How to write a scene using SUBTEXT for television and film.

SUBTEXT: What it is and how to use it in a scenario?
By Krista Kaufman


On the Network show, The Big Bang Theory, in the episode about the division of property the Lion Sinister Contourné on the FLAG in the Big Bang Theory is unfavourable!

That is SUBTEXT using a prop. 

Any flag or Coat of Arms - Animal SUPPORT - which the LION is, is supposed to be in the favourable position, to do that it MUST be facing DEXTER on a FLAG to be favourable!

DEXTER, is the left when looking at it, BUT when symbol appears on a Coat of ARMS on a shield it is held by the shield bearer and is on the right which is why it is dexter! Looking at it we see it on the left. The support of the Lion is taken from the traditional coat of Arms and Flags of Royalty.

So, therefore ANY SUPPORT  in this case a LION COWARDLY on the flag, SHOULD be facing towards the LEFT or DEXTER to be favourable. THE FLAG on Big Bang Theory -IS NOT!

It is facing SINISTER, or right, as we see it. THAT is the UNFAVOURABLE POSITION, Unless on a Coat of Arms as a Support on the DEXTER side in which case it can then be displayed facing that way towards sinister and still considered favourable but otherwise separate on a flag it would read as being turned away from the battle and cowardly, just as this ATTITUDE of the LION shows it in the COWARDLY position! Again SUBTEXT!

DID the writers on the Big Bang Theory show USE SUBTEXT and the symbolism of FLAGS and Coat of Arms to REPRESENT that the Apartment Flag of Sheldon and Leonard, which represents SUBTEXTUALLY  -- both the INNER and OUTER psychology of the characters --AS SINGLEDOM -- living with a roommate for pro-longed years of life is to be considered by society as UNFAVOURABLE? COWARDLY?The writers are communicating THEME and MESSAGE by doing this. To make the comment that it is better to be in habitation in society living within its traditional and approved forms or otherwise it can cause an individual to have inner and emotional conflicts. How we perceive ourselves within the social context and how others perceive us matters. That is the underlying message of the episode. That people living in the traditional and familiar are at ease and comfort within their society and peer group but that outside the traditional norms or comfort zones they are not at ease and it can cause not only the individual but the society and group as a whole inner and outer conflicts.

The use of SUBTEXT by using the props as a device to allow the characters inner conflicts to be outwardwardly dramatized is a way to also communicate theme and message. For the writers to make subtle social comment. They do this by having the characters play out the scenario and show consequence of their actions. Often times the A-STORY in an episode is mirrored by the B-STORY and it is used by the writers to show all aspects and angles of life.The action followed by dramatic consequence. To show how it all plays out if different choices are made in a scenario.

In this episode of Big Bang Theory the characters journey and emotional arcs follow choices of two roommates. Sheldon and Leonard. Both now separating as roommates, growing emotionally and transitioning into new levels of adulthood and society by living with opposite sex partners.

In one scenario - Leonard and Penny who have recently gotten married and in the other scenario Sheldon, Leonards roommate now having to move out and on to new habitations where by he is living temporarily with a girlfriend Amy.

The scenarios show the implications of young men transitioning into maturity and shows the difference between the couples of how they are able to relate and when and where conflict happens in both married life and in single dating relationships.

 The writers are showing all choices and actions playing out.

We as a society watch shows with both an A-STORY and a B-STORY to see all aspects and eventualities if different paths were chosen. To watch and see how it all plays out.

Generally the traditional overtones of what is acceptable in society being rewarded and what is not accepted by society usually plays out in inner and outer conflicts finding obstacle and opposition until some sort of catalyst changes things.

Did the writers  BLATANTLY use the communication of deliberate SUBTEXT to further convey this to us? YES

Is the FLAG- In the recent episodes of the division of property one of the best examples of HOW to use symbolism? YES

The fact that when Leonard and Sheldon are fighting over the flag. Who will keep it now that they are living apart.  It is the communication playing out with the use of the subtext underlying in the flag, that they BOTH want to maintain their singledom. Or to hold onto the symbol and representation of their single life. They both struggle with the separation as former roommates and friends while transitioning to a new stage in life.

That they are both refusing to grow up, to be mature, and move on to co-habitation with partners, be it Leonard and Penny being married and or Sheldon and Amy in an unlawful state of partnership --"shacking up" -- in an unmarried state of partnership.

Are the writers  communicating that the characters, are wanting the traditional and symbolic in life? YES

 That Leonard especially, holds onto the flag at all costs, wanting the TRADITIONAL and SYMBOLIC, is it further level of SUBTEXT that he has issues dealing with life without the traditional and symbolic representations of society and life?  YES

The fact he and Penny went through issues with NOT being traditional when getting married is this now his need to act out to show those things really do matter to him?

Is he just avoiding dealing with it in its primary role in the A-STORY and the writers are using this B-STORY development to SHOW Leonards inner struggles along his journey? YES

Did they FURTHER use the flag SUBTEXT as writers showing BOTH AMY and SHELDON in the episode talking about JOINING together of flags, to represent THEIR cohabitating and JOINING together?

Is this the writers way, to show visually, that Sheldon has inner conflicts about this and struggles?

The use of joining together flags,   as SUBTEXT -- and the fact the BEND of DIVISION on the flag he chose to represent it was the traditional symbol of illegitimacy, bastardization--  is something outside the traditional state of matrimony! DID he Sheldon do this SUBCONSCIOUSLY -- BUT ON PURPOSE? Did the writers employ this as a device to CLEARLY illustrate Sheldons subconscious struggles and UNEASE at living in sin? He was raised in a Christian home and it is going to affect his make up psycologically and guilt about how he lives and makes babies. So was it their device to show subtextually how he has struggles and inner feelings underlying the scenario?Again it uses the flag as a prop to do this, to show SUBTEXT! Sheldons character KNOWS what the symbolism of flags are so it is very meaningful when the SUBTEXT demonstrates his inner choices outwardly!

Was it ON PURPOSE they used FLAGS which use the TRADITIONAL BEND of DIVISION from SINISTER to DEXTER the traditional SYMBOL FOR ILLEGITIMACY and BEING a BASTARD or UNLAWFUL heir or rights holder. The favourable BEND and division joining together being the DEXTER TO THE LOWER SINISTER> His flag choice wasn't! It was opposite! He chose that to talk about *JOINING* together!

DID THEY ON PURPOSE USE TWO FLAGS JOINED USING THAT SYMBOL and DIVISION of BEND together to SIGNIFY DRAMATICALLY that the FACT that AMY and SHELDON are NOT lawfully married and therefore ANY cohabitation or JOINING together by the two of them is somehow ILLEGITIMATE and unlawful?

The LAYERS of actual  TRADITIONAL SYMBOLISM go deep on that episode! The MANY LAYERS OF SUBTEXT, that are subtly communicating to us, in an almost subliminal way with  the overtones of the CONTEXT with which the PLAYERS in the scene find themselves! Using the props to illustrate the inner journey which the actors did a great job playing it all out on screen creating the outer journey and conflicts to show the drama unfolding on screen!

It seems to be a primary example of HOW to use SUBTEXT and how to layer multiple levels of communication to the audience. To expect MORE from them! To raise the bar and demand participation in the agreement to understand the scene on so many levels!

Is this WHY shows like Big Bang Theory stay on the air season after season? While so many others get canceled and go off the air?


Just the use of Sheldons penchant for the TRADITIONAL as that is how he was raised. His subconscious choices of the flags that he did choose that to represent JOINING together, ONES symbolically that he KNOWS are the symbol of the division and joining to be illegitimate and unlawful bastardized, then what ARE the writers trying to communicate to us with that?

The recent events of SHELDON and NOT AMY wanting children to be made, the fact he was raised traditional as opposed to her. Is this FORESHADOWING of the CONFLICTS that they will encounter; which then creates the drama. Raises the stakes? ELEVATES DRAMATIC CONFLICT?

This shows us all HOW the writers of a television series interweave symbolism, traditional societal messaging and themes within the context of  environment while  using props in a scenario and how it is showing the conflicts both inner, which then drives the outer conflict and subsequently causes  drama that plays out in every scenario of life.

That is WHY the writers on Big Bang Theory are award winning writers! They do employ these skills at such a level as to raise the bar in writing television. The series overall is deserving of its accolades!

THOSE are the skills we as writers have to practice, develop and employ to improve the quality of our work and to be able to compete in the field at the level required to get produced and shown on network television today!

I just thought I would share this example as I found it to be one of the best ones there is that dramatically illustrates both visually in the scene with the use of the props -being the flag- and its symbolism, to stand for the inner conflicts the characters that they are facing and living out. It seems like the more that the writers need to communicate the complex psychological nature of the INNER CONFLICTS they employ SUBTEXTUAL dramatic scenarios to have the players act out their subconscious before our eyes. They let it all unfold in an easy to understand context using the subtext as a dramatic device! It shows us all how to use the props in a scenario to do this, by using the subtext of inner conflict to cause and create the conflict externally which is inherit to the drama playing out on screen.

SUBTEXT: How it affects the characters and how you use it to write a scene. Lessons from Meyerhold.

SUBTEXT: Threefold  Rhythm of the Otkaz, Posil and Tochka within a scene!


The story of friendly rivals,mirroring each other but ready to battle for dominance.


1- The bowing to opponent in meekness a gesture of body language with the subtext of meekness which means to submit to the others authority. Otkaz -the reverse foreshadowing what will happen!

2- Posil - the actual momentum of action which mirrors the ending of the story that they both withdraw their submission and meekness almost immediately in defensive behaviour posturing body language and subtext of rivalry and competition foreshadowing the later agression. Which happens when the slap occurs, but for now initially it is suggested they will compete as they posture into the bow and arrow a fighting stance. Sets up the later rivalry and foreshadows that will occur.

3- Then the Tochka- the result of action of the Posil they admit they are both rivals and prepare for fair fight by shaking in polite agreement that they are competitors.
They are not however equals when He later slaps her she instead backs down submits and thus allows him to be dominant and win the rivalry which then makes them both mirror each to establish connection in connection and her agreement in implied by lack of fight.


The Set Up of -The Etude of The Slap- Meyerhold Biomechanics

University Of Leeds Acting Course Etude-The Slap- the Set Up- The Otkaz, The Posil and The Tochka

The otkaz, posil and tochka:

The movement down, being meek and submissive to the other at greeting subjugating to the others authority (the subtext being the reverse of the actual stance of competitiveness and aggression to dominant and win the rivalry/ friendship) then complete reversal in contradiction (the posil -backward) right into the bow and arrow stance backward from general civility to stance of defensive protectionism and potential aggression if a bow and arrow were in the arms is a foreshadowing of the story line.

Just when you expect civility, then shock it foreshadows all is not going to be as it seems, then plot twist for surprise back to (the tochka the result the forward momentum ) the leaning in to shake hands and to be civil [The Conclusion] and extend a gesture of peace.

A peace we know will be soon broken ,we have watched the whole Etude but for someone who hasn't its the perfect story set up for the unexpected plot twist foreshadowed by the previous withdrawing back to an almost defensive bow and arrow stance of meeting the opponent.



The story of friendly rivals,mirroring each other but ready to battle for dominance.


1- The bowing to opponent in meekness a gesture of body language with the subtext of meekness which means to submit to the others authority. Equality.

Otkaz -the reverse foreshadowing what will happen!


But it reflects the denouement and mirroring each in the end to the connectedness and agreement in unison once the end occurs and one is bested they resettle to the agreement of friendliness as active passive not equals but an established social hierarchy.

2- Posil - the actual momentum of action which mirrors the ending of the story that they both withdraw their submission and meekness almost immediately in defensive behaviour posturing body language and subtext of rivalry and competition foreshadowing the later aggression. Which happens when the slap occurs, but for now initial it is suggested they will compete they posture into the bow and arrow a fighting stance.

3- Then the Tochka- the result of action of the Posil they admit they are both rivals and prepare for fair fight by shaking in polite agreement that they are competitors. They submit to fairness and friendship and keep it on those terms.

Their actions within the scene are full of the subtext of the story. It establishes them within their social shpere and how they interact right from the time they are introduced.





The Tochka in this case is the same as the beginning as it is reverse of the tochka ending that will be but is reflection of denouement suggestion of results and conclusion!

1-So the OTKAZ is the REVERSE OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN STORY
- BUT FORESHADOWS DENOUEMENT RESUTS AFTER FINAL CONFLICT

They are opposite , they are friends and rivals.

They submit to the other, their place and position if the other acknowledges them. But they also are at odds for some reason?

The POSIL is the foreshadowing of them at odds in conflict over who prevails and who does not!

The initial POSIL is A DRAW--but foreshadows it can't conclude that way-one or other with best the other.

2-POSIL is the mirror of the REAL MOMENTUM THAT LEADS TO MAIN CONFLICT and it MIRRORS THAT!

The challenge for place of authority and submission the contradiction of initial actions when they first appeared.

So the set up contradicts their friendship, immediately puts them in conflict over primary place and victor or winning in a battle or fight over something?

They were friends BUT --SOME MOTIVATION FOR BATTLE OCCURS TO MAKE THEM RIVALS AND AT ODDS.

The first challenge is a draw BUT they know they will challenge AGAIN!

3- TOCHKA are the RESULTS the backing down or conquering of one over the other and its results the agreement they are competitors and will acknowledge the competition with the end ONLY one VICTOR!

They agree to terms for the rivalry and that in spite of being rivals they still accept one another.
It leaves it at the START of RIVALRY! Mirrors resolution NEEDED at end that there should be agreement even if at start is all they agree on is they are rivals. In the end they agree by action and subtext who won the battle and prevailed. Or it is questioned as to what tactics are used? Open ended? Maybe?

They are not however equals when he later slaps her she instead backs down submits and thus allows him to be dominant and win the rivalry which then makes them both mirror each to establish connection in connection and her agreement in implied by lack of fight.

The otkaz, posil and tochka:


The movement down, being meek and submissive to the other at greeting subjugating to the others authority (the subtext being the reverse of the actual stance of competitiveness and aggression to dominant and win the rivalry/ friendship) then complete reversal in contradiction (the posil -backward) right into the bow and arrow stance backward from general civility to stance of defensive protectionism and potential aggression if a bow and arrow were in the arms is a foreshadowing of the story line.

Just when you expect civility, then shock it foreshadows all is not going to be as it seems, then plot twist for surprise back to (the tochka the result the forward momentum ) the leaning in to shake hands and to be civil [The Conclusion] and extend a gesture of peace.

A peace we know will be soon broken ,we have watched the whole Etude but for someone who hasn't its the perfect story set up for the unexpected plot twist foreshadowed by the previous withdrawing back to an almost defensive bow and arrow stance of meeting the opponent.
The story of friendly rivals, mirroring each other but ready to battle for dominance.


Now for the whole video of the ETUDE- The Slap - Meyerhold  Biomechanics

The Slap- The Etude- the Whole Video

What Can We Learn As Writers From Meyerhold's Acting Etudes? A Study In Acting And Writing!

Meyerhold's Etude - The Slap - An Acting Exercise

Written By Krista KaufmanI  recently signed up for a course at the Open University care of Future Learn. I always enjoy their courses. One can learn quite a lot!

I found this course a short study about Meyerhold and his study on Acting Etudes quite informative and made me examine the motivation of it all. To discover; what was the lesson underlying it all?

Physical Theatre: Exploring the Slap University of Leeds           

Here is what I discovered. The video of the Etude known as - The Slap is linked below. This is my commentary on it.

Meyerhold's Acting Etude -The Slap

This etude shows that the passive is counter point to the active person in the scene.

Seeking to create balance and harmony.

That they are always engaging one another with the passive one making response in partnership to the active player almost mirroring them in the scene.

It then culminates with the full active players exuberance propelling the action forward in antagonism causing conflict and drama to the scene, with the passive players action compelled to change to the full active responder.

The passive player changes to the dominant player for a short time, they now are leading the climatic action by response and the formerly active player then playing counter point to their response by reacting in partnership being passive.

The previous passive player individualizes now, takes the active lead being compelled to action.

Its full realization culminate in them being out of step, in conflict, forced to react.

Being violently put out of step and balance. They have a choice to make. What will their next action be? Confront the antagonist? Fight or Flight? Do they run? They decide. Then, as if uneasy by the imbalance, quickly they return to the interplay of the juxtaposition of counterpoint to each. They decide to remain subordinate, passive and they return to the status quo. Why to seek balance. Harmony. They quickly return to their old habit of mirroring the active party.

Seeking harmony is their priority.


Denouement: They return to the former status quo and go back to the old habit of mirroring to create balance harmony and shift of power. Recreating the same patterns of partnership and interplay that previously existed to be in step and exist in harmony and partnership.

The active player  who antagonized the conflict to individualize themselves,  by forcing the passive to take some response of their own, to  create the conflict to be  independent.

The passive seems to know when the conflict increases anticipates it and knows the the active will strike and always plays counterpoint. In fact seems to  prepare for it. Only differentiating the action , not mirroring by being in unison, with no other  intent except to counter that of the active until their passive choice is prevented by the aggression then forced upon them in conflict. The passive is  thrust into being made active and the only active choice made is to return to passivity to keep peace be in harmony. To do otherwise would be to oppose and the conflict would escalate. They choose to be weak rather than strong and oppose the aggression seeking to avoid the conflict.

At no time does the passive/ then active temporarily cause themselves to individuate to alter movement out of sync to the active to avoid the slap. They are submissive and co-dependant. They never do become the dominant but always remain passive and submissive to the active player.

Whoever dominants and is the stronger active lead starts and finishes there, unless some uncharacteristic action of independence by the passive culminates in full separation and individuation of their own unique purpose. As if they need to  find other motivation than to play the actives counterpoint to actually change things and alter course resulting in the same fate time and again.

That would cause power to shift and alter the whole dynamic of the social environment.

Upheaval.

As they find new purpose with the formerly active dominant would then need new purpose other than to control the passive.

It would dramatically change things! Lead to a new resolution or result. Whether good or bad is subjective. Depending on the relationship it could be good or bad.

If it was an abusive relationship then good for the sake of safety. Bad if it causes a divorce and a family to be torn apart.

There is so much STORY in a scenario like this! It is evidence of some of the basic building blocks needed to tell a story.

The acting lesson would teach about finding the purpose and motivation in each scene.

Making dramatic, very apparent who has the power and who does not.

That conflict is created by throwing the power imbalance off being out of step and at odds with the other player increasing tension and bringing the scene to a forced climax with the denouement after being a result of the choices the passive player makes.

Do they take action to change things for the better? Avoid harm or confront it? Or simply remain passive, counterpoint to the aggressor until they can't take it anymore.

Each dramatic scene culminates by what ever forces the status quo to change.

By the status quo being out of balance.

When a change is needed to shift focus and motivation and purpose or a simple, defeated mentality, of returning to the old habits or complacency to go back to status quo.

This basic premise is at the heart of every story.

Wanting the underdog, or passive player to make a change. Be an individual, to  achieve something. Make choices, take action, succeed.

But  do they always? No.

Often it takes a catalyst, the moment when life changes irrevocably  and life can no longer go back to the same old status quo to set a new course of events and put story into dramatic motion!

 Events and circumstances antagonize us. Or people do. Or the choices we make, or fail to make, until there is no other choice but to take action.

More times than not we try to go back to the comfortable. Habits. Try and seek balance in that way. But it is a perpetual cycle of failure and passivity that leads to defeat. Defeat of purpose. All because of lack of purpose, motivation or plan.

The only way to conquer it is not to be defensive, or reactionary to life circumstances but rather to be proactive! Make choices! Take dramatic action according to purpose and plan! That is how to succeed.

That is the underlying STORY we all want to see on screen. On television and in cinema! We want the Hero to conquer the antagonist, overcome all the obstacles and finally achieve their goals. We want to see them be PROACTIVE in life! To win. To have the VICTORY! We all want that happy resolution and denouement at the end.

That is how to avoid the antagonists and how to succeed by being PROACTIVE! Making choices in ones own best interest and not the others. To be purpose driven with motivation to stay on track and achieve ones goals.

The passive HERO has to be  no longer willing to be counterpoint to the active antagonists step, to make their choices in life, to actively be on the OFFENSIVE and NOT the DEFENSIVE of their antagonists actions or aggressions.

The HERO will only succeed and evade it by being in step with their own choice and ACTIVELY going on the offensive and thereby avoiding and EVADING the antagonist and their traps!

THAT leads to victory! THAT is the success we all want to see. With the formerly passive HERO being now changed and suddenly PROACTIVE AND SUCCESSFUL!

That is what the audience craves and wants as resolution, NOT a return to status quo BUT rather a full culmination and climax propelling the Protagonist and Hero forward on their journey!

Every acting lesson ULTIMATELY seeks to TEACH THAT! Because it is at the HEART OF EVERY STORY! 

To find ones OWN PURPOSE and MOTIVATION!

It is how people prevail.

How we win.

How we succeed in life.

We learn by watching others, to see what it takes to succeed.

Watch what we can learn to avoid, by seeking to avoid making the same mistakes they did.

That is why people crave story.

It teaches us how to survive and thrive in our culture in our very own lives!


It is the heart of every story and underlying theme and message at the core of every film, television show or book we read and stage play we see. It is the need to see the protagonist achieve their goals, ambitions, and dreams. To watch them fulfill their purpose and achieve their motivation to succeed. THAT is happiness. That is what we all strive for in life. To fulfill our calling and our destiny and reach our fate.

We all hope and pray it is a good one in the end!


With the --Grace of God-- Let that BE!  For us ALL! Amen! :)

https://view.vzaar.com/6761623/video 

- Video Attribution -Courtesy of the Open University - University of Leeds

Meyerhold_reads_Chekhov's_The_Seagull_in_1898

Vsevolod Meyerhold

Theatre Director Vsevolod Emilevich Meyerhold was a Russian and Soviet theatre director, actor and theatrical producer. His provocative experiments dealing with physical being and symbolism in an unconventional theatre setting made him one of the seminal forces in modern international theatre. During the Great Purge, Meyerhold was arrested, tortured and executed in February 1940.
He created Etudes on Acting based on Stylisation of Biometrics.

Here is some basic terms for Meyerholds- Biomechanic approach.

Biomechanics
•collective term for Meyerhold’s training exercises after the Revolution. Can encompass the simplest tricks, right the way through to the most complex of improvisations.
Tradition

•a discernible history of actor training ideas, passed on from teacher to student, and constantly undergoing change. A tradition is defined by its opposite term – innovation.
Playfulness

•the sense of lightness, fun and irreverence needed in the biomechanical actor to keep the actions from being simply mechanical. Related to some of Meyerhold’s influences, for instance circus and commedia dell’arte.

Commedia dell’arte

•playful and improvisational popular theatre form emerging from Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. Used stock characters, masks and knockabout antics known as lazzi. An important influence for Meyerhold and the études.

Stylisation

•Meyerhold’s term for a theatre that rebelled against the style of naturalism. Stylised theatre celebrated its own theatricality, and did not try to conceal it. Biomechanics was a training devised to deliver Meyerhold’s model of stylisation: rhythmically exact, consciously choreographed and exploiting a direct and playful relationship to the audience.
Musicality

•both a literal and metaphoric use of music in Meyerhold’s theatre – literally when he structured his productions to meet an exacting musical score (e.g in Lady of the Camellias, 1934) and metaphorically when he demanded the smooth flowing, rhythmically-exact quality of music in his actors’ work.

Etude

•literally: study. In both music and in theatre, used as a term to describe a repeatable and challenging exercise task. Should never be shown as part of a performance.


Embodied knowledge-learning through Etudes

•knowledge that is retained, often unconsciously, in the muscles and bones of the participant, rather than as rationalised thought processes.

Active

•the state of the leading partner in any pair étude (including the slap). The active partner dictates the rhythm of the étude until halfway through (in the example of the slap). After that, active and passive swap.

Passive

•the state of the following partner in any pair étude (including the slap). The passive partner follows closely the rhythms of the active partner until a point in the étude where they swap.
Rhythm

•in biomechanics, this is the three-fold structure of otkaz, posil and tochka. More generally it is the conscious, musically-inspired composition of an action, a scene, or a whole production. Rhythm is everything in Meyerhold’s theatre.

Otkaz

•biomechanics terminology for the first action in the tripartite (three-fold) rhythm of each action in the études. Otkaz is the preparation before the action itself, often signalling a small movement in the opposite direction.

Posil

•biomechanics terminology for the second action in the tripartite (three-fold) rhythm of each action in the études. Posil, literally meaning ‘to send’, is the action itself – of throwing, slapping, shaking etc
tochka/stoika

Tochka/Stoika

•biomechanics terminology for the third action in the tripartite (three-fold) rhythm of each action in the études. Tochka, is the moment of settling and pause after the action itself. Never to be thought of as a final point, it always anticipates further action. Some practitioners use the term stoika, literally ‘stance’, instead.


In biomechanics,  the three-fold almost musical structure of otkaz, posil and tochka.

The action, in a scene, or a whole production the rhythm is everything in Meyerhold’s theatre.

It creates the action and pacing.

With people making momentum counter to the following action, opposite of what is coming, then making the dramatic gesture with increased pace and momentum then the reaction to the culmination and climactic action.

The three part orchestration of a scene that provide drama through the conflict created by active and passive.

In the Etude- The Slap it is the aggression and antagonism the compels the reaction and the passive player being forced to react suddenly then consider whether remaining in conflict or whether to return to passivity for the sake of balance and harmony to resolve discord.