Central Conceptions in Stanislavski's System

Hobgood, Burnet M.

doi:10.2307/3205864

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One way to plug the gaps in one's knowledge is to investigate the origins of the methodology, although a literature review is not without its difficulties. The inaccurate and inconsistent translation of Stanislavsky's work in the best known English-language versions is well documented by, for example, Hobgood (1973), Benedetti (in Stanislavski 2008 and Carnicke (2009). Furthermore, Carnicke offers a comprehensive account of the distortion of Stanislavsky's ideas by other factors, particularly the need to adapt his books for the American market and the censorship in Russia of any ideas that did not conform strictly to Soviet ideology.…”

Section: Section One: the Rsa And Active Analysismentioning

confidence: 92%

“…One group staged Treplev's failed play, another created a scene in a hotel lobby, where a Trigorin-like figure is recognised and pursued by various women. Zemtsov approved of sharp changes in atmosphere, a 'vivid' event that affected the whole group, differentiation of reaction and actors existing realistically within the given circumstances, recalling the central concept of the 'system', 'perezhivanie' or 'experiencing' (Hobgood 1973, Benedetti in Stanislavski 2008, Carnicke 2009). In the case of the 'Chekhov' études, Zemtsov pointed out the ingredients that were and were not appropriate to the play.…”

Section: Section Two: the Moscow Art Theatre School-studiomentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Twenty-first-century Russian actor training: Active Analysis in the UK

Jackson¹

2011

Theatre, Dance and Performance Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Actor training in Europe, Russia and the US is still dominated by the many branches of the Stanislavskian 'family tree'. But how has this tradition evolved in Moscow and what fresh insights does it have to offer? Written from the perspective of a practitioner, this paper interrogates two strands of Russian actor training in the Stanislavskian tradition. The first section traces the genealogy of Active Analysis from Stanislavski's final studio, through the work of Maria Knebel to the 'Russian School of Acting', an idiosyncratic group of teachers who brought new techniques to the UK in the 1990s. Secondly, the paper analyses recent developments at the School-Studio attached to the Moscow Art Theatre, revealing a focus on études and the 'event'. The third and fourth sections document the impact of a range of contemporary Russian methods on students in a British drama school, the Mountview Academy of Theatre Arts. In training, rehearsal and performance, the approach is seen to enable the students to grasp some of the 'holy grails' of acting for the first time. In conclusion, the paper summarises the potential of Active Analysis and some of the issues raised by transferring training methods from one theatre culture to another.

show abstract

Section: Section One: the Rsa And Active Analysismentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Section Two: the Moscow Art Theatre School-studiomentioning

confidence: 97%

Twenty-first-century Russian actor training: Active Analysis in the UK

Jackson¹

2011

Theatre, Dance and Performance Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Self as Social Artifice: Some Consequences of Stanislavski

Ostdiek

2011

Biosemiotics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Method Acting and the Cold War

McConachie¹

2000

Theat Surv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Triumphalist accounts of the spread of “the Method” in post-World War II America generally explain its success as the victory of natural truths over benighted illusions about acting. In Method Actors: Three Generations of An American Acting Style, for instance, Steve Vineberg follows his summary of the primary attributes of “method” acting with the comment: “These concerns weren't invented by Stanislavski or his American successors; they emerged naturally out of the two thousand-year history of Western acting.” Hence, the final triumph of “the Method” was natural, even inevitable. Vineberg's statement, however, raises more questions than it answers. Why did it take two thousand years for actors and theorists of acting to get it right? Or, to localize the explanation to the United States, why did more American actors, directors, and playwrights not jump on the Stanislavski bandwagon and reform the American theatre after the appearance of the Moscow Art Theatre in New York in 1923 and the subsequent lectures and classes from Boleslavski and others? The Group Theatre demonstrated the power of Stanislavski-derived acting techniques in the 1930s, but their substantial successes barely dented the conventional wisdom about acting theory and technique in the professional theatre. Yet, in the late 1940s and early fifties, “method” acting, substantially unchanged from its years in the American Laboratory and Group theatres, took Broadway and Hollywood by storm.

show abstract

Central Conceptions in Stanislavski's System

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Twenty-first-century Russian actor training: Active Analysis in the UK

Twenty-first-century Russian actor training: Active Analysis in the UK

The Self as Social Artifice: Some Consequences of Stanislavski

Method Acting and the Cold War

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About