Technique
SeventhSon
Cuteboy UK
SeventhSon wrote in message <7g7i5u$7tj$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Has anyone here studied Vakhtangov?
Yes, to some extent.
I have found some of the most exciting pieces of direction and inner character work since Stanislavski. I would love to get some others' opinions of this late master's contributions to the MAT and the entire Stanislavski technique. Even if you're a Meyerhold fan!
Well, I think that both had some extremely important contributions to make, but I wouldn't describe Vakhtangov as a 'master' he was very young when he died and while he clearly could have had a brilliant career, I think he was very much an apprentice, although one with unusual abilities.There is no such thing as the 'Stanislavski technique, by the way.CheersLee
il professore
>I wouldn't describe Vakhtangov as a 'master' he was very young when he died
and while he clearly could have had a brilliant career, I think he was very
much an apprentice, although one with unusual abilities.<
Lee,
You're a bit off about Vakhtangov, who joined the Moscow Art Theatre about
1911, and became the director of the first studio of the Moscow Art Theatre
in 1916. He was considered by Stanislavski to be his most gifted pupil. KS
said of him that he understood and taught the system better than anyone
else. Vakhtangov died in 1922 at thirty-nine (surely no youthful
apprentice!), after having directed a number of revolutionary plays which
combined the stylized theatre of Meyerhold with the psychological realism of
Stanislavski.
>There is no such thing as the 'Stanislavski technique, by the way.<
That statement comes as a great surprise to those of us in the USA and
Russia who teach it. Explain what you mean please.
NORMAN B. SCHWARTZ
Moderator ACTING-PRO, Email discussion list
www.thegrid.net/virg
edh...@best.com
> >There is no such thing as the 'Stanislavski technique, by the way.<
>
> That statement comes as a great surprise to those of us in the USA and
> Russia who teach it. Explain what you mean please.
LOL! Oh, Norm, you joker, you.<g>
Ed
Cuteboy UK
il professore wrote in message ...
>Lee posted
>>I wouldn't describe Vakhtangov as a 'master' he was very young when he
died
>and while he clearly could have had a brilliant career, I think he was very
>much an apprentice, although one with unusual abilities.<
>
>Lee,
>You're a bit off about Vakhtangov, who joined the Moscow Art Theatre about
>1911, and became the director of the first studio of the Moscow Art Theatre
>in 1916.
Actually, the VERY first studio was some twelve years earlier, under
Meierhold. The 'First Studio' was actually a second.
He was considered by Stanislavski to be his most gifted pupil. KS
>said of him that he understood and taught the system better than anyone
>else.
Stanislavski also said this of Michael Chekhov and Meierhold. He was allowed
to change his mind. Vakhtangov was, really, a pupil of Sulerzitky's, not
Stanislavski's, by the way.
>Vakhtangov died in 1922 at thirty-nine (surely no youthful
>apprentice!), after having directed a number of revolutionary plays which
>combined the stylized theatre of Meyerhold with the psychological realism
of
>Stanislavski.
Yes, but I still think that that is young, especially as his circus work et
al had only just begun. Stanislavski had long abandoned 'pyschological
realism' by 1916. A few of his productions were regarded as works of genius,
but many were panned (Stanislavski himself described one as 'an abomination)
>
>>There is no such thing as the 'Stanislavski technique, by the way.<
>
>That statement comes as a great surprise to those of us in the USA and
>Russia who teach it. Explain what you mean please.
I'm sure that it does, but even a cursory reading of any of Stanislavski's
works will reveal that he most definitely did NOT want to leave a
'technique' behind him. "There can be no talk of 'my' system or 'your'
system. There is only one system - creative, organic nature."
Stanislavski was very concerned that he should leave a record of his work,
for theatre workers who came after him, but he intended this as a
'springboard' for the individual, not in any way as a prescription. (It was
also necessary to pay for his son's treatment) To teach his 'technique' is
in some way, belittling his achievement, rather than continuing it, IMHO.
The one thread running through Stanislavski's life was that at EVERY point
where he had achieved success, he suddenly launched in an entirely new
direction. When he had conquered 'family dramatics' he moved to the amateur
theatre. When he had raised that to an unprecedentedly high level, he
created a new professional theatre, of 'realism'. It took him seven years to
conquer 'realism' and he did it better than anybody, but when he had
conquered it, he went in a completely new direction - towards the
symbolists. This pattern obtains throughout his life.
I think that he would be shocked and slightly appalled that people were
teaching his 'system' a la lettre some 60 years after his death.
Cheers
Lee
il professore
>Lee,
>You're a bit off about Vakhtangov, who joined the Moscow Art Theatre about
>1911, and became the director of the first studio of the Moscow Art Theatre
>in 1916.
LEE responded:
>Actually, the VERY first studio was some twelve years earlier, under
Meierhold. The 'First Studio' was actually a second.<
Lee, I don't know where you are getting your facts. We're talking about the
famous studios of the Moscow Art Theatre where the Stansilavski system was
first taught. [Meyerhold's studio at Pozharskaya Street was independent of
the Moscow Art Theatre.] Most scholars agree with the famous chronology Paul
Gray wrote for the Tulane Review. In 1911 Stanislavski formed the "First
Studio of the Moscow Art Theatre" under the direction of his friend
Sulerzhitzki. A number of young actors at MAT, Vakthangov, Michael Chekhov
and Boleslavsky, studied there. We have printed programs which list "The
Good Hope" as a "First Studio of the Moscow Art Theatre production." If you
can prove otherwise, I am sure my sources --Smeliansky, co-artistic director
of MAT today, and Professor Sharon Carnicke of UCLA, the leading American
authority on KS -- would be happy to know them.
NBS:
> He was considered by Stanislavski to be his most gifted pupil. KS
>>said of him that he understood and taught the system better than anyone
>>else.
LEE replied:
>Stanislavski also said this of Michael Chekhov and Meierhold. He was
allowed
>to change his mind.
Lee, as you probably know Meyerhold (current preferred English spelling, by
the way) had a great falling out with KS, and-- in even at the end of
Meyerhold's life, when KS tried to protect him from his enemies in the
Soviets-- they were never on the best of terms. In all my research on
Meyerhold and Stanislavski, I have never once come upon KS making a
statement that he felt Meyerhold taught his system better than anyone else.
Why ? Because Meyerhold, who was a co-actor with KS in the early of the days
of MAT, and a pupil of Nemorvich-Danshenko, never studied at any of studios
of the MAT, nor did he teach the KS system in his own theatre! How then
could KS have possibly made such a statement? Once again, what is your
source for this inaccurate statement ?
NBS posted:
> >Vakhtangov died in 1922 at thirty-nine (surely no youthful
>>apprentice!), after having directed a number of revolutionary plays which
>>combined the stylized theatre of Meyerhold with the psychological realism
>of Stanislavski.
LEE replied:
>Yes, but I still think that that is young, especially as his circus work et
>al had only just begun.
If you think that 39 is young, who would argue with you ? But let's not
forget that you also called Vakhtangov an "apprentice" when he had been
working as a successful, even venerated, actor, teacher and director in the
theatre for atleast ten years before he died in l922. IMO, that ain't no
apprentice, that's a master.
LEE said
>Stanislavski had long abandoned psychological
>realism' by 1916.
The recent book, "Stanislavski & The Actor" (1998), by the Stansislavski
scholar, Jean Benedetti, translates for the first time a production diary
kept by one of KS's assistant in the last year of KS's life, l938. At that
time KS was working on a proposed production of "Hamlet." The diary shows
that KS treated Shakespeare's play as a work of "psychological realism,"
much the same way he described his approach to "Othello" in *Creating A
Role*. Indeed, in the last year of his life, as the diary shows, KS
advocated the use of Affective Memory as an acting technique. No, Lee. KS
never abandoned psychological realism. He simply refined his methods of
approaching it.
LEE:
>I'm sure that it does, but even a cursory reading of any of Stanislavski's
>works will reveal that he most definitely did NOT want to leave a
>'technique' behind him.
Smeliansky of the Moscow Art Theatre told me recently that KS always thought
of his system as a "Table of Contents" from which actors could draw. If one
technique did not work for the actor, KS wanted the actor to choose another.
KS did not wish to leave a dogma behind him, but he surely wanted to leave a
record of his "technique." Why then was he still coaching young people in
his system up until his death?. (See Benedetti's book.)
LEE:
>It took him seven years to
>conquer 'realism' and he did it better than anybody, but when he had
>conquered it, he went in a completely new direction - towards the
>symbolists.
And then, being KS, he returned to realism. KS never abandoned any one
style. He felt that a director should be able to handle all types of
theatre. Look up a list of his final productions. From l925 to 1927, for
instance, when he was a the height of his creativity, KS directed
Beaumarchais's comedy "The Marriage of Figaro," a social realist play
"Armored Train 14-69," a play based on Bulgakov's psychologically realistic
novel, "The Days of the Turbins."
LEE:
> I think that he would be shocked and slightly appalled that people were
>teaching his 'system' a la lettre some 60 years after his death.
Al contrario, Caro Lee, al contrario ! IMO, I believe that KS would be very
proud to think that his fellow actor-- one of the original students at the
First Studio of MAT-- Richard Boleslavski taught the American Stella Adler
who taught Brando, who influenced a whole generation of fine actors: Newman,
Dean and Clift, to name the best. Boleslavski also taught Lee Strasberg who
taught Sandy Meisner who taught the great Duval, Keaton, Peck,
Falk,Woodward. At the Actor's Studio, Strasberg taught DeNiro and Hoffman.
Il professore , who studied with Meisner in l989, is teaching young people
the KS system today, not "a la lettre" ---that was never KS's intention, as
we both know-- but in "spirito" as he intended us to use it.
NORMAN B. SCHWARTZ
>il professore<
moderator ACTING-PRO discussion list
WWW.THEGRID.NET/VIRG
Datchik
Stanislavski first heard of the 'Strasberg technique'.....he said "oh that, we
abandoned that a long time ago" ......and what was Strasberg's
reply...."Stanislavski is wrong." Interesting....
read Stella Adlers book, great stories...
Opus (:>
returned from Europe from their visit to KS in 1934, Strasburg had
already deviated from what Meisner, Adler, and anyone else still at the
Playhouse had been practicing as 'the System', as he (KS) liked to call
it. The whole point of Adler's visit was to gain clarification on some
of the points taught them by Strasberg himself, in which the group had
become divided. The result of her work was to "deemphasize the
importance Strasberg had placed on 'affective memory'." Rather, Miss
Adler said Stanislavski now thought that the key to true emotion was to
be found in a full understanding of the 'given circumstances' contained
in the play itself. It was this shift that led directly to a diminution
of Strasberg's hold on the company and eventually to his resignation.
One thing I'd like to point out, that I forget a LOT of the time while
I'm studying Stanislavski: He did not INVENT these principles. The
very thing that brought him to write his "System" was first going to
hundreds of actors, interviewing them, getting inside their heads, all
to find out how they do what they do. He was fascinated by how a
brilliant actor does what he does, and then transposing that into words
on paper. Hence, he took all of the information from his interviews,
and then put it down on paper; that's all. He didn't even like to take
credit for anything more than that. "What Stanislavsky has undertaken
is not to discover a truth but to bring the truth in usable form within
the reach of those actors and producers who are fairly well equipped by
nature and who are willing to undergo the necessary discipline." --Note
from the Translator of "An Actor Prepares".
--
Opus (:>
http://members.home.net/coble/OpusGraphics -Websets and Graphics
http://drewcarey.acmecity.com/kate/43 -Blade Pro Presets
"Well my dad has only had 4 bypasses, and he eats all the steak he
wants."-- Hank Hill
il professore
>Stanislavski first heard of the 'Strasberg technique'.....he said "oh
that, we
>abandoned that a long time ago" ......and what was Strasberg's
>reply...."Stanislavski is wrong."
History is in the eye of the beholder. We have no witnesses to this famous
encounter between KS and Stella , other than Stella . KS never spoke or
wrote about it. They spoke in French, and one can only assume that Stella
heard KS use the Fr. verb "abandonner." Stella always hated Strasberg, whom
she considered no better than a librarian, and it is very possible that she
distorted what he told her to serve her own purposes. History shows us that
Stanislavski never "abandoned" Affective Memory, or any other technique for
that matter. He simply found other techniques. Indeed, if you read the diary
of the last workshop he did before his death in 1938, (See Benedetti) he
suggested Affective Memory as a technique. The notion that KS abandoned
Affective Memory is not correct, IMO. KS noticed the hysteria that the
technique of emotional memory often brought out in* some* actors, but not in
all. He felt that an actor should be free to use any technique from his
Table of Contents, as long as it that worked for the individual actor .
NORMAN B. SCHWARTZ
moderator ACTING-PRO
WWW. THEGRID.NET/VIRG
il professore
was a founding co-director and first acting teacher. They were his students.
Meisner had even studied with Strasberg many years before at the Chrystie
Street Settlement. (By the way, The Neighborhood Playhouse, where Meisner
began teaching in to the 1940's when The Group was disbanded, had no
influence on their Group Theatre training.) Strasberg was influenced not so
much by KS per se as he was by KS's fellow actor, Boleslavsky, who was the
first to write and teach in America about the training methods at the First
Studio of MAT, where Boleslavsky had studied before departing for America.
Stanislavski never taught at that studio. His colleague Sulerzhitzki did.
Vakthangov took over the direction of the First Studio after Boleslavsky
left Russia.
>Miss
>Adler said Stanislavski now thought that the key to true emotion was to
>be found in a full understanding of the 'given circumstances' contained
>in the play itself. It was this shift that led directly to a diminution
>of Strasberg's hold on the company and eventually to his resignation.
The big rift in The Group came about when the actors insisted on staging
their fellow actor Odets' original play "Awake and Sing." Strasberg was
opposed to doing it, so Clurman--who had never directed -- became the play's
director. Once Stasberg stopped being the sole director, his teaching
techniques became less important to the company, and, as you say, Strasberg
eventually resigned. The shift away from an obsessive use of Affective
Memory exercises as a rehearsal technique did not come about overnight.
NORMAN
moderator ACTING-PRO Email discussion list.
Nathan Thomas
Actually there are surviving notes from KS in his diary and letters
about his encounter with Stella.
Best wishes,
Nathan
thom...@pilot.msu.edu
il professore wrote:
>
> >Well then I"m sure we've all heard the 'famous story' of the time when
> >Stanislavski first heard of the 'Strasberg technique'.....he said "oh
> that, we
> >abandoned that a long time ago" ......and what was Strasberg's
> >reply...."Stanislavski is wrong."
>
> History is in the eye of the beholder. We have no witnesses to this famous
> encounter between KS and Stella , other than Stella . KS never spoke or
> wrote about it.
il professore
>Actually there are surviving notes from KS in his diary and letters
>about his encounter with Stella
Nathan,
Where can they be found please? And have they been translated into English
? It would be wonderful to clear up at last what KS did or did not say to
Stella Adler in Paris in 1934.
NORMAN
>Il Professore <
ilp...@thegrid.net
moderator ACTING-PRO discussion list
http://www.thegrid.net/virg
Opus (:>
sure. Especially to some purists out there...
il professore
Nathan<
Opus (:> wrote in message <3730D516...@hilarious.com>...
>It would make the difference in who believes what and why, that's for
>sure. Especially to some purists out there...
Nathan,
Agreed. In my discussion this afternoon with Dr. Sharon Carnicke, associate
dean of the USC Theatre department and the foremost expert in America on
Stanislavski, she tells me she knows of no such mention in KS's writings or
diaries. Other than Stella Adler, the only other record we have of this 1934
encounter is a memoir of Boris Phillippov, an assistant of KS at the time.
No mention there is made of KS advising Adler that he had abandoned
Affective Memory.
Again, what are your sources for your statement please ?
NORMAN
Nathan Thomas
First, the original statement re: the meeting between Stella and KS: "KS
never spoke or wrote about it." Well, that's a fairly black and white
statement. How can you prove a negative like that? KS was a compulsive
diarist and a good conversationalist. He left voluminous papers. KS
*never* spoke or wrote about it?
Second, I'm very familiar with Carnicke's work, having sent to London to
get a copy of her most recent book, for example. If she knows of no
evidence regarding KS's opnion of his work with Stella, then why pps
59-60 in her recent book?
best wishes,
Nathan
thom...@pilot.msu.edu
il professore
>never spoke or wrote about it." Well, that's a fairly black and white
>statement. How can you prove a negative like that? KS was a compulsive
>diarist and a good conversationalist. He left voluminous papers. KS
>*never* spoke or wrote about it?
Nathan,
You made a statement that KS wrote about the extent of his meetings with
Stella Adler in his diary or papers. What we know of S's encounter is not in
his words, but in that of his assistant, Phillippov. Once again, we are
getting second-hand testimony. As Professor Carnicke has pointed out to me,
KS was often given to exaggeration and dramatic emphasis in his dealings
with his students, Stella included.
KS had many other opportunities to "speak," analyze or discuss this 1934
encounter with
his many devoted assistants. who -- as you know-- kept records of their
conversations with their maestro.. Other than Phillippov, no other mention
of the Adler/Stanislavski meeting exists.
Perhaps I have a different view of scholarship than you. If KS left
voluminous
papers, which scholars at MAT and Professor Carnicke have been pouring over
for decades, why has no one found anything in KS's words about his meeting
with Stella Adler? You made a clear statement that >>there are surviving
notes from
KS in his diary and letters about his encounter with Stella. <<< Not true,
IMO.Until someone proves otherwise, I can only assume they do not exist.
Fraternally,
NORMAN B. SCHWARTZ
Cuteboy UK
il professore wrote in message ...
>>Stanislavski first heard of the 'Strasberg technique'.....he said "oh
>that, we
>>abandoned that a long time ago" ......and what was Strasberg's
>>reply...."Stanislavski is wrong."
>
>History is in the eye of the beholder. We have no witnesses to this famous
>wrote about it.
Stanislavski actually described Stella Adler as being 'a woman in a state of
panic', In his notebook. Adler also hired a secretary who took down what
Stan. said VERBATIM. Adler worked with Stan. for five weeks - there is a lot
of material that I'm sure none of us have ever seen.
Lee
Cuteboy UK
il professore wrote in message ...
>>Lee,
>>You're a bit off about Vakhtangov, who joined the Moscow Art Theatre about
>>1911, and became the director of the first studio of the Moscow Art
Theatre
>>in 1916.
>
>LEE responded:
>>Actually, the VERY first studio was some twelve years earlier, under
>Meierhold. The 'First Studio' was actually a second.<
>
>Lee, I don't know where you are getting your facts. We're talking about the
>famous studios of the Moscow Art Theatre where the Stansilavski system was
>first taught.
Yes, I know which studios we're talking about! (Please don't mistake my
tone, by the way...I often type in a hurry, and I'm sure that if we had this
discussion over a cup of coffee it would be very amicable and interesting!!)
> [Meyerhold's studio at Pozharskaya Street was independent of
>the Moscow Art Theatre.]
This (Meierhold) studio was officially connected to the MAT, although it has
to be agreed that Stanislavski (let's agree to call him KS!) footed the bill
almost entirely on his own. Although it was a failure, he often referred to
it as the REAL first studio.
Most scholars agree with the famous chronology Paul
>Gray wrote for the Tulane Review.
I'm not a scholar! I'm a performer and teacher, just one who reads Russian
and has spent a lot of time on Russia.
>>Stanislavski also said this of Michael Chekhov and Meierhold. He was
>allowed
>>to change his mind.
>
>Lee, as you probably know Meyerhold (current preferred English spelling, by
>the way)
Russian spelling has always been idiosyncratic, and as I'm very familiar
with the alphabet I prefer to stick with the spellings that I am used to.
>had a great falling out with KS, and-- in even at the end of
>Meyerhold's life, when KS tried to protect him from his enemies in the
>Soviets-- they were never on the best of terms. In all my research on
>Meyerhold and Stanislavski, I have never once come upon KS making a
>statement that he felt Meyerhold taught his system better than anyone else.
No, that was my mistake. I meat the comment about 'my most brilliant pupil'
KS said ths about all three - Vahktangov, Chekhov and Meierhold.
>Why ? Because Meyerhold, who was a co-actor with KS in the early of the
days
>of MAT, and a pupil of Nemorvich-Danshenko, never studied at any of studios
>of the MAT, nor did he teach the KS system in his own theatre! How then
>could KS have possibly made such a statement? Once again, what is your
>source for this inaccurate statement ?
I hope that I've already explained the statement.
>
>NBS posted:
>> >Vakhtangov died in 1922 at thirty-nine (surely no youthful
>>>apprentice!), after having directed a number of revolutionary plays which
>>>combined the stylized theatre of Meyerhold with the psychological realism
>>of Stanislavski.
>
>LEE replied:
>>Yes, but I still think that that is young, especially as his circus work
et
>>al had only just begun.
>
>If you think that 39 is young, who would argue with you ? But let's not
>forget that you also called Vakhtangov an "apprentice" when he had been
>working as a successful, even venerated, actor, teacher and director in the
>theatre for atleast ten years before he died in l922. IMO, that ain't no
>apprentice, that's a master.
Yes, well maybe i was over-zealous with my use of the word! How old do you
have to be before you are a professor?
>
>LEE said
>>Stanislavski had long abandoned psychological
>>realism' by 1916.
>
>The recent book, "Stanislavski & The Actor" (1998), by the Stansislavski
>scholar, Jean Benedetti,
I think that Jean would hate to be called a scholar!
>translates for the first time a production diary
>kept by one of KS's assistant in the last year of KS's life, l938. At that
>time KS was working on a proposed production of "Hamlet." The diary shows
>that KS treated Shakespeare's play as a work of "psychological realism,"
Yes, but what about the KS's own notes for Tartuffe? They reveal a
completely different line of thinking. The point is that Stanislavski's
genius was a restless one, he might use different techniques at the same
time to the same end.
>much the same way he described his approach to "Othello" in *Creating A
>Role*. Indeed, in the last year of his life, as the diary shows, KS
>advocated the use of Affective Memory as an acting technique.
But how many people REALLY understand what 'affective memory' meant to KS?
Perhaps none of us, but it seems very clear that it is not solely an
emotional technique, as so many would-be teachers have used it. 'Affective
memory' seems to me (through a VERY thorough reading of KS's work, often
untranslated) to be a broad term to describe all of the memories that an
actor might utilise, often and predominantly having nothing to do with
emotion. He often gave his 'Rimsky-Korsakov' memory for Stockmann as an
example of 'affective memory' in action. Unfortunately, some types got hold
of the idea and used it for their own amateur psychology classes.
No, Lee. KS
>never abandoned psychological realism. He simply refined his methods of
>approaching it.
Well, here we differ. I really do think that KS took great strides away from
realism. What he DID maintain was that the actor should be COMFORTABLE with
anything, could justify anything he wanted, no matter how 'unreal'. For
goodness sake, have you read the Andreeyev plays or the Hamsun plays that KS
was so fond of in the early part of this century? They bear as much relation
to realism (psychological or otherwise) as horses do to horseradish.
>
>LEE:
>>I'm sure that it does, but even a cursory reading of any of Stanislavski's
>>works will reveal that he most definitely did NOT want to leave a
>>'technique' behind him.
>
>Smeliansky of the Moscow Art Theatre told me recently that KS always
thought
>of his system as a "Table of Contents" from which actors could draw.
He may be right, but have you seen how institutionalised and stale the work
of the MAT is? Sadly, KS's precepts were leapt on after his death and
maintained. Brian Cox puts it very well in his 'Actor's Oddysey'. He taught
for a while at the MAT and his comments on the frigidity of thought there
are sobering. I have seen their work, and it is beautiful, but dead.
We're only dealing with opinions, after all. Just because I live in London,
doesn't mean that I understand Dickens better than anyone else.
If one
>technique did not work for the actor, KS wanted the actor to choose
another.
>KS did not wish to leave a dogma behind him, but he surely wanted to leave
a
>record of his "technique." Why then was he still coaching young people in
>his system up until his death?. (See Benedetti's book.)
I think that there is no doubt that he wanted to leave a clear legacy, but,
as I mentioned before, as a 'springboard', not a prescription. I think that
he saw this as a way of continuing the traditions of the past, rather than a
handing of anything that was 'his'. He always said that his work merely
continued Schepkin's
>
>LEE:
>>It took him seven years to
>>conquer 'realism' and he did it better than anybody, but when he had
>>conquered it, he went in a completely new direction - towards the
>>symbolists.
>
>And then, being KS, he returned to realism. KS never abandoned any one
>style.
This is, I'm afraid, factually incorrect.
He felt that a director should be able to handle all types of
>theatre. Look up a list of his final productions. From l925 to 1927, for
>instance, when he was a the height of his creativity, KS directed
>Beaumarchais's comedy "The Marriage of Figaro," a social realist play
A what?? Have you read it?
>"Armored Train 14-69," a play based on Bulgakov's psychologically realistic
>novel, "The Days of the Turbins."
And do you know why he directed it? One of the things that gets left out of
most of the work on KS is the political and social pressure that he was
under as a palpable 'class enemy' He held out as long as he could, but even
he had to sometimes direct things that he might not have chosen to. His
final work, by the way, was almost entirely in Opera.
>
>LEE:
>> I think that he would be shocked and slightly appalled that people were
>>teaching his 'system' a la lettre some 60 years after his death.
>
>Al contrario, Caro Lee, al contrario ! IMO, I believe that KS would be very
>proud to think that his fellow actor-- one of the original students at the
>First Studio of MAT-- Richard Boleslavski taught the American Stella Adler
>who taught Brando, who influenced a whole generation of fine actors:
Newman,
>Dean and Clift, to name the best.
Well, here we can only speculate, but I stongly disagree. KS loathed the
idea of 'cinematography' and thought that it was a 'dead art'. All of the
actors you have mentioned were primarily film actors. Boleslavski, of
course, as is well known had a very clear grasp of an EARLY part of KS's
thoughts about acting, in no way did he understand the later, and to my
mind, much more important work that KS carried out.
>Boleslavski also taught Lee Strasberg
You surely don't believe that Strasberg continued KS's legacy? That would
shock me!
who
>taught Sandy Meisner who taught the great Duval, Keaton, Peck,
>Falk,Woodward. At the Actor's Studio, Strasberg taught DeNiro and Hoffman.
>Il professore , who studied with Meisner in l989, is teaching young people
>the KS system today, not "a la lettre" ---that was never KS's intention, as
>we both know-- but in "spirito" as he intended us to use it.
But how do you know how or if he intended us to use it? There is such a
great lack of thinking generally among people who teach 'the technique' or
'the system' or 'the method'.
KS's ideas on performance are INSEPARABLE (and I really mean that!) from his
views of the work of great dramatists, and their role in contemporary
society. He saw the actor as a person aiming towards the ideal, in the
context of a theatre that was aiming to act as a mentor to society - showing
it the most beautiful, artistic and meaningful events and experiences
through the words of the greatest writers the society could have.
It is easy for us to look back and not think about how important Chekhov and
Gorky were to KS and his thought, but how many teachers of 'the system' do
you know who genuinely teach the educational and moral and social value of
theatre in the context of KS's work? I don't think that I know any! Please
don't misunderstand me, I am no reactionary, and I don't necessarily agree
with everything that KS thought about the theatre. However, if one is to
claim to teach his work, then it MUST include the context, because that was
the reason for the work in the first place.
Unfortunately, what seems to happen now is that a teacher will work on one
minute or so of text, breaking it down into units, etc...working on
'emotions' and 'truth' and the 'given circumstances'. And there is a lot of
value for performers in this work, However, it is NOT the KS 'system'.
Interestingly, one of the last notes about his active teaching role (in 1933
I think) contains a note (this is from memory, but it's fairly accurate')
'I'm resuming my classes while I feel well. I will lead diction, movement,
tempo and music for etudes'
Fascinating, isn't it? This man who has become a byword for 'emotion' was
teaching 'diction, movement, tempo and music for etudes'.
Come to think of it, how many teachers of his 'system' do you know who COULD
lead diction, or movement or even understand what tempo is in theatrical
terms?
This discussion could last for a long time, and I hope that it does, but I'm
tired now, so that's it for tonight!
Cheers
Lee
acttrainproj
You wrote (last week):
>Lee, as you probably know Meyerhold (current preferred English spelling, by
>the way).... In all my research on Meyerhold and Stanislavski,
I'm a little puzzled by your spelling choices here, since the guidelines
that now suggest we use the "y" in Meyerhold are the same ones that give us
the "y" in Stanislavsky. I know that you admire Sharon Carnicke's new book,
and she explains at the outset that the "i" ending makes it sound as if
Stan. were Polish--she uses "y."
I enjoy "preferred spelling' conversations; I enjoyed Lee's insistence that
he can use the "i" spelling if he wants--AND his proposal to just call him
KS. Want to get a handle on why you're mixing the two styles.
Then, too, I am *completely* confused about when to use "theater" and when
to use "theatre." In the '60's it was "in" to use -er, so we weren't trying
to be British. In the '80's I thought we changed to -re, so we could be
International. Some publications now use -er in titles and -re in the text:
awk! What do you use? (Maybe we can start new ones: thiatre vs. thyatre.)
Lissa
>>
beckynot
_____________________________________________________________
acttrainproj wrote:
> Halloo, Norman,
>
> You wrote (last week):
>
> >Lee, as you probably know Meyerhold (current preferred English spelling, by
il professore
Here's the handle.
Stanislavski, as you know, was not his real name. He took his stage name
from a Polish actor. Since "i" rather than "y" is the Polish ending, I
prefer the "i." Now Lee can use the "i" in Meyerhold if he so wishes, but I
would like some credit for being one of the first on the Net to abbreviate
Konstantin Stanislavski as KS, rather than the conventional Stan., which
always sounded to me like some ballplayer from St. Louis As for "theatre"
and "theater" my personal preference is "re." It has a touch of French class
about it, sort of like being Russian and giving yourself a Polish
stage-name.
NORMANino
acttrainproj wrote in message <7ha431$kk6$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>Halloo, Norman,
>
>You wrote (last week):
>
>>Lee, as you probably know Meyerhold (current preferred English spelling,
by
>>the way).... In all my research on Meyerhold and Stanislavski, etc
acttrainproj
Glad I asked--I knew you'd have an informed, considered reason for your
choice. As a reader (and editor), I still find it confusing, though--it
sort of distracts me from the point you're making. And I *like* "Stan." for
exactly the reason you don't. But KS is good! You and Beckynot both vote
for -re, so I'm ruled by the two of you from hereon out.
As I always say: God made so many of us so there'd be one for every opinion.
Lis'ette
il professore wrote in message ...
>Lissa,
>Here's the handle.
>Stanislavski, as you know, was not his real name. He took his stage name
>from a Polish actor. Since "i" rather than "y" is the Polish ending, I
>prefer the "i." Now Lee can use the "i" in Meyerhold if he so wishes, but
I
>would like some credit for being one of the first on the Net to abbreviate
>Konstantin Stanislavski as KS, rather than the conventional Stan., which
>always sounded to me like some ballplayer from St. Louis As for "theatre"
>and "theater" my personal preference is "re." It has a touch of French
class
>about it, sort of like being Russian and giving yourself a Polish
>stage-name.
>
>NORMANino
>
>acttrainproj wrote in message <7ha431$kk6$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>>Halloo, Norman,
>>
>>You wrote (last week):
>>
>>>Lee, as you probably know Meyerhold (current preferred English spelling,
>by
>>>the way).... In all my research on Meyerhold and Stanislavski, etc
>
>
>
Nathan Thomas
Cuteboy UK
acttrainproj wrote in message <7ha431$kk6$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>Halloo, Norman,
>
>You wrote (last week):
>
by
>
>I'm a little puzzled by your spelling choices here, since the guidelines
>that now suggest we use the "y" in Meyerhold are the same ones that give us
>the "y" in Stanislavsky. I know that you admire Sharon Carnicke's new
book,
>and she explains at the outset that the "i" ending makes it sound as if
>Stan. were Polish--she uses "y."
I beleive that both Stanislvskaya, the ballerine and Stanislavki (the two
influence's on KS's choice of stage name) were Polish...certainly the latter
was.
>
>I enjoy "preferred spelling' conversations; I enjoyed Lee's insistence that
>he can use the "i" spelling if he wants--AND his proposal to just call him
>KS. Want to get a handle on why you're mixing the two styles.
Actually, I was deferring to Norman's use of the abbreviation, it wasn't my
idea!
>
>Then, too, I am *completely* confused about when to use "theater" and when
>to use "theatre." In the '60's it was "in" to use -er, so we weren't
trying
>to be British. In the '80's I thought we changed to -re, so we could be
>International. Some publications now use -er in titles and -re in the
text:
>awk! What do you use? (Maybe we can start new ones: thiatre vs. thyatre.)
Well, being English, of course I could only ever use theatre!!
Lee