What do you think?
Rate this book
The Complete Stanislavsky Toolkit: Revised Edition
A hands on, step-by-step guide to Stanislavsky's famous "System" illustrating, with exercises, each of his famous acting techniques. The book is organized into three sections - Training: Rehearsal; Performance.
- GenresTheatreNonfictionDrama
360 pages, Paperback
First published April 30, 2007
72 people are currently reading
259 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
May 23, 2024
- Born to a wealthy Russian aristocratic family in 1863.
- First performed in lewd French productions before legitimizing his acting with the Society of Art and Literature.
- Began questioning the difference between "character" acting and "personality" acting, or the difference between "acting" a role and fully immersing yourself in it and "being" the role. His role as the Miserly Knight meant that he was going against his "type" - he spent a night locked up in a castle, but still could not empathize with the character
- Affective memory - when actors find an analogous experience from their own lives that mirrors a character's situation
The state of theatre in the late 19th Century in Russia:
- Very little innovative acting - controversial topics heavily censored by Tsar Nicholas II, so only melodramas and vaudevilles were considered appropriate, resulting in a quagmire of stagnation
- Directing was a very loose job description - they had neither a pedagogic or creative purpose, as productions were actor-led.
- Actors were cast to a formulaic type known as an emploi. Each performer specialized in a specific role, and played that role in every production. There was also an extremely short rehearsal time, and extremely fast turnover rate of plays, leading to actors not remembering their lines onstage, and having to be prompted constantly.
- Actors were not trained, and many rejected the idea that acting was an acquired skill. People also had to supply their own wardrobes, meaning people relied on their wealthy patrons for money, and therefore exacerbated inequality in the system. People simply copied "the greats", and did not form their own style of acting.
- He combined forces with Nemirovich to create Moscow Art Theatre, of which he was the director and principal actor.
The director dictator 1891-1906
- Stanislavsky created a "production plan" containing every detail of how characters should move and act prior to rehearsals.
- Ludwig Chronegk's style of directing called German Saxe-Meiningen emerged in 1890, and Stanislavsky was so impressed by their militant ensemble work that it influenced him to become more hands-on with actors.
- His work on Chekhov's "the Seagull" was so experimental and evocative that Chekhov himself said he had never seen that type of theatre in Russia.
- In the summer of 1898, he was yet to tackle 2 revolutions of the theatrical scene - that concerning the act of theatre production and attention to detail onstage, which he was equipped to deal with; and the other to do with acting styles and the truthful performance of what he called life of the human spirit, which he was not.
- He gave binding orders that bordered on naturalism as he decided to dissect the human condition so severely that he forgot the art of theatre making, and was increasingly tyrannical with his actors.
- His robbing of his actors' creative freedom led to them becoming incensed as he denied them their valuable input, and caused his plays to become more stale.
- In 1902, Nemirovich-Danchenko and Stanislavsky's disputes cracked his faith in his acting, and their conflict with one of their lead actors, Meyerhold, took many fans away from them in protest, which hurt an already criticized Moscow Art Theatre, which was thought of as too naturalistic.
- When he realised that the mise-en-scene being dictated by the director robbed it of its truthfulness, Stanislavsky began appointing new methods to develop his directorial role.
Round the Table Analysis 1906-early 1930s
- His discussion took the form of dissections of pauses in the scene, and created more natural affective memory that created more truthful portrayals of actors.
- Stanislavsky became more interested in Symbolism which was interested in the mystical forces which affected man's existence, not just the crude realities explored by Naturalism. The movement gained traction in the first 2 decades of the 20th Century. However, his actors weren't equipped to deal with the esoteric content of these plays he was becoming interested in, such as Maurice Maeterlinck's plays (he was a Belgian playwright whose works were heavily entrenched in the Symbolism movement.
- Stanislavsky agreed with Brusyov's statement that theatre was a physical art - however, he also recognized that inner connection with a part was essential to portraying a character, which he struggled to find a method to teach to his actors.
- After observing the unashamedly political and theatrical school of former employee Meyerhold, he created the Theatrical Studio, a school in which he gave him full pedagogic freedom over his actors. However, Meyerhold recognized theatre as physical, whereas Stanislavsky focused on the psycho-physical nature of theatre.
- In 1906, following a series of arguments with Danchenko, Stanislavsky took a holiday to Finland where he began developing his "system"
1) Practical elements to engage the actor's emotional and physical being
2) Round-the-table discussions to discover hidden forensic details in the script
- He wanted to stimulate a creative state in which the actor was fully immersed in the action, and thought that it took a lifetime to accommodate the outer elements such as perfection diction and physical movement with inner connection and truthfulness with a part.
- Sulerzhitsky introduced Stanislavsky to Hatha Yoga, which emphasized the important relationship between the creative state, breathing and relaxation, after they became close friends in 1900.
- He introduced the idea of theatrical communion to the form, in which he practiced "immobility", where an actor would portray a character through no gesture or speech, but just a state of connection with a character.
- He began creating hieroglyphic-like annotations on his scripts which demanded the inner participation of actors, as certain moments required "the creative state" or "hidden surprise" among other cryptic aspects of the method, to be employed.
- He put these in more formal terms such as the objective of a character, and asked his actors where and why a character was in a particular place at a certain time.
- The influence of Ramachakara yogic practices allowed him to formalize his thoughts about inner focus and balance, both key ideas of yoga. Rather than donning character like a cloak, he asked his actors to put themselves in the character's shoes and image being them. His work relied on the balance between conscious control and subconscious spontaneity, as specific actions provoked a state of mind in which the character and actor became enmeshed, and allowed fewer nerves onstage.
- Stalin's 1934 formalisation of "the system" was displeasing to Stanislavsky, as his ideas were ever-changing, and he rejected the co-option of a fluid system of ideas as an end in and of itself.
- After a heart attack triggered by communist fervor against him, he focused on Nikolai Gogol's Deal Souls, as he grappled with actors who studied characters microscopically, but still could not identify with them. He noted that an actor should prepare, but he should also let go of his preparation onstage and just perform.
Final Legacies - the Method of Physical Actions
- Since being declared a paradigm of social heritage in 1917, the Moscow Art Theatre had been lacking in innovation, as it became an artistically bankrupt Socialist vessel controlled by political ideals of the time. Stanislavsky's poor health bound him to a state of virtual house arrest, where he was oblivious to the fact that all his interactions were carefully controlled and filtered.
- He promoted the use of small, achievable tasks onstage to represent varied psychological complexities, thereby creating emotion as a by-product instead of trying to squeeze it out of the actors.
- His actors would improvise their scenes after reading them, but would pay attention to their natural movements as they went through it, and create the bare bones of their movement based on what they felt worked well and triggered the required emotional state.
- He asked his actors to express the character's emotions onstage to such a degree before memorizing the lines that when the time came for them to learn these lines, it was so natural to them that the lines were no longer formulaic, but expressed their own burning desires.
- The rehearsal process was as follows:
1) Reading the scene
2) Gleaning information from the scene concerning the character, his/her emotions and his/her motivations
3) Improvising the scene and then re-reading and thinking over what particular elements of the scene worked in triggering the required emotions
4) The memorization of lines would occur naturally, as the actor's repeated process of the above 3 steps would familiarize them with the set text.
The important part of his method was that he simultaneously incorporated the idea of pretending to be a character with acknowledging that you are performing, in a way which shows you, but the character, at the same time.
- First performed in lewd French productions before legitimizing his acting with the Society of Art and Literature.
- Began questioning the difference between "character" acting and "personality" acting, or the difference between "acting" a role and fully immersing yourself in it and "being" the role. His role as the Miserly Knight meant that he was going against his "type" - he spent a night locked up in a castle, but still could not empathize with the character
- Affective memory - when actors find an analogous experience from their own lives that mirrors a character's situation
The state of theatre in the late 19th Century in Russia:
- Very little innovative acting - controversial topics heavily censored by Tsar Nicholas II, so only melodramas and vaudevilles were considered appropriate, resulting in a quagmire of stagnation
- Directing was a very loose job description - they had neither a pedagogic or creative purpose, as productions were actor-led.
- Actors were cast to a formulaic type known as an emploi. Each performer specialized in a specific role, and played that role in every production. There was also an extremely short rehearsal time, and extremely fast turnover rate of plays, leading to actors not remembering their lines onstage, and having to be prompted constantly.
- Actors were not trained, and many rejected the idea that acting was an acquired skill. People also had to supply their own wardrobes, meaning people relied on their wealthy patrons for money, and therefore exacerbated inequality in the system. People simply copied "the greats", and did not form their own style of acting.
- He combined forces with Nemirovich to create Moscow Art Theatre, of which he was the director and principal actor.
The director dictator 1891-1906
- Stanislavsky created a "production plan" containing every detail of how characters should move and act prior to rehearsals.
- Ludwig Chronegk's style of directing called German Saxe-Meiningen emerged in 1890, and Stanislavsky was so impressed by their militant ensemble work that it influenced him to become more hands-on with actors.
- His work on Chekhov's "the Seagull" was so experimental and evocative that Chekhov himself said he had never seen that type of theatre in Russia.
- In the summer of 1898, he was yet to tackle 2 revolutions of the theatrical scene - that concerning the act of theatre production and attention to detail onstage, which he was equipped to deal with; and the other to do with acting styles and the truthful performance of what he called life of the human spirit, which he was not.
- He gave binding orders that bordered on naturalism as he decided to dissect the human condition so severely that he forgot the art of theatre making, and was increasingly tyrannical with his actors.
- His robbing of his actors' creative freedom led to them becoming incensed as he denied them their valuable input, and caused his plays to become more stale.
- In 1902, Nemirovich-Danchenko and Stanislavsky's disputes cracked his faith in his acting, and their conflict with one of their lead actors, Meyerhold, took many fans away from them in protest, which hurt an already criticized Moscow Art Theatre, which was thought of as too naturalistic.
- When he realised that the mise-en-scene being dictated by the director robbed it of its truthfulness, Stanislavsky began appointing new methods to develop his directorial role.
Round the Table Analysis 1906-early 1930s
- His discussion took the form of dissections of pauses in the scene, and created more natural affective memory that created more truthful portrayals of actors.
- Stanislavsky became more interested in Symbolism which was interested in the mystical forces which affected man's existence, not just the crude realities explored by Naturalism. The movement gained traction in the first 2 decades of the 20th Century. However, his actors weren't equipped to deal with the esoteric content of these plays he was becoming interested in, such as Maurice Maeterlinck's plays (he was a Belgian playwright whose works were heavily entrenched in the Symbolism movement.
- Stanislavsky agreed with Brusyov's statement that theatre was a physical art - however, he also recognized that inner connection with a part was essential to portraying a character, which he struggled to find a method to teach to his actors.
- After observing the unashamedly political and theatrical school of former employee Meyerhold, he created the Theatrical Studio, a school in which he gave him full pedagogic freedom over his actors. However, Meyerhold recognized theatre as physical, whereas Stanislavsky focused on the psycho-physical nature of theatre.
- In 1906, following a series of arguments with Danchenko, Stanislavsky took a holiday to Finland where he began developing his "system"
1) Practical elements to engage the actor's emotional and physical being
2) Round-the-table discussions to discover hidden forensic details in the script
- He wanted to stimulate a creative state in which the actor was fully immersed in the action, and thought that it took a lifetime to accommodate the outer elements such as perfection diction and physical movement with inner connection and truthfulness with a part.
- Sulerzhitsky introduced Stanislavsky to Hatha Yoga, which emphasized the important relationship between the creative state, breathing and relaxation, after they became close friends in 1900.
- He introduced the idea of theatrical communion to the form, in which he practiced "immobility", where an actor would portray a character through no gesture or speech, but just a state of connection with a character.
- He began creating hieroglyphic-like annotations on his scripts which demanded the inner participation of actors, as certain moments required "the creative state" or "hidden surprise" among other cryptic aspects of the method, to be employed.
- He put these in more formal terms such as the objective of a character, and asked his actors where and why a character was in a particular place at a certain time.
- The influence of Ramachakara yogic practices allowed him to formalize his thoughts about inner focus and balance, both key ideas of yoga. Rather than donning character like a cloak, he asked his actors to put themselves in the character's shoes and image being them. His work relied on the balance between conscious control and subconscious spontaneity, as specific actions provoked a state of mind in which the character and actor became enmeshed, and allowed fewer nerves onstage.
- Stalin's 1934 formalisation of "the system" was displeasing to Stanislavsky, as his ideas were ever-changing, and he rejected the co-option of a fluid system of ideas as an end in and of itself.
- After a heart attack triggered by communist fervor against him, he focused on Nikolai Gogol's Deal Souls, as he grappled with actors who studied characters microscopically, but still could not identify with them. He noted that an actor should prepare, but he should also let go of his preparation onstage and just perform.
Final Legacies - the Method of Physical Actions
- Since being declared a paradigm of social heritage in 1917, the Moscow Art Theatre had been lacking in innovation, as it became an artistically bankrupt Socialist vessel controlled by political ideals of the time. Stanislavsky's poor health bound him to a state of virtual house arrest, where he was oblivious to the fact that all his interactions were carefully controlled and filtered.
- He promoted the use of small, achievable tasks onstage to represent varied psychological complexities, thereby creating emotion as a by-product instead of trying to squeeze it out of the actors.
- His actors would improvise their scenes after reading them, but would pay attention to their natural movements as they went through it, and create the bare bones of their movement based on what they felt worked well and triggered the required emotional state.
- He asked his actors to express the character's emotions onstage to such a degree before memorizing the lines that when the time came for them to learn these lines, it was so natural to them that the lines were no longer formulaic, but expressed their own burning desires.
- The rehearsal process was as follows:
1) Reading the scene
2) Gleaning information from the scene concerning the character, his/her emotions and his/her motivations
3) Improvising the scene and then re-reading and thinking over what particular elements of the scene worked in triggering the required emotions
4) The memorization of lines would occur naturally, as the actor's repeated process of the above 3 steps would familiarize them with the set text.
The important part of his method was that he simultaneously incorporated the idea of pretending to be a character with acknowledging that you are performing, in a way which shows you, but the character, at the same time.
January 11, 2025
Merlin writes with such ease, only communicating that which is absolutely vital and omitting that which wouldn’t serve the reader/actor. It’s a glorious conjunction of Stanislavsky’s core trilogy with the added benefit of a contemporary backdrop, so camera work is always a consideration for Merlin and how she conveys a lesson or technique. Her bright, charming persona shines through the words and makes what is at its core an educational book into something with real personality and keeps you turning the pages like you would with pulpy fiction. Something I’ll return to many times throughout my life, I’m sure.
June 15, 2022
Very straight-forward guide to acting techniques! The best thing about this book is the permission it gives you not to take everything for gospel. You can use some and ditch others.
January 19, 2019
I am so happy I read this!
Bella Merlin gives the perfect balance of detailing the more unspecific parts of acting that kinda just happen with preparation (not her words) in a way that still makes sense, and actual specific things to do to prepare for rehearsal and performance as well. Even the sections focusing more on étude rehearsals were very interesting to read despite the fact a director would be the one controlling a situation like that, not an actor.
And as someone who’s never properly studied Stanislavsky before, I certainly feel as though this book is both a good introduction to his system for those who wish to study further, and a complete guide on its own. It is packed full of information, and has only left me wanting to go buy Stanislavsky’s official books and read them ASAP.
Will probably be rereading soon!
Bella Merlin gives the perfect balance of detailing the more unspecific parts of acting that kinda just happen with preparation (not her words) in a way that still makes sense, and actual specific things to do to prepare for rehearsal and performance as well. Even the sections focusing more on étude rehearsals were very interesting to read despite the fact a director would be the one controlling a situation like that, not an actor.
And as someone who’s never properly studied Stanislavsky before, I certainly feel as though this book is both a good introduction to his system for those who wish to study further, and a complete guide on its own. It is packed full of information, and has only left me wanting to go buy Stanislavsky’s official books and read them ASAP.
Will probably be rereading soon!
August 2, 2021
A useful book that covers techniques and helped me for a drama project. However, the author waffles a TON and there was a lot of repeated information.
April 22, 2025
Absolutely fantastic. Not only is Merlin's writing interesting and informative, but also enjoyable and engaging. I leave this book filled with passion and excitement to discover more, it sparks the excitement for learning whilst still covering a really strong base to leap from. Everything is so clear and simple to understand, there are exercises at the back to support active learning - though "finished" with this book, I will return to it again and again. Merlin humanises being an actor and brings understanding to how to bridge the gap between amateur and professional, her experience as an actor brings so many fascinating anecdotes to illuminate her meanings. It's a fantastic book!
April 5, 2023
It’s a great toolkit for Stanislavskys method/system however I think there is a lot of repetition and Bella Merlin kind of goes into too much detail which is great if you’re anal about the details but as someone with a short attention span I lost interest and began skim reading. Great guide and easy enough to follow for exercises and techniques tho
October 8, 2019
Great explanation of Stanislavski’s teachings!
February 1, 2020
Bello bello bello
January 28, 2024
Very dense but so helpful! I’ll be coming back to it many times for sure
June 27, 2024
Okay if it weren’t for the random segues and anecdotes
January 19, 2010
Required for THEA 308. Dry and often inaccessible.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews