acting: whatever happened to Brecht
The Guy with the Most Cake
things about that at first (Jeremy probably doesn't know that he's throwing
flame bait; I have no idea where the normal usenet flamers are).
Anyway, Jeremy, give specific examples of what you mean by technique. You
don't have to post your entire book, but a one paragraph summary of the
technique you recommend could lead to some useful discussion.
If you reject Stanislavski for being no longer applicable (I see this
concept clearly, but I don't understand the why behind it), what about
Brecht? It seems that American's almost ignore his great body of work. Is it
because of the language barrier? Anyway, I was kind of shocked when I
suggested a play by Brecht to my college theater play-picking committee and
nobody, but the Artistic Director had heard of him.
Can the theatre of Brecht be understood in America? Can it be executed in
America?
Peace and Lollipops!
Je77
--
"a denial... a denial... a denial... a denial... a denial... a denial..."
Counting Crows - O- - Nirvana
" change... change... change... change... change... change... change... "
Colin Viebrock
gt4...@prism.gatech.edu (The Guy with the Most Cake) wrote:
>Anyway, I was kind of shocked when I
>suggested a play by Brecht to my college theater play-picking committee and
>nobody, but the Artistic Director had heard of him.
My god! What kind of college / play-picking committe is this? I am shocked
and appalled.
__________________________________________________________________________
Colin Viebrock serious cow productions
c...@inforamp.net http://www.inforamp.net/~cmv
c...@shmooze.net Private World Communications
http://www.shmooze.net/pwcasual
Audrey E. Sturges
> Can the theatre of Brecht be understood in America? Can it be executed in
> America?
>
Let me just that I have read and loved Brecht's plays ON THE PAGE for
years. BUT, I have never in my life seen a production of Brecht that was
worth a d**n. For whatever reason, Brecht is enormously difficult to
translate to the stage successfully. I don't really know why that seems
to be. Perhaps only Brecht can stage Brecht well??? Just my humble
opinion.
Audrey
bob jude ferrante
Brecht>, '"Audrey E. Sturges" <aest...@uoknor.edu>' wrote:
>Let me just that I have read and loved Brecht's plays ON THE PAGE for
>years. BUT, I have never in my life seen a production of Brecht that was
>worth a d**n. For whatever reason, Brecht is enormously difficult to
>translate to the stage successfully. I don't really know why that seems
>to be. Perhaps only Brecht can stage Brecht well???
New City in NYC that was brilliant. MC is a play that many people believed
died when Helene Weigel died. But the staging was very 90's, yet at the
same time, very Brecht. It can be done.
And what's more, I've been dying to direct his longer stuff for years. Just
waiting for the chance.
--
From:
bob jude ferrante
ju...@pipeline.com
Playwright, Director, Technical writer, GUI designer, Musician, Songwriter,
Cartoonist, Husband
jeffMo
>In article <4qud6b$r...@acmex.gatech.edu>,
> gt4...@prism.gatech.edu (The Guy with the Most Cake) wrote:
>>Anyway, I was kind of shocked when I
>>suggested a play by Brecht to my college theater play-picking committee and
>>nobody, but the Artistic Director had heard of him.
>My god! What kind of college / play-picking committe is this? I am shocked
>and appalled.
No kidding!
I'm a computer scientist with only a moderate interest in theatre, and
even I've *heard* of Brecht...
JeffMo
Clown Prince Chief Acolyte and Toilet Scrubber
MoMac Empire Church of Beavis Christ
http://www.cfw.com/~moorej/ http://www.cfw.com/~steven8r/
"As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the
Internet deserves the highest protection from government intrusion."
-- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Dolores K. Sloviter, chief judge, U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter
& U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell, presiding
jeremy whelan
Let me say that if you're in a school and studying theatre and they
don't know from Brecht, get to a new school quickly. Brecht was one of
the most brillant people to be in theatre. I know I come off sometimes
as not respecting the past masters, but actually I would not have one
idea of my own if I hadn't spent so much time thinking about and
studying theirs.
As to the future of Brecht and the American theatre. That is an essay
that would be interesting to write, if I ever had time away from my own
writting. It was years ago but I saw a fantastic production of Mother
Courage done by The San Francisco Mime Troupe. I don't care who you are,
you would have to call that good theatre. My personal fav is translated
Jungle of Cities. East-West Players did a good production of that in
LA, also years ago.
I have to say though, that as a teacher, I don't want my students
working on anything that was written more than five years ago. Not that
the legacy of great plays should be ignored, but I'm trying to teach
them how to get work today as an actor. I say that there is a Beastie
Boy in Neil Simon somewhere. There is a tempo to a new script that is
in synch with the times, and new scripts are what gets done in
commercial theatre,film and TV. Please don't wrinkle your nose at the
mention of the word commercial. It is what keeps actors eating,
besides, because of my insistence on new material and having all these
students running around finding it, I get turned onto some really hot
young writers.
I've got to run and get my web page set up, I've got an appointment with
a webmaster from my ISP. Try to find the words webmaster or ISP in a
script written more than five years ago. It is a different world,
Willie Loman never worried about getting aids, nor Bif or Happy.
Stanley Kawolski never though about acid rain and Lady Macbeth was never
concerned about how much mercury was in her tuna fish sandwhich.
Got to fly, Webmasters are busy people these days.
Jeremy
Since I'm in Philly now, I might add,
Hey yo, share da cake : )
Ruth Cross
"In the Jungle of Cities" scheduled for next season. The artistic
director (Greg Boyd) has evidently staged it before, at the
Williamstown Theater Festival. Did anyone see this, or know
anything about the play?
--
Ruth Cross > Em rio que tem piranhas,
nor...@chevron.com > jacare nada de costas.
Houston, Texas, USA >
Steven Leifer
>
> The Guy with the Most Cake wrote:
>
> > Can the theatre of Brecht be understood in America? Can it be executed in
> > America?
> >
>
> years. BUT, I have never in my life seen a production of Brecht that was
> worth a d**n. For whatever reason, Brecht is enormously difficult to
> translate to the stage successfully. I don't really know why that seems
> opinion.
>
> AudreyI am reminded of being required to attend "Mother Courage" off-broadway
at the Performance Garage on Wooster St. in the early 1970's, for
college credit. I'd never seen it nor read it, til that time. Four
hours into it and it stopped. Thought it was over. No. Just the
intermission. Four MORE hours later it was over. I left the theatre,
absolutely exhausted.
Dennis Wemm
>
shocked when I suggested a play by Brecht to my college theater
play-picking committee and nobody, but the Artistic Director had heard of
him.
>
We performed "Threepenny Opera" at Glenville State College about 6 years
ago--I can virtually guarantee that few on campus except a token Marxist
in the English Department had heard of Brecht. But the audience could be
heard rolling out of their seats on the line "What is the crime of
robbing a bank when compared to the crime of founding a bank?" I've also
gotten good response for Mother Courage and Caucasian Chalk Circle,
although Glenville is about as far from civilization as you can get and
still drive a car.
Nathan Thomas
jeremy whelan wrote:
> [SNIP]
>
> I have to say though, that as a teacher, I don't want my students
> working on anything that was written more than five years ago. Not that
> the legacy of great plays should be ignored, but I'm trying to teach
> them how to get work today as an actor. I say that there is a Beastie
> Boy in Neil Simon somewhere. There is a tempo to a new script that is
> in synch with the times, and new scripts are what gets done in
> commercial theatre,film and TV. Please don't wrinkle your nose at the
> mention of the word commercial. It is what keeps actors eating,
> besides, because of my insistence on new material and having all these
> students running around finding it, I get turned onto some really hot
> Got to fly, Webmasters are busy people these days.
> Jeremy
> Since I'm in Philly now, I might add,
> Hey yo, share da cake : )
Greetings:
Again some interesting issues are raised here.
I don't wrinkle my nose at the word commercial. (Neil Simon has helped me keep
body and soul together. As Walter Mattheau once said, "Doc has saved me
from a life of poverty and anonymity.") Nor do I wish to take away from new
plays. I'm friends with too many playwrights to suggest that new plays are
performed too often. And *that* is where issues are raised that should be discussed.
No, Willy never had to worry about AIDS. But contrawise, are we to suggest that
the businessmen who come to our theatres are concerned about losing the commisions,
their families, their livlihood no more? No, Lady Macbeth probably never worried
about mercury poisoning. But, would a play about an ambitious couple who would
do many things to gain political power have any sensibility to an American audience?
The point is that despite varying everyday circumstances, human nature may be seen
to be very similar across the years.
Anyway, why don't we go to Broadway and see a musical theatre piece about young
people in love, but one dies too young of a consumptive disease. To which year and
which show am I referring? "Rent?" "La Boheme?" And of course Broadway is the
repository of only the newest works like "Buried Child" and "How to Succeed in
Business Without Really Trying." And on television they're doing such new
works as "Gypsy," "Bye Bye, Birdie," "Don't Drink the Water." And the movies
are continually full of new projects like "The Brady Bunch," "Evita," "Mission:
Impossible," etc.
What does change is the acting "shorthand" of acceptable behavior on stage and
on camera. It was interesting a couple of months ago to watch Lesley Ann Warren
in the "Cinderella" project for TV. The camera technique was different then
compared to today. And if you watch syndicated sitcoms against new sitcoms, there
are differences in body movement, use of voice, allowable facial expression, etc.
When Peter Brook (among others) commented that the shelf-life of a play was about
five years, tops -- he was referring to these behavioral cues. Why else would
he want to work with such old plays and legends?
My point is not to dissuade actors looking at new scripts. But, a *sole* focus?
How does this help the student actor acquire the technique required to get
commercial jobs in the zillion summer Shakespeare festivals, the summer stocks,
the regional theatres that rely upon a mix of genres and styles?
Peace,
Nathan
thom...@pilot.msu.edu
Jason Nodler
Ruth Cross wrote:
>
> Speaking of Brecht, the Alley Theatre here in Houston has Brecht's
> "In the Jungle of Cities" scheduled for next season. The artistic
> director (Greg Boyd) has evidently staged it before, at the
> Williamstown Theater Festival. Did anyone see this, or know
> anything about the play?
Infernal Bridegroom Productions staged it here in Houston two years ago at
Commerce St. Arts Warehouse, under my direction. As far as we could tell,
that was the Houston premiere. I have not seen Mr. Boyd's version, but I
would enthusiastically recommend any version of this play to anyone (playgoer
or not). The so-called metaphysical battle between Garga and Shlink is
unparalleled in dramatic literature and the language is beautiful. Jungle of
Cities was one of Brecht's first attempts and, though he himself once said he
had given up hope on it ever working with regard to the audience, it is the
very favorite play of many directors (myself and Boyd included) and we found
a tremendously receptive audience - even if they had to come two or three
times to catch it all. It is notable that this one was written before Brecht 'got
politics' and, although the early seeds of his total conversion are evident, the
socio-political aspects share the spotlight with perhaps the most complex and
riveting human relationship ever represented on the stage.
Here's hoping Mr. Boyd doesn't do for Brecht what he did for Moliere a couple
years back. See you opening night...
Oh yes, and speaking of Germans.... Infernal Bridegroom opens "Woyzeck,"
our season finalé July 26 at Zocalo Theatre and Performance Compound.
Tickets, as always, are $5.99 and we remain (in the spirit of Brecht)
Houston's only smoking theatre. Inquiries can be sent to my e-mail address
(ja...@moriarty.com).
Bertolt Brecht über alles!
jason nodler
infernal bridegroom productions
jeremy whelan
WARNING: UNLESS YOUR SERIOUS ABOUT ACTING, SKIP THIS POST.
Many people, myself included, know that the internet is an extremely
important component of the greatest shift in social consciousness since
the industrial revolution, which was also, as a natural evolution, the
last time a major shift in the direction of acting occurred. Acting was
not a passive element in this explosive change, it was very influential
in establishing and maintaining its growth. This is happening again,
right now.
Someone in this newsgroup asked me a direct question, someone else said,
stop with the tease, say what you have to say and have done with it. I
don't know all the rules of this game yet and I realize I risk attack
for what I'm posting here, but I do know that what I'm saying is
important and I also know it will cause some who read it to think about
acting in a whole new light. The post is the length of a magazine
article and unless you have a serious interest in acting you should skip
it.
Even though the anarchistic aspect of the net is much of its charm, it
also provides those with a unibomber mind set the opportunity to attack
legitimate people honestly attempting to create something positive in
this world. I believe in what I say and I will take the chance.
The guy with the most cake said,
>Anyway, Jeremy, give specific examples of what you mean by technique. >You don't have to post your entire book, but a one paragraph summary of >the technique you recommend could lead to some useful discussion.
>If you reject Stanislavski for being no longer applicable (I see this
>concept clearly, but I don't understand the why behind it),
Nathan wrote:
> > What has supplanted Stanislavsky and Meisner? Why are they invalid
> > and dangerous.
>People are regularly posting that they want to discuss issues >concerning actors. This is not a simple question that Jeremy raises. >Nor should it be dealt with simply.
>It has been suggested that Stanislavsky -- arguably the strongest >influence on 20th century actor training in Russia, Eastern Europe and >the West -- is >obsolete, harmful, and has been supplanted by other >theories.
>Jeremy makes this criticism of Stanislavski in the opening of his book >"Instant Acting." However, he goes on in the book to write at length >about the importance of Given Circumstances -- a basic tenet of >Stanislavski's >over-all concept of acting and actor training. >Likewise Jeremy describes an >instance in which an actor takes a drink >of whiskey using the tape >technique advocated in the book. And when >that actor said the lines in >rehearsal, that desire to drink provided >a powerful level of sub-text -- yet >again another concept linked to >Stanislavski.
>To say, "Stanislavski is dead" may be provocative, but loses its impact >when one still >uses what are ostensibly Stanislavski's ideas in their >original form >or wrapped-up in new labels.
Nathan, you said yourself (below) that actors knew these things in the
distant past. I am not putting new labels on Stanislavski, things such
as given circumstance are classic elements of the actors craft and must
be used in any intelligent discussion of that craft.
>So it may be concluded that Jeremy doesn't feel that *everything* >described by Stanislavsky has been supplanted, only parts. (It should >be pointed out these ideas were not created by Stanislavski. If they >were, we would have to >conclude the absurdity that no actor had >thought about sub-text before or given circumstances before. Gravity >existed before Isaac Newton came along. But Isaac had the privilege of >describing it well.)
Stanislavski created an entire system for approaching actors training;
in the process of doing that, he took much of what has always been part
of the actors craft throughout time, and organized these elements,
labeled them, and put them in one place. So in many ways, studying the
Method was studying the history of what had worked for actors before;
where Stanislavski runs counter to the needs of contemporary actors is
in the priority he gave to hyper psycho-intellectualization of character
and situation. Historically, at the turn of the century, that was, in
the evolutionary sense, the appropriate approach; but it's a hundred
years later and we are turning another century now.
When writing about Stanislavski, I often write Stanislavski/Freud.
While that connection seems obvious to me, if anyone should fail to see
it, I would recommend you to a book entitled, *Stanislavski and Freud.*
It is important to recognize the link between these two men because
everyone that took from Stanislavski also took Freud.
>But, Jeremy, are you actually arguing that *Stanislavski* is outdated >and dangerous, or are you arguing that the way Stanislavski's ideas >*have been used* is outdated and dangerous?
I recognize the difference between the Stanislavski System, the American
Method, the work of Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler, Sandy Meisner, et. al,
but it is the physco-intellectual root of the work, not the branches
that I argue against. As these are all psycho-intellectually based
styles, they are virtually the same in relation to New School Acting.
The Method was the easiest generic to use when referring to that general
old school concept. Yes! I am saying that that approach is outdated and
dangerous. I have a long list of reasons for saying this and an
equally long list of ways that actors can avoid those dangers. Every
other occupation has become safer, coal miners are safer, pilots etc. so
why not actors?
On the side of damaging actors emotionally/creatively we have for one,
what in war would be called psychological torture, in old school it is
called effective memory, emotional recall and some other names as well.
On the creative/emotional we have things such as *substitutions* and
many more.I think this excerpt from my, *Manifesto of New School Acting*
will shed some light.
...I've said Old School doesn't serve the needs of the contemporary
actor. So what are the needs of the contemporary actor;? They are, to
give an honest emotional portrayal of a character. To get lost in a
character for the time they contracted to play it, without all the
unpleasantries that visit, and sometimes stay with actors forced to use
their own emotions in the way dictated by the old school approach.
These old techniques are damaging to the
actor's emotional well being as well as to their creativity. An *actors
well being* has not been a priority to too many people, unless they have
half a film in the can, with that actor in a leading role. BUT the
creative drop off is of concern, because it adds up to audience erosion.
Haven't we all seen enough of the drunken actor, the drugged actor;, the
actor on the psychiatrist couch as a running joke and the type of acting
that comes out of that environment. I think audiences have, that is why
all the reality shows, talk shows, game shows, news shows, home shopping
network and even infomercials have become so popular. Some people would
rather watch the weather channel than these "forced" dramas and "by the
numbers" comedies. How many times can you watch an actor, in a
different disguise/character go through the same emotion? As an actor,
you can only play yourself once;. In Method terms, going through your
own personal angst, drowning in your own sea of personal despair; over
and over, is known as Affective Memory etc. Some of you know that means,
the practice of having an actor, when he feels he can't reach a
character (?I don't understand this, I thought that was my job as an
actor), substituting a moment from his own life that has a similar
emotional value as that which the character is going through. Since I
don't have the space to detail all my objections to Method techniques, I
will focus on this one as it is the most offensive and dangerous to the
actor.
Ever stop to wonder what this must do to the actor as a person;? Going
through the death of somebody close to them, or some other intensely
painful moment in their lives, so they can appear tragic on stage or
screen.
Doing it six days a week and twice on Sunday; in a play, or months in a
film,
recalling that personal tragedy in graphic detail each time. Let me
see, when I
saw Mom get hit by the truck, did her left eyeball pop out first or was
it the
right? That's not a joke: that's part of the process, if you didn't
know it, you
know it now. Isn't it quite possible that this is why we (actors) are
so neurotic
as a group? Whatever it is, it can't be healthy. I've used it quite
effectively,
except that it got to me a couple of times. I was so destroyed by the
personal
memory I was using that I just wanted to sit down on the stage and cry.
I was
so close to not caring about that audience, my fellow actors or anybody,
all I
knew was that I hurt, and the tears that were falling were really
Jeremy's and
the pain was all Jeremy's. The fact that I was able to maintain my
character
does not excuse the fact that I was talked into doing that to myself, in
the
name of art.
I taught this technique. Affective Memory is a chapter in my first
book,
THE ABC'S OF ACTING; at next printing I will yank that chapter and burn
it.
Right here, I would like to apologize to any actor I ever put through
that and I
would like to forgive myself for using it, if I could. The fact is that
many
young talents may have run from the profession when they encountered
that
technique, some may have never recovered. I hate to beat a point over
the
head like this but I believe that the practice of ignoring emotional
awareness;, having actors use their own emotions, is so dangerous that
it
either indirectly killed some actors;, by subconsciously driving them to
drugs, drink, and ultimate distraction, or even perhaps directly, some
kid that
walked out of an acting class after being put through that ugliness and
blew
her brains out. It might have been my class.
There are a lot of fragile kids that are drawn to acting and some
actors who
have been in the business get so worn down from it that it can overpower
them. Nobody cares more about pleasing people than actors;. We will do
anything, no matter how painful, if it promises to make us better.
Being
ruthlessly, cruelly abusive to ourselves emotionally was thought and
taught
to be the best way, so we did it. I know that an art is not supposed to
be safe
or easy;, but nothing ever said it had to be cruel and abusive. I am
speaking
from over thirty years in the trenches of acting and 14 years as a
teacher; I
know and love actors. We really have to stop that practice with
professionals
and we have to stop teaching it to kids. The problem is that it works,
or more
correctly, gives the appearance of working. Anyone who has ever done a
part
knows that actors will use anything that lets them survive the terror of
creation. That technique has been used for such a long time, only
because we
all missed what was obviously a better way, a way of giving a character
an
emotional life of her own.
The way to do that is to build the actors Emotional Vocabulary;.
Emotions are our primary tool and we are ignorant of them. I didn't see
how
narrow and restricted our (actors) emotional vocabulary was for over
twenty
years, and I might never have noticed this astounding incongruity, had
it not
been for a Viola Spolin ;game that I've always enjoyed and employed in
the
classroom. The game is called "Jump Emotion Improv. ;" I think, this
test
will convince many teachers and students of the seriousness of the need;
then, what has to happen, will.
A QUICK TEST OF EMOTIONAL OF AWARENESS
I am a huge fan of Viola Spolin,; and this exercise, Jump Emotion
Improv;. As I use it, the game calls for students to write two emotions
on two
separate pieces of paper and to drop them in a hat/box, whatever. They
pair
off as teams and set up an improv, using the classic Who, What, Where
formula. Just before they start the improv, each is asked to take two
of the
emotion slips from the hat. Without knowing what emotions each other
has, they pick one each to start with and are instructed, at a given
signal, (I use
a loud clap of the hands) they are to change immediately, without
missing a
beat, into their second emotion. When I've ended the improv, the class
tries
to guess actor number one's first emotion and then her second and then
we
repeat this with the other actor.
It is great fun, but over time I started to notice the absolute and
generally
across the board, bankruptcy of actors' emotional vocabularies;. Try it,
you
will find it to be the same with your students. I teach all over the
country on
many different levels, from college to little kids, and pros of all
ages. It was
always the same; in a class of fourteen, you might get four happies,
four sads,
four loves, and two hates. A very short range, mostly consisting of
primary
emotions, and if anyone does get exotic, you will often have to whisper
a
definition into a student's ear when they come and say, "What does this
mean?";
I saw this over and over until the pattern was clear and the problem
obvious. We, as a group of artists, had neglected, since the beginning,
the
systematic and concentrated study of the primary tool of our trade,
Emotions.
How could that be? How was it possible that we did not even know how to
pronounce the names of the emotions we were supposed to be experiencing
as characters?
Iąm not talking about a class of Yale grad students, whose overall
vocabulary has increased through a range of studies. Iąm talking about
your
average beginning acting class;; that is where it has to start. If you
donąt
believe me, about the general ignorance in this emotional area, take
your
class through the test I just outlined above, it will convince you. The
Dictionary of The Emotions; and The Thesaurus of The Emotions; are
valuable tools to student and teacher alike.
"Emotions Are To Actors What Colors Are To Painters." Not too many
people will argue with that statement, so how is it that we have never
really
studied them? What would a painter be without her intense and lifelong
study of color? Scales are the same source of methodic study to
musicians.
Musicians spend endless hours practicing scales, so that in performance,
they
have a solid and broad base that their inspiration can draw from.
Painters
spend their lives in the study of color. In the art of dance, the
basics are called
the "syllabus of the barre." Dancers spend much of their lives at the
barre,
actors spend much of their lives at the bar.
Actors have never been asked to spend one minute on the study of
emotions. We have never had, in my awareness, in the entire history of
acting, a thorough, systematic and continuing study of the emotions,
such as
the one I am proposing here. I have been publicly calling for that work
since
1990 with the publication of my first book, THE ABC'S OF ACTING ;(Gray
Heron, 1990) and expanded that call in my second book, INSTANT ACTING
;(Betterway Books, 1994). Actually, I've been teaching emotions since
1984.
I always ask every new class if any students had trained as painters,
musicians, dancers;. Usually there is at least a few, sometimes more.
I ask
how long they studied painting, music, dance and usually the answer is,
years. How much of that time did you spend studying color, scales, at
the
Barre?" Almost all of it," is not an uncommon answer. Artists are
lifelong
students of the basics of their art. Actors must be lifelong students
of
emotions, as these are the colors we use to paint our stories.
During a weekend intensive one recent Sunday, a young actress, who was
still shaking and crying after an intense scene, looked up at me and
through
her sobs said, "That's the first time I've been able to cry without
thinking of
something horrible and then she smiled;." That is a giant reward for me
and
hardly an isolated instance. The techniques proved to me again, as they
have
over the last twelve years of developing them, that they work and that
they
are better for actors and for acting.
As an actor, Iąve used that tactic, Affective Memory, myself and even
advocated it as a last recourse, in my earlier days of teaching, before
I realized
there was a better way; a way to give the character an emotional life of
his
own.
The fault lies in the naiveté of the acting world and people in general,
about emotions. Most people canąt even pronounce the words used to
represent what they are feeling, let alone have an in depth knowledge of
that
emotion. Some of you may be familiar with a book called Emotional
Intelligence;, it has been on The New York Times bestseller list for
months at
this writing. This is a book that all actors should read. It clearly
points out the
emotional ignorance of the world and many of the negative repercussions
that that ignorance has and is causing.
I will go deeper into some of the more pertinent (to actors) aspects of
that
book later in this book, however, if you doubt my ascertation about the
emotional ignorance we actors (along with the rest of the world) suffer,
read
Emotional Intelligence;. As a Ph.D. from Harvard and a writer for ten
years
on behavioral and brain sciences for The New York Times;, the author
Daniel Goleman;, has access to all the top level research and
researchers.
These are some of the best minds in the world and they have been working
in
the area of the emotions for decades. If you want to understand
emotions
better, his book should be very useful to you. The goals of NEW SCHOOL
ACTING are much different from those of that book. NEW SCHOOL ACTING is
aimed at the actor/artist. I knew that this emotional ignorance
existed, that is
why I have been teaching emotional awareness to actors for twelve
years;;.
I believe actors and teachers of acting will accept the obvious, now
that it has
been pointed out, and we can get to work building our emotional
vocabularies.
The greatest failure, in acting, comes in not recognizing the distinct
and
emphatic difference between the character played and the person playing
the
part. The intellectual approach to acting, that we have always used,
fosters
that confusion. The heightened emotional awareness, which is the base of
New School Acting, makes the distinction between actor and character
clean
and simple to achieve. Actors are not afraid of work but they must be
given
productive work to do; work which brings them closer to their audience.
I
am asking actors to look at acting in a whole new light, in a way that
they
have never looked at it before, and it starts with the following basic
realization.
Emotions Are To Actors What Colors Are To Painters.; Color is a
lifelong study for painters, yet, to my knowledge, actors have never had
to, as
a natural part of their education, study emotions. It should be very
obvious
from the importance emotions play in the acting process that actors
should
know as much as they can about them. I define the essence of acting as
going
from emotion to emotion in a theatrical manner. Yet, there is not an
acting
program in this country, and not in any other that I know of, that offer
classes
such as, Emotions I, Emotions II;, etc. There is no doubt in my mind,
and I
hope when you've finished this book, yours as well, that this is not
only
something that should be done, it is something that must be done. An
area of
study as vital as this, demands a hard look from everyone connected to
the
acting experience. In the instances where some emotional training was
attempted, it was done with actors ruminating on their own subjective
emotions rather than a broader, more universal level. This
understanding of
emotions as they exist in a pure universal state is necessary for the
artist to
have control of his tools. I don't know of any attempts to do that type
of
study. I'm told there have been some, although when I challenged that,
no
names were offered or books mentioned.
Emotions are the primary tool we actors use to tell our stories and we
are
ignorant of them. This book not only calls for a systematic, thorough
and on
going study of emotions in actors training; it also provides exercises
and
techniques for broadening the actor's emotional vocabulary as a means of
increasing her emotional mobility. ;That knowledge will shield the
actor
from the violent self abuse involved in using her own emotions.
Affective
Memory, Emotional Recall, Effective Memory etc.; by whatever name it's
called, is an ancient and barbaric practice and it should be barred from
the
classroom.
I am not ignorant of the fact that these boundaries between the
character's emotions and the actor's emotions are sometimes blurred;.
Iąve
been an actor for thirty four years. I know that those boundaries blur
as a
natural component of the craft. What I will say is that this natural
bleeding
over is automatic and, within that framework, is manageable. What I
condemn is focusing on that area, working to that end, that is where it
gets
dangerous. You do not need to work to use yourself, it is impossible
not to.
Working to use yourself is a fool's errand, itąs very dangerous and a
waste of
time. The key is in finding out where you and your character are most
different emotionally, that is where the focus of the work must be
placed.
When actors are ignorant of emotions, they have no choice but to use
their own, on whatever instinctual level they access them. A systematic
study of emotions will allow actors to make creative choices from a much
broader artistic palette, without dragging themselves through some
potentially harmful psycho-drama.
The color analogy should make this concept easy for most people to
understand, but I'm afraid, not to all. In order to get this idea
across, with the urgency it demands, I'm looking for any analogies I can
find which will make the concept clear. One such analogy comes from the
Art of Music; think of scales and the endless hours that any good
musician spends on them. "No scales; no music", is the way one musician
answered my question about the importance of scales. I am not talking
about four
chord rock and roll which is the musical equivalent of a Schwarzenegger
action adventure movie. Don't get me wrong, I love Arnold and Sly, and
especially Zena, but occasionally I need more subtlety. The painter's
colors are the greatest part of his creative vocabulary, the musician's
scales are the greatest part of her creative vocabulary, the chef's
spices are the greatest part of his creative vocabulary, the actor's
emotions must be the greatest part of her creative vocabulary and actors
are virtually bankrupt in this area, mainly because acting teachers have
never bothered to teach them. If you wanted to be a four star chef you
would be trained to have a thorough knowledge of the taste of all the
spices available. Every art and every profession has it's vocabulary and
it's basics. Lawyers have torts, doctors have
anatomy. Would you want some doctor, who failed anatomy, cutting into
your body. No, you'd want her to know every thing about the body. It
would not be enough for that doctor to know everything about her own
liver, you want her to know everything about livers in general and your
liver in particular, before she cuts. You have to know your character's
liver, I don't know for a fact, but I would guess that no two livers are
alike. Actors would fail any emotions test given them, because emotions
have never been part of the curriculum. Let's start that process now.
Jeremy Whelan
If anyone thinks I wrote the above in some crass attempt to sell books,
I would hate to meet them on a dark street or anywhere for that matter.
You don't write books like the ones I did because you want to, you do it
because you have to.
If you have taken the time to read this and would like to see this
manifesto in its entirety, I have heard there is a newsgroup alt.
Manifestos, I will post the entire manifesto there.
I am very interested in any comments that anyone would care to make and
would be especially excited to hear of any other teachers working in the
area of the objective study of emotions in relation to acting. Any
techniques or exercises they may have devised to do that would be of
great benefit to my students and me. I have created some, but as this
is such a relatively new area of study, I expect that many people will
contribute, I look forward to sharing discoveries. I will have a home
page and an ftp site very soon and will not have to worry about being
misunderstood. People who come to it will be free to discuss acting, in
anyway they like, it will be a *safe house* for actors and others who
care about it. I saw a sign on a bus in NYC one time that said*Nothing
is as powerful as an idea whose time has come* I truely believe I have
just presented you with one.
Jeremy
* The beauty of creativity as a weapon is that those who oppose it,
those who want to control it, don't have the imagination to see it
coming until it smacks them in the head.*
I can see some old school flame throwers cranking up right now. :)
David Michael Jenkins
Audrey E. Sturges (aest...@uoknor.edu) wrote:
: The Guy with the Most Cake wrote:
: > Can the theatre of Brecht be understood in America? Can it be executed in
: > America?
: >
I think that the American Theatre is so consumed in Image and Product
that a true Brechtian theatre is quite near impossible, and at best
difficult to understand.
______________________________________________________________________________
David M. Jenkins | Maladrin | "We're all books of blood,
University of Florida |Kinslayer of the Justicar| wherever we are opened we
Dept. of Theatre | "Ein Mensch, ein Zeil, | are red."
(352)392-2038 | und eine Weisung." | -Clive Barker
@>-'--'----- http://www.afn.org/~afn28769/ -----`--`-<@
______________________________________________________________________________
Ross D. Willits
Steven Leifer wrote:
>
> Audrey E. Sturges wrote:
I am reminded of being required to attend "Mother Courage" off-broadway
> at the Performance Garage on Wooster St. in the early 1970's, for
> college credit. I'd never seen it nor read it, til that time. Four
> hours into it and it stopped. Thought it was over. No. Just the
> intermission. Four MORE hours later it was over. I left the theatre,
> absolutely exhausted.
My god. Where was the director of that? MC shouldn't last longer than
three hours. I was dramaturg for a production at the Guthrie a couple of
years ago. With very little cutting, the show came in at 2:50.
--
Ross D. Willits, PhD
"Little Boy Lost in a Big Man's Shirt" EC 1982
will...@tc.umn.edu
Ross D. Willits
Ruth Cross wrote:
>
> Speaking of Brecht, the Alley Theatre here in Houston has Brecht's
> "In the Jungle of Cities" scheduled for next season. The artistic
> director (Greg Boyd) has evidently staged it before, at the
> Williamstown Theater Festival. Did anyone see this, or know
> anything about the play?
>
>
> Ruth Cross > Em rio que tem piranhas,
> nor...@chevron.com > jacare nada de costas.
> Houston, Texas, USA >
This was Brecht's third full length play, after _Baal_ and _Drums in the
Night_. He wrote it in the early 20's before he found Marxism, and as a
result, he fairly disowned the play in the late 30's, and then tried to
rework it some in the 50's.
If my memory serves, it is his first play set in _Amerika_. Though the
city is really Berlin. An interesting play. His poetry of the same
period is probably better than the play though.
Nathan Thomas
jeremy whelan wrote:
>
> WARNING: UNLESS YOUR SERIOUS ABOUT ACTING, SKIP THIS POST.[SNIP. To include the original and the reply would be too much.]
>
> I can see some old school flame throwers cranking up right now. :)Greetings:
If anyone expects flames from me, they'll need to look elsewhere. 8-)
But we do have issues worthy of discussion. By my sights, there are at
least three questions at issue here: 1) a proper, positivistic approach
to acting pedagogy {"We *ought* to teach the actors this way."}, 2) a
question of historical fact, and 3) a question of historical interpretation.
I should begin by saying directly to Jeremy and to any interested readers
that I'm not in much disagreement with what I perceive to be the *basis*
of Jeremy's argument/manifesto. I shall treat these three questions in
reverse order.
1) I wrote in an earlier post that Stanislavski in formulating the System (as opposed
to the Method, as there are fundamental differences between the two as will
be discussed later in this post)observed and discovered elements that would have
been part of good acting in any time or place. My argument follows:
The Laws of Motion were a part of nature prior to Galileo. However, Galileo
went to the trouble of observing how matter moves and to discern certain properties
so that others could properly make use of that information (such as, for every
action there is an equal and opposite action). I argue that a modern engineer
shouldn't say, "That Galileo de-emphasized his ideas about cosmology to save his
skin. So I'm glad I can use his observations about the Laws of Motion to move my
jet and my rocket, but the dirty dog didn't give the right emphasis where he ought."
So, yes, Stanislavski brought together observations about the acting process, but it
seems, hmmmmmm . . . unfair (?) to curse his hide while continuing to use what
is *in essence* his work.
Secondly, I would argue that it is also . . .unfair (?) (not cricket?) to accuse
someone for the mis-application or abuse of someone else's idea or innovative
observation. For example, I would not blame, condemn, or fault Moses for the
fanatic who killed President Rabin. Nor would I blame Mouhammed for the terrorists
who bombed the Americans in Saudi. Likewise, I do not blame Stanislavski for what
others said in his name. Stanislavski has enough to answer on his account without
being held responsible for the words of others. This leads to argument
2)I would take issue with the history being presented about Stanislavski.
For example, our culture has become accustomed to using the phrase Judeo-Christian
as if it means the same thing. Jews and Christians share some common background,
stories, and sacred writing. However, there is a salient difference regarding
divine incarnation between the two. So while it is common to talk about
Stanislavski's System in the same breath with the Method, Adler, Meisner, et al;
it is, in fact, ignoring some major historical facts -- important facts considering
the importance given to the historical interpretation of emotional training for
actors.
Stanislavski was constantly changing and exploring new avenues. Known as Mr. Realism,
as early as 1905-1906 Stanislavski was talking to Meyerhold about opening the first of
the MAT studios. Yes, Stanislavski did experiment with psychology and emotions
with Sulerzhitski as a fellow teacher in the First Studio (and of which Boleslavsky
was an early, promising student). However, Stanislavski's psychology was *not* Freud.
The influence came from the writings of the French psychologist Theodule Ribot
(Benedetti, p. 180) (interesting stuff if you haven't read it). (Ribot wrote an entire
book on "The Psychology of the Emotions". In the chapter on "Memory of Feelings",
Ribpt discusses whether humans can even remember emotions at all. He concludes
humans can. However, "[t]he revivability of an impression is in direct ratio to
the motor elements included in it.")(p. 157) (Those interested may also want to
read Eric Bentley, "Who Was Ribot? Or: Did StanislavskY Know Any Psychology?"
TDR 7.2 - 1962: 127 - 29.
Despite his early attempts to appropriate emotion for its own use, Stanislavski
quickly moved away from that focus. However, his earliest students wouldn't have
known that, emigrating prior to this continuing work. Therefore, in America
Lee Strasberg and Harold Clurman were young students of Boley. *But* there's
no record that Strasberg in particular participated in the *technique* classes
that Boley also offfered (including Dalcroze eurhythmics). Strasberg went his
own way in his particular 'brand' of emotional training of actors. Some, as Jeremy,
would argue that Lee went to far in that direction. Others, like Eric Morris, would
argue that Lee didn't go far enough.
In any case, by the time Stanislavski came to write what we know as his books, his
emphasis had changed. For good or ill, I would argue that Stanislavski's great
contribution to the understanding of acting is his presentation of tasks (objectives,
motivations, goals, through-line, spine, etc.). (I commend here Sharon Carnicke,
Stanislavsky: Uncensored and unabridged" TDR 37 --1993: 22-42.) But American
understanding of the system was also confounded by the unfortunate publishing history
of his books. (Jean Benedetti, "A History of Stanislavski in Translation" New Theatre
Quarterly 6 -- 1990: 266 - 78.)
Even at that, the first book contains numerous warnings about the dangers of using
dangerous emotion for its own sake as being violent. (cf. An Actor Prepares, p. 27, 50,
114, 122, 174-75, and 233 -- which sounds as if any of us would agree with.) He
believed strongly in actors, acting *with* one another, not "dropping out" into one's
own private emotional memory garden. He believed strongly in the text as the stimulus
for the actor(cf. p.179).
Curiously, the Russians have a word for strong feeling about which the feeler has
not yet come to a conclusion. For example, if I say, "I'm angry," "I'm jealous," "I'm
sorrowful," "I'm gruntled" -- I've come to a conclusion about my emotional state.
However, in Russian there is a word for the state in which one feels powerfully, but
has not yet concluded what that powerful feeling is. This state matches the creative
state Stanislavski worked toward. An example would be the famous story of Olivier.
Olivier gives the amazing performance of Richard III. Afterwards, the cast find him
crying. "Why are you crying, Larry? It was a great performance." "Yes, but
what did I do, and how can I do it again?" The creative emotional state bypasses
labels and rises to subtle combinations of varying and conflicting powerful feelings --
shared, in this case, between actor and audience.
And, actually, in Russian, Stanislavsky focused his greatest attention -- in writing
anyway -- to the problems of vocal technique and the speaking of Russian on the stage.
And his teaching methods were such that he would not have been surprised by, say,
Spolin's approach. Take for example his use of etudes in his books. Or look at
the examples given in the book by Gorchakov about Vakhtangov, whom Stanislavski
considered to be the foremost teacher of his System. This leads to issue
3) What any good acting teacher searches for is a means to help lead people to be more
creative, theatrically interesting artists in the theatre. Jeremy, you seem to work
from an intellect/emotional split. Others work from a mind/body split. But all
seem to be searching for a means by which actors may be more creative and interesting.
As I've written to Jeremy and posted elsewhere, ad infinitum it seems, I agree strongly
with Jeremy that the training of actors in America is poorish. That is because we have
not examined the fundamental bases from which we teach.
It is interesting that Jeremy should mention a musician who says, "No scales, no music."
As a sometime professional pianist myself, I would argue with that. All too many finely
trained musicians have a cart-load of technique. But they aren't *expressive*
musicians. Can expressivity be taught? In my search in this arena, I've been affected
by the pedagogical work of Emile Jaques-Dalcroze, a man who developed a system by which
musical expressivity *could* be taught.
So, while I would disagree with some of the superficial details of this or that
proposal, I would *in essence* agree with Jeremy and others who've written here and in
other forums about needing to teach actors to be more creative.
At this I close. (The audience whimpers a sigh of relief.) By way of conclusion I saw
3 main questions raised by Jeremy's post. I attempted to sharpen the issue by provding
other perspectives through argument by analogy, published research, and an explanation
of primary ideas and areas of agreement. We still have not broached what I think is the
fundamental issue of acting pedagogy: *how* does one teach acting? To what purpose is
this exercise used? And, most important to me, how is the work in the classroom related
to actual work on the stage? In regard the latter question, I agree with the critique
of actor training in the opening of "The Practical Handbook for Actors."
Peace,
Nathan
thom...@pilot.msu.edu
P.S. Since it seems to be of some importance, I've worked professionally as an actor
for 15 years and as a teacher and director the last 10.
PPS. As an example of one area of a critique of Stanislavski, I offer the following.
Stanislavski was forever on about being frightened by the "black hole of the proscenium
arch." Well, is that true of most actors, or him, or a few actors? I would argue that
most actors have a good case of "Look at me!" that transcends the fear of the "black
hole." There are others, but it's getting late.
Mack2mack
two notes, stemming from two sources.
1. Anne Bogart directed a Via Theater (her group) and Mabou Mines
coproduction at the Public Theatre here in NYC, back in 1991. Frederick
Neumann played Shlink. I saw it, full of admiration for A.B. as I had
played Jack Benny for her in the workshop show of the Vaudeville program
she later did, I believe, at the Alley...
The NYC show was really dissatisfying; a lot of performances by great
performers who were somehow trapped on stage, so far away from us...as if
they were performing for themselves but didn't want to: histrionic, sad,
lost. I remember some fun Bogart tricks: strange miking from all over,
and a great revelation of space for the final railyard scene...but
overall, a bummer. Only Neumann managed to keep some kind of spritual
compass, as an actor. All the rest were just flotsam. And no translator
was credited in the program.
The play does appeal to directors, tho' and has recieved a major
Off-Broadway production roughly every ten years--from '61 to '71 (the
Public) to '81 (Brooklyn Academy of Music) to '91 (the Public again).
2. JUNGLE is a swamp--the most confused, muddled play Brecht ever put his
name to. The sources may be partly known to you--the distressed family
deriving from Sinclair's THE JUNGLE, and the Verlaine/Rimbaud relationship
and A SEASON IN HELL (a poem of renunciation--of youthful love, of homo
obsession, of poetry itself)--but the more obscure source is J.V. Jensen's
THE WHEEL, a Chicago set Danish novel centered on a homoerotic battle to
the death. (If you're really obsessed, as I was, you can find excerpts in
a study called BRECHT'S AMERICA by Patty Parmalee.) The ethnicity of
Shlink may be Brecht rebounding off Jensen' racism toward a
Kipling-inspired Asianness.
According to Brecht's own published diaries, he began the play--the
first few scenes--in Augsburg, writing fast, and you can see, plotwise,
they're the best. Afterward you move into a Rimbaud prose fog and much
worse plotting than any of his other early plays, like BAAL or DRUMS IN
THE NIGHT, or the EDWARD II adaptation.
THe latter is most interesting because although Brecht, in early life,
seemed to exploit his attraction to both sexes, representing homosex
onstage was something else; the flamingest Marlovian queer stuff is
deliberately absent from Brecht's adaptation. In JUNGLE he sets up what
looks like the romance of the century, then flees from it even as the
play, somehow, moves forward.
The play exists in several versions, the earliest, from 1923, was the
longest and messiest and most expressionistic; the play's first advocate
lost his job after the disastrous premiere. (Curious, but telling: the
Nazi party drama critic complained that Shlink spoke yiddish, and the
audience was full of Jews.) The more popular Grove-published version dates
from 1927, after Brecht's association with the more Marxist Elisabeth
Hauptman--the prose is cooler, the world has more technology, and Brecht
famously spins the passionate battle of the two men so that it "should"
mean nothing at all. I speak of the famous prologue: "Pay no
attention.....and keep your eyes fixed on the finish." Bullshit. This is
a love story.
The reason I have learned all this is I have written my own
JUNGLE-inspired play, for which I went back into BrechtWorld, and the
general Euro-Am world of the twenties, so as to better discover, for my
own satisfaction, Brecht's own spritual, ethnic and sexual anxieties so as
to best supplant them with my own, replotted in the style of a period
Fritz Lang film. My title: THE HOUSE OF ITEMS. Coming soon.
mack2mack
Dave Ulrich
In article <31D5D8...@global2000.net>, Steven Leifer
<eg...@global2000.net> wrote:
> Audrey E. Sturges wrote:
> >
> > The Guy with the Most Cake wrote:
> >
> > > Can the theatre of Brecht be understood in America? Can it be executed in
> > > America?
> > >
> >
> > Let me just that I have read and loved Brecht's plays ON THE PAGE for
> > years. BUT, I have never in my life seen a production of Brecht that was
> > worth a d**n. For whatever reason, Brecht is enormously difficult to
> > translate to the stage successfully. I don't really know why that seems
> > to be. Perhaps only Brecht can stage Brecht well??? Just my humble
> > opinion.
> >
> > AudreyI am reminded of being required to attend "Mother Courage"
off-broadway
> at the Performance Garage on Wooster St. in the early 1970's, for
> college credit. I'd never seen it nor read it, til that time. Four
> hours into it and it stopped. Thought it was over. No. Just the
> intermission. Four MORE hours later it was over. I left the theatre,
> absolutely exhausted.
*************
Hey... It's my first time on the news side of the net. Therefore, this is
my first letter. As for old Bertold's work being staged.... You can't
simply point to the American's difficulty. I just saw a Russian version
of Arturo Ui that was absolutely awful. It was incredibly unclear and
seemed to be a cheap musical version from Moscow that got the funding to
film it. If I hadn't done the show myself, I would have been extremely
confused. I also saw a fairly good performance of this play at the UMKC
graduate program. I am now living in Prague and we have a theatre
company, Misery Loves Company, comprised of mostly Americans and our
staging of Ui is blowing minds. We have a hot one here and as I
mentioned, mostly performed by Americans.
So it's not the work of Brecht that is the difficulty in my opinion, but
the work ethic of the actors and the esoteric jargon that directors like
to get lost in. If we could only remember the clarity of story telling,
we would have better productions across the board, by all playwrights.
Dave Ulrich
**************