Stanislavski Uncovered (Part Two)

Well hello there friends and fans.

The Israelites spent 40 years in the wilderness, and the gap between this and my previous blog must have felt like a similar time span. I shall not go into too much detail as to the cause of my length absence from the blogosphere, but let’s just say that my well documented struggle with genital warts took a turn for the worse during the Summer, forcing me into wart-prison, characterised by solitary confinement and a walking motion not dissimilar to that of a cowboy too fond of his saddle.

Nevertheless back I am again with avengence, warts and all (literally) and at your service once more to advance your understanding of theatre and give you inside insight in the build up to our ‘Nativity in Creakebottom’ UK tour during December. (All dates, times & tickets via www.slingshot-theatre.com).

STANISLAVSKI UNCOVERED – PART 2

I pick up where I left off, with good old Stanislavski, that great bastion of theatrical endeavour. Last time I opened your eyes to his method EMR (Emotion Memory Recall). That’s the theory, but does it work in practice? Attitudes to Stan range greatly, which is why I have created this simple graphic to help you understand the different approaches.

                      1________________________5________________________10

                        English approach            American approach            Russian approach

In this blog I am committed to giving you industry-perspective insight, and I won’t shy away here. Some may throw more stones at me for writing this but I feel it must be written, and so will shield myself from their missiles with my integrity.

English Approach

To most actors, certainly those of a British persuasion, Stan-technique is about as useful as a bucket of Bull’s milk. It is certainly very fashionable to inform the critics and media that their performances involved a deep and committed EMR process, when in reality their on-stage stream of consciousness would read something like this:

-       What’s for dinner?

-       Wow the house is quiet tonight. Cheer up you miserable bunch.

-       I can’t believe they didn’t get that joke. Ludites.

-       I could have sushi from that little Japanese place.

-       I wonder if my agent will come.

-       They love that line. It’s because of the reaction I give to it. They love me. If it wasn’t for old windbag John over here we’d be talking about a west-end transfer.

-       Or Nandos. No I always go to Nandos.

-       Is that Cilla Black?

-       I’ll have to fake a reaction to have a good look at her.

-       It is Cilla black!

-       M&S?

-       Oh no I think it’s a man.

-       I wonder when the RSC are casting next? Maybe I should send an email off.

-       Stuff it, I’ll just grab a Maccy D’s on the train home.

-       Don’t laugh at that line, you’ll encourage him… oh there we go, off improvising again. Bring on the interval.

And so on and so forth.

This EMR/Stan pretence is a game of hypocrisy and I’m blowing the whistle. I can honestly say I’ve never used this technique, and the success of my career speaks for itself. The truth is that UK actors are lazy oafs. That doesn’t mean we’re not any good. It’s just that Stan is so serious and hard graft. I didn’t become an actor to endure hard graft. We’re all basically playing the lottery with our careers, hoping to land something that will allow a mortgage-free life eating at Carluccios. If the work of an actor is similar to cleaning dirty garments, Stan’s method is to us like using a microscope and a pair of tweezers.

American approach

Americans however eat Stan for breakfast, lunch and dinner. They devour him like famished cannibals. Some of them think they are him. All the great actors are ‘Method’ and if you say you’re not ‘Method’ they kill you. It’s true. Look at all the actors who have died recently because of ‘drugs’ or ‘prodigious living’. Whatever. It’s a method mafia, a Stan-syndicate, and there ain’t no room for anyone else. “Brecht – kiss my ass. Le Coq – eat my dirt. Mamet – words fail me for you are Satan himself!” America might say if it could speak. In fact, they can’t even consider that any other technique exists, they begin acting history at the introduction of the Stan method, and everything else is seen in light of that, much like the teaching of their national history (I’ve often heard Americans say inane things like “You’re so lucky in England to have such a long history, we only have 200 years” to which I previously have curtly reposted “No, you mean you only have 200 years after you’d massacred all the Red Indians who’d lived there donkey’s years, you moron!”. After a few hostile engagements I took to saying this under my breath, and after another even more hostile engagement I took to saying it in my own mind, albeit in a very offensive American accent).

Forgotten by Yanks.

Russian Approach

However much they try Americans don’t even get close to the pure devotion of the Russian approach to Stan’s legacy. They laugh at us. They laugh in thick, haughty, disgusted Russian accents, at our puny, pathetic small-minded understanding of their great master. They follow every dot of his genius as if it were a holy book. Whilst the English dream of great acclaim with little effort, and the Americans dream of great acclaim with great effort, the Russians dream of incalculable effort with little acclaim. The worst part of their job is performing. If only they could eliminate the performance element from the theatre process, they would die of ecstasy. Months, years, nay lifetimes have been whittled away in oblique rehearsal on a gentle trajectory to mental illness. If you want to be a true Stanite, best buy yourself a Mishkin hat and head East.

To conclude, Stanislavski was undoubtedly a genius and a master of theatre, but most of us are far too lazy to understand why.