Part three : introduction [Stanislavsky in the world : the systems and its transformations across continents]

Abstract

Stefan Aquilina That Stanislavsky’s system was developed for sole application to realistic and naturalistic play-texts is a misconception that harks back to the system’s own early formulations. In fact, it was a misconception which Stanislavsky himself was aware of, one that he wanted to rectify from as early as 1911 with the staging of Hamlet (Benedetti, 1999, p. 189) . Moreover, his choice at the end of his life to work on Tartuffe was similarly made ‘to show that his method was universal, not limited to what is sometimes thought the “typical” Moscow Art Theatre repertoire – Chekhov and the like’ (Toporkov, 1979, p. 153) . Despite Stanislavsky’s own efforts, however, the reading that has taken root is that the system yields effective results only when used to produce dramas such as those penned by the aforementioned Chekhov, Ibsen and, in the US, by Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, and the like. The essays collated in this Part about Stanislavsky’s influence on Latin American theatre – authored by Arlete Cavaliere (Brazil), Yana Elsa Brugal (Cuba) and Raúl Serrano (Argentina) – make reference to this reductionism and then move on to critique the realistic stress on the system made by traditional Stanislavski Studies.