Spotting The Differences And Connections : Uta Hagen And Stanislavski

Bertolt Brecht and Constantin Stanislavski are regarded as two of the most influential practitioners of the twentieth century, both with strong opinions and ideas about the function of the theatre and the actors within it. Both theories are considered useful and are used throughout the world as a means to achieve a good piece of theatre. The fact that both are so well respected is probably the only obvious similarity as their work is almost of complete opposites.

acques LeCoq, a French practitioner and Augusto Boal, a Brazilian practitioner both aim to take their actors and the audience on a journey of discovery. Both Practitioners believed in ‘Freeing’ the body and making it ‘De-mechanicalized’ to enable full interpretation. LeCoq and Boal both use emotion, imagination, extensive body movement, playfulness and political matters to create their methods of theatrical practice.

As regards the delineation of the characters on stage and outside, the spectator is invited to pay attention to what is said and what is left unsaid, to what is revealed consciously or what is betrayed by the delivery of each of them, their gestures whether coordinately or impulsively performed.

This relevance is seen with the increasing amount of today’s actors that credit the system with helping them get into character. In addition to this, many theatre schools currently teach a Stanislavski curriculum. This topic was chosen due to the belief that Stanislavski is one of the most prominent figures in theatre and acting, and that his legacy and influence are still seen today. Also, for theatre students, many techniques used in the classroom are those derived from Stanislavski, so it is important to study this man and how this revolutionary system came to be. The system he produced is crucial to any actor of the past, present, or future who desires to perform a character they are proud of

To portray these characters and make them real to the audience, as a group we had to use various theatrical techniques, including the Stanislavskian realistic acting methods and we explored and used a variety of different Brechtian techniques. Our chosen form of "Tragedy" was “War Stories", and

Stanislavsky wrote three novels that discuss his acting method; An Actor Prepares, Building a Character, and Creating a Role. These books are from the perspective of a

Stanislavski played a large contribution to the theatrical world, and I believe that he deserves such a prominent place, and should be focused on greatly. He had revolutionized acting styles and helped create methodical acting, which changes how the audience can perceive the actors. While engaging in any form of entertainment, as an audience we search for characters who are relatable and we can see ourselves in them, and I believe that Stanislavski had helped the acting world with that mindset. Although his theories are old and out of date, I still believe that they still hold some relevance to the theatrical world, and with a little tweaking, could still impact and help acting to be better and concise.

A very important aspect to Stanislavski's methods was subtext. He really wanted actors to pick up the underlying text of the dialogue being said. He wanted the actors to not say the subtext but show it through body movements, pauses in speech, gestures, etc. This is what was the main element for speaking to the audience, the subtext was something the audience could not read, it was something they had to pick up from viewing. In Chekhov's plays silence was one of the main forms of subtext, as it would enrich the scene. This also builds a connection with the audience because the subtext is almost as if there is a secret between the audience and the character and no else knows it but them. Thus heightening the audience's interest in the

Bertolt Brecht and Constantin Stanislavski are regarded as two of the most influential practitioners of the twentieth century, both with strong opinions and ideas about the function of the theatre and the actors within it. Both theories are considered useful and are used throughout the world as a means to achieve a good piece of theatre. The fact that both are so well respected is probably the only obvious similarity as their work is almost of complete opposites.

Method acting also known as the “Stanislavsky system” is a dramatic technique in which actors identify as closely as possible with the characters played by correlating experiences from their personal lives to the character.

"A Philosophy of Theater « " East of Mina. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2011.

Constantin Stanislavski believed that it was essential for actors to inhabit authentic emotion on stage so the actors could draw upon feelings one may have experienced in their own lives, thus making the performance more real and truthful. Stanislavski then created the technique, method acting, to do exactly that. Not only can method acting be rewarding, there are psychological consequences as well. It is important to study method acting so actors can know the dangers and psychological effects it can create. It can also help scientists understand theory of mind; the ability to gain the mindset of another person. Another subject method acting can help with is emotional recall and the emotion regulation it takes to use

In Kabuki theatre, everything that is seen on the stage is the result of a meaningful inner dynamic which completes the performance by the coordination of the actors with all the various components of the mise-en-scène and then by the traditions of all the various elements being assembled into an organic whole (Kawatake 1990, 247).

The Life and Works of Bertolt Brecht In this essay I will consider the life and works of Bertolt Brecht, the famous theatre practitioner who has had such a dramatic impact on our understanding of the theatre and acting. First of all I will give a biography of Brecht because it is important to know the background of his life in order to understand the motives he had for writing and producing plays in the way he did. We will see a direct correlation between events in his life and the plays and techniques that he propagated. I will then move to explore the methods and techniques that Brecht developed, looking at how they came about and who influenced his work.

In the words of Gay McAuley, “for an activity to be regarded as a performance, it must involve the live presence of the performers and those witnessing it…” (McAuley, 2009, cited in Schechner, 2013, pp.38). This statement recognises the importance of both the actor and the audience for something to truly function as a performance. In addition, Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones highlights the significance of the theatrical space and how it can influence an audience stating that “on entering a theatre of any kind, a spectator walks into a specific space, one that is designed to produce a certain reaction or series of responses” (Llewellyn-Jones, 2002, pp.3). The relationship between actor, audience and theatrical space is no less important today than it was at the time of theatre during the Spanish Golden Age and the creation of Commedia dell’arte in Italy. Despite being very close geographically with theatre thriving for both in the same era, sources that explore the social, cultural and historical context of these countries and the theatre styles will bring to light the similarities and differences. This essay will analyse the staging, the behaviour of the audience as well as the challenges the actors faced, and how this directly influenced the relationship between actor, audience and theatrical space.