Jean Benediti, "Stanislavsky Biography 1863-1938" Summary and Comments - Recommended biography of the legendary Russian actor and director, famous for "Actor's Work".
Introduced here is "Stanislavsky Biography 1863-1938," written by Jean Benediti and translated by Zunao Takayama and Eiko Takahashi, published by Shobunsha in 1997.
Let's take a quick look at the book.
As the first director of Chekhov and Gorky's works, co-founder of the Moscow Art Theatre, and creator of the "Stanislavsky System," Stanislavsky continues to inspire theatergoers worldwide. However, his personality is still shrouded in mystery. This film uses new data from the collapse of the former Soviet Union to reveal facts that have remained hidden, and to force a rewriting of the image created during the Stalinist era. This is a time when theater was truly powerful, despite being swept away by the waves of revolution and powerful state forces. This is the definitive biography of the life of a theater artist who lived in solitude and with passion.
AmazonProducts Page.
I picked up this book in my last article on Hisashi Inoue'sRomance."was the catalyst.
The following narration was written in this piece.
1) "The higher you get in rank, whether you're a bureaucrat, a soldier, or a monk, the more you like to adorn yourself with shiny gold braid."
2) "Well, at that time there was a company that was solely responsible for the manufacture of gold braid, and the young president of the company was a theatrical madman with the stage name of Stanislavsky."
(iii) "The playwright and director Nemirovich-Danchenko, who was acquainted with Chekhov, invited this wealthy young president to form a new theater company. This was later to become the Moscow Art Troupe."
(iv) "They used to meet in the Slavyansky Bazaar, the best hotel in Moscow, which had a restaurant with a stage."
Shueisha, Hisashi Inoue, Romance, p.98
It may seem like an ordinary narration. But when I read it, I couldn't help but exclaim, "Ah! I couldn't help but exclaim, "Stanislavsky is this Stanislavsky! Stanislavsky is this Stanislavsky! I was so surprised.
I have recently started reading books by Yukio Ninagawa because of Shakespeare, and I often came across the name Stanislavsky in those books. But I only thought, "Wow, there is such a great director!" I was more interested in Peter Brook and Brecht.
But I didn't expect that Stanislavsky to be Chekhov'sThe SeagullI had no idea that he was the person who led the company to great success!
When I read the above play by Hisashi Inoue, Chekhov, Danchenko, and the Moscow Theatre, it hit me! An electric current ran through my head.
That being said, I was studying Chekhov just about two years ago. At that time, I was reading a number of biographies of Chekhov. Chekhov was disappointed when the premiere of "The Seagull" was a complete failure, but he discovered the true value of the work and was persuaded to give a lecture about it. However, it was the Moscow Art Troupe that discovered the true value of this work, persuaded Chekhov to allow him to give a lecture, and made it a great success. It was thanks to the exceptional performance of the Moscow Art Troupe that the four great plays of Chekhov's later years were born. I learned this two years ago.
And it seems that the memory was still there, and here it finally connected. As you can imagine, I had forgotten about Stanislavsky, but when I learned that he was the one who had pulled off that Moscow Theater performance, it was all the more intriguing.
This is why I picked up this book, "Stanislavsky Biography 1863-1938. I hope you can understand my excitement.
In this book, we will look at the life of the famous actor Stanislavsky. Stanislavsky was famous for his book "The Work of an Actor" (formerly translated as "The Actor's Training"), which had a tremendous influence on the world of theater and was read like a bible in Japan. His theatrical theory is called the "Stanislavsky System," and its influence seems to be alive and well even today.
In the book's "Introduction," the author states
One of my tasks in putting this book together was to describe Stanislavsky's creative process, while keeping in mind the background of his art and life, especially his Russian period. The book is full of the Russian way of looking at things. It shows the views of the people of the time on art, politics, and society, and is essential to a proper understanding of Stanislavsky and the artistic ideas he adopted at any given time.
Shobunsha, Jean Benediti, translated by Zunao Takayama and Eiko Takahashi, Stanislavsky Biography 1863-1938, p. 11
As the author states here, the book does not merely trace Stanislavsky's life, but also delves into the historical background of the time. It also provides an insight into how Stanislavsky and other theater artists were operating in that historical context. The turbulent period of transition from Russia at the end of the Czarist regime to the Soviet Union. And the period of Lenin and Stalin and the establishment of Soviet-style ideology. We can clearly see that theater was connected to politics and ideology. I strongly felt that this was also related to the history of theater in Japan. This book is an extremely valuable resource for understanding the atmosphere of this era.
And in the first half of the book, there is an interesting connection between Russian literature and theater. It is a bit long, but if you like Russian literature, I am sure you will say "Oh! I am sure that those who love Russian literature will say, "Oh!
At the time, the Maroui Theater was a center of psychological realism. When the theater was built in 1823, Pushkin was grappling with the question of veracity. What could be believed in the theater? How is the audience drawn into the world of the play? Readers of a book are immersed in the world of the book, even if they ignore their surroundings. But how on earth can an audience member, sitting side by side with 2,000 other audience members in a space that clearly separates the audience from the stage, believe what is happening on the stage before his or her eyes? In those days, the audience was not yet in a state where they could lose themselves in the darkness of the auditorium during a performance with the lights shining brightly.
Pushkin felt that dealing with historical facts in a play would not give the play any authenticity. He was not surprised by the fact that the classical writers such as Shakespeare, Racine, Corneille, and Calderon were clearly considered out of date at the time.Julius Caesar."So, the clock doesn't strike? Then what is it that looks real? Where is it hidden? Pushkin concluded. Pushkin concluded, "The only truth that has attracted the attention of classical writers is precisely the truthfulness of the characters and their situations. In other words, the proper action in the proper situation. He summed up his views in this way in an unfinished treatise on historical drama, drafted in 1830 but not published during his lifetime. It later became known as a maxim.
The truth of passion, the truth of the emotions we experience under a given set of circumstances, is what our intellect demands of the writer.
(The Complete Works of Pushkin, Vol. 6, p. 318, 1976, Moscow)Gogol further explored this perspective of psychological utility. He wrote, "The Prosecutor."In his "memorandum on how to play the role of the actor," he asks actors to first get close to the core of the role before getting involved in the outer role development.
An intelligent actor should try to capture the "common" traits of all people before trying to capture the trivial quirks and superficial fun of a role. One must consider the purpose of the role, the person's beliefs, and underlying concerns. For example, what dominates their life, what thoughts they are usually preoccupied with, what stereotypes they find hard to break, and so on. We must try to grasp these things and assimilate them thoroughly into the role. Then the ideas and goals that the character is striving for will become your own and will never leave your mind during the performance. ...... First of all, do not put on a facade, but grasp the soul of the role.
(Selected Gogol Papers, p. 314, Moscow, 1980)He should avoid caricaturing and blatantly showing just that. As he says elsewhere, actors should "convey, not show.
Shobunsha, Jean Benediti, translated by Zunao Takayama and Eiko Takahashi, Stanislavsky Biography 1863-1938, p. 30-31
Pushkin and Gogol are still great!
They were not only a decisive influence on Russian literature, but also had a huge impact on theater. And this is true not only in theater, but also in music and painting.
Through this biography, we have once again confirmed the magnitude of the presence of these two giants.
And one last point I would like to make is that Chekhov'sThe Three Sisters.andThe Cherry OrchardThis is about the clash between Stanislavsky and Chekhov in the
The following quote is from an exchange over "The Cherry Orchard".
Nemirovich (*blog author's note, Danchenko) announced the final casting on November 5. Preliminary meetings on the characters and their relationships began on the 9th. However, while the casting issue was being resolved, a more serious disagreement arose. Once again, it was related to the essence of the play. The Three Sisters" had been called a drama by everyone, but Chekhov still insisted that it was a comedy. This time, when I said that "The Cherry Orchard" was a comedy, Chekhov insisted that it was a comedy. Without a doubt, he wanted to write a comedy. In a letter to Knippel dated April 22, 1999, he mentioned writing "a vaudeville or comedy in four acts for the Art Troupe," which he was to hand in at the end of 19003. Obviously, Chekhov was confident that he could finish it by then. In a letter to Lilina dated September 15, 1903, he tells her.
The work written is a comedy, not a drama, almost a comedy of laughs. I am concerned that you seem to have been influenced by Vladimir Ivanovich (Nemirovich). ("The Chekhov Letters," pp. 11, 243)
Stanislavsky was not convinced by this definition.
This is not a comedy you have written, nor is it a funny play. It is a tragedy that no matter how much you want a better life, at the last minute you let it go. (Complete Works, Book VII, p. 265)
Shobunsha, Jean Benediti, translated by Zunao Takayama and Eiko Takahashi, Stanislavsky Biography 1863-1938, p182-183
Chekhov waveThe Three Sisters.The Moscow troupe, however, could not for the life of them understand what he was trying to do. Even after reading his books, they had no idea what was supposed to be funny. Then, in his latest workThe Cherry Orchardwas similarly puzzled by the fact that it was a "play for laughs" for the life of me. Even for Stanislavsky, I was baffled by how this could be read as a tragedy.
The fact that Chekhov was writing plays for laughs, not tragedy, is also mentioned in the previous article, "Romance". I also quoted the commentary in the article to tell you more about this turn of events.
Differences in interpretation over Chekhov's "Three Sisters" and "The Cherry Orchard". This led to a disagreement between Chekhov and Stanislavsky. And this book is a biography of Stanislavsky. Therefore, this book is more towards Stanislavsky's side. So in this book, Chekhov is written as if he is a bit of a villain. In this book, I saw a side of Chekhov that I don't often see in biographies of Chekhov.
Everyone called The Three Sisters a drama, but Chekhov still insisted it was a comedy."
this (something or someone close to the speaker (including the speaker), or ideas expressed by the speaker)I insisted."This position is also reflected in the words, "I am a good person, but I am not a good person.
Hisashi Inoue, who wrote "Romance," criticized those who did not understand this comedic aspect of Chekhov.
Stanislavsky, however, argued that Chekhov's argument was unreasonable.
This twist is really interesting.
Since we're here, let's take a look at the endnotes of "Romance.
Inoue's view of Chekhov's plays is that "the essence of Chekhov's plays is comedy, even entertaining vaudeville," and there is clearly a conscious and earnest overlap between Inoue himself and Chekhov as a comedic playwright. What is more impressive is that Inoue wrote the play itself in the style of vaudeville. In other words, a chain of vaudeville-style skits. This was possible only because Hisashi Inoue started out as a comedian with a "hugely entertaining" style, and his challenge was quite successful.
The play begins in a port town in southern Russia. As a young boy, Chekhov (Yoshio Inoue) became enamored with vaudeville, or "slapstick plays with silly songs," which were forbidden to minors. He then wishes to write "just one vaudeville in my lifetime, a much funnier vaudeville.
A graduate of medical school at Moscow State University, Chekhov gained popularity as a writer of comic novels, but he soon gained a reputation for his "bunga-bunga-bunga" novels and became known as "the best Russian short story writer of our time.
However, it was actress Oliga Knippel (Shinobu Otake) who encouraged him to "fulfill his dream of becoming a vaudeville player on stage," which he had almost given up on. Thus, Chekhov wrote his masterpiece "Three Sisters" as a "spicy vaudeville" and married Olga.
In the play, Chekhov says
People are born with suffering inside them. But laughter is different. Laughter is not something that is inside a person. Therefore, it has to be created from the outside ......, that is, people have to create it outside of themselves with their own hands, share it with each other, and have it with them. It's a lot of work to create something that doesn't exist in the first place.
These lines are filled with Chekhov's and Hisashi Inoue's experience of the "terrible" struggle to create laughter that "does not exist inside of us. Therefore, the laughter that bursts forth in the play is accompanied by a sense of happiness, and it penetrates deeply into the hearts of the audience.
In the latter half of the play, there is a scene in which Chekhov (Katsumi Kiba), in his later years, calls his own "Three Sisters" a "fine vaudeville," while the director Stanislavsky (Yoshio Inoue) argues that this "essence of the play itself is a beautiful lyric poem," leading to a heated confrontation.
The old writer Tolstoy (Katsuhisa Namase) intervenes between the two agitated characters, and earnestly and endlessly tells them a curious lesson on life, called "The Twelve Articles to Relieve Suffering," such as "When you get a splinter stuck in your finger, think, 'Thank God it's not an eye. It was a hilarious scene that transformed the serious atmosphere into vaudeville at once.
This scene reminded me of the book "Chekhov's 'The Cherry Orchard'" (Mugishusha, 1978) written by the late Shigekichi Uno (died in 1988), a director and actor of the Gekidan Mingei. This book was a detailed interpretation of Chekhov's last play "The Cherry Orchard" (19004) from the standpoint of realist theater, including field research in the Soviet Union, and was a book that fully demonstrated the "love of learning" of a Shingekijin.
Chekhov explicitly describes "The Cherry Orchard" as a "comedy in four acts. However, what struck me about 30 years ago when I read Uno's book was Uno's considerable resistance to Chekhov's stipulation of "comedy. Uno first cites the example of Gorky, who called the play a "tragicomedy. Then Chekhov added the word "comedy" to the title to "explain why this is acomedyThe director and actors were asked to read the play more deeply by making them question and defy the playwright and actors, asking, "What is the meaning of this play?
This is a curious text that dares to pervert Chekhov's rules. Uno suggests that "The Cherry Orchard" is in fact a "tragedy" or "tragicomedy," contrary to Chekhov's own definition of "comedy.
In other words, Uno's position is basically consistent with Stanislavsky's "tragedy" oriented attitude in "Romance," in which he resists Chekhov, the author who calls "The Three Sisters" "vaudeville. In "The Cherry Orchard," various events occur, such as the downfall of a famous family, the passing of a man and a woman, etc. Chekhov's intention (from which the theater of the 20th century began) was to dare to coolly relativize them and to see them all as funny "comedy" caused by "fools" of the same size as we are, Uno may not have been able to understand it as a sensibility after all.
Shueisha, Hisashi Inoue, Romance, p.239-242
To be honest, before reading "Romance," I too did not think of Chekhov's "Three Sisters" or "The Cherry Orchard" as laugh-out-loud funny. However, this book opened my eyes to Chekhov's thoughts on laughter.
But after reading this "Biography of Stanislavsky" I thought again.
I still find it hard to read this as a comedy, don't you?"And.
There is a difference between a play and a stage.
As is the case with Shakespeare, there are many times when a play is not at all funny when read as a play, but becomes a funny piece depending on the direction. Shakespeare'sThe Comedy of Errors.I felt this especially in the "Theatre of the Year". I had read about it in a book and found it not at all funny, but when I watched the DVD of the play directed by Yukio Ninagawa, I found it hilarious! It was so funny! It was a truly astonishing experience to see how much difference there is between the book and the stage.
It is said that Chekhov's plays are both tragedy and comedy. If this is the case, it is possible to lean either way, depending on the recipient.
Without Chekhov's view of life, or without a person who can create laughter, that play would not be a comedy.
From the beginning, Chekhov writes his plays with the idea of laughter on stage in mind. However, there are no specific gestures, tones of voice, or movements in his plays. Only Chekhov could imagine them.
A director or actor reading a finished play can only imagine it from what is written in the book. The elements of laughter that Chekhov imagined are not written there.
But from Chekhov's point of view, "No, no, no, you have to understand that.
But not all readers have the same values, ideology, and goals as Chekhov.
Yasushi Inoue was able to capture Chekhov's comedic aspect so strongly because he himself is a person who can create comedy, has such sensitivity, and strives for it.
However, people, myself included, who have no experience in comedy production or whose sensibilities are weak, inevitably cannot see such fun. It is up to each reader to read and create what is not written in the play. If the reader does not have comedic sensibility, he or she cannot imagine the laughter in Chekhov's plays.
If Chekhov had been more conscious of this, he should have actively communicated the funny parts of the play to the troupe. But his character and his tuberculosis-afflicted body did not allow him to do so.
Hmmm, what a cruel fate...
If Chekhov said, "This is a comedy," then it is indeed a comedy. However, how to make it a comedy had to be left up to the field. I think this was a very difficult task. It even raised in my mind the fundamental question of what laughter is all about in the first place.
Unlike today, theater itself was an age of exploration and trial and error. Stanislavsky and his colleagues struggled to create something new. Nowadays, we are able to see completed plays. However, in their time, laughter itself was unimaginable, and it was not even understood.
This biography will also give you an insight into the battles of trial and error that took place in the theater world. The plays we see today as a matter of course were not always performed in the same way from the beginning. I felt that the present day is possible only because of the steps taken by those who earnestly searched for "what is acting?
Well, this book made me think about many things. There are other things I would like to talk about, but it would take too long, so I will stop here. Chekhov or Shakespeare, they are all very deep...
The reading led me to rethink the difference between a play and a stage performance.
The above is "Jean Benediti's Biography of Stanislavsky - Recommended biography of the legendary Russian actor and director, famous for his "Actor's Work".
Next Article.
Click here to read the previous article.
Related Articles
