Talk:Konstantin Stanislavski/Archive 1

Needs big rewrite
I'm definitely not the one to do it, but this page needs a big rewrite by someone who actually knows about acting. Needs discussion of the development of KS's system, his books, his main methods (circle of concentration, etc), the American schools, etc.

> I agree. Right now, the article has a major error--Stanislavski was very much opposed to just playing emotion--hence the objectives, tactics, etc., which should produce said emotion (although you can't think specifically of results--the emotion will not likely be the same every night). If the gods don't come that night, you still have your tactics--Stan talked a lot about how actors, unlike writers or painters, couldn't wait to be in the proper artistic temperament to create their work. Doesn't mean you can't try to cultivate that temperament, but you can't expect it.

Of course, it's not like the guy only ever said one thing, either. And if you add, on top of that, the various interpretations and mis-interpretations. . . oy.

So, anyway, this guy is right. Do something about this.

>Stanislavski stressed that his approach to acting should not be seen as a method or a system (the method term especially ticked him off). It was intended to be more of a set of guiding principles and examples of the use of them in his approach to acting.

>I agree that this article needs a major rewrite. It fails to distinguish between Stanislavski's 'System' in its various phases and the American 'Method(s)'. Citing Charlie Chaplin as a follower is bizarre, as he specifically rejects the approach in his autobiography.

Re: comment above - Stanislavski referred to his approach as his 'system' - retaining the quotation marks and lower-case s - in order to indicate its provisional nature. DionysosProteus 12:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So I've started the process of re-writing the article. I've written a more substantial, fully-cited introduction, although it could probably do with a little expansion still. The big gap in the intro at the moment are 1) Anton Chekhov & MAT production as first 'external' phase 2) crisis and system developed (doesn't req. much more than's there now) 3) USA tours 4) Method of physical actions 5) canonization and hagiography. These five just need to be outlined briefly before being developed substantially in the main body of the article. DionysosProteus 05:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for being free! I need this stuff for musical theater! ;)

Maybe someone who actually understands the method and studied under Strasberg should define "method acting" instead of monkeys at keyboards.

-

Naming Conventions question
(I found several spellings of his name on the web, so I wonder which one might be the "correct" one. I googled for several combinations today - 30 Sep 2005 -, and here are the results:

"Constantin Stanislawski" - 38 hits. "Konstantin Stanislawski" - 591 hits. "Constantin Stanislavsky" - 772 hits. "Konstantin Stanislavski" - 34.100 hits.

So, the wisdom of the crowd seems to say that it should be written "Konstantin Stanislavsky", and Wikipedia says that it should be written "Konstantin Stanislavski". Who might be right, and why?)

[-someone's anonymous comment from the main article, Sept. 30]

This is the correct way Konstantin Stanislavski ive got his book (you might want to take a closer look at that book of yours)


 * Russian names are notorious for their variety of spellings, so technically, no one is "right." It's the same for Tchaikovsky (Tchaikovski, Chaikovsky etc.), Chekhov (Chekov, or even worse Tschechow, which I recently encountered), etc. So really we must create a number of redirects to help lost souls find their way here. I'll check up on the redirects and create them to help guide the way. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As Ganymead points out, there is no correct rendering in English, which means that the redirects are essential. However, all of Stanislavski's published works in English, both in Britain and the USA (and I'm assuming by extension the rest of the English-speaking world) are published under the version of his name "Constantin Stanislavski". The article ought to conform to his own published works. The K- and -y permutations can then redirect there. The problem with using the google analysis is that you've used a W in the name, which is not found in most translations, I believe. There is a problem with the C- -i version, insofar as the -i suggests a Polish name; however, the 'mistake' is his publisher's, and until the long-promised new translations emerge, I think wikipedia needs to follow their lead. DionysosProteus 20:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

More recent and appropriate google search reveals:


 * "Constantin Stanislavski" - 37,500 hits (in Sept. 2007)
 * "Konstantin Stanislavsky" - 34,000 hits
 * "Konstantin Stanislavski" - 27,200 hits
 * "Constantin Stanislavsky" - 12,500 hits

You see, there was a fatal flaw in the original googling. DionysosProteus 20:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Dates
Dates differs between here and Find-A-Grave. Lincher 21:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop the Jason Bennett Spammers
This entry has been repeatedly spammed by Jason Bennett and his supporters. If this spam appears again, it should be deleted. Mr. Bennett's Wikipedia entry has been deleted for not being notable and his spam has been removed many times. Please help keep Wikipedia a place for sharing information not advertising. Tree Trimer 10:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A Young Age?
The picture is captioned, "stanislavski at a young age." He looks about 50-ish in that picture to me. Is that a young age? Landroo 13:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Done.qp10qp 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate
The page lists the birth date as the fith with a reference to a citation of the 17th. This sounds like a Julian Gregorian difference and the 12 days is correct for the Nineteenth century.

Is there a standard way of citing this

Arachrah 18:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Acronym
Rather than explaining the acronym, perhaps you might provide an verifiable source that uses it? DionysosProteus 02:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Method, Complexity, Psychology...
Although you might be interested in biographical approach to Stanislavski, you might consider seeing his method in many other areas and your input in, incredibly, complex systems, for example, could be precious.

I have placed a call for interdisciplinary approach, as areas of interest, at Talk:Perception. Personally, I see a lot in common between many, seemingly separated, disciplines.

Also, I have received notification on “Hello from my Heart” days (11-21 September). This might seem inappropriate, but:

From my heart,

Damir Ibrisimovic 09:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds a little original research-y to me, but for what it's worth, if you're interested in complexity theories in relation to Stanislavski, I'd suggest starting with his active analysis theory and the self-similarity of dramatic arcs across scales. This isn't similarity strictly speaking, but more like isomorphy. DionysosProteus 05:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. If you think of interplay between stage and audience (like in the Group theatre) something does emerge. Complexity? Damir Ibrisimovic 10:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Complexity isn't mere feedback, though, no? It arises on boundary phenomena where a system hangs between two different states in phase space. Not sure that arises in standard, esp. fourth wall, interactions between stage and auditorium. DionysosProteus 15:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an interesting video (only 56K) at Waiting for Lefty. Fourth wall or not, if stage and audience do not interact, the play is dead. I think we may have here an interesting discussion. Best, Damir Ibrisimovic 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The fourth wall minimizes the potential for feedback - the audience projects itself through empathy and the actors ignore the audience through their use of representational acting - the feedback is actively 'dampened'. The kind of mirroring-recognition that the video describes in that performance isn't feedback (despite the rhetorical terms the interviewees use), since the performance doesn't change in any fundamental way as a result of the interaction - it is 'energized', perhaps, but for complexity to emerge there needs to be more than that, I think (at least as I understand the term); the stage-auditorium relationships are much more significant in the various modernist avant-garde reformulations, which I'd suggest offer a more fertile area for research than realism; its there that the boundary is actively problematized - Artaud's Theatre of Cruelty attempts an almost surgical operation on the audience; the Soviet constructivists (Meyerhold, Eisenstein, et al) try to get the stage to actively re-shape life; the Russian symbolists try to heal society's divisions through ritual participation; Augusto Boal seeks solutions to oppression and formulates civic policy through his Theatre of the Oppressed. In light of those contexts, Stanislavski's approach looks like the least promising place to start. (If you want to pursue this line, I'd recommend the concise and very illuminating chapter on it in Lars Kleberg's Theatre as Action). Regards, DionysosProteus 16:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To avoid clutter, please visit my talk page. Best, Damir Ibrisimovic 16:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Young Stanislavski image
As someone else mentioned above, it'd be good to have a date to attach to the first image of Stanislavski. If anyone has a book with that image in it, please check the year the photo was taken and add it to its caption. Many thanks, DionysosProteus 11:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)