Method of Acting

By : Constantin Stanislavski
The origins of Stanislavsky' System are in naturalism, positivism, even Marxism, photography,
Darwin, electricity... Realism became "natural" -- the subtext idea promiced that we can discover
everything within the ordinary. Everybody as predicted by Christ became a hero. The "immortal
soul" could be brought out by the camera! The turn of the century Theatrical Revolution was
anti-theatrical, as Meyerhold understood it after a decade of being a revolutionary; he revolted
against The Method (with a new one, Theatrical Theatre). Stanislavsky's gift was to small,
studio, theatre -- which is a sound stage, with the professional spectators only. It took fifty years
for Method to find its true domain -- the screen...
July 2003. More I work on acting and directing pages, stronger the desire to defend the legacy of
Stanislavsky, who doesn't need my or anybody else defense. Did you read "True and False" by
Mamet? Read and you can see that even a brilliant man could talk nonsense. So, what is the
matter with this "Method Acting"?
First, there is no one techniques of acting and before Stanislavsky there was no system at all.
Period. If you do not understand Chekkov and took place in drama of the 20th century, unlikely
you can see the need for the new approach in acting. From inside, artistic, psychological. For a
change Stanislavsky thought of actors as artists, no less than writers or philosophers. Do we
understand it today? I don't think so. We still stress the craft -- and actors themselves do not
equate acting with writing...
Actors do not respect themselves. Even in the age of cinema, where their art could be recorded
and preserved, they do not behave as authors. The movies, fame and fortune, turn them into
celebraties -- when do they have time to think about the art of acting. What could you do with it?
Perhaps the whole thing came to us too early. Another century or two and maybe we will be
ready. Look how complicated the theory of musical composition -- and look at actors! Actor is
the biggest orchestra one can imagine, but how primitive is acting theories!
Look back at the twenty five centuries of theatre -- what do you see? The history of drama! The
true history of theatre is ahead of us -- the history of acting! Do you still question that a
performer is the heart of theatre?
You do not want to use the System? Don't. Do whatever you want in hope that somehow one day
you will get it. They say that thousand monkeys could type a Shakespeare' sonnet if they keep
typing for one thousand years. Go ahead.
In my film classes students often ask my opinion about our movie actors -- the question itself
tells me how little they know about filmmaking ... and acting. Fourty years from today, get the
best movies of your youth and watch them again. You will understand how bad is the acting of

our best. Camera is close and camera is merciless -- it records, and fourty years from now it
won't possible to watch them without a smile...
How do I know? Even my favorites (Fellini, Bergman, Kurosawa, see Film and Movies) can
stand as directorial discoveries, but acting -- no comments!
I didn't teach Stanislavsky fifteen years ago. I teach Method now because of the fifteen years of
experience of teaching acting. They need it -- the system. Why should I invent some new
theories and techniques? I simply use what Stanislavsky (and Meyerhold) discovered. There are
many things which are still not explored in Stanislavsky (yoga connections, for one); all you
need is start here and go further. Please, do.
If I will have time, I want to work on Method, but in Virtual Theatre and The Book of
Spectatordirections. But this is not a place to talk about it...
He is not a director (read Chekhov's letters). He is a head-actor, master-actor -- the old tradition,
when the most experienced and smartest does teach the new ones. There are no directors in cirus.
Stanislavsky developed his system the under house arrest at the time when Moscow Art Theatre
couldn't do anything besides socialist realism. a lot of Russian artists uder Stalin turned to theory
in order to stay alive.
Stanislavsky (Alexeyev) wasn't an artist, but a craftsman. His method is not an invention but a
discovery of what was used from the beginning of time. "Psychological realism" makes sense
because only feelings are the reality. The only material I, the spectator, can use -- my own
feelings, memories, experiences. So, Stanislavsky advises actor to do the same.
My dear actor!
Don't wait for your luck -- learn directing to manage yourself in order to direct others -- the
public. That is what I do, when I direct shows -- I direct my feelings and thoughts.
When I write plays, I use the same method -- I become a character without forgetting myself. Of
course, the character is "me" -- and more. "Identification" is a long word, but the only ground for
dramatic experience. It's ME, who must be in the middle of action, I am on stage! Actor uses a
role to extend his natural status of being a spectator. He makes an extra step by becoming a new
being.
I wish I could have time to translate the best of the century's philosophy into theatrical terms.
The existentialists defined it all -- being and becoming, becoming as being an so on. Theatre
folks are too busy to read fat books, otherwise they would know the philosophy behind the
techniques.
Stanislavsky himself didn't read much and had no idea what Heidegger was writing. But all
Russians read Nietzsche and a lot in the Russian Thought follows the tradition of the revolt
against modernity and humanity.

Stanislavsky directed Chekhov's plays, didn't he? Chekhov is the great nihilist of all times, the
one Nietzsche tried to fight. Chekhov is a demonstration of Nietzsche paradox -- the conflict
between Will To Power and the Eternal Return concept.
The Return annihilates TIME and paralyzes WILL. It turns each of us in a babble, when we live
in one and only world of SELF.
Obviously, Stanislavsky teaches to study this territory -- the self. Being is Becoming, nothing
else. Only Becoming is Being. And here is where "will" is coming into action. It's Self-Willing,
getting control over your own Self, known in acting theory is a mastery of emotions, body, voice,
etc.
Theatre like everything else is about CONTROL and as every power it starts with the power over
yourself. Actor is a master of his own moods! He is happy, when he commands himself to be
happy. He is angry when he willing so. He is a creator of his feelings!
What a picture! What a spectacle to watch!

Beginning with Objectives

To identify the objective clearly, an actor breaks down a scene into beats or bits, which are
short sections that end with each change of objective. In a basic example, if a character pours a
cup of coffee, answers the phone, and then runs screaming out of the house, the scene has at least
three separate beats. At the bare minimum, the objective changes from pouring coffee, to
answering the phone, to getting out of the building. Beats are not determined on action alone,
however, and may be based on a change of argument or emotion.
Actors can define objectives even within individual lines of dialogue, based on a concept called
objective words. It is the actors job to understand and play the characters objective not only
in the entire play or film, each scene, and each beat, but also in each line. Determining what the
key motivation is behind each line is a basic practice in the Stanislavski method.
The "Magic If"
In order to help actors portray the honest objective of the character, Stanislavski pioneered a
concept called the magic if. To help connect the character to the actor, performers must ask
themselves What if this situation happened to me? Through this activity, actors identify with
characters as possible aspects of themselves, allowing them to think like the characters, rather
than just impersonate them.
Obstacles and Methods Within a Scene
Obstacles are things preventing a character from achieving his or her objective. In the previous
scene, if the character trips while trying to run, it would present an obstacle to the objective of
getting out of the house. Obstacles are dealt with through one of three methods: the character
gives up the objective because of it, finds a way to go around it, or plunges along regardless. The

method a character chooses in dealing with obstacles gives great insight into that character; the
basis for much of the Stanislavski method lies in defining how and why a character chooses a
particular response.
The Internal Monologue
Understanding the objectives and methods of a character allows a performer to create an
internalmonologue for that character. Real people typically have a semi-constant flow of
thoughts going on in their minds, and the Stanislavski method attempts to create a similar
internal monologue for a character. This technique helps each action feel as if it comes
spontaneously, rather than simply because the script says it should happen. Actors also use this
monologue to help them prevent a scene from becoming repetitious or dull even after many
performances.
Differences from "Method Acting"
Due of its emphasis on realism, the Stanislavski method is often used in modern plays, film, and
television. It should not be confused with Lee Strasbergs Method Acting, however, which
involves an actor attempting to completely become a character. The Stanislavski method
maintains that a performer must remain somewhat separate from the character, in order to
properly understand his or her motivations and goals.
References ;
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-stanislavski-method-of-acting.htm
http://method.vtheatre.net/stanislavsky.html

Research Paper
in
Lit 115
(mwf 10-11:00 am sec E)

Submitted by :

John Meldor C. Vallega

Submiited to:

Prof. Virgel E. Nicasio