Stanislavski in Russia today
David Spiro
Stanislavski's system still taught to Russian acting students today? Is he
even remembered for his accomplishments in the theater world, and revered as
he is here? Just curious.
--
David Spiro EMT-P
Liver transplant recipient- 8/1/97
RECYCLE YOURSELF! BE AN ORGAN DONOR!
"If one cannot communicate, then the least one can do is to shut up!"
Tom
Lehrer
Павел Руднев
The answer is "yes, of course". And more than in Europe and USA.
Stanislavsky is really the whole world for Russians. It's strange you ask
for it.
Yours,
Pavel Rudnev
Moscow, Russia
David Spiro
>Dear David,
>
>The answer is "yes, of course". And more than in Europe and USA.
>Stanislavsky is really the whole world for Russians. It's strange you ask
>for it.
>
>Yours,
>Pavel Rudnev
>Moscow, Russia
Not really all that strange. ;-) History has a funny way of treating
people sometimes. While Russians (to my knowledge) take great pride in
revering their literary and artistic heroes, time has a way of relegating
people into the background.
Here's another question Pavel. What are the most well known schools in
Russia that teach his system? And who exactly is keeping Stanislavski's
flame alive in your country? In other words, who picked up the mantle of his
accomplishments after he died?
Павел Руднев
first, thank you so much for your interest to russian theatre.
I do understand what you are talking about.
About schools - EACH russian school of acting (state or local) used to teach
to act according to Stanislavsky's system. Moscow - GITIS, Shchepkin school,
Schyukin school, school of Moscow Art Theatre and a lot of acting schools in
a lot of russian towns.
Stanislavsky's system is the base for russian theatre education. Who knows
it, can teach Meyerhold mask and biomechanic system, Michel Chechov system
and the rest. May be it is the atavism from Soviet times, when Stanislavsky
and Art theatre had become the God and his Temple of world theatre.
Nowadays in the time of Perestroika all russian theatre leaders were
discussing about Stanislavsky. Do we need him now? Is his system is basical
for actors? And the free answer is "yes" to all. Stanislavsky is not Á
totalitaristic leader, but genius for all time.
About alive followers of Stanislavsky - He had a lot of pupils, among them -
Meyerhold, Vakhtangov, M.Chechov, Sudakov, Bersenev, etc. Each of them had
his own pupils.
So we have got a real big tree from Stanislavsky thoughts. I guess the
majority of russian directors is the pupils of Stanislavsky's pupils.
Stanislavsky's main thing - Russian psychological classic theatre - is the
main value of contemporary theatre.
I could name you a lot of contempopary directors who follows the precepts of
Stanislavsky - Efremov, Volchek, Efros, Tovstonogov, Zhenovach, Vasiliev,
Eremin, Fomenko, Morozov, Tabakov, Yashin.
Please ask me for another information.
Yours,
Pavel Rudnev
David Spiro
>Dear David,
>
>first, thank you so much for your interest to russian theatre.
>I do understand what you are talking about.
You are quite welcome. My knowledge of Russian theater is quite limited, but
after reading Stanislavski's books, (An Actor Prepares, Creating a Role,
and, Building a Character {which I am currently reading} I feel as though I
have gained some insight into that world.
>Nowadays in the time of Perestroika all russian theatre leaders were
>discussing about Stanislavsky. Do we need him now? Is his system is basical
>for actors? And the free answer is "yes" to all. Stanislavsky is not а
>totalitaristic leader, but genius for all time.
That is good to hear. I have come across opinions among certain local actors
and teachers here in Rochester, NY, that his system is not necessarily
relevant today. This is an opinion on which I disagree vehemently. If
anything, his work is even more relevant to today.
>
>About alive followers of Stanislavsky - He had a lot of pupils, among
them -
>Meyerhold, Vakhtangov, M.Chechov, Sudakov, Bersenev, etc. Each of them had
>his own pupils.
>
>So we have got a real big tree from Stanislavsky thoughts. I guess the
>majority of russian directors is the pupils of Stanislavsky's pupils.
>Stanislavsky's main thing - Russian psychological classic theatre - is the
>main value of contemporary theatre.
Hmmm.... As you may be aware, here in the US, the principal training ground
for the Stanislavski system was originally The Actor's Studio in New York.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the changes, or rather
different interpretations of Stanislavski's work, that were done at The
Actor's Studio, and its effects. Do you think that Stanislavski's successors
in Russia ahve stayed true to his vision, or have they added their own
"spin" to his work?
David Spiro EMT-P
Liver Transplant Recipient - 8/1/97
RECYCLE YOURSELF! BE AN ORGAN DONOR!
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial
appearance of being right."
Thomas Paine
Павел Руднев
you wrote
>Hmmm.... As you may be aware, here in the US, the principal training ground
>for the Stanislavski system was originally The Actor's Studio in New York.
>There has been a great deal of discussion about the changes, or rather
>different interpretations of Stanislavski's work, that were done at The
>Actor's Studio, and its effects. Do you think that Stanislavski's
successors
>in Russia ahve stayed true to his vision, or have they added their own
>"spin" to his work?
Who can say: I stage Shakespeare's Hamlet properly, in such way William
wanted to stage it and to understand it. No one can speek in such manner. No
one can stage Hamlet without any concepts, as it is. Because we don't know
what is the true underdtanding and what is the false one.
That's why in Russia Stanislavski's system = Stanislavski's system + the
understandings of it by all his pupils. No one can teach Stanislavski's
ideas as it is, in clear manner. His theory more than five simple
principles, it is four-five books. There even we can find a lot
contradictions.
We only can say for instance - Efremov is close to Stanislavski more than
Efros, but Efros is close to Stanislavski more than Lubimov.
And what about New York Actor's Studio. I guess Lee Strasberg cannot but add
a bit of american Broadway system of acting to Stanislavski's system. School
by Strasberg is absolutely american version of Stanislavski's system. And
that's good, not bad.
By the way russian theatre figures appreciate Strasberg's activity to
popularize the system of Moscow Art Theatre to all the world. In the
beginning of this theatre season one Moscow theater (Pushkin theatre) staged
a play about Lee Strasberg and Merylin Monroe. It was a play by Richard
Brustin. You know him? The chief of American Repertory theatre.
P.S.
I am very sorry to David and all who is interested in our dialogue. Tommorow
morning I should go to Yaroslavl theatre festival, so we could continue our
very fascinating (at least for me) chat after 8th of November.
Yours,
Pavel Rudnev
David Spiro
--
David Spiro EMT-P
Liver transplant recipient- 8/1/97
RECYCLE YOURSELF! BE AN ORGAN DONOR!
"If one cannot communicate, then the least one can do is to shut up!"
Tom
Lehrer
Павел Руднев wrote in message <8tv66q$312e$1...@gavrilo.mtu.ru>...
>Dear David,
>
>you wrote
>>Hmmm.... As you may be aware, here in the US, the principal training
ground
>>for the Stanislavski system was originally The Actor's Studio in New York.
>>There has been a great deal of discussion about the changes, or rather
>>different interpretations of Stanislavski's work, that were done at The
>>Actor's Studio, and its effects. Do you think that Stanislavski's
>successors
>>in Russia ahve stayed true to his vision, or have they added their own
>>"spin" to his work?
>
>
>
Павел Руднев
Now I returned!...
Some questions?!...
Who wants to say a word about Stanislavsky
David Spiro
next week, and there is this one scene that is driving me nuts. I'm really
stuck trying to make it work as is the other cast member I am playing off
of. We just can't seem to find the right rhythm. We're coming into rehearsal
early on Sunday to work on it. It's a crucial and important scene.
My kingdom for a workable action!! ;-)
--
David Spiro EMT-P
Liver transplant recipient- 8/1/97
RECYCLE YOURSELF! BE AN ORGAN DONOR!
"If one cannot communicate, then the least one can do is to shut up!"
Tom
Lehrer
Павел Руднев wrote in message <8v4grs$h4g$1...@gavrilo.mtu.ru>...
>Hey!
>
>who else wants to continiue the discussion about subject?
>
>
Павел Руднев
Bryan Kelly
I think you may find it interesting to know that I am taking my first acting
class at a community college in Florida (USA). The essence of the class is
based on Stanislavski's "An Actor Prepares." The instructor fully supports
and uses the concept of the book and I find it quite good. I am glad I read
it and hope that I remember to re-read it frequently.
Until later,
Bryan Kelly
kel...@ieee.org
Time is the medium we use to express our priorities
(Bryan Kelly, 2000)
"David Spiro" <bage...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8tni2l$j9c$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Павел Руднев
As I am russian and deeply involved into russian theatre world, I am so glad
Stanislavsky's system is so helpful for you, for America, for Europe, for
the whole world. If you, David, read some books by him to understand how to
play, it is very approving, I guess. My wife went last year to Argentina to
make lectures and master-classes on Stanislavsky's system - and for South
America Stanislavsky is useful too.
But there is a question for all - is it good and sufficient for an actor to
take your knowledge and skill only from books, from "dead" words?! Russian
students certainly used to read Stanislavsky at their lessons, need him, but
sometime hate him, because there is too much of Stanislavsky. We have a lot
of acting systems... A lot of alive tutors...
Maybe you have another view?!!
Best regards,
Pavel Rudnev
Bryan Kelly
I hold it is good to take knowledge and skill from "dead" words, but not
only. It is never good to take knowledge and skill from only one source no
matter how good the source. Books and written knowledge are only one
source. Without monitoring and references from skilled and unskilled
(friends and fellow actors possibly), one will probably veer off course and
wind up some place where they don't want to be.
Being humans, our courses need constant correction. An unchanging set of
words cannot tell us where we are and how we need to change. Only living
people can do that.
--
Bryan Kelly
kel...@ieee.org
Time is the medium we use to express our priorities
(Bryan Kelly, 2000)
>
andrew ness
Павел Руднев wrote in message <8v8sad$24bt$1...@gavrilo.mtu.ru>...
>Dear collegues,
>
>As I am russian and deeply involved into russian theatre world, I am so
glad
>Stanislavsky's system is so helpful for you, for America, for Europe, for
>the whole world. If you, David, read some books by him to understand how to
>play, it is very approving, I guess. My wife went last year to Argentina to
>make lectures and master-classes on Stanislavsky's system - and for South
>America Stanislavsky is useful too.
>
>take your knowledge and skill only from books, from "dead" words?! Russian
>students certainly used to read Stanislavsky at their lessons, need him,
but
>sometime hate him, because there is too much of Stanislavsky. We have a lot
>of acting systems... A lot of alive tutors...
>
>Maybe you have another view?!!
>
>Best regards,
>Pavel Rudnev
Personally, I don't think anyone can learn to act from books. In English,
the word 'act' also means 'do'. No matter what system or method the actor
employs, it is only by practice that he or she can learn. That is not to say
that we can throw all the textbooks out of the window, the experience of
practitioners like Stanislavski can inform our own practice greatly.
My own concerns with Stanislavski and Strasberg (and I'm aware that there
are important differences between their methods) is that they aim primarily
towards naturalism or realism. While in film, Method acting can reap great
performances, I have rarely seen a stage production that even attempts
Stanislavskian realism. The reason for this, I believe is simply that film
(and television) does it better. Who needs to imagine a fourth wall when the
camera can pan around and show you it? The strength of the stage is its
immediacy, the interaction between audience and performer. For me that is
captured more by someone like Brecht or even Keith Johnstone. I recently
attended a workshop with Max Stafford Clarke and was surprised by the number
of exercises he had developed, adapted or simply lifted from Johnstone.
As for Russian teachers, I've not read nearly enough about Meyerhold, but
what I have seen of his work has been of great interest. Didn't Stanislavski
say that he was the future of Russian theatre?
Nessy
il professore
news:8tsr92$9au$1...@gavrilo.mtu.ru...
>About alive followers of Stanislavsky - He had a lot of pupils, among
them -
Meyerhold, Vakhtangov, M.Chechov, Sudakov, Bersenev, etc. Each of them had
his own pupils.<
Pavel,
Stanislavski never taught Meyerhold. Meyerhold was already an established
young actor when he appeared with the Moscow Theatre in the original
production of THE SEAGULL which KS directed. KS helped Meyerhold start what
was to become the first acting studio associated with the Moscow Art
Theatre. In the 1910 and 20's, KS did very little teaching. His friend
Suleritzky taught Vakhtangov and M. Chekhov at the official First Studio of
the MAT.
NORMAN B. SCHWARTZ
>Il Professore <
ilp...@home.com
Павел Руднев
of Stanislavski. I know about it. He wasn't a pupil, but he pushed off
from Moscow Art Theatre and went further or to another side.
I am going to answer another questions later. Sorry....
Pavel Rudnev
пишет в сообщении ...
>Павел Руднев <pavel...@mtu-net.ru> wrote in message
>news:8tsr92$9au$1...@gavrilo.mtu.ru...
>>About alive followers of Stanislavsky - He had a lot of pupils, among
>them -
>Meyerhold, Vakhtangov, M.Chechov, Sudakov, Bersenev, etc. Each of them had
>his own pupils.<
>
Павел Руднев
Ok. There is another question to you...
Don't you consider to be not good when Stanislavski system becomes the only
one theory for acting. In Russia a lot of actors are suffering about their
skill - they were educated only by the methods of Stanislavski. What about
American theatre - do you have the same problem with Strasberg or
Stanislavski system.
Sincerely yours,
Pavel Rudnev
Moscow
Bert Morris
Dear Pavel,
First: Thank you for making the effort to communicate with us in
English. I respect anyone who can ask a question in two languages (I
cannot).
Second: You have opened up "a can of worms" as we Americans like to say.
Many good folks on this newsgroup will have LOTS of opinions on acting
'methods' (KS and others). Of course we all recognize MANY approaches to
studying acting craft (and scene design, lighting, costuming, sound,
etc.) The current acting class approach you use today in Russia might be
similar or even completely different than when Stanislavski was
teaching. However, you have obviously inherited the 'style' of his
teaching methods. If your fellow actors are 'suffering', as you say
about their skill, and you think it is a direct cause of their
Stanislavski training, I can only offer two views. One: the training has
become inadequate. Two: the actors are trying to justify (from very
respectable training) an illogical acceptance of craft in a present
theatre environment which does not respect (or even acknowledge) the
more traditional actor training. Note: this is an old problem -- the new
school does not accept the validity of the old school.
I rather look at older, established styles (singing, dancing, acting) as
the BEST learning forums for craft. Once learned, the performer has ALL
the basics at their command. If you have been lucky enough to be chosen
to go to the Bolshoi, you will learn all the calssic ballet in the
tradition that respects AND enhances all dance -- do ballet and you can
easily learn and perform almost ANY other form of dance. Yes, there will
be differences in style, presentation, form, execution, and many other
variables, but I think the classically trained dancer (and singer,
actor) has learned the techniques, discipline, stamina, respect, and
day-to-day craft to make good in just about any area of the performing
arts.
I am sure this does not answer your question! But your fellow actors in
Russia should be content to first master the basics of Stanislavski.
There will ALWAYS be time to study what other students of his did in,
not only Russia, but America, France, Sweden, etc. As I said earlier,
many folks on this newsgroup who are actors professionally will have
their own 'favorites' as far as acting methods and styles go. The best
actors are those who take the best from all the masters and make a
learning/doing/interpretive system that works for them.
This is a great 'thread' and I hope to see more posts from you and
fellow theatre people in your country. We need YOUR input. Tell us what
YOU think, and why!
Regards,
Bert Morris
Pavel Rudnev
Bert Morris wrote:
>If your fellow actors are 'suffering', as you say
>about their skill, and you think it is a direct cause of their
>Stanislavski training, I can only offer two views. One: the training has
>become inadequate. Two: the actors are trying to justify (from very
>respectable training) an illogical acceptance of craft in a present
>theatre environment which does not respect (or even acknowledge) the
>more traditional actor training. Note: this is an old problem -- the new
>school does not accept the validity of the old school.
I take the second view! There is the same problem in Russia. Let's read
further:
>I rather look at older, established styles (singing, dancing, acting) as
>the BEST learning forums for craft. Once learned, the performer has ALL
>the basics at their command. If you have been lucky enough to be chosen
>to go to the Bolshoi, you will learn all the calssic ballet in the
>tradition that respects AND enhances all dance -- do ballet and you can
>easily learn and perform almost ANY other form of dance.
You are absolutely write about it, about old styles of teaching.
Stanislavski's method is exactly that what you are talking about. KS tought
actors to be perfect, complex and universal actor. He staged both drama
performances and opera, and told his actors to act like Isadora Duncan, to
borrow "the art of arms" from Isadora.
The style of teaching in modern Russia "by the means of Stanislavski" forgot
about it. That's what the point is!!! Our actors (certainly not anywhere)
are not universal actors. They can speak, but cannot dance, they can be
natural, but cannot be unnatural, they can sing and play guitar, but cannot
play musicals. For instance, that's why Russian theatre cannot play musicals
in Broadway and West-End styles yet. But we want to see them!!! Want to see
Russian musicals, not only bad copies of Broadway ones.
An example. Only five years ago we understand there is contemporary dance in
the world, not only classical ballet as in the Bolshoi theatre. Nowadays we
have got a lot of Russian contemporary dance companies. And each month one
can see the world masters of modern dance in Moscow, Petersburg,
Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk - Trisha Brown, Sasha Waltz, Johan Cresnik, etc.
BUT! No theatre academies and schools are teaching contemporary dance yet.
Since now! Only classical ballet. Young dancers could teach modern dance
only at private schools. Each state ballet theatre seems not to notice
contemporary dance (excluding, maybe, Mariinski ballet and Valery Gergiev).
And modern companies prefer to make money at the West, not in the
Fartherland. Here is the results of "false-classical" education.
In drama theatre we can see almost the same picture (for example, Russian
theatre cannot rebuild their system - we have a lot of repertory theatres
(theatre as a church, as a temple - this is Stanislavski's thought), but we
don't have yet open stages, intendant theatres). That is what I am talking
about.
Our another correspondent, William Smithers, wrote:
>But among them, one could observe that individuals stressed certain
aspects; Lee
>Grant, for instance, focused in scene work on the choices an actor
>needs to make; Shelly Winters focused on the logic of the scene.
It is very useful message.
Every pupil of Stanislavski or Strasberg developed only one or only
two-three thoughts of his tutor. And that one thought became "classical",
"hard", "compulsory" and "dead". No improvements, no innovations, a little
progress.
Sorry for my English.
Yours,
Pavel Rudnev
Opus (:>
Please forgive my lateness at jumping in here; I realize by now your
message is over 2 weeks old. But things just freed up for me for a the
moment and I found this thread absolutely fascinating. How many times
do we actually get to hear from a native of KS' own country, in his
original profession? A gem indeed. But I digress.
I wanted to respond to one of your comments:
> My own concerns with Stanislavski and Strasberg (and I'm aware that there
> are important differences between their methods) is that they aim primarily
> towards naturalism or realism.
>
As does Meisner, and I am fully Meisner trained.
> While in film, Method acting can reap great
> performances, I have rarely seen a stage production that even attempts
> Stanislavskian realism.
>
Do you mean you've never seen a theatre ATTEMPT to get in there and that
they've ignored trying? Or do you mean you've never seen a stage
performance, in all of their attempts, that came close to realism?
I belong to a theatre that I consider to literally be a gift from
above. They call themselves Actors' Bridge ENSEMBLE Theatre, and we are
professional, recently offering equity contracts. Our director, Bill
Feehely, a certified Meisner instructor originally from New York, loved
the feeling of the old ensemble theatre based on the Neighborhood
Playhouse where Meisner and KS originated, so he started one here. He
teaches Meisner full time. There is a great sense of freedom in that
his classes are open and available to all interested, but he will also
cast openly and not just from those who have completed his courses.
We are an ensemble theatre in EVERY sense of the word; meaning, I began
by playing Mistress Overdone in Measure for Measure two weeks into my
beginning course a year and a half ago, and just finished my first
leading role with them on an original show by a local playwright,
entitled "The Vampire Monologues". I also did costuming and make-up for
this show, as well as costuming for their main stage production of A
Walk in the Woods, (Granted, not much to do.)
The beauty of TRUE ensemble theatre is that in one show, one person gets
to shine, and during another, someone else gets to shine. We don't have
awards given inter-theatrically as do the others in town, because it is
truly a group effort.
Now. What the hell is my belated point? You expressed concern about
using the KS system (and I will use Meisner interchangeably here since
he was a direct descendant of what KS' original vision was and tried to
remain as true to that in the beginning as he could, along with being
noted for naturalism. And I must note there is a difference between
realism and naturalism. And the fact that you mentioned Strasberg as
well.) on stage and achieving that naturalism. I think I'm going to
substitute the term "naturalism of being" for your term realism. It may
be closer to the mark for this discussion.
As an ensemble theatre member in good standing, I've watched for the
last year and a half during the times when I have smaller roles. I've
listened intently to the discussions at parties in which we invariably
turn toward acting as a topic, and I've learned a thing or two. When
we're being coached in scene work, and again when BF is directing our
stage productions, the only direction we're pushing into, is one of
"naturalism of being". And yes, I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt,
that it can be and is achieved on stage all the time. I believe the
reason you've probably not seen it, is because in order to make it
happen, it takes an extra layer of several things: Harder work, deeper,
more intense work, more vulnerability, and a damn fine director who can
bring that out of you. And let's face it: Actors, like cattle, will
take the path of least resistance. We're kind of lazy. And the piece
de resistance, in order to deliver a fully charged, fully natural
performance, means we have to check our heads at the door, and just stay
"out of control" without that constant censor that stands on our
shoulder during the entire performance giving unsolicited commentary.
You've got to let your soul fly when you're using one of the popular
acting methods, and there are a surprising amount of actors who want no
part of that. Hence, all of the bad community theatre acting. They
don't want to dig down into THEMSELVES and bring THEMSELVES into the
role, and so you get superficiality at its finest.
I agree with you that there are many, many theatres, including those who
have a surprisingly good following by critics, who still have yet to
burrow beneath their polished commerciality and superficiality. But at
the same time, I believe that it can be, and IS done all the time, very
successfully. It just takes a little work.
Please forgive my lengthiness. I love this topic and thank you for the
thread.
--
Opus (:>
I was fired from my job at a Howard Johnson's when somebody asked me the
ice cream flavour of the week and I said, "chicken". --Mike Nichols
Opus Graphics-- http://members.home.net/coble/OpusGraphics
andrew ness
>> My own concerns with Stanislavski and Strasberg (and I'm aware that there
>> are important differences between their methods) is that they aim
primarily
>> towards naturalism or realism.
>>
>As does Meisner, and I am fully Meisner trained.
>
I really know very little about Meisner. What's a good place to start?
>
>> While in film, Method acting can reap great
>> performances, I have rarely seen a stage production that even attempts
>> Stanislavskian realism.
>>
>Do you mean you've never seen a theatre ATTEMPT to get in there and that
>they've ignored trying? Or do you mean you've never seen a stage
>performance, in all of their attempts, that came close to realism?
I did say 'rarely', not 'never'. Most of the theatre I see tends to be more
'experimental'. (Not a favourite phrase of mine, but the best I can think of
at the moment.) That is partly through choice, and partly because what I
would consider pure Stanislavskian realism (I am aware there are various
interpretations of realism and naturalism, forgive me if I get a little
confused) is actually something of a rarity in these parts. In the last
couple of weeks I have seen four performances, all had strong elements of
physical theatre and movement that I do not readily associate with KS or
realism. That's not to say that Stanislavski has nothing to offer those
performers, of course, but there are other practicioners whose methods are
more immediately relevant. There is more of Brecht than Stanislavski in most
of the theatre I see.
I've also seen perhaps four films in the same period of time. The acting
techiniques in all of these films were much closer to what I would consider
Stanislavskian.
Stanislavski came out of an era where verisimilitude was the watch-word for
theatre. Ibsen and Chekov wrote plays in which the audience were invited to
peer through the famous fourth wall. Actors needed a system which would
enable people to believe that they were watching real events and real
people. Film actors still need such a system (or method if you will...) and
all actors should certainly be aware of it.
I think that in terms of portraying real human beings in a real environment,
film has effectively claimed this territory. What that leaves for theatre is
either to compete with film (which is always going to be a struggle
financially and, I believe, artistically) or find, or perhaps rather to
rediscover, its own voice, its own identity. The ideas of Craig, Artaud,
Copeau and Brecht are far better employed theatrically than in film. Again,
none of these entirely refute Stanislavski or natualism of being (thank you
for the phrase) but he can no longer hold the undisputed central ground.
Andrew
Opus (:>
> >
>
> I really know very little about Meisner. What's a good place to start?
>
recommended it several times, I'm not sure it's a good thing. The
reason being, (Well, perhaps I need not worry since you're familiar with
Strasberg already and you know the importance of fully realizing a
technique by simply DOING.) he talks eloquently in example of his
repetition exercises, but honestly, until you DO them physically, they
make very little sense as outlined in the book. The book is excellent;
don't get me wrong. But I suppose I'm offering a small disclaimer. So
much of what he did was to develop a technique in which you the actor,
no longer had to be a talking head. You actually did the repetition in
the very beginning, which I think was nothing short of a brilliant move,
simply because an actor's first instinct once his feet hit a stage is to
ACT, which is what gets him into the most trouble. By engaging oneself
in the repetition before proceeding any further, it firstly gets your
mind off of your nerves, then gets your mind off of being
self-conscious, and finally gets your mind ON your partner, since you
work your way up to eventually improv-ing off of what your partner gives
you and nothing more. So in this regard, it is a very organic
technique; you learn to work from a very SAFE, emotional center, without
maintaining tight control over it. The eventual goal with this
technique, if I had to put it into a very base, gross nutshell, would be
to learn to really listen to your partner and then play off of what
they're giving you based on the instincts that you've quenched through
the years of bad direction and ignorance. It's taken me a full year to
get rid of my tricks, most of what Stella Adler called her "masks". It
teaches you to find, develop and then trust your first instinct, teaches
you to be free with your emotions from a SAFE place, and then helps you
to live Meisner's credo: "Acting is living truthfully under imaginary
circumstances." I'm sure it belongs to someone else, but he kept a
plaque of it over his desk.
I've found that the Ward Studio, at http://www.wardstudio.com is a great
resource for explaining the program of study. Here is a quote I found
that sums it up wonderfully:
> The Meisner
> Approach provides the
> actor with a practical way
> of working that is based in
> straightforward reality and
> can be applied to all acting
> whether in theater, film or
> television. Actors studying
> this technique find they
> stop watching themselves
> and learn to live out their
> imaginary circumstances in a more real way. Their acting
> becomes emotionally truthful without becoming
> pretentious or self-absorbed. Through learning greater
> specificity and a finer use of instinct, Meisner students
> become more skillful performers.
>
One last thing I'd like to stress, is that there has been a lot of
controversy with both Strasberg's method, and Meisner's approach to the
use of emotions. Strasberg of course, believing in the use of Affective
Memory. (The controversy with Meisner comes from a few instructors who
have taken it to the extreme and caused detrimental damage to actors
while maintaining that it was true Meisnerian.) While I've never been
through the Method, (And the term "The Method" only refers to Strasberg,
btw, for those reading who may mistake that fact.) I've heard enough to
know that Meisner's approach was different, and we've all heard the
legends I'm sure. Instead of taking a real experience and re-living it
in an emotional context, he decided to use daydreaming as the way to
fill up emotionally for your entrance. He found it to be safe, and
easier to let go of once the scene was over.
But that's all explained in the book. Granted, there are times when any
technique you're using just will not get you there, for whatever
reason. But so far, in all the years I've done professional theatre and
film, his technique has only failed me once, and as soon as I adjusted
my approach to my emotional preparation, I was back on track.
> I did say 'rarely', not 'never'.
>
Yes you did. My bad.
> In the last
> couple of weeks I have seen four performances, all had strong elements of
> physical theatre and movement that I do not readily associate with KS or
> realism.
>
Yes, I understand. Good explanation.
> There is more of Brecht than Stanislavski in most
> of the theatre I see.
>
And unfortunately, I must say that I'm not familiar with Brecht.
> The ideas of Craig, Artaud,
> Copeau and Brecht are far better employed theatrically than in film.
>
I respectfully disagree with this, and I'm sure many Meisnerians would
disagree as well. Unless of course you were still speaking of your
experimental theatre example, in which case I might be inclined to
agree. Actually, he developed his technique so that theatrical actors
could benefit from the naturalness of being as well as film actors.
Except for a few commercial projects I've done as well as video, the
technique translates well for me from either film or stage, depending on
what the particular project calls for. Since I do a lot of comedy, and
I'm a stand-up comedienne as well, you kind of have to throw out a large
part of the Meisner for that genre, but only for those requiring a style
of broad farce, which needs a heightened sense of being which does not
lend itself to Meisner. Thus has been my own quest for the fine line.
The reason it translates well from one medium to the other, is because
it trains you to USE YOURSELF, which also ties into the magic if, which
ties into "living truthfully..." If you live truthfully under your
given circumstances, whether it be on stage or film, then you are going
to become engaged emotionally, and according to Aristotle's Poetics,
once a dramatist allows himself to be moved emotionally by his
circumstances, it is those dramatists that are going to move the
audience and engage them emotionally.
Forgive me, I've rambled again.
Opus (:>
first response, I cc'd an old colleague of mine who is a retired Cornell
University professor and both he and I share a love of Stanislavski.
His comments were relative and I think they worthy enough to weighed in
on this subject with. Pavel, you'll find this especially interesting as
well and I welcome your thoughts on this.
Andrew wrote:
> My own concerns with Stanislavski and Strasberg (and I'm aware that there
> are important differences between their methods) is that they aim primarily
> towards naturalism or realism.
>
And my friend writes:
"You might want to mention to your Russian colleague an excellent text,
STANISLAVSKI IN FOCUS by Sharon Carnicke (Hardwood Academic Publishers,
1998 -- which has a publishing arm in Russia.) Carnicke reports that KS
did indeed mount a number of successful productions using his "method of
physical actions" for plays that were outside the "domains" of
naturalism and realism.... including experiments in expressionism,
avant-garde.... he almost produced an early dadaist play, and he was
certainly comfortable with over-the-top farce. KS also had dynamic, if
troublesome relationships with associates like Meyerhold and Vakhtongov
who pushed the "envelopes" of realism and naturalism. There is a
fascinating chapter in the book that explains what KS was dealing with
as political influences enforced "Soviet Realism.""
He goes on to write:
"What is indeed rare, Carla, is a theatre in ANY country that defines
the
production style and acting methodology of its productions. KS did it.
The
Group Theatre tried to do it. Growtowski did it. Joe Chaiken did it
with his
Open Theatre. And I gather that your theatre, courtesy of the influence
of Bill
Feehely, strives for this lovely balance.
But the majority of producing theatres, especially in the USA, must work
with
actors who have any number of training experiences and methodologies."
delra...@my-deja.com
"Opus (:>" <opus...@bloomcounty.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> "You might want to mention to your Russian colleague an excellent
text,
> STANISLAVSKI IN FOCUS by Sharon Carnicke (Hardwood Academic
Publishers,
> 1998 -- which has a publishing arm in Russia.) Carnicke reports that
KS
> did indeed mount a number of successful productions using his "method
of
> physical actions" for plays that were outside the "domains" of
> naturalism and realism.... including experiments in expressionism,
> avant-garde.... he almost produced an early dadaist play, and he was
> certainly comfortable with over-the-top farce>
It is worth noting that until very recently Stanislavski's method of
physical action was largly unknown in the US. This phase in
Stanislavski's development was only seen in the diluted form of Micheal
Chekhov and Grotowski, who adapted KS to very different ends than he
intended. Here the Method that we knew was mostly limited to the
internal work outlined in An Actor Prepares.
In part this was due to certain historical accidents connected to the
publication of his work in English and because the Moscow Art Theater
toured older, more realistic productions to the US in the 1930s.
By the way, I read a few years back an article on the errors and
numerous cuts in Stanislavski's English translations. (Many
descriptions of excersises and processes cut.) The article was (I
think) by someone connected to Routledge's project to publish new
translations of all KS's works.
Why did these new editions never come out?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/