Glass Menagerie Help
Dexter
coming up in May. We are all doing extensive research for our
characters. Wondering if anyone can offer any help/advice?
Thanks
Brad Slaight
>I'm playing Jim (The Gentleman Caller) in a local production
>coming up in May. We are all doing extensive research for our
>characters. Wondering if anyone can offer any help/advice?
Well, there is certainly much to be found regarding that play and that
character. If I was doing that role I would go out of my way to NOT research
it. Give it your own interpretation and work with the director to make sure it
fits with his vision for your particular performance. That's the beauty of
theatre, every production should have its own personality.
Brad Slaight
Jules
bisb...@aol.com (Brad Slaight) wrote:
> >From: dext...@earthlink.net (Dexter)
>
> >I'm playing Jim (The Gentleman Caller) in a local production
> >coming up in May. We are all doing extensive research for our
> >characters. Wondering if anyone can offer any help/advice?
>
> Well, there is certainly much to be found regarding that play and that
> character. If I was doing that role I would go out of my way to NOT
> research
> it.
In thnis instance. I agree whole heartedly.
Give it your own interpretation and work with the director to make
> sure it
> fits with his vision for your particular performance. That's the beauty
> of
> theatre, every production should have its own personality.
Some roles require research, if there's a physicality to it or a
particular social aspect to the character.
If I were to do any research, I'd look into the time period Williams
wrote it for. Unless, its being produced in a no specific time context.
Perhaps I'd only look into young men in the 50/early 60's...
>
>
> Brad Slaight
>
--
I read the book of Job last night.
I don't think God comes well out of it.
- Virginia Woolfe (1882 - 1941)
Dexter
Bill491
Dexter wrote:
I played the role many years ago and immediately "attached" to that
aspect of Gentleman Caller that is opposite to my own nature..... his
self-absorption and narcissism. The actress playing Laura was perfectly
cast.... she captured her character's vulnerability and flirtation with
romance (and the actress was a dear friend). Nonetheless, I worked hard
at refining Jim's ego and the behaviour that accompanies that trait.
A week before we opened, the director pulled me aside for a chat.
"Bill," he said, "you're doing good work, but I think you're cutting
some impulses." "What," I asked. "How do you, not your character, but
you, Bill, feel about Laura." "Well, I stumbled and pondered and then
said, "I am moved by her.... touched by her sweetness." "Good.... now
how do you feel about the actress? "Well, uhh, she's a friend," I
responded, "and she has.... an inner beauty."
"Good, Bill," said the director. That's why I cast you. Now, stop
playing character and start focusing on the relationship. In this case,
you're instincts are right on.... stop cutting your impulses."
Good advice then, and good advice now. I allowed my Jim to find those
occasional moments in which he truly sees and is moved and touched by
Laura. And when Jim finally "dumps" Laura, I felt a mix of real
emotions: guilt & shame, a deep caring for this woman whose hopes were
momentarily raised, and a sense that "my" Jim had had a glimpse of his
own shallowness.
It was one of my best and most complex performances.... and I owe both
the actress and the director who opened my eyes to playing relationship
and trusting one's personal impulses.
Break a leg,
Bill
--
THE ACTING STUDIO
http://gvtg.com/theactingstudio
Carl Salonen
Bill491 wrote in message <3ABF78A6...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Good advice then, and good advice now. I allowed my Jim to find those
>occasional moments in which he truly sees and is moved and touched by
>Laura. And when Jim finally "dumps" Laura, I felt a mix of real
>emotions: guilt & shame, a deep caring for this woman whose hopes were
>momentarily raised, and a sense that "my" Jim had had a glimpse of his
>own shallowness.
>
Wow, Bill! You should quote that in your classes!
This sort of hearkens back to that discussion we had the past few weeks
about whether we'd play a particularly evil character or not. To-wit: can
you divine a moment or two of other-worldliness clarity that the character
himself realizes he's behaving badly?
Or, should the character *ever* know as much as the actor?
I'd argue that, individual characters aside (like Lenny in "Of Mice And
Men"), there should always be moments in a character's life on stage where
he either finds out something about himself OR struggles with something that
might lead him to that discovery.
This last part isn't very apparent, so let me put this in real life terms:
there are times in our lives on this planet when we *almost* think we have a
problem solved, and we try to grasp that last missing part of the puzzle.
Often we succeed, but almost as often, we fail.
But the struggle is what is the most interesting thing in theater.
I remember doing a one-act, two-scene OB called "At Home" which closes with
my character trying desperately to understand how he got from wanting to do
a mundane activity with his wife to putting himself square in the middle of
a divorce in the same night. He never gets his self-involvement, or how he
pushed his wife away (she comes to her own truth earlier in the second
scene), and yet he practically pounds his head trying to comprehend his
embarassment and shame.
As an actor, I knew what his problem was, but I couldn't let that knowledge
seep thru the character (unless the script called for him to "get it").
For me to recreate that ignorance, as Bill did in his "Menagerie", I had to
look to a relationship. Unfortunately, I was not playing across from the
real-life partner, so I had to hook into an affair that failed while I was
blissfully unaware of the damage that occured. To this day, I still don't
"get" why she left me, altho I have my suspicions, but if I had to do this
role again, this is where I would go for that last fade to black.
Robert Epstein
This is a very interesting topic, and one that I think about a lot. I
think you hinted at the right balance when you said that you found
'those occasional moments' when you were genuinely moved by Laura. That
keeps the character choice from being a caricature. And it is also
true that a lot of your impulses that might not have fit with your
mental image of the character probably needed to be manifested in some
way, but also *filtered through* the character choice.
How your true human impulses get refined or changed or accentuated by
*who* you are is the complex subject that treads the ground between
creating a one-dimensional character and the other danger, creating
every character in your own image and not being able to make clear and
distinct choices.
It is probably the most difficult and most interesting subject in acting
technique, because it deals with who the actor is,and what is the real
range of truthful impulses that he can access.
I would propose that Meisner's formula hints at the correct balance:
the character is always YOU, it should always feel connected to your own
impulses, but it is YOU: ALTERED. It is the sense of you, but a
particular selected part of you that is accentuated, you at your most
vulnerable, you at your most narcissistic, you at your most whatever,
and then through that filter various choices and subtleties and impulses
need to be allowed to flow and to be structured by your understanding of
who you are and how you function.
I think Kiefer Sutherland, Reese Witherspoon and Ashley Judd give some
good contemporary examples of how good character work can be done.
Usually I talk about Brando and Charles Laughton but I'm sick of it. If
you look at Sutherland's work in THE LOST BOYS, FLASHBACK, PROMISED LAND
and that thing he did on Showtime I think it was with Reese Witherspoon
-- man that was ugly -- where he played a predator in a car who has the
tables turned on him by Reese, you see several very distinct, very
different characters, but in each case you are fully in the presence of
a person with real impulses whose actions seem to come from very strong,
though very different drives, and whose behavior is distinct and clear
and comes from the way that person functions. In FLASHBACK as the FBI
agent, Sutherland stands upright, has a repressed controlled facial
expression, and uses crisp, clear 'official' hand gestures a lot of the
time. As the Vampire in the LOST BOYS, he grins evilly, runs around
loose and free and bites people. But they both seem to be "him".
Anyway, I'll just leave it there for now, but I would be very interested
in yours and others comments, about how you find the impulses not just
for the situation, but for the character as well......
Robert
-----------------------------------------------
Bill491
Gentleman Caller motivated me to recall my discovery (or "uncovery") process
from 1967
Robert Epstein wrote:
> Bill,
> This is a very interesting topic, and one that I think about a lot. I
> think you hinted at the right balance when you said that you found
> 'those occasional moments' when you were genuinely moved by Laura. That
> keeps the character choice from being a caricature. And it is also
> true that a lot of your impulses that might not have fit with your
> mental image of the character probably needed to be manifested in some
> way, but also *filtered through* the character choice.
Naturally. I didn't mention that the director was coincidentally, like me,
studying with Robert Lewis at the time. It helped that we were working from a
similar vocabulary (Stanislavski's method of physical actions.) From our
initial tabletop readings and script analysis, we formulated initial
impressions of our respective character's super objective..... then came the
"fun" work of expanding from text into viable actions and reactions. The
director also employed Spolin improv games to widen our range of impulses.
The thing that was most fascinating to me was the dynamic relationship between
the super-objective (the filter) and the beat-by-beat explorations. (I know
this comment will sound like so much verbal garbage to some; if so, ignore it
and the rest of this post.)
Let's see if I can put it more simply: Stanislavski always encouraged actors
to form initial impressions of character. But he also allowed for and
encouraged actors to discover specific actions and behavior during the
rehearsal process that would mature, evolve and add complexity to the
character.
> How your true human impulses get refined or changed or accentuated by
> *who* you are is the complex subject that treads the ground between
> creating a one-dimensional character and the other danger, creating
> every character in your own image and not being able to make clear and
> distinct choices.
> It is probably the most difficult and most interesting subject in acting
> technique, because it deals with who the actor is,and what is the real
> range of truthful impulses that he can access.
Agreed, agreed.
> I would propose that Meisner's formula hints at the correct balance:
Robert, first of all, you know that I've always been fascinated with Sanford
Meisner.... after all, you were the 2nd Meisner-based guest artist invited to
share your gifts and techniques with actors at my Studio. Hmm, six months
after that master class, actors still occasionally make reference to "Meisner"
or to "Robert's" work. I started a new block last week that uses Kinesics
(the science of body language), and one actor mentioned during a break that
the work reminded her of Robert's references to atmosphere and behavior.
But you also know, Robert, that your "thesis," "I would propose that
Meisner's formula hints at the correct balance." is something I'm obligated to
challenge, yet with respect. (Why with respect? 'Cause I've seen your
coaching techniques and you and I have posted and debated and learned from
each other for several years.) (Why should I challenge you? 'Cause I'm
inclined to my own techniques that draw from Robert Lewis, Stella Adler and
are then modified by Spolin, Grotowski and Lessac, Linklater, and then further
expanded by my own experience, which INCLUDES working and collaborating with
folks like you and Pat Cronin and Lissa Renaud and Andy Garrison and others
who have evolved their own approaches, or variations on the themes of their
respective mentors.)
Robert, can there possibly be a "correct" balance of character choices and
choices based on self (or objective choices or subjective choices)?
Personally, I don't think so.... but then we often debate that on Acting-Pro,
don't we?
> the character is always YOU, it should always feel connected to your own
> impulses, but it is YOU: ALTERED. It is the sense of you, but a
> particular selected part of you that is accentuated, you at your most
> vulnerable, you at your most narcissistic, you at your most whatever,
> and then through that filter various choices and subtleties and impulses
> need to be allowed to flow and to be structured by your understanding of
> who you are and how you function.
I can live with this statement, Robert, with a few variations. In the
meantime, thanks for your Kiefer Sutherland examples, but it's almost
impossible to formulate arguments and support conclusions based on isolated
works of one actor. All I know about K. Sutherland is that he is growing in
his craft.... he has to, as he is not in the "A list." And while his behavior
changes from role to role, it's not a reasonable argument for Meisner, or
against Strasberg, or for acting by any methodology versus acting by the seat
of one's pants. All it is is K. Sutherland's work.... and I have no idea
about what coaches he studied with. Does anyone?
My variations. Heh-hmmmm (clearing my throat <g>). Robert, with respect, I
don't accept the notion that all aspects of all characters that any given
actor might create are innate..... contained within one's
psychological/emotional/genetic self. But I do believe that actor-artists can
achieve what Stanislavski calls "transformation." By studying, exploring,
experimenting with and executing the behavior (actions, body language and
motivations) of an extrovert, even an introvert can momentarily experience the
narcissism of an extrovert. In performance. In KS's "as if."
No, Robert, not mimicking. Rather using external actions to spark the
internal motivations. Inside. Outside. One feeds the other, and that's been
the thrust of the best actor training techniques of the last century.
Analysis, choices, use of inner self, and exploration of outer action....
followed by transformation and integration.
Oh, shit, once again, I've gone technical, and few will understand what I'm
trying to say, other than Robert and some other working
actors/directors/coaches who inhabit alt.acting.
And to alt.acting, the reason that I will challenge Robert is that I know he
will argue back, and do it with intelligence and experience. And I'll do the
same with DQ, Anton, Ed, Kelly, Opus, and many others and yes, even Carl.
(forgive me for exclusions.... there are many other contributors whose posts I
read and enjoy, but there are far more posts on alt.acting from folks who
express nonsense and have limited experience.)
Break no bones,
Robert Epstein
everything you said. I have an unnerving habit sometimes of insisting
that other people are actually in agreement with *me*, when they think
they are arguing with me. I learned this from Bill Clinton, and it has
stood me in good stead. GW Bush is now trying to use the technique, but
he's so inept at it that it doesn't quite get over. Somehow the
'compassion' has managed to be weeded out, leaving only the
'convervatism' to warm and comfort oil tycoons..... but I digress......
When I said that I would propose Meisner's definition as something that
*hints* at the correct balance, I meant just that, that it was as good
hint, not at all that it is the only or the best formulation of
character work. Although I think that "you....altered" is a damn good
basic formula for character work that specifies the alteration, allows
you to include all necessary characteristics that are demanded by the
playwright/screenwriter and/or director, and still leaves one rooted in
their own impulses/sense of being a 'self' rather than a performer.
[still acknowledging of course the 10% peripheral objectivity which you
and I got in trouble for quantifying the other year, in which the actor
remembers not to *really* stab someone. Where *do* we get our
statistics, Bill?].
It is the basic formulation that allows the balance between self and
alteration that I am proposing is a good balance, not particularly
Meisner. Just last week I was telling my middle group which is studying
intro to character work at this time about Michael Chekov, the essential
gesture that he proposes for each character and the controversies over
whether the gesture should be done, implied, done in a hierarchy of
various gestures of greater or lesser significance to the character's
inner and outer function, or never done at all, but merely serve as an
archetypal model for the character's essential being.
I said that I thought Meisner had borrowed/stolen this idea to some
extent and then integrated it very well with Stanislavski's breakdown of
the physical life of the character.
[Listen, Bill, if anyone doesn't want to or hasn't read Stanislavski,
Chekov, Adler, Lewis or Meisner and isn't interested in such technical
issues, they can just delete, can't they? But some people may get a lot
out of a technical discussion and I for one like the idea of having one
on Usenet for a change, where we can say whatever we please and then
shoot it out wild west style if we get in trouble].
I have put together a breakdown of the elements of character which
allows my students to exercise isolated elements one at a time, and then
put them together into a sequence later on. The two major roots of
character that I propose they work with are the "emotional center" of
the character, otherwise known as the character's 'dominant emotional
condition', and the second is Superobjective. I ask them to respond
with their point of view to a particular statement of Superobjective,
physicalize the response and then particularize the physicalization with
an active image which they can maintain through an improvisation.
This particular group got great results working just with an emotion and
then just with a superobjective. I wanted them to get the point that
you can create at least a reasonably strong 'general' character with
just one of these roots and then find the behavior that flows from it.
Without the additional complications of other character elements, this
gives the students an experience of one essential alteration while
maintaining themselves as the source of impulses for the character. It
was amazing how connected some of them were, and how distinct some of
the characters were. They also had a lot of fun interacting with those
alterations. For at least three of the students, taking character this
way seemed to be a quick fix for their acting problems, because they had
a very specific way of behaving and so didn't try to express, declaim,
indicate or any of the other things they might have otherwise been prone
to do.
As for Kiefer Sutherland, I just used him as an example of someone who I
thought took on distinct characters without getting phony. I don't
propose that he's *the* or even *a* specific example of any particular
thesis on character work, but I would accept whatever technique he uses
to reach an amiable and specific result.
I love this kind of work wherever I find it, whether it is using the
technology of KS directly, Chekov, Meisner, Adler, Lewis, Grotowski or
anyone else, whether it's Kiefer Sutherland, occasionally Meg Ryan,
Reese Witherspoon, whom I would have a crush on if I was 500 years
younger and weren't married, Charles Laughton, Robert DeNiro brilliantly
within his limited range [ha!], David Thewlis, Ian Richardson, who may
be the best actor in the universe, and whom I never hear anyone, even
Brits, talk about. etc.
We can also talk about who 'suggests' character work without embodying
it, who fakes it, who doesn't do it at all but is still brilliant, etc.,
etc.
A few controversial hits for your response:
Dustin Hoffman - phony to the nines, specific characteristics acted out
with no real connection to inner life. on top of this facade he throws
emotional displays that are disconnected from any stimuli.
Rain Man - worst.
Tootsie - embarassing.
Salesman - ridiculous.
And the best Dustin Hoffman role is:................. 'Getting
Straight', a film no one but me has seen.
I also liked Marathon Man, which seems to be Olivier's most
interesting film role as well.
Al Pacino - pastes on characteristics and acts amidst them in Scent of a
Woman, The Devil's Disciple, etc.
Brilliant in Dog Day Afternoon and the thing with Johnny Depp, where
he isn't really trying to do a character.
Best character work: Michael Corleone. That was great.
Should we keep going?
Robert
--------------------------------------------------
Bill491
Robert Epstein wrote:
> Well, Bill, I hope it won't dismay you if I agree with just about
> everything you said. I have an unnerving habit sometimes of insisting
> that other people are actually in agreement with *me*, when they think
> they are arguing with me.
Robert, I'm not dismayed in the least. ;-) While Robert Lewis was my "main" mentor,
I've always made a point of dabbling in (some sometimes assimilating aspects) of
other methodologies. Grotowski had a profound influence on my work, as did Stella
Adler. I never worked with Uta Hagen or Michael Chekhov, but have some of their
writings and exercises. About the only methodologies I've personally rejected are
those of Lee Strasberg and Eric Morris.... yet it's eminently clear that thousands
of actors have grown as artists and mastered their craft through those approaches.
Over the several years that you and I've shared and compared approaches (ain't the
Web a great way to do that?), I think I've made it clear that I value your slant on
Meisner (whom I consider to be part of the KS "pantheon.") When I invited you to
guest artist at TAS, it was because I respect your work.... and I made it clear to
Studio actors that they'd see many similarities between my work and yours, but that
I expected them to explore openly the specific techniques and terminology that
provide alternatives to what they're learned so far. I wasn't disappointed with the
results.
And it's serendipity that just as I started our new block on kinesics (body
language) that several folks commented that they saw some similiarities to the
exercises you did last fall.
You mentioned during that session that you're doing you own slant or version of
Meisner. I'm not surprised..... I haven't done pure Lewis for many a year....
actors, directors and coaches must continue to evolve and make the work their own.
Otherwise, the art dies and you end up becoming something like James Tyrone in
O'Neill's "Long Day's Journey into Night."
> When I said that I would propose Meisner's definition as something that
> *hints* at the correct balance, I meant just that, that it was as good
> hint, not at all that it is the only or the best formulation of
> character work.
Robert, I knew what you meant. And I hope you know I knew what you meant. I just
felt obligated to mention that there are other methodologies that accomplish similar
results with slightly different techniques. You might recall a lengthy thread of
posts on Acting-Pro from a few years that noted that Meisner was hot, especially in
NY and LA. And omigosh, we all know that there are ebbs and flows in what's hot and
what's not in actor training. One of these days in the new millennium, don't be
surprised if DelSarte (the consummate 19th century style of acting) becomes popular
again.
> Although I think that "you....altered" is a damn good
> basic formula for character work that specifies the alteration, allows
> you to include all necessary characteristics that are demanded by the
> playwright/screenwriter and/or director, and still leaves one rooted in
> their own impulses/sense of being a 'self' rather than a performer.
> [still acknowledging of course the 10% peripheral objectivity which you
> and I got in trouble for quantifying the other year, in which the actor
> remembers not to *really* stab someone. Where *do* we get our
> statistics, Bill?].
From subjective impressions, Robert. <g> Maybe from wishful thinking.
Of course, Robert, it's almost impossible to quantify either human behavior, or
artistic expression. God (if he/she exists) created a universe which by Newton's
laws are statistically quantifiable, and then snuck in Quantum Physics which screwed
the stats and suggested that the universe is fickle.
And good gosh, when we're dealing with acting, let's recall that Quantum Physics
notion that the thing that is observed is changed by the nature of being observed,
and therefore unpredictable.
> It is the basic formulation that allows the balance between self and
> alteration that I am proposing is a good balance, not particularly
> Meisner.
Yes, Robert. And it's a delicate balance, isn't it? And it's not just like a
teeter-totter, where you can predict from Newtonian Physics what's gonna happen.
When your introduce human behavior on physics, you've got a dynamic.
> Just last week I was telling my middle group which is studying
> intro to character work at this time about Michael Chekov, the essential
> gesture that he proposes for each character and the controversies over
> whether the gesture should be done, implied, done in a hierarchy of
> various gestures of greater or lesser significance to the character's
> inner and outer function, or never done at all, but merely serve as an
> archetypal model for the character's essential being.
We'll have to go off-line on this, Robert. It'll be somewhat boring for most
alt.acting subscribers.... but you already know that I bring Chekhov into my
work.... so does Andy Garrison.
> I said that I thought Meisner had borrowed/stolen this idea to some
> extent and then integrated it very well with Stanislavski's breakdown of
> the physical life of the character.
>
> [Listen, Bill, if anyone doesn't want to or hasn't read Stanislavski,
> Chekov, Adler, Lewis or Meisner and isn't interested in such technical
> issues, they can just delete, can't they? But some people may get a lot
> out of a technical discussion and I for one like the idea of having one
> on Usenet for a change, where we can say whatever we please and then
> shoot it out wild west style if we get in trouble].
I'm with you on this, Robert. But you also know the history of alt.acting, at least
in recent years. And you also know the politics of listservers.
> I have put together a breakdown of the elements of character which
> allows my students to exercise isolated elements one at a time, and then
> put them together into a sequence later on. The two major roots of
> character that I propose they work with are the "emotional center" of
> the character, otherwise known as the character's 'dominant emotional
> condition', and the second is Superobjective.
I like where you're going with this, Robert.... probably we might take it off-line.
I deal with emotional centers, as well. But you recently received a warning notice
on a popular listserv.
> I ask them to respond
> with their point of view to a particular statement of Superobjective,
> physicalize the response and then particularize the physicalization with
> an active image which they can maintain through an improvisation.
I like where you're going with this.
> This particular group got great results working just with an emotion and
> then just with a superobjective. I wanted them to get the point that
> you can create at least a reasonably strong 'general' character with
> just one of these roots and then find the behavior that flows from it.
> Without the additional complications of other character elements, this
> gives the students an experience of one essential alteration while
> maintaining themselves as the source of impulses for the character. It
> was amazing how connected some of them were, and how distinct some of
> the characters were. They also had a lot of fun interacting with those
> alterations. For at least three of the students, taking character this
> way seemed to be a quick fix for their acting problems, because they had
> a very specific way of behaving and so didn't try to express, declaim,
> indicate or any of the other things they might have otherwise been prone
> to do.
Good stuff, Robert. If anyone else on alt.acting is interested, then ask
questions. If not, Robert, let's take it off-line.
> As for Kiefer Sutherland, I just used him as an example of someone who I
> thought took on distinct characters without getting phony. I don't
> propose that he's *the* or even *a* specific example of any particular
> thesis on character work, but I would accept whatever technique he uses
> to reach an amiable and specific result.
>
> I love this kind of work wherever I find it, whether it is using the
> technology of KS directly, Chekov, Meisner, Adler, Lewis, Grotowski or
> anyone else, whether it's Kiefer Sutherland, occasionally Meg Ryan,
> Reese Witherspoon, whom I would have a crush on if I was 500 years
> younger and weren't married, Charles Laughton, Robert DeNiro brilliantly
> within his limited range [ha!], David Thewlis, Ian Richardson, who may
> be the best actor in the universe, and whom I never hear anyone, even
> Brits, talk about. etc.
Good list, Robert. Of coaches and actors.
> A few controversial hits for your response:
> Dustin Hoffman - phony to the nines, specific characteristics acted out
> with no real connection to inner life. on top of this facade he throws
> emotional displays that are disconnected from any stimuli.
>
> Rain Man - worst.
> Tootsie - embarassing.
> Salesman - ridiculous.
> And the best Dustin Hoffman role is:................. 'Getting
> Straight', a film no one but me has seen.
> I also liked Marathon Man, which seems to be Olivier's most
> interesting film role as well.
You didn't mention "Wagging the Dog." I have different slants, Robert, on Hoffman's
roles, but that's (as the guy on SNL says) "Okay."
> Al Pacino - pastes on characteristics and acts amidst them in Scent of a
> Woman, The Devil's Disciple, etc.
> Brilliant in Dog Day Afternoon and the thing with Johnny Depp, where
> he isn't really trying to do a character.
> Best character work: Michael Corleone. That was great.
>
> Should we keep going?
> Robert
Not for now, Robert. Because talking about great and lousy performances on
alt.acting leads to a lot of garbage and subjective opinion. And frankly, while
Acting-Pro and Stage 'n Screen, monitored lists, sound more sophisticated, you'll
still run into a lot of subjective preference, which says more about about the
poster's preferences, than the work of the actor, being observed. <g>
My guess is that this is the kind of thread that most alt.acting posters just won't
want to comment on. Recall that it started with an actor asking about how to
approach a role in Glass Menagerie, yet by now we're talking theories of acting and
art.
Alt.acting doesn't like theory, for the most part. And there are exceptions. But
if we continue what's become a two-way dialogue, we're just setting ourselves up for
the vultures.
Break a leg,
Eric Jarvis
> > I have put together a breakdown of the elements of character which
> > allows my students to exercise isolated elements one at a time, and then
> > put them together into a sequence later on. The two major roots of
> > character that I propose they work with are the "emotional center" of
> > the character, otherwise known as the character's 'dominant emotional
> > condition', and the second is Superobjective.
>
> I like where you're going with this, Robert.... probably we might take it off-line.
> I deal with emotional centers, as well.
>
please don't
I'm having to skim through Usenet at the moment and haven't got much
time to contribute...but this is interesting, erudite and utterly
fascinating...at least from a UK perspective
--
eric
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Eric Jarvis
>
> Of course, Robert, it's almost impossible to quantify either human behavior, or
> artistic expression. God (if he/she exists) created a universe which by Newton's
> laws are statistically quantifiable, and then snuck in Quantum Physics which screwed
> the stats and suggested that the universe is fickle.
>
actually quantum physics gives some methods which help in dealing
with human behaviour...you can't apply the old Newtonian science to
human beings, they won't operate on a nice comfortable linear cause
and effect basis
what we need to analyse something as complex as human beings is a
way of manipulation probabilities rather than certainties...fuzzy
logic
in quantum physics the future consists of a set of
possibilities...this we are familiar with...but in the quantum
universe the future shares this with the present...it also consists
of a set of possibilities, and there is an exact present that
equates to the most probable of these, but a whole range to each
aspect of that present that are also possible and have a real
existence
this is a way of looking at things that I have always found very
useful when looking at "choices"...because I don't think that as
human beings we make the same type of clear and concrete choices
that are normally made by actors...at least not all the time
we have preferences and aims that are more like a direction we wish
to move in than a specific goal we wish to attain...these are the
things that really define a person...and it's these that an actor
must become most familiar with when creating a character
however, these preferences/aims are fuzzy...we are able to hold
several that are contradictory and yet make choices that take them
all into account...because our minds are able to work in terms of
probabilities, because our minds don't always need a clear cause and
effect unless we try to articulate what we want...the clarity is
imposed when we use our intellect and transfer our desires into
language
our intellectual universes are Newtonian
our emotional universes are quantum
Dexter
fascinated to read. To comment on what you were saying about the
nature of playing Jim, I find myself battling with some of the same
things, though definitely not to the degree of sophistication and
experience of you two. I find myself playing Jim as perhaps too much
of an idea, a charicature of the typical "nice guy," a little
narcissistic and self centered, a bit shallow at moments, maybe too
simple altogether.
What I am finding challenging but enlightening is striving to
make Jim a real and true human being with complete thoughts, feelings,
and motivations while also keeping the simple symbolism that Tennesee
Williams writes him with.
These elements I have stumbled onto on my own, but also the two of you
have given me much more to think about (not only in this role but
acting as a whole). Thanks much.
Aaron
Opus (:>
> Chekov, Adler, Lewis or Meisner and isn't interested in such technical
> issues, they can just delete, can't they? But some people may get a lot
> out of a technical discussion and I for one like the idea of having one
> on Usenet for a change, where we can say whatever we please and then
> shoot it out wild west style if we get in trouble].
>
acting for a change, rather than the latest SAG woes or the inane, "How
do I get into this business?" questions.
I'm reading both your comments with baited breath.
--
Opus (:>
"He's turned his life around. He used to be depressed and miserable.
Now he's miserable and depressed." --David Frost
Opus Graphics-- http://members.home.net/coble/OpusGraphics
The Fruit Society-- http://www.thefruitsociety.com Cards designed
especially to offend those closest to you.
All About ME!-- http://www.carla.coble.com Offends those who visit by
its mere existence.
Carl Salonen
Eric Jarvis wrote in message ...
>what we need to analyse something as complex as human beings is a
>way of manipulation probabilities rather than certainties...fuzzy
>logic
>
FINALLY! *Someone* besides me who believes quantum foam has a place in
acting!
Bill491
Interesting argument, Eric.... and I might borrow your final analogy for use in class. Of
course, I'd have to explain the essential differences between newtonian and quantum
physics to most actors whose knowledge of the physical and biological sciences tends to be
somewhat stunted.
Your comments got me thinking about some of the fundamental differences between 19th and
20th century theatre. 19th century plays (particularly melodramas) and characters were
formulaic and predictable, much more so than, say the complex characters of Shakespeare's
plays. The acting was also codified in both presentational and representational
styles.... in grad school, I spent some time studying Del'Sarte's techniques in which
every emotional attitude was to be "projected" with specific "masks" -- drawn from
sketches and descriptions of facial expressions and gestures of hands, feet and body.
And when you put all these elements together, yes, 19th century theatre seems to work from
a mechanistic view of how the universe works.
And isn't it interesting that at roughly the same time late 19th and early 20th centuries
that quantum physics was introduced, that Freud, Jung and a never-ending series of
psychologists, physiologists, neurologists and sociologists began to offer revolutionary
theories about the vast complexity of human behavior.
Necessarily, theatre changed, first with plays that rejected both the premises of
romanticism and melodrama in the form of naturalism, followed by realism, followed by
dadaism, expressionism and then existential drama and theatre of the absurd, etc.
Characters became infinitely more complex, sometimes unpredictable. Clearly, there more
"ism's" compacted into Century 20 than anything explored in centuries past.
With this theatre revolution, acting theory and execution became a lot more complex. And
folks like Stanislavski actually studied western influences like Freud and Jung and also
eastern philosophies and practices in order to develop an approach to acting (not a
method.... method was never his preferred term, 'cause it sounds like something that
implies a causal relationship) that was flexible, adaptable, and (frustrtingly so to some
adherents) virtually unpredictable in its results.
<g> I just can't make up my mind/soul/body about this.... was 20th century theatre more
like quantum physics or more like Chaos theory?
Hmmm, methinks we'll have to wait 'til the 22nd Century to figure it all out, if we get
that far.
But the 21st century will be an interesting exploration ground. Scientists will try to
define the unified field theory. Biologists and psychologists will struggle to define a
similar theory that explains human behavior. And playwrights, directors, actors and
critics will try to find the ultimate play and acting/directing style that sums up the
reason for human existence.
<g>
Break no brittle bones, just make them a little more flexible,
Bill
Eric Jarvis wrote:
--
Bill491
Dexter wrote:
> Robert, Bill, and others: An incredible discussion which I am
> fascinated to read.
Thanks for the acknowledgement. You probably should ignore this more
recent dialogue on the same thread about acting theory and quantum
physics, though..... it's just an esoteric chat that has more to do with
the philosophy of art/life/existence than the practical matter of an actor
who's about to play the character, Jim. That's the event, the journey on
which you are embarking, and to all actors, like you, willing to explore
and experiment and grow and learn, I offer the proverbial and enigmatic
comment (which I use as a sig line) "break a leg."
On or off-line ask more questions, but principally it will be your task to
analyse the script, take direction and then infuse your personal
experiences and insights.
> To comment on what you were saying about the
> nature of playing Jim, I find myself battling with some of the same
> things, though definitely not to the degree of sophistication and
> experience of you two.
Screw sophistication, and screw experience. It's up to YOU to create and
explore YOUR Gentleman caller.... just make sure that you do it in
ensemble with the actors playing Laura, Amanda and Tom.
I'll never see your Glass Menagerie, but I'm rooting for you. Like I
said, it was a breakthrough role for me many years ago.
> I find myself playing Jim as perhaps too much
> of an idea, a charicature of the typical "nice guy," a little
> narcissistic and self centered, a bit shallow at moments, maybe too
> simple altogether.
>
> What I am finding challenging but enlightening is striving to
> make Jim a real and true human being with complete thoughts, feelings,
> and motivations while also keeping the simple symbolism that Tennesee
> Williams writes him with.
>
> These elements I have stumbled onto on my own, but also the two of you
> have given me much more to think about (not only in this role but
> acting as a whole). Thanks much.
Trust yourself, Aaron, and take risks.... don't be afraid to fail.... do
listen and adapt to your director and fellow actors. Love the play. And
take it from there.
In years to come, and with your patience, you'll explore other Tennessee
William's plays in your lifetime. I did. It was a delightful growth
process from the young Jim to more mature characters in other works by
William's.
Carl Salonen
Bill491 wrote in message <3AC37580...@ix.netcom.com>...
><g> I just can't make up my mind/soul/body about this.... was 20th century
theatre more
>like quantum physics or more like Chaos theory?
>
>Hmmm, methinks we'll have to wait 'til the 22nd Century to figure it all
out, if we get
>that far.
>
Pardon me, but this is a subject I have more than a passing knowledge of, so
hopefully I can make a small contribution here. <g>
There's a very interesting theory running the boards now that society and
science are reflective: in other words, society reflects current scientific
thinking and science mirrors current societal constructs.
Naturally, to really confuse things, they aren't simultaneous.
For example, when the earth was believed to be the center of the universe,
monarchies were the political structure on which all things hung, including
feudal lordships and other titles. Ultimate fealty was to the leo-centric
court, however.
After Copernicus et al showed that not only was the earth not the center of
the universe, but in fact was a small insignificant body orbiting a sun
(which *may* still have been at the center of the universe), surprise!,
democracy and the belief in individual rights became the dominating
political theory.
It's not chaos theory you need to look at, Bill, but the theory of what
makes up the universe, in order to see the next phase of this evolution of
society (which ultimately gets reflected in arts. After all, copyright is a
concept that would never have passed muster in a solidy monarchical world.)
So what is the current fad for cosmology?
Interconnectedness.
Anyone wonder *why* the Internet is any longer?
Brad Slaight
>Robert, I'm not dismayed in the least. ;-) While Robert Lewis was my "main"
>mentor,
The late great Bobby Lewis...I had the pleasure of having lunch with him a
couple of times. He came to an improv show I was doing at the Comedy Store
and when called on for an emotion for a scene he gave us "moribund"...I had to
explain that one to the audience. LOL.
Brad Slaight
Robert Epstein
Anyway, I'll respect your take on this topic and take it off-list,
unless anyone wants to register a protest! <g>
You raised a couple of topics or responses to mine that would be fun to
explore. See you in email!
Robert
----------------------
Robert Epstein
Thanks for letting us know.
Well, Bill, that's one vote!
Robert
Robert Epstein
Thanks Opus.
Well, Bill, I would expect Opus to be interested, as I know she's as
deep into technique as us technique geeks, but that's another vote.
Robert
Robert Epstein
Wait till we get to string theory of acting!
Robert
de Valois
Robert Epstein wrote in message <3ACC1C2D...@verizon.net>...
>Carl Salonen wrote:
>> FINALLY! *Someone* besides me who believes quantum foam has a place in
>> acting!
>
>Wait till we get to string theory of acting!
>
--
Carl
I change my underwear as often as I change my newsreaders - CASalonen
Eric Jarvis
hmmm?
let me get back to you on that one :)
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
de Valois
>Robert Epstein wrote:
>> Carl Salonen wrote:
>> >
>> > Eric Jarvis wrote in message ...
>> > >what we need to analyse something as complex as human beings is a
>> > >way of manipulation probabilities rather than certainties...fuzzy
>> > >logic
>> > >
>> >
>> > FINALLY! *Someone* besides me who believes quantum foam has a place in
>> > acting!
>>
>> Wait till we get to string theory of acting!
>>
>
>hmmm?
>
>let me get back to you on that one :)
>
It sort of like that comedian, Glenn something-or-other used to joke about
those people who talk to themselves on the street: maybe they're really
holding coversations with people on the other side of the country?
String theory acting could work the same way: I could do Hamlet in New York,
while Eric directed deeq as Ophelia in Toronto...
Sounds like...the Internet.
Opus (:>
>
de Valois
>> while Eric directed deeq as Ophelia in Toronto...
>>
>Don't you mean Gertrude? (;<> <VBG>
>
>
Oh man, I am *so* not going to go there!
But, feel free! <g>
Brad Slaight
>Date: 04/06/2001 8:24 AM Pacific
>It sort of like that comedian, Glenn something-or-other used to joke about
>those people who talk to themselves on the street: maybe they're really
>holding coversations with people on the other side of the country?
That would be comedian Dana Gould.
Brad Slaight
Drama Queen
>
> > while Eric directed deeq as Ophelia in Toronto...
> >
> Don't you mean Gertrude? (;<> <VBG>
>
> --
> Opus (:>
<AHEM>
de Valois
<20010406142455...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
Right, that's the one. I was going to say "Gould" but I figured that was
music (Glenn Gould) and I knew that wasn't right.
Bill491
Robert Epstein wrote:
> Thanks Opus.
> Well, Bill, I would expect Opus to be interested, as I know she's as
> deep into technique as us technique geeks, but that's another vote.
> Robert
Hmmmm, I'd love to pick up the thread again. <sheepish g> Uhh, where were we?
Dexter, perhaps you could start the ball rolling again. How are rehearsals
coming along? There are several actors who have played Jim, and probably also
Laura, Tom & Amanda..... and many more actors who are familiar with Glass
Menagerie.
There is no question that Jim is a bit of a narcissist. I also imagined (from
character analysis) that he spent more time in sports and dating in high school
than in learning. Now, he's all but stuck in a dead-end job. He's probably
taken a "self-help course;" in fact, his climbing the ladder of success through
radio sounds like a blend of self motivation pabulum, combined with a matchbook
advertisement for breaking into the highly lucrative radio industry.
But Williams gives you some counter-points that suggest other sides to his
nature. Notably.... his faulty memory of Blue Roses, versus Pleurosis; his
encouragement to Laura that she, too, could "become somebody;" his invitation
to share a waltz. Clearly (at least in my mind, he was flirting with Laura, if
not out-and-out courting her. Laura, most certainly is swept off her feet by
this "dashing man." And of course, all hopes are dashed when Jim reveals that
he's engaged.
Nonetheless, my handle on Jim was that, if only for brief moments of this scene,
he was moved, touched and drawn toward Laura. Maybe there is an ounce of two of
humanity, of compassion in the man. And maybe, just maybe, he feels a ton of
humility at the end of the scene.
That's the sketchiest outline of how I handled the role, Dexter, and may not be
where and your director want to take Jim. But I always find it fascinating to
see how other actors explore and portray a role.
Break a leg,
Eric Jarvis
> Eric Jarvis wrote in message ...
> >Robert Epstein wrote:
> >> Carl Salonen wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Eric Jarvis wrote in message ...
> >> > >what we need to analyse something as complex as human beings is a
> >> > >way of manipulation probabilities rather than certainties...fuzzy
> >> > >logic
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > FINALLY! *Someone* besides me who believes quantum foam has a place in
> >> > acting!
> >>
> >> Wait till we get to string theory of acting!
> >>
> >
> >hmmm?
> >
> >let me get back to you on that one :)
> >
>
> It sort of like that comedian, Glenn something-or-other used to joke about
> those people who talk to themselves on the street: maybe they're really
> holding coversations with people on the other side of the country?
>
> String theory acting could work the same way: I could do Hamlet in New York,
> while Eric directed deeq as Ophelia in Toronto...
>
> Sounds like...the Internet.
>
let me see...for film currently I'm dealing with
producing team in Oxford, Sunderland and Stockholm (Sweden)
designers in Boston MA and Durham
composers in Bournemouth and Auckland (NZ)
cinematographer in Maastricht (Holland)
lighting designers in Durham and London (though the latter is Dutch)
story board artist in Seattle WA
CGI man in Sydney (Aus)
props makers in Toulouse (France) and Nottingham
etc
that's just for one movie, production meetings are entirely virtual
all it would take is a small improvement in streaming video
technology and it would become almost possible to direct a stage
show on another continent...maybe not a good idea...but possible
--
eric
"the alternative to seeing things in black and white
is to see them in full colour"
Robert Epstein
I have always thought that the interesting path for Jim was that inside
he has a warm and fuzzy place where he really cares about people, but
his self-involved self-protecting mechanism takes over at the point when
he might do something about it, like most of us. The frustration you
feel when you see that happen illuminates something about how we
function in the world. Most of us will not get involved with someone
who's really dysfunctional unless we're paid as a therapist. The few
people who have that saint-like disposition are either admired or pitied
by the rest of us, while we go our ways. The Gentleman Caller, I
believe, was designed to not only miss the boat on being 'compassionate'
but also because of that to not see what he's losing by avoiding Laura's
and thus his own potential soul-life.
Now if the actor was to think of all that I just said he would be
hopelessly confused, but if he does what you suggest and finds the
moments when the impulse to really go to Laura are there and start to go
there and then stop himself and pull back, well, that makes for an
interesting relationship and character.
Robert
de Valois
>technology and it would become almost possible to direct a stage
>show on another continent...maybe not a good idea...but possible
>
Two words, Eric: Holo Gram
Opus (:>
> >technology and it would become almost possible to direct a stage
> >show on another continent...maybe not a good idea...but possible
> >
>
> Two words, Eric: Holo Gram
>
light wave interference pattern of an object, as created by a light
source. At least that's how I remember it. Now. If you're speaking of
Angels who lend their halos to deliver candy grams, telegrams, singing
grams, then Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii can't help ya there...... (;>
de Valois
>> >all it would take is a small improvement in streaming video
>> >technology and it would become almost possible to direct a stage
>> >show on another continent...maybe not a good idea...but possible
>> >
>>
>> Two words, Eric: Holo Gram
>>
>It's one word: hologram. That is, if you're meaning the record of the
>light wave interference pattern of an object, as created by a light
>source. At least that's how I remember it. Now. If you're speaking of
>Angels who lend their halos to deliver candy grams, telegrams, singing
>grams, then Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii can't help ya there...... (;>
>
Carla, I was teasing about it being two words...<tapping foot>
Opus (:>
needed to say, "Three words Eric:" for your set-up, and then "Hologram"
for your punch. No, no, glad I could help.
Carla, stand-up comic and comedy writer of the UNIVERSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
buwahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....................
de Valois
>OHHHHHHHHH... Then in order for the set-up/punch to have worked, you
>needed to say, "Three words Eric:" for your set-up, and then "Hologram"
>for your punch. No, no, glad I could help.
>
>Carla, stand-up comic and comedy writer of the UNIVERSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>buwahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....................
No wonder comedy's in such trouble <ducking>