News from Stanislavsky
evga
Hi, actors, directors, pfofessors!
Who has an interest at Stanislavsky's method contact us!
We are ready to share some practical ideas with all "friends" of Russian
style of acting.
"Chameleons"
Bill
By all means, share. My mentor for many years was Bobby Lewis, and I
also studied with Stella Adler.... and have published articles on the
Method of Physical Activities. "Il Professore," a subscriber to this
newsgroup, has published a book that explores the Stanislavski
evolution.
Break a leg,
Bill
--
THE ACTING STUDIO
http://gvtg.com/theactingstudio
Jcrwth
> My mentor for many years was Bobby Lewis, and I
>also studied with Stella Adler.... and have published articles on the
>Method of Physical Activities. "Il Professore," a subscriber to this
>newsgroup, has published a book that explores the Stanislavski
>evolution.
But did any of them ever tell you about "perezjivanie," which is untranslatable
(it means literally 're-living,' but that does not begin to explain it), which
Stanislavski himself conceded was at the core of his System. Anyone who doesn't
know about this simply doesn't know about Stanislavski. And any REAL student of
S. should know of his stormy relationship with Meyerhold (who was executed in
1940 by Stalin, but who today is far more revered in Russia than S). There's an
awful lot of Stanislavski bullshit floating around, folks, and a true
understanding of the man and his work is hard to come by. Don't look for it in
Bobby Lewis, Stella Adler, or certainly not in Strasberg or any of his
disciples!
John Crowther
cuteboy UK
. And any REAL student of
>S. should know of his stormy relationship with Meyerhold (who was executed
in
>1940 by Stalin, but who today is far more revered in Russia than S).
There's an
>awful lot of Stanislavski bullshit floating around, folks, and a true
>understanding of the man and his work is hard to come by. Don't look for it
in
>Bobby Lewis, Stella Adler, or certainly not in Strasberg or any of his
>disciples!
Yes, Stanislavski did have a stormy relationship with Meyerhold, but like
the great artist that he was he allowed Meyerhold his differences. At the
end of his life, Stanislavski was probably closer to Meyerhold than ever
before. Meyerhold was probably destined to take the place of Sulerzitski.
Although I would agree that Strasberg didn't have much of a clue about
Stanislavski, Stella Adler did work with him in France for some weeks, and
can therefore have claimed a direct knowledge. Although she may have got it
wrong!
Lee
Bill
Jcrwth wrote:
>
> > My mentor for many years was Bobby Lewis, and I
> >also studied with Stella Adler.... and have published articles on the
> >Method of Physical Activities. "Il Professore," a subscriber to this
> >newsgroup, has published a book that explores the Stanislavski
> >evolution.
>
> But did any of them ever tell you about "perezjivanie," which is untranslatable
> (it means literally 're-living,' but that does not begin to explain it), which
> Stanislavski himself conceded was at the core of his System. Anyone who doesn't
> S. should know of his stormy relationship with Meyerhold (who was executed in
> 1940 by Stalin, but who today is far more revered in Russia than S). There's an
> awful lot of Stanislavski bullshit floating around, folks, and a true
> understanding of the man and his work is hard to come by. Don't look for it in
> Bobby Lewis, Stella Adler, or certainly not in Strasberg or any of his
> disciples!
Dearest John,
My friend, I take that as a challenge, and by all means, let's engage.
Lewis and Adler were well aware of not only Meyerhold, but also Chekhov,
Vakhtangov, Madame Oespenskaya, Boleslavski, etc. (And if you have SOME
knowledge of American revisionism, you'll know enough to keep a critical
separation between the afore-mentioned names and good ol' Lee.)
If you want to debate, you'll have to do better than name-drop.
So what's your point?
Bill
Jcrwth wrote:
> Dear Bill,
> Yes, indeed, Adler and Lewis knew all about Meyerhold (Sorry, I didn't think
> that by repeating those names I was "name-dropping" -- could have, but didn't).
> The point is that somewhere along the line Meyerhold got relegated to the
> distant background here, just as in Russia, though not in such a dramatic
> fashion. In Russia, however, he's been rehabilitated, revived, taught,
> understood.
Dear John,
If so, why did you make a generalized, uninformed statement about Lewis
and Adler? Perhaps because I mentioned two of my mentors, and you saw an
oppportunity to boast about inside knowledge about the Meyerhold
connection. Oops, John.... I am usually thick-skinned, but in this
case, I will say to you, "Yield, Slow Down," and.... learn who's who."
I mean, John, Meyerhold was the most popular topic among my fellow
graduate students 26 years ago.
I don't know how long you've been on this particular newsgroup. Web
protocol suggests that a new member (or listserver subscriber) spend
some time learning the territory.... who's who.... before you make a
full frontal assualt.
And that's what you did, John, when you attached a post to mine, adding
that there is a lot of "bullshit" passed around under the names of Lewis
and Adler, I had no choice but to ask you, very politely, "Who.... are
you?" Gracious person that I am, I'll accept your post as a disguised
apology.... even if you refuse it. (I am 50% Ukrainian.... very
generous folks, I might add..... and when I call my mother tomorrow on
Easter Sunday.... I'll ask her to research a "translatable" for your
"untranslatable" -- peresjiv-somthing-or other.)
> Over a lunch with Lev Donin (and here I am name-dropping), artistic
> director of St. Petersburg's Maly Theatre, he told me proudly that his two
> masters were respectively members of Meyerhold's Company and MAT. And the
> Meyerhold influence shows hugely in the work.
You have my attention, John, but at this point, you have to earn it.
Lev Donin? This is wonderful. Tell me more, John..... about the magic
integration, and about "perezjiv...." Or point me to an article or a
book, or a web-site. That's what I do, John, on this, or other groups.
In other words.... when I make a claim (STANISLAVSKI said or LEWIS said
or SMITH said).... I tend to give a book title, a reference to an
article in an established academic or professional publication for stage
or film..... etc.
You are cc:'d to a few friends who may be more friendly than yours
truly.... one is in touch with Smelionski at MAT
> The point also is that largely
> thanks to Strasberg, but with the complicity of so many others, Stanislavski
> has become distorted, misunderstood, and misused. How many American actors, for
> instance, know that S. did not "invent" naturalism, and is not, in fact, the
> father of realism in modern theatre?
Then don't lecture me, my friend. On this newsgroup and professional
listservers, consisting of working actors and directors, I have argued
that distinction.... with this caveat.... Strasberg works for MANY
actors, and it does. I don't TEACH memory of emotion, I don't practice
it..... I merely respect it. I teach and practice an ongoing process
called the "method of physical activities".... and you know..... the
amazing thing is that is is still evolving.
Please.... don't generalize, John.
I include (in my small circle) some gifted actors who have studied with
Lewis, Adler, Meisner, Boleslavski, Checkov.... and I'll add a few
favorites "out of the the loop" -- Grotowski, Spolin, Paul Sills,
Benedetti, .... and other folks who who appenticed from masters, and
then evolved their own work....
John, anything I mention on this tiny little group mentions both what
I've learned (from masters) and then proceeds to what I am currently
exploring as an actor.... director..... coach.
Study, learn, grow, evolve
Break a leg and ..... peace....
Bill
OOPS, John, you're still writing....
> How many know the contribution of
> Sulerzitsky (sp?) in the development of The System, and how Eastern Philosphy
> fits in?
To your first question, Sulerzitsky (sp?) doesn't ring a bell. So I
must humbly beg you for a correct spelling and a citation. I await your
knowledge, or a bibliography.
> How many know that The System wasn't developed for practically a
> decade after the founding of MAT?
It's common knowledge among my friends and colleagues that KS evolved
and experimented, and.... that before he passed away, he.... more or
less.... encouraged gifted folks to experiment.
> How many know that S. developed it so that
> his actors could apply internal technique to Shakespeare, the symbolists, and
> expressionism, and not, as most think, to serve naturalism? To this I would add
> that Meyerhold is as misunderstood in his way as S. was in his. A further point
> here is that a terrible disservice has been done to American actors and acting
> both by the concentration on and the distortion of Stanislavski. Too bad that
> the Clurman's and Logan's, both of whom I had the pleasure of working with
> (more name-dropping, sorry), who went to Russia and saw them all, have somehow
> dropped away into the mists of the past.
Never had the opportunity to study with Clurman.... although I have
read Clurman.... and all the lovely gossip. Redundantly, I did study
with Lewis and Adler.... Adler spent those valuable months with KS in
Paris, which are well documented. By your score-card, eveything I've
learned should be tossed out with the garbage.
I am your very humble servant. Point me in the right direction.
> What's the lesson? It is as easy to
> hide the lack of Truth in acting with naturalism as it is with a declamatory
> style.
Darn, John, you're mixing several forms of logic/illogic and mixed
metaphors.... Until this moment, I thought this was a Socratic dialogue.
Jcrwth
> My friend, I take that as a challenge, and by all means, let's engage.
>Lewis and Adler were well aware of not only Meyerhold, but also Chekhov,
>Vakhtangov, Madame Oespenskaya, Boleslavski, etc. (And if you have SOME
>knowledge of American revisionism, you'll know enough to keep a critical
>separation between the afore-mentioned names and good ol' Lee.)
>
> If you want to debate, you'll have to do better than name-drop.
>
> So what's your point?
Dear Bill,
Yes, indeed, Adler and Lewis knew all about Meyerhold (Sorry, I didn't think
that by repeating those names I was "name-dropping" -- could have, but didn't).
The point is that somewhere along the line Meyerhold got relegated to the
distant background here, just as in Russia, though not in such a dramatic
fashion. In Russia, however, he's been rehabilitated, revived, taught,
understood. Over a lunch with Lev Donin (and here I am name-dropping), artistic
director of St. Petersburg's Maly Theatre, he told me proudly that his two
masters were respectively members of Meyerhold's Company and MAT. And the
Meyerhold influence shows hugely in the work. The point also is that largely
thanks to Strasberg, but with the complicity of so many others, Stanislavski
has become distorted, misunderstood, and misused. How many American actors, for
instance, know that S. did not "invent" naturalism, and is not, in fact, the
father of realism in modern theatre? How many know the contribution of
Sulerzitsky (sp?) in the development of The System, and how Eastern Philosphy
fits in? How many know that The System wasn't developed for practically a
decade after the founding of MAT? How many know that S. developed it so that
his actors could apply internal technique to Shakespeare, the symbolists, and
expressionism, and not, as most think, to serve naturalism? To this I would add
that Meyerhold is as misunderstood in his way as S. was in his. A further point
here is that a terrible disservice has been done to American actors and acting
both by the concentration on and the distortion of Stanislavski. Too bad that
the Clurman's and Logan's, both of whom I had the pleasure of working with
(more name-dropping, sorry), who went to Russia and saw them all, have somehow
dropped away into the mists of the past. What's the lesson? It is as easy to
hide the lack of Truth in acting with naturalism as it is with a declamatory
style. These are just a few thoughts, spewed out rapidly but with, I assure
you, enthusiasm, not combativeness. I welcome the discussion, or if you prefer,
the debate.
All the best,
John Crowther
cuteboy UK
Hello, John and Bill,
Why are you two having a battle just between the two of you? This is a
newsgroup, not a chatline!! (That's a joke!) Neither of you have looked at
the points in my posting, by the way. The arguments re: Stan. & Stra. have
been going on for a long time, and there is little to contribute. John, I
think that any actor who wants to look at the REAL Stanislavski can find
out. There are enough books by him, and about him, to do that. I agree that
most of his teachings have been distorted, but that has happened with every
great teacher the world has known.
Bill, Sulerzitski (I haven't got a clue about the spelling either!) was
Stanislavski's closest friend in adult life, and worked with him on the
development of the 'system' for a long time. Near his death, Stanislavski
said that only one and a half people had ever fully understood him! The one
was Sulerzitski. I can't quote you a source for that, but it's probably in
either the Benedetti, or the Magarshak biography. Any account of
Stanislavski's life would be incomplete without mention of Sulerzitski.
Let me know what you think.
Lee
Bill
Dear Lee,
My apologies, Lee, but I have lost track of your post. If you have a
copy to forward, I would appreciate it. Insofar as Straberg is
concerned I read his books, took one session with him and returned to
work with Lewis and Adler. On this group and two actor listservers, one
thing I have taken time to address is the misconception that Straberg's
The Method is one and the same as Stanislavki's Method of Physical
Activities.
I didn't mention Leopold Sulerzhitsky because that wasn't the issue.
But I know well his relationship with KS. I wrote a paper in grad
school on Sulerzhitsky's Tolstoyan philosophy.
Insofar as the "issue" is concerned, I'm still awaiting an explanation
for the assertion that Lewis and Adler did not understand KS.
Nathan Thomas
Jcrwth wrote:
>
> > My mentor for many years was Bobby Lewis, and I
> >also studied with Stella Adler.... and have published articles on the
> >Method of Physical Activities. "Il Professore," a subscriber to this
> >newsgroup, has published a book that explores the Stanislavski
> >evolution.
>
> But did any of them ever tell you about "perezjivanie," which is untranslatable
> (it means literally 're-living,' but that does not begin to explain it), which
> Stanislavski himself conceded was at the core of his System. Anyone who doesn't
> know about this simply doesn't know about Stanislavski. And any REAL student of
> S. should know of his stormy relationship with Meyerhold (who was executed in
> 1940 by Stalin, but who today is far more revered in Russia than S). There's an
> awful lot of Stanislavski bullshit floating around, folks, and a true
> understanding of the man and his work is hard to come by. Don't look for it in
> Bobby Lewis, Stella Adler, or certainly not in Strasberg or any of his
> disciples!
> John Crowther
Hmmmmmm. . . . . there is some dispute about how you translate
'perezhvanie.' For some the translation would be "experience." In the
Russian volumes of Stanislavski's work, there is a sketch/diagram that
Stanislavski made of parts of the system. One branch was experiencing
the role and the other branch was the embodiment of the role.
And the "storminess" of the Stanislavski/Meyerhold relationship was more
mythical than real. Between the two men themselves, it seems that there
were rarely hard feelings and, after the Revolution, seemed to see each
other's shows and communicated with fair regularity -- not unusual
considering their talent, occupation, etc. Indeed, there were rare
times (printed articles notwithstanding) when Meyerhold did not speak
glowingly of his "teacher" (or mentor) Stanislavski to his actors.
Best wishes,
Nathan
thom...@pilot.msu.edu
Nathan Thomas
Hmmmmmmmm. . . .I won't go so far as to say that Adler and/or Lewis
didn't understand Stanislavski. What would be the point one way or
another? It wasn't their task to necessarily repeat Stanislavski
verbatim. Lewis, Adler, and (for that matter) Strasberg, Clurman, Eric
Morris, and the nice guy who teaches acting at the community college
down the street -- all of these people are teaching different groups of
actors for different reasons -- and far different than the theatre about
which Stanislavski knew. I've commented on actor "theology" before (as
you know). It would be folly for someone to mount a Shakespeare play
and claim that the production was the end-all and be-all of exactly
everhthing Shakespeare knew and intended. Yet, a similar claim of
expert orthodoxy is implicit in actor training at times.
Bill (for the new readers) has claimed a level of ecumenicalism in his
training method -- which was shared in many ways by Mr. Lewis in his
teaching. This is (in my view) very sensible given the current nature
of actors working in show *business.* Stanislavski's actors in the MAT
(or one of the Studios) weren't worried about the *business.* Why
should we consider that actors need to be trained in the same way?
"There is more than one way to fricasee a feline."
One of the things that interests me most is this question of pedagogy.
What would it mean to have a system of training in which the objectives
of the training are clear, but the methods of teaching are left to the
indivvidual teacher? That is, there is not one teaching method, but a
more unified set of goals for that teaching. What should a trained
actor be able to do? And if someone wants to use mask improvisations,
or the tape method, or scene study, or observing the mating habits of
the giant pink bunkadoo -- does it make a difference?
So I turn the question of this discussion to another issue, why is
orthodoxy of such importance? (I'm a Meyerhold scholar. But knowing
bio-mechanics, what the hell does that mean in working on a scene with
actors this very afternoon?)
Best wishes,
Nathan
thom...@pilot.msu.edu
PS. The other thing that folks should realize in this discussion is the
preference of the American theatre toward realism. "Glass Menegerie"
and "Death of a Salesman" are anything but realistic plays, but they're
held up as models of realism. Even a try at expressionism like "The
Hairy Ape" is still a realistic play compared to Georg Kaiser's stuff.
Just a thought . . .
Bill
Thanks for your thoughts, Nathan. For what it's worth, John and I
shared several private-emails and made peace over the weekend.