An excellent presentation, Thank you! If I understand anything about what you discussed I think I recognize moments in some theatrical productions that have stayed with me that were more compelling because even though I had seen the play before there was a moment where I hoped it would turn out differently. (One very long sentence that one) When Brian Dennehy played Willy Loman in the anniversary production of "Death of a Salesman" it's the moment when Willy no longer bound by reality is about to get into his car and have the accident that will kill him. I was one of the people watching the play who wanted to jump up and yell, "Willy, you idiot, don't do it!" and Dennehy brings his finger to his lips in a gesture of "don't break the silence, people are sleeping."
Your characterization of Stanislavsky-based or Method oriented acting training studios as mandating cultural gender stereotypes demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the training that is done. This appears to be, although I may be wrong and am merely supposing about your motives, an attempt to villainize an honest system of acting due to your childish discontent with anything that represents “the man” or “the system.” Your rebuttal would be to say that I am blind to the oppressive nature of capitalism (which on another note is not at all tied to naturalist or realist acting in the way you portray it as) or even worse, I am complacent in the evil of capitalism because I reap unfairly gained benefits as a straight, white, man. The need for political and social skepticism is absolutely valid, however you demonstrate an idiotic understanding of what social issues need to be addressed. Does realist theatre reinforce untrue expectations of gender roles, or is realist theatre meant as an extension of life, and life itself establishes our expectations of gender roles? All that realist, method acting is, is a portrayal of real life in an engaging manner that the audience sympathizes with; if you find this to be oppressive or problematic, then maybe the source of your discontent is the fact that reality cannot bend itself to be your picturesque Utopia.
I agree with you that her examples to demonstrate the A-effect shows her dissatisfaction with "the system" or "the man". But I think she focussed on the negative effects of realism coz she wants to highlight the origins, the need that led to the creation of the A effect theory. Realism tries to sustain an illusion of reality, which is great to make you feel things, so agreat form of satiating escapism. But A-effect is supposed to disillusion. So it's meant to challenge your notions, make you uncomfortable. That doesn't invalidate the structures and their pervasive nature, just reminds you that there is a structure by highlighting the edifice that we take as real just because it's normal/natural. Reminding us of the somewhat disconcerting (but also liberating) fact that there are exceptions that does not follow this structure. There is a possibility of the "unnatural" to exist.
“Does realist theatre reinforce untrue expectation of gender roles, or is realist theatre ‘moment as an extension of life, and life itself establishes our expectations of gender roles?” But your doing exactly what she said, your making a claim to naturalness to reinforce the established regime. The established regime is not necessarily capitalism, but rather how normative constructions of reality are in fact constructed i.e. realism that does not critically analyze why IT is realism. We don’t have to jump far from the historical conditions of Stanislavsky to see what lengths THIS regime of realism will go to keep its power. Meyerhold was a student of Stanislavsky, “take care of Meyerhold, he is my sole heir in the theatre.” He was run out by the soviet government for creating formalist work that coincides pretty immediately with the a-effect. But the Soviet government didn’t want work to question its power, so they exiled and eventually executed him. This normative regime, that seems to coincide with capitalism, is more interested in power, and it’s consolidation via a chain of command or hierarchy. This is precisely the problem that she refers to as “naturalization” or how the actor can inadvertently uphold stereotypes, even if their intent was to criticize them. There’s no need to disabuse your self, if you think Satanislavskian-Method acting is a true revolutionary force, go ahead and experiment. It seems to me that you watched up and to the point where she made one critique of Stanislavsky and you paused and wrote this comment, disregarding the next 15 minuets where she conceptualizes and deepens why she thinks this criticism is valid.
Great video! Thank you for making this great educational content available on UA-cam.
Further reading: 'Palindromes' by Todd Solondz and 'Im Not There' by Todd Haynes
Embody the anxiety. I like that. Lines up well with what I've learned about Carl Rogers' approach of "unconditional positive regard."
Thank you. Really helped me in my A-Level Drama studies.
There’s so much information in this 20 min.
An excellent presentation, Thank you! If I understand anything about what you discussed I think I recognize moments in some theatrical productions that have stayed with me that were more compelling because even though I had seen the play before there was a moment where I hoped it would turn out differently. (One very long sentence that one) When Brian Dennehy played Willy Loman in the anniversary production of "Death of a Salesman" it's the moment when Willy no longer bound by reality is about to get into his car and have the accident that will kill him. I was one of the people watching the play who wanted to jump up and yell, "Willy, you idiot, don't do it!" and Dennehy brings his finger to his lips in a gesture of "don't break the silence, people are sleeping."
Thank you. This was very enjoyable and I learned a lot.
Thank you!
Thank you Laura 🙏
This was great! Thank you.
Wonderful presentation!
Thanks
Thank u
Very interesting
Read my book Bentley on Brecht
nice name
Longest 20 min of my life lol
hi
Please spell "Fascism" correctly.
Fuckisem?
GCSE drama waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
It is not called 'Alienation Effect'. It's called Verfremdungseffekt.
Your characterization of Stanislavsky-based or Method oriented acting training studios as mandating cultural gender stereotypes demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the training that is done. This appears to be, although I may be wrong and am merely supposing about your motives, an attempt to villainize an honest system of acting due to your childish discontent with anything that represents “the man” or “the system.” Your rebuttal would be to say that I am blind to the oppressive nature of capitalism (which on another note is not at all tied to naturalist or realist acting in the way you portray it as) or even worse, I am complacent in the evil of capitalism because I reap unfairly gained benefits as a straight, white, man. The need for political and social skepticism is absolutely valid, however you demonstrate an idiotic understanding of what social issues need to be addressed. Does realist theatre reinforce untrue expectations of gender roles, or is realist theatre meant as an extension of life, and life itself establishes our expectations of gender roles? All that realist, method acting is, is a portrayal of real life in an engaging manner that the audience sympathizes with; if you find this to be oppressive or problematic, then maybe the source of your discontent is the fact that reality cannot bend itself to be your picturesque Utopia.
Well said.
I agree with you that her examples to demonstrate the A-effect shows her dissatisfaction with "the system" or "the man". But I think she focussed on the negative effects of realism coz she wants to highlight the origins, the need that led to the creation of the A effect theory. Realism tries to sustain an illusion of reality, which is great to make you feel things, so agreat form of satiating escapism. But A-effect is supposed to disillusion. So it's meant to challenge your notions, make you uncomfortable. That doesn't invalidate the structures and their pervasive nature, just reminds you that there is a structure by highlighting the edifice that we take as real just because it's normal/natural. Reminding us of the somewhat disconcerting (but also liberating) fact that there are exceptions that does not follow this structure. There is a possibility of the "unnatural" to exist.
“Does realist theatre reinforce untrue expectation of gender roles, or is realist theatre ‘moment as an extension of life, and life itself establishes our expectations of gender roles?”
But your doing exactly what she said, your making a claim to naturalness to reinforce the established regime. The established regime is not necessarily capitalism, but rather how normative constructions of reality are in fact constructed i.e. realism that does not critically analyze why IT is realism.
We don’t have to jump far from the historical conditions of Stanislavsky to see what lengths THIS regime of realism will go to keep its power. Meyerhold was a student of Stanislavsky, “take care of Meyerhold, he is my sole heir in the theatre.” He was run out by the soviet government for creating formalist work that coincides pretty immediately with the a-effect. But the Soviet government didn’t want work to question its power, so they exiled and eventually executed him. This normative regime, that seems to coincide with capitalism, is more interested in power, and it’s consolidation via a chain of command or hierarchy. This is precisely the problem that she refers to as “naturalization” or how the actor can inadvertently uphold stereotypes, even if their intent was to criticize them.
There’s no need to disabuse your self, if you think Satanislavskian-Method acting is a true revolutionary force, go ahead and experiment. It seems to me that you watched up and to the point where she made one critique of Stanislavsky and you paused and wrote this comment, disregarding the next 15 minuets where she conceptualizes and deepens why she thinks this criticism is valid.
thanks
Read my book Bentley on Brecht
Lol. I get the feeling you wrote a book on Brecht?
Read my book Bentley on Brecht