As an actor using Stanislavski's system, how would you use his ideas on 'imagination', 'units and objectives' and 'emotion mem

Authors Avatar

As an actor using Stanislavski's system, how would you use his ideas on 'imagination', 'units and objectives' and 'emotion memory' in the preparation for a role?

There are many ways we can use Stanislavski’s system when preparing for a role as an actor. We can use ‘imagination’, ‘emotion memory’, and we can split the play into ‘units and objectives’.

Stanislavski believed that “every movement you make, every word you speak … is the result of your imagination.” Using ‘imagination’ makes the role that the actor has to undertake more convincing. Stanislavski believed that there were three types of imagination: actors who can take the iniative to invoke their own imagination, actors who can be easily aroused by the director and then people who just do not respond at all. The easier it is for the actor to use their ‘imagination’, the richer their characterizations will be when preparing for and acting a role. The ‘imagination’ should be focused and based on observations the actor has made so it will not wonder and become unrealistic. The ‘imagination’ fills in the blanks that the author has missed and so they need to be very precise and use their ‘imagination’ to provide extra detail to what has happened to the character not only on stage, but before and after as well. This helps the actor to go on an ‘imaginative journey’, everything must be logical so that the acting still seems real.

Join now!

Stanislavski believed a play needed to be broken down into ‘units and objectives’ so that the actor could better understand and interpret a play. The ‘large units’ or ‘main episodes’ are identified and are then broken down into ‘smaller units’, which makes the play more manageable. The ‘units’ can be broken down into physical and mental units. Each ‘unit’ is then given an ‘objective’. The ‘objective’ is always a verb, and is also the core of each unit or what the unit cannot be without or it will not make sense. The ‘objective’ should always be truthful, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a star student thought of this essay


The Quality of Written Communication (QWC) here is very good. The candidate either has excellence in clarity of written expression or has, like many candidate neglect to do and result in losing QWC marks, read and re-read their answer and corrected any spelling and grammatical errors. This is a very good use of time because we tend to make involuntary mistakes when we write, without even noticing.

The Level of Analysis is very good. There is an excellent explanation of three of the steps required to assume the role of a completely naturalistic actor. The descriptions are well-structured, and adhere well to what Stanislavski aimed to achieve in theatre consistently by their focus on how he wanted to create a "fresh and realistic" theatre. The candidate's commentary on emotion memory, units and objectives, and imagination all give the impression of someone who is very adept in the understanding of Stanislavskian theatre, and there is excellent evidence to suggest this candidate can write an analytical response as they begin to consider the downsides of splitting plays into sections that are treated individually rather than as one coherent unit. This is a very good way of strengthening the answer; by briefly challenging or mentioning a drawback of a theory can show that there is a good understanding not only of the theory, but also the practical elements of it.

This is a very focused answer on the required three aspects of Stanislavskian theatre and the candidate's focus is unbroken throughout their answer. The response is a little systematic, and in turn can feel very detached and the fluency disrupted by segregated paragraph topics, but this kind of essay does not require as much cross-paragraph referencing and integration as, for example, and English essay would. The candidate covers all the aspects required to appreciate Stanislavski's system and demonstrates a good knowledge of the terminology required in order to correctly address the theories he writes of.