A Comparative Study of Robert Lewis, Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Wayne State University DigitalCommons@WayneState Wayne State University Dissertations 1-1-2010 A Comparative Study Of Robert Lewis, Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler And Sanford Meisner In The Context Of Current Research About The Stanislavsky System Ruthel Honey-Ellen Darvas Wayne State University, Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/oa_dissertations Recommended Citation Darvas, Ruthel Honey-Ellen, "A Comparative Study Of Robert Lewis, Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler And Sanford Meisner In The onC text Of Current Research About The tS anislavsky System" (2010). Wayne State University Dissertations. Paper 9. This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wayne State University Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ROBERT LEWIS, LEE STRASBERG, STELLA ADLER AND SANFORD MEISNER IN THE CONTEXT OF CURRENT RESEARCH ABOUT THE STANISLAVSKY SYSTEM by RUTHEL HONEY DARVAS DISSERTATION Submitted to the Graduate School of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2010 MAJOR: THEATRE Approved By: Advisor Date DEDICATION Dedicated to Bradley Sean Darvas ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must first express my gratitude to my committee members, Dr. James Thomas, Dr. Blair Anderson, Dr. Mary Cooney, Dr. Loraleigh Keashly and Dr. David Magidson. Thanks to all interview subjects, Eddie Burke, Robert Ellermann and Wendy Smith, whose information greatly contributed to this study. Many thanks to Cara Gilgenbach from Kent State University for her help in using the Robert Lewis Collection. I am so very grateful to my dearest friend LoriGoe Nowak for reading my study and for all of her valuable feedback and endless encouragement. I would also like to express thanks to Amanda Ayers, Katie Deane, Jessica Green, Dr. Ronee Griffith, Dr. John Price, Morghan Shannon and Kyle Taylor. Additional thanks goes to my colleagues, Dr. Pauline Gagnon, Shelly Elman, Dr. Caleb Boyd, Tommy Cox, Dr. Amy Cuomo, Jan Ridgway, Dr. Amber Smallwood and Alan Yeong. Special acknowledgements go to Ruthel Loe English, Trudie Fay Loe, Charles Darvas and Joyce Ziegler. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication i Acknowledgements ii Chapter 1 “Introduction” 1 Chapter 2 “The Concept of Action” 29 Chapter 3 “The Concept of Imagination” 60 Chapter 4 “The Concept of Bits and Tasks” 73 Chapter 5 “The Concept of Emotion Memory” 85 Chapter 6 “The Concept of Active Analysis” 105 Chapter 7 “Conclusion” 140 Appendix A “An Overview of Stanislavsky’s System" 145 Appendix B “Stanislavski’s Terms” 146 Appendix C “Comparison of Terms” 147 References 148 Abstract 152 Autobiographical Statement 153 iv 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The Stanislavsky System, a psycho-physical approach to acting training developed by Konstantin Stanislavsky, has a long and storied history of misinterpretation. This study, using recent research about the Stanislavsky System, examines the teachings of four notable acting teachers—Robert Lewis, Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler and Sanford Meisner—to determine whose philosophy most accurately reflects the Stanislavsky System as it is now understood. In order to best understand this study and the use of certain source materials, a historical framework is necessary. A brief summary of Stanislavsky’s life and career, identification of key researchers and sources, and a brief history of the Group Theatre follow. Stanislavsky’s Life and Career Konstantin Stanislavsky was born in Moscow, Russia, on August 7, 1863 and began acting at the age of fourteen (Benedetti 2). He began his career with the amateur Alekseyev Circle. After the Circle disbanded in 1888, Stanislavsky began appearing in “risqué amateur productions” (Merlin 2). He adopted the name Stanislavsky both to avoid his family’s embarrassment and because it was the name of a “ballerina whom, as a young boy, he had lovingly adored from afar” (2). His next venture was the formation of the Moscow Amateur Music-Dramatic Circle after which he founded the Society of Art and Literature. In 1898, Stanislavsky co-founded the Moscow Art Theatre with Vladimir Nemirovich Danchenko, (Russian director and playwright, 1858-1943). It was agreed that Stanislavsky would be in charge of “all matters concerning production” and Danchenko would be in charge of “all matters concerning repertoire and scripts” (Benedetti 25). Furthermore, both agreed that the Moscow Art 2 Theatre company was to be a true ensemble, with no star players, that produced works that were both enlightening and educating (24-25). With the founding of the Moscow Art Theatre (hereafter referred to as the MAT), Stanislavsky was able to immerse himself in the art; and he began his career as an actor in earnest. He began to understand the problems that actors often encountered and thereafter, throughout his life, he worked to develop a system that would allow actors to approach a role with a psycho-physical technique. Additionally, his hope was that the system could be used both for acting training and for directors to better communicate with actors. Stanislavsky’s first work toward that goal was an autobiography entitled My Life in Art, translated by J.J. Robbins and first published in New York in 1924 in English. Although Stanislavsky was Russian, his autobiography would not be published in his native country until 1926. Stanislavsky died in 1938. Issues in Translation and Interpretation In 1928 Stanislavsky suffered a heart attack that ended his career as an actor; however, his poor health became the opportunity for writing a work that would fully detail his System. He intended the System to be published in a single, two-part volume comprising how to create the “inner life” of a character and how to express that inner life physically (Stanislavski, An Actor’s Work xv). Despite Stanislavsky’s intention that his work be published in a single volume entitled The Actor’s Work on Himself in the Creative Process of Experiencing, both the English (1936) and Russian (1938) editions of Part One were published long before Part Two (English 1949, Russian 1954), thus unintentionally separating the emotional, internal aspects of acting from the physical, external aspects (686). In 1990, nine volumes (including ten books) of Stanislavsky’s work were published in Russia, consisting of materials intended for publication about the System 3 as well as other items gathered posthumously, such as class notes, speeches, letters, and lecture materials (xix). In the United States, there were additional difficulties publishing Stanislavsky’s work. Stanislavsky met Elizabeth Hapgood in 1923 when she served as his interpreter at a White House reception during his company’s American tour. In 1929 Stanislavsky agreed to work with both Hapgood and her husband, Norman, who was an editor and publisher (xvi). Through this partnership, An Actor Prepares was published in the United States in 1936, followed by Building a Character (1949) and Creating a Role (1961). Stanislavsky’s works detailing his System were published in America after being translated by Hapgood from Russian to English (sometimes inaccurately). Bella Merlin, a notable Stanislavsky scholar, wrote of the inconsistencies between Stanislavsky’s work and the subsequent Hapgood translations into English: Along with her husband, Norman, the American translator, Elizabeth Hapgood, substantially edited the texts, after with further snips were made by the Chief Editor, Edith Isaacs. Although the cuts seem simple, some of them are particularily unhelpful. […] This example throws up another issue: terminology. Stanislavsky was so keen that his writing up of the System was not seen as “gospel,” he chose language that was deliberately accessible to all readers. In the English translations, however, Stanislavsky’s simple terms, such as “bits” of text and “tasks” for the characters, were subsequently changed to the more scientific-sounding “units” and “objectives,” creating a different, rather alienating tone. These examples of incompatibilities in translation illustrate that some of Stanislavsky’s original intentions have become muddied. (Merlin 40) Furthermore, since there were many years between the publishing of each volume, English- speaking readers were left with the mistaken belief that the first volume contained his technique in its entirety, when in actuality there were complementary and progressive volumes that had not yet reached America. 4 It is likely the Stanislavsky System has been further misunderstood because it began in Russia and evolved over a fifty-year time span, during which it transmigrated to America through former students of Stanislavsky. It is important to note that the students who studied with Stanislavsky and later taught acting in America studied with him at different periods during the evolution of his System. It is also important to mention that because of translation difficulties, there are also inconsistencies about the spelling of Stanislavsky’s name in English. Sharon Carnicke, author of Stanislavsky in Focus, attributes this to Russian names being “anglicized according to the guidelines established by the American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European languages” (xiii). This accounts for Stanislavsky’s surname being transliterated with a final –i as if it were Polish. Stanislavsky’s name is written: “Constantin Stanislavski,” “Konstantin Stanislavsky,” “Konstantin Stanislavski”