Ivan Chabbak: "The success of the actor depends on courage"

Ivan Chabbak flew to Moscow with a series of master classes, the famous acting teacher, who taught Brad Pitt, Jim Kerry, David Spade and others. Maxim Semenov met Ivana right in her classes and asked about her constantly changing method. Well, about the truth in the cinema and on the stage.

- There is a stereotype according to which work with Russian actors is significantly different from working with Americans. For example, we have the traditions of the repertoire theater that are almost absent in the United States.

- No, this is not so. I have been teaching for more than 30 years, I am conducting classes in different countries. And everywhere, everywhere I come across the same problems. In Russia, USA, Great Britain, Australia, Norway, Israel. Anywhere. These are the same problems.

- And Russian theorists? Stanislavsky, Meyerhold, Mikhail Chekhov, Tairov, many others. Did they influence your system?

- Of course. I studied with the best, on the basis of their work, I created my own system. I tried to unite all the best that was to process it.

- I followed the studies that you put with your students, and drew attention to what you often say as such a professional psychoanalyst. Do you use any psychoanalytic theories?

- No. It is more about behaviorism, about the adjustment of behavior. To instill confidence in them so that they can handle their fear. They could fight, because the viewer is interested in monitoring the fighting characters. The success of the actor often depends on his courage when he is not afraid to be incomprehensible.

- There is another stereotype according to which the game of actors in the theater differs from what is required of them in the cinema. Is it really so?

- Not at all. The rules of good game are universal. I can give an example other types of art. For example, visual. You can enjoy Picasso's work, from what Monet, Manet, from the work of Michelangelo, Shagal, even Rotko. They can be made in different techniques, but the mechanism of your perception of their work is always the same. They are united by something. You enjoy contact with them.

“But I can give an example.” In the Russian dumb cinema there was such a star - faith is cold. And when Stanislavsky called her to play the Art Theater, she said: I can’t, I am a film actress and I don’t know anything about the theater.

- But in fact, this difference is not! There is no fundamental difference between theatrical actors and cinema actors. And they have one common problem - this is the lack of truth. It is important for the viewer to see the truth, and when it is not, the viewer feels it. And when he understands that he is shown the truth, he reacts with gratitude. And it is not so important where you play: on stage or in the cinema. There should be no falsehood in your game.

- It seems to me that Stanislavsky could say that.

- (Laughs.) It is not surprising. I studied with him. True, the game is a mandatory base.

- Well, besides Stanislavsky, there are figures that inspire you? And also, possibly, films, plays.

“I could talk about it for three hours.” You yourself understand, there are dozens of films, plays, hundreds of actors that I like. Some of them are loud names, others are known less, someone is undeservedly forgotten. But highlighting someone alone is very difficult.

- However, all the same, everyone has several personalities who inspire him. In addition to grandmother, Elvis and Jesus.

- (Laughs.) A good joke. I act as a situation. That is, every time I begin from a specific situation. For example, my student plays a killer. And I recall those who brilliantly coped with this task. Each time I get out of specific tasks. I get out of the one who needs to play my student. The killer, maniac, pedophile, thief. And already here I am starting to look for a source of inspiration, that from which it would be possible to push away from. You know, I have been teaching for many years. And what I told my students thirty years ago differs from what I said twenty years ago, or from what I was saying now. This is all a variable process. We, our views, the tasks that are facing us - all this is changing.

“But what affects the change in your views, what you say to your students?” Is this somehow connected with a change in the perception of the public?

-Every time I experience some important experience, I begin to understand something a little deeper. For example, the death of my father. Before that, I have never encountered the death of such close people. And after I experienced this, I was able to explain to my students how the loss of an important person is felt. After the death of my father, I realized that there are much more details that I simply had not suspected before. I realized that there is a lot of anger in this feeling, and not just loss or sadness. A lot of resentment, as if this person was specifically died. Absolutely irrational sensations. And all this can be used to make the game deeper. I did not suspect this until I myself experienced all this.

- This is probably the artist differs from a common person? He can combine human grief with professional joy.

- Exactly. This is a combination of loss and revelation. It's like light in darkness. So the actor feels, we transfer the tragedy differently.

- That is, with experience, you better understand the different faces of a particular emotion. This is what affects changes in your system, and not at all a change in the perception of the public?

- Yes, that is so.

- As far as I understand, among your students there are many famous Hollywood actors. Tell me, how do you assess the fate of Hollywood? It seems that now he is in a crisis.

- O. he is periodically in crisis. But behind every crisis there is a take -off. For many years, I have already seen his decline many times. It is like what is happening with the economy. The crisis is always replaced by an era of growth. So with Hollywood. Today everyone is talking about a deep crisis, and the next year an unprecedented take -off suddenly begins.

“But I'm talking about a deeper phenomenon.” It seems to me that the situation that has developed in Hollywood is now comparable to what was in the 50s, before the birth of the “New Hollywood”, when extremely pompous and heavy productions came out.

- But American cinema is not limited to these productions. Now there are incredibly many small studios that make an independent movie. I don’t know if these films reach the audience in Russia, but with us they are extremely popular. There is Sandens, there is a film festival in Toronto, much more. And people are happy to watch these films.

- But, for example, in Russia, “Sandns” and Hollywood are often opposed to each other.

- Why? This is wrong. Yes, there are several huge studios in Hollywood. But these huge productions are very few. They are very expensive. And much more independent films come out. No one loves these huge studios and their bosses. And everyone wants to act in an independent movie, because it is interesting, it has a life, some kind of soul. But the actors must act in high-budget projects in order to live on something. Independent films almost do not bring money. And to act in an independent movie, you sometimes need to play in large projects. I know that well. My husband is a director. No one sits and does not dream of making another film about Spider-Man.

- But here is not the main thing, but how. And the film about Spider-Man can also be a great story.

- Yes, that is so.

- Probably, one of your tasks is to improve the quality and commercial projects. Set the bar.

- Yes. But it depends not only on us. We - actors, directors, screenwriters - feel like one family. We do not have such a hard hierarchy. I would call this a real communism, a situation where everyone is really equal and help each other. The situation with the studio bosses that are entrepreneurs is completely different. They want to receive money. And they do what should make a profit. Sometimes they consider themselves artists, but this is not so.

- If we talk about Hollywood. You probably know the film "Giant", in which James Dean and Rock Hudson play. And Rock Hudson demonstrates such a rather classic Hollywood technique for that time. And James Dean, on the contrary, uses the emerging traditions of the acting guild and the New Hollywood .

- I know this film, but I did not watch it (laughs) . I can't say anything about it.

- Fine. But even now, within the framework of large Hollywood projects, there is often a clash of various acting schools?

- This is so, but if you do something that causes others an internal response, it is not as important as you come to this. It's like with the same therapy. There are Freudians, Yungians, there are gestalt therapy. And what works for you. If people work differently, but achieve the result, they will be able to cooperate very well.

- The main thing is true. Transfer of truth.

- True - this is the key to any technique. Absolutely any.