Realism of Stanislavskys System - Report Example

Constantin Stanislavsky’s aesthetics are closely aligned with the realism movement in the dramatic arts because he believed that this is what the people wanted to see when watching a play. He wished for actors to portray their characters in a more realistic manner. This was a major change when it occurred because previously, many theatrical styles were more unrealistic. This meant that for the viewer, a trip to the theatre was a method of stepping away from the reality of everyday life and into a fantasy world. Realism is defined as “an approach to art in which subjects are depicted in as straightforward a manner as possible, without idealizing them and without following rules of formal artistic theory,” (Artcyclopedia) which makes Stanislavsky important because he completely changed how plays in the theatre were written, performed, and viewed. What Stanislavsky’s aesthetics did was lay the groundwork for a trip to the theatre to become a more realistic experience, as he made theatre much more like real life. He was able to accomplish this by teaching actors to speak in a realistic manner and by creating a realistic setting. He did not wish for the theatre to be a fantasy world, but rather an extension of the person’s life. He also called on the actors to make their characters an extension of themselves because this would lead to them being able to portray their characters in a much more realistic way. Much of this realism came from the actor being able to draw on his or her past emotions in order to act out these emotions. For example, if the character in the play in mourning the loss of a loved one, the actor, if he or she has experienced this pain, can use his or her past experience in order to help the acting process. Constantin Stanislavsky was able to revolutionize the acting process by creating this ‘system’, which used human behavior as a starting point for the actions of the character. By being able to critically reflect on acting, Stanislavsky was able to completely change how actors treat their profession and the direction of the theatre as a whole. While this ‘system’ is important to acting as a whole, it is becoming less significant in the movies because large budget movies with an emphasis special effects are taking over the cinema and taking away from the importance of creating a character through human emotion. Stanislavsky’s ‘system’ was not something that appeared overnight, as Stanislavsky had to work over a number of years in order to come up with it. He did so because he could not understand why some of his favorite actors did not perform consistently on a daily basis. For example, he could watch the same play three times and each time the actor would have a different performance. He decided that this was because sometimes the actor was heavily involved with the character and sometimes he or she was not. What this did was create inconsistencies, depending on a variety of external and internal factors. During this time period, actor were supposed to become a character while they were on stage and then leave their emotions behind once the play had been completed. What this did was create a situation where realism was not present, as the performers did not have any sort of attachment to the characters they were portraying. The solution that Stanislavsky came up with was for the actor to draw on his or her past experiences and relay them to the audience through the character. This means that the “actors have to add something personal from their own lives, something which will trigger their genuine desire to fulfill the objective” (Merlin 49). The idea behind this is that since we are always ourselves, making the character a part of the actor would allow for the actor to perform much more consistently, because “real human feelings were a vital part of good acting, and that every gifted performer possessed the appropriate raw materials“ (Merlin 28). In order for this to occur, however, the actor would have to learn to harness his or her emotions and use them as artistic inspiration. Stanislavsky believed wish for theatre to evolve to the point where the acting would seem real because it was based on real emotion. In 1906, Stanislavsky began to develop his system. At the time, he believed that Maria Yermolova was the great actor of the era, but even she did not perform the same way night in and night out. His goal, therefore, was to develop a system that would give the actor better control over his or her own performance on a nightly basis. In order to do so, Stanislavsky believed that the actor should have to approach the role as if it is real life. This, however, does not work every time because “he had come to believe that actors could only work from their own raw materials if they really wanted to” (Merlin 24). More often than not, an actor will be in a role that he or she does not directly connect with. If an actor was always places in a role that he or she fit perfectly in, then everyone would be a great actor and no techniques would have to be learned. That is not the case, however, so Stanislavsky began to work on a variety of different techniques that he believed might work. The ‘system’ is somewhat complex, although it end goal is to create realism in performance, where “the vividness of Stanislavskys imagination has jam-packed that one moment with a complexity of realistic human responses, full of varying tempo-rhythms and life-changing decisions” (Merlin 106). Because of this, the acting of this time period became much more realistic than previous or future time periods. The ‘system’ basically called for the actor to analyze the character’s motivations on a scene to scene basis and attempt to relate to what the character is attempting to accomplish in that scene. The actor must also keep in mind what the goal of the character in the film or play as a whole is, which can be very difficult. For example, just because a villain character has a scene where he or she acts good, does not mean that the character as a whole changes. Therefore, a villain acting in a good way must be treated differently than a hero acting in a good way. The actor must ask him or her self questions about what he or she would do when presented with the same situation. This allows for the actors to escape realism somewhat, as realism would confine them to their own experiences and, therefore, would limit them as performers. This system is still found today and can be found in a number of modern films, although it is beginning to die off in some genres of film. An example of this ‘system’ being used comes from the film City Hall, directed by Harold Becker, which is the story of the inner workings of City Hall in New York City. In this movie, Al Pacino plays the role of Mayor John Pappas. Pappas is an interesting character because he walks a fine line in attempting to keep people on both sides of the law happy. He must consider the needs of both the general population and the criminal element in the city because both sides can positively and negatively affect his successful term in office. Pappas does not follow the virtue-based or principle-based ethical codes in the duty triangle, which was designed by James H. Svara, but instead decides to focus on the consequence-based code because he is only worried about the end result and not his personal character or the norms in society. For this role, Al Pacino would have to put himself in a variety of different artistic situations that he has never been faced with. Since he has never been the mayor of New York City, he would not have this experience to draw upon and, therefore, it would have to come from elsewhere. At one point of the film, Pappas takes a personal interest in a particular death and even mourns with the family, but this could also have had political motivations. For this particular part of the character, Pacino would focus on acting in a selfish manner, while still attempting to keep some sort of integrity, at least on the surface. This is an excellent example of a situation where an actor would have to draw upon his “self-expression, the recall of emotion, and most importantly the artists use of personal experience” (Carnicke 111) in order to make a character come alive, since Pappas has so many different faces. Pappas also has problems doing what is expected of him in society in his failure to consistently exercise principle-based ethics. Principle-based ethics require the person to behave in a manner that is expected of him or her by the rest of society. It is up to that person to decide how to act, however, so it is possible that by dealing with the mafia, Pappas is simply looking out for the greater good. Since this means that Pappas would have to follow an absolute moral code, it is possible for him to justify his actions by arguing that the rest of society would approve of these actions because they are a way of keeping the peace in the city. Despite this, it is impossible to see a situation where the public would agree with him allowing criminals to return to the streets. Pappas is also aware of corrupt police officers, so he is furthering the problem by allowing for more people who do not share the same principles as the general population to deceive the public on a regular basis. This facet of Pappas’ behavior would call on Pacino to withhold his morality. Stanislavsky would say that he all have an inner compass that tells us what is right and what it wrong, so he would tell Pacino to act in the opposite manner of what his instincts tell him. Pacino would have to learn the emotional reasons behind the character acting in this immoral manner and then portray these reason to the audience over the course of this film. John Pappas is an interesting character because he brings the morals of politicians into question. Since he is more worried about his own political goals than necessarily being a good person, he focuses on consequence-based morality, rather than virtue or principle-based morality. This is disturbing because of the deals he makes with the criminal element in the city, but since he wishes to make the city a better place to live in the short term, he feels as though this form of morality is necessary to keep everyone happy. Morals do not matter to him as much as the end results of his actions. Pacino had to focus on the emotion behind each of these actions in order to create the character as a whole. It has been said of Stanislavsky that “he uses hyphens to yoke the human-being with the actor and the actor with the character typographically connecting the experience of the performing actor” (Carnicke 119), which is what Pacino would have to do in order to be successful in this role. The approach that Pacino uses is effective because he becomes very believable while playing a role that he has no experience with in the past. One would think that he would have trouble becoming a corrupt mayor, but he is still able to break the character down into smaller pieces, while using his own past experiences, in order to become realistic in this role. The aesthetics that were created by Stanislavsky are important to the world as a whole as well, as they have changed some of how the world is viewed. Much of how our world is viewed now comes to us through the arts. Films, plays, and television are some of the most popular mediums in the world. Since this technology is now readily available to nearly everyone worldwide, different cultures are now able to view each other through these mediums. If these more realistic techniques of storytelling had not been developed, the world could have a much different view of other cultures. For example, before Stanislavsky introduced his new techniques, melodrama was a very popular form of expression. If this was still the case today, the impressions that we would get of other countries and cultures would be more melodramatic than realistic, which could cause a great deal of confusion. In recent years, new forms of realism have begun to creep in, however, which could make Stanislavsky’s ideologies obsolete. The film “The Celebration,” by Thomas Vinterberg was the first in a number of films that aimed at giving the audience an entirely different viewing experience than other movies. By following “The Vows of Chastity,” films that fall under the category of Dogma 95 explore realism in cinema in a new and exciting way. By using a different style of realism, these films are able to involve the audience in a unique way, which makes Dogma 95 important in the evolution of film. By creating a new relationship between the audience and the actual film, this style of filmmaking has the potential to change the entire industry, if it is given a chance. Thomas Vinterberg’s film, “The Celebration,” is credited with being the first Dogma 95 film. Dogma 95 films must follow a certain criteria in order to be classified as such and the founders on the genre call this criterion “The Vows of Chastity”. Firstly, all shooting must be done on location without the use of any props, other than those found at the actual location. In addition, all of the sounds must be natural to the location. The only music that is allowed must be played on location. The cameras must also be handheld and in color. There must not be any weapons or murder because no action can be superficial. Filters are not acceptable and neither are genre movies. It must be filmed in 35mm Academy format and the director must not be credited. (Trier and Vinterberg) These rules were created in order to create a movement in the film industry. The directors who were involved in Dogma 95 wished to change the film industry to become more accessible for everyday people to create movies, rather than Hollywood holding a monopoly on the filmmaking industry. The John Cassavetes film “Love Streams” had some similar features to Dogma 95 films, as it was filmed entirely in Cassavetes’ house. Through the use of various camera angles, however, Cassavetes is able to constantly change the dynamics of the house, giving each room a different feel each time the characters re-enter it. In current times, high tech movies such as “The Matrix” and “Harry Potter” have attempted to create a similar cinematic experience by experimenting with different camera angles. This gives the audience the feeling of being in the same place as the actor because the audience is able to see 360 degrees of the set. In “The Matrix,” cameras were put all over the room, which allowed for the director to give that 360 degree shot to the audience. These camera angles have become more important than the actual story in these films and that is something very similar to what Dogma 95 was trying to accomplish. Dogma 95’s goal was for the cinematic experience to become more realistic for the audience. Its creators wished for the audience to feel like the events were actually unfolding in front of them. Dogma 95’s idea of realism is much different from the high tech movies of today, however. Through the use of the handheld camera, “The Celebration” was able to achieve its goal of seeming as though it was truly filmed as the events were taking place. It is given the appearance of being a home video shot at a birthday party that has gone terribly wrong. The realism that is used in “The Matrix,” however, is different because it does not use a handheld camera and is quite obviously not a home video. The realism explored in this movie is based on the pure quantity of camera angles. The audience is exposed to the entire set in some point of the film and, since the cameras are not visible, this gives the viewer the feeling of actually being there. This style of filmmaking has become more and more popular because it is different from the classic style of shooting films. It is able to captivate the audience because it seems like less of a film and more like real life. Dogma 95 films and films with high production values have both managed to take much of the emphasis off of the acting and place in onto something else. While Dogma 95 films, at times, appear to be based on Stanislavsky’s vision, they are closer to a reality shown than to acting. In these films, the director relies heavily on the setting in order to get his or her story to the audience, rather than focusing on the actor’s ability to relay this story to the audience. Contemporary movies with special effects also do the same, as there is little-to-no focus on the acting anymore because the audience now watches these films for different reasons. It is no longer true realism that they want, but rather an escape from the realism that they live everyday. These new forms of filmmaking have taken much of the emphasis off of the acting and placed it on the visual effects. While Stanislavsky did wish to create a more realistic environment for the viewer, he had no idea what these technological advancements would bring for this industry as a whole. He is from a time when acting was done on the stage and, therefore, very little could be done in the way of props and special effects. This is very similar to the Dogma 95 films that are now being created, which means that the actors in these films need to be very aware of the emotions that they wish to invoke in their audience. Sadly, the bug budget Hollywood film has become the benchmark in this industry. While classically trained actors like Al Pacino do still exist and do still use the techniques that were brought the to forefront by Stanislavsky, technology has now advanced to a point where it is becoming less important to create a character with human emotion. Perhaps this was a natural evolution, however, since “his system was never finished; it remained to the end a dynamic, ever changing experimental process“, (Carnicke 27) much like the arts. Works Cited Artcyclopedia. "Artists by Movement: Realism". Viewed 5 April 2008. http://www.artcyclopedia.com/history/realism.html Carnicke, S. Stanislavsky in Focus. London: Harwood Academic Publishers. 1998. Merlin, Bella. Konstantin Stanislavsky. New York: Routledge. 2003. Trier, Lars von & Vinterberg, Thomas. "The Vows of Chastity". 13 March 1995. Viewed 4 April 2008. http://pov.imv.au.dk/Issue_10/section_1/artc1A.html Read More