Comperative Evaluation of Approaches of Meisner and Adler in the Context of Actor’s Perception of Reality on Stage
This article aims to evaluate the Sanford Meisner and Stella Adler’s acting methods comparatively by underlying their approach on the understanding of actors’ reality on stage. This duo, who was among the founders of the Group Theater and determined a sense of acting based on Stanislavski’s first term work, left working with affective memory and turned to the given circumstances after Adler shared what she learned from Stanislavski in Paris. The discussions inside the group ended up with the departure of Strasberg from the group, and Meisner also joined Adler and was against affective memory. However, these two names, who initially started off from Stanislavski’s acting approach, were separated from the context of the actor’s reality on the stage. Based on the primary sources they wrote on their own methods, in this article, the aspects of the acting approaches of Adler and Meisner are analyzed by examining the basic concepts they use in their own methods and comparing them with each other. As a result of this, Meisner and Adler’s approach to the actors’ perception of reality on the stage is quite different from each other and will try to be explained within the frame of this paper.
Meisner ve Adler’in Oyuncunun Sahne Üzerindeki Gerçeklik Algısına Yaklaşımlarının Değerlendirmesi
Bu makalede, Sanford Meisner ve Stella Adler’in oyunculuk yaklaşımlarının oyuncunun sahne üzerindeki gerçeklik algısı bağlamında karşılaştırarak değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Grup Tiyatrosunun kurucuları arasında yer alan ve Stanislavski’nin birinci dönem çalışmaları üzerine kurulu bir oyunculuk anlayışı belirlemiş olan bu ikili, Adler’in Paris’te Stanislavski ile yaptığı çalışmalardan öğrendiklerini grup üyeleriyle paylaşması sonucu coşku belleğini bırakıp verili koşullara yönelmişlerdir. Grup Tiyatrosu içindeki tartışmalarda Strasberg’e karşı olarak Adler’in yanında yer alan Meisner, sonraki dönemde geliştirdiği oyunculuk metodunda Adler gibi coşku belleğine yer vermemiştir. Ancak ilerleyen süreçte, başlangıçta Stanislavski’nin oyunculuk anlayışından yolan çıkan bu iki isim, oyuncunun sahne üzerindeki gerçekliği bağlamında birbirinden ayrılmıştır. Kendi metotları üzerine yazdıkları birincil kaynaklardan yola çıkılarak bu makalede Adler ve Meisner’in oyunculuk yaklaşımlarının hangi açılardan birbirinden ayrıldığı kendi metotlarında kullandıkları temel kavramlar ele alınarak incelenmiş ve birbiriyle karşılaştırma yoluna gidilmiştir. Bunun sonucunda, Meisner ve Adler’in oyuncunun sahne üzerindeki gerçeklik algısına yaklaşımlarının birbirinden oldukça farklı olduğuna ulaşılmış ve bu farklıklar açıklanmıştır.
The approaches of Stella Adler and Sanford Meisner, who created their own acting methods in the process after the break of Strasberg from the Group Theater, are quite different from each other, although they are accepted as based on Stanislavski. This difference distinguishes both their view of the actor’s reality on stage and also some factors such as character, imagination, action, and relationship with partner that provides reality for the actors. Stella Adler added Stanislavski’s approach to her own approach by interpreting the sense of memory, action, imagination and justification of the action, which she thought determined the reality of the actor on the stage. The character, imagination, action and justification that Stella Adler handles one by one is based on the actors’ studies that make them as realistic as possible by elaborating, analyzing and working on them. In her book “The Art of Acting”, Adler (2006) deals with the diversification and analysis of actions one by one, by analyzing them separately, and asks the actor to master, as much as possible, the physical actions he or she will perform on the stage. According to Meisner (1987), the actions that arise from the impulsive response on the stage that the actor will give to him or her by observing his partner are designed in advance according to Adler. In this context, Meisner’s understanding of the reality that the actor has built on the “truthfully living” by investing in the reality of doing here-and-now is quite different from the actions that Adler wants the actor to design and perform.
Similarly, an important dimension of reaching reality on stage is reality in character. Although Adler says that the character is made up of what the actor did on the stage, this is quite different from the character that Meisner said appeared in the actions. This is because Adler chooses the way to analyze and construct the character in the sequel, just like in actions and imagination. According to Stella Adler’s approach, the actors must be aware and imagine all the details of a character’s past, social status, childhood, family, education, occupation, professional experience and personal relationships to create the character (Adler, 2006).
Another important difference between Meisner and Adler is the difference in imagination and given circumstances. According to Adler, the reality of the actor on the stage is directly connected to the imagination, and not passed through the imagination and considered as the real “lie”; according to Meisner, the actor on the stage should not break from the present time, and should not allow the formation of a “head” work by returning to his or her mind (Meisner ve Longwell, 1987). Only by getting rid of the manipulation of his or her mind, the actor can actually live here-and-now, in Meisner’s words, “living truthfully”. Unlike Miesner, who underlines that acting lies in the impulses and that the actor must get rid of mentality; for Adler, not a single word from the mouth of the actor should not come out of the imagination (Adler, 2006). The more detailed the actor details something in his or her imagination, the greater reality he or she reaches.
Finally, Meisner and Adler, who base their approaches on what actors do on the stage for different reasons, differ on what the actor’s reality of doing is based on. According to Adler (2006), the actions performed by the actor are based on personal reasons that the actor decides personally; for Meisner, what happens to the actor and his or her response depends entirely on the other person. The actor cannot go to any justification other than given circumstances. Therefore, contrary to Adler, who states that there will be a reality proportional to the good justification of the actions, Meisner suggests that the actor will only respond truthfully by observing his or her partner well and responding accordingly.
