Stanislavski Was The WORST Acting Teacher of All Time
When it comes to modern acting there is no other name that is quite as revered as Konstantin Stanislavski. His "system" is revered among many actors and acting teachers. His influence gave way to modern method acting. Lee Strasberg helped bring Stanislavski's "system" to America, and he expanded on it to created the method acting style that we're accustomed to today. I will not deny that actors trained in Stanislavski's system win the majority of acting awards. I will not deny the fact that many of the greatest actors of all time use Stanislavski's system. I will not deny that actors trained in Stanislavski's system usually give excellent performances. But all of this comes with a great cost!
A new breed of actor came about in the 1950s and 1960s that broke away from the classical orthodox style and ushered in more "realism." Classically trained acting, in the eyes of many, seemed way too fake and disingenuous compared to the uber-real acting that Stanislavski's system helped bring about. If you watch movies prior to the 1950s, you'll see that the acting is much more hammy and over-the-top than the acting of today. Stanislavski believed there was something very fake about theatre productions. Even though many theatre productions and films of the late 1800s and early 1900s were very entertaining, the actors weren't being real with their performances. Realistic stories weren't being conveyed with this hammy acting. Even if audiences did enjoy the shows they were seeing, there was no way they could truly connect to the characters. Stanislavski wanted acting performances that would allow audiences to connect to the characters they were seeing and get emotionally invested in the performances. He turned acting into a science. This scientific breakdown of acting made things much worse for actors! But you're probably asking - doesn't this all sound good? Didn't Stanislavski improve acting? On the surface it would appear he did. However, if you dig deeper into it you'll find he actually brought acting into the dark ages.
As I stated previously, Stanislavski turned acting into a science. Nowadays actors will mark their scripts with what they believe their intention is, what their essential action is, and how they can relate to each line, beat and beat change (the "as if"). Actors will now psychologically plan out every detail of their characters and think for hours about the motives of what they are doing. This isn't real acting! True acting is the ability to react instantly on the spot to the other actors in the scene and the situation in a realistic fashion. Acting shouldn't be about planning your every move - acting should be about the development of the skills necessary to be real without having to over-think. Anything that modern Stanislavski's "system" actors are accomplishing can be accomplished without it. In essence, it might look good on paper, but it's a complete waste of time and energy. Many modern actors have gone absolutely insane because of Stanislavski's teachings. Daniel Day-Lewis may be a brilliant actor, but all his performances took such a toll on him that he had to retire early. Stanislavski is to blame for this. If Daniel Day-Lewis wasn't so consumed by psychologically relating to his character and the time period his film productions took place in, he wouldn't have driven himself mad. He could've had a much longer career and given many more memorable performances if he wasn't so focused on thinking about the psychology of his characters.
Today's actors just think too much. The same goals could definitely be accomplished by classical methods. The only modification that classical actors of the past should've changed to their performances was they should've lowered the tone of their voice. Unfortunately, during the early 1900s, film was still very new. Actors who were used to doing theatre and projecting their voice to a vast audience were unaware that when they were speaking loudly to the camera their performances came across as lame, fake, and just plain embarrassing. But this wasn't the fault of the classical training they were given. This was the fault of film still being a very new medium and actors being unaware how to make adjustments for this new medium. Slightly modified classical methods were all that was needed to make acting realistic. Acting didn't need to become a science. Acting is not complicated. Acting should be fun. Stanislavski took all the fun out of acting. This is why Stanislavski's "system" does not hold up to the test of time, and why he is definitely the worst acting teacher who ever lived.
A new breed of actor came about in the 1950s and 1960s that broke away from the classical orthodox style and ushered in more "realism." Classically trained acting, in the eyes of many, seemed way too fake and disingenuous compared to the uber-real acting that Stanislavski's system helped bring about. If you watch movies prior to the 1950s, you'll see that the acting is much more hammy and over-the-top than the acting of today. Stanislavski believed there was something very fake about theatre productions. Even though many theatre productions and films of the late 1800s and early 1900s were very entertaining, the actors weren't being real with their performances. Realistic stories weren't being conveyed with this hammy acting. Even if audiences did enjoy the shows they were seeing, there was no way they could truly connect to the characters. Stanislavski wanted acting performances that would allow audiences to connect to the characters they were seeing and get emotionally invested in the performances. He turned acting into a science. This scientific breakdown of acting made things much worse for actors! But you're probably asking - doesn't this all sound good? Didn't Stanislavski improve acting? On the surface it would appear he did. However, if you dig deeper into it you'll find he actually brought acting into the dark ages.
As I stated previously, Stanislavski turned acting into a science. Nowadays actors will mark their scripts with what they believe their intention is, what their essential action is, and how they can relate to each line, beat and beat change (the "as if"). Actors will now psychologically plan out every detail of their characters and think for hours about the motives of what they are doing. This isn't real acting! True acting is the ability to react instantly on the spot to the other actors in the scene and the situation in a realistic fashion. Acting shouldn't be about planning your every move - acting should be about the development of the skills necessary to be real without having to over-think. Anything that modern Stanislavski's "system" actors are accomplishing can be accomplished without it. In essence, it might look good on paper, but it's a complete waste of time and energy. Many modern actors have gone absolutely insane because of Stanislavski's teachings. Daniel Day-Lewis may be a brilliant actor, but all his performances took such a toll on him that he had to retire early. Stanislavski is to blame for this. If Daniel Day-Lewis wasn't so consumed by psychologically relating to his character and the time period his film productions took place in, he wouldn't have driven himself mad. He could've had a much longer career and given many more memorable performances if he wasn't so focused on thinking about the psychology of his characters.
Today's actors just think too much. The same goals could definitely be accomplished by classical methods. The only modification that classical actors of the past should've changed to their performances was they should've lowered the tone of their voice. Unfortunately, during the early 1900s, film was still very new. Actors who were used to doing theatre and projecting their voice to a vast audience were unaware that when they were speaking loudly to the camera their performances came across as lame, fake, and just plain embarrassing. But this wasn't the fault of the classical training they were given. This was the fault of film still being a very new medium and actors being unaware how to make adjustments for this new medium. Slightly modified classical methods were all that was needed to make acting realistic. Acting didn't need to become a science. Acting is not complicated. Acting should be fun. Stanislavski took all the fun out of acting. This is why Stanislavski's "system" does not hold up to the test of time, and why he is definitely the worst acting teacher who ever lived.
Comments
Post a Comment