[[link removed]]

THEATRE AND REVOLUTION: THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF KONSTANTIN
STANISLAVSKI  
[[link removed]]


 

Nelson Wan
June 24, 2024
In Defense of Marxism
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Konstantin Stanislavski is perhaps the greatest and most
influential figure in the history of acting. His comprehensive system
of training has dominated the world of theatre and film from the early
20th century until today. _

, Public Domain

 

Konstantin Stanislavski is perhaps the greatest and most influential
figure in the history of acting. His comprehensive system of training
has dominated the world of theatre and film from the early 20th
century until today.

Stanislavski’s techniques and stage direction in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries represented nothing short of a revolution in art,
completely rejuvenating the Russian theatre, which was stagnating
under Tsarism. From there, his theories would go on to transform all
of western acting and performance.

Stanislavski’s revolution in art would also become intertwined with
the Russian Revolution. Theatre for Stanislavski was not merely
entertainment; it had both an artistic and moral purpose to dedicate
one’s life to. Accordingly, although Stanislavski never joined the
Bolsheviks, he welcomed the October Revolution, and embodied the
spirit of change and progress that the Revolution inspired.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks, for their part, consistently supported
Stanislavski’s work, because they saw in it an indispensable lever
to raise the cultural level of millions of workers and peasants: a key
task of the socialist revolution.

Therefore, Stanislavski could surely be described as one of the great
leading lights of the spiritual reawakening of Russia following
October 1917.

When Stalin and the bureaucracy took control of the Soviet Union,
however, Stanislavski’s trailblazing Realist style was cynically
appropriated and distorted to fit the new artistic policy of
‘Socialist Realism’, which had nothing to do with any of
Stanislavski’s ideas. At the same time, the bureaucracy severely
curtailed the creativity of his remaining performances, which began
the slow and ignominious decline of the world-renowned Moscow Art
Theatre (MAT).

Today, there is much we can gain from a study of Stanislavski’s
method and historical role, not only from the point of view of theatre
and art in general, but also in deepening our understanding of the
vital role played by art and culture in the struggle for communism.

Stanislavski’s early life

Konstantin Sergeyevich Alexeyev was born on 5 January 1863 to a
wealthy family that was devoted to the theatre. In 1884 he adopted the
stage name Stanislavski, by which he was known ever since.

He made his first stage appearance aged seven in a series
of_ tableaux vivants_ organised to celebrate his mother’s name
day, and his conscious artistic career began in 1877 after performing
in four one-act plays in a converted theatre on the family’s estate.
Following that evening, an amateur group was formed, the Alexeyev
Circle, which consisted of Stanislavski’s brothers and sisters,
cousins, and several friends.

Stanislavski was not a naturally gifted actor. He loved performing,
but suffered enormously from stage fright, was often inaudible, and
could at most only imitate the effortless performances of other actors
he admired. Stanislavski’s early life as an actor and his own poor
performances pushed him to try and understand and solve the problems
of acting.

He began keeping a notebook, in which he recorded his impressions,
analysed his difficulties, and sketched out solutions. He would
continue this practice throughout his life, covering around 61 years
of activity.

He would ask himself, why did some performances come across as more
truthful than others? Why could others deliver a natural performance
so quickly and easily, and he could not? These are the questions that
Stanislavski actively contemplated during his early career. Drama
school could not provide any answers. His teachers presented him with
an indication of the desired results, but not a worked-out method of
how to achieve them.

The decline of Russian theatre

Stanislavski found himself surrounded on all sides by artistic
mediocrity / Image: public domain

Russian theatre was in decline at the end of the 19th century. Older
generations dominated performances, and Stanislavski found himself
surrounded on all sides by artistic mediocrity.

The Tsarist monopoly over the imperial theatres was abolished in 1882.
Prior to this, all professional ballet, opera, and drama had to be
staged in one of the Tsar’s own theatres in Moscow or St Petersburg.
Now, in theory at least, anyone could open a theatre. However, what
was emerging was a ‘new’ kind of theatre that suffered from bad
management, a weak repertoire, and poor acting.

Commercial managements began producing plays to make quick profits,
and as Stanislavski remarked, these theatres were controlled by the
“barmen and bureaucrats”.[1]
[[link removed]] There
were a few brilliant individuals, but on the whole the professional
theatrical world could only show Stanislavski what to avoid.

The scripts meant nothing to the actors, and neither did rehearsals.
Actors often ignored the directors’ instructions, instead remaining
fixed to the tricks and habits that they knew best. Rather than
attempt to present realistic and natural dialogue between two
characters, the actors, in their vain attempts to impress the
spectators, would deliver their lines at the front of the stage and
directly to the audience, as if the latter were characters in the
play.

The costumes and sets were as uninspired as the acting. Wings and
backdrops were taken from stock, and doors were placed conventionally
in space without surrounding walls. Chairs were even placed facing
forward to help the actors address the audience! The amateur theatres
mirrored all of these conventions, only in a much worse way.

The acting and performance style that dominated this period was
mannered, melodramatic, and in need of a complete overhaul. It became
clear to Stanislavski what needed to be done. Truth had to be
consciously and systematically brought to performance. He described
his new approach to theatre in the following way:

“In our destructive and revolutionary aims, in order to rejuvenate
the art, we declared war on all the conventionalities of the theatre
wherever they might occur – in the acting, in the properties, in the
scenery, the costumes, the interpretation of the play, the curtain, or
anywhere else in the play or the theatre. All that was new and that
violated the usual customs of the theatre seemed beautiful and useful
to us.” [2]
[[link removed]]

The development of Realism

Realism in acting sets itself the aim of presenting recognisable human
beings in situations that audiences would identify with. [3]
[[link removed]] In
other words, the actor should behave as if their situation is
completely true, even if it is taking place on a bare stage in front
of thousands of people.

The truth of a performance rests in the actor’s own belief, and the
authenticity in the _given circumstances_. Such performances are
achieved with a focus on the internal life and psychology of a
character, as opposed to merely external features like costumes, sets,
and props.

The aim of this type of theatre was not to imitate reality (such a
feat is arguably impossible on stage), but to provide the audience
with an experience that they could emotionally identify with and which
could authentically convey the full depth of the characters and their
underlying relationships. For example, in well-acted dramas,
fantastical elements or complex poetic language is rarely a barrier to
enjoyment or emotional engagement.

In developing the Realist style of performance, Stanislavski looked
towards an earlier generation of Russian actors for inspiration, and
in particular the actor Mikhail Shchepkin and the writer Nikolai
Gogol. It was here that the first steps were made towards the
development of Realism.

Mikhail Shchepkin was born a serf on the estate of Count Wolkenstein
in 1788. Russian aristocrats in the 18th century often created theatre
companies with their talented serfs, like Shchepkin, and these serfs
would occasionally receive an education as a result.

Shchepkin realised through observation that the best actors were ones
who simply “said a few words in a simple manner”, rather than
cluttering their performances with unnecessary gestures or emotions.
He began cultivating these observations into a distinct style of
performance – the beginnings of Realism. After admirers of his
acting paid for his freedom in 1821, Shchepkin joined the Imperial
Theatre in Moscow in 1823 and in 1824 appeared in the opening
performance of the Maly Theatre.

Shchepkin’s realistic performances provided Stanislavski with a
model, both in his philosophy and in his approach to acting. The
question that Shchepkin raised in Stanislavski’s mind was: does an
actor feel his role, or does he imitate its external features
superficially? Can an audience tell the difference?

This is one of the contradictions within the art of acting that
Stanislavski had to confront.

There is an inherent dual nature to all performances, between the
social and the personal. In order to truly become the character in
question, the actor must blot out their own individuality, and walk,
talk, think, and feel in the way the author intended. And yet at the
same time they must fit their own personal qualities to the character
in order to create the inner life of a human spirit, which would be
universal and relatable to all.

Nikolai Gogol was also an admirer of Shchepkin, and himself an
extremely gifted actor. Ironically Gogol failed an audition for the
Imperial Theatre because his performance was deemed too “real”.[4]
[[link removed]]

Like Stanislavski, Gogol railed at the conventions of Russian acting
at the time. Gogol and Shchepkin’s work at the Maly Theatre had
forged a style of acting which focused on truthful observation, and
not rigid conventions. Gogol’s advice to actors included:

“Above all beware of falling into caricature. Nothing ought to be
exaggerated or hackneyed, not even the minor roles… The less an
actor thinks about being funny or making the audience laugh, the more
the comic elements of his part will come through.” [5]
[[link removed]]

These two actors left a remarkable impact on the mind of Stanislavski,
and in basing himself on them he considered himself as part of the
Realist tradition they helped to establish.

The purpose of art

Stanislavski was committed to the idea of theatre having a social
purpose, and for him the best method of achieving this was through the
principles of Realism. He saw theatre as a fundamental part of the
spiritual life and health of society, as it was for the Elizabethans
and Ancient Greeks.

As the actor and playwright, Jean Benedetti, writes:

“Stanislavski’s mature activity can only be understood if it is
seen as rooted in the conviction that the theatre is a moral
instrument whose function is to civilise, to increase sensitivity, to
heighten perception and, in terms perhaps now unfashionable to us, to
ennoble the mind and uplift the spirit.”[6]
[[link removed]]

He was, however, firmly opposed to the idea of overtly political
theatre, preferring instead to allow his audiences to deduce any
political meaning for themselves. In _My Life in Art_, Stanislavski
says:

“Tendentiousness and art are incompatible: The one excludes the
other. As soon as one approaches the art of the stage with
tendentious, utilitarian, or other non-artistic ideas, it withers
away. It is impossible to accept a sermon or a propaganda piece as
true art.” [7]
[[link removed]]

But this is not to say however that Stanislavski thought it impossible
for good art to have political content. Any messages of the play must
be implicit, becoming apparent through a truthful presentation of the
material. It was not enough to persuade audiences on an intellectual
basis, the theatre had to give a total human experience which the
audience could feel with its whole being:

“In art tendency must change into its own ideas, pass into emotion,
become a sincere effort and the second nature of the actor. Only then
can it enter into the life of the human spirit in the actor, the role,
and the play. But then it is no longer a tendency, it is a personal
credo. The spectator can make his own conclusions, and create his own
tendency from what he receives in the theatre. The natural conclusion
is reached of itself in the soul and mind of the spectator from what
he sees in the actor’s creative efforts… It is only when such a
condition is present that one can think in the theatre of producing
plays of a social and political character.”[8]
[[link removed]]

For Stanislavski, the point of Realism is to get to the essence of the
subject presented on stage, rather than to present a surface-level
imitation of life. Realism selects only those elements that reveal the
tendencies lying under the surface of the performance, and in the
psychology of the characters. Stanislavski prioritised the human
content of theatre above all other considerations.

The Moscow Art Theatre

Stanislavski was committed to the idea of theatre having a social
purpose / Image: public domain

Stanislavski continued to develop his ideas through the productions he
staged at the Moscow Art Theatre (MAT), one of the most well-known and
respected dramatic institutions in the history of Russia. It is known
primarily for its original productions of Anton Chekhov’s plays such
as _The Seagull_, _Uncle Vanya_, and _The Cherry Orchard_.

It was partly through directing and acting in Chekhov’s plays that
Stanislavski developed his theories on performance. These productions
were groundbreaking leaps forward in the development of theatre and
acting. The MAT also had a long tradition of producing socially
conscious and politically charged plays.

The theatre was jointly founded by Stanislavski and playwright
Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko, then head of Moscow’s acting school,
the Moscow Philharmonic Society. It opened in 1898 as ‘The Moscow
Publicly Accessible Art Theatre’.

It was decided that the new theatre would, above all else, play a
social and educational role. It would be open to all, particularly to
the working class, who would be invited to attend special free
performances if they couldn’t afford the modestly-priced seats.

The first company was composed of thirty-nine actors, including Olga
Knipper, who would later become Anton Chekhov’s wife, and Vsevolod
Meyerhold, the future stage director and Bolshevik. These actors
joined with Stanislavski’s most successful amateurs, including his
wife Maria Lilina and Maria Andreyeva, another future Bolshevik and
wife to Maxim Gorky.

Within a few seasons, financial difficulties forced the founders to
raise ticket prices and to drop ‘Publicly Accessible’ from their
name. Providing a public service and turning a profit proved to be as
mutually incompatible then as they are today. The MAT reluctantly
accepted the patronage of the wealthy merchant Savva Morozov, who at
the time was also funding Lenin’s newspaper _Iskra_.

Hostility from the Tsarist authorities was also making it difficult
for Stanislavski to realise his vision of creating a people’s
theatre. It was commonplace for the censors to intervene directly in
the plays themselves. When Stanislavski and Nemirovich attempted to
stage Gorky’s _Small People_ in 1902, they heavily cut the play in
advance, but the censors insisted on further excisions in order to
remove allusions to the ruling Tsars. More than this, the theatre was
packed with policemen on the first night of the performance –
although, after much negotiation, Nemirovich succeeded in having them
dressed in evening wear so as not to frighten the audience!

In spite of the censor, the MAT found itself becoming an unintentional
expression of the struggle against Tsarism.

In 1901, for instance, mass demonstrations broke out in several
Russian cities, including St Petersburg and Moscow, as a result of the
drafting of 183 Kiev University students into the army as punishment
for their participation in political meetings.

Workers and students came out to protest and were met with a ferocious
response from the Tsarist officials. The police and the Cossacks
assaulted protestors and hundreds of students were arrested and
expelled from universities as a result. On 1 March 1901, the
demonstration in front of Kazan Cathedral in St Petersburg was
dispersed with particular brutality, and several people were killed.

At the time, Stanislavski was performing in Henrik Ibsen’s _An
Enemy of the People_, which in his mind had no connection to the
events unfolding outside. When Stanislavski, in act five, delivered
the line, “You should never put on a new pair of trousers when you
go out to fight for freedom and truth”, the audience erupted.
Stanislavski recalls:

“Spontaneously the audience connected the line with the massacre in
Kazan Square, where, without a doubt many a new suit had been ripped
apart in the name of liberty and truth. These words provoked such a
storm of applause that we had to stop the performance. The audience
stood up and rushed towards the footlights, holding out their arms to
me.” [9]
[[link removed]]

He continues:

“Perhaps in choosing this particular play and interpreting the roles
in that particular way we were responding intuitively to the
prevailing state of mind in society and the conditions of life in our
country… But, when we were on stage we interpreted the play with no
thought of politics… As for the ‘message’ of the play, I did not
discover it, it revealed itself to me.”[10]
[[link removed]]

The MAT was equally affected by the defeat of the 1905 Revolution. In
the reaction following this defeat, the theatre’s benefactor, the
merchant Morozov, committed suicide, putting considerable personal and
financial strain on Stanislavski. In this period, the MAT produced new
plays of symbolic and mystical content, mirroring the despair and
disillusionment of the revolutionary movement at the time.

Nevertheless, the radical tradition of the MAT continued right up
until 1917, at which point the hated Tsarist system was finally
overthrown. It was in the years that followed the Russian Revolution
that the MAT gained global fame and recognition, but perhaps more
importantly, Stanislavski’s dream of creating a people’s theatre
would finally be realised.

Theatre after October

The need for art is an essential part of this striving of the human
spirit / Image: public domain

In the years following the October Revolution of 1917, there was, for
the first time in the history of Russia, a genuinely free and open
participation of ordinary people in the world of art, and theatre was
arguably the largest expression of this.

In a revolution, the masses move from the wings into the spotlight of
history, and begin to organise society in their own interests. In
doing so, they begin to express themselves as human beings for the
first time, aspiring to a genuinely humane existence, which is the
birthright of all.

The need for art is an essential part of this striving of the human
spirit. The Russian Revolution brought about not only the desire to
transform politics and society, but as Stanislavski put it, a desire
to learn about, to participate in, and to experience art and culture.
Hundreds of theatre groups sprang up across Russia, often connected to
local factories and villages.

The Bolshevik government’s initial acts included organising and
subsidising various theatrical companies on a permanent basis, as well
as setting up schools in theatrecraft. The majority of the Russian
population had no experience of the theatre. The Soviet government,
meanwhile, like Stanislavski, understood the role of theatre in
educating and entertaining the masses, and so they strove to make the
theatre as widely accessible as they could.

Lenin and Trotsky repeatedly explained that the struggle to build a
communist society was not only economic, but cultural. The
Bolsheviks’ active support of the Russian theatre in this period
constituted a key part of this approach.

When the Bolsheviks came to power they had inherited a
majority-peasant country, with a legacy of immense backwardness and
ignorance, where only 37.9 percent of the male and 12.5 percent of the
female population was literate. Further development of the productive
forces, and indeed the continued existence of the workers’ state,
would be impossible without tackling elementary problems like
illiteracy, and without a concerted struggle to raise the cultural
level of revolutionary Russia. As Trotsky stated in _Problems of
Everyday Life_:

“What should we strive for? We must learn to work efficiently:
accurately, punctually, economically. We need culture in work, culture
in life, in the conditions of life. After a long preliminary period of
struggle we have succeeded in overthrowing the rule of the exploiters
by armed revolt. No such means exists, however, to create culture all
at once. The working class must undergo a long process of
self-education, and so must the peasantry…”[11]
[[link removed]]

In this process the theatre would play almost as important a role as
the classroom.

As a supporter of the revolution, Stanislavski immediately threw
himself and the MAT into the tasks of organising and creating theatre
for the new society that was emerging:

“The Theatre added a new mission to its work; it was to open its
doors to the widest masses of spectators, to those millions of people
who until that time had had no opportunity to enjoy cultural
delights… [O]ur hearts beat anxiously and joyfully at the
consciousness of the tremendous importance of the mission that had
fallen to our part… There exists an opinion that one must play for
the peasant plays of his own life, plays that are fitted to his idea
of what the world is… This is not only a misunderstanding – it is
completely untrue. The peasant, seeing a play of his own life,
criticises it, finds it unlike life as he knows it, does not recognize
the language that is his own, for he speaks altogether differently
than the people on the stage. He declares that he has grown tired of
this life at home, that he has seen enough of it as it is, that he is
infinitely more interested in seeing how other people live. The simple
spectator longs for the life beautiful.”[12]
[[link removed]]

Stanislavski, like Lenin in his criticisms of the Economist trend in
the Russian Social-Democratic movement and their ‘workerist’
attitude, correctly explains why ordinary workers and peasants do not
want to be told what they already know, or to be shown a life they are
already accustomed to, but want to have their sights raised higher, to
learn, and to catch a glimpse of the true beauty of the world.

Contrary to what the bourgeois argue, ordinary people are not too
ignorant to appreciate art, they are simply denied the opportunity to
experience and learn about it. Stanislavski even describes the
remarkable transformation of the peasantry, the most backward and
degraded class of Russian society:

“We began to understand that these people came to the theatre not in
order to be amused, but in order to learn. I remember one peasant, who
was a good friend of mine, who came once a year to Moscow with the
express purpose of seeing the entire repertoire of our Theatre… And
after the dinner he would ask us for news of our Theatre with even
greater joy, and then go to the theatre in his wonderful costume.
Watching the performance, he would redden and pale from excitement and
enthusiasm, and when the play ended he could not return home to sleep;
he walked alone for hours in the streets, in order to clarify his
impressions… Having seen our entire repertoire, he… returned to
his home for the ensuing year. From there he would write numerous
philosophical letters which helped him to digest and continue to live
over the store of impressions which he had brought home with himself
from Moscow. I think that not a few such spectators appeared at our
Theatre. We felt their presence and our artistic duty towards them.”

Stanislavski’s description continues:

“The doors of our Theatre opened exclusively for the poor people and
closed for a time to the intelligentsia. Our performances were free to
all who received their tickets from factories and institutions where
we sent them, and we met face to face right after the issuance of the
decree with spectators altogether new to us, many of whom, perhaps the
majority, knew nothing not only of our Theatre but of any theatre…

“With the coming of the Revolution many classes of society passed
through our Theatre – there was the period of soldiers, of deputies
from all the ends of Russia, of children and young people, and last,
of workingmen and peasants. They were spectators in the best sense of
the word; they came into our Theatre not through accident but with
trembling and the expectation of something important, something they
had never experienced before.”[13]
[[link removed]]

Even the enemies of revolution had to concede that an unprecedented
explosion in the arts was taking place. Oliver Sayler, an American
theatre critic and an anti-Bolshevik who arrived in Russia on the eve
of the Revolution, wrote of the incredible assortment of theatrical
performances available to ordinary Russians in 1922, which continued
throughout winter, only ceasing on religious holidays.[14]
[[link removed]]

The entire country was swept by an epidemic of theatre. Even in the
remote countryside the peasants wrote plays individually and
collectively. Where there were no standard plays and dramatic
instructors, they instead staged traditional Russian songs.

There was practically no factory in the country without its own
dramatic circle, and at the time of the Civil War there were around
3,000 professional troupes alone. Plays written by Red Army soldiers
made it round thousands of regimental drama circles, and in 1920, the
Red Army and Fleet had over 1,800 clubs to which 1,210 theatres and
911 dramatic circles were attached.

There was not a country in the world at the time that could match this
theatrical offering, nevermind provide such accessibility to the
masses.

Other mass spectacles included the special dramas, which were usually
presented on public holidays. Themes included the revolutions of 1848
and 1917, the Paris Commune, or Spartacus’ slave uprising. One of
the most famous of these was the _Storming of the Winter Palace_,
which was performed in front of the Winter Palace in Petrograd on 7
November 1920 with over 8,000 participants and an orchestra of at
least 500. This included many people who had participated in the real
event.

For the first time, theatre and the arts were not simply entertainment
for the bourgeoisie, but part and parcel of the building of a new
society. In Stanislavski’s view, the actor was no longer merely a
professional, but someone who was to play a personal part in this
process.

“And what must you, modern actors, be? You must first of all be
living people and you must carry about in your hearts all those new
qualities which ought to help us all achieve a new kind of
consciousness. What kind of consciousness? The kind in which life for
the good of all should no longer be the subject of idle dreams and
unrealizable fantasies.” [15]
[[link removed]]

Stanislavski’s work, however, was not always understood by those who
came across it. For example, the Association of Proletarian Writers
described Stanislavski’s spiritual and psychological approach to the
actor as “idealist”. These critics took a superficial view of
Stanislavski’s background, and the type of performances he preferred
(Russian and world classics), and incorrectly labelled the MAT as
“right-wing” and “bourgeois”. The argument of some, such as
the ‘Proletkult’, was that all the artistic forms inherited from
pre-revolutionary Russia were in fact “bourgeois” and should be
abandoned, even destroyed.

The Bolsheviks however, and Lenin in particular, opposed this
one-sided and mechanical interpretation of art, and understood that
revolutionary Russia had to preserve and build upon the greatest
artistic achievements of the past. At the MAT’s 13th anniversary
celebrations in 1928, Lunarcharsky quoted Lenin: “If there is a
theatre which we must at all costs save and preserve from the past, it
is, of course, the Art theatre.”[16]
[[link removed]]

With the support of the Bolshevik government, the MAT continued to
operate in 1917 and 1918, and was only interrupted for a month during
the revolution. In 1919, the MAT became The Moscow Academic Art
Theatre, an official state theatre which received government
subsidies.

Contrary to what the ruling class claim, in its early years, the
Bolshevik government did not clamp down on, nor censor artistic
freedoms in the manner that the Tsars had done, and as Stalin later
did. Lenin and the leading Bolsheviks approached artistic freedom with
the sensitivity and appreciation it deserved.

This is something Stanislavski himself recognised. Speaking at the
13th anniversary of the MAT in 1928, he said the following:

“In those days the Government came to our help and thanks to it our
theatre was able to weather the storm… But, our Government earned my
deepest gratitude for something quite different. When the political
events in our country had caught us… _our Government did not force
us to dye ourselves red and pretend to be what we were not._”[17]
[[link removed]]

Writing in 1938 about the stifling of Russian artistic creativity
under Stalinism, Trotsky explains:

“… a truly revolutionary party is neither able nor willing to take
upon itself the task of ‘leading’ and even less of commanding art,
either before or after the conquest of power. Such a pretension could
only enter the head of a bureaucracy – ignorant and impudent,
intoxicated with its totalitarian power – which has become the
antithesis of the proletarian revolution… Artistic creation has its
laws – even when it consciously serves a social movement. Truly
intellectual creation is incompatible with lies, hypocrisy and the
spirit of conformity. Art can become a strong ally of revolution only
in so far as it remains faithful to itself.”[18]
[[link removed]]

The Soviet MAT – ‘classics’ vs. ‘avant-garde’

With the support of the Bolsheviks, the MAT thrived following 1917 /
Image: public domain

With the support of the Bolsheviks, the MAT thrived following 1917,
and was one of the foremost state-supported theatres in Russia,
practically becoming a national treasure. Following its European and
American tours of 1922-1924, the MAT became world-renowned, receiving
critical acclaim everywhere it went.

In this period, the theatre boasted an extensive repertoire of leading
Russian and western playwrights. After returning to Moscow in 1924,
the MAT continued to produce new Soviet plays as well as Russian
classics.

Stanislavski relaunched a ‘Soviet’ MAT in 1925-1927 with a new
young company. The MAT in this period produced Leo
Tolstoy’s _Resurrection_, which differed from the original in that
there was no redemption for the ruling class, who were castigated, as
well as Gogol’s _Inspector-General_ and _Dead Souls_. The
Soviet-themed _Armoured Train_ also earned the MAT success in 1927
and became a classic, unintentionally setting the mould for future
Socialist Realist productions.

The MAT’s production of the _The Marriage of Figaro_ on 28 April
1927 also became an instant classic of Soviet Theatre. The play by
Pierre Beaumarchais is a blistering criticism of the _Ancien
Regime_ and the privileged life of the nobility, and is perhaps the
most revolutionary play of the 18th century. Stanislavski creatively
used a revolve in the set, which turned the last act into a mad rush
through the garden using four different locations.

Theatres other than the MAT were also revived following the October
Revolution. The former imperial theatre the Alexandrinsky became the
State Drama Theatre, and one of the first measures of the People’s
Commissariat of Education regarding the Alexandrinsky, as with the
Maly Theatre, was the _insistence _on a classical repertoire. In the
years following 1917, the State Drama Theatre produced classics
like _The Marriage of Figaro_ and Schiller’s_ Love and Intrigue_,
as well as Gorky’s _The Lower Depths_ in 1918.

One of the central debates in the Russian theatre following the
Revolution revolved around whether to preserve and stage
‘classics’ or promote the new _avant-garde_, ‘revolutionary’
theatre. Meyerhold, although being a former-student of Stanislavski,
was opposed to the Russian theatrical tradition represented by his
former teacher and the MAT, and argued for the substitution of
literature, psychology and representational Realism, in favour of the
techniques of cubism, futurism and suprematism.

The People’s Commissariat for Enlightenment, who were in charge of
culture and education in Soviet Russia, opposed these proposals at the
time because the Bolshevik government opposed the monopoly of art by
the_ avant-garde_, or by any other group for that matter. What the
Bolsheviks understood was that the classic and the experimental
approaches to artistic creation are not mutually exclusive; rather
they can and should support one another.

Creation of the ‘System’

Stanislavski’s system is the most comprehensive study of acting in
existence / Image: public domain

Stanislavski’s system is the most comprehensive study of acting in
existence. It was intended as a practical “grammar of acting” that
would provide actors with a way of achieving consistent performances
by utilising the powers of their subconscious and imagination.

For decades, Stanislavski had compiled his notebooks in which he
recorded ideas about his own acting, his experiences, his triumphs and
failures, and also what he’d learnt from other great actors. These
notebooks formed the basis for Stanislavski’s published works and
for the system.

It was only as he approached 70, during the period of Stalinist
repression in Russia, that Stanislavski agreed to codify his acting
theory. He was initially hesitant, as he understood his theory as a
constantly evolving method, where no single formulation seemed to
satisfy him for too long. In fact, he rebelled against the idea of a
written manual on acting, which he thought could degenerate very
easily into a set of mechanical practices, repeated by actors without
thought or feeling. After much deliberation Stanislavski decided to
publish his writings in the form of a seven-book, semi-fictional
series.

Stanislavski’s system is broadly divided into two parts, the
internal and external work of the actor on themselves, and the
internal and external work on a role. The goal of the inner work of an
actor is to achieve a creative and inspirational state, which is to be
gained with the application of psychological techniques. The external
work of the actor involved preparing one’s body to express the role
physically, and present the inner life on stage. Work on the role
consists of studying the text in depth, and understanding the inner
meaning and driving principle within it. This inner meaning gives life
to the entire play, and to all the individual roles within it.

Stanislavski died before he was able to complete his series on the
system, leaving it to his students, associates, and editors to
construct the leftover manuscripts. Parts of Stanislavski’s system
were also released to the public through events like the 1920s MAT
world tour, before they had been completely formulated.

Perhaps the most famous consequence of this is Lee Strasberg’s
development of the ‘Method’ at the New York Actor’s Studio,
which placed heavy emphasis on the use of an actor’s “emotional
memory”. Actors at the Studio were encouraged to totally immerse
themselves in a character, and attempt to experience the emotions of a
play in real life.

Thus, if a character was to experience a heartbreaking sense of loss
on stage, the actor was supposed to achieve this same emotion in real
life, and transfer it into the performance. This was in direct
contradiction to Stanislavski’s teachings, as he did not believe
that an actor could, or should, transfer life experiences directly
onto the stage. Such an approach was in danger of neglecting a proper
study of the text, and adapting the character to the personality of
the actor, rather than the other way round.

Stanislavski’s system was always intended to represent an organic
unity, a combination of psychological, imaginative, and physical
preparation, which was not to be artificially divided or
compartmentalised. It was not intended as a strict rulebook, but
rather as a guide, a reference point for how an actor might solve the
problems of the creative process.

Even understanding the laws of acting themselves are not sufficient to
create a good performance, in the same way that mere knowledge of
language and grammar is not sufficient to create a good story. Whilst
Stanislavski set out to scientifically understand the laws of acting,
his system was never meant to be a substitute for creativity and
experimentation.

Stalinism and Socialist Realism

The ‘golden age’ of theatre in revolutionary Russia did not last
long however, as the degeneration of the Revolution resulted in a
counter-revolution in every sphere of life, which had previously seen
such enormous strides forward – including the arts.

The tolerant approach of the Bolsheviks following 1917 would be turned
on its head by Stalin. In the climate of Stalinist counter-revolution
and the rise of the bureaucracy, the once-great MAT suffered an
undignified, decades-long decline, from which it never recovered.

Trotsky’s United Opposition was defeated at the 15th party congress
in December 1927, representing a further consolidation of the power of
the bureaucracy. The theatre could not escape the political and social
reaction taking place in Russia. More turnover, more productions and
more performances were demanded, all whilst incompetent amateurism
flourished in the name of the ‘proletariat’, but in reality
reflecting the demands of the grey and lifeless bureaucracy.

Stanislavski’s own production of _Othello _was to suffer as a
result. Stanislavski, who was abroad at the time, realised that the
play had already been staged before he had even finished his plan.
Only three months of rehearsals had been allowed, and only a passive
regard for his intentions were given.

To his enormous credit, Stanislavski directly challenged the
authorities in 1931 and won autonomy for the MAT, within certain
limits. Tragically however, the MAT still ended up as a personal pawn
of Stalin’s artistic policy. In this period, the revolutionary
approach, which was pioneered by the MAT in its early years, and in
the years following 1917, was systematically suppressed in favour of
Socialist Realism, which became the official state art form in 1932.

Socialist Realism is a style of art which purports to depict the
values of communism. However, in reality it is a subordination of all
artistic creativity to the whims and needs of the Stalinist
bureaucracy. Nothing less than the glorification of Soviet life and
the government was tolerated. In the theatre, this would mean the
complete destruction of any individuality or experiment. Stalinism and
Socialist Realism negated everything that Stanislavski had fought to
banish from Russian theatre.

And yet, Stanislavski’s groundbreaking work on Realism suddenly
found itself appropriated by the Stalinist bureaucracy. The crude
attacks from Soviet critics in the first few years of the Revolution
were transformed into endless fawning and praise.

Stalin decided that the MAT would be the emblem of the new artistic
policy, and all Soviet theatres were to be based on the MAT model.
Actor training would also follow Stanislavski’s system, but in a
rigid, dogmatic form.

Other independently minded artists endured similar or even worse
fates. Victims of Stalin’s artistic policy include the composer
Dmitri Shostakovich, the film director Sergei Eisenstein, and the
artist Alexander Rodchenko, all of whom were silenced or forced into
an artistic straight-jacket.

Meyerhold, whose experimental and _avant-garde_ work also
revolutionised 20th century theatre, made heroic attempts to resist
Stalin’s counter-revolution. He yielded nothing to his critics, but
as a result was eventually hounded off the stage by the authorities.
The Meyerhold Theatre was liquidated in 1938 and Meyerhold himself was
left jobless.

Meyerhold’s heroic final speech at the All-Union Congress of
directors in 1939 was an incendiary denunciation of Socialist Realism
and its stranglehold on Soviet art:

“The pitiful and wretched thing that pretends to the title of the
theatre of socialist realism has nothing in common with art… Go
visit the theatres of Moscow. Look at their drab and boring
presentations that resemble one another and are each worse than the
others… People in the arts searched, erred, and frequently stumbled
and turned aside, but they really created, sometimes badly and
sometimes splendidly. Where once there were the best theatres of the
world, now, by your leave, everything is gloomily well-regulated,
averagely arithmetical, stupefying, and murderous in its lack of
talent. Is that your aim? If it is, oh! You have done something
monstrous!… In hunting formalism, you have eliminated art!”[19]
[[link removed]]

The speech sealed his fate. After years of being denounced by the
authorities, Meyerhold was arrested, accused of being a Trotskyist and
a spy, brutally tortured, and eventually shot dead on 2 February 1940.

Stanislavski’s legacy

Whilst there is far more to the world of acting and performance than
Realism, the form of acting that has dominated the 20th and 21st
centuries is Realism / Image: public domain

Today there is not a drama school in the world that does not teach or
employ some form of Stanislavski’s system, and generations of
actors, directors, and performers remain indebted to his
groundbreaking development of Realism and study of the laws of acting.

Whilst there is far more to the world of acting and performance than
Realism, as proven brilliantly by Meyerhold and that other great
revolutionary dramatist of the 20th century, Bertold Brecht, the form
of acting that has dominated the 20th and 21st centuries is Realism.
It is through Realism that audiences across the world have been moved
to tears, entertained, and inspired. In discovering its inner laws,
one could describe Stanislavski as the true father of modern acting.

Stanislavski was a product of a period of revolutionary change in
Russia, and throughout his life he always aligned himself with the
struggle against Tsarism. The spectacular rise of Russian theatre in
this period was not just down to the specific genius represented by
Chekhov, Stanislavski, Meyerhold (and others), although their talents
cannot be questioned. This legacy would simply not have been possible
without the October Revolution of 1917 and the transformation of
society, which saw the unleashing of artistic creativity on a scale
never before seen, and arguably, never seen since.

This creative spark was criminally snuffed out by Stalinism, but even
the most vicious repression of the bureaucracy could not completely
undo the great enlightenment, the broadening of the cultural horizons
of tens of millions, that the Revolution and the likes of Stanislavski
achieved. A faint glimmer of this legacy can still be seen in the
continued renown of Russian ballet and orchestra, for example.

On New Years Eve 1929, Stanislavski uttered the following words to the
Moscow Art Theatre company:

“The time will come, and very soon, when a great play, a work of
genius will be written. It will, of course, be revolutionary. No great
work can be anything else. But this will not be a revolutionary play
in the sense that one will parade around with red flags. The
revolution will come from something inside. We shall see on the stage
the metamorphosis of the soul of the world, the inner struggle with a
worn-out past, with a new, not yet understood or realised present.
This will be a struggle for equality, freedom, a new life, and a
spiritual culture…”[20]
[[link removed]]

The potential for this great work remains latent in the workers of the
world today. It is the task of revolutionaries to make this potential
a reality, to bring about the revolution in art by completing the
revolution in society. All true artists must constantly strive towards
this aim, as it is the only thing that can finally set art and
creativity free from the shackles of capitalism and class society, and
usher in a new golden age of artistic freedom and genuine human
expression.

References

[1]
[[link removed]] J
Benedetti, _Stanislavski: An Introduction_, Theatre Art Books,
Routledge, 2005, pg 5

[2]
[[link removed]] C
Stanislavsky, _My Life in Art_, Little, Brown and Company, 1938, pg
319

[3]
[[link removed]] J
Benedetti, _The Art of the Actor_, Routledge, 2007, pg 100

[4]
[[link removed]] J
Benedetti, _Stanislavski: An Introduction_, Theatre Art Books,
Routledge, 2005, pg 13

[5]
[[link removed]] _ibid._,
pg 14-15

[6]
[[link removed]] J
Benedetti, _Stanislavski An Introduction_, Theatre Art Books,
Routledge, 2005, pg 16

[7]
[[link removed]] E
Bentley, _The Theory of the Modern Stage_, Penguin Group, 2008, pg
269

[8]
[[link removed]] C
Stanislavsky, _My Life in Art_, Little, Brown and Company, 1938, pg
390

[9]
[[link removed]] J
Benedetti, _Stanislavski: An Introduction_, Theatre Art Books,
Routledge, 2005, pg 20

[10]
[[link removed]] _ibid._,
pg 20

[11]
[[link removed]] L
Trotsky, _Problems of Everyday Life_, Pathfinder Press, 1986, pg 16

[12]
[[link removed]] C
Stanislavsky, _My Life in Art_, Little, Brown and Company, 1938, pg
550, emphasis added

[13]
[[link removed]] _ibid_.,
pg 550-556

[14]
[[link removed]] M
Sayler, _The Russian Theatre_, Brentano’s, 1922, pg 5-6

[15]
[[link removed]] D
Magarshack, _Stanislavsky: A Life, _Faber and Faber, 1986, pg
348-349

[16]
[[link removed]] S
M Carnicke, _Stanislavsky in Focus_, Routledge, 2009, pg 39

[17]
[[link removed]] D
Magarshack, _Stanislavsky: A Life, _Faber and Faber, 1986, pg
347-348, emphasis added

[18]
[[link removed]] L
Trotsky, “Art and Politics in Our Epoch”, _Fourth International_,
March–April 1950, Vol. 11, No. 2, pg 61–64

[19]
[[link removed]] N
A Gorchakov, _The Theatre in Soviet Russia_, Columbia University
Press, 1958, pg 364

[20]
[[link removed]] E
R Hapgood, _Stanislavski’s Legacy_, Eyre Methuen, 1968, pg 201

_IN DEFENCE OF MARXISM_ is not just a website. It is the organ of the
Revolutionary Communist International, a revolutionary organisation
with a presence in over 70 countries worldwide. We organise in the
workers’ and youth movement for the overthrow of capitalism and a
socialist future for humanity!

* theater
[[link removed]]
* Russia
[[link removed]]
* Konstantin Stanislavski
[[link removed]]
* Russian Revolution
[[link removed]]
* art
[[link removed]]
* acting
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]