Legacy and influence in modern performance

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2008

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data

Whyman, Rose. The Stanislavsky system of acting : legacy and influence in modern performance / Rose Whyman. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-521-88696-3 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Method (Acting) 2. Stanislavsky, Konstantin, 1863–1938. I. Title. PN2062.W49 2008 792.02’8–dc22 2007051676

ISBN-13 978-0-521-88696-3 hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

with all my love and thanks

Contents

Illustrations

Photographs 1–8 are reproduced by kind permission of the Moscow Art Theatre Museum

Photograph 9 is from the University of Bristol Theatre Collection

The photographic material dates from the 1920s to the 1930s and the quality of the images is the best it can be

1 The Stanislavsky system of acting: legacy and influence in modern performance

‘The history of the theater is a history of ideas’ 1

‘Delsarte, Stanislavski, Meyerhold and a host of their disciples each developed ‘systems’ which used languages of acting based on the assumption of an objective science (of the mind and/or body)’ 2

Preface

The main innovators of actor training, from Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavsky onward, have claimed that their methods were supported by scientific hypotheses and discoveries current at the time of their work. 3 My purpose is to analyse the extent to which Stanislavsky’s system was corroborated by scientific information available to him and to examine whether Stanislavsky adapted his training methods in the light of advances in science in his lifetime. Stanislavsky’s methods can be compared with those of Evgeny Vakhtangov, Michael Chekhov and Vsevolod Meyerhold. Stanislavsky taught all of them, and all had access to the information he had, but all took different directions in their work, and Chekhov and Meyerhold claimed different theoretical bases from those of Stanislavsky to corroborate their own methods.

The question as to whether the system in fact had a verifiable scientific basis has long provoked conflict of opinion. Joseph Roach claims that Stanislavsky adjusted his theories in accordance with the emerging psycho-physiological theory of his time and that ‘his System, therefore, cannot be comprehended without his science’. 4 On the other hand, as Eric Bentley argues, the references to science may be, as he puts it, just a ruse: ‘theatre people have been invoking scientific terminology for the sake of its authoritative sound: anything with a scientific name must have a scientific basis. Once we see through this fallacy, we realize that ‘exercises’ given to actors may not actually do the work they are supposed to do. But this is not to say they have no value.’ 5 These polarised views result from a lack of understanding of the scientific basis of the system in its time, and the significance of that basis now. Many of Stanislavsky’s concepts are widespread in popular thought on acting; it is time for an evaluation of the basis of that thinking.

© Cambridge University Press