Acting the metaphor: the Laban–Malmgren system of movement psychology and character analysis

Abstract

The article discusses certain features of The Laban–Malmgren System of Movement Psychology and Character Analysis, an influential actor training methodology which has helped to shape the thinking and work of some of the most expressive actors of our time, including Anthony Hopkins, Colin Firth, Michael Fassbender and Tom Hardy. The System is an original synthesis of Rudolf Laban's late-career ideas on movement, Jungian typology and Stanislavskian physical action, brought together by the dancer and acting teacher Yat Malmgren (1916–2002). The System continues to be taught in conservatoires and university drama departments across the world. The distinguishing feature of the System is the direct link it posits between physical (motion factors – Laban) and psychological (mental factors – Jung) concepts, from which it develops a classification of character and action into ‘Inner and Action Attitudes’. The article outlines the principal pedagogical approach of the System, the ‘scenario’, modelled on the work of the American solo performer Ruth Draper; it also illustrates the application of the System in professional practice. The article considers the System from the perspective of Metaphorical Concept Theory. Finally, the article describes the outcomes of the training in a transformation-oriented acting mode defined as ‘attenuated expressionism’.

Keywords::

• acting theory and practice
• theatre directing theory and practice
• movement psychology
• Laban
• acting/science interface

Notes

^1. For, relatively scarce, material on William (Bill) Carpenter see Valerie Preston-Dunlop (1998, p. 260) and Mirodan (1997, pp. 26–28).

^2. For a detailed description of the materials handed to Yat Malmgren, see Mirodan (1997, pp. 33–34). A broad outline of some Carpenter materials can be found in Hodgson (1979, pp.156–161; see also McCaw 2011, pp. 351–357).

^3. Throughout this article, initial capitals denote that terms are used in the specific sense given them by the Laban–Malmgren System and its predecessors: Jung, Laban, Stanislavsky.

^4. This is a greatly simplified account of Jung's ideas on personality. See Psychological Types (1971) and for a more accessible outline, The Tavistock Lectures (1968/1990); and Mirodan (1997, pp. 57–83) for details of what the Laban–Malmgren System took from Jung's theory of types and the differences between its understanding and Jung's writing.

^5. Defining this holistic conflation has exercised thinkers across disciplines: Warren Lamb, a Laban disciple, called a similar model the ‘Posture–Gesture–Merger (PGM)’ (Lamb and Watson 1979, p. 90); A.R. Luria (1973) speaks of a ‘kinetic melody’ (see also Sofia 2013, p. 84); Sheets-Johnstone (2009, p. 393) cites Luria but introduces the Husserl-inspired concept of ‘primal animation’, a ‘spatial–temporal–energic whole’ (see also Carol-Lynne Moore in McCaw 2011, p. 319).

^6. Here and in what follows, the ‘/’ indicates that the two elements should be read in either direction. Thus, one Stable character can be Sensing/Thinking, where the Sensing aspect is dominant, while another Stable character is Thinking/Sensing, where the Thinking aspect prevails, and so on.

^7. ‘shadow movements … are tiny muscular movements such as the raising of the brow, the jerking of the hand or the tapping of the foot, which have none other than expressive value. They are usually done unconsciously and often accompany movements of purposeful action like a shadow – hence the term’ (Laban 1950/1971, p. 12; see also North 1958, p.15, McCaw 2011, p. 355 for Shadow Moves revealing the Inner Attitude). For the capacity of involuntary moves to reveal inner states see Ekman and Friesen (1969).

^8. This is a fairly standard process used by Stanislavskian teachers (see, for example, Benedetti 2005, p. 22), echoing some of the exercises described by Michael Chekhov (1953, p. 13) – himself influenced by Laban and, in turn, an important influence on Yat Malmgren.

^9. On a National tour, with Paul Eddington in the lead.

^10. Royal Shakespeare Company, Barbican Theatre, 1996.

^11. West Yorkshire Playhouse, Leeds, 1992.

^12. Jung's description of personality types is considered obsolete, with the consensus in the psychology of trait and type now crystallising around the Five-Factor Model (Wiggins 1996).

^13. Although Nina Bull's (1951) contemporaneous research on postural attitudes in hypnotised patients and Joseph de Rivera's (1977) subsequent analysis of the connections between emotions and movement attitudes offer at least some observational support for Laban's and Carpenter's intuitive assumptions.

^14. Here and below I follow Lakoff's and Johnson's convention of using capitals to denote representative metaphors.

^15. Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) is not without its challenges. As Lakoff and Johnson (1999 pp. 38, 42) themselves point out, neurological research supporting it is not yet conclusive (see also Gainotti 2004), although, working alongside the eminent neurophysiologist Vittorio Gallese, Lakoff (Gallese and Lakoff 2005) attempted to strengthen the argument. The perceived over-extension of the concept of embodiment has been the subject of sustained criticism (see, for example, Sheets-Johnstone 2009 for a phenomenology-based critique, especially pp. 386, 397, Clark 2008, Tribble and Sutton in Shaughnessy 2013, locs. 791–807 for a brief overview). I nonetheless find it a useful framework, while acknowledging that it remains a fluid hypothesis, not yet fulfilling scientific tests of falsifiability and repeatability.

^16. See Sheets-Johnstone (2009, p. 390) on the limitations of describing phenomenological experience in language; and Zarilli (2002, p. 16) on the specific case of metaphors for acting experiences.

^17. Library Theatre, Manchester.

^18. See also Sofia in Shaughnessy (2013, locs. 3802ff.) for recent (and incomplete) experiments designed to ascertain whether actor training can change cognitive capacities at a fundamental level.