Through myth, theatre and storytelling we can be faced with what we don’t yet know about ourselves. Stories lie in wait, full of possibilities that can bring us toward new understandings.
Myth, great theatre, (for example Shakespeare), films like Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings, and within the theories of Jungian psychology are all places where we are accompanied by archetypes. That means we are not meeting complete human beings, but aspects of human beings. These aspects are universal, wizard or witch, queen or king, wise person, druid or fool, and more, and that includes all the modern variations of the same. Along with these archetypes we can also meet universal themes, like war, love, loss, new life, death, the destruction of nature, and so on. We see characters fulfilling the prophesies they have tried to avoid. These universal themes and aspects of human beings can be triggering. Life may not have given us the opportunity to meet for instance, the loneliness of the goddess Macha who comes in from the cold only to be betrayed by the man she had learned to trust, or the shaming of the very young Cú Chulainn by a group of women who lifted their skirts to gain control over his temper, and on to all the other lonelinesses, joys and betrayals that we meet throughout life. Those hurts, qualities, or quirks find their mirror when you meet them in their mythic perfection.
The great Kerryman and thinker, John Moriarty described working with myth as a kind of harrowing. To meet our darker impulses, our personal shadow, or an aspect of self we don’t like or want to accept, but if we stay for long enough, we begin to see, because shadow is only shadow until a light is shone. Seeds can then be sown, and new shoots grow, but it is important to be aware that along the way, myth can be psychologically risky. A person might over identify with a character in the myth. For example, taking on the energy of a king with a lot of power that can give further food to a power identity, or identifying a victim within a story, only to support an inner victim that can be in the way of good mental health. I know that sounds a little frightening, but walking toward a myth with awareness, and an openness to what it has show us can become a guide toward our many contradictions. When we become aware of our contradictions we gain an understanding of our impingements. An example: ‘I want to be loved but I push you away.’
I began by suggesting myth and theatre as similar but they are not quite the same. The example I am about to describe illustrates the distance between the play and the audience. The audience is moved by the play, but as an audience member there is distance, therefore in my opinion, though theatre can be an intimate engagement, it is not as intimate as it can be with myth, and so less psychologically risky except sometimes for the actor. The separateness between audience and actor is depicted and displayed below.
This is a sculpture called ‘Theatre’ in Cabinteely Park, County Dublin Ireland by Agnes Conway
Below is the text that goes with it:
“A large scale sculptural group consisting of 6 “Performers” and 7 “Audience”, each cast in granite and measuring up to 7ft in height. Theatre is divided into two parts. The Performers (masks set on pillars) represent various human vices such as malice, greed, violence, while the audience holds itself apart from them. Theatre represents an aspiration to a more ideal world where the ability to recognise and accept the evils and flaws in human nature allows one to move forward without being changed or scarred by them.“
That wonderful sculpture and the accompanying text suggests the audiences involvement, while at the same their safe distance. Something is happening on a stage and the individual is moved, but there is some choice involved, conscious or unconscious as to whether the audience member engages with for instance, a shadow aspect that can be left on the stage.
***
Having compared in brief the more intimate work of myth with the structure of theatre I will describe two methods of acting.
One is from The Michael Chekhov Acting Technique and while there is no short way to describe it, I will try to give an inkling of the difference between it, and the better known Stanislavski Method.
The actor working with the Michael Chekhov Acting Technique finds character through imagination, physical or psychological gesture. They train to be the ‘artistic body’ or the body for the character to turn up in. That is found through gesture, and movement that belong to the character they are exploring. The character comes to the stage, sometimes as if by magic, and so the person of the actor is less at risk of becoming emotionally disturbed.
The actor working with the Stanislavski Method draws on their own emotional and psychological experiences to create an authentic character. Hence they are deeply involved with the character which can sometimes be psychologically risky. I remember seeing a version of the play Medea originally written by Euripides. It is about a women whose husband, Jason cheated on her, and so Medea’s revenge was to kill their children and his lover. I wondered how the actress fared while and after playing that role, and what method she used.
These are examples of ways where a character in a play can be approached. The Michael Chekhov example (having done enough research) brings the character into their own becoming. The actor has created a character other than themselves. The Stanislavski example engages emotionally with the character’s struggle from a place they have found within themselves to bring authenticity, and ingenuity.
I have made these comparisons because a few years ago I trained at the Michael Chekhov International Academy in Berlin for actors and all creative development under the excellent tutelage of Joerg Andrees. One of the many learnings I gained from that intensive training was a keener consciousness regarding a process. There is no way to guarantee that a myth will not challenge unconscious aspects of a person, but there is a way to remain conscious about the possibility of the unconscious challenge. Like the Chekhov method, I am not the character though they might have a lot to teach me, I am me and the reason for the journey /process is for outcome, epiphany for wisdom and creativity.
Having said all that I don’t know if there is a best way to approach a character in a play or a myth, but I am sure from my experiences while writing my books TÁIN and SÍDH that it is worth knowing that spending time with a myth, particularly one that a person is drawn to, is holding something yet to be revealed, so it is better if it is approached with openness and some wariness. Maybe the way forward can be taken from theatre by making sure that the myth is approached by an inner ensemble; performers, audience and director. The performer for close connection, the audience for distance and director for the omniscient viewpoint, so the myth worker can then allow the magic of insight and wisdom that is unique to them, to happen. That would be ideal.
To read more about my books see : https://karinatynan.com/reflections-on-the-womens-stories-in-irish-mythology/
