Stanislavski

Words: 643
Pages: 3

It is clear from this account, then, that Stanislavski valued ‘creative fantasy’ very highly, and rather than viewing prior experience as something to be reconstructed and used in any direct or literal sense, it was on the contrary to be seen as a creative act, the unconscious – consciously lured - combining and synthesising different elements of past experiences into a new, artistic creative state.
In speaking of acting, Chekhov (as did Meyerhold) tended to use the word ‘obraz’, or image, as opposed to Stanislavski’s ‘geroi’, which can be translated as ‘hero / heroine’, or ‘role’ (not, interestingly and importantly, however, as ‘character’. This is discussed in more detail later (p55). For Chekhov the process was a reaching outwards, mentally,
…show more content…
‘This complete conversion operation’, Brecht says, ‘is extremely exhausting. Stanislavski puts forward a series of means – a complete system – by which what he calls ‘creative mood’ can repeatedly be manufactured afresh at every performance. For the actor cannot usually manage to feel for very long on end that he really is the other person; he soon gets exhausted and begins just to copy various superficialities of the other person’s speech and hearing, whereupon the effect on the public drops off alarmingly.’ (Willett, 1964: 93). Brecht then goes on to discuss why he thinks the process is, ultimately, doomed to fail: ‘This is certainly due to the fact that the other person has been created by an ‘intuitive’ and accordingly murky process which takes place in the subconscious. The subconscious is not at all responsive to guidance; it has as it were a bad memory.’ (Ibid: 94). Brecht, ever the rationalist, is clearly sceptical to say the least about Stanislavski’s aim to try to tap into the subconscious of the actor – not only in terms of whether he thinks this is possible (which he clearly does not) but also in terms of whether it is necessary at