Stanislavski's Influence On Theatre

Theatre is dying. It’s been a slow process, a process that started in 19th century Russia and continues to this day. Until Pushkin, theatre had been seen as entertainment, but in his Aphorism he stated ‘Sincerity of emotions, feelings that seem true in given circumstances- that is what we ask of a dramatist’, this was echoed by Stanislavski who revolutionised acting from entertainment to art. His ideas changed the ways we thought about theatre but by revolutionising theatre Stanislavski outlined its flaws, flaws that continue to this day.

Stanislavski completely changed theatre. For actors he created a system, a process for actors to use in order to achieve truth on stage. The system tells actors to improvise, look at characters given circumstances

and to ask themselves ‘what if’. He also invented the method of physical action, which inspired method acting, a radical form of acting unlike the cliché acting that came before him. From a directorial position Stanislavski sought out to create highly detailed mise en scene in attempt to create a realistic atmosphere that both the actors and audience could engage with. Stanislavski’s most important directorial choice was the removal of the star system. Stanislavski rejected the conventional star system of the time where the most famous actor available would be cast in order to draw out the biggest crowds and revenue. Stanislavski instead cast actors that were suited in the role which combined with his system, was able to remove the mechanical acting that was plaguing theatre. Stanislavski’s most famous example of this process was the casting of Kachalov in smaller and ensemble roles. At the time Kachalov was a star, but Stanislavski cast him in various small and large roles in his 50 performance tenure with the MAT.
“She does not love art, but herself in art.”
The rejection of the star system was one of the most important ideas that Stanislavski introduced to theatre and by doing so, he also removed mechanical acting from theatre.

So how is it that in the late 1960s Peter Brook Wrote the deadly theatre? How is it only 30 years after Stanislavski’s death the theatrical world had resorted back to ideas that he sought to resolve? Brook identifies the problems with theatre post Stanislavski, he tells us that Stanislavski inadvertently created a paradox, stating that actors desperately attempting to achieve truth resulted in a uninformed performance.

‘[the system] has done as much harm as good to many young actors, who misread it in detail and only take away a good hatred of the shoddy’

Yet the deadly theatre targets more than misinformed actors, “The Deadly Theatre takes easily to Shakespeare. We see his plays done by good actors in what seems like the proper

way”
Brook explores the cliché nature surrounding Shakespeare showing us that in the space of 30 years all that Stanislavski sought to reform has almost become undone. Stanislavski explicitly fought to abandon a deadly repertoire hence the use of contemporary literature and his extensive research into classic performances.
Ironically the star system was re-introduced to ensure the public would still come to the theatre, which asks us, what would we prefer, deadly theatre or no theatre.

We can argue that theatre is dying because of inadequate actor training and the failure to remove the star system. However, rather than argue theatre is dying, it would seem best to argue that conventional theatre is dying.

Contemporary performers like Steven Berkoff revolutionised theatre in the 1980s, with his politically charged pieces such as Decadence but also his fresh take on Oedipus in his adaptation of the Theban classic in the form of Greek. Through this performance Berkoff almost echoed what Brecht had achieved with his adaptation of Antigone which he used to praise the German freedom fighters in the war. Berkoff commented ‘London equals Thebes and is full of riots, filth, decay , bombings, mobs at the palace gate… the play dealt with the idea of an emotional social plague’

Berkoff was exceptionally trained, in both acting where he attended RADA and mime, creating unique theatrical experiences which blended both the physical and the

verbal.
But Berkoff wasn’t the only contemporary performer in the 80s, Lloyd Newson and his theatre group DV8, inspired by Artuads teachings, created a radical form of theatre where the character was portrayed through the use of the body, rarely relying on spoken dialogue. The company were radical in the sense that they performed incredible acrobatic feats in epic on stage set pieces.

Theatre is dying. Traditional theatre is slowly being replaced by more experimental forms of theatre. The out dated star system has played a fundamental part in this as well as inexperienced actors, this in contrast to more politically charged or experimental theatre we are left with a slowly declining, out dated form of theatre. Without serious reforms on stage, conventional theatre risks being left behind in a wave of radical performance.