Stanislavsky v. Brecht

[gauchecritic]

Because I couldn't find the thread where it was brought up.
Charley said that she tries to use a Stanislavsky approach to her writing. I poo-pooed that idea and said that Brechtian theatre serves a writer better.
I'll just set out the two positions as I see them and the question is: Who is the best? Naa just kidding. How do these practises, or schools, affect or influence the way we write, if they do at all?

The Stanislavsky school of theatre or 'Method Acting' is exemplified in the US by Lee Strasburg and 'The Actors' Studio'. Although the latter are 'developments' or adaptations of the original. For our purposes 'The Method' is a means whereby our writing can be made more realistic or engaging by utilising our own experience and emotions and in effect portray our characters as having substantially similar emotions when faced with situations where these emotions may be applicable.
(If Charley didn't in fact mean that then this thread [like 99% of threads in the AH] has no purpose)


Brechtian Theatre is a school that says: The trappings of the play must be secondary to the story. That is to say the props, effects and to a certain extent the acting must be non-distracting from the text. A river can be represented by a bolt of blue silk. A house by two walls and a door. For writers I would say that characterisation comes from the words you write and not the way they are delivered. That is to say (relative) minutiae are a distraction from the story.

Stanislavky depends far too deeply on form whereas Brecht, whilst admitting of form acknowledges the equal (sometimes greater) merit of content

I've probably not described the friction that I see, between the two properly as it applies to writing.

The far too simplistic question would be: can a story about emotion (Stanislavsky method) be as 'complete' (dare I say whole) as a story about the conflicts which create those emotions. (Brecht)

 

[impressive]

The far too simplistic question would be: can a story about emotion (Stanislavsky method) be as 'complete' (dare I say whole) as a story about the conflicts which create those emotions. (Brecht)

I believe it can.

 

[Guest]

. . .

Stanislavky depends far too deeply on form whereas Brecht, whilst admitting of form acknowledges the equal (sometimes greater) merit of content

I've probably not described the friction that I see, between the two properly as it applies to writing.

The far too simplistic question would be: can a story about emotion (Stanislavsky method) be as 'complete' (dare I say whole) as a story about the conflicts which create those emotions. (Brecht)

I believe so. Isn't it merely a different way in which to tell the tale?

We finished a production of Our Town not too long ago, and I cannot imagine this play written in any other fashion. But someone could rewrite it, add scenery, put the fourth wall back up and integrate the Stage Manager as a more "normal" character.

It could happen. Would it be better? Worse? Difficult to say.

 

[gauchecritic]

I believe it can.

Well good then.

Any reasoning behind that? A story depending heavily on emotion can be as successfully engaging as a single sentence in a book which led almost exclusively by various means (drama, humour, thriller, detective) to that one high point which left the reader drained? And don't just say yes.

 

[impressive]

Well good then.

Any reasoning behind that? A story depending heavily on emotion can be as successfully engaging as a single sentence in a book which led almost exclusively by various means (drama, humour, thriller, detective) to that one high point which left the reader drained? And don't just say yes.

Well, you didn't ask for reasoning the first time.

I'm thinking of poetry and its extension into prose -- how the verse touches and tells a story completely without context.

It's why vignettes are effective at evoking feeling AND thought. It's why a short story makes a better movie than a full-length novel. It's why that single sentence can leave a reader drained.

 

[Grushenka]

GC: your thinking is always intriguing. However, I do not see, except for your own seemingly personal opinions, how one can truly compare dramatic acting and writing; these are two entirely different art forms (to say the obvious). Are you simply trying to use Stanislavskiian and Brechtian metaphorically for a certain style of narrative? For example, one might call a certain writer impressionistic or surrealistic, etc.

I must say that there are many actors who would greatly differentiate between Stanislavsky and 'the method'. Stanislavsky came before Strasberg and was much abused by him I think. Thousands of actors in Russia (and all Europe) would take offence at being called 'method' actors. Neh?

 

[gauchecritic]

GC: your thinking is always intriguing. However, I do not see, except for your own seemingly personal opinions, how one can truly compare dramatic acting and writing; these are two entirely different art forms (to say the obvious). Are you simply trying to use Stanislavskiian and Brechtian metaphorically for a certain style of narrative? For example, one might call a certain writer impressionistic or surrealistic, etc.

I must say that there are many actors who would greatly differentiate between Stanislavsky and 'the method'. Stanislavsky came before Strasberg and was much abused by him I think. Thousands of actors in Russia (and all Europe) would take offence at being called 'method' actors. Neh?

Why thankyou. Yep, it is my personal opinion based on what someone said and what I replied to them. Yes it is about styles of narrative or more technically about that old warhorse: form v. content. In which the Stanislavsky method represents form and Brecht, content. (content including by definition form, but form by method excluding content)

Yes. Method acting I would say is applicable (in the majority) to American actors, which is why I mentioned the The Studio and Strasberg. But the principle of applying personal emotion to a characterisation is in essence, what the debate is about. (I hope) cnaceba (sp no pycckN keyboard)

 

[rgraham666]

Too uneducated to reply.

I just tell the story. I'm too busy writing to worry about the method I use.

 

[gauchecritic]

Too uneducated to reply.

I just tell the story. I'm too busy writing to worry about the method I use.

I'm much the same Rob. None of these things are in my head as I write, they're what I think about when I ought to be writing.

Next you'll be telling us that you don't bother using grammar or spelling as you type.

 

[Grushenka]

the Stanislavsky method represents form and Brecht, content. (content including by definition form, but form by method excluding content)

I wouldn't know how to use a Cyrillic keyboard, but appreciate your improvisatory typing .

Thanks for your clarification. But I still don't get your metaphor. Stanislavsky was about acting, Brecht was about "theatre" (to put it simplistically); two different apples however seemingly inextricable. You can have a Brechtian production with Stanislavskiian actors, but I wouldn't know what a Brechtian actor was. So, I would disagree and say that Stanislavsky represents content, Brecht form.

I also don't understand what you, and others, mean by "emotional" writing. How can writing be emotional? (Of course I don't mean a text that creates an emotional effect or describes an emotion.)

 

[Grushenka]

Too uneducated to reply.

Mayhaps you were not formally educated or degree-conferred, but I consider you very well educated simply from what I've read of you on this forum. So cut that out.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm much the same Rob. None of these things are in my head as I write, they're what I think about when I ought to be writing.

Next you'll be telling us that you don't bother using grammar or spelling as you type.

I do. Because I can't tell the story otherwise. Or not well at the very least.

But seriously, I have no idea of the 'methods' of story construction. Except perhaps that advice given by the Red King. "Start at the beginning, go through to the end, then stop.'

 

[Huckleman2000]

While I agree that acting and writing are very different, they do draw upon common literary parts; at a minimum, character development and plot. In that sense, I can understand GC's question, and it is not a simple discussion to find an answer. Forgive me if I'm repeating myself from other posts, but here is a little background that might throw some light.

It's been awhile since acting classes, but this is a familiar debate. It's often capsulized in an anecdote about an exchange between Dustin Hoffman and Laurence Olivier during the filming of Marathon Man, which I can't recall. Here is a very coarse explanation of the difference, at least how I understood it as an acting student:

The dichotomy was between 'method' and 'technical' approaches to acting. 'Technical ' referred to the traditional craft of acting, a mannered style developed through history, from Commedia del'Arte through Elizabethan times to music halls. An actor learned movement, fencing, voice, etc., with the emphasis on the performance art. When playwrights started writing more naturalistic dialog [at roughly the beginning of the 20th century], the craft of acting adapted by trying to become more realistic. This gave rise to Stanislavsky and his pupils, eventually leading to Strassberg and The Actor's Studio. As Grushenka alludes to, it's a misnomer to say that Stanislavsky's approach was not 'technical'. There are repeatable exercises one does that center around breathing and movement, but the focus is more internal - the goal is more to create a realistic emotional state than to try to represent one believably. This emphasis on creating probably reaches its goal in contemporary moviemaking, where sometimes the 'script' is just a situation in which the actors improvise their own dialog.

Brecht's contribution was partly to turn away from the naturalistic style, but also to include the audience as a part of the theater experience. Thus, he wanted the audience to be self-aware of their experience through such stagecraft as putting stagelights focused outward and having actors address the audience directly. The goal was for the viewer to reach a state of self-reflection rather than a catharsis, and so the emphasis was again on dialog and representational content.

So, rather than just two approaches, I can see at least those three threads in GC's question. I'll try to relate them more to writing in another post - I'm still trying to work out that bit in my mind.

 

[3113]

It's been awhile since acting classes, but this is a familiar debate. It's often capsulized in an anecdote about an exchange between Dustin Hoffman and Laurence Olivier during the filming of Marathon Man, which I can't recall.

The story is apocryphal. Here's how it went along with the truth:

A story circulated for a long time that Dustin Hoffman (being a "method actor") stayed up all night to play a character who has stayed up all night. Arriving on the set, Laurence Olivier asked him why he looked they way he did. Hoffman told him, to which Olivier replied in jest: "Why not try acting? It's much easier."

Dustin Hoffman repeatedly denied the story, and finally cleared up the story in 2004. The torture scene was filmed early in the morning, Hoffman was going through a divorce from his first wife and was depressed, and had spend the previous two nights partying hard. Hoffman told Olivier this and his comment related to his lifestyle and not his "method" style of acting.

 

[3113]

Thanks for your clarification. But I still don't get your metaphor. Stanislavsky was about acting, Brecht was about "theatre" (to put it simplistically); two different apples however seemingly inextricable. You can have a Brechtian production with Stanislavskiian actors, but I wouldn't know what a Brechtian actor was. So, I would disagree and say that Stanislavsky represents content, Brecht form.

Nicely put. I, too, would like an explaination of how these NOT dueling forms of theatre relate to storytelling--that is, words on the page that are not going to be acted out.

If you're comparing Stanislavsky to the old saw that you should "write what you know"--well, I have to agree to some extent. What people know they tend to write better...but the trick is, you don't have to know it when you start. You can do the research.

And Stanislavsky-wise (I presume, please correct me if I'm wrong), as all characters in a story have some anthopormophology (human qualities that a reader can identify with), we can draw from our own humanity to create and inform them. Hence, we still "write what we know."

How Brech applies to any of this I've no idea.

 

[Huckleman2000]

The story is apocryphal. Here's how it went along with the truth:

A story circulated for a long time that Dustin Hoffman (being a "method actor") stayed up all night to play a character who has stayed up all night. Arriving on the set, Laurence Olivier asked him why he looked they way he did. Hoffman told him, to which Olivier replied in jest: "Why not try acting? It's much easier."

Dustin Hoffman repeatedly denied the story, and finally cleared up the story in 2004. The torture scene was filmed early in the morning, Hoffman was going through a divorce from his first wife and was depressed, and had spend the previous two nights partying hard. Hoffman told Olivier this and his comment related to his lifestyle and not his "method" style of acting.

Thanks! I always suspected as much, as well as that the truth might be a better story. [I just didn't think Olivier was such a dick, nor that Hoffman was such a dork.]

 

[gauchecritic]

Nicely put. I, too, would like an explaination of how these NOT dueling forms of theatre relate to storytelling--that is, words on the page that are not going to be acted out.


How Brech applies to any of this I've no idea.

I think I've resolved that point in my head by remembering my original contention in the other thread.
In my mind, method acting provides a medium, Brechtian theatre delivers a message.

Relying on being able to relate emotion doesn't guarantee engagement of the reader (audience)

Dispensing with frills, on the other hand, allows the reader to concentrate on the message. (story, plot, tension, interaction etc)

These two approaches aren't directly linked, neither are they necessarily exclusive of each other, but not being a fan of 'the method' (and having convinced others of my own approach when directing) if anyone (Charley) is going to liken their writing method to Stanislavsky then I would urge them to look rather at Brecht for guidance.

 

[3113]

Relying on being able to relate emotion doesn't guarantee engagement of the reader (audience)

Dispensing with frills, on the other hand, allows the reader to concentrate on the message. (story, plot, tension, interaction etc)

But what frills are you talking about? Frills, to my mind, are a matter of style. You can have Dickens or you can have Hemingway, but both writers engage the reader. Dickens is filled with "frills"--elaborate descriptions of food, setting, character. Hemmingway is mininalist in the extreme ("the leaves were green. The wine was good.")

Neither is a "greater" writer than the other--they're just different writers using different methods, each of which works well for the story they're telling.

As for relating emotion, a story can certainly be effectively told without relating much emotion at all. Most fairytales are like that. Cinderella, as read from the Grimm's tale, displays no emotion. Doesn't cry or yearn or shout, doesn't even fall in love with the prince (at least, it's not described). The reader imposes these emotions on the character--or we could say that they are implied and need no description.

But I think we can agree that when it comes to stories that aren't just fairytales, such characters become generic and rarely very deep. In that instance, we seem to be talking more of the difference between Dostoyevski and John Grisham. Grisham may tell a rip-roaringly good yarn where the focus on plot creates a lot of tension and interaction, but it's not going to have the lasting power and effect of Dostoyevski's Brothers Karamozov...which, by compare, has little plot and focuses on emotions to create interaction and character development.

So, once again, I still don't understand your point. Leaving out emotion and going minimalist is one style of writing, but it's hardly the only style or the best style or the one that's going to get across the important elements of the story--message included.

And come to that, while I think all stories do have a message, I don't think that frills should be erased in order to better hit the reader over the head with it. The message of a story is not so important, I think, than giving the reader a journey with these characters from which they can derive their own personal moral.

 

[Grushenka]

I am very much in agreement with 3113 (and not just because he praises Fyodor D.)

The idea of dispensing with frills to concentrate on the message is so anti-art. Personally I don't care for "messages" from artists. It has never been why I read books, watch films, listen to music, etc.

I like frills.

Interesting stuff posted in this thread, however, so thanks, GC.

 

[elsol]

*burp*

Anyone else on the "WTF are you talking about?!?" train?

 

[gauchecritic]

To take 3's point about taking your reader on a journey and that it matters not that there is any message in a story.

If you see a story as simply entertainment then I have no grounds to argue. Entertainment, like logic and maths, just is. It's ultimately a passive way of passing time.

If, on the other hand like me, you see writing as communication, then by it's very definition there is a message to be absorbed. Whether that message is that people lead different lives, that a weak person can be strong, that good triumphs over evil (or vice versa) else why do we talk of 'arcs' and 'plot' and 'conflict', then that message can be clouded or obscured by it's medium or elements of its medium.

In my view, a 'good' writer, an engaging writer or even an entertaining writer is unobtrusive and their characterisation will, at some level, contain pathos and/or antipathy. You identify with or actively dislike the character. (both are good reactions from your reader)

But if you start laying on approximations of the emotions that they feel in the situations that you put them in then you, as the author, are intruding in the story.

These are the frills. The only author I can think of that intrudes in his own stories (possibly because I'm antagonistic towards his apparent 'message') is Robert Heinlein. A damn fine story teller in my view, but the messages that he sends me (all the usual ones that he's accused of) are obtrusive and detract from his stories.

 

[Grushenka]

If, on the other hand like me, you see writing as communication, then by it's very definition there is a message to be absorbed. Whether that message is that people lead different lives, that a weak person can be strong, that good triumphs over evil (or vice versa) else why do we talk of 'arcs' and 'plot' and 'conflict', then that message can be clouded or obscured by it's medium or elements of its medium.

I get that, GC, I really do. But it's not what you 'communicated' anywhere above. Now you've become more frustrating than intriguing, at least to me. Why bring in the connotations of Brechtian 'messages' when they've nothing to do with your examples in above quote? Why single writng out as communication (divorced from so much more)? Those are rhetorical queries, I think I haven't the courage to hear your answers.

Anyway, you made me think for awhile. Gru

 

[Recidiva]

The thread between the two is symbols. Essentially it's all about manipulating symbols. The Method is really about trying to determine how something "feels" and portraying that. Brecht is minimalist about the symbol of something, and how something evocative, particularly in art or stage, can unlock symbols and make them more vibrant to someone.

The limitations of both are that The Method is very often so immersed in the minutiae of "thinking" the way through something, that every ounce of life can be squeezed out of a performance by being overly fussy and pedantic.

Too Brechtian and you get a complete wash of abstract something that resonates for the author or actor but means nothing to the audience.

Clarity of symbol and experience. A minimal amount of assumption about how others think and exploring how you think, while helping translate between the worlds, both of these approaches are necessary for writing, and should be tools in the box.

Methods Gone Wrong:

Stanislavsky:

I am sitting on a bench. The slats are cold. I feel it in my ass. I am waiting. I have a pensive expression. I know what it feels like to be on this bench. I am conscious of bench. The bench and I are one. I remember when I sat on a bench once and I want to make sure I translate benchiness into this moment. I'm concentrating. Don't interrupt me. Call me bench lady when I'm in character.

Brechtian:

I am Waiting for Godot. We all wait for Godot so this is universal and I needn't elaborate, for you and I are one, unless I wish to illustrate how alienated we are from each other, and that works for me too.

 

[gauchecritic]

I get that, GC, I really do. But it's not what you 'communicated' anywhere above. Now you've become more frustrating than intriguing, at least to me. Why bring in the connotations of Brechtian 'messages' when they've nothing to do with your examples in above quote? Why single writng out as communication (divorced from so much more)? Those are rhetorical queries, I think I haven't the courage to hear your answers.

Anyway, you made me think for awhile. Gru

Emotional content versus story telling.

If a writer concentrates on character emotion they tend to do so at the expense of story.

An emotion can be 'defined' or 'portrayed' without resorting to telling the reader what the character's emotions are, or to a lesser extent, by 'showing' the character's emotions. And a character's emotions, unless you're relating a personal incident, can bear little resemblance to the emotions of the author.
Even if you are writing about yourself as the character, the situation that you put them in is not any kind of reasonable facsimile to what 'you' would do or feel in that situation.
You are not and never can be your character, because otherwise you're writing an autobiography and not a story. If you think you are then you are detracting from and intruding into the story.
In Brechtian terms you are taking your audience into your house instead of the theatre and expecting them to be entertained whilst you 'simulate' an arguement with your wife.

I'm not 'singling out' writing as communication, it just happens that I'm talking to writers about communication. The common ground is writing.

 

[Grushenka]

In Brechtian terms you are taking your audience into your house instead of the theatre and expecting them to be entertained whilst you 'simulate' an arguement with your wife.

Not that I get, excellent use of your analogy (finally ). I'm stepping out of this conversation, however, I just don't care for the terms, so to speak. (That was a joke, but I do mean to desist responding.)

Grushka