An Actor Prepares

by Constantin Stanislavski

Translated by ElizabethReynolds Hapgood.
With introduction by John Gielgud

Genres: Theatre, Nonfiction, Film, Drama, Art, Plays, Theory

295 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1936

About the author

Constantin Sergeyevich Stanislavski (russian:Константин Сергеевич Станиславский) was a Russian actor and theatre director.

Stanislavski's innovative contribution to modern European and American realistic acting has remained at the core of mainstream western performance training for much of the last century. Building on the directorially-unified aesthetic and ensemble playing of the Meiningen company and the naturalistic staging of Antoine and the independent theatre movement, Stanislavski organized his realistic techniques into a coherent and usable 'system'. Thanks to its promotion and development by acting teachers who were former students and the many translations of his theoretical writings, Stanislavski's system acquired an unprecedented ability to cross cultural boundaries and developed an international reach, dominating debates about acting in the West. That many of the precepts of his 'system' seem to be common sense and self-evident testifies to its hegemonic success. Actors frequently employ his basic concepts without knowing they do so.

Stanislavski treated theatre-making as a serious endeavour, requiring dedication, discipline and integrity, and the work of the actor as an artistic undertaking. Throughout his life, he subjected his own acting to a process of rigorous artistic self-analysis and reflection. His 'system' resulted from a persistent struggle to remove the blocks he encountered. His development of a theorized praxis—in which practice is used as a mode of inquiry and theory as a catalyst for creative development—identifies him as the first great theatre practitioner. Stanislavski believed that after seeing young actors at Aquinas College in Moscow he could see why theatre needed to change to a more disciplined endeavour.

Stanislavski's work was as important to the development of socialist realism in the USSR as it was to that of psychological realism in the United States. Many actors routinely identify his 'system' with the American Method, although the latter's exclusively psychological techniques contrast sharply with Stanislavski's multivariant, holistic and psychophysical approach, which explores character and action both from the 'inside out' and the 'outside in'. Stanislavski's work draws on a wide range of influences and ideas, including his study of the modernist and avant-garde developments of his time (naturalism, symbolism and Meyerhold's constructivism), Russian formalism, Yoga, Pavlovian behaviourist psychology, James-Lange (via Ribot) psychophysiology and the aesthetics of Pushkin, Gogol, and Tolstoy. He described his approach as 'spiritual Realism'.

Associated Names:
Konstantin Stanislavski (Alternative spelling)
Константин Станиславский (Russian)
斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基 (Chinese)

Reviews

[Chad · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is quite a remarkable book. A lot of foundational texts can feel quaint and dated, even as they layout important ideas that many others take up and expound upon in future generations. Not so with "An Actor Prepares", which manages to be a thorough omnibus of everything you need to know about acting, even if you never get around to reading anything else.

When I first began teaching theater, I sucked down everyone who was pointed out to me as important in the field. I gathered great knowledge and insight from Viola Spolin, David Ball, Michael Shurtleff, Uta Hagen. I've been able to hear the lectures of more contemporary and geographically local experts such as Karen Baker and Kelly Russell. And I've discovered a great deal of experiential wisdom through the trial and error of directing many plays over the years. For what, in hindsight were silly rationales, I avoided reading Stanislavski, mostly because I assumed his seminal trilogy of books on acting, which began being published in 1936, would be outdated at best, and a burdensome slog at worst. After all, if you've read one book on acting, you've read them all. Oh, how naïve I was.

The first volume of the trilogy, "An Actor Prepares", kind of shook me to core. Far from being outdated, it oddly felt more relevant than most of the books on theater I read before and after. Not only that, it amazingly addressed just about every single major theme I've ever heard from every speaker on theater, or read in any book on the subject. Its literally all in there. Everything Spolin has to say about freeing yourself to play on stage was said by Stalislavski first. Everything David Ball has to say about finding motivations and chains of event by back-tracking from the end of the play back to the beginning, Stanislavski said first. Everything I learned from Karen Baker about finding novel approaches to text and the deliberate varying of tactics of interpretation, Stanislavski said first. Reading this book was like going down a checklist of everything I've ever learned.

Now, if this were just a checklist, it probably wouldn't have made such an impact on me. People like Spolin and Anita Jesse can be a bit tedious to read since their book are basically that: lists of activities. They are useful activities, to be sure, described in details pertaining to how to carry out such activities, and their relevance to an overall acting theory. But Stanislavski did something with this book that genuinely took me by surprise: he attempts to write his book as narrative fiction. Weird.

The main character is Kostya, a naïve theater student studying under the seasoned director Torstov. You get the sense that both characters represent Stanislavski himself: Kostya being the author when he was a young actor, Torstov after he has grown and earned years of experience. The book plays out as Kostya attends the various lessons, interacts with his fellow actors, and they all respond to and reflect on the seemingly outside-the-box instruction of their instructor.

Now, there is a strong sense of contrivance to most of the lessons and Torstov's postulating. Every example he gives is perfect, the reactions of his students' to his instructions and advice are neatly helpful to whatever point he is trying to make. But if you've ever read any text on any kind of theory, whether it be on teaching or acting (my two fields), you know that books of the like often assume ideal circumstances that don't actually exist in real life. It is the general ideas that you are supposed to learn from, not any literal application. But somehow, by setting these lessons in a sort of fictional (sort of autobiographical) setting, I was able to experience the lessons more directly than if they had just been presented in a more academic, list-like form. The narrative approach was quite unexpected, but to me at least, resoundingly effective.

The final thing I'll say is that this book was startlingly accessible. As I watched the author lay out various techniques and strategies, I kept thinking how easy this book could be digested by quite young theater students. Many of my former students, now in high school, could easily take a lot away from reading this, but I would even feel comfortable putting this in the hands of some of my more mature middle school students. There are a few places where Stanislavski starts to get a little opaque with some technical jargon, but overall, it reads very smoothly.

I'm rather eager now to read the next two volumes of the series.

[Samantha · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have to be careful in reviewing this seeing as I'm an acting student. While Stanislavksi is the founder of naturalism acting and his work is highly praised I find this book to be a very difficult read because I don't fully agree on his ideas in acting such as emotional memory.

I'll use this extract from a recent essay I wrote:

[Emotional memory] is not a method that should be used often as it can end up attenuating the original memory. Because memories are particular to each person they should never be used to become somebody else. Memories are unique so therefore, in my own opinion, should be treated as such.
I, personally, find that emotional memory does not work as, I feel, that as it dilutes the original memory and it can also feel damaging in a way. Even though Stanislavski was a pioneer of naturalistic acting I just don’t find his method of emotional memory a useful tool when it comes to my acting.

While the book is interesting I find several of the methods dated and not as useful as other methods I have researched. This is one of the most influential, in my opinion, acting books I have read.

[Shahine Ardeshir]

Telling you that this is a seminal work on method acting, one that most actors worth their salt consider a Bible, won't do the trick. I'm not on stage much, and chances are, neither are you. Why would any of us be interested in an actor's handbook?

Telling you that this is an engaging read would be a stretch. Admitting that it was slow, sometimes dry, but always extremely insightful, would be closer to the truth.

It's worth going into this read realizing that Stanislavski didn't write this to entertain - he wrote it to educate. Think of it as a textbook in method acting, and it starts to make a lot more sense.

The best thing this book did for me was to open up some perspective on the art of acting, on what it means to build a character from the ground up. I always thought acting was about putting on an act, pretending; but it turns out, it's often about becoming a character. How does one do that? Stanislavski gives you the building blocks.

I enjoyed this, for the most part, very much - but I'd be hesitant to recommend it unless there's something in you that's curious about the craft of acting - the real technical craft of it - itself. For me, it opened up a whole new world. Not necessarily one I'd like to live in, but certainly one that's novel enough to want to visit every so often.

[Feliks · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a strange book. An awkward one. You would never have expected such famous, technical, theory-based content to be couched in fictional, prose, narrative format. As if a story being related to you from a struggling young actor in a Moscow Stage Company. Yet, that's what you discover you have on your hands. This is what it is. A young actor describing his day-to-day jitters , his self-doubts, his insecurities, his moods. The minor ins-and-outs of theater life; the personalities of his colleagues or his appraisals of his rivals. I'm very surprised to find this out.

What does all this bric-a-brac result in? Well. Purely as a narrative it's just not very enjoyable. It's dense and convoluted and tortured. The style is hectic and breathy; chatty; frenzied. There are extended, overly-verbose, preachy passages. And the book is longish--so its going to be a slog of a read.

All that being admitted, is this iconic work still worth the effort? Answer: yes. Resounding yes. Despite the flaws cited above the book is still electrifying. The wisdom is there howsoever it is expressed. The lessons are there. The insights are there. The book matches the enormity of its reputation. It is empowering--you will find it changes how you view theater or film performance.

Stanislavski's marvelous exercises are useful as well in a non-theatrical sense. You can discover many observations about human psychology here, which (even without being an actor) are useful to help you understand yourself and your everyday behavior. Dovetails very nicely with Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and other thinkers of the phenomenology school. Could also stand on a shelf alongside Goffman's 'The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life'.

This is the primary value I receive from the pages so far. What are the little performances we constantly adopt when around others? What routines and mechanical habits unconsciously dominate us as we go about our day? What are all these coy little social masquerades we all live by? How do we communicate mood and feeling? Why do we 'read' or intuit atmosphere from others? It's all here.

It's an intense read, a book of ideas. A book which makes you pause to digest every few paragraphs. But once you accept the convoluted 'storytelling' conceit, you will get a lot out of it. It's easy to see why it is so renowned. After just the first chapter I am decidedly not in favor of David Mamet's elaborate counter-arguments against this Method.

Mamet lays great emphasis on 'simplicity' in stage acting; and yes it may be that some Method actors go too far in their flouncy backstage shenanigans, their green-room perambulations...but the heart of this Method is one entirely in simplicity. Mamet's finickiness and Mamet's primness is shouted down by the genius of this ardent, verbose, passionate Russkie.

Blazing!

[Julio The Fox · Rating 5 out of 5]

"All acting is hustling and all persons are actors."---Marlon Brando. Since Brando studied The Method under Stella Adler, whose father introduced Stanislavsky to the U.S. theater, I wholeheartedly concur. Acting is not the sublimation of one's feelings but the desire for power. Take Napoleon:"If, in order to gain success on the battlefield, I must play the coward then I will be a coward or anything else. In France I am a Catholic and in Egypt a Mohammedan." Also, never give your audience a full performance. If you feel like giving a 100% of your time and emotions, give 90%. If 70%, show 60%. If 50%, turn around and go home. This book belongs not in the "Theater" section of the bookstore or library but next to Machiavelli and Nietzsche. One Brando anecdote to close this review: When Stella Adler told her acting students to "act like a chicken during a nuclear bombardment" Brando just stood there. Why? "I'm a chicken" Marlon apprised her. "What do I know about nuclear war?". Brilliant.

[Mina · Rating 5 out of 5]

بعض الكتب كنت قد إنتهيت من قرائتها من سنين عدة, ربما حتى قبل إنضمامى للفيس بوك (الذى هى سبب معرفتى لموقع جود ريدز) ... لذلك قد لا أستطيع أن أكتب عن تلك الكتب بدقة

قرأت الكتاب فى 2006 بنسخته العربية إصدار دار المعارف

كنت بعد لا أزال مبتدئا كممثل مسرحى لا تتعدى خبرتى الخمس سنوات تقريبا, ولكنى أذكر جيدا أن هذا الكتاب قد غيٌر بالفعل العديد والعديد من المفاهيم الخاطئة و فسر لى بعضا من المفاهيم التى توصلت لها بالفطرة دون معرفة تفسيراً لها أو مُسبب

كى أتعمق أكثر فى مناقشة الكتاب, لابد لى من إعادة إخراجه من رف الكتب القديمة وربما التصفح فيه قليلا علٌنى أتذكر .... ربما فى المستقبل, إذا حدث وعاودت نشاطى كممثل مسرحى .... من يدرى؟

[Carolina · Rating 3 out of 5]

Todas as vezes que o leio descubro alguma coisa nova. Leio este livro todos os anos desde que o tenho; na primeira vez que o li, só me foi útil para aí até meio. Tenho vindo a compreendê-lo melhor a cada leitura, porque com o progredir do meu trabalho deparo-me com dificuldades novas, mas o stanislavski tem métodos para solucionar todos os meus problemas. Só tenho pena da tradução confusa e cheia de erros, porque de resto é amor para a vida.

[Kressel Housman · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is the first of three books describing Stanislavski’s method of acting, known even to us non-actors as “the method.” I read it for research, but the ideal reader is actually practicing these exercises while reading the book; it’s not meant to be a purely intellectual exercise. Still, I learned from the book, and since it’s written in journal-style, it’s not as boring as you might think.

The main point is that actors should draw on their own emotional memories when performing their roles. The deeper they can dig into their own subconscious, the better the performance will be. It’s parallel to the advice in my favorite writing book, Becoming a Writer by Dorothea Brande. Notably, both books were published in the 1930’s. Perhaps both are evidence of how Freud’s work influenced the arts.

The book definitely changed the way I judge actors’ performances, and I listen to their interviews with more understanding also. If not for my research, though, I probably wouldn’t have bothered reading it. Most of the time, I couldn’t wait to be done with it. Eventually, I’ll probably read the second volume, Building a Character, which may be even more relevant to a writer. But not right away. I’m up for something much more entertaining.

[AskHistorians]

This and Building a Character and Creating a Role) are not academic books on theatre history. But they are far too important and influential to ignore. In the Actor Prepares Trilogy, Stanislavski defines acting as a very serious activity requiring immense discipline and integrity. He lays out a system for acting that demands a kind of psychological realism that was rarely seen in pre-19th Century acting styles. It is common for teachers of acting to regard the works of Stanislavski as the beginning of the modern era in terms of how young theatre artists are trained.

[marine ♡ · Rating 4 out of 5]

I feel like I’ve just read the theatre’s Bible

[Nicholas Kinney · Rating 3 out of 5]

While it is undeniable that Stanislavski’s system is effective and seminal in the study of acting, the book itself is a slog to get through. This is partially due to the translation, which is ancient and not very good. It reads very much like a textbook and I found it difficult to read large chunks at a time.

[Stuart Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yeah so, this really made me think about acting.

[Bryan Edelmann · Rating 5 out of 5]

For a lot of people in the theatre industry it's safe to say that this is the perfect book. It's very dense but at the same time conversational which helps make a lot of the more complicated topics easier to digest. I think the way that it's written is actually kind of brilliant. Stanislavski was clearly trying to figure out how to condense everything that he would teach in a class into one book, and how do you do that? You write down exactly what you would be teaching in the class and then fictionalize the setting and characters and contextualize it as a student taking that class. Genius.
I don't have many complaints about it... I mean, there is definitely some heart of the characters lost in translation, but what can you do? But this is a weird book to talk about. There really isn't much of a "story" so it's hard to judge it as a novel, but it also is decidedly not just a textbook because it is primarily characters discussing topics so it's hard to call it that either. On top of that, it's hard to dock it any kind of points because I disagree with some of his methods. So with that, I feel like the only fair way to judge this book is,
1. Did it explain Stanislavski's acting method in a clear and engaging way?
and 2. Did you enjoy it?
And with that, I would say Absolutely and For The Most Part. Easy 9/10. If you want to read a book from one of the acting greats but you're like me and have been too intimidated to try, go for this one. You won't regret it.

[Madeline Wolf]

marking this finished, even though i only read like half of it for class, because i feel like this book has finished me. if i have to try to think about this russian man, who pretends to be a teacher, an entire class, PLUS himself teaching and learning acting (all for a writing class???) i will end it.

To Stanislavski,
This book was a bit of a pain in my ass. The best part of this semester long hellscape of an experience was seeing my classmate attempt to embody you, but really it just seemed like he was experimenting with being a dominatrix.
Constantin, we are finished and let us be glad! Let us embrace our emotions and act naturally (happily) that we are out of each other's lives! feel free to sit on my bookshelf for eons until I donate you

xxxxx
Madeline

[Adelheid · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is not a book; it’s a tub of molasses. I’ve felt like I was getting older by each sentence I read.

[Geret · Rating 4 out of 5]

kunst pole looduses vaid inimeses eneses

[Jemate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Teatro. Teatro. Teatro. Teatro

[Akhil Jain · Rating 4 out of 5]

My fav quotes (not a review):
An Actor Prepares (Constantin Stanislavski)
-Page 95 |
"The exercises which the Director used today had the purpose of making the students conscious of the fact that on the stage, in every pose or position of the body, there are three moments: First: superfluous tenseness which comes necessarily with each new pose taken and with the excitement of doing it in public. Second: the mechanical relaxation of that superfluous tension, under the direction of the "controller" Third: justification of the pose if it in itself does not convince the actor."
-Page 107
"Yesterday you and I had a quarrel. I insulted you publicly. Today, when we meet, I want to go up to you and offer my hand, indicating by this gesture that I wish to apologize, admit that I was wrong and beg you to forget the incident. To stretch out my hand to my enemy of yesterday is not a simple problem. I will have to think it over carefully, go through and overcome many emotions before I can do it. That is what we call a psychological objective."
-Page 115
"Truth on the stage is whatever we can believe in with sincerity, whether in ourselves or in our colleagues. Truth cannot be separated from belief, nor belief from truth."
-Page 117
""Are you convinced now," he asked the two girls, "that a nagging critic can drive an actor mad and reduce him to a state of helplessness? Search for falseness only so far as it helps you to find truth. Don't forget that the carping critic can create more falsehood on the stage than anyone else because the actor whom he is criticizing involuntarily ceases to pursue his right course and exaggerates truth itself to the point of its becoming false. "What you should develop is a sane, calm, wise, and understanding critic, who is the artist's best friend. He will not nag you over trifles, but will have his eye on the substance of your work."
-Page 119
""Now count the hundreds first, there are usually ten of them to a packet. Oh, dear! How quickly you did all that! Not even the most expert cashier could have counted those crumpled, dirty old banknotes at such a rate!"
-Page 163
"First of all, don't worry about the flower, just water the roots, or plant new seeds."
-Page 164
"'Don t think about the feeling itself, but set your mind to work on what makes it grow, what the conditions were that brought about the experience. : 'You do the same/ said this wise actor to me. 'Never begin with results. They will appear in time as the logical outcome of what has gone before.*"
-Page 192
"If, on the other hand, he found that the animal could not be distracted from the first object of his interest and would make an effort to go after it when removed, the trainer would buy him. His choice was established by the monkey's evident capacity to grasp and hold something. "That is how we often judge our students' power of attention and ability to remain in contact with one another—by the strength and continuity of their grasp.""
-Page 197
"How can I reach your mind, your feelings, your attention, your imagination? How can I touch the very soul of such an influential person? "If only I can make him conjure up a picture in his mind's eye that in any way approximates the dreadful reality of my circumstances, I know his interest will be aroused. He will look into me more attentively, his heart will be touched. But to reach this point I must penetrate into the being of the other person, I must sense his life, I must adapt myself to it."
-Page 218
""What about an objective?" I suggested. "Doesn't that influence your creative desire and therefore your will?" "That depends. If it is not particularly alluring it won't. Artificial means would have to be used to sharpen it up, make it lively and interesting. On the other hand, a fascinating objective does have a direct and immediate effect. But—not on the will. Its attraction is to the emotions. First you are carried away by your feelings, desires are subsequent. Therefore its influence on your will is indirect.""
-Page 270
""In the creative process there is the father, the author of the play; the mother, the actor pregnant with the part; and the child, the role to be born. "There is the early period when the actor first gets to know his part. Then they become more intimate, quarrel, are reconciled, marry and conceive. "In all this the director helps the process along as a sort of matchmaker."

[Elizabeth Ellen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is "the" basis for Method Acting. The writing style is from a much earlier era: the lessons framed in the context of a group of young actors being trained by a director---told as a story rather than directly. Nevertheless it was full of valuable information and ideas. While this is not the ONLY way to act by any means, the skills used for character-building are the fundamentals for many of the most highly recognized actors working in the profession today.

I read this as a writer studying the craft of character creation. This is a fabulous resource of ideas and techniques I will employ as I round-out my novel work. In addition, it has interesting insights into self-discovery---the Inward and Outward being fundamentally interconnected. "Courting the Muse" is definitely a priority.

As a book, it isn't perfect. The style of "teacher teaches, actors object, actors employ and are rewarded" wears a little thin about 3/4 of the way through. It's not a fiction, per se, so there isn't a plot. And I find the artifice of the "lessons" more of an annoyance than getting to the material. This being said, I highlighted much in every chapter that is worth the price of admission, which is something to say of any book that's stood the test of time. I will be re-reading this for years.

[Persephone Abbott · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is written in a master(s) and disciple manner. Each chapter up to the last two begins with a simple narrative filled by a question answer form. This has the effect of leading the reader to feel that with every new topic/chapter she/he has just hatched out of an egg once more into the wide world. It can be tedious or as one Living Social reviewer stated, “Pure and utter horseshit.” I question whether this person’s subconscious got the better of him. Nonetheless this book for me was a stark reminder of the professional acting lessons I had as a child as much of the material was familiar. However, upon reading “An Actor Prepares”, I was startled to realize that most of this bundle of written information would apply to many more creative fields both professional and private. (I was wondering personally about what information I might use for my hobby of horseback riding after the chapters on Adaption and Communion.) I would recommend it for those willing to submit to the form. The language is dry at times but extremely effective; the bare bones of creativity and the fluidity of living beings.

[Miguel · Rating 5 out of 5]

A través de este estudio, Stanislavski prepara al actor con técnicas y un proceso continuado para la interpretación.

Enfatiza en el hecho de experimentar el personaje, de evocar las experiencias vividas del actor para hacer surgir los diferentes estados de ánimos que requieran los personajes ( lo llama memoria emotiva )

Stanislavski pretende que el actor se conozca y se domine a sí mismo, para, posteriormente conocer y dominar al personaje.

Sería una pena que este autor sólo lo leyese gente que pertenezcan al arte dramático…

#libros #cultura #lectores #literatura #librosrecomendados #arte #escritura #filosofia #artedramatico #teatro #actorstudio #Representación #ocio

[Ashna Singh · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a very difficult book to read. There's a lack of simplicity...otherwise the book is good.

[Fallon · Rating 4 out of 5]

A big help when it comes to getting the basis of being an honest actor. I don't know how I feel about his weird story telling writing style though.
P.S. read the italics

[Natalia]

Lo lei hace 15 años cuando realizaba teatro en aquel tiempo. No me acuerdo mucho de este libro por lo que me es dificil puntearlo

[Olivia Regis · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Un actor se prepara” es el primer libro de una trilogía escrita por Konstantin Stanislavski, el creador, como su nombre lo indica, del método Stanislavski. Este libro es una excelente manera de adentrarse en la forma de abordar la actuación que tenía este director, un enfoque que se utiliza en muchas escuelas de interpretación. Todos los actores y actrices deberían leer este libro al menos una vez en la vida, independientemente de si van a utilizar "el método" o no. Es, sin lugar a dudas, una lectura imperdible.

[Ella · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fijn, gangbaar geschreven. Ik had eigenlijk best een stoffig werk verwacht, maar de dagwijze waarop is geschreven maakt het heel toegankelijk.
Enorm veel voer tot denken en ik haak wel aan bij FloVi's mening dat het een must read is voor de theatermensen. Alhoewel... een must read? Dat is in zijn totaliteit misschien overdreven, maar het is in ieder geval iets om weet van te hebben. Het er met elkaar over hebben is daarvoor eigenlijk ook al genoeg.

[Kay · Rating 3 out of 5]

very thorough (and sometimes overwhelmingly so), but a great guide to stanislavski's acting method. the writing is also poetic and deeply moving in parts, so i'll definitely be revising my highlights again soon.

[Nataliya Senyuk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Très stimulant!
J'ai découvert que chaque acteur joue le même rôle différemment en éveillant ses sentiments de son passé, de son expérience.

[Tim Koh]

Always helps to go back to the well and re-learn the basics of your toolkit.

[Giovana Mansano · Rating 5 out of 5]

chorei lendo o final eu amo o teatro
“o nosso tipo de criatividade é a concepção e o nascimento de um novo ser: a pessoa no papel. é um ato natural, semelhante ao nascimento de um ser humano.”