Innovative Stanislavsky's System - Case Study Example

Innovative Stanislavsky's System Biography and glimpses of system Konstantin Sergeyevich Alekseyev was born in 1863 in one of the wealthy and respectable families in Russia. There were nine children in his family and together with his brothers and sisters he spent his childhood in theatres and circuses. Art was the main concern of their family. Children in his family fell in love with theatre and performed plays for the guests of their family in their country house. Starting from 14 years old Kostya seriously analyzed plays which children were performing. Later on, his considerations about performance would result in his system. When he was 22, his Notebooks were filled with such kind of sentences: “What is the physiological aspect of the role? The psychic aspect of the role?” (Benedetti 1999, p. 23). At this point Stanislavsky made an emphasis on connection between body and mind. These lines would become a leitmotif of his further system. Alekseyev Circle was the name of their family’s acting troupe. Kostya was an outstanding actor in this troupe. Later on, actor’s wanderings resulted in establishment of the Moscow Amateur Music-Dramatic Circle. He united with famous Russian actors and questioned his own acting abilities. His main concern was focused on considerations of director-actor’s mutual understanding of their common ideas. He was focused on imagination’s development. He claimed that it was necessary to appeal to personal emotions and then project them on a character. At this point an initial stage of his system was established. Kostya got married to Maria Perevoshchikova in 1889 and they went together throughout their life as partners and workmates (Merlin, 2003). On every stage of his life, Stanislavsky worked hard at embodiment of his system into life. For example, he followed a piece of advice of his favorite actor of 19th century Mikhail Shchepkin. The latter claimed that in order to be an outstanding actor, it is necessary to take examples from actor’s personal life. Having followed this instruction, Stanislavsky when he played Othello, turned his attention to an Arab, his friend from Paris. External imitation was good, but this character was hollow inside. At this point Stanislavsky was very much concerned about the following question: “When does an actor 'become' the character? And how does the actor observe life and then turn those observations into 'creative will', or 'inspiration'?” (Merlin, 2003). Nevertheless, instead of truthful psychological portrait, a skilful sculpture emerged. It may seem weird, why Stanislavsky paid so much attention to psychological portrait? Let’s consider the state of Russian theatre at those times. The repertoire of the Russian theatre was under a scrutinized attention of Tsar Nicholas II and his censors. No personal themes, no political issues were allowed to be mentioned; only melodramas and vaudevilles were preferred. Actor’s role was neglected and diminished; his inner world and emotions were not interesting for the audience. Therefore it was necessary to shift the accents from the theatre as entertaining to the theatre as means of deep psychological analysis of an individual. Moreover, a role of director was a secondary one. Directors brought in neither pedagogical content, no creativity. Actors didn’t need director’s instructions, because their main goal was to satisfy the audience; entertain it and play clowns. Even rehearsals were short, because actors had to play fool and make the audience laugh and have rest. Actors didn’t even learn their words, because there were prompters in a prompt box in a Down-Stage-Centre sunk in the floor (Carnicke, 1998). Leading actresses wore the things chosen by themselves. Not acting, but actress’s wardrobe signified her greatness. Stanislavsky once said: “Actors do not respect themselves…; they do not behave as authors. The movies, fame and fortune, turn them into celebrities – when do they have time to think about the art of acting?”(Stanislavsky 1989, p.34) Therefore actors were not trained. Stanislavsky once had confessed that he played just imitating his favorite actors’ actions. There was no written manual or mentor that could help an actor to play. As far as we can see, creative background was favorable for Stanislavsky. He entered the theatre, which was a chaos with no professionals to train and to be trained. Therefore he started revolutionizing theatre: “One of the elements [of the spiritual culture of the humanity] is the theatre which is distinctly Russian, whose objective is not to entertain the audience with plays, but to affect directly the viewer's very soul with naturally created life of the human spirit” (Stanislavsky 1989, p.51). Stanislavsky's system A proper consideration of Stanislavsky’s system should begin with the discussion of the roots of his system. Philosophical studies on positivism, in accordance with which only material things are real; naturalism, which underlines a necessity to rely on laws of nature and basic ideas of the beginning of 20th century became a strong background to Stanislavsky’s revolutionary system. Innovative theories and discoveries inspired Stanislavsky to revolutionize Russian theatre. Stanislavsky’s appeal to realism frightened audience of those times. Fifty years later, his system was finally adopted by actors on the blue screens. Having been tired of discoveries and revolutions, the audience wanted to pay attention to an ordinary individual, a character reflecting his inner world and emotions on the stage. Stanislavsky can be named a predictor of tastes of future generations; his ideas of concentration on inner world of a character have always been interesting for the audience starting from the middle of 20th century (Sacharow, 2004). Later on Stanislavsky worked at the Moscow Art Theatre. The main goal of Stanislavsky concerned actor’s ability to control his emotions and be inspired by art only while acting. His method was developed in accordance with the following principles: mutual cooperation and interaction of an actor and director is of primary concern for both of them. First of all, it is necessary to sit around the round table and discuss future script and characters. The main goal is to define a certain objective which should be reached by play of every actor. A potential objective of every actor should be experienced by an actor. Therefore it is necessary to consider objective from many points of view and different perspectives. Stanislavsky started to work at his ‘system’ in 1906. He was inspired by acting of Yermolova and Salvini, two great actors. Their acting could be different in different plays. Nevertheless sometimes they got the feel of their roles. Stanislavsky considered Yermolova’s acting to be the highest level of actor’s playing. Stanislavsky gave a name to his method a ‘system’ not in vain. He wanted to reach a certain ‘scheme’, which would work as a mechanism, relevant to any actor. In such a way, any actor could deal with himself in accordance with a potential goal (Merlin, 2003). He instructed his actors to treat their roles as directly and accurately as possible; to be inspired by their character and to get the feel of their roles. Nevertheless a great success and real ‘living in a character’ is possible once or twice in life. The rest of his life an actor just acts in accordance with certain techniques, just acting in accordance with some rules or generally accepted mechanisms. As a matter of fact, Stanislavsky claimed that it was necessary to teach and learn the self: “Being is Becoming, nothing else. Only Becoming is Being. And here is where “will” is coming into action. It's Self-Willing, getting control over your own Self, known in acting theory is a mastery of emotions, body, voice, etc” (Stanislavsky 1989, p. 76). It’s a vivid presentation by Stanislavsky of his main goal– of teaching actors to study themselves, their emotions and feelings. He claimed also that if an actor could cognize himself, he would become a master of his own moods. A masterful actor could control over his feelings and emotions and evoke necessary feelings and emotions anytime he liked. A secret of Stanislavsky’s success is in his direct involvement of psychological issues into consideration of actor’s role performance. Stanislavsky had several times in his life reconsidered his ideas but he had the only one truth: truth in performance and love of art: “The actor must believe in everything that takes place on the stage - and most of all - in what he himself is doing - and one can only believe in the truth” (Stanislavsky 1986, p. 111). Stanislavsky’s method is acknowledged all over the world because characters performed by actors taught by his ‘system’ were realistic. Inner world of a character, his emotions and feelings should be of primary concern for the actors. Inner triggers of a character, his motivations are core issues for a perfect understanding of characters to be played: “Bring yourself to the part of taking hold of a role, as if it were your own life; speak for your character in your own person. When you sense this real kinship to your part, your newly created being will become soul of your soul, flesh of your flesh” (Stanislavsky 1986, p.49). Each scene has a certain objective. An actor has to realize it quite clear and act in order to achieve a completion of this goal. ‘Super objective’ can be reached if objectives of every scene are reached. In order to reach fulfillment of such goals, Stanislavsky involves ‘a magic if’: i.e. an actor has to find himself in-loco of his character and think about the way he would act in the same situation. Thus it is necessary to reach a special bound between an actor and a character. System VS Method It is evident that Stanislavsky’s achievement is great and valuable. It is so great that it can even be mixed up with his inventor. His system sometimes overweighs his genius. American theatre in 1930-40s used to involve his system. System and Method of Stanislavsky are often misunderstood. Stanislavsky’s Method was studied by Strasberg at the American Laboratory Theatre (1920). Psychological needs of American actor were in the focus of that Method, i.e. Stanislavsky’s Method was adapted by American actors. American actors were enchanted by Stanislavsky’s Method: they enjoyed been attracted to inner worlds and emotions of their characters; consider about psychological aspects of characters’ inner worlds and appeal to their inner selves. Later on this Method was applied to works by Shakespeare. Inner worlds of characters are revealed in plays by Shakespeare most of all. An example of ‘System’ and ‘Method’ can be the following: Stella Adler was taught by Stanislavsky himself thus she had undergone his System and actors who studied in America in 20s were taught in accordance with Stanislavsky’s Method. Stanislavsky’s main goal was to develop a table of contents, a helpful tool for actors. Each of them could refer to it while overcoming a certain obstacle in performance. Stanislavsky’s system was adopted in America but was a little bit transformed. Thus, American actors borrowed a generally accepted Stanislavsky’s claim and projected their emotions from the past onto the present. American actors appealed to their affective memory. Therefore emotions were transferred into present play and emotions were repeated. During all his life an actor could ‘collect’ different emotions and restore them in compliance with the given scene. Another instruction adopted by American actors is their focus on their personal life and individuality. A personalized approach to scene performance is required from the actors. Thus actors are architects of their characters. Art becomes the everyday life. In such a way, actors play themselves through their characters. Pompous theatrical laws of 19th century turned into naturalistic and real performance (Roach, 1985). Not actor’s training, but his appeal to his inner world is a determinant point of his acting. As far as we can see, American theatre has adopted Stanislavsky’s system. His propagation of a personalized approach to art turned into realistic performances not only in Russia, but also abroad. System’s development Stanislavsky was a fanatic of art. He was sure that making notes or listening to lectures would bear no fruits to actors if they didn’t experienced inner worlds of their characters. Emotional bound between an actor and a character is a decisive point of a successful performance. When some actors asked him for a piece of advice, Stanislavsky always said that no piece of advice can be given in written or oral form; just correlation between inner worlds of actor and his character is effective. In some years Stanislavsky changed his method of actors’ instructing and teaching. He made an emphasis on all aspects of actor’s performance: walking, talking, and even sitting on the chair. In one way or another Stanislavsky turned his approach into more scrutinized consideration of actor’s performance: “Put life into the imagined circumstances and actions until you have completely satisfied your sense of truth and until you have awakened a sense of faith in the reality of your own sensations” (Stanislavsky 1986, p. 92). His views broadened and next to emotions and feelings all physical actions became important for his ideal actor. Further on he found correlating points of his method and that one of Robert Lewis and his book “Method of Madness”. Accuracy and completeness serving as strict instructions for actors and Stanislavsky’s intention to direct actor’s performance resulted in a complicated and properly considered set of actions which has to be completed by any actor. Stanislavsky was focused on consideration of every peculiarity of human behavior. He gave a profound analysis to every detail of a character in order to avoid falsehoods. A bad actor that had no deep and profound understanding of his character could be ‘revealed’ by the audience while he would not transfer all peculiarities of human behavior of a character. Formal re-learning of character’s behavior by an actor could result in a perfect performance. Stanislavsky supported a formal training of an actor. His ideas run through his studious and Moscow Art Theatre. Practical decision: Physical Action’s Method Emotions’ embodiment into life is possible in case of mutual unification of body and emotions. Psychological perception is reflected in physical actions. There is a special term for this kind of bound– ‘psycho-physical union’ (Marowitz, 2007). Consequently, this term is one of the most influential in Stanislavsky’s system. Stanislavsky had a following consideration: if only psychological aspect is present or if an actor performs only physical action, then performance is unsuccessful. Consequently, it is possible to claim that actor should involve both psychological and physical aspects during performance: “If you know your character's thoughts, the proper vocal and bodily expressions will naturally follow (Stanislavsky 1989, p.79)”. Otherwise his performance is incomplete and he won’t be able to reveal his creative potential to the greatest extent. Therefore Stanislavsky has developed this method and called it ‘the method of physical actions’. In accordance with his method, a certain physical motion refers to a certain emotion. An actor should evoke his emotions and feelings and express them in physical actions. For example, in order to express laugh, an actor can hold his head back and then start laughing. This kind of physical actions is subconsciously performed when any person laughs. Method of physical action is chosen by every actor individually. Thus an actor should refer different emotions to different physical actions many times in order to find out the best way of emotions-physical actions’ correlation. In case of improvisation it is possible to reach a desirable effect. This can be explained by the fact that an actor refers to his inner feelings and emotions while improvising. Stanislavsky claimed that the best way of expressing real emotions of a character is when actor can reach it even in silence. For example, it is possible to express emotions and feelings not through physical actions or words, but through keeping silence. Therefore the best way to reveal emotions is to react. Conclusion Innovative revolutionary system of Stanislavsky turned generally accepted theatrical traditions of 19th century upside down. Stanislavsky established a new, realistic theatre. His attention to actor’s performance was focused on both internal and external expressions of an actor. Stanislavsky’s talent turned Russian culture into Russia’s Golden Age of Art. Deep psychological considerations and social criticism were determinants of plays directed by Stanislavsky. Moreover Stanislavsky’s art took into account all nuances of the play and all aspects of a character. Plays directed by Stanislavsky were dramatic and realistic, able to struggle with tsarist criticism and dogmatic laws of Soviet system. Stanislavsky appealed to the audience with clear mind. He said: “Never come into the theatre with mud on your feet. Leave your dust and dirt outside” (Stanislavsky 1989, p. 90). Therefore Stanislavsky created a well-known system of actor’s psychological development and a right way to successful performance. Works cited 1. Benedetti, J., 2004. Stanislavsky: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. 2. Carnicke, S. M., 1998. Stanislavsky in Focus. Russian Theatre Archive Ser. London: Harwood Academic Publishers. 3. Marowitz, C., 2007. Getting Stanislavsky Wrong: The Method, One Director Claims, Can Be a Woeful Impediment to an Actor's Spontaneity. American Theatre, 24, pp. 52+. 4. Merlin, B., 2003. Konstantin Stanislavsky. New York: Routledge. 5. Roach, J. R., 1985. The Player's Passion: Studies in the Science of Acting. Theater: Theory/Text/Performance Ser. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 6. Sacharow, L., 2004. Enemies: A Russian Love Story; Meyerhold and Stanislavsky, the Two Opposing Titans of Russian Theatre, Are the Seeds for Renewal and Reawakening in Today's Moscow. American Theatre, 21, pp. 32-45. 7. Stanislavsky, C., 1986. An Actor Prepares (AAP). Trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. London: Methuen, 1986. 8. Stanislavsky, C., 1989. Buliding a Character (BAC). Trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. New York: Routledge. Read More