We get the question from our Instagram account.
Andrei Malaev-Babel is answered:
Demidov Etudes are drastically different from Stanislavsky’s use of etudes in Active Analysis. Stanislavsky used etudes to explore or rehearse a given play. Demidov uses etudes to cultivate a fine actor, who could then approach any role and any play with ease and confidence. Demidov never uses etudes to rehearse a play; by the time his actors are ready to approach a play — they are completely prepared to deal with author’s text directly and only need etudes (unrelated to the play) in order to sustain their organic technique of living onstage. These etudes, once again, are never related to the play rehearsed. They affect the rehearsal work indirectly, by infusing it with freshness and spontaneity, and with actors’ ability to truly see and hear their partners. That ability quickly disappears in rehearsals, from frequent repetition, unless Demidov Etudes are used in parallel, to sustain the skill of seeing and hearing.
That is one of the main differences between the Demidov School and the Stanislavsky System. Stanislavsky focused on the dramaturgical material, on a play, while Demidov focuses on an actor and actor’s process.
Also Stanislavsky in his etudes makes the actor improvise the words of the author — a skill actors do not need, plus it keeps them in theirs heads. It also creates an awkward transition from improvised text to the author’s; that transition kills the results of Active Analysis etude work, making it rather useless. In the Demidov etudes, the text is always given, which allows actors to train specific actorly skills, rather than “playwriting in disguise.”
Dont hesitate to ask any question about acting. You can send them via FORM