El método. Stanislavski ENTRENAMIENTO PSICOLÓGICO Estudiar cómo pronunciar cualquier discurso, sin improvisar. Aprender a visualizar. El método de STANISLAVSKI design by Dóri Sirály for Prezi Hoy haces el papel de Hamlet, y mañana el de figurante, pero aún en calidad tal. The Stanislavski Method is a documentary that narrates the life of a young aspiring actor, Miguel Torres, who tells his story in this tough career by pieces which.
|Published (Last):||1 May 2009|
|PDF File Size:||12.50 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.39 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Stanislavski’s system is a systematic approach to training actors that the Russian theatre practitioner Konstantin Stanislavski developed in the first half of the 20th century. Later, Stanislavski further elaborated the system with a more physically grounded rehearsal process that came to be known as the “Method of Physical Action”.
Thanks to its promotion and development by acting teachers who were former students and the many translations of Stanislavski’s theoretical writings, his system acquired an unprecedented ability to cross cultural boundaries and developed a reach, dominating debates about acting in the West.
Many actors routinely equate his system with the American Methodalthough the latter’s exclusively psychological techniques contrast sharply with stanislavvski multivariant, holistic and psychophysical approach of the “system”, which explores character and action both from the ‘inside out’ and the ‘outside in’ and treats the actor’s mind and body as parts of a continuum. Throughout his career, Stanislavski subjected his acting and direction to a rigorous process of artistic self-analysis and reflection.
Having worked as an amateur actor and director until the age of 33, in Stanislavski co-founded with Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko the Moscow Art Theatre MAT and began his professional stxnislavski.
The two of stanislavsli were resolved to institute a revolution in the staging practices of the time. Benedetti offers a vivid portrait of the poor quality of mainstream theatrical practice in Russia before the MAT:.
The script meant less than nothing. Sometimes the cast did not even bother to learn their lines. Leading actors would simply plant themselves downstage centre, by the prompter’s box, wait to be fed the lines then deliver them straight at the audience in a ringing voice, giving a fine display of passion and “temperament.
Direct communication with the other actors was minimal. Furniture was so arranged as to allow the actors to face front. Stanislavski’s early productions were created without the use of his system. Both his struggles with Chekhov’s drama out of which his notion of subtext emerged and his experiments with Symbolism encouraged a greater attention to “inner action” and a more intensive investigation of the actor’s process.
Stanislavski eventually came to organise his techniques into a coherent, systematic methodology, which built on three major strands of influence: This system is based on “experiencing a role. Not all emotional experiences are appropriate, therefore, since the actor’s feelings must be relevant and parallel to the character’s experience. On this basis, Stanislavski contrasts his own “art of experiencing” approach with what he calls the ” art of representation ” practised by Cocquelin in which experiencing forms one of the preparatory stages only and “hack” acting in which experiencing plays no part.
Stanislavski’s approach seeks to stimulate the will to create afresh and to activate subconscious processes sympathetically and indirectly by means of conscious techniques. The range of training exercises and rehearsal practices that are designed to encourage and support “experiencing the role” resulted from many years of sustained inquiry and experiment.
Many may be discerned as early as in Stanislavski’s letter of advice to Vera Kotlyarevskaya on how to approach the role of Charlotta in Anton Chekhov ‘s The Cherry Orchard:. First of all you must live the role without spoiling the words or making them commonplace.
Shut yourself off and play whatever goes through your head. Imagine the following scene: Pishchik has proposed to Charlotta, now she is his bride How will she behave? How does she do gymnastics or sing little songs? Do your hair in various ways and try to find in yourself things which remind you of Charlotta. You will be reduced to despair twenty times in your search but don’t give up.
Make this German woman you love so much speak Russian and observe how she pronounces words and what are the special characteristics of her speech. Remember to play Charlotta in a dramatic moment of her life. Try to make her weep sincerely over her life. Through such an image you will discover all the whole range of notes you need. Exercises such as these, though never seen directly onstage or screen, prepare the actor for a performance based on experiencing the role.
Experiencing constitutes the inner, psychological aspect of a role, which is endowed with the actor’s individual feelings and own personality. Stanislavski’s “Magic If” describes an ability to imagine oneself in a set of fictional circumstances and to envision the consequences of finding oneself facing that situation in terms of action.
The ensemble of these circumstances that the actor is required to incorporate into a performance are called the ” given circumstances “. In preparation and rehearsal, the actor develops imaginary stimuli, which often consist of sensory details of the circumstances, in order to provoke an organic, subconscious response in performance. In a rehearsal process, at first, the “line” of experiencing will be patchy and broken; as preparation and rehearsals develop, it becomes increasingly sustained and unbroken.
When experiencing the role, the actor is fully absorbed by the drama and immersed in its fictional circumstances; it is a state that the psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi calls ” flow. He encouraged this absorption through the cultivation of “public solitude” and its “circles of attention” in training and rehearsal, which he developed from the meditation techniques of yoga. An actor’s performance is animated by the pursuit of a sequence of “tasks” identified in Elizabeth Hapgood’s original English translation as “objectives”.
A task is a problem, embedded in the ” given circumstances ” of a scene, that the character needs to solve. This is often framed as a question: In preparing and rehearsing for a role, actors break up their parts into a series of discrete “bits”, each of which is distinguished by the dramatic event of a “reversal point”, when a major revelation, decision, or realisation alters the direction of the action in a significant way.
Each “bit” or “beat” corresponds to the length of a single motivation [task or objective]. The term “bit” is often mistranslated in the US as “beat”, as a result of its pronunciation in a heavy Russian accent by Stanislavski’s students who taught his system there. A task must be engaging and stimulating imaginatively to the actor, Stanislavski argues, such that it compels action:.
One of the most important creative principles is that an actor’s tasks must always be able to coax his feelings, will and intelligence, so that they become part of him, since only they have creative power. Like a magnet, it must have great drawing power and must then stimulate endeavours, movements and actions. The task is the spur to creative activity, its motivation.
The task is a decoy for feeling. The task creates the inner sources which are transformed naturally and logically into action.
The task is the heart of the bit, that makes the pulse of the metkdo organism, the role, beat. Stanislavski’s production of A Month in the Country was a watershed in his artistic development, constituting, according to Magarshack, “the first play he produced according to his system. The pursuit of one task after another forms a through-line of action, which unites the discrete bits into an unbroken continuum of experience.
Stanislavski’s system – Wikipedia
This through-line drives towards a task operating at the scale of the drama as a whole and is called, for that reason, a “supertask” or “superobjective”. A performance consists of the inner aspects of a role experiencing and its outer aspects “embodiment” that are united in the pursuit of the supertask. In his later work, Stanislavski focused more intently stanilavski the underlying patterns of dramatic conflict.
He developed a rehearsal technique that he called “active analysis” in which actors would improvise these conflictual dynamics. In the American developments of Stanoslavski system—such as that found in Uta Hagen ‘s Respect for Actingfor example—the forces opposing a characters’ pursuit of their tasks are called “obstacles”.
Stanislavski further elaborated his system with a more physically grounded rehearsal process that came to be known as the “Method of Physical Action”. Benedetti indicates that though Stanislavski had stanislagski it sincehe first explored it practically in the early s.
Benedetti emphasises the continuity of the Method of Physical Action with Stanislavski’s earlier approaches; Whyman argues that “there is no justification in Stanislavsky’s [ sic ] writings for the assertion that the method of physical actions represents a rejection of his previous work”.
Minimising at-the-table discussions, he now encouraged an “active analysis”, in which the sequence of dramatic situations are improvised. For in the process of action the actor gradually obtains the mastery over the inner sanislavski 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. Just as the First Studio, led by his assistant and close friend Leopold Sulerzhitskyhad provided the forum in which he developed his initial ideas for his system during the s, he hoped to secure his final legacy by opening another studio inin which the Method of Physical Action would be taught.
Leopold Sulerzhitskywho had been Stanislavski’s personal assistant since and whom Maxim Gorky had nicknamed “Suler”, was selected to lead the studio. Benedetti argues that a significant influence on the development of Stanislavski’s system came from his experience teaching and directing at his Opera Studio.
By means of his system, Stanislavski aimed to unite the work of Mikhail Shchepkin and Feodor Chaliapin. A series of thirty-two lectures that he delivered to this studio between and were recorded by Konkordia Antarova and published in ; they have been translated into English as On the Art of metoco Stage Near the end of his life Stanislavski created an Opera—Dramatic Studio in his own apartment on Leontievski Lane now known as “Stanislavski Lane”under the auspices of which between and he offered a significant course in the system in its final form.
Given the difficulties he had with completing his manual for actors, in while recuperating in Nice Stanislavski decided that he needed to found a new studio if he was to ensure his legacy. Jean Benedetti staniwlavski that the course at the Opera—Dramatic Studio is “Stanislavski’s true testament. The First Six Lessons played a significant role in the transmission of Stanislavski’s ideas and practices to the West.
In the Soviet Unionmeanwhile, another of Stanislavski’s students, Maria Knebelsustained and developed his rehearsal process of “active analysis”, despite its formal prohibition by the state. Together with Stella Adler and Sanford MeisnerStrasberg developed the earliest of Stanislavski’s techniques into what came to be known as ” Method acting ” or, with Strasberg, more usually simply “the Method” stanislavwki, which he taught at the Actors Studio.
Every afternoon for five weeks during the summer of in ParisStanislavski worked with Adler, who had sought his assistance with the blocks she had confronted in her performances. Meisner, an actor at the Group Theatre, went on to stanislasvki method acting at New York’s Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre ep, where he stanislvski an emphasis on what Stanislavski called “communication” and “adaptation” in an approach that he branded the ” Meisner technique “.
Though many others have contributed to the development of method acting, Strasberg, Adler, and Meisner are associated with “having set the standard of its success”, though each emphasised different aspects: Strasberg developed the psychological aspects, Adler, the sociological, and Meisner, the behavioral.
The relations between these strands and their acolytes, Carnicke argues, have been characterised by a “seemingly endless hostility among warring camps, each proclaiming themselves his only true disciples, like religious fanatics, turning dynamic ideas into rigid dogma.
Carnicke analyses at length the splintering of the system into its psychological and physical components, both in the US and the USSR.
She argues instead for its psychophysical integration. She suggests that Moore’s approach, for example, accepts uncritically the teleological accounts of Stanislavski’s work according to which early experiments in emotion memory were ‘abandoned’ and the approach ‘reversed’ with a discovery of the scientific approach of behaviourism.
These accounts, which emphasised the physical aspects at the expense of the psychological, revised the system in order to render it more palatable to the dialectical materialism of the Soviet state. In a similar way, other American accounts re-interpreted Stanislavski’s work in terms of the prevailing popular interest in Freudian psychoanalysis.
One must give actors stanislavaki paths. One of these is the path of action. There is also another path: Stanislavski’s work made little impact on British theatre before the s. Many other theatre practitioners have been influenced by Stanislavski’s ideas and practices. Jerzy Grotowski regarded Stanislavski as the primary influence on his own theatre work.
In the novel, the stage director, Ivan Vasilyevich, uses acting exercises while directing a play, which is titled Black Snow.
The playwright in the novel sees the acting exercises taking over the rehearsals, becoming madcap, and causing the playwright to rewrite parts of his play.
The playwright is concerned that his script is being lost in all of this. When he finally sees the play performed, the playwright reflects that the director’s theories would ultimately lead the audience to become so absorbed in the reality of the performances that they forget the play.