Body and space: Michael Chekhov’s notion

of atmosphere as the means of creating space

in theatre

YANA MEERZON

Abstract

This article analyses the aspects of theatre practice and theory dealing with
body in space, or a theatrical space ‘constructed in relation to the actor.’
It examines both the position of actor’s body with regards to a fictional
space and an interaction between the stage and the audience using the ex-
ample of Michael Chekhov’s notion of atmosphere — a sensory medium
‘that permeate[s] environments and Radiate[s] from people.’ Atmosphere
is a multi-layered text based on the anthropological, architectural, and
emotional types of human relationships. It is both the Actor/Character/
Spectator communication and the employment of theatre space as sign.
Therefore, atmosphere is a dynamic process defining the aesthetic reading
of a performance.

It is not merely mechanically that we possess

Space and are its center; it is because we are
living. Space is our life; our life creates Space;
our body expresses it. In order to move from
one point to another, we exerted an e¤ort . . .
corresponding to the beatings of our heart.
Those heart beats proportioned our gestures.
In Space? No! In Time. In order to proportion
Space, our body needs Time.
— Adolphe Appia (Appia 1960: 53)

This article is devoted to the aspect of theatre practice and theory dealing
with body in space, or a theatrical space ‘constructed in relation to the
actor’ (Ubersfeld 1999: 119). It examines both the position of human/
actor’s body with regards to a fictional space upon the stage and an inter-
action between the stage and the audience within a theatre space using
the example of Michael Chekhov’s notion of atmosphere — a sensory

Semiotica 155–1/4 (2005), 259–279 0037–1998/05/0155–0259

6 Walter de Gruyter
260 Y. Meerzon

medium ‘that permeate[s] environments and Radiate[s] from people’

(Powers 1991: XLIII).
Michael Chekhov (1891–1955), the nephew of Anton Chekhov and a
disciple of Stanislavsky, was one of the most promising Russian actors
of the first half of the twentieth century. In 1928, Chekhov emigrated
from the Soviet Russia and spent the rest of his life in the West, where
his acting career became subject to language limitations. This inadequate
position of an exilic actor prompted Chekhov to shift his attention to the
theory of acting and pedagogy, the result of which turned up in his book
To the Actor (2002 [1953]) widely accepted in today’s theatre world.
Atmosphere, a part of Chekhov’s acting technique, is an organizing
force of theatre space in action. It is created by every individual per-
former and simultaneously by a group of actors in the circumstances of
a particular production. It is a visual and sensory text connecting: a)
actors on stage with each other; and b) people on stage and people in the
audience. The emphasis is, therefore, on the anthropological, architec-
tural, and emotional types of human relationships. By applying Fischer-
Lichte’s definition of space as ‘a potentially human environment’ (Fischer-
Lichte 1992: 94), this article examines Chekhov’s atmosphere as a stage
space, ‘a segment of space in which A [actor] acts in order to portray X
[character]’ (Fischer-Lichte 1992: 101), and as a theatre space ‘occupied
by the audience and actors in the course of a performance’ (Pavis 1998:
344).
Chekhov’s atmosphere is a multileveled experience corresponding to
the intra- and extra-deigetic spaces of the performance created by actors,
where the former translates as the space on stage seen by the audience,
and the latter as the space only referred to, existing in the actors’ and
audience’s imagination. Therefore, the first type of atmosphere within
the visible space refers to the explicit type of representation, whereas the
atmosphere between the stage and the audience occurs within the non-
fictional theatre space and may be defined as the implicit type of represen-
tation (De Marinis 1993: 152). De Marinis observes that:

On the basis of the model of a double level communication we can thus distin-
guish between 1) onstage speech acts (internal to the performance) and 2) extra-
speech acts (directed to the audience). On the first level, we usually are dealing
with symbolic (or fictional) illocutions and equally illusory perlocutions . . . On
the extra-stage level we can hypothesize instead that, . . . real illocutions and/or
perlocutions are produced. (De Marinis 1993: 151)

This leads to the idea of theatre communication presupposing the audi-

ence’s direct involvement into the creation of fictional illocutions and
 Body and space 261

speech acts by producing immediate reaction, and therefore, filling its at-
mosphere with either positive/stimulating or negative/interrupting emo-
tional waves or physical actions (clapping, leaving the audience). Che-
khov’s atmosphere between the stage and the audience is precisely this
kind of interaction. Stage atmosphere, however, can serve as a defensive
acting device for actors not willing to participate in the ‘one-on-one dia-
logue’ with the spectators.

1. Atmosphere as a means of creating stage space and fictional milieu

In Chekhov’s vocabulary the term atmosphere signifies ‘the dominant

tone or mood of, amongst other things, a place, a relationship, or an art-
work’ (Chamberlain 2000: 87). It is a sort of tension, which is ‘spread in
the air, enveloping people and events, filling the rooms, floating through
the landscapes, pervading the life of which it is a part’ (Chekhov 2002
[1953]: 54). In order to translate Chekhov’s at times misleading terminol-
ogy into the language of contemporary performance studies, it is impor-
tant to see his atmosphere not as a mystical or mythological experience
but as a mode of spatial and temporal relationships between actors on
stage, and between the stage and the audience.
For example, Chekhov’s theory of atmosphere corresponds to Ubers-
feld’s notion of stage space, which is always ‘informal’ and is manifested
in actors’ improvisations (Ubersfeld 1999: 119). It can be also seen as the
actor’s function of inhabiting the fictional locus (created by a director us-
ing either external or internal dramatic didascalia) with the means of its
mimetic representation. In Ubersfeld’s words, ‘the entire activity of stag-
ing a play consists of finding spatial equivalents for the great rhetorical
figures we know, first of all, metaphor and metonymy’ (Ubersfeld 1999:
109). Stage space similarly to atmosphere is ‘constructed in relation to
the space the actor defines around himself or herself, in relation to the
ways in which actors physically react to each other’ (Ubersfeld 1999:
119). As Fischer-Lichte comments, ‘the location of the stage space de-
pends, in other words, on understanding overall layout of the space, and
in particular on the space assigned to A [actor] and S [spectator] and the
resulting, set definition of the relationship between A and S’ (Fischer-
Lichte 1992: 101). Similarly, Chekhov sees atmosphere in the hands of
actors, in the way their bodies interconnect within the circumstances of a
given space, rhythm of the action, the objectives of each particular char-
acter, and the psycho-physiology of each stage mask.
Chekhov recognizes a stage mask (the product of actor’s activity) as ‘a
real body signifying an imaginary body, which represents a complex of
262 Y. Meerzon

e¤ects known as character’ (Steen and Werry 1998: 146). It is a psycho-

physical unity consisting of rhythms and movements based on the per-
former’s collective and personal archetypes permeated by intercultural
and interdisciplinary artistic connections. Chekhov’s stage mask is analo-
gous to the Prague School’s stage figure (an aesthetic object and a sign)
(Mukařovský 1978: 171–177), based on the actor’s ideal image of the
character, which he/she envisions in his/her imagination while reading a
play (Quinn 1995). In the tripartite structure of the acting sign (actor —
stage figure — dramatic character), actor signifies actor’s physical appear-
ance and identity, stage figure denotes viewer’s image of the actor’s on-
stage creativity, and dramatic character is a construction both on the part
of actor and spectator. It is a vehicle generating the aesthetic object as a
dynamic image in the minds of the perceiving audience (Veltruský 1976).
Chekhov’s stage mask is, therefore and above all, a product of actor’s
aesthetic activity. It is oriented toward the spectator, who is able to influ-
ence and change it.
Chekhov’s atmosphere must be defined in similar terms. Although it
is not as tangible as his stage mask, atmosphere still acquires the qual-
ities of a sign of sign on stage. It functions as a device of bringing
stage and audience together via the actor’s rhythmical characteriza-
tion of his/her stage mask. Chekhov’s atmosphere calls for Bogatyrev’s
views on actors/spectators’ theatre experience defined by their spatial
interdependence.1
Bogatyrev recognizes the process of transformation as getting or taking
on a new form as the basis of any theatrical activity. As he claims, in
theatre nothing can be perceived in its direct meaning; everything and ev-
erybody has been transformed either into the objects of a material phe-
nomenon or into the objects of an ideological one (Bogatyrev 1971). For
instance, when peasants-actors enter their neighbor’s house to start a
show, they bring along an atmosphere of festivity and illusion. The sheer
fact of their appearance in the peasant’s house already signifies perform-
ative conventions and symbolic relationships (Honžl 1982) between the
actors and the spectators. Therefore, the actors’ presence in the living
area is semiotic and the area itself becomes a representation or a thing as
a sign: it signifies simultaneously the stage and the auditorium. The action
of the play provides information about the fictional space and makes the
new established playing area the sign of sign characterized by its represen-
tational function. In Fischer-Lichte’s words, ‘the stage space thus becomes
a sign for the possibility of implementing certain proxemic signs, which
produced by A, are meant to signify X’ (Fischer-Lichte 1992: 103).
As Chekhov likewise suggests, an actor establishes an atmosphere of a
fictional reality on stage or a sign of sign by using his/her sensory system
 Body and space 263

and imagination. He/she not only senses, observes, and records the atmo-
sphere of each di¤erent life environment or milieu, but also reinvents, re-
imagines, and enacts them on stage in the three-dimensionality of his/her
body being in interaction with the set, props, objects, lights, and other
bodies on stage. It is this type of environmental di¤erence (Chekhov’s fa-
vorite example is the di¤erence between the atmosphere of a church and
that of a street incident) that actors must learn to notice both in real life
and in the dramatic text in order to recreate it in their performances.
Moreover, each atmosphere, according to Chekhov, is similar to Stani-
slavsky’s objective, and is able to predetermine the outcomes of a particu-
lar scene.2 It is never singular, always characterized by the multiplicity of
complex relationships provided by numerous tensions originating during
the action both in the fictional and real stage spaces overlapping with
each other. Chekhov summarizes his atmosphere as something that
‘inspires the actor . . . unites the audience with the actor as well as the
actors with one another . . . and deepens the perception of the spectator’
(Chekhov 2002 [1953]: 61).
In addition, according to Chekhov, it is not only each character that
brings to the stage a certain atmosphere; every scene, every tiny dialogue
or moment of action has its own atmosphere. However, the ‘two contrast-
ing atmospheres [characterizing a particular scene or action] cannot co-
exist’ (Chekhov 2002 [1953]: 61). The outcome of the production depends
mostly on the predetermined atmosphere of its particular genre or la
langue and on the actual atmosphere created specifically for this play or
la parole. Those atmospheres are always in conflict for dominance, which
in the end gives the resolution to the play’s conflict.
Chekhov proceeds further, stating that the ‘individual feelings of the
characters, even though they may contrast with the atmosphere, can exist
simultaneously with it’ (Chekhov 2002 [1953]: 61). The tension created
between the overall atmosphere of a scene with that brought by each
stage mask is the most interesting dynamics that the spectator is to ob-
serve during the theatre action. In order to recreate on stage the imagi-
nary atmosphere of a dramatic situation, the actors have to function
as an ensemble studying the objectives and rhythms of their partners in
accordance to the overall atmosphere of the production. Hence, atmo-
sphere, in Chekhov’s terms, is a metonym signifying both the actors’
reading of a play’s locus and the physically recreated ideal image of a
space within the given circumstances of a particular directorial mise-en-
scene. As Chamberlain writes,

Chekhov encouraged actors to practice creating atmospheres in their imagination

by reading through scenes from plays, getting a sense of the overall atmosphere
264 Y. Meerzon

and then imagining the characters acting and speaking in tune with it. Rather
than doing this just once, Chekhov proposes that the exercise is repeated until
the inner performance is satisfactory, and then suggests that the atmosphere is al-
tered. (Chamberlain 2000: 87)

He believed that ‘the atmosphere is the soul of the performance,’ which

the actor can create around him/her ‘without any given circumstances’
by moving and speaking in harmony with it (Chekhov 2002 [1953]: 61–
62). In semiotic terms, atmosphere is a ‘stage space in question’ (Ubers-
feld 1999: 97) supported by the iconic acting. It is something that happens
‘according to the physical relationships between actors and the deploy-
ment of [their] physical activities — seduction, dance, battle’ (Ubersfeld
1999: 97).
In other words, Chekhov teaches the actors to respect the directorial
space solution or mise-en-scène, which is in tune with Ubersfeld’s vision
of a stage space that ‘can simultaneously convey the image of a meta-
phorical network, a semantic field, and an actantian model’ (Ubersfeld
1999: 110). Chekhov’s actor is to motivate the mise-en-scène by his/her
emotional presence or constructed atmosphere. As Chekhov insists, the
actor must create atmosphere ‘without imagining any occurrence or cir-
cumstance at all’ (Chekhov 2002 [1953]: 67) by merely moving and speak-
ing in a certain rhythm and spatial arrangement.
The major question is how an actor is to transform the images of his
mind, his/her visions or feelings of the particular situation into the realm
of a theatre production, defined first of all by the physical and material
categories of bodies and objects in space. Chekhov suggests looking at
atmosphere as a spatial construction, the second major structure on the
part of the actor after stage mask.
Atmosphere deals with the visual formation of a stage illusion directed
in its referential function to the imaginary fictional locus. This atmo-
sphere acquires the qualities of the indexical sign by creating a fictional
reality and linking the stage and the audience, which in Ubersfeld’s words
is ‘the point of conjunction of the symbolic and the imaginary, of the
symbolism that everyone shares and the imaginary of each individual’
(Ubersfeld 1999: 110). Chekhov’s ideas can also be reshaped in accor-
dance to those of De Toro, who states that stage performance is charac-
terized by the dual function of actor oscillating between producing a sign
and semanticizing the actor as such in space:

On the one hand, its function [the function of the actor’s discourse on stage] is
to create a sign, that is, to be transformed into a character, an emitter of diverse
signs — a system of signs constructed by means of the theatre process. On the
other hand in this process of semanticization of the actor, there is always a part
 Body and space 265

of the progress, which is never semanticized, the part that makes it obvious to the
audience that an actor is in front of them. In the first case, the actor is integrated
into the fiction (as a character), while in the second case, the actor carries out a
performance destined to present the fiction by means of his/her concrete and
physical presence. This dual articulation of theatre discourse, as both mimesis
and activity of the actor, constitutes the two basic axes of all theatre discourse.
(De Toro 1995: 24)

Chekhov acknowledges this dichotomy by stressing the necessity of link-

ing the mimetic and representative functions of actor’s activity on stage.
His characterization technique begins with the actor molding his/her fu-
ture stage figure/stage mask by imagining its outer appearance — the
character’s face, body, gestures, movements and voice. The molding of a
stage mask finishes with the process of the actor’s bringing out his/her
imagined figure and enacting it within the three-dimensional reality of
body in space. This process leads to the actor’s experience of self-distance
or defamiliarization.
Chekhov often experienced this condition and recorded it on one occa-
sion describing his own feelings in the role of Muromsky in Sukhovo-
Kobylin’s Delo/The Case, whom he played in 1927, at the Moscow Art
Theatre II. ‘I didn’t play, as we actors usually do it, I imitated the image,
which itself played instead of me in my imagination’.3 In other words,
Chekhov’s imaginary performance, including both the imaginary charac-
ter and the atmosphere, is highly visual and, therefore, spatial, which is
on the same wavelength as a number of theatre practices contemporary
to him, specifically those of Vsevolod Meyerhold.
Moreover, to Chekhov each atmosphere has its own independent will,
which is distinct from ‘the individual feelings of the characters.’ It has ‘ob-
jective feelings as opposed to individual subjective feelings’ (Chekhov 2002
[1953]: 51). And more importantly, ‘two di¤erent atmospheres (objective
feelings) cannot exist simultaneously. The stronger atmosphere inevitably
defeats the weaker’ (Chekhov 2002 [1953]: 51). Each fictional locus is de-
fined, therefore, by the juxtaposition of ‘the atmospheres of the scene’ and
the individual atmosphere of each character (Chekhov 2002 [1953]: 51).
As Elam states, theatre action is the representation of a fictional or pos-
sible world, which is ‘with respect to the ‘‘real’’ world of performers and
spectators, and in particular the immediate theatrical context, is a spatio-
temporal elsewhere represented as though actually present for the audi-
ence’ (Elam 2002: 89). According to Chekhov, these ‘possible worlds’
are fully furnished (Eco 1977) with atmospheres, which are to be recog-
nized and reconstructed by the actors through the process of imagining
the action, not analyzing it.
266 Y. Meerzon

Chekhov’s atmosphere can be supported directorially too:

[There are] lights with their shadows and colors; settings with their shapes and
forms of compositions; musical and sound e¤ects; grouping of actors, their voices
with a variety of timbres, their movements, pauses, changes of tempo, all kinds of
rhythmical e¤ects and manner of acting. Practically all that the audience perceives
on the stage can serve the purpose of enhancing atmospheres or even creating
them anew. (Chekhov 2002 [1953]: 52–53)

In De Toro’s semiotic vocabulary, it is the environmental index that en-

codes the e¤ective and emotive parts in theatre: ‘both music and lighting
can indicate sad or happy states of being, or indicate the passage from re-
ality to a dream world, without any linguistic meditation’ (De Toro 1995:
83). Moreover, the environmental index is deictic and metonymic when
produced by the actor. Therefore, Chekhov’s usage of rhythm, intona-
tion, gesticulants, and gestural patterns of movements, together with the
facial expressions, and the organization of space between partners, ob-
jects and sets, are the elements of the environmental index, the most ele-
mentary anthropological setting in theatre.
Unlike theatre semioticians busy defining the di¤erence between the
‘possible’ or ‘as if ’ world and the real world of the spectator, looking at
the problem from the outside, Chekhov looks at it from the inside, from
the viewpoint of an actor, whose task is to represent this possible world in
space and time of the stage action. By choosing movements and simple
actions with qualities, Chekhov’s actor defines not only the boundaries of
the ‘possible worlds’ but also the borders between the audience and the
stage spaces. In order to help actors shift attention from their inner ten-
sion, Chekhov proposes to perform movements and gestures with qualities
or sensations, which help evoke actors’ sensibility and portray certain
emotions on stage.
Unlike Stanislavsky, Chekhov’s sensations do not enter actor’s emo-
tional system as the feelings evoked by the actor’s a¤ective memory on
the grounds of their personal associations. Chekhov is against this theory
and sees a direct interdependence between movement and emotion.
To him, the actor must perform a movement or a gesture first in order
to feel a certain sensation. Making movements and gestures with qualities
builds the spatial iconic and symbolic sings/configurations of each par-
ticular emotion and scene both by the actants within the fictional space
and by the actors within the stage space. For Chekhov, atmosphere has
as strong an influence on actors as gestures with qualities; they can ‘un-
wittingly change . . . movements, speech, behavior, thoughts and feelings
as soon as [they] create a strong, contagious atmosphere’ (Chekhov 2002
[1953]: 49).
 Body and space 267

2. Atmosphere — the actors’ space — the living space

Chekhov dreamed of creating ‘theatre of the future’ or ‘international

theatre,’ which would be comprehensible to spectators anywhere in the
world. He saw the basis of such theatre not in its verbal component
or drama, but in the visual one. Thus for Chekhov acting is not only a
dichotomic entity as process and product, but also a combination of tech-
nical devices complementing one another in a special type of language —
theatre language. The fundamental component of this language is the
actor’s body rhythmically defined within stage space and time. In Che-
khov’s technique, the actor’s body acquires functions of a universal tool
consisting of rhythms, movements, gestures, based on collective arche-
types and ideal images born in actor’s imagination. The body appears as
a unity of physical and psychological characteristics. Chekhov believes
that the new theatrical language must be composed out of the structures
or signs familiar to any spectator of any national origin. Atmosphere
is one of them: it is transferable across cultures and sustainable within
actors’ bodies.
In Chekhov’s view, the actor’s action comes from the realm of will,
known in dance techniques as e¤ort, or in Barba’s discourse (1995) as
pre-expressivity. It is to convey in movements and gestures ‘what one’s
will is aiming at’ or what the character desires at a particular moment of
the action. Will is visualized on stage in ‘well-formed, plastically molded
Actions and Gestures’ (Chekhov 1991: 38), which can qualify as any type
of sign, from iconic to symbolic. Will is similar to Stanislavsky’s objective
and can also be a gesture. ‘The objective is something we want to get or
to accomplish, and the easiest way to experience it is by doing a gesture’
(Chekhov 1985: 108). By observing or reading the actor’s gestures, the au-
dience can understand the character’s aims and desires.
Chekhov admits the interdependence between will and gesture, when
the latter springs from the former and vice versa. ‘The better the Gesture
is formed, the stronger and clearer it is, the surer it will reach the Will and
stir, stimulate, and arouse it’ (Chekhov 1991: 39). Moreover, as Chekhov
believes, an imaginary action and a physical movement help actors reach
an emotional state on stage corresponding to that of their characters and
express it in the language of spatial tensions between the stage figures,
and therefore the atmosphere of a scene. Chekhov is convinced that

If we try to imagine and see what the human language has created for describing
certain psychological states, we shall find that what we consider a purely psycho-
logical state of mind, or of human soul . . . is actually described in our human lan-
guage as gesture. For instance, we say, ‘to draw a conclusion.’ This is a concrete
268 Y. Meerzon

gesture, which the human soul does in ‘drawing a conclusion.’ (Chekhov 1985:
107)

Thus, movements and gestures constitute the language of the body in

space translated from the realm of words. Chekhov’s most famous con-
cept of Psychological Gesture (PG) embraces this dichotomy and em-
bodies ‘the psychology and Objective of a character . . . It gives the actor
the basic structure of the character and at the same time can put the actor
into the various moods required by the script’ (Powers 1991: XXXVIII).4
Psychological Gesture embraces the archetype of the character, represent-
ing its psychology in a movement. Conceived by an actor, Psychological
Gesture ‘stirs our will power, gives it a definite direction, awakens feelings
and gives us a condensed version of the character . . . It must be archety-
pal, strong, simple and well-formed, it must radiate and be performed in
the correct tempo’ (Chekhov 2002 [1953]: 76). It originates in the actor’s
mind, transforms into his movement or action, and is manifested in time
and space. It has its own rhythm and form and is the opposite of people’s
everyday gestures.
Chekhov also emphasizes the semiotic function of the self-closed struc-
ture of the Psychological Gesture, which is never produced for the audi-
ence and is only a working device for an actor. PG is the emotional and
rhythmical interactivity between a sender and a receiver: the actor and
the character, the actor and his/her partner, and the actor and the audi-
ence. It is the outer dynamics of inner e¤orts embracing an imaginary
body of a character. It consists of both character’s archetype and the
audience’s expectations of that character (Chekhov 1985: 107–131). It is
the essence of the ‘language of gestures,’ which Chekhov recognizes as the
only language available in acting.
A scene acquires Psychological Gesture too, which is expressed through
its atmosphere. The spatial arrangements of actors’ bodies within the
stage space or its atmosphere are never free from the emotional or ideo-
logical meaning. The spectator’s task is to recognize the archetypal ten-
sions represented within the stage mise-en-scène, within its Psychological
Gesture. These metonymical archetypal tensions are the basis of the non-
verbal theatrical language, which corresponds to each non-verbal element
of the performance. It is characterized by the communicative function of
the actor’s gestures, which are to convey the semantic meaning of action
and to radiate inspiration and energy to the spectators.
The universality of this nonverbal text allows any spectator of any
linguistic background to read the text of the performance described by
Ubersfeld as the tension between dramatic and performative texts, in
their interrelationships with acting:
 Body and space 269

The shaping of space by physical movements and by phone can be determined or

informed by a reading of textual structure, but those physical movements can also
have a history, a precedence against which textual structures (syntactic, for exam-
ple) might be applied (or not). Physical, gestural activity (mime or other) can con-
struct, finally, a space that develops in a parallel or indeed even opposite direction
to that which might arise from the imaginary of the text. (Ubersfeld 1999: 112)

As this quote suggests, the generating of meaning within the theatre space
is produced by the spectators’ reading the actors’ gestural/visual text.
Moreover, in performance ‘establishing the ‘‘I am here in this space’’ is
achieved both by verbal and gestural deixis. In speaking the dialogue,
the actor is also using the body to point to her/his relation to the on-stage
dramatic world, her/his action within it’ (Aston and Savone 1991: 116).
Chekhov proposes to exercise this technique by creating the charts of
movements and gestures, which will determine how the imaginary atmo-
sphere envisioned by the actor’s inner eye is to be enacted by the actors
within the actual space of theatre stage. According to Chekhov, for each
scene or even play, an actor is able to create a kind of ‘score’ of sub-
sequent atmospheres, which defines his steps on the stage (Chekhov 2002
[1953]: 57). This score is also of a deictic nature since it is rhythmically
and spatially defines the actors’ ‘I am here in this space’ for each moment
of their stage presence.
Chekhov’s theory parallels the theatre experiments of the early 1920s,
and the ideas on a new anthropology of the actor, comprised in Meyer-
hold’s biomechanics, among other techniques, which regards movement
and gesture as the only ways to express theatricality. Meyerhold recog-
nizes movement as a form of communication between the subconscious
and will. He worships technology that sees a human body as a machine,
reflecting Taylor’s ideas on the complexity of human’s psycho-physical
apparatus as a biological mechanism. Meyerhold aims at transforming
the emotional or naturalistic actor into the one creating a character’s
image in action5 using the ‘reflexes prompted by the stage objectives’
(Milyakh 2000: 285). He introduces the principles of biomechanics as seek-
ing (in the actor’s movements and gestures within the three-dimensional
stage space) the expression of the character’s psychology and metaphors.
Biomechanics defines the rhythmical position of actor’s body in its re-
lationships to stage objects and stage space. An actor’s message is built
according to a certain movement and radiation of energy, which in
Meyerhold’s language corresponds to the notions/gestures of intention
— equilibrium — execution. These fundamental gestures of biomechanics
are similar to the language of music or the language of gestures in Com-
media dell’Arte. Moreover, ‘they are based on the principles of movement
270 Y. Meerzon

in life applied to the theatrical circumstances, to the functions of body in

space’ (Bogdanov 2003). Actors practicing biomechanics act on stage ac-
cording to a mutual agreement, as the players of a basketball team would
do, looking for the sent-received type of action. ‘The rhythmical structure
of a dramatic text is a point of departure for Meyerhold’s actor, who then
transfers these rhythms into the space of his/her body and stage’ (Bogda-
nov 2003). This technique presupposes not only dialogic relationships be-
tween actors’ movements on stage but also the dynamic flexibility of the
body itself, which acquires the cinematographic skills of playing with dif-
ferent bodily and spatial angles. Therefore, the space of role is the playing
area where actor formulates and forms launching of his/her figure, his/
her ideas and the dramaturgy of the character. ‘Actor radiates his/her im-
pulses from the individual zone of one character to the playing zone of
another character, [another actor]’ (Bogdanov 2003).
In his biomechanics, Meyerhold is less than Chekhov concerned with
the psychological aspects of the spatial relativity of body on stage, theo-
rizing the fundamentals of the actor’s stage movement on the principles
of the centre of gravity for any actor’s gesture seeking the rhythm as
its defining characteristics. In this aspect, biomechanics corresponds to
Chekhov’s ideas on the character’s imaginary body and imaginary centre,
which are to be enacted by actors through their stage masks and rhythmi-
cally constructed gestures and movements (Chekhov 1985: 146).
According to Chekhov, the actor’s primary step in his/her outer and
inner characterization is to find the imaginary center (the center of grav-
ity) of a character. This center is dynamic and can be movable, located
in di¤erent spots of the body, depending on a character’s psychological
peculiarities. For example, Chekhov’s Don Quixote has his imaginary
center above his head, which signifies his idealism and naiveté, whereas
Sancho Panza has his center in the lower part of his body, thus being a
representative of the culture of carnival.
Meyerhold introduces the principles of biomechanics as seeking the
plastic expression of the character’s psychology and metaphors. He em-
phasizes the role of gymnastics as ‘not directed at a one-sided develop-
ment of physical strength, but at the development and strengthening of
flexibility and agility’ (Law 1996: 28), and the idea of stage emotions as
reflexes. As Meyerhold declares, ‘ ‘‘transformation’’ or ‘‘temperament’’ is
not needed, since it does not signify anything concrete . . . The actor’s
main concern on stage is to feel himself, his ‘‘stump,’’ in stage space . . .
The successful expressiveness of arms and legs depends on whether the
actor finds a balance of his entire body’ (my translation, Meyerhold in
Eisenstein 1998: 30–31) within the space of a production. Meyerhold
wants his actor to create a part by looking at a future stage image/figure
 Body and space 271

in the inner mirror of his/her physicality. An actor has to distance his/

her consciousness from his/her emotions in order to be able to make and
watch stage characters detached from his/her body. The actor’s body
must become an artistic machine, totally distanced or defamiliarized
from the psychology. The body is, therefore, employed for the expression
of the visions of a director.
Chekhov’s imaginary body and stage mask are less mechanistic, al-
though they acquire a notion of perspectival defamiliarization as a cate-
gory of theatrical narrative, which gives a dramatic character temporal,
spatial, and genre perspective. In Chekhov’s case the actor is to use his/
her body along with the impulses coming from his/her imagination, in
order to achieve this perspective and be able to see the character from
aside. Because Chekhov believes in the unbreakable unity between physi-
cal body and psychology, his actor is to become a super-sensitive mem-
brane, ‘a kind of receiver and conveyor of the subtlest images, feelings,
emotions, and will impulses’ (Chekhov 2002 [1953]: 2). He/she is to feel
any stage space with any part of the body, as well as of the face. This feel-
ing of space is linked in Chekhov’s theory with his views on atmosphere
as the form of primary communication between actors on stage, which is
very close to Meyerhold’s space of role/space of actor signifying the ac-
tor’s presence on stage as always directed towards something or someone
and justified by the character’s action. Thus biomechanics, similarly to
Chekhov’s technique, trains actors ‘in accordance with the principles of
musical rhythm.’ In biomechanics, as in Chekhov’s technique, ‘the pri-
mary issue was bodily expressiveness fully subordinated to the laws of
musical organization of movement’ (Rudnitsky 1981: 297). Although, in
biomechanics, unlike in Chekhov’s technique, ‘any motion [is] to be not
true-to-life,’ it is still the actor’s body in space ‘reasonable, compact,
laconic, and, particularly responsive to the movement of the partner’
(Rudnitsky 1981: 297), which creates the dynamic chain of communi-
cative signals both within fictional locus, living space of a stage and a
theatre space.

3. Atmosphere as a means of communication between the stage and the

audience

Chekhov’s atmosphere appears within actors’ movements and gestures as

the spatial equivalent of the rhythmical juxtaposition of bodies in space.
It is also a ‘reciprocal action between the actor and the spectator’
(Chekhov 2002 [1953]: 48), which shapes both the process of acting or
sending, and the spectator’s perception or receiving, justifying a field of
272 Y. Meerzon

energy originating within the communicative channel stage-audience.

‘The establishment of physical relationships between actors cannot be
done without the intervention of the attending public. What is presented
on stage is never merely a binary or triangular relation between actors; it
is always a complex relationship in which the spectator plays a part’
(Chekhov 2002 [1953]: 112).
Atmosphere includes a mixture of di¤erent feelings, memories, e¤orts,
expectations, and revealed emotions. It is amplitude of suppressed desires
and wills arising from both the stage and the audience. Atmosphere is ‘an
unbreakable link between actors and their audiences’ (Chekhov 1991: 27),
equal to theatre space, embracing both actors on the stage and spectators
in the audience and making possible ‘theatrical relationship between the
two’ (Pavis 1998: 344). It is also seen within the spatial interconnected-
ness of the bodies in space similar to the practice of rituals, predetermined
by social and symbolic functions of theatre reflecting the aesthetic and
spiritual norms and expectations of a community. Fischer-Lichte trans-
lates these ideas into the frame of theatre semiotic discourse:

The space in which A/X/S takes place can, in this sense, generally be viewed and
interpreted as a sign for the social function of A/X/S . . . The relationship be-
tween A and S is, in other words, a specific pattern of interaction, the meaning
of which can only be ascertained in relation to the respective social function of
the theatre. (Fischer-Lichte 1992: 99)

Chekhov’s atmosphere embraces the ethical and emotional principles of

the stage/audience interaction, being predetermined by the number of cir-
cumstances preceding and accompanying a production. It is conveyed to
the audience with the visual means of gestures and bodies, thus maintain-
ing a new spatial formation on stage and a new emotional bond between
the stage and the audience. Therefore, Chekhov’s atmosphere is the
device of integrating meaning by the actors for the audience and by the
audience for the actors, both of whom exercise the creative will.
This process corresponds to the device of double-framing as Bennett
discusses:

The outer frame contains all those cultural elements which create and inform the
theatrical event. The inner frame contains the dramatic production in a particular
playing space. The audience’s role is carried out within these two frames and,
perhaps most importantly, at their points of intersection. (Bennett 1997: 139)

Although, as Bennett suggests, the stage/audience relationships depend

on the audience’s reading and decoding abilities which make the inner
 Body and space 273

frame dominate over the outer (Bennett 1997: 140), it is still the actor’s
physical and emotional presence on stage that is able to keep not only
the spectators’ attention, but also the dialogue between the two spheres.
Chekhov’s atmosphere as a double-frame creates a strong bond between
the actor and the spectator and ‘deepens the perception of the spectator’
(Chekhov 2002 [1953]: 48). It is ruled by the actors’ energy of loving and
giving as the major principles of radiation.
Radiation as the actor’s activity of sending out emotion can be seen as a
strategy of theatrical complex manipulation and ‘as a making someone act
and a making someone believe’ (De Marinis 1993: 149). According to De
Marinis, theatre manipulates the spectators’ attention by either abstract-
ing or distracting the audience’s focus. It also exercises in ‘focalization,
defocalization and refocalization’ (De Marinis 1987: 106) of the au-
dience’s attention. Chekhov’s radiation as a part of atmosphere refers
to the actor’s ability not only to provide the communicative schema
‘surprise ! interest ! attention’ (De Marinis 1987: 108), but also to sup-
port it throughout the performative action. Radiation, therefore, makes
spectators sympathize and co-experience the events together with the
characters on stage.6
The strongest form of radiation is, in Chekhov’s opinion, the usage of
pause, the dichotomic inner and outer activity on the part of the actor.
‘The main characteristic of a true Pause is a moment of absolute Radia-
tion . . . The Pause disappears only in those cases when the outer action is
complete, when everything becomes outwardly expressed’ (Chekhov 2002
[1953]: 137). Pause defines a rhythmical structure or composition of a pro-
duction similar to music. In a rhythmically structured production, both
the actors and the audience are able to experience pause in its mostly
active expression of outwardly expressed action of rhythmically struc-
tured bodies in space. Moreover, stage pause is one of the temporal
spaces within the production, in Chekhov’s opinion, which gives an actor
a chance for the multileveled emotional experience. It serves not only as
the interlude for actor’s inner distancing and evaluation but also as the
moment for an actor to establish special contact with the spectator. It en-
riches the character and the fictional action too. As his example, Chekhov
uses the first scene from Shakespeare’s King Lear, the dialogue between
Gloucester and Kent. ‘The Atmosphere of expectation fills the stage with
strong Radiation. [It] makes us feel that, simultaneously with the action,
there is also a Pause on the stage that gives great inner significance to the
scene regardless of the words that are spoken’ (Chekhov 2002 [1953]: 137).
Chekhov distinguishes between two types of stage pauses: preceding a
scene and following it. A preceding pause is almost identical in its func-
tions to Meyerhold’s pre-acting7 and can be seen along the lines of De
274 Y. Meerzon

Marinis’ extratextual activity, since it ‘foretells what is to come. On the

stage it awakens the audience’s anticipation. Through it the onlooker is
prepared to receive the approaching scene. He is spellbound by it’ (Che-
khov 1991: 138). The second or a summing up pause appears after the
scene is finished and gives both the actors and the audience time to digest
the information they have just received; ‘it summarizes the psychological
result of the previous happenings’ (Chekhov 1991: 138). Thus, rhythm as
a part of a pause is the major component of both stage atmosphere and
stage radiation. Chekhov teaches actors to create the verisimilitude of
each scene through ‘e¤ective pauses’ and suggests working collectively in
order to draw the stage atmosphere with voice, words, and rhythms.
According to Elam, the communicative function of theatre involves
the source of information and the transmitter. In Elam’s model, just as
in Chekhov’s technique, the communication happens in following se-
quences: the transmitter (the set of performative devices including actors
in action, spatial solutions, sets, and costumes) sends out a signal (in
Chekhov’s terms, the actor radiates, sending a certain information and
emotion into the audience by means of an atmosphere) along a channel
(di¤erent types of waves including emotional interchange on stage and
between the stage and the audience). ‘The signal is picked up by a receiver
. . . and is thereby converted into a coherent message comprehensible to
the destination’ (Elam 2002: 31). In Chekhov’s model, both an actor and
a spectator acquire the functions of a sender and a receiver thus making
the communicative model of theatre circular, reminiscent of Jakobson’s
(1987) speech-act model.
Since atmosphere is not always suggested by the dramatic text, it has
to be created every time by the performers, otherwise they would lose
audience’s/receiver’s attention, which can be considered on two very dif-
ferent levels: ‘a) on the intertextual level, as implied receiver . . . that is, as
a strategy of interpretive cooperation ‘‘foreseen’’ by the text’s transmis-
sion and variously inscribed within it; b) as an extratextual level, as a
real spectator, i.e. as an actual receiver and interpreter of the performance
text’ (De Marinis 1993: 6). Chekhov’s atmosphere as the multileveled
structure of theatre text is found within the actors’ practice, within the re-
lationships between di¤erent characters, subjective and objective atmo-
spheres, and the inner formation of a stage mask. The six elements —
the dialogue, the feelings and emotions of a character, the objectives of
a character, the ‘various means or disguises which the character uses to
hide his true feelings’, the subjective atmosphere, and the Higher ‘I’ (Che-
khov 2002 [1953]: 105) — define the complexity of the spatial, temporal,
rhythmical, and aesthetic structure of the atmosphere as a communicative
stage-audience channel. Therefore, if radiation defines the expressive
 Body and space 275

function in acting and makes it its dominant, atmosphere bears the aes-
thetic function of a theatre event and focuses the audience’s attention on
the stage mask as an aesthetic object and a sign. Chekhov proves this idea
stating the following:

Each evening while performing, yielding yourself to the atmosphere of the play or
the scene, you can take delight in observing the self-sprung new details and nu-
ances of your portrayal . . . The space, the air around you filled with atmosphere
will always support and arouse in you new feelings and fresh creative impulses.
(Chekhov 2002 [1953]: 50)

In other words, Chekhov’s notion of atmosphere precedes Lotman’s

(1990) view of art as a semiosphere, since it takes the actor-spectator rela-
tionships beyond the dual communicative process. It sees stage-audience
interactivity as a circular process. It also reflects Chekhov’s primary
concept of an artistic whole, which leads the actor’s creativity, unites the
separate parts of an imaginary character into a stage mask, and now or-
ganizes the stage-audience interactivity as atmosphere. It corresponds
with Veltruský’s idea on art as a semiotic system, ‘because of the semiotic
nature of the aesthetic function’ (Veltruský 1981: 123).
Chekhov’s atmosphere is also a gesture containing and expressing the
two-way emotional stimuli (Chekhov 1985: 108). This idea of Chekhov’s
corresponds to Ubersfeld’s vision of a theatrical space as a representa-
tional projection, ‘a figure for something from the real world,’ which is
clearly distinguished both from ‘the stage locus’ and from the ‘real locus’
(Ubersfeld 1999: 97). Analogously, Chekhov emphasizes the dominant
role of the aesthetic and communicative functions in the production over
that of the referential one, thus warning actors of ultra-naturalistic or
iconic representations on stage. Chekhov, as later Fischer-Lichte does
(Fischer-Lichte 1992: 99), distinguishes between social and symbolic
functions of theatre, stressing the equal importance of both of them for
the theatre communication.
Ubersfeld defines spatial structures in theatre as ‘the image people have
of spatial relationships and the conflicts underlying those relationships in
the society in which they live’; and it is, therefore, always ‘the place of his-
tory.’ Moreover, Ubersfeld recognizes the mimetic nature of theatre space
as ‘an area of dramatic action . . . where something happens that does not
refer to some elsewhere’ (Ubersfeld 1999: 97). For Ubersfeld, a mise-en-
scène bears only its signifier — a visual expression of the nonexistent
signified, and an interpretant — the audience’s reaction, the identifica-
tion with the stage action, and the locus. In contrast, Chekhov’s acting
theory suggests the referent, which appears in the actor’s mind. This
276 Y. Meerzon

imaginary referent makes acting a dynamic, never ending process, which

corresponds to the overall nature of human interaction, defined as pre-
expressive and cross-cultural.
Chekhov proposes to move from experiencing or feeling of an atmo-
sphere to creating it in visual forms on stage by employing a certain spa-
tial tensions between characters, between actors as partners, actors and
objects, actors and set, actors and audience. For Chekhov, atmosphere is
to build and radiate the energy and its meaning of a situation as it is envi-
sioned by actor’s inner eye. The structure of atmosphere always presup-
poses a certain rhythmical score or a pattern of interchanging pauses
with actions, silence with sounds, motionlessness with movement. Hence,
for Chekhov the relationship between the dramatic text, its theatre pre-
sentation and the audience is always dynamic. It is characterized by the
acting sign charged with the tripartite structure of the signified (a complex
structure including a given dramatic figure, actor’s individual and cultural
perception of the text, directorial impact and overall ideal image of the
character), the signifier (actor’s aesthetic product on stage — which is si-
multaneously a mimetic process of actor imitating an ideal image of the
dramatic character and its product) and the interpretant (the audience
perceiving the stage figure, bringing its intentions and expectations to the
production, together with the fellow actors looking at the product of
stage). For Chekhov, atmosphere is not only ‘the space in which A/X/S
takes place, as well as the allocation of certain sections of space to A and
S — in other words, the entire underlying use of space in a theater — can
be understood as a sign for the social function of theatre’ (Fischer-Lichte
1992: 100) but also both a communicative channel and a quasi-dynamic
process, which leads to the aesthetic reading of the performative text.

Notes

1. This dichotomy is discussed at length, in Fischer-Lichte (1992); Elam (2002); and

Bennett (1997).
2. According to Stanislavsky, ‘the objectives must not pertain only to the creator, they
must be equivalent to the objectives of the dramatis persona. In order to discover and
find the wants equivalent to those of the character, the actor must put himself in the po-
sition of the dramatis persona to discover his life first hand if not in reality, then in own
artistic imagination, which can be more intense and more interesting than reality itself ’
(my translation, Stanislavsky 1991: 111).
3. ‘Q ne igral kak ªto oby~no delaem my aktery, a q imitirowal obraz, kotoryj
sam igral za menq w moem woobravenii’ (Chekhov 1995: 105).
4. Chekhov’s observation is in line with Appia’s vision of interdependence between actor’s
movements, gestures and musical will impulses. As Appia believes: ‘in passing through
our body, music, which springs from an obligation, achieves the transposition of its will
 Body and space 277

into a movement which is regulated by that will. This movement, become peremptory
and imperative, will measure space’ (Appia 1960: 127).
5. ‘Character’s image’ is the literal translation of obraz roli, which in this discourse is un-
derstood as stage figure.
6. Barba’s theatre anthropology is concerned with these ideas too, since it sees the archety-
pal sensorial or emotional exchange between humans as the core dynamics of any per-
formative action. Barba recognizes the origins of the so called ‘disruptive technique’ dur-
ing the process of a performer simply ‘giving shape to his/her body — making a
‘‘fictitious,’’ ‘‘artificial’’ body which draws out/deforms/amplifies the normal tensions
of the human body’ (De Marinis 1987: 109).
7. In Meyerhold’s discourse, the notion of predygra/pre-acting is the process of actors’
conscious creating an atmosphere appropriate for the audience’s ‘right’ reception of the
action; it is a type of extra-textual communication with the audience. ‘Pre-acting con-
veys in advance through movement the meaning of the given scenic situation’ (Law
1996: 48). It is significant for ‘manipulating the audience’s response to a character’
(Law 1996: 48). Pre-acting precedes the delivery of the text by the actor, and therefore,
is di¤erent to the technique of mime. ‘Pre-acting prepares the spectator for the percep-
tion of the scenic situation by giving him all the details of the scene in such a developed
form that he doesn’t have to expend any e¤ort in order to understand its underlying
meaning’ (Meyerhold, quoted in Law 1996: 48). Pre-acting is similar to Brecht’s alien-
ation e¤ect, when the actor breaks down the theatrical illusion in order to step aside
his/her character and comment on it. Meyerhold’s pre-acting is less concerned with the
political meanings or functions of such comment; it is more interested in the process of
actors’ constructing a character, not through the Stanislavskian psychological method,
but through the external or physical means of communication with the products of his/
her imagination. ‘Meyerhold believed that pre-acting enabled the actor to achieve the
maximum expressivity by simultaneously ‘‘impersonating’’ the character he was playing
and commenting on that character’ (Law 1996: 49).

References

Appia, Adolphe (1960). The Work of Living Art, H. D. Albright (trans.). Miami: University
of Miami Press.
Aston, Elaine and Savone, George (1991). Theatre as Sign-System. London/New York:
Routledge.
Barba, Eugino (1995). The Paper Canoe: A Guide to Theatre Anthropology, Richard Fowler
(trans.). London/New York: Routledge.
Bennett, Susan (1997). Theatre Audiences: A Theory of Production and Reception. London/
New York: Routledge.
Bogatyrev, Petr (1971). Voprosy teorii narodnogo iskusstva. Moscow: Iskusstvo.
Bogdanov, Genadiy (2003). Biomekhanika — yazyk scenicheskogo deistviya. Toronto Slavic
Quarterly (4), available online at http://www.utoronto.ca/slavic/tsq/04.
Chamberlain, Franc (2000). Michael Chekhov on the technique of acting: Was Don Quixote
true to life? In Twentieth Century Actor Training, Alison Hodge (ed.), 79–98. London/
New York: Routledge.
Chekhov, Michael (1985). Michael Chekhov: Lessons for the Professional Actor, Deirdre
Hurst Du Prey (ed.). New York: Performing Arts Journal Publication.
278 Y. Meerzon

— (1991). Michael Chekhov: On the Technique of Acting, Mel Gordon (ed.). New York:
Harper Perrenial.
— (1995). Put’ aktera. Literaturnoe nasledie (1), 34–122.
— (2002 [1953]). To the Actor. On the Technique of Acting. London/New York: Routledge.
De Marinis, Marco (1987). Dramaturgy of the spectator. Drama Review 31 (1), 100–
114.
— (1993). The Semiotics of Performance, Aine O’Healy (trans.). Bloomington: Indiana Uni-
versity Press.
De Toro, Fernando (1995). Theatre Semiotics: Text and Staging in Modern Theatre, Carole
Hubbard (ed.), John Lewis (trans.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Eco, Umberto (1977). Semiotics of theatrical performance. Drama Review 21, 107–117.
Elam, Keir (2002). The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London: Routledge.
Eisenstein, Sergey (1998). Lekcii Meyerholda. In Meyerhold. K istorii tvorcheskogo metoda,
Aleksey Pesochinsky (ed.), 29–35. St. Petersburg: Kul’tInformPress.
Fischer-Lichte, Erika (1992). The Semiotics of Theater, Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones
(trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Honžl, Jindřich (1982). Ritual and theatre, John Burbank (trans.). In The Prague School
Selected Writings, 1929–1946, Peter Steiner (ed.), 135–174. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Jakobson, Roman (1987). Dominant. In Language in Literature, Kristina Pomorska and
Stephen Rudy (eds.), 28–34. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Law, Alma (1996). Meyerhold, Eisenshtein and Biomechanics. Je¤erson: McFarland.
Lotman, Yuri (1990). Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture, Ann Shukman
(trans.). London: I. B. Taurus.
Meyerhold, Vsevolod (1969). Meyerhold on Theatre, Edward Braun (trans.). London:
Methuen.
Milyakh, Andrey (2000). Teorii novoi antropologii aktera i stat’ya S. Eisensteina I S.
Tret’yakova. In Mnemozina, Vladislav Ivanov (ed.), 280–306. Moscow: Editorial URSS.
Mukařovský, Jan (1970). Aesthetic Function, Norm and Value as Social Facts, Ladislav
Matejka (ed.), Mark E. Suino (trans.). Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
— (1978). An attempt at a structural analysis of a dramatic figure. In Structure, Sign and
Function: Selected Essays by J. Mukařovský, John Burbank and Peter Steiner (trans. and
eds.), 171–177. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Pavis, Patrice (1998). Dictionary of the Theatre: Terms, Concept and Analysis, Christine
Shantz (trans.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Powers, Mala (1991). Preface: Michael Chekhov’s chart for inspired acting. In Michael
Chekhov: On the Technique of Acting, Mel Gordon (ed.), xxxv–xlix. New York: Harper
Perennial.
Quinn, Michael (1995). The Semiotic Stage. New York: Peter Lang.
Rudnitsky, Konstantin (1981). Meyerhold — The Director, Sydney Schultze (ed.), George
Petrov (trans.). Ann Arbor: Ardis.
Stanislavsky, Konstantin (1991). Rabota aktera nad rol’u. Moscow: Iskusstvo.
Steen, Sharon and Werry, Mary (1998). Bodies, technologies, and subjectivities: The produc-
tion of authority in Robert Lepage’s Elsinore. Essays in Theatre 16 (2), 139–153.
Ubersfeld, Anne (1999). Reading Theatre, Paul Perron and Patrick Debbeche (eds.), Frank
Collins (trans.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Veltruský, Jiři (1976). Contribution to the semiotics of acting. In Sound, Sign and Meaning,
Ladislav Mateika (ed.), 553–605. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
— (1981). Comparative semiotics. In Image and Code, Weiner Steiner (ed.), 109–133. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
 Body and space 279

Yana Meerzon (b. 1973) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Theatre at the Univer-
sity of Ottawa 3yana.meerzon@uottawa.ca4. Her interests include theory of drama and per-
formance, performance analysis, theatre semiotics, and Russian drama and theatre. Her re-
cent publications include ‘To be what you are. To the problem of staging East-European
drama in Canada’ (2001); ‘Dialogue as performance — object, sign, and vehicle of commu-
nication. The usage of Internet as new language, stage object, and set in Patrick Marber’s
Closer’ (2002); ‘Forgotten Hollywood. Michael Chekhov’s film practice viewed through the
aesthetics of the Prague Linguistic Circle’ (2003); and ‘Between the Scylla and Charybdis:
Theatre criticism as the art of translation and a form of immigration’ (2003).