Over-Intellectualization
Matthew Murray
over-intellectualization when it comes to acting or singing?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew A. Murray | Over 190 computer game reviews covering
mmu...@cc.wwu.edu | games from 1977 to the present!
http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray | http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray/Reviews.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mas...@foxinternet.net
> over-intellectualization when it comes to acting or singing?
As a actor/director who has had the epithet of Intellectual hurled at him several
times, I don't honestly see a need to reduce it.
In my opinion, what you need to do, is to harness it. As long as your performance
is not ONLY intellectual, and you are able to achieve a balance with the other
aspects of performing, you should be fine.
A practice I have used in the past ( and one that has been very successful for me)
has been the practice of Impulse. If your director/coach/instructor is open to the
experiment, when rehearsing a scene/play/song work from the first impulse you get,
whether it be emotional, intellectual, non-sensical, whatever - follow it and see
where it goes.
It doesn't sound like much, but it helps me.
T
>over-intellectualization when it comes to acting or singing?
Hammers. Lot's of 'em...
CaptWorf
>Does anyone have any ideas/suggestions on ways to reduce
>over-intellectualization when it comes to acting or singing?
I wasnt aware that it was a problem....?
Brian Allard
Capt...@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/4750
"I now have a great exposition of sleep upon me..." -A Midsummer Nights
Dream
Barry Hamill
>
> Does anyone have any ideas/suggestions on ways to reduce
> over-intellectualization when it comes to acting or singing?
>
I strongly urge you to look for any of several books by retires U of MN
professor H. Wesley Balk - "The Complete Singer-Actor" "Performing
Power" and "The Radiant Performer." (they're all at Amazon.com, and
probably can be ordered through your university's bookstore, too).
"The Complete Singer-Actor" is the best starting point. His exercises
are aimed at making the singer-actor aware of more than his/her voice-
what is being communicated facially and physically. By their nature,
they are not intellectualizable (is that a word?). They're the sorts of
exercises that, when you suggest them, your students will stare blankly
at you and say "what? Why?" You say "do it, and find out," and after a
time, they will. Good luck.
--
barry hamill
bha...@nospam.mbcm.org
andyw...@my-dejanews.com
Matthew Murray <mmu...@cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
> Does anyone have any ideas/suggestions on ways to reduce
> over-intellectualization when it comes to acting or singing?
>
>
Learn your lines and your blocking, then throw them away for a few rehearsals
and just listen to the other characters while in character. Forget about the
technical aspects of acting for a night or two - feel the role. Dare to be
stupid.
A.
--
Andrew Wells - Nashville, Tennessee
"Slogans are Nice"
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Adam D. Feldman
> Does anyone have any ideas/suggestions on ways to reduce
> over-intellectualization when it comes to acting or singing?
One thing you might try is focusing in on an element that is not
directly related to the "content" of what you're doing. Be *specific.*
When people complain of being too intellectual, they're usually
complaining about being too abstract -- trying to fit "ideas" into
specific line readings or lyrics. The worst thing you can do as an actor
is think "this line is angry." "Anger" is not enough -- it's anger *at*
someone, or *because* of something. Try to sit down and identify exactly
how the character would be *feeling* at that moment -- not what is
subconsciously motivating him but what he actually experiences. For
example, a character might have a pattern of actions that can be
identified as hostile, but that may not be her intentions -- she may
come off as hostile because she's trying to be, say, honest. So don't
play the hostility, play the honesty, and let the lines do the work of
conveying the cruelty.
Warmly,
Adam
CaptWorf
Hello! Play the beats and motivations. Connect with reality!
-Me
KAR
Just sing the song.
If you've done your homework and know the text, just sing out, Louise.
Matthew Murray wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any ideas/suggestions on ways to reduce
> over-intellectualization when it comes to acting or singing?
>
mas...@foxinternet.net
CaptWorf wrote:
Hello! It's not reality... it's a play.
Sorry.. couldn't resist. But seriously - reality doesn't belong on the
stage. We don't pay $30 to sit in the dark and watch REALITY... we see that
everyday. We (or at least I) go to the theater to see fantasy; something
deeper, more expressive, more interesting, more fulfilling, more tragic, more
humorous than real life.
CaptWorf
>Sorry.. couldn't resist. But seriously - reality doesn't belong on the
>stage. We don't pay $30 to sit in the dark and watch REALITY... we see that
>everyday. We (or at least I) go to the theater to see fantasy; something
>deeper, more expressive, more interesting, more fulfilling, more tragic, more
>humorous than real life.
Of course you do - but that's in the director's realm. The actor's job is to
be genuine. Pure and simple. If I can't believe you, then I can't get lost in
your world....
mas...@foxinternet.net
> be genuine. Pure and simple. If I can't believe you, then I can't get lost in
> your world....
>
But being genuine and being real are two different things. I do not condone actors
manufacturing or indicating an emotional state, but don't be real either. It's
theater. It's a play/musical. It needs to be more intense for the viewer than
mere reality.
I can't name a single play that is just about "real" events. Every play, good and
bad, produced and unproduced, deals with a remarkable story with remarkable people
(some more than others). But at the core, the story being told is meant to be more
interesting than the viewer's actual existence.
Besides, the whole challenge of actors and directors is to make theater/performance
seem true and "real", while at the same time, they are delving into incredible
amounts of unreality and falsehood. Take, for example, the concept of the Fourth
Wall. We know it's not there, the audience knows it's not there, EVERYONE knows.
But it exists it the minds of the performers and audience as a courtesy exercise so
the people sitting in the dark can actually see the people on the stage. When was
the last time (in real life) that you had a conversation with someone that was
blocked at 3/4 left, keeping yourself open to viewers, and projecting and
enunciating so you could be heard 300 feet away.
It is my experience that performers who concentrate on getting too real are always
forgetting the small things in performace, like their lines, their blocking, their
costumes changes, their entrances (and exits). It is a fine line - being genuine
and being theatrical. But being real is not an issue, as far as I am concerned.
If I wanted to wanted reality, I'd go to the park (or worse, peep in people's
windows), but I don't. I go to the theater.
DgSWEET
Have to agree with "masque" on most of this.
There is a confusion between what is true and what is real. "Real" behavior on
a stage would be dull. Someone once called novels "lies in the service of
truth," and I think the same could be said of theatre. It is illusion and
metaphor put up to trigger honest responses from the audience. This is why I'm
a bit less concerned by whether a performance was "good" for the actor than if
it was "good" for the audience.
CaptWorf
Ah, but you misunderstand my use of the word real. What I mean, is that the
world of the play becomes real for the actor. In the moment. Of course there
are ridiculous levels that this can be taken to, but then there are people who
can take anything too far.
I think you know what I mean, really.
DgSWEET
>> Ah, but you misunderstand my use of the word real. What I mean, is that the
world of the play becomes real for the actor. In the moment. Of course there
are ridiculous levels that this can be taken to, but then there are people who
can take anything too far.
>>I think you know what I mean, really.
I do know what you mean, and mostly agree. But I don't think that the actor
has to always believe in the reality of what he or she is doing every second in
a performance. Nobody can sustain that level of concentration. That's where
technique comes in. You learn how to maintain the illusion of being absolutely
there and in the moment even in the inevitable moments when you're thinking, "I
wish that guy in the fourth row would stop coughing," and "I wish that woman
would stop unwrapping candy."
One part of the actor's ear is always aware of -- HAS TO BE aware of -- what's
happening in the house, or else it's impossible to adjust the performance as
necessary. To hold for a laugh, or figure out an organic way to get through a
quiet passage when a fire engine's wail is coming through your back door.
The other part of the concentration, of course, has to be in the moment as the
character. So one is simultaneously in the fictional and the "real" world, and
one has to believe in the fictional world as being real on a different level.
But I suspect we agree.
CaptWorf
>The other part of the concentration, of course, has to be in the moment as
>the
>character. So one is simultaneously in the fictional and the "real" world,
>and
>one has to believe in the fictional world as being real on a different level.
>
>But I suspect we agree.
We do.
MrDunleavy
> When was
>the last time (in real life) that you had a conversation with someone that
>was
>blocked at 3/4 left, keeping yourself open to viewers
Unfortunately, since I am an actor, I find myself talking to peolpe like that a
lot.
Seanachai John
George Spelvin
> Sorry.. couldn't resist. But seriously - reality doesn't belong on the
> stage. We don't pay $30 to sit in the dark and watch REALITY... we see that
> everyday. We (or at least I) go to the theater to see fantasy; something
> deeper, more expressive, more interesting, more fulfilling, more tragic, more
> humorous than real life.
Are you suggesting that "reality," or certain aspects of "reality"
cannot be interesting?
Also, are you suggesting that "real life" cannot be deep, expressive,
intersting, fulfilling, tragic or humorous? I think I know what you
mean, but I've seen some productions that were less exiting than me
staring at the wall.
George Spelvin
> But being genuine and being real are two different things. I do not condone actors
> manufacturing or indicating an emotional state, but don't be real either. It's
> theater. It's a play/musical. It needs to be more intense for the viewer than
> mere reality.
Maybe you're quibbling over semantics. To me, being "real" means
accepting the reality and truth of the world of the play--even if that
reality does not accurately reflect observable aspects of "real life."
Whether the world of the play is expressionistic, absurdist or
naturalistic, the actors need to believe that what they are doing and
experiencing is "real" to them.
> I can't name a single play that is just about "real" events. Every play, good and
> bad, produced and unproduced, deals with a remarkable story with remarkable people
> (some more than others). But at the core, the story being told is meant to be more
> interesting than the viewer's actual existence.
I don't know what you mean by "real" events. Most plays I know of deal
with just that, "real" events. They might, or might not, deal with them
"realistically." Yes, most dramas have a contrived structure and
highlight certain aspects of a given event, but that does not exclude
them from being "real."
> Besides, the whole challenge of actors and directors is to make theater/performance
> seem true and "real", while at the same time, they are delving into incredible
> amounts of unreality and falsehood.
I'm not certain what you're getting at exactly. Rather that use words
like "unreality" and "falsehood," perhaps you mean "imagination,"
"fantasy" or "creations."
> Take, for example, the concept of the Fourth
> Wall. We know it's not there, the audience knows it's not there, EVERYONE knows.
> But it exists it the minds of the performers and audience as a courtesy exercise so
> the people sitting in the dark can actually see the people on the stage. When was
> the last time (in real life) that you had a conversation with someone that was
> blocked at 3/4 left, keeping yourself open to viewers, and projecting and
> enunciating so you could be heard 300 feet away.
I think you are confusing the word "real" with "realism" or
"realistic." When Hamlet seethes with anger at his uncle, that is
"real" to Hamlet and, hopefully, to that actor and audience. It might
not be "realistic" because of the stylistic production choices. It
definitely isn't "realism," which is a particular style of theatre.
> It is my experience that performers who concentrate on getting too real are always
> forgetting the small things in performace, like their lines, their blocking, their
> costumes changes, their entrances (and exits). It is a fine line - being genuine
> and being theatrical. But being real is not an issue, as far as I am concerned.
Actors should never forget they are performing a play.
> If I wanted to wanted reality, I'd go to the park (or worse, peep in people's
> windows), but I don't. I go to the theater.
Sometimes "reality" can be very entertaining and compelling. For
example, there are moments and events that happen is everyday life that
we sometimes ignore, even though they are full of possibilities. When
we recognize those things in a performance, it can help us to focus on
whatever nuances of human interaction are being explored.
Mike Polo
is saying is "don't act for a couple of rehearsals... try to just feel."
Adam points out the other part... Know why you feel what you feel. It isn't
enough to just have an emotion... you have to understand why.
Over-intellectualization is a matter of trying to read too much into what's
going on. As an actor, you have to develop your character based on the
script. Once you have, you now have to relate it to the other characters on
the stage. Then, you have to get beyond thinking and into feeling. One of
the best actors I've ever worked with used to have a serious problem. He was
brilliant at auditions and in the first couple of weeks of rehearsal; always
the first one out of book, the first one to develop a character, and, in
comedies, absolutely hysterical in rehearsal. The trouble was, by the time
we got the show in front of an audience, THEY didn't think he was funny. Sad
but true. The problem was, he did the same thing, the same way, every night.
The same emotions, the same inflections, everything. The trouble was,
everyone around him had moved on and grown into their characters... they
seemed spontaneous and emotional and fresh. He seemed planned. It took a
long time to move him past that point. We started by not letting him learn
his lines too early. That threw him. Then we started saving little bits of
direction for later in the rehearsal period to encourage him to be more
flexible. Then, I cast him in a difficult comedy-drama and played up the
dramatic part of the character and we spent hours talking about what the
character was feeling. He actually cried real tears on stage for seven
performances. In fact, one night, he walked up to me after a show and
confessed that he had a difficult time stopping the tears! Finally, he got
cast in "Camping With Henry and Tom" (fantastic show for four STRONG
actors). As Henry Ford, he turned in the performance of his life. Moving,
emotional, riveting. Sure, we analyzed the characters... at the second
rehearsal. After that, it was "don't think, feel!" And he did. We knew it in
rehearsal... He had to call for lines during tech week! Unheard of (for
him)! He got so caught up in what he was feeling, he got lost. Instead of
doing the same show every night, his character continued to grow. It stayed
fresh.
Now, I know that some people may believe that the first show and the last
show should be identical, but frankly, that's for the movies. In live
theater, people make mistakes, change things slightly, grow, and adjust to
the audience (especially when doing comedy). Nuances develop that change
meanings slightly and other actors have to adjust to them. It's dynamic,
it's real, and sometimes, if you're caught thinking, you're the one who's
lost track and is throwing things off.
"Don't think... Feel"
--
--------------------------------
Mike Polo
mike...@ezol.com
Community Theater Green Room -- http://www.ezol.com/~mikepolo
Kent County Theatre Guild -- http://www.kctg.org
Adam D. Feldman wrote in message <360BAB...@kobliner.com>...
|Matthew Murray wrote:
|
|> Does anyone have any ideas/suggestions on ways to reduce
|> over-intellectualization when it comes to acting or singing?
|
CaptWorf
A moving story, but if the actors are playing emotions rather than wants, the
whole thing will look, sound and feel fake.
It doesnt sound like that is what these actors are doing, but I am wary of
anyone who says to "feel" or to think emotionally.
You need to experience the emotions naturally. Don't try to play loss or fear
or hatred. Actually do it. And the way to do that is to "become" the
character. I hate it when an actor tells me "he feels angry here." I dont
care what he feels (as far as the actor is concerned) what I care about is WHY
he feels that way - thats the key to getting inside.
-me
CaptWorf
George Spelvin, eh. Wake up from your nightmare yet?
-Me
CaptWorf
Ok - I'm with George all the way here! Amen!
-me
CaptWorf
Only too true
HARRY HILL
Actor's Consciousness" in the October issue of *Performing Arts
International". I would appreciate argument about it.
Harry Hill
Pat Kight
>I have to agree with both Adam and Andy (previous post). I think what Andy
>is saying is "don't act for a couple of rehearsals... try to just feel."
>Adam points out the other part... Know why you feel what you feel. It isn't
>enough to just have an emotion... you have to understand why.
While you present a good argument, I have to admit that, as a director,
I'm not especially concerned with what actors feel -- it's what they make
the *audience* feel that counts.
I prefer to think of acting as *doing*. I've known young actors to become
extremely emotionally involved with their characters, but if they can't
*show* what they feel -- by their actions -- then all that emotion is a
waste. Crying real tears is all well and good, but the back row's not
going to see those tears.
>... Sure, we analyzed the characters... at the second
>rehearsal. After that, it was "don't think, feel!"
My own approach is, "don't think -- do!" Doing, to me, means being present
in the on-stage moment, acting with one's entire body and being ready for
whatever happens.
I know brilliant actors who absorb every emotional nuance of their
characters. I know equally brilliant actors whose own emotions are quite
detached from what their character is supposed to be feeling. What both
have in common is that they are *there*, ready to react to what happens
(not what they expect to happen) in a vital, immediate, *physical* way.
I'm not arguing with Mike's approach, just pointing out that there are
others which also work. I think we both agree that intellectually
analyzing a play or a character is just the beginning of the job.
--Pat Kight
Albany (Ore.) Civic Theater
kig...@peak.org
http://www.peak.org/community/act
Rosemary McLaughlin
The Greek word for actor was "hypokrite."
(Which explains why Plato never had much use
for our lot.)
> Personally, I like to think of acting as "lying so well that not only
> does the audience believe the lie, but so do you."
>
> --Pat Kight
> kig...@peak.org
George Spelvin
> Personally, I like to think of acting as "lying so well that not only
> does the audience believe the lie, but so do you."
I see your point, and I don't necessarily disagree. I just find that
when the actors and audience are working together to create a reality of
an imaginative world, it is more active/interesting to work towards a
goal, rather than thinking of it as lying, which to me means
falsifying.
So, rather than deny, I look at it as creating.
Vladdus Mpale
> Personally, I like to think of acting as "lying so well that not only
> does the audience believe the lie, but so do you."
Interesting way of approaching it. I suppose it goes
along the same lines as living a lie and believing that
its true. A pivotal point of Final Fantasy 7, to bring
in a mostly non-theatre example (hey, its got a play
in it where the two lead characters were picked up
off the street and the rest of the cast improvs around
it), is that the lead character has come to believe a
story he made up about himself.
--
Major Vladdus Mpale
Grey Mouse Legion
rec.games.mecha FAQs available at:
http://www.evilnet.net/CoM/submissions.html