scholarly journals Konstantin Stanislavski and Michael Chekhov: tracing the two practitioners’ “lures” for emotional activation

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Aphrodite Evangelatou
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (15) ◽  
pp. 244-258
Author(s):  
Daniela Simone Terehoff Merino

Estas recordações foram escritas pelo ator russo Mikhail Tchékhov (1891-1955) após a morte de seu mestre teatral Leopold Antônovitch Sulerjítski (1872-1916). No decorrer do texto torna-se evidente a influência benéfica que o professor exerceu sobre a individualidade criadora de seu aluno. Também são trazidas à tona algumas das principais experiências vividas pelo ator dentro do pequeno espaço experimental conhecido como Primeiro Estúdio do Teatro de Arte de Moscou (TAM). A relevância destas recordações está não apenas em reafirmar as confluências existentes entre o mestre e seu aprendiz, como também em demonstrar o quanto o Primeiro Estúdio – inaugurado em 1912 pelo próprio Leopold Sulerjítski em parceria com o grande ator, diretor e pedagogo russo Konstantin Stanislávski (1863-1938) –, foi um dos principais impulsionadores da jornada artística posterior de Mikhail Tchékhov.


Author(s):  
Herman Marchenko

The article deals with two different approaches to training actors. One of them is Stanislavski’s system, and the other is Meyerhold’s biomechanics. Konstantin Stanislavski and Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko are reformers of the Russian theater. As the Art Theater founders, they understood that the emergence of a new drama would require a completely different approach to working with actors and a different design of the stage space. With regard to new performances, it became possible to pose critical social questions related to everyday life before the viewer. Therefore, it was logical that the director's profession became very important. Working on his system, Stanislavski paid great attention to the need for an actor’s comprehensive development. Many wonderful actors who attended his acting school were among the students of this great theater director. Vsevolod Meyerhold was one of them. However, the latter chose his direction and began to engage in staging performances actively and search for new means of expression, having come to an absolute convention on the stage. Meyerhold created his method of working with an actor, known as biomechanics, in the theatrical environment. The principle of this approach is the opposite of Stanislavski's system. With all the difference in views on the theater, in the early stages of Meyerhold's independent practice, Konstantin Stanislavski offered him the opportunity to cooperate, which led Vsevolod Meyerhold to the Studio on Povarskaya Street in Moscow. Evgeny Vakhtangov was another student of Stanislavski and Nemirovich-Danchenko. At the request of Stanislavski, Vakhtangov was engaged in educational work in the studio of Moscow Art Theatre. Unlike Meyerhold, he thoroughly mastered the system and then created his theatrical direction called fantastic realism. Vakhtangov's legacy was preserved thanks to the activities of his students, among whom was Boris Zakhava. He turned to Meyerhold for help and spent several seasons with the master, gaining invaluable experience, including revealing the features of biomechanics in practice. Boris Zakhava remained faithful to Vakhtangov’s principles and continued his teacher’s work at the Shchukin Theater Institute.


Author(s):  
Gary Aston-Jones ◽  
Janusz Rajkowski ◽  
Piotr Kubiak ◽  
Rita J. Valentino ◽  
Michael T. Shipley

2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia Whissell

Emotion and imagery in the words of Shakespeare's plays, as measured by the Dictionary of Affect in Language, were used to predict genre (tragedy or comedy). Genre distinctions, which were associated with small effect sizes, were established on the basis of 23 plays and then applied to other plays. A discriminant function which combined lower emotional Pleasantness with higher emotional Activation or arousal and more pictorial Imagery successfully (91% of the time) predicted whether a play was a tragedy or a comedy. The genre-discriminating formula provided meaningful categorizations of 23 additional plays. As hypothesized, comedies employed more Pleasant words than tragedies. Tragedies employed more Active words ( p< .001). Unexpectedly, comedies rather than tragedies employed words with lower Imagery (greater Abstraction). The predicted elevation of language in tragedy was noted instead in the use of more verse, fewer common words, and fewer personal pronouns (less subjectivity).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document