Articles

S. was a convinced humanist, and as such conducted his theatre along the road to socialism.
— Bertolt Brecht, 1952

David Mamet has said that Stanislavski’s humanism is evidenced by his recognition that on the stage as in life human beings must concern themselves with the truth of the individual moment.

For Brecht, humanism was inextricably connected to socialism and ‘realistic’ meant "laying bare society’s causal network." And Stanislavski included "legal and social conditions" among the elements that an actor should consider when using the if to bridge the gap between actor and character.

One example of this can be found in the discussion of dramatizing Chekhov’s story about a farmer who innocently unscrewed a nut off a railroad track to use for a fishing line. "... [F]or most people it will remain a funny story," Stanislavski wrote. "They will never even glimpse the tragedy of the legal and social conditions hidden behind the laughter.... To achieve this kinship between the actor and the person he is portraying add some concrete detail which will fill out the play, giving it point and absorbing action."

S. grasped the diversity and complexity of social life and knew how to represent it without getting entangled. All his productions make sense.
— Bertolt Brecht, 1952

“Contradictions are our hope!” Brecht wrote at the beginning of his account of the lawsuit he was involved in over a film of Threepenny Opera.

Contradiction is a fundamental principle of dialectical materialism – a term used by many of Karl Marx’s followers (but not Marx himself) to describe his philosophy. Contradiction is implied in “dialectics” a term from classical philosophy that refers to the exchange of arguments and counter arguments. The exchange can result in a “synthesis” that combines the two propositions in some way. The philosopher G.W.F. Hegel formulated theories of nature and history based on the notion that the contradictions inherent in dialectics were fundamental to nature and history.

In S.'s theatre a splendid naturalness went arm-in-arm with deep significance. As a realist he never hesitated to portray ugliness, but he did so gracefully.
— Bertolt Brecht, 1952

As we noted above, Stanislavski urged his actors to observe nature. The observation should include “what is beautiful,” – such as a flower or spider web, or the pattern of frost – but also “the darker side of nature” – such as might be found in marshes, slime, or insects.

S. taught that the actor must have exact knowledge of himself and of the people he sets out to portray. Nothing that is not taken from the actor's observation, or confirmed by observation, is fit to be observed by the audience.
— Bertolt Brecht, 1952.

“An actor should be observant not only on the stage, but also in real life. He should concentrate with all his being on whatever attracts his attention. He should look at an object, not as any absent-minded passer-by, but with penetration. Otherwise his whole creative method will prove lopsided and bear no relation to life.”

In the Moscow Art Theatre every play acquired a carefully thought-out shape and a wealth of subtly elaborated detail. The one is useless without the other.
— Bertolt Brecht, 1952.

John Rouse has suggested that focusing on “beats,” which Brecht called Einzelgeschehnissse (unique events), “allows an assimilation of Stanislavski’s acting methods to Brechtian interpretational ends.” Brecht did not encourage actors to connect the beats smoothly, however. Rather he regarded the transitions between beats as important as the beats themselves. Rouse notes Brecht actor Manfred Wekwerth’s observation that changes in personal and social forces bring about a change in the relationship between characters that in turn leads to one beat evolving into another.

S.'s theatre consisted only of stars, great and small. He proved that individual playing only reaches full effectiveness by means of ensemble playing.
— Bertolt Brecht, 1952

“...[I]f communication between persons is important in real life, it is ten times more so on stage,” Stanislavski wrote. “[T]he spectators in the theatre can understand and indirectly participate in what goes on on the stage only while this interchange continues among the actors.”

S. showed the actors the social meaning of their craft. Art was not an end in itself to him, but he knew that no end is attained in the theatre except through art. — Bertolt Brecht, 1952.

Both Stanislavski and Brecht saw their art in contrast to what had gone before them. The art he was interested in, Stanislavski wrote, is an art in which one can look "for the master key to life." He imagined an ideal world in which art held the answers to life's questions, although he was quick to add that we are not there, yet. "The actor is the force that reflects all the mysteries of nature, revealing them to the men who are not endowed with the gift of seeing all those spiritual treasures themselves."

This, then, was for Stansislavski the actor's social function.

Even when S.'s theater had to put on naturalistic plays to satisfy the taste of the time the production endowed them with poetic features; it never descended to mere reportage. Whereas here in Germany even classical plays acquire no kind of splendor.
— Bertolt Brecht, 1952

Language can be considered one of the bases of drama. Most (western) plays utilize speeches and dialogue. One of the ways that the playwright reveals the personality of his or her characters, the attitudes of the community in which the play takes place, and presents the events which unfold, is by selecting and arranging the words the characters speak. Even in the everyday speech rhythms of the most naturalistic drama, this selection and arranging distinguishes the language of the play from naturally occurring speech which we might hear in a news program or documentary film.

Much current acting training in the US is or claims to be based on Stanislavski's famous "Method." In schools and studios the "if," "given circumstances," "feeling for truth," and other fundamentals continue to be taught. Generations of acting teachers, some even with connections to the Moscow Art Theater of Stanslavski's era have added their own exercises, emphases, and interpretations. Stanislavski's teachings probably persist because of their effectiveness, their congruence with psychology (a much younger science at the time Stanislavski was formulating his teachings than it is now), and their applicability (practicality). The naturalistic style of acting in which Stanislavski's system seems most at home has had an effect on writers and producers of theater, as well, particularly in schools or programs where writers and actors work in close collaboration.

Another reason for the prevalence of Stanislavski-based scenic training for actors may be that there aren't many alternatives (at least in western culture) that are as internally consistent (i.e. hang together as well) and are at the same time as practical. Bertolt Brecht's instructions to actors, scattered through his writings on the theater are fairly systematic, and based in practical experiments. While they form a part of the training for actors in some schools in the U.S., they are not widely known or taught.