Stanislavsky vs Artaud

Should theatre reflect reality, or shock an audience into a new way of thinking?

A 30-Minute Drama Lesson: Stanislavsky vs Artaud

Learning Objective:

To understand and compare the acting and theatrical styles of Constantin Stanislavsky and Antonin Artaud through discussion and practical exploration.

Success Criteria

Students can:

- Identify key features of Stanislavsky's Naturalism.

- Identify key features of Artaud's Theatre of Cruelty.

- Explain at least two similarities and two differences.

- Demonstrate practical elements of each practitioner's style.

-----------

Starter Discussion (5 minutes)

Write the following question on the board:

What makes a performance believable?

Ask students to discuss in pairs for one minute and gather ideas.

Follow-up questions:

- Should actors act like real people?

- Can theatre be unrealistic and still be powerful?

- Is it more important to tell a story or create an emotional experience?

Try to link responses to the two practitioners.

---

Key Information (5 minutes)

Stanislavsky

Aim: Create believable, truthful characters.

Key Features

- Naturalistic acting.

- Emotional memory.

- Given circumstances.

- Objectives and motivations.

- "Magic If" ("What would I do if I were this character?")

- Realistic relationships and behaviour.

Audience Experience: The audience should feel they are watching real life.

---

Artaud

Aim: Shock the audience and affect them emotionally and physically.

Key Features

- Theatre of Cruelty.

- Use of movement, sound, lighting and gesture.

- Non-naturalistic performance.

- Symbolism and ritual.

- Strong physical expression.

- Less focus on realistic character psychology.

Audience Experience: The audience should feel unsettled, challenged or overwhelmed.

---

Quick Comparison

Stanislavsky | Artaud

Realism | Theatricality

Character psychology | Sensory impact

Natural speech | Vocal experimentation

Everyday behaviour | Stylised movement

Story and character | Emotion and atmosphere

Observe reality | Shock the audience

Similarities

- Both wanted theatre to affect audiences.

- Both developed actor training techniques.

- Both believed theatre should be more than simple entertainment.

Practical Activity (12 minutes)

Task: "Lost in a Forest"

Give students the same scenario:

You are lost alone in a forest at night and hear something approaching.

Round 1: Stanislavsky (5 minutes)

In pairs or small groups, develop a short, improvised scene in which students perform the situation realistically.

Encourage them to:

- Use natural speech.

- Work with genuine reactions suited to their character.

- Have clear objectives (they want to escape, stay calm, find help).

- Use realistic movement.

Ask:

- What was the character thinking?

- What did they want?

---

Round 2: Artaud (5 minutes)

Perform the same scenario using Theatre of Cruelty.

Encourage students to:

- Use repeated sounds or words, perhaps creating a sound-scape, chant or ritual feeling

- Explore using exaggerated movement.

- Use symbolic gestures.

- Use ensemble movement.

- Explore non-naturalistic physical theatre.

- Create fear through atmosphere rather than dialogue.

Ask:

- How can movement show fear?

- How can sound create tension?

---

Reflection Discussion (5 minutes)

Questions:

1. Which style was easier to perform and why?

2. Which style had a stronger impact on the audience?

3. How did the actor's role change between the two styles?

4. Which practitioner focuses more on character?

5. Which practitioner focuses more on audience experience?

Exit Question

Complete the sentence:

"Stanislavsky wanted theatre to ____________, whereas Artaud wanted theatre to ____________."

Example answer:

"Stanislavsky wanted theatre to imitate real life, whereas Artaud wanted theatre to shock audiences through sensory experience."

Extension Challenge

Ask students to create a frozen image of the "lost in a forest" scenario:

- One image in the style of Stanislavsky.

- One image in the style of Artaud.

The class identifies which practitioner each image represents and explains why.