Acting Style and Stanislavski

Once upon a time, most theatre was very exaggerated. Certainly when one looks as far back as ancientt Greek plays, it’s easy to see hyperbolic energy flowing off the often bizarrely expressive masks, and the over-the-top satirical hand/body gestures. Of course exaggeration is a valuable dramatic device in all of storytelling, particularly in the genre’s of Science Fiction and Satire, but if one is not careful, it can often lead to a loss of subtlety, as the exaggeration may seem like it’s ‘hitting you over the head’ with its ideas, or ‘cleverness’. That might possibly be why so much modern storytelling today seems to be highly naturalistic, working as direct mirror to our lives, and not adding any kind of kinetic spice (Other than unfathomably attractive stars etc..)

Even if that isn’t the reason for the current state of storytelling (There are probably a lot of factors) , the trend of naturalism owes a great deal to the work of Constantin Stalivlaski. A Russian who lived between 1863 and 1938, worked as an actor and theatre director, he revolutionized stage acting with his own more realistic style. This change he brought about would have ripple effect that crossed into all storytelling mediums involving actors, so his legacy also extends to films, and even the voice acting in Video Games.( Though his methods would apply a lot less to Voice actors). He did this by bringing about his own ‘System’ of acting,  simply called ‘Stalislavski’s  System’(Though he originally had a lower case S for ‘system’ so as not to seem overbearing)

This system is also what probably led to bring about the term ‘Method Actors’ Actors who don’t simply act but ‘become’ the role, through heavily immersing themselves in every aspect of the character’s life style. They essentially construct the character alongside the writer, as they pay attention to what they think the character is supposed to be like outside of script, in order to fully embody he/she. This isn’t necessarily better. Robert De Niro probably thinks so, literally working as taxi driver before he was filmed in Martin Scorsese’s ‘Taxi Driver’ but other actors like Anthony Hopkins might reply with a snarky ‘Why don’t you just act?’ Stalislavski would likely approve of De Niro.

Staleslavksi believed in a psychological realism that actors embody, much like De Niro in Taxi Driver. Thus his system essentially involves rebuilding the way you behave. Things we take for granted, such as the way we stand, the way we use allocated space, and the way in which we hang our heads, is all broken down. When you see all the little pieces of what makes a human behave as he does, you can then reconstruct the pieces to seem like a different person all together. In this regard, Actors are almost like Jigsaw puzzles, however these puzzles can actually be made to make a variety of pictures, not just one. All you need to do is take apart the original picutre (The actor as himself) and put together a new one.

The inspiration for Stalivlaski to take such an approach probably came from the actors he admired most; tragedians such as Maria Yemolova and Tommaso Salvini. This makes a lot of sense. Comedy often works best when the hilarity is made hyperbolic, further exposing silliness/wit that makes it so funny. As the opposite to Comedy tragedy should logically work well with the opposite strategy, which is why more melancholy sombre tones are usually attached to tragedy, as the poignancy is amplified by the soft/modest tone, which contrasts against whatever the tragedy is. Conversely, exaggerated tragedy runs the risk of becoming irritatingly melodramatic, and even offensive, since the audience may feel that the proper reverence isn’t being given to the subject matter. Tragic topics seem to work better with the ‘artistic truth’ that Stalivlaski tried to attain in his system, as it isn’t trying to cheaply manipulate your sympathies around a dreary/shocking subject.  His fondness of tragedy must be why he ultimately applied the naturalistic style to the whole medium of theatre.

Those who prefer the garish over the sedate, Batman and Superman over Sherlock Holmes and Huckleberry Fin,  may blame Stalislavski for introducing a trend that would later encompass a lot (if not most) of modern fiction. But we still have fantastical adventures of hyperbole. And as an ardent follower of all things Storytelling, I will always appreciate the variety each style can bring. Stalivlaski’s style isn’t right or wrong, it’s just one very valid way of doing things. 

That all for today, I hope you enjoyed it!

-Taha

P.S Part 2 of 'Writing within restrictions' should be up soon ;)