Aristotle And Stanislavsky example essay topic

Aristotle found the idea of imitating reality morally intrusive. He defined the difference between the arts and broke them down into separate components. These components can be separated into six; Firstly, imitation within a tragedy plot, which is the larger and higher form of art which began as improvisation and then moved into a a broader scope with more actors. Character's are another component, in so far as you need someone to act out the plot.

Thought, whereby 'something is proved to be or not to be, or a general maxim is enunciated". Diction is also a component this refers to the language and the meaning of what is being said. Finally the spectacle which deals with sets, costumes, masks etc. Aristotle was an empiricist, he theorise d on what was going around him, it is also fair to say that he was a materialist, presenting life as it was lived.

In his book the "Poetics' " the layout is simple and effective and makes up what appears to be a series of lecture notes, examining different forms of poetry. Constantin Stanislavsky in his book 'An Actor Prepares's hows through practical examples and demonstrations his theory of acting. His method was based on the idea that all action is to be carried out with intention and must be justified. Comparisons have been drawn between Aristotle and Stanislavsky for the following reasons; they both have the same objective which is to achieve a naturalistic and true to life performance and they both encourage emotional responses. Aristotle and Stanislavsky wanted actors to relate to their characters, however their approaches differed. Aristotle wanted actors and indeed the audience to relate through the plot whereas Stanislavsky wasn't overly concerned with plot but wanted relation to be drawn through strong characterisation.

There is a long history of imitation in both human and animal behaviours, dating as far back as the nineteenth century. Charles Darwin, collected some examples of what he thought to be imitation in animals, however he did not define what was meant by imitation. Thorndike (1898), was perhaps the first to offer a clear definition of what imitation was, he writes "learning to do an act from seeing it done". Thorndike's definition captures the idea that in imitation a new behaviour is learned by copying it from a predecessor. "First the instinct of imitation is implanted in to man from childhood... He is the most imitative of living creatures and through imitation learns his earliest lessons".

This idea presented to us by Aristotle is interesting, he believed that imitation is a part of human nature and is necessary for learning especially within the art of theatre acting and that human beings have an innate desire for knowledge. He thought pleasure could derive from learning something familiar, something that's already depicted in one way or another. This notion can be carried forward and applied to Stanislavsky's technique of acting. Imitation after all is an understanding, a way of connecting yourself with a subject. This is the basis of Stanislavsky's theory and the inter linking factor between these two theorists. Stanislavsky discovered that theatre need not be trivial, it was, and still is a way that life can be examined.

"Take nothing for granted. Think of your own experiences and use them truthfully."Every invention of the actors imagination must be thoroughly worked out and solidly built on a basis of facts". The familiarity of imitation gathered over an actors life is the foundation of these "facts" that Stanislavsky discusses here. His theory relies heavily on an actor becoming their character, feelings and actions much be internal as well as external.

The actor must use "emotional memory" to arouse thoughts and feelings, in order to give a full performance. The actor tries to connect the characters situation with important events in his own life. This connection can make the character's display of emotion on stage seem realistic and instant. One of Stanislavsky's most effective ways of getting the actor to relate and internalize the character is the notion of the "magic if".

This is Stanislavsky's term for the door that allows the actor to enter the emotional life of the character. According to Stanislavsky if one could master the "magic if' " then it would ensure a true life and naturalistic performance. However it is important to note that the actor may not always have the emotional memory required for a certain part, therefore they must draw upon the idea of imitation. Perhaps by recalling something they have seen on television or in a film, or through recollecting an experience that someone they know went through.

Aristotle feels that tragedy is "An imitation of an a action that is serious, complete and of a certain magnitude", Shakespeare's Hamlet is an excellent example of this. The play centres around Hamlet's search for revenge after his father's death, this is a "serious" action. The play is "complete" in so far as its events, are concluded in a believable and sensible manner. Hamlet gains revenge by killing his uncle. Hamlet also follows Aristotle's ideas in terms of being of a "certain magnitude". The characters are meant to appear to the audience as fully rounded, visions of perfection, but still real enough to relate to.

Although Hamlet, is a wealthy prince, he deals with the same issues as the everyday man. He's confused, paranoid and angered over his father's death. The audience relates to these common feelings and associates a certain amount of empathy with Hamlet. Aristotle's idea of cathartic activity, is employed by Shakespeare to instil pity and fear in his audience. Hamlet suffers "unmerited misfortune" because his father's death came about suddenly. Adding to Hamlet's despair his mother has married his uncle, who he suspects killed his father.

Diction according to Aristotle is another component that makes the tragedy ever more believable. The character's speak as they should, the king sounds like a king, which is juxtaposed by the common manner in which the gravedigger's speak. Hamlet is what Aristotle considered a complex plot. Aristotle wrote that the most convincing portrayals of anger and distress, for example, were achieved best by performers who truthfully felt those emotions at the moment that they expressed them. He notes that finding the true feeling in the proper time on stage is the key part to a successful performance. Stanislavsky agrees with this idea, "you must live in the passions and in the types.

Your acting of them must grow out of your living in them". Stanislavsky knew there were no shortcuts to truthfulness. After the actor has gathered all the external facts about a character and used his imagination to feel what it's like to live as that character. Yet there is still the larger issue of understanding the human condition. To gain this the rules are relevant but the process is essential. Imitation is not only relevant but a central value to both theorists.

These theories are interesting because they are informed by reality, but go on to coexist in a fictional world. Stanislavsky An Actor Prepares Methuen- Translated by Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood 1936 Aristotle The Poetics Penguin, 1996 Development and Evolution Baldwin J. N Macmillan, New York 1902 web.