Stanislavski (his stage name) performed and directed as anamateur until the age of 33, when he co-founded the world-famousMoscow Art Theatre (MAT) company withVladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko, following a legendary 18-hour discussion.[5] Its influential tours of Europe (1906) and the US (1923–24), and its landmark productions ofThe Seagull (1898) andHamlet (1911–12), established his reputation and opened new possibilities for the art of the theatre.[6] By means of the MAT, Stanislavski was instrumental in promoting the new Russian drama of his day—principally the work ofAnton Chekhov,Maxim Gorky, andMikhail Bulgakov—to audiences in Moscow and around the world; he also staged acclaimed productions of a wide range of classical Russian and European plays.[7]
He collaborated with the director and designerEdward Gordon Craig and was formative in the development of several other major practitioners, includingVsevolod Meyerhold (whom Stanislavski considered his "sole heir in the theatre"),Yevgeny Vakhtangov, andMichael Chekhov.[8] At the MAT's 30-year anniversary celebrations in 1928, a massive heart attack on-stage put an end to his acting career (though he waited until the curtain fell before seeking medical assistance).[9] He continued to direct, teach, and write about acting until his death a few weeks before the publication of the first volume of his life's great work, the acting manualAn Actor's Work (1938).[10] He was awarded theOrder of the Red Banner of Labour and theOrder of Lenin and was the first to be granted the title ofPeople's Artist of the USSR.[11]
Stanislavski wrote that "there is nothing more tedious than an actor's biography" and that "actors should be banned from talking about themselves".[12] At the request of a US publisher, however, he reluctantly agreed to write his autobiography,My Life in Art (first published in English in 1924 and in a revised, Russian-language edition in 1926), though its account of his artistic development is not always accurate.[13] Three English-language biographies have been published:David Magarshack'sStanislavsky: A Life (1950) ; Jean Benedetti'sStanislavski: His Life and Art (1988, revised and expanded 1999).[14] and Nikolai M Gorchakov's "Stanislavsky Directs" (1954).[d] An out-of-print English translation of Elena Poliakova's 1977 Russian biography of Stanislavski was also published in 1982.
Stanislavski subjected his acting and direction to a rigorous process of artistic self-analysis and reflection.[15] Hissystem[e] of acting developed out of his persistent efforts to remove the blocks that he encountered in his performances, beginning with a major crisis in 1906.[16] He produced his early work using an external, director-centred technique that strove for an organicunity of all its elements—in each production he planned the interpretation of every role,blocking, and themise en scène in detail in advance.[17] He also introduced into the production process a period of discussion and detailed analysis of the play by the cast.[18] Despite the success that this approach brought, particularly with hisNaturalistic stagings of the plays ofAnton Chekhov andMaxim Gorky, Stanislavski remained dissatisfied.[19]
Diagram ofStanislavski's system, based on his "Plan of Experiencing" (1935), showing theinner (left) and outer (right) aspects of a role uniting in the pursuit of a character's overall "supertask" (top) in the drama.
Both his struggles with Chekhov's drama (out of which his notion ofsubtext emerged) and his experiments withSymbolism encouraged a greater attention to "inner action" and a more intensive investigation of the actor's process.[20] He began to develop the more actor-centred techniques of "psychological realism" and his focus shifted from his productions to rehearsal process andpedagogy.[21] He pioneered the use of theatre studios as a laboratory in which to innovate actor training and toexperiment with new forms of theatre.[22] Stanislavski organised his techniques into a coherent,systematic methodology, which built on three major strands of influence: (1) the director-centred, unified aesthetic and disciplined,ensemble approach of theMeiningen company; (2) the actor-centred realism of theMaly; and (3) the Naturalistic staging ofAntoine and the independent theatre movement.[23]
The system cultivates what Stanislavski calls the "art of experiencing" (to which he contrasts the "art of representation").[24] It mobilises the actor'sconscious thought andwill to activate other, less-controllable psychological processes—such as emotional experience andsubconscious behaviour—sympathetically and indirectly.[25] In rehearsal, the actor searches for inner motives to justify action and the definition of what the character seeks to achieve at any given moment (a "task").[26] Stanislavski's earliest reference to his system appears in 1909, the same year that he first incorporated it into his rehearsal process.[27] The MAT adopted it as its official rehearsal method in 1911.[28]
Later, Stanislavski further elaborated the system with a more physically grounded rehearsal process that came to be known as the "Method of Physical Action".[29] Minimising at-the-table discussions, he now encouraged an "active analysis", in which the sequence of dramatic situations areimprovised.[30] "The best analysis of a play", Stanislavski argued, "is to take action in the given circumstances."[31]
Just as the First Studio, led by his assistant and close friendLeopold Sulerzhitsky, had provided the forum in which he developed his initial ideas for the system during the 1910s, he hoped to secure his final legacy by opening another studio in 1935, in which the Method of Physical Action would be taught.[32] The Opera-Dramatic Studio embodied the most complete implementation of the training exercises described in his manuals.[33] Meanwhile, the transmission of his earlier work via the students of the First Studio was revolutionising acting in theWest.[34] With the arrival ofSocialist realism in theUSSR, theMAT and Stanislavski's system were enthroned as exemplary models.[35]
Family background and early influences
Glikeriya Fedotova, a student ofShchepkin, encouraged Stanislavski to rejectinspiration, embrace training and observation, and to "look your partner straight in the eyes, read his thoughts in his eyes, and reply to him in accordance with the expression of his eyes and face."[36]
Stanislavski had a privileged youth, growing up in one of the richest families in Russia, the Alekseyevs.[37] He was born Konstantin Sergeyevich Alekseyev—he adopted the stage name "Stanislavski" in 1884 to keep his performance activities secret from his parents.[38] Up until thecommunist revolution in 1917, Stanislavski often used his inherited wealth to fund his experiments in acting and directing.[39] His family's discouragement meant that he appeared only as anamateur until he was thirty three.[40]
As a child, Stanislavski was interested in thecircus, the ballet, andpuppetry.[41] Later, his family's two private theatres provided a forum for his theatrical impulses.[42] After his debut performance at one in 1877, he started what would become a lifelong series of notebooks filled with critical observations on his acting, aphorisms, and problems—it was from this habit of self-analysis and critique thatStanislavski's system later emerged.[43] Stanislavski chose not to attend university, preferring to work in the family business.[44]
Increasingly interested in "experiencing the role", Stanislavski experimented with maintaining acharacterization in real life.[45] In 1884, he began vocal training underFyodor Komissarzhevsky, with whom he also explored the coordination of body and voice.[46] A year later, Stanislavski briefly studied at the Moscow Theatre School but, disappointed with its approach, he left after little more than two weeks.[47] Instead, he devoted particular attention to the performances of theMaly Theatre, the home of Russianpsychological realism (as developed in the19th century byAlexander Pushkin,Nikolai Gogol andMikhail Shchepkin).[48]
Shchepkin's legacy included a disciplined,ensemble approach, extensive rehearsals, and the use of careful observation, self-knowledge, imagination, and emotion as the cornerstones of the craft.[49] Stanislavski called the Maly his "university".[50] One of Shchepkin's students,Glikeriya Fedotova, taught Stanislavski; she instilled in him the rejection ofinspiration as the basis of the actor's art, stressed the importance of training and discipline, and encouraged the practice of responsive interaction with other actors that Stanislavski came to call "communication".[51] As well as the artists of the Maly, performances given by foreign stars influenced Stanislavski.[52] The effortless, emotive, and clear playing of the ItalianErnesto Rossi, who performed majorShakespearean tragicprotagonists in Moscow in 1877, particularly impressed him.[53] So too didTommaso Salvini's 1882 performance ofOthello.[54]
By now well known as anamateur actor, at the age of twenty-five Stanslavski co-founded a Society of Art and Literature.[55] Under its auspices, he performed in plays byMolière,Schiller,Pushkin, andOstrovsky, as well as gaining his first experiences as a director.[56] He became interested in theaesthetic theories ofVissarion Belinsky, from whom he took his conception of the role of the artist.[57]
On 5 July [O.S. 23 June] 1889, Stanislavski marriedMaria Lilina (the stage name of Maria Petrovna Perevostchikova).[58] Their first child, Xenia, died of pneumonia in May 1890 less than two months after she was born.[59] Their second daughter, Kira, was born on 2 August [O.S. 21 July] 1891.[60] In January 1893, Stanislavski's father died.[61] Their son Igor was born on 26 September [O.S. 14 September] 1894.[62]
In February 1891, Stanislavski directedLeo Tolstoy'sThe Fruits of Enlightenment for the Society of Art and Literature, in what he later described as his first fully independent directorial work.[63] But it was not until 1893 he first met the greatrealist novelist and playwright that became another important influence on him.[64] Five years later theMAT would be his response to Tolstoy's demand for simplicity, directness, and accessibility in art.[65]
Stanislavski's directorial methods at this time were closely modelled on the disciplined,autocratic approach ofLudwig Chronegk, the director of theMeiningen Ensemble.[66] InMy Life in Art (1924), Stanislavski described this approach as one in which the director is "forced to work without the help of the actor".[67] From 1894 onward, Stanislavski began to assemble detailed prompt-books that included a directorial commentary on the entire play and from which not even the smallest detail was allowed to deviate.[68]
Whereas the Ensemble's effects tended toward the grandiose, Stanislavski introducedlyrical elaborations through themise-en-scène that dramatised more mundane and ordinary elements of life, in keeping with Belinsky's ideas about the "poetry of the real".[69] By means of his rigid and detailed control of all theatrical elements, including the strict choreography of the actors' every gesture, in Stanislavski's words "the inner kernel of the play was revealed by itself".[70] Analysing the Society's production ofOthello (1896), Jean Benedetti observes that:
Stanislavski uses the theatre and its technical possibilities as an instrument of expression, a language, in its own right. The dramatic meaning is in the staging itself. [...] He went through the whole play in a completely different way, not relying on the text as such, with quotes from important speeches, not providing a 'literary' explanation, but speaking in terms of the play's dynamic, its action, the thoughts and feelings of theprotagonists, the world in which they lived. His account flowed uninterruptedly from moment to moment.[71]
Benedetti argues that Stanislavski's task at this stage was to unite therealistic tradition of the creative actor inherited fromShchepkin andGogol with the director-centred, organicallyunifiedNaturalistic aesthetic of the Meiningen approach.[59] That synthesis would emerge eventually, but only in the wake of Stanislavski's directorial struggles withSymbolist theatre and an artistic crisis in his work as an actor. "The task of our generation", Stanislavski wrote as he was about to found theMoscow Art Theatre and begin his professional life in the theatre, is "to liberate art from outmoded tradition, from tired cliché and to give greater freedom to imagination and creative ability."[72]
Stanislavski's historic meeting withVladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko on 4 July [O.S. 22 June] 1897 led to the creation of what was called initially the "Moscow Public-Accessible Theatre", but which came to be known as theMoscow Art Theatre (MAT).[73] Their eighteen-hour-long discussion has acquired a legendary status in thehistory of theatre.[74]
Nemirovich was a successful playwright, critic, theatre director, and acting teacher at thePhilharmonic School who, like Stanislavski, was committed to the idea of a popular theatre.[75] Their abilities complemented one another: Stanislavski brought his directorial talent for creating vivid stage images and selecting significant details; Nemirovich, his talent for dramatic and literary analysis, his professional expertise, and his ability to manage a theatre.[76] Stanislavski later compared their discussions to theTreaty of Versailles, their scope was so wide-ranging; they agreed on the conventional practices they wished to abandon and, on the basis of the working method they found they had in common, defined the policy of their new theatre.[77]
Stanislavski and Nemirovich planned a professional company with anensemble ethos that discouraged individual vanity; they would create arealistic theatre of international renown, with popular prices for seats, whose organicallyunified aesthetic would bring together the techniques of theMeiningen Ensemble and those ofAndré Antoine'sThéâtre Libre (which Stanislavski had seen during trips to Paris).[78] Nemirovich assumed that Stanislavski would fund the theatre as a privately owned business, but Stanislavski insisted on alimited,joint stock company.[79]Viktor Simov, whom Stanislavski had met in 1896, was engaged as the company's principaldesigner.[80]
In his opening speech on the first day of rehearsals, 26 June [O.S. 14 June] 1898, Stanislavski stressed the "social character" of their collective undertaking.[81] In an atmosphere more like a university than a theatre, as Stanislavski described it, the company was introduced to his working method of extensive reading and research and detailed rehearsals in which the action was defined at the table before being explored physically.[82] Stanislavski's lifelong relationship withVsevolod Meyerhold began during these rehearsals; by the end of June, Meyerhold was so impressed with Stanislavski's directorial skills that he declared him a genius.[82]
The lasting significance of Stanislavski's early work at theMAT lies in its development of aNaturalistic performance mode.[83] In 1898, Stanislavski co-directed withNemirovich the first of his productions of the work ofAnton Chekhov.[84] TheMAT production ofThe Seagull was a crucial milestone for the fledgling company that has been described as "one of the greatest events in the history of Russian theatre and one of the greatest new developments in thehistory of world drama."[85] Despite its 80 hours of rehearsal—a considerable length by the standards of the conventional practice of the day—Stanislavski felt it was under-rehearsed.[86] The production's success was due to the fidelity of its delicate representation of everyday life, its intimate,ensemble playing, and the resonance of its mood of despondent uncertainty with the psychological disposition of the Russian intelligentsia of the time.[87]
Stanislavski went on to direct the successful premières of Chekhov's other major plays:Uncle Vanya in 1899 (in which he played Astrov),Three Sisters in 1901 (playing Vershinin), andThe Cherry Orchard in 1904 (playing Gaev).[88] Stanislavski's encounter with Chekhov's drama proved crucial to the creative development of both men. His ensemble approach and attention to the psychological realities of its characters revived Chekhov's interest in writing for the stage, while Chekhov's unwillingness to explain or expand on the text forced Stanislavski to digbeneath its surface in ways that were new in theatre.[89]
In response to Stanislavski's encouragement,Maxim Gorky promised to launch his playwrighting career with the MAT.[91] In 1902, Stanislavski directed the première productions of the first two of Gorky's plays,The Philistines andThe Lower Depths.[92] As part of the rehearsal preparations for the latter, Stanislavski took the company to visitKhitrov Market, where they talked to its down-and-outs and soaked up its atmosphere of destitution.[93] Stanislavski based his characterisation of Satin on an ex-officer he met there, who had fallen into poverty through gambling.[94]The Lower Depths was a triumph that matched the production ofThe Seagull four years earlier, though Stanislavski regarded his own performance as external and mechanical.[95]
The productions ofThe Cherry Orchard andThe Lower Depths remained in the MAT's repertoire for decades.[96] Along with Chekhov and Gorky, the drama ofHenrik Ibsen formed an important part of Stanislavski's work at this time—in its first two decades, the MAT staged more plays by Ibsen than any other playwright.[97] In its first decade, Stanislavski directedHedda Gabler (in which he played Løvborg),An Enemy of the People (playing Dr Stockmann, his favorite role),The Wild Duck, andGhosts.[98] "More's the pity I was not a Scandinavian and never saw how Ibsen was played in Scandinavia," Stanislavski wrote, because "those who have been there tell me that he is interpreted as simply, as true to life, as we play Chekhov".[99] He also staged other important Naturalistic works, includingGerhart Hauptmann'sDrayman Henschel,Lonely People, andMichael Kramer andLeo Tolstoy'sThe Power of Darkness.[100]
Symbolism and the Theatre-Studio
In 1904, Stanislavski finally acted on a suggestion made byChekhov two years earlier that he stage severalone-act plays byMaurice Maeterlinck, the BelgianSymbolist.[101] Despite his enthusiasm, however, Stanislavski struggled to realise a theatrical approach to thestatic,lyrical dramas.[102] When the triple bill consisting ofThe Blind,Intruder, andInterior opened on 15 October [O.S. 2 October], the experiment was deemed a failure.[103]
Design (byNikolai Ulyanov) for Meyerhold's planned 1905 production ofHauptmann'sSchluck and Jau at the Theatre-Studio he founded with Stanislavski, which relocated the play to a stylised abstraction ofFrance under Louis XIV. Around the edge of the stage, ladies-in-waiting embroider an improbably long scarf with huge ivory needles. Stanislavski was particularly delighted by this idea.[104]
Meyerhold, prompted by Stanislavski's positive response to his new ideas aboutSymbolist theatre, proposed that they form a "theatre studio" (a term which he invented) that would function as "a laboratory for the experiments of more or less experienced actors."[105] The Theatre-Studio aimed to develop Meyerhold's aesthetic ideas into new theatrical forms that would return the MAT to the forefront of theavant-garde and Stanislavski's socially conscious ideas for a network of "people's theatres" that would reform Russian theatrical culture as a whole.[106] Central to Meyerhold's approach was the use ofimprovisation to develop the performances.[107]
When the studio presented a work-in-progress, Stanislavski was encouraged; when performed in a fully equipped theatre in Moscow, however, it was regarded as a failure and the studio folded.[108] Meyerhold drew an important lesson: "one must first educate a new actor and only then put new tasks before him", he wrote, adding that "Stanislavski, too, came to such a conclusion."[109] Reflecting in 1908 on the Theatre-Studio's demise, Stanislavski wrote that "our theatre found its future among its ruins."[110]Nemirovich disapproved of what he described as the malign influence of Meyerhold on Stanislavski's work at this time.[111]
Stanislavski engaged two important new collaborators in 1905:Liubov Gurevich became his literary advisor andLeopold Sulerzhitsky became his personal assistant.[112] Stanislavski revised his interpretation of the role of Trigorin (and Meyerhold reprised his role as Konstantin) when the MAT revivedits production of Chekhov'sThe Seagull on 13 October [O.S. 30 September] 1905.[113]
This was the year ofthe abortive revolution in Russia. Stanislavski signed a protest against the violence of the secret police,Cossack troops, and the right-wingextremist paramilitary "Black Hundreds", which was submitted to theDuma on the 3 November [O.S. 21 October].[114] Rehearsals for the MAT's production ofAlexander Griboyedov's classicversecomedyWoe from Wit were interrupted by gun-battles on the streets outside.[115] Stanislavski and Nemirovich closed the theatre and embarked on the company's first tour outside of Russia.[116]
European tour and artistic crisis
TheMAT's first European tour began on 23 February [O.S. 10 February] 1906 inBerlin, where they played to an audience that includedMax Reinhardt,Gerhart Hauptmann,Arthur Schnitzler, andEleonora Duse.[117] "It's as though we were the revelation", Stanislavski wrote of the rapturous acclaim they received.[118] The success of the tour provided financial security for the company, garnered an international reputation for their work, and made a significant impact on European theatre.[119] The tour also provoked a major artistic crisis for Stanislavski that had a significant impact onhis future direction.[120] From his attempts to resolve this crisis, hissystem would eventually emerge.[121]
Sometime in March 1906—Jean Benedetti suggests that it was duringAn Enemy of the People—Stanislavski became aware that he was acting without a flow of inner impulses and feelings and that as a consequence his performance had become mechanical.[122] He spent June and July inFinland on holiday, where he studied, wrote, and reflected.[123] With his notebooks on his own experience from 1889 onwards, he attempted to analyze "the foundation stones of our art" and the actor's creative process in particular.[124] He began to formulate a psychological approach to controlling the actor's process in aManual on Dramatic Art.[125]
Sugar and Mytyl from Stanislavski's production ofThe Blue Bird (1908).
Stanislavski's activities began to move in a very different direction: his productions became opportunities forresearch, he was more interested in the process ofrehearsal than its product, and his attention shifted away from theMAT towards its satellite projects—the theatre studios—in which he would develop hissystem.[126] On his return to Moscow, he explored his new psychological approach in his production ofKnut Hamsun'sSymbolist playThe Drama of Life.[127]Nemirovich was particularly hostile to his new methods and their relationship continued to deteriorate in this period.[128] In a statement made on 9 February [O.S. 27 January] 1908, Stanislavski marked a significant shift in hisdirectorial method and stressed the crucial contribution he now expected from a creative actor:
The committee is wrong if it thinks that the director's preparatory work in the study is necessary, as previously, when he alone decided the whole plan and all the details of the production, wrote themise en scène and answered all the actors' questions for them. The director is no longer king, as before, when the actor possessed no clear individuality. [...] It is essential to understand this—rehearsals are divided into two stages: the first stage is one of experiment when the cast helps the director, the second is creating the performance when the director helps the cast.[129]
Stanislavski's preparations forMaeterlinck'sThe Blue Bird (which was to become his most famous production to-date) includedimprovisations and other exercises to stimulate the actors' imaginations; Nemirovich described one in which the cast imitated various animals.[130] In rehearsals he sought ways to encourage his actors'will to create afresh in every performance.[26] He focused on the search for inner motives to justify action and the definition of what the characters are seeking to achieve at any given moment (what he would come to call their "task").[131] This use of the actor'sconscious thought and will was designed to activate other, less-controllable psychological processes—such as emotional experience andsubconscious behaviour—sympathetically and indirectly.[25]
Noting the importance to great actors' performances of their ability to remain relaxed, he discovered that he could abolishphysical tension by focusing his attention on the specific action that the play demanded; when his concentration wavered, his tension returned.[132] "What fascinates me most", Stanislavski wrote in May 1908, "is the rhythm of feelings, the development ofaffective memory and thepsycho-physiology of the creative process."[133] His interest in the creative use of the actor's personal experiences was spurred by a chance conversation in Germany in July that led him to the work of French psychologistThéodule-Armand Ribot.[134] His "affective memory" contributed to the technique that Stanislavski would come to call "emotion memory".[135]
Together these elements formed a new vocabulary with which he explored a "return torealism" in a production ofGogol'sThe Government Inspector as soon asThe Blue Bird had opened.[136] At a theatre conference on 21 March [O.S. 8 March] 1909, Stanislavski delivered a paper on his emerging system that stressed the role of his techniques of the "magic if" (which encourages the actor to respond to the fictional circumstances of the play "as if" they were real) and emotion memory.[137] He developed his ideas about three trends in the history of acting, which were to appear eventually in the opening chapters ofAn Actor's Work: "stock-in-trade" acting, theart of representation, and the art of experiencing (his own approach).[24]
Stanislavski's production ofA Month in the Country (1909) was a watershed in his artistic development.[138] Breaking the MAT's tradition of open rehearsals, he preparedTurgenev's play in private.[139] They began with a discussion of what he would come to call the "through-line" for the characters (their emotional development and the way they change over the course of the play).[140] This production is the earliest recorded instance of his practice of analysing the action of the script into discrete "bits".[141]
At this stage in the development of his approach, Stanislavski's technique was to identify the emotional state contained in the psychological experience of the character during each bit and, through the use of the actor's emotion memory, to forge a subjective connection to it.[142] Only after two months of rehearsals were the actors permitted to physicalise the text.[143] Stanislavski insisted that they should play the actions that their discussions around the table had identified.[144] Having realised a particular emotional state in a physical action, he assumed at this point in his experiments, the actor's repetition of that action would evoke the desired emotion.[145] As with his experiments inThe Drama of Life, they also explorednon-verbal communication, whereby scenes were rehearsed as "silentétudes" with actors interacting "only with their eyes".[146] The production's success when it opened in December 1909 seemed to prove the validity of his new methodology.[147]
Late in 1910,Gorky invited Stanislavski to join him inCapri, where they discussed actor training and Stanislavski's emerging "grammar".[148] Inspired by a popular theatre performance inNaples that employed the techniques of thecommedia dell'arte, Gorky suggested that they form a company, modeled on themedieval strolling players, in which a playwright and group of young actors woulddevise new plays together by means ofimprovisation.[149] Stanislavski would develop this use of improvisation in his work with his First Studio.[149]
In his treatment of the classics, Stanislavski believed that it was legitimate for actors and directors to ignore the playwright's intentions for a play's staging.[150] One of his most important—a collaboration withEdward Gordon Craig ona production ofHamlet—became a landmark of20th-century theatricalmodernism.[151] Stanislavski hoped to prove that his recently developedsystem for creating internally justified,realistic acting could meet the formal demands of a classic play.[152] Craig envisioned aSymbolistmonodrama in which every aspect of production would be subjugated to theprotagonist: it would present a dream-like vision as seen throughHamlet's eyes.[153]
Despite these contrasting approaches, the twopractitioners did share some artistic assumptions; the system had developed out of Stanislavski's experiments withSymbolist drama, which had shifted his attention from aNaturalistic external surface to the characters'subtextual, inner world.[154] Both had stressed the importance of achieving a unity of all theatrical elements in their work.[155] Their production attracted enthusiastic and unprecedented worldwide attention for the theatre, placing it "on the cultural map for Western Europe", and it has come to be regarded as a seminal event that revolutionised the staging of Shakespeare's plays.[156] It became "one of the most famous and passionately discussed productions in the history of the modern stage."[157]
Increasingly absorbed by his teaching, in 1913 Stanislavski held open rehearsals for his production ofMolière'sThe Imaginary Invalid as a demonstration of the system.[158] As with his production ofHamlet and his next,Goldoni'sThe Mistress of the Inn, he was keen to assay his system in the crucible of a classical text.[159] He began to inflect his technique of dividing the action of the play into bits with an emphasis on improvisation; he would progress from analysis, through free improvisation, to the language of the text:[160]
I divide the work intolarge bits clarifying the nature of each bit. Then, immediately, in my own words, I play each bit, observing all the curves. Then I go through the experiences of each bit ten times or so with its curves (not in a fixed way, not being consistent). Then I follow the successive bits in the book. And finally, I make the transition, imperceptibly, to the experiences as expressed in the actual words of the part.[161]
Stanislavski's struggles with both the Molière and Goldonicomedies revealed the importance of an appropriate definition of what he calls a character's "super-task" (the core problem that unites and subordinates the character's moment-to-moment tasks).[162] This impacted particularly on the actors' ability to serve the plays' genre, because an unsatisfactory definition producedtragic rather than comic performances.[163]
Following the success of his production ofA Month in the Country, Stanislavski made repeated requests to the board of theMAT for proper facilities to pursue hispedagogical work with young actors.[164]Gorky encouraged him not to found a drama school to teach inexperienced beginners, but rather—following the example of the Theatre-Studio of 1905—to create a studio forresearch andexperiment that would train young professionals.[165]
Stanislavski created the First Studio on 14 September [O.S. 1 September] 1912.[166] Its founding members includedYevgeny Vakhtangov,Michael Chekhov,Richard Boleslawski, andMaria Ouspenskaya, all of whom would exert a considerable influence on the subsequenthistory of theatre.[167] Stanislavski selected Suler (as Gorky had nicknamedSulerzhitsky) to lead the studio.[168] In a focused, intense atmosphere, their work emphasised experimentation,improvisation, and self-discovery.[169] Following Gorky's suggestions aboutdevising new plays through improvisation, they searched for "the creative process common to authors, actors and directors".[170]
Stanislavski created the Second Studio of the MAT in 1916, in response to a production ofZinaida Gippius'The Green Ring that a group of young actors had prepared independently.[171] With a greater focus on pedagogical work than the First Studio, the Second Studio provided the environment in which Stanislavski developed the training techniques that would form the basis for his manualAn Actor's Work (1938).[172]
A significant influence on the development of the system came from Stanislavski's experience teaching and directing at his Opera Studio, which was founded in 1918.[173] He hoped that the successful application of his system to opera, with its inescapable conventionality and artifice, would demonstrate theuniversality of his approach to performance and unite the work ofMikhail Shchepkin andFeodor Chaliapin.[174] From this experience Stanislavski's notion of "tempo-rhythm" emerged.[175] He invitedSerge Wolkonsky to teachdiction and Lev Pospekhin to teach expressive movement and dance and attended both of their classes as a student.[176]
From the First World War to the October Revolution
Stanislavski spent the summer of 1914 inMarienbad where, as he had in 1906, he researched thehistory of theatre and theories of acting to clarify the discoveries that his practical experiments had produced.[177] When theFirst World War broke out, Stanislavski was inMunich.[178] "It seemed to me", he wrote of the atmosphere at the train station in an article detailing his experiences, "that death was hovering everywhere."[179]
The train was stopped atImmenstadt, where German soldiers denounced him as a Russian spy.[180] Held in a room at the station with a large crowd with "the faces of wild beasts" baying at its windows, Stanislavski believed he was to beexecuted.[181] He remembered that he was carrying an official document that mentioned having played toKaiser Wilhelm during their tour of 1906 that, when he showed it to the officers, produced a change of attitude towards his group.[182] They were placed on a slow train toKempten.[183]Gurevich later related how during the journey Stanislavski surprised her when he whispered that:
[E]vents of recent days had given him a clear impression of the superficiality of all that was called human culture,bourgeois culture, that a completely different kind of life was needed, where all needs were reduced to the minimum, where there was work—real artistic work—on behalf of the people, for those who had not yet been consumed by this bourgeois culture.[184]
In Kempten they were again ordered into one of the station's rooms, where Stanislavski overheard the German soldiers complain of a lack ofammunition; it was only this, he understood, that prevented their execution.[185] The following morning they were placed on a train and eventually returned to Russia viaSwitzerland and France.[186]
Turning to the classics of Russian theatre, theMAT revivedGriboyedov'scomedyWoe from Wit and planned to stage three ofPushkin's "littletragedies" in early 1915.[187] Stanislavski continued to develop his system, explaining at an open rehearsal forWoe from Wit his concept of the state of "I am being".[188] This term marks the stage in the rehearsal process when the distinction between actor and character blurs (producing the "actor/role"), subconscious behavior takes the lead, and the actor feels fully present in the dramatic moment.[189] He stressed the importance to achieving this state of a focus on action ("What would I do if ...") rather than emotion ("How would I feel if ..."): "You must ask the kinds of questions that lead to dynamic action."[190] Instead of forcing emotion, he explained, actors should notice what is happening, attend to their relationships with the other actors, and try to understand "through the senses" the fictional world that surrounds them.[188]
When he prepared for his role in Pushkin'sMozart and Salieri, Stanislavski created a biography forSalieri in which he imagined the character's memories of each incident mentioned in the play, his relationships with the other people involved, and the circumstances that had impacted on Salieri's life.[191] When he attempted to render all of this detail in performance, however, thesubtext overwhelmed the text; overladen with heavy pauses, Pushkin'sverse was fragmented to the point of incomprehensibility.[191] His struggles with this role prompted him to attend more closely to the structure and dynamics of language in drama; to that end, he studiedSerge Wolkonsky'sThe Expressive Word (1913).[192]
The Frenchtheatre practitionerJacques Copeau contacted Stanislavski in October 1916.[193] As a result of his conversations withEdward Gordon Craig, Copeau had come to believe that his work at theThéâtre du Vieux-Colombier shared a common approach with Stanislavski's investigations at the MAT.[193] On 30 December [O.S. 17 December] 1916, Stanislavski's assistant and closest friend,Leopold Sulerzhitsky, died from chronicnephritis.[194] Reflecting on their relationship in 1931, Stanislavski said that Suler had understood him completely and that no one, since, had replaced him.[195]
Stanislavski welcomed theFebruary Revolution of 1917 and its overthrow of theabsolute monarchy as a "miraculous liberation of Russia".[196] With theOctober Revolution later in the year, theMAT closed for a few weeks and the First Studio was occupied by revolutionaries.[197] Stanislavski thought that the social upheavals presented an opportunity to realize his long-standing ambitions to establish a Russian popular theatre that would provide, as the title of an essay he prepared that year put it, "The Aesthetic Education of the Popular Masses".[198]
Vladimir Lenin, who became a frequent visitor to the MAT after the revolution, praised Stanislavski as "a real artist" and indicated that, in his opinion, Stanislavski's approach was "the direction the theatre should take."[199] The revolutions of that year brought about an abrupt change in Stanislavski's finances when his factories werenationalized, which left his wage from the MAT as his only source of income.[200] On 29 August 1918 Stanislavski, along with several others from the MAT, was arrested by theCheka, though he was released the following day.[201]
During the years of theCivil War, Stanislavski concentrated on teaching his system, directing (both at the MAT and its studios), and bringing performances of the classics to new audiences (such as factory workers and theRed Army).[202] Several articles on Stanislavski and his system were published, but none were written by him.[203] On 5 March 1921, Stanislavski was evicted from his large house on Carriage Row, where he had lived since 1903.[204] Following the personal intervention of Lenin (prompted byAnatoly Lunacharsky), Stanislavski was re-housed at 6 Leontievski Lane, not far from the MAT.[205] He was to live there until his death in 1938.[206] On 29 May 1922, Stanislavski's favourite pupil, the directorYevgeny Vakhtangov, died of cancer.[207]
MAT tours in Europe and the United States
In the wake of the temporary withdrawal of the statesubsidy to the MAT that came with theNew Economic Policy in 1921, Stanislavski and Nemirovich planned a tour to Europe and the US to augment the company's finances.[208] The tour began inBerlin, where Stanislavski arrived on 18 September 1922, and proceeded toPrague,Zagreb, and Paris, where he was welcomed at the station by Jacques Hébertot,Aurélien Lugné-Poë, andJacques Copeau.[209] In Paris, he also metAndré Antoine,Louis Jouvet,Isadora Duncan, Firmin Gémier, andHarley Granville-Barker.[209] He discussed with Copeau the possibility of establishing an international theatre studio and attended performances byErmete Zacconi, whose control of his performance, economic expressivity, and ability both to "experience" and "represent" the role impressed him.[210]
The company sailed to New York City and arrived on 4 January 1923.[211] When reporters asked about their repertoire, Stanislavski explained that "America wants to see what Europe already knows."[212]David Belasco,Sergei Rachmaninoff, andFeodor Chaliapin attended the opening night performance.[213] Thanks in part to a vigorous publicity campaign that the American producer,Morris Gest, orchestrated, the tour garnered substantial critical praise, although it was not a financial success.[214]
As actors (among whom was the youngLee Strasberg) flocked to the performances to learn from the company, the tour made a substantial contribution to the development of American acting.[215]Richard Boleslavsky presented a series of lectures onStanislavski's system (which were eventually published asActing: The First Six Lessons in 1933).[216] A performance ofThree Sisters on 31 March 1923 concluded the season in New York, after which they travelled to Chicago,Philadelphia, andBoston.[217]
At the request of a US publisher, Stanislavski reluctantly agreed to write his autobiography,My Life in Art, since his proposals for an account of the system or a history of the MAT and its approach had been rejected.[218] He returned to Europe during the summer where he worked on the book and, in September, began rehearsals for a second tour.[219] The company returned to New York on 7 November and went on to perform in Philadelphia, Boston,New Haven,Hartford, Washington, D.C.,Brooklyn,Newark,Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Detroit.[220] On 20 March 1924, Stanislavski met PresidentCalvin Coolidge at the White House.[221] They were introduced by a translator, Elizabeth Hapgood, with whom he would later collaborate onAn Actor Prepares.[222] The company left the US on 17 May 1924.[223]
Soviet productions
On his return to Moscow in August 1924, Stanislavski began with the help ofGurevich to make substantial revisions tohis autobiography, in preparation for a definitive Russian-language edition, which was published in September 1926.[224] He continued to act, reprising the role of Astrov in a new production ofUncle Vanya (his performance of which was described as "staggering").[225] WithNemirovich away touring with his Music Studio, Stanislavski led theMAT for two years, during which time the company thrived.[226]
With a company fully versed in hissystem, Stanislavski's work onMikhail Bulgakov'sThe Days of the Turbins focused on the tempo-rhythm of the production'sdramatic structure and the through-lines of action for the individual characters and the play as a whole.[227] "See everything in terms of action" he advised them.[228] Aware of the disapproval of Bulgakov felt by the Repertory Committee (Glavrepertkom) of thePeople's Commissariat for Education, Stanislavski threatened to close the theatre if the play was banned.[229] Despite substantial hostility from the press, the production was a box-office success.[230]
In an attempt to render a classic play relevant to a contemporary Soviet audience, Stanislavski re-located the action in his fast and free-flowing production ofPierre Beaumarchais' 18th-century comedyThe Marriage of Figaro to pre-Revolutionary France and emphasised the democratic point of view of Figaro and Susanna, in preference to that of thearistocratic Count Almaviva.[231] His working methods contributed innovations to the system: the analysis of scenes in terms of concrete physical tasks and the use of the "line of the day" for each character.[232]
In preference to the tightly controlled,Meiningen-inspired scoring of themise en scène with which he had choreographed crowd scenes in his early years, he now worked in terms of broad physical tasks: actors responded truthfully to the circumstances of scenes with sequences of improvised adaptations that attempted to solve concrete, physical problems.[232] For the "line of the day," an actor elaborates in detail the events that supposedly occur to the character "off-stage", in order to form a continuum of experience (the "line" of the character's life that day) that helps to justify his or her behaviour "on-stage".[233] This means that the actor develops a relationship to where (as a character) he has just come from and to where he intends to go when leaving the scene.[233] The production was a great success, garnering ten curtain calls on opening night.[233] Thanks to its cohesive unity and rhythmic qualities, it is recognised as one of Stanislavski's major achievements.[233]
With a performance of extracts from its major productions—including the first act ofThree Sisters in which Stanislavski played Vershinin—the MAT celebrated its 30-year jubilee on 29 October 1928.[234] While performing Stanislavski suffered a massive heart-attack, although he continued until the curtain call, after which he collapsed.[9] With that, his acting career came to an end.[235]
A manual for actors
While on holiday in August 1926, Stanislavski began to develop what would becomeAn Actor's Work, his manual for actors written in the form of a fictional student's diary.[236] Ideally, Stanislavski felt, it would consist of two volumes: the first would detail the actor's inner experiencing and outer, physical embodiment; the second would address rehearsal processes.[237] Since the Soviet publishers used a format that would have made the first volume unwieldy, however, in practice this became three volumes—inner experiencing, outer characterisation, and rehearsal—each of which would be published separately, as it became ready.[238]
The danger that such an arrangement would obscure the mutual interdependence of these parts in thesystem as a whole would be avoided, Stanislavski hoped, by means of an initial overview that would stress their integration in hispsycho-physical approach; as it turned out, however, he never wrote the overview and many English-language readers came to confuse the first volume on psychological processes—published in a heavily abridged version in the US asAn Actor Prepares (1936)—with the system as a whole.[239]
The two editors—Hapgood with the American edition andGurevich with the Russian—made conflicting demands on Stanislavski.[240] Gurevich became increasingly concerned that splittingAn Actor's Work into two books would not only encourage misunderstandings of the unity and mutual implication of the psychological and physical aspects of the system, but would also give its Soviet critics grounds on which to attack it: "to accuse you ofdualism,spiritualism,idealism, etc."[241] Frustrated with Stanislavski's tendency to tinker with details in preference to addressing more important missing sections, in May 1932 she terminated her involvement.[242] Hapgood echoed Gurevich's frustration.[243]
In 1933, Stanislavski worked on the second half ofAn Actor's Work.[244] By 1935, a version of the first volume was ready for publication in America, to which the publishers made significant abridgements.[245] A significantly different and far more complete Russian edition,An Actor's Work on Himself, Part I, was not published until 1938, just after Stanislavski's death.[246] The second part ofAn Actor's Work on Himself was published in the Soviet Union in 1948; an English-language variant,Building a Character, was published a year later.[247] The third volume,An Actor's Work on a Role, was published in the Soviet Union in 1957; its nearest English-language equivalent,Creating a Role, was published in 1961.[247] The differences between the Russian and English-language editions of volumes two and three were even greater than those of the first volume.[248] In 2008, an English-language translation of the complete Russian edition ofAn Actor's Work was published, with one ofAn Actor's Work on a Role following in 2010.[249]
Development of the Method of Physical Action
Sketches by Stanislavski in his 1929–1930 production plan forOthello, which offers the first exposition of what came to be known as his Method of Physical Action rehearsal process.
While recuperating inNice at the end of 1929, Stanislavski began a production plan for Shakespeare'sOthello.[250] Hoping to use this as the basis forAn Actor's Work on a Role, his plan offers the earliest exposition of the rehearsal process that became known as his Method of Physical Action. He first explored this approach practically in his work onThree Sisters andCarmen in 1934 andMolière in 1935.[29]
In contrast to his earlier method of working on a play—which involved extensive readings and analysis around a table before any attempt to physicalise its action—Stanislavski now encouraged his actors to explore the action through its "active analysis".[251] He felt that too much discussion in the early stages of rehearsal confused and inhibited the actors.[252] Instead, focusing on the simplest physical actions, theyimprovised the sequence of dramatic situations given in the play.[253] "The best analysis of a play", he argued, "is to take action in the given circumstances."[31] If the actor justified and committed to the truth of the actions (which are easier to shape and control than emotional responses), Stanislavski reasoned, they would evoke truthful thoughts and feelings.[254]
Stanislavski's attitude to the use of emotion memory in rehearsals (as distinct from its use in actor training) had shifted over the years.[255] Ideally, he felt, an instinctive identification with a character's situation should arouse an emotional response.[256] The use of emotion memory in lieu of that had demonstrated a propensity for encouraging self-indulgence or hysteria in the actor.[256] Its direct approach to feeling, Stanislavski felt, more often produced a block than the desired expression.[256] Instead, an indirect approach to the subconscious via a focus on actions (supported by a commitment to the given circumstances and imaginative "Magic Ifs") was a more reliable means of luring the appropriate emotional response.[257]
This shift in approach corresponded both with an increased attention to the structure and dynamic of the play as a whole and with a greater prominence given to the distinction between the planning of a role and its performance.[258] In performance the actor is aware of only one step at a time, Stanislavski reasoned, but this focus risks the loss of the overall dynamic of a role in the welter of moment-to-moment detail.[259] Consequently, the actor must also adopt a different point of view in order to plan the role in relation to itsdramatic structure; this might involve adjusting the performance by holding back at certain moments and playing full out at others.[260] A sense of the whole thereby informs the playing of each episode.[261] Borrowing a term fromHenry Irving, Stanislavski called this the "perspective of the role".[262]
Every afternoon for five weeks during the summer of 1934 in Paris, Stanislavski worked with the American actressStella Adler, who had sought his assistance with the blocks she had confronted in her performances.[263] Given the emphasis that emotion memory had received in New York City, Adler was surprised to find that Stanislavski rejected the technique except as a last resort.[264] The news that this was Stanislavski's approach would have significant repercussions in the US;Lee Strasberg angrily rejected it and refused to modifyhis version of thesystem.[263]
Political fortunes under Stalin
Following his heart attack in 1928, for the last decade of his life Stanislavski conducted most of his work writing, directing rehearsals, and teaching in his home on Leontievski Lane.[265] In line withJoseph Stalin's policy of "isolation and preservation" towards certain internationally famous cultural figures, Stanislavski lived in a state of internal exile in Moscow.[266] This protected him from the worst excesses of Stalin's "Great Terror".[267]
A number of articles critical of the terminology ofStanislavski's system appeared in the run-up to aRAPP conference in early 1931, at which the attacks continued.[268] The system stood accused of philosophicalidealism, of a-historicism, of disguising social and political problems under ethical and moral terms, and of "biological psychologism" (or "the suggestion of fixed qualities in nature").[268] In the wake of the first congress of theUSSR Union of Writers (chaired byMaxim Gorky in August 1934), however,Socialist realism was established as the official party line in aesthetic matters.[269] While the new policy would have disastrous consequences for theSoviet avant-garde, theMAT and Stanislavski's system were enthroned as exemplary models.[270]
Final work at the Opera-Dramatic Studio
Stanislavski at work in the final year of his life.
Given the difficulties he had with completing his manual for actors, Stanislavski decided that he needed to found a new studio if he was to ensure his legacy.[271] "Our school will produce not just individuals," he wrote, "but a whole company".[272] In June 1935, he began to instruct a group of teachers in the training techniques of thesystem and the rehearsal processes of the Method of Physical Action.[273] Twenty students (out of 3,500 auditionees) were accepted for the dramatic section of the Opera-Dramatic Studio, where classes began on 15 November.[274] Stanislavski arranged a curriculum of four years of study that focused exclusively on technique and method—two years of the work detailed later inAn Actor's Work and two of that inAn Actor's Work on a Role.[275]
Once the students were acquainted with the training techniques of the first two years, Stanislavski selectedHamlet andRomeo and Juliet for their work on roles.[276] He worked with the students in March and April 1937, focusing on their sequences of physical actions, on establishing their through-lines of action, and on rehearsing scenes anew in terms of the actors' tasks.[277] By June 1938 the students were ready for their first public showing, at which they performed a selection of scenes to a small number of spectators.[278] The Opera-Dramatic Studio embodied the most complete implementation of the training exercises that Stanislavski described in his manuals.[33]
From late 1936 onwards, Stanislavski began to meet regularly withVsevolod Meyerhold, with whom he discussed the possibility of developing a common theatrical language.[279] In 1938, they made plans to work together on a production and discussed a synthesis of Stanislavski's Method of Physical Action and Meyerhold'sbiomechanical training.[280] On 8 March, Meyerhold took over the rehearsals forRigoletto, the staging of which he completed after Stanislavski's death.[281] On his death-bed Stanislavski declared to Yuri Bakhrushin that Meyerhold was "my sole heir in the theatre—here or anywhere else".[282]Stalin'spolice tortured and killed Meyerhold in February 1940.[283]
Stanislavski died in his home at 3:45 pm on 7 August 1938, having probably suffered another heart-attack five days earlier.[284] Thousands of people attended his funeral.[285] Three weeks after his death his widow, Lilina, received an advanced copy of the Russian-language edition of the first volume ofAn Actor's Work—the "labour of his life", as she called it.[286] Stanislavski was buried in theNovodevichy Cemetery in Moscow, not far from the grave ofAnton Chekhov.[287]
^For dates before the Soviet state's switch from theJulian calendar to theGregorian calendar in February 1918, this article gives the date in theNew Style (Gregorian) date-format first, followed by the same day in theOld Style (Julian) date-format (which appears in square brackets and slightly smaller); this is to facilitate comparison between primary and secondary sources. The difference between the two is 12 days for Julian dates prior to 1 March 1900 [Gregorian 14 March] and 13 days for Julian dates on or after 1 March 1900. Thus, Stanislavski was born on 17 January according to the Gregorian calendar that is in use today, while his birthday was 5 January according to the Julian calendar that was in use at the time. For more information on the difference between the two systems, see the articleAdoption of the Gregorian calendar. Dates after 1 February 1918 are presented as normal.
^Stanislavski's first name is alsotransliterated asConstantin,[1] while his surname is also transliterated asStanislavsky[2] andStanislavskii. As discussedbelow,Stanislavski is a stage name.
^Stanislavski began developing a "grammar" of acting in 1906; his initial choice to call it his System struck him as too dogmatic, so he wrote it as his "system" (without the capital letter and in inverted commas) to indicate the provisional nature of the results of his investigations—modern specialist scholarship and the standard edition of Stanislavski's works follow that practice; see Benedetti (1999a, 169), Gauss (1999, 3–4), Milling and Ley (2001, 1), and Stanislavski (1938) and (1957).
^Benedetti (1989, 1) and (2005, 109), Gordon (2006, 40–41), and Milling and Ley (2001, 3–5).
^Benedetti (1989, 1), Gordon (2006, 42–43), and Roach (1985, 204).
^Benedetti (1989, 18, 22–23), (1999a, 42), and (1999b, 257), Carnicke (2000, 29), Gordon (2006, 40–42), Leach (2004, 14), and Magarshack (1950, 73–74). As Carnicke emphasises, Stanislavski's early prompt-books, such as that forthe production ofThe Seagull in 1898, "describe movements, gestures,mise en scène, not inner action andsubtext" (2000, 29). The principle of a unity of all elements (or whatRichard Wagner called aGesamtkunstwerk) survived into Stanislavski's system, while the exclusively external technique did not; although his work shifted from a director-centred to an actor-centred approach, his system nonetheless valorises the absolute authority of the director.
^Milling and Ley (2001, 5). Stanislavski andNemirovich found they had this practice in common during their legendary 18-hour conversation that led to the establishment of theMAT.
^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 the system (2000, 29).
^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 explanation of "inner action", see Stanislavski (1957, 136); forsubtext, see Stanislavski (1938, 402–413).
^Benedetti (1989, 30) and (1999a, 181, 185–187), Counsell (1996, 24–27), Gordon (2006, 37–38), Magarshack (1950, 294, 305), and Milling and Ley (2001, 2).
^Carnicke (2000, 13), Gauss (1999, 3), Gordon (2006, 45–46), Milling and Ley (2001, 6), and Rudnitsky (1981, 56).
^Benedetti (1989, 5–11, 15, 18) and (1999b, 254), Braun (1982, 59), Carnicke (2000, 13, 16, 29), Counsell (1996, 24), Gordon (2006, 38, 40–41), and Innes (2000, 53–54).
^abBenedetti (1999a, 201), Carnicke (2000, 17), and Stanislavski (1938, 16–36). Stanislavski's "art of representation" corresponds toMikhail Shchepkin's "actor of reason" and his "art of experiencing" corresponds to Shchepkin's "actor of feeling"; see Benedetti (1999a, 202).
^abBenedetti (1999a, 325, 360) and (2005, 121) and Roach (1985, 197–198, 205, 211–215). The term "Method of Physical Action" was applied to this rehearsal process after Stanislavski's death. Benedetti indicates that though Stanislavski had developed it since 1916, he first explored it practically in the early 1930s; see (1998, 104) and (1999a, 356, 358). Gordon argues the shift in working-method happened during the 1920s (2006, 49–55). Vasili Toporkov, an actor who trained under Stanislavski in this approach, provides in hisStanislavski in Rehearsal (2004) a detailed account of the Method of Physical Action at work in Stanislavski's rehearsals.
^abQuoted by Carnicke (1998, 156). Stanislavski 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 only understands his part, but also feels it, and that is the most important thing in creative work on the stage"; quoted by Magarshack (1950, 375).
^abBenedetti (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 bookStanislavski and the Actor (1998) offers a reconstruction of the studio's course.
^Carnicke (1998, 1, 167) and (2000, 14), Counsell (1996, 24–25), Golub (1998a, 1032), Gordon (2006, 71–72), Leach (2004, 29), and Milling and Ley (2001, 1–2).
^Benedetti (1999a, 354–355), Carnicke (1998, 78, 80) and (2000, 14), and Milling and Ley (2001, 2).
^Fedotova, quoted by Magarshack (1950, 52); see also Benedetti (1989, 20; 2005, 109) and Golub (1998b, 985).
^Benedetti (1999a, 21, 24) and Carnicke (2000, 11). The prospect of becoming a professional actor wastaboo for someone of his social class; actors had an even lowersocial status in Russia than in the rest of Europe, having only recently beenserfs and theproperty of thenobility.
^Benedetti (1999a, 18–19) and Magarshack (1950, 25, 33–34). He would disguise himself as atramp or drunk and visit the railway station, or as a fortune-tellinggypsy. As Benedetti explains, however, Stanislavski soon abandoned the technique of maintaining a characterisation in real life; it does not form a part of his system.
^Benedetti (1999a, 19–20), Magarshack (1950, 49–50), and Whyman (2008, 139).
^Benedetti (1999a, 21). Students were encouraged to mimic the theatrical tricks and conventions of their tutors.
^Golub (1998b, 985), Benedetti (1989, 20) and (2005, 109), and Magarshack (1950, 51–52). For more onFedotova, see Schuler (1996, 64–88). The development of a responsive interaction between actors was a significant innovation of the conventions of theatrical performance at the time; as Benedetti explains: "Leading actors would simply plant themselves downstage centre, by theprompter's box, wait to be fed the lines and then deliver them straight at the audience in a ringing voice, giving a fine display of passion and 'temperament'. Everyone, in fact, spoke their lines out front. Direct communication with other actors was minimal. Furniture was so arranged as to allow the actors to face front" (1989, 5). Fedotova encouraged Stanislavski to "look your partner straight in the eyes, read his thoughts in his eyes, and reply to him in accordance with the expression of his eyes and face"; quoted by Magarshack (1950, 52). Stanislavski's term "communication" (Russian:obshchenie) was translated as "communion" inAn Actor Prepares.
^Benedetti (1999a, 18), Gordon (2006, 41), and Milling and Ley (2001, 5).
^Magarshack (1950, 52, 55–56). The society was officially inaugurated on 15 November [O.S. 3 November] with a ceremony attended byAnton Chekhov; see Benedetti (1999a, 29–30) and Worrall (1996, 25).
^Benedetti (1999a, 35–37). Belinsky's conception provided the basis for a moral justification for Stanislavski's desire to perform that accorded with his family's sense of social responsibility and ethics.
^Benedetti (1999a, 37) and Magarshack (1950, 54), and Worrall (1996, 26).
^Benedetti (1999a, 42–43), Magarshack (1950, 78–80), and Worrall (1996, 27).
^Benedetti (1999a, 46), Carnicke (2000, 17), Magarshack (1950, 82–85), and Roach (1985, 216). Tolstoy'sWhat Is Art? (1898) promoted immediate intelligibility and transparency as an aesthetic principle. Stanislavski's concept of "experiencing the role" was based on Tolstoy's belief that rather than knowledge, art communicates felt experience.
^Benedetti (1999a, 61), Braun (1982, 60), Carnicke (2000, 12), and Worrall (1996, 64). Their discussion lasted from lunch at 2 pm in a private room in the Slavic Bazaar restaurant to 8 am the following morning over breakfast at Stanislavski's family estate at Liubimovka.
^Benedetti (1989, 16) and (1999, 59–60), Braun (1982, 60), and Leach (2004, 12).
^Benedetti (1999a, 386), Braun (1982, 65–74), and Leach (2004, 13–14). Stanislavski also played Shabelski in the MAT's production of Chekhov'sIvanov in 1904.
^Benedetti (1989, 25–26). By 1922, Stanislavski had become disenchanted with the MAT's productions of Chekhov's plays—"After all we have lived through", he remarked to Nemirovich, "it is impossible to weep over the fact that an officer is going and leaving his lady behind" (referring to the conclusion ofThree Sisters); quoted by Benedetti (1999a, 272).
^Braun (1988, xvi) and Magarshack (1950, 201, 226).
^Benedetti (1999a, 119), Braun (1988, xvi) and Magarshack (1950, 201–202).
^Benedetti (1999a, 119–131), Braun (1988, xvi—xvii), Magarshack (1950, 202, 229, 244), and Worrall (1996, 131). Nemirovich took over the direction ofThe Lower Depths during its rehearsal process and the two directors disagreed on the correct approach to the play; neither of their names appeared on its posters and Nemirovich claimed all the credit for its success.
^Benedetti (1999a, 127–129).Viktor Simov, the company's scenic designer, based his designs for the production on photographs taken during the trip. Several photographs of the production, taken in 1904, appear in Dacre and Fryer (2008, 34–37).
^Benedetti (1999a, 159–161) and Magarshack (1950, 272–274).
^Meyerhold, quoted by Rudnitsky (1981, 74); see also Benedetti (1999a, 161) and Magarshack (1950, 273–274). Meyerhold went on to explore physical expressivity, coordination, and rhythm in his experiments in actor training (which would found20th-centuryphysical theatre), while, for the moment, Stanislavski pursued psychological expressivity through the actor's inner "psychotechnique"; see Benedetti (1999a, 161), Leach (2004, 1) and Rudnitsky (1981, 73). Rudnitsky observes that "Stanislavski at that time still believed in the possibility of 'peaceful coexistence' forSymbolist abstractions and the live, physical and psychological realization of completely credibly acted characters. Stanislavski's subsequent Symbolist productions showed his ineradicable striving towardrealistic justification and prosaic circumstantiality of Symbolist motifs" (1981, 75).
^Benedetti (1999a, 181) and Magarshack (1950, 306).
^Benedetti (1999a, 159, 172–174) and Magarshack (1950, 287). Benedetti argues that Stanislavski's "attempts to base the production on psychological action only, without gestures, conveying everything through the face and eyes, met with only partial success" (1999, 174).
^Benedetti (1999a, 172–173) and Magarshack (1950, 286–287).
^Stanislavski in a statement made on 9 February [O.S. 27 January] 1908, quoted by Benedetti (1999a, 180); see also Magarshack (1950, 273–274).
^Benedetti (1999a, 182–183). The "task" (Russian:Zadacha) is also translated as an "objective" or "problem"; see Carnicke (1998, 181).
^Benedetti (1999a, 185) and Magarshack (1950, 304).
^Stanislavski, letter to Vera Kotlyarevskaya, 18 May [O.S. 5 May] 1908; quoted by Benedetti (1999a, 184) and Whyman (2008, 247–248). Benedetti indicates that this is the earliest mention of the concept of "affective memory" in Stanislavski's writings and occurs before his exposure to the work ofThéodule-Armand Ribot in July 1908. Whyman highlights Stanislavski's interest in the unity of physical and psychological processes in the same year that he discovers Ribot, although she maintains that he sometimes discusses the relationship indualist terms; see Whyman (2008, 248–253).
^Benedetti (1999a, 184–185) and Magarshack (1950, 304). Ribot's booksThe Diseases of the Memory andThe Diseases of the Will had been published in Russian translation in 1900; see Ribot (2006) and (2007) for English-language versions.
^Benedetti (1999a, 185), Counsell (1996, 28–29), and Stanislavski (1938, 197–198).
^Benedetti (1999a, 185–186) and Magarshack (1950, 294, 304). Drawing on Gogol's notes on the play, Stanislavski insisted that its exaggerated external action must be justified through the creation of a correspondingly intense inner life; see Benedetti (1999a, 185–186) and (2005, 100–101).
^Benedetti (1999a, 200) and Magarshack (1950, 304–305).
^Carnicke (2000, 30–31), Gordon (2006, 45–48), Leach (2004, 16–17), Magarshack (1950, 304–306), and Worrall (1996, 181–182). Magarshack describes the production as "the first play he produced according to his system."
^Benedetti (1999a, 190), Leach (2004, 17), and Magarshack (1950, 305).
^Benedetti (1999a, 203) and Magarshack (1950, 320).
^abBenedetti (1999a, 203–204), Magarshack (1950, 320–322, 332–333), and Whyman (2008, 242). In a speech given in 1920,Vsevolod Meyerhold proposed a similar practice (1991, 169–170). The British filmmakerMike Leigh made it the basis of his work.
^Benedetti (1999a, 225). A play could be adapted "to the actor's inner experiences", he explained to a scepticalNemirovich. To support his position, Stanislavski citedGogol's advice to "take any play ofSchiller orShakespeare and stage it as contemporary art demands" andChekhov's delight at the MAT actorIvan Moskvin's creative departure from Chekhov's intentions in hischaracterisation of Epikhodov in their production ofThe Cherry Orchard.
^Benedetti (1999a, 236), Gauss (1999, 65), and Leach (2004, 19).
^Benedetti (1999a, 211, 255–270), Magarshack (1950, 350–352), Stanislavski and Rumyantsev (1975, x), and Whyman (2008, 135). A series of thirty-two lectures that he delivered at the Opera Studio between 1919 and 1922 were recorded byKonkordia Antarova and published in 1939; they have been translated into English asStanislavsky on the Art of the Stage (1950). Pavel Rumiantsev documented the studio's activities until 1932; his notes were published in 1969 and appear in English under the titleStanislavski on Opera (1975).
^Benedetti (1999a, 256), Magarshack (1950, 351), and Whyman (2008, 139).
^Benedetti (1999a, 259). Stanislavski's concept of "tempo-rhythm" is developed most substantially in part two ofAn Actor's Work.
^Benedetti (1999a, 126, 257–258) and Carnicke (2000, 13).
^Benedetti (1999a, 257–258), Carnicke (2000, 13), and Magarshack (1950, 352). The house contained a large ballroom that he used for rehearsals, teaching, and performances, which following his Opera Studio production ofEugene Onegin (1922) became known as the Onegin Room; see Benedetti (1999a, 259). Leontievski Lane was renamed Stanislavski Lane on 18 January 1938; see Magarshack (1950, 396).
^Benedetti (1999a, 284) and Magarshack (1950, 364). The opening night was 8 January 1923.
^Benedetti (199a, 284–287), Carnicke (2000, 14), and Milling and Ley (2001, 13–14). Benedetti suggests that the financial difficulties were caused by Gest's decision to set ticket prices too high.
^Benedetti (1999a, 286), Carnicke (1998, 3), Gordon (2000, 45), Gordon (2006, 71). In a letter to Nemirovich, Stanislavski wrote: "No one here seems to have had any idea what our theatre and our actors were capable of. I am writing all this not in self-glorification, for we are not showing anything new here, but just to give you an idea at what an embryonic stage art is here and how eagerly they snatch up everything good that is brought to America. Actors, managers, all sorts of celebrities join in a chorus of the most extravagant praise. Some of the famous actors and actresses seize my hand and kiss it as though in a state of ecstacy"; quoted by Magarshack (1950, 364).
^Benedetti (1999a, 283, 286) and Gordon (2006, 71–72).Boleslavsky had been able to extend his visa thanks to an invitation from Stanislavski to act as an assistant director to the company. The interest generated led to Boleslavsky's decision to establish theAmerican Laboratory Theatre.
^Benedetti (1999a, 287) and Magarshack (1950, 367).
^Benedetti (1999a, 288), Carnicke (1998, 76), and Magarshack (1950, 367).
^Benedetti (1999a, 289–291) and Magarshack (1950, 367).
^Benedetti (1999a, 291–94) and Magarshack (1950, 368).
^Benedetti (1999a, 294) and Magarshack (1950, 368).
^Benedetti (1999a, 302). Benedetti emphasises the contrast between the perception of the system as being concerned principally with character and Stanislavski's actual attention to the play's "structure and meaning".
^The publication ofAn Actor's Work andAn Actor's Work on a Role, both translated by Jean Benedetti, enables a detailed comparison of the significant differences and omissions inAn Actor Prepares,Building a Character, andCreating a Role; see Stanislavski (1938 and 1957). Carnicke argues that despite some changes to the terminology of the system the "Russian books still serve as one of the best keys to his actual concerns about art" (1998, 82).
^Benedetti (1999a, 324). Extracts of the plan are translated in Cole (1955, 131–138) and Stanislavski (1957, 27–43).
^Benedetti (1999a, 355), Carnicke (2000, 32), and Magarshack (1950, 374–375).
^Benedetti (1999a, 355), Magarshack (1950, 375), and Whyman (2008, 242).
^Benedetti (1999a, 355–356) and Magarshack (1950, 375). In a letter to Elizabeth Hapgood, Stanislavski wrote: "Do you know the words? Never mind, use your own. You can't remember the sequence of the conversation? Never mind, I'll prompt you. We go through the whole play like this because it is easier to control and direct the body than the mind which is capricious. That is why the physical line of a role is easier to create than the psychological. But can the physical line of a role exist without the psychological when the mind is inseparable from the body? Of course not. That is why simultaneously the physical line of the body evokes the inner line of a role. This method takes the creative actor's attention off feelings, leaves them to the subconscious which alone can properly control and direct them"; quoted by Benedetti (1999a, 356).
^Benedetti (1999a, 325–326) and Gordon (2006, 74). Emotion memory remained useful during training, Stanislavski felt, as a means of addressing emotional inhibition.
^Benedetti (1998, 108), (1999a, 326), and (2005, 125–127).
^Benedetti (1998, 108), (1999a, 349), and (2005, 125) and Magarshack (1950, 372).
^Benedetti (1998, 108), (1999a, 221), and (2005, 125–126) and Whyman (2008, 149). In contrast to the "perspective of the role" that appreciates the role as a whole, Stanislavski called the moment-to-moment awareness the "perspective of the actor". For Stanislavski's explanation of this concept, seeAn Actor's Work (1938, 456–462).
^Benedetti (1999a, 351) and Gordon (2006, 74). Under the influence ofRichard Boleslavsky, emotion memory had become a central feature ofLee Strasberg's training at theGroup Theatre in New York. In contrast, Stanislavski recommended toStella Adler an indirect pathway to emotional expression via physical action. Benedetti writes that "It has been suggested that Stanislavski deliberately played down the emotional aspects of acting because the woman in front 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 forLeonidov in the production plan forOthello." Stanislavski confirmed this emphasis in his discussions withHarold Clurman in late 1935; see Benedetti (1999a, 351–352).
^Benedetti (1999a, 318), Carnicke (1998, 33), Clarket al. (2007, 226), and Magarshack (1950, 396). In 1938, Leontievski Lane was renamed "Stanislavski Lane" as part of his 75th birthday celebrations.
^Benedetti (1999a, 368) and Magarshack (1950, 397–399). He "insisted that they work on classics, because, 'in any work of genius you find an ideal logic and progression'."
^Benedetti (1999a, 368–369). "They must avoid at all costs", Benedetti explains, "merely repeating the externals of what they had done the day before."
Stanislavski, Konstantin. 1938.An Actor's Work: A Student's Diary. Trans. and ed. Jean Benedetti. London and New York: Routledge, 2008.ISBN0-415-42223-X.
Stanislavski, Konstantin. 1950.Stanislavsky on the Art of the Stage. Trans. David Magarshack. London: Faber, 2002.ISBN0-571-08172-X.
Stanislavski, Konstantin. 1957.An Actor's Work on a Role. Trans. and ed. Jean Benedetti. London and New York: Routledge, 2010.ISBN0-415-46129-4.
Stanislavski, Konstantin. 1961.Creating a Role. Trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. London: Mentor, 1968.ISBN0-450-00166-0.
Stanislavski, Konstantin. 1963.An Actor's Handbook: An Alphabetical Arrangement of Concise Statements on Aspects of Acting. Ed. and trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. London: Methuen, 1990.ISBN0-413-63080-3.
Stanislavski, Konstantin. 1968.Stanislavski's Legacy: A Collection of Comments on a Variety of Aspects of an Actor's Art and Life. Ed. and trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. Revised and expanded edition. London: Methuen, 1981.ISBN0-413-47770-3.
Stanislavski, Constantin, and Pavel Rumyantsev. 1975.Stanislavski on Opera. Trans. Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood. London: Routledge, 1998.ISBN0-87830-552-1.
Benedetti, Jean. 1989.Stanislavski: An Introduction. Revised edition. Original edition published in 1982. London: Methuen.ISBN0-413-50030-6.
Benedetti, Jean. 1998.Stanislavski and the Actor. London: Methuen.ISBN0-413-71160-9.
Benedetti, Jean. 1999a.Stanislavski: His Life and Art. Revised edition. Original edition published in 1988. London: Methuen.ISBN0-413-52520-1.
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 Actor: The Essential History of Acting, From Classical Times to the Present Day. London: Methuen.ISBN0-413-77336-1.
Benedetti, Jean. 2008a. Foreword. In Stanislavski (1938, xv–xxii).
Benedetti, Jean. 2008b. "Stanislavski on Stage". In Dacre and Fryer (2008, 6–9).
Botting, Gary. 1972.The Theatre of Protest in America (Edmonton, Harden House, 1972), Introduction.
Braun, Edward. 1982. "Stanislavsky andChekhov".The Director and the Stage: From Naturalism to Grotowski. London: Methuen.ISBN0-413-46300-1. p. 59–76.
Braun, Edward. 1995.Meyerhold: A Revolution in Theatre. Rev. 2nd ed. London: Methuen.ISBN0-413-72730-0.
Carnicke, Sharon M. 1998.Stanislavsky in Focus. Russian Theatre Archive Ser. London: Harwood Academic Publishers.ISBN90-5755-070-9.
Carnicke, Sharon M. 2000. "Stanislavsky's System: Pathways for the Actor". In Hodge (2000, 11–36).
Clark, Katerinaet al., ed. 2007.Soviet Culture and Power: A History in Documents, 1917–1953. Annals of Communism ser. New Haven: Yale UP.ISBN0-300-10646-7.
Counsell, Colin. 1996.Signs of Performance: An Introduction to Twentieth-Century Theatre. London and New York: Routledge.ISBN0-415-10643-5.
Dacre, Kathy, and Paul Fryer, eds. 2008.Stanislavski on Stage. Sidcup, Kent: Stanislavski Centre Rose Bruford College.ISBN1-903454-01-8.
Gauss, Rebecca B. 1999.Lear's Daughters: The Studios of the Moscow Art Theatre 1905–1927. American University Studies ser. 26 Theatre Arts, vol. 29. New York: Peter Lang.ISBN0-8204-4155-4.
Golub, Spencer. 1998a. "Stanislavsky, Konstantin (Sergeevich)". In Banham (1998, 1032–1033).
Golub, Spencer. 1998b. "Shchepkin, Mikhail (Semyonovich)". In Banham (1998, 985–986).
Gordon, Marc. 2000. "Salvaging Strasberg at the Fin de Siècle". In Krasner (2000, 43–60).
Gordon, Robert. 2006.The Purpose of Playing: Modern Acting Theories in Perspective. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P.ISBN0-472-06887-3.
Hodge, Alison, ed. 2000.Twentieth-Century Actor Training. London and New York: Routledge.ISBN0-415-19452-0.
Houghton, Norris. 1973. "Russian Theatre in the 20th Century".The Drama Review 17.1 (T-57, March): 5–13.
Innes, Christopher, ed. 2000.A Sourcebook on Naturalist Theatre. London and New York: Routledge.ISBN0-415-15229-1.
Krasner, David, ed. 2000.Method Acting Reconsidered: Theory, Practice, Future. New York: St. Martin's P.ISBN978-0-312-22309-0.
Milling, Jane, and Graham Ley. 2001.Modern Theories of Performance: From Stanislavski to Boal. Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave.ISBN0-333-77542-2.
Poliakova, Elena I[vanovna]. 1982.Stanislavsky. Trans. Liv Tudge. Moscow: Progress. . Trans. ofStanislavskii. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1977.
Ribot, Théodule-Armand. 2006.The Diseases of the Will. Trans. Merwin-Marie Snell. London: Kessinger Publishing's Legacy Reprints.ISBN1-4254-8998-2. Online edition available.
Ribot, Théodule-Armand. 2007.Diseases of Memory: An Essay in the Positive Psychology. London: Kessinger Publishing's Legacy Reprints.ISBN1-4325-1164-5. Online edition available.
Roach, Joseph R. 1985.The Player's Passion: Studies in the Science of Acting. Theater:Theory/Text/Performance Ser. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P.ISBN0-472-08244-2.
Rudnitsky, Konstantin. 1981.Meyerhold the Director. Trans. George Petrov. Ed. Sydney Schultze. Revised translation ofRezhisser Meierkhol'd. Moscow: Academy of Sciences, 1969.ISBN0-88233-313-5.
Rudnitsky, Konstantin. 1988.Russian and Soviet Theatre: Tradition and the Avant-Garde. Trans. Roxane Permar. Ed. Lesley Milne. London: Thames and Hudson. Rpt. asRussian and Soviet Theater, 1905–1932. New York: Abrams.ISBN0-500-28195-5.
Schuler, Catherine A. 1996.Women in Russian Theatre: The Actress in the Silver Age. London and New York: Routledge.ISBN0-415-11105-6.
Taxidou, Olga. 1998.The Mask: A Periodical Performance by Edward Gordon Craig. Contemporary Theatre Studies ser. volume 30. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.ISBN978-90-5755-046-1.
Toporkov, Vasily Osipovich. 2001.Stanislavski in Rehearsal: The Final Years. Trans. Jean Benedetti. London: Methuen.ISBN0-413-75720-X.
Whyman, Rose. 2008.The Stanislavsky System of Acting: Legacy and Influence in Modern Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.ISBN978-0-521-88696-3.
Worrall, Nick. 1996.The Moscow Art Theatre. Theatre Production Studies ser. London and NY: Routledge.ISBN0-415-05598-9.
.jpg)
