top of page

[Project One]

Preparatory Assignment #1:​ 

    Marilyn Monroe, Al Pacino, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Robert Dinero, Viola Davis, and Gabrielle Phillips. What do all of these names have in common? The names that comprise the list are all actors. More specifically, each person listed utilizes Stanislavski’s method. 

    Stanislavski’s method, also known as “method” acting focuses on realism. Briefly explained, Stanislavski curate a groundbreaking method of “believable truth.” The techniques of this method focus on numerous ways of reaching believability. Beginning with emotional memory, actors remember a time when they experienced a specific emotion then they put themselves back into that state of mind. Also included, the technique of “creative if, where actors are stretched to imagine they are in the characters plane of real life. Another aspect of his method focuses on the character's objective, and how the intention could be broken down into units of actions working toward achieving the character's objective. The last portion of the method targets matching inner experience with external techniques. Matching requires actors to bridge the gap between their current emotional state and their work at hand. 

    My name appeared on the list of individuals because I too am an actor, and Stanislavski based. I chose the theatre community as my group to focus on, but more specifically the collective of trained actors who engineer their work off of the method. Previously I attended University of North Carolina School of the Arts where I received instruction as an actor in their pre-professional BFA acting program. Stanislavski serves as the basis for all training offered at UNCSA’s drama school. More recently, I am a BFA Acting major at Florida State University’s School of Theatre. Similarly to UNCSA, FSU values Stanislavski’s method as the foundation for the program. 

    Stanislavski does not strike me as a casual household name, which I would find understandable if he didn’t impact today’s entertainment industry. But without Stanislavski, the realism of movies, theatre, and television may never have existed. For that idea alone, I chose this specific community. 

    With my focus being on the theatre community and more precisely the association of trained actors practicing the Stanislavski method, I decided upon my question: “ How is Stanislavski’s method impacting pre-professional acting today?” Currently, the conversation regarding Stanislavski's approach is very limited. My knowledge derives from personal experience in esteemed artistic environments. Outside of the modest professional community, the method is nameless. For this reason, I hope the topic at hand will create an awareness of Stanislavski and his connections with the current entertainment industry.

    Although outside communities may not be privy to the depths of the method, members of the practiced theatre community spend years perfecting the facility of their craft. Under their shared knowledge, resources regarding my topic are plentiful. The initial research I continue completing focuses on the basics of Stanislavski, “Who is Stanislavski and what is his method?”. From there I began delving into other methods that have derived from Stanislavski's teachings. From there I found myself led down a path of researching universities and professional acting schools that practice his teachings. Continuing my exploration, I came upon familiar names of actors who rely on Stanislavski for their process’. Additionally, I plan the inclusion of an interview with Florida State University Associate Professor and School of Theatre Curriculum Vitae, Jean McDaniel Lickson. Professor Lickson’s knowledge and experience using the method in her work and teachings will no doubt provide a valuable perspective on Stanislavski. A majority of my research on this style will be from one of Stanislavski’s books, The Actor Prepares. With an abundance of sources, I aspire to leave my peers well oriented with their connection to Stanislavski.

In Class Peer Interview

    Prescot Nelson's Road to Florida State University

    Choosing which college you want to invest in attending for four years is a significant life decision. The opinions of other people, particularly parents and friends, subconsciously weigh on your mind. Then you have the millions questions and doubts of your own that race through your head. How do you know if you’ll be making the right choice? Prescot Nelson went through this experience spring of 2017. 

    Growing up, “I was born in Fairhope, Alabama. And right now I'm from Cumming, Georgia” location played an influence in his decision. He wanted independence and to be on his own, “I just wanted to get out.” With Cumming, Georgia being a five and a half hour drive, Prescot found his perfect balance of distance. Though, he still misses his dog and a “nice bed that [he can] actually fit in.” Prescot has made a home at Florida State University, but this university was not always in his cards. 

    With legacy on his mind, and his “dad and grandad [who] went to Auburn,” Prescot had always planned on becoming a tiger. After “growing up as a kid we’d go there for games,” he was no doubt comfortable with this campus. But after comparing tuition of going to a private in-state university, and receiving a scholarship from Florida State to attend with in-state tuition fees, the pros started racking up to FSU. But what did his parents think? Would they be okay with him straying from the family roots? He received overwhelming support. His mom was “happy for [him] to go there.” Prescot’s friends were incredibly enthusiastic offering many a “dude that’s awesome” when he shared the news back home. Although the support of his mom and friends were important, a key factor in his decision was his dad’s approval. Prescot's “dad heavily influenced” his determination on attending FSU, he recommended it! Before his dads mention, he didn’t know much about Florida State and what the school had to offer. After a visit to campus and more discussion, Prescot decided Tallahassee was the place for him. 

    As his second semester is in full swing, Prescot couldn’t imagine leaving for Auburn now. Though he considered reapplying and possibly transferring he shared, “honestly, I don’t think I would transfer now… I love it here”. Having met new people from across the country, he has made a close group of friends after only coming into FSU only knowing “a handful of people” from his high school outside of Atlanta, Georgia. Branching out has been one of his favorite aspects of his experience thus far at Florida State. 

    Prescot will continue his expedition at FSU as a psychology major. He looks forward to the opportunity to “focus in” on more specific classes instead of the general course requirements of FSU. And hopefully, along with that, he will “get better grades” this semester. Prescot’s future at Florida State University is sure to bring new experience and new friends that will sustain his confidence in his decision to start a new lineage of Seminoles! 

Annotated Bibliography

Gabrielle Phillips 

Maddie Khal 

ENC 2135

4 February 2018 

Academic Annotated Bibliography

Bilgrave, Dyer D., and Deulty, Robert H. “Stanislavski’s Acting Method and Control Theory: 

Commonalities Across Time Place, and Field.” Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 32, 329-340, June 2004. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2004.32.4.329, 22 January 2018.

 

    In Dyer P. Bilgrave and Robert H. Deluty’s article “Stanislavski’s Acting Method and Control Theory: Commonalities Across Time Place, and Field” provides a comparison to Stanislavski’s method outside of the realm of theatre. “Constantin Stanislavski revolutionized 20th-century theater by developing a highly articulated and practical system of acting, now referred to simply as “the method.” Stanislavski’s method presents a model of human behavior and motivation that is strikingly similar to the “control theory” of psychologists Charles Carver and Michael Scheier.”(329) Although this is not a connection to how Stanislavski impacts theatre today, they are bridging the gap between Stanislavski and the present day. 

    Comparing Stanislavski's method and the "control theory," Bilgrave and Deluty break down the comparison into categories. These categories include: “(a) the regulation of behavior by goals, (b) the process of goal formation, (c) the hierarchical organization of behavior, (d) the disruption of goals by obstacles, (e) outcome expectancies, (f) the sequencing of behavior into units, and (g) the formation of identity.” (329) Specifically relating to Stanislavski's impact on training actors today, Bilgrave and Deulty cite from an outside source that, “Today, virtually all training programs for the professional actor in both Europe and the United States are based on his work (Barton, 1989, pp. 104-106), and his concepts and techniques are so basic to acting that theater professionals universally refer to them as “the method.” (330) This source only further supports my belief that Stanislavski is prevalent in all acting today. The detailed description and use of specific method terms will contribute to the research paper at hand. 

    This article does not relate to Emma Cole’s, “The Method Behind the Madness: Katie Mitchell, Stanislavski, and The Classics” because Cole’s focuses on Katie Mitchell’s production in tandem with Stanislavski, where Bilgrave and Deluty compare the method to the “control theory.” The specificity creates their differences. In this source, there is a particular focus on the work an actor must complete before a performance. The discussion on given circumstances and the breakdown of objectives provided insightful detail in an easy to grasp manner. The source explicitly backs up the logical flow intended for the research paper with multiple mentions of Stanislavski in contemporary acting.

 

Cole, Emma. “The Method Behind the Maddness: Katie Mitchell, Stanislavski, and The 

Classics.” Classical Receptions Journal, vol. 7, no. 3. 1 December 2015, Pages 400-421, https://doi.org/10.1093/crj/clu022. 21 January 2018. 

    

    In the article, “The Method Behind the Madness: Katie Mitchell, Stanislavski, and The Classics” Dr. Emma Cole analyzes the use of Stanislavski’s method, and more specifically his method used in classic plays, such as Woman of Troy. Mitchell believes that “psychological realism is a foundational element in almost all current naturalistic productions that seek to tell a story and evoke a response through linear, character- driven narrative.”(400) This includes plays from the classical era. Cole earned her Ph.D. focusing on reception Greco-Roman tragedy in post-dramatic theatre from the department of Greek and Latin at University College London. Currently, she is a faculty member of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Bristol.  

    Cole discusses the importance of realism that Stanislavski's method brings to acting. She argues that the process can serve as a tool for classic texts, and not only to contemporary works. Stating that "His (Stanislavski) work remains relevant…”(402) Cole’s extensive research and knowledge on Stanislavski's method and the connections to today’s actors provide firm support for my research topic. A specific example of this connection, which I found especially interesting, is exemplified in her article through Katie Mitchell who observed "Lev Dodin and Tadeusz Kantor and studied under Tatiana Olear and Elen Bowman, third generation students of Stanislavski's method.”(402)

    Cole went into extensive detail into Katie Mitchell’s Royal National Theatre production of Women of Troy. Although these particulars were intriguing, the character and plot detail will not be relevant for the research paper at hand and does not relate to “Stanislavski's acting method and control theory: Commonalities across time, place, and field” in that same sense. Both sources offered a baseline understanding of Stanislavski's method in a way that an individual who was not familiar with theatre would still be able to understand.  

 

LeÅŸe, Ana-Cristina. "The Physical Training of the Actor in the 20th Century Drama Pedagogy.” 

Review of Artistic Education, no. 7/8, pp. 164-168, Sept. 2014. EBSCOhost, login.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asu&AN=97264752&site=eds-live. 30 January 2018. 

 

    Ana-Cristina LeÅŸe academic source hones in on the comparison of Stanislavski’s method to physical education, “ In this paper, we will focus on… the aspects of the actor’s physical training and on the relations between the body and the soul, the body and the psyche which, in Stanislavski’s theory" we will also refer to the domain of Physical Education which includes physical training…”(164). LeÅŸe currently serves as a professor Ph.D., faculty member of “G. Enescu” University of Iasi – ROMANIA, where she focuses on Composition, Musicology, Musical pedagogy and Theatre. 

    LeÅŸe focuses on a specific portion of Stanislavski’s method- the physicality. Easily breaking down the intricate pieces and providing definitions to the terms coined by Stanislavski, she offers a straightforward interpretation. LeÅŸe analyzes that “physical activity in Stanislavski’s system… refers to accomplishing a task by means of the skeletal muscles, mainly in the case of physical exercises”(164). But then goes into detail, “physical activity is understood as any manifestation of the body segments or the entire body, of a technique”(165). Stanislavski’s physical element of his method allows actors the ability to move freely in their body, which then allows for them, like their character, movement for a specific purpose. 

    When comparing LeÅŸe’s paper to Tom Scholte’s, “Proto-cybernetics in the Stanislavski System of Acting: Past Foundations, Present Analyses, and Future Prospects” there were many similarities. Both offered connections between Stanislavski’s method and current topics that do not relate to the theatre. Although they both compare and contrast to the method, LeÅŸe’s paper allows for a broader connection, as most individuals are required to take a physical education class at some point in their lives. 

 

Scholte, Tom. ”Proto-cybernetics in the Stanislavski System of Acting: Past foundations, present 

analyses and future prospects.” Kybernetes, Vol. 44, Issue: 8/9, pp.1371-1379, https://doi.org/10.1108/K-11-2014-0234. 25 January 2018. 

 

    Tom Scholte’s, “Proto-cybernetics in the Stanislavski System of Acting: Past Foundations, Present Analyses, and Future Prospects” offers an intriguing insight into the intertwining of Stanislavski's method and cybernetics. With Scholte’s, “reading, analysis, and comparison of key excerpts from Stanislavski’s corpus, the writings of later proponents of his System, the literature of early cybernetics, and contemporary scholarship in cognitive science” Scholte interprets his digestion of the method. Interestingly enough, Scholte experienced in both. Earning both his BFA and MFA from the University of British Columbia, Tom Scholte took his talents to the stage and screen. Not only can Tom be found performing, but also engaging in the research exploration of exploring cybernetics in the Stanislavski System of Acting. 

    Scholte provided present-day connections to Stanislavksi’s method. William H. Macey and David Mamet developed The School of Practical Aesthetics with Stanislavski’s techniques underlying their coaching (1373). He also highlighted offsprings of the "method"- Uta Hagen's work and Meisner's technique. Uta Hagen’s connection to Stanislavski is seen with, “'Utter spontaneity’ onstage becomes possible when the actor can learn to ‘suspend knowledge of what [is] to come by unearthing the character’s expectations’ and let those expectations collide with what actually takes place ‘in the moment’”(1373). Uta Hagen’s mention of “being in the moment” is an essential aspect of Stanislavski’s core method teachings. 

    Scholte’s detail-oriented focus on the method uncovered different aspects of the method that Emma Cole’s source neglected. When introducing the basic outline of the Stanislavski's method, there were many similarities to Cole’s articulation. 

 

Tait, Peta. "Bodies Perform Inner Emotions: Stanislavski's Legacy." Australasian Drama Studies, 

no. 53, 2008, p. 84. EBSCOhost, login.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsihs&AN=edsihs.792230392513517&site=eds-live. 30 January 2018. 

 

    In Peta Tait’s “Bodies Perform Inner Emotions: Stanislavski's Legacy,” Tait argues that “acted emotions are part of cultural language and this extends to the representation of inner experience with acted emotions” (85). Tait evaluates Stanislavski’s method on many levels. Peta Tait serves as a Professor and Professor of Theatre and Drama at La Trobe University’s College of Arts, Social Sciences and Commerce Humanities and Social Sciences. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of Technology: Sydney. Tait is also the author of several published plays, which she wrote alongside completing research in drama, theatre, and performance studies. 

     In “Bodies Perform Inner Emotions: Stanislavski’s Legacy” Tait offers a performers point of view as well as an academic researcher focusing on the of acting performance. She questions the applicability of  Stanislavski. Tait considers others opinions along with her own, stating, “I was dissatisfied with the instruction (by Hayes Gordon of the Actors Studio) about acting emotions, a central tenet of the method, and especially by an expectation that emotional experience would be manifest in acting”(84). While doubting her initial experience with the method, she came around to what it had to offer fundamentally. Her clarity on the difficulty of grasping the concept was articulated with statements such as, “according to Stanislavski, the performer must externalize 'the inner life of the character’. Which she then goes on to decipher for her process. 

    Tait adds international perspective, which gives her a unique lens when studying the impact of Stanislavski in current day. Being from Australia, she connects to Stanislavski “indirectly through the training of actors in workshops and overtly through his books and other manuals on acting and the aforementioned interpretations and variations from North American acting teachers and directors”(86). Her intention perspective and overall catechization of Stanislavski’s method is unlike Ana-Cristina LeÅŸe’s “Bodies Perform Inner Emotions: Stanislavski's Legacy.” LeÅŸe praises Stanislavski's work and does not show an ounce of doubt in his method. While Tait offers a different tone from the other academic journals, it was difficult to deduce her intention with the paper. 

Interview Transcript

Gabby: So I know one of the questions I had sent you was in your professional work do you yourself use Stanislavksi's methods and do the people are you use them? 

Jean: Yeah, I mean, I think you know Stanislavski is the method. So I think whether it’s Stella Adler or Meisner, Utah Hagen, you know any of the techniques, it's all from Stanislavski. I mean because his work was, you know, changed theatre forever because it’s coming from a psychological point of view. And using your imagination, using sense memory, you know memories that you have and then using substitution. You know all the things we talk about. And all the other people, you know names you hear Hagen and Adler and Meisner and so forth, they’re all doing the same thing; They’re just going about it in a different way. So, they all use Stanislavski, I mean he’s the basis of everything. It’s just what their focus is. Like you know, Meisner is really listening and responding. (Makes noises to represent back and forth with snapping) Its back and forth. So his focus is the listening and responding aspect of Stanislavski. Uta Hagen is more like the sense memory and imagination aspect of Stanislavski. But, it’s all coming from his basic work. And the method or not, you know depending, but I think there's nothing new from any of these techniques. And I think it’s what works for you individually, you know, what works for you as an actor, and we’re all different. So, an exercise that Meisner uses may not work at all for you, but it might work perfectly for me. And Stanislavski’s sense memory might work for me this year but not next year. Or it mgiht work for me one time in a scene, and then I can never use it again. So, it’s all the same thing. It’s just point of view of attacking it. 

Gabby: Gotcha, okay cool. Now, do you think your students use those same Stanislavski techniques after they graduate and when they’re working?

Jean: Oh absolutely. 

Gabby: Yeah. 

Jean: Even more so. 

Gabby: Mhmm. That’s awesome. 

Jean: Even more so because the more you work, the more you understand you have to do that. You have to work even harder. You never stop working. As we said, You always have to go down to the mailroom and work your way up to the corporate office with every role. You can’t start in the corporate office with that role; you gotta go back down to the mail room. 

Gabby: Now can you tell when an actor, let's say in a movie, can you tell their technique that they’re using? Or no?

Jean: I mean I can tell if they’re real or not. And if they’re real, they’re using Stanislavski's work. Because what Stanislavski's work is, is being an actual human being. And actually really listening and actually really responding. 

Gabby: Yeah, yeah. 

Jean: Rather than "putting on a character" and pretending. Because before then that’s what is was. These gestures (does gesture) meant this and the frown. It wasn’t coming from here (points to self), it was just a show. You know, a representation of a person, and not a real human being. That was what was so astounding. 

Gabby: Yeah. Was that it was actually real. 

Jean: Real. They would really cry. They would really feel things, or they'd really be happy. Or they would really respond to what somebody said rather than “knowing their lines” and waiting for this person to finish “and then saying their’s” (said in character voice)

Gabby: So you think for those same reasons that’s why a majority of conservatory programs and acting training programs use Stanislavski.

Jean: Yeah, exactly. 

Gabby: Because it’s the way now.

Jean: Yeah, I mean there’s nothing else. I mean his is the basis, his work is the basis of everything. And reality acting, you know. I mean unless you’re going to clown school. 

Gabby: (Laughs). yeah, yeah. 

Jean: I mean seriously. Or going into the school of melodrama or maybe cartoon school, I mean I don’t know. I mean I think if you’re trying to create a real human being onstage, yeah, you’re going to his methods. (Laughs)

Gabby: (Laughs) Great. 

Jean: I mean maybe we should start a cartoon. That’d be fun- let’s be as fake as we possibly can. But you know, even that’s a technique, to push it as far as you can and just be so unbelievable. But sometimes that’ll push you to a place that makes you believable. 

Gabby: True. I didn’t think about that. 

Jean: Yeah, so there are no rules. We’re just trying to get to real people, as opposed to a caricature of a person. 

Gabby: And that’s what Stanislavski does. 

Jean: Yeah, exactly. Have you been reading a lot about him? 

Gabby: Yeah, umm, I have been reading a lot of academic journals so far on like a lot of comparing his work. One his comparing his work to some psychologists theory to Stanislavski's methods and the breakdown of beats and objectives and things like that. Then I read one that was based off of applying Stanislavski's method to Greek tragedy's, Trojan women especially, and how some people academically don’t believe you should be applying Stanislavski because it can take away and make the characters more real. And that’s exactly what it (the method) is supposed to be doing. One lady was arguing that that’s what you want the characters to be doing so that they’re more relatable. We should be applying those techniques to later texts that came before Stanislavski. 

Jean: Absolutely. Yeah, I mean like Shakespeare. 

Gabby: You gotta have some access point to it. 

Jean: Yeah. And who’s to say the people in those dramas weren’t doing that. 

Gabby: Yeah, yeah. 

Jean: I mean, there were great actors, even before Stanislavski. He just put it down into a way to work. I'm sure there are other people that felt that way. 

Gabby: Do you think we would’ve gotten to this point of realistic acting without Stanislavski?

Jean: No I think he was the first person, well yeah probably, but he was the first person that wrote it down and really had his own theatre with a group of like-minded individuals. I mean Isadora Duncan came to Stanislavski. You know, she was the creator of modern dance being, it came from your heart and not just a technical ballet of all technique. It came from your soul.  And that’s what Stanislavski… But I think he really put it into play with his books and just having the experience of having a theatre and having the people to work and help him.

Gabby: On his method. 

Jean: Yeah, exactly. And working with Chekov. You know, all of that, to make it a realistic, you know. I mean, I can’t say it’s just all him, but I think it was the group with him, and the people that came right after him. And then its just developed. And people just take what he started and spins it in different ways. But it’s all coming down to the same thing. You know what I’m saying? 

Gabby: Definitely.

Jean: Awesome. Alright, cool! Thank You

Gabby: Thank you. 

Jean: It was fun to kind of think about it. 

Interview Transcript
Draft Two 

Gabrielle Phillips

Maddie Khal

ENC 2135-077

18 February 2018    

Draft Two

    Marilyn Monroe, Al Pacino, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Robert Dinero, Viola Davis, and Gabrielle Phillips. What do all of these names have in common? The names that comprise this list are all actors. More specifically, each person listed utilizes Stanislavski’s method.  Stanislavski’s method, also known as “method” acting focuses on realism. Briefly summarized, Stanislavski curated a groundbreaking method of “believable truth” where the techniques of his method focus on numerous ways of reaching believability. My name appeared on the list of individuals because I too am an actor, and Stanislavski based. I chose the theatre community as my group to focus on, but more specifically, the collective of trained actors who engineer their work off of the method. I am a BFA Acting major at Florida State University’s School of Theatre. FSU’s School of Theatre values Stanislavski’s method as the foundation for the program. Stanislavski does not strike me as a casual household name, which I would find understandable if he didn’t impact today’s entertainment industry. Without Stanislavski, the realism of movies, theatre, and television may never have existed. For that idea alone, I chose this specific community. With my focus being on the theatre community, and more precisely the association of trained actors practicing the Stanislavski method, I question: “How is Stanislavski’s method impacting pre-professional, and professional acting today?” Currently, the conversation regarding Stanislavski's approach is very limited. Outside of the modest professional community, the method is nameless. For this reason, I hope the topic at hand will create an awareness of Stanislavski and his connections with the current entertainment industry. 

    Stanislavski’s method provides the basis of all realistic acting today. To grasp the prevalence of the method in today’s industry, an understanding of the method itself will be helpful. In Stanislavski’s book, An Actor Prepares, he breaks down his technique into fourteen parts, all which work in tandem to achieve the goal of truthful acting. 

    Beginning with “Action,” Stanislavski stresses the importance of having a purpose (Stanislavski, 37). Actors take plays and create a story that people can relate to; the relationship between performance and audience members is not curated with just the given text. Stanislavski emphasizes this by articulating, “we bring life to what is hidden under the words; we put our thoughts into the author’s lines, and we establish our relationships to other characters in the play, and the conditions of their lives” (Stanislavski, 56). The actor takes the lines and infuses humanity so that the audience can see their own lives onstage: their troubles, triumphs, relationships, fears, and dreams. 

    Imagination is another key part of the method. Not all essential background information is provided by the playwright. Performers have to imagine beyond the text to reach the depths of their character and circumstances, asking “when, where, why, and how” throughout the story arc (Stanislavski, 77). For example, if an actor is given the character description, “mom of 3, middle-aged, divorced”, the actor must create a backstory of the character’s life. Where did this character grow up? What are the children names? What are her likes and dislikes? What leads her to divorce her partner? Questions such as these aid in determining the details of their life on and offstage (Naturalism). 

    Stanislavski also believed in the constant striving towards achieving a goal (as the character). Humans are all working to achieve goals in life; high school student strives for a high school diploma after graduation people put effort into finding a job. This idea applies to characters as well because “whatever happens onstage, as well as off it, consists of an uninterrupted series of objectives” (Bilgrave, 330). Ph.D. Psychologists Dyer P. Bilgrave and Robert H. Deluty compare a concept of psychology to Stanislavski’s method in their article, “Stanislavski’s Acting Method and Control Theory: Commonalities Across Time Place, and Field.” Bilgrave and Deulty specifically delve into the details of Stanislavski’s objective work. 

    Another essential part of Stanislavski’s method is the emotional memory. The process of emotional memory begins with the recollection of a time in which you felt an emotion to its fullest. Once you have a specific memory, you put yourself back into that time. You then apply this feeling into a scene that calls for a similar emotion to the one from your memory (Constantin). Emotional memory work can be perfected over time but is often found to be difficult to master. 

    Clearly, Stanislavski’s method primarily relies on psychological and directional aspects, but physicality also plays an important role. One element of the methods physicality is the relaxation of muscles. The relaxation of tense muscles develops attention and focuses thoughts towards one point (Galendeyev, 104). The psychological and physical pieces of the method work hand and hand in creating the realism Stanislavski’s method sets out to produce. Professor V.N. Galendeyev affirms “physical actions in the play and role analysis became so essential for Stanislavski” in his article “Physical actions, and the Emergence of Speech Origination” that was a part of his dissertation on Stanislavski’s Teaching on Voice and Speech on Stage. As seen from the extensive explanation of some of the more critical elements of Stanislavski’s method, many intricate moving parts work side by side to create a process for actors to utilize to reach a more realistic performance. 

    Stanislavski’s method has held up against the test of time. The longevity of his discoveries is not only due to his monumental publishings but also because of the interpretation of his work by his colleagues. The method functions as the base for many other offspring teachings. Well known methods and creators of different ways that credit Stanislavski include Checkov, Uta Hagen, Viewpoints, Stella Adler, Lee Strasberg and Stanford Meisner. Each of these methods expands on specific facets of Stanislavski’s method. For example, Meisner “enable(d) his students to approach their work with absolute emotional truth and genuine psychological depth” (Shirley, 200). Automatically you know this idea derived from the method just based off the articulation of words such as, “truth” and “genuine,” which would not have been used before Stanislavksi’s method. His influence on the majority of other forms of acting training methods exemplifies the adaptability of his method. 

    Being the most commonly used method in acting, conservatory and pre-professional acting programs operate with his techniques to prepare their students for the industry. Widely agreed upon, “today virtually all training programs for the professional action in both Europe and the United States are based on his work” (Bilgrave, 330). If the entirety of the industry practices by his works, the schools that are preparing students for the industry would need to be teaching his methods in order to adequately prepare them.  According to StartClass, there are over 91 college programs that offer Acting Degrees in the United States alone (Compare). This number does not even take into account all other performance degrees that require acting, such as musical theatre and dance performance. From this list, there are several notable universities and conservatories that are known for their employment of Stanislavski’s techniques. Arguably the most well known conservatory in the world, Juilliard, is one of many that teach Stanislavski. First year actors in their drama school have the alexander technique integrated in their circiulum (Drama). Alexander technique derives from Stanislavski, and their continue with realistic acting approaches through their four years. Others that are included in the long list of Stanislavski based schools include Meadows School of the Arts at Southern Methodist University, Florida State University, and University of Michigan School of Music, Theatre & Dance. Each of these universities offer information regarding their curriculum and beliefs on their university websites. With such a large base of universities training the next generation of actors, the list of graduates and current actors who use Stanislavki’s method expands even longer. 

    Universities and conservatories pride themselves on their alumni; the individuals continuing to represent their school in their field of work. In today’s theatre, film, and television, “realism is a foundational element in almost all current naturalistic productions that seek to tell a story and evoke a response’ (Cole, 400). With the goal of acting being placed on the realism within a get of given circumstances, actors welcomed stray from the method. The initial list from the beginning of this paper offered a few names of Stanislavski based actors, evidently the list is not this short. Well known actor, William H. Macey, currently starring in Showtime’s hit television show, Shameless connects with Stanislavski’s teachings. Not only does he practice the method in his work, but also teaches his application of the method alongside David Mamet at The School of Practical Aesthetics, which they founded (Scholte, 1373). With an entire industry following in the footsteps of Stanislavksi’s work, inevitably you are familiar with the works of famous actors who value him and his method. To name a few… Marlon Brando, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, Jane Fonda, Al Pacino, Robert Dinner, and Al Pacino. The chances are if you are watching any performance that includes acting that is current, it is realistic, therefore it is based from Stanislavski’s work. 

    Florida State University, among the many others, relies on Stanislavski’s method to prepare their students for the real world; provideing each graduate with their own resources to pursue careers in the field.  Jean McDaniel Lickson leads Florida State’s acting division at the School of Theatre as an Associate Professor and Curriculum Vitae. With countless successes as an actor under her belt, including credits of Arcadina in The Seagull, Ouisa in Six Degrees of Separation, and Abby in Desire Under the Elms, Lickson became familiar with both sides of the table. She shared her thoughts with me on Stanislavski, both from the perspective of a mentor to the next generation and a prosperous performer. 

    In regards to Lickson’s acting pursuits, she knows “Stanislavski is the method”. Regardless of the exact offspring method of training (Meisner, Utah Hagen, Adler, etc.) you receive, all relate back to Stanislavski’s work. His insight was revolutionary and “changed theatre forever because it comes from a psychological point of view.” Looking back on the way in which theatre actors performed before the method, acting was over the top; when onstage, individuals would use gestures to express how they were feeling, as opposed to “actually really listening and actually really responding.” 

    Lickson goes to great lengths to provide her students with the best education possible. Following graduation and the start of lives in the “real world” Jean assured me her alumni are using the method more than ever. Lickson touched on the reality of the performing industry and noted, “the more you work, the more you understand you have to do that (use the method).” Lickson joked that if you are going to school for acting, you use Stanislavski unless, “you’re going to clown school” “or going into the school of melodrama or maybe cartoon school.” When put that way, it is incredible to believe his work is not more widely recognized. 

    Not only are rising students using the method, the entire industry joins them in the use. You do not have to be a trained actor or teacher to recognize actors who rely on Stanislavski’s method because “if they’re real, they’re using Stanislavski’s work. Because what Stanislavski’s work is, is being an actual human being…” Stanislavski’s method comes from the heart, and that shows. No matter what role you play in the performance industry: actor, mentor, or audience member, Stanislavski impacts your life. 

    Stanislavski’s method allows connection between actors, audience members and the imaginary circumstances of the show. He created the way in which all media is performed today. Although he may not be as common of a name as Marilyn Monroe or Al Pacino, he legacy continues thriving through the actors who perform globally today.

 

Bibliography

Bilgrave, Dyer D., and Deulty, Robert H. “Stanislavski’s Acting Method and Control Theory: 

Commonalities Across Time Place, and Field.” Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 32, 329-340, June 2004. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2004.32.4.329, 22 January 2018.

 

Cole, Emma. “The Method Behind the Maddness: Katie Mitchell, Stanislavski, and The 

Classics.” Classical Receptions Journal, vol. 7, no. 3. 1 December 2015, Pages 400-421, https://doi.org/10.1093/crj/clu022. 21 January 2018. 

 

“Compare Colleges with Acting Degrees.” 2017 Best Colleges Offering Acting Degrees, 2018, colleges.startclass.com/d/o/Acting. 14 February 2018. 

 

“Constantin Stanislavski.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, www.pbs.org/wnet/

americanmasters/database/stanislavsky_c.html. 3 February 2018. 

 

“Drama.” Undergraduate Diploma at The Juilliard School, www.juilliard.edu/drama/acting/

drama-undergraduate-diploma. 14 February 2018. 

 

Galendeyev, Valery. “Stanislavski’s Method of Physical Actions, and the Emergence of Speech 

Origination.” Stanislavski Studies, vol. 3, no. 2. 2-15, Pages 101-117, http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfst20. 23 January 2018. 

 

LeÅŸe, Ana-Cristina. "The Physical Training of the Actor in the 20th Century Drama Pedagogy.” 

Review of Artistic Education, no. 7/8, pp. 164-168, Sept. 2014. EBSCOhost, login.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asu&AN=97264752&site=eds-live. 30 January 2018. 

 

“Naturalism and Stanislavski.” BBC: Bitesize, BBC, 2018, www.bbc.co.uk/education/guides/

zxn4mp3/revision. 2 February 2018. 

 

Scholte, Tom. ”Proto-cybernetics in the Stanislavski System of Acting: Past foundations, present 

analyses and future prospects.” Kybernetes, Vol. 44, Issue: 8/9, pp.1371-1379, https://doi.org/10.1108/K-11-2014-0234. 25 January 2018. 

 

Shirley, David. "'The Reality of Doing': Meisner Technique and British Actor Training." Theatre, 

Dance & Performance Training, vol. 1, no. 2, Sept. 2010, pp. 199-213. EBSCOhost, http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=b7916710-8187-45fa-9f39-a50809404416%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=ibh&AN=53854543.11 February 2018.

 

Stanislavsky, Konstantin. An Actor Prepares. Translated by Elizabeth R Hapgood, Routledge, 

2003.

 

Tait, Peta. "Bodies Perform Inner Emotions: Stanislavski's Legacy." Australasian Drama Studies, 

no. 53, 2008, p. 84. EBSCOhost, login.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsihs&AN=edsihs.792230392513517&site=eds-live. 30 January 2018. 

 

The Associated Press. “Stanislavsky Dies in Moscow At 75.” The New York Times, The New 

York Times, 8 Aug. 1938, archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0105.html. 14 February 2018. 

Final Paper​

A Man Who Changed the World Without the Recognition of Nations:

 Stanislavski’s Impact on the Performance Industry Today. 

    Marilyn Monroe, Al Pacino, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Robert Dinero, Viola Davis, and Gabrielle Phillips. What do all of these names have in common? The individual people that comprise this list are all actors. More specifically, each person listed utilizes Stanislavski’s method.  Stanislavski’s method, also known as “the method” acting, focuses on realism. Briefly summarized, Stanislavski curated a groundbreaking method of “believable truth” where the techniques of his method focus on numerous ways of reaching believability. My name appeared on the list of individuals because I too am an actor, and Stanislavski based. I chose the theatre community as my group to focus on, but more specifically, the collective of trained actors who engineer their work off of the method. I am a BFA Acting major at Florida State University’s School of Theatre. FSU’s School of Theatre values Stanislavski’s method as the foundation for the program. 

    Stanislavski does not strike me as a household name, which I would find understandable if he didn’t impact today’s entertainment industry. Without Stanislavski, the realism of movies, theatre, and television may never have existed. For that idea alone, I chose this specific community. With my focus being on the theatre community, and more precisely the association of trained actors practicing the Stanislavski method, I question: “How is Stanislavski’s method impacting pre-professional, and professional acting today?” Currently, the conversation regarding Stanislavski's approach is very limited. Outside of this modest professional community, the method is nameless. For this reason, I hope the topic at hand will create an awareness of Stanislavski and his connections with the current entertainment industry. 

    Stanislavski’s method provides the basis of all realistic acting today. To grasp the prevalence of the method in today’s industry, an understanding of the method itself will be helpful. In Stanislavski’s book, An Actor Prepares, he breaks down his technique into fourteen parts, all which work in tandem to achieve the goal of truthful acting. 

    Beginning with “Action,” Stanislavski stresses the importance of having a purpose (Stanislavski 37). Actors take plays and create a story that people can relate to; the relationship between performance and audience members is not curated with only the given text. Stanislavski emphasizes this by articulating, “we bring life to what is hidden under the words; we put our thoughts into the author’s lines, and we establish our relationships to other characters in the play, and the conditions of their lives” (Stanislavski 56). The actor takes the lines and infuses humanity so that the audience can see their own lives onstage: their troubles, triumphs, relationships, fears, and dreams. 

    Imagination is another key part of the method. Not all essential background information is provided by the playwright. Performers have to imagine beyond the text to reach the depths of their character’s circumstances, asking “when, where, why, and how” throughout the arc of the story (Stanislavski 77). For example, if an actor is given the character description, “mom of three, middle-aged, divorced”, the actor must create a backstory of the character’s life. Where did this character grow up? What are the children names? What are her likes and dislikes? What leads her to divorce her partner? Questions such as these aid in determining the details of their character’s life on and offstage (Naturalism). 

    Stanislavski also believed in constantly striving towards achieving a goals. Humans are all working to achieve goals in life; high school students strive for a high school diploma, and after graduation people put effort into finding a job. This concept applies to characters as well because “whatever happens onstage, as well as off it, consists of an uninterrupted series of objectives” (Bilgrave 330). Ph.D. Psychologists Dyer P. Bilgrave and Robert H. Deluty compare a concept of psychology to Stanislavski’s method in their article, “Stanislavski’s Acting Method and Control Theory: Commonalities Across Time Place, and Field.” Bilgrave and Deulty specifically delve into the details of Stanislavski’s objective work. 

    Another essential part of Stanislavski’s method is the emotional memory. The process of emotional memory begins with the recollection of a time in which you felt an emotion to its fullest. Once you have a specific memory, you put yourself back into that time. From there, you apply the feeling into a scene that calls for a similar emotion to the one from your memory (Constantin). Emotional memory work can be perfected over time but is often found incredibly difficult to master. 

    Clearly, Stanislavski’s method primarily relies on psychological and directional aspects, but physicality also plays a crucial role. One element of the method’s physicality is the relaxation of muscles. The relaxation of tense muscles develops attention and focuses thoughts towards one point (Galendeyev, 104). The psychological and physical pieces of the method work hand and hand in creating the realism Stanislavski’s method sets out to produce. Professor V.N. Galendeyev affirms “physical actions in the play and role analysis became so essential for Stanislavski” in his article “Physical actions, and the Emergence of Speech Origination” as a part of his dissertation on Stanislavski’s Teaching on Voice and Speech on Stage. As seen from the extensive explanation of some of the more critical elements of Stanislavski’s method, many intricate moving parts work side by side creating a process for actors to reach a more realistic performance. 

    Stanislavski’s method has held up against the test of time. The longevity of his discoveries is not only credited to his monumental publishings but also the interpretation of his work by his colleagues. The method functions as the base for many other offspring teachings. Well known methods and creators of different techniques that credit Stanislavski include Checkov, Uta Hagen, Viewpoints, Stella Adler, Lee Strasberg and Stanford Meisner. Each of these methods expands on specific facets of Stanislavski’s method. For example, Meisner “[enabled] his students to approach their work with absolute emotional truth and genuine psychological depth” (Shirley, 200). Automatically you know this idea derived from the method just based off the articulation of words such as, “truth” and “genuine,” which would not have been used before Stanislavksi’s method. His influence on the majority of acting training techniques exemplifies the adaptability of his method. 

    Being the most commonly used method in acting, conservatory and pre-professional acting programs operate with his techniques preparing their students for the industry. Widely agreed upon, “today virtually all training programs for the professional action in both Europe and the United States are based on his work” (Bilgrave, 330). If the entirety of the industry practices by his works, the schools that are developing students for the industry would need to be teaching his methods in order to adequately prepare them.  According to the research search engine StartClass, there are over 91 college programs that offer Acting Degrees in the United States alone (Compare). This number does not even take into account all other performance degrees that incorporate acting, such as musical theatre and dance performance. From this list, there are several notable universities and conservatories that are known for their employment of Stanislavski’s techniques. Arguably the most well known conservatory in the world, Juilliard, joins the many that teach Stanislavski. First year actors in their drama school have the Alexander Technique integrated in their curriculum (Drama). Alexander technique derives from Stanislavski. Student continue with realistic acting approaches throughout their four years at Juilliard. Others that are included in the long list of Stanislavski based schools include Meadows School of the Arts at Southern Methodist University, Florida State University, and University of Michigan School of Music, Theatre & Dance. Each of these universities offer information regarding their curriculum and teaching beliefs on their  respective university websites. With such a large base of universities training the next generation of actors, the list of graduates and current actors who use Stanislavki’s method expands even longer. 

    Universities and conservatories pride themselves on their alumni; the individuals continuing to represent their school in their field of work. In today’s theatre, film, and television, “realism is a foundational element in almost all current naturalistic productions that seek to tell a story and evoke a response’ (Cole 400). With the goal of acting being placed on the realism within a set of given circumstances, actors welcome the method. The initial list from the beginning of this paper offered a few names of Stanislavski based actors, evidently the list is not that short. Well known actor, William H. Macey, currently starring in Showtime’s hit television show, Shameless connects with Stanislavski’s teachings. Not only does he practice the method in his work, but he also teaches how he applies the method alongside David Mamet at The School of Practical Aesthetics, which they founded (Scholte 1373). With an entire industry following in the footsteps of Stanislavksi, inevitably you are familiar with the works of famous actors who value his practice.

    Florida State University, among the many others, relies on Stanislavski’s method to prepare their students for the real world; providing each graduate with their own resources to pursue careers in the field.  Jean McDaniel Lickson leads Florida State’s acting division at the School of Theatre as an Associate Professor and Curriculum Vitae. With countless successes as an actor under her belt, including credits of Arcadina in The Seagull, Ouisa in Six Degrees of Separation, and Abby in Desire Under the Elms, Lickson became familiar with many positions within the performance industry. She shared her thoughts with me on Stanislavski, both from the perspective of a mentor to the next generation, and a prosperous performer. 

    In respects to Lickson’s acting pursuits, she knows “Stanislavski is the method”. Regardless of the exact offspring method of training you received (Meisner, Utah Hagen, Adler, etc.), it all relates back to Stanislavski’s work. His insight was revolutionary and “changed theatre forever because it comes from a psychological point of view.” Looking back on the way in which theatre actors performed before the method, acting was over the top; when onstage, individuals would use gestures to express how they were feeling, as opposed to “actually really listening and actually really responding.” 

    Lickson goes to great lengths to provide her students with the best education possible. Following graduation, and upon the start of their lives in the “real world”, Jean assured that her alumni are using the method more than ever. Lickson touched on the reality of the performance industry and noted, “the more you work, the more you understand you have to [use the method].” Lickson joked that if you are going to school for acting, you use Stanislavski unless “you’re going to clown school or going into the school of melodrama or maybe cartoon school.” When put that way, it is incredible to believe his work is not more widely recognized amongst the general public. 

    Not only are rising students using the method, the entire industry joins them in the use. You do not have to be a trained actor, or teacher to recognize actors who rely on Stanislavski’s method because “if they’re real, they’re using Stanislavski’s work. Because what Stanislavski’s work is, is being an actual human being…” His method comes from the heart, and it shows. No matter what role you play in the performance industry: actor, mentor, or audience member, Stanislavski impacts your life. 

    Stanislavski’s method allows connection between actors, audience members, and the imaginary circumstances of the show. He has created the way in which all media is performed currently. Although Constantin Stanislavski  may not be as common of a name as Marilyn Monroe or Al Pacino, his legacy continues thriving through the actors who perform globally today. The group of actors that practice the method is not limited to the stars of Broadway and Hollywood. From community theatre actors who rehearse for long hours into the night after working a nine-to-five job, to elementary students who put on summer productions of Disney’s classics- Stanislavski shines through in all. It is doubtful that each one of the kindergarteners knows they are a part of the continuation of a legacy. I didn’t. I was clueless as a five year old in Once Upon A Mattress that I was sharing an art form that had been perfect for hundreds of years. Unknowingly, the world continues without the recognition of a single man who changed it through his art.

 

Works Cited

Bilgrave, Dyer D., and Deulty, Robert H. “Stanislavski’s Acting Method and Control Theory: 

Commonalities Across Time Place, and Field.” Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 32, 329-340, June 2004. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2004.32.4.329, 22 January 2018.

Cole, Emma. “The Method Behind the Maddness: Katie Mitchell, Stanislavski, and The 

Classics.” Classical Receptions Journal, vol. 7, no. 3. 1 December 2015, Pages 400-421, https://doi.org/10.1093/crj/clu022. 21 January 2018. 

“Compare Colleges with Acting Degrees.” 2017 Best Colleges Offering Acting Degrees, 2018,

colleges.startclass.com/d/o/Acting. 14 February 2018. 

“Constantin Stanislavski.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, www.pbs.org/wnet/

americanmasters/database/stanislavsky_c.html. 3 February 2018. 

“Drama.” Undergraduate Diploma at The Juilliard School, www.juilliard.edu/drama/acting/

drama-undergraduate-diploma. 14 February 2018. 

Galendeyev, Valery. “Stanislavski’s Method of Physical Actions, and the Emergence of Speech 

Origination.” Stanislavski Studies, vol. 3, no. 2. 2-15, Pages 101-117, http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfst20. 23 January 2018. 

LeÅŸe, Ana-Cristina. "The Physical Training of the Actor in the 20th Century Drama Pedagogy.” 

Review of Artistic Education, no. 7/8, pp. 164-168, Sept. 2014. EBSCOhost, login.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asu&AN=97264752&site=eds-live. 30 January 2018. 

McDaniel Lickson, Jean. Personal Interview. 23 January 2018.

“Naturalism and Stanislavski.” BBC: Bitesize, BBC, 2018, www.bbc.co.uk/education/guides/

zxn4mp3/revision. 2 February 2018. 

Scholte, Tom. ”Proto-cybernetics in the Stanislavski System of Acting: Past foundations, present 

analyses and future prospects.” Kybernetes, Vol. 44, Issue: 8/9, pp.1371-1379, https://doi.org/10.1108/K-11-2014-0234. 25 January 2018. 

Shirley, David. "'The Reality of Doing': Meisner Technique and British Actor Training." Theatre, 

Dance & Performance Training, vol. 1, no. 2, Sept. 2010, pp. 199-213. EBSCOhost, http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=b7916710-8187-45fa-9f39-a50809404416%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=ibh&AN=53854543.11 February 2018.

Stanislavsky, Konstantin. An Actor Prepares. Translated by Elizabeth R Hapgood, Routledge, 

2003.

Tait, Peta. "Bodies Perform Inner Emotions: Stanislavski's Legacy." Australasian Drama Studies, 

no. 53, 2008, p. 84. EBSCOhost, login.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsihs&AN=edsihs.792230392513517&site=eds-live. 30 January 2018. 

The Associated Press. “Stanislavsky Dies in Moscow At 75.” The New York Times, The New 

York Times, 8 Aug. 1938, archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0105.html. 14 February 2018. 

 

 

Research Question and Rationale

Marilyn Monroe, Al Pacino, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Robert Dinero, Viola Davis, and Gabrielle Phillips. What do all of these names have in common? The names that comprise the list are all actors. More specifically, each person listed utilizes Stanislavski’s method. 

Stanislavski’s method, also known as “method” acting focuses on realism. Briefly explained, Stanislavski curate a groundbreaking method of “believable truth.” The techniques of this method focus on numerous ways of reaching believability. Beginning with emotional memory, actors remember a time when they experienced a specific emotion then they put themselves back into that state of mind. Also included, the technique of “creative if, where actors are stretched to imagine they are in the characters plane of real life. Another aspect of his method focuses on the character's objective, and how the intention could be broken down into units of actions working toward achieving the character's objective. The last portion of the method targets matching inner experience with external techniques. Matching requires actors to bridge the gap between their current emotional state and their work at hand. 

My name appeared on the list of individuals because I too am an actor, and Stanislavski based. I chose the theatre community as my group to focus on, but more specifically the collective of trained actors who engineer their work off of the method. Previously I attended University of North Carolina School of the Arts where I received instruction as an actor in their pre-professional BFA acting program. Stanislavski serves as the basis for all training offered at UNCSA’s drama school. More recently, I am a BFA Acting major at Florida State University’s School of Theatre. Similarly to UNCSA, FSU values Stanislavski’s method as the foundation for the program. 

Stanislavski does not strike me as a casual household name, which I would find understandable if he didn’t impact today’s entertainment industry. But without Stanislavski, the realism of movies, theatre, and television may never have existed. For that idea alone, I chose this specific community. 

With my focus being on the theatre community and more precisely the association of trained actors practicing the Stanislavski method, I decided upon my question: “How is Stanislavski’s method impacting pre-professional acting today?” Currently, the conversation regarding Stanislavski's approach is very limited. My knowledge derives from personal experience in esteemed artistic environments. Outside of the modest professional community, the method is nameless. For this reason, I hope the topic at hand will create an awareness of Stanislavski and his connections with the current entertainment industry.

Although outside communities may not be privy to the depths of the method, members of the practiced theatre community spend years perfecting the facility of their craft. Under their shared knowledge, resources regarding my topic are plentiful. The initial research I continue completing focuses on the basics of Stanislavski, “Who is Stanislavski and what is his method?”. From there I began delving into other methods that have derived from Stanislavski's teachings. From there I found myself led down a path of researching universities and professional acting schools that practice his teachings. Continuing my exploration, I came upon familiar names of actors who rely on Stanislavski for their process’. Additionally, I plan the inclusion of an interview with Florida State University Associate Professor and School of Theatre Curriculum Vitae, Jean McDaniel Lickson. Professor Lickson’s knowledge and experience using the method in her work and teachings will no doubt provide a valuable perspective on Stanislavski. A majority of my research on this style will be from one of Stanislavski’s books, The Actor Prepares. With an abundance of sources, I aspire to leave my peers well oriented with their connection to Stanislavski.

Final- Annotated Bib

Annotated Bibliography

Bilgrave, Dyer D., and Deulty, Robert H. “Stanislavski’s Acting Method and Control Theory: 

Commonalities Across Time Place, and Field.” Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 32, 329-340, June 2004. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2004.32.4.329, 22 January 2018.

    In Dyer P. Bilgrave and Robert H. Deluty’s article “Stanislavski’s Acting Method and Control Theory: Commonalities Across Time Place, and Field” provides a comparison to Stanislavski’s method outside of the realm of theatre. “Constantin Stanislavski revolutionized 20th-century theater by developing a highly articulated and practical system of acting, now referred to simply as “the method.” Stanislavski’s method presents a model of human behavior and motivation that is strikingly similar to the “control theory” of psychologists Charles Carver and Michael Scheier.”(329) Although this is not a connection to how Stanislavski impacts theatre today, they are bridging the gap between Stanislavski and the present day. 

    Comparing Stanislavski's method and the "control theory," Bilgrave and Deluty break down the comparison into categories. These categories include: “(a) the regulation of behavior by goals, (b) the process of goal formation, (c) the hierarchical organization of behavior, (d) the disruption of goals by obstacles, (e) outcome expectancies, (f) the sequencing of behavior into units, and (g) the formation of identity.” (329) Specifically relating to Stanislavski's impact on training actors today, Bilgrave and Deulty cite from an outside source that, “Today, virtually all training programs for the professional actor in both Europe and the United States are based on his work (Barton, 1989, pp. 104-106), and his concepts and techniques are so basic to acting that theater professionals universally refer to them as “the method.” (330) This source only further supports my belief that Stanislavski is prevalent in all acting today. The detailed description and use of specific method terms will contribute to the research paper at hand. 

    This article does not relate to Emma Cole’s, “The Method Behind the Madness: Katie Mitchell, Stanislavski, and The Classics” because Cole’s focuses on Katie Mitchell’s production in tandem with Stanislavski, where Bilgrave and Deluty compare the method to the “control theory.” The specificity creates their differences. In this source, there is a particular focus on the work an actor must complete before a performance. The discussion on given circumstances and the breakdown of objectives provided insightful detail in an easy to grasp manner. The source explicitly backs up the logical flow intended for the research paper with multiple mentions of Stanislavski in contemporary acting.

 

 

Cole, Emma. “The Method Behind the Maddness: Katie Mitchell, Stanislavski, and The 

Classics.” Classical Receptions Journal, vol. 7, no. 3. 1 December 2015, Pages 400-421, https://doi.org/10.1093/crj/clu022. 21 January 2018. â€‹

    In the article, “The Method Behind the Madness: Katie Mitchell, Stanislavski, and The Classics” Dr. Emma Cole analyzes the use of Stanislavski’s method, and more specifically his method used in classic plays, such as Woman of Troy. Mitchell believes that “psychological realism is a foundational element in almost all current naturalistic productions that seek to tell a story and evoke a response through linear, character- driven narrative.”(400) This includes plays from the classical era. Cole earned her Ph.D. focusing on reception Greco-Roman tragedy in post-dramatic theatre from the department of Greek and Latin at University College London. Currently, she is a faculty member of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Bristol.  

    Cole discusses the importance of realism that Stanislavski's method brings to acting. She argues that the process can serve as a tool for classic texts, and not only to contemporary works. Stating that "His (Stanislavski) work remains relevant…”(402) Cole’s extensive research and knowledge on Stanislavski's method and the connections to today’s actors provide firm support for my research topic. A specific example of this connection, which I found especially interesting, is exemplified in her article through Katie Mitchell who observed "Lev Dodin and Tadeusz Kantor and studied under Tatiana Olear and Elen Bowman, third generation students of Stanislavski's method.”(402)

    Cole went into extensive detail into Katie Mitchell’s Royal National Theatre production of Women of Troy. Although these particulars were intriguing, the character and plot detail will not be relevant for the research paper at hand and does not relate to “Stanislavski's acting method and control theory: Commonalities across time, place, and field” in that same sense. Both sources offered a baseline understanding of Stanislavski's method in a way that an individual who was not familiar with theatre would still be able to understand.  

 

 

LeÅŸe, Ana-Cristina. "The Physical Training of the Actor in the 20th Century Drama Pedagogy.” 

Review of Artistic Education, no. 7/8, pp. 164-168, Sept. 2014. EBSCOhost, login.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asu&AN=97264752&site=eds-live. 30 January 2018. 

    Ana-Cristina LeÅŸe academic source hones in on the comparison of Stanislavski’s method to physical education, “ In this paper, we will focus on… the aspects of the actor’s physical training and on the relations between the body and the soul, the body and the psyche which, in Stanislavski’s theory" we will also refer to the domain of Physical Education which includes physical training…”(164). LeÅŸe currently serves as a professor Ph.D., faculty member of “G. Enescu” University of Iasi – ROMANIA, where she focuses on Composition, Musicology, Musical pedagogy and Theatre. 

    LeÅŸe focuses on a specific portion of Stanislavski’s method- the physicality. Easily breaking down the intricate pieces and providing definitions to the terms coined by Stanislavski, she offers a straightforward interpretation. LeÅŸe analyzes that “physical activity in Stanislavski’s system… refers to accomplishing a task by means of the skeletal muscles, mainly in the case of physical exercises”(164). But then goes into detail, “physical activity is understood as any manifestation of the body segments or the entire body, of a technique”(165). Stanislavski’s physical element of his method allows actors the ability to move freely in their body, which then allows for them, like their character, movement for a specific purpose. 

    When comparing LeÅŸe’s paper to Tom Scholte’s, “Proto-cybernetics in the Stanislavski System of Acting: Past Foundations, Present Analyses, and Future Prospects” there were many similarities. Both offered connections between Stanislavski’s method and current topics that do not relate to the theatre. Although they both compare and contrast to the method, LeÅŸe’s paper allows for a broader connection, as most individuals are required to take a physical education class at some point in their lives. 

Scholte, Tom. ”Proto-cybernetics in the Stanislavski System of Acting: Past foundations, present 

analyses and future prospects.” Kybernetes, Vol. 44, Issue: 8/9, pp.1371-1379, https://doi.org/10.1108/K-11-2014-0234. 25 January 2018. 

    Tom Scholte’s, “Proto-cybernetics in the Stanislavski System of Acting: Past Foundations, Present Analyses, and Future Prospects” offers an intriguing insight into the intertwining of Stanislavski's method and cybernetics. With Scholte’s, “reading, analysis, and comparison of key excerpts from Stanislavski’s corpus, the writings of later proponents of his System, the literature of early cybernetics, and contemporary scholarship in cognitive science” Scholte interprets his digestion of the method. Interestingly enough, Scholte experienced in both. Earning both his BFA and MFA from the University of British Columbia, Tom Scholte took his talents to the stage and screen. Not only can Tom be found performing, but also engaging in the research exploration of exploring cybernetics in the Stanislavski System of Acting. 

    Scholte provided present-day connections to Stanislavksi’s method. William H. Macey and David Mamet developed The School of Practical Aesthetics with Stanislavski’s techniques underlying their coaching (1373). He also highlighted offsprings of the "method"- Uta Hagen's work and Meisner's technique. Uta Hagen’s connection to Stanislavski is seen with, “'Utter spontaneity’ onstage becomes possible when the actor can learn to ‘suspend knowledge of what [is] to come by unearthing the character’s expectations’ and let those expectations collide with what actually takes place ‘in the moment’”(1373). Uta Hagen’s mention of “being in the moment” is an essential aspect of Stanislavski’s core method teachings. 

    Scholte’s detail-oriented focus on the method uncovered different aspects of the method that Emma Cole’s source neglected. When introducing the basic outline of the Stanislavski's method, there were many similarities to Cole’s articulation. 

 

 

Tait, Peta. "Bodies Perform Inner Emotions: Stanislavski's Legacy." Australasian Drama Studies, 

no. 53, 2008, p. 84. EBSCOhost, login.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsihs&AN=edsihs.792230392513517&site=eds-live. 30 January 2018. 

    In Peta Tait’s “Bodies Perform Inner Emotions: Stanislavski's Legacy,” Tait argues that “acted emotions are part of cultural language and this extends to the representation of inner experience with acted emotions” (85). Tait evaluates Stanislavski’s method on many levels. Peta Tait serves as a Professor and Professor of Theatre and Drama at La Trobe University’s College of Arts, Social Sciences and Commerce Humanities and Social Sciences. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of Technology: Sydney. Tait is also the author of several published plays, which she wrote alongside completing research in drama, theatre, and performance studies. 

     In “Bodies Perform Inner Emotions: Stanislavski’s Legacy” Tait offers a performers point of view as well as an academic researcher focusing on the of acting performance. She questions the applicability of  Stanislavski. Tait considers others opinions along with her own, stating, “I was dissatisfied with the instruction (by Hayes Gordon of the Actors Studio) about acting emotions, a central tenet of the method, and especially by an expectation that emotional experience would be manifest in acting”(84). While doubting her initial experience with the method, she came around to what it had to offer fundamentally. Her clarity on the difficulty of grasping the concept was articulated with statements such as, “according to Stanislavski, the performer must externalize 'the inner life of the character’”. Which she then goes on to decipher for her process. 

    Tait adds international perspective, which gives her a unique lens when studying the impact of Stanislavski in current day. Being from Australia, she connects to Stanislavski “indirectly through the training of actors in workshops and overtly through his books and other manuals on acting and the aforementioned interpretations and variations from North American acting teachers and directors”(86). Her intention perspective and overall catechization of Stanislavski’s method is unlike Ana-Cristina LeÅŸe’s “Bodies Perform Inner Emotions: Stanislavski's Legacy.” LeÅŸe praises Stanislavski's work and does not show an ounce of doubt in his method. While Tait offers a different tone from the other academic journals, it was difficult to deduce her intention with the paper. 

Gabrielle Dee Phillips- ENC 2135​

bottom of page