Notes on Stanislavski Author(s): Bertolt Brecht and Carl R. Mueller Source: The Tulane Drama Review, Vol. 9, No.

2 (Winter, 1964), pp. 155-166 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1125107 . Accessed: 30/09/2013 18:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Tulane Drama Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.129 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:09:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

dTr

DOCUMENT SERIES

Notes On Stanislavski
By BERTOLT BRECHT

Whatfollowsis takenfrom volumes3 and 7 ofBrecht'sSchriften zum Theater (Frankfort: Suhrkamp Verlag,1963-1964). "On the "The Stanislavski TreacherousVocabulary,""On RapoSystem," 'The the Work Actor,'" "On the Expression:'Complete of port's " and "The Incomplete Transformation-An Transformation,' Backward" are fromSchriften volume 3, pp. 206ApparentStep volume 7, pp. 187217. The restof the materialis fromSchriften 219..The materialhas been edited.Notes to theSchriften indicate that the work in volume is The material 3 fromvolonly "early." ume 7 was written in the The 1951-1953. Stanislavmostly years whichBrecht mentionswas held in 1953. During ski Conference thatsummer, Brechtread a roughtranslation Stanof Gorchakov's which had been in islavskiDirects, published Moscow in 1951.
On the StanislavskiSystem Its progressiveness. first of Stanislavski'sSystemis an improvement, The method of playing which he suggests all, because it is a system. systematically compels the empathyof the spectator;it is not a result of chance, mood, or ingenuity.Ensemble playing is improvedbecause even the smallerroles and the weaker actorscan, with the aid of such a system, contributeto the empathicinvolvement of the audience. Its cultishcharacter. and his System, one can see Stanislavski Studying that considerable difficulties arose in forcingthe empathy: it became harder to bringabout the necessary increasingly psychicact. An ingeni155

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.129 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:09:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

156

Tulane Drama Review

ous educational processwas created to preventthe actor from"slipping fromhis role"; it permittedno interruption of the suggestivecontact between actor and audience. Stanislavski naivelytreatedthese interruptions as purelynegativeweaknesseswhich could be removed.Thus the art became more and more a forcingof empathy.The thoughtnever occurred that the interruptions could be coming fromchanges in the consciousnessof modern man which are no longer remediable. The alternative in the face of such inconsistencieswould have been to raise the question whether or not total empathy was still desirable. The theoryof epic theatredid raise this question. It took the interand traced themback throughhistoricalsocial variaruptionsseriously tions, taking pains to find a method which could completelydisclaim The contactbetweenactor and audience had to be realized in empathy. a manner other than the suggestive. The spectatorhad to be released fromhis hypnoticstate and the actor relieved of the task of totally himself into the character. A definite distancebetweenthe transforming actorand the role had to be built into the mannerof playing.The actor had to be able to criticize.In addition to the action of the character, anotheraction had to be thereso that selectionand criticism were possible. of Necessarily,this was a painful process. A gigantic superstructure conceptionsand prejudices lay in the way as debris; a cool-headed appraisal of the Stanislavskivocabularybroughtto light its mysticaland cultishcharacter. The human soul appeared no different fromwhat it is in a religion. There was a "priesthood" of art, a "congregation,"a absolute "captivated" audience. "The word" had somethingmystically about it, and the actorwas a "servantof art."Truth was at the same time a fetish and something There quite common,nebulous,and impractical. were "impulsive"gestures which needed "justification." Mistakes,properly speaking,were "sins," and the spectatorhad an "experience" such as the Disciples of Jesushad at Pentecost. The Treacherous Vocabulary A character should be "creative."The creatoris God. Art is "sacred." The actor is to "serve."Whom? Art. The actor "transforms himself," just as in the Mass the bread is transformedinto the Body of Christ. What happens on stage must be "justified," just as at the last Judgment all must be justifiedthat has happened on earth. Concentration is the "withdrawalinto the self"of the mystic.

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.129 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:09:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BERTOLT

BRECHT

157

The imagined fourthwall permitsthe actor to be "alone" with his God, art. It is a question of "truth"; it arises throughgenuine feeling,but that itselfcan be produced throughexercises. The audience muststare "captivated" at the stage. "The soul." This is an age when man is handled as thoughhe were a motor,when the collectiveis establishedand truthbarteredwithand destroyed. The actor who does not withdrawinto the selfis dismissedand the one who does cannot play in an ensemble.Only the man who is freeof illusions, who compels the exploiter to reveal himselfwithoutjustification, can directhis own life. The workingman alone is creative,and while he is his masters he musttransform himself into his own master, and defeating that not only in his imagination.Nor ought he to stay alone with his and burst every God, but unite himselfwith his fellowsin misfortune constraint. He should not withdraw into himself, but fight his enemy.He need not save his soul if onlyhe save himself. He can in no waywhatever empathizewith everymemberof the human race. The sentence,"Act so that your actions mightbe a maxim for the actions of all" must be amplified to read, "Bring about a state of existence in which your actions might be a maxim for the actions of all." That is something completelydifferent. On Rapoport's "The Work of the Actor" How is the spectatorto be made to masterlife when all thathappens masters him?The man in a trancemay believe thathis will is all-powerful. His impulse to eat the apple beforehim (which is actually a paper But, ball) is verystrong.Perhaps it is one of his favoritesatisfactions. naturally,he is not satisfied;his stomach is not served. His critical faculties are set aside and he is not able to act in his own self-interest. Charactersand events appear by means of definite"stage attitudes." The actor must convince the audience "along with himself."Now it is perfectly clear to thosenot yetconvincedby the "stageattitudes"that the "events"put together and presentedby the actors by the playwright and falselypresented.It is evident that if mightbe falselyput together one is a clever playwright or a "convincing" actor, one can fool the audience. But let us suppose that one were to mount an accurate,very true-to-life production.The spectatorwould still be totallyenclosed in the specificcharacterinto which he, "along with the actor,"had transformedhimself.The spectatorwould see everything not with his own eyes,but withthoseof the character.

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.129 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:09:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

158

Tulane Drama Review

On the Expression: "Complete Transformation" and in This needs clarification. Stanislavski supports, theoretically of his own person and his transformation exercises,the actor's effacing into the character.The spectator identifieshimself completely(positively or negatively)with the character.But Stanislavskiknows that is not complete. The civilized theatrebegins when the identification spectatoralways remainsconscious that he is in a theatre-the illusion he enjoys comes to him thatway. If Stanislavski does not know this,his student Vakhtangovdoes, for he opposes Stanislavski'sdictum, "The spectatormust be made to forgetthat he is sittingin a theatre"with, "The spectatorsits in the theatreand never forgets that he is there." can exist side by side in the same school of art. Such contrary thoughts Tragedy lives off this contradiction.The spectator should at least pass throughthe heightsand depths withoutreal danger; take part in the thoughts, moods,deeds of high-placedpersons; live out his instincts to the full,etc. Even a method of acting which does not strivefor an of the spectatorwith the actor (epic) is in its turn not identification in the completeexclusionof identification. interested It is a question of In the usual methodof acting the spectator workingout the differences. is insecurewhen faced by the transformation; in epic acting the transis neglected.Complete transformation formation is desired only in the usual method of acting. The Incomplete Transformation-An Apparent Step Backward the actor completely into the character, we have By not transforming in a sense taken a step backward.The abilityto masterthis incomplete transformation measuresthe actor's talent. If he fails,everything fails. Children fail when they play at theatre,and novices fail. There is falsefromthe verystart.The differences betweentheatreand something become reality painfully apparent. The actor does not give himself entirely;he holds somethingin reserve.The actor who intentionally does not complete the transformation makes one thinkhe was not able to completeit. The spectator who "in real life" is at timesforcedto act a part recalls his unsuccessful and anger withattemptto play sympathy out actuallyexperiencingthem.Too much is as great a hindrance to a as too little: the unconcealed and blatant incomplete transformation tention to make it work is disruptive.There are at least three factors which destroythe illusion: (1) it becomes obvious that the event is not time; (2) that which happens here on stage is taking place for the first not what happened therein the world; (3) the effects do not occur in a

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.129 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:09:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BERTOLT

BRECHT

159

natural way but are artificially produced. It is absolutelynecessaryfor us, if we are to progressbeyond it, to recognize that complete transformationis a positive,artisticact, a difficult matter,an advance by means of whichthe identification with the actor is made of the spectator this is a new human triumph, a new exprespossible. Seen historically, sion of man's intimate nature. If we leave transformation behind, it will not be a total abandonment. NonethePerhaps it is unfairto call usual theatrea religiousfunction. less, it restson the same social basis as religion.The social functionof the faithful religionis becomingmoreand morethe processof rendering passive.The same can be said of the theatre. Building a Character in a character (1) Beforeyou assimilateor lose yourself you mustfirst become acquainted withit withoutunderstanding it. This happens both when a play is first read and duringearlyrehearsals. You look resolutely forcontradictions, deviationsfromthe typical, uglinessside by side with beautyand beautyside byside withugliness.The mostimportant gesture during this first phase is shakingyour head. You mustshake your head like a tree losing its fruitsuntil each lies on the ground ready to be gathered up. the searchforthe character's (2) The second phase is thatof empathy, truth in the subjectivesense.In otherwords,you leave it to its own volition,you permitit to do what it wants,how it wants.But thisis not yet a headlong plunge. You allow yourcharacter to reactto othercharacters, to itsenvironment, and to the plot. All thisin a simpleand naturalmanner. Such gatheringup is a tedious process,but eventuallythe plunge does come and you fall headlong into the final formof the character, becoming one with it. to see the charac(3) And thenthereis the thirdphase in whichyou try terfrom theoutside,fromthestandpoint of society. At the same timeyou must tryto recall both the distrust and the admirationyou feltduring the first phase. Afterthe thirdphase you are readyto presentyourcharacter to society. (4) It is perhaps necessaryto add that once workingrehearsalshave begun, all thingsdo not necessarily progressso cleanly,accordingto a schedule. The evolutionof character knowsno set rules. pre-established The phases will repeatedlydisplace and intertwine with each other. While some characters will have almost reached the thirdphase, others will stillbe meetingdifficulties in the second or even first phase.

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.129 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:09:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

160

Tulane Drama Review

Action Physical action"is mostlikely his greatest "method of physical Stanislavski's He devisedit underthe influence of contribution to a new theatre.? tendencies. This method is not difficult Sovietlifeand itsmaterialistic asksthat at thefirst rehearsals for us oftheBerliner Ensemble. B. always theactorshowtheplot,theevent, thebusiness, convinced thatfeeling He is vigorously takecareof themselves. and moodwill eventually opofmany actors whouse theplotas an insignificant posedto thepractice basisfortheir usesthebar to emotional acrobatics, justas thegymnast his One has the in viewof prove versatility. impression-particularly in his lateryears-that statements to Stanislavski's B., quite unknown a realistic is very for himself to thesearch form. himself, simply allying ifI understand The method ofphysical it correctly, means that action, and soulful manifestations ofcharacter must outbursts, emotions, emerge from theevents oftheplayand notbe allowedto disturb them. It is not a question ofhowto makemanifest external actiontheprivate through mental lifeor attributes ofthecharacter. theemotions which are Rather, from not necessarily derived or dependent on the actionof the play must be subordinated to theaction or released it.2 through SpeakingVerse which them ofrhythms across scenes. To find Stanislavski speaks sweep the"logicofevents" same to one has to study (the applies prosescenes). these areusedbytheactor whether or nothe folFurthermore, rhythms lowsthem. is alivewhenheretherhythms thevoiceand Delivery carry theretheyare used as an opposing force. the voice Justas in music, can the ahead let itself be or rushing drag rhythm along dragged byit. Where? Towardthelogicofcharacter and events. that actors discover other and expressions Stanislavski suggests images a better in prose togivethem oftheverse. Andthen when understanding it willbe backedup by theimprovised theverseis spoken and images But one Good. The verse must more. thing expressions. finally--despite thealienation it undergoes-be notat all in an spoken quitespecially: but exactly as it is. Not as one of threepossible manner, improvised but as the onlyone. statements, 1 See Leslie Irene Coger's"Stanislavski Changeshis Mind," TDR, Volume9, No. 1 (T25, Fall 1964),pp. 63-68. is a collationof material whichappearedin *This last paragraph the originalunderthe headings "Some Thoughts on the Stanislavski Conference" and "The Stanislavski Conference."-R.S.

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.129 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:09:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BERTOLT BRECHT

161

"Falsehood" and Empathy Are for Rehearsals It is interesting how Stanislavskiadmits falsehood-at rehearsall In the same way I admit empathy-at rehearsall (And both of us must admit themin performance, albeit in differing The question mixtures.) often comes up about Stanislavski's portrayalof Famusov. Did he give a satiricperformance or did he also "justify" thisclassicfigure of Russian satire by making it "universallyhuman"? Gorchakov answered that it was a satiricportrayal an epic performance very"subtly"done.3In short, depends upon whetherone wants the arrogantand unculturedofficial to be condemned or justified-and of course he must be satisfactorily motivatedas a human being. The Truth W. It is said of Stanislavskithat at rehearsalshe often called to an actor fromthe auditorium: "I don't believe that!" Do you often not believe actors? B. Not too often. Generally only beginners and pure technicians. I don't believe an event,that is, part of the plot. And More frequently this resultsin making me and the actorsstrain.Althoughany truthis difficult to discover-I should say, easily injured-it is all the more difficult to discovera truthwhich is socially useful. It is preciselythis truthwe need. For what is the public to do witha beautifulbut useless truth? It mightindeed be true that when a man beats his wifehe either wins or loses her. But does thatmean we ought to beat our wives to win or lose them?The public has been fed on such truthslong enough. Truths like these are worthno more than lies and less than fantasies. W. Stanislavski of the actor'ssensibilities. speaksof the truthfulness B. I know. But if I recall correctly, doesn't he also believe that an actor-made aware thathis sensibilities those of the (or, more correctly, character) produced an untruthfuleffect-could by sheer technique make it truthful? W. What does he have to do? B. He must understandmore thoroughly the event takingplace between his characterand the other characters. Once he has grasped the
I Directs (New York: Grossetand DunSee Gorchakov'sStanislavsky to Alexander Griboyedov's lap, 1962), pp. 123-198. Brecht is referring Much Woe From Wisdom which the MAT did in 1906 and which revivedin 1925 when he played Famusov.-R.S. Stanislavski

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.129 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:09:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

162

Tulane Drama Review

truthof the eventhe will succeed relatively easily in graspingthe truth of his characterand presenting it in a believable manner. "Attributes" One thing I have never understood about Stanislavski'sworking methodsis how he derivesthe particularsocial attributes of thosecharacters upon whom the action depends. Let's take Othello's jealousy. It is not enough to definejealousy as a passion which seekswithzeal what tormentcan accomplish.Jealousyis not an "eternal" passion. It does not always exist to the significant degree used by Shakespeare.It is not universal today and it was not universal then. (As I understandit, the Eskimosoffer theirwivesto theirguestsand are insultedwhen the guests are so ungraciousas to refusethem.) Othello possessednot merelyDesdemona, but the rank of general as well. He had eitherto defend thispost or lose it. Shakespeareexpressly chooses a general who did not inherit his rank but won it through achievementand in so doing very likely divested someone else of it. In short,Othello lived in a world of battles for property and position. His position is a property. Therefore,his relationshipto his beloved wifedeveloped as a relationshipto a property. When thisis shown,the passion of jealousy is not lessenedbut deepened. And at the same time there are indicationsof how societymightpossiblyintervene.I should add that the goal of a productionof Othello is not realized by the mere of thisperception;ratherits realizationis thereby made possipossibility ble. Methods of Concentration methodsof concentration have always remindedme of Stanislavski's Both are concerned with fighting a social disease, but psychoanalysis. neitheruses social means. Thus only the resultsof the sicknesscan be fought,not its bases. Empathy Because a Stanislavski Conferencewas being prepared,B. invitedthe and actors to his house. He had a great pile of directors, dramaturgs, literature on his table and he asked theactorswhatthey knew Stanislavski about Stanislavski. Hurwicz. I read his An ActorPrepares.Much of it was too soaringfor me. Yet I found parts which appeared quite important, which I have made use of foryearsnow. He says thatone mustdevise concreteideas

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.129 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:09:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BERTOLT BRECHT

163

and into theseinterpolate But of forcharacter imagination. portrayal course are Brecht, against you, empathy. B. I? Not at all. I'm forit at a certain But then stageof rehearsal. withwhich be added to it: a focusing on thecharacter must something I recommended a social evaluation. to you yesterday, you empathize, thatyou empathize withthe peasantyou wereplaying. Geschonneck, It appeared ofthecharacter tomeyouwere and giving onlythecriticism whenWeigelsat downbesidethe not thecharacter. And thismorning all hermight, and froze with shemust haveempathized. tilestove it whenthequestion Danegger. MayI takenoteof thatand mention comesup again?You mustknowthatyou are accusedof completely and in generalof refusing to have any fullhuman rejecting empathy beingon stage. B. You may, But youmight add thatempathy does not byall means. to be me to for naturalistic sufficient, appear exceptperhaps playsin a totalillusion which is to be presented. of actuality But Stanislavski was satisfied withit, and even more:he Danegger. demanded even for non-naturalistic complete empathy plays. B. I didn'tget thatimpression from whatI read.Stanislavski speaks of the"super-objective" and insists thatall be subordinated continually to theidea. I think thathe emphasizes he detests empathy onlybecause the despicablepractices of certainactorswho curry favorwith the audienceinstead of concentrating on theportrayal-in he insists short, he so sternly on thatwhich and impatiently calls the truth. Geschonneck. There's no such thingas complete empathy during There's theaudiencein the backof every actor's performance. always mind.At least that. an actorplaysa person whois different himfrom Weigel.Naturally That'sthewayit is and why self. shouldn't he be awareofit?Andas for Geschonneck's "at leastthat," am I as Courage at the how,forexample, end of theplay, whenmybusiness have me cost the last of my dealings to deliver thesentence: "I haveto getbackintobusiness," children, unlessI am notpersonally shattered I am playbythefactthatthisperson thecapacity to learn? ingdoes not possess B. Let me add thisas a final note.How,Geschonneck, wereit othercouldI tellyouthat in thefinal scene ofKatzgraben wise, youshould play thepeasantwithcomplete in fact, as a caricaturecoarseness, almost, as the authorintended?

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.129 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:09:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

164

Tulane Drama Review

The "Short Organum" and the Stanislavski System P. During the Stanislavski Conference, Weigel indicated several similaritiesbetween yourmethodsand Stanislavski's. Where do you see the differences? B. At a ratherhighlevel of actingtheory. It has to do withthe disposition of the actor'sconsciousness What is it to conduring performance. tain and what is to take precedence?As I see it, Stanislavski developed methodsby means of which the actor eliminateshis own consciousness and replaces it with that of the character.At least this is the way the systemis understoodby those who attack the "Short Organum." The a wayof playingin whichtotal identification "ShortOrganum"describes does not occur; and it givesreasonswhyit shouldn't. P. Is Stanislavski understood? correctly B. I can't say. Few of his works have beentpublished. At least an thathe was important part of his theory-the super-objective-indicates consciousof the problemsdiscussedin the "ShortOrganum." The actor is both actor and characterand this contradictiontakes precedencein his consciousness.If the actor understands the super-objectivehe is and standsoutside of his characterto thatextent. representing society P. But how is it possible to simplify a system this way when people maintain that Stanislavski believes in a mysticaltransformation on the stage? B. How is it possible to simplify the "Short Organum" when people maintain that it demands pallid reportorial creatures on the stage,schematic creationsof the mind?Why everyonecan see forhimselfthat on the stage of the Berliner Ensemble Puntila and Mother Courage are of Staniliving,vitallyexuberant human beings. The false impressions slavskiarose because he lightedon an art which aftergreat high-points had sunk to stereotype. He therefore had to underscoreeverything that led to the creationof rounder,morecontradictory, and morereal human beings. P. And what about the "Short Organum"? B. It attemptsto infusethe portrayalof human beings on the stage witha bias. But of course the people are alwaysrounded,contradictory, real human beings. P. Do you considerthisdifference a small one? B. By no means. My statements have attemptedonly to hinder the of the problemand to show at whatan advanced point the vulgarization

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.129 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:09:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BERTOLT

BRECHT

165

in realistic productions appear. The working out in the differences denature of characterization "Short Organum" of the contradictory mands that the actor take a somewhatnew approach. The physicalaction, to use Stanislavski'sterm,no longer servesmerelyto build up a It has become the chieffocusof the role's orientation, role realistically. thought mainlyin the formof a plot. This must be verypainstakingly through,because it concernsa most essential step. An examination of of a choice between thissortis impossibleas long as one thinksin terms a full-bloodedand a bloodless theatre.No one whose aim is realistic theatrecould think thisway. Stanislavskiand Brecht P. You have recentlypointed out similaritiesbetween yourselfand What about the differences? Stanislavski. because both these systems-and B. It is easier to talk of similarities, so that the inner connection let us call these workingmethodssystems of individual elementswill be grasped-are concerned with different measure resultsand therefore different questions.One cannot,therefore, them easily against each other. P. Isn't yoursystem concernedwiththe working methodsof the actor? B. Not principally. Not as an end result.Stanislavski when directing is of all a playwright. first of all an actor.When I directI am first P. But Stanislavski the actor to the writer. subordinates But he beginsfrom an actor'spoint of view. He devises B. That's right. studies and exercisesfor him; he helps him forma real human being. deOn the other hand, you can hear said of me that while everything pends on the actor,I begin completelyfromthe play, its needs and demands. has two divergentsystems P. The theatre therefore before it, with but divergent overlapping assignments? B. Yes. P. As you see it, do you think these systems mightcomplementone another? B. Yes. But I say that cautiously.We must become more familiar with Stanislavski.I have never yet worked with actors who were acthey do away with signs of quainted with the exercises.I unlderstand weariness. Perhaps you don't agree with me, but I think that many of the famedexerciseswere answersto the question of how it would be

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.129 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:09:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

166

Tulane Drama Review

possible to produce plays on such shaky ground, before things were stable. During Stanislavski'slife the material out of which an actor criticism of the createshis characterchanged. The most thoroughgoing communal existence of mankind took place: the Russian Revolution. Even before the Revolution came, the manner and mode of thought and feeling went through increasinglysevere crises. In the mastereitheras worksof the Russian realiststhe life of the spiritwas portrayed Actorshad to winnow out theirartificial that of parasitesor insurgents. the individual.But now that means.The individualwas givenformfrom And the othermethodis easier-nowadays we can form is moredifficult. an individual from society.' Stanislavski'sSystem,it seems to me, is alwaysin need of anotherwhichwould do what mine purportsto do. P. Could an actor using your workingmethods benefitfrom using Stanislavski'sas well? B. I believe so. P. But doesn'the need thingsthathe can't get fromStanislavski? B. That is assumed. P. Let us considerthe question of criticalattitudevs. justification. B. From the playwright's viewpoint this contradictionis dialectical. As a writerI need an actor who can completelyempathize and absohimself into the character. This, indeed, is what lutely transform holds be the first to But at the same time Stanislavski goal of his System. and beforeall else I need an actorwho can stand away from his character of society. and criticizeit as a representative P. How are theseexpressedin both systems? I have the act of empathy... B. Stanislavskihas the super-objective. P.... which Stanislavskibringsabout... B. . . . during anotherstage of rehearsal. P. From the standpointof the Stanislavski could one describe System, concernedwith the super-objective? yoursas a system B. Yes, presumably. Translated by CARL R. MUELLER ' The material from"I have never yet workedwith actorswho were acquainted with the exercises"to the footnoteis taken fromthe section whichin the original appeared under the heading "Numerous Rehearsals."-R. S.

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.129 on Mon, 30 Sep 2013 18:09:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions