Voces Novae Volume 6 Article 7 2018 “We Need New Forms”: The ysS tems Influence on the Development of the Group Theatre Colby Sostarich Chapman University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/vocesnovae Recommended Citation Sostarich, Colby (2018) "“We Need New Forms”: The ysS tems Influence on the Development of the Group Theatre," Voces Novae: Vol. 6 , Article 7. Available at: https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/vocesnovae/vol6/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Chapman University Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Voces Novae by an authorized editor of Chapman University Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sostarich: “We Need New Forms”: The Systems Influence on the Development of "We Need New Forms" Voces Novae: Chapman University Historical Review, Vol 6, No 1 (2014) HOME ABOUT USER HOME SEARCH CURRENT ARCHIVES PHI ALPHA THETA Home > Vol 6, No 1 (2014) "We Need New Forms": The Systems Influence on the Development of the Group Theatre Colby Sostarich Prologue On a cold and snowy day in 1924 a troupe of Russian actors, led by Constantin Stanislavsky, was making their way through Washington D.C. to visit the White House. The Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, invited the artists to an audience with the president. Once at the White House, a few cultural differences between the Americans and the Russians became apparent. The Russian habit of removing and checking winter clothes once inside a building was not observed, forcing the actors to awkwardly carry their coats. To make matters worse, the demands of the president's office kept them waiting, though the appointment had a set time. Due to the awkward situation, Stanislavsky began performing to lighten the mood. He demonstrated the elaborate way that men and women used to bow during the eighteenth-century. This frivolity was suddenly cut short as the troupe was herded into the company of President Calvin Coolidge.[1] Though Stanislavsky was an informal cultural ambassador between the two countries, Coolidge seemed to be rather ambivalent to the meeting. Elizabeth Reynolds-Hapgood, an American accompanying the crew, noted the president's cool reaction. To Hapgood it was "impossible to guess whether he had any idea that standing there before him were the actors of the world famous Moscow Art Theatre--who, incidentally, were the first persons with Soviet Passports to be received at the Whitehouse."[2] Stanislavsky and his troupe were greeted kindly by the president, but were not allowed to speak because a foreign citizen could only talk with the president through an ambassador. There was no ambassador for the Soviet Union yet, so they were forced to sit through the meeting in silence. Though the gathering was less than glamorous, the actors were not bothered. They left the president to go practice for their next play where they would be pretending to be Tsars.[3] The conference between Stanislavsky and Coolidge is not remembered as some great meeting of the minds. This meeting was not a large political or artistic triumph, but it represents an important step in the evolution of the relationship between the Russian art community and America. While the event could be representative of the political environment in the 1920's, the sheer fact the meeting even took place added to the mythos of Stanislavsky.[4] He was an artist so great that even during the first American tour, he and the Moscow Art Theatre (MXT) were recognized for their artistic contributions. Though he was not able to ease the political tension between the two countries, his presence in America started a process of cultural exchange. This meeting would be the first of many points of contact between the Russian figure and American culture, thus marking the beginning of the Stanislavsky tradition in the United States. Constantin Stanislavsky brought a revolutionary theory to America. His ideas, known collectively as the System, were a combination of exercises, techniques, and concepts that changed the interoperation of characters, emotional states, and textual analysis. The all-encompassing training regime, developed in the early part of the 20th century, responded to the natural and realistic artistic and theatrical movements popular during the period. By employing the System, actors could accurately portray the lives and emotions of characters developed by the great Copyright © 2014 Colby Sostarich Voces Novae, Vol 6, No 1 (2014) 105 Published by Chapman University Digital Commons, 2018 1 Voces Novae, Vol. 6 [2018], Art. 7 Colby Sostarich playwrights of the time. The theory, introduced to America by the 1923-24 tour of the Moscow Art Theatre and subsequently by Russian émigré teachers, had already undergone radical changes. By the time of its introduction in the United States, it was not the same series of techniques and exercises developed by Stanislavsky in Russia. Though they bear striking similarities, the key differences altered the application and realization of the System. Stanislavsky might be a theatrical hero, but his pure thoughts on the process of acting were not introduced by the American Tour, the Group Theatre, or even through his own writing. Instead, a series of mimics were used as the foundation of the System in America, and the final creation developed a new breed of distinctly American techniques that changed the course of theatrical development in the United States. The origins of the System and its creator have become theatrical legend. Practitioners hailed Stanislavsky and his creation as a brilliant contribution to the study of acting. Stanislavsky became synonymous with certain ideas that allowed theatre to evolve into its present form. His techniques provide a framework to create realistic characters and emotions on stage in the actor's pursuit for artistic truth. By utilizing texts developed during specific artistic movements, realism and modernism, Stanislavsky introduced a style of acting that depended upon the actors living the part and not simply acting it out. Originally, the System was a loosely defined set of rules that allowed access to the inner technique "that is necessary for promoting a proper creative mood[that] is based in the main on will."[5] It accessed a form of acting that tapped into the realistic and naturalistic artistic movements of the day by basing the training and rehearsal process on a strong foundation of style, concentration, and given circumstances. Shortly after its introduction in America, theatre practitioners in New York adopted the System. Through experiences with Russian émigré teachers like Richard Boleslavsky, new versions of the theory, such as Lee Strasberg's Method, were created. These new forms of the System became the foundation for a burgeoning company, the Group Theatre. The young artists who would make up the Group Theatre were highly influenced by the foundation Stanislavsky provided. Responsible for popularizing the use of the System, the Group Theatre's experiments created even more theories associated with Stanislavsky's original ideas. By 1934, the differing opinions of how the System should be applied created a wide schism between American actors. Members of the Group Theatre, including Lee Strasberg and Stella Adler, visited Moscow in order to learn about the System developed by Stanislavsky and his colleagues. Upon returning to America, Strasberg acknowledged the System provided a good foundation, but felt that his own work improved upon the foundation provided by the Russians. The evolution was a result of his method being an American interpretation and not simply a copy of Stanislavsky.[6] Stella Adler, an actress in the Group Theatre, also sought out Stanislavsky, desiring lessons in the System. Adler gained a better understanding of the faults manifesting in the American System and decided to return to the source. In a polarizing event that divided the group of thespians, Adler returned to America urging a more stringent application of Stanislavsky's core ideas. The Group split into two camps, those that followed Adler, and those that followed Strasberg. One member compared this ideological schism to that of the Republicans and Democrats.[7] All of the multiple schools of thought that exist count Stanislavsky as their founding father and work to uphold the ideals of the System he created. It is through Adler, Strasberg, and their colleague's work that the true transformation of the Stanislavsky System occurred, and simultaneously entered America as the de facto foundation for any aspiring actor. The aim of this paper is to explore the interpretation of the System and the influences that radically changed its practical application by the Group Theatre through the examination of the published material of the individuals involved. In order to adapt the artistic style for an American audience, artists needed to introduce a hybridized version of the technique that pulled elements from both dominant cultures. These concepts, communicated through émigré teachers, specifically Richard Boleslavsky, and his writings provide the point of contact between the Russian practitioner and the new, distinctly American form of theatre that was built upon Stanislavsky's foundation. 106 Voces Novae, Vol 6, No 1 (2014) https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/vocesnovae/vol6/iss1/7 2 Sostarich: “We Need New Forms”: The Systems Influence on the Development of "We Need New Forms" A majority of the current research on Stanislavsky attempts to either break or uphold the image created around his work. The split focus of the research indicates that though some historians, such as Sharon Marie Carnicke, feel the myth needs to be rewritten. Carnicke, one of the leading scholars on Stanislavsky, centered her work on the mistranslation of the Russian Master's work specifically by American Artists. Her work Stanislavsky in Focus: An Acting Master for the Twenty-First Century broke down the evolution of the System into three parts: transmission, translation, and transformation.