If you have read the comment under the "Phedre in HD" post, then you have read what to some will be (or should be) a revelation. If you haven't read the comment, you should, as it mentions more in the growing and unmistakable evidence that Stanislavsky held Affective Memory as his primary "discovery" and as the most important and foundational aspect of his work. Further, it puts Stanislavsky's ideas of "Physical Action" in the proper historical (time) and working (craft) context. What does all that mean or represent generally speaking? It means that if you believe, propagate or teach that Stanislavsky changed his mind later in his life, that Stanislavsky thought or learned that Affective Memory was "dangerous," that he concluded that the Method of Physical Actions was his/the ultimate technique, or any other such thing, you stand squarely outside of the actual facts and working practice of Stanislavsky. In short, you are completely wrong.
Now anyone is free to invent, concoct or borrow any ideas they want and to call it an "acting technique." If however, you say you teach "Stanislavsky" for example, and refute Affective Memory at the same time, you are wrong. It is as simple as that. Call it false advertising. You actually teach and propagate a myth about Stanislavsky.
Frankly I have been a part of these debates for a while now and and as the years have gone by I have heard and seen the people who propagate the myths about Stanislavsky's "last work" and The Method of Physical Actions as the be all and end all, while bad mouthing people like Lee Strasberg for example, ignore facts and evidence and create false impressions almost at will. Its funny now to see and hear them say "Oh, I don't engage in or worry about who is right or wrong anymore" because the new and irrefutable evidence is so much against them - Stanislavsky's own words burning in their ears! When there are no more excuses for them, when they can't justify or wiggle out of the facts any longer, they are quitting. Why they don't just say "Oh my gosh I have been wrong all these years" is beyond me. I mean if somebody showed me something so clear as Stanislavsky saying "Look David, Affective Memory is dangerous. I used to use it but then I came to the conclusion it didn't work or had to be used only in a certain way, very small doses at certain times. And David, I have happily come to the conclusion that the Pavlovian concepts as supported by my Soviet interpreters is the best way to go. Method of Physical Action all the way David!" Well I would have to reconsider what I believe, what I teach and what I say about Stanislavsky and his work. And I would do it! However, that has never come to pass despite all the years of people saying such notions were historical truths. The dominoes are falling the other way in fact, and fast!
The sadness comes from the fact that students and others will still hear and believe what they are told by these people as they claim to come with credentials, and the brilliance of Stanislavsky will continue to be lost behind an arsenal of petty personality rank, lasting Soviet dogma or trendy applications and concepts. Some simplistic or worse, some unattainably "great" version of Stanislavsky's work will permeate. The remedy for my sadness would come in the form of them saying "I teach a perversion of Stanislavsky's ideas and I ignore all relevant facts associated with the man's best work and thought." That would solve so many problems for current and future actors and others interested in Stanislavsky.
If this sounds harsh or "out of character" for me, so be it. Its not meant to be mean but it is meant to be completely straightforward. In the end its about Stanislavsky and a legacy of work by dedicated and serious theatre practitioners - and getting that legacy correct. Its been difficult but its not that difficult once we get everyone to look honestly at the facts, the record. The overall history is fascinating and sometimes intricate and includes a Russian revolution for godsakes! But as I said, doable, understandable.
Now anyone is free to invent, concoct or borrow any ideas they want and to call it an "acting technique." If however, you say you teach "Stanislavsky" for example, and refute Affective Memory at the same time, you are wrong. It is as simple as that. Call it false advertising. You actually teach and propagate a myth about Stanislavsky.
Frankly I have been a part of these debates for a while now and and as the years have gone by I have heard and seen the people who propagate the myths about Stanislavsky's "last work" and The Method of Physical Actions as the be all and end all, while bad mouthing people like Lee Strasberg for example, ignore facts and evidence and create false impressions almost at will. Its funny now to see and hear them say "Oh, I don't engage in or worry about who is right or wrong anymore" because the new and irrefutable evidence is so much against them - Stanislavsky's own words burning in their ears! When there are no more excuses for them, when they can't justify or wiggle out of the facts any longer, they are quitting. Why they don't just say "Oh my gosh I have been wrong all these years" is beyond me. I mean if somebody showed me something so clear as Stanislavsky saying "Look David, Affective Memory is dangerous. I used to use it but then I came to the conclusion it didn't work or had to be used only in a certain way, very small doses at certain times. And David, I have happily come to the conclusion that the Pavlovian concepts as supported by my Soviet interpreters is the best way to go. Method of Physical Action all the way David!" Well I would have to reconsider what I believe, what I teach and what I say about Stanislavsky and his work. And I would do it! However, that has never come to pass despite all the years of people saying such notions were historical truths. The dominoes are falling the other way in fact, and fast!
The sadness comes from the fact that students and others will still hear and believe what they are told by these people as they claim to come with credentials, and the brilliance of Stanislavsky will continue to be lost behind an arsenal of petty personality rank, lasting Soviet dogma or trendy applications and concepts. Some simplistic or worse, some unattainably "great" version of Stanislavsky's work will permeate. The remedy for my sadness would come in the form of them saying "I teach a perversion of Stanislavsky's ideas and I ignore all relevant facts associated with the man's best work and thought." That would solve so many problems for current and future actors and others interested in Stanislavsky.
If this sounds harsh or "out of character" for me, so be it. Its not meant to be mean but it is meant to be completely straightforward. In the end its about Stanislavsky and a legacy of work by dedicated and serious theatre practitioners - and getting that legacy correct. Its been difficult but its not that difficult once we get everyone to look honestly at the facts, the record. The overall history is fascinating and sometimes intricate and includes a Russian revolution for godsakes! But as I said, doable, understandable.
Stanislavsky built his theatres on integrity - personal and artistic. If we choose to associate ourselves with him, I believe we should do so in the same manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment