aegis of the Theatre of Nations "where the troupe from Wrodaw was also enthusiastically acclaimed" (Gazeta Robotnicza [1965]). In late May and early June, Grotowski, in collaboration with Cieslak, held seminars and conferences on the methods of the Laboratory Theatre in several Italian cities: Padua, Milan (at the Piccolo Theatre), and Rome. In August, Grotowski went to London at the invitation of Peter Brook. There was a showing of the documentary film of Tragical Hiswry of Doctor Faustus (Mike Elstern had made the film in l6dz in 1963), a lecture by Grotowski, and a discussion.

In the period from April through September 1965, several valuable publications on Grotowski's theatre appeared in Poland. Krystyna Konarska-Losiowa discussed the functions of the spectator and the actor: "In this theatre, ... we inevitably must face the necessity of settling accounts with ourselves." The viewer "becomes an indispensable part of the drama that is being acted." The author underscored the fact that this understanding of the aims of theatre is closer to the traditions of the Far East than to the traditions of Western culture:

Psychoanalytic therapy and the complete control of one's physical capabilities are areas of unceasing toil for the small group of actors of the Theatre of 13 Rows . ... Superficial humanists are outraged at the cruelty of this theatre. They do not understand what belongs to the wisdom of the Far East: that the good spirits, in order to effectively battle the demons, must sometimes borrow their monstrous masks. (Wi~:t [1965])

Andrzej Wirth observed that, if there had not been a troupe like Grotowski's, "one could speak of theatrical experiments in Poland but not of an experimental theatre. It is necessary to make a distinction between successful and simply innovative ideas, which become apparent from time to time, and the experimental theatre which conducts long-term laboratory work and formulates its own precepts on the experiences of a specific company":

One may not agree with Grotowski on any point of his doctrine, but it is impossible to ignore the uncommon broadening of theatrical


possibilities through his techniques developing the capabilities of the actor. ... The most efficient actors in technique in the conventional theatre might be called passenger airliners . Grotowski's actors are like astronauts · parison, who, by achieving a certain prowess, gain the abil and act in conditions that kill pilots of conventional this metaphor can be developed. Grotowski's cosmic flights validate the conventional theatre; they simply show the absolute limits as relative. (Teatr [1965])

In September, two essays by Grotowski were published: "T Theatre" (Odra) and "The Exposed Actor" (Teatr). The latter was the following editorial note:

As a result of the growing interest and increasingly lively the activities of the Theatre of 13 Rows both in Poland and turned to Jerzy Grotowski, the founder and director of tion, with the request for an article concerning his rolnN•n""'

theatre and his working methods with actors. The text by the author is based on his talks at meetings and theatrical circles (in England, Italy, and other countries).

In keeping with the Polish tradition of receiving Grotowski Laboratory Theatre, both essays were greeted with vicious Maslinski was the first to respond to the proposals contained in Poor Theatre":

A production by such a director will be the sum of its lyrical And that is how it is with the Theatre of 13 Rows. We are with this from the last decade of the nineteenth century. matter that this time we get it in a version almost ~r''"nt>hr This is not the whole truth about man nor is it a full "actor-spectator relationship." (Zycie Literackie [1965])

Shortly thereafter, a writer from Kierunki "worked over" the essay, Exposed Actor":

Grotowski really likes the words "as if," "almost," and "in sense." He admits to "magic" and "witchcraft." He speaks "ineluctable, inexpressible process" that characterizes that mission. I am on my knees, but "as if" with a solid question my forehead. Isn't there, by any chance, too much of and mysterious Young Poland Movement Oate nineteenth

91 Zbigniew Osinski

centuries] in that magic?

, the American periodical, the Tulane Drama Review, edited , devoted a large section of one issue to Grotowski's Barba's "Theatre Laboratory 13 Rzedow," Barba's and

of Magic and Sacrilege," and a selection of reviews from the theatre's achievements.

grasped the essence of the Laboratory Theatre's paradoxarticle published in fall 1965 titled "The Unbearable

to characterize the singularity and originality of the

... has international renown: critics, people of the professional journals from many countries ... show a in it. It is least known and esteemed in Poland, which

.,~ _a confirmation of its innovation, if one is to believe ·Mann's observation that true values are usually recognized

·by "contemporary heirs." (Pamifltnik Teatralny)


full season in Wrodaw for Grotowski and the company. A official inauguration of the theatre, Krystyna Tyszkowska about the role and objectives of the new institution in

i s:ta~.research theatre, the only one of its kind in Poland, and, real-only one of its kind in Europe .... As in previous years, there

students corning to the Theatre of 13 Rows. Someone is distant Caracas, Venezuela [Elizabeth Albahaca], and

be a group of students from the theatre school of Carl-Erik Sweden . . .. This annual migration of people to the Theatre

is a known but unacknowledged and uninstitutionalized there is more and more talk that the working techni

of the theatre are practically inaccessible to actors ilfford to study at their own expense. Perhaps it is time to

Qlablish a micro-studio in affiliation with the Theatre of 13 .that acting students from Poland and bordering countries

In Oslo, Barba founded just such a studio .... It seems the creator of the new methods and the troupe

them are the ones who should be disseminating these L:_(.Gazeta Robotnicza [1965])


In early September, Odra organized a discussion of "The Future of Wrodaw Theatres." The following participated: Skuszanka and Krasowski, directors of the Polski Theatre; Grotowski; Jerzy Bajdor, literary director of the Rozmaitosci Theatre; and two members of the editorial board of Odra, ]6zef Kelera and Tadeusz Lutogniewski. Grotowski spoke of assimilating the Theatre of 13 Rows ·into the life of Wrodaw and about the dangers of "excessive expectations":

It is with some apprehension that I observe ... our coming here to Wrodaw to be met with the expectation of something exceptional, something that is to be quickly attained-that is, that five months, maybe a year goes by, and suddenly something exceptional has to be produced. Psychologically this is a bad situation for us, because ... everything that makes development a gradual and taxing effort-if it is confronted with such strong community needs and expectations -could easily result in the opposite: one great groan of dissatisfaction.

This community, which places its hopes and ambitions in us, must understand that we will be able to fulfill those hopes only gradually, and, as far as we are concerned, in our laboratory .... In the past, we prepared a production, then showed it right there in the theatre, made corrections, and only then did we go on tour. Now we are in the position of a fakir who has been sitting out in the desert on nails and who now is sent to Baghdad not only to maintain the mosque but to develop it. This is a troublesome situation. At the same time, Wrodaw is undoubtedly our big chance. For two years we have understood that the time is ripe for us to enter a community which could be a partner, where we would have the possibility of confrontations on the spot and the possibility of having professional contacts in the fields of cultural anthropology and voice study, for example ....

Our immediate objective is research in the area of theatre craft. The statute which the city has imposed on us says that the theatre has the character of an institute that conducts methodological research .... In Wrodaw, we have a scholarly community with whom we see the possibility of collaborating, not only in the field of theatre arts but also on related problems that lie in a "no man's land." ...

If a theatre begins to have something of a profile, it is usually designated by the name of whoever stands at its head .... There is a certain inaccuracy in this .... I am always somewhat uncomfortable when our institutions are known by one word or name. The Theatre of 13 Rows would have been something else entirely if Flaszen and Gurawski and I had not met at the right time. This theatre would have been something else if other actors were in it, people of a different sensibility, someone other than Cieslak, Mirecka, or Jaholkowski. The

93 Zbigniew Osinski

theatre would have been better or worse, but certainly different. (Odra [1965])

Before the two hundredth anniversary of the birth of the Polish National Stage, the editorial board of Teatr conducted a survey among theatre artists

~'-'''' ,,. representing various generations. They were asked to respond to the following questions: (1) If you had to choose a portrait of a theatre practitioner (manager, director, scenographer, actor) to place in the foyer or in the office of the direc

F=':.: ... ... rot ofthe Warsaw National Theatre, whose portrait would it be? (2) Whose portrait would you place in your own office? Grotowski's answers are worth noting, since they indicate at the time his choices of theatrical tradition. After ~eating that he himself had no director's office and that if he did, he would not hang portraits in it, Grotowski suggested that the director of the Warsaw National Theatre ought to have the right to select portraits of h is own choice. But, Grotowski continued, if he absolutely had to hang some kind of portraits, he'd hang them more as a warning and in memory of certain theatre martyrs, namely Meyerhold, Witkacy, Artaud, and Stanislavsky. If, however, he were to stay strictly with Polish theatre artists, "it would be necessary to display the portraits of Mssrs. Osterwa and Limanowski":

I would do this so that theatre people who laugh uproariously at Osterwa's superstitions, at "Liman's" strange ideas, and the monastic rigor of work in Reduta (and who are always ready to laugh anew at the vision of solid work and a decent treatment of the profession, in other words, of that which in bygone times was referred to as a vocation), may see that the old truths which Reduta advocated have not gone out of style .. .. (Teatr [1965])

After a few performances of The Constant Prince in Wrodaw, the Laboratory Theatre went on tour in October, first to l.6di and then to Gdansk. In November, Stanislaw Scierski replaced Gaston Kulig (who left the troupe) in the role of Don Enrique.

The first production planned for the new season was to be Samuel Zborowski, based on Slowacki's play. Grotowski and Flaszen had thought about doing Sfowacki's work as early as July 1959. As it happened, the Slowacki Theatre in Krakow produced Samuel Zborowski in October for the two-hundredth anniversary of the Polish National Stage. It was directed by Jerzy Kreczmar; scenography was by Stanislaw Bakowski; music was by Zbigniew Turski . One of those who reviewed the production was Haszen, and his statements, at least indirectly, cast some light on the starting point for the Laboratory Theatre's version of Sfowacki's play:

Producing Samuel Zborowski is undoubtedly a bold undertaking and,


thereby, a risky one. Samuel Zborowski has remained in rough draft form, one of those fascinating rough drafts, which make up Slowacki's last works. At that time, the poet habitually did not complete his works, and they constitute one long stream of feverish visions, constructed with Baroque opulence on the main themes, about ·which a researcher of archetypes, or maybe even an ordinary Freudian, would have much to say .... The mystical works of Slowacki endure by virtue of their brilliant conceptions, and more often, by virtue of the brilliance of their poetic detail and fury of speech. These plays are like unusually fantastic structures, in which there is not enough calculation and solid engineering. Large and unshapely, they stretch toward the heavens of Poetry and Truth, heedless of the natural weight of matter. They arouse as much fascination as they do confusion.

In translating Samuel Zborowski for the theatre, Jerzy Kreczmar occupied himself chiefly with the construction. From the lush, shapeless fog of the play, he tried to construct a bright and converging whole. Anyone who has read Zborowski and has gotten lost in its poetic meanderings knows that the attempt to extract such a meaningful structure is not an easy task. Whatever else one may say about the production that is negative, one cannot deny its consistency. And this is understandable. . . . The production has been thrust into a rationalistic lucidity and specificity of thought. The text is recited as if it were logical. The mise-en-scene is simple and uniform in its solemn tempo, reminding one of a poetic oratorio. Even in group scenes, in arrangements of a visionary character, symmetry prevails. The production is lucid, but it has lost its visionary momentum, its disturbing hallucinatory atmosphere, which Slowacki introduced into Polish dramaturgy. This is one of those productions from the romantic repertoire which relies on extraction of a rational core. It elicits one's respect because of its striving for clarity. This clarity, however, is attained in a unique way: it does not meet the madness of romantic mysticism head on, but moves evasively in order to bypass it. (Echo Krakowa (1965])

Early in December, Grotowski began rehearsals for Samuel Zborowski. During this same period, he granted a brief interview in which he talked about his "acting method":

If one wanted to articulate this in just a few words, one could say it is a method which strives to help each actor overcome his own individual psycho/ physical restraints. It is a method which helps the actor to avoid mistakes, to determine what is in his way, and to release the actor's spontaneous psychic processes with the help of special exercises.

f 95 Zbigniew Osinski

... Naturally, the research and experience of the past, from Stanislavsky to Artaud, from Chinese opera to Indian theatre, are, undoubtedly, the starting point for our own research and experiences. (Interview, K. Zbijewska, Dziennik Polski [1966])

In February 1966, the quarterly of the World Festival of Theatres in Nancy published Barba's lengthy interview titled "Meetings with Grotowski." The Laboratory Theatre's first foreign tour lasted from 6 February to 25 March and included three countries: Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. Barba introduced Grotowski to Scandinavia but Proft also had a considerable hand in bringing this part of the world and Grotowski together. The tour was prepared very carefully. Before the entire troupe arrived, Grotowski and three actors (Cieslak, Jaholkowski, and Mirecka) were already conducting instructional semina~s in which Grotowski's acting methods were discussed and illustrated with exercises. Such seminars took place in three Swedish cities: Norrkoping, where the audience was comprised of professors and students of the theatre school; Skara, where there was a course organized for lecturers and students of the remaining theatre schools; and Stockholm, where a course on acting methods for directors and actors was organized. Grotowski described as follows the character and goals of these seminars:

We involved ourselves with all the theatre schools in Sweden and conducted classes in keeping with our methods. The training included all aspects of the art of acting: vocal exercises, movement-plasticity exercises, the composition of movement, building the face mask, and means of getting at the actor's individual obstacles and appropriate ways to eliminate such obstacles. (Interview, K. Zbijewska, Dziennik Polski [1966])

In this way, the Swedish theatrical community was prepared to receive the performances of the troupe. Swedish television served to popularize the company

·before its arrival among a wider audience by showing a film (made earlier in Wrodaw) concerning the group's work. Altogether the company gave twentythree performances of The Constant Prince in Scandinavia: ten in Stockholm; ten in Copenhagen, where Grotowski conducted additional conferences on method for Danish actors and directors; and three in Oslo, where he met also with Norwegian actors and directors. Upon his return to Poland, Grotowski evaluated the tour: "We were asked ... to prolong our stay for a few weeks . Unfortunately, our schedule did not permit it. ... We ourselves were startled by our success" (Interview, K. Zbijewska, Dziennik Polski [1966]).

In spring 1966, the Laboratory Theatre officially took the Reduta trademark as its own. The first official document on which the new logo appeared was an invitation to "A Theoretical Session on Problems of Acting," which was held in Wrocl:aw 20-22 May. The program included the following subjects: "The


Technique of Collaboration Between Actor and Director," "The Psychic Technique of the Actor," "Vocal Techniques of the Actor," "The Lifestyle and Creative Work of an Actor," and "The Theatre of Cruelty as a Viable Alternative." These meetings were part of the Seventh Wrodaw Festival of Polish Contemporary Plays. One press release of the period stated: "Grotowski invited participants of the Festival to his own ... theoretical session, during which he spoke very engagingly and well, thereby gaining additional adversaries but also more well-wishing advocates and deeply interested adherents·" (A. W. Kral, Teatr [1966]).

The Laboratory Theatre's second foreign tour occurred in June and July. The Constant Prince was performed five times under the aegis of the Tenth Season of the Theatre of Nations in Paris. There were five more performances at the Holland Festival 1966 in Amsterdam in late June and early July. During the Parisian appearances, Grotowski's essay "Towards a Poor Theatre" was published for the first time in French in the Cahiers Renaud-Barrault, while the program for the performances contained Flaszen's texts for "The Laboratory Theatre of 13 Rows," "The Institute for Research of Acting Methodology," and "The Constant Prince." The result of this tour, particularly the first part of it, was world fame for Grotowski and his company. While the group was appear~ ing abroad, Flaszen wrote columns about it for both Wrodaw dailies, Sfowo Polskie and Gazeta Robotnicza. Here are a few excerpts:

In keeping with Jean-Louis Barrault's prediction, interest in the Wrodaw theatre has exceeded all expectations. Leading representatives of French culture such as Aragon, Ionesco, Claude Roy, and many others announced in advance that they would attend performances. The number of performances had to be increased from three to five . French radio and television as well as Belgian radio made offers to the management of the theatre for broadcasting rights ....

Barrault gave the troupe a large portrait of that classic of French theatre research, Artaud, as a sign of recognition. The outstanding British director, Peter Brook, sent a telegram bearing warm wishes for success and announcing his arrival on Thursday. Jerzy Grotowski was offered a job as a director in Paris. A Belgian representative invited the troupe to perform in Liege ....

Jerzy Grotowski and Ryszard Cieslak granted an interview to local television. Grotowski was also interviewed for French Radio, Paris Radio, and French Radio Abroad. In the afternoon, there was a theoretical conference taking place in the foyer of the Odeon Theatre, which summoned a large number of theatre people, critics, etc. JeanLouis Barrault, who opened the conference, had words of the highest praise for the work of Grotowski and his troupe. There was a short lecture by Grotowski, after which there was a very interesting discussion.


course at the Royal Shakespeare Company in London for Peter Brook. There Grotowski met Joseph Chaikin, who ·had been invited to collaborate on the production of US. Bohdan Drozdowski later described one of Grotowski's classes:

The session was exhausting and fascinating at the same time. Grotowski told the actors to keep Hamlet's monologue silent and they kept it silent . He told them to think Hamlet's monologue in their own words and they thought it, though not without great effort .... He told them to declaim it in the traditional way. Then he told them to shout it, all at once, but each just a little after the other had begun. There was an indescribable cacaphony of Hamlet monologues . One shouted "robe," and the other was already at "question ." A third was at the "to die" section and another was even further still. Then they had to pose ... . Then they had to think the monologue as old men, then as youths during the war period, as heroes .... Grotowski spoke quietly in his accurate but blunt French. Brook translated, even more quietly, into English ... . Fifteen people sat under the windows and faithfully noted Grotowski's every word. Actors went into a trance. The silence of the monologue was as eloquent as its shouting .... This was more than just a rehearsal. It was forcing the actor ... to coauthor each word, ... to dredge up from himself strata of existence which he had not suspected of being within him. (Albion od srodka [1973])

In the fall, the Brook article, which later appeared as the introduction to the book Towards a Poor Theatre, appeared in Flourish, a publication of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre.

Grotowski is unique. Why? Because no-one else in the world, to my knowledge, no-one since

Stanislavski, has investigated the nature of acting, its phenomenon, its meaning, the nature and science of its mental-physical-emotional processes as deeply and completely as Grotowski.

He calls his theatre a laboratory. It is. It is a centre of research .... Grotowski's work was a reminder that what he achieves almost

miraculously with a handful of actors is needed to some extent by each individual in our two giant companies in two theatres 90 miles apart .

The intensity, the honesty and precision of his work can only leave one thing behind. A challenge. But not for a fortnight, not for once in a lifetime. Daily.

II"•,; I' ' ~r

~ 105 Zbigniew Osinski

The 1966/1967 Seasqn

On 1 September 1966, the Laboratory Theatre of 13 Rows officially changed its name to the Laboratory Theatre Research Institute of Acting Method. This change was the object of much malice, such as that expressed in an article appearing in Kultura by one calling himself "Hamilton" [actually J. Z. S1ojeski]):

The Theatre of 13 Rows was always a theatre so bored with itself that it riever really wanted to be a theatre at all, although it did consider itself a much better theatre than any other in Poland .... At one time, this theatre bore the subtitle "Laboratory Theatre"; currently it is not a theatre but a research center, because its name is the Institute of Acting Method (really!). After all, the Theatre of 13 Rows always had scholarly interests . At the performances there were dances of the possessed, mad physical feats, Wyspianski's Akropolis performed in concentration camp uniforms, and they did refer to Jung in these shows.

The season began with the company's participation in the Festival of Young Theatre in Liege, organized by the Culture Section of that city. The Constant Prince was performed four times. In October, Grotowski and Cieslak conducted a series of lectures and acting exercises at the Ecole Superieure des Arts du Spectacle in Brussels. A week later Grotowski was in Warsaw to participate in the Congress of Polish Culture.

The January 1967 issue of Odra published Grotowski's essay titled "He Wasn't Entirely Himself," which is a discussion of the importance of Antonin Artaud to contemporary theatre. The essay was a direct reaction to the recent-

, ly published Polish edition of Artaud's The Theatre and Its Double, translated with an introduction by Jan Bfonski. In February, Flaszen appeared at the International Meeting of Young Writers in Paris, discussing the situation of theatre worldwide based on the experiences of the Laboratory Theatre. At the same time, Grotowski, Cie5lak, and Jaholkowski presented lectures and demonstrated acting exercises at the Centre Universitaire International de Formation et de Recherche Dramatiques in Nancy. In this period many interviews with Grotowski and articles discussing his methods appeared in the French press. On 21 and 28 March, "French-Culture" broadcast two programs on forming the actor. Grotowski and French director Roger Blin participated. Also in March in Wrodaw, courses were conducted for twenty-eight people from the Theatre Department of Charles University in Prague. These participants saw a performance of The Constant Prince and one of the many open rehearsals of The Gospels [the title of the work that had begun with Slowacki's Samuel Zborowski and would eventually emerge as Apocalypsis cum figuris].

In April, the Wrodaw press awarded Grotowski a prize for artistic creation. Tadeusz Burzynski at the time assessed the situation of Grotowski and his


group:

The Laboratory Theatre is now famous throughout the entire world. In 1966 alone, there were approximately 1000 reviews, articles, and other publications abroad concerned with the theatre and Grotowski's methods. And what about in Poland? Rather muffled press discussions (this is too bad) accompanying the birth and development of this theatre. Experts visit Grotowski from various theatre centers throughout the world. Perhaps the first Polish monograph on the Laboratory Theatre will appear and initiate creative discussion and abolish certain myths. Like the myth about the cost of the experiment, for example. The Laboratory Theatre costs the state 1.4 million zlotys annually (five to seven times less than the big theatres) and sometimes brings in pretty good hard currency [i.e., Western currency].

In May, Grotowski chaired the jury for the Seventh Annual Theatre Meeting in Kalisz and also presented a lecture for the International Festival of Student Theatres. Also in May a new version of Akropolis was premiered [this was the fifth and final version and the one filmed the next year in England]. The program accompanying the performance contained Flaszen's essay on the production and an essay by Grotowski titled "The Research Institute of Acting Method." Also at this time appeared a collection of articles in French (published by the Laboratory Theatre) giving a general outline of the research and artistic program of the Institute.

The third foreign tour by the Laboratory Theatre included Holland, Belgium, and Italy and extended from 16 June through 12 July. This time the group performed both Akropolis and The Constant Prince. The tour began with participation in the Holland Festival with performances of Akropolis in Amsterdam, Utrecht, The Hague, and Rotterdam. As the group performed, Grotowski went to Canada for several days to take part in the international theatre symposium held in Montreal [in connection with Expo 67]. His presentation bore the title "Theatre Is an Encounter." After the Holland Festival, the group then gave three performances of Akropolis at the Palais des Beaux Arts in Brussels. One of these performances was filmed in entirety for Flemish T elevision.

The tour concluded with participation in the Festival dei Due Mondi (Festival of Two Worlds) in Spoleto with seven performances of The Constant Prince. The first issue of the Italian periodical Teatro contained a translation of Grotowski's essay "T awards a Poor Theatre" together with Emilo Copfermann's interview with Roger Planchon titled "The History and Metaphysics of Grotowski and the Living Theatre." In all three countries, the Laboratory Theatre was greeted as a troupe of established fame, and its role was

107 Zbigniew Os

compared to that of Brecht's Berliner Ensemble or Jean Vilar's Theatre tiona! Populaire. Akropolis was compared to the visions of Dante Hieronymous Bosch. The Constant Prince was described as "a strong devastating experience." Il Paese viewed the production as proof of "g cultural and theatrical maturity" and underscored the "efficiency of unusual work invested in the actor." Critic Sandra de Feo wrote in Rome'" presso: "The newness and beauty of the Polish performance lies in its unus almost inhuman discipline and devotion on the part of the actor ." And Ro to de Monticelli of the weekly Epoca said unequivocally that "the most frui theatrical experience at the Festival dei Due Mondi in Spoleto is the encoUI with Grotowski 's troupe."

The following report, however, written by Jerzy Hordynski in Spoleto, peared in Poland:

The real sensation of the Festival turned out to be the Theatre of Rows from Wrodaw. Tickets for the tiny, eighty-person auditori1 were among the most difficult to obtain. Seated in the audience w some very outstanding personalities, but critics from the three m popular newspapers, Carriere della Sera, Momenta Sera, and Unita, <

not get in at all because they appeared after the performance h started (and were obviously not used to punctuality). This smacked scandal and that helped to advertise the production. The productio were praised for their modernity and innovation. I sat at the perfon ance of The Constant Prince, dual authorship of Calderon and S1 wacki, with bated breath and with growing sympathy for bo1 classics. Why doesn't Grotowski just write the texts himself or wri them together with someone else? In the press and in the corrido there was talk of sadism, even masochism. It is true there was i treatment, but mainly of the text, which was very difficult to uncle stand. It was chattered away too quickly; it vanished in the raucm and whistling sounds, and the Italians could confirm that we really d speak an anti-musical and very difficult language. That poor Ciesla! who is really a gifted actor , was at first demonic then Christ-like an he tired me out incredibly, as he did the entire assembly. I left th<: Grand Guignol with relief, having assured myself with satisfactio that this really was the agony of the theatre. ('Zycie Literackie [1967]

In a later essay, Hordynski noted with satisfaction that Polish critic Adam Tart in a meeting in Rome had figuratively "poured a bucket of cold water on one o Grotowski's Italian enthusiasts by pointing out ... that Grotowski abandon: contemporary theatre by muddling around in the classics" ('Zycie Literackit [1967]).

Between 10 and 30 July, Grotowski and Cieslak conducted classes in

Grotowski anc:::::::3. His Laboratory 108

Holstebro, De~mark for Scandinavian professional actors, and from 1 through 10 August, the -y conducted similar classes at the Royal Theatre in Stockholm. In July GrotOv'-=--ski was honored by the Polish Ministry of Art and Culture for "creative achie--vements in the field of acting." In an interview conducted by Flaszen, Groto~vski said: "One cannot allow oneself to be lulled by success. One must maintain = Jtumility in the face of the theatrical profession. Luckily enough, less has been d <me than there is left do do" (Wiecz6r Wrodawia [1967)).


From 6 throu~h 11 September, the Laboratory Theatre took part in the First International F~stival of Research Theatres, "BITEF 212," organized by the experimental the~tre Atelier 212 in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. The Festival was devoted to ne~ creative tendencies in world theatre, and eleven troupes participated: two e .ach from Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, and one company each from Fra~ce, India, Great Britain, Switzerland, the United States, Rumania, and P -<:)land. The Wrodaw group appeared three times (9 through 11 September) with The Constant Prince on the Chamber Stage of the Atelier 212. The production -was considered the best of the festival and received the Golden Award "BITEF 212."

In November, <Jrotowski and Cie5lak conducted a four-week course in acting methodology at ]::""'Jew York University at the invitation of the N.Y.U. School of the Arts. Upon :bis return to Poland, Grotowski said:

The cou rse we taught was designed for the most advanced students in the acti ~g program (that is, working actors who are trying to sharpen their ski ::lls) and for all the auditors of the directing program. In four weeks w ~ could only attempt to define the difficulties and restraints which bl ..ock the creative processes in specific actors. Cieslak and I suggested t~ those attending that they seek a method and training that would b~ appropriate to their own specific needs, that is, methods that would h~lp them overcome or break down those difficulties that arise in the prc:::Jcess of working creatively. The classes had a purely practical charactez:=-. We approached the sessions the way we would work on a role: we ~tarred to work on monologues, dialogues, and scenes from selected plays. We devoted a great deal of time to individual train· By indi vi.. dual I mean different for each actor, because the exercises serve ro '"3Unblock the actor's own creative sources and to overcome whatever is undeveloped, untrained, and unconscious. This is different for each person. (Quoted in M. Kosinska, Zycie Warszawy [1967])

Of the numerous American companies which claimed the influence of the Laboratory Thea tr:-e and its acting methods, Grotowski acknowledged only the

109 Zbigniew Osinski

Open Theatre with its production of Jean-Claude van ltallie's America Hurrah, directed by Joseph Chaikin:

They have, indeed, taken something very essential from us: the search for spontaneity which has a disciplined and conscious character and which leads to structure. Outside of that, and this is most important, they do not ape us in anything. They seek their own way and at their own risk. Only this form of reference to our experiences with method can have any meaning whatsoever. (Quoted in M. Kosinska, ibid.)

In the United States, Grorowski signed an agreement with Simon and Schuster to write a book about the acting methods of the Laboratory Theatre. Just before Grorowski left the United States in December, Theodore Hoffman and Richard Schechner conducted a long interview with him that appeared in the fall 1968 issue of The Drama Review.

Grotowski went directly to France from the United States, where he stayed through the first half of December. "In France I met with Peter Brook .. . . I was in Aix-en-Provence, where the local drama school decided to concentrate on learning our methods .... Our role is supposed to be as experts from afar, except that we are able to visit the school every four to six weeks to suggest the direction of further work and to evaluate the work achieved." When asked about the situation in the Laboratory Theatre, Grorowski replied: "The actors conduct their classes, there are performances (mainly Akropolis right now), and there are many students from other countries. We decided to cancel our tours as a group at least until summer, not only because we are preparing a new premiere, but also because we do not want to become uprooted and sidetracked from our own work. The new premiere? Speaking very generally, it will be based upon motifs from the Gospels" (Quoted in M. Kosinska, ibid.).

The premiere of The Gospels according to the New Testament and the tale of Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor [from The Brothers Karamazov], which was put off until January 1968, did not come to pass. In Poland, where there was no tradition of long work on a production, the constantly delayed premiere caused great impatience, often vented in the press. Boguslaw Czarminski, a critic who had watched the group's work from the beginning, commented:

Jerzy Grotowski has stopped irritating his greatest opponents, but he has nothing to offer his supporters. He is not creating as he was earlier, and he is not enlivening theatrical life. He is exploiting what he has already created (for a year now he has been presenting only The Constant Prince and has made everyone wait far beyond the limits of patience for the premiere of The Gospels) . ... The phenomenon known as Jerzy Grotowski has been acknowledged for quite awhile, at least in Poland. What is worse, however, is that this phenomenon has been laid on a shelf, like a book already read which dust is slowly covering.


It is easier now to succumb to the suggestion: Grotowski has been acknowledged, recognized; he has achieved stability because he has won what he wanted to win. He can now peacefully export his goods and draw his deserved recompense. The artist and restless creator is slowly becoming a lecturer and teacher. (Kultura [1 968])

In March, a new version of The Constant Prince premiered. Zygmunt Malik and Zbigniew Cynkutis took the roles of Maja Komorowska and Mieczysfaw Janowski, both of whom had left the troupe. Also in March, Grotowski had another consultation session at the Centre National Dramatique in Aix-enProvence. At that time, as well, he was nominated as professor at the Ecole Nationale Superieure Aix-en-Provence by the French Ministry of Culture.

The year 1968 marks a much livelier coverage in Poland of the work of the Laboratory Theatre. Many articles, interviews, and translations from the foreign press appeared in Polish periodicals. The Theatre in Poland devoted a double issue Ouly-August) to the Laboratory Theatre. It contained French and English translations of programmatic statements by Flaszen and Grotowski. The main reason for this growth of interest by the Polish press (confirmed by editorial notes and the texts themselves) was that Grotowski and his theatre were still better known and appreciated abroad than they were in Poland. This state of affairs was troubling if not downright embarrassing, and the Poles had to find a way out. Of all the texts which appeared at this time, the most important for Grotowski and the troupe was an article by Jan Kreczmar. The article had the tone of a personal confession and drew attention to the Laboratory Theatre's research as "extraordinarily significant ... for the development of the art of acting":

I would like our young actors to pass through Grotowski's "steam press" and to taste the sweetness of true toil, whether or not these young people really want to perform professionally in the future ... . I want to draw attention to this very important thing happening in our midst and to say this is needed by each of us who still has the strength and health to enhance his craft. This is a very revivifying current in our art and one capable of returning true meaning and a somewhat belated dignity to our acting. (Teatr [ 1968])

The next production was called Apocalypsis cum figuris. At first there were supposed to be two other works produced: Samuel Zborowski, based on Slowacki, and The Gospels, based on motifs from the New Testament. But it was Samuel Zborowski which, after a lengthy period of rehearsal, eventually transformed into The Gospels, and it was The Gospels which, again after a long rehearsal period, crystallized finally into Apocalypsis cum figuris. The whole process took approximately three years. There was a single open rehearsal of Apocalypsis on 19 July 1968. The actor Stanislaw Scierski described the long

Ill Zbigniew Osinski

road leading to this final theatrical production by Grotowski and the group:

I do not think there was an elaborately conceived method behind the process by which Apocalypsis came into being. Nor was there anything close to a plan, a type of external framework or assumption ....

There was a starting outline, a rough draft of a text based on Samuel Zborowski written by Grotowski himself. In it were suggestions concerning the division of roles, and there was even something of a discussion of the rough draft itself: What is this for us? What of each of us is contained in this? What vital thing does it give me? What vital thing can I bring to it? When we began to do the etude work, both collective and individual, not even using the text of the rough draft, not even "basing" ourselves on it, but preserving it only on the outskirts of memory, it turned out that the seed, the essence of these etudes, led in a direction away from Samuel Zborowski, namely to The Gospels, as they were present in us not in any literary or religious way, but simply as they lived in us, as time lives in us, in our humanity. So we headed in that direction.

The progress of what we were about was entrusted to Grotowski. He helped develop etudes, respecting our right to take risks. He would select the etude and often inspired them. In other words, he kept watch over the course of the production. One should note that many of the etudes were improvised. This is how the production with the working title of The Gospels came into being. There were even a few closed performances. After one of these, we and Grotowski came to the conclusion that even though this was an entirely new structure, it was based on a certain familiar region we had already explored (we could see traces of all our achievements up to then). We decided, therefore, to discontinue it, keeping everything that had been fruitful for us. It was then that we saw the real possibilities which, as it later turned out, led us to Apocalypsis. From the etudes that we performed for Grotowski, and the ones he co-created with us from the beginning, he built a new whole. If there were etudes which needed a text, both we and Grotowski made some proposals. In addition to Dostoevsky, he added excerpts from Eliot and Simone Wei!, writers known and close to all of us. All of this work was an experience that was both thrilling and dramatic and bore a sense of that specific community, where the closeness of someone close carries an unexpected hope and power. (Interview, K. Starczak, Odra [1974])

Apocalypsis seemed to be an attempt to broaden the experience of The Constant Prince for the entire group: there the "total act" encompassed one character; here it was intended to ·include everyone. The title of the production comes from Thomas Mann's novel Doctor Faustus and contains an allusion to


the last work of [Mann's central character] Adrian Leverkuhn, who, "as a. thirty-five-year-old man under the influence of the first wave of euphoric inspiration, composes his main work or his first great work, Apocalypsis cum figuris

.. . in an incredibly short time" (T. Mann, "How Arose Doctor Faustus" [1947]). The title seemed to augur that this Apocalypsis would be Grotowski's last work, and then·, something like madness, an entirely new path. Leverkiihn became, as we know, truly insane. For Grotowski, on the other hand, an entirely new horizon appeared in his creative life, a new dimension which is difficult to understand and even more difficult to evaluate. ..

There is a definite association of Apoccilypsis with a vision of the world's downfall. The production arose from terrifyingly everyday material or directly evoked it: human breathing, blood, sweat, stearin, bread, water, fire, air-all create the world of Grotowski's and his actors' Apocalypsis.

The spectators were assigned the role of witnesses. This was not a work directed against the spectators but towards them. At first, about forty viewers sat on benches set up along three walls of the performance space. As Grotowski said:

The vocation of the viewer is to be an observer and more: to be a witness. A witness is not someone who pokes his nose everywhere, who tries to be the closest or who interferes in the actions of others. A witness keeps to the sidelines, does not want to interfere, wants to be aware, to see what happens, from the beginning to the end, and to retain it in his memory; the picture of events ought to remain in him alone .. . . Respicio is a Latin word meaning respect for things. That is the function of a real witness: he does not interfere with an insistent demonstration of "Me, too." To be a witness is not to forget, not to forget no matter what it costs. (Dialog [ 1969])

The following participated in the performance: people, six actors and the spectators; the cane of the Simpleton (Cieslak); a loaf of bread; a pail of water; a knife, a towel, candles, and two reflector spotlights. Only this. Grotowski said:

In Apocalypsis we have departed from literature. This was not a montage of texts. We were approaching this during rehearsals, through flashes of insight, through improvisation. Twenty hours of material were accumulated. We had to build something out of this that had its own energy, like a stream. Only then did we turn to the text, to speech. A language arose from these various texts, a language which has no author and which is the language of the human race. We cite no one in what we're doing now. The word appears when it is indispensable. That is our point of attainment. For now. (Quoted by E. Morawiec, Zycie Literackie [1973])


Apocalypsis cum figuris is recognized as Grotowski's most outstanding work and undoubtedly the most complete work by his actors, each of whom created a performance of exceptional intensity. For seven months, until the official premiere, the only testimony to the production was a review by Tadeusz Buski (Burzynski) of the open rehearsal of 19 July 1968:

This time the entire performance space/auditorium is the stage. There is not even the small barrier that divided actors from viewers in The Constant Prince. The viewer is "composed into" the stage space, becom-ing one . .. of the elements of the production .. ..

One enters an auditorium illuminated by a few spotlights. On the floor, placed at various points and in various poses, insensitive to our presence and as if in a trance, are the actors. Five of them are dressed in white, one in black. Almost no props .... The production is raw, there is no practical scenery, no music. (Gazeta Robotnicza [1968])

From late July through mid-August, Grotowski and Cieslak conducted a course in Holstebro for Scandinavian actors as well as for participants from both the United States and Belgium. Also together with them in Denmark was the leading performer from the Wrodaw Pantomime Theatre, Stanislaw Brzozowski. The text of Grotowski's pronouncements was published in the Italian monthly, Teatro [1969]. And two interviews with Grotowski, one by Marc Fumaroli [with questions prepared by Harry Carlson and Gerald Rabkin], the other by Margaret Croyden, appeared in the fall 1969 issue of The Drama Review. A very detailed report of Grotowski's classes was published by the Journal de Geneve [1968].

In August, the first edition of Grotowski's book, Towards a Poor Theatre (with Brook's introduction), appeared in Holstebro. It contained Grotowski's theoretical articles, interviews, articles by his collaborators (Barba and Flaszen), and also notes prepared by other authors on the classes conducted by the Laboratory Theatre troupe and its leader in various countries. Grotowski himself described the book as a "ship's log." Because it was in English, the book gained wide readership and became a kind of new Bible for experimental theatre groups throughout the world. In years following, the book was reissued and translated into many languages.

At approximately the same time, Peter Brook's book, The Empty Space, was published. In the chapter titled "The Holy Theatre," the director grasped the "essence" of the Laboratory Theatre's research at that time:

In Poland there is a small company led by a VISionary, Jerzy Grotowski, that also has a sacred aim. The theatre, he believes, cannot be an end in itself; like dancing or music in certain dervish orders, the theatre is a vehicle, a means for self-study, self-exploration; a


possibility of salvation. The actor has himself as a field of work. This field is richer than that of the painter, richer than that of the musi~ cian, because to explore he needs to call on every aspect of himself. hand, his eye, his ear, and his heart are what he-is studying and he is studying with. Seen this way, acting is a life's work-the actor step by step extending his knowledge of himself through the painful, ever-changing circumstance of rehearsal and the tremendous punctuation points of performance. In Grotowski's terminology, the allows a role to "penetrate" him; at first he is all obstacle to it, but constant work he acquires a technical mastery over the physical and psychic means by which he can allow the barriers to drop. " penetration" by the role is related to exposure: the actor does hesitate to show himself exactly as he is, for he realizes that the secret of the role demands his opening himself up, disclosing his own o=~~~··" ... So that the act of performance is an act of sacrifice, of sacrificing what most men prefer to hide-this sacrifice is his gift to the spectator. Here · there is a similar relation between actor and audience to the one between priest and worshipper. It is obvious that not everyone is called to the priesthood and no traditional religion expects this of all men. There are laymen-who have necessary roles in life-and those who take on other burdens, for the laymen's sake. The priest performs the ritual for himself and on behalf of others. Grotowski's actors offer their performance as a ceremony for those who wish to assist: the actor invokes, lays bare what lies in every man-and what daily life covers up. This theatre is holy because its purpose is holy; it has a clearly defined place in the community and it responds to a need that churches can no longer fill. Grotowski's theatre is as close as anyone has got to Artaud's ideal. It is a complete way of life for all its mem· bers, and so it is in contrast with most other avant·garde and experimental groups whose work is scrambled and usually invalidated through lack of means. Most experimental products cannot do what they want because outside conditions are too heavily loaded against them. They have scratch casts, rehearsal time eaten into by the need to earn their living, inadequate sets, costumes, lights, etc. Poverty is their complaint and their excuse. Grotowski makes poverty an ideal; his actors have given up everything except their own bodies; they have the human instrument and limitless time-no wonder they feel the richest theatre in the world.

... 115 Zbigniew Osinski


The fourth foreign tour of the Laboratory Theatre lasted more than three n1onths, from late August through late November, and included visits to Great

, Mexico, and France. The troupe first took part in the annual Edinlnternational Festival, performing Akropolis eight times in a specially

~rPn~,.Pd auditorium of the old festival office. While in Edinburgh, Grotowski an interview to both French and American television, and Flaszen met

partiCipants in the international course for theatre students at the Univerof Edinburgh.

in September, the company took part in the Cultural Olympics at the · Games in Mexico City. The group performed The Constant Prince times in the auditorium of the University Theatre, and the Olympic

filmed fragments of the presentation. From Mexico, the company was scheduled to go to the United States for a

six-week tour. But American authorities did not grant the group entry visas [in protest against the recent Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia]. Sixty representatives of various aspects of American cultural life signed a telegram petition

the American State Department's decision. This petition was published in the Sunday edition of the New York Times (18 September 1968). Among those signing the protest were Arthur Miller, Edward Albee, Walter Kerr, Jerome Robbins, plus numerous directors and actors from the New York

generally. Because of the entry visa denials, the Laboratory Theatre went to France instead.

The group's stay in France included thirty performances of Akropolis in Paris at the Theatre de l'Epee de Bois from late September through late October. French radio conducted several hours of interviews with Grotowski, which were then broadcast each Thursday for six weeks. While in Paris, Grotowski presented a lecture-"Today's Theatre in Search of Ritual"-at the Center for the Polish Academy of Science. Then in late October and early November, the group went to London to film Akropolis at Twickenham Studios. The film was introduced by an extended statement by Peter Brook. The tour ended with the group's participation throughout most of November in the Action Culturelle du Sud-Est in Aix-en-Provence, where Akropolis was performed twenty-three times.

In December, La Cite' in Lausanne published Raymonde Temkine's book titled Grotowski as part of its series called ''Theatre vivant." At that time, Temkine's book was the second (after Barba's) to be devoted to Grotowski and the work of the Laboratory Theatre.

At the end of 1968, Grotowski made his first visit to India. The film of Akropolis was shown on American television on Sunday evening,

12 January 1969. Anthony G. Bowman, commenting generally in Ameryka [an American publication distributed in Polish] in 1970 on the reception to the


television film, said: "This film was received coolly. Stanley Kauffmann later explained this reception in The New Republic: 'There is an enormous difference between the theatrical production of AkTopolis and the film version, as much difference as between an event and its description.' "

The official premiere of Apocalypsis cum figuris [as opposed to the ' rehearsal" of the previous summer] occurred on 11 February 1969. Reviews and articles about the performance appeared shortly thereafter. Of the dozens published at the time, two had special significance: the analysis by Puzyna in Teatr [still considered by Grotowski and members of the company~s the most definitive critical statement about the work (translated in the Fall 1971 issue of The Drama Review)] and the essay in Odra by playwright and poet T adeusz R6iewicz, who concluded:

It is my deepest conviction that this theatre ought to continue to exist for a few more years unchanged. It should become better known in Poland. Before it takes another shape, another form. The theatre still known mainly through legend, gossip, jokes .... Not many of critics, actors, directors, and writers are familiar with it, and this is not a good thing.

In March, Radio Paris broadcast for International Theatre Day a program Polish playwright Stanislaw Wyspianski, directed by Bronislaw Horowicz. A fragment of Akropolis, prepared by G~otowski, was included in the broadcast. In April and early May, Grotowski and Cieslak conducted classes (at the in" vitation of Antoine Bourseiller) at the international training session for actors at the Centre Dramatique National du Sud-Est in Aix-en-Provence. An article , signed by Claude Sarraute titled "Grotowski and His Followers" appeared in Le

, Monde shortly thereafter. Actually the article is Grotowski's own sharp indictment of those who automatically imitate certain devices of the Laboratory Theatre and who thus contribute nothing of their own. The August issue of . Dialog was devoted almost entirely to the work of the Laboratory Theatre, and later in the October issue appeared another article, this by Jan B!onski, who wrote:

Years of work have resulted not just in the dazzling success of perfect craft and penetrating theoretical thought. They have also resulted in a genuine reconstruction of the theatre, which was done in the spirit of highest fidelity to its essential sources and most immediate priorities . . . . The Laboratory Theatre was born from a collision of the romantic theatre of participation and a modern concept of the actor, best and most beautifully described by Stanislavsky, to whom Grotowski so willingly pays his due. Grotowski, however, goes beyond and discards both these traditions, concentrating on the basic relationship between spectator and actor, between spontaneity and


discipline, myth and tragedy .... The actors' extinguishing of the spotlights themselves in Apocalypsis cum figuris is worthy of the most refined lighting effects; and the irregular running of the Simpleton through and around groups of actors, sketches the striking configurations of a tragic ballet in the space of the auditorium. Similarly with the literature. Until now, Grotowski has shelled the necessary nucleus from the great dramas. Now it is probably correct to say that, having used the Bible, Dostoevsky, and Eliot, "he wrote" Apocalypsis himself. The words init come from well-known sources, but the arrangement (that which gives value to the theatrical) summons the original action and original meaning. In the end, then, this "poor theatre" indirectly regains what it had gotten rid of earlier. It blossoms into a theatre which, if it is not total (this word is over-used), then is surely whole.


In September 1969, the International Festival of Research Theatres (BITEF 212) was held for the third time in Belgrade. The program included a number of performances by significant avant-garde companies from around the world: the American Performance Group's Dionysus in 69, under the direction of Richard Schechner; Peter See berg's Ferai, performed by the Odin T eatret from Holstebro, Denmark, under the direction of Eugenio Barba; the Italian Teatro Libra's production of Orlando Furioso, as adapted and directed by Luca Ronconi; the American Bread and Puppet theatre with The Cry of the People for Meat, directed by Peter Schumann; the Marionetteatern from Stockholm with Alfred Jarry's Ubu Roi, directed by Michal Meschke; the Cinoherni Club from Prague with Machiavelli's Mandragola, directed by Jiri Menzel, as well as productions titled Labyrinth and Doctor Burke's Strange Afternoon, written and directed by Ladislav Smocka. Franco Quadri of the Italian monthly Sipario wrote in the November issue:

Jerzy Grotowski was invited as an honorary guest of the Festival, and he came, saw, destroyed, and left. He spared us four hours once, but they deserve special attention. These were four hours of unending public confessions and analyses of world theatre. The Polish director settled accounts with the entire avant-garde (with the exception of Barba) and particularly with Schechner's production (although he did praise the Performance Group and the goal of its research), to a cool and very troubled public. One should look at Grotowski's criticism, however, from the perspective of his method, which is the act of doubting, above all else, a struggle, destruction, self-destruction, a beginning from zero. In today's theatrical and cultural context, this figure of a monk and his pathetic quest for the absolute may seem


anachronistic. It would be dangerous to entrust him with the role Grand Inquisitor, but it would be equally unjust not to ;JC'I{nc">wiPrln~ ',o

his model of work.

The Laboratory Theatre's fifth foreign tour, from mid-September mid-December, turned out to be the most important and most fruitful to The group toured Great Britain and the United States with three In London, in September, the group played Apocalypsis cum figuris and Constant Prince five times each. Next the troupe appeared during an event tit "From Poland With Art," organized by the Polish Ministry of Art and in collaboration with the Institute of Polish Culture in London. There were performances of The Constant Prince, four in Manchester and two in in early October. Two anticipated performances in Liverpool were cancelled, however, when Grotowski found the auditorium in Liverpool unfit for the duction.

The previous summer, the management of the Brooklyn Academy of Mus Ninon Tallon-Karlweiss, and Ellen Stewart (founder of the La Mama perimental Theatre Club in New York) announced that the Labo Theatre from Wrodaw would be in the United States for five weeks in October. The group stayed in the United States a full two months from l October through 17 December and presented forty-eight performances instead of the anticipated thirty-four. All were given in the Washington Square Methodist Church in Greenwich Village. There were twenty-three performances of The Constant Prince, eleven of Akropolis, and fourteen of Apocalypsis cum figuris. During the tour, Grotowski held four open meetings at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, where he at least hinted at what was to come in the Laboratory Theatre's post-theatrical phase. Here are a few fragments of opinions, collected by Stuart Little in Saturday Review [ 1970], expressed after the Laboratory Theatre's visit. Little himself wrote:

Two months have gone by since ]erzy Grotowski and his Polish Laboratory Theatre performed three plays in an eight-week engagement in New York, but the theatre community is still talking about the visit. The Grotowski ideas reverberate, the images of the actors are unshakably fixed in the mind, and one wonders what will be the residue and result of this extraordinary visit ....

Robert Brustein, Dean of the Yale School of Drama: "American actors don't have the self-abnegation required in Grotowski's technique. To create this theatre one has to believe in something greater than the theatre .... "

Lee Strasberg, the Actors Studio: "Everybody is impressed one way or another with his sincerity and with his intensity which, given the condition of our theatre today, is unique. In his theatre we see people who


are willing to stay together and who are committed and people who seem to belong together on the stage and are not up there just answering cues .... "

Joseph Papp, the Public Theatre: "I have watched the imit'ators of Grotowski, and they are almost laughable. They are childish compared to Grotowski; one looks like a child, the other looks like an adult. But one influence Grotowski will have here is to give people heart that the theatre is not simply a series of shows to be put on to be enjoyed or ignored but can be of extreme importance to the people.

"

In late December, there was a press conference with Grotowski in the Hotel Europejski in Warsaw, where the director discussed the group's stay in both Great Britain and the United States. Numerous notices appearing in the American press particularly confirm the significance of that stay. Anthony G. Bowman (Ameryka) suggested that no foreign theatrical group had left such an indelible impression since Stanislavsky had come to New York with the Moscow Art Theatre. According to Bowman, the majority of American critics regarded the performances as the most significant events of the theatrical season, if not of the past decade. The American weekly, Time, contained a list of the most important events of the decade 1960-1969 in various fields. The magazine listed Grotowski's Laboratory Theatre in first place among the top ten theatrical achievements. At the same time, leading New York critics acdaimed Ryszard Cieslak the best actor off-Broadway in 1969. Cieslak occupied first place in the polls in two separate categories: as most outstanding creator in the field of acting and as the actor with the greatest promise. He was the first laureate of this award who acted in a language other than English and the first actor to win awards in both categories simultaneously. In September 1970, the Laboratory Theatre was granted the "Drama Desk" Award by the New York Theatre Society for Apocalypsis cum figuris, which was recognized as the best production of the 1969-1970 season in that city. The distinguished American critic, Eric Bentley, described his reaction to that production in an open letter to Grotowski (in the New York Times of 30 November 1969], which he began quite negatively:

In short, for many of us, your work got the worst conceivable send-off, and don't reply that so many have swooned over you, fawned on you, etc. etc., because we know that is true, and it only made the whole thing all the harder to take. It was not until the evening of your third show that I recovered from the trauma. During this show, Apocalypsis, something happened to me. I put it this personally because it was something very personal that happened. About half way through the play I had a quite specific illumination. A message came to me-from

Grotowski and H is Laboratory 120

nowhere, as they say-about my private life and self. This message must stay private, to be true to itself, but the fact that it arrived has public relevance, I think, and I should publicly add that I don't recall this sort of thing happening to me in the theatre before .. ..

In the same letter we read:

You insist on a very small theatre. Correction. You insist on nq theatre . What you insisted on in New York was the Washington Square Methodist Church. And when I saw Apocalypsis I saw, too, why you had been so fussy. Fussiness is the name given to perfec-tionism by those who see no need of perfectionism. You needed it because, in addition to clear outline, you wished your image to have many delicate, shifting details which would get lost in a larger place. -Your non-theatre is so small, it has many of the advantages of movie close-ups. One watches the play of wrinkle and muscle on your actors ' bodies.

Of special importance in these excerpts are the two phrases "You insist on no theatre" and "Your non-theatre." Both signal the change that was about to occur in the Laboratory Theatre.

In the final days of the year 1969, Grotowski visited India for the second time.

In late February 1970, the creator of the Laboratory Theatre met in the Wrod_aw City Hall with publicists from various cultural magazines from all over Poland who had come to Wrod_aw to attend a performance of Apocalypsis. At this point, the theatre and its director were at the height of their success, just having returned from their triumphal British and American tour. Grotowski was recognized as the primary experimental theatre figure in the world, regarded as a "classic of modern theatre ." It was then that he said:

The number of tours at this moment interfere with our work. The trips must be shortened. Concentration demands this of us. We return home with great joy .... We live in a post-theatrical epoch. What follows is not a new wave of theatre but rather something that will replace it. Too many phenomena exist by sheer habit, because it has been generally accepted that they should exist .... I feel that Apocalypsis cum figuris is a new stage for me in my research. We have crossed a certain barrier. (Quoted by Zofia Raducka, Tygodnik Demokratyczny [1970])

This was a clear prediction of a new direction for Grotowski and the Laboratory Theatre. Grotowski also spoke of the necessity of enlarging the troupe and of consequent difficulties:


The strength of our group lies in the idea of the team. This is a specialized group of actors, whose selection took ten years . We are a small organism because there are only seven of us. Life demands a certain broadening, however, and the building or rejuvenation of our group. When we began working, the oldest members of our group were thirty. Today we are all between thirty and forty. It will not be easy to draw other people into our work .... We cannot allow a split between the "old" and the "new"-between those established and those just beginning their artistic lives. The assimilation must be immediate. We do not want to accept the status of a school or actors' workshop. Nor does it seem possible to "guarantee" rapid creative development to someone just beginning, who is a novice and undefined. But we cannot accept an actor who is immature initially. That is why we hope to find young people with initiative and with the need to express themselves in the theatre. They have to be able to pass through the absolutely indispensable aspects of the creative training program, about which legends abound, relatively quickly. We are not really acrobats, and we do not base our research on circus feats. These young people, however, must be able to accept the risk of the creative act immediately .. . . (Quoted by Raducka, ibid.)

Grotowski, of course, here uses the words "actor" and "theatre," but there is in his statement also the implication of a move toward hitherto unknown horizons, the inevitable end of the "old" and a striving in the direction of the "new." At this point, he seemed to be still operating in the "theatre." To be sure, it may have been a theatre quite unlike any other of its time, but it was still a theatre. Many did not fully understand what Grotowski was about in 1970 and speculated on the reasons behind Grotowski's public statements. "The Hero is Weary" was the title of Bronislaw Maroon's report from Wrodaw. Mamon concluded:

Grotowski's heroic epoch, when he created in spite of critics, the press, and his sponsors, is behind him. Now that he has tasted renown, recognition, and glory; now that he has toured to general enthusiasm half of Europe and both 'A.mericas with his productions; and now that many young people in Western theatres call him master, I think that he longs for that period when he was unknown and unimitated. Can he uphold the creative tension of those years if he is deprived of solitude and silence? (Tygodnik Powszechny [1970])

Grotowski himself later characterized this period of his life as follows:

That was a time when a man's natural inertia, fear of the unknown, and the feeling that to leave the confines of the known discipline is


madness and must end badly. But I knew I could not continue what thought to be a beautiful but closed chapter of my life. Nor could I enough strength and courage to create another .... So I did not enough heart for one endeavor nor enough courage for another. does one do in such a case? One can force oneself to continue, but must have a very strong character, because there is something wretched in that; everything becomes a kind of lugging of heavy sacks: can seek refuge in illness-this is not a bad solution-or become a fessor or rector and create some sort of extra-special theatre scho~f which I thought about for a while .... Usually it turned out when I knew something had to be done, I could advise others of it. advised those whom I care about to set out and travel. Until I ·~''"'""u, c

and this has happened to me a few times in my life, that I should take my own advice. (Interview, A. Bonarski, Kultura [1975])

This also happened during the course which Grotowski and Cieslak ducted at the Centre Dramatique National du Sud-Est in Aix-en-Provence in late Ju~e and early July. He advised one of the participants to go wandering. Grotowski. himself then went directly to India from France. That summer he spent six weeks in India and Kurdistan. When he met the troupe of Laboratory Theatre at the airport in Shiraz, his closest colleagues failed to recognize him. He looked like a completely different man: he had lost over eighty pounds and had grown a beard.

Thus in late August, the Laboratory Theatre began its sixth and, as it turned out, last purely theatrical foreign tour. Their travels this time took them to the Middle and Near East, to Iran and Lebanon, a tour lasting until mid-October. Altogether the group gave twenty-seven performances of The Constant Prince, of which six were presented in Shiraz at the Festival of Arts (26 August-S Sept_ember), Shiraz-Persepolis 1970; five in the palace of Emir El Amin near Beirut (6-16 September); and sixteen in Teheran (17 September-11 October). There was a press conference at the Shiraz Festival which attracted several hundred people. What was billed as a round table discussion turned into a friendly dialogue between Grotowski and Peter Brook.

During the tour of the Middle and Near East, Grotowski flew to Colombia for the Latin American Festival (of which he was honorary president) Manizales. Numerous theatrical troupes from various Latin American countries came to Manizales even though they were not participants in the festivaL They simply wanted to establish personal contact with Grotowski. Grotowski reviewed the work of troupes using his methods and analyzed their achievements at public meetings lasting several hours. A text based on Grotowski's appearance at Manizales was published in September under the title "What Happened." In its own way, it seems an attempt by Grotowski to settle accounts with his own theatrical experience and with "theatre" in general. It


contains, however, the future theme of his para theatrical research. That is whY the lecture has an extremely personal tone:

li~- .

This meeting is a special meeting and it is taking place at a very special moment in my life .... This is a dual moment in my life. That which is theatre, "technique," and methodology is behind me. That which has been reaching for other horizons within me has finally resolved itself .... What was a quest in the theatre, ·in the "technique," even in the professionalism (as we understood it, that is, as a vocation), is dear to me. It has led me to where I am. It has led me out of the theatre, out of technique, and out of professionalism. It is still alive in me as an experience of life. But I am already breathing another kind of air. My feet are touching a different kind of ground, and my senses are drawn to another kind of vocation. That is where I am going. I hear your voices, your questions. About theatre. I turn my head toward it, toward theatre. That is the past. I am speaking about that which was, about that which I sought in another life ....

If you intend to do thea ere, you ought to ask yourself the question: is theatre indispensable to my life? Not as theatre. Not as an institution and a building and not as a profession: but as a group and a place. And, yes, it can be indispensable to life, if one seeks a space where one does not lie to oneself. Where we do not conceal where we are, what we are, and where that which we do is what it is and we do not pretend it is anything else . .. . And this, in time, will lead us out of the theatre .... (Reprinted in Dialog [1972])

i'-

?"u ·v,

At about the same time, Grotowski's appeal to young people in Poland was published in several daily newspapers and read during the popular radio program "Afternoons With Young People." The appeal was to those "who, simply because they need to, would choose to leave behind personal comfort and seek exposure in work, in an encounter, in movement and freedom." The appeal was titled "A Proposal for Working Together." Grotowski had written it at the end of June, a fact which tends to negate the opinion so prevalent that the new period of the Laboratory Theatre was a simple consequence of its mentor's physical metamorphosis in India later in the summer.

In October, Grotowski received the "Diploma of the Foreign Affairs Minister for outstanding service in propagating Polish culture abroad," this being the first time such diplomas were bestowed. In early December, the Laboratory Theatre took part in Polish Culture Week in West Berlin. The group played The Constant Prince seven times, these being the last performances of the work. Thereafter, the troupe performed Apocalypsis cum figuris exclusively. Grotowski went directly to New York from West Berlin. Because of his lectures at New York University in 1967 and the Laboratory Theatre's performances in New

- --- - ---------- ---------


York in 1969, New York University invited him once again for a series meetings with students and professors. American directors, actors, wri critics, and hundreds of the simply curious came to the first meeting on day, 12 December, in New York's Town Hall. Everyone seemingly gathered to hear Grotowski explain the misunderstandings that had grown in the United States surrounding his methods. The meeting turned "talking marathon" that lasted until four o'clock in the morning. The critic Franck Jotterand described the atmosphere of the meeting as

Grotowski answered the questions of hundreds of students and fessors of theatre assembled one evening at midnight in Town Grotowski's entrance was greeted with the cry: "How he's c ·~··•&'-'U' "' The first question asked was "How were you able to change your pearance to such a degree?" It was difficult to recognize the mys man who had been here before for a few lectures. The new is thin, has light-colored glasses, a short beard, and a jacket epaulets .... The style of his short, nervous sentences, spoken in cellent French, emphasized his concept of theatre as a place of work and an area of confession. (Le Monde [1971])

New York Times critic Mel Gussow solved the problem Grotowski in the following way: "Yesterday, the director's American re1Jre:ser1' tative, Ninon Tallon Karlweiss, confirmed that it was indeed Mr. 'He lost 88 pounds,' she said. 'He was a fat man and now he's a very thin There were no explanations about the psychic or physical reasons behind transformation, although that was the subject of one of the first Saturday night." The participants could not rid themselves of the thought someone was putting them on. After four hours of serious and honest sian, it was evident that if the speaker was not Grotowski, he knew more about him than Grotowski himself.

Somewhat later, in speaking of this period of his theatrical evolution and called "exit" from the theatre, Grotowski said:

One says about a dancer that she should stop dancing for a Well, so I stopped being a director after Apocalypsis. I entered domain .... Only the question remains: What interests people? tempts them? What devours them? Is the theatre that is known in civilization simply a product for which one buys a ticket? Even in case of Apocalypsis this is so. It is still theatre. Arid I ask myself question: Could I do a production now? A production in the sense of theatrical production? Maybe I would be able to do that better before, because I am relaxed. But I can't get myself to do that kind work. I've already measured myself against what I've sought in theatre .... Repeat it? Preserve it so that it could be done over


over and over again? It is destiny to go in the direction of a new horizon, which really beckons. On the other hand, a horizon is not a leap, because if there had not been an earlier one, the present one would not have loomed. (Interview, A. Bonarski, Kultura [1975))

128

((In Search of Active Culture" Wrodaw 1971 .. 1976

The text of Grotowski's "Holiday" [in Polish, the title is "Swieto," "holy day"] begins as follows:

Some words are dead, even though we are still using them. There some that are dead, not because they ought to be substituted others, but because what they mean has died. This is so for many us, at least. Among such words are: show, performance, theatre, tator, etc. But what is necessary? What is alive? Adventure meeting: not just any one; but that what we want to happen to would happen, and then, that it would also happen to others us. For this, what do we need? First of all, a place and our own and then that our kind, whom we do not know, should come, too. what matters is that, in this, first I should not be alone, should not be alone. But what does our kind mean? They are who breathe the same air and-one might say-share our senses. is possible together? Holiday. (Odra [1972])

This was the mission of Grotowski and the Laboratory Theatre at the end 1970. The group continues to be bound to this direction even today [1

1971

In early March, in the small auditorium of the Ateneum Theatre in Warsaw . was a meeting organized by the Polish Center of ITI. Both Flaszen Grotowski attended. In April in Krakow, Jan Blonski, Jerzy Broszkiewicz, Jerzy


, and Flaszen participated in a discussion meeting eventually reproduced · Dialog [1971]. The subject was romanticism in contemporary Polish theatre,

the Laboratory Theatre was to serve as an illustration of the thesis. In the publishing house Wydawnictwo Literackie released Flaszen's book Cyrograf (The Contract) . Included were Flaszen's articles "The Philologist

the Theatre and Others," "Wyspianski the Mulch," "Immorality, Sad and y," "Theatre Doomed to Magic," and "After the Avant-Garde." In the issue

in Poland devoted to the Wrodaw Institute, the following texts were .mDuu"'-'· "Grotowski In Poland" by Jan Kbssowicz, "Apocalypsis cum figuris"

Konstanty Puzyna, and "Opinions About Jerzy Grotowski's Laboratory by Andrzej Ikanowicz. At this time also, a theatre building in Colom

was named after Grotowski. In June: Jerzy Gurawski won one of the first awards given at the second

"Quadriennale." The publishing house La Cite in Lausanne published authorized French version of Towards a Poor Theatre, and a Japanese ver

; sion of the book appeared in Tokyo with commentary by director and theatre expert Tetsuo Toshimitsu. In Wroclaw, the first rehearsals took place of a new version of Apocalypsis cum figuris. For this version, specifically for younger au

the benches were removed and the audience of approximately one sat on the floor or stood against the walls. From this time on, two ver-

sions-one with benches, one without-were presented. ·· In July, Grotowski and Cieslak conducted a course for actors from several

countries at the Centre National Dramatique du Sud-Est in Marseilles. The author of Towards a Poor Theatre was named Professor of the Ecole Superieure d'Art Dramatique in Marseilles, while Antoine Bourseiller, the director of the school and well-known director himself, published Grotowski's Exercises. Shortly thereafter, the journal Le Theatre, edited by Fernando Arrabal, contained a long statement by Grotowski titled "The Voice." The author himself attributed great significance to both these texts, in which" ... one can find an analysis of our path, the changes that have taken place in our view of the actor, evolving from work with the actor to collaboration with mankind generally. Essentially, but a little under the pretext of analyzing exercise, training, etc., we discuss matters which I consider most essential" (Teatr [1972]). In July and August, Cieslak appeared in an Italian television film about the creative training of the actor. The film was done in Denmark with the participation of the Odin T eatret in Holste bro.

During this period as well, various articles appeared on the activities of the Laboratory Theatre. The magazine Poland published the last chapter of Grotowski's book plus Flaszen's remarks about Ryszard Cieslak's acting. The August issue of the West German monthly Theater heute devoted a large section to the Wrodaw theatre. There was a lecture given by Grotowski in New York in 1969, "Nudity in the Theatre: Moral or Obscene?" together with fragments of the scenario of The Constant Prince as prepared by Ouaknine.


In late August and early September, the group visited Denmark, twelve performances (four of the new version) of Apocalypsis in the audi of the Odin T eatret in Holstebro. Danish television and radio devoted a of hour-long specials (including interviews with members of the troupe) to work of the Laboratory Theatre. After the visit, the publishing house T Teorii og Teknikk published a notebook entitled Grotowskis trening, devoted to the work of the Laboratory Theatre. It included Grotowski's on nudity in the theatre, the voice, and physical training plus Jabfokowna's interview with Cieslak, Maria Krzysztof Byrski's "Grotowsk.i . the Indian Tradition," and _Bentley's open letter to Grotowski.

In late September and early October, the Laboratory Theatre performed Warsaw. Apocalypsis was played sixteen times (eight in the new version) at Stara Prochownia [literally the Old Powder-Keg) on Bolesc Street. In "~·~•c•cvn to the performances and the conversations that followed them, there were·· number of open discussion meetings. All these appearances had the aura of sensational about them, corroborated by the remarks of the press:

As elsewhere in the world, so here too, the performances by Laboratory Theatre have become an artistic event. Tickets, or passes, have become the impossible dream of many .... (M. "~'~"'o""• '· Zycie Warszawy [ 1971))

Just as in New York, London, Shiraz, Paris, and now Warsaw, the pearance of the Laboratory Theatre has created an unusually tense mosphere. The places where the performances are to take place are kept in strict secret until the last minute. No one knew whether it could be found or not. 0. Klossowicz, Wsp6lczesnosc [1971))

Grotowski was in Warsaw! He was here and the performances of his company took place in an aura of unheard-of sensationalism and secrecy. I have seen groups of serious people signing some sort of peri- · tion protesting against showing the Laboratory Theatre's work exclusively to "the bureaucrats of the National Council." (M. Karpinski, Sztandar Mlodych [ 1971))

Reactions were significant after the performances and meetings-an outlet for .. extreme emotions-from fascination to definite dislike or hatred:

For someone who saw Grotowski two years ago, the way he looks is a revelation. . . . Nothing has remained of the old Grotowski, the conventional-looking man. Instead we have a thin, tall, young guru with a beard, long hair, dynamic (but internally rapt), bare feet in sandals. He looks a little like a Durer painting .... Grotowski ... has emphasized many times that the most important thing for him is searching for answers to the question: how should one live? His main goal


is to come to know mankind, to accept the thoughts of others and to pass on his own. It is pure chance, however, that at the beginning of this search he happened to be in theatre; othewise he would have sought answers to these questions elsewhere .... How this man is capable of overwhelming an auditorium; what a miraculous gift he has for making contact with others, for giving of himself and understanding the thoughts of others. (A. Lechicka, Szpilki [1971])

On the other hand, there were also attempts to ridicule and compromise Grotowski. Andrzej Kijowski's article, "Grotowski is a Genius," appearing in Tygodnik Powszechny, had the appearance of libel. Kijowki accused the Laboratory Theatre of imposing its own doctrines on the viewer. In Apocalypsis, Kijowski saw "clamorous gibberish," "a lack of precision, rhythm, invention," "attacking the spectator who is plastered to the wall," and "terror, as the only consistent principle":

All art is an attempt to communicate by means of more or less obvious patterns of signs. Grotowski draws out into the light of day and realizes in the form of a production and its organization, a sadomasochistic arrangement ... in interhuman relations .... Grotowski is not, therefore, an artist creating signs of communication, but a watchman in an itinerant prison for volunteers, a brilliant policeman who has raised terror and torture to the principle of spiritual coexistence. He is the creator of a utopia for masochists, that is, a world in which torment pretends to be a value. Wielding an act of violence instead of understanding, he has created a substitute spiritual life for the participants: music for the deaf, vision for the blind, mysticism for those who are deprived of the mystical instinct .... Grotowski ... has discovered that the job of not understanding is similar to that of understanding, and that revulsion may be similar to enchantment if the victim is convinced ahead of time that he is chosen.

"Go and come no more" [the final words of Apocalypsis, spoken by Simon Peter]-these last words sound like a perfidious invitation. It's too bad each spectator doesn't get bashed in the face when entering or leaving. Boy, would they crowd in then!

Yes, Grotowski is a genius. The history of his theatre could be one of the most splendid books on the culture and society of the twentieth century, and he himself could be the hero of this unusual novel.

When asked what he thought of Kijowski's review, Grotowski answered: "I don't know how to analyze it critically, especially since that is probably impossible because the review is written within the limits of impressions: 'not good,' 'dilettantish,' 'sham brilliance.' But die fact is that it affected me, hurt and stunned me, that the old game is still being played. I suppose one can do it


this way. I don't think I stand a chance of changing my comrade. I don't think I should wonder at it. I should just accept it" (Quoted in Odra [1972]). Later he spoke of the matter in a broader context:

Sometimes I wonder why this happens to me and if this is just typically Polish. And then I say to myself, maybe there is nothing strange in it after all, because people have spoken this way about Bergman in Sweden and Brook in England. Sometimes they speak even worse of them. So maybe this is normal. Here, of course, I hear putraged voices: by what right do I compare myself with "such people"? Pardon me, but if "such people" compare themselves with me, then perhaps I have the right to do so as well. (Quoted in Odra [1972])

Grotowski gauged the significance of the Laboratory Theatre's stay in Warsaw as follows:

I have the feeling we did the right thing in coming here .... There were very unusual things going on here, in reactions and in conversations with many people who came to see us. I have the impression we had to be here. I have probably come to know another, a different Warsaw. (Quoted in Odra [1972])

In late October, in the student club called "Palacyk" (Little Palace) in Wrodaw, there was a meeting with Grotowski of participants and guests of the Third International Festival of Student Theatres. He had by this point somehow come to grasp the essence of the evolution occurring both in himself and in the institution of which he was the director:

I will stop working, I will suspend my activity at the moment I become my own follower .... This does not mean that, after twelv~ years of work, I have suddenly come to the conclusion that I now ought tobe doing something else. In the course of many years, everything we've ever done at any given moment was to question what had been done up to that point. Of course it wasn't just a matter of questioning,-we reaped much more-but our work was always a polemic with itself. Each new undertaking in the workshop was a victory over what we'd already done. Otherwise all our work would have been simply a struggle to reach a certain position, and then a struggle to maintain that position, like climbing a mountain peak and digging in with our claws so that no one could tear us away. No, that's a nice game, but it turns life into defeat. There are real adventures in life; the other things remain banal. If we struggle creatively with our lives, if we struggle to cleanse our lives of lies (which is one of the real adventures), then it becomes obvious that we must keep asking the same basic questions

r 133 Zbigniew Osinski

without respite. It is not right to praise to the skies what others have already accepted in us. On the contrary, we must be able to come to terms with the fact that those who were our friends at one point in the search will feel offended by what we do afterwards .... This is no joke, since it involves an indispensable step beyond our own limitations. Just as the great [Polish] poet Norwid understood it ... who said somewhere: in everything man does or writes, there is always something in his concealment and silence that is quite different from what he chooses to reveal. A different but not necessarily opposite something, which is the reverse of the same card which we either do not yet know-or which we do not yet know that we know. Norwid noticed this in each of his great works, each sentence silently containing the following one. The next sentence has already been born without words. And it is still possible nor to know it. The same goes for human deeds. (Quoted in T eatr [1972])

He also spoke of the Laboratory's preparations for a "new encounter" and the difficulties involved:

As to the evolution of Apocalypsis and especially the next "work," the next encounter for which we are preparing: we are trying to find a way not to turn anyone, who wants to come, away from our doors. But if the number of people who come grows like an avalanche, problems will occur. At that time we'll have to find a way of organizing our encounters so that the people who want to meet with us will be able to. I'd like to emphasize that . . . I see no harm in a person's being turned away if that person simply wanted to participate in "cultural events." There will be no harm done if that person misses out on just another of these events .... I have nothirig against this kind of spectator, but there are people who seek us out specifically and those who come to see us "among other things ." We should be able to give priority to the first type, not only in our hearts but also in our encounter. (Teatr [1972])

The meeting was not exactly placid. According to one report in Kultura (by Tomasz Lubienski), someone had whistled and another shouted that he would prefer questions and answers instead of a long lecture by Grotowski. Another report published in Teatr (from notes taken by Swiss participants and prepared by Flaszen) shows Grotowski's skill in calming the situation:

I'm sorry, but I am incapable of satisfying everyone. I wish to speak as I know how, and it seems to meJ:hat this is what should be done. If you came to meet with me, then you should be capable of adapting yourself to the circumstances of the meeting. That's how it is in life:


man must always adapt to something. (A few whistles in the auditorium.) If someone feels like protesting, please do so. (Loud laughter and applause in the auditorium.) If someone needs to protest, shout, whistle, go ahead, I can wait. And then I will continue as I began. And when I am through, he can have his turn and speak.

After this statement, the heckler called out: "But we can read about all these ideas of yours in your books." To which Grotowski replied that none of the ideas he was dealing with at this meeting were discussed in his book. This drew applause from most of the audience, but there were still a few whistles. Grotowski said: "Our rather unintelligent exchange has only taken a lot of time, during which, if it had not taken place, I would have already finished what I had to say. So I will finish what I have to say, and then you may have the floor, if you wish. I continue."

In November, Grotowski was guest of honor at the Sixth Festival of Theatres of Argentina in Cordoba. He received an honorary award, bestowed annually by the "Talia" Society and the journal Seminario Teatral de l'Aire as the outstanding foreign visitor to Argentina. The citation read: "For the outstanding quality of his distinguished pedagogical personality." Grotowski also conducted seminars while in Argentina, and the materials based on stenographic notes from the seminars were published by the Centro Dramatico Buenos Aires in a special double issue of the journal Teatro '70. This was one of the so-called "wild" or non-authorized editions of Grotowski's work. Many such editions circulated among young theatrical troupes in Latin America.

1972

On 23 March, Wroc!aw's S!owo Polskie carried a story concerning a building .that was being given the Laboratory Theatre for rehearsals by the Wroclaw city authorities. It was an old barn in the village of Brzezinka near Olesnica, some forty kilometers from Wrodaw. The building was to be appropriately adapted for use by the troupe. Several days later in the same newspaper, there was information about the troupe's preparations for a new premiere, the title and contents of which were to be kept secret until the first showing:

There is work going on in the Laboratory Theatre on a new production. Twelve members of the troupe are taking part in it (including quite a few novices) under the direction of Jerzy Grotowski. The work is being created through the collective participation of group members, who are sharing their life's experiences. The basis for the work is no dramaturgical text nor any written word whatsoever. People predict this will not be a production at all but rather a specific kind of composed encounter with other people-the spectators.


In early April there was a meeting attended by Grotowski and students in the Coastal Student Club "Zak" [Prankster] in Gdansk. A few days later, a similar meeting was organized in the Student Club "Od nowa" [From the New] in Poznan. Both talks were concerned generally with the Laboratory Theatre's "Holiday." Tadeusz Rafalowski describes the first ofthese meetings:

Grotowski j s now a good twenty years younger than the Grotowski with whom I discussed Indian theatre, the number of resonators in the human body, and the already then famous "method" in the Gdansk railway station restaurant after a performance of The Constant Prince . . . . Now at the meeting in "Zak," Grotowski (surrounded by listeners) is as unusually and fascinating a phenomenon as the world which he calls into existence. He asks that there be no filming for television during the meeting, since lights and the presence of cameras cause a "falsification" of expression; they force one unconsciously to "act," to be inauthentic. (Gtos Wybrzeza-Magazyn [1972])

From April through June, Odra published in three consecutive issues Grotowski's texts titled "How One Could Live," "Such as One Is-Whole," and "Holiday." In late April, Grotowski conducted a seminar at the Theatre of Nations in Paris. On 20 April, there was a public discussion organized in which Grotowski and the seminar participants took part at the Theatre Recamier. Among these was the Japanese director Tadashi Suzuki, who described his first encounter with Grotowski:

I saw him for the first time at the Espace Pierre Cardin theatre in Paris. There was also an American troupe there, somewhat in the "hippie" style. Grotowski, undressed to the waist, was playing with these young people. It all seemed very stupid to me, but he seemed to derive great pleasure from it. When I asked him about it now (August 1973), he dismissed the matter, saying: "Ah, that was just a joke." (Quoted in Dialog [1974])

On 10 May was the twenty-fifth anniversary of]uliusz Osterwa's death, and a solemn commemorative ceremony was organized at the Institute of the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences in Warsaw. The evening began with a reading of fragments from Osterwa's writings and letters. The entire affair was presided over by Tadeusz Byrski. The middle section of the program included statements by Jarosfaw lwaskiewicz, Juliusz Starzynski, and Grotowski, the latter of whom discussed Osterwa's work within the framework of his own personal tradition.

In early June, further changes were made in the performance of Apocalypsis cum figuris. For the first time, the actors appeared not in their white costumes but in their everyday clothing. The Simpleton-Cieslak remained in a black


coat, which never had had the appearance of a costume as such. When white costumes were disposed of, the whi~e, cane which the Simpleton was replaced by an ordinary wooden one. Malgorzata Dzieduszycka ' ntf•rnrM·orl

these changes as follows:

The attraction of these changes for the 'a'ctors is seen most clearly ing the first performance .... This was ~ew for the actors; they seemed different to one another. They played with exceptional verve. The number of viewers has also increas'ed. Often people sit in a rows against the walls. At the beginning, when some of the in the audience, their entry into the action is startling. cum figuris: Opis spektaklu [1974])

In late July Grotowski became a laureate of the State Prize of the First Degree in the area of art, with the following citation: "For your creative acti~ities in the Laboratory Theatre in the area of mise-en:scrme and research in the a~t of acting, with specific recognition of Apocalypsis cum figuris." This was the only State Prize of the First Degree granted to a person of the theatre. All jdurrtals contained the communique of the Polish Press Agency: Laureates of Prizes-1972. There were also articles about Grotowski. KlossowicZ's was amo~g them:

Jerzy Grotowski has attained a position in world theatre uriequa!led by any other Pole. Everyone knows of Grotowski, some adore hirri; others hate him, but no one who is seriously interested in i:he theatf~ can ignore him and what he has done, written, and spoken. Ohe !nay -not like Grotowski, one may argue wit!: him, but he cannot be ignored. The place which he occupies in contemporary theatre dri.t1ot be undermined .... There has been much talk and writing devoted to theatre, and for almost a hundred years how, there are more and rriore reformers. However, only a few among i:hem have known how tb create or say something genuinely new. And Grotowski belongs with those-next to Stanislavsky, Meyerhold, and Artaud. That is his real position in the contemporary theatre. (Literatura [1972])

During the Olympic Games in Munith, the Laboratory Theatre again took ' _, !' ,

part iri the Cultural Olympics. In the o.ld half-destroyed church of All Saints, from 22 August through 4 September, thete were twelve showings of Ap'_Ocalypsis in its two different versidri.s. Each type of performance was to be a different, v~ry specific encounter between people: there were six performances for young people (300 audience members for each playing) and six regular performances (tor up to 60 people). The appearances drew the interest of the West Gerfnan, Swiss, Austrian, and French presses. Abendzeitung, an afternoon Munich


newspaper, awarded Grotowski the special honorary diploma cf "star of the week," for an outstanding cultural event in the 'iife of the city. Le Mon~e carried a detailed report of the production on its first page ("The Apocalypse Acco~ding to Grotowski"). During the Munich visit, Flaszen was interviewed for Austrian television. Grotowski and the troupe received numerous proposals for collaboration and appearances from German-speaking countries. Hamburg and Vienna asked him to tour, and the University of Munich asked Grotowski to do a series of lectures. Tadeusz Burzynski noted, however , that Grotowski was not currently accepting any of these offers:

More and more often, speaking of his work, Grotowski uses the past tense. It seems he considers a certain period of research closed. His work has taken on an independent life, and certain processes begun by him continue in the contemporary theatre independently. Now Grotowski and his troupe intend to undertake new assignments. What kind? To that question I can give just one evasive reply: Those of us from Wroclaw will know about them first. (Gazeta Robotnicza [1972))

Grotowski spoke in more detail about these "new assignments" back in Wrodaw at an open meeting. Stanislaw Srokowski described the situation flS follows:

The last meeting was again an opportunity for reflection qp()ut the essence of theatre and its function in contemporary culture. But ip truth the real reason was the return of the Laboratory Theatre from Munich-but that alone was not the object of the meeting ... . Some time ago, many years back, not only was Grotowski accepted unwillingly, but he was denied the right to exp~riment, and, in my opinion, that was as naive then as calling him a Messiah is now and expecting him to furnish a miraculous recipe for saving the theatre, while he is simply himself full of doubt and seeking. (Wiadomosci [1972])

In mid-October, Grotowski appeared at the Polish-French colloquium at Royaumont. Witold Filler writes about the event:

For Frenchmen, Polish theatre is contained in one name: Grotowski. But one should write his name in capital letters: GROTOWSKI. The creator <Jf the "poor theatre" knows his worth, which has begun to irritate many of us. Therefore, as if to spite those very people,

i ' . ! •

Grotowski emphasizes his differentness. But he does it with the pro-vocative abandon of a child. While [Artur] Sandauer carries on about Gombrowicz .. . , Grotows~~i takes a jar of coffee out of his backpack, carefully dissolves-the powder in water, and just as carefully wipes the


spoon afterward. Sandauer does not see this, but the French see only this. Sandauer drones on, but his audience watches only Grotowski. When Grotowski speaks, the journalists and their pencils come to life: the dark-eyed Colette Godard of Le Monde takes notes and the young people from various Parisian theatres turn on their tape recorders. At the theatre colloquium in Royaumont, there were over 160 Frenchmen .. I think that almost everyone came to see Grotowski. When he finished speaking, he was applauded. As if the hall were already a theatre. (Kultura [1972])

Polityka carried another report, malicious, by Jerzy Waldorff:

Grotowski introduced lofty theoretical accents. I admired this extraor-· dinary apostle of platitudes. . . . All these old dreams were communicated by the old master from Wrodaw with such suggestiveness, almost hypnotically, that, even though they were related to the audience in very bad French, they fascinated the listeners at Royaumont and aroused enthusiastic applause, just as he had in the United States, Canada, Italy, and everywhere else. During the reception at the embassy, a young man came to the door, said that he had no invitation, but that he must be allowed to touch Grotowski. He was allowed in, touched Grotowski, and left elated.

Grotowski's talk was published in the weekly, Kultura, in December under the title "This Holiday Will Become Possible." On the day of Grotowski's appearance at Royaumont, Zycie Warszawy noted that performances of Apocalypsis cum figuris would resume in Wrod.aw after a three-month hiatus. At the end of October, Polish Television broadcast a program from the series "Intimate Encounters" that carried a conversation between Grotowski and Jarostaw Szymkiewicz. The American edition of Raymonde Temkine 's book, Grotowski , appeared in December, based on the French text (abridged) but also carrying information concerning Grotowski's stay in the United States. In midDecember, there was a conversation in the Senators Hall on W awe! [in Krakow] in which Grotowski, Puzyna, and the general public participated. The text was published in the July 1973 issue of Dialog. Later in December, Grotowski gave lectures in Paris at the Theatre d'Orsay, which was under the direction of Jean-Louis Barrault. Also in December, Apocalypsis was shown for the last time in the version with benches. By the end of 1972, the performance had been presented a total of 188 times.


1973

For ten days in early February, Grotowski presented a series of lectures in New York and Los Angeles. Later in the spring he presented lectures in Holstebro, Denmark (23-25 April), Paris (26-28 April), and Quebec and Montreal (28 April-4 May). Evelyne Ertel published a report in Travail Thetitral on the meeting with Grotowski in Paris's Theatre Kecamier on Friday evening, 27 April:

This lecture is a unique thing in Paris: the audience is limited (in addition to the usual rows of seats, a few chairs were added on both sides of the stage); about thirty people will sit on the floor and in the aisles; and we are among the specialists, almost among the chosen. When the lecture begins, the doors of the auditorium will be closed .... When everyone has finally settled down, Grotowski gives the sign that he is ready to speak. There is an immediate silence full of rapt attention, no, more of respect, a surprising thing and almost an anachronism at a time when the smallest gathering is carried on in an atmosphere of indescribable uproar. ...

Grotowski asks that people give him questions and, in this way, he will be able to speak, taking into consideration the interest of the people present and the subjects about which they are most interested. A hand goes up in the audience, then another; the questions begin to come one after another. Grotowski notes them down on a piece of paper. If he considers a question unworthy of attention, he answers it immediately to dispose of it. Sometimes he answers ironically or belittles the issue, as with the first question: why is there an admission charge to this lecture? Grotowski proposes his questioner turn to the organizers of the lecture in this matter, they being the ones who must pay the rent for the auditorium. The charge for students was five francs, which is not really expensive .... The discussion of the subject is closed .... Basically he improvises his answers. He speaks entirely without notes, walking along and around the table. A truly masterly lecture ....

"Holiday." This is the culminating point of the transformations of Grotowski and his group. Grotowski uses the English word "holiday" and reminds the audience that etymologically the word means "holy day," while retaining its contemporary meaning of "free day." The Polish word 5wifEto has no equivalent in French, but it refers to "holiness, holy, pure" and sounds like the Polish words for "light" [swiac1o] and "world" [.Swiat].

At this point in his lecture, Grotowski sought to reconstruct what had hap-

f~ :, ~~ !>

!;~ J:i n i'i !;I

~'~. i\ ;:j.

!!i:: k:

l~'~ l:i! j;i : :~


pened organizationally with the Laboratory Theatre. There had been a meeting in early November 1970 with seventy of the 300 or so people who had responded to his "Open Letter" of invitation of September 1970. This meeting lasted for four days and four nights: it was a kind of small festival, completely improvised. As a result, a ten-person group was formed which, until the end 1971, worked first with Grotowski then later with Zbigniew [Teo] Spychalski: So that the new people would not feel like pupils when compared with the established members, it was decided that the two groups would work separate- . ly. By the end of the year, only four of the original ten of the new people r;. mained: Irena Rycyk, Wieslaw Hoszowski, Zbigniew Koslowski, and · Aleksander Lidtke. Others came later: two graduates of the Acting Department in Warsaw, Teresa Nawrot and Jerzy Bogajewicz, plus the leading from the STU Theatre in Krakow, Wlodzimierz Staniewski. Finally the two groups came together. On 15 November 1972, fourteen people-the above~ mentioned seven new people plus seven from the old group (Albahaca, Cieslak, Grotowski, Jahoikowski, Molik, Paluchiewicz; and Spychalski)-went to work in Brzezinka for three weeks. "The new group ... has installed itself in the forest after having found and purchased old buildings and a water mill. We had to renovate the whole place to make it usable. It was the first common meeting of the new group."

In December 1972, the thirteen-member group (Spychalski left for a time with other commitments) began work in the auditorium in Wrodaw, which lasted until the first half of January 1973. Then a whole group moved to Brzezinka, to work and live there but not permanently. For every few days spent there, a rest period was allotted, during which time each person returned to the city, to his private life and to his personal and family matters. According to Grotowski, "The life in the forest had the characteristics of life in a community, except that adherence to the 'strict rules of the game' was enforced: the principle of private property was respected and there was nothing that could be labeled a familioerotic commune . . . . The movement into the forest (which is not a 'return to nature') helps to establish a rhythm of work different from life in the city, which is more inhibiting. It's the rhythm of space, time, freedom. And one is not haunted."

All of this lasted until June 1973, when a meeting was held in Brzezinka to which persons from the outside were invited. Among these was Jacek Zmyslowski, who subsequently was asked to stay on with the Laboratory Theatre. The meeting lasted three days and three nights and had the working title "Holiday." Later it was called the first "Special Project." Shortly thereafter, two members, Bogajewicz and Hoszowski, left the group.

From June through August, Grotowski and remaining members of the group took a series of trips. Flaszen, Mirecka, and Cynkutis held lectures and classes in the Dramatisches Zentrum in Vienna, while Grotowski himself took a trip around the world. In July, he was in the United States, where 800 people at·


tended his lecture at the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles. The real purpose of the trip was to settle the conditions for work and performances of the Laboratory Theatre during its planned visit to the United States in the fall.

Grotowski went from the United States to Canada and from there to New Zealand and. Australia in August, where he presented lectures in Wellington, Sydney, and Melbourne. According to information in the Australian press, the Arts Council of Australia had tried for three years to have the LaboratOry Theatre come to Australia . And the main reason for Grotowski's trip at this

· time was to discuss the conditions and prepare the ground for the coming of the entire troupe in February 1974. There was widespread coverage of Grotowski's visit and some wrote of the particulars of his current research: Katherine Brisbane in The Australian and Helen Frizell in The Sydney Morning Herald.

In mid-August, Grotowski was in Tokyo, where he met with Tadashi Suzuki and Kayoko Shiraishi (the leading actress of the Waseda Sho-Gekijo troupe). Grotowski and Suzuki visited the Shibuya district at night and attended a No theatre rehearsal. Shingeki, a monthly devoted to theatre, published in its October issue Suzuki's interview with Grotowski and his account of their meeting:

Grotowski arrives in Japan with a sleeping bag and knapsack, his entire luggage. He walks around the city at night, looks, listens. Without prejudice, for he does not accept ready formulas, he listens with genuine interest and does not believe in anything which he himself cannot confirm. Looking at him, I thought: "This fellow really knows how to move, how to be there, where things are taking place." ... Grotowski spoke often about overcoming cultural barriers. I imagine this idea arises from his specifically Polish circumstances. He grew up in a country which, geographically and culturally, found itself at the crossroads of various cultures and influences .... During our conversations, we ourselves wondered why it was so easy to talk. Grotowski, laughing, explained that we had a similar attitude toward life. Perhaps I should add that we have the same attitude toward our people, our actors. I asked him "What is Poland to you?" He answered with a halfsmile: "Poland is my mother-but not my father. I am looking for my father." ... I think Grotowski's future is to be an eternal wanderer without a homeland. Or he will bury himself somewhere in Poland, will go crazy, and as a madman, in a conceptual and emotional sense, he will be isolated from those around him. With his character and makeup, I see no alternative. On the other hand, in that very same character, I see the guarantee that he will never rest content with what he has achieved, and he will not be sated with the paeans in France or anywhere else. (Reprinted ' in Polish in Dialog [1974])


The Laboratory Theatre's fourteenth season began with a five-week visit to the United States. The trip was, as usual, quite thoroughly prepared for. The Drama Review in its June 1973 issue had published four of Grotowski's texts (in translations by Boleslaw Taborski): "The Day That Is Holy," "Such As One Is-Whole," "I See You, I React To You," and "This Holiday Will Become Possible.,· The group was in the United States from 10 September through 16 October. Apocalypsis cum figuris was performed fourteen times in Philadelphia in St. Alphonsus Cathedral. Later, Grotowski and the group plus selected ticipants recruited from students in the area did a so-called "Special Project" together, which lasted eight days. Cynkutis, Mirecka, and Flaszen conducted a separate .course at the University of Pittsburgh. On 23 September, Grotowski receiyed the tide Professor honoris causa from the University of Pittsburgh "for his artistic and uncompromising devotion to transforming and theatre arts so that they become a testimony of understanding between people." On 15 October, there was a press conference with Grotowski at Sardi's in New York, and on the same day, the Smithsonian Institution honored him in Washington with a Diploma of Service for his "outstanding · contribution to the development of world theatre." The next day, before his departure for Poland, Grotowski gave a lecture at the Smithsonian rnlCJrf>Tn

his most recent research. On 27 October, the Student Club "Palacyk" in Wrodaw again

meeting with Grotowski and participants and guests of the Fourth Interna~ tiona! Student Festival of the Open Theatre. An account of the meeting is given by j6zef Kelera in the article "Grotowski in Semi-Indirect Speech" published in Odra (1974). The reason for the title is that Grotowski allowed .· Kelera to tape the meeting but only under the stipulation that the critic simply report events and not attribute any statements to Grotowski in the first person. According to Kelera's account:

He [Grotowski) would like to ask all those present not to record and not to take notes on what he says. For a variety of reasons. He has often come across unauthorized publications on the subject of conferences taking place in various countries. These published were distorted and contained what is called "editing" in English .... (A voice from the audience: "And what about Polish?") That is to say, such accounts produce a montage that results in omissions misunderstandings. But that is not the only point. The atmosphere the meeting is important, inseparable from him, and that is not communicated in such publications ....

And now he waits for questions. He will not write them down, in connection with which he will forget some of them (merriment), and that will not be accidental. (Clapping, great merriment.) It is that these questions do not strike or interest him. He probably will forget the questions which seem essential to him.

1 p 1

" S!

s Ia

G ar "(

G

~

~ F .


During the Festival, the Laboratory Theatre performed Apocalypsis four times. Rena Mirecka replaced Elizabeth Albahaca [as Mary Magdelene]. This was called "the second version of Apocalypsis-October 1973," but, in fact, it was the third, [since the discarding of the white costumes for street clothes was the actual second version]. With the production of Min Fars Hus (The House of My Father) by the Odin Teatret, directed by Eugenio Barba, the issue arose once again of Grotowski's "influence." It was in 1967 that the issue of "imitators and pupils" began to form. In 1969, of course, Claude Sarraute had published "Grotowski and His Followers" in Le Monde. In 1971, the Performance Group's production of Commune, directed by Richard Schechner, was supposed to have been under Grotowski's influence. Later Tadashi Suzuki protested when Jack Lang called him "The Japanese Grotowski" in Le Monde. In his review of Min Fars Hus, J6zef Kelera had this to say:

And here was the surprise: real Grotowski pupils! Independent and practically like sons. Especially one of them: Eugenio Barba, the first and oldest from Opole. He is the first liberated one, the first apostle of the word and the glory of the Master in the world, and, today, a firstrate artist ....

This was the most favorable review of the Odin T eatret appearing in the Polish press. Others were more harsh. Both August Grodzicki (iycie Warszawy) and T adeusz Burzynski (Gazeta Robotnicza) saw Min Fars Hus as no more than a well-done replica of the work conducted by the Laboratory Theatre in The Constant Prince and Apocalypsis cum figuris. Grodzicki titled his account "Grotowski, Scandinavian Style," while Burzynski believed that the entire Wrodaw Festival labored in "Grotowski's shadow."

The Laboratory Theatre was in France the whole of November. Both Colette Godard of Le Monde and Caroline Alexander of L'Express heralded the group's arrival and explained the purpose of their visit. Alexander titled her article "Grotowski's New Research. A Pagan Mystery Play in Sainte-Chapelle: For Grotowski in France This is Just the Beginning":

The Year 1969: The birth of a new man . ... The beginning of new research. Grotowski makes a tabula rasa of aesthetics . . . and all "theatricalizing." He wants technical awareness to transform itself into human awareness. He rejects the acting instinct. Life itself becomes the object of his efforts. Grotowski becomes a hermit and a humanist.

In Poland, Grotowski regularly isolates himself in a forest with his actors and a few novices. The purpose of this is to look life in the face with complete objectivity. He W"luid like that objectivity to be the basis of a bond between people . . . . That confrontation, which has nothing to do with the "encounter groups" fashionable of late in the United States, will take place in France after the last performance of

··- -·-- - - -


Apocal ypsis. . . . Three different groups will be created simultaneously:

-a conventional class in theatrical technique will be held in Paris for about twenty pupils; -a workshop in paratheatrical research will be conducted in a city in southern France for about thirty participants; -a "holiday," a total experience, which will last eight days and nights will occur in a distant corner of Brittany. Grotowski will soul, and he will accept from five to eight people.

What is all this for? This research will one day lead to the birth new type of art. Without spectators, but with real participants.

A utopia? Undoubtedly. But those who dare to su themselves, to support each other in the unreal, may find ~ treasure there.

From 12 through 18 November, the group performed Apocalypsis cum seven times in Sainte-Chapelle as part of the Festival d'Automne in Afterwards, between ZO and 30 November, Grotowski conducted paratheatrical sessions of "Special Project" as well as two other sessions in attempt to realize the so-called "Composite Research Program" which he begun in the United States.

Because of Grotowski 's participation in the Festival d'Automne, published a collection of Grotowski's texts in both his own and Jerzy Lisows translations: "Jour saint," "Tel qu'on est, tout entier," "Ce qui fur," and "Et Jour saint deviendra possible." Grotowski then traveled from France to United States, where he attended on 22 December the inauguration of an stitute in New York named after him: The American Institute for the and Study of the Work of ]erzy Grotowski. Its main goal, according to its faun• ding charter, was "the dissemination of Grotowski's artistic discoveries and ideas in the United States." The inauguration took place in the apartment of George White, president of the O'Neill Foundation, and numerous well-known actors and directors, including Elia Kazan and Andre· Gregory, were in attendance.

The December 1973 issue of Dialog contained this statement by Zbigniew Cynkutis:

The purpose of my reflection is not to question the theatre's right to exist. The theatre itself does this well enough .... When considering theatrical reform today, one must first of all leave the theatre a certain amount of freedom and not mark out rigid paths (either artistically or administratively) so as not to destroy the potential birth of something which may not even be called theatre but which will grow from theatre. Perhaps we will witness the birth of an entirely new human thing-for people.

7":

t:. ~~ f f


1974 r ~· At the beginning of the year, Grotowski was gone from Wroclaw for three [ months. At the end of]anuary and beginning of February, he was in Australia, ~'' where he gave a talk at the University of Sydney and a lecture at the Polish ~, Consulate on the development of theatre. In Australia, he traveled more than ~ 4000 kilometers to find the proper place for the forthcoming project to be con·- ducted by the Laboratory Theatre. In March, he went to Sao Paulo in connec~tion with the planned appearances of the Laboratory Theatre in Brazil. On his ; way back to Poland, he stopped in New York and Paris . During this period, in :_ February, Ryszard Cieslak conducted classes in acting technique at the School · of the Arts, New York University .

At the end of March, the Laboratory Theatre arrived in Australia at the in----vitation of the Arts Council of that country. The group stayed in Australia for

almost three months, returning to Poland in mid-June. The group was involved in two major enterprises during the trip. The first was a series of thirty-two performances of Apocalypsis cum figuris presented in Sydney from 4 April through 18 May. The second task, whose significance to the developing research of the group was especially great, was a continuation of the paratheatrical and other experiments-the "Complex Research Program"-begun in both the United States and France. Four different workshops were contained in this program, including two paratheatrical ones: "Narrow Special Project," devoted to the individual work of participants; and "Large Special Project," geared to group work.

The performances of Apocalypsis were played in a specially-prepared chapel of a Sydney cathedral: St. Mary's Cathedral Chapter House. 3600 spectators, 86% of whom were young people under the age of twenty-five, attended these performances. The following are excerpts from reviews of Apocalypsis written by critics attending the Sydney premiere:

Memories of the Polish resistance, the Warsaw sewers, the mass graves under public buildings, the history of the foreign overlords and the betrayal of allies are only just below the surface in any Pole, who creates rituals to keep the memories fresh. All this is to be found in Apocalypsis cum figuris, because it is the work of a Polish master .... The actors, led by Cieslak . .. draw the audience into their own concentration . ... Being part of Apocalypsis is not an easy experience for an Australian: and I do not mean because the words are foreign but because the impulses on which it presses are strange to us in our comfortable, materialistic, nominally ... adolescent country .... Grotowski, the greatest dramatic innovator of the second half of the 20th century, has been enormouslv, influential in facing the theatre with elemental impulses. (K. Brisbane, The Australian [1974])


The actors are masters of the art of physical presence. They can silence with a whisper or the slightest shuffle, they can evoke a ing cataclysm with amazing outbursts of furious energy. When they tack each other you can feel the blow, when they get randy you smell the juices and when they chuck each other to the floor it is bones which can give a silent yelp. These are not normal actors. They have legs and feet and arms and fingers and torsos faces through which the passing emotions of the moment flow ingly. They are highly complex living organisms who have m self-control. By eliminating the usual posturings and pretensions have made themselves more approachable and contactable, more impressively memorable .... It is a reflection of reality many Australians may be unfamiliar with, may not wish to accept. is dark and pessimistic and often violent, very much a product ofPolish environment, a post-Auschwitz world in which a Catholic tradition has collapsed in a welter of half-remembered rors, a loss of faith and spiritual guilt. (B. Hoad, The Bulletin [1

After each performance, Grotowski, Cieslak, and Cynkutis carried on versations with candidates signing up for specific groups organized within framework of "The Complex Research Program." The number of didates-over two thousand in the first screening process-far exceeded number predicted both by the Australian organizers and members of the troupe. The next stage was for the four workshop leaders-Grotowski, Cieslak, Flaszen, and Cynkutis-to hold additional interviews with those who had su~vived the original screening and had been directed to one or the other groups, depending upon individual predispositions. In the end, fifty-four people were ·· selected for participation in the workshops. "That is the maximum," said Flaszen. "Such research can be carried on, at least for now, only in small · groups" (Quoted by B. Majorek, Slowo Polskie [1975]).

The activities of the Laboratory Theatre were not limited to their performances and "The Complex Research Program." Flaszen and Cynkutis conducted practical classes with the troupes of the Syndicate Company and John Bull's Nimrod Theatre. Grotowski had a press conference at the University of' · New South Wales and a second meeting at the Polish Consulate. The day . before the group left Australia, Flaszen summed up the stay as follows:

Was this just a cultural event or something more? Did we find genuine human understanding here, real human contact beyond the differences in culture, traditions, experiences? Are we really leaving something behind? Have they given us something of themselves? You had a chance to see what happened at the performances of Apocalypsis. _. You saw people who did not leave the auditorium until late into the night, how they sat quietly in deep reflection, and how they spoke to

I_ 14 7 Zbigniew Osinski i:" ~-. f :: · r E: l~

i f' §

r '<•

t t ... ~--,.,. ,.,. t .... f' ~ ..

t t

"" k . ;. ;-

··-.

each other in whispers. They received the performance as a living experience and not as mastery of an art. In this kind of silence there is wonder-at the world, at oneself, and at one's own life. It is difficult not to feel grateful to them .... And then, every evening there was an avalanche of requests from people who wanted to participate in our workshops: the desire to prolong the mutual encounter beyond Apocalypsis . ... Now, as we are leaving, I can say: we are leaving many close friends behind ....

As for the Australians, ... they cannot live the events of the wide world. They are far away, they have an entire continent at their disposal, the four elements, and each in an unusually beautiful form. . . . But when something important to them came from distant Poland, they naturally began to ask about it. They wanted to know what kind of tradition and experience stood behind us. A few participants from my group plan to go to Poland. (Quoted by B. Majorek, Slowo Polskie [1975])

After a brief return to Poland, Cynkutis began a two-month stay in Vienna in late June. On 30 June, Grotowski too was in Vienna, where he gave a lecture at the Palais Palffy. In early July, Grotowski was in Brazil, where he gave lectures in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. From there, he went to Paris where he participated with thirty others-writers, painters, architects, film and theatre artists-in a UNESCO-organized international colloquium titled "The Role and Place of the Artist in Modern Life." Grotowski's own address was entitled "The Theatre of Contact, Meeting and Roots"; the Journal de Geneve the following year published this talk under the altered titled "Changing Theatre Into Encounter." On 25 July, Grotowski was back in Poland to be decorated by the State Council with the Cross of the Order of the Rebirth of Poland. This was one of the distinctions bestowed on creative talents and cultural activists on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the founding of the Polish People's Republic at the close of World War II.

At the beginning of September, there was a series of performances of Apocalypsis in Wrodaw in the new version. Ryszard Cieslak described the essential changes:

Apocalysis cum figuris originated as a classical stage production with the audience separated from the actors. The spectators (always 40 in number) sat on benches ranged along the wall. They observed and witnessed as if from a distance the events that transpired between the actors in the center of the room. A while later we removed the benches and the audience grew to 150 persons. They sat on the floor in a ring around us and were ro,uch closer to the actors. Finally we tore down the black plaster from the walls and uncovered the bricks so that we got rid of the legendary black hall .... But all these "external"


changes, the removal of benches, the costumes replaced by ordinary clothes, were not the most significant factor in the evolution of the Apocalypsis. They astonished us, allowed· us to take a new look at each other, produced fresh reactions and associations, but they were not the essential part of the transformation. I think that the most essentia part was and is the search for ways of transcending, of getting away from what is dark in Apocalypsis, an effort to move toward light and also to see, to sense the direct and close presence of the people around us which produces something that is most important (that cannot be expressed in words), something sincere that happens between the individual who still is in som(> small part a spectator and the individual · who still is in some small part an actor. Although one yearns that the old "spectator-actor" relic give way to another human relation. Th~ score of the Apocalypsis is in effect as permanent as a river-bed, only the water that flows in it is new and unknown. Apocalypsis is a kind of sketch that always remains open to new experience, a cross between theatre and experiment beyond theatre. (Interview, B. Gieraczynski, Kultura [1975])

In late October and early November, Grotowski was again in Paris. In November, as well, he was a guest of the Odin Teatret in Holstebro, where he granted an interview to Italian Radio and Television. The second of the Polish cycle of "Special Project" took place in late November and early December in Brzezinka. In late December, Grotowski wrote officially to Jan Soyta, director of the Wrodaw office of the Department of Culture. His lengthy document contained the heading, "The Laboratory Institute: Program 1975-76," and was shortly thereafter published in Teatr. In essence, the document defines quite specifically the vast areas of focus for the coming year. Some of the topics discussed specifically are "The Laboratory of Professional Therapy," designed for professional actors seeking to remove blocks to their creativity; "The Laboratory of Group Theory and Analysis," designed for group reflection on problems bordering on art and life; "The Laboratory of Theatrical Matters," for critics, researchers; "The Laboratory of the Method ofEvents," designed for actors attempting to go beyond technical aspects in the arranging of "events" through action and improvisation; "The Laboratory of Collaboration with Psychotherapy," for professional therapists interested in collaborating in group experiments, etc. Grotowski closed his statement with the following words:

I The work of the laboratories, connected indirectly with the creative ,;:

processes in the field of theatrical arts, is not understood as a relic of our theatrical past; we are now interested in how much paratheatrical experiments can apply to the creative processes (or in professional therapy), which we understand as a form of human contact and expression.1

F .d

f? v

~ ,::;.

p_, s-


1975

Immediately following the publication of Grotowski's "The Laboratory Institute: Program 1975-76" in Teatr, information began appearing about specific workshops: a three-week series of "Spoken Encounters" to be conducted by Flaszen; a paratheatrical meeting lasting several days titled "Special Project," for which one had to contact Ryszard Cieslak; and the inauguration of "The International Studio" under the direction of Sypchalski and Flaszen, etc. The public was systematically informed of the new undertakings of the Laboratory Institute through meetings with members of the group in student clubs, at institutions of higher learning, in the press, and on radio and television.

Gazeta Robotnicza published in January an article by Tadeusz Buski (Burzynski) titled "Grotowski's Exit From the Theatre," and in February Wrodaw Radio broadcast an interview with Grotowski by Stanislaw Gorzkowicz, which ended with this admission:

Grozkowicz: You stopped being a director in order not to be your own follower?

Grotowski: Yes, not to be my own follower, and ifl am to be my own pupil, then I should be a rebellious one.

In March, Kultura published Bogdan Gieraczynski's interview with Ryszard Cie5lak entitled "Without Acting" and republished Burzytisi<.:'~ "Exit from the Theatre." Later in the month, it published Andrzej Bonarski's interview with Grotowski. In June, Polish television aired a halfhour long interview with Grotowski conducted by Witold Filler, and Odra published Grotowski's theoretical statement concerning a new undertaking: "Project: the Mountain of Ram e." All these activities provided information for candidates who wished to participate in the "Special Project" and other workshops and were in essence an invitation to such people. They were also signs of the evolution of the Wrodaw theatre, which Burzynski summed up as follows:

It is always developing and uncovering unexpected aspects of its activity. The Laboratory has ceased to exist as a theatre. One should not expect new "premieres." After Apocalypsis cum figuris, Grotowski, if he is to remain true to his principles (which exclude repetition, noncreativity, copying his own previous achievements ... ), cannot realize something that would fall into the category ... of a theatrical production. The step beyond Apocalypsis had to lead out of the theatre in the direction of the unnamed, which, if it fits within the boundaries of art, will become a new type_~ of art. That step has been taken .... Grotowski's goal, which he is seeking to achieve in stages through the work of the Laboratory Theatre, .. . is to find the other pole of life and


theatre, that is, the place and time where human beings stop "disarm," and throw off their masks and simply be. But to be in tion, in coexistence, with others. (Gazeta Robotnicza [1975]

In both his television interview with Filler and conversation with Grotowski described his position in the Laboratory group as follows:

If someone claims that I ought to continue putting on then he probably assumes that I was not a bad director, that I something there, that there is some evidence you can trust me. when I have entered another domain, a domain which I have paratheatrical experiment, I need that credit. I am saying all this, ventionally, in the first person, but I am thinking about our entire group.

I was a producer, a former director, and now I don't know how describe it-or perhaps just a little . .. some say, a scientist. Maybe not · really a scientist, but some man who has had a theatrical adventure, yes, somewhere along the line, a theatrical one. If we get close to this, if we get to know this area [of theatrical adventure], this domain, so well that we will be reproducing it-then I am sure we will enter another domain. (Interview A. Bonarski, Kultura [1975])

Paratheatrical workshops of the "Special Project" type were held in Brzezinka in February and March. But the first herald of the so-called Research University to be held in connection with the Theatre of Nations in Warsaw that summer appeared on 13 February in Gazeta Robotnicza. Burzynski published there an informational article titled "Grotowski's Laboratory Becomes the University of the Theatre of Nations": in addition to the Laboratory Institute, there will be two other groups-the Odin Teatret from Holstebro and probably STU from Krakow-and that well-known directors such as Barrault, Ronconi, and possibly Brook will participate.

In April and May, Grotowski traveled to the United States and Canada. After that he went to Sweden, holding a number of meetings in academic circles at universities in Stockholm and Malmo. Then in June, he was in Warsaw for the opening of the Theatre of Nations. From 11 through 13 June was a symposium (held in Wilanow Palace) on the subject "New Tendencies in Contemporary Theatre." Grotowski spoke on the first day of the symposium, and Leonia Jablonk6wna described his effect as follows:

The most striking and most controversial element of the afternoon debate was Jerzy Grotowski's talk. With his usual flair, he first outlined the successive evolutions and ideas transforming the former Laboratory Theatre . . .. Of course, this talk provoked many doubts

i ~·· i"··

;~

~

~ $£.. v ;: E.

~·· "'


and questions .... Grotowski's talk found echoes in the conversations and discussions of the following days. There were those who believed that Grotowski's talk should not be included in discussions of theatre, as long as Grotowski is declaring himself someone working beyond theatre. The next day, Jean Darcante responded by saying that an artist of Grotowski's stature, who has achieved remarkable prowess in world theatre, may and should participate in every debate on the subject of theatrical phenomena, independently of his own position at any given moment . (Teatr [1975))

The Research University of the Theatre of Nations, directed by Grotowski and the company of the Laboratory Institute, occurred in Wrodaw from 14 June through 7 July. Jozef Kelera described events in Odra as follows:

In the course of three weeks, Wrodaw became a real Mecca for theatre people somehow dissatisfied with theatre or dissatisfied with themselves in the theatre-people seeking a common solution. Altogether over 500 participants came to Wrodaw to the Research University from twenty-three countries (including Australia), as well as from many cities in Poland. There were actors, directors, dramaturgs, critics, lecturers from institutions of higher learning, anthropologists, psychologists, medical doctors, and .iournalists. Peter Brook, Jean-Louis Barrault, Joseph Chaikin (Open Theatre), Eugenio Barba (and his troupe from the Odin Teatret), Luca Ronconi (from Orlando Furioso), and Andre Gregory (Manhattan Project). In other words, "everybody."

Everyone gathered around Grotowski: those who had gone beyond theatre and those still in it. The common slogan was: "to seek a basic ground of understanding between people"; a new form "of encounter with mankind"; and, in the case of theatre professionals, "seeking a new vital base for practicing one's profession."

On Saturday, 14 June, in the Senate Hall of Wrodaw University, a roundtable conference lasting several hours officially inaugurated the Research University. It was chaired by Jean Darcante, Secretary-General of ITI. The complete program of the Research University consisted of (1) a general laboratory, (2) specialized laboratories, (3) consultations in areas directly connected with acting, (4) classes for foreign theatre artists, (5) public meetings with foreign artists, (6) a steady program of works performed by the Odin Teatret, (7) a program by the Daidalos Theatre of Malmo, Sweden, (8) film showings of Laboratory Theatre performances, (9) film showings of experiments by foreign artists, (10) a festival of films from. Sweden by Marianna Arhne, (11) performances of Apocalypsis cum figuris, a~d (12) performances by theatres from Ugan-


da, Scotland, and Japan. The general laboratory was made up of various types of exercises and con

sultations in which everyone participating in the Research University part. Every evening, for example, were the so-called "beehives," experiments with several dozen people run usually by members of the but also by others. The specialized laboratories were extensions of classes previously conducted by members of the Laboratory Theatre. They meetings with small groups of participants, conducted by members of th troupe. This work took place both in Wrodaw and beyond the city. The tivities were similar to those of the general laboratories, but the research conducted among smaller groups of people. The specialized laboratory Stanislaw Scierski, for example, was described as "Working Meetings," and intention was to explore various forms of communication between people. Lui wik Flaszen's specialized laboratory was called "Meditating Aloud" and sisted of improvised dialogues by participants. Zbigniew Cynkutis called specialized laboratory "Happening," and here analysis occurred as a result concrete action. Zygmunt Malik's laboratory was called "Acting Therapy" and , ' was concerned with freeing the organic reactions of body, breathing, voice, and energy.

Among the various consultations for participants were those conducted Dr. Jan Kwasniewski and Kazimierz D~browski, professor of psychiatry. Kwasniewski advised actors on distributing energy and on diets. D~browski consulted with actors on the subject of "positive disintegration" in creative development.

Then there were the workshops conducted by foreign theatre artists, Peter Brook worked with a dozen or so people for three days. Joseph Chaikin did likewise for a shorter period. The workshop of Andre Gregory lasted about two weeks. The first part was conducted in Wrodaw and attracted about thirty people. During the last few days, however, Gregory worked with a smaller group and moved out to the countryside. Most of those Gregory worked with were young people not connected to the theatre.

There were, as well, a number of public meetings with Peter Brook, Luca Ronconi, Joseph Chaikin, Eugenio Barba, Jean-Louis Barrault, and Andre Gregory at both the Polski and Wsp6kzesny Theatres. These were essentially question and answer sessions, but often there were films shown illustrating the work of the troupes working under these various directors. Grotowski usually acted as translator at these meetings.

Probably the so-called "beehives" were the most widely attended events of the Research University . There were a number of attempts in the press to describe some of them. Of these descriptions, that of professor of psychiatry Kazimierz D~browski deserves special attention:

Unusual forces appeared and were at work here. Imaginative, emotional, intellectual; but also animistic, irrational, that is, those that

.. f_,

~-


could only be grasped intuitively. I observed bright, intelligible, and clear dynamic reactions, on the one hand, and dark, irrational, almost magical ones, on the other. It was because of the latter and because of the animistic element that an aura of mystery appeared. Please notice that this kind of mutual play of dynamisms can be found in great works of literature such as Faust and Forefathers' Eve, which are, after all, mystery plays .. ..

These two basic types of dynamism appearing in the "beehives" represented for me a situation of development-the versatility of development but also its authenticity. I observed rational, impulsive, and social forces which evaded rational explanation. That's why I have mentioned authenticity-and versatility as well.

I can give as an example the tendency-occurring in the course of a "beehive"-to create a harmonized social milieu; the tendency to give one another help-both rational and irrational-in situations of danger or crisis. Another example can be the desire to experience courage and heroism, to gain an understanding of difficult situations . . . . The "beehive" is a developmental drama. Sometimes art is such a drama, but this happens rarely, and then one calls it great art. "Beehives" may have significant meaning in practice because they are a demonstration and participation in a developmental mystery play. There can be various types of "beehives," but I belit.ve that in addition to their artistic value, they have, from the psychiatric and psychological point of view, a very significant therapeutic value ... .

I participated in a "beehive" where we were working on overcoming fear and in liberating our empathic desire to help others .... It seems that individual personality was sublimated and higher aims appeared. Social contacts were broadened and deepened.

I should like to draw attention to two other things. "Beehives" free one from routine activities and break harmful stereotypes. One notices other values; one sees more universally. Furthermore: in the dynamics of the "beehive," I see the opportunity to free oneself from a one-sided position. I see the revitalization of many aspects of human life, individual and social: empathy, aestheticism, sincerity, directness, controlled impulse, harmony ....

In "beehives" I see the possibility of "grafting" and of creative influence in many areas beyond the reaches of art as such .... This is something new, although there were forms in the past that were similar. It is enough to recall the Greek mystery plays, whose main purpose was to release developmental stimuli. "Beehive" is a novelty in the sense that it is theatre which constantly ceases to be theatre and turns passive participants, t,hrough action, into actors of their own fate . That is, it contains eiements of individual and collective selfimprovement that result from active participation in developmental


mystery. In "beehive" I see the union and synthesis of multi-layered

multi-leveled action. In "beehive," the elements at work are emotional, and imaginative. "Beehive" acts through the '-"<111J~t:a and synthesis of movement, colors, words , songs, and music . It to me t.hat this is one form of the theatre of the future, a theatre improves man and stimulates his development. (Interview, Bonarski, Odra [1975])

There were innumerable press accounts concerning the specifics significance of the Research University. Mafgorzata Dziewulska best grasped essence:

It will take us ten years to assess the significance of the University. That is how much it was directed to the future. Today not the time for a summary: this is just the beginning of a start! almost incomprehensible broadening of the concept of theatre. Just . each new stroke of boldness is universally condemned, so too will be condemned. (Dialog [ 197 5])

Andre' Gregory said during the session that "what is happening here today is . one of the most important events in the entire h istory of theatre . . .. What is being done in Wroclaw today has the dimensions of Woodstock, but, this, hope, won't vanish." (Interview, A. Bonarski, Dialog [1976])

From late September through late November, the Laboratory Institute participated in the yearly Biennale in Venice. The group from Wrodaw had its base on the island of San Giacomo in Palude in the Venetian Lagoon. Through September and October, the group gave nineteen performances of Apocalypsis. A Polish correspondent in Italy gave the following account:

The Italian press is full of Grotowski .... Everyone speaks and writes only of him. His troupe's two-month visit overshadowed everything in Venice, everything that was presented at the Biennale .. .. The press reviews emphasized the mastery of acting technique, the sublimation of form , and the actors' perfect control of body and gesture . . . . Critics devote a great deal of attention to Grotowski himself: "Jerzy Grotowski, who, during the last decade has revitalized the world stage, introduced h is concept of theatre, which works with its·own hands, feet, skin. This is the creative hope of today's theatre .. . ", wrote L'Unita. "Of the six excellent actors, Ryszard Cieslak is a personality impossible to forget" (Paese Sera). (iycie Warszawy [1975])

Burzynski wrote in a similar vein in Gazeta Robotnicza:

ro: f

:, . ,

'::" "

~}

. ~:::


1!>,, ...

i'~.· .... :.:· I ,:-·

For the press conference organized on 25 September with Grotowski, a thousand people squeezed into an auditorium having a seating capacity of 700. Grotowski presented the principles behind his "Special Project," the complex research program. He answered questions. The conference goes on longer than expected. When the rental contract for the auditorium expired, the participants moved to San Samuele Square, to continue their exchange.

The Italian press exhibits great interest in the activities of Grotowski's Institute. ·It is unanimously considered the main event of the Biennale. He is called the "leader of the world theatre vanguard" in L'Unita, Rinascita, Il Giorno, Carriere della Sera, and other publications carrying accounts of Apocalypsis. The accounts are full of approbation. In the 29 September issue of Il Giorno, the widely-respected Italian critic Guerriere wrote: "Apocalypsis cum figuris, in analyzing myths, reaches for the roots of European culture .... This production is a point of transition, an opening onto another adventure, like 'Special Project,' the scattered seed of the Laboratory Theatre .... There is much that remains after the performance."

~~-~--·--.. ~~~- -

~

~:

&·-. .. [, ~. L

ft ... - In Italy the Laboratory Institute also focused on its research program, a continuation of the kinds of experiment conducted for the Research University in Wrodaw during the summer. The whole thing was calleL Research University ll, which, in addition to performances of Apocalypsis (after which candidates were selected), was made up of eight workshops. They were conducted in various places: on the island of San Giacomo in Palude, in the Biennale gardens in the Villa Comunale in Mirano, and in the twelfth-century castle of Montegalda near Vincenza. The number of applicants for specific workshops far exceeded the number planned for. There was also a scholarly session on the "Special Project," where Grotowski spoke on the topic "The Development and Evolution of the Actors' Institute of the Laboratory Theatre into the Research University of the Theatre of Nations." Also for this group were shown films of Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, Akropolis, The Constant Prince, and Cieslak's Exercises. At another session, there was a discussion meeting in which Peter Brook, Luca Ronconi, and Grotowski participated.

During the period the group was in Venice, there was a heated discussion being carried on in the pages of Polish publications such as Kultura and Literatura, among others, concerning the complexion and meaning of the current work of Grotowski's troupe. The argument was begun by Madej Karpinski in his article "Anti-Grotowski." The critic sharply criticized Grotowski's television interview of 1 June 1975 together with publications appearing over the past few years about the Laboratory Theatre's work, including Bonarski's interview with Grotowski. "Therefore, Grotowski's y.rork today is nothing more than turning his earlier fame and respect to profit~fame and respect that work in the theatre

----~- ~~ - ----------


has brought him. In this context, his escape from the theatre something suspect .... The result of this, then, is that Grotowski's prem have no authority, since they are based on individual, incommunicable perience .... The only kind of artistic philosophy that makes any sense is kind from which derive common truths which are applicable in all ~·c,ua•c!u 11s. Then Karpi_nski criticized the "beehives" on the basis of two published tions, one of which was conducted by Andre Gregory and described Malgorzata Dzieduszycka: "If there really is a beautiful, wise, and lofty idea what Grotowski is doing, then it has a chance to burn brightly only fog of innuendo burns away. If this does not happen and the ugly 'mystification' is uttered, then please remember I was the first" (Kultura [19 ]6zef Maslinski went ever further: " .. . it is I who long have claimed Grotowski should not be supervised by the Ministry of Culture but by t

Ministry of Health. I kept repeating: don't look in that direction for Until he finally announced it himself .... But the miracle seekers are no( satisfied. They will continue sniffing Grotowski 'for theatre.' " ('Zycie L -[1975])

Antoni S!onimski in an article titled "The Talkative Couch" in Tygodnik Powszechny speaks of "raving" and "murky statements" by "guru Grotowski," whose words cannot be summed up because there is nothing to sum up:

I am afraid of ravings, violence, pigheadedness. I am afraid of that wall which suddenly looms up between people. The wall of fanaticism ca not be punctured; it deflects words of common sense and the call for proportion .... It is not important what goes on in Brzezinska outside of Wrodaw .... The result is not mutual understanding but complete misunderstanding. This is an alienating of oneself from the difficult times in which we live. It is the creation of an enclave, a separate group tied together with an emotional rigor and the charisma of the leader.

I do not fear that Grotowski will seize power in Brzezinka and nearby Wrodaw, but all of this is old and boring, even though it is fashionable.

Thus at the end of 1975 and beginning of the new year, the same old game was being repeated. Tadeusz Byrski probably best got at the crux of the matter in a letter to the editor of Kultura:

There is one thing I am sure of. In our theatrical life, Grotowski has played the role of a pike released into a pond full of overfed, stupified, drowsing carp ....

Was Osterwa crazy when in the period of his greatest triumphs as an ~ actor ... , he threw out his entire store of acting charms and began to


reform? Surely he began with himself. He thought things through, worked out a new kind of method, and, of course, he took advantaoe of his professional experiences and included them in a new form ~f practice. And so what? Didn't he have the right to do that?

It is known, and I believe that Karpinski knows about this too, that Osterwa was accused of exactly the same things as Grotowski: that he was a mystifier, a clown (worse than what Karpinski has said about Grotowski), a big zero .... Grotowski and his Laboratory undoubtedly fascinate us ; and it is all right to write about them and criticize them sharply. But I have the impression that the author of "AntiGrotowski" was led astray by his desire to be the first heroic unmasker of this uncommon phenomenon.

The polemic with Karpinski [and others] was taken up by Kelera and Burzynski. It had an excessively journalistic tone, and the mutual invective and defense of egos dimmed the subject of the argument. In any event, the argument was carried on in general ignorance of the character and resiarch level of the Laboratory Institute as well as of Grotowski's own statements, especially the most personal of them expressed in the interview granted to Andrzej Bonarski.

1976

What came to be called "Openings" soon began to function like the performances of Apocalypsis, which, since 1971, had been the source whereby people were selected for specific paratheatrical projects and workshops. At the beginning of February, Burzynski reported the following:

The Jerzy Grotowski Laboratory Institute will in the next few months conduct an entirely new form of paratheatrical meetings. They are called "Openings-the City of Wrodaw." These will be experimental workshops conducted in an urban setting (in contrast to the "Special Project"). These are thought to be a continuation and development of the so-called "beehives" from the Research University of the Theatre of Nations.

This time they will be open to everyone who can stand the longterm effort. The only form of participation is active participation, because this is a form of paratheatrical experience and not a play. Obviously if a person has overestimated his strength and finds the activities inappropriate, he is free to leave at any time. In order to avoid misunderstandings and to help those who are willing to choose an appropriate experiment, the various encounters will differ only in their points of departure. The actual activity of the encounters will be deter-

- --··-·· ·-···- --------


mined by the participants themselves. "Openings" are preceded consultations.

"Openings-the City of Wrodaw" were conducted by Cieslak in March, and Spychalski in April.

In the meantime, Grotowski was in Paris in February to sign an agreement with the French Secretary of State to Cultural Affairs, Michel Guy. The ment was for the Laboratory Institute to conduct experiments in France at an historic monastery near Saintes in the southwestern part of France.

In April, Grotowski went to Paris again and from there on to Mexico. It was at this time that the books of Carlos Castaneda-about Don Juan the Y · witch doctor-were being widely read among young people in the West. In characteristic way, Grotowski decided to see for himself and arranged a meeting with Castaneda. He had done things like this before. After re Wtodzimierz Pawluczuk's Wierszalina, for example, he had set out for the most remote corners of the Bialystok region in Poland in search of traces of the peo-. pie described by Pawluczuk.

The Laboratory Institute's projects in France lasted from the beginning of May to the end of July. Leszek Kolodziejczyk made the following

The old rundown abbey in Ia T enaille and the equally rundown palace next to it were a Mecca drawing Grotowski enthusiasts from all over France and the world for three months. Some of the participants were drawn by an earlier acquaintance with the Wroclaw Laboratory and their curiosity concerning the directions its research was taking. Others were drawn by the name and the desire to be a part of what Grotowski calls "a meeting" or "an experience." Others, professional actors and teachers, were attracted by the opportunity to improve the techniques of their craft. When last March there was an extensive interview with Grotowski in Le Monde and the announcement that from May to September he would conduct courses and experiments in Ia T enaille, there was no end of applications. About two thousand came from France, Italy, Japan, the United States, Latin America, and from other countries and continents. (iycie Warszawy [1976))

Only a few over 200 people were chosen from all who applied. The activities of the Institute or "Grotowski '76" as the French officially referred to it, included a whole series of courses and a program which was, in large measure, parallel to the project "The Mountain of Flame." This was the Laboratory Institute's first trip abroad without a production.

Similar workshops accompanied by performances of Apocalypsis were planned for fall at the Tenth Festival of Arts in Shiraz, Iran. Grotowski even traveled to Iran in March, but the group itself never got there. Shortly before the festival was to begin, a boycott was announced by a group of critics and artists

f· i

( ~ a.;,

[

~-

,.


in protest against the terror in Iran [under the Shah]. The initiator of the boycott was Eric Bentley, and he was followed by Kenneth Tynan, John Arden, and David Mercer. A few other groups, as well, did not show up for the festivaL

Shortly after the return of the Laboratory Institute from France, a few dailies published information about the selection of candidates to help prepare "Project: The Mountain of Flame." The person responsible for its artistic realization was Jacek Zmyslowski, and it was to him that applications were to be sent .

Iri August, Grotowski met in Wrodaw with a group of Americans (in collaboration with the Kosciuszko Foundation in New York) from the Summer School of Polish Culture. Barbara Osterloff wrote the following report of the occasion:

In a few of the conversations I had, my partners did not conceal that they had come to Poland, first of all, to take a close look at the Laboratory Theatre . . . but also to meet Grotowski, whose _personality had an almost magnetic power. The courses at the Laboratory Theatre were the focal point for the participants in the program, if not the focal point of their stay in Poland. (Teatr [1976])

In late September, Grotowski was in Belgrade for the Theatre of Nations. He was a member of the organizing committee. Under the auspices of UNESCO and with Barba as a guide, there was an International Workshop of Theatre Research, which was inaugurated by a three-hour meeting with Grotowski. Young troupes from thirteen countries took part in the workshop. There were also dramaturgs, lecturers in theatre, and critics from throughout the world. The films of Akropolis and The Constant Prince were shown.

In the fall, press articles describing the activities of the Laboratory Theatre in the new season began to appear. The chief focus would be on "Project: The Mountain of Flame," and, because of this, no foreign tours were planned by the troupe:

The production of "The Mountain of Flame" is being prepared, according to Grotowski, through " .. . two types of permanently renewed experiments, namely 'The Way' and 'Vigil.' 'The Way' is a course of action which develops through movement in a very broad space. It prepares the way, among small groups, to the place 'Project: The Mountain of Flame.' These experiments prepare the way of participants whose sensitivity and needs are similar-before they meet the others on the 'Mountain' as well as those quite different from them later on. " 'Vigil ' is a series of short several-hour meetings open to everyone

who accepts the prin~iple of active participation . Of course, by its very nature it is something completely different from a play, because, first of

-----~ -----------------~---------------


all, the progress of the experiment is dependent to a very great degree on the participants, and, secondly, there is no division into actors, viewers, or action. It can be compared to ·the function of performances in the Laboratory Theatre insofar as it is continued rhythmically a certain number of times per month on specific days . "What I am talking about here is not a work in the sense of a creative

product, but it is in another sense a creative and collective process, . open to new possibilities and, . therefore, different each time. That is how it is with 'The Way' and 'Vigil' and especially with 'Project: Mountain of Flame.' " (Interview, T. Burzynski, Trybuna Ludu [1976])

The first "Vigil" took place on 27-28 September 1976 in the performance space of the Laboratory Theatre. Grotowski also said that :

Together with "The Mountain of Flame," we are also putting on "Ip.tercontinental," a program for foreign students in various artistic institutions, universities, and research institutes. This is really a type of Research University spread out over several countries. Its courses and experiments are conducted by specific members of our group. We also have agreed to continue the program which we recently organized in France. In January, our studio renews its courses for foreign students. We are filming some of the previous works and research: on unblocking the voice and on physical dynamics which, as it turned out in practice, found application not only among students but also among specialists in cultural animation, those who work with children, and practicing psychologists and orthophoniatrists. (Interview, Burzynski, ibid.)

In October, Grotowski went to Paris and from there on to Canada, where he stayed for almost a month, presenting the lectures and holding meetings in Hamilton, Ontario. At the end of October, the Wrodaw press informed the public that in November and December there would be a series of experimental meetings at the Laboratory Institute. Ludwik Flaszen, for example, would conduct "Conversations": "In conversation, in dialogue, in the thinking through of things together, in being with other participants, the participants will have the opportunity to test themselves, to test what is creative in human beings ... " (Gazeta Robotnicza [1976]).

In mid-November, Grotowski was in Moscow to take part in a two-day Polish-Russian theatre seminar. He talked of the various stages in the development and evolution of the Laboratory Theatre and about its new program of cultural research. He was invited to participate in discussions in the offices of the monthly T'eatr and to meet with members of the Moscow Art Theatre and the Sovriemiennik. The accounts of these sessions emphasized the following: "Grotowski's artistic path stirs all the more interest among Soviet creative ar-

~ 161 Zbigniew Osinski

tists, as we know, because he studied in Moscow, and one of the basic sources of inspiration in his theatre research was the artistic work and theories of Stanislavsky" (T. Burzynski, Gazeta Robotnicza [ 1976)). During his stay, Grotowski visited one of his teachers, Yuri Zavadsky, in the hospital (Zavadsky died in April 1977 in Moscow).

In December, there was an announcement that Apocalypsis cum figuris would not be performed again (Gazeta Robotnicza [1976)). [In actuality, Apocalypsis contined to be performed by the group almost until the death of Antoni Jahol:kowski in September 1981.]

During the Christmas holidays, Grotowski took a trip to India with his mother.

One of the participants in the paratheatrical research of the Laboratory Institute described its meaning and significance:

"The Mountain of Flame" is one of the most interesting and most consistently far-reaching creative programs designed in Po:ish culture in the past few years. Touching on important issues of p~rticipation in culture, its institutionality, alienation of artistic creativity, and means of interhuman communication, this program touches the crux of all the great humanistic issues of our times. It is a question directed to the future of mankind and his culture. (L. Kolankiewicz, Kultura [1976))

Grotowski's and the Laboratory Institute's path to active culture is summed up in this. In some ways, they are representative and carriers of "the new." Their situation in the wider context of contemporary culture is perhaps best characterized by the Polish religious historian and psychologist, Jerzy Prokopiuk:

The people who are bearers of this tendency [toward "the new"] are accused by the representatives of the old, dying culture, of what else but escapism. These people "run away" from the world (the world shaped by the old culture) just as at the end of the ancient world the Fathers of the Desert or the first monks escaped. But, as Toynbee correctly says: can someone be accused of escapism if he leaves a sinking ship to bring help? (Zycie i Mysl [Life and Mind, 1977))

166

1976 .. 1986: A Necessary Afterword

by Robert Findlay

Zbigniew Osinski's book stops at that point when the first significant instances of the new paths taken by Grotowski in the early 1970s were demonstrated and acknowledged publicly. Much of the Laboratory Institute's paratheatrical experimentation in the early 1970s had gone on chiefly in private among members of the troupe and perhaps a few friends, but, by summer 1975, with the Research University held in Wrodaw in connection with the Theatre of Nations in Warsaw, Grotowski and his people "went public"-and clearly in an international manner. There was enormous interest in Grotowski's work generated in the international press at this time. Grotowski in 1975 had brought together most of the major theatrical experimenters in the world-Peter Brook, Jean-Louis Barrault, Joseph Chaikin, Andre Gregory, Eugenio Barba, Luca Ronconi, et al.-to work on a collective experiment. It was the theatrical equivalent of the Bohr Institute for advanced physicists in Copenhagen, about which Grotowski had spoken a number of years earlier (see "Methodical Exploration" in Towards a Poor Theatre). Malgorzata Dziewulska's prediction at the time, quoted by Osinski, that the Research University was so much directed to the future that it would take ten more years to truly assess its significance, today seems prophetic. But also clear at the point that Osinski ends his discussion in 1976 is the desire by Grotowski and his colleagues, as part of"Project: The Mountain of Flame," to open up paratheatrical experiments such as "The Way" and "Vigil" to an even wider public than had ever served simply as audience members for the group's theatrical performances.

Despite Osinski's commendable attempt to provide an account of these new directions, specifically through quoting an extended interview with psychiatrist Kazimierz D~browski, who participated in one of the so-called "beehives" at the

··.·,~


Research University, Osinski's effort generally does not give the reader who has never participated in such experiments a very concrete image of what a "beehive" might have been like. Dl!browski's description, though highly interesting, is essentially theoretical rather than specific and is more concerned with the psychological and psychiatric implications of these new methods than with their significance as works existing somewhere on the fine line dividing art and life. And D~browski only tangentially recognizes the important implications of this work for actors.

To provide a somewhat more solid basis for understanding Grotowski's and the Laboratory Institute's work over the past decade, following are several concrete descriptions of events, paratheatrical and otherwise, that have been recorded by participants. Grotowski has gone in other directions since the period 1975-1976, toward what he has called "Theatre of Sources" and now presently in Irvine, California, what he calls "Objec ;ive Drama." But each of the more recent directions, not unlike the evolution of his theatrical work, is an extension from previous experiments. In short, where Grotowski is today is best understood by noting where he has been.

The first example, like D~browski's account, is a very early description of a "beehive" at the Research University, this time led by Ryszard Cieslak. The account is by Iwona Wojtczak, and it appeared in the November 1975 issue of Dialog:

It is the largest room of the Laboratory Theatre. Every fifteen seconds another person enters the room. One can feel only that the space is filled with people. Someone is leading me by the hand: "What's your name? Repeat it aloud. Let it appear now among the breathing in the darkness, in the silence." A small light comes on; somebody distributes boxes of matches. Cieslak says: "In their light, one has to see everyone, to see each face." People light the matches, walk around, stop in front of one another. Some are looking; others don't know "how to look, how to see." To some that gesture so human and at the same time impersonal comes with difficulty. They sit against the wall and are looking (though looking at others is not acceptable because it doesn't allow others to concentrate). They are looking to see how those who are "liberated and free" behave. Those sitting against the wall can at least ponder the question, "How come I'm not capable of doing that?" But if they are allowed to observe and if they are willing enough to try, after some time even for them those channels which were blocked before open up . The first small step toward spontaneity is taken. That spontaneity is achieved by an effort of the conscious will; it is, in a sense, learned, like everything else that one wants to have. We are out of matJhes; everyone gets two small pieces of wood; everybody catches the common contact in the rhythm of the same beats. Some are dancing; others are singing; somebody catches a torch


and a mad pursuit of the fire begins. When everything quiets down, in that silence Cie5lak says: "We are moving in the clouds . . .. We are sitting and our hands are swaying in the wind .... "Making those calm, swaying movements, people are sitting on the floor, then lying down. Cieslak is tying with twine the hands and feet of those lying down. One . feels every movement, the slightest vibration of the people around. The windows are opened at that moment-it is very early, bluish dawn. Cieslak says: "Now listen to the city." There is thick silence so characteristic of all those meetings. A girl is singing; it's three a.m.

For those who were to participate in later, more elaborate paratheatrical projects with members of the Laboratory Institute, the "beehive" described by Wojtczak may seem quite primitive. Its basic features, however, are similar to most para theatrical works that came later: namely, it had a structure with ,a clear beginning, middle, and end; it had at least one leader from the "inside" and a group of participants from the "outside"; it made no clear separation between performers and spectators, as in a traditional theatrical piece; its action also made no distinction between a fictive world and the real world but rather trod a fine metaphoric line between the two; and its energy grew not simply from a leader but, within the confines of its form, from the improvisatory imagination of the total group. What is striking about the "beehive" described by Wojtczak is the great amount of verbalization and instruction that Cieslak seems to have given. In later projects, communication among participants and leaders was invariably non-verbal.

What follows in abbreviated form is my own description of the "opening" of the paratheatrical project "Tree of People," conducted by Zbigniew Cynkutis, which occurred in Wrodaw in January 1979 and lasted for seven days and seven nights. The full account may be found in Theatre Journal for October 1980:

On Friday the 5th of)anuary 1979 at approximately 5:30p.m. I arrived with some fifty others (Australians, Canadians, British, French, Germans, Dutch, Italians, and other Americans) at the offices and rehearsal rooms of the Teatr Laboratorium in downtown Wrodaw, Poland. We were given a hot meal of soup and chicken and told to immediately separate our gear into those things that would be absolutely essential for several days and those non-essentials we could store. Later that evening each of us was taken individually by a member of the Laboratorium and introduced to the space where we would be confined for the next seven days and seven nights . ...

There were approximately fifteen members of the Laboratorium with us throughout the seven days and nights: Grotowski himself, Ludwik Flaszen, the entire acting company that performs Apocalypsis

' j I ~ ~ ·~ ~

~ ~


cum figuris, plus a number of newer, younger members added in the early 1970s when the emphasis was shifting from theatrical to paratheatrical experiments .... We had been told in a letter .. . not to count on regular sleeping and eating. Also we were not to come as students expecting them to be our teachers. Nor were we to come expecting to create a theatrical situation or to function as actors. The letter [in English] did contain something of a statement of direction for us, but it was intentionally poetic and ambiguous and thus open to a multiplicity of interpretations and responses: "Tree of People is for us opus river, stream time, a place where one can dip in. Therefore when you arrive be a part of the stream, let it be born in you, let if flow through you. To give a chance to it one must remove the obligation of productivity and approach the element of attentiveness and straightness.". . .

The aCtivities occurring ifl ... [the performance space on the third floor] were collective and improvisational, usually involving as few as twenty and as many as sixty people. It was not against the rules to sit and watch for a time. Grotowski, for example, watched frequently from as unobtrusiv,e a position as possible. Early on in our stay, the members of the Laboratorium functioned most clearly as guides or leaders in this room, creating physical images and vocalized sounds that the rest of us would follow. But as the days and nights progressed and further silent agreeme~ts arose within the entire group, the Laboratorium members retreated from these roles of leadership, seemingly encouraging them to be handled by those of us from the outside. As most came to see eventually, however, one functions best both as leader and follower simultaneously if the group is really functioning creatively together .... I was reminded frequently of the manner in which a jazz ensemble improvises spontaneously, listening to one another, and playing off one another ....

A collective creation usually began with the group walking counterclockwise in a large ellipse. Sometimes the tempo of our walking would be rapid, sometimes slow, sometimes we would be running. Gradually some of the group would begin to move in a clockwise direction, and thus we would be compelled to move around one another as we met going in opposite directions .... Frequently the meeting [with another person] would grow from a simple little walking dance. We would circle one another frontwards and backwards in this dance and then move on to another partner ....

As physical and vocal contacts between two or several would evolve, the group sense would become more pronounced. Bodies sometimes piled together or rari together. Sometimes people lay on their backs and improvised melodies together. Sometimes running, we chanted nonsense syllables. Sometimes slow-motion wrestling matches occur-

]rotowski and His Laboratory 170

red. Occasionally something resembling an American Indian dance and music would evolve. Sometimes only one person would improvise vocally while others would respond physically to the rhythm and melody ....

On our final night together, it was the youngest members of the Laboratorium who seemed to be functioning as guides. There was some good guitar music (by Jacek Zmysfowski], a lot of improvised non-verbal singing, and a seemingly strong spirit of camaraderie. As night progressed into day, those of us who were older tended to sit back _along the walls watching the younger ones, but still singing with them, both observers and participants, witnesses to what was occurring, but at the same time collaborators and contributors .. ..

"Tree of People" was a work the Laboratory Institute "performed" with rious groups of outsiders throughout 1979 and 1980. It was a work that exxed the far reaches of the actor/spectator relationship, the sources of human !ativity, and the manner in which individuals can make connections, both .ysically and non-verbally, with one another. But more than that it seemed to :Jlore what might best be called "a third realm"-a realm that is neither art the one hand nor life on the other but rather something else that partakes

both without really being either. n May 1981, Grotowski appeared at an open meeting at Hunter College in w York, where a film documentary of "Vigil" shot in Milan by Mercedes egory was shown. "Vigil" was conducted in a large empty room by Jacek ,yslowski with four other younger members of the Laboratory Institute, who ved as guides, with a group of approximately thirty-five outsiders. Unlike :ee of People," in which participants improvised movement and non-verbal mds and melodies, "Vigil" was simply soundless movement. In most other Jects, however, the two paratheatrical works were similar. After the film, Jtowski spoke with great specificity about the techniques employed by ysfowski and his colleagues in realizing "Vigil" and in general about the 1niques used in all paratheatrical work. Participants for "Vigil" were never cted beforehand by interview, said Grotowski. Those who came simply :le a reservation and presented themselves at a specified time and place, havbeen told only that they would not be a traditional audience but would be ,ct\y participating. Zmyslowski and his colleagues during the first phase of structure always brought people into a large room in essentially the same , creating a "field," as Grotowski explained, or "a kind of spider's web" that :ld allow easy entrance into physical participation by those from the out. The essential movement and rhythm were always dictated by the outrs. If they were active, the guides followed. If they were less active, then the les subtly "stimulated the space, creating certain vibrations in the space, but the participants alone. If the participants were not pushed, gradually they


entered the field of movement. But always the participants dictated the rhythm."

Grotowski then spoke of the second structural phase in which the participant, now "caught in the spider's web," was taken by the guides "in a track of movement," which was much more open than the first phase. "When the movement became false or chaotic, then the leaders once again would weave the spider's web. Then the participants would enter. Then the guides would follow the participants." In this phase, Grotowski spoke of what h~ called "the strategy of personalization," a permissive tactic in which the concentration of all group leaders was on one or two among the entire group of participants who were "in a state of grace." These were the ones most clearly involved, "most organic," and the guides adapted all their activity toward them-and hence the rest of the participants followed. In a sense, these participants became leaders under the guidance of Zmyslowski and his colleagues.

In the third phase, or the ending, there was always silence and a stopping of movement. "It is not a spiritual silc;nce-not a silence of monks," said Grotowski. "It is a silence of saturation, a silence of intensity." And Zmystowski, according. to Grotowski, always recognized the precise moment to end, to take each person individually out of the room. "What counts in this work," Grotowski said, "is a sense of opening the movement and the space, the body and the space, the body and the movement, and nothing else-really nothing else: no miracles, no mystery, no monkey business, nothing spiritual, no big emotions. It's simple" (Grotowski spoke in French, with a simultaneous translation into English by Andre Gregory).

Certainly one of the reasons that Grotowski was able to speak at Hunter College of the paratheatrical work with such an objective and clinical eye was that by 1981 he himself had left such work far behind, just as a decade earlier he had left the theatre behind. Grotowski had begun work on the project he titled "Theatre of Sources" as early as 1977 through the support of International Theatre Meetings and the Ministry of Art and Culture in Warsaw. The project eventually received the honorary patronage of ITI in Paris and financial assistance from the Rockefeller Foundation, the National University of Mexico, and the Center for Theatre Research in Milan. Over a period of three years, from 1977 to 1980, Grotowski had worked with a multi-national group of thirty-six people representing such diverse cultures as India, Colombia, Bangladesh, Haiti, Africa, Japan, Poland, France, Germany, and the United States. While members of this primary group at various times spent a number of months at a field base near Wrodaw, there were also expeditions to study specific source techniques in the voodoo culture of Haiti, in the Y oruba area of Africa, among the Huichol Indians of Mexico, and with yogis in India.

"Theatre of Sources" was a project of vast dimensions and ramifications, the primary focus of Grotowski's attention until approximately 1983 when he began work at the University of California at Irvine on his present project,


"Objective Drama." "Theatre of Sources," owing to its complexity, is not easy to explain, but one facet of Grotowski's search in this project seems to have been a concern with the nature of perception in the contemporary world. According to Grotowski, a culture programs its people to perceive the world in a peculiar and indirect (as opposed to immediate) way. Like a computer, our mind through its· memory circuits responds to stimuli in a predictable and programmed manner. We think and perceive as we have learned to think and perceive. There is a culturally conditioned "wall" thai: keeps us from experiencing the world directly. "We think we see," says Grotowski, "but we don't see." He speaks of how we marvel at a child entering a garden for the first time. The child's experience is a primary one. The child sees everything fresh, purely. As adults, we are closed off by our computer-like memory when we enter the garden. The garden seems to us like any other or just the way it was the last time we were there. In reality, Grotowski suggests, it is not like any other garden nor is it the same as it was the last time. It has changed, but our programmed manner of perceiving it severely clouds our experience of it. Thus at the outset, when Grotowski said in 1978 that "Theatre of Sources" dealt "with the phenomenon of source techniques, ancient or nascent, that bring us back to the sources of life, to direct, so we say, primeval perception, to organic primary experiences of life," he was defining one of the principal objectives of the project (International Theatre Information [1978]).

During the summer of 1980, for example, at five-day intervals, groups of twenty-five to thirty people were invited to Poland to work with Grotowski and his primary group of internationals. The work was non-verbal, and each participant was expected to imitate the movements or actions of each of the group leaders with whom he or she worked. This was not slavish imitation but rather an imitation based on the sensitivity of the participant to pick up the movement or action of the leader.

In the first two days of each five-day session, each participant worked with ten different groups of four or five people from the outside and ten different group leaders. In the early morning, for example, one might work for two or three hours walking through the woods with the leader from Poland: sensing the woods with one's chest, keeping one's eyes soft and responsive, imitating the motions of the leaves, stopping and turning into the wind, embracing trees, etc. Then after a short break, one might work for another two or three hours before lunch with the Haitian leader. Again there would be the walk through the woods, but this time it ended at a farmhouse where other Haitians were singing a voodoo chant and one could join in. Later the same day, one might work with a yogi for several hours, repeating over and over a single pattern of body movement. One participant, Kevin Kuhlke, said his most intense experience occurred with the leader from Colombia: "Walking through the woods with him, I had a feeling of dissolving, of being unaware of myself as something separate from the woods. I felt myself in tune with the woods. My


skin was open, taking everything in." At the end of the first two days, each participant then discussed with Grotowski which group (sometimes groups) he or she would like to work with exclusively during the remaining three days. The participant then explored techniques of sources from a particular culture or tradition, presumably with the hope that these techniques would induce at least occasional moments of primary perception or what Grotowski has referred to as "the original state" (International Theatre Information [ 1978]).

Grotowski left Poland in the period of martial law and has been based in the United· States since December 1982, first at Columbia University, and, since the academic year 1983-84, at the University of California at Irvine. Since going to Irvine, he has been involved with the major project he titles "Objective Drama," which, as in the past, seems a natural artistic extension of all that has gone before. The work is support• \d not only by the university but by grants both from the National Endowme-htfor the Arts and the Rockefeller Foundation.

When Grotowski moved from theatre to paratheatre and then eventually from paratheatre to 'Theatre of Sources," there were some who accused him, unjustly I think, of abandoning research that ultimately would have implications for theatre practitioners. Para theatre had no traditional separation of performers and spectators and no clear~cut artistic form, so the argument went, and "Theatre of Sources" was simply a lot of chanting and yoga movement, more related to the field of anthropology than to theatre arts per se. While some of the same charges might be leveled against "Objective Drama," because its program of exploration grows from the findings of previous research, it nonetheless would be difficult to escape seeing the profound theatrical implications of "Objective Drama" for the performer. It is not that Grotowski in "Objective Drama" has gone back to theatre so much as it is that his research has carried him forward to the sources of technical precision and discipline necessary for professional performance. A "Research and Development Report" of 1984 defines some of the areas of his concern:

"Objective Drama" is Jerzy Grotowski's term for those elements of the ancient rituals of various world cultures which have a precise, and therefore objective, impact on participants, quite apart from solely theological or symbolic significance. Mr. Grorowski's intention is to isolate and study such elements of performative movements, dances, songs, incantations, structures of language, rhythms and uses of space. Those elements are sought by means of a distillation process from the complex through the simple and through the separation of elements one from the other.

A team of four "Technical Spe~ialists" works with Grotowski at Irvine. These are highly qualified performing artists, thirty-five years old or younger, with skills in both modern and traditional cultures. They are the ones who, under

·--------------------~-

Grotowski and His Labora-tory 174

Grotowski's guidance, record, perform, and teach the body of practical knowledge to the participants in various stages of the work. In March 1985, when I went to Irvine to participate in "Objective Drama," this team was comprised of Du Yee Chang (from Korea), I Wayan Lendra (from Bali), Wei-Cheng Chen (from Taiwan), and Jiero Cuesta-Gonzales (from Colombia). In addition to the "Technical Specialists," Grotowski for varying lengths of time in the past two years has brought to Irvine a number of "Traditional Practitioners," these being masters of ancient liturgies or rituals of specific old cultures. These are the people who supply "material." There has been a Sufi dancer for a short period as well as a Buddhist incantation teacher; the longest in residence, however, were two Caribbean ritualists from Haiti, Maud Robart and Tiga Oean-Claude Garoute), who stayed at Irvine from November 1983 to August 1984.

The largest group of those who participate in the project on an extendedterm basis are students enrolled at the university, but there are, in addition, a small number of people from the outside who work in the program in a variety. of ways. Among these is Magda Zlotowska, a Pole whose connections to Grotowski and his work go back to even before the "Theatre of Sources" period. Then too, for brief periods, there may be various others working with the project: scholars of various kinds (anthropologists, religious historians, ethnomusicologists, ethnic dance specialists, theatrical performance specialists, etc.) in addition to individuals invited simply as public work session participants.

In "Objective Drama," Grotowski seems very much concerned with discipline and precision-with technical skill . He is also much concerned with recording the findings of this research:

To record the findings of the Program, systems must be created with the capability to communicate precisely all the qualities of sound and movement. The current notation system of music, for example, conveys the pitch, volume and length of a sound but not its vibratory quality, which this work seeks to record. The vibratory quality of a note can be changed drastically by the use of different body resonators, body position or forms of respiration. It is necessary that means be found to communicate the qualitative as well as quantitative values. The recording system which the Program must devise can profoundly affect professional training and notation systems for all situations where precise measurement, and not interpretation, is required. ("Objective Drama: Research and Development Report" [1984])

Undoubtedly the best way to clarify something of what Grotowski is doing in "Objective Drama" is to provide a basic description of what occurred on 9 and 10 March 1985 during the twenty-one hours that some forty people came together to participate in the project. I had been told to arrive at noon Saturday at "The Barn," a reconverted historical building at the south edge of theIr-


vine campus. The interior of "The Barn" is an arch-ceilinged polished wood floor performance space approximately 50' x 40', somewhat larger than but reminiscent of the Laboratory Theatre's space in Wrodaw. The complete south wall of "The Barn" is a series of windows looking out on an expansive, hilly prairie where a herd of horses live and graze. In the evening, the only light in "The Barn" comes from kerosene lanterns. Just to the east of "The Barn" is a smaller, essentially circular or hexagonal building, where there are tables and where participants can get tea, coffee, and eventually hot food (a mixture of rice, celery, and beef).

At the outset I'm told that unless I find it absolutely necessary to speak (an emergency, for example) that I should remain non-verbal (not necessarily nonvocal) and avoid social amenities while participating in the project. After storing my gear, I'm taken individually out to the prairie by one of Grotowski's people. He very diligently and patiently works with me, teaching me over the period of an hour and a half or so "The Motions. '"."The Motions" are a complicated series of very physically difficult ritualistic body positions and movements. The positions and movements are oriented on the position of the sun. The eyes also come into it, in that one seeks not to focus on a single point on the horizon but rather to see the vast panorama of the horizon. There are held, frozen positions, for example, in which one is balanced on one foot with the rest of one's body parallel to the ground or where one is balanced in a semisquatting position. I was, at first, constantly falling off balance, but my patient teacher continued to work with me until I learned the basics of the whole sequencedfhen he took me to the smaller circular /hexagonal building, and I had some lunch (steamed rice and celery).

A little later, after all the participants had gathered, Grotowski provided a brief (verbal) orientation. Of the group of forty or so in the circular/hexagonal building, I determined there were about ten of us who had been invited from the outside. Unlike the paratheatrical projects in which I had participated in Poland, where the ratio of outsiders to insiders was approximately three to one, here the ratio was reversed. From the circular/hexagonal building, we went to "The Barn," and there we were checked as a group in "The Motions," orienting ourselves to the corners of the room as if to the points of a compass. Here there was great concern with precision of movement and position. Du Y ee Chang and Grotowski checked and adjusted our positions constantly. Sometimes the difficult positions were held longer than I believed I could hold them, but gradually I began to feel "The Motions" becoming a part of my body.

Next we were taught non-verbally and simply by demonstration a series of (for me) complicated dance steps and a Creole song that provided the complicated rhythm for these steps. The group would move in serpentine fashion throughout the room, and, of course, those who were the insiders led those of us from the outside until we got' at least the basics. Later, after a brief rest and some more food in the circular /hexagonal building, Grotowski added another dimension to this dance and song: we should now do it as if we were animals


moving upright. This time I finally got the "feel" of the whole thing: I didn't have to count to myself anymore. Suddenly I felt free and spontaneous, despite the fact I was singing and dancing generally in unison with some forty others. I remembered the previous summer in New York when, talking with Grotowski in the Utopia Restaurant at 7Znd and Amsterdam about the idea of repetition, he'd said: "We sing the song, but then eventually the song sings us." This was exactly the way I felt at this moment of"breakthrough" in Irvine: from absolute awkwardness in trying to get the steps and song just right, I'd come from a very self-conscious movement and singing to a feeling of my whole body and voice operating correctly without my intellect intervening. The song was singing me, but, in a sense, for better or worse, I had found my way of being with the rhythms and motions of everybody else. We were, by now, finally, all generally in precision, physically and vocally together/.!

By this time the sun had gotten very low in the west. We gathered outside. One part of the group (all insiders, I think) had gone off earlier. The second group, of which I was a part (made up of outsiders, "Technical Specialists," and other insiders) moved in single-file, following the motions and rhythm of our leader, in serpentine fashion up into the hills of the vast pasture. At some distance, but still accompanying the group moving in single file, were two wildly running figures: a woman in a white dress and the man who had taught me "The Motions." The sun was very low now, and the feeling of evening was beginning to fall on the pasture. As we reached the top of the highest hill, off in the distance, down in the valley perhaps three-quarters of a mile away was the other group; and then just to the northwest perhaps a quarter mile away was the herd of horses grazing. It was very quiet. On the top of the hill, orienting ourselves on the setting sun, we did "The Motions." They must have taken us about thirty-five to forty minutes, although that's a very relative judgment. As we moved slowly in physical unison single file from the top of the hill down toward "The Barn" and the circular/ hexagonal building once again, the sun having now set, and dusk falling rapidly, the horses approached us quietly, touching us with their noses as we passed.

There was more food in the circular/ hexagonal building, and we ate it in silence. After awhile, we went to "The Barn," and there Grotowski served as a quiet master of ceremonies to a performance demonstration by several of those working with him. In each case, there was a short demonstration of a traditional performance from Korean, Balinese, Chinese, or Hebrew culture. This was followed by a rendering of the "scene" in a manner stripped of all but its essence, but seemingly a rendering in which that essence had been filtered through the totality of the performer. So that what we saw was the total performer playing the absolutely precise sounds and movements of the tradition but in a fully personalized way. When the Korean, Du Yee Chang, performed, for example, I was reminded in many ways of Ryszard Cieslak. His total sacrifice of his body in one "scene" was reminiscent of Cie5lak's performances in The Constant Prince and Apocalypsis cum figuris. One of the most interesting


experiments was a contrapuntal "scene" in which both Du Yee Chang and the Taiwanese Wei-Cheng Chan performed simultaneously traditional "scenes" from Korean and Chinese cultures. Of interest as well was Wendy Vanden Heuvel's treatment of a work from Hebrew tradition. During these demonstrations, GrOtowski also talked briefly about the role of the audience. He said there were certain physical positions that supported the performer: for example, through his suggestions, I found it a strong supportive position to stand against the wall, like all the insiders, and lean toward the performer. It's hard to explain what this does, but, as an audience member to a performance, I felt more as I had in Wrodaw on that final evening of "Tree of People" when Jacek Zmyslowski played his guitar and the young people sang and danced while those of us who were older sat along the wall, singing too, in a more passive participation-but nonetheless participating.

I Wayan Lendra from Bali ledthe next segment in which there was a kind of celebration: there was the dance movement we'd learned earlier in the day plus other dances never really taught-and there were a lot of Creole songs sung together. At this point there was, as I had experienced it in the paratheatrical work years before in Wrodaw, a sense of a total group together. The separation between insiders and outsiders was, for the most part, gone. Those of us from the outside were accepted; and we'd accepted them too. Despite the fact that we outsiders were not as adept at dancing and singing as the insiders, we knew somehow underneath that if we really worked hard and practiced, gained real discipline and precision, that we too, as they, could participate more fully. I found myself singing the Creole melodies but not the words, which I couldn't really understand well enough to pick up. In this session in "The Barn," as in all other sessions, Grotowski sat at a small desk in the southwest corner of the room, watching very intently and sometimes taking notes.

After the session with Lendra, there was more food in the small, circular/ hexagonal building. Jiero, with Grotowski's assistance, gave us the basic rules for the next session: that we should follow the leaders until we sensed what was going on, that we should not use our voices, that we should not make noises on the floor with our feet, that we should not use dance movements or walk around like animals on all fours. Grotowski said: "This is not what is commonly called 'improvisation.' " We were told that once we entered the performance area of "The Barn," if we left, we could not come back to this particular session. But if we wished to rest for awhile in the room itself, we should sit by the wall with our faces toward the wall. Each of us then was taken individually by Jiero and placed in a particular position in the performance space of "The Barn." What occurred in the next approximately hour and thirty minutes was an exciting paratheatrical event very similar to those I'd been involved with in Wroclaw, but here, as in "Vigil,'; led by Jacek Zmyslowski, there was movement but no vocalization. The session led by ]iero was very exhausting physically, and a good many left the room, since, by this time it was well into the early morning and probably some wanted to sleep briefly. Grotowski watched from


his desk throughout. Shortly after the para theatrical segment, there was a relatively brief session,

again led by Jiero, which occurred at a rock-walled fire pit just south and up the hill from "The Barn" and the circular/hexagonal building. Those still awake gathered to the north of the fire pit until the logs burning inside flared up over the wall. Then, ·led by Jiero, who moved in a strangely rhythmic but soundless way, we moved up the hill to the fire pit. We all stared at the flames, sometimes climbing over the wall into the pit itself. Grotowski was there, watching all of us.

There were by now some faint traces of light on the eastern horizon, and the man who had taught me "The Motions" many hours before gathered us all outside in the area between "The Barn" and the circular/hexagonal building where he led us in a series of vigorous calisthenics. I was too tired. I couldn't do them all. Then, as it began to get even lighter in the east, we reformed the order of our original serpentine single file and began, once again, to move out onto· the prairie hills. At the top of the same hill as the night before, once again orienting ourselves now on the rising sun in the east, we did "The Motions." Most of us were exhausted. I could not keep my balance as well as I had at sunset, and neither could some of the others. Du Y ee was right in front of me when we faced east, and I even noticed him almost fall over once. So I didn't feel so bad. About forty minutes later, as before, we moved slowly down the hill, single file, toward the buildings. I felt energized inside, but physically I was exhausted and stumbling. Back at the circular/hexagonal building, it was clear that "Objective Drama" was over: everyone was talking now, laughing, smoking cigarettes, drinking strong tea, thinking about going out for breakfast, looking a little bleary-eyed but energized too. Grotowski talked animatedly with a representative from the Rockefeller Foundation who had been, like myself, a participant from the outside. A little while later, when Grotowski, Magda Zlotowska, and I went out together for Sunday breakfast, I jokingly told him how exhausted I was coming down the hill after doing "The Motions" as the sun had risen and how I'd wondered at the time if I'd ever be able to do anything like that again. He looked at me and smiled with reassurance, saying "Oh yes .... "

It should be remembered that, although this discussion of the period 1976-1986 has dealt exclusively with Grotowski's post-theatrical work, Apocalypsis cum figuris continued to be performed by the Laboratory Theatre on a fairly regular basis until September 1981 and the death of Antoni Jaholkowski in Wrodaw. Since that time, two other members of the group also have died: Jacek Zmyslowski (in February 1982 in New York) and Stanislaw Scierski (in July 1983 in Wrodaw).

In January 1984, the Wrodaw daily Gazeta Robotnicza carried a brief statement signed by a number of the founding and long-standing members of the Laboratory Theatre: Rena Mirecka, Ludwik Flaszen, Ryszard Cieslak, and Zyg-


munt Molik. The statement said in effect that, after twenty-five years, as of 31 August 1984, the Laboratory Theatre, directed and managed by Jerzy Grotowski, was officially dissolving. The statement said the decision by the members still in Wroclaw to bring about such an official dissolution came as a result of the members' varied and independent research projects and workshops in various parts of the world.

Early in August 1984, Zbigniew Cynkutis returned to Poland from teaching for more than two years in the United States at the University of Kansas and at Hamilton College. Cynkutis returned to become artistic director of a new experimental theatre called Drugie Studio Wrodawskie (the Second Studio of Wrodaw) that would be housed at Rynek-Ratusz 27, where since 1965 had resided the Laboratory Theatre. On 27 November 1984, Cynkutis issued a statement (in English) which generally clarified the direction and emphases of the new operation:

The Second Studio of Wrodaw is open for various forms of exchange and ready to invite to Poland those practitioners and thegrists of all branches that belong to the broad name of Theatre .... [The Second Studio] . . . organizes special workshops for actors, directors, and theatre-life organizers who are interested in searching for new forms . . . . The main intention of the Second Studio is not only in experiencing and investigating new forms of artistic communication but also in building up an International Group of the Second Studio of those who will be interested in longer cooperation. . . . For visitors interested in the history of theatre, we can propose the special depart· ment of History and Research in which one can find documents, photos, films, and tapes connected with the twenty-five years of existence of the Laboratory Theatre. According to statute, the Second Studio of Wrodaw takes care of all documents and other audio-visual . materials of the Laboratory Theatre and is the successor of all copyrights and contracts signed by the Institute of the Actor -Laboratory Theatre.

At this point, Cynkutis is working with a group of actors on a performance of Seneca's Phaedra, in which Stacey MacFarlane, an American, is appearing.

And what of other former members of the Laboratory Theatre? Because they are operating in all parts of the world, it is difficult to keep up with them. Rena Mirecka permanently does workshops all over the world; she was recently in Boston for a short period. Zygmunt Molik does the same, particularly working with the voice. He was recently in Toronto, at the Actor's Lab Theatre, where he developed a performance of Macbeth with a number of Canadian actors. Teo Spychalski is in Montreal working with former students from Poland. Elizabeth Albahaca is in Italy working with a company ~n Pontederra. Ludwik

------------ -~-----


Flaszen is in Paris scheduled to conduct a series of workshops at L'Enfance de !'Art from November 1985 through July 1986. The titles of these workshops are "The Tragic Flesh," "T awards Daily Training," and "On Human Limits: Dostoyevski's Zoo." And Ryszard Cieslak is working with Peter Brook.

And what of]erzy Grotowski himself? Since last I saw him in March 1985 in California in connection with "Objective Drama," he has been to Mexico for a period of time. In June he was presented an honorary doctorate by De Paul University in Chicago. At the moment (1 July 1985), he is in Italy, on a mountain in Tuscany continuing his research.

[ (5 December 1985) In a telephone conversation yesterday with Grotowski, I learned that recently a center in Italy had been dedicated in his name (Centro di Lavoro Europeo di Jerzy Grotowski [European Work Center of Jerzy Grotowski]) and that Grotowski considers this center his permanent European home. Grotowski stressed that this center is in no way involved with the work he is presently conducting at Irvine. While it had been reported that Grotowski had been experimenting at Irvine with Peer Gynt, this is simply not the case. He says he used Peer Gynt only as an exercise: it was nothing major, nothing important, and should be ignored.]

Documents

Grotowski and His Laboratory. Osinski