Epilogue

Summary

The differences, layers, degrees and generations of legacy in diverse sociocultural contexts problematize the issue of legacy while helping to situate historical, first-generation legatees of Stanislavsky and those of the end of the twentieth century and the opening two decades of the twenty-first. For the historical dimension, emphasis is necessarily on Russia, the United States, due to emigration from the MAT to this continent, and Europe, where the MAT first toured, leaving its lasting impact, especially in Germany and France. Britain too was drawn by the company’s achievements.

For the contemporary dimensions of legacy, the picture peopled primarily by directors rather than actor-teachers is deepened by the particularities of each and the connections between them as they also link to a particular Stanislavsky. One such cluster is Grotowski-Vasilyev-Brook; another has the flagships of Mnouchkine and Barba. Dodin’s is a comprehensive heritage; that of Ostermeier, Sellars and Butusov tied to a selective Stanislavsky of their respective choice. Perceval has his very own, more narrowly defined part of Stanislavsky. British directors shift the view through Dodin. The panorama offered is far from complete, but the question always is: Which Stanislavsky?