In this chapter I want to complicate the picture of Method acting that has accompanied attacks on psychological realism since the mid-1980s. With the help of Bakhtinian concepts, I propose a reexamination of the Methods foundations in Stanislavsky as well as Sanford Meisner’s American derivative. I argue that although Method acting can serve to perpetuate the status quo, it also holds the potential to produce change: of emotion, as transformed by memory and by the circumstances of performance; of verbal and nonverbal behaviors, as they are assimilated from others and transformed by reiteration; and finally, of actors and the given dramatic circumstances, as they engage in mutual transformation.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Timothy J. Wiles, The Theater Event: Modern Theories of Performance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980)Google Scholar
- 2.Philip Auslander, “Just Be Yourself: Logocentrism and Difference in Performance Theory,” in Acting (Re)considered: Theories and Practice, Phillip Zarrilli, ed. (London: Routledge, 1995), 60.Google Scholar
- 3.On the production of the books and the role of Elizabeth Hapgood, see Benedetti, SB, 289–90, 297–300. On the translation issue, see Sharon Carnicke, “An Actor Prepares/Rabota aktera nadsoboi, Chast’I: A Comparison of the English with the Russian Stanislavsky,” Theatre Journal 36.4 (1984): 481–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.M. M. Bakhtin, “Response to a Question from the Novy Mir Editorial Staff,” Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, Vern W. McGee, tr. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986), 7.Google Scholar
- 8.M. M. Bakhtin, “Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity,” Art and Answerability, Vadim Liapunov, tr. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1990), 23Google Scholar
- Caryl Emerson, The First Hundred Years of Mikhail Bakhtin (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997)Google Scholar