Stanislavsky's Techniques

"Remember there are no small parts, only small actors" - Konstantin Stanislavski

Stanislavski's system and constructs of acting is very simplistic, agreeable and effective. In a nutshell, the outline to remember is that actors should really inhibit the role they play. This should be done by looking deep into character research.

Realism: 19th century theatrical movement; seeking to portray real life on the stage. Stanislavski was a committed follower. 

Naturalism: the belief that a human character is formed by what they've inherited from their family and environment. Stanislavski was known to stand against this. 

There are many symbolic uses in stanislavski's plays, but also the use of realism is very predominant. 

To construct a play using the realism method, there are certain that are in place like the use of a 'fourth wall'. This fourth wall is not an actual 3D part of the set but is the illusion from the audience that they are watching something and there is a wall between them and the actors. This also means there is no audience interaction, such as the actors directly addressing the audience or turning to them purposely for a response, such as Miranda Hart does in the TV series, Miranda. This emphasises the realism of the play and doesn't shatter illusion for the audience. 

Other factors of a "realistic" play would be the use of colloquial language over poetry. The play's would tend to follow the lives of ordinary people. Stanislavski often wrote about the middle class. 

Stanislavski's system focusses on:

- emotional memory 

- method of physical actions 

- subtext 

- given circumstances 

- "if"

- objective 

- super-objective 

- thorough - line 

GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES; 

This is the information provided to you by the actual text itself. It can be remembered by The Six w's (one of which is an H) 'who', 'what', 'when', 'where', 'how'. 'What's your characters story?' 'Age?' 'Problems?' 

The given circumstances are a good starting point at building a character. 

EMOTIONAL MEMORY: 

I think, in my opinion, this particular method is very effective. Emotional memory is when the actor finds a real past experience when they felt the same emotion as the one that the script demands. This is perfect as it makes the actor relate to the character, and therefore be more in tune with what is required of them. 

METHOD OF PHYSICAL ACTIONS:

You start by imagining a simple physical action and then continue to build upon it, whilst adding scenarios to the physical action. 

SUBTEXT: 

Subtext is like "what is written between the lines". It is how the lines are said, and in what way. There are many different ways to deliver the line "I love you" and the subtext would help choose the correct, suitable way. 

THE MAGIC "IF": 

Stanislavski wants the actor to place himself in the character's shoes. This is effective, as it once more allows the actor to relate to the character.

OBJECTIVE: 

Objective is based upon the single question of "what is my character wanting to achieve?" This thoroughly helps as it can act as subtext for the deliverance of lines, but also gives the character purpose.

SUPER OBJECTIVE: 

As contradicted to the 'objective', where it is set and can change from scene to scene, the super objective usually refers to the overall play.

Hedda Gabler Essay

Hedda Gabler by Henrick Ibsen

My initial impression of Hedda Gabler was the class structure it was set in. All the characters are well spoken and the immediate setting gave a massive hint as to what social class the people are from.

I enjoyed the play, and its length, being fairly short, meant that it was gripping and easy to read in one sitting.

The twist that was Hedda being the mystery woman who held a pistol at Louvborg was foreseeable as Henrick Ibsen set Hedda up as a shady character with more depth to her than a housewife.  

The play would work very well on stage in my opinion, due to the easy set and set changes. The fact that it all happens I'm the Tesman household, enables the story to thicken, without the distraction of scene changes.

Due to the play's short length, character development wasn't too in depth. We didn't learn much about each character but had enough that we could have opinions on them. Hedda, for instance, appeared as an unhappy, unfulfilled housewife with little to occupy her time, and we gained that knowledge with no background information on the character. We were however told that Thea had a bad homelife and were then told the story of her marriage. This enables the audience to build up an image of her based on the given character context.

I really liked the ending to the play. The last line; 

"People... Don't.... Do things like that..."

links it to earlier in the play when Hedda said same thing to Thea. This makes the play an almost tight circle of karma.

I would like to act this play, as it would focus entirely on character development and voice. It would require research into the norms of the time and how that social class would act and appear. 

If I were to give one criticism to the play, it would be that the end was fairly predictable, in my opinion. But perhaps that was intentional.