Yes. Stanislavski is amazing – and he founded modern theatre. And he tried something radical in a communist oppressive regime. And he changed the way people saw theatre as an art and a profession – turning a career that was once represented by drunken idiots – into one, which was portrayed with the highest level of sophistication and intelligence.
And I am grateful to him for that.
However after reading his books – I find him extremely vain, it being very easy to open a book of his and open it onto any page and find something ‘amazing’ about him. With Stanislavski writing it as him – ‘The amazing director that can put no foot wrong’ and ‘the best student in the class’.
But not just his vanity or pretentiousness that bugs me. He focuses mainly on naturalism and says everything must be done how it would be done off the stage… however – he also states that you must learn everything again for the stage – walk, talk, move, everything. There comes a point where everything is so meticulously planned and discussed – because everything must have a reason and a specific movement- that it becomes stylised and unrealistic. Stanislavski is so contradictory it hurts my brain to read about him.
Nonetheless – I still admire him as a practitioner – and everything he has done for theatre – just not necessarily him as a person.