Talk:Stanislavski's system

Significant students

Stanislavski's significant students sandbox

Andrius Jilinsky

• Search - (
  • wp
  • g
  • b
  )

Author of The Joy of Acting: A Primer for Actors (Peter Lang, 1990) ISBN 0820409693.

Member of the Moscow Art Theatre, Michael Chekhov's company and Yevgeny Vakhtangov's first studio.

Married to Vera Solovyova

Taught Horton Foote

Leo Bulgakov

• Search - (
  • wp
  • g
  • b
  )

Varvara Bulgakov

• Search - (
  • wp
  • g
  • b
  )

Vera Solovyova

• Search - (
  • wp
  • g
  • b
  )

Tamara Daykarhanova

• Search - (
  • wp
  • g
  • b
  )

With a famous revue called Balieff's Chauve Souris, which toured Europe.

Married to Sergius Vassiliev

Worked with Maria Ouspenskaya before she went to Hollywood

Started her own school, The Tamara Daykarhanova School for the Stage

Lidia Koreneva

• Search - (
  • wp
  • g
  • b
  )

The horror, the horror

I've not looked at this page in a while. It's a horror story. I'm going to edit for at least the semblance of something academically respectable.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 09:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I've imported some material from what I wrote for the Konstantin Stanislavski article, and thrown together some more from notes, in order to provide a semblance of encyclopaedic tone for this article. It's far from complete, given how much there is to cover, but it's a significant improvement on what was there before.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 10:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Apostrophe quote marks

Why are these surrounding every mention of "system"? Is it not actually a system? It's described repeatedly as a "systematic" approach to acting, but it's only described using scare quotes. In addition to looking terrible, it's not even grammatically correct. Shouldn't these all be full quotation marks? 108.34.151.139 (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think fellow editor 108.34.151.139 makes a good point. The marks seem mysterious and weird. And if they belong, then shouldn't they be in the title of the article? I notice there is a note at the top of the article's editing page that says: "His methodology is given as 'system' not system or System, following Stanislavski's usage, as given in all modern scholarly editions of his works." But that doesn't strike me as a proper reason. How are "all modern scholarly editions" different from the editions that don't include the apostrophes? Also that WP editor's note is not sourced, is anonymous, and the stylistic concept is nowhere else in WP. DaVinci wrote in mirror writing -- do we need to follow his example anytime we quote DaVinci. No, we do not. I suggest that the marks be removed. Stanislavsky did not actually use these marks, which are single quote marks, instead he used guillemets («like this»). Stanislavski was fond of using guillemets for many different words, not just system in particular; it appears to be an aspect of his personal style when punctuating. Elsewhere on WP when referring to Stanislavsky's system, the use of marks varies. Most important, is the context: In a book on the topic by the author you can understand his use of marks, but on a WP page -- it looks like some WP editor wants to cast doubt on the validity of the system. I think what the marks actually represent instead are a WP editor's desire to demonstrate a devotion to authenticity, and the editor may not appreciate that it's having the opposite effect -- by casting doubt. DagSkaal (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The sentence (it’s not in the article, but only on the "editing page") that says: “[Stanislavski’s] methodology is given as 'system' not system or System, following Stanislavski's usage, as given in all modern scholarly editions of his works” is not strictly accurate — because there are modern scholarly editions that don’t use the quote marks, not only that, but I can’t find any edition that consistently on every page chooses to put marks around the word. The editing page should be edited to be accurate.

And also regarding quote marks around the word “system”, note #2 at the bottom of the article states: “Modern scholarship follows that practice. See Benedetti (1999a, 169), Gauss (1999, 3–4), and Milling and Ley (2001, 1)”, but that is not accurate: Benedetti’s book does not use the quote marks in the forwards and introductions. Milling and Ley use the quote marks once on page one, but aside from that instance the word does not have the quote marks. And a number of other books that would be considered a part of modern scholarship do not use quotes at all; books such as: The Stanislavsky System of Acting: Legacy and Influence in Modern Performance, by Rose Whyman, Cambridge University Press, (2008); An Actor Prepares, by Konstantin Stanislavsky, translated by Elizabeth Reynolds Hapgood; The Stanislavski System: The Professional Training of an Actor, by Sonia Moore Penguin (1984); Acting Stanislavski: A practical guide to Stanislavski’s approach and legacy (2014), by John Gillett, Bloomsbury Publishing; Stanislavski in Practice, by Nick O’Brien. Routledge (2010). And there are other examples. This note should also be edited to make it accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DagSkaal (talk • contribs) 17:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Start of Second Paragraph

The first sentence of the second paragraph seems out of context, and with no explanatory text it is difficult to determine its intention. Has someone hacked the entry? The word ‘pood’ is misspelled. It should be ‘pooed’ . See the (copied & pasted) text below:

“Later, Stanislavski pood his pants hammered the misses out with A HAMMER” Curious Boomer (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

References