Reviewed by:

• Active Analysis by Maria Knebel, and: Analysis Through Action For Actors And Directors: From Stan-Islavsky To Contemporary Performance by David Chambers
• David Krasner

Konstantin Stanislavsky is one of the most influential acting teachers of the twentieth century. Yet, despite his significance and his death over eighty years ago in 1938, new facets of his teachings are still being uncovered. The miasma surrounding Stanislavsky is due to Soviet censorship, the vagaries of translation, and the fact that during his life Stanislavsky reevaluated his theory and practice of actor training. We now know, for instance, that during his final years, Stanislavsky revised his methodology, coalescing around a new theory termed in English as "active analysis" or "analysis through action." Previously, active analysis/analysis through action (AA) was dubbed "the method of physical action," a term Stanislavsky did not use but that derived from actor Vasili Toporkov, Stanislavsky's student at the Moscow Art Theatre. In his book Stanislavsky in Rehearsal, Toporkov coined the English variation of the term. The method of physical action was then promulgated by Stalinist ideologues and acting teachers who believed that this training procedure nullified Stanislavsky's earlier techniques, most notably Stanislavsky's "affective memory" (the term describing emotional recall). Claiming that Stanislavsky created two "periods" of work—dubbed "Early and Late"—advocates of the method of physical action argued that Stanislavsky's Late period rejected affective memory tout court in favor of mechanical physicality, which alone was deemed the cornerstone of Stanislavsky's System. The doyen of Method Acting, Lee Strasberg, was demonized as the arbiter of the supposedly regressive affective memory, and the phrase "do the action first and the feelings will follow" lodged into acting training's collective consciousness.

These two books, Active Analysis (2021) by Maria Knebel and Analysis through Action for Actors and Directors: From Stanislavsky to Contemporary Performance (2024) by David Chambers, set the record straight. Knebel, one of Stanislavsky's students, and Chambers, an acting teacher and historian of Russian theatre, each provide detailed analyses of Stanislavsky's final working method, one that never abandoned the actor's task of personalizing, experiencing, and humanizing the role. Instead of dividing Stanislavsky into two periods, these books clarify Stanislavsky's methodology as a continuum, with the work in his later life, notably AA, simply being an extension of his earlier techniques. Knebel insists that

Stanislavsk[y] stated that assessing the facts [of the role] through your own life experience—and without that no true art is possible—occurs only when an actor compels their imagination—even in the initial stages of the work, during the "mental reconnaissance"' of the play—to treat the play's dramatis personae as if they were real people living and operating under specific living conditions.

(113)

Chambers reiterates this, noting that Stanislavsky demanded the actor "employ her own personal emotional memories," adding that Stanislavsky "did not abandon emotional memory as some would later claim, although it may not have held the highest priority it once did" (53). By taking Stanislavsky's work as a gestalt, these two books shed light on acting technique that rejects an either/or Early/Late periodization in favor of a wholistic approach. [End Page 582]

Knebel was one of Stanislavsky's most important protégées at the end of his life. According to her, Stanislavsky recoiled at what he observed to be the intellectualization of acting practice; he witnessed actors rehearsing what is called "table work," whereby the play and its roles were analyzed by the performers and the director literally over a table. Rehearsals would collate ideas, actions, and actorial tasks verbally, with each role examined through intellectual discourse, rote memorization, reciting the text aloud, and academically inclined analysis. Stanislavsky sought to reverse this cerebral, stultifying, and emotionless trend, insisting that actors physicalize immediately during nascent rehearsal processes, embodying the play not through discourse and intellectualization, but through active, physical connection—literally rising to their feet and...

 校订者：

• 
  玛丽亚·克内贝尔 （Maria Knebel） 的《主动分析》和：《演员和导演的行动分析：从斯坦-伊斯拉夫斯基到当代表演》（David Chambers）
•  大卫·克拉斯纳

康斯坦丁·斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基 （Konstantin Stanislavsky） 是 20 世纪最有影响力的表演教师之一。然而，尽管他很重要，而且他于 80 多年前的 1938 年去世，但他的教义的新方面仍在被发现。围绕斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的瘴气是由于苏联的审查制度、翻译的变幻莫测，以及斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基在他的一生中重新评估了他的演员训练理论和实践的事实。例如，我们现在知道，在他最后的几年里，斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基修改了他的方法论，围绕着一个在英语中称为“积极分析”或“通过行动进行分析”的新理论相结合。以前，通过行动进行主动分析/分析 （AA） 被称为“物理行动方法”，斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基没有使用这个词，但这个词源自演员瓦西里·托波尔科夫，斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基在莫斯科艺术剧院的学生。在他的著作《排练中的斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基》中，托波尔科夫创造了该术语的英语变体。随后，斯大林主义理论家和表演教师颁布了身体动作的方法，他们认为这种训练程序使斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的早期技术无效，最著名的是斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的“情感记忆”（描述情绪回忆的术语）。声称斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基创造了两个“时期”的作品——被称为“早期和晚期”——身体行动方法的倡导者认为，斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的晚期拒绝了情感记忆的吹捧，而支持机械物理性，只有机械物理性就被认为是斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基系统的基石。方法表演的元老李·斯特拉斯伯格 （Lee Strasberg） 被妖魔化为所谓的倒退情感记忆的仲裁者，“先行动，感情就会随之而来”这句话进入了表演训练的集体意识。

这两本书，玛丽亚·克内贝尔 （Maria Knebel） 的《主动分析》（2021 年）和大卫·钱伯斯 （David Chambers） 的《通过行动为演员和导演分析：从斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基到当代表演》（2024 年）澄清了事实。斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的学生之一克内贝尔和表演教师兼俄罗斯戏剧历史学家钱伯斯都对斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的最终工作方法进行了详细分析，该方法从未放弃演员个性化、体验和人性化角色的任务。这些书没有将斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基分为两个时期，而是将斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的方法论作为一个连续体进行澄清，他晚年的作品，特别是 AA，只是他早期技术的延伸。Knebel 坚持认为

斯坦尼斯拉夫斯克表示，只有当演员强迫他们的想象力——即使是在作品的初始阶段，在戏剧的“心理侦察”期间——将戏剧的戏剧人物视为在特定生活条件下生活和运作的真实人物时，才能通过自己的生活经验来评估[角色]的事实——没有这些经验，就不可能有真正的艺术。

(113)

钱伯斯重申了这一点，指出斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基要求演员“运用她自己的个人情感记忆”，并补充说斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基“并没有像一些人后来声称的那样放弃情感记忆，尽管它可能没有像以前那样具有最高优先级”（53）。通过将斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基的作品作为格式塔，这两本书阐明了拒绝非此即彼的早期/晚期分期，转而采用整体方法的表演技巧。[完第582页]

克内贝尔是斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基在生命的最后阶段最重要的门徒之一。据她介绍，斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基对他所观察到的表演实践的智力化感到不满;他目睹了演员排练所谓的“桌面工作”，表演者和导演在桌子上对戏剧及其角色进行了分析。排练将口头整理想法、行动和演员任务，通过智力话语、死记硬背、大声朗诵文本和学术倾向分析来检查每个角色。斯坦尼斯拉夫斯基试图扭转这种理智、愚蠢和无情感的趋势，坚持要求演员在初期排练过程中立即进行身体化，不是通过话语和智力化来体现戏剧，而是通过积极的身体联系——从字面上看，他们站起来......