Oh dear. Sometimes you have to undertake and write and explain things that you don't want to but which need to be set correct, or straight, or better. This post is one of those.
Occasionally, but not as often as you might think, I do a quick search on the Internet for "Stanislavsky" and sometimes I even read the found entries. Well, I did one very recently and did read some entries in some blogs and elsewhere. Several were related to the book "Stanislavsky in Focus" by Dr. Sharon Carnicke. There were enough entries to make it seem like a kind of outbreak again of this material. For those unfamiliar with this book, the premise is that here in America, due to inadequate translations of Stanislavsky's writings, his books as published in America, and an apparent mis-understanding or mis-interpretation of Stanislavsky's ideas and work by Lee Strasberg and others, but especially by Lee, our knowledge and grasp of Stanislavsky and his work is poor, wrong, or incomplete, with entire notions missing. That is the premise. The book is hailed in certain circles as a definitive and practical account, a long overdue correction and clarification, the so-called righting of the myth in America of who and what Stanislavsky intended and did in his work with actors. These recent Internet offerings by people who have recently read the book confirm this circle of thinking. It is a clever piece of work Dr. Carnicke has put together to be sure. Clever, meaning often misleading and downright wrong - but not something your average Stanislavsky or theatre reader would catch or understand in that way, and so the book passes as truth. And that is a sad thing.
Now I'm just a guy who likes Stanislavsky, nature and sports, but I can smell a fake and a cheat of a book when I read one. I won't go into numerous examples, but I will use one from the book that touches upon scholarship, accountability, interpretation, and integrity and shows the absolute shoddy and bad work by Dr. Carnicke that is present throughout the book in its details. Chapter nine of the newest edition is called "Emotion and the Human Spirit of the Role: Yoga." The first sentence reads as follows
“When Strasberg writes that for Stanislavsky “the actor’s internal means […] was still called at that time the ‘soul’” (1987:67), we understand that Strasberg wishes to replace “soul” with “subconscious,” reflecting his own assumptions about acting as grounded in popular psychology.”
At face value, after reading that sentence, we would assume that she is quoting Lee Strasberg (from his book "A Dream of Passion") and that Strasberg is talking about or somehow referring to Stanislavsky and there must be something in the way he says it or in what he says that is obvious and would lead us to understand, as she says, that to him this notion of "soul" in acting really has to do with "subconscious" as it is understood in popular psychology. And from the title of the chapter we know that later she will explain that Strasberg was wrong and that Soul means Soul as understood in Yoga practice and thought.
Dr. Carnicke needs Strasberg to appear wrong so that she appears right, or more right. It is a theme that runs throughout the book, meaning this example as it unfolds, is a microcosm of the entire work and her modus operandi. To better understand this and move forward, let me set out the paragraph from Strasberg's book that is cited. Here it is
Equally important was the implicit recognition that not just the actor’s technical means – his voice, speech, bodily actions – could be trained. Boleslavsky contended that the actor’s internal means – what was still at that time called “soul” – could be trained. There were concrete methods or exercises that dealt with the most difficult aspects of the actors work, such as imagination, emotion, and inspiration. The means of arriving at the actor’s imagination, emotion and inspiration were through concentration and affective memory.”
Notice any problems? I do. The first one is that Strasberg is not talking about or referring to Stanislavsky. Second is that Strasberg is not talking about or referring to Stanislavsky's use of the word or concept of soul. Third is that nothing about what is there would lead us to believe that Strasberg wants soul to mean subconscious. I could go for four and five but I will spare you for now. Three significant errors in one little sentence! Who would have thought it possible? Can you mess up that bad even if you try to?! There is a density to the wrongness combined with an audacity to see it through to print that is baffling.
Just to be on the safe side, lets examine what Strasberg is saying, what he is talking about and referring to in this particular paragraph that Dr. Carnicke has chosen to quote from. Strasberg is referring to his days at the American Lab and classes with Richard Boleslavsky. He is talking about what he learned from Boley. In case anyone harbors doubt, Boleslavsky is not Stanislavsky. When Strasberg says an actors internal means was at that time still called "soul' he is simply mentioning a universal historical use of the term, not anything particular to Stanislavsky or even Boleslavsky. It was a widely used and common term for a long period of time - like when Shakespeare wrote "is it not monstrous that this player here, but in a fiction, in a dream of passion, could force his soul so to his own conceit..." The general thinking was that you couldn't train or practice these internal workings of the actor, this soul. It was a puzzle as to how it all worked, and Shakespeare's Hamlet character marvels over it. And now for Strasberg, here was Boleslavsky saying you could indeed train and work on an actors internal means - an actors imagination, emotion and inspiration - and the way to do so was through concentration and affective memory. Its that straight forward and doesn't need me really to interpret it for anyone - least of all Dr. Sharon Carnicke (or whoever did the research for her).
So the question is how and why would someone draw out the statement from it as Dr. Carnicke did that "we understand that Strasberg wishes to replace "soul" with "subconscious" reflecting his own assumptions about acting as grounded in popular psychology?" Its a hell of a leap and I don't have the answer. I could come up with a few theories but I would sooner invite Dr. Carnicke to give us an explanation of her abstract reasoning. In the big picture its helpful to just make something up if one wants to go the route of "good" argument where you have a foil who is not only wrong but evil too. Strasberg is this kind of foil for Dr. Carnicke in this book. He is so bad and evil in this book that surely what Dr. Carnicke presents as alternatives is not only correct but is good hearted and decent.
So there you have it - one small catch from a sea of mistakes and misleading statements. The research and scholarship on Stanislavsky has long gone beyond Dr. Carnicke's assumptions and theories presented in this book. Time will show and tell. In the meantime, if you've got the book in hand, keep your own close eye on the facts and logic as presented.
No comments:
Post a Comment