Javascript required
Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / The Dramatic Art of Representing Life Through Expressive Movements of the Anserw

The Dramatic Art of Representing Life Through Expressive Movements of the Anserw

System to train actors

A diagram of Stanislavski'due south organization, based on his "Plan of Experiencing" (1935), showing the inner (left) and outer (right) aspects of a role uniting in the pursuit of a graphic symbol's overall "supertask" (tiptop) in the drama.[1]

Stanislavski'southward organisation is a systematic approach to training actors that the Russian theatre practitioner Konstantin Stanislavski adult in the kickoff half of the twentieth century. His system cultivates what he calls the "fine art of experiencing" (with which he contrasts the "fine art of representation").[two] It mobilises the actor's conscious thought and will in order to activate other, less-controllable psychological processes—such as emotional experience and subconscious behaviour—sympathetically and indirectly.[iii] In rehearsal, the actor searches for inner motives to justify action and the definition of what the character seeks to achieve at whatever given moment (a "task").[iv]

Later, Stanislavski further elaborated the arrangement with a more physically grounded rehearsal process that came to be known as the "Method of Physical Action".[5] Minimising at-the-table discussions, he at present encouraged an "agile representative", in which the sequence of dramatic situations are improvised.[6] "The best assay of a play", Stanislavski argued, "is to take action in the given circumstances."[7]

Thanks to its promotion and development by acting teachers who were former students and the many translations of Stanislavski'southward theoretical writings, his system acquired an unprecedented ability to cross cultural boundaries and developed a accomplish, dominating debates about interim in the Due west.[8] Stanislavski's ideas have become accepted as common sense and then that actors may employ them without knowing that they do.[ix]

Stanislavski before his system [edit]

Having worked as an amateur actor and managing director until the age of 33, in 1898 Stanislavski co-founded with Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko the Moscow Art Theatre (MAT) and began his professional career. The ii of them were resolved to institute a revolution in the staging practices of the fourth dimension. Benedetti offers a vivid portrait of the poor quality of mainstream theatrical practise in Russia before the MAT:

The script meant less than zero. Sometimes the cast did not even bother to larn their lines. Leading actors would only plant themselves downstage centre, by the prompter's box, wait to be fed the lines then evangelize them directly at the audience in a ringing vocalisation, giving a fine display of passion and "temperament." Everyone, in fact, spoke their lines out front. Direct communication with the other actors was minimal. Piece of furniture was so arranged as to permit the actors to face up forepart.[x]

Stanislavski'south early productions were created without the use of his system. His offset international successes were staged using an external, director-centred technique that strove for an organic unity of all its elements—in each production he planned the interpretation of every role, blocking, and the mise en scène in item in advance.[xi] He besides introduced into the production process a period of word and detailed analysis of the play by the cast.[12] Despite the success that this approach brought, particularly with his Naturalistic stagings of the plays of Anton Chekhov and Maxim Gorky, Stanislavski remained dissatisfied.[xiii]

Both his struggles with Chekhov'south drama (out of which his notion of subtext emerged) and his experiments with Symbolism encouraged a greater attention to "inner action" and a more intensive investigation of the actor's process.[14] He began to develop the more actor-centred techniques of "psychological realism" and his focus shifted from his productions to rehearsal process and pedagogy.[15] He pioneered the use of theatre studios equally a laboratory in which to innovate thespian preparation and to experiment with new forms of theatre.[xvi]

Throughout his career, Stanislavski subjected his acting and management to a rigorous process of artistic self-analysis and reflection.[17] His system of acting developed out of his persistent efforts to remove the blocks that he encountered in his performances, get-go with a major crisis in 1906.[18]

Stanislavski eventually came to organise his techniques into a coherent, systematic methodology, which congenital on iii major strands of influence: (1) the managing director-centred, unified aesthetic and disciplined, ensemble approach of the Meiningen company; (2) the actor-centred realism of the Maly; and (iii) the Naturalistic staging of Antoine and the independent theatre movement.[19] Stanislavski'south earliest reference to his system appears in 1909, the same year that he first incorporated it into his rehearsal process.[20] Olga Knipper and many of the other MAT actors in that product—Ivan Turgenev's comedy A Calendar month in the Country—resented Stanislavski's use of it as a laboratory in which to carry his experiments.[21] At Stanislavski's instistence, the MAT went on to adopt his system as its official rehearsal method in 1911.[22]

Experiencing the role [edit]

A rediscovery of the 'organisation' must begin with the realization that it is the questions which are important, the logic of their sequence and the consequent logic of the answers. A ritualistic repetition of the exercises independent in the published books, a solemn analysis of a text into bits and tasks will not ensure artistic success, let alone artistic vitality. It is the Why? and What for? that matter and the acknowledgement that with every new play and every new part the process begins again.

—Jean Benedetti, acting teacher and Stanislavski'due south biographer.[23]

This system is based on "experiencing a role."[24] This principle demands that as an actor, you should "experience feelings analogous" to those that the graphic symbol experiences "each and every fourth dimension you lot do it."[25] Stanislavski approvingly quotes Tommaso Salvini when he insists that actors should really feel what they portray "at every performance, be it the first or the thousandth."[25]

Not all emotional experiences are appropriate, therefore, since the actor's feelings must be relevant and parallel to the character's experience.[26] Stanislavski identified Salvini, whose performance of Othello he had admired in 1882, as the finest representative of the fine art of experiencing approach.[27] Salvini had disagreed with the French actor Cocquelin over the office emotion ought to play—whether information technology should be experienced only in rehearsals when preparing the office (Cocquelin's position) or whether it ought to exist felt in functioning (Salvini's position).

On this ground, Stanislavski contrasts his own "art of experiencing" approach with what he calls the "art of representation" practised by Cocquelin (in which experiencing forms one of the preparatory stages but) and "hack" acting (in which experiencing plays no part).[28] Stanislavski defines the actor'south "experiencing" as playing "credibly", by which he means "thinking, wanting, striving, behaving truthfully, in logical sequence in a human way, inside the character, and in complete parallel to it", such that the actor begins to experience "every bit one with" the role.[25]

Stanislavski'southward arroyo seeks to stimulate the will to create anew and to actuate subconscious processes sympathetically and indirectly by means of witting techniques.[29] In this style, it attempts to recreate in the player the inner, psychological causes of behaviour, rather than to nowadays a simulacrum of their effects.[30] Stanislavski recognised that in practise a performance is unremarkably a mixture of the three trends (experiencing, representation, hack) but felt that experiencing should predominate.[31]

The range of preparation exercises and rehearsal practices that are designed to encourage and support "experiencing the function" resulted from many years of sustained inquiry and experiment. Many may be discerned as early equally 1905 in Stanislavski'southward letter of advice to Vera Kotlyarevskaya on how to arroyo the part of Charlotta in Anton Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard:

First of all you must live the role without spoiling the words or making them commonplace. Close yourself off and play whatever goes through your head. Imagine the following scene: Pishchik has proposed to Charlotta, at present she is his bride... How will she behave? Or: Charlotta has been dismissed but finds other employment in a circus of a café-chantant. How does she do gymnastics or sing little songs? Do your hair in diverse ways and try to find in yourself things which remind you of Charlotta. You will be reduced to despair twenty times in your search merely don't give up. Make this German adult female you love so much speak Russian and find how she pronounces words and what are the special characteristics of her voice communication. Remember to play Charlotta in a dramatic moment of her life. Try to brand her weep sincerely over her life. Through such an image y'all will discover all the whole range of notes you demand.[32]

Exercises such as these, though never seen directly onstage or screen, set the role player for a functioning based on experiencing the role. Experiencing constitutes the inner, psychological aspect of a role, which is endowed with the actor's private feelings and own personality.[25] Stanislavski argues that this creation of an inner life should be the actor'south start concern.[33] He groups together the grooming exercises intended to support the emergence of experiencing under the general term "psychotechnique".

Given circumstances and the Magic If [edit]

When I give a 18-carat answer to the if, so I practice something, I am living my ain personal life. At moments similar that in that location is no character. Only me. All that remains of the character and the play are the situation, the life circumstances, all the balance is mine, my own concerns, as a role in all its artistic moments depends on a living person, i.e., the player, and not the dead abstraction of a person, i.e., the part.

Stanislavski's "Magic If" describes an ability to imagine oneself in a fix of fictional circumstances and to envision the consequences of finding oneself facing that situation in terms of action.[35] These circumstances are "given" to the actor principally by the playwright or screenwriter, though they too include choices made by the director, designers, and other actors. The ensemble of these circumstances that the actor is required to comprise into a performance are called the "given circumstances". "Information technology is like shooting fish in a barrel," Carnicke warns, "to misunderstand this notion as a directive to play oneself."[36] A human existence'south circumstances condition his or her character, this approach assumes.[37] "Placing oneself in the role does non mean transferring one's own circumstances to the play, but rather incorporating into oneself circumstances other than one'due south own."[38]

In preparation and rehearsal, the actor develops imaginary stimuli, which ofttimes consist of sensory details of the circumstances, in order to provoke an organic, subconscious response in performance.[35] These "inner objects of attention" (oft abbreviated to "inner objects" or "contacts") help to support the emergence of an "unbroken line" of experiencing through a operation, which constitutes the inner life of the office.[35] An "unbroken line" describes the actor's ability to focus attention exclusively on the fictional world of the drama throughout a performance, rather than becoming distracted by the scrutiny of the audience, the presence of a photographic camera crew, or concerns relating to the actor'south experience in the existent world offstage or outside the world of the drama. In a rehearsal procedure, at first, the "line" of experiencing will be patchy and broken; as preparation and rehearsals develop, it becomes increasingly sustained and unbroken.

When experiencing the role, the histrion is fully absorbed by the drama and immersed in its fictional circumstances; information technology is a land that the psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi calls "period."[39] Stanislavski used the term "I am being" to describe it. He encouraged this absorption through the cultivation of "public solitude" and its "circles of attention" in preparation and rehearsal, which he adult from the meditation techniques of yoga.[40] Stanislavski did not encourage complete identification with the office, however, since a genuine belief that one had become someone else would be pathological.[41]

Tasks and action [edit]

Activity is the very basis of our art, and with it our creative work must begin.

An actor's performance is animated past the pursuit of a sequence of "tasks" (identified in Elizabeth Hapgood's original English language translation as "objectives"). A job is a problem, embedded in the "given circumstances" of a scene, that the character needs to solve. This is often framed as a question: "What practise I need to brand the other person exercise?" or "What exercise I desire?"

In preparing and rehearsing for a role, actors break up their parts into a series of discrete "bits", each of which is distinguished by the dramatic upshot of a "reversal signal", when a major revelation, conclusion, or realisation alters the direction of the action in a significant way. (Each "flake" or "beat" corresponds to the length of a unmarried motivation [task or objective]. The term "bit" is often mistranslated in the US as "beat", as a upshot of its pronunciation in a heavy Russian accent past Stanislavski's students who taught his system there.)

A task must exist engaging and stimulating imaginatively to the thespian, Stanislavski argues, such that it compels action:

One of the most of import creative principles is that an histrion's tasks must always be able to coax his feelings, will and intelligence, then that they become function of him, since only they take creative ability. [...] The task must provide the means to agitate creative enthusiasm. Like a magnet, it must take great drawing ability and must then stimulate endeavours, movements and deportment. The task is the spur to creative activity, its motivation. The task is a decoy for feeling. [...] The task sparks off wishes and inner impulses (spurs) toward artistic attempt. The chore creates the inner sources which are transformed naturally and logically into activeness. The chore is the eye of the bit, that makes the pulse of the living organism, the role, beat.[44]

Stanislavski's production of A Month in the Country (1909) was a watershed in his artistic development, constituting, according to Magarshack, "the first play he produced according to his system."[45] Breaking the MAT'south tradition of open rehearsals, he prepared Turgenev's play in individual.[46] The bandage began with a give-and-take of what Stanislavski would come to call the "through-line" for the characters (their emotional development and the style they change over the course of the play).[47] This production is the primeval recorded instance of his practice of analysing the action of the script into discrete "bits".[42]

The pursuit of one task subsequently another forms a through-line of activity, which unites the discrete bits into an unbroken continuum of experience. This through-line drives towards a task operating at the calibration of the drama equally a whole and is called, for that reason, a "supertask" (or "superobjective"). A performance consists of the inner aspects of a role (experiencing) and its outer aspects ("apotheosis") that are united in the pursuit of the supertask.

In his later work, Stanislavski focused more attentively on the underlying patterns of dramatic conflict. He adult a rehearsal technique that he chosen "agile analysis" in which actors would improvise these conflictual dynamics. In the American developments of Stanislavski'southward organisation—such equally that found in Uta Hagen's Respect for Acting, for instance—the forces opposing a characters' pursuit of their tasks are called "obstacles".

Method of Physical Activity [edit]

Sketches past Stanislavski in his 1929—1930 product plan for Othello, which offers the first exposition of what came to be known every bit his Method of Physical Action rehearsal procedure.

Stanislavski further elaborated his arrangement with a more physically grounded rehearsal procedure that came to exist known as the "Method of Physical Action".[v] The term itself was just applied to this rehearsal process after Stanislavski'southward decease. Benedetti indicates that though Stanislavski had adult it since 1916, he first explored it practically in the early on 1930s.[48] The roots of the Method of Physical Activeness stretch dorsum to Stanislavski's earliest piece of work as a director (in which he focused consistently on a play's action) and the techniques he explored with Vsevolod Meyerhold and later with the Outset Studio of the MAT before the First World War (such equally the experiments with improvisation and the exercise of anatomising scripts in terms of bits and tasks).[49]

Benedetti emphasises the continuity of the Method of Concrete Activeness with Stanislavski's before approaches; Whyman argues that "there is no justification in Stanislavsky's [sic] writings for the assertion that the method of physical actions represents a rejection of his previous work".[50] Stanislavski get-go explored the approach practically in his rehearsals for Three Sisters and Carmen in 1934 and Molière in 1935.[51]

Minimising at-the-table discussions, he now encouraged an "agile analysis", in which the sequence of dramatic situations are improvised.[vi] "The best analysis of a play", Stanislavski argued, "is to accept action in the given circumstances."[7] He continues:

For in the process of action the actor gradually obtains the mastery over the inner incentives of the actions of the character he is representing, evoking in himself the emotions and thoughts which resulted in those actions. In such a case, an actor not merely understands his function, but too feels it, and that is the almost of import thing in creative work on the stage.[52]

Only as the First Studio, led past his banana and close friend Leopold Sulerzhitsky, had provided the forum in which he developed his initial ideas for his organisation during the 1910s, he hoped to secure his concluding legacy by opening another studio in 1935, in which the Method of Physical Action would be taught.[53] The Opera-Dramatic Studio embodied the most consummate implementation of the training exercises described in his manuals.[54] Meanwhile, the transmission of his before piece of work via the students of the First Studio was revolutionising acting in the West.[55] With the inflow of Socialist realism in the USSR, the MAT and Stanislavski's system were enthroned equally exemplary models.[56]

Many actors routinely equate his organisation with the American Method, although the latter's exclusively psychological techniques dissimilarity sharply with the multivariant, holistic and psychophysical arroyo of the "arrangement", which explores graphic symbol and activity both from the 'inside out' and the 'exterior in' and treats the histrion's mind and trunk as parts of a continuum.[57] In response to his characterisation work on Argan in Molière'southward The Imaginary Invalid in 1913, Stanislavski concluded that "a character is sometimes formed psychologically, i.due east. from the inner image of the role, but at other times it is discovered through purely external exploration."[58] In fact Stanislavski found that many of his students who were "method acting" were having many mental problems, and instead encouraged his students to shake off the grapheme afterward rehearsing.

Theatre studios and the evolution of Stanislavski's system [edit]

Members of Stanislavski'due south Showtime Studio in 1915, a pedagogical institution in which elements of the organisation were showtime adult and taught.

I may add that information technology is my business firm confidence that it is incommunicable today for anyone to become an actor worthy of the time in which he is living, an actor on whom such great demands are made, without going through a course of study in a studio.

Kickoff Studio [edit]

The Outset Studio of the Moscow Art Theatre (MAT) was a theatre studio that Stanislavski created in 1912 in order to research and develop his system.[60] Information technology was conceived as a infinite in which pedagogical and exploratory piece of work could exist undertaken in isolation from the public, in order to develop new forms and techniques.[61] Stanislavski subsequently defined a theatre studio as "neither a theatre nor a dramatic school for beginners, merely a laboratory for the experiments of more or less trained actors."[62] The First Studio'due south founding members included Yevgeny Vakhtangov, Michael Chekhov, Richard Boleslavsky, and Maria Ouspenskaya, all of whom would exert a considerable influence on the subsequent history of theatre.[63]

Leopold Sulerzhitsky, who had been Stanislavski'due south personal assistant since 1905 and whom Maxim Gorky had nicknamed "Suler", was selected to lead the studio.[64] In a focused, intense atmosphere, its piece of work emphasised experimentation, improvisation, and self-discovery.[65] Until his death in 1938, Suler taught the elements of Stanislavski's arrangement in its germinal form: relaxation, concentration of attending, imagination, advice, and emotion memory.[66] On becoming contained from the MAT in 1923, the company re-named itself the Second Moscow Art Theatre, though Stanislavski came to regard it every bit a betrayal of his principles.[67]

Opera Studio [edit]

The Russian singer Feodor Chaliapin, whose approach Stanislavski hoped to combine with his organization, in lodge to show its universality in the crucible of the bamboozlement and conventionality of opera.

Benedetti argues that a significant influence on the evolution of Stanislavski's system came from his experience teaching and directing at his Opera Studio.[68] He created it in 1918 under the auspices of the Bolshoi Theatre, though information technology afterward severed its connexion with the theatre.[69] Stanislavski worked with his Opera Studio in the two rehearsal rooms of his house on Carriage Row (prior to his eviction in March 1921).[70] His brother and sis, Vladimir and Zinaïda, ran the studio and also taught there.[71] It accepted young members of the Bolshoi and students from the Moscow Conservatory.[71] Stanislavski too invited Serge Wolkonsky to teach wording and Lev Pospekhin (from the Bolshoi Ballet) to teach expressive motility and trip the light fantastic.[71]

Past means of his system, Stanislavski aimed to unite the work of Mikhail Shchepkin and Feodor Chaliapin.[71] He hoped that the successful application of his system to opera, with its inescapable conventionality, would demonstrate the universality of his methodology.[71] From his experience at the Opera Studio he developed his notion of "tempo-rhythm", which he was to develop about substantially in part two of An Actor's Piece of work (1938).[72]

A series of 30-two lectures that he delivered to this studio between 1919 and 1922 were recorded past Konkordia Antarova and published in 1939; they have been translated into English equally On the Art of the Stage (1950).[73] Pavel Rumiantsev—who joined the studio in 1920 from the Conservatory and sang the title function in its production of Eugene Onegin in 1922—documented its activities until 1932; his notes were published in 1969 and appear in English under the title Stanislavski on Opera (1975).[72]

Opera—Dramatic Studio [edit]

Near the terminate of his life Stanislavski created an Opera—Dramatic Studio in his own flat on Leontievski Lane (now known as "Stanislavski Lane"), under the auspices of which between 1935 and 1938 he offered a significant course in the system in its concluding class.[74]

Given the difficulties he had with completing his manual for actors, in 1935 while recuperating in Nice Stanislavski decided that he needed to institute a new studio if he was to ensure his legacy.[75] "Our school will produce not only individuals," he wrote, "only a whole visitor."[76] In June he began to instruct a group of teachers in the preparation techniques of the 'system' and the rehearsal processes of the Method of Physical Action.[77] The teachers had some previous feel studying the system as private students of Stanislavski's sister, Zinaïda.[78] His wife, Lilina, also joined the teaching staff.[79] Xx students (out of 3500 auditionees) were accepted for the dramatic department of the Opera—Dramatic Studio, where classes began on 15 November 1935.[80] Its members included the time to come creative director of the MAT, Mikhail Kedrov, who played Tartuffe in Stanislavski'southward unfinished production of Molière'southward play (which, later on Stanislavski'southward expiry, he completed).[81]

Jean Benedetti argues that the class at the Opera—Dramatic Studio is "Stanislavski'due south true attestation."[82] Stanislavski arranged a curriculum of 4 years of report that focused exclusively on technique and method—two years of the work detailed subsequently in An Actor's Work on Himself and ii of that in An Actor'due south Work on a Role.[78] Once the students were acquainted with the training techniques of the start 2 years, Stanislavski selected Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet for their work on roles.[83] He "insisted that they work on classics, considering, 'in any piece of work of genius you find an ideal logic and progression.'"[83] He worked with the students in March and Apr 1937, focusing on their sequences of physical deportment, on establishing their through-lines of action, and on rehearsing scenes afresh in terms of the actors' tasks.[84] "They must avert at all costs," Benedetti explains, "merely repeating the externals of what they had done the day before."[83]

Legacy [edit]

Many of Stanislavski's old students taught acting in the United States, including Richard Boleslavsky, Maria Ouspenskaya, Michael Chekhov, Andrius Jilinsky, Leo Bulgakov, Varvara Bulgakov, Vera Solovyova, and Tamara Daykarhanova.[86] Others—including Stella Adler and Joshua Logan—"grounded careers in brief periods of study" with him.[86] Boleslavsky and Ouspenskaya went on to found the influential American Laboratory Theatre (1923—1933) in New York, which they modeled on the First Studio.[87] Boleslavsky'south transmission Acting: The First Half-dozen Lessons (1933) played a significant office in the transmission of Stanislavski's ideas and practices to the Due west. In the Soviet Union, meanwhile, another of Stanislavski'southward students, Maria Knebel, sustained and developed his rehearsal procedure of "active analysis", despite its formal prohibition by the state.[88]

In the Usa, one of Boleslavsky'due south students, Lee Strasberg, went on to co-plant the Group Theatre (1931—1940) in New York with Harold Clurman and Cheryl Crawford. Together with Stella Adler and Sanford Meisner, Strasberg developed the primeval of Stanislavski's techniques into what came to be known as "Method acting" (or, with Strasberg, more normally simply "the Method"), which he taught at the Actors Studio.[89] Boleslavsky thought that Strasberg over-emphasised the role of Stanislavski'south technique of "emotion retention" at the expense of dramatic activity.[ninety]

Every afternoon for five weeks during the summer of 1934 in Paris, Stanislavski worked with Adler, who had sought his assist with the blocks she had confronted in her performances.[91] Given the emphasis that emotion retentivity had received in New York, Adler was surprised to find that Stanislavski rejected the technique except as a final resort.[91] He recommended an indirect pathway to emotional expression via physical action.[92] Stanislavski confirmed this emphasis in his discussions with Harold Clurman in late 1935.[93] The news that this was Stanislavski's approach would accept pregnant repercussions in the US; Strasberg angrily rejected it and refused to alter his arroyo.[91] Adler'southward most famous pupil was role player Marlon Brando. Later, many American and British actors inspired by Brando were also adepts of Stanislavski teachings, including James Dean, Julie Harris, Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel, Dustin Hoffman, Ellen Burstyn, Daniel Day-Lewis and Marilyn Monroe.

Meisner, an player at the Group Theatre, went on to teach method acting at New York's Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre, where he developed an accent on what Stanislavski called "communication" and "adaptation" in an approach that he branded the "Meisner technique".[94] Among the actors trained in the Meisner technique are Robert Duvall, Tom Cruise, Diane Keaton and Sydney Pollack.

Though many others have contributed to the evolution of method acting, Strasberg, Adler, and Meisner are associated with "having gear up the standard of its success", though each emphasised different aspects: Strasberg developed the psychological aspects, Adler, the sociological, and Meisner, the behavioral.[95] While each strand of the American tradition vigorously sought to distinguish itself from the others, they all share a basic set up of assumptions that allows them to be grouped together.[96]

The relations betwixt these strands and their acolytes, Carnicke argues, accept been characterised by a "seemingly endless hostility amid warring camps, each proclaiming themselves his merely truthful disciples, like religious fanatics, turning dynamic ideas into rigid dogma."[97] Stanislavski'southward Method of Physical Activeness formed the central function of Sonia Moore'due south attempts to revise the general impression of Stanislavski'south system arising from the American Laboratory Theatre and its teachers.[98]

Carnicke analyses at length the splintering of the organisation into its psychological and physical components, both in the U.s.a. and the USSR. She argues instead for its psychophysical integration. She suggests that Moore's arroyo, for example, accepts uncritically the teleological accounts of Stanislavski's work (according to which early experiments in emotion memory were 'abandoned' and the approach 'reversed' with a discovery of the scientific approach of behaviourism). These accounts, which emphasised the physical aspects at the expense of the psychological, revised the organisation in club to render it more palatable to the dialectical materialism of the Soviet state. In a like way, other American accounts re-interpreted Stanislavski's piece of work in terms of the prevailing popular interest in Freudian psychoanalysis.[99] Strasberg, for example, dismissed the "Method of Physical Action" equally a step backwards.[100] Just equally an emphasis on action had characterised Stanislavski's First Studio training, so emotion memory connected to be an element of his system at the end of his life, when he recommended to his directing students:

Ane must requite actors various paths. 1 of these is the path of action. There is too another path: you lot can move from feeling to action, arousing feeling commencement.[101]

"Activity, 'if', and 'given circumstances'", "emotion retention", "imagination", and "communication" all appear equally capacity in Stanislavski's manual An Histrion's Work (1938) and all were elements of the systematic whole of his approach, which resists piece of cake schematisation.[102]

Stanislavski's work made little impact on British theatre before the 1960s.[103] Joan Littlewood and Ewan MacColl were the starting time to introduce Stanislavski's techniques at that place.[104] In their Theatre Workshop, the experimental studio that they founded together, Littlewood used improvisation as a means to explore grapheme and situation and insisted that her actors define their character's behaviour in terms of a sequence of tasks.[104] The role player Michael Redgrave was also an early advocate of Stanislavski's arroyo in Britain.[105] The first drama school in the country to teach an approach to acting based on Stanislavski'southward system and its American derivatives was Drama Centre London, where it is still taught today.[106]

Many other theatre practitioners take been influenced by Stanislavski's ideas and practices. Jerzy Grotowski regarded Stanislavski as the primary influence on his ain theatre piece of work.[104]

Criticism of Stanislavski'southward theories [edit]

Mikhail Bulgakov, writing in the manner of a roman à clef, includes in his novel Black Snowfall (Театральный роман) satires of Stanislavski's methods and theories. In the novel, the stage director, Ivan Vasilyevich, uses acting exercises while directing a play, which is titled Blackness Snow. The playwright in the novel sees the interim exercises taking over the rehearsals, becoming madcap, and causing the playwright to rewrite parts of his play. The playwright is concerned that his script is being lost in all of this. When he finally sees the play performed, the playwright reflects that the director's theories would ultimately lead the audition to become so absorbed in the reality of the performances that they forget the play. Bulgakov had the actual feel, in 1926, of having a play that he had written, The White Guard, directed with bully success past Stanislavski at the Moscow Arts Theatre.[107]

Come across also [edit]

  • List of productions directed by Konstantin Stanislavski
  • List of acting techniques
  • Naturalism
  • Realism
  • Socialist realism
  • Russian symbolism
  • Symbolism
  • Russian advanced
  • Experimental theatre
  • Twentieth-century theatre
  • Theatre practitioner
  • Method acting
  • Constantin Stanislavski
  • Lee Strasberg
  • Sanford Meisner
  • Ivana Chubbuck
  • Ion Cojar

Notes [edit]

  1. ^ Whyman (2008, 38–42) and Carnicke (1998, 99).
  2. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 201), Carnicke (2000, 17), and Stanislavski (1938, xvi—36 "fine art of representation" corresponds to Mikhail Shchepkin'due south "actor of reason" and his "art of experiencing" corresponds to Shchepkin's "actor of feeling"; run into Benedetti (1999a, 202).
  3. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 170).
  4. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 182—183).
  5. ^ a b Benedetti (1999a, 325, 360) and (2005, 121) and Roach (1985, 197—198, 205, 211—215).
  6. ^ a b Benedetti (1999a, 355—256), Carnicke (2000, 32—33), Leach (2004, 29), Magarshack (1950, 373—375), and Whyman (2008, 242).
  7. ^ a b Quoted past Carnicke (1998, 156).
  8. ^ Carnicke (1998, one, 167), Counsell (1996, 24), and Milling and Ley (2001, i).
  9. ^ Counsell (1996, 25).
  10. ^ Benedetti (1989, five).
  11. ^ Benedetti (1989, 18, 22—23), (1999a, 42), and (1999b, 257), Carnicke (2000, 29), Gordon (2006, forty—42), Leach (2004, xiv), and Magarshack (1950, 73—74). As Carnicke emphasises, Stanislavski'southward early prompt-books, such as that for the production of The Seagull in 1898, "draw movements, gestures, mise en scène, non inner action and subtext" (2000, 29). The principle of a unity of all elements (or what Richard Wagner chosen a Gesamtkunstwerk) survived into Stanislavski's system, while the exclusively external technique did non; although his piece of work shifted from a managing director-centred to an actor-centred arroyo, his organization nonetheless valorises the absolute say-so of the manager.
  12. ^ Milling and Ley (2001, 5). Stanislavski and Nemirovich found they had this do in mutual during their legendary eighteen-60 minutes conversation that led to the establishment of the MAT.
  13. ^ Bablet (1962, 134), Benedetti (1989, 23—26) and (1999a, 130), and Gordon (2006, 37—42). Carnicke emphasises the fact that Stanislavski's great productions of Chekhov's plays were staged without the use of his organization (2000, 29).
  14. ^ Benedetti (1989, 25—39) and (1999a, part two), Braun (1982, 62—63), Carnicke (1998, 29) and (2000, 21—22, 29—30, 33), and Gordon (2006, 41—45). For an caption of "inner action", see Stanislavski (1957, 136); for subtext, see Stanislavski (1938, 402—413).
  15. ^ Benedetti (1989, thirty) and (1999a, 181, 185—187), Counsell (1996, 24—27), Gordon (2006, 37—38), Magarshack (1950, 294, 305), and Milling and Ley (2001, 2).
  16. ^ Carnicke (2000, thirteen), Gauss (1999, iii), Gordon (2006, 45—46), Milling and Ley (2001, 6), and Rudnitsky (1981, 56).
  17. ^ Benedetti (1989, 1) and (2005, 109), Gordon (2006, 40—41), and Milling and Ley (2001, 3—5).
  18. ^ Benedetti (1989, 1), Gordon (2006, 42—43), and Roach (1985, 204).
  19. ^ Benedetti (1989, 5—11, 15, 18) and (1999b, 254), Braun (1982, 59), Carnicke (2000, 13, 16, 29), Counsell (1996, 24), Gordon (2006, 38, xl—41), and Innes (2000, 53—54).
  20. ^ Carnicke (1998, 72) and Whyman (2008, 262).
  21. ^ Worrall (1996, 185).
  22. ^ Milling and Ley (2001, half-dozen).
  23. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 376–377).
  24. ^ Milling and Ley (2001, 7) and Stanislavski (1938, 16–36).
  25. ^ a b c d east Stanislavski (1938, xix)
  26. ^ Stanslavski (1938, 27).
  27. ^ Stanislavski (1938, 19) and Benedetti (1999a, 18).
  28. ^ Counsell (1996, 25–26). Despite this distinction, however, Stanislavskian theatre, in which actors "feel" their roles, remains "representational" in the broader disquisitional sense; see Stanislavski (1938, 22–27) and the commodity Presentational interim and Representational acting for a fuller give-and-take of the different uses of these terms. In addition, for Stanislavski's formulation of "experiencing the role" see Carnicke (1998), especially chapter v. While Stanislavski recognises the art of representation equally being capable of the creation of genuine works of art, he rejects its technique as "either too showy or also superficial" to be capable of the "expression of deep passions" and the "subtlety and depth of homo feelings"; see Stanislavski (1938, 26–27).
  29. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 169) and Counsell (1996, 27). Many scholars of Stanislavski'due south piece of work stress that his formulation of the "unconscious" (or "subconscious", "superconscious") is pre-Freudian; Benedetti, for example, explains that "Stanislavski just meant those regions of the listen which are non attainable to conscious remember or the will. Information technology had zilch to do with notions of latent content advanced past Freud, whose works he did not know" (1999a, 169).
  30. ^ Benedetti (2005, 124) and Counsell (1996, 27).
  31. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 202, 342).
  32. ^ Alphabetic character to Vera Kotlyarevskaya, thirteen July [O.Southward. ane July] 1905; quoted by Benedetti (1999a, 168).
  33. ^ Counsell (1996, 26–27) and Stanislavski (1938, nineteen)
  34. ^ Alphabetic character to Gurevich, ix April 1931; quoted by Benedetti (1999a, 338).
  35. ^ a b c Counsell (1996, 28).
  36. ^ Carnicke (1998, 163).
  37. ^ Carnicke (1998, 163–164).
  38. ^ Carnicke (1998, 164).
  39. ^ Carnicke (1998, 108).
  40. ^ Leach (2004, 32) and Magarshack (1950, 322).
  41. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 202). Benedetti argues that Stanislavski "never succeeded satisfactorily in defining the extent to which an actor identifies with his character and how much of the listen remains detached and maintains theatrical control."
  42. ^ a b Benedetti (1999a, 190).
  43. ^ Stanislavski, quoted by Magarshack (1950, 397).
  44. ^ Stanislavski (1957, 138).
  45. ^ Carnicke (2000, 30—31), Gordon (2006, 45—48), Leach (2004, xvi—17), Magarshack (1950, 304—306), and Worrall (1996, 181—182). In his notes on the production's rehearsals, Stanislavski wrote that: "There will be no mises-en-scènes. A demote or divan at which people arrive, sit and speak—no audio effects, no details, no incidentals. Everything based on perezhivaniye [experiencing] and intonations. The whole product is woven from the sense-impressions and feelings of the author and the actors."; quoted by Worrall (1996, 192).
  46. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 190), Leach (2004, 17), and Magarshack (1950, 305).
  47. ^ Leach (2004, 17) and Magarshack (1950, 307).
  48. ^ Benedetti (1998, 104) and (1999a, 356, 358). Gordon argues the shift in working-method happened during the 1920s (2006, 49—55). Vasili Toporkov, an thespian who trained nether Stanislavski in this approach, provides in his Stanislavski in Rehearsal (2004) a detailed account of the Method of Physical Action at work in Stanislavski'due south rehearsals.
  49. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 360).
  50. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 360) and Whyman (2008, 247).
  51. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 356, 358).
  52. ^ Stanislavski, quoted by Magarshack (1950, 375).
  53. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 359—360), Golub (1998, 1033), Magarshack (1950, 387—391), and Whyman (2008, 136).
  54. ^ Benedetti (1998, xii) and (1999a, 359—363) and Magarshack (1950, 387—391), and Whyman (2008, 136). Benedetti argues that the course at the Opera-Dramatic Studio is "Stanislavski's true testament". His book Stanislavski and the Player (1998) offers a reconstruction of the studio's course.
  55. ^ Carnicke (1998, i, 167) and (2000, xiv), Counsell (1996, 24—25), Golub (1998, 1032), Gordon (2006, 71—72), Leach (2004, 29), and Milling and Ley (2001, 1—2).
  56. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 354—355), Carnicke (1998, 78, fourscore) and (2000, 14), and Milling and Ley (2001, two).
  57. ^ Benedetti (2005, 147–148), Carnicke (1998, 1, 8) and Whyman (2008, 119–120). Non only actors are subject to this confusion; Lee Strasberg'southward obituary in The New York Times credited Stanislavski with the invention of the Method: "Mr. Strasberg adapted information technology to the American theatre, imposing his refinements, only ever crediting Stanislavsky as his source" (Quoted by Carnicke 1998, ix). Carnicke argues that this "robs Strasberg of the originality in his thinking, while simultaneously obscuring Stanislavsky'south ideas" (1997, 9). Neither the tradition that formed in the USSR nor the American Method, Carnicke argues, "integrated the mind and body of the actor, the corporal and the spiritual, the text and the performance every bit thoroughly or every bit insistently every bit did Stanislavsky himself" (1998, 2). For show of Strasberg's misunderstanding of this attribute of Stanislavski's piece of work, see Strasberg (2010, 150–151).
  58. ^ From a annotation in the Stanislavski archive, quoted past Benedetti (1999a, 216).
  59. ^ Stanislavski (1950, 91).
  60. ^ Gauss (1999, 34), Whymann (2008, 31), and Benedetti (1999, 209—eleven).
  61. ^ Benedetti (1999, 155–156, 209) and Gauss (1999, 111–112).
  62. ^ Stanislavski, quoted past Magarshack (1950, 78); see also Benedetti (1999, 209).
  63. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 210) and Gauss (1999, 32).
  64. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 209) and Leach (2004, 17—18).
  65. ^ Leach (1994, xviii).
  66. ^ Chamberlain (2000, fourscore).
  67. ^ Benedetti (1999, 365), Solovyova (1999, 332—333), and Cody and Sprinchorn (2007, 927). Michael Chekhov led the company between 1924 and 1928. A conclusion by the People'south Commissars and the Primal Committee of the Communist Party closed the theatre in 1936, to the cliffhanger of its members. Encounter Cody and Sprinchorn (2007, 927), Solovyova (1999, 331–332), and Benedetti (1999, 365).
  68. ^ Benedetti (1999, 259). Gauss argues that "the students of the Opera Studio attended lessons in the "system" but did not contribute to its forulation" (1999, 4).
  69. ^ The studio underwent a series of name-changes as information technology developed into a total-calibration visitor: in 1924 information technology was renamed the "Stanislavski Opera Studio"; in 1926 information technology became the "Stanislavski Opera Studio-Theatre"; in 1928 it became the Stanislavski Opera Theatre; and in 1941 the theatre merged with Nemirovich'south music studio to go the Stanislavski and Nemirovich-Danchenko Moscow Academic Music Theatre. Nemirovich had created the Moscow Art Theatre Music Studio in 1919, though Stanislavski had no connection to information technology; see Benedetti (1999, 211; 255), Leach (2004, 20), and Stanislavski and Rumyantsev (1975, ten).
  70. ^ Benedetti (1999, 255).
  71. ^ a b c d e Benedetti (1999, 256).
  72. ^ a b Benedetti (1999, 259).
  73. ^ Leach (2004, 51–52) and Benedetti (1999, 256, 259); meet Stanislavski (1950). Konkordia Antarova made the notes on Stanislavski's teaching, which his sis Zinaïda located in 1938. Liubov Gurevich edited them and they were published in 1939.
  74. ^ Benedetti (1998, xii-xiii) and (1999, 359–360).
  75. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 359) and Magarshack (1950, 387).
  76. ^ Letter to Elizabeth Hapgood, quoted in Benedetti (1999a, 363).
  77. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 360) and Magarshack (1950, 388–391). Stanislavski taught them again in the fall.
  78. ^ a b Benedetti (1999a, 363).
  79. ^ Magarshack (1950, 391).
  80. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 362–363).
  81. ^ Solovyova (1999, 355–356).
  82. ^ Benedetti (1998, xii). His book Stanislavski and the Actor (1998) offers a reconstruction of that form.
  83. ^ a b c Benedetti (1999a, 368).
  84. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 368–369).
  85. ^ Blum (1984, 63) and Hayward (1996, 216).
  86. ^ a b Carnicke (1998, 3).
  87. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 283, 286) and Gordon (2006, 71—72).
  88. ^ Carnicke (2010, 99—116).
  89. ^ Krasner (2000, 129—150) and Milling and Ley (2001, four).
  90. ^ Banham (1998, 112). Michael Chekhov, who too founded a theatre studio in the The states, came to decline the use of the role player'southward emotion memory in his later work also; see Chamberlain (2000, 80–81).
  91. ^ a b c Benedetti (1999a, 351) and Gordon (2006, 74).
  92. ^ In his biography of Stanislavski, Jean Benedetti writes: "It has been suggested that Stanislavski deliberately played down the emotional aspects of acting because the woman in front end of him was already over-emotional. The evidence is against this. What Stanislavski told Stella Adler was exactly what he had been telling his actors at home, what indeed he had advocated in his notes for Leonidov in the production program for Othello"; come across Benedetti (1999a, 351).
  93. ^ Benedetti (1999a, 351—352).
  94. ^ Krasner (2000, 142–146) and Postlewait (1998, 719).
  95. ^ Krasner (2000b, 129).
  96. ^ Krasner (2000, 129—150).
  97. ^ Carnicke (1998, v).
  98. ^ Carnicke (1998, 149—) and Moore (1968).
  99. ^ Though Strasberg's ain arroyo demonstrates a clear debt to psychoanalysis, he make it clear in his books that he thinks that the philosophical foundations of Stanislavski's work prevarication in Pavlovian reflex and were unaffected by psychoanalysis.
  100. ^ Carnicke (1998, passim). Carnicke writes: "Merely as it is 'truthful' for Stanislavsky [sic] that action is central to theatre, so is information technology 'true' that emotion is central to his Arrangement [sic]"; (1998, 151).
  101. ^ Quoted by Carnicke (1998, 151);
  102. ^ See Stanislavski (1938), chapters three, ix, four, and 10 respectively, and Carnicke (1998, 151).
  103. ^ Gordon (2006, 71).
  104. ^ a b c Leach (2004, 46).
  105. ^ Benedetti (1999a, xiii) and Leach (2004, 46).
  106. ^ Mekler (1989, 69; 73—75). Drama Centre London'south approach combines Stanislavski's arrangement with the motion work of Rudolf Laban and the graphic symbol typology of Carl Jung to produce a "movement psychology" for the assay and development of characters. As a result, though, its arroyo to characterisation differs significantly from Stanislavski's, moving away from his modernist conception towards a romantic, essentialist treatment; run into Mirodan (1997, 136—170). The schoolhouse'due south piece of work too draws on the work of Joan Littlewood and Theatre Workshop.
  107. ^ Bulgakov (2013)

Sources [edit]

  • Bablet, Denis. 1962. The Theatre of Edward Gordon Craig. Trans. Daphne Woodward. London: Methuen, 1981. ISBN 978-0-413-47880-1.
  • Banham, Martin, ed. 1998. The Cambridge Guide to Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-43437-8.
  • Benedetti, Jean. 1989. Stanislavski: An Introduction. Revised edition. Original edition published in 1982. London: Methuen. ISBN 0-413-50030-6.
  • Benedetti, Jean. 1998. Stanislavski and the Actor. London: Methuen. ISBN 0-413-71160-nine.
  • Benedetti, Jean. 1999a. Stanislavski: His Life and Art. Revised edition. Original edition published in 1988. London: Methuen. ISBN 0-413-52520-1.
  • Benedetti, Jean. 1999b. "Stanislavsky and the Moscow Art Theatre, 1898–1938". In Leach and Borovsky (1999, 254–277).
  • Benedetti, Jean. 2005. The Art of the Player: The Essential History of Acting, From Classical Times to the Present Day. London: Methuen. ISBN 0-413-77336-ane.
  • Blum, Richard A. 1984. American Flick Acting: The Stanislavski Heritage. Studies in Movie theatre 28. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Press.
  • Braun, Edward. 1982. "Stanislavsky and Chekhov". The Director and the Stage: From Naturalism to Grotowski. London: Methuen. ISBN 0-413-46300-1. 59–76.
  • Bulgakov, Mikhail. Black Snow (Театральный роман). Trans. Michael Glenny. Melville Business firm; Reprint edition, 2013. ISBN 978-one-61219-214-7
  • Carnicke, Sharon G. 1998. Stanislavsky in Focus. Russian Theatre Archive Ser. London: Harwood Bookish Publishers. ISBN 90-5755-070-9.
  • Carnicke, Sharon M. 2000. "Stanislavsky's System: Pathways for the Actor". In Hodge (2000, 11–36).
  • Carnicke, Sharon Marie. 2010. "The Knebel Technique: Agile Analysis in Practice." Actor Training. Ed. Alison Hodge. second ed. London: Routledge. 99—116. ISBN 0-415-47168-0.
  • Counsell, Colin. 1996. Signs of Performance: An Introduction to Twentieth-Century Theatre. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-10643-five.
  • Gauss, Rebecca B. 1999. Lear's Daughters: The Studios of the Moscow Fine art Theatre 1905–1927. American Academy Studies ser. 26 Theatre Arts, vol. 29. New York: Peter Lang. ISBN 0-8204-4155-iv.
  • Golub, Spencer. 1998. "Stanislavsky, Konstantin (Sergeevich)". In Banham (1998, 1032–1033).
  • Gordon, Robert. 2006. The Purpose of Playing: Modernistic Acting Theories in Perspective. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-06887-3.
  • Hodge, Alison, ed. 2000. Twentieth-Century Thespian Training. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-19452-0.
  • Knebel, Maria. 2016. "Active Analysis of the Play and the Office." In Thomas (2016).
  • Krasner, David. 2000. "Strasberg, Adler and Meisner: Method Interim". In Hodge (2000, 129–150).
  • Leach, Robert. 2004. Makers of Modern Theatre: An Introduction. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-31241-eight.
  • Leach, Robert, and Victor Borovsky, eds. 1999. A History of Russian Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge Academy Printing. ISBN 0-521-43220-0.
  • Magarshack, David. 1950. Stanislavsky: A Life. London and Boston: Faber, 1986. ISBN 0-571-13791-one.
  • Mekler, Eva. 1989. Masters of the Stage: British Acting Teachers Talk About Their Craft. New York: Grove Weidenfeld. ISBN 0-8021-3190-5.
  • Milling, Jane, and Graham Ley. 2001. Mod Theories of Functioning: From Stanislavski to Boal. Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave. ISBN 0-333-77542-2.
  • Mirodan, Vladimir. 1997. "The Way of Transformation: The Laban—Malmgren Organisation of Dramatic Character Assay." Diss. Academy of London: Royal Holloway College.
  • Moore, Sonia. 1968. Grooming an Actor: The Stanislavski System in Class. New York: The Viking Printing. ISBN 0-670-00249-6.
  • Postlewait, Thomas. 1998. "Meisner, Sanford". In Banham (1998, 719).
  • Roach, Joseph R. 1985. The Role player's Passion: Studies in the Science of Acting. Theater:Theory/Text/Performance Ser. Ann Arbor: Academy of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08244-2.
  • Rudnitsky, Konstantin. 1981. Meyerhold the Director. Trans. George Petrov. Ed. Sydney Schultze. Revised translation of Rezhisser Meierkhol'd. Moscow: Academy of Sciences, 1969. ISBN 0-88233-313-5.
  • Stanislavski, Konstantin. 1938. An Actor'south Work: A Student'southward Diary. Trans. and ed. Jean Benedetti. London and New York: Routledge, 2008. ISBN 0-415-42223-X.
  • Stanislavski, Konstantin. 1950. Stanislavsky on the Art of the Stage. Trans. David Magarshack. London: Faber, 2002. ISBN 0-571-08172-10.
  • Stanislavski, Konstantin. 1957. An Histrion's Work on a Role. Trans. and ed. Jean Benedetti. London and New York: Routledge, 2010. ISBN 0-415-46129-iv.
  • Stanislavski, Konstantin. 1961. Creating a Role. Trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. London: Mentor, 1968. ISBN 0-450-00166-0.
  • Stanislavski, Konstantin. 1963. An Histrion'due south Handbook: An Alphabetical Arrangement of Concise Statements on Aspects of Interim. Ed. and trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. London: Methuen, 1990. ISBN 0-413-63080-3.
  • Stanislavski, Konstantin. 1968. Stanislavski'southward Legacy: A Collection of Comments on a Variety of Aspects of an Actor's Fine art and Life. Ed. and trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. Revised and expanded edition. London: Methuen, 1981. ISBN 0-413-47770-3.
  • Stanislavski, Constantin, and Pavel Rumyantsev. 1975. Stanislavski on Opera. Trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. London: Routledge, 1998. ISBN 0-87830-552-1.
  • Strasberg, Lee. 2010. The Lee Strasberg Notes. Ed. Lola Cohen. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-55186-one.
  • Thomas, James. 2016. A Director'due south Guide to Stanislavsky'due south Agile Analysis. London: Methuen. ISBN 978-1-4742-5659-9.
  • Toporkov, Vasily Osipovich. 2001. Stanislavski in Rehearsal: The Final Years. Trans. Jean Benedetti. London: Methuen. ISBN 0-413-75720-X.
  • Whyman, Rose. 2008. The Stanislavsky System of Acting: Legacy and Influence in Modern Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ISBN 978-0-521-88696-3.

  • Worrall, Nick. 1996. The Moscow Art Theatre. Theatre Production Studies ser. London and NY: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-05598-ix.

External links [edit]

  • The Stanislavski Centre at the Rose Bruford Higher
  • Routledge Performance Archive: Stanislavski

savigethoulluse.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislavski%27s_system