KS said if he ONLY had super-talented acting students, he wouldn't know if his methods worked; instead he needed students of a whole range of talent. (Hmm----CARD has said somewhere or another something to the effect that fiction writing actually CAN be taught, despite this craft's subtleties; and that to only to admit the super talented to fiction writing programs and then just to let them do whatever is not "teaching" creative writing.)

Also, KS COULD offer efficient management of the studios/theatre companies he was associated with, if he HAD to (KS would step in when the collaborators he found for those positions were gone); however KS much preferred to be off in some side capacity, both teaching acting and acting/directing while he experimented, experimented, experimented in how to teach the craft. (Well, I don't know how this bit matches up with OSC's profile or not. But it seems to me it likely MIGHT.... )

____
Anyway, I'll just continue giving observations from Benedetti's biography of Stanislavki (to just put em out there, for now):

KS encountered jealousy (or, I don't know, perhaps just professional differences of opinion?) with high level collaborators, which were scrupulously kept private. I/e people tho't KS's ideas were at least half crazy, half the time...nevertheless, his (eventual)results were so CONSISTENTLY spectacular, in both his own acting and that of his students, that despite murmurings of being out there, KS garnered incredible respect as a genius of teaching his craft. (And KS's fame, of course, eventually came to outshine many of these likewise very talented and effective theatrical folks who were his collaborators yet had remained skeptical of his techniques. (Or, perhaps, of KS's efforts to teach the unteachable?)

KS's system constantly evolved. People who weren't around him and thought they were following his system were only following what it was at some previous point in time. He kept learning new stuff and addressing issues that his sytem raised, through trial and error.

Also, KS was known to say, if some technique or idea doesn't seem to work for a person--dont' USE that one!...
____
OK, now a bit of my "iffy" take on what KS's "System" itself is:

From what I understand, and despite what is widely thought about it, KS's System DOESN'T merely have something to do with an actor's thinking to himself, "OK, what are my motivations here?" lol. But, it IS true that an actor will utilize various mental "through-lines," at different points--that is, certain thoughts or motives or desires that will not necessarily even match with the spoken dialogue that is to be offered. But these thoughts are to be intrinsically connected to certain ACTIONS that the actor is to be taking, literally or mentally. The actor is busy DOING whatever things, that is, not sitting there simply mulling some feeling, constantly. That is, the actor doesn't TRY to think the thoughts, he merely is aware of what he is doing and the thinking just, well, FLOWS from this awareness. (Something like that, it's hard to formulate. Especially for a non-actor such as myself who has only read a bit about it.)

Also, an actor doesn't have to communicate such naturalism in every tiny aspect of a play. The actor decides WHEN to have this level of, I dunno, "emoting" (or whatever we should call it). The rest of the time, the actor carefully gives the outside aspect of what he is portraying. That is, there are "outside" and "inside" ways of acting; however, because the "inside" way is more emotionionally and mentally draining, the actor ladels on this good stuff where it is needed most and then fills in the rest with the still effective and good (if less utterly amazing) "outside" stuff.

I've just read its first chapter but so far Collin's book seems really good.

Now it's been a while, but as I remember the gist of the system is that every line, or sentence is important, and every line can be used to accomplish something, whether that be "to coerce, to convince, to seduce, to ignore"... etc. In my class we analyzed entire plays going sentence by sentence and applying a verb to each line of dialog.

It is important when applying the System to writing (and acting) that no line can successful be applied as to be. For example,

quote:

---

KS said if he ONLY had super-talented acting students, he wouldn't know if his methods worked; instead he needed students of a whole range of talent.

---

If this was a line in a play, or a sentence in a story, then you would analyze the motivation of the speaker. Now WOB, I don't know you well enough to guess at your motivation, but as an actor you need to get to know your character as clearly as the author does, and as an author, you ... well, you get the idea.

If I was to analyze the line I quoted, I would reason what the character is. Notice I said, what, not who. If the character was a professor, or an instructor, I would guess the line was given " to inspire, to instruct" or depending on the character, "to condemn." Or if the professor was trying to sneak a bomb in a briefcase while he spoke it could mean "to distract, to bore to submission" or depending on who is receiving the line, who the line is for, it could mean " to seduce, to impress, or to belong."

In order to apply the system, you need to find who the line is directed for, who the speaker is trying to change by speaking. Once you know the audience of the line, then you can analyze what the character is trying to do, and more importantly WHY the character is trying to change the character.

We were always instructed when finding the verb that we can never use the word BE in our description. Like in the line I quoted you could analyze that that the character was trying "to be smart, or to be educated". But that is an ending. That is a falsehood, and the point as an actor, and as a writer, is to find the truth.

And truth, as KS would say, is that interesting characters are always trying to do something. That every word needs to inspire action.

Hmmm... That sounds familiar.

~Sheena