The Moscow Art Theatre and Yalta

Chekhov ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 180-194
Author(s):  
Ronald Hingley
Keyword(s):  
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.


2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 210-212
Author(s):  
Charles Marowitz

In 1923, all of New York was bowled over by the first visit of the Moscow Art Theatre to America. No one in this country had seen such synchronized ensemble playing or a troupe of individual actors of such power and persuasiveness. When the company returned to Russia after a triumphant national tour, actors such as Maria Ouspenskaya stayed behind and, along with Richard Boleslavsky, an earlier dropout, began instructing American actors in that strange doctrine known as the Stanislavsky System. One of Boleslavsky's most attentive students was Lee Strasberg. He and his close friend Harold Clurman were early converts to Stanislavsky as handed down by Boleslavsky.


Russomania ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 213-240
Author(s):  
Rebecca Beasley

The second interchapter examines discussions of Russian theatre in Britain. In a period of transition for British theatre, there was a call to look abroad for inspiration. This interchapter reviews the obstacles to the development of an art theatre movement in Britain, and details three potential conduits of Russian innovations in staging and design: Edward Gordon Craig’s collaboration with the Moscow Art Theatre, the staging of Russian symbolist plays by Edith Craig’s Pioneer Players, and the journalism of Huntly Carter, whose many articles on theatre, opera, art, ballet, and—after the war—film, promoted a ‘new spirit’ in the avant-garde, which he increasingly located in Russia.


1995 ◽  
Vol 11 (42) ◽  
pp. 175-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jovan Hristić

In the second and third volumes of the Russian edition of Stanislavsky's notebooks, Rezhisserskie Egzemplary (Moscow, 1981 and 1983), are to be found Stanislavsky's own notes on his productions of Chekhov's plays for the Moscow Art Theatre – The Seagull, Three Sisters, and The Cherry Orchard. Questioning the received wisdom that in many ways his first director served Chekhov ill, with over-elaborate productions which failed to bring out the humour and ambiguity of the plays, Jovan Hristić here draws deeply upon the notebooks to contrast their instructions and descriptions with the directions and stated or presumed intentions of Chekhov himself. He illuminatingly reveals that, while some of Stanislavsky's solutions understandably appear over-the-top to more minimalist modern tastes, they are almost invariably complementary rather than contradictory to Chekhov, and designed to serve the plays rather than to subject them to directorial whim.


1992 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-105
Author(s):  
Catherine Schuler

Western scholarship on Russian theatre has been so dominated by a few prominent figures that the casual student of theatre history might justifiably be left with the impression that Russian theatre began in 1898 with the founding of the Moscow Art Theatre and ended in the 1930s with Stalin's “purification” of Soviet art and literature and the untimely disappearance of Meierhold. The absence of a significant body of research further reinforces the notion that a small gaggle of men—most notably, those associated with the MAT—were solitary beacons of progress in the otherwise barren landscape of nineteenth-century popular theatre.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document