In his third (abridged) book, Demidov, in the first two chapters, explains what Stanislavsky was trying to figure out in the “school” he created. Stanislavsky, according to Mr. D, had planned two paths (even though a third is always there “the path of the “naturally gifted” actor is by nature there). The first path is that of imperative (my emphasis) analysis of the text in an effort to bring the actor closer to the circumstances (i.e., role, relationships, etc.) and the circumstances closer to the actor. The second path is that of training elements of the creative state (our training and drill), or as Stanislavsky called it, psycho-technique. Mind you, what one realizes as Mr. D delves into the matter, is that Mr. D gave emphasis to the second part, that of psycho-technique, due to the fact that all “Stanislavskian” teachers didn’t, they emphasized the analysis, believing that that was Stanislavsky’s heritage — a misunderstanding as Stanislavsky gave both those paths equal merit.
Demidov writes: “The majority of directors using the Stanislavsky “system,” chiefly see in it only one of the paths toward creativity: play analysis, bringing near to oneself the circumstances of the role, the play’s supertask, the through-action, the idea . . . while completely ignoring the development of the very process of creative experiencing (my note: psycho-technique or training and drill). They do so, assuming that it is always at our disposal, as long as the actor understands the role and its meaning in the play.”
This means two things:
- The two liners as Demidov says came out of his investigation in the ‘training and drill” exercises thus it gives us complete freedom and obligation to keep on training in them. Demidov writes:
[..] While teaching the “system,” (by Stanislavsky) I continued to train students in its “elements,” by offering them appropriate exercises (by exercises, he obviously means “training and drill” exercises.) At that point, my attention was drawn to peculiar short etudes. They first flashed by as early as 1921, as a kind of a creative pedagogical find. At that time, busy with the “elements,” I did not understand their value, but later I started applying them more and more, with greater and greater courage. These etudes, in turn, moved me toward a specific, peculiar way of conducting them.
So as you understand, etudes (in general) were part of the “training and drill” experiential training and Demidov used them to train the elements of the creative state (compartmentalization) but he realized that the very specific type of etudes he created while experimenting was ideal to train the creative state in the actor.
He continues by saying:
“[…] Etudes are common in school work. We used to conduct etudes “in attention,” “in fantasy,” “in communication” etc. In general, these were etudes dedicated to “elements.” Etudes introduced in this book, however, might be called etudes in creative experiencing.”
As a pedagogue, and in our experimentation in our ensemble, this gives me absolute freedom to investigate and experiment even more in our training and drill sessions.
In actuality, we are following strictly Demidov’s spirit since he writes that: “The author is far from asserting that everything told here would remain unchangeable forever and for all future times. There will be new knowledge and, in its light, our present knowledge perhaps will seem ignorant.”
We must keep experiencing and experimenting.
The second point is:
- Analysis even though is never mentioned by Demidov should never be assumed that it was neglected by him, he is not distancing himself from the two paths that Stanislavsky drew, he is fixing the second path, that of psycho-technique, so one can accumulate and understand the first path better. In simpler words, Mr. D is de-emphasizing analysis because it is a trap, and he meets with it later on, in the form of suggestions, questions, and answers! Detective work of Analysis, of “backward reading” and of finding compound facts should be implemented to be holistic in our work.
Grace, peace, and love,
Kim
