The Art of Dialogue. Jurij Alschitz

Respond creatively towards another person’s creativity, and artistically towards another artist. This is all that’s needed from you. A dialogue is always a co-creation – so begin this co-creation, working together with the playwright. Listen to him, and then freely and jointly begin searching together. This will help you to answer the third question.

      Third question:

      How to unite your and the playwright’s views on dialogue?

      After you have answers to the first question, “How do you personally see dialogue?” and “What type of dialogue is the playwright proposing?” compare them. Establish a sort of dialogue between these two different views – the playwright’s and yours. By comparing them, energy will be created. It is the energy of searching. This is already a first important step towards the birth of your own image of the dialogue.

      In answering this question, you already start unwittingly to create the plan of the whole construction of the dialogue. For example: in this part of the dialogue, a pause is important; here, I agree with the playwright. And here: what’s important is the actions in the situation – I agree here, too, but here – no, I don’t agree. At this point, in my view, everything stems not from the words but from the game, and so, again, the basis for the dialogue are the words. Ask yourself the questions: When does dialogue begin according to the text, and when does it begin according to its own essence? How does it develop? Where does it come to a standstill? Where does it end? What is the revelation in the dialogue? Where can the metaphysical break-through occur? The more questions you have, the better. Taking apart and then building up your version of the dialogue in this way, you will hear and see not only a diverse and rich form of its life on stage, but you will open whole hidden riches in its meaning. But this is only one part of the work. You will only find the full answer to the third question through patient, applied work on stage. Do not hurry! Take time over the dialogue. A lot of time.

      I sometimes think that time is what dialogue feeds on; it breathes time. If you cut back on time, you’ll see that it suffocates. You can’t create a dialogue by fussing over it, in a noisy environment or in a hurry. You need to pay attention to the fact that Dialogue demands different temporal dimensions, it is crowded by our calendar framework and clock faces. But, unfortunately, in today’s world, we lose patience if a dialogue happens over a long time. We need a quick result, not faith in its continuation. We are irritated by Chekhov’s impreciseness. We don’t have the patience for it. And this is all visible on stage: actors hurry, get nervous, don’t listen to one another, rush like race horses to the finishing line, towards victory. I assure you that this “quick” dialogue will not work. A genuine revelation won’t take place. In the best case, there will be a decent debate. But in any case, let’s agree that in a short debate, you can only gain temporary knowledge. Knowledge which is comfortable for the spectator and practical for him “today”. Is this what Theatre is for? I am not sure about this at all. I’m sure that true knowledge is reached only by following a long, long shared path. Only a dialogue which is heading towards the future, a dialogue with a long perspective to develop, can genuinely reveal something authentic. We need these distant horizons. And so it’s impossible to ­create dialogue by fussing over it, in a noisy environment or in a hurry. That much is tried and tested.

      Answer the questions and go on stage. There, you’ll come across a hundred new questions. The image of your dialogue will reveal itself to you fully only on stage, and only in rehearsals with your partner. However well they might prepare, dialogue will never be revealed to one actor or to one director. Dialogue is between two. It is in many ways a personal issue between two. Trust each other as yourself. You need your own dialogue. Otherwise you won’t manage anything, ever. The way you play the dialogue, with this particular partner, cannot be played with another person, even if it’s with the most wonderful actor. You will never manage to repeat your dialogue with them. And anyway it’s not possible to repeat dialogue. You will always need to create it afresh. The image is created by you + your partner. It is created by you + the playwright. You + the spectators. You today + you tomorrow. So take care that your dialogue is always you + someone/something else.

      They say that when a person comes around, after fainting, the first thing he starts to understand is whether there is someone next to him or not.

      2. MY TEACHER - PLATO

      The aim of this book is not to describe the history of the origin of dialogue. There will be people who are able to do that much better than myself. It’s important for me to turn your attention, first and foremost, to what you need to know for your practice in theatre, when and how to use it.

      It would be correct to start from the Bible, because the Bible is itself a dialogue. Its knowledge arrives through the voices of the prophets in the strong desire to listen to the voice of God. For the Jews, knowledge unfolds in the mutual relationship through dialogue, and not through submission. The Jewish culture was quite different to the Ancient Greek, but in any case, let me start there, where the tree of Dialogue truly blossomed for the first time. Among the ancient Greeks, dialogue (in Greek διάλογος – original meaning: a conversation between two individuals) was understood as a normal verbal exchange between two collocutors. The Greeks, passionate about dialogues in pairs, realised the special quality of dialogues in revealing new knowledge. This became a huge step forward in understanding the nature of dialogue and marked the first distinguishing characteristic between dialogue and normal conversation. To discover the world together turned out to be more interesting and productive than by oneself. Dialogues became so popular that they were specially organised as entertainment for citizens in the form of verbal tournaments. They were at least as successful as the famous theatre performances. I’m certain that a well-made dialogue is always a guarantee of success with spectators. So, this interest and success pushed the ancient philosophers and writers to look at dialogue as a special form of the development of philosophical as well as other deep and meaningful themes. The philosophical teachings of Plato are known to us through his dialogues. I want to point out right away that if you want to become an expert on Dialogue, you won’t be able to do so without studying his work. It’s practically impossible for an actor to make a good and deep analysis of dialogue without a base of philosophical knowledge. But most importantly, in his works, you’ll find the main principles of the construction of all types of dialogue from antiquity to the present day. It is a wonderful practical tool. That’s why you shouldn’t put it off for later; read Plato now.

I will try not only to convince you how contemporary his understanding of dialogue is, with brief examples and conclusions, but also to direct your attention to its main laws. First of all, look at how beautifully and how simply Plato and his pupils define the essence of dialogue. For them, Dialogue is the cosmos. Not “you said – I said’, but the cosmos. It’s not shallow, not a line, but an infinity – just as in dialogue the speech of different individuals is heard in conformity with what befits each person, there are also higher and lower natures in the cosmos… and the soul, being in the cosmos, joins first to one, then to another. (…) In dialogue, too, there are characters, asking and answering, and our soul being a judge between them, as it were, leaning towards first one, then the other. 2 In this way, the authors of antiquity used dialogue to juxtapose different ideas, and the listener joins first to one and then to the other, until he arrived at certain knowledge. Thus, asking questions and answering their own questions, participants of a dialogue would force the spectator to think and ask the questions of himself. They could lead the listener to agree with their own conclusions in the very same way that the dialectics, according to Plato’s teachings, forces the soul to reveal what is hidden inside itself. I want to turn your attention to the way that in all of Plato’s dialogues, the truth does not strive to be taught or captured. It is born. And it does not strive to be asserted for a century. There is no room for dogmatism in Plato’s field of dialogue. Each time, truth should be born anew, in a new dialogue, each time with a new partner. Thanks to the absence of dogmatism in their thoughts, both partners always have an equal share of hope that they are participating in its birth. From the very beginning of the dialogue, the opinion of the other is permitted, and nobody stubbornly insists on their own opinion. The position is this: “I am ready to change my point of view if I see a journey to peaceful coexistence, to agreement