I OWN Stanislavski/Stanislavsky

A few years ago, I was teaching a Stanislavski-based introduction to acting course in a university far far away (in a land before time). I remember asking if any of the students had read Stanislavski’s books. I myself had been given the main books for my 16th birthday and had become besotted ever since. I remember a student raising their hand and speaking these immortal words ‘I own Stanislavski’. I think they meant they had the books, although I believe they followed it up with ‘but I haven’t actually read them’.

I’ve become interested in this idea of late. Often when I’m talking about Stanislavski on the blog or elsewhere on the internet, I get corrections and updates and messages and yes, a fair bit of abuse by those ‘in the know’. That is those who possess knowledge beyond knowledge, that is the truth.

But a pattern is emerging, a vision of Stanislavski owned by the speaker (that includes me). There is something about ownership that comes over in the tone. Invariably the messages have the tone of ‘I know and you are mistaken’, but more commonly the messages have the tone of ‘this is the truth about Stanislavski and you are wrong’. Every message (I don’t publish all comments) has a tone of ownership about it, an ownership of the truthful knowledge of Stanislavski, the real Stanislavski, which lead me to believe that there is in fact, a Stanislavski for all Seasons.

Carnicke makes illusions to this in her recent book ‘Stanislavsky in Focus’. She suggests there are two Stanislavski’s: the American Stanislavsky who followed the route of emotion, and the Russian Stanislavski who followed the route of physical actions. But actually, there are many more Stanislavskis. If you like, he’s a Man for All Seasons. He is appropriated by each side of any debate on acting in order to prove their point. And I think that’s perfectly okay, well it would be, except I get attacked by all of them for calling Stanislavski’s work a series of pointless Parlour Games :o) (Irony Warning) There is no perfect Stanislavski, there is his fabulous, confusing, time-separated, contradictory contribution to the world of acting (and its translations, interpretations and extractions) and what we can each draw from him.

I know that DG wants me to consider the whole of the system, but I’ve always thought that we should use the bits of any system that work and junk the bits that don’t. Of course, it’s a presumptive and personal subjective decision on my part and that of my teachers to choose which bits to keep and which bits to junk.  Imagination for instance is very important to the actor, but the way that each technique or method deals with imaginary circumstances or stimuli is one of the ways that we can tell them apart.

There is NO ‘correct’ Stanislavski, there is no perfect Stanislavski. No one, no matter how experienced, educated, or opinionated can claim ownership of ‘the real’ Stanislavski. You can own the books, you can know passed on knowledge, you can have suckled at the tit, but you still don’t own the truth of Stanislavski: he’s too complex and he’s dead.

Now we need to move forward, make progress, carry on, none of this can be done with the ‘deadly’ frozen statuesque Stanislavski of a single defintion. To me, Stanislavski’s work is a point of departure, I don’t claim to teach his work. Practical Aesthetics is based in Stanislavski, but it’s an evolution as Macy said. It’s a progression, and in every progression, stuff gets left behind, stuff gets added. Like it or lump it, it works and we speak from our perspective.

Those who believe they are in possession of the truth, talk of facts, but these facts are simply used to support their own argument, or the argument of their people/genre/system/country/group. If you read any confident author ( I suggest you read David Strasberg’s great blog on Method Acting), or listen to a competent teacher, they speak as if they are in possession of the facts, and the truth. Yes, but Yes but.. save it! Those of us who believe we are in possession of the truth (that’s you and me) aren’t going to change our minds because you (whoever you are) believe you are in possession of contrary facts and at the end of the day, since the man is dead, we’re going to meet a continued stalemate. What’s more he contradicts himself at various stages of his life in art, he’s badly translated and NO TWO experts on systematic acting agree with each other, unless they do so to support their mutual membership of a group. How do we know the REAL Stanislavski and his REAL thoughts? I would say, as Smelianski once said, he is a SACRED COW.

Writing this blog has taught me that fact and truth, are simply claims to ownership, and I’m not sure that it’s useful to anyone of us. All the Adler people use Stan to support their view, all the Strasberg theirs and I’m sure the Meisner people do the same. I’m sure I do the same too, or have in the past, but this is something I’m going to watch out for in myself.

Some thoughts, likely to incur comments, but just my thoughts.

To You, the Best

Mark