It is the general ideas that you are supposed to learn from, not any literal application. But if you've ever read any text on any kind of theory, whether it be on teaching or acting (my two fields), you know that books of the like often assume ideal circumstances that don't actually exist in real life. Every example he gives is perfect, the reactions of his students' to his instructions and advice are neatly helpful to whatever point he is trying to make. Now, there is a strong sense of contrivance to most of the lessons and Torstov's postulating. The book plays out as Kostya attends the various lessons, interacts with his fellow actors, and they all respond to and reflect on the seemingly outside-the-box instruction of their instructor. You get the sense that both characters represent Stanislavski himself: Kostya being the author when he was a young actor, Torstov after he has grown and earned years of experience. The main character is Kostya, a naive theater student studying under the seasoned director Torstov. But Stanislavski did something with this book that genuinly took me by surprise: he attempts to write his book as narrative fiction.
#Un actor se prepara stanislavski resumen how to#
They are useful activities, to be sure, described in details pertaining to how to carry out such activies, and their relevence to an overall acting theory. People like Spolin and Anita Jesse can be a bit tedious to read since their book are basically that: lists of activities. Now, if this were just a checklist, it probably wouldn't have made such an impact on me. Reading this book was like going down a checklist of everything I've ever learned. Everything I learned from Karen Baker about finding novel appraoches to text and the deliberate varying of tactics of interpretation, Stanislavski said first. Everything David Ball has to say about finding motivations and chains of event by back-tracking from the end of the play back to the beginning, Stanislavski said first. Everything Spolin has to say about freeing yourself to play on stage was said by Stalislavski first. Not only that, it amazingly addressed just about every single major theme I've ever heard from every speaker on theater, or read in any book I've ever read. Far from being outdated, it oddly felt more relevant than most of the books on theater I've read. The first volume of the trilogy, "An Actor Prepares", kind of shook me to core, just a bit. After all, if you've read one book on acting, you've read them all. For what now seem like silly rationals, I avoided reading Stanislavski mostly because I assumed his seminal trilogy of books on acting, which began being published in 1936, would be outdated at the best, and a burdonsome slog at worst.
#Un actor se prepara stanislavski resumen trial#
And I've discovered a great deal of experiential wisdom through the trial and error of directing many plays over the years. I've been able to hear the lectures of more comtemprary and geographically local experts such as Karen Baker and Kelly Russell. Most notable, I gathered great knowledge and insight from Viola Spolin, David Ball, Michael Shurtleff, Uta Hagen. When I first began teaching theater, I began sucking down everyone who was pointed out to me as important in the field. To a casual observer it might not seem that way, but to anyone who has studied the history of theater or acting theory, "An Actor Prepares" is this thorough omnibus of everything you need to know about acting. I've been able to hear t This is quite a remarkable book.
0 kommentar(er)
