How Stanislavski Reinvented the Craft of Acting
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- In the 1950s, a wave of “method actors” took Hollywood by storm.
Actors like James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Montgomery Clift, brought a whole new toolset and perspective on the actor’s craft to the films they performed in.
The foundation of their work, however, was laid in Russia more than fifty years prior to their stardom.
Stanislavski’s conception of “psychological realism” in performance challenged ideas about the essential features of the actor’s craft that had been held for centuries.
In theatre before Stanislavski, acting was defined as a craft of vocal and gestural training. The role the actor played was to give life to the emotions of the text in a broad illustrative fashion. Formal categories such as melodrama, opera, vaudeville, and musicals, all played to this notion of the actor as chief representer of dramatic ideas.
Stanislavski’s key insight was in seeing the actor as an experiencer of authentic emotional moments.
Suddenly the craft of performance could be about seeking out a genuine internal experience of the narrative’s emotional journey.
From this foundation, realism in performance began to flourish. This not only changed our fundamental idea of the actor but invited a reinvention of the whole endeavor of telling stories through drama.
Teachers would adopt Stanisvlaski’s methods and ideas and elaborate upon them in American theatre schools. The result, in the 1950s, would be a new wave of actors and a style of acting that emphasized psychological realism to a greater degree than their peers in motion pictures.
This idea of realism grew to dominate our notion of successful performances in cinema. Stanislavskian-realism is now central to the DNA of how we direct and read performances, whether we are conscious of it or not.
I think it is important to know this history and consider its revolutionary character. Understanding the nature of Stanislavski’s insights allows us to look at other unasked questions, other foundational elements of our craft that we might take for granted. I think it can give us perspective into the ways we might push the craft forward and challenge ourselves to seek a greater truth in the stories we tell.
-
Visual References: A Place in the Sun, A Streetcar Named Desire, Anatomy of a Murder, Baby Doll, Before Sunset, Blue Valentine, Carol, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Daisies, East of Eden, Giant, Grandmother, Kid Auto Races at Venice, Moonlight, On the Waterfront, Somebody Up There Likes Me, Splendor in the Grass, Taxi Driver, The Breaking Point, The Heiress, The Conversation, The Misfits, There Will Be Blood, Twentieth Century, Vaudeville: Early American Entertainment, Wild River
-
Stanislavski’s books are still fascinating explorations of the craft of performance.
Check them out:
An Actor Prepares: goo.gl/8CR551
Building a Character: goo.gl/pZR1U4
Creating a Role: goo.gl/ato2rZ
The Stanislavsky System: goo.gl/JDGkfK
-
Patreon: patreon.com/luxessays
Twitter: travratc
Vimeo: vimeo.com/travisleeratcliff
i wish all my fellow drama students on the verge of giving up a very pleasant evening.
thank you
I thank you for the words of encouragement
I think your words touched my heart.
Thanks!! 😉
Thank you
Everybody is so ready to see actors who already have the fame, instead of learning how they got the skills to get there. You deserve more views.
Why do you say that? A lot of time it's not skills but rather a gift along with a handsome face, with a smooth swagger and nice pleasant voice
Let the magic stay magic, never reveal your magic in this world.
Good point however they have to see how it’s done then go on that journey/ process themselves
@@convadodeltaro1997 I hear ya but like a magician/ illusionist you wants to share bag of tricks with those are keen to learn, right?
Anyone can sell their soul and channel spirits….but most of us aren’t that stupid
Looking over the films of the 50s, they truly did capture the essence of the depressing reality of life from the characters struggling with their problems, to the desolate streets and cramped apartments, that was life for people then. There was no escapism, not many distractions, it was all life dealing with life.
Started my Acting and Performance course today and my research has brought me straight here lol
Great explaining, even though stanislavski is a "failed actor" his interpretation of the craft is responsible for so many talented performances today.
To the other poor drama students forced to watch this for online schooling, good luck.
:(
:’(
thanks
...
is it that bad
Marlon Brando is awesome he's the king of acting
Him and Daniel Day-Lewis can’t be topped
Al Pacino Yo. What
Denzels a Beast.
No hes not.
@@Daniel-pi5qd The Men, StreetCar, Zapata, Julius Caesar, Waterfront....
The value in this video is overwhelming. Thank you for this. I do have one question... Would you say that successful method acting, is somewhat dependent on a writers' ability to illustrate and describe characters? Or would you say its more a function of an actors creativity and imagination?
@Dave Omach: The degree to which the potential of a role is realized . . . is
determined by the actor's ability. The potential of that role . . . is determined by the writer's ability.
The writers ability to illustrate and describe characters can be a huge contribution to the actor. But the actor must have the canny ability to tap into his creative process and navigate living truthfully. A great performance whether in theatre or in film assumes responsibility from both the writers, directors and actors.
I think it's usually within the writer's best interests to give the actor enough information about the character's personality and motivations to create an interpretation that works with the narrative. At the same time, not everything should be completely spelled out for the actor. The writer (and director) should give the actor plenty of opportunities to put their own spin on a character. That's what makes every production unique.
I would say they go hand-in-hand with each other. They are both equally important, you can't have one without the other. It's up to the writer to create a character with emotional depth and personality, but it's up to the actor to portray that well enough and convince the audience it's a real person.
I think the actor is capable to make a character realistic and interesting if the screenwriter didn't already do it by himself but the real problem is that your vision of the character might not be the one the screenwriter or director intented for their story so there's a conflict..
I think the screenwriter should always make a character fully developped considering his role the story while letting the actor interpret him his own way
I'd love to see a title every time a film appears for the first time.
Even every time it appears! it could be added as cc in order to be optional
This was INCREDIBLE! I showed it to my students, great production guys, well done 100x over. LOVE!
We LOVE you Anthony
This is beautiful and emotional work. I am still unacquainted with the essence of craft in art, but I was lost in it for a moment.
Please continue posting on this channel , your content is so helpful. Do it for the few of us please ...
This was honestly one of the best informative videos I’ve ever seen. Thanks a lot
You deserve more views
Beautiful, thanks. Also, humbling as an amaeteeur aktorr.
When Brando hit Hollywood he thought Clift was his only real competition. He actually voted for Clift for best actor in A Place in the Sun over himself for Streetcar.
Stanislavski is the best thing that happened to cinema
Neville goddard also uses a similar teqnique for when meditating or imagining the person you want to be and then feeling that which you are.
Wow.Its amazing to know that🔥.
Anyone who see's my comment should watch Mohanlal sir.... the Finest Actor in India... also do check out Mammootty sir... those 2 define Natural acting and Method acting respectively 💕
malayali ano?
@@tkharoon o alla chetta...
❤
This is extremely well made. Thank you!
Marlon Brando “Stanley Kowalski”
James Dean “Jim Stark”.
Immortalized Forever.
Thanks for the great upload!
When you played the end credits suite to Moonlight I died. Love that movie!
Thanks for this information on Stanislavski and acting. I only came across the name yesterday from reviewning an animation study from 15 years ago. Thanks.
Outstanding. If people only understood the significance of this. Both Good & Bad.
Tubi movie actors should watch this and apply.
Excellent video
Abi Garner
You mentioned Sanford Meisner but didn't credit his work and significance like Adler or Strasbourg.
Honestly, he's a STRONG influencer in modern acting. Summary: To Listen, Respond, and Live Truthfully in The Moment.
Actors trained by Meisner (himself): Gregory Peck, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton, Steve McQueen, Eli Wallach, Grace Kelly, James Caan, Jeff Goldblum, John Voight, Leslie Nielsen, etc.,
Many actors today still use it, like Tom Cruise, Timothee Chalamet, Naomi Watts, Viola Davis, Alec Baldwin, Christoph Waltz, Aaron Eckhart, James Franco, Jeff Bridges, Karl Urban, Sandra Bullock, Tina Fey etc.,
It's a GREAT technique.
Your essay/narrative was perfect.
This was so thorough! Thank you so much! 🙏🏾
Great video, great voice, great editing! Thanks 👌
This was great. Thank you.
'complex shades of vulnerability'
Realism in Russian theatre started around 40 years before Chekhov, first with Gogol and then with Ostrovsky. Chekhov was not pure realism - he acknowledged it was an artful fiction and was irritated with Stanislavsky's misunderstandings of his plays, and his overly "realistic" interpretations. "Seagull," for example, is somewhere between the standardized emotions of melodrama and the newer kind of theatre that was the realm of different realisms. Ibsen also had started down this road some 20 years before Chekhov. The MAT was not an experimental theatre - for that you would have to go to Paris to Paul Fort's Theatre de l'Art or Antoine's Theatre de l'Oeuvre. And, finally, Stanislavksy's ideas were constantly evolving: there was never a "method." That would be Strasburg. And Stanislavsky never settled on emotion as the most important, as he could never decide whether physical action generated emotion , or visa versa. Later in his life, like Meyerhold, he seemed to think that the physical action generated the sense of reality for the actor, and thus emotion.
Totally agree!
Great video and lesson, much appreciated!
Thank you. Beautiful and informative video.
Very inspiring
You also showed multiple excerpts of Rebel Without a Cause though I don't see that listed at the end.
That was phenomenal thank you :)
Thank you
Great work, solid job
The Trinity, Brando, Dean & Clift. Gone Too Soon.
This video is amazing.
DAMN THIS IS QUALITY
IKR
POG
AMAZING
SO COOL!
And Tommy Wiseau claimed to have spoken to him, even though he's been dead since the 1930's... Vampire confirmed. 🐺
Very well explained. Happy that I found this. However, I will be keen to know and see videos that demonstrate the difference before Stanislavski's method. Please direct me to any such material available on the internet. Thanks.
beautiful video
Really good video kept me through the whole thing
great vid, Loved it!
They don't make them like this anymore. Besides the fact these old stars were innovating the craft, they also had interesting features, characteristics, etc.
Before sunrise trilogy 💓
Great Video
Goodness gracious James Dean was such an amazing actor, may he rest in peace
Waww Brando was Amazing
Nice & Thanks :)
Legends
I see Marlon I click 😂 especially in a streetcar! 🥵😳
Thank God Russian art innovator to bring high spirit in Hollywood.
jesus. Beautiful video! :)
Who's here for a Drama Essay?
The girl with the flower-crown... what's the name of that movie ??
Excellent!
The man that tells the woman in that one scene to stop acting lol
Nice, except it’s mostly wrong. Stanislavski worked on Emotional memory, the theory that Method came from, at the beginnings of his career and then utterly disregarded it later. What you describe is not Stanislavski.
Stanislavsky did not entirely disregard memory of emotion; it was just not the main part of his system.
AS IF technique 💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖
Who is the actress at 4:50? And name of movie please.
Holy shit you're awesome
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Eltorz Finlayson
you get me so much
Betty Davis brought me here.
Marlon Brando brought me here as well as Joaquin Phoenix Robert De Niro and Al Pacino
Who are the actors in 3:00 and in 5:54?
Elisha Cuthbert
Some of this still feels like melodrama to me though...
What is the film at 7:20?
It's a Czech movie called Daises.
My teacher told me wach this
same
Acting is not watching, it's doing. Trying and failing and trying again. There is no other way to learn it.
wonder if you read the original text or just the translation
how are you verified?
What's the name of the movie that the girl was eating a paper pizza? That scene was awesome.
You need a good views you deserve it better
6:33
Comparing vaudeville to contemporary drama is the same as comparing ancient art to contemporary, realistic art? Does it mean one is superior?
whos here because of drama online school?
Movie at 6:04?
The Best Picture-winning 'Moonlight' (2015)
Benioff1. Ah sorry. The clip right before the one from moonlight with the guy with the mustache
@@rodeljagad8127 You mean Daniel Day-Lewis in 'There Will Be Blood' (2007)
Benioff1 ah, thanks man!
Nelk Boys
Who else doing drama hw 😭
He turned it into propaganda
I disagree with the idea of realism in film is supreme. Don't get me wrong, realism is not bad, I don't think it is. But this obsession with Method has come to really annoy me. I believe in the power and value of classical technique, not simply because it is time-honored and antique, but because it has inherent value. It has the ability to tell a story and relay a character to the audience that is larger than life. Method acting, I feel, peers too much inward to the actor and into the character; its assumption is that we can all relate to the emotional and psychological experiences of the character.
While many Method-based performers do do a good job at being believable, the reason I value classical acting more is because it focuses on the audience, on human nature in general. A classical actor, with his exaggerated gestures, pronounced and eloquent dialogue, his overt expressions of emotion, touches on an oft-overlooked fact that we, as creative and imaginative beings, are all dramatists at heart. We are all storytellers, and we all exaggerate, embellish, and overreact. And there is something about an actor's drama which somehow moves us in an inexplicable way. I think there is a mysterious quality to classical acting; we see that it isn't particularly realistic, yet somehow it still moves us. Just like Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton do gags which are ridiculous, they remain icons. Just as John Wayne became a legend as an idyllic figure, he stands out in the American mind. And while none of these examples are necessarily good actors (in the modern sense which means they wouldn't earn Oscar gold), the thought remains: idealism and our willingness to suspend our belief in the un-lifelike for a better story.
On a final note, modern Hollywood tends to praise the method of the performance rather than the performance itself; one can admire the tools, but it's the end product that really counts. Classical acting is aimed at the performance itself, at focusing on the external factors which move a character. Method, in its modern form, relies heavily on the process---of which the end product may or may not be good (note Jared Leto as the Joker)---and Hollywood and the public in general have come to, or so it seems, praise the process rather than the end performance. This is, I think, what most especially annoys me.
Edward P. Shikles very interesting point regarding your argument for classical technique. However unless you went to drama school yourself, with the standout performances such as Daniel Day-Lewis or Gary Oldman or even Tom Hardy, these are the current or contemporary exponents of “the method” Compared to Ian Mckellen or Patrick Stewart or Kenneth Branagh (and these are actors who are compelling in their own right) young people who aspire to go into acting will view the first three as exciting to watch and want to know the training that got them where they are and will desire the same
Interesting points. Ignoring the bastardisation of Method (eg American screen acting), I believe Stanislavski was looking for a way to connect to the truth of performance while still allowing his actors to be storytellers and dramatists. 😀 I agree that the 20th Century gave many performers the opportunity to be self-indulgent, however!
Surely theatre has to be exagerated.....
There must have been more race variety on who benefited from the method. Lolthanks for the tiny clips of Black ppl not verbally performing.......
Cate Blanchett's an overactor.
I was never impressed by James Dean's acting
Me neither alot of good modern actors put him to shame
Ur acting is dogshit.
Why every msthod actor look like thry dont shower?...
Thank you
Thank you.