Part 2--Stanislavski, The Method in Review

      If you haven't noticed that modern acting is moving beyond Stanislavski, you must have at least considered that we would or will eventually. We should not measure the importance of a philosopher, martyr, scientist, or theologian by how long his or her ideas are adhered to by zealots. Time's winged chariot moves us to different, even if not superior ideas. Their greatness is shown if we have to move through their ideas to move on. In other words, in Hegelian terms, if our synthesis relies on their thesis or antithesis, then their ideas are the nutrients for the new fruit. Far from dismissing Stanislavski, I contend that his theories are to philosophy what Darwin's theories are to biology or Campbell's to mythology. For this reason, we have to review a couple theories in the method. For brevity and simplicity, let's consider three: objective, situation, and what's at stake.
      Stanislavski, in many ways, provides the antithesis rather than an original thesis. Having nothing to do with this track that leads us to where we are now, there was of course the acting theory that actors simply spoke the words beautifully and powerfully during the "star system" of acting. There probably was little of what we would now consider characterization at all in this. On the other hand, before Stanislavski, there was also the idea that the actor, in many ways, became the character. If you were playing Hamlet and the lines seemed to require the actor to yell or to cry, you yelled or cried. Why? You did this because the character did this and you were the character. Stanislavski believed this was absurd, as you will never become the character. You will always be you. And if you have no better motivation than either the playwright or the director told you to do it, then you, the actor, would be playing an emotion and would be false. Stanislavski, of course, said that you must have an objective because all motivation and actions stem from a human desire.
      Consider this action: You hold someone's hand and say, "Thank you. You are a wonderful person. We couldn't have done it without you. Thank you very much." Here we have the characters and the lines. We can also have the emotion already. How are we feeling when we say this? Humble? Grateful? Where do we get these emotions so that they come across as true during the action? At first, Stanislavski's answer was that these emotions can be found through emotional recall from past events in our lives. We also know that he changed his mind about this. The emotion should come from the strength of our desire. And what is our desire when we say "Thank you" and all the rest of that? We want the other character to do us other favors in the future. You'll notice in life how much more fervently you are thanked for helping with an annual event than you are for a one-time event. If we seriously analyze emotions when they rise, we see that many of them are caused by an objective/desire. Desires, either to get something or to feel good, fuel actions. Emotions are simply the exhaust.

Go To Page: 1 2 3 4