Stanislavski’s method of acting Essay
Konstantin Stanislavski, ( born Konstantin Alekseyev, and sometimes spelt Constantin Stanislavsky ) , was 14 old ages old when he foremost set pes on the phase that his parents owned in 1877. His love of the theater blossomed throughout his life, taking him to go one of the universe ‘s most influential theater practicians to day of the month. His work in the field of theatrical dry run techniques made him a family name for play pupils worldwide. He published many books and ushers designed to give play pupils an penetration into “ pragmatism ” , including ‘An Actor Prepares ‘ and ‘Building a Character ‘ , which outline assorted celebrated dry run methods designed to let an histrion to to the full associate to their character, to the point that they are non merely feigning to be them, but really populating their lives. He argued that the histrion should “ Love the art in yourself, non yourself in the art ” [ 1 ] , looking for the emotion within themselves as opposed to the words in the book.
Stanislavski ‘s pioneering vision for the theater was that characters should be credible, and the plot line should concentrate on the emotion portrayed, prosecuting the audience through agencies such as empathy. He argued that anything put frontward on the phase should be an accurate history of existent life, a idea which derived from his antipathy for the melodramatic theater he had grown up with. However, Stanislavski is one of several celebrated theater practicians, all with a wholly different construct of what theater should be. For illustration, Bertolt Brecht put frontward the theory of ‘Epic Theatre ‘ , which taught that the audience should ever be alienated from the action onstage, unable to place with the characters, but instead being left with inquiries to inquire themselves. He believed the audience could n’t perchance sympathize with the characters onstage because there were so many single differences in society itself- “ society can non portion a common communicating system so long as it is split into warring cabals ” ( Brecht, 1949, paragraph 55 [ 2 ] ) . Brecht wanted the audience to go forth the theater debating their ethical motives. Another esteemed theatrical practician is Antonin Artaud, who argued that any public presentation should deeply impact the audience. In order to accomplish this, he used non-naturalistic lighting and sound to make a disturbing atmosphere. Artaud wished his audience to go forth the theater holding changed within themselves. With three such different purposes from each practician, it is hard to be certain whether any of them had a peculiarly valid point. All three theories are widely respected, but each contrasts and challenges the following, intending that, in order to believe in one of them, you must govern out the others as valid.
These conflicting theories became the beginning of the chief thoughts behind this undertaking. I wanted to cognize whether there was a solid manner to turn out whether Stanislavski ‘s theories are affectional to the audience in footings of making a more realistic public presentation than one with normal dry run, or so rehearsal methods devised by other practicians. To be able to find this, I needed to carry on deeper research into Stanislavski ‘s system.
The system itself is deep and elaborately elaborate, with many different facets as to what Stanislavski considered a ‘good public presentation ‘ . However, some points are obviously more important to him than others. Harmonizing to the on-line Encyclopaedia Britannia [ 3 ] , the chief characteristics are ‘Given Fortunes and the Magic If ‘ , and ‘Emotional Memory ‘ . ‘Units and Objectives ‘ is besides a major characteristic of the system, so these are the three facets I chose to polish my research to in order to set up a better apprehension of Stanislavski ‘s method of moving.
‘Given Fortunes and the Magic If ‘
Stanislavski said that “ what is of import to me is non the truth outside myself, but the truth within myself ” [ 4 ] , intending that anything put frontward on the phase must be true. He recognised this thought was a possible issue because all playing is, basically, a prevarication. He hence said that all histrions should be as true to themselves as they can while playing a portion. The thought behind Given Circumstances is that histrions accept that, with the book of a drama, they are given a set of fortunes which they must adhere to in order to make the plot line. Given fortunes can associate to either the character or the drama itself, and they include things like character ‘s age, gender, societal category, and the drama ‘s clip period, puting and social/historical/political deductions. In order for an histrion to give a true public presentation, Stanislavski put a monolithic accent on the importance of research into the given clip period or state of affairs so that the performing artist would genuinely understand their function. He taught that the research needs to be completed until an histrion can to the full flesh out his character, and reply any inquiries given to them about their character ‘s parenthood, childhood, and life events, even if these are n’t mentioned in the book. Once the Given Circumstances had been realised, Stanislavski suggested that the histrions utilised a linked facet of his theory, called the ‘Magic If ‘ , in order to cover with them. The ‘Magic If ‘ is a technique where the histrion asks himself “ given the fortunes already decided by the dramatist, if I was this character, and I was in this state of affairs, how would I respond? ” . In his book ‘An Actor Prepares ‘ , Stanislavski talked about the professor utilizing the illustration of feigning to be a tree. “ Say to yourself: “ I am I ; but if I were an old oak tree, set in certain encompassing conditions, what would I make? ” and make up one’s mind where you are… in whatever topographic point affects you most ” ( Stanislavski, 1937, p65 [ 5 ] ) . Stanislavski asked that his pupils allow their imaginativenesss to boom through techniques such as Given Circumstances and the Magic If, to build deeper, more realistic public presentations.
‘Emotional Memory ‘
Another technique which was born from Stanislavski ‘s belief that moving must be existent is Emotional Memory, sometimes known as Affectional Memory. Shelley Winters, an illustration of a celebrated actress with ultimate belief in the Stanislavski System, said that as an histrion you must be willing to “ move with your cicatrixs ” [ 6 ] , or in layperson ‘s footings, be willing to let your interior emotions and past experiences to demo through. This is basically the chief footings of Emotional Memory, which requires the histrion to pull on old personal experiences which resulted in a similar emotion to which their character is sing. Once the histrion has identified the experience, they are encouraged to let the emotion they felt one time once more take over their head and organic structure, reinstating the context and mentality until the emotion is existent. The emotion must so seamlessly be applied to the book or character, as Stanislavski felt this would do the public presentation more credible because the emotion is true to the histrion. Peter Oyston, establishing Dean of Drama at the Victorian College of the Humanistic disciplines and regular teacher/director at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in London, created a dry run method specifically designed to heighten the feelings from memories. He published this, and other methods mentioning to Stanislavskian techniques, in a DVD docudrama called “ How to utilize the Stanislavski System ” ( 2004 ) . The Emotional Memory subdivision can be viewed on YouTube [ 7 ] , and teaches the pupil to retrieve a clip when they personally felt an emotion which shadows or analogues that required from the text. They are encouraged to speak about the state of affairs they are retrieving out loud, until the emotion takes over their heads and organic structures. Then, they must seamlessly reassign their address from their ain remembrances to the book given to them, reassigning the emotions at the same clip.
‘Units and Aims ‘
One of the most outstanding facets of Stanislavski ‘s method is his thought that any character in any drama has a ‘Super-Objective ‘ throughout the action ; an purpose or driving force which sustains throughout the drama. Stanislavski taught that this Super-Objective must remain in each histrion ‘s head throughout their dry run and public presentation, and that even though it may non be stated, or even obvious, they must take it upon themselves to research and detect it. Once this has been accomplished, he felt that the book could so be broken down into smaller Aims, which would alter several times throughout the piece as the secret plan deepened. Each Aim must be a verb, in order to be an ‘active aim ‘ . He asked histrions to divide their book into Unit of measurements and Aims. Most pieces of play are split by the dramatist into a series of scenes and Acts of the Apostless, leting the action to travel in clip or scene, but Stanislavski found that an aim could run through and overlap into different scenes, or alter really all of a sudden in the center of an act. He hence introduced the construct of Unit of measurements, which are another manner of spliting up a play- each unit should incorporate one aim.
The diagram above outlines the intricate item of the facets of Unit of measurements, Aims, and Super-Objectives. The Throughline of Action is the purpose in a character ‘s head throughout the entireness of the drama, which culminates in the Super-Objective. Meanwhile, each character has several different Aims which are split between the Units the histrions devised for the book. These Aims can take the character to many different topographic points, but their Super-Objective will ever stay the same.
Furthermore, the Objectives themselves are every bit as detailed. Stanislavski said that each Objective could be broken down into the Aim, the Obstacle and the Action. The purpose is what the character is seeking to accomplish in that peculiar unit. The obstruction is something which stops or restricts them from carry throughing their purpose, and the action is the stairss the character takes in order to avoid or get the better of the obstruction.
Stanislavski accepted that it is impossible for a drama to accomplish a smooth coating where aims are concerned because frequently, the action takes topographic point off phase. The characters come and go, and the clip alterations, so we as an audience can non witness the whole narrative. Stanislavski said that in order to get the better of this, histrions must ever be consciously cognizant of their Super-Objective.
A familiar illustration of this facet of the Stanislavskian Theory is Shakespeare ‘s narrative of Romeo and Juliet. Romeo ‘s Super-Objective is to see true love. He begins the drama with the aim of get marrieding Rosaline, and this continues to be his nonsubjective until the Unit displacements at the Capulet party. Here, Romeo ‘s nonsubjective becomes to happen out more about Juliet, and subsequently becomes to get married her. Towards the terminal of the party, nevertheless, Romeo speaks with Juliet ‘s nurse, who tells him that “ her female parent is the Lady of the house ” -that Juliet is a Capulet ( Shakespeare, 1973, p. 910 [ 8 ] ) . This provides the obstruction, since Romeo ‘s household, the Montagues, have an ancient feud with the Capulets. Romeo so takes on a new action, which is to get the better of the feud between the households, even if it means the twosome have to lie about it. Romeo does n’t pull off to to the full accomplish his Super-Objective, because he ne’er experiences the simpleness of love he was looking for- both he and Juliet have to decease in order to genuinely be together.
Of all the facets of Stanislavski ‘s method, these three prove to be the most popular among modern twenty-four hours performing artists.
Having researched the cardinal facets of Stanislavski ‘s system, I devised a manner to be able to measure the effectivity of them on a unrecorded public presentation by immature histrions, as this would let me to set up whether the method does in fact aid to bring forth a more credible public presentation. I decided to carry on an experiment into the effectivity of Stanislavski ‘s system. I decided to use my contacts at a local young person play group, which is made up of immature histrions and actresses aged between 11 and 17 old ages old. In order for the experiment to be a just trial, I determined to divide them every bit into two groups, and give each group the same scenario to work with. I planned to go forth group one, the control group, to practise to their ain methods, while carry oning group two ‘s dry run processes myself, giving them undertakings similar to those set by Stanislavski to his ain students. After the groups had had the same period of clip to practise, I wanted to ask for an audience to watch their public presentations. The audience were to be given a questionnaire after the public presentations, inquiring which group ‘s reading of the scenario they found more convincing and realistic. I intended to movie both sets of dry run procedures in order to set together a short docudrama. The consequences of the audience questionnaire were intended to determine whether Stanislavski ‘s dry run methods have a existent influence on doing modern twenty-four hours public presentation more realistic.
In order for this experiment to work, I foremost had to make an thought. Originally, I devised a book which revolved around the issue of adolescent gestation, which is a turning concern in today ‘s society. The book included four gender specific characters, and I intended to hold both groups perform the same piece ; one utilizing Stanislavski ‘s techniques, and the others utilizing generic dry run processes. Having written the short drama, and talked briefly to the kids at the theater, it became evident that there was more involvement in the workshop than I had expected. Another job with utilizing a book would hold been that the audience would hold watched the same piece twice, and would be comparing the histrion ‘s single public presentations as opposed to the credibility of the pieces. Since it would hold been unjust of me to project the functions, I alternatively decided to take a different attack in order to include everyone. I devised a scenario, once more based around a adolescent gestation, that each group would be able to utilize as the nucleus of their piece of play. They would so invent the remainder of their dramas entirely. This meant that each group could integrate a flexible sum of participants, and ensured two unique, original public presentations.
With my thought in head, I next needed to invent some Stanislavski-based dry run techniques for my group to utilize during their readying for the production. Keeping the subjects of ‘Given Fortunes and the Magic If ‘ , ‘Emotional Memory ‘ , and ‘Units and Aims ‘ in head, I devised three dry run techniques specifically tailored to Stanislavski ‘s ideals. With these techniques devised, I had to really transport out the dry run and public presentations. In order to make this, I would necessitate a infinite, two groups of histrions, a party of responsible grownups with CRB cheques and an audience. I contacted the president of the theater and booked myself a studio public presentation room for Saturday the 3rd of April. I so sent out letters to the histrions involved with the Nonentities Youth Theatre. The letters outlined the undertaking and the experimental side of the twenty-four hours, offered the opportunity to look at the proficient side of theater, and asked for a response. I received 18 positive responses back, which was many more than the original 12 participants I had in head, doing the scenario thought far more useable. I so had to divide the histrions into two different groups, a control group, who would direct themselves, and the experimental group, who I would direct utilizing Stanislavski ‘s methods. The groups needed to be every bit weighted with endowment, as it was of import to do this experiment every bit just as possible by non leting moving ability to throw it. I therefore split the histrions into groups myself, taking to equilibrate the ages in each group while puting responsible histrions I could swear to work independently in the control group, and histrions open to co-operation and willing to listen in the Stanislavski group. The Independent Variable of this survey was ‘whether Stanislavski ‘s methods were applied to dry runs ‘ , and the Dependant Variable was ‘whether the public presentation was more credible based on the dry run method used ‘ . My hypothesis was: “ The techniques used in dry run will hold an affect on the public presentation given ” .
I experienced my first job of the twenty-four hours when the histrions arrived in the forenoon. Shortly before the workshop was to take topographic point, a missive had been sent to all members of the young person theater sketching the demand for a new leader and the cancellation of Sessionss until another missive was sent out. It became evident that many of the histrions who had wished to be a portion of the workshop had assumed that it, excessively, was cancelled, so the concluding figure of histrions I had to work with was merely 10. Although I had to set the group list, the smaller figure of participants made the twenty-four hours as a whole more confidant, and the group sizes more manageable, so I feel it was a good circumstance. Once everybody had signed in, I conducted a brief warm-up, inquiring all members to believe of the manner different characters moved and spoke in existent life, inquiring them to move believably, non merely as imitations. I so split up the histrions into groups, and chose the two misss who I felt would be most capable of moving the portion of the pregnant adolescent. I asked both groups to make a piece of play concentrating around the gestation that would last between 10 and 15 proceedingss, and I gave each group a list of standards that they must adhere to, including facets such as utilizing the younger members in the younger functions, including a figure of soliloquies from different characters, and that they must compose down the determinations made in early dry run. I told the control group that they were allowed to utilize music, and dramatic techniques such as physical theater and freezing frames, while the Stanislavski group had to endeavor to do their characters and fortunes applicable to existent life, and were told non to utilize out-of-place techniques like freezing framing. The picture was set to enter as the groups split up into two different suites, and I allowed the control group to maintain to themselves for the bulk of the twenty-four hours, while I worked with the Stanislavski group, inquiring them to utilize my previously-prepared dry run techniques.
The first technique I gave them was designed to back up ‘Given Fortunes and the Magic If ‘ . I asked each group to utilize the first phases of dry run to make mind-maps around the pieces of play. Whilst the control group ‘s map outlined the plot line, the Stanislavski group were asked to pass an hr and a half fleshing out their characters, and the relationships and links between them. They gave each character a name and an age, they wrote about their belief ‘s and sentiments, and decided upon how their characters met. Each histrion developed a elaborate history for their character, drawing from personal experience and their imaginativenesss to make steady backgrounds. These are facets associating to ‘Given Fortunes and the Magic If ‘ because they invite the participants to foremost gain the Circumstances the book gives them, and secondly to flesh out their word picture by seting their characters in different state of affairss through usage of the Magic If.
The 2nd technique I devised related to ‘Emotion Memory ‘ . I used this technique when working with the actress playing the pregnant miss. We applied it to the scene in which she is told that the trial is positive. I asked her to believe about a clip when she felt lost, and possibly did n’t hold anybody she could speak to about it because cipher had been in that place before her. She talked of a clip when her parents were traveling through a mussy divorce, and she felt cut of from the both of them. She spoke openly and freely, and answered my inquiries candidly. As clip went by, she was drawn farther and further into her memory and the emotions that were present at that clip, so that when I eventually asked her to get down speaking from her character ‘s position, her moving became existent. She did n’t necessitate to forge the cryings, because she was filled with the emotion her character was filled with.
The 3rd technique was designed to congratulate ‘Units and Objectives ‘ . Once the histrions had created their plot line, I asked them to split it up into scenes, so that it was every bit close to a normal written piece of play as possible. We talked about each of their characters, and what their Super-Objectives would be. The histrions decided upon everyone ‘s aims as a group, which brought a deeper degree of understanding to the piece. They decided that the male parent ‘s Super-Objective would be to protect his kids, while Rosie, the pregnant girl, aimed to confront her future caput on. I so asked each histrion to split up the drama into their ain Unit of measurements, concentrating on the displacements in emotion. This procedure proved hard for the younger members of the group, so the group as a whole helped them to place their Unit of measurements. There proved a great assortment in the sum of Unit of measurements in the piece for each character ; while the pregnant miss had about one per scene, the male parent had merely two. Furthermore, the switch between Unit of measurements for him came all of a sudden in the center of his soliloquy, which was right at the terminal of the piece- before so his character had wanted the same thing throughout. I asked the group to physically improvize the scenes they had written approximately, and to halt the action when they encountered their obstructions. Once they had all found their obstructions, they were asked to go on moving while happening a manner to get the better of this obstacle- their action. I so asked them if they had noticed the other histrion ‘s actions in the scene, so that everybody was cognizant of the determinations their group was making.This in-depth workshop category on ‘Units and Super-Objectives ‘ made the immature histrions cognizant and knowing in the field, while besides leting them to cognize their characters inside out by cognizing what they want, and how they might travel about accomplishing it.
A twosome of hours before the public presentations were scheduled to get down, I took notes on the dry run processes of both groups. The control group had included an all-knowing storyteller who could halt the action and present new characters. The storyteller sat in the center of the piece throughout the bulk of the action, until the concluding scene where he became an involved character. A storyteller is by and large used to make a sense of dramatic sarcasm, where the audience addition cognition that the characters do n’t yet cognize. However, this type of narrative is seldom set within the piece itself, more frequently a voice over or such like. It is besides unrealistic that the storyteller, who is by and large removed from and impersonal to the action, all of a sudden go ‘real life ‘ and leap into the scene. The group besides used a split-screen technique to enable them to demo two different flats at the same clip, which is effectual to the audience but unrealistic, as while action is playing out in one infinite, the characters in the other must be frozen. This creative activity of ‘freeze-framing ‘ is hard to keep for long periods of clip, and does non happen in a echt state of affairs. Another technique they used was audience-participation, where one member of their dramatis personae Saturday in the audience until the concluding minutes of the drama, where she rose, walked across the phase, took out her Mobile and called the constabulary. I concluded that the control group had included assorted facets of public presentation which were designed to do the action more interesting to the audience, and add the component of surprise, but were non designed to look or experience realistic. They had spent merely half an hr mind-mapping their determinations, and talked about their other determinations while physically practising.
The Stanislavski group spent an hr and a half developing their characters, and another hr developing their plot line, so they ended up with four A3 sheets of paper detailing their full public presentation. They used merely one location, the adolescent ‘s sleeping room, so that there was ne’er a set alteration needed, because it would disrupt the plot line and deflect the audience. The group ‘s soliloquies were delivered to a individual, as opposed to the audience, so that the barrier between the audience and the characters stayed strong. Had the histrions been speaking to the audience, their addresss would hold seemed less realistic.
After five hours of dry run, it was clip for the concluding public presentations. Each histrion had been asked to ask for some household members or friends, and members of the theater came along to take part excessively. Each audience besides included the histrions from the other group, doing the concluding audience figure 19 members. I watched the public presentations, but did n’t take part in the questionnaire, as I would hold been biased toward the Stanislavski group. I introduced the pieces, and talked about the work the histrions had undertaken over the twenty-four hours. The audience were n’t told which group was the control group, and which group was the Stanislavski group, until both public presentations had finished, intending that they could n’t be biased in favor of Stanislavski either. I besides asked them to be unfastened minded, and non reply the questionnaire in favor of the production their kid was associated with, stating them they were judging my way, non the single histrion ‘s endowment. The audience watched the control group foremost, and were given clip to make full out their questionnaires while we set up the phase for the Stanislavski group. After both public presentations had finished, I thanked everybody for taking portion and collected in the questionnaires.
Having extrapolated my consequences, it became evident that there was a general feeling that the Stanislavski production was more credible. When asked “ was the chief plot line believable ” , 66 % of the audience thought that the control group ‘s piece was “ a dramatised and overdone version of existent life ” , while 95 % thought that the Stanislavski group ‘s piece “ could believably go on in existent life ” . Having worked extensively with the pregnant character from the Stanislavski group, I was pleased that 42 % of the audience thought that she portrayed the gestation cleanly, while a farther 42 % felt that she portrayed it really good, while in the control group, these per centums combined merely reached 44 % . I asked the audience to rate how credible they felt the overall public presentations were, and 56 % rated the control group ‘s public presentation at an 8/10 or higher, while 94 % rated the Stanislavski public presentation at an 8/10 or higher. Overall, it is apparent that the Stanislavski group ‘s public presentation was more widely believed.
It is of import to observe that the effectivity of the public presentations given may non be wholly down to the methods of dry run used. Although I tried to do the experiment every bit just as possible by trying to do the dry run methods the lone variable, other immaterial variables may hold had an affect on the concluding consequences. For illustration, since there were fewer participants than planned, I had to scuffle the groups a little. This meant that the control group had two of the younger members in their piece, while the Stanislavski group had four older members. The younger members of the theater are less experient and hence do n’t hold every bit many originative thoughts to convey to the mix. It is besides evident that about half of the audience were household members of the younger histrions, intending that they are apt to vote in favor of their kid ‘s piece as they are proud to see them on phase. Although I asked the audience to maintain an unfastened head, they may hold been bias towards their household or friends, and this is a factor which could hold affected the concluding consequences.
At the beginning of my undertaking, I asked myself “ What is Stanislavski ‘s Method of moving, and how far has it influenced modern twenty-four hours public presentation? ” Having undertaken a considerable amout of research on Stanislavski and his methods, it became easier for me to specify them, and to easy separate the difference between his instructions, and those of other practicians. I found that Stanislavski ‘s method of moving is mostly based around the histrion ‘s ain reading of the character, taking to maintain the emotion existent. I found that Stanislavski wanted the audience to link with both the plot line and the characters, and he achieved this connexion by maintaining th moving existent, therefore leting the audience to link sympathetically. Having created an experiment to see whether Stanislavski did so influence modern twenty-four hours public presentation, I found that the audience were effected by the group that used the Stanislavskian dry run techniques, so much so that one individual wrote on the underside of their questionnaire that their public presentation “ really brought cryings to my eyes ” . While researching, I came across a website [ 9 ] where Jeni Whittaker ( 1999 ) argues that “ Stanislavski is justly called the ‘father of modern theater ‘ , his System of moving became the anchor of 20th century theater trade. About all other practicians use him as a starting point, either to construct from or to respond against ” . This substantiates my initial hypothesis that Stanislavski has a major influence on modern twenty-four hours theater. In decision, I feel that Stanislavski has an drawn-out influence on modern twenty-four hours theater. Audiences of today wish non to be challenged or alienated, but to see characters they can associate to on the phase, and the bulk of theaters today follows this instruction, whether the manager realises he is adhering to Stanislavski ‘s theory or otherwise. Furthermore, when watching two similar pieces of play, it became evident that the audience are more careworn towards that which used Stanislavski ‘s dry run techniques because the characters and plot line were portrayed in a true to life mode. I found that Stanislavski is non merely used in theater, as many celebrated screen histrions take his methods when acquiring into character. I feel that the universe is exposed to Stanislavski ‘s instructions more than it realises, and hence the influence of Stanislavski on modern twenty-four hours playing is significantly higher than I believed when I began the undertaking.
- Beginning unknown, Stanislavski.
- Brecht ( 1949 ) . ‘A Short Organum for the Theatre ‘ , paragraph 55.
- Encyclop & A ; aelig ; Defense Intelligence Agency Britannica ( 2010 ) . ‘Stanislavsky method ‘ . Encyclop & A ; aelig ; Defense Intelligence Agency Britannica Online ; Retrieved February 22, 2010, from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/563178/Stanislavsky-method
- Beginning unknown, Stanislavski.
- Stanislavski ( 1937 ) . ‘An Actor Prepares ‘ , ( reprinted 1988 ) United Kingdom: Methuen Drama LTD.
- Harry Governick for TheatrGROUP. ( 1992 ) . An Interview with Shelly Winters ; Retrieved February 22, 2010, from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.theatrgroup.com/Shelley
- Peter Oyston, ‘How to utilize the Stanislavski System ‘ DVD ( 2004 ) . Retrieved ( via YouTube ) April 12, 2010, from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.youtube.com/watch? v=zmhggaEuJj8
- Shakespeare ( 1973 ) . ‘Romeo and Juliet ‘ , from ‘The Complete Works of Shakespeare- The Alexander Text ‘ . London and Glasgow: Collins.
- Jeni Whittaker for DramaWorks. ‘Stanislavski through Practice ‘ ( 1999 ) Retrieved April 13, 2010, from hypertext transfer protocol: //www.dramaworks.co.uk/stanislavski.html