Response : Stems And Branches

I’ll start with Constantin Stanislavski. Stankislavski draws on a point that he liked to see what was going on within the actor, rather than what he was seeing on the outside. He believed that this is what gave the play its life. “To me as a spectator, what was going on inside of you was of much greater interest. Those feelings, drawn from our actual experience, and transferred to our part, are what give life to the play” (Stanislavski 155). Stanislavski also said “…The inner experience came first and was then embodied in an external form” (Stanislavski 155). I believe that internal life does play a big part in acting, as I do also find myself enjoying what is happening to an actor internally. For example, I think it’s extraordinary to see what words do to an

Above all, I wouldn’t be where I am today without theatre. Without the chance to perform throughout my life, I would be disconnected from the wide array of communities and histories that’s been imbedded in my daily routine. Unfortunately, it’s speculated that the theatre is a dying art form, because of the expanding popularities of movies (“Is”), but I think that it’ll remain a well renowned part of expressing imagination and interpreting history as years pass; it only takes cooperation with school faculty and young students that go above and beyond to change their

To know the past is to know the future. In his essay Knowing History and Knowing Who We Are, David McCullough argues about the importance of studying and teaching history. In his essay, he explains that there are three main points about history: character and its effect upon destiny, our failure of teaching the future generation, and the importance of learning and listening to history. David McCullough strongly advocates that audience should start to listen to and teach about the past in order to learn about the way a person’s character can affect their destiny.

Stanislavski was very sure of the role of his actors within the theatre. The actors are there to create a real, emotional and truthful imitation of the character they are playing, and to be so life-like that they seem to become their character. He said that the

Ever since I can remember I have loved theatre. It’s been a constant presence, and an important touchstone, in my life. However, for as long as I’ve loved theatre, I have also been ridiculed for my enjoyment of it. As a child, my interest was tolerated as something precious, something I was bound to grow out of. My parents and teachers would sit in the audience, clapping and cheering me on, all the while thinking to themselves “I bet she’ll make a great lawyer one day.” They thought, like most of society, theatre was an unnecessary luxury; a pastime for the rich and powerful, for those who didn’t have to worry about putting food on the table, or clothes on their children’s backs. Certainly not

“Theatre makes us think about power and the way our society works and it does this with a clear purpose, to make a change.”

When I first began directing, to me, the play was the thing. My mind was focused on the goings on of the stage with limited awareness beyond its borders. It seemed that dealing with the audience was somebody else’s job. If I directed a great play, I thought, people would come and like it. Job done. “Why this play now?” was a philosophical, intellectual question—but not something I really confronted in an educational setting.

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.

The above example illustrates not only how the theatrical performance affects the audience, but also how the audience influences its dynamics, development and the characters within it. The actors feel a certain level of acceptance from the viewer, who demands a certain way of depicting the character. Theatre is not just entertainment, itís something much more than that ñ itís education. Theatre should always represent things, rather than

In Stanislavsky’s method acting used several elements to acting. In fact, the elements of theatre are using “if statements”, re-education, observation, motivation, and emotional memory. On the other hand, Artaud techniques “Artaud performance is to cause a real experience of discomfort and confusion in the audience that causes them to think and become involved as participants, not onlookers.” Meister acting techniques rejects acting from memory; however, the technique focuses “the truth of the moment. “Moreover, knowing different acting techniques allows an actor to practice those

Castillo’s work brings to light the history of dramatic writings and performance that helped shaped the New World in a very interesting way. Following Castillo’s thesis, being the importance of examining dramatic writings and performance for their historical importance, is brilliantly and thoughtfully explained throughout the book. Capturing the use of primary sources, translated documents, and in-depth analyzation of plays and writings Castillo claim leaves nothing left to speculation of the importance of drama within the New World.

Jerzy Grotowski was a theatre director his methods were compared to Constantin Stanislavski. Grotowski defined his theory as “poor theatre” his actors experimented with the physical, spiritual and ritualistic aspects of theatre; Poor Theatre can be performed in any bare space. And lee Strasberg was a theatre director and actor he was considered the “father of method acting”. Strasberg’s method worked on relaxation as well as concentration.

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 roughly built playhouses and cobblestone inn yards, an extraordinary development took place in England in the 1500s.” (Yancey, 8). At that time, an opportunity combined to produce literature achievement never before witnessed in the history of drama and theater. The renaissance, helped spark this movement by inspiring scientific and artistic creativity throughout the land. Models began writing dramas that portrayed life in both realistic and imaginative ways. This created work later captured the attention of the world that changed the English drama. The many aspects of Elizabethan theater helped to shape the acting and theater world forever.

The history of theatre in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries is one of the increasing commercialization of the art, accompanied by technological innovations, the introduction of serious critical review, expansion of the subject matters portrayed to include ordinary people, and an emphasis on more natural forms of acting. Theatre, which had been dominated by the church for centuries, and then by the tastes of monarchs for more than 200 years, became accessible to merchants, industrialists, and the less privileged and then the masses.