I don't really know the history. Whether Stanislavsky's method was a reaction to something or a new creation; whether its concept was original or a follow-up I don't know. I am not familiar with the school, either. Got to read. I only recall what the gossip -boisterously, perhaps- has propagated: that it is a mode of interpretation based on the recollection by the actor of emotions previously experienced. The actor, thus, must dig deep down his memories and tribulations in life in order to find and rescue the suitable guts for the role in the play and bring them to the surface for display on the stage. If such experiences cannot be found in the past, the actor must -what else if not- live them up in the present, somehow. The mythical stories of actors or writers incarnating a second personality are countless and the percentage of those who become nuts is not negligible. So they say. The actor on the stage, consequently, abandons himself -his flesh, bones, character and spirit are truly put on a loan. The character is born from the inside and takes the actor's body almost in hostage.
As a opposed, the classical conception of the character -again, my judgement is based on hearsay- is built on the idea that everything that happens in the core of a human being is reflected on his outer crust and, thus, a credible impersonation of the character can be achieved by emulating his body language, facial expressions or overall externalization of emotions without sharing at all the causes and inner discourse that are at the root of such expressions. The actor is, certainly, himself, never forgets he is Paul or John or Ellie playing the game at being a different person. As a matter of fact, the origins of the word "persona" are in the masks the old Greek comedians used on the stage to play different characters. We see here that the classical conception implies that an actor is simply a professional doing his work, as a carpenter fixes furniture or a mechanic repairs cars. At the end of the show, the actor undresses and leave the skin of Richard the Third or Julius Caesar in the hanger of the dressing room. The character is a mere outflow recreation.
I don't think that any of both conceptions (the inner and the outer representations) excludes the other. I would only say at this point, though, that the classic one makes some more sense to me in most cases. Actors are definitely not the saviors of the world, nor the pundits of the human nature, holding any substantial or reserve piece of knowledge that makes them any bit special. That you have to be somewhat sick to be an actor or different is pure crap. You got to have some skills to be an actor, that is true, skills that would make you a poor air-traffic controller or a poor methodical researcher, for example, but that does not imply that the actor is anything more than the rest of mortals.
So, lets' just say it makes sense: you study the rules, you practice and follow them and you play a game on the stage.
**
I have mentioned some time before that it seems to be in fashion the idea that to be an efficient communicator -whatever that means- or, even, a successful teacher, you have to rely on certain acting skills. In other words, there is a significant number of advocates of the classic, superficial theory for communication purposes. As such, presentations, lessons or negotiations are -not only, but significantly- a matter of appearance, a shiny and well-maintained facade. Well, I disagree. Don't you? What this world is suffering from is an excess of cretinism; what it is missing, a good load of genuine hearts. We are in darkness and we miss the light that only a human touch can provide. Being touch and flipped by another! Being transformed by another! What a wondrous vital experience. For that, only the in-to-out theory works: a new beast must break through our pitiful and pretentious selves. Those were the old fathers of the ancient times; those, the couple of masters that we all had at school and that we dearly remember.
(PLEASE, LEAVE YOUR COMMENT).
As a opposed, the classical conception of the character -again, my judgement is based on hearsay- is built on the idea that everything that happens in the core of a human being is reflected on his outer crust and, thus, a credible impersonation of the character can be achieved by emulating his body language, facial expressions or overall externalization of emotions without sharing at all the causes and inner discourse that are at the root of such expressions. The actor is, certainly, himself, never forgets he is Paul or John or Ellie playing the game at being a different person. As a matter of fact, the origins of the word "persona" are in the masks the old Greek comedians used on the stage to play different characters. We see here that the classical conception implies that an actor is simply a professional doing his work, as a carpenter fixes furniture or a mechanic repairs cars. At the end of the show, the actor undresses and leave the skin of Richard the Third or Julius Caesar in the hanger of the dressing room. The character is a mere outflow recreation.
I don't think that any of both conceptions (the inner and the outer representations) excludes the other. I would only say at this point, though, that the classic one makes some more sense to me in most cases. Actors are definitely not the saviors of the world, nor the pundits of the human nature, holding any substantial or reserve piece of knowledge that makes them any bit special. That you have to be somewhat sick to be an actor or different is pure crap. You got to have some skills to be an actor, that is true, skills that would make you a poor air-traffic controller or a poor methodical researcher, for example, but that does not imply that the actor is anything more than the rest of mortals.
So, lets' just say it makes sense: you study the rules, you practice and follow them and you play a game on the stage.
**
I have mentioned some time before that it seems to be in fashion the idea that to be an efficient communicator -whatever that means- or, even, a successful teacher, you have to rely on certain acting skills. In other words, there is a significant number of advocates of the classic, superficial theory for communication purposes. As such, presentations, lessons or negotiations are -not only, but significantly- a matter of appearance, a shiny and well-maintained facade. Well, I disagree. Don't you? What this world is suffering from is an excess of cretinism; what it is missing, a good load of genuine hearts. We are in darkness and we miss the light that only a human touch can provide. Being touch and flipped by another! Being transformed by another! What a wondrous vital experience. For that, only the in-to-out theory works: a new beast must break through our pitiful and pretentious selves. Those were the old fathers of the ancient times; those, the couple of masters that we all had at school and that we dearly remember.
(PLEASE, LEAVE YOUR COMMENT).
No comments:
Post a Comment