John Gillett

Book

Acting as organic experience or representational pretence? Stanislavski was the first to outline a systematic approach for using human experience to create truthful acting. While this is paid much lip service, it is often rejected and misunderstood, or misapplied and distorted.

John Gillett offers, not a brief and partial summary, but a comprehensive and lucid step-by-step account of Stanislavski’s whole approach from the actor’s training to final performance. It is for actors from an actor’s point of view. He draws on the major books - An Actor Prepares, Building a Character and Creating a Role - and records of Stanislavski’s directing process and final studio classes. The book unites theory and practice by providing accessible, practical examples and exercises as an integrated part of each subject.

Stanislavski’s approach is enhanced and clarified by relating to it the imaginative work of his ‘most brilliant pupil’, Michael Chekhov, often misrepresented as opposing Stanislavski, but, in fact, rooted in his artistic aims and premises while developing his own understanding and techniques. The work of other modern practitioners —Uta Hagen, Maly Drama Theatre, Stella Adler, Sanford Meisner, Lee Strasberg, David Mamet—is also considered, revealing how it supports and augments or distorts and opposes Stanislavski.

In addition, the book places Stanislavski in the often unfavourable context of the British entertainment industry and looks at alternative ways of working inspired by European ensemble companies and more generous arts funding. Biographies of key practitioners and a glossary of terminology help to make this an essential practical and educational resource for any student or practitioner of acting.

---

Below is an article by John, written for the Equity Journal

Maligned, misrepresented, misapplied and mystified: Stanislavski may have been one of the most revolutionary forces in acting and influenced practitioners such as Grotowski, Brook and Boal, but he’s often had a rough ride in Britain. I trained in the approach of Stanislavski and his pupil, Michael Chekhov, in the early seventies and met quite an array of attitudes to this when launching myself into the British industry: from outright hostility to what was dismissed as ‘method’,  to a blase assumption that this approach had permeated the business and ‘everybody did it’ (for better or worse), from superficial lip service to its ideas to outright distortion and a very peculiarly English intellectualisation and de-radicalisation of what is essentially an imaginative and liberating process - a bit like putting Che Guevara on a T-shirt.

I believe the prevailing style of acting in Britain is still the Representational one of describing and illustrating the character from which the actor is distanced, and associated most perhaps with Coquelin in 19th century France and Olivier here; although we Brits, like any other actors, are capable of anything, and can produce wonderful Organic performances, experienced and truthful, based on a transformation of our own essential humanity and a recreation of recognisable human experience in imaginary circumstances. This universal process is at the heart of the Stanislavski approach. It’s about communicating this essential reality of experience whatever the form or genre of theatre, screen or radio in which we’re working and is not, as is often assumed, confined to so-called naturalism.Stanislavski’s early productions of Anton Chekhov’s plays at the Moscow Art Theatre might have contained naturalistic detail but the plays of Chekhov and other produced writers such as Shakespeare, Maeterlinck, Hamsun, and Gorki can hardly be described as naturalism. Other misconceptions abound. His acting approach is not primarily about emotional recall - this was the (mis)interpretation of Lee Strasberg and Method. Nor did he believe in cutting off the audience - the fourth wall is a means to focus actors on the action onstage to better communicate the depth and detail of its content to the audience, who will affect the actors onstage. His approach is distorted by the process of intellectually defining actions on lines  in the first weeks of rehearsal, instead of engaging actors in interaction and exploring the action imaginatively. On an amusingly contradictory note, an older actor once told me that Stanislavski actors are always indulgent (a common criticism here), so I asked him why he acted. ‘Well, I just like to show off’, he replied! Stanislavski never said the actor actually becomes the character in life - rather, we use imagination to believe in ourselves as the character in the imaginary circumstances of the play while we’re performing so that a fresh, spontaneous, alive performance is created every time we do it.  

I think this is what most actors would like to achieve. Unfortunately our training, professional experience, and the economics of the industry often militate against this. As students, we may face a pot-pourri of eclectic ideas, projects and directors’ concepts, and a lack of consistent and comprehensible acting process. As professional actors, we face short rehearsal periods and little involvement in the conception of a production - unlike actors in German state theatres or the great European ensembles like the St Petersburg Maly Drama Theatre and Stary Teatr in Poland. The government’s spending plans for the arts announced in October are better than feared but do not represent an increase in funding in real terms. The limited gains in production values made a few years ago were not experienced by theatres across the board and are not necessarily secure; and we are very far from achieving the desire expressed at Equity’s and the Directors’ Guild Ensemble Theatre Conference (2003) of gaining ensemble theatres in all major population centres. To value theatre in that artistic and social way requires a major shift in government thinking and our Theatre Funding Campaign should play a leading part in continuing to promote that.

Despite these obstacles a lot of Stanislavski’s approach can be absorbed and used. In the book, I aim to demystify and correct misconceptions by looking at his approach as a whole, from flawed beginnings to the workshops and writings of the ‘30s, focusing on the major books (An Actor Prepares, Building a Character,Creating a Role) and records of his directing practice and teaching. I write from an actor’s point of view for actors and outline a step-by-step, comprehensive account of a process from the first development of awareness, ease and focus to engagement of the will and feelings, physical and vocal embodiment of the role and through to final performance. I place practice alongside theory by presenting exercises within the main text. I also attempt to integrate the work and views of Michael Chekhov and other practitioners - for example, Uta Hagen, Lev Dodin, Sanford Meisner, David Mamet, and Strasberg -  to reveal how they augment or contradict Stanislavski. As indicated earlier, I  place the approach within the often unfavourable climate of a cash-starved British industry attached to frequently unadventurous ways of doing things. I look at alternative, collaborative ways of organising companies, rehearsals and performance so that we not only work as actors more fruitfully but also fulfil our social role as artists and connect more with our audiences; and, through a truthful and stimulating recreation of our human experience, enable people to grow in awareness and knowledge and find sustenance in an often dangerous and confusing world."