ACTING TECHNIQUES (STANISLAVSKI vs BRECHT)

Hello Amigos,

Today I'm going to be discussing different acting techniques by famous theatre practitioners Bertolt Brecht and Constantin Stanislavski. I will be comparing the ideas, whilst mainly focusing on my personal favorites and how these have helped me in developing my character. 

Every actor is different and will have their own methods of acting. This process is what makes all actors unique and original. Although being a drama school student may influence your idea of acting, it is up to you as an actor to find your own style. 

Which method is the best? 

This question has been the topic of so many debates I've seen at Drama School, but the answer is simple. There isn’t one. Every actor is their own person and their experiences will all be different depending on each individual. The techniques that we choose make us who we are, what may work for one person may not work for another. 

From the moment I started acting, I knew what sort of actor I wanted to be and how I was going to achieve this. Not all actors are the same; some need to go on a journey to find their personal flavour. This is not a bad thing and is actually a great way to discover your own skills and abilities. 

I have always had this idea that my acting must be naturalistic. Although I love a bit of physical theatre and I'm pretty melodramatic myself, when it comes to serious acting I want my audience to view my performance as realistic. For me as a performer, the most important aim is for my spectators to be able to relate and connect emotionally with my character.

My chosen method is very much taken from theatre practitioner and director Constantin Stanislavski.

 From the beginning of my acting career, character building always came as a challenge to me. It's not enough to pretend or guess how your character would act and feel in a situation. It's tough to understand if you have never actually been in the same situation. 

How could I play the character truthfully, if I have no relation to the situation or character? 

 This wasn't something that came naturally to me. I wouldn't just wake up one morning and know the answer. I wanted my performance to be thought provoking. Not understanding my character was frustrating and I realised that I need to explore different techniques to help with this issue. This was definitely a positive reflection of Drama School. Central, Italia Conti and Sylvia all gave me the opportunity to explore and develop as an actress, enabling me to gain important skills along the way. 

I couldn't believe how many different ideas there were out there, coming across different theatre practitioners such as Bertolt Brecht, Anton Chekhov, Augusto Boal, Antonin Artard, and finally Constantin Stanislavski. All these practitioners are such amazing inspirations to actors everywhere. 

I loved Brecht's style, it was unique, and intriguing, however, I couldn't quite connect with his idea of allowing the audience to see the actors as a skeleton for the characters. Unlike Stanislavski, Brecht did not want the actors to take on the characteristics of the role and didn't want them to transform themselves into the character. Instead Brecht made sure that the audience was fully aware that the actors were just represented by the characters and were in no way becoming the characters themselves. Some of his famous techniques included actors playing various roles, changing items of costume on stage and stylised physical movements. Although I like the initial idea of Brecht's method, when put into practice, I found it just wasn't for me. I didn't actually want the audience to see me as 'just an actor' and I definitely did not want to emotionally disconnected. I personally believe that if the audience disconnect themselves they will end up forgetting or ignoring the importance of the performance. 

During my second year at Drama School, we put on a performance of 'Oh What a lovely war' by Joan Littlewood. Our version was adapted and directed by Karen Tomlin. The production used many of Brecht’s techniques. The reason for this is most of Brecht's plays had a message behind the performance and Joan believed Brecht's techniques enabled this to be unleashed. As part of the performance, we were told that we would be taking on some of his methods such as changing our costumes on stage in front of the audience. I along with other members of the cast found this an uncomfortable thought. As actors we wanted our audience to believe in the character and form a relationship with them, but how would this be possible if they can clearly see us exposing ourselves as performers? 

This became a bit of a battle at first, as I really didn't feel open to this idea. 

Stanislavski’s method, however, gave me a completely different outlook on acting. His main effort behind his well known technique 'method acting' was to allow the audience to see the actor as the character rather than just a mere representation. His techniques were aimed at understanding the character, relating to them, and not having a doubt that the actor is part of the character. Through method acting, the performers will explore the role by taking a period of time living as the character and learning about them in depth. The actor will use genuine emotions and feelings in order to understand and relate to the character that they are playing. Often actors will use their own life experiences to help represent this.

Although many actors choose exercises from this technique in order to discover their character, in some extreme cases, this type of method can cause distress and mental health issues to the actor. This is why I believe this technique needs to be used sensibly. For example, American actor Tom Hanks did some intense preparation before filming 'Castaway'. He did this by taking a year off to live as his character. He starved himself, only eating specific raw foods that you may find on a deserted island, left his beard unshaven and took other drastic measures in order to prepare for his role. Other method actors include Heath Ledger as the Joker and Cristian Bale, along with many other well known actors. 

During rehearsals at RCSSD for Oh What a lovely War, I, along with four other female cast members, were playing the roles of male British soldiers in the trenches during World War One. This was a huge challenge for us, as we just couldn't seem to grasp the characters. This resulted in a very unbelievable representation and a very angry director. Our Director, Karen Tomlin, explained that if we couldn't play the scene with more truth and emphasis, she would need to cut it completely. 

This was when I finally realised that I need to make some drastic changes to my character development. It has been so long since I had really thought about these techniques and I needed to think about how these soldiers felt in this situation. It was cold, muddy, wet, they were hungry, tired and covered in lice, all whilst wearing this extremely heavy Armour. 

How could a small young girl like me, ever even get a glimpse of how this would feel? 

I decided to try out an exercise based on Stanislavsky's idea of understanding and living as the character. Obviously it would be a little unrealistic if I said I was going to live in a trench for a month to get into role but if I could just get the slightest idea of the situation they were in, hopefully this would help improve the way it would be reflected in my performance. So I waited until it was a freezing cold day and pouring down with rain (I didn't have to wait very long, this is England after all) and dressed myself in biker boots, a hard hat and lots and lots of heavy, itchy rags and went off to my garden. I sat in the mud for over half an hour and wouldn't let myself move, no matter how uncomfortable I felt. Freezing and dripping wet, I went into the house to my mother who just looked at me flabbergasted. It may sound a little drastic for a school show, but I felt like that little glimpse gave me a small incline of how devastating this event may have been for the soldiers. I followed this by writing a questionnaire for my character, where I used answers based on real soldiers from previous research that I had done on the First World War. For the first time during the whole rehearsal process, I felt that I finally had some form of connection with this soldier I had created. I felt for him and was scared for his life at the same time. 

  

When I act, I want my audience to feel what I'm feeling. I want them to either hate me or love me. As long as they are feeling something towards my character means as an actor I have done my job successfully. If they are emotionless, then I haven't allowed them to believe or trust me as that character. 

  

Stanislavski’s method brings out the truth and realism of the character. Whenever I receive a script, the first thing I do is think - who is this person and what brought them to this situation? 

From this moment I can manipulate the character into whatever I desire. When I was at Italia Conti we were taught an exercise where we used our own memories to create a base for our character. Our characters were six-year-old children. To develop on these we needed to experience this age group. Each of us found a corner in the room where we were able to be on our own. Thinking of a personal memory from the age of six, we sat exploring this thought for half an hour. Once we had a clear idea we played around with our physicality. Thinking of how we talked, walked, personality traits and physical characteristics. For example ever since I was around three I have always twiddled my hair. 

  

Characteristics are a very important part of character building. If you are playing a child, your characteristics will be completely different from an adult. 

  

Hope this has given you a little bit of insight into creating a character. Feel free to comment below for any questions or suggestions for blog posts. 

Stanislavski & Brecht 

(picture source: mandymckenna.co.uk)