New School Acting Class on TV-Whelan-Today
Jeremy Whelan
The New School Acting Ensemble, under Jeremy's direction, will
demonstrate The
Whelan Tape Technique. Sorry it's only in Manhattan
Check It Out and if you like it, call me to get into Saturday's
All day intensive New School Acting workshop in New York City!
Saturday, July 14th, 10:00 AM -7:00 PM
Info: (212) 956-0902 or 646-279-6899
Location,Mid-Town Manhattan
Next 8 week class begins Sunday July 15th 6-9pm
Limited Enrollment, Deposit required
Ciao,
Jeremy
Riley G
First off, I'm not connected to the following acting process, but only a
student. I just attended the "WHALEN TAPE TECHINQUE" (WTT) workshop in New
York City on July 14th, and let me say this, I was impressed by the WTT and
will be using this method from now on in my acting for Film & TV, and
Theatre projects.
Signed,
Riley G
Actor - Stuntman
http://www.RileyG.com/index1.htm
The Whalen Tape Techinque information web site is located at:
http://www.jeremy-whelan-acting.com
NEW SCHOOL ACTING is a revolutionary new approach to rehearsal procedure and
to actor training. The two major distinctions, between old and new school
are that, New School actors work from an empathy-emotions based approach as
opposed to the psycho-intellectual base of what could be called the
Stanislavski/Freud approach. New School, through it's techniques and
philosophy demand ensemble acting, whereas the hyper-personal orientation of
old school must count on the personal intensity of the actor, thereby
producing, the star system. The major techniques of New School can be found
on NEW SCHOOL ACTING home page and are free for the download. This includes
the Whelan Tape Technique, a highly innovative and explosive new tool for
rehearsal and actor training.
Riley G
William Smithers
What a lot of empty, pretentious rhetoric!
Bypassing the "empathy-emotions based" verbiage for the moment,
perhaps the first and longest-lasting ensemble theatre in this country
was the Group Theatre (1931-1941), using for the first time in
professional theatre in the U.S. an ensemble of actors, directors, and
playwrights devoted to the work of Stanislavsky and others such as
Vakhtangov.
Bill Smithers
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 10:46:57 -0400, "Riley G" <Ril...@BBMC.org>
wrote:
Christopher Jahn
> Re the "NEW SCHOOL ACTING" paragraph below:
>
> What a lot of empty, pretentious rhetoric!
>
Amen!! And you haven't even heard the worst of it.
> Bypassing the "empathy-emotions based" verbiage for the
> moment, perhaps the first and longest-lasting ensemble
> theatre in this country was the Group Theatre (1931-1941),
> using for the first time in professional theatre in the U.S.
> an ensemble of actors, directors, and playwrights devoted to
> the work of Stanislavsky and others such as Vakhtangov.
>
> Bill Smithers
I had quite the exchange with Whelan a couple of years back.
Whelan doesn't have even the most basic grasp of what the GT was
or what it did, but he's quikc to criticize it and tout his own
"technique".
In six months of ongoing discussion, he was never able to
describe the workings of the "technique", only that it was
"new", and "unlike the Method, it is based entirely on
emotions".
I have yet to meet a reputable actor who has anything positive
to say about Mr. Whelan's "technique" - if they've heard of it
at all.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Riley G
news:Xns90DFC9A...@24.129.0.136...
>
> I have yet to meet a reputable actor who has anything positive
> to say about Mr. Whelan's "technique" - if they've heard of it
> at all.
>
> --
> }:-) Christopher Jahn
> {:-( Dionysian Reveler
I think Kelsey Grammer is a pretty big star in this business called
ACTING...
RG
------
http://www.jeremy-whelan-acting.com/endorse.html
"The Whelan Tape Technique is helpful in bringing the necessary battle
between instinct and technique to a peaceful accord."
Kelsey Grammer, Star of Frasier
"What is remarkable about this process is that by the time you come to do
the lines, you virtually know them. We use this technique for every scene in
the play."
Danny Scheinmann, The English Shakespeare Company, London, UK
"Whelan's approach makes eminent sense and his book makes a good case for
its use. Highly recommended."
Stage Directions Magazine, review of INSTANT ACTING
"Very rarely does a new idea come along which is so easily adaptable to the
classroom. Jeremy Whelan's new book, NEW SCHOOL ACTING II takes teachers
through to a new way of getting students to perform without making them
co-dependent on directors. Jeremy's techniques incorporate not only acting
skills, but help build vocabulary, critical thinking, cooperative learning
and help
expand the emotional development of the student."
Betsy Tuxill, President, Speech & Theatre Association of New Jersey
"Thank you, thank you, thank you! You have provided a tremendous boost to
our students as they begin their acting activities this fall. So many
students have indicated their excitement to use the techniques and
approaches you have used in the workshops and play rehearsals... We no doubt
will be using your approach for several years to come in our classes and
production work."
John Bidwell, Professor, Theatre Dept., Ricks College, Rexburg, Idaho
"The Whelan Tape Technique gets to the core of the creative process in
record time."
Robert Yowell, Chair Of Theatre, California State University
"As we (the actors and I) became more familiar with how The Whelan Tape
Technique worked, we were very excited by the things we were discovering.
They experienced 'being present' in the play in many new and deeper ways. I
look forward to a stronger understanding of your work. I am excited by it.
It is grand to find a new way to move forward."
Sharon Andrews, Visiting Professor, North Carolina School of the Arts & Wake
Forest U.
"INSTANT ACTING advocates a rehearsal and classroom technique that invites
creative discovery as opposed to the execution of predetermined results.
Actors and directors should benefit from taking up your challenge to
redefine the rehearsal process."
Mark Majarian, Professor of Theatre, Cypress College, Circuit One
Coordinator, Region VIII, American Collegiate Theatre Federation
"Jeremy Whelan's Tape Technique has unlimited potential. It works."
Mel Shrawder, Head Of Performance, U. Miami
"Thank you for the wonderful rehearsal account. It's inspiring to read about
this work. I would also add that I am familiar with your books and I have
employed the tape techniques in my studio classes. I consider the tape work
a wonderful innovation. The physical work of our actors has never been
better. Your heretical work on emotions is also appreciated. In my case it
has crystallized my problems with method approaches, and shown me a way out
of that particular dilemma."
Marc Diamond, Professor of Theatre, School for the Contemporary Arts, Simon
Fraser U.
"I believe that Whelan's actor training method, as described, is excellent.
It incorporates the three basic learning domains of all students, visual in
reading scripts and watching the other learners and actors, auditory in
hearing the recorded script, and most importantly kinesthetic in moving the
body as a learning technique. Whelan's method actually gets the actor's
bodies to learn the roles they re performing."
Thomas Klocke, Arts In Education Coordinator, Kansas Arts Commission
"The Whelan Tape Technique is superb in its simplicity and helpful to the
actor regardless of his or her level."
Stanley Wilson, Producer, Covert Productions, Hollywood, Calif.
"Thanks for bringing your demonstration of the Whelan Tape Technique to my
graduate acting students. ...Most illuminating to me as a teacher, was to
see the evolution of the scene work through repeated tapings. ... it became
clear that my primary error was simply in giving up too soon ... the first
couple of times may appear to be steps backward-then the work leaps forward
to a new an unexpected level. The students agreed unanimously that it was a
session well spent." -Roxane Rix, Coordinator of Acting, Villanova
University
"We accomplished worlds in our production, thanks in great part to the
Whelan Tape Technique." -Steve Neal, Prof. of Theatre, Barry University,
Miami Shores, Fl.
"The Whelan Tape Technique is a remarkable device for rapid development of
skills. Deceptively simple but extremely powerful, it has the potential for
turning a good actor into a great one, an average actor into a good one and
to give the appearance of talent to someone who has none. Get this
book." -Gersh Morningstar, Editor, The Florida Blue Sheet, Review of INSTANT
ACTING (June, 1995)
"I have seen the future. The Whelan Tape Technique has really set my classes
on fire." -Robert Christophe, Acting Instructor, University of the Arts,
Philadelphia, Pa.
"I was enormously impressed by the value of the Whelan Tape Technique." -Dr.
Frank Olley, Director of Theatre, St. Joseph's University, Philadelphia, Pa.
"I think Jeremy Whelan's Tape Technique is a new, refeshing and amazingly
effective alternative. I advise other directors to give The Whelan Tape
Technique a chance, you will be very glad you did." -Paul Cerra, Forest City
Regional School Drama Director. Honored nationally as "Rural Theatre Teacher
of the Year 1995"
"The Whelan Tape Technique is pure genius. Thanks for the gift of challenge,
change and confidence for my actors and thank you for trying to drag the art
of acting kicking and screaming into the 21st century." -Marjorie A. Durmig,
Associate Professor, Theatre Arts, Eastern Illinois U.
"Thank you for an exciting new way of working. The Whelan Tape Technique has
changed my acting and teaching forever." -Barbara Beatty-Shrawder,
Actress/Instructor Voice & Speech, U. of Miami
"Your tape technique amazed my students. They found themselves doing things
they had never experienced before." -Dr. Roger Ellis, President Michigan
Theatre Association, Associate Professor of Theatre, Grand Valley State U.
"I was extremely pleased with the results of working with The Whelan Tape
Technique. It makes such an excellent teaching tool. I and my cast felt
proud of our production and no small measure of thanks goes to The Whelan
Tape Technique." -Sharon Kilarski, Director/Ph.D. Candidate, University of
Missouri
"Subject: I want more!!!!!!!
I am so excited to have come across this information!!!! I am in Grad school
and am working on my thesis port-folio... I have been looking for a new
approach to creating a "real" comic character. I have been studying the
different methods of acting for years and never really felt like they worked
for me. .. When I began reading your technique I could not keep myself from
shouting"YES!!!!" This is what I think, too!!!! "PLEASE, Let Stanislavski
rest in peace!!!" Your theory on the changing audience is SO true - I just
dont understand how more actors cant see this!!!! Since finding your
material I have decided to make it the center of my thesis work... I am
truly fascinated by what I have read thus far ... Thankyou again for
offering this wonderful technique for actors! It has been a long time
coming!!!!" -Tara Lynn Stewart
"Jeremy!
I got a copy of your book and just love it! I have used it in one acting
class and found that the students really appreciated your tape technique.
It's good stuff. I'm one of your big fans and believe that you are making a
significant contribution to the professional theatre. You have some good
things to say and some creative approaches that need to be taught." -Herb
Sennett, Theatre Professor Louisiana College
"I have used your NEW SCHOOL ACTING TECHNIQUE with my high school students
and have had tremendous results! As an educator, I have attempted to expose
my students to a variety of acting techniques including Stanislavski,
Meisner, Shurtloff and Wolfe. The students tell me that your method works
best for them and the administrators at our school have praised the program
for the vocabulary it teaches. I have recommended this text to many other
theatre educators in Texas." -Erin Moore
"Jeremy,
Last summer I did a show at The Theater for the New City in NYC where I used
your instant acting technique... I discovered a lot of good stuff using your
work, and had a very different experience creating the character. It didn't
feel like an artificial creation, it was like the character" grew from the
words. I own Instant acting and New School Acting, and would like to use the
techniques ore-especially the emotion work. I am getting my BFA at Brooklyn
College. Thanks for your work!" -John Harlacher, Brooklyn College
Christopher Jahn
> "Christopher Jahn" <xj...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns90DFC9A...@24.129.0.136...
>>
>> I have yet to meet a reputable actor who has anything
>> positive to say about Mr. Whelan's "technique" - if they've
>> heard of it at all.
>>
>> --
>> }:-) Christopher Jahn {:-( Dionysian Reveler
> ----------------------------------
>
> I think Kelsey Grammer is a pretty big star in this business
> called ACTING...
>
Kelsey Grammar is a TV star, but as to his "reputable actor"
status, that's another discussion. ;-)
BUT, regardless of Mr. Grammer's background, he refers only and
SPECIFICALLY to the Tape Technique, not any of Jeremy's "New
School" techniques.
Certainly, it is not a way for an actor to learn craft - it's a
tool that can adequately aid only a trained actor. {And yes, I
have read Mr. Whelan's books.}
As to the list of names appended, I know several of them
personally - Mel Schrawder and his wife Barabara, Steve Neal,
and Gersh Morningstar.
None of them have ever worked in professional theatre. Gersh
runs the Bluesheet, which is basically a phone list and
newsletter. It's a valuable resource, but it does not qualify
him to judge the value of a training method.
In fact, outside of Mr. Grammer, NOT ONE theatre professional is
listed [with the possible exception of Mr. Scheinmann, who also
seems to be referencing the Tape Technique and not the New
School] - it's a bunch of acting teachers from schools who do
NOT have premiere status as schools turning out working
professional actors.
You want to impress me? Get some Broadway directors, some award
wining actors on this list. College professors do not impress
me - I spend too much time teaching actors how to overcome their
college "training". College professors are good at teaching
students how to pass classes. Rarely do they turn out actors
who know their craft.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
I may have my faults, but being wrong isn't one of them.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Drama Queen
>
> I may have my faults, but being wrong isn't one of them.
I don't know about the rest of you, ...but I like this sig line. 8^)
Bill491
> "Christopher Jahn" <xj...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns90DFC9A...@24.129.0.136...
> >
> > I have yet to meet a reputable actor who has anything positive
> > to say about Mr. Whelan's "technique" - if they've heard of it
> > at all.
> > }:-) Christopher Jahn
> > {:-( Dionysian Reveler
> ----------------------------------
>
> I think Kelsey Grammer is a pretty big star in this business called
> ACTING...
> RG
Dear RG,
JW has a history of making false claims and stretching the truth and being
genuinely nasty to anyone who didn't agree with his so-called new techniques.
I recall reading this claim when JW was last on-line years ago.... and if it's
so, it's so. Heck, I once audited a class with a mediocre LA acting coach and
wrote her an acknowledgement, never studied again with her, mind you, and then
came across one of her flyers ten years later with a careful clipped quote and
the mention of my good name. I wrote her back and insisted that she not mention
my name again.
<g> A well known film critic commenting on Marlon Brando's performance in "The
Score" credited him as a "Method" actor. Brando studied briefly with Lee
Strasberg at The Actors Studio, hated the teacher and "the Method" and went on
to study with Stella Adler, one one my mentors. Half a century later, he is
still labelled as a "Method actor."
I spent a couple of years reading JW's posts and his books (two of which he sent
to me, gratis). I even tried out the famous Whelan Tape Technique with a good
actor and fellow coach..... and we really gave it our best shot, and guess
what.... it works. But there are better and quicker methods, even under what
Jeremy calls in the MOST derogatory fashion, the "old school."
JW can talk about TT and crayons and emotionology to his heart's content. All
900 of his one or two line definitions come from a dictionary. I'm really
pleased that Jeremy's sessions work for you and other actors. Just be aware
that there are some folks who've tried his approaches and are.... shall we
say.... unhappy campers.
I'm one of those folks who continue to do my own version of KS, learned from
Bobby Lewis and Stella Adler, and I continue my own research and
experimentation. The reason that JW is so much is pariah in the acting community
is that he never takes the time to explain emotionology. What he does focus on,
however is a hodgepodge notion of conspiracies that don't exist. I have three
of his books and have read them carefully, along with notes from his website.
And aside from TT.... which I've tried and have found to be helpful, but
inefficient, each and every time that I wrote to Jeremy to ask WHAT DO I DO, HOW
DO I MAKE THIS WORK, once I've "charted" my emotions or my "colors".... well
good ol' Jeremy obfuscates.... he says.... it's obvious, just read the book
again, or..... you don't understand because you are an old dog who can't learn
new tricks.
Jeremy's research is full of flaws, and I won't go into that for the moment. If
you are a friend or supporter of Whelan, share with him one small piece of
advice.... Jeremy.... spend a little more time explaining TT and the crayon
theory of acting and charts of 900 emotions and just a little less time
lecturing everybody about how any Stanislavski-based approach is "old-school."
Hmmm, JW should trademark that term, since it's the core of his self marketing.
JW, how the hell are you? It's been a while. I sincerely hope you are doing
well, now that you're back in NYC. I'll share your re-emergence with the coach
who replaced you in L.A.
You and I don't need to engage each other, though it might be fun for a while.
But I do urge you to consider something I once suggested.... you've got a
different approach and you are entitled to market it and practice it. What gets
you into trouble is your insistence on arguing that what every other coach or
acting teacher is "old-school" thinking based on early KS and Freud. And you
lost every argument on those themes because your scholarship is flawed and your
arguments are illogical.
By all means, JW, sell and market your system on its own merits. But each and
every time that you use the argument that all other systems and methods are
outdated or outmoded, well then expect an objection or three. Negative
advertising, in the long run, JW, doesn't work.
Break a leg,
Bill
--
THE ACTING STUDIO
http://gvtg.com/theactingstudio
Christopher Jahn
Hmm, I didn't even know this one was on the list.
I really MUST make the time to read ALL of the sigs in my
Randomizer at some point...
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Admiration: Our polite recognition of another's resemblance to
ourselves.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
de Valois
>Christopher Jahn wrote:
>>
>> I may have my faults, but being wrong isn't one of them.
>
>I don't know about the rest of you, ...but I like this sig line. 8^)
Yer off topic, Deeq, in the rec groups.
--
Carl
We're bigger than Jesus! - JWLennon
Jeremy Whelan
wrote:
And it came to pass that William Smithers wrote: > Re the "NEW SCHOOL
ACTING" paragraph below:
> > What a lot of empty, pretentious rhetoric!
> Amen!! And you haven't even heard the worst of it.
> > Bypassing the "empathy-emotions based" verbiage for the
> > moment, perhaps the first and longest-lasting ensemble
> > theatre in this country was the Group Theatre (1931-1941),
> > using for the first time in professional theatre in the U.S.
> > an ensemble of actors, directors, and playwrights devoted to
> > the work of Stanislavsky and others such as Vakhtangov.
> > Bill Smithers
> I had quite the exchange with Whelan a couple of years back.
> Whelan doesn't have even the most basic grasp of what the GT was
> or what it did, but he's quikc to criticize it and tout his
> own"technique".
> In six months of ongoing discussion, he was never able to
> describe the workings of the "technique", only that it was
> "new", and "unlike the Method, it is based entirely on emotions".
> I have yet to meet a reputable actor who has anything positive
> to say about Mr. Whelan's "technique" - if they've heard of it
> at all.
> }:-) Christopher Jahn
> {:-( Dionysian Reveler
Hello from Jeremy,
I've been a professional actor for 35 years, mostly New York-LA. I've
published five popular books on acting since 1990. I'm a highly
respected teacher with seventeen years of experience on every level,
college, kids & pro's. I am the artistic director of a new theatre
company in New York City. People are using and praising this work around
the world, uh, now let me see. What is it you do? Are you an actor?
Where do you do that? Please tell me about the source of your authority?
I really would like to know and maybe others who listen, or are tempted
to you would too.
ciao,
Jeremy
http://www.newschoolacting.com
BTW I'm very familiar with The Group Theatre and very respectful of
them too. But, Since I just gave my copy of Gadge's book to an actor to
read, and another actor has my copy of "The Fervent Years" I can't
check your dates, but if your right and my addition skills are working,
THAT WAS 60 YEARS AGO. Would it be too much to imiagine that a better,
more modern approach has been created? Possibly even by me, but then you
never read my books or tried any of my techniques so how would you know?
Even though the tape technique is free from my home page and has been
since 1996.
oh, and to paraphrase your quote about the worst of it.
These (endorsements) ain't the half of it.
j
Isabella
Riley G wrote
>New School actors work from an empathy-emotions based approach as
>opposed to the psycho-intellectual base of what could be called the
>Stanislavski/Freud approach.
Even my freshman Acting I class knows that Stanislavski changed his mind and
his technique from what might vaguely be called "psycho-intellectual" by
someone who learned it third hand, in another language, in another country.
Jeremy Whelan is a nice guy, and the tape technique is fun to play with
(though it takes forever). But his recent book was 40% dictionary
definitions and 40% repeats of a worksheet page that I'd rather photocopy
myself than see padding out his book.
Oh--and didn't we all spend a lot of time in school learning to play an
action rather than an emotion? How about Mr. Whelan bases his next book
around a list of verbs?
Allison Williams
Christopher Jahn
>(a lot of the usual garbage)
Jeermy, it's nice load of SPAM, but I personally KNOW several
people on your list, as I posted yesterday. They don't impress
me. They don't impress anyone in their local (South Florida)
theatre region. They are "college hacks". In fact, the bulk
of your "shining references" seem to be from professors at
lesser colleges.
Show me a Tony-award winner. Hell, show me a CARBONELL winner,
and I'll say "maybe there's something to this." But right now
it's just you and a handful of your unemployed students banging
your own drum.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Stop searching forever. Happiness is just next to you. Stop
searching forever. Happiness is unattainable.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Wall O'Flesh
one...
"Isabella" <devi...@gte.net> wrote in message news:<BNO47.980$1a5.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>...
> Riley G wrote
> >New School actors work from an empathy-emotions based approach as
> >opposed to the psycho-intellectual base of what could be called the
> >Stanislavski/Freud approach.
>
> Even my freshman Acting I class knows that Stanislavski changed his mind and
> his technique from what might vaguely be called "psycho-intellectual" by
> someone who learned it third hand, in another language, in another country.
>
Amen. And to echo Bill's fine comments, at least 50% of the shame of
JW appears to lie in the fact that he's more interested in making
rhetorical, "If-I've-said-it-once"-type derogatory comments regarding
all other techniques...his information exagerates points that support
his argument and at best completely ignores points that don't; at
worst, he attempts to place the blame on YOU for being stupid enough
to question him. Listen closely to the way he phrases things, and
you'll recognize a pattern you might see elsewhere...in advertising.
The "Sales-Pitch" approach alone should be someone's first red flag.
> Jeremy Whelan is a nice guy,
Unfortunately I can't agree with you here; I met him a few years ago
at a bar after a production and watched as he travelled from bar stool
to bar stool, gave unsolicited critiques of the actors' performances,
and offered to solve thier Craft Deficiencies by introducing them to
Emotionology...at the low, low price of $19.95. I was one of the few
willing to give him a chance; bought him a beer, listened intently to
his theories...and when I attempted to question him further on the
SPECIFICS (important word, that)of his craft, he became agitated,
repeated his rhetoric over and over, then insulted me for being a
brainwashed cow. Keep in mind I'd given him the upmost respect up to
that point. For my troubles (and, I guess for buying him the beer), I
was awarded with a pamphlet to read detailing the "basics" of
emotionology...if I wanted to learn more--? You guessed it! I had to
buy the book. I walked out that night feeling like I had beers with a
hare krishna.
His student (also in the cast)epitomized his cult-like approach. A
nice enough guy, but the minute you started talking craft his eyes
would get kind of--glazed, I guess, he'd get angry and start reciting
platitudes. Sad.
So maybe I'm just a bit biased.
>and the tape technique is fun to play with
> (though it takes forever).
I'll give him that; Standing alone, with no mention of emotionology,
the Tape Technique can be useful as a rehearsal tool. Unfortunately,
it's time demands make it completely impractical for the schedule of
most professional productions. If any young actors are interested in
this facet of JW, I'd suggest utilizing it as a "Homework" tool when
working on your character in private. Spend money on that if you have
to, but by God don't get sucked into the Sales Pitch.
..and it is worth repeating that Kelsey Grammer was very specific
(there's that word again) about talking ONLY about the Tape Technique.
>But his recent book was 40% dictionary
> definitions and 40% repeats of a worksheet page that I'd rather photocopy
> myself than see padding out his book.
>
> Oh--and didn't we all spend a lot of time in school learning to play an
> action rather than an emotion? How about Mr. Whelan bases his next book
> around a list of verbs? --Allison Williams
>
...And a double-amen, sister. :)
Herein we find the fatal flaw of JW's Technique, accounting for the
OTHER 50% of the "shame" mentioned earlier: It's UNspecificity. Used
as a single step in the a-b-c process of craft, examining a single
emotion in the broadest, dictionary-sense of the word is an obvious
starting point to craft...but just a start. Perhaps assigning it a
color makes it a bit sharper in the actor's mind, and they can take
another little step forward. But eventually you hit a wall (no pun
intended), and you have to figure out, in the most SPECIFIC terms
possible, exactly what it is your character is DOING. Not what he's
FEELING...because that doesn't translate well to an audience, it's too
general. Feeling is a way to help the actor tell the story by
allowing him to be in the moment...but you still gotta tell the story.
Fine, my sadness at this moment might be "teal" or "aqua", but have I
figured out exactly what the hell I'm talking about? Only by knowing
that will an audience be able to translate my actions on stage. It is
here, in analysis, that JW's emotionology falls flat on its face and
breaks its jaw: It actually takes the indulgent, unspecific, mental
masturbation that we see all the time in B movies or Community Theater
and promotes it as the "end result". Even worse to be presumptious
enough to assume that it's "new"...I've been seeing that technique for
years. I call it "Bad Acting".
God knows I'm probably gonna draw fire for this, but it's important
that any younger actors realize what some of us are saying about this:
Any individual technique is a tool, to be put in the box with all the
others, nothing more. No carpenter walks around with only one hammer,
claiming that "the old screwdrivers are crap". Be very cautious of
salesmen who claim thier way is "THE" way, the "ONLY" way, and all
others are wrong. If you can learn about JW's Stuff without paying
him gobs of cash, by all means do so...give JW the respect that he
doesn't give the other teachers. But absorb what is useful from it
then discard the rest. Incorporate what you like into YOUR craft, and
always realize that there's no "magic hammer", no one tool to fix
everything...use it as a single facet of the individualized process
you use to get to the point where you can simply "be" on stage. But
make your OWN intelligent decision...don't let him push you into
anything. And when/if you get to the point when you realize that these
techniques are useful only as beginning steps to a process (and I
believe most of you will), don't be afraid to try something else, or
get MORE specific. You're the only one who knows what's "THE"
way...because you yourself need to create it, with pieces from all the
techniques that've come before.
OK, I'm officially late. Let the Flaming begin.
And Mr. Grammer, no lawyers please. ;)
--Wall
PS. Anybody else wonder why Kelsey and David HP haven't done Toby &
Aguecheek somewhere yet? It's a natural, and would sell tickets out
the dupa...
Wall O'Flesh
> Hello from Jeremy,
> I've been a professional actor for 35 years, mostly New York-LA. I've
> published five popular books on acting since 1990. I'm a highly
> respected teacher with seventeen years of experience on every level,
> college, kids & pro's. I am the artistic director of a new theatre
> company in New York City. People are using and praising this work around
> the world, uh, now let me see. What is it you do? Are you an actor?
> Where do you do that? Please tell me about the source of your authority?
> I really would like to know and maybe others who listen, or are tempted
> to you would too.
> ciao,
> Jeremy
.....With all due respect, this should epitomize what I mentioned in a
previous post: Deflecting criticism by challenging the credentials of
the criticizer is a tried-and-true technique used by advertising
execs, and should be a major "red flag" to anyone reading this.
The "New School" should succeed or fail based on the validity of its
ideas, not on the pedigree of its founder. Anytime someone tries to
sell an idea based on that, it's a smoke-screen to mask the holes.
The next step is to dazzle you with the praise that others have given
it, rather than specify exactly why it works. Also known as the "8
Million Chinese can't be Wrong!" Approach. Hey, speaking of that,
look below...(just scroll through the commercial after its made its
point, there's more at the bottom)...
Step three is usually a deriding commentary, flounderingly attempting
to convince with basic platitudes regarding the product being sold.
When the holes are pointed out again, the criticizer will be brushed
away, implied as "too stupid" or "too brainwashed"...also an
advertising gimmick. The implication being that the product is for
"The SMART people", ie, the young actor with $20 in his pocket
watching the exchange of ideas.
To anyone reading: It doesn't matter what the salesperson did for 35
years. It doesn't matter which celebrity or college professor likes
it. Hell, if David Hyde-Pierce really liked the new Salmon-flavored
Cheerios, would you have to buy them? Some would. Advertising people
make a living because of that.
See the connection? ;)
--Wall
Jeremy Whelan
posting my "Answer to critics." My ISP has gotten me back in touch, but
posts from that time on were not available. If I missed any pertinent
replies, please let me know.
ciao,
jeremy
http://www.newschoolacting.com
--
邢 唷��
Wall O'Flesh
> How odd that I was cut off from these newsgroups immediately after
> posting my "Answer to critics."
...Maybe it was an Anti-Spam program.
>My ISP has gotten me back in touch, but
> posts from that time on were not available. If I missed any pertinent
> replies, please let me know.
> ciao,
>
Goggle.com, which used to be Deja.com, archives the discussions in a
format that's easy enough to follow.
--W.
Wall O'Flesh
Christopher Jahn
> I've been a professional actor for 35 years, mostly New
> York-LA. I've published five popular books on acting since
> 1990. I'm a highly respected teacher with seventeen years of
> experience on every level, college, kids & pro's. I am the
> artistic director of a new theatre company in New York City.
> People are using and praising this work around the world,
> uh, now let me see. What is it you do? Are you an actor?
> Where do you do that? Please tell me about the source of
> your authority? I really would like to know and maybe others
> who listen, or are tempted to you would to
I am a union actor of some years standing. I studied in New
York at the Lee Strasburg Theatre Institute, the Singers Forum
Foundation, as well as a dozen or so other acting teachers and
coaches over the years.
I have worked with many well known actors and directors, at
least five of whom have won Tony awards. At least one of them
has also won an Oscar.
I have worked with directors who were members of the Royal
Shakespeare Company. I have worked with directors who have had
shows on Broadway.
I am currently on the production staff at a regional theatre in
Miami, Florida. For the last two years running, our theatre has
taken home more Carbonnel awards (South Florida's answer to the
Tony's) than any other single theatre in our area. Last year,
we were nominated in every category but one, the first time this
has happened in the 25 year history of the awards.
In addition to performing on stage, I have done numerous
industrials and commercials over the years, as well as a quite a
bit of coaching.
In short, I am a full-time, working professional in the field of
live theatre. I am one of the five percent.
Call it arrogance, but I beleive this qualifies me and my
opinions.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Another damned, thick, square book! Always scribble, scribble,
scribble! Eh, Mr. Gibbon?
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Riley G
found his process an added acting voice that needs to be heard. I attended
for two reasons.
1. When many other so called acting teachers don't like it, then there may
be something to it!
2. As an actor, I must advance my training with all methods and processes
that could help me in my profession.
After attending his workshop, I made a telephone call to a radio show host
and close personal friend of mine named, ERSKINE to see if he would book
Jeremy Whalen on the program. http://www.erskineovernight.com/
Erskine Overnight is heard in I believe 20 markets and world wide on the
internet. Erskine has two 5 hour talk shows on Saturday and Sunday nights.
To listen on the Internet Radio go to this site.
http://www.kfnn.com/listen.htm 0r 1520 AM in the NYC & Buffalo areas.
Jeremy Whalen and I will be on the show Saturday (SUNDAY) the 22nd-23rd,
starting at 04:00 AM EST. You can listen and call into the show if you wish.
Signed,
Riley G
ACTOR - STUNTMAN
http://www.RileyG.com/index1.htm
Isabella
learning a single technique. Bravo!
Allison Williams
Drama Queen
Allison,
it's like I tell everyone, ...open a new folder on your computer and
call it "Wall's Wisdoms". Then use it to save everything Wall writes.
I just wish he'd post here in alt.acting more often. <sigh>
Drama Queen
Bill491
Somehow I missed your good thoughts.... you post never showed in my queue. I just noticed that this is
cross posted to rec.arts.theatre.misc and rec.arts.theatre.plays and since I'm not currently subcribed
to these groups, I've deleted them. Hmmm, maybe I'll re-subscribed one day.
Wall O'Flesh wrote:
> Amen. And to echo Bill's fine comments, at least 50% of the shame of
> JW appears to lie in the fact that he's more interested in making
> rhetorical, "If-I've-said-it-once"-type derogatory comments regarding
> all other techniques...his information exagerates points that support
> his argument and at best completely ignores points that don't; at
> worst, he attempts to place the blame on YOU for being stupid enough
> to question him. Listen closely to the way he phrases things, and
> you'll recognize a pattern you might see elsewhere...in advertising.
> The "Sales-Pitch" approach alone should be someone's first red flag.
That's an apt description, Wall. I gave Jeremy the benefit of the doubt for the first 2-3 years of
active on-line debate on a variety of groups, but I was infinitely patient back then when actors
talking to other actors from across the country online was a delightful experience, even when you
disagreed. At times Jeremy was friendly, even solisitous.... and at other times he was condescending,
rude, inflammatory. He insulted me publicly on many an occasion, just as you suggest. Yet, when one
list took a vote at to whether or not to ban JW, I voted to keep him. Why not? I love an adversary
who has all the facts about Stanislavski wrong, or who lays claims to new educational theories and gets
them wrong. An easy target.
AND as I've said before one of my colleagues and I mounted workshops to test out TT (tape technology)
and guess what? It works. Problem is that there any any number of coaching devices or directing
techniques that accomplish the same results in a shorter period of time.
> I was one of the few
> willing to give him a chance; bought him a beer, listened intently to
> his theories...
There's your problem, Wall. JW is a vodka guy. Had you bought him a vodka or three, well then who
knows, he might have spilled his guts about emotionology. <g>
> I was awarded with a pamphlet to read detailing the "basics" of
> emotionology...if I wanted to learn more--? You guessed it! I had to
> buy the book. I walked out that night feeling like I had beers with a
> hare krishna.
I'm amused by the analogy, but do hare krishna's drink beer? Hmmm, might explain their behavior at
airports and you can hide lots of things under flowing roves.
And Wall, I have a copy of the pamphlet you mention, and JW sent me a couple of his books, and I've
read it all and I sit back and read the 900 2-3 line definitions and I consider the fill-out charts,
and I would have NOT a SINGLE IDEA about where to start. JW was challenged on this time and time
again.... how does reading a truncated dictionary definition of an attitude or an emotion and then
filling out the chart lead an actor to bringing truth to the role? And Jeremy NEVER answered the
question to anybody's satisfaction. Other than suggesting that they study with him or buy his books.
The double irony is that I do suggest that actors buy a basic thesaurus, to explore variations on
verbs, actions. Hey.... I's a KS guy, and I am committed to actions, not showing attitudes, which is
what I think JW does. Can't be sure.... JW's books don't really tell you how to apply his work, so I
guess you just have to move to NY and cough up the bucks to study with him.
> His student (also in the cast)epitomized his cult-like approach. A
> nice enough guy, but the minute you started talking craft his eyes
> would get kind of--glazed, I guess, he'd get angry and start reciting
> platitudes. Sad.
>
> So maybe I'm just a bit biased.
>
> >and the tape technique is fun to play with
> > (though it takes forever).
>
> I'll give him that; Standing alone, with no mention of emotionology,
> the Tape Technique can be useful as a rehearsal tool. Unfortunately,
> it's time demands make it completely impractical for the schedule of
> most professional productions. If any young actors are interested in
> this facet of JW, I'd suggest utilizing it as a "Homework" tool when
> working on your character in private. Spend money on that if you have
> to, but by God don't get sucked into the Sales Pitch.
Might work for exploring a monologue or soliloquy, Wall, but how do you do personal homework on a scene
with one or more actors in the scene. Hmmmm, maybe JW had some suggestions about this.
> .and it is worth repeating that Kelsey Grammer was very specific
> (there's that word again) about talking ONLY about the Tape Technique.
Thank you, Wall, for reasserting this. Kelsey Grammer is not endorsing "emotionology" or "color
charts..... he explored TT. I'd love to hear Kelsey's comments on how he FEELS in emotionology terms
about JW's use of his good name as a endorsement of using color and emotion charts. For some strange
reason, I cannot picture Grammer pulling out the emotionology definitions and filling out a chart
before the shoot of each and every scene. And I'm also assuming, based on chronology, that the actor
has other coaches well before he met JW or read JW's books.
The thing that you, JW, need to bear down on, is that Grammer is not your star student. And also, if
he sees some value in TT, you are not entitled to cross that over into an endorsement of emotionology
and your crayon theory of acting.
A great analysis, Wall, and I know you spent some time in crafting this. I wish it could be shared
with.... who knows.... Acting Pro.
> God knows I'm probably gonna draw fire for this, but it's important
> that any younger actors realize what some of us are saying about this:
> Any individual technique is a tool, to be put in the box with all the
> others, nothing more. No carpenter walks around with only one hammer,
> claiming that "the old screwdrivers are crap". Be very cautious of
> salesmen who claim thier way is "THE" way, the "ONLY" way, and all
> others are wrong. If you can learn about JW's Stuff without paying
> him gobs of cash, by all means do so...give JW the respect that he
> doesn't give the other teachers.
Good stuff, Wall, and that last comment I liked. To the JW supporter who just wrote about how actors
should consider coaches like JW, 'cause other coaches don't like 'em..... consider that when you are
studying with a coach who spends a lot of time on-line bad-mouthing other systems, well maybe you are
studying with someone who has an attitude problem.
The best coaches I've studied with have NEVER degraded a coach at his/her level. In fact, the best
coaches I know never say anything nasty about any other coach. Off-the-record, Adler expressed some
feeling about Starsberg, but it was not part of her litany, as it is a part of JW's incessant attacks
on all other coaches, his fiction of the "old school."
> But absorb what is useful from it
> then discard the rest. Incorporate what you like into YOUR craft, and
> always realize that there's no "magic hammer", no one tool to fix
> everything...use it as a single facet of the individualized process
> you use to get to the point where you can simply "be" on stage. But
> make your OWN intelligent decision...don't let him push you into
> anything. And when/if you get to the point when you realize that these
> techniques are useful only as beginning steps to a process (and I
> believe most of you will), don't be afraid to try something else, or
> get MORE specific. You're the only one who knows what's "THE"
> way...because you yourself need to create it, with pieces from all the
> techniques that've come before.
> OK, I'm officially late. Let the Flaming begin.
No flames from Denver. Loved the previous paragraph, Wall. Kind of what I aim for at my Studio.
Eclecticism. Keep an open mind.
KelL
this.
Wall, I have saved this article, just because it is good to be reminded
of what my coaches pounded into our heads at the NSC:
SPECIFICITY. (especial thanks to Mary Lou Rosato, for keeping this
mantra active in mah haid.)
when we lose Specifics, we lose a great amount of where we are going
character-wise: We lose intention and what we do to get there.
In article <f8ea3c80.01071...@posting.google.com>,
Wall-O...@rebelscum.net (Wall O'Flesh) wrote:
> Oooh, It may make me late for work but I just GOTTA jump in on this
> one...
>
> "Isabella" <devi...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:<BNO47.980$1a5.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>...
> > Riley G wrote
> > >New School actors work from an empathy-emotions based approach as
> > >opposed to the psycho-intellectual base of what could be called
> > >the Stanislavski/Freud approach.
> >
> > Even my freshman Acting I class knows that Stanislavski changed his
> > mind and his technique from what might vaguely be called
> > "psycho-intellectual" by someone who learned it third hand, in
> > another language, in another country.
> >
>
> Amen. And to echo Bill's fine comments, at least 50% of the shame of
> JW appears to lie in the fact that he's more interested in making
> rhetorical, "If-I've-said-it-once"-type derogatory comments regarding
> all other techniques...his information exagerates points that support
> his argument and at best completely ignores points that don't; at
> worst, he attempts to place the blame on YOU for being stupid enough
> to question him. Listen closely to the way he phrases things, and
> you'll recognize a pattern you might see elsewhere...in advertising.
> The "Sales-Pitch" approach alone should be someone's first red flag.
>
> > Jeremy Whelan is a nice guy,
>
> Unfortunately I can't agree with you here; I met him a few years ago
> at a bar after a production and watched as he travelled from bar
> stool to bar stool, gave unsolicited critiques of the actors'
> performances, and offered to solve thier Craft Deficiencies by
> introducing them to Emotionology...at the low, low price of $19.95.
> I was one of the few willing to give him a chance; bought him a beer,
> listened intently to his theories...and when I attempted to question
> him further on the SPECIFICS (important word, that)of his craft, he
> became agitated, repeated his rhetoric over and over, then insulted
> me for being a brainwashed cow. Keep in mind I'd given him the
> upmost respect up to that point. For my troubles (and, I guess for
> buying him the beer), I was awarded with a pamphlet to read detailing
> the "basics" of emotionology...if I wanted to learn more--? You
> guessed it! I had to buy the book. I walked out that night feeling
> like I had beers with a hare krishna.
>
> His student (also in the cast)epitomized his cult-like approach. A
> nice enough guy, but the minute you started talking craft his eyes
> would get kind of--glazed, I guess, he'd get angry and start reciting
> platitudes. Sad.
>
> So maybe I'm just a bit biased.
>
> >and the tape technique is fun to play with
> > (though it takes forever).
>
> I'll give him that; Standing alone, with no mention of emotionology,
> the Tape Technique can be useful as a rehearsal tool. Unfortunately,
> it's time demands make it completely impractical for the schedule of
> most professional productions. If any young actors are interested in
> this facet of JW, I'd suggest utilizing it as a "Homework" tool when
> working on your character in private. Spend money on that if you
> have to, but by God don't get sucked into the Sales Pitch.
>
> ..and it is worth repeating that Kelsey Grammer was very specific
> (there's that word again) about talking ONLY about the Tape
> Technique.
>
> God knows I'm probably gonna draw fire for this, but it's important
> that any younger actors realize what some of us are saying about
> this: Any individual technique is a tool, to be put in the box with
> all the others, nothing more. No carpenter walks around with only
> one hammer, claiming that "the old screwdrivers are crap". Be very
> cautious of salesmen who claim thier way is "THE" way, the "ONLY"
> way, and all others are wrong. If you can learn about JW's Stuff
> without paying him gobs of cash, by all means do so...give JW the
> respect that he doesn't give the other teachers. But absorb what is
> useful from it then discard the rest. Incorporate what you like into
> YOUR craft, and always realize that there's no "magic hammer", no one
> tool to fix everything...use it as a single facet of the
> individualized process you use to get to the point where you can
> simply "be" on stage. But make your OWN intelligent decision...don't
> let him push you into anything. And when/if you get to the point when
> you realize that these techniques are useful only as beginning steps
> to a process (and I believe most of you will), don't be afraid to try
> something else, or get MORE specific. You're the only one who knows
> what's "THE" way...because you yourself need to create it, with
> pieces from all the techniques that've come before.
>
> OK, I'm officially late. Let the Flaming begin.
>
> And Mr. Grammer, no lawyers please. ;)
>
> --Wall
>
> PS. Anybody else wonder why Kelsey and David HP haven't done Toby &
> Aguecheek somewhere yet? It's a natural, and would sell tickets out
> the dupa...
--
KellyL
AFTRA/Actor/Director
Usenet: an Erisitic construct of the Temporary Autonomous Zone ©
I am etristic and a mime disaster in satin plaid booties ©
KelL
Wall-O...@rebelscum.net (Wall O'Flesh) wrote:
> Jeremy Whelan <whel...@eticomm.net> wrote in message
> news:<3B56C290...@eticomm.net>...
> > How odd that I was cut off from these newsgroups immediately after
> > posting my "Answer to critics."
>
> ...Maybe it was an Anti-Spam program.
ROTFLSMNC!
>
> >My ISP has gotten me back in touch, but
> > posts from that time on were not available. If I missed any pertinent
> > replies, please let me know.
> > ciao,
> >
>
>
> Goggle.com, which used to be Deja.com, archives the discussions in a
> format that's easy enough to follow.
>
> --W.
Riley G
AFTRA along with being an Actor and Director.
Do you have any credits (principal work) under AFTRA to join SAG? I joined
SAG years ago with my past principal work under AFTRA contracts.
Signed,
Riley G
http://www.RileyG.com/index1.htm
"KelL" <The_RoaringU...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:9jdf97$n46uq$1...@ID-61949.news.dfncis.de...
> --
> KellyL
> AFTRA/Actor/Director
Wall O'Flesh
> Hey, Wall!
>
> Somehow I missed your good thoughts.... you post never showed in my queue. I just noticed that this is
> cross posted to rec.arts.theatre.misc and rec.arts.theatre.plays and since I'm not currently subcribed
> to these groups, I've deleted them. Hmmm, maybe I'll re-subscribed one day.
>
.....Hiya, Bill. Thanks very much--also to DQ, Allison & Kelly--for
the high praise. As for the x-posting, as long as we're not going to
the wiccan groups I think we're safe. ;)
(...and, hey, wiccans--NO OFFENSE! That was a joke. All in good fun.
Honest.)
Good Lord, that was my mistake!--Damn my hubris to Hell!!!
I guess it was the Yeungleung (a local, popular brew) talking that
night, then. If I was gonna shell out for THREE vodkas, though, I'd
have expected complementary copies of both books in addition. Then
again, I'm often told that I'd never make a good salesman.
> > I was awarded with a pamphlet to read detailing the "basics" of
> > emotionology...if I wanted to learn more--? You guessed it! I had to
> > buy the book. I walked out that night feeling like I had beers with a
> > hare krishna.
>
> I'm amused by the analogy, but do hare krishna's drink beer? Hmmm, might explain their behavior at
> airports and you can hide lots of things under flowing roves.
>
....I always figured it was the only explanation for the haircut.
It's either beer or crack.
> And Wall, I have a copy of the pamphlet you mention, and JW sent me a couple of his books, and I've
> read it all and I sit back and read the 900 2-3 line definitions and I consider the fill-out charts,
> and I would have NOT a SINGLE IDEA about where to start. JW was challenged on this time and time
> again.... how does reading a truncated dictionary definition of an attitude or an emotion and then
> filling out the chart lead an actor to bringing truth to the role? And Jeremy NEVER answered the
> question to anybody's satisfaction. Other than suggesting that they study with him or buy his books.
> The double irony is that I do suggest that actors buy a basic thesaurus, to explore variations on
> verbs, actions. Hey.... I's a KS guy, and I am committed to actions, not showing attitudes, which is
> what I think JW does. Can't be sure.... JW's books don't really tell you how to apply his work, so I
> guess you just have to move to NY and cough up the bucks to study with him.
>
.....Interesting. So even the books are commercials, too? Kinda like
the Infomercial Bread Crumb trail. Learn the secrets of wealth for
only $20...The $20 tape set gives you seductive clues, cryptic hints
and a coupon to order the "rest" of the set for an additional
$200...the $200 set gives you a bit more info and a 900# Customer
Support Line that'll give you the "final" secrets for $2000...and so
on. And so on.
> > His student (also in the cast)epitomized his cult-like approach. A
> > nice enough guy, but the minute you started talking craft his eyes
> > would get kind of--glazed, I guess, he'd get angry and start reciting
> > platitudes. Sad.
> >
> > So maybe I'm just a bit biased.
> >
> > >and the tape technique is fun to play with
> > > (though it takes forever).
> >
> > I'll give him that; Standing alone, with no mention of emotionology,
> > the Tape Technique can be useful as a rehearsal tool. Unfortunately,
> > it's time demands make it completely impractical for the schedule of
> > most professional productions. If any young actors are interested in
> > this facet of JW, I'd suggest utilizing it as a "Homework" tool when
> > working on your character in private. Spend money on that if you have
> > to, but by God don't get sucked into the Sales Pitch.
>
> Might work for exploring a monologue or soliloquy, Wall, but how do you do personal homework on a scene
> with one or more actors in the scene. Hmmmm, maybe JW had some suggestions about this.
>
My own personal approach is to concentrate on my half of the scene
when I'm doing the homework, even though the other character's not
there. Pick apart the other character's text, stay open for insights
in thier specific language that I might've missed before...this helps
me get a truer sense of the rhythm of the scene that I might not get
when I'm just REacting in rehearsal. Coming at it "watching" as
opposed to "listening", does that make sense? In that context,
working with tapes could be helpful, allowing you to stay connected
and let a portion of your brain/soul observe it at the same time. Of
course, this could actually get in the way if an actor isn't flexible
enough to be able to adapt when the co-actor does something completely
different the next morning. You can't set anything in stone when
you're doing Half-Scenework, and greener artists might be tempted when
they hear the tape over and over.
> > .and it is worth repeating that Kelsey Grammer was very specific
> > (there's that word again) about talking ONLY about the Tape Technique.
>
> Thank you, Wall, for reasserting this. Kelsey Grammer is not endorsing "emotionology" or "color
> charts..... he explored TT. I'd love to hear Kelsey's comments on how he FEELS in emotionology terms
> about JW's use of his good name as a endorsement of using color and emotion charts. For some strange
> reason, I cannot picture Grammer pulling out the emotionology definitions and filling out a chart
> before the shoot of each and every scene. And I'm also assuming, based on chronology, that the actor
> has other coaches well before he met JW or read JW's books.
>
> The thing that you, JW, need to bear down on, is that Grammer is not your star student. And also, if
> he sees some value in TT, you are not entitled to cross that over into an endorsement of emotionology
> and your crayon theory of acting.
>
Absolutely. Look twice and it becomes obvious that Jeremy took some
advertising courses.
I'm trying, I'm trying--! :)
> > God knows I'm probably gonna draw fire for this, but it's important
> > that any younger actors realize what some of us are saying about this:
> > Any individual technique is a tool, to be put in the box with all the
> > others, nothing more. No carpenter walks around with only one hammer,
> > claiming that "the old screwdrivers are crap". Be very cautious of
> > salesmen who claim thier way is "THE" way, the "ONLY" way, and all
> > others are wrong. If you can learn about JW's Stuff without paying
> > him gobs of cash, by all means do so...give JW the respect that he
> > doesn't give the other teachers.
>
> Good stuff, Wall, and that last comment I liked. To the JW supporter who just wrote about how actors
> should consider coaches like JW, 'cause other coaches don't like 'em..... consider that when you are
> studying with a coach who spends a lot of time on-line bad-mouthing other systems, well maybe you are
> studying with someone who has an attitude problem.
>
> The best coaches I've studied with have NEVER degraded a coach at his/her level. In fact, the best
> coaches I know never say anything nasty about any other coach. Off-the-record, Adler expressed some
> feeling about Starsberg, but it was not part of her litany, as it is a part of JW's incessant attacks
> on all other coaches, his fiction of the "old school."
>
....Couldn't agree more. It's a matter of professionalism and class.
I think if I invented an acting technique that utilzed the glottal
stop as a means to achieving inner truth on stage, "most acting
teachers" would hate it. Scary to think there are some who'd buy it
based on that.
> > But absorb what is useful from it
> > then discard the rest. Incorporate what you like into YOUR craft, and
> > always realize that there's no "magic hammer", no one tool to fix
> > everything...use it as a single facet of the individualized process
> > you use to get to the point where you can simply "be" on stage. But
> > make your OWN intelligent decision...don't let him push you into
> > anything. And when/if you get to the point when you realize that these
> > techniques are useful only as beginning steps to a process (and I
> > believe most of you will), don't be afraid to try something else, or
> > get MORE specific. You're the only one who knows what's "THE"
> > way...because you yourself need to create it, with pieces from all the
> > techniques that've come before.
>
> > OK, I'm officially late. Let the Flaming begin.
>
> No flames from Denver. Loved the previous paragraph, Wall. Kind of what I aim for at my Studio.
> Eclecticism. Keep an open mind.
>
>
> Break a leg,
> Bill
...Thanks Bill, DQ, Kelly and Allison.
--Wall
KelL
"Riley G" <Ril...@BloodBrothersMC.org.antispam> wrote:
> Are you a member of SAG or DGA? I ask because I see that you claim to be in
> AFTRA along with being an Actor and Director.
I was SAG elegible during the strike, but I opted to not take the
walk-in.
I am a member of AFTRA - San Francisco Local. wanna call em and verfiy
it? I would not claim Union/Guild membership if I didn't have it.. it is
worse than lying about acting credits.
I am an Actor, I have been a Stage Actor since the age of 7. My
Off-Broadway credits include:The Maiden of Ludmir with the Folksbiene
Yiddish Theatre (Stage Managed and had walk-on's) and performing at the
John Houseman Studio, too on W42nd Street, where also made my NYC
directorial debut..
I am a Stage Director. I do not belong to the DGA, as I have no need to
join the Flim Director's Guild at the moment, I am however, looking into
an Assoc. Membership in the SSDC (Society of Stage Directors and
Choreographers.
I have also taught Acting, and have done workshops in Mime Techniques
with my former partner, a Japanese Kabuki Dancer back in California.
does this now qualify me to continue to speak?
> Do you have any credits (principal work) under AFTRA to join SAG?
None as of yet, although, that may change shortly.
> I joined SAG years ago with my past principal work under AFTRA contracts.
>
>
> Signed,
> Riley G
> http://www.RileyG.com/index1.htm
>
>
> "KelL" <The_RoaringU...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:9jdf97$n46uq$1...@ID-61949.news.dfncis.de...
> > --
> > KellyL
> > AFTRA/Actor/Director
>
>
Riley G
you were not in SAG yet. If you were SAG eligible during the last strike,
then you are still able to join SAG. That's if you have any principal work
under AFTRA, and have been a member of the sister union for a year or more.
RG
"KelL" <The_RoaringU...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:9jetmb$n082k$1...@ID-61949.news.dfncis.de...
> I was SAG elegible during the strike, but I opted to not take the
> walk-in.
>
> I am a member of AFTRA - San Francisco Local. wanna call em and verfiy
> it? I would not claim Union/Guild membership if I didn't have it.. it is
> worse than lying about acting credits.
>
>---cut--
KelL
"Riley G" <Ril...@BloodBrothersMC.org.antispam> wrote:
> No, I don't want to call and verify your being in AFTRA. I just wondered why
> you were not in SAG yet. If you were SAG eligible during the last strike,
> then you are still able to join SAG. That's if you have any principal work
> under AFTRA, and have been a member of the sister union for a year or more.
no prob, but the tone of your query, and since this is text, I did not
have the luxury of tone of voice, implied that I was somehow misleading
folks by listing my creds (or a portion of them). You also imputed that
I wasn't a director, or an actorsince you seemed more interested in my
creds, than in my comments. Does that make sense?
also, just to keep it open: I am in the process of re-building what was
interrupted 2 years ago with Occupational and Speech Therapy.
>
>
> RG
>
>
> "KelL" <The_RoaringU...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:9jetmb$n082k$1...@ID-61949.news.dfncis.de...
> > I was SAG elegible during the strike, but I opted to not take the
> > walk-in.
> >
> > I am a member of AFTRA - San Francisco Local. wanna call em and verfiy
> > it? I would not claim Union/Guild membership if I didn't have it.. it is
> > worse than lying about acting credits.
> >
> >---cut--
> >
> > KellyL
> > AFTRA/Actor/Director
> > Usenet: an Erisitic construct of the Temporary Autonomous Zone ©
> > I am etristic and a mime disaster in satin plaid booties ©
>
>
--
il professore
> nice enough guy, but the minute you started talking craft his eyes
> would get kind of--glazed, I guess, he'd get angry and start reciting
> platitudes. Sad.
>
> So maybe I'm just a bit biased.
>
Kelly,
Maybe that glazed look you noticed wasn't necessarily zeal. More likely it
was all those beers you were buying.
I couldn't agree with you more about the dubious notion of Emotionology,
which has always reminded me of the Delsarte system of acting so popular at
the turn of the century, which we now laugh at in every over-acted silent
film shown on television. Back then eager young actors were encouraged to
buy photo books with various emotional poses they could memorize and copy.
NORMAN B. SCHWARTZ
>Il Professore <
ilp...@home.com
Artistic Director/Santa Barbara Actors Theatre, Inc.
http://www.sbactorstheatre.org
il professore
Jeremy Whelan and cast beer(s), when in fact, as Drama Queen informs me, it
was WOF who was so generous.
.
"Yon Cassius has a glazed and rabid look.
Such men study with Whelan."
NORMAN B. SCHWARTZ
>Il Professore <
ilp...@home.com
Artistic Director/Santa Barbara Actors Theatre, Inc.
http://www.sbactorstheatre.org
_________________________________________
KelL
"il professore" <ilp...@home.com> wrote:
> > His student (also in the cast)epitomized his cult-like approach. A
> > nice enough guy, but the minute you started talking craft his eyes
> > would get kind of--glazed, I guess, he'd get angry and start reciting
> > platitudes. Sad.
> >
> > So maybe I'm just a bit biased.
> >
>
> Kelly,
> Maybe that glazed look you noticed wasn't necessarily zeal. More likely it
> was all those beers you were buying.
That wasn't me buying...it was the one, the only Wall.
>
> I couldn't agree with you more about the dubious notion of Emotionology,
> which has always reminded me of the Delsarte system of acting so popular at
> the turn of the century, which we now laugh at in every over-acted silent
> film shown on television. Back then eager young actors were encouraged to
> buy photo books with various emotional poses they could memorize and copy.
>
> NORMAN B. SCHWARTZ
> >Il Professore <
> ilp...@home.com
>
> Artistic Director/Santa Barbara Actors Theatre, Inc.
> http://www.sbactorstheatre.org
>
>
>
KelL
"il professore" <ilp...@home.com> wrote:
> My sincerest apologies to Kelly for suggesting that it was K. who bought
> Jeremy Whelan and cast beer(s), when in fact, as Drama Queen informs me, it
> was WOF who was so generous.
Not a problem, I severly chastised you for it in the previous post.
> .
> "Yon Cassius has a glazed and rabid look.
> Such men study with Whelan."
ROTFLSMNC!
>
> NORMAN B. SCHWARTZ
> >Il Professore <
> ilp...@home.com
>
> Artistic Director/Santa Barbara Actors Theatre, Inc.
> http://www.sbactorstheatre.org
> _________________________________________
de Valois
<4A077.17539$A47.8...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com>...
>Back then eager young actors were encouraged to
>buy photo books with various emotional poses they could memorize and copy.
>
Hey, Norman, this is somewhat confusing to me...
Are you saying *all* "psychological gestures" (to use Chekov's terminology)
are invalid, or only those extremes of Delsarte?
il professore
Are you saying *all* "psychological gestures" (to use Chekov's terminology)
are invalid, or only those extremes of Delsarte? <
Carl,
Those who misused and misunderstood the Delsarte system did not think of
them as gestures supported by inner psychology. They thought that all they
had to do was memorize the pictures, pose and gesture in a certain
prescribed fashion, and an emotional response would be automatically aroused
in the spectator.
M. Chekov never gave us a picture book full of gestures, nor did he suggest
we flip though a Jeremy Whelan thesaurus of emotions as we prepared a role.
Chekov knew how hard it was to perfect an external and internal technique.
JW says buy a book, buy a tape, take my classes, swallow my pill, and all
your problems will be solved.
NORMAN B. SCHWARTZ
>Il Professore <
ilp...@home.com
_________________________________________
de Valois <de_v...@nailedandused.com> wrote in message
news:C5e77.10033$Px1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
de Valois
>>Hey, Norman, this is somewhat confusing to me...
>Are you saying *all* "psychological gestures" (to use Chekov's terminology)
>are invalid, or only those extremes of Delsarte? <
>
>Carl,
>Those who misused and misunderstood the Delsarte system did not think of
>them as gestures supported by inner psychology. They thought that all they
>had to do was memorize the pictures, pose and gesture in a certain
>prescribed fashion, and an emotional response would be automatically
aroused
>in the spectator.
>
Norman, then the proper way to use Delsarte was...?
>M. Chekov never gave us a picture book full of gestures, nor did he suggest
>we flip though a Jeremy Whelan thesaurus of emotions as we prepared a role.
>Chekov knew how hard it was to perfect an external and internal technique.
>
Agreed. Chekov's point, and a valid one, I feel, is that by visualizing the
physicality of your emotional state (throwing your arms wide open when
you're frustrated, for example), you can channel energy that you would waste
demonstrating an emotion into the emotion itself. As you say, it economizes.
>JW says buy a book, buy a tape, take my classes, swallow my pill, and all
>your problems will be solved.
>
Yup. He is very good at self-promotion, but on the other hand, he's so
alienated so many people here that I think it's easy to go overboard in
critiquing his method (whatever it may be), and confusing to lurkers here.
Thanks for clarifying.
il professore
> Norman, then the proper way to use Delsarte was...? <
Carl,
Modern day proponents of the Delsarte method claim that it should be used as
Kabuki or Noh poses are. The actor takes the poses and gestures and suffuses
them with inner life, i.e., the psychology of the character in the moment.
I have not been able to find what Delsarte himself had to say, but my guess
is that he would agree. His famous book on Oratory can be found at
www.cwru.edu/UL/preserve/stack/Delsarte.html -
Trouble then, as now, is that actors are always looking for some magic pill.
Jeremy Whelan seems to be the current peddler.
When you ask most people what Stanislavski meant, they will start talking
about Emotional Memory, i.e. recalling private memories to get feelings.
This is only one of a hundred techniques that KS suggested; one that he also
cautioned against using improperly. Not too long ago, Emotional Memory, the
cornerstone of Lee Strasberg's popular technique "The Method," was
everybody's golden key. It is now in disfavor.
Some say Delsarte was misunderstood and abused, as was and is "The Method."
The same thing is happening today with the Meisner Technique.
NORMAN B. SCHWARTZ
>Il Professore <
ilp...@home.com
Artistic Director/Santa Barbara Actors Theatre, Inc.
http://www.sbactorstheatre.org
_________________________________________
de Valois <de_v...@nailedandused.com> wrote in message
news:Aaz77.305$9E5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
de Valois
>Carl asked
>> Norman, then the proper way to use Delsarte was...? <
>
>Carl,
>Modern day proponents of the Delsarte method claim that it should be used
as
>Kabuki or Noh poses are. The actor takes the poses and gestures and
suffuses
>them with inner life, i.e., the psychology of the character in the moment.
>I have not been able to find what Delsarte himself had to say, but my guess
>is that he would agree. His famous book on Oratory can be found at
>www.cwru.edu/UL/preserve/stack/Delsarte.html -
>
Thank you, Norman. I was curious. I'd heard the term before and when it was
bought up here, figured you might point me in the right direction.
How does this school differ from whatisface, that German fellow from the
early 20th Century who advocated delivering dialogue from the top of a desk
to denote superiority?
<damn, but my memory is shot this week...>
Opus
> Some say Delsarte was misunderstood and abused, as was and is "The Method."
> The same thing is happening today with the Meisner Technique.
>
Please expound upon this. I am fully Meisner trained, and I've never
heard this. Perhaps it's a school of thought that has yet to permeate
the southeastern region, so I'm curious.
Opus
KelL
"de Valois" <de_v...@nailedandused.com> wrote:
> il professore wrote in message
> <8Tl77.18517$A47.9...@news1.rsm1.occa.home.com>...
> >>Hey, Norman, this is somewhat confusing to me...
> >Are you saying *all* "psychological gestures" (to use Chekov's terminology)
> >are invalid, or only those extremes of Delsarte? <
> >
> >Carl,
> >Those who misused and misunderstood the Delsarte system did not think of
> >them as gestures supported by inner psychology. They thought that all they
> >had to do was memorize the pictures, pose and gesture in a certain
> >prescribed fashion, and an emotional response would be automatically
> aroused
> >in the spectator.
> >
>
> Norman, then the proper way to use Delsarte was...?
>
> >M. Chekov never gave us a picture book full of gestures, nor did he suggest
> >we flip though a Jeremy Whelan thesaurus of emotions as we prepared a role.
> >Chekov knew how hard it was to perfect an external and internal technique.
> >
>
> Agreed. Chekov's point, and a valid one, I feel, is that by visualizing the
> physicality of your emotional state (throwing your arms wide open when
> you're frustrated, for example), you can channel energy that you would waste
> demonstrating an emotion into the emotion itself. As you say, it economizes.
>
> >JW says buy a book, buy a tape, take my classes, swallow my pill, and all
> >your problems will be solved.
> >
>
> Yup. He is very good at self-promotion, but on the other hand, he's so
> alienated so many people here that I think it's easy to go overboard in
> critiquing his method (whatever it may be), and confusing to lurkers here.
> Thanks for clarifying.
>
> --
> Carl
>
> We're bigger than Jesus! - JWLennon
>
>
>
>
I wonder if anyone saw his production of "Baby Crap Included" at the
Producer's Club?
de Valois
>
>I wonder if anyone saw his production of "Baby Crap Included" at the
>Producer's Club?
>--
Touche.
I had hoped you had forgotten by now.
KelL
"de Valois" <de_v...@nailedandused.com> wrote:
> KelL wrote in message <9jn6hn$8koq$1...@ID-61949.news.dfncis.de>...
> >
> >I wonder if anyone saw his production of "Baby Crap Included" at the
> >Producer's Club?
> >--
>
> Touche.
>
> I had hoped you had forgotten by now.
With a title like that, who could....
Jeremy Whelan
>
> >Hey, Norman, this is somewhat confusing to me...
> Are you saying *all* "psychological gestures" (to use Chekov's terminology)
> are invalid, or only those extremes of Delsarte? <
>
> Carl,
> Those who misused and misunderstood the Delsarte system did not think of
> them as gestures supported by inner psychology. They thought that all they
> had to do was memorize the pictures, pose and gesture in a certain
> prescribed fashion, and an emotional response would be automatically aroused
> in the spectator.
hi,
Something of that nature exists today, it's called Alba Emoting.
> M. Chekov never gave us a picture book full of gestures, nor did he suggest
> we flip though a Jeremy Whelan thesaurus of emotions as we prepared a role.
Well you certainly won't "get it" by flipping through my book, it does
take a little thought to understand what I saying, probably because
nobody's ever said it before. New things are like that, people have to
think about them a bit. Luckily for me, more and more people are
realizing that about my work. They are taking the time, and they are
being rewarded for it. Checkov was smart and were he and Stanislavski
alive, if they hadn't already thought of the things I'm doing
themselves, they would be congratulating me, hopefully, over a pint in a
nice warm pub somewhere in Moscow during the winter.
Here's a shocker, try to find M. Chekov on the web, I just spent a half
hour trying, not even in the NYC public library, not even in performing
arts, wow, that sucks!
Chekov knew how hard it was to perfect an external and internal
technique.
>
> JW says buy a book, buy a tape, take my classes, swallow my pill, and all
> your problems will be solved.
No, I say if you take advantage of the advanced techniques I've created,
using ideas in many places that have been generated by fifty years of
proven scientific and educational research, you'll be a much better
actor/director. This research has proven a gold mine to dedicated
teachers in general education, I'm the first one to bring it over into
acting, that's all.
This research didn't really begin till the late 1950's and
Stanislavski was long in the ground by then, over twenty years in the
ground. Chekov was also dead by years before that research ever started,
so they didn't use it. They would have picked up on it, I'm very sure of
that. They were after all, men who kept up with their craft.
The fact is that Stan had to come to the USA by boat because:
There weren't any airplanes flying people across the Atlantic until
after he died.
The fact that he rode a horse to work at the Moscow Art Theatre because
there weren't any such thing as cars until his theatre was already open
for 30 or 40 years.
The fact that they performed with out the benefit of electric lights
because they wasn't in popular use yet.
He died without ever seeing a TV,
Maybe he saw a few early talkies, that's a movie in which actors voices
were actually recorded to you kids out there.
So maybe it's possible, maybe it's just possible that something better
might just be available in 2001. Maybe, I mean this is even crazier,
maybe the person who thought of it was, you know, me. Wow, wouldn't that
be weird, jeremy whelan was right, oh my god, i told him he was full of
shit.
Whatever
It's called keeping up with your craft. That's what really
bothers me, getting called out by people who aren't keeping up with
their craft.
whatever.
Since I was called a self promoting gadfly, wow, what a word, a gadfly
no less, I think it only proper that I answer those charges.
I believe Norman teaches. Are your classes free Norm? Tell me how that
works? Norman has a book don't you Norm, aren't you proud of it?
Wouldn't you recommend actors to read it? Haven't you done that, I mean
recommended Your BOOK, not ever? Do you give your book away or do you
charge money for it? I know how hard books are to write, i wrote four
between 1990-1999 and had one translated into Spanish. There are a lot
of actors who haven't read four books on acting since 1990, ya know what
I mean? whatever.
Someone said they read all my books and still doesn't think I have ever
presented my work with any clarity, if in deed it actuall y had any.
They said that they were all about me congratulating myself etc. And
then proceeded to totally denigrated the Dictionary of the Emotions and
The Thesaurus
of the Emotions. The dictionary has 900 emotions defined and the work
book and the Thesaurus of the Emotions is an 86 page work book to help
actors understand emotions better. The goal is to build the emotional
vocabulary of the actor which increases the actors emotional mobility.
That Dictionary of the Emotions and those books took almost 13 years of
my life. They are being used in classrooms and rehearsal halls all over
the word. Doctoral thesis and Masters thesis have and are being written
on this work. So this guy who said he read them all, is either very good
at playing dumb or very good at being dumb, one or the other. Being dumb
is more honorable at that point, playing dumb makes him a stooge for old
school or something.
whatever
Anyhow, if anyone actually wants to understand what I'm doing, instead
of just flapp'in their jaw, they can start by trying the essay on,
"Learning Styles and Acting" on my web page, also, "The New Audience and
the Ensemble" is there and worth reading too. They just make sense, as
so many actors, directors and teachers have told me. Someone told me
there are 85 pages of techniques, advice, theory etc that you can down
load for free from there. It's all good stuff.
ciao,
jeremy
http://www.newschoolacting
Oh yeah, this attempt to share some very hard earned knowledge will no
doubt be labeled cheap self promotion, but I am doing a Week End
Intensive on the 11th and 12th of August on 42nd Street in Manhattan.
Seven hours each day and you get a copy of the book, New School Acting
II - A Practical Manual. I only take 14 students for these things so,if
interested, you can get more details from www.newschoolacting.com
Please excuse me, I have to go gadfly around Manhattan, don't cha know,
well,ta.
Now whereEver did I put my foppish hat, can't go gadflying without that,
can I now?
de Valois
>Oh yeah, this attempt to share some very hard earned knowledge will no
>doubt be labeled cheap self promotion, but I am doing a Week End
>Intensive on the 11th and 12th of August on 42nd Street in Manhattan.
>Seven hours each day and you get a copy of the book, New School Acting
>II - A Practical Manual. I only take 14 students for these things so,if
>interested, you can get more details from www.newschoolacting.com
>Please excuse me, I have to go gadfly around Manhattan, don't cha know,
>well,ta.
>Now whereEver did I put my foppish hat, can't go gadflying without that,
>can I now?
Here's a thought, Jeremy: what if you allowed one of us to audit this
workshop, and give it an evaluation?
Hey, Kelly? You free that weekend? I am, but I'm not sure I'd be considered
impartial since I've been disinterested (in the sense of against both sides)
here.
The Starmaker
>
> Jeremy Whelan wrote in message <3B5F33E4...@eticomm.net>...
> >Oh yeah, this attempt to share some very hard earned knowledge will no
> >doubt be labeled cheap self promotion, but I am doing a Week End
> >Intensive on the 11th and 12th of August on 42nd Street in Manhattan.
> >Seven hours each day and you get a copy of the book, New School Acting
> >II - A Practical Manual. I only take 14 students for these things so,if
> >interested, you can get more details from www.newschoolacting.com
> >Please excuse me, I have to go gadfly around Manhattan, don't cha know,
> >well,ta.
> >Now whereEver did I put my foppish hat, can't go gadflying without that,
> >can I now?
>
> Here's a thought, Jeremy: what if you allowed one of us to audit this
> workshop, and give it an evaluation?
>
> Hey, Kelly? You free that weekend? I am,
I can't believe it! Kelly is free and all you can think of is taking her
to a
audit!!!!!
Any chick that is free in a weekend wants to be banged!
What are you going to do after the audit, take her out for coffee??¿
I'll tell you what to do, take Kelly to the Whelan audit and bang her in
the
ladies room.
The Starmaker
The problem with acting classes is that it's only for guys.
Guys are the only ones who are serious about acting.
Girls don't take acting that serious, they just make their agents hot
and that's
how they get work.
Guys gotta work harder.
It's all about T&A when it comes to actresses, when it comes to male
actors,
it's about....Emotionalty.
For an actress it's like having to learn very quickly how to ride a
horse, you just take a quick crash course on horse back riding. To
*most*
actresses, acting is just another crash course you take when you gotta
show more stuff than T&A.
Christopher Jahn
Well, it's permeated to Florida as long as 15 years ago.
The basic problem is the same as ever: students proclaim that
the technique they've studied is the One True Thing. And
steadfastly adhere to what they've learned even when it isn't
serving them. And often, what they've learned ISN'T what was
actually TAUGHT.
There is no one right way to get there. Every approach - EVEN
Jeremy's - has some level of validity. But no one approach
works all the time for everybody. I know someone who swears the
key to instantly memorizing lines is to recite the first letter
of each word in the sentence! To memorize that last sentence,
for example, she'd rattle off:
"i-k-s-w-s-t-k-t-i-m-l-i-t-o-r-t-f-l-o-e-w-i-t-s"
Is it the best way, or even a good way? It worked for her.
So you take what you can use, and look around to see what else
can be found. And don't close doors; you might find a way to
use what's behind them.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Your psychedelic state of being is just supersonic.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Christopher Jahn
> il professore wrote:
>>
>> >Hey, Norman, this is somewhat confusing to me...
>> Are you saying *all* "psychological gestures" (to use
>> Chekov's terminology) are invalid, or only those extremes
>> of Delsarte? <
>>
>> Carl,
>> Those who misused and misunderstood the Delsarte system did
>> not think of them as gestures supported by inner
>> psychology. They thought that all they had to do was
>> memorize the pictures, pose and gesture in a certain
>> prescribed fashion, and an emotional response would be
>> automatically aroused in the spectator.
>
> hi,
> Something of that nature exists today, it's called Alba
> Emoting.
>
>> M. Chekov never gave us a picture book full of gestures,
>> nor did he suggest we flip though a Jeremy Whelan thesaurus
>> of emotions as we prepared a role.
>
> Well you certainly won't "get it" by flipping through my
> book, it does take a little thought to understand what I
> saying, probably because nobody's ever said it before.
Jeremy, the reason I don't understand your book is because you
don't really SAY anything but "I've found this great method, and
everything else sucks." You never mention specifically,
anywhere in NSA, how to apply anything you talk about.
You mention research, even cite specific studies, but nowhere do
you actually explain how the research is applied to your work.
You mention that "old school" is history, but never offer any
specific evidence that this is so. And in fact you lump every
single current approach into one great big muddle. You never
really do a comparison against JUST Strasberg, or JUST Miesner,
or JUST Stanslavski, or JUST Chekov. Some claims you make about
any one of these approaches may have merit; but as you've
currently presented it, your claims just don't hold water.
>>
>> JW says buy a book, buy a tape, take my classes, swallow my
>> pill, and all your problems will be solved.
>
> No, I say if you take advantage of the advanced techniques
> I've created, using ideas in many places that have been
> generated by fifty years of proven scientific and
> educational research, you'll be a much better
> actor/director. This research has proven a gold mine to
> dedicated teachers in general education, I'm the first one
> to bring it over into acting, that's all.
The PROBLEM is you never, at any time, have been able to
demonstrate HOW all that research supports your work. You just
say that it does. I don't take stuff on faith, Jeremy.
And filling out forms is hardly "advanced techique".
>
> This research didn't really begin till the late 1950's and
> Stanislavski was long in the ground by then, over twenty
> years in the ground. Chekov was also dead by years before
> that research ever started, so they didn't use it. They
> would have picked up on it, I'm very sure of that. They were
> after all, men who kept up with their craft.
>
> The fact is that Stan had to come to the USA by boat
> because: There weren't any airplanes flying people across
> the Atlantic until after he died.
> The fact that he rode a horse to work at the Moscow Art
> Theatre because there weren't any such thing as cars until
> his theatre was already open for 30 or 40 years.
> The fact that they performed with out the benefit of
> electric lights because they wasn't in popular use yet.
> He died without ever seeing a TV,
> Maybe he saw a few early talkies, that's a movie in which
> actors voices were actually recorded to you kids out there.
> So maybe it's possible, maybe it's just possible that
> something better might just be available in 2001. Maybe, I
> mean this is even crazier, maybe the person who thought of
> it was, you know, me. Wow, wouldn't that be weird, jeremy
> whelan was right, oh my god, i told him he was full of shit.
> Whatever
But Stanslavski wrote it down pretty clearly. For such a
"primitive" with limited technology, he has been able to
communicate his ideas, EVEN ACROSS AN ABYSS OF TIME.
>
> It's called keeping up with your craft. That's what really
> bothers me, getting called out by people who aren't keeping
> up with their craft.
> whatever.
And what bothers me is that i AM keeping up with my craft, and
you keep saying I'm not because I disagree with you.
>
> Since I was called a self promoting gadfly, wow, what a
> word, a gadfly no less, I think it only proper that I answer
> those charges.
> I believe Norman teaches. Are your classes free Norm? Tell
> me how that
> works? Norman has a book don't you Norm, aren't you proud of
> it? Wouldn't you recommend actors to read it? Haven't you
> done that, I mean recommended Your BOOK, not ever? Do you
> give your book away or do you charge money for it? I know
> how hard books are to write, i wrote four between 1990-1999
> and had one translated into Spanish. There are a lot of
> actors who haven't read four books on acting since 1990, ya
> know what I mean? whatever.
But Norman doesn't ever say "All the other books are CRAP, and
*I'm* the way of the future."
If you would simply say "Here's some stuff I've found" and leave
it at that, nobody would be beating up on you.
>
> Someone said they read all my books and still doesn't think
> I have ever presented my work with any clarity, if in deed
> it actuall y had any. They said that they were all about me
> congratulating myself etc. And then proceeded to totally
> denigrated the Dictionary of the Emotions and The Thesaurus
> of the Emotions. The dictionary has 900 emotions defined and
> the work book and the Thesaurus of the Emotions is an 86
> page work book to help actors understand emotions better.
It's 86 copies of an empty form. And as far as I can tell,
every one of your 900 emotions can be found in dictionaries.
And in fact, most dictionaries define them more fully.
> The goal is to build the emotional vocabulary of the actor
> which increases the actors emotional mobility. That
> Dictionary of the Emotions and those books took almost 13
> years of my life. They are being used in classrooms and
> rehearsal halls all over the word. Doctoral thesis and
> Masters thesis have and are being written on this work. So
> this guy who said he read them all, is either very good at
> playing dumb or very good at being dumb, one or the other.
> Being dumb is more honorable at that point, playing dumb
> makes him a stooge for old school or something.
> whatever
Ah. So now I'm "dumb", or a "stooge". Jeremy can't simply poke
holes in my argument, or clarify his work, so I must be a "dumb
stooge". And a dishonorable one at that.
I don't have a tremendous amount of respect for academics who
research theatre. Not all of them - there are some who are
worhtwhile; the ones who also WORK in professional theatre.
If you have not worked in professional theatre, be it regional
repertory or summer stock or small storefronts or wherever, then
you quite simply don't know what you're talking about. Theatre
is learned and created on the front lines - in the 10 day
rehearsal period and the eight show week, it is underscored by
tight budgets and harsh reviews and human error.
An academic, in a controlled environment, who doesn't have to
compete with other entertainment venues or worry about season
subscriptions or the lack of press, who doesn't have to figure
out how to get the show working within the framework of time
permitted by the union, doesn't know squat about what it takes
to survive in professional theatre.
What denotes good technique? Years of scholarship, or touching
an audience 8 shows a week for five weeks and then doing it
again with a new show opening the week after that?
So no, Jeremy, I'm not impressed by your doctoral students
working on their thesis. "Piled Higher and Deeper", that's all
it is.
KelL
"de Valois" <de_v...@nailedandused.com> wrote:
> Jeremy Whelan wrote in message <3B5F33E4...@eticomm.net>...
> >Oh yeah, this attempt to share some very hard earned knowledge will no
> >doubt be labeled cheap self promotion, but I am doing a Week End
> >Intensive on the 11th and 12th of August on 42nd Street in Manhattan.
> >Seven hours each day and you get a copy of the book, New School Acting
> >II - A Practical Manual. I only take 14 students for these things so,if
> >interested, you can get more details from www.newschoolacting.com
> >Please excuse me, I have to go gadfly around Manhattan, don't cha know,
> >well,ta.
> >Now whereEver did I put my foppish hat, can't go gadflying without that,
> >can I now?
>
> Here's a thought, Jeremy: what if you allowed one of us to audit this
> workshop, and give it an evaluation?
>
> Hey, Kelly? You free that weekend? I am, but I'm not sure I'd be considered
> impartial since I've been disinterested (in the sense of against both sides)
> here.
Yes. had to cancel out of town plans....and I will not be happy if there
is an adjournment...
>
> --
> Carl
>
> We're bigger than Jesus! - JWLennon
>
>
>
KelL
The Starmaker <hld...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> de Valois wrote:
> >
> > Jeremy Whelan wrote in message <3B5F33E4...@eticomm.net>...
> > >Oh yeah, this attempt to share some very hard earned knowledge
> > >will no doubt be labeled cheap self promotion, but I am doing a
> > >Week End Intensive on the 11th and 12th of August on 42nd Street
> > >in Manhattan. Seven hours each day and you get a copy of the book,
> > >New School Acting II - A Practical Manual. I only take 14 students
> > >for these things so,if interested, you can get more details from
> > >www.newschoolacting.com Please excuse me, I have to go gadfly
> > >around Manhattan, don't cha know, well,ta. Now whereEver did I put
> > >my foppish hat, can't go gadflying without that, can I now?
> >
> > Here's a thought, Jeremy: what if you allowed one of us to audit
> > this workshop, and give it an evaluation?
> >
> > Hey, Kelly? You free that weekend? I am,
Sorry, after I audit the class, Jeremy permitting, I will be seeing my
multiple grammy nominee.
>
> I can't believe it! Kelly is free and all you can think of is taking
> her to a audit!!!!!
I am not free.
>
> Any chick that is free in a weekend wants to be banged! What are you
> going to do after the audit, take her out for coffee??¿
How do you think I met my guy
>
> I'll tell you what to do, take Kelly to the Whelan audit and bang her
> in the ladies room.
Starmie, mijo, standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you
get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.*
>
> The Starmaker
>
> The problem with acting classes is that it's only for guys. Guys are
> the only ones who are serious about acting. Girls don't take acting
> that serious, they just make their agents hot and that's how they get
> work. Guys gotta work harder. It's all about T&A when it comes to
> actresses, when it comes to male actors, it's about....Emotionalty.
You just lost your franchise.
>
> For an actress it's like having to learn very quickly how to ride a
> horse, you just take a quick crash course on horse back riding. To
> *most* actresses, acting is just another crash course you take when
> you gotta show more stuff than T&A.
You mean "models"
Opus
But perhaps you misunderstood Norman's original remark and my subsequent
question. He said that the Meisner technique had been misunderstood and
abused. The only place I heard of that happening was years ago at
Rutgers University by one of the instructors who taught it out of
context of sorts. I do understand the ideology that some think there is
"one true way" and only that way, but what I was addressing was Norman's
specific statement that The Meisner technique was now being
misunderstood and abused. THAT is what I've not heard of in a general
sense and was questioning.
Opus
The Starmaker
>
> In article <3B5F58...@ix.netcom.com>,
> The Starmaker <hld...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > de Valois wrote:
> > >
> > > Jeremy Whelan wrote in message <3B5F33E4...@eticomm.net>...
> > > >Oh yeah, this attempt to share some very hard earned knowledge
> > > >will no doubt be labeled cheap self promotion, but I am doing a
> > > >Week End Intensive on the 11th and 12th of August on 42nd Street
> > > >in Manhattan. Seven hours each day and you get a copy of the book,
> > > >New School Acting II - A Practical Manual. I only take 14 students
> > > >for these things so,if interested, you can get more details from
> > > >www.newschoolacting.com Please excuse me, I have to go gadfly
> > > >around Manhattan, don't cha know, well,ta. Now whereEver did I put
> > > >my foppish hat, can't go gadflying without that, can I now?
> > >
> > > Here's a thought, Jeremy: what if you allowed one of us to audit
> > > this workshop, and give it an evaluation?
> > >
> > > Hey, Kelly? You free that weekend? I am,
>
> Sorry, after I audit the class, Jeremy permitting, I will be seeing my
> multiple grammy nominee.
>
> >
> > I can't believe it! Kelly is free and all you can think of is taking
> > her to a audit!!!!!
>
> I am not free.
fourty dollars is my limit, what does that get?
>
> >
> > Any chick that is free in a weekend wants to be banged! What are you
> > going to do after the audit, take her out for coffee??¿
>
> How do you think I met my guy
What kind of guy do you think hangs out at coffee houses?
Fifty years ago they used to call them beatnicks.
> >
> > I'll tell you what to do, take Kelly to the Whelan audit and bang her
> > in the ladies room.
>
> Starmie, mijo, standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you
> get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.*
I rather be run over by steam rollers than be caught at a coffee house.
>
> >
> > The Starmaker
> >
> > The problem with acting classes is that it's only for guys. Guys are
> > the only ones who are serious about acting. Girls don't take acting
> > that serious, they just make their agents hot and that's how they get
> > work. Guys gotta work harder. It's all about T&A when it comes to
> > actresses, when it comes to male actors, it's about....Emotionalty.
>
> You just lost your franchise.
>
> >
> > For an actress it's like having to learn very quickly how to ride a
> > horse, you just take a quick crash course on horse back riding. To
> > *most* actresses, acting is just another crash course you take when
> > you gotta show more stuff than T&A.
>
> You mean "models"
Isn't that the same thing? A model makes products attractive, an actress
makes
male actors look attractive.
> --
> KellyL
> AFTRA/Actor/Director
> Usenet: an Erisitic construct of the Temporary Autonomous Zone ©
> I am etristic and a mime disaster in satin plaid booties ©
If cops arrest a mime, do they tell him he has the right to remain
silent?
The Starmaker
il professore
Lee Strasberg, Sandy Meisner, Stella Adler, Bobby Lewis ( all of whom were
at The Group Theatre together in the 1930's) taught their own individual
methods based on the Stanislavski system. Unfortunately, those who now study
with those who studied with those who studied with these fine teachers often
grab on the most obvious aspects of these training methods and offer them a
quick fix-it.
The most notorious example of the distortion of Lee Strasberg's Method was
the abuse of the Emotional Recall exercise. Jeremy Whelan, a man with whom
I rarely agree, has it right when he talks about how Emotional Recall even
filtered down to high school drama classes throughout the States: students
were forced to confess or act their out their most private moments in the
name of Art.
This same tendency to grab on to the most obvious exercises of The Meisner
Technique--
the Repetition exercise, the Knock and the Door -- and peddle these as a
complete technique is happening today. Meisner set out a two year program
with one exercise leading to another. Whether you agree with the process or
not, you can't learn it in a week or month.
As Meisner is now the flavor of the month or decade, watch out for abuses.
NORMAN
>Il Professore <
ilp...@home.com
Artistic Director/Santa Barbara Actors Theatre, Inc.
http://www.sbactorstheatre.org
_________________________________________
Opus <opus...@bloomcounty.com> wrote in message
news:3B5FA1B2...@hilarious.com...
Opus
> Technique--
> the Repetition exercise, the Knock and the Door -- and peddle these as a
> complete technique is happening today. Meisner set out a two year program
> with one exercise leading to another. Whether you agree with the process or
> not, you can't learn it in a week or month.
>
completed the two-year Meisner training program, and from what I'm
hearing, I was one of the lucky ones.
> As Meisner is now the flavor of the month or decade, watch out for abuses.
>
Didn't know he was the flavour of the month now either, but I definitely
am familiar with my instructor and would trust him from here to
eternity. His approach is not a closed-minded one, nor a single-minded
one. He combines some Eastern philosophies with Meisner, which opens up
the possibilities, yet stays true to the exercise regime and the
original order.
Thanks for the clarification.
Opus
ghoti
<opus...@bloomcounty.com> wrote:
[Il professore wrote:]
I studied with Vivian Matalon (in New York City) for about ten years; he
studied with Sanford Meisner in the heyday of the Neigborhood Playhouse.
Vivian says the rigid adherence on the part of some "Meisner technique"
teachers to this aspect or that of the things Meisner taught or
experimented with over many years is absurd. The problem as Vivian sees
it is that followers of great teachers tend to develop "orthodoxies"
that the teachers themselves, were they still with us, would eschew.
The example that V likes to make is the repetition exercise. According
to V, Meisner used it as exactly that, just exercise among many, and not
one of particular importance. Apparently there are now so-called Meisner
teachers who treat this exercise as the foundation of the "technique"
and spend far more time and attention on it than Meisner ever did.
And so it goes ...
(I left Vivian's class when I found I was in danger of making what he
taught an "orthodoxy." I still use a great deal of what I learned from
him; I also use things I learned elsewhere.)
Cheers,
ghoti
<redhe...@tuna.net>
<:)))>><(
Please do not email me copies of replies to the newsgroup.
de Valois
>>
>> The fact is that Stan had to come to the USA by boat
>> because: There weren't any airplanes flying people across
>> the Atlantic until after he died.
>> The fact that he rode a horse to work at the Moscow Art
>> Theatre because there weren't any such thing as cars until
>> his theatre was already open for 30 or 40 years.
>> The fact that they performed with out the benefit of
>> electric lights because they wasn't in popular use yet.
>> He died without ever seeing a TV,
>> Maybe he saw a few early talkies, that's a movie in which
>> actors voices were actually recorded to you kids out there.
>> So maybe it's possible, maybe it's just possible that
>> something better might just be available in 2001. Maybe, I
>> mean this is even crazier, maybe the person who thought of
>> it was, you know, me. Wow, wouldn't that be weird, jeremy
>> whelan was right, oh my god, i told him he was full of shit.
>> Whatever
>
>But Stanslavski wrote it down pretty clearly. For such a
>"primitive" with limited technology, he has been able to
>communicate his ideas, EVEN ACROSS AN ABYSS OF TIME.
>
Or to put it another way, they laughed at Edison, but Jeremy, they also
laughed at the Three Stooges.
If you have done the research and can show us some examples of how your
technique works, at least we could experiment with it, and maybe give it an
honest evaulation. You don't seem to want to do that.
Sorry for piggybacking on your post, Christopher.
de Valois
>
>I can't believe it! Kelly is free and all you can think of is taking her
>to a
>audit!!!!!
>
Starmie, she's free...but not easy.
de Valois
>> >Please excuse me, I have to go gadfly around Manhattan, don't cha know,
>> >well,ta.
>> >Now whereEver did I put my foppish hat, can't go gadflying without that,
>> >can I now?
>>
>> Here's a thought, Jeremy: what if you allowed one of us to audit this
>> workshop, and give it an evaluation?
>>
>> Hey, Kelly? You free that weekend? I am, but I'm not sure I'd be
considered
>> impartial since I've been disinterested (in the sense of against both
sides)
>> here.
>
>Yes. had to cancel out of town plans....and I will not be happy if there
>is an adjournment...
>
So Jeremy...agreed that Kelly can audit the workshop?
KelL
The Starmaker <hld...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> KelL wrote:
> >
> > In article <3B5F58...@ix.netcom.com>,
> > The Starmaker <hld...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > de Valois wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jeremy Whelan wrote in message <3B5F33E4...@eticomm.net>...
> > > > >Oh yeah, this attempt to share some very hard earned knowledge
> > > > >will no doubt be labeled cheap self promotion, but I am doing a
> > > > >Week End Intensive on the 11th and 12th of August on 42nd Street
> > > > >in Manhattan. Seven hours each day and you get a copy of the book,
> > > > >New School Acting II - A Practical Manual. I only take 14 students
> > > > >for these things so,if interested, you can get more details from
> > > > >www.newschoolacting.com Please excuse me, I have to go gadfly
> > > > >around Manhattan, don't cha know, well,ta. Now whereEver did I put
> > > > >my foppish hat, can't go gadflying without that, can I now?
> > > >
> > > > Here's a thought, Jeremy: what if you allowed one of us to audit
> > > > this workshop, and give it an evaluation?
> > > >
> > > > Hey, Kelly? You free that weekend? I am,
> >
> > Sorry, after I audit the class, Jeremy permitting, I will be seeing my
> > multiple grammy nominee.
> >
> > >
> > > I can't believe it! Kelly is free and all you can think of is taking
> > > her to a audit!!!!!
> >
> > I am not free.
>
> fourty dollars is my limit, what does that get?
For you, nothing.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Any chick that is free in a weekend wants to be banged! What are you
> > > going to do after the audit, take her out for coffee??¿
> >
> > How do you think I met my guy
>
> What kind of guy do you think hangs out at coffee houses?
>
> Fifty years ago they used to call them beatnicks.
and today they are called (still) yuppies...
>
>
>
> > >
> > > I'll tell you what to do, take Kelly to the Whelan audit and bang her
> > > in the ladies room.
> >
> > Starmie, mijo, standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you
> > get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.*
>
> I rather be run over by steam rollers than be caught at a coffee house.
Uncle Jack can arrange that....
>
> >
> > >
> > > The Starmaker
> > >
> > > The problem with acting classes is that it's only for guys. Guys are
> > > the only ones who are serious about acting. Girls don't take acting
> > > that serious, they just make their agents hot and that's how they get
> > > work. Guys gotta work harder. It's all about T&A when it comes to
> > > actresses, when it comes to male actors, it's about....Emotionalty.
> >
> > You just lost your franchise.
> >
> > >
> > > For an actress it's like having to learn very quickly how to ride a
> > > horse, you just take a quick crash course on horse back riding. To
> > > *most* actresses, acting is just another crash course you take when
> > > you gotta show more stuff than T&A.
> >
> > You mean "models"
>
> Isn't that the same thing? A model makes products attractive, an
> actress makes male actors look attractive.
Depneds onthe actress.
>
>
> > --
> > KellyL
> > AFTRA/Actor/Director
> > Usenet: an Erisitic construct of the Temporary Autonomous Zone ©
> > I am etristic and a mime disaster in satin plaid booties ©
>
> If cops arrest a mime, do they tell him he has the right to remain
> silent?
Yes. and this is going into the sig file
>
>
> The Starmaker
KelL
"de Valois" <de_v...@nailedandused.com> wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote in message <3B5F58...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >
> >I can't believe it! Kelly is free and all you can think of is taking her
> >to a
> >audit!!!!!
> >
>
> Starmie, she's free...but not easy.
It's a good thing you won't be at the Inoframtional Meeting tonight...
>
> --
> Carl
>
> We're bigger than Jesus! - JWLennon
>
>
>
de Valois
>In article <mtU77.1732$SU4.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "de Valois" <de_v...@nailedandused.com> wrote:
>
>> The Starmaker wrote in message <3B5F58...@ix.netcom.com>...
>> >
>> >I can't believe it! Kelly is free and all you can think of is taking her
>> >to a
>> >audit!!!!!
>> >
>>
>> Starmie, she's free...but not easy.
>
>It's a good thing you won't be at the Inoframtional Meeting tonight...
>
What? What? I meant that in a *good* way!
Opus
Opus
The Starmaker
>
> The Starmaker wrote in message <3B5F58...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >
> >I can't believe it! Kelly is free and all you can think of is taking her
> >to a
> >audit!!!!!
> >
>
> Starmie, she's free...but not easy.
From what she says, all it took was a cup of coffee.
Here I am spending hundreds on drinks at bars and I could've had
her for the cost of a cup of coffee.
Opus
Been mulling this post you made over in my head for a full twenty-four
hours now, and when I initially read it, I *knew* there was something
about it that bugged me, but I couldn't put my finger on it until now.
> It's called keeping up with your craft. That's what really
> bothers me, getting called out by people who aren't keeping up with
> their craft.
> whatever.
>
First of all, you are in no position or have no right to judge whether
those who are challenging you are keeping up with their craft or not.
Who are you to make that call? Because we haven't run flocking to your
classes like the other blind mice? Whatever.
And finally, you keep saying that the time is now for a new and
innovative acting technique. That Stanislavski is old school and should
be shunned. Whelan, what you fail to acknowledge, is one tiny tidbit
about Stanislavski: The entire reason he developed a system to begin
with, was because THE TIME AND AUDIENCES DEMANDED IT. Did you get
that? Probably not. At the time that Stanislavski developed his
"system", it was because the audience was sick to death of Sarah
Bernhardt's constant talking head/posing/soliloquy style of acting.
There was no interaction, no realism to it. It wasn't about emotions,
it was about people not inhabiting the embodiment of their characters,
whether that be emotionally or physically. And at the time, it was the
accepted style of acting.
Until audiences became bored with it. IT WAS ONLY THE AUDIENCE'S
BOREDOM THAT BECAME THE IMPETUS FOR STANISLAVSKI'S QUEST. He saw how
people were quickly becoming bored with that one-sided acting style, and
thus began taking the notes which would then become the basis of his
book years later.
THERE WAS A DEMAND.
Guess what? Realism and naturalism in acting have been pretty much
mastered since then. AND THERE IS NO NEW NEED. Supply and demand. If
you knew your craft as you say you do, then you would be schooled and
versed in the contemporary actors that are coming to the fore in
TV/film/theatre/commercials, and how they have pretty much everything
they need in order to function. Are audiences becoming bored with being
dragged into a scene? Hardly. Are they becoming bored with feeling
that they've taken the journey with you? Nyet.
So the problem comes in your nomenclature. It's fine if you have
another tool for others to use, but to flat out say Stanislavski is old
school, no longer needed and you have the wave of the future is fallacy,
not to mention arrogant and infuriating to some. You haven't defined
the wave of the future, or even identified it. (It's moving toward VR
by the way, which will not require emotionology.) All you've done is
decided that because you came up with yet another tool, you need to hock
it as something revolutionary. And that's hardly something new.
You want people to take you more seriously? You want people to lay off
your back? Then A) stop putting down those who have found the tools
that work, B) stop advertising this as the new wave of the future, and
C) begin calling it what it really is: Yet another tool at the actor's
disposal. You'll probably encounter a lot less resistance.
Opus
de Valois
>And finally, you keep saying that the time is now for a new and
>innovative acting technique. That Stanislavski is old school and should
>be shunned. Whelan, what you fail to acknowledge, is one tiny tidbit
>about Stanislavski: The entire reason he developed a system to begin
>with, was because THE TIME AND AUDIENCES DEMANDED IT. Did you get
>that
Given that TV audiences and film attendance are down significantly with the
rise of Meissner's shit, maybe we're shortshrifting Jeremy's approach.
de Valois
The Starmaker wrote in message <3B6049...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
>From what she says, all it took was a cup of coffee.
>Here I am spending hundreds on drinks at bars and I could've had
>her for the cost of a cup of coffee.
>
Or you could have sponsored one of Sally Struthers kids.
The Starmaker
>
> The Starmaker wrote in message <3B6049...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >
> >From what she says, all it took was a cup of coffee.
> >Here I am spending hundreds on drinks at bars and I could've had
> >her for the cost of a cup of coffee.
> >
>
> Or you could have sponsored one of Sally Struthers kids.
Who sponsored Sally? She looks like she ate all the food!!!
de Valois
Bill491
ghoti wrote:
> I studied with Vivian Matalon (in New York City) for about ten years; he
> studied with Sanford Meisner in the heyday of the Neigborhood Playhouse.
> Vivian says the rigid adherence on the part of some "Meisner technique"
> teachers to this aspect or that of the things Meisner taught or
> experimented with over many years is absurd. The problem as Vivian sees
> it is that followers of great teachers tend to develop "orthodoxies"
> that the teachers themselves, were they still with us, would eschew.
Sadly true, complicated by the fact that, as Norman ("il prof") has said,
Meisner has been in recent times, "the flavor of the month." There are
hundreds, thousands of coaches/teachers/directors who attach the Meisner
good seal of approval to their marketing or their methodologies. Meisner
works.... I know, I've studied it and have hired a guest artist to share
some of the intricacies at my studio, and my approach is based on years of
training with Bobby Lewis, and other KS folk.
Methinks that all actors need to do that "caveat emptore"..... the "let the
buyer beware routine." Shop around, read a lot of books and certainly
network with other actors and directors about what works.
> The example that V likes to make is the repetition exercise. According
> to V, Meisner used it as exactly that, just exercise among many, and not
> one of particular importance. Apparently there are now so-called Meisner
> teachers who treat this exercise as the foundation of the "technique"
> and spend far more time and attention on it than Meisner ever did.
There is a a reason for this.... the repetition exercise is the one thing
that clearly distinguishes Meisner from coaches like Lewis, Adler,
Ouspenskaya, and Hagen. (The KS-American hierarchy, minus Strasberg.) I
took me years to discover that most of what Meisner taught was very similar
to to master coaches I studied with. When I finally understood the
repetition exercise, I realized that I have been coaching and directing it
in a technique that I call talking and listening.
> And so it goes ...
Yes it does.
> (I left Vivian's class when I found I was in danger of making what he
> taught an "orthodoxy." I still use a great deal of what I learned from
> him; I also use things I learned elsewhere.)
> Cheers,
>
> ghoti
> <redhe...@tuna.net>
> <:)))>><(
Break a leg,
Bill
--
THE ACTING STUDIO
http://gvtg.com/theactingstudio
Bert Morris
snip
> You want people to take you more seriously? You want people to lay off
> your back? Then A) stop putting down those who have found the tools
> that work, B) stop advertising this as the new wave of the future, and
> C) begin calling it what it really is: Yet another tool at the actor's
> disposal. You'll probably encounter a lot less resistance.
>
> Opus
Dear Opus,
Actually, it's the resistance he craves. It's a never ending horizon filled with
windmills he can tilt at from now until all the world's his stage. Let's step
back for a moment and see the bigger picture; the man is not a guru, he's a
BALLOONIST, people! He MUST generate hot air (you can talk, talk, talk, you can
bicker, bicker, bicker, but you'd better con 'em quick, or you'll never lift the
wicker). Take away the 'controversy' and his game crashes; then, he's only left
with C) begin calling it what it really is: Yet another tool at the actor's
disposal. And to be 'just another' tool might mean folks would actually expect
realistic answers and examples and explanations and evaluations (like you would
of any tool). But then the mask is off, isn't it?
And it came to pass that the 'new school' guru walked into the rehearsal hall
and said quietly to the assembled cast, "Now, in this scene, I want to see three
colors." Guess what? The emperor has NO CLOTHES ON!!! None; no clothes, no
clues. But, if he can sow seeds of distraction, of self doubt in your mind about
every other approach...well, he's beat you, he's already won. Any attempt to
turn aside the logical, rational, sensing mind is a trick to disengage the very
attribute that makes actors good. It is the constant, never ending curiosity to
explore with the hard radiant competence of the mind what drives our humanity,
what makes us act and feel the way we do. Oh, and yes, it is VERY Old School,
the school of applying all the techniques that have been well taught, well
explained, well explored, well rehearsed and well performed in the ultimate real
time crucible: 8 performances a week. Short cuts have a place, new techniques
have a value -- upon thorough examination and honest evaluation -- but they do
not replace, upend or nullify all that has gone before and the experience
earned.
I can hit a golf ball; that does not make me Tiger Woods.
Regards,
Bert
ghoti
<opus...@bloomcounty.com> wrote:
> Ghoti, wonderful examples and I thank you for that clarification as well.
You're welcome; glad it was useful.
In fairness to Vivian Matalon, I should make it clear that he never
encouraged anyone to "guruize" him or "orthodoxize" what he teaches. He
tends to promote his approach very forcefully in the classroom, but as a
director, his concern is results, and as long as the actor gets there,
he doesn't care how.
He used to tell great stories about Meisner as a director; like all the
really good practical acting teachers I've studied under or heard of,
Meisner (as V tells it) made a very clear distinction between what is
taught in the classroom (homework tools) and what is needed in
rehearsal/production (getting the job done).
Jeremy Whelan
LEARNING STYLES
An essay by Jeremy Whelan
As some may not be familiar with Learning Styles, or at least not by
that name, an overview is
probably in order.
Learning Styles
Researchers, working over the last forty years plus, have discovered
that different students preferred to access information in different
ways. They named these "ways" Learning Modalities. The over all study of
these ways was titled Learning Styles. In any new field of endeavor,
opinions of those involved are bound to vary, but it is essentially
agreed by many in the field that there are three basic learning
modalities. Extensive experimentation showed that certain
students/humans learned best when the material to be learned was
presented in an auditory fashion. Others when material was presented
visually and the rest when the learning situation had a
tactile/kinesthetic dimension, in short, hearing, seeing, or by
touching/moving around. In experiments it was proven that when
information was presented in the students preferred Learning Modality,
test scores soared, anywhere from 50 to 70%. The "dummies" in the class
often shot to the top of the class. As Professor Rita Dunn, of Saint
Johns University in New York, and a pioneer in Learning Styles research
said, " If they won't learn they way we teach them, we'll teach them the
way they learn." Using the students preferred Learning Modality,
teachers can help them develop equal facility with their other Learning
Modalities. When this is accomplished, the goal of having students
become what is known as whole brain learners is achieved.
LEARNING STYLES & ACTING
We must recognize that regardless of all the romance and creative
mystique wrapped around it, acting is a field of study the same as math,
history, or language. Student actors are just that, students. All
actors are essentially students for life, in that they must learn their
lines, their craft and their character. They are not exempt from
practical pedagogical principles. Actors deserve the same advantages
available to students in other field of study and they are not getting
it on the scale they deserve. Any advance in teaching styles applies to
actors as much as it does to any science major. Leaning Styles represent
a powerful advance in teaching styles.
Unfortunately for students, these wonderful scientific advances in
education are not being applied in the classroom with the zeal they
deserve. In fact, these advances are patently ignored by far too many
educators. In the area of acting instruction they seem to be completely
disregarded. Hopefully what follows will help create a dialogue on this
extremely important subject.
Everyone in education should know of the tremendous benefits to students
that have come out of
Learning Styles research. It would be nice to think that all teachers
are trying, in some way, to apply those discoveries to practical
classroom procedures. Any that have, have seen extremely positive
results. Learning Styles has replaced old out moded teaching procedures
and shaken the very roots of pedagogical thinking. In some way or
another, Learning Styles has penetrated every level of education and
every subject, except acting, the very root of the theatrical
experience. Through this essay, I hope to establish an urgent need for
that to happen and offer a way to begin that process.
I went to see a play last week; it was an Equity production. It could
have been any play really, but it was a case study in everything wrong
with acting today. I went to a party with the cast afterward and was as
kind as I could be. I talked to many of the cast and asked each what
their background was, training etc. They were, as most casts are today,
from many different schools, Stanislavski, Meisner, Spolin, Susuki,
Strasberg etc. and it showed. It was wretched from beginning to end. It
was as if they were all from different countries with different
languages, and had been forced to speak in a language truly familiar to
only one of them. I don't know if the horribly stagy (over) direction
was an attempt to deal with that situation, but somehow I doubt it.
Possibly the director was from a school foreign to all the actors. It
simply compounded the problem. I have to credit the author, because the
play itself still managed to get through all that smoke, but only in
places. It really did deserve a much better production. Anyhow, the
whole experience was an exclamation mark on the most serious problem in
acting today.
In any discussion of acting, if one person propounds to have "the way",
it causes many to jump up and down, vociferously imperiously stating
that this is false. They'll say that there is no one way to teach -
study - do acting. What is truly ironic is that most are Stanislavski
actors or some derivative of that approach. When Stanislavski entered
the arena, acting was in complete disarray and there was no standard to
which anyone could repair. Acting as a business hadn't been around that
long and it had not as yet found its stride so to speak. Stanislavski,
with the support of the state, wealthy parents, and his own considerable
talent, managed to create such a standard. Stanislavski's greatest
contribution to acting was that he managed to get everybody to approach
it from one way, his way. He homogenized acting. He established a new
"Language of Acting" and all leaned to speak it. This homogeneity was
the source of greatness in any production that came out of that style.
It allowed for a true team effort; ensemble was possible within those
parameters. He was able to do this because he established that Language
of Acting from the core of a Strong Central Idea.
The most powerful idea born in Stanislavski's time was the work of Freud
and many others working in the field of Psychoanalysis. Being as bright
as he was Stanislavski immediately incorporated it into the acting
process. It was that Strong Central Idea which served as the basis of
his initial work and it is what gave it veracity and authority. Over
time that cohesiveness started to crumble. In fact, it was Stanislavski
himself that created the first true fissure when in latter life he
switched to the Theory of Actions. This degeneration of the Strong
Central Idea was occurring inside and outside of acting. As the power of
those early psychoanalytical theories started to weaken, so did the
harmonious language of acting created by Stanislavski. Derivative after
derivative, crack after crack, this general breakdown started to eat
away at the core of the acting experience. Many languages started to
appear on the theatrical landscape and soon communication became labored
and lost.
Today acting is at the end of that road. It is torn into many pieces,
terribly tattered and badly in need of a rallying point. It needs a new
Strong Central Idea from which to launch an assault on the steep wall of
progress. It is time to take acting to its next level of evolution and
we are lucky to have such a Strong Central Idea upon which to base this
attack. Learning Styles is that Strong Central Idea. The massive
research and experimentation into how we learn has yielded a bumper crop
of techniques/tools that we can apply to the task at hand. We can not,
without the risk of killing the muse, continue to ignore the scientific
empirical proof of the efficacy of that work.
The challenge before us is in finding all the ways that this knowledge
can be applied to our art and craft. Starting from that Strong Central
Idea, we must create a new Language of Acting, one that we can all speak
fluidity. When that occurs on a large scale, we will have reached that
next level, and we will be giving birth to an age where ensemble is the
norm and not the exception. It was to that end that I founded The
Academy of New School Acting and wrote the books New School Acting -
Taking It to the Next Level (1996) and New School Acting II - A
Practical Manual (1998). My other books, Instant Acting (1994) and The
ABC's Of Acting (1990) were seminal to those works. Actor Al Instante
(1996), the Spanish translation of Instant Acting, was an effort to take
this work beyond the walls of the English language.
I use the term New School Acting as a sort of line in the sand. A
statement that we have reached a point in time where we recognize that a
need for change is crucial, and we also recognize that a powerful,
intelligent, means for change is available. I had, for at least fifteen
years, intuitively paralleled the work of the Learning Styles
researchers. I had created a technique, which I call The Whelan Tape
Technique, and it is an almost perfect whole brain teaching tool. Any
who have worked with it, in the manner that I established, will
undoubtedly verify that statement. Many professionals, teachers, and
students have taken the time to write me to that effect, I will quote a
few of them later in this essay. If you care to see more endorsements,
I've quoted quite a few of them on my home page http://www.new
schoolacting.com This is a good place to set up the fact that it would
take to long to explain some of the techniques I mention here, so I will
hyper link them incase you feel you want to know specifics about them
before you read on. These are your peers, co-workers and fellow students
who are speaking. I receive such letters almost everyday from around the
world. New School Acting is not a fad, it is in fact a growing movement.
It is a first attempt to apply the brilliant discoveries of Learning
Styles research to the art and craft of acting. Myself and others using
these tools are getting the same high level results as teachers in other
disciplines using a Learning Styles paradigm.
When I discovered Learning Styles about six years ago and started
digging into it, I recognized immediately the tremendous power behind
that idea and started to look for other ways to apply it to the study of
acting. I took old school ideas and upgraded them. Allowing them to have
the same value for people with learning modalities different than the
one favored by the old school teaching style. I created new techniques
to serve people regardless of their preferred learning modality.
Although I spent the first twenty years of my career as a professional
actor-director, for the most part of the last seventeen years teaching
and writing on acting have been center stage. My work is only a
beginning, many more people are going to make valuable contributions. I
do feel pride in that I have created a new and vital acting system
utilizing and incorporating the advances in education in general. I am
also proud that for the first time I've been able to organize all the
elements of that system into one book. I was able to do this by
combining two previous books and incorporating newer writings. New
School Acting II - A Practical Manual (1998) makes this powerful new
approach to acting accessible to any teacher, director, actor or student
of the art and craft. I will welcome, with open arms, those who may use
that book as a base to grow this work.
Learning Styles and Left Brain-Right Brain Theory Applied to New School
Acting
It is interesting that so many educational institutions, that must teach
their business students how corporations risk catastrophic loss of
market share by being unaware of trends in their industry, breed their
own destruction by not adapting superior, scientifically proven teaching
techniques in their acting/directing courses.
The American auto industry is a prime example of myopic management. It
was devastated for years by not seeing and accepting the coming
popularity of smaller cars. The Japanese and the Germans virtually took
over car sales in this country. Old school auto executives wrapped
themselves in flags and pleaded with the public to Buy American. It
didn't work because the people wanted better, smaller cars; they bought
Japanese and German. Today the people want a better education for
themselves and their children and they are rejecting out moded teaching
styles. Students and their parents are proactive in knowing what is
being taught and how it is being taught. They know about Learning Styles
and options like Charter Schools and they are taking those options.
A quick history of Charter Schools will dramatically and graphically
show how extremely dynamic the revolution in education actually is. If
you haven't heard of the Charter School Movement yet, you will very
soon. It is the most momentous movement in the history of education.
Public schools have been
one of the last great state monopolies. Charter Schools are, in one
sense, the deregulating of education. The field is now open to all. In
New York City, Mayor Giuliani gave Charter Schools $10,000,000 dollars
early this 2001. I personally find it fascinating that Carl Ichon, an
uncannily perceptive financier, is opening a Charter School on the Upper
East Side. If he makes money with it, he could open thousands of them
very quickly. Perhaps then schools would, like the auto industry,
realize it was time to get modern.
Charter Schools are a direct result of Learning Styles research. As
teachers learned new and better techniques for teaching, they became
anxious to use them to benefit their students. Often they were blocked
by old school administrators, who were wary of the "new" and mired in
bureaucratic inertia. Many teachers of talent and conscience began
looking for ways around that conundrum, what they came up with was the
concept of Charter Schools. Autonomous schools, unhindered by federal,
state and local regulations, and free of the old schools abhorrence of
change.
They founded schools where they could use these new teaching techniques
and give their students the best education possible, usually having to
take a pay cut to do it. It is only fair to say, that some teachers
simply couldn't afford to follow their conscience, although having to
stay behind for financial reasons, they became guerrillas, implementing
these new techniques any where/way they could. The following graph and
chart will give you an idea how explosive the idea of Charter Schools
really is. We would all be ecstatic if our stock portfolio had the same
growth pattern.
SNAPSHOT OF CHARTER SCHOOL GROWTH
Year # of Schools # of States
1992 1 Minnesota
1995 93 5
1996 214 10
1997 800 29
1998 1129 33
Spring 1999 l630 36
Data was provided to me by Asst. Director Gail Meister of Drexel U.
Foundation for Technical Assistance to Public Charter Schools and other
sources, including the US Dept. of Education. These are spectacular
numbers and it should be awake up call to the government and public
education that something is wrong with old schools teaching style.
Some schools are like restaurants. They get a great reputation for
excellence and then gradually the excellence leaves but the reputation
stays long after it is gone. Students shouldn't trust their education to
anyone without personally investigating any school they favor. It's a
bit harder to sniff out an outdated Theatre Dept. than it is to
recognize a weak Computer Dept. The hardware is there or it isn't. It's
running the absolute cutting edge programs or it's not. Theatre, because
of its talent, can put on the face of new without ever actually wearing
it.
The problem with acting programs is that drama is a niche kind of
subject, its departments are insular, not out in the open like primary
subjects. The reform team may take awhile to penetrate the drama
department. Old tenured Profs. barricaded against the march of time,
will hold down that Russian fort until the last paycheck can be squeezed
out of it. Stanislavski was good enough for his great granddaddy, and
his granddaddy and it's good enough for him. Maybe so, but it is
something else to the student, and the motivated student will search
hard for the best educational opportunities.
Most institutions, busy looking after their computer science programs
and their engineering programs, have the new revolution in education is
making inroads in those departments. When it comes to acting however, it
is no secret that Stanislavski rules Academia and American actors'
training in general, as well as in many other countries around the
world. I received an e-mail from a theatre company in Denmark thanking
me for an exciting and powerful new way to approach acting. I asked them
what they had been using and they said, Stanislavski. The point is that
Stanislavski died thirty years before Learning Styles research began. He
did not have the advantage that modern teachers have when he formulated
the now dated ideas that are still ruling the education of an
overwhelming number of actors.
Those that followed Stanislavski have shown the same attitude that old
school teachers everywhere show to new ideas. They just don't get it.
The fact is that you can not divorce a teaching style from the historic
context of the period in which it was created, or the student base it
was meant to serve. This is not the 1920's and the students in theatre
depts. today generally aren't all wealthy white kids. We've learned too
much to ignore the obvious. Just look on the Internet, the signs of a
rapidly changing world are everywhere.
To give you an idea of how much that student base has changed, here are
a few numbers from the Department of Education. I asked to Dr. Vance
Grant, a specialist in educational statistics with the Dept. of
Education in Washington DC, about the statistics regarding this changing
non traditional student base and his choice of word to describe it was
"Phenomenal". I asked for the growth over the last 5 and 10 years. (New
School Acting was published in 1996) The numbers go like this:
1986 - White non Hispanic students composed 79.3 % of the student base
1991 - White non Hispanic students composed 76.5 % of the student base
1996 - White non Hispanic students composed 71.4 % of the student base
That is a jump of 7.9 % in ten years. To put that in perspective, from
1976 to 1986 the change was 3.3%. 1976 was the first year that these
numbers started being tracked, but Dr. Grant said that the percentage
for the 10 years before that would surely have shown a smaller
percentage of growth than
3.3%. We can expect to see this unprecedented growth continue. Serving
this divergent student base is big business. According to Dr. Grant,
American universities, high school and elementary schools, grossed 462
Billion, 259 million dollars.(1994-95) That's over six times the 71.2
Billion dollars that IBM made world wide that year and almost two and a
half times the 168 Billion, 826 Million that General Motors made world
wide during the same period. So there is definitely market pressure to
update the teaching styles from old school to new, or the University of
Korea could be the next Harvard. I don't want to get lost in the
numbers, but I did want to provide a backdrop for the argument I'm
making about the need to upgrade education in general and in the arts in
particular. After all I am asking you to become involved and I'm sure
many of you are, but on the whole, who wants to do that. Let's see if I
can get this back into the sphere of acting.
Left Brain-Right Brain
Decades of brain research have proven that we have two spheres of
influence. These were once called the left brain and right brain, though
they are now referred to as the left and right hemispheres. Very
basically, left hemisphere rules business type functions and controls
the right side of the face, ears etc. Right hemisphere rules creative
type functions and the left side of the face, ears, etc. It was funny to
watch actors, who learned about this, as they jockeyed to get the left
side of their faces into camera or downstage.
Most people have heard about the idea of our having a left brain and a
right brain, and that they have different responsibilities relating to
how we approach life on a day to day basis. Education has forever taught
to the left or practical side of our brains. The fact is that some
people have a stronger right brain and some have a stronger left brain;
so that old teaching style basically left right brain creative types out
in the cold. So what's this got to do with acting? Well, actors have to
learn parts, they have to learn the craft, they have to learn the art.
Actors are students for life. If you know how you learn best (your
preferred learning modality) and your teachers use that knowledge to
teach you, you'll learn anything quicker and better. I have many reasons
for wanting you to understand your learning process. One is so that you
recognize the limitations of instruction you may have already received,
or instruction you might be considering, and the value of the one I am
offering you.
If you spent time in old school, it wasn't wasted. I recognize and teach
that it is important for actors to be familiar with all styles of
acting, since they may someday work with a director who came out of one
of those schools. A director will feel more comfortable hiring an actor
if she knows that they have some knowledge of the approach she uses when
working with actors. It doesn't mean one has to be a devotee of that
school, it just means that one has to be familiar with the vocabulary
which that type of director uses (his preferred learning modality). A
director doesn't want to feel she is going to have to learn a new
language to get what she wants from you. Actors can translate that old
school vernacular to new school, but they can't do that unless they know
both languages. There is an ease of communication that people who speak
the same language, find when working together, and an actor must always
remember, he is the one looking for a job.
There are many theories of Learning Styles, but the one thing that's
obvious is that humans definitely learn in different ways. You should
understand that Methods of instruction which are older, and this of
course includes approaches to acting, did not recognize that difference.
In other words, those styles were prejudiced to the intellectual (left)
side of your brain and as actors our most important tool, the emotions,
are located in the other side of the brain (right). While it is
infinitely more delicate than that, for the sake of simplicity, we will
let it stand at that for now.
One of the advantages of knowing we have a split brain is that we can
now work to create whole brain functioning. Knowing we have preferred
learning modalities, we can work toward a balance where all learning
modalities function harmoniously and effectively in unison. BUT, we must
also realize that the centuries of bias toward the left brain have made
it imperative that we concentrate on strengthening the right brain, so
that a balance can be achieved. In other words, we have to indulge our
creativity and revel in our emotions until they feel natural again. It
is wildly paradoxical that we have to start this party in our brains.
In new school education this right brain function is being opened up
early instead of being crushed early. This is happening in many ways
world wide, but a sure sign that it is happening in the US is the
fantastic growth of the movement just disgusted, Charter Schools.
Business has taken to Learning Styles because there is money to be made
it. Think of the wild popularity of Hooked On Phonics and the very rapid
growth of Sylvan Learning Centers and other such enterprises. Parents
have to take their kids to outside schools so they can get good grades
in the public schools, or learn much at all for that matter. The tools
these people are using for those subjects are based on the same paradigm
I've brought into acting. That stuff is springing up all over the place
and I've spent the greater portion of the last seventeen years trying to
shout down a mountain of reactionary old school practitioners. They do
not just stand shoulder to shoulder, they are standing on each others
shoulders, higher than a high school cheerleading squad. I sometimes
refer to them as the Stanislavski Mafia. The only difference is, that
since they can't refute my arguments, they are trying to stonewall these
ideas to death, or at least until they can safely retire. If the art is
still alive, somebody else can resuscitate its moribund hide; enough
venting, back to facts
Learning Styles Are Reflected In New School Acting
Many of the techniques I created for New School Acting have a Learning
Styles paradigm. As Thomas Klocke, Arts In Education Coordinator, Kansas
Arts Commission put it: "I believe that Whelan's actor training method,
as described, is excellent. It incorporates the three basic learning
domains of all students, visual in reading scripts and watching the
other learners and actors, auditory in hearing the recorded script, and
most importantly kinesthetic in moving the body as a learning technique.
Whelan's method actually gets the actor's bodies to learn the roles they
are performing".
Some of my techniques were created intuitively before I became aware of
Learning Styles. Others were created, modified or expanded to
incorporate the advantages of that approach once I became aware of them.
It seems obvious that it was the tactile/ kinesthetic learners who were
most neglected in the old school teaching style. Many have commented on
the advantages of that aspect of one of my techniques, the one I named
the Whelan Tape Technique, or WTT for short. Here are a few of those
comments. I quoted this article from the British theatre journal Total
Theatre when talking about how they used Emotionology in rehearsal. Here
is a comment on using the WTT in Rehearsal. The complete article can be
found on the page Shakespeare & NSA.
"What is remarkable about this process (WTT) is that by the time you
come to do the lines you virtually know them. Quite often you find
yourself not knowing what the text is but your body remembers to turn to
look at someone at a certain point which prompts your memory... We use
this technique for every scene in the play." - Danny Scheinmann, Actor,
The English Shakespeare Company, London, UK
Here is another educator commenting on the physical
(tactile/kinesthetic) aspect of this work:
"Thank you for the wonderful rehearsal account. It's inspiring to read
about this work. I would also add that I am familiar with your books and
I have employed the tape techniques in my studio classes. I consider the
tape work a wonderful innovation. The physical work of our actors has
never been better. Your heretical work on emotions is also appreciated.
In my case it has crystallized my problems with method approaches, and
shown me a way out of that particular dilemma." - Marc Diamond,
Professor of Theatre, School for the Contemporary Arts, Simon Fraser U.,
Canada
Professor Diamond's last comment relates to what I've since named
Emotionology. Emotionology is a cornerstone of New School Acting, and
thoroughly grounded in the Learning Styles model, although I started
teaching it in a cruder form in 1986. It's a bit long and subtle to
explain; the link will help you investigate that. I'll use one more
quote to set up the wrap party.
"The Whelan Tape Technique gets to the core of the creative process in
record time."
Robert Yowell, Chair Of Theatre, California State University.
The technique does get to the core of the creative process in record
time and for very good reason. The reason stated by the gentleman from
Kansas at the beginning of this section. It is what can be described as
a whole language/whole brain teaching tool. All three learning
modalities are employed simultaneously. They are built directly into the
mechanics of the technique and as such, the symbiotic effect I mentioned
earlier takes place, more than tripling the speed and depth of the
learning process.
I've talked about techniques I've created. It might help to give one
example of adapting an old school staple such as the Bio and show how it
can be brought in line with contemporary teaching techniques.
The character biography has long been a standard tool of the acting
profession, but as it was done in an essay form, it only utilized one
learning modality. To take advantage of all three learning modalities, I
have actors create a ScrapBook for their character. Complete with tons
of photographs for the visual learner and things like a pressed flower
from a prom, a key to the first apartment you shared with your first
wife who died. The collar of your puppy that died. Sic in joke, but the
point is that in New School Acting, it is the characters puppy and the
characters wife that died, not the actors. These objects aid the tactile
kinistetic learner. The ScrapBook technique incorporates all learning
modalities and works much better as a creative stimulant. Emotionology
is the technique that makes sure the wife and puppy are the characters
not the actors. Feel free to investigate that pillar of New School
Acting on the web page.
These are just a few ways that Learning Styles can be incorporated into
the teaching of acting. There are others and many more will be created
as soon as teachers seize on the obvious advantages of the discoveries
which came out of this research. Perhaps for some teachers, directors
and actors that work will start here today.
I truly believe that the most exciting results that will come out of
this work will be the integrating into acting of all those talented
people who previously found the door closed. People who approached
acting with great anticipation but found that the limited and prejudiced
one learning modality approach of old school was essentially De Facto
Segregation. This is not the fault of those who came before, they did
the very best they could with the tools available to them. Today we have
powerful new tools to work with and we can take acting to the next
level. Tools that are scientifically proven to work. Tools validated to
work by over four decades of research. It is a travesty to ignore them.
It is a violation of all the ethics of the teaching profession to fail
to give today's students today's tools. Students who accept less have no
one but themselves to blame. Any artist who does not use every tool at
his disposal to create the highest level of work he is capable of is
unworthy of the name. New School Acting uses those tools at every turn,
which is why when speaking of it, we are not talking about revolution,
it is truly an evolutionary approach. New School Acting opens the door
to all. The influx of new and more intelligently trained talent will
soon bring an energy and excitement to acting that it has not seen in a
very long time.
Well I hope I've at least given you something to think about, better of
course would be to have had you realize there was a way that you could
help. Should you want to help, but not know how, call me.
Jeremy Whelan
646-279-6899
212-956-0902
BrickRage
>From: Jeremy Whelan whel...@eticomm.net
<snip a whole bunch of stuff -- actually the whole schpiel>>
Woowee, this guy's really scary, boys and girls.
I didn't know the basis for the discussion and flames before. Now I do.
I've run into dozens of crackpot theories over the years -- especially in NYC
-- this one's right up there with the wackiest.
Excuse me if I don't respond to Mr. Whelan's post. I have a headache already.
Nesci
--One of the co-authors of The Port Huron Statement. The uh... original one.
The FAQ for m.w.s is http://www.communicator.com/faqs.html
Wall O'Flesh
...Excellently well said, Bert. And you too, Carla, as always.
Boiling the whole argument down to it's essence, we find that
'Emotionology' needs to succeed or fail on its own. And when the
advertising, the rhetoric, the pedigrees and the endorsements whither
in the noonday sun, what you're left with is an idea that falls apart
like a house of cards.
Actors need to remember to always build on the foundation that comes
before; even Stanislavski, Meisner, et al didn't start out completely
fresh. In the end, Acting is the analysis of Human Nature; and
although we as a race can advance technologically, stylistically, (and
even make small steps occasionally toward enlightenment), that Core of
Human Nature remains constant. It's why we dig for ape bones, read
about Henry VIII, or perform Shakespeare...the motivations and dreams
that drive our behavior came before, are now, and will be
again...simply stated through younger mouths, or dreamed in newer
souls.
Anyone who claims he has an idea that wasn't thought of before never
looked back to see the long line of souls that put him where he is
today. Worse, too, to narrow his vision enough to disregard what
others can add. Such a person flies in the face of the study of human
nature...sad.
...Or to put it in simpler terms, it's one thing to think you know
better than then the World; much worse to let that belief make you act
like an asshole. ;)
--Wall
Christopher Jahn
> LEARNING STYLES
> An essay by Jeremy Whelan
>
What a long missive!
It's all opinion, with not a single fact in evidence.
He references Learning Modalities, but doesn't mention exactly
what they are or how they are used. But he calims that only HE
is applying them to acting.
But unless you describe what it is and how it works, no one can
judge current practices in Acting Instruction against your claim
to see if you're right.
From your description, it's entirely possible that Strasberg was
using Learning STyles all along; perhaps the "education
establishment" learned it from HIM. Certainly, nothing in your
post indicates otherwise.
And the evidence you offer to support your position (old methods
are failing)? You saw a bad play. You even REVIEW the play
without letting anyone know:
who was in it
who directed
who wrote it
where it was produced
what play it was
So all you have is "Jerry saw a play he didn't enjoy". We don't
know how the play was regarded by others, or if it was a typical
production. One anonymous, bad play isn't compelling evidence.
Jerry then goes into a pointless explanation of Charter Schools.
I don't see any relevance to the topic at hand, but it's the
only section that offers numbers. Good luck checking them:
Jeremy apparently doesn't believe in using references that canbe
accessed on the internet. (other than his own website)
He then discuses right brain/left brain learning, which has
largely been disredited by several major studies published in
Nature and Science.
So what we have is a verbose advertisement, not an effective
description of any new or old techniques.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
I may have my faults, but being wrong isn't one of them.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Opus
> He then discuses right brain/left brain learning, which has
> largely been disredited by several major studies published in
> Nature and Science.
>
Wow. Do you have some sources for this? I'm a staunch believer in the
hemispheric approach to cognitive learning patterns. But am interested
to see what you found. I'm open...
Opus
The Starmaker
>Any artist who does not use every tool at
>his disposal to create the highest level of work he is capable of is
>unworthy of the name.
I'm an artist. I go into a art store to look for tools that express
myself. I cannot "use every tool that is at my disposal"
I only use tools that work for me. Tools that express what I feel.
Tools are just an extension of one's self. You must find the tool that
best express yourself.
With some artist it's oils, others it's watercolor, children use
crayons.
Whatever works for you is what best expresses you to others.
Since I'm not an actor I don't know what tools exist or how they are
used, but I do
know you use Whatever Works For You.
The Starmaker
Opus
Christopher Jahn
Check the Nature website. The article is from 1999.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
All men are created unequal.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
LA...@laguy.com
<Xns90E9C3F...@216.85.213.5>:
>KelL <The_RoaringU...@bigfoot.com> wrote in <9jn8ls$8koq$2@ID-
>61949.news.dfncis.de>:
>
>>In article <FpF77.6$sq4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>> "de Valois" <de_v...@nailedandused.com> wrote:
>>
>>> KelL wrote in message <9jn6hn$8koq$1...@ID-61949.news.dfncis.de>...
>>> >
>>> >I wonder if anyone saw his production of "Baby Crap Included" at the
>>> >Producer's Club?
>>> >--
>>>
>>> Touche.
>>>
>>> I had hoped you had forgotten by now.
>>
>>With a title like that, who could....
>
>I answer mysef jhsjkdy?? Churrrrrrrl?
> doooo? wnat em? dorgs? need plese
>
>
kwwwwe?
--
Mr. Whacky!
What would you know about writing you sadistic misogynistic hack? You
bluster and bobulate puffing up like the fat little penguin you so
resemble. But unlike a noble bird you are a sputtering fool. You are a hack
with no sense of decency. You think that your violent egotism gains you
admirers? Hah, it gains you whores like the two well known ones who attend
you in your black path. All others work their paths against you and soon,
there will be a convergence of energy upon you, causing you to disassemble
your fragile id driven manufactured personality, hiding and held together
by patches of psychological chicken wire. Soon it will come to pass and you
will know the power of THE MIGHTY COALITION!
Jules
<Xns90E9D2F...@24.129.0.136>:
>And it came to pass that Opus wrote:
>
>> Hi Norman,
>>
>>
>>> Some say Delsarte was misunderstood and abused, as was and
>>> is "The Method." The same thing is happening today with the
>>> Meisner Technique.
>>>
>> Please expound upon this. I am fully Meisner trained, and
>> I've never heard this. Perhaps it's a school of thought
>> that has yet to permeate the southeastern region, so I'm
>> curious.
>>
>
>Well, it's permeated to Florida as long as 15 years ago.
>
>The basic problem is the same as ever: students proclaim that
>the technique they've studied is the One True Thing. And
>steadfastly adhere to what they've learned even when it isn't
>serving them. And often, what they've learned ISN'T what was
>actually TAUGHT.
>
>There is no one right way to get there. Every approach - EVEN
>Jeremy's - has some level of validity. But no one approach
>works all the time for everybody. I know someone who swears the
>key to instantly memorizing lines is to recite the first letter
>of each word in the sentence! To memorize that last sentence,
>for example, she'd rattle off:
>"i-k-s-w-s-t-k-t-i-m-l-i-t-o-r-t-f-l-o-e-w-i-t-s"
>
>Is it the best way, or even a good way? It worked for her.
>
>So you take what you can use, and look around to see what else
>can be found. And don't close doors; you might find a way to
>use what's behind them.
>
>
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet
--
It seems the psycho stalker of Usenet threatened to blow up Talesin's
wife's plane. The FBI was going to send him to the Uncle Sam Hilton but
they could not prove he knew the specific flight she was on.
It's okay they are watching him and he will fuck up again. If he threatens
you in any way, on line or off, immediately call your local police and have
them contact the FBI. The file is under Carl Salonen
KelL
The Starmaker <hld...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> de Valois wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote in message <3B5F58...@ix.netcom.com>...
> > >
> > >I can't believe it! Kelly is free and all you can think of is taking her
> > >to a
> > >audit!!!!!
> > >
> >
> > Starmie, she's free...but not easy.
>
> From what she says, all it took was a cup of coffee.
> Here I am spending hundreds on drinks at bars and I could've had
> her for the cost of a cup of coffee.
and you can't play Liszt's "Totentanz", Cage's "Daughter of the Lonesome
Isle" or Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" either...
--
KellyL
AFTRA/Actor/Director
Usenet: an Erisitic construct of the Temporary Autonomous Zone (C)
I am etristic and a mime disaster in satin plaid booties (C)
Wall O'Flesh
attempted to describe anything concrete or specific in regarsds to
"Emotionology". While I think the logic of the essay is flawed, I
applaud the attempt made.
I think there are two basic problems with the idea as presented here,
and from those spring a host of little inconsistencies that eat away
at your theory like termites. Let's look at it paragraph by
paragraph...
Jeremy Whelan <whel...@eticomm.net> wrote in message news:<3B60F74A...@eticomm.net>...
At this point I'm not sure how an educational tool applies necessarily
to acting, but you make a decent case for the theory of Learning
Styles up to this point...realize I'm not necessarily buying it, yet,
just acknowledging the theory. However, the first glaring
inconsistency pokes it's head: Let's assume, for the sake of argument,
that a student DOES learn better when the information's presented in
the Modality of Preferance. Doesn't that say, then, that the student
needs to access information through a "modality" that works best FOR
THEM, and not just because it's universally accepted? Doesn't that
sound suspiciously like the "Whatever works for you" idea that you're
supposedly using this post to discredit? It seems like you just
unintentionally made a very good case for "Why the Whatever Works for
You School is RIGHT!!", but more on that later.
Another thing: This paragraph features a prime example of one of the
major problems in your packaging: Lots of irrelevant text, then the
most significant idea in it is GLOSSED OVER: To me, the most
interesting implication here is:
>Using the students preferred Learning Modality,
> teachers can help them develop equal facility with their other Learning
> Modalities.
My immediate reaction was "--Really? That doesn't make much sense,
considering that they need to use the 'hardwired modality'in the first
place." How, logically, does using the Preferred modality strengthen
the other UNRELATED ones? Using that logic, wouldn't the student
who's preferred modality is visual, after recieving visually-oriented
education (the most common, according to you)--therefore automatically
be equally proficient in the others? The logic here is flawed, but I
looked for you to clear it up by expanding on it...but found nothing.
How does working in one strengthen the other--? That appears to be
one of the foundations of your theories, yet it's not well thought out
here...or at least, not well supported. It's mentioned, then
forgotten.
So what we begin with is your first flawed assumption: Students learn
better by Modality of Preferance, but Studying one makes you good at
all three. Hmmmmmm. I know, I know...I'm probably just too stupid or
lazy to "get it". But I'd recheck your logical progression here if I
were you, or at least re-compose the intro to better state your case.
Two things worth pointing out that'll pop up later: In your own text,
you say that "...students preferred to ACCESS INFORMATION in certain
ways..."; also, that "experimentation proved that CERTAIN
humans/students learned best...". Pay attention to those words in
caps, their importance will be evident later.
> LEARNING STYLES & ACTING
>
> We must recognize that regardless of all the romance and creative
> mystique wrapped around it, acting is a field of study the same as math,
> history, or language. Student actors are just that, students. All
> actors are essentially students for life, in that they must learn their
> lines, their craft and their character. They are not exempt from
> practical pedagogical principles. Actors deserve the same advantages
> available to students in other field of study and they are not getting
> it on the scale they deserve. Any advance in teaching styles applies to
> actors as much as it does to any science major. Leaning Styles represent
> a powerful advance in teaching styles.
...And here's where your theory comes to a screeching halt, at least
as presented here. You make your second false assumption: That acting
is a field of study the same as math, history, etc.
Yes, the professional, adult actor is a "Student of Life"...but that's
a figure of speech. They are a "student" not so much in that they are
presented with a curriculum by a "Life" teacher, but in the fact that
they are OBSERVERS, always keeping their eyes open outward, always
looking for insights into Human Nature. Of the three things you
mention that an actor "must learn" (lines, craft, character), the only
one that is truly "learnable" is the lines. The others, "craft &
character" are not "Learned" so much that they are DEVELOPED by the
actor themselves. They are created...the "learned" information is
just a component that fuels it's creation. Active as opposed to
passive.
...Instantly your argument turns to trying to fit a round hole in a
square peg: Using your own logic, You yourself present "learning" as
"ACCESSING INFORMATION". The implication is that the info is there,
already waiting, the student just needs to find the right way to
access it. But an ACTOR (not a student) cannot "learn" a character.
The character isn't there waiting for them to choose a modality to
"find" it. A character is bits of "learnable" data (text, dramaturgy,
historical referance), funneled through the CREATIVE process (actor's
vision, director's vision), finally SCULPTED by the ARTIST into
something wholly new and unique; a living representation of a
fictional character. The tools the artist uses to create the
character? ...Craft, which in itself is an individualized creation.
The funny thing is, by your own logic it would HAVE to be
individualized...accepting the Preferred Modality theory makes it
virtually impossible for a single, strict, one-sided style to work.
Even single styles like "Emotionology". Your logic actually works
against you.
The main flaw here is the assumption that character is "learned" as
opposed to "developed" or "created". I can understand why you'd
approach the issue in that direction...you're an academic. A teacher.
While the best teachers never assume they know it all, some do...it's
very easy for them to assume that THEY'RE the ones in charge of the
end result. You yourself said it in the intro: Your style is based on
theories that put the emphasis on how the info is
PRESENTED...excellent when used teacher/student-wise in a math class,
but applied to acting, the implications are false: It implies that the
PRESENTER, the teacher/director, holds possession of the character and
it's up to them to present it to the actor; Whereas I, a Professional
Actor, take the onus and responsibility of the character on myself.
The actor hunts down the bits of info, takes them regardless of how
well they're presented, and creates the character.
I as a Professional Actor take the same approach to "Craft". I do not
"learn" Craft. I learn ABOUT craft, all kinds of different techniques
and applications, then I combine that data into a lump of mental clay
which I use to form my Craft, and CREATE it. Again, even if I
accepted your idea that Acting is Learning, which I don't, your OWN
logic supports this: Minds are wired differently, each with it's own
"Modality of Preferance". If what works for the tactile doesn't work
for the visual, then by the same logic what works for the
"Emotionologist" won't work for the Method Actor. And yet, you
continue to rant about how it can. Even when you yourself say,
"CERTAIN students" (ie, NOT ALL). Amazing that you haven't figured
this out already.
>
> Unfortunately for students, these wonderful scientific advances in
> education are not being applied in the classroom with the zeal they
> deserve. In fact, these advances are patently ignored by far too many
> educators. In the area of acting instruction they seem to be completely
> disregarded. Hopefully what follows will help create a dialogue on this
> extremely important subject.
>
> Everyone in education should know of the tremendous benefits to students
> that have come out of
> Learning Styles research. It would be nice to think that all teachers
> are trying, in some way, to apply those discoveries to practical
> classroom procedures. Any that have, have seen extremely positive
> results. Learning Styles has replaced old out moded teaching procedures
> and shaken the very roots of pedagogical thinking. In some way or
> another, Learning Styles has penetrated every level of education and
> every subject, except acting, the very root of the theatrical
> experience. Through this essay, I hope to establish an urgent need for
> that to happen and offer a way to begin that process.
>
Again, your assumption that acting is just like math is presumptious.
Math and History are not INTERPRETIVE arts...Two people doing the same
math problem will have the EXACT same result, while two actors doing
the "Crispin's Day" speech will give two gloriously different
results...except to the short-sighted teacher/director who's convinced
one or both did it "wrong".
> I went to see a play last week; it was an Equity production. It could
> have been any play really, but it was a case study in everything wrong
> with acting today. I went to a party with the cast afterward and was as
> kind as I could be. I talked to many of the cast and asked each what
> their background was, training etc. They were, as most casts are today,
> from many different schools, Stanislavski, Meisner, Spolin, Susuki,
> Strasberg etc. and it showed. It was wretched from beginning to end. It
> was as if they were all from different countries with different
> languages, and had been forced to speak in a language truly familiar to
> only one of them. I don't know if the horribly stagy (over) direction
> was an attempt to deal with that situation, but somehow I doubt it.
> Possibly the director was from a school foreign to all the actors. It
> simply compounded the problem. I have to credit the author, because the
> play itself still managed to get through all that smoke, but only in
> places. It really did deserve a much better production. Anyhow, the
> whole experience was an exclamation mark on the most serious problem in
> acting today.
>
I'll take your word about how classy and kind you were, even though my
experiences with you in person have been very different. But the
challenge--and the beauty--of ensemble is making the individualized,
totally different aproaches to creating character into a fine sounding
symphony. It's the responsibility of the actors and director to work
within the confines of the production but to SYNTHESIZE thier crafts
rather than HOMOGONIZE it. Your third false assumption is if it
didn't fit, it's the fault of the "Schools" and they need to be all
thrown out. Rather, the fault lies in the actors/director's inability
to to mesh thier characters. Much simpler than you make it out to be,
I think.
> In any discussion of acting, if one person propounds to have "the way",
> it causes many to jump up and down, vociferously imperiously stating
> that this is false. They'll say that there is no one way to teach -
> study - do acting. What is truly ironic is that most are Stanislavski
> actors or some derivative of that approach. When Stanislavski entered
> the arena, acting was in complete disarray and there was no standard to
> which anyone could repair. Acting as a business hadn't been around that
> long and it had not as yet found its stride so to speak. Stanislavski,
> with the support of the state, wealthy parents, and his own considerable
> talent, managed to create such a standard. Stanislavski's greatest
> contribution to acting was that he managed to get everybody to approach
> it from one way, his way. He homogenized acting. He established a new
> "Language of Acting" and all leaned to speak it. This homogeneity was
> the source of greatness in any production that came out of that style.
> It allowed for a true team effort; ensemble was possible within those
> parameters. He was able to do this because he established that Language
> of Acting from the core of a Strong Central Idea.
>
He Homogenized it only insofar as it's basic presentational value:
Realism & Naturalism. But break it down more specifically than that
and you find it wasn't "homogenized" for very long, if at all...actors
started developing thier crafts individually immediately. Again,
though, your 4th Flawed assumption posits that only a production
composed of actors of homogenous approaches is of any value. It shows
a basic lack of understanding regarding both acting and directing: As
long as an actor utilizes his craft under the banner of the particular
production's "style" (ie, realism), ensemble is achieved. An actor
just needs to be on the same page, not interpreting his character's
actions with the same rigidity. And anyway, he CAN'T do it the same
way...Modality of Preferance, remember?
A production consisting of a company forced into one approach is
boring and lifeless. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations is a
basic tenent of theater.
Hint: Stanislavski's method was just that, a "method" or approach.
Look up "style" in application to acting...it refers to realism,
naturalism, restoration, etc...you confuse your own issue.
> The most powerful idea born in Stanislavski's time was the work of Freud
> and many others working in the field of Psychoanalysis. Being as bright
> as he was Stanislavski immediately incorporated it into the acting
> process. It was that Strong Central Idea which served as the basis of
> his initial work and it is what gave it veracity and authority. Over
> time that cohesiveness started to crumble. In fact, it was Stanislavski
> himself that created the first true fissure when in latter life he
> switched to the Theory of Actions. This degeneration of the Strong
> Central Idea was occurring inside and outside of acting. As the power of
> those early psychoanalytical theories started to weaken, so did the
> harmonious language of acting created by Stanislavski. Derivative after
> derivative, crack after crack, this general breakdown started to eat
> away at the core of the acting experience. Many languages started to
> appear on the theatrical landscape and soon communication became labored
> and lost.
>
Under that logic, no true ensemble acting has occurred, ever, in
recent history, other than on a Jeremy Whelan-influenced stage. Do
you still wonder why people consider you short-sighted and arrogant?
I dunno if you CAN get it back into the sphere of acting, since it
degenerated at that point into a commercial. You'd be taken much more
seriously if you STOPPED PATTING YOURSELF ON THE BACK. Then again, I
understand it--look what happens when you try to let the Idea stand on
its own.
At this point, I'm in desperate need of sleep. I'll finish this
Saturday night.
--Wall
Drama Queen
Drama Queen
Carla, this is nothing new. During World War II I believe, American
fighter pilots were being shot out of the sky left & right. The USAF
didn't know how to deal with this phenomenon. I believe it was Emmerson
Denny who brought to the USAF a new way of evaluating the candidates.
Previously, the airmen were chosen by their ability to memorize all the
equipment in the cockpit. If they couldn't remember and regurgitate,
they were not selected. Memorization skills became highly prized
qualities for fighter pilots. Emmerson Denny decided there were a few
more areas that needed to be looked at, like cognitive thinking skills,
decision making skills and problem solving skills. When you've got the
Red Baron on your butt, cognitive thinking would be a good thing to
have, decision making even better, ...and problem solving is a MUST.
Evaluations for fighter pilots started putting less emphasis on their
memorization skills and more on the other areas. The result, far less
pilots were shot out of the air. After WWII ended, Emerson Denny
attempted to get his methods incorporated into the US school sytems, but
could not. They felt, the war was over, this new "tool" had served it's
purpose, and it was time to go back to "business as usual". The Japanese
on the other hand, whose cities and empire had been devastasted by WWII
was in a rebuilding mode, and decided to adopt these approaches. It was
first incorporated in schools for the gifted, and later became the basis
for their national educational system. That's why the Japanese education
system produces students who consistently score so highly among those of
developed nations. It's nothing new or revolutionary, it's just new to
Jeremy. I also fail to see how he has managed to incorporate it into
"New School Acting", ...unless of course he only teaches kinesthetics,
in which case, they're unable to make any sense of it, they just feel it
The Starmaker
> and you can't play Liszt's "Totentanz", Cage's "Daughter of the Lonesome
> Isle" or Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" either...
That is not true honey, I play the classical guitar.
Still my guitar gently weeps.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
and you better watch it honey, you might have an uncle Jack in the Mafia
but I have an uncle Gary who's a congressman. I put my uncle against
you uncle anytime!
KelL
In article <3B61AA...@ix.netcom.com>,
The Starmaker <hld...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
de Valois
Carl IcAhn (please check your spelling when you post an actual fact) did
invest in a charter school porject, it is NOT true that this was sanctioned
by the Board of Education. This is strictly the private plaything funded by
the man who rode Eastern Airlines into bankruptcy and seriously damaged
several other good corporations during the 80s junk bond mania.
As to Rudy's charter school project, we should note that parents at eight
schools were offered the opportunity to allow their school, all failing, to
become charter schools.
Not one, repeat, NOT ONE school accepted the offer. They knew what we know:
charter schools regiment the curriculum and offer no real life skills.
This sort of runs contrary to your argument regarding the New School (better
run that name by the New School for Social Research, by the way...Former
Senator Bob Kerrey may have some reasons for you to change it), that it
breaks the "old school" thinking.
deValois
<3B619E1E...@hilarious.com>:
>Wow. Do you have some sources for this? I'm a staunch believer in the
>hemispheric approach to cognitive learning patterns. But am interested
>to see what you found. I'm open...
>
>Opus
>
I will have you arrested.
Carl
The Starmaker
61949.news.dfncis.de>:
>bravo, mijo! I love these moments of Wisdom from you.
Why do you keep calling me a whore?
The Starmaker
Devil Lois
<Xns90EE68C36hl...@208.218.14.44>:
>
>Why do you keep calling me a whore?
>
>The Starmaker
If the shoe fits starmie
--
A personal note from Carl: "I wrote this story as a catharsis about some
painful experiences in my life. I know I can never carry out what this
character did, but goodness knows, I can
try to contemplate why someone would do something like this. Rereading this
story, I was struck by how logical his actions seemed in context of his
psychosis and paranoia. Perhaps in some alternate reality, this happened at
my
hands. I doubt it, because I recognize the basic humanity of everyone, even
those who get added to my shit list. But I also know that simple concept is
not
easily grasped by everyone on this planet. Just ask Mark David Chapman."
*kkkkkkkkrrrrrraaaaaaaaPFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF*
The flaring of the match died down as he lifted it to light the
Camel filter clenched between his lips. The flickering light revealed
deep dark eyes that in his rage had turned a steel blue. He was
dressed, head to toe, in black: wide-brimmed Stetson, floor length
denim overcoat, black turtleneck, black gloves, black leather jeans,
and black Nu buck boots, waterproof and perfect for the cleansing
ritual. In his car, there was a black duffel bag, a white shirt, white
parka, white sneakers, and blue jeans, a nod to the fact that
white jeans would have been out of fashion.
He stood motionless in the park across the street from her house.
The occasional splash of light from a street lamp or a passing car did
not reach him. Most earthly things did not reach him by now. His eyes
were focused on her door.
Valentine's night. She would soon be going out with her boyfriend,
John. The guy she dumped him for all those months ago. A chill shook
him as he remembered the first time he'd heard about this new
development in her life on his answering machine.
"Hello. This is John, Lisa's new boyfriend..."
The words echoed in his mind, even now, eight months later. The
seed had developed into an embryo, and although premature,
Valentine's Day was also Lisa's birthday and was the perfect time for
birth and cleansing.
He chuckled at the irony of a birth taking place in this
relationship, as he considered how many times she had told him,
"Honey...I'm late again," and how many times they had gone to get it
taken care of for the small fee of $200 and a chunk of his soul. How
much he wished he'd said no to her, before or after the conception.
Like dark smoke from an oily fire, he drifted across the street in
the chill night, slid through the door to the tall apartment
building, and wafted up the seventeen flights of stairs to her
apartment. She'd be getting ready to go out about now, putting on her
meager makeup (she was beautiful), dressing in her tightest skirt, a
drop of John's cum slipping down her leg, no doubt having just fucked
him well. She was like that, she needed a good fuck when she was
about to celebrate. He remembered from when they lived together.
He slipped in the door, and congealed behind her. Grabbing her
chin with his left hand, he yanked her head up. His right hand slid
the filleting knife across her throat slowly and deeply, the tearing
flesh sounding like Velcro opening under a mattress, severing her
vocal cords so that she couldn't scream, killing her instantly. Blood
spurted out in great gobs on the wall and floor, even the ceiling.
Old Faithful, although "faithful" was a word you could never apply to
Lisa...
He snapped to attention as the apartment building buzzed to life.
The elevator must have let a load of people off. He stamped the
cigarette out, and scrutinized the people who strode into view.
It was June when she told him goodbye. Not "goodbye" so much as
she "needed space". She was engaged when they first met, then
married, and in the course of their affair, she inched towards
divorce through his inspirations and motivations. She moved out, he
moved in, they lived happily ever after for a week or so. That was
years ago, though, and the betrayal still stung him. He moved out,
and inside of two years, whatever attempts they had made to reconcile
had fallen through as of last June.