Response to 'Konstantin Stanislavsky'

From my understanding of ‘Konstantin Stanislavsky’, acting is approached in a very different way. Stanislavsky’s interpretation of what acting should compromise of, has been adapted to what he thinks works best from his experience. He noticed how discipline worked well thanks to Ludwig Chronegk and also managed to appreciate how the understanding of blocking paid off due to Fedotov. The theatre he watched very much influenced him into creating work that collectively used the things that worked best in performances. For instance, through using discipline and blocking, he was able to adapt ‘The Seagull’ which had previously been a failure, and managed to create something that was enticing and became a success. The performance wasn’t traditional or like any other play in the sense of stock characters, but instead was inventory and original.

This gave Stanislavsky the confidence to dive deeper into an actor’s ability, thinking not only of their external abilities but also what was being felt internally. He felt as though the actor should be able to create their own emotional connection to a script, from their own past experiences. He wanted actors to relate objects, scents, feelings and tastes to these past experiences in order to allow the actor to embark on the most naturalistic course of performance.

He also found that there should be components to his ‘system’, and that all characters should have a ‘given circumstance’, an ‘objective’, ‘actions’, ‘justification’, ‘adaptation’ and that scripts should be put into different ‘units’.  ‘Given circumstances’, the equivalent to a setting, questions such as ‘who/ where am I?’ can arise. For example, in ‘The Seagull’, Act 1’s setting is in a theatre that overlooks a huge lake. I imagine the theatre to be outside and open.

Having a setting then allows the actor to be spatially aware of what to consider is around them. They can then imagine things such as time of day, which could influence the temperature, and so how the actor may react (e.g if it’s winter and snowing, then the actor would be dressed up in warm clothes and probably be shivering or reacting to the coldness in some type of way). ‘Objectives’ are then used so that the actor has a task that they have to complete. If the objective has not been met by the end of the scene then the scene has been a failure. Putting text into ‘units’ can help separate mood changes and perhaps where one objective ends and another one begins. ‘Actions’ are the starting point to getting into role physically. Stanislavsky broke ‘action’ into 3 different periods:

1.      The period of study – Here research would be done

2.      The period of emotional experience – Relating the character to a past experiences and putting yourself into real life situations in order to conjure up legitimate raw feelings.  An example of this would be when Stanislavsky stayed the night locked in a castle although he found no connection

3.      The period of physical embodiment – After knowing everything about your character, you are able to live and act as them

However, before Stanislavsky’s system is approached, relaxation must first be found. This allows the actor to open themselves up to the willingness of obtaining objectives, given circumstances etc. I understand that Stanislavsky wanted actors to have fun in order to loosen up and to not make anything seem as though it were a task. After all, his system was very much physical, there was no sitting around a table and reading off of a script. He wanted the work he approached to be fresh and exiting, which he managed to achieve.

I have a clear understanding of Stanislavsky’s System, although it was difficult to read and get my head around some of the names. I feel as though now I could attempt this method of acting in a more mature manor compared to how I previously attempted his work with less informative knowledge.