An interesting viewpoint and certainly thought-pro...

2010-11-22T20:08:24.685-08:00

An interesting viewpoint and certainly thought-provoking.
However, in "An Actor Prepares", Stanislavski does not specify that every single moment must be accounted for - he actually reiterates many times that it's important for an actor to channel the the natural impulses within himself. The objective was never intended as a "be all and end all", more as a guideline for an actor to follow. Find a super objective, and then an objective or two within each scene, breaking it into beats as is approriate; This will create natural performace by guiding the actor without restricting him.
While I agree that any director who is silly enough to mark out an actor's entire path, allowing zero freedom to explore impulse will end up with a thoroughly emotionless, unoriginal piece and frustrated actors, it is important to remember that without any thought given to objectives within a play, scene or singular exchange, an actor would be lost in the woods, and so it would still be absolutely essential to nut out basics together and reach a consensus over which general direction a performance should take. A really good director would loosely plan experimentation with multiple directions and objectives for a single scene, creating truly original theatre.

Comments on An Actor Prepares: Getting Stanislavsky Wrong

An interesting viewpoint and certainly thought-pro...