Manifesto -- history
Nathan Thomas
Greetings,
I posted a reply when this was first posted. But Jeremy has rightly
pointed out that discussion has been small on these issues. The lack
of discussion may be for various reasons. 1) People simply aren't
interested. In the journals like TDR, New Theatre Quarterly, Theatre
Survey, Theatre Journal and magazines like American Theatre, there
simply isn't much space devoted to discussion of *how* actors are
trained – some about the *what* of actor training, but not *how*.
2) People are away for the summer. 3) Olympic fever has sapped
the discussion powers of our group. 4) The issues have been discussed
so fully and with such clarity, there remains nothing else to say.
(BTW, if you like #4, can I sell you some insurance? 8-) )
Anyway, the Manifesto raises issues that have been part and parcel of
the theological discussions about actor training in this century.
Considering the amount of time and energy devoted to actor training in
private studios and in higher education, and given the state of
professional theatre (witness the "HATE THEATRE" thread); it seems
important to me to examine and discuss what is being said and claimed.
Rather than re-print the entirety of the original post, I will edit it
for space considerations. My purpose is not to flame, but to examine
the issues. If I misrepresent an idea, it's not intentional on my part.
Also, I'll edit into subject areas. Thus, the posts will be a little
shorter, at least.
The first will cover history.
Well, as earlier, the discussion of the new school, begins with a
critique of what is perceived to be the old school. The old school is
represented by
>Old School, that being the Russian school which has dominated >American acting almost since it's inception. Born over a hundred
>years ago, the Stanislavski system; no longer serves the needs of
>contemporary actors. This goes for all its variations, from Stella
>Adler; to Lee Strasberg ;and all the disciples that have come along
>and have put some wrinkle or twist on Stanislavski, including the
>Miesner approach. [SNIP for space – a discussion of Meisner and the Method.]
>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, where he 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.
>It is a tribute to actors ;that even approaches as dangerous as the
>Method and as clumsy as Meisner were made to work. In light of >what I've just said, it may be hard to believe it when I say that I >respect
the accomplishments of the teachers I mention and others >who have
dedicated their lives to better acting . I do respect it.
The main reason I raise the issue of this historical critique is that it
relies on some standard myths that have currency in the American theatre
today. These myths, though, have *some* truth but are not entirely
true. I would argue that a critique of the Old School should handle
what the Old School actually was/is, and not what it is supposed to be.
In the first instance very few actors know much about the history of
theatre or acting within America. And most actors know less about how
actors were trained. The reason again, is that despite the business of
training actors, few people talk about it.
It's difficult to talk about an "American" acting style per se in the
19th century because we can't see it. However, by looking at the
training conditions, one may confidently assert that there was a local
acting style in the 19th century. Certainly prior to the Civil War and
for some period after that, actors were trained by and for the rep
companies in the metropolitan centers that could support it. This is
not to disregard traveling players in this period, but training was done
as it had been for centuries. A young person would join with a rep
company. They would begin in small parts and walk-ons. After a year or
so with the company they would take on larger parts. Attrition and
marriage would take away the less serious (and social mis-givings about
actors helped prevent the huge numbers looking to enter the field). By
the time they had been with a company 3 or 4 years, the new actor could
look to play at least middle-size parts regularly.
In this period actors played their "line" of parts. A comic character
actor trained to play comic character parts. Over the course of a
season of 100 or so plays, an actor got solid training. And since the
training was on stage in front of audiences, the acting style
necessarily had to comply with local tastes, whatever the local tastes
might have been. (Edward William Mammen directly compares the stock
company training system with a 4-year college program in "The Old Stock
Company School of Acting" – Boston: Trustess of the Public Library,
1945.)
By the 1870s, Steele MacKaye began a series of schools to teach actors
to play all sorts of roles using the Delsarte system of instruction.
Despite the supposed scientifically fixed externals of the Delsarte
system, the philosophy of Delsarte's and MacKaye's work would not seem
out of line with what an acting teacher would advocate today.
(See further in James H. McTeaugue, "Before Stanislavski: American
Professional Acting Schools and Actor Theory, 1875 - 1925" – Metuchen:
Scarecrow Press, 1993).
However, theatre in America seemed awfully thin compared to what people
had seen in Europe by such directors as Copeau and Stanislavski. The
Moscow Art Theatre tour of 1923 was warmly regarded by theatre
professionals in New York. Richard Boleslavsky, a Polish actor whom had
been an early student under Stanislavski, had known of Stanislavski's
early work and met up with the M.A.T. in New York. Boley had left the
MAT years earlier because of the Russian Revolution and had been back
and forth across Poland and Europe. He was convinced to stay in New
York and open a school and start a theatre modelled after the MAT.
(Attempts at starting a rep company never seemed to succeed.) (See, J.W.
Roberts "Richard Boleslavsky: His Life and Work in the Theater" --
Amherst: U Mass Press, 1974.)
Boley's school included instruction in voice and movement (including
Dalcroze eurhythmics), but the biggest impact was made by the scene
study classes taught by Boley and Mme. Ouspanskaya, whom also stayed in
New York. Among the students was Lee Strasberg and Harold Clurman.
So in this it may be seen that the active influence of Stanislavsky on
these shores was through two surrogates whom had worked with
Stanislavski early in that man's career as a pedagogue. (I will come
back to this issue below.)
What was Boley teaching?
Stanislavski became dissatisfied with the reception of his work playing
Dr. Stockmann in Ibsen's "Enemy of the People." Audiences and
fellow-actors alike recognized it as a towering performance. But
Stanislavski felt nothing. He seemed just to be giving the part by
rote. So he decided in 1906 to start gathering materials to understand
a grammar of acting that could help actors to always be creative. (So
the Russian school could not be a hundred years old, per se.) At first
Stanislavski had asked Meyerhold in to work with the new drama and some
young actors, but this was no success. So Stan started work with
Sulerzhitsky (a former disciple of Lev Tolstoy) to gather a group of
young actors to experiment with varying means of depicting emotion on
the stage.
This group experimented with yoga, various relaxation techniques,
various communication techniques. These early experiments drove Olga
Knipper to distraction while working on A Month in the Country in 1909.
This was the sort of work that Boley knew, because once WWI broke out,
Russia of course was to remain very un-settled for quite some time – and
not a safe haven for a Polish national like Boley. (BTW, the psychology
used by Stanislavski was that of the French psychologist Ribot. Stan
seems to have not paid much attention to Freud. But then Freud was
German. The later book Freud and Stanislavski is a series of lectures
that doesn't take into account the history of Stanislavski's biography.)
Stanislavski moved away from the meditative techniques fairly quickly,
evidently. His largest fascination was with rhythm/tempo. He wrote
exhaustively about speech technique (the Russian versions of his books
contain much more material in this area than the translations available,
due to their relevance to Russian nuance, but not to the speaking of
English).
In any case, the books by which we know Stanislavski were written in the
20s and early 30s. There was a long interruption in the publication of
the 2nd book due to WWII getting in the way. Neverthelss, In "An Actor
Prepares," Stan writes, "In the beginning, forget about your
feelings.[Stan explaining to use the imagination.]" (p. 50) and "In
every physical objective there is some psychology and vice versa . . .Go
by your instincts, always leaning a little toward the physical."(p.114)
Despite the old story that Stanislavski is all interior, these comments
in no way jibe with that accusation. The reason for this is that
Stanislavski as a long time actor realized that a balanced approach was
reasonable.
This is not to say that I personally am much of a Stanislavski disciple.
On the contrary, I feel that an actively physical approach helps force
actors to learn to be physically creative and expressive. I also
believe that a pursuit of the understanding of rhythm can help further
expressivity.
Stan believed that expressing deep emotions in front of an audience was
artificial and unnatural. His use of the concept of Circles of
Attention sprang from this belief. I would argue, though, that there is
a natural impulse in people to tell stories (and display fairly personal
emotions) in front of large groups. Witness that the day-time tv shows
have no lack of people willing to talk about the most private parts of
their sad lives. No one forces these people. But this will be the
subject of another post.
In the end, I feel it . . . unfair (?) not "cricket"(?) . . . to condemn
Stanislavski (despite a declaration of respect) for that which
Stanislavski did not do. There would be the question, of course if
Stanislavski has been mis-interpreted by his followers in this country.
There is, of course, the famous story of Stella Adler going to visit the
aged Stanislavski in Paris in the 30s. He worked with her for some
weeks using French as the language. Adler returned to the US and told
Strasberg that he had gotten it all wrong. Strasberg said he didn't
care, he was doing what he was doing. (Stan reportedly thought his
sessions with an excitable American actress interesting, but a bit odd.)
If we look, however, at the work performed by the Group, do we see
evidence of massive amounts of mumbling and scratching? Evidence
available about, say, "Golden Boy" shows an exciting and vibrant
performance. Likewise, the performances of "Waiting for Lefty" inspired
audiences to join in the shouts of "STRIKE!" This is not behavior
usually associated with hyper-interior performance.
Indeed, Paul Newman stated baldly in a program about the Actor's Studio
on "American Masters" that Lee Strasberg and the Actor's Studio created
a uniquely American acting style.
I conclude by saying that while I feel that the historic critique
offered here is mis-guided, I do not disagree with the Manifesto's final
conclusions. Showing, I suppose, that there are many roads to the same
destination.
References:
Benedetti, Jean. "A History of Stanislavski in Translation." New
Theatre Quarterly 6(1990): 266-278.
Bentley, Eric. "Who Was Ribot? [ . . .]" TDR 7.2 (1962): 127 - 9.
Carnicke, Sharon Marie. "Stanislavski: Uncensored and
Unabridged." TDR 37 (1993): 22 - 42.
Hobgood, Burnet M. "Central Conceptions in Stanislavski's System."
Theatre Journal 25 (1973): 147 - 159.
Ribot, Th. "The Psychology of the Emotions." New York: Scribners,
1911.
among others.
Peace,
Nathan
thom...@pilot.msu.edu
jeremy whelan
Nathan,
I'm very sorry that I have as yet not responded to your earlier post,
your erudition is overwhelming. Actually, I will have to do what I did
with that one. Print it out in triple space and reply section by
section. I haven't even finished that one yet. It's like taking a test
or something. I'm hardly above that but occasionally you seem to me to
get lost in the shear tonnage of facts in your head. I have immense
respect for your learning and I think it would be great fun to do a
live debate with you on this subject. Should it ever become popular
again to talk about the actors creative process, we might try that.
Actually, I think it will become popular again, now that acting is
finally entering the next stage of its evolution. No wonder people
stopped talking about it, everyone had picked Stanislavsli's bones
clean, and then picked the bones down to ash and at this point they
are picking the ash into atoms. It is all so dusty and dry and that is
why,if for no other reason, you should at least give new school acting
a try. It is refeshing and wildly creative; it makes acting fun again.
Please try the techniques I sent you, it won't take very long to see
why I'm so excited about them.
Wether Stan followed Sigmond or Ribot is not important, although
Stanislavski thought enough of Frued to write to him, what is
important to distinguish is that he had used a
psychological-intellectual base for his system.
Psycho-intellectualism is an ego driven approach to acting, new school
acting has an emotional base an is empathy driven. Making this
distinction is not vital to benefiting from the techniques of new
school, anyone one can do new school; all they need is a twenty dollar
piece of technology and be willing to give some time to study. New
school is so easy and so much fun, that anyone professing a desire to
act, hasn't any excuse for not trying it. At the risk of sounding like
a dope dealer, first one's free. When people try it, they get hooked
on their own enhanced creativity. I used to tell teachers who would
try to argue the point with me, you can teach it now or you can teach
it latter, but you will teach it because it is better;it works.
Nathan, try the tape technique and then lets talk; give it one hour.
All the best,
Jeremy
PS Thanks for your continuing attemt to keep a dialogue on acting
technique alive. It is also sad but true, that many people approaching
acting are so excited by the process that they ignore its noble
history and the long list of brilliant men and woman who devoted their
lives to its furtherance.
--
*************************************************************
The beauty of creativity as a weapon is that those who oppose it,
those who wish to control it, don't have the imagination to see it
coming until it slaps them in the head.
JW
*************************************************************
http://www.cyberenet.net/~whelnact/index.html
Home page of New School Acting
Mark Harris
Nathan Thomas <thom...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
a wonderful post (one of a series, I hope?) which has to be one
of the best 'nutshell' expositions of Stan the man I have ever
read. Please feel free to post more of this.
Thank you.
Cheers
Mark Harris Ph 644 3827014
email: mht...@actrix.gen.nz
Who's General Failure and why's he reading my disks?
Mark Harris
jeremy whelan <whel...@cyberenet.net> wrote:
something - I'm not quite sure what yet.
What are you selling, Jeremy? The "twenty dollar piece of
technology"? A system of 'acting"? I haven't worked it out yet.
Forgive me, I couldn't get to the end of your post (796 lines!)
which I found quite (sorry) tedious.
What little I did get out of it says your theory is founded on
'emotion' not intellectuallism. Is this right? If so, you are
suffering from the same flaw as Stan. but in reverse. We are not
purely emotional beings, nor are we purely intellectual. A blend
of both is required. You can't 'emotional-ise' a character if you
don't analyse his mind and experience to determine WHY he would
feel that emotion.
Jeremy, I have been an actor for 27 years (not on the same
character ;) ), a writer for 20 years and a director for 7. (not
to mention all the techo jobs along the way). Just so you
understand that I'm not a tyro at this, okay? I've been in shows
from Brecht to burlesque. I've directed Shakespeare and Pownall,
high comedy, drama, low farce and I'm about to do a superb ghost
story. I've really run the full gamut of theatrical work. Hell,
I've even been paid for it and won awards.
You fail to convince me that you really know what you're talking
about. I get the impression that you're running some scam - no,
that's perhaps a bit harsh. But I feel your purpose here is to
sell *something* to those of us who will listen. You are not
talking about acting so much as your "New School" of acting.
Your dismissal of Nathan's post, I felt, was cavalier and
somewhat arrogant - essentially "take two tablets, dear boy, and
call me when you understand". He called you on errors of fact,
you dismissed him with "occasionally you seem to me to
get lost in the shear tonnage of facts in your head."
Still, I'm not here to argue Nathan's case for him; I'm sure he's
big enough and ugly enough to look after himself.
What I get from your post is an anti-intellectualism which seems
to be commen in America at this time. It's scary enough in
rednecks; when teachers (even self-nominated ones) exhibit it,
the effect is chilling indeed.
Reassure me, I dare you, but I don't think you can.
jeremy whelan
I ORIGINALLY SENT THIS TO YOU AS PRIVATE E-MAIL BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT
WAS WHAT YOU SENT TO ME. BUT SINCE YOURS IS OUT THERE, MY RESPONSE
SHOULD BE TOO.
Mark Harris wrote:
>
> jeremy whelan <whel...@cyberenet.net> wrote:
>
> something - I'm not quite sure what yet.
>
> What are you selling, Jeremy? The "twenty dollar piece of
> technology"? A system of 'acting"? I haven't worked it out yet.
> Forgive me, I couldn't get to the end of your post (796 lines!)
> which I found quite (sorry) tedious.
>
> What little I did get out of it says your theory is founded on
> 'emotion' not intellectuallism. Is this right? If so, you are
> suffering from the same flaw as Stan. but in reverse. We are not
> purely emotional beings, nor are we purely intellectual. A blend
> of both is required. You can't 'emotional-ise' a character if you
> don't analyse his mind and experience to determine WHY he would
> feel that emotion.
other parts too and that you even read things that wern't there. >
"take two tablets, dear boy, and
> > call me when you understand".
but don't put quotes around it to imply that that those are my words.
As far as the emotional thing vs.the intellectual, if you had read it
you would have seen that I said the priority and placement of the
intellectualism was a mistake and the process of having actors go
through the worst moments in their lives over and over was abusive.
> Jeremy, I have been an actor for 27 years (not on the same
> character ;) ), a writer for 20 years and a director for 7. (not
> to mention all the techo jobs along the way). Just so you
> understand that I'm not a tyro at this, okay? I've been in shows
> from Brecht to burlesque. I've directed Shakespeare and Pownall,
> high comedy, drama, low farce and I'm about to do a superb ghost
> story. I've really run the full gamut of theatrical work. Hell,
> I've even been paid for it and won awards.
OBviously I respect that or I wouldn't even think of writing to someone
who insults my 34 years of service to acting and my three books on the
subject by using my name acting and scam artist in the same sentence.
I'm sure you didn't read any of those books, but then you get burnt out
on less than 800 lines so, what's to expect.
>
> You fail to convince me that you really know what you're talking
> about. I get the impression that you're running some scam - no,
> that's perhaps a bit harsh. But I feel your purpose here is to
> sell *something* to those of us who will listen. You are not
> talking about acting so much as your "New School" of acting.
If your talking about trying to share insights gained over a lifetime of
work, your right, I'm *selling* something. Yes, I'm selling* New School
Acting because old school is killing the art and emotionally abusing
actors every day. I refuse to sit around and watch that happen. These
techniques are better, they do work and if you have a $20 piece of
technology and your willing to take a few minutes and investigate a new
idea that promises to make you a better actor and director, you'd know
it for yourself.
>He called you on errors of fact,
Facts are funny things, if your defending your point of view, they seem
one way.
The fact is he didn't, but I'm not going to rewrite a book on the
internet that is already in stores around the world to convince a few
prejudiced people that I'm right
> you dismissed him with "occasionally you seem to me to
> get lost in the shear tonnage of facts in your head."
I'm sorry, but if you would argue that Nathans writing is shear
unbroken logic, that it does not get dense in places, we're on different
planets.
> Still, I'm not here to argue Nathan's case for him; I'm sure he's
> big enough and ugly enough to look after himself.
Nathan is very intelligent and has much to offer, he is also, from what
I've seen, a gentleman and while he might appriciate the support, I
think he would be embaressed but the cheap way that defense was offered.
> What I get from your post is an anti-intellectualism which seems
> to be commen in America at this time. It's scary enough in
> rednecks;
Looking for a balence in respecting ability need not be
anti-intellectual. It is the worship of intellectualism that I revolt
against and that has been prevelant in our society for a long time; that
worship has presented contempory society with the worst set of social
problems ever encountered by any generation in all of recorded history.
when teachers (even self-nominated ones) exhibit it,
> the effect is chilling indeed.
I've been teaching for fourteen years, in colleges, private professional
schools and private classes, as well as seminars and residencies in
schools all over the country, including being accredited in California
and Florida. I think that 95% percent of my students,
if they heard you dealing out this kind of disrespect to me, would ripe
your face off. They know how much I give and how much I love acting and
how superiour what I am teaching them is in relation to all the other
teachers they have had.
>
> Reassure me, I dare you, but I don't think you can.
I'd like to, but I'm affraid that is all I have time for right now.
Actually that took much more time than your attitude deserved.
Jeremy
jeremy whelan
Mark Harris wrote:
>
> jeremy whelan <whel...@cyberenet.net> wrote:
>
> something - I'm not quite sure what yet.
>
> What are you selling, Jeremy? The "twenty dollar piece of
> technology"? A system of 'acting"? I haven't worked it out yet.
> Forgive me, I couldn't get to the end of your post (796 lines!)
> which I found quite (sorry) tedious.
>
> What little I did get out of it says your theory is founded on
> 'emotion' not intellectuallism. Is this right? If so, you are
> suffering from the same flaw as Stan. but in reverse. We are not
> purely emotional beings, nor are we purely intellectual. A blend
> of both is required. You can't 'emotional-ise' a character if you
> don't analyse his mind and experience to determine WHY he would
> feel that emotion.
It is the order of the investigation I object to, old school over
intellectualizes at the very beginning of the process, actually old
school actors spend most of their time in their heads. The tape
technique I created integrates all levels of investigation; emotional,
physical, and intellectual at the very first reading. It works a lot
better that way. Try it some time. If you'd like to know how, ask and
I'll send you the directions on the technique.
Sorry you couldn't get to the end of it. Sounds of if you skipped some
other parts too and that you even read things that wern't there.
>"take two tablets, dear boy, and
> > call me when you understand".
If you want to state you mistaken impression of what I said, no problem,
but don't put quotes around it to imply that that those are my words,
that is bad form, Mr.Harris.
As far as the emotional thing vs.the intellectual, as I said above, if
you had read it you would have seen that I said the priority and
placement of the intellectualism was a mistake and the process of having
actors go through the worst moments in their lives over and over was
abusive.
> Jeremy, I have been an actor for 27 years (not on the same
> character ;) ), a writer for 20 years and a director for 7. (not
> to mention all the techo jobs along the way). Just so you
> understand that I'm not a tyro at this, okay? I've been in shows
> from Brecht to burlesque. I've directed Shakespeare and Pownall,
> high comedy, drama, low farce and I'm about to do a superb ghost
> story. I've really run the full gamut of theatrical work. Hell,
> I've even been paid for it and won awards.
OBviously I respect that or I wouldn't even think of writing to someone
who insults my 34 years of service to acting and my three books on the
subject by using my name acting and scam artist in the same sentence.
I'm sure you didn't read any of those books, but then you get burnt out
on less than 800 lines so, what's to expect.
>
> You fail to convince me that you really know what you're talking
> about. I get the impression that you're running some scam - no,
> that's perhaps a bit harsh. But I feel your purpose here is to
> sell *something* to those of us who will listen. You are not
> talking about acting so much as your "New School" of acting.
If your talking about trying to share insights gained over a lifetime of
work, your right, I'm *selling* something. Yes, I'm selling* New School
Acting* because old school is killing the art and emotionally abusing
actors every day. I refuse to sit around and watch that happen. These
techniques are better, they do work and if you have a $20 piece of
technology and your willing to take a few minutes and investigate a new
idea that promises to make you a better actor and director, you'd know
it for yourself.
>He called you on errors of fact,
Facts are funny things, if your defending your point of view, they seem
one way.
The fact is he didn't, but I'm not going to rewrite a book on the
internet that is already in stores around the world to convince a few
prejudiced people that I'm right
> you dismissed him with "occasionally you seem to me to
> get lost in the shear tonnage of facts in your head."
I'm sorry, I admire Nathan, but if you would argue that Nathans writing
is shear unbroken logic, that it does not get dense in places, we're on
different planets.
> Still, I'm not here to argue Nathan's case for him; I'm sure he's
> big enough and ugly enough to look after himself.
Nathan is very intelligent and has much to offer, he is also, from what
I've seen, a gentleman and while he might appriciate the support, I
think he would be embaressed but the cheap way that defense was offered.
> What I get from your post is an anti-intellectualism which seems
> to be commen in America at this time. It's scary enough in
> rednecks;
Must be all those > commen < people doing that.
I feel looking for a balence in respecting ability need not be
anti-intellectual. It is the worship of intellectualism that I revolt
against and that has been prevelant in our society for a long time; that
worship has presented contempory society with the worst set of social
problems ever encountered by any generation in all of recorded history.
If we reintegrate the physical and emotional aspects of our
personalities, we might be able to figure a way out of this mess.
Although I love to get physical, as an actor, the tools of my trade are
Emotions. Since none of my many teachers (and there were many) ever
taught them to me, and when I found out that nobody ever taught them, I
decided I had to. Emotions are to actors, what colors are to painters.
Shannon
Nathan Thomas wrote:
>
> Anyway, the Manifesto raises issues that have been part and parcel of
> the theological discussions about actor training in this century.
> Considering the amount of time and energy devoted to actor training in
> private studios and in higher education, and given the state of
> professional theatre (witness the "HATE THEATRE" thread); it seems
> important to me to examine and discuss what is being said and claimed.
> [SNIP]
> >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, where he 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.[SNIP]
>
> The main reason I raise the issue of this historical critique is that it
> relies on some standard myths that have currency in the American theatre
> today. These myths, though, have *some* truth but are not entirely
> true. I would argue that a critique of the Old School should handle
> what the Old School actually was/is, and not what it is supposed to be.
>
> In the first instance very few actors know much about the history of
> theatre or acting within America. And most actors know less about how
> actors were trained. The reason again, is that despite the business of
> training actors, few people talk about it.
Whew, there's a lot here, and my response to it very specific. I do not
wish to quibble with the history you've set up here, but I think its
unfair to judge actors or people involved in the training of actors for
maintaining notions of deep, complex subjectivity as the basis for
psychology when its a notion that pervades every shadow of Western
culture. It produces (and we produce) our notions of ourselves and each
other in complex, tangled ways. W.B. Worthen has a great line on this in
an end-note for an essay he wrote for the Bulman anthology _Shakespeare,
Theory, and Performance_. In his essay "Staging 'Shakespeare' " he
writes,
Despite decades of impugning Stanislavski and the techniques he developed
or inspired, several Stanislavskian principles--continuous
characterization, an organic connection between scenes, the need to
develop an inner life for the role, a consistent through-line of
action--suffuse thinking about acting today, and particularly suffuse
actors' discriptions of their work. This is hardly surprising. As the
theorist of modern realistic enactment . . . Stanislavski is involved in
the production of the bourgeois subject at the heart of modern realism:
an individual, delimited, organic, non-commodified, spontaneous psyche.
And, Stanislavski or no, it would be difficult to expect actors any more
than the rest of us to stand outside this dominant mode of ideological
transmission, producing the world by producing us as its subjects
invested in particular modes of what such subjectivity entails."
I'm no huge fan of strictly "realistic" or "naturalistic" acting
techniques, in fact I'm a big fan of the work of people like Tadashi
Suzuki) but what I object to is the idea that it is "those dumb actors"
who continue to "rel[y] on some standard myths that have currency in the
American theatre." Those myths are extremely active in institutions far
beyond the reaches of the theatre (or film, or other institutions reliant
on actors), which is partially why they are so powerful there.
jeremy whelan
Shannon,
How smart you are and with a good turn of phrase too! You have truly
summerized the problem and effectivly outlined the reason that acting is
in such a powerful transition today.
> Stanislavski or no, it would be difficult to expect actors any more
> than the rest of us to stand outside this dominant mode of ideological
> transmission, producing the world by producing us as its subjects
> invested in particular modes of what such subjectivity entails."
>
> I'm no huge fan of strictly "realistic" or "naturalistic" acting
> techniques, in fact I'm a big fan of the work of people like Tadashi
> Suzuki) but what I object to is the idea that it is "those dumb >actors" who continue to "rel[y] on some standard myths that have >currency in the American theatre." Those myths are extremely active in >institutions far beyond the reaches of the theatre (or film, or other >institutions reliant on actors), which is partially why they are so >powerful there.
This is the crux of my argument for new school acting. It is why I
say that acting (as a leading edge of contempory society) is moving,
along with the rest of society into a new era. It was the Industrial
Revolution that started the world down that Psycho-intellectual path and
which spawned Stanislavski/Frued. It is this tornado of information,
the last great explosion of the Information Age, that is taking society
and acting into the next phase of human evolution. The next step is into
what I call the Emotional Age. The signs are everywhere that the
emotions, not space, are the last frontier. There is always swirling and
blending as societies transform; when we have gotten a deep awareness of
what emotions are, that knowledge will be combined with what we have
learned about our bodies and our minds, and that synthesis will be,
*whatever comes next*. What that has to do with acting today, is the
same as social change had to do with the last great change in acting at
the time of the Industrial Revolution. At that time (the late 18th
century); THE NEEDS OF THE AUDIENCE CHANGED. When an audience changes so
drastically, everything changes with it, which of course includes, what
it finds entertaining. I am not talking about some superficial change in
acting, another wrinkle on an already ancient theme, I am talking about
a profound change, a serious shift at the very core of the art form. A
completely new approach which requires totally new techniques to solve
the mystery of its newness.
This subject is so open that I think I have to stop here. If you
would like to know more about this new audience and what it is looking
for from it's actors, as well as some of the first techniques that will
help actors satisfy this audiences needs, click on the link below and go
to my home page. *The New Audience and the Ensemble* is the title of one
of the essays you will find there.
Shannon,
It is Sunday morning and I'd just gotten up when I read you post. I had
not even finished my first cup of expresso when it ripped into my brain.
You stuck it like an Olympic gymnast, thanks for sharing that insight
and I hope some, that can't hear my voice, can hear yours. You put a
perfect frame around the problem, which is always the first step to a
solution. I hope too, you take time to read the essay I mentioned, I
would be very interested in your response.
Thanks again,
Jeremy