{"title":"重新发现斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基》,作者 Maria Shevtsova(评论)","authors":"Alisa Ballard Lin","doi":"10.1353/tj.2024.a929533","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>Rediscovering Stanislavsky</em> by Maria Shevtsova <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Alisa Ballard Lin </li> </ul> <em>REDISCOVERING STANISLAVSKY</em>. By Maria Shevtsova. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020; pp. 304. <p>English-language writings on the work of Konstantin Stanislavsky have been abundant ever since the Moscow Art Theatre (MAT) toured the United States a century ago. But as we now recognize, for decades Stanislavsky was misunderstood as a result of poor translations, Soviet censorship, and distortions of his System by his US continuators. Landmarks in Stan-islavsky scholarship like Sharon Marie Carnicke’s <em>Stanislavsky in Focus</em> (1998; 2nd ed., 2009) have corrected entrenched misbeliefs about Stanislavsky’s work by offering more nuanced and accurate understandings of crucial terms for him such as <em>perezhivanie</em> (experiencing). Maria Shevtsova’s new book, <em>Rediscovering Stanislavsky</em>, is poised to become another such landmark in Stanislavsky scholarship.</p> <p>As the book promises in its title, Shevtsova offers a thorough reinterpretation of Stanislavsky’s legacy, from his productions at the Society of Art and Literature prior to the MAT’s founding, through his housebound and bed-ridden work at the Opera-Dramatic Studio in the final years of his life. By consulting a range of primary and secondary sources, including archival materials, Shevtsova has uncovered numerous fresh insights into Stanislavsky’s System and its origins, as well as his directorial and pedagogical work, relationship to Soviet politics, and administration of the MAT studios. She portrays Stanislavsky as a sharp and original, highly spiritual thinker who knew how to succeed within his political and social reality.</p> <p>Shevtsova brings to Stanislavsky the perspective of a scholar of contemporary theatre, and accordingly, she gives continual attention to those aspects of his work that have resonated with more recent directors and actors indebted to him. Overall, her book paints a rich and full picture of Stanislavsky’s wide-ranging career, synthesizing aspects of his life often kept separate or even ignored in scholarship into broadly conceived chapters on contexts, actor, studio, director, and legacy. Shevtsova’s choice to discuss Stanislavsky so comprehensively leads to a rewarding, though sometimes wandering, narrative that integrates Stanislavsky’s personal and professional lives with his cultural context. <strong>[End Page 126]</strong></p> <p>From the beginning, the book establishes Stan-islavsky as a “colossal” innovator (x), and Shevtsova adds much to traditional conceptions of just how Stanislavsky innovated. Particularly radical, she underscores in chapter 1, was his notion of ensemble theatre. Stanislavsky believed in creative collaboration based in shared values among all theatre artists involved in a production, including a deep connection among all the actors, who were accustomed to an egotistical star system that Stanislavsky rejected. His emphasis on the importance of ensemble and community echoes throughout the book. The chapter goes on to discuss some of Stanislavsky’s most formative contexts that shaped his concept of the ensemble. These include the utopian communities of late nineteenth-century Russia, such as the famed Abramtsevo artists’ colony, which Stanislavsky visited in the summers as he was growing up. He was also influenced by Symbolism and the turn-of-the-century metaphysics that sought entry to a realm of mysticism and spirituality. So much scholarship on Stanislavsky divorces him from his context within Russian thought and culture; Shevtsova’s novel account of influences on his understanding of ensemble enriches our knowledge of his practice.</p> <p>Chapters 2 and 3 focus on larger political and religious contexts for understanding Stanislavsky’s entire career. In chapter 2, Shevtsova argues, based on letters and other sources, that Stanislavsky was politically savvy rather than naive, as often assumed. She discusses the MAT’s efforts to find politically acceptable repertoire under Stalinist censorship, depicting Stanislavsky as courageous through the trauma and adversity of those difficult years. His letters attest to his accurate assessment of political motives, as he survived and protected his family in years of not only censorship and repression but material shortages and hardships. In the third chapter, Shevtsova argues for the fundamental importance of Russian Orthodox Christianity to the System, a topic that many scholars have gestured toward but have not explored in detail. She connects Stan-islavsky’s thought to the teachings of the Orthodox Christian prelate Feofan Zatvornik, who writes of the thinking, willing, and feeling sides of the soul...</p> </p>","PeriodicalId":46247,"journal":{"name":"THEATRE JOURNAL","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rediscovering Stanislavsky by Maria Shevtsova (review)\",\"authors\":\"Alisa Ballard Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/tj.2024.a929533\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span><span>In lieu of</span> an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:</span>\\n<p> <span>Reviewed by:</span> <ul> <li><!-- html_title --> <em>Rediscovering Stanislavsky</em> by Maria Shevtsova <!-- /html_title --></li> <li> Alisa Ballard Lin </li> </ul> <em>REDISCOVERING STANISLAVSKY</em>. By Maria Shevtsova. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020; pp. 304. <p>English-language writings on the work of Konstantin Stanislavsky have been abundant ever since the Moscow Art Theatre (MAT) toured the United States a century ago. But as we now recognize, for decades Stanislavsky was misunderstood as a result of poor translations, Soviet censorship, and distortions of his System by his US continuators. Landmarks in Stan-islavsky scholarship like Sharon Marie Carnicke’s <em>Stanislavsky in Focus</em> (1998; 2nd ed., 2009) have corrected entrenched misbeliefs about Stanislavsky’s work by offering more nuanced and accurate understandings of crucial terms for him such as <em>perezhivanie</em> (experiencing). Maria Shevtsova’s new book, <em>Rediscovering Stanislavsky</em>, is poised to become another such landmark in Stanislavsky scholarship.</p> <p>As the book promises in its title, Shevtsova offers a thorough reinterpretation of Stanislavsky’s legacy, from his productions at the Society of Art and Literature prior to the MAT’s founding, through his housebound and bed-ridden work at the Opera-Dramatic Studio in the final years of his life. By consulting a range of primary and secondary sources, including archival materials, Shevtsova has uncovered numerous fresh insights into Stanislavsky’s System and its origins, as well as his directorial and pedagogical work, relationship to Soviet politics, and administration of the MAT studios. She portrays Stanislavsky as a sharp and original, highly spiritual thinker who knew how to succeed within his political and social reality.</p> <p>Shevtsova brings to Stanislavsky the perspective of a scholar of contemporary theatre, and accordingly, she gives continual attention to those aspects of his work that have resonated with more recent directors and actors indebted to him. Overall, her book paints a rich and full picture of Stanislavsky’s wide-ranging career, synthesizing aspects of his life often kept separate or even ignored in scholarship into broadly conceived chapters on contexts, actor, studio, director, and legacy. Shevtsova’s choice to discuss Stanislavsky so comprehensively leads to a rewarding, though sometimes wandering, narrative that integrates Stanislavsky’s personal and professional lives with his cultural context. <strong>[End Page 126]</strong></p> <p>From the beginning, the book establishes Stan-islavsky as a “colossal” innovator (x), and Shevtsova adds much to traditional conceptions of just how Stanislavsky innovated. Particularly radical, she underscores in chapter 1, was his notion of ensemble theatre. Stanislavsky believed in creative collaboration based in shared values among all theatre artists involved in a production, including a deep connection among all the actors, who were accustomed to an egotistical star system that Stanislavsky rejected. His emphasis on the importance of ensemble and community echoes throughout the book. The chapter goes on to discuss some of Stanislavsky’s most formative contexts that shaped his concept of the ensemble. These include the utopian communities of late nineteenth-century Russia, such as the famed Abramtsevo artists’ colony, which Stanislavsky visited in the summers as he was growing up. He was also influenced by Symbolism and the turn-of-the-century metaphysics that sought entry to a realm of mysticism and spirituality. So much scholarship on Stanislavsky divorces him from his context within Russian thought and culture; Shevtsova’s novel account of influences on his understanding of ensemble enriches our knowledge of his practice.</p> <p>Chapters 2 and 3 focus on larger political and religious contexts for understanding Stanislavsky’s entire career. In chapter 2, Shevtsova argues, based on letters and other sources, that Stanislavsky was politically savvy rather than naive, as often assumed. She discusses the MAT’s efforts to find politically acceptable repertoire under Stalinist censorship, depicting Stanislavsky as courageous through the trauma and adversity of those difficult years. His letters attest to his accurate assessment of political motives, as he survived and protected his family in years of not only censorship and repression but material shortages and hardships. In the third chapter, Shevtsova argues for the fundamental importance of Russian Orthodox Christianity to the System, a topic that many scholars have gestured toward but have not explored in detail. She connects Stan-islavsky’s thought to the teachings of the Orthodox Christian prelate Feofan Zatvornik, who writes of the thinking, willing, and feeling sides of the soul...</p> </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46247,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"THEATRE JOURNAL\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"THEATRE JOURNAL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/tj.2024.a929533\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"THEATER\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THEATRE JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/tj.2024.a929533","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"THEATER","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
以下是内容的简要摘录,以代替摘要:评论者 重新发现斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基》 玛丽亚-舍夫佐娃 Alisa Ballard Lin REDISCOVERING STANISLAVSKY.玛丽亚-舍夫佐娃著。剑桥:剑桥大学出版社,2020 年;第 304 页。自从一个世纪前莫斯科艺术剧院(MAT)在美国巡演以来,有关康斯坦丁-斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基作品的英文著作就层出不穷。但正如我们现在所认识到的那样,几十年来,斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基由于翻译不当、苏联的审查制度以及其美国继承者对其体系的歪曲而被误解。莎伦-玛丽-卡尼奇(Sharon Marie Carnicke)的《聚焦斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基》(Stanislavsky in Focus,1998 年;第二版,2009 年)等斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基学术著作中的里程碑式作品纠正了人们对斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基作品根深蒂固的误解,对他的关键术语(如 "体验"(perezhivanie))提供了更细致、更准确的理解。玛丽亚-舍夫佐娃(Maria Shevtsova)的新书《重新发现斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基》(Rediscovering Stanislavsky)有望成为斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基学术研究的又一里程碑。正如书名所承诺的那样,舍夫佐娃对斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的遗产进行了彻底的重新解读,从他在艺术与文学学会成立之前在该学会的创作,到他晚年在歌剧戏剧工作室卧病在床的工作。通过查阅包括档案资料在内的一系列第一手和第二手资料,舍夫佐娃对斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的体系及其起源,以及他的导演和教学工作、与苏联政治的关系和 MAT 工作室的管理等方面提出了许多新的见解。她将斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基描绘成一位敏锐、独创、极具灵性的思想家,知道如何在政治和社会现实中取得成功。Shevtsova 以当代戏剧学者的视角来看待斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基,因此,她不断关注斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基作品中那些能引起近期导演和演员共鸣的方面。总之,她在书中描绘了斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基丰富而全面的职业生涯,将其生平中经常被学术界割裂开来甚至被忽视的方面归纳为背景、演员、工作室、导演和遗产等构思广泛的章节。舍夫佐娃选择如此全面地论述斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基,从而将斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的个人生活和职业生涯与他的文化背景融为一体,虽然有时会出现游移不定的情况,但却令人受益匪浅。[从一开始,该书就将斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基塑造成了一位 "巨大的 "创新者(x),谢夫佐娃为斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基如何创新的传统概念增添了许多内容。她在第一章中强调,斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的合奏戏剧理念尤为激进。斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基相信,所有参与制作的戏剧艺术家都应在共同价值观的基础上进行创造性合作,包括所有演员之间的深层联系。他对合奏和群体重要性的强调贯穿全书。本章接着讨论了斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基塑造其合奏概念的一些最重要的背景。其中包括十九世纪末俄罗斯的乌托邦社区,如著名的阿布拉姆采沃艺术家聚居地,斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基在成长过程中曾在夏天去过那里。他还受到象征主义和世纪之交形而上学的影响,后者寻求进入神秘主义和灵性的境界。很多关于斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的学术研究都脱离了他在俄罗斯思想和文化中的背景;谢夫佐娃对他对合奏的理解所受影响的新颖描述丰富了我们对他的实践的认识。第 2 章和第 3 章重点探讨了理解斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基整个职业生涯的政治和宗教大背景。在第 2 章中,Shevtsova 根据书信和其他资料论证了斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的政治智慧,而非人们通常认为的天真。她论述了在斯大林主义审查制度下,艺术大师为寻找政治上可接受的剧目所做的努力,描绘了斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基在那些艰难岁月中经历的创伤和逆境中的勇气。他的书信证明了他对政治动机的准确判断,因为他在审查和镇压以及物质匮乏和艰难困苦的岁月中生存下来并保护了家人。在第三章中,舍夫佐娃论证了俄罗斯东正教对该体系的根本重要性,许多学者对这一主题有所提及,但未作详细探讨。她将斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的思想与东正教传教士费奥凡-扎特沃尔尼克的教义联系起来,费奥凡-扎特沃尔尼克写道:"灵魂有思维、意愿和感觉三个方面......"。
Rediscovering Stanislavsky by Maria Shevtsova (review)
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
Reviewed by:
Rediscovering Stanislavsky by Maria Shevtsova
Alisa Ballard Lin
REDISCOVERING STANISLAVSKY. By Maria Shevtsova. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020; pp. 304.
English-language writings on the work of Konstantin Stanislavsky have been abundant ever since the Moscow Art Theatre (MAT) toured the United States a century ago. But as we now recognize, for decades Stanislavsky was misunderstood as a result of poor translations, Soviet censorship, and distortions of his System by his US continuators. Landmarks in Stan-islavsky scholarship like Sharon Marie Carnicke’s Stanislavsky in Focus (1998; 2nd ed., 2009) have corrected entrenched misbeliefs about Stanislavsky’s work by offering more nuanced and accurate understandings of crucial terms for him such as perezhivanie (experiencing). Maria Shevtsova’s new book, Rediscovering Stanislavsky, is poised to become another such landmark in Stanislavsky scholarship.
As the book promises in its title, Shevtsova offers a thorough reinterpretation of Stanislavsky’s legacy, from his productions at the Society of Art and Literature prior to the MAT’s founding, through his housebound and bed-ridden work at the Opera-Dramatic Studio in the final years of his life. By consulting a range of primary and secondary sources, including archival materials, Shevtsova has uncovered numerous fresh insights into Stanislavsky’s System and its origins, as well as his directorial and pedagogical work, relationship to Soviet politics, and administration of the MAT studios. She portrays Stanislavsky as a sharp and original, highly spiritual thinker who knew how to succeed within his political and social reality.
Shevtsova brings to Stanislavsky the perspective of a scholar of contemporary theatre, and accordingly, she gives continual attention to those aspects of his work that have resonated with more recent directors and actors indebted to him. Overall, her book paints a rich and full picture of Stanislavsky’s wide-ranging career, synthesizing aspects of his life often kept separate or even ignored in scholarship into broadly conceived chapters on contexts, actor, studio, director, and legacy. Shevtsova’s choice to discuss Stanislavsky so comprehensively leads to a rewarding, though sometimes wandering, narrative that integrates Stanislavsky’s personal and professional lives with his cultural context. [End Page 126]
From the beginning, the book establishes Stan-islavsky as a “colossal” innovator (x), and Shevtsova adds much to traditional conceptions of just how Stanislavsky innovated. Particularly radical, she underscores in chapter 1, was his notion of ensemble theatre. Stanislavsky believed in creative collaboration based in shared values among all theatre artists involved in a production, including a deep connection among all the actors, who were accustomed to an egotistical star system that Stanislavsky rejected. His emphasis on the importance of ensemble and community echoes throughout the book. The chapter goes on to discuss some of Stanislavsky’s most formative contexts that shaped his concept of the ensemble. These include the utopian communities of late nineteenth-century Russia, such as the famed Abramtsevo artists’ colony, which Stanislavsky visited in the summers as he was growing up. He was also influenced by Symbolism and the turn-of-the-century metaphysics that sought entry to a realm of mysticism and spirituality. So much scholarship on Stanislavsky divorces him from his context within Russian thought and culture; Shevtsova’s novel account of influences on his understanding of ensemble enriches our knowledge of his practice.
Chapters 2 and 3 focus on larger political and religious contexts for understanding Stanislavsky’s entire career. In chapter 2, Shevtsova argues, based on letters and other sources, that Stanislavsky was politically savvy rather than naive, as often assumed. She discusses the MAT’s efforts to find politically acceptable repertoire under Stalinist censorship, depicting Stanislavsky as courageous through the trauma and adversity of those difficult years. His letters attest to his accurate assessment of political motives, as he survived and protected his family in years of not only censorship and repression but material shortages and hardships. In the third chapter, Shevtsova argues for the fundamental importance of Russian Orthodox Christianity to the System, a topic that many scholars have gestured toward but have not explored in detail. She connects Stan-islavsky’s thought to the teachings of the Orthodox Christian prelate Feofan Zatvornik, who writes of the thinking, willing, and feeling sides of the soul...
期刊介绍:
For over five decades, Theatre Journal"s broad array of scholarly articles and reviews has earned it an international reputation as one of the most authoritative and useful publications of theatre studies available today. Drawing contributions from noted practitioners and scholars, Theatre Journal features social and historical studies, production reviews, and theoretical inquiries that analyze dramatic texts and production.