Stanislavski versus Evreinov: on stage realism and theatricality

IF 0.2 0 THEATER
Inga Romantsova
{"title":"Stanislavski versus Evreinov: on stage realism and theatricality","authors":"Inga Romantsova","doi":"10.1080/20567790.2020.1733221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The theatrical Avant-Garde at the beginning of the 20th century in Russian culture produced many practitioners and theories which changed the theatre industry and influenced the development of world theatre for generations. Among them, Stanislavski’s Method of Physical Actions and Active Analysis are widely used, while Evreinov’s unique Monodrama still remains relatively unknown. This paper examines the differences and similarities between Evreinov and Stanislavski and specifically their approach to Scenic (Stage) Realism, the understanding of Theatricality, and instigation of modern theatre and performance practices of the 21st century. Evreinov’s theatrical career was overshadowed by his countryman, Konstantin Stanislavski as a result of social changes in Russia at that time. Evreinov’s hostility towards realism was well known. Evreinov particularly enjoyed criticizing Stanislavski’s detailed direction for Chekhov plays. In New Theatrical Inventions, Evreinov engages in polemics against contemporary theatre practitioners, attacking the naturalism of Stanislavski’s staging. In general, professional theatre for Evreinov was a prison to Theatricality, which in his opinion is the cornerstone of Scenic Art. For Stanislavski, Theatricality was exaggeration when juxtaposed with what should be the realistic truth of the stage. Nikolai Evreinov claimed through his theoretical work that life is full of theatrical conventions; that theatre is a universal symbol of existence, an organic urge to transformation, as basic as hunger or sex. Referring to this urge as Theatricality, or the Instinct of Transformation, Evreinov brought the theatre into life, and insisted that life borrows from theatre.","PeriodicalId":40821,"journal":{"name":"Stanislavski Studies","volume":"119 1","pages":"59 - 69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stanislavski Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20567790.2020.1733221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"THEATER","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The theatrical Avant-Garde at the beginning of the 20th century in Russian culture produced many practitioners and theories which changed the theatre industry and influenced the development of world theatre for generations. Among them, Stanislavski’s Method of Physical Actions and Active Analysis are widely used, while Evreinov’s unique Monodrama still remains relatively unknown. This paper examines the differences and similarities between Evreinov and Stanislavski and specifically their approach to Scenic (Stage) Realism, the understanding of Theatricality, and instigation of modern theatre and performance practices of the 21st century. Evreinov’s theatrical career was overshadowed by his countryman, Konstantin Stanislavski as a result of social changes in Russia at that time. Evreinov’s hostility towards realism was well known. Evreinov particularly enjoyed criticizing Stanislavski’s detailed direction for Chekhov plays. In New Theatrical Inventions, Evreinov engages in polemics against contemporary theatre practitioners, attacking the naturalism of Stanislavski’s staging. In general, professional theatre for Evreinov was a prison to Theatricality, which in his opinion is the cornerstone of Scenic Art. For Stanislavski, Theatricality was exaggeration when juxtaposed with what should be the realistic truth of the stage. Nikolai Evreinov claimed through his theoretical work that life is full of theatrical conventions; that theatre is a universal symbol of existence, an organic urge to transformation, as basic as hunger or sex. Referring to this urge as Theatricality, or the Instinct of Transformation, Evreinov brought the theatre into life, and insisted that life borrows from theatre.
斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基与埃夫列诺夫:论舞台现实主义与戏剧性
20世纪初俄罗斯文化中的先锋派戏剧产生了许多实践者和理论,改变了戏剧界,影响了几代人的世界戏剧发展。其中,斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的“身体动作法”和“主动分析法”得到了广泛的应用,而叶夫列诺夫独特的“独角戏”则相对不为人所知。本文考察了埃夫列诺夫和斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的异同,特别是他们对风景(舞台)现实主义的态度,对戏剧性的理解,以及对21世纪现代戏剧和表演实践的启发。由于当时俄罗斯的社会变化,他的戏剧生涯被他的同胞康斯坦丁·斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基蒙上了阴影。埃夫列诺夫对现实主义的敌意是众所周知的。埃夫列诺夫特别喜欢批评斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基对契诃夫戏剧的详细指导。在《新戏剧发明》一书中,埃夫列诺夫对当代戏剧从业者进行了论战,抨击了斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基舞台的自然主义。总的来说,专业戏剧对埃夫列诺夫来说是一个戏剧性的监狱,在他看来,戏剧性是风景艺术的基石。对斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基来说,戏剧化是与舞台上真实的现实并置时的夸张。尼古拉·埃夫列诺夫在他的理论著作中声称,生活充满了戏剧的惯例;戏剧是一种普遍存在的象征,一种有机的转变冲动,就像饥饿或性一样基本。叶夫列诺夫把这种冲动称为戏剧性,或转化的本能,把戏剧带入生活,并坚持认为生活借鉴了戏剧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信