ABSTRACT

This is the first of a pair of articles examining the discourse in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand regarding Stanislavsky. Moving from a brief description of my own encounter with Stanislavsky in student and fringe theatre of 1990s Melbourne, I provide a series of descriptive snapshots gathered through an informal survey of how Stanislavsky is invoked in teaching and practice in the region. I conclude that although theatre and training have evolved over the last forty years, the symbolic capital associated with Stanislavskian realism remains relatively unchanged. Ian Maxwell’s contention that Australasian practitioners are “bowerbirds” who scavenge detritus to adorn idiosyncratic theatrical assemblages holds true. One clear irony emerges, namely that although Stanislavsky considered his focus to be the practice of acting, his methods are most often taught as an aid in analysing written playscripts – perpetuating a distinction between historical “outside in” psychological approaches, versus allegedly more innovative “inside out” methods. Stanislavskian concepts are, in essence both remembered and forgotten when navigating acting in the region today. These tensions within Stanislavskian discourse complicate his reputation even as his link with realist dramaturgy ensures his relevance. The rhetorical, ideological and political implications of these associations are further developed in the second article to follow.

摘要

这是两篇文章中的第一篇，探讨了澳大利亚和新西兰关于斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的话语。从我在 1990 年代墨尔本学生和边缘剧院与斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的相遇的简要描述开始，我提供了一系列描述性快照，这些快照是通过对斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基在该地区的教学和实践中如何被调用的非正式调查收集的。我的结论是，尽管戏剧和训练在过去四十年中有所发展，但与斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基现实主义相关的象征性资本相对没有变化。伊恩·麦克斯韦（Ian Maxwell）关于澳大利亚从业者是“园丁鸟”的论点是正确的，他们清除碎屑以装饰特殊的戏剧组合。一个明显的讽刺出现了，即尽管斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基认为他的重点是在表演实践中，他的方法最常被教授作为分析书面剧本的辅助手段——使历史“由外而内”的心理方法与据称更具创新性的“由内而外”的方法之间存在区别。斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基式的概念在今天在该地区进行表演时，本质上既被记住又被遗忘。斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基话语中的这些紧张关系使他的声誉变得复杂，尽管他与现实主义戏剧的联系确保了他的相关性。这些协会的修辞、意识形态和政治影响将在接下来的第二篇文章中进一步阐述。