My response to both the Bella Merlin book 'Konstantin Stanislavsky' and August Strindberg's 'Miss Julie'

Response to the Stanislavsky system and exercises

From the fourth section of the book it can be seen that the Stanislavsky system appears to be the bread and butter of acting technique. The base exercises in themselves remind me of really simple relaxation techniques that I was taught even when I first started acting when I was young, specifically the muscle tensing exercise. This in itself although not essential does help in preparation for a larger exercise and drawing someone to the zone of where they should be to start developing a role and drawing focus to the task. The first aspect of Stanislavsky’s system was working with given circumstances, this includes various types of theatres, including: (but not limited to) proscenium, in-the-round, and street theatre. It is important when developing a role to take into regards the different factors that will have an impact on the performance, that might take away from the emotional integration. Stanislavsky’s system helps in this respect, creating more believable performances by making an actor feel like they are encapsulated within the role. The best translation of the Stanislavsky system and the way in can be most easily understood is by using seven questions:

1. Who Am I?
2. Where Am I?
3. When Is It?
4. What Do I Want?
5. Why Do I Want It?
6. How Will I Get It?
7. What Do I Need To Overcome?

The book shows these in more detailed factors but essentially the techniques can be put down to these examples of Stanislavsky’s system. As said previously the Stanislavsky method requires someone to think about where their performance is going to end up, in this respect it makes the method easier to be translated into other forms of acting such as film.

In my opinion some of the activities shown within the text are more complex than others but in turn I believe that they all are useful in conjunction with each other. For example the given circumstances improvisations appear to focus upon settling an actor in a new environment that makes you think about the location in regards to number 2 in the list of seven, then when that is completed a time factor can be layered on this adding in the question of ‘when’. This is important as a foundation for the rest of the exercises, which again add their own questions that can help with developing a character. This is of course due to the interlinking nature of the stanislavsky method itself. Another interesting thing to note about the exercises however is how a vast majority of them involve more than one person, this in turn I believe is a very effective method in not only creating your own role but by creating everyone’s role together. Overall this factor would appear to be the most solid as it allows actors to work in a company to build a cohesive set of characters that are familiar with interacting with each other. This in turn can help to create a more skillful performance in total.

============================================================================

Miss Julie response

In regards to the play Miss Julie there are a few key themes that lie under the main premise of the story, these mostly revolve around the socio-economic representations of the two centre characters (Jean and Miss Julie). Jean is of course a footman whilst Miss Julie is shown to be more of an aristocrat, with ensuing moments of passion between them it is quite easy to see how these elements blended together to create the controversy of the play's first release. Due to the play being released in the latter half of the Victorian era the themes that are suggested within the play would be seen as greatly offensive in a time that prided itself upon image. This of course appears to be a theme in itself regarding plays in the late 1800’s, with the popularity of theatre itself as a main form of entertainment. This essentially shows how the controversial elements of a form of romance between Jean and Miss Julie would be interpreted into something that would be improper for the general public in itself. It is also of no wonder that the play was banned on its first premier and then again in its first public performance in Berlin. As the story itself of a daughter of a count having any form of intimacy with her footman, may be contextualised in the form of the writer (Strindberg) wanting to get a reaction from the intended public audience to be recognised for his work.

Speaking from a more reviewing frame of mind however, within the story of the play some elements do step forward that identify the piece as being written in a short frame of time that would constrain the writer to speed up on some of the escalating details of the play. For example, we do know that Strindberg only wrote this piece in a fortnight which does translate into how one-on-one time between the audience and the characters appear in these small monologues. This is most likely done as a dividing tool to tear away from the main string of story that unfolds between the interactions of Miss Julie and Jean and the subsequent involvement of Kristen which takes place in the third act. The final conflict appears to come and go fairly quickly with Miss Julie fretting heavily about what the count will do to her after hearing about any form of involvement with servants and the fact that she had her engagement broken off.

The interesting aspect in my opinion, in regards to the characters, is how they are both complete polar opposites of each other in gender, attitude, class and their speech (both maintaining clear motives throughout the play). This I feel made the events of the play and the interactions of Miss Julie and Jean more enjoyable to read, the nature of their opposing political classes in my opinion draws upon the intended controversial themes of the time. Overall I believe that the two characters between each other certainly end up with interesting conversations as more levels of their personality and attributes are unveiled, showing Jean to be no better than any other man in Miss Julie’s opinion. As Miss Julie says she hates men, Jean almost snap changes to a point where he loses any levels of respect for her, in turn interrupting even further the factors of a class system.

Another factor to take into account other than the theme of class is the elements of status and power. This is clearly shown throughout different points of the book, this is presented through certain lines such as ‘it’s in my blood’ and ‘I’ve the money’. The first example of power here is shown through more traditional means of heritage, which most likely is shown as a method of Strindberg’s intended means for the character of Miss Julie. It is shown to a degree that Miss Julie disregards her social status throughout the whole of the play, to partner herself to her footman Jean. This is important to show the lack of respect that she feels to an aspect of herself that during the 1800’s was an incredibly important element to any and all individuals of the time. In turn the fact that August Strindberg decidedly shows that the sections of Miss Julie where she interacts with Jean as her being a more submissive character entirely. This is almost showing that the factors of a patriarchal society override the elements of the social hierarchy of the time in the opinion of the writer himself possibly. The second section of power that is shown throughout the piece is focused on that of wealth, another important factor of the time money often earnt respect and influence. In the context that Miss Julie states the line ‘I’ve the money’ she is using it to prove to Jean that she has the ability to get both of them away from the estate.