Stanislavski's System

Relevance in Modern Theatre The relevance of Stanislavski’s system in past decades has been, without a doubt, huge. Nothing like it had really been heard of when he began developing (and later teaching) it in the 1900s, because he was connecting two concepts that had never really been put together: psychology and acting. Through trial-and-error and working with various actors, Stanislavski’s system became a relevant and influential process that many found helpful. The legacy he left behind would become the path that many well-renowned actors would take. Actors of the past and present, such as Marlon Brando, Stella Adler, Gregory Peck, and Daniel Day Lewis have used Stanislavski’s system to train and become their character, and many owe
In addition to this, another branch of his system was created in America around the 1930s and 40s. Lee Strasberg, Elia Kazan, and Robert Lewis created the Group Theatre, and modified the system to become something that we know today as “method acting.” This system of acting is notably different from Stanislavski’s system. First of all, method acting relied too much on emotion memory, while Stanislavski, after 1911, placed more of an emphasis on emotional realness and having meaningful physical actions. With this, Stanislavski’s system was like a living organism, changing and evolving over time, but the construct of “method acting” was not. Stanislavski’s system bore witness to change throughout the years, most notably the shift away from the reliance on emotional memory. Method acting, however, kept its intense belief in emotion memory, and it changed very little from then to now. Another difference was how the theatre practitioners saw the purpose of their system/method, and how they had the actor begin. Stanislavski made the actors ask themselves the “Magic If,” which was “what would I do if I were in this situation?” Strasberg, Lewis, and Kazan, however, with method acting, had the actors ask themselves “what would motivate me, the actor, to behave in the way the character does?" ("Lee Strasberg of
This was done by looking thoroughly into the system, and examining works from Stanislavski himself. Then, the relevance was determined by gaining insight into actors, schools, and other theatre programs that utilize his system today. Both emotional and physical aspects are crucial in the understanding of this system, and Stanislavski taught his students very well. Emotional aspects of this system include a reliance on “emotion memory,” and using one’s past to influence their present, specifically the memories they have associated with an emotion. They would use these memories to tap into the emotions of the character. This added to the process of immersing oneself into a character, and portraying the truth and realness in a role. This emotional side also included what Stanislavski called the Magic “If,” which consisted of the actor asking himself questions about what he would do if the scene was real. Stanislavski created a very cohesive system, and this emotional aspect, mainly the Magic “If,” bleeds right into the second part of the system: the physical aspect. The basis of the physical part of Stanislavski’s system is that every movement matter, and each movement must be for a reason, whether it be a twitch of the eye or a huge arm movement. This “method of physical action” connected to psychology, and Stanislavski saw that acting like an emotion would