I need Gesture help!
Infanger
I am currently in fiddler on the Roof at a small commmunity theatre. I am
playing the part of Tzeitel (Tevye's eldest daughter), and this is my first
large role in a play where I actually play a person.... (I've played many
animals)
anyways, I assume that many of us are actors and actresses here... I have a
question...
I seem to have trouble finding things to do with my hands, I dislike
putting them on my hips or crossing my arms as I find it out of character
and too over used...
I sometimes wring my hands for a nervous look, or put one hand to my mouth.
I can't touch my hair really.... I just don't know what else there is to
do!
My worst fear is looking fake or being really repetitive, you understand,
I'm sure... but if I just had a master gesture............ or two...
If anyone has any suggestions, I would appreciate them greatly.
Thank you
P.S.. also any tips on building a character would be great too.. seee, my
director bugs, and hasn't even helped me with any of this... he just sits
there and tells us he's going to vomit because we're so horrible... ....
ugh............I'll admit, we're not awesome, but we're retty good for a
small town community theatre in rural Minnesota
Jana
Opus (:>
Well, from your post, if you TRY to find something external with your hands to
do, then you ARE going to appear to be fake, since your movements will be
rehearsed and not coming from the motivation of the character. It sounds as if
you just need to relax and be aware of your body on stage. It's all right for
you to do nothing with your hands. How many times in real life do we make bold,
grand gestures? Never, unless we're in a group of people reciting old Monty
Python movies. (You know what I do? I walk into the theatre before anyone gets
there, or after everyone's left, while the lots are still hot, and I stand in
the hottest part of the light. I just stand there and BE. I don't do
anything. I look out over the audience, I stand there, feel the light on my
face, become aware of the grandness of the stage, how far the wings are from me,
and I become comfortable with the space. Do that, and see if it doesn't help
you get over your anxiety for being on a stage. You have to make that space a
part of you, and this has helped me to do that.)
You need to pick up two books: "Meisner on Acting", and "Building a Character"
by Stanislavski. Both books are wonderful for getting your performance "out of
your head" and into your instincts where it should be.
> I sometimes wring my hands for a nervous look, or put one hand to my mouth.
> I can't touch my hair really.... I just don't know what else there is to
> do!
>
Well, my advice would be to not have "pre-made" gestures at all. That is what
makes a performance LOOK fake. If you're not being truthful in what you're
doing, but just doing it for the sake of something to do, then the audience will
know it immediately, and you'll look like Sandra Bernhard. In fact, it was due
in part to her melo-dramatic, overacting that Meisner and Stanislavski began
teaching. They knew that audiences were tired of that old, melodrama style, and
wanted something more real. Both of the aforementioned books will help you to
achieve this.
It's sad that your director has nothing better to do than lord himself over a
community theatre. Community theatre is a great way for potentially
professional actors to get exposure and experience. But if you have to work
with an assbag director, it sure makes the process harder. However, we've ALL
been there. That's when you go to the library or bookstore, get all the books
you can on technique, and eat them up. I always look at the chance of working
with a bad director as a personal workshop time for me to try new things.
Because heck, he's not going to say anything to you if you do try something new.
Just relax, enjoy being on that stage, have confidence in what you're doing, and
don't force anything. Don't force it by seeking a gesture. Do what's natural
and your performance will thank you for it.
Good luck.
Infanger wrote:
--
Opus (:>
http://members.home.net/coble/OpusGraphics -Websets and Graphics
http://drewcarey.acmecity.com/kate/43 -Blade Pro Presets
"Well my dad has only had 4 bypasses, and he eats all the steak he wants."--
Hank Hill
Infanger
you are a Genius!
Jana
P.S. I will defiently try standing on the stage thaing.. Thank you.
Opus (:>
Well, yes, and I knew there was a rumour. When I started it, I wasn't
sure how long it would take to get around.
You're quite welcome. Just get into that character and don't be afraid
of nothing to do. That's what all of us feel like from time to time.
--
Reg Flowers
Infanger wrote in message <7k5o7l$3vg$1...@news.mr.net>...
>I seem to have trouble finding things to do with my hands
When I was in college I was cast as Quentin in Authur Miller's After the
Fall. It was the largest role I had ever played and, believe it or not,
instead of having to struggle with the emotion (as most make the mistake of
doing in their first large role) or, more sensibly, the intention...I COULD
NOT FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH MY HANDS!
For that production, I made it a point to be very specific about what my
hands did, how I used them to gesture (I was lucky that the stage directions
specify the character being a nervous smoker)
In the end it was fine, but I did not come up with a specific way to deal
with the issue. Any way, here are some things I have come up with since that
time.
1) When you watched people acting, focus on what they do with their hands.
For me it is a test for how completely character has been developed the.
When an actors hands impress you, note it and cache it for when you might
need to use a similar array of gestures.
2) Also, I've found looking at photographs of people and noting how they
gesture with their hands (NOT ACTORS) regular people, even famous people who
are under intense scrutiny.
Look at photos of Jackie Kennedy, notice where her hands are in 75% of the
photos you see of her (very telling)
3) Hands tell a large portion of the story of the character and can be the
key to free expression. You can use them to shut yourself off (crossing
them or putting them on your hips) or open you up (letting them hang at
their full weight, loosely and freely at your sides while you breath low
from the diaphragm is the best "Trick" an actor has for achieve a sense of
vulnerability emotionally.
4) Be careful to control their movement as you move through space. Keeping
your hands and arms in a downward energy as you move can add tremendously to
you grace and strength
MANDRLAW
Yes, it's good to study from life, and other actors (steal from the best!), but
I tend to side with the writer 2 or 3 messages back, who referred you to
Sanford Meisner's work, as well as the Stanislavsky.
One core tenet of Meisner technique is that If you put your focus not on what
you're doing but on the person you're acting opposite, and simply RESPOND,
you'll be so consumed with the reality of what's going on in the scene between
you that you won't have time to think about what your hands are doing.
If, as it sounds, you haven't trained in this kind of approach, it can feel
scary as hell at first (you're certain you're going to go blank) but it makes
for really, really exciting and truthful work.
Break a leg, and best wishes for the production.
Reg Flowers
"If, as it sounds, you haven't trained in this kind of approach, it can feel
scary as hell at first (you're certain you're going to go blank) but it
makes
for really, really exciting and truthful work."
This is a lovely sentiment, but the reality is: Actors need to focus on
where they are and what they are doing on the stage. It takes time and focus
before being onstage becomes second nature. Until then an actor can't be
free to express -- not until they are unencumbered by those little habits of
human nature that will creep in no matter how focused we are on the other
person.
This is not just opinion. We know that if your leg is broken while you are
in a play, all the acting in the world will not make the leg unbroken. If a
person tends to carry tension in one part of the body, until they deal with
that fact and BREAK the habit, it will continue to get in the way of the
work.
I DO AGREE THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON IN ANY SCENE IS THE OTHER PERSON.
I also know that it is hard to see the other person with stage lights
shining in one's eyes. To stick to the subject. If you have a problem with
your hands. Don't ignore it. it will not go away.
RF
Infanger
unfortuantely I asked a little late.. we go on Friday! But, my "husband"
and I will practice together to "Brush" up once I figure out what's
natural.
Infanger
think about what Iw as going to do, and it worked pretty good... except
that everytime that I thought about it, I would do some kind of a stupid
gesture...
Oh, well, I get better everytime!
thanks again..
Oh, and I don't think the genius thing is just a rumor...
Jana
beckynot
______________________________________________
Reg Flowers wrote:
> When I was in college...
Infanger
this is some of the best advice I've heard in all of my whole poopy high
School Career.. haha
Jana
P.S.. If anyone is in the area, the play is this weekend, and next
weekend.. The 18th, 19th, 20th and 24th 25th, 26th, 27th It will be in
West Central Minnesota, a little town called Barret. at the Historical
Rooselvelt Hall . Show starts at 8 o'clock, tickets are 8$ and dinner
theatre is
18$ . I would love to see anyone there!!
Opus (:>
misunderstanding what Mandrlaw and I were both trying to say to this
person. Just because an actor's ease of movements and freedom to relax
are not yet second nature, is not reason enough that they should not
work toward that now, at the beginning, before they're encumbered with
"logic", and too much training. That is a great part of early training;
becoming comfortable with just "being". Why teach a young actor how to
do fake, pre-made gestures, when you can steer them toward actual
exercises that will produce a truthful, end result?
> This is not just opinion. We know that if your leg is broken while you are
> in a play, all the acting in the world will not make the leg unbroken. If a
> person tends to carry tension in one part of the body, until they deal with
> that fact and BREAK the habit, it will continue to get in the way of the
> work.
In all honesty, I fail to see how a broken leg even parallels this
situation, or even your own analogy. How does being aware of one's
broken leg parallel the example you gave of being aware of tension? You
certainly are right; one cannot do any amount of acting that can make
the broken bone go away, but with the PROPER training, one can make the
tension leave, and 10 times out of 10, the thing that does this
successfully is by concentrating on something else. Getting back into
the moment and to stop focusing on your tension. Exactly why I pointed
out to this person, that if they're already aware of "nervous hands",
then it's time to concentrate on other things, rather than a grand
gesture for the arms. This person was really ahead of the game by
recognizing NOW that they did not feel natural in the movements they
were doing. This is the perfect time however, and I feel that it was
done in both mine and Mandrlaw's posts, to get them to concentrate on
OTHER things rather than a pre-made gesture. Either you tell the actor
to concentrate on one thing that evokes a hoakey performance, i.e.
gestures, or you tell the actor to concentrate on some other concept
that will evoke a truthful performance. What's so wrong with that in
your eyes? You say you've directed. Is that what you do to get
truthful performances out of your actors? Or do you give them
melodramatic gestures to do when they "need something to do with their
hands"?
> If you have a problem with
> your hands. Don't ignore it. it will not go away.
We certainly were not even inferring such a ridiculous thing. By
telling someone to "be aware of their bodies", relax, and just let it
flow, is not saying "pretend your arms are not there" for goodness'
sake. At no point did we say to ignore it. I thought I gave clear
advice on how this actor should become more comfortable with their body
on-stage. That is not even close to ignoring it. I was giving them
other things to concentrate on, rather than telling yet another actor
how to come up with a "canned performance". Sorry Reg, but we just
don't need another one of those in Community Theatre.
--
Opus (:>
http://www.Carla.Coble.com - Acting site; not all links are viable yet.
Opus (:>
>
Christopher Jahn
>
> you know, I did the whole "let my self do what's natural thing" - I didn't
> think about what Iw as going to do, and it worked pretty good... except
> that everytime that I thought about it, I would do some kind of a stupid
> gesture...
This is identified as "If you think, you stink."
learning how to Be, and how to merely Do, takes a lot of work
and training in most cases.
Chris
Infanger
Reg Flowers
At no point did we say to ignore it. I thought I gave clear
>advice on how this actor should become more comfortable with their body
>on-stage. That is not even close to ignoring it. I was giving them
>other things to concentrate on, rather than telling yet another actor
>how to come up with a "canned performance". Sorry Reg, but we just
>don't need another one of those in Community Theatre.
No need to apologize.
This is not an argument. These are the nuts and bolts of being a
professional. I do not mean to dispute -- I am simply sharing my experience.
And who really knows what "we" in the theater needs these days.
My point in all of this is; Acting is not reality. There is nothing about
it that needs to even attempt to be reality. It is a craft. Like dancing or
playing a musical instrument or building a piece of fine furniture. One
would never criticize a musician for the grueling repetition engaged in to
learn to play an instrument well.
When I go to hear a concert, I go expecting to hear the music I was told I
would hear. Even in Jazz, I expect the musician to be able to execute the
riff. Why as actors should we be opposed to skillful execution in
performance.
When one claims that making considered choices as an actor is being fake --
or "canned" I tend to wonder what that person thinks about memorizing the
text...or even getting to the theater half an hour before the play begins.
The reason an actor needs to focus on all of the elements that go into a
performance (emotions included, but not to be given precedence) is so that
the performance will be repeatable. If giving a show of equal quality to
every audience that pays to see me is "canning it", then hand me the bees
wax, grandma.
Think about why so many actors talk about having bad nights and good nights.
What does that mean? Really? I suspect it means the performance did not feel
right to the actor. If a person has skillfully crafted a performance there
will not be bad nights because the actor "didn't feel it". The time to
"feel it" is in rehearsal when you are exploring the play and the character.
With the help of a skillful director decisions are made about what will be
kept in the performance (keep in mind, it ain't really about the actor, it's
about the production -- a product -- very much like Del Monte or Green
Giant). In performance you must "produce" whether you feel it or not.
As far as community theater goes, I haven't done a community theater
production since I was fifteen, but I loved every minute of it (except for
when a director told me -- I was seventeen -- that she could not use me in
her production because "the community" was not ready to see a white
Cinderella and a black Prince Charming). What was it we were saying
community theater needs?
Opus (:>
just don't mean for that to sound nasty. You just couldn't be more
incorrect.
> These are the nuts and bolts of being a
> professional. I do not mean to dispute -- I am simply sharing my experience.
> And who really knows what "we" in the theater needs these days.
I too, have been a professional now for the last 5 years. I've done my
share of community theatre, and last year, when I accepted a role in my
friend's newly formed theatre, then was reminded of the sort of actors I
had to work with, not to mention his "now do this gesture" directing, I
said that would be the last production I ever did, and it has been.
> Acting is not reality. There is nothing about
> it that needs to even attempt to be reality.
NO NO NO NO NO!!!! "Acting is living truthfully, under imaginary
circumstances." Please, take some Meisner as soon as you can, or pick
up Stanislavski's book "An Actor Prepares". In it he explains why we
need to concentrate more on the emotions rather than the overacting. If
this is the approach you are using toward your characters and roles,
then I can't see how your performance could be anything BUT canned,
cardboard, rehearsed to death. If you are not allowing yourself to even
explore a character's emotions, but you're concentrating on canned
gestures night after night, then you must not be getting too far as an
actor. I know of where I speak; the kind of comedy I've been doing and
eventually got type-cast for, involved melodrama. That same old
over-acting, and that's essentially what we're talking about.
Overacting. When you tell a young actor in the theatre to just use
pre-made, and worse, pre-thought out gestures for no reason or
motivation to the character, then you're teaching them to not rely on
the emotional instincts of the role, and that is just wrong. And it
makes me a little ticked. Notice I said a little. (;> But, moving on.
> It is a craft. Like dancing or
> playing a musical instrument or building a piece of fine furniture. One
> would never criticize a musician for the grueling repetition engaged in to
> learn to play an instrument well.
But what you fail to realize is that the tools for those aforementioned
are not their emotions; they are their hands, their usage of scales,
arpeggios, legato, hemiolas. I too am a highly trained musician. I
play 15 instruments, so don't talk to me about how much grueling
rehearsal is needed. Yet once the musician/dancer learns to master the
basic tools needed to produce beautiful music, THEN it evokes an
emotional response in not only the musician but the listener.
An actor however, uses the only tool available to them: their
emotions. NOT their gestures. It is their emotions that move you as
the audience to greater emotional depths. It is their emotions that
lead you to make the good guy want to win and make you want the bad guy
to get caught. Not how grand their hand movements are. Is this making
more sense to you now? That is why Meisner, and even Strassberg in his
own way, centered their training around the EMOTIONS. Not your body
movements. These teachers, some of the best in history, knew what it
took for a professional to be successful, so they teach you how to live
truthfully under imaginary circumstances. They TEACH you. They train
you how to access those emotions. They don't say anything about
gestures! So it is those emotions in an actor that must, MUST be honed
and crafted. NOW is when we can parallel this to a craft.
> Why as actors should we be opposed to skillful execution in
> performance.
WE'RE NOT!!!!! You are. By telling this person to concentrate on her
gestures and not her emotional content, you're steering her off course.
You're saying it's alright for her to not live truthfully under her
given set of imaginary stage circumstances, and to just do something
that she thought up out of her head hours before she got on-stage. That
undermines the ENTIRE dogma of learning how to BE; learning how to just
do what your character themselves would do.
> When one claims that making considered choices as an actor is being fake --
> or "canned" I tend to wonder what that person thinks about memorizing the
> text...or even getting to the theater half an hour before the play begins.
Ha ha, you're mixing apples and oranges and then trying to draw fake
conclusions about me and all of the others who disagree with you. Of
COURSE I memorize text. That too is a ridiculous statement. Getting to
the theatre early is etiquette. And you're not doing that as a
character. The parallel once again, is unfounded.
> The reason an actor needs to focus on all of the elements that go into a
> performance (emotions included, but not to be given precedence) is so that
> the performance will be repeatable. If giving a show of equal quality to
> every audience that pays to see me is "canning it", then hand me the bees
> wax, grandma.
You couldn't be MORE wrong. First of all, you're contradictory with
yourself in saying that first, this person needs to come up with a
gesture, then you say that she needs to focus on all elements. Next,
you say the emotions should not be given precedence??????? Oh my Gosh.
I can't believe this. Let me ask you a serious question: Did you study
anywhere? How long have you studied? And what technique, if ANY, did
you study? It sounds as if you've had no formal training. That is not
a put-down; it is my observation based on what you're saying here.
The way to make a performance repeatable, is to KNOW FROM WHAT EMOTIONAL
CORE YOU'RE WORKING. Let me say that again. Know from what emotional
core you're working. Just Monday night in class, someone asked our
instructor the exact same thing: "Well how do you make it the same
performance on the 150th show?" His answer? "That is the challenge of
our craft; to make it fresh each and every night, and the way to do
that, is to find something new and exciting in your imaginary
circumstances that will spark your E-M-O-T-I-O-N-S all over again night
after night. You don't do it by coming up with a set of pre-made
gestures."
Look. If you're not being truthful with your partner or the other
actors on-stage, then they will know it, and so will the audience. And
by truthful, I mean allowing yourself to react to the text in such a way
that it evokes a strong, truthful emotion, which you then play off of.
Reg, how do you react to your partner on-stage when they get so pissed
at you that their face turns blue? When they're really giving you
something to work with? Do you just ignore that because your "gesture"
is coming up in a few more lines?????? Heaven forbid. No. You look em
square in the eye, and do what your emotions tell you to do. If that
makes you angry, then you get angry as hell. If that makes you laugh,
then you laugh. But no matter what you do, you don't sacrifice the
integrity of the text and the emotions just for some premade,
overacting. And that's what it is. Overacting. Gestures unmotivated
by the emotional core of the text. (Hey! I like that. Just made it
up. Think I'll keep it.)
> Think about why so many actors talk about having bad nights and good nights.
> What does that mean? Really? I suspect it means the performance did not feel
> right to the actor.
You suspect?? I'll tell you exactly what it means. It means that they
were not in the moment, and constantly being in the moment is something
that can be taught and learned. And by thinking about gestures, rather
than listening and reacting to your partner, takes you out of the
moment. That's why it's such a dangerous thing to concentrate on those
external things. Because you want nothing to take you out of the
moment. When an actor says that they had a bad night, they were
probably looking at the conductor as he fell backwards into the cellist
instead of looking at their partner. (Extreme example, but you know
what I mean; hopefully)
> If a person has skillfully crafted a performance there
> will not be bad nights because the actor "didn't feel it".
Wrong again. No amount of "skillfully crafting" and I use that term
loosely since I know what your connotation with it is, is going to make
an actor know how to keep reproducing the emotional content that goes
along with the performance. NO matter how many times you move your arm
in the right way, the way you've rehearsed to death, is going to make
that audience move to tears, or laugh till they blow milk out their
noses.
> The time to
> "feel it" is in rehearsal when you are exploring the play and the character.
YEOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Man, this is sad; it really is. If this is what
you think, I can only shake my head. I am truly at a loss here. The
entire reason we study and get trained in a technique such as Meisner,
is so we will have the tools to know how to emotionally reproduce the
same performance night after night, and so we will know how to keep
exploring our character afresh and anew night after night. The audience
who attends on the 75th night deserves to be moved to tears as much as
the audience who paid on the first night.
> With the help of a skillful director decisions are made about what will be
> kept in the performance (keep in mind, it ain't really about the actor, it's
> about the production
No, we're talking about stage acting here. A skillful director will
know exactly how to help you get to the emotional core of your
character, and then in the heat of an organic moment, if you do
something spontaneous out of true emotion, and he likes it, he hopefully
will be smart enough to tell you he liked what you did, and to try to
get back to that same emotional height again the next night. The stage
is about the actor. It is the actor's medium. TV and films is about
the director; it is the director's medium.
> What was it we were saying
> community theater needs?
Uh, I don't know what your point was here, but I can certainly add that
because not enough directors are trained in awareness of technique, that
we have some really lousy directors here too. And btw: if you agree
that it's about the production, then why are you still miffed that the
director didn't think the community was ready for a black prince
charming??
--
Reg Flowers
Opus (:> wrote in message <376A90F0...@iamnot.com>...
>Wow, are you off the beam on this one. I'm apologizing again, but I
>just don't mean for that to sound nasty. You just couldn't be more
>incorrect.
Not wanting to make any assumptions about your last response, it seems that
you have a very strong devotion to the Meisner Technique. And please do not
feel the need to apologize for expressing your true feelings.
So you won't feel that you are debating with someone who has absolutely no
theater background ( I have had more than a few words of advice that I seek
training -- and I agree -- but I'm not a novice), I will give you a little
of my background:
I studied at Yale School of Drama (the graduate program) with Earl Gister
and a number of incredible instructors known to be the best in their field.
I cannot say that I agree with every single thread that was woven into their
methods, but they were not bad.
Before that I got my BFA at University of the Arts. I have also studied at
Temple Universities Summer Youth Intensive and had private coaching with
variously qualified individuals. I myself have been a private coach in
theater and have a record of students being accepted into the British
American Drama Academy, Yale University and cast in major motion pictures
I suppose the student most young people would be impressed with is Sandro
Nivola, who was cast as Nicholas Cage criminal brother in Face Off a few
years ago )
I have done theater in New York and in the regions. My most recent New York
production drawing praise from the New York Times and various New York
publications. (the New York times review is a link from my Web site if you
care to bother, I wouldn't)
I received the Theater LA Ovation Award in 1996 (eons ago) for my
performance in "Angel in America" directed by Michael Mayor.
I have no major credits but I'm not absolutely a slouch and without some
grounds for my claim of experience
I will avoid further use of metaphor in this response since it seems to have
caused you some confusion in my recent postings.
I can see we are on opposite sides of the fence in terms of process here.
You seem opposed to approaching the physical life of performance in favor of
some organic method (not that the two are separate). You speak highly of
Meisner ( which I have never studied formally but have been introduced to in
seven years of formal training and 15 years as a professional). I am,
however, constantly learning new ways to work efficiently and effectively as
an actor.
I know that the way in which some actors "maintain" a performance is better
than others -- by better I mean the performance is predictable in a way that
prevents the other performers and stage workers stress or harm. I will
limit my response to the stage because that is where I have made the most
success in my career.
You define the theater as "living truthfully under imaginary circumstance".
I submit that theater is creating the "illusion" of truth. The main
difference between our two points of view is that you see performance from
the perspective of the actor and I insist upon considering a performance --
or acting as a whole -- from the perspective of the audience for whom "my"
theater solely exists.
There are questions of trust and patience as well. It will take a longer
time for an actor to learn to create the illusion of truth than it does to
exist instinctively in an imaginary world, but the payoff is great. One can
learn to summon (emotionally recall) what has been discovered and have it be
reliable and repeatable. I am talking about developing technique which is
every actors personal responsibility and only comes from hard work,
experience and an enormous amount of trust in one's ability.
PeaceActor
The best advice I got was from my father who notices that I was having
trouble with my hands.
He suggested that I just let my arms drop to my sides and not do _anything_
with my hands, unless I had to accomplish something physical.
It worked. I became comfortable with the concept of "nothingness" (as it
applied to my hands), and only from one's stillness, can one achieve action.
Now, years later, I simply Behave, Be, Do, whatever you want to call it.
Without worrying about how I look, I simply go about achieving what I (the
character) wants.
I hope that helps.
Also as Tevye, you have the freedom to be a little bold and strong with your
gestures--he is a laborer.
Robert
http://robert.prentice.net
Infanger wrote in message <7k5o7l$3vg$1...@news.mr.net>...
PeaceActor
sorry.
I realize now that you also go on tonight!
Break a leg!!
David M. Evans
> circumstances."
________________________________________________________________
I agree entirely Carla, but the goal is to be natural, and contribute one's performance to creating what is actually, the "illusion" of reality. I believe there are as many ways to achieve this as there are stars in the sky.
It is simply an individual thing. There is no one truth, no black and white for me on this particular issue.
What works for Reg works for Reg. What works for you works for you. What works for me. . . etc.
David M. Evans
> would never criticize a musician for the grueling repetition engaged in to
> learn to play an instrument well.
And I would add, many musician's talent allows them to learn to play "by ear". This is not to say they don't need to rehearse and practice, but I feel these individuals just let it happen. It's the same with acting and actors. Some are intuitive, some need to analyze and apply layers of technique, some do both.
All of us are unique individuals. The tough part of the job is finding what works for you.
What is it that makes it "feel right" consistently? And is "it" consistent from one role to the next?
I agree that at least for me Reg, rehearsal is where I find the ingredients I need for the finished "product".
You're on a roll today Reg, and BTW, A Black Prince Charming would be fantastic.
"The art of acting consists in keeping people from coughing."
- Sir Ralph Richardson
Bill
> I studied at Yale School of Drama (the graduate program) with Earl Gister
> and a number of incredible instructors known to be the best in their field.
Reg,
I don't want to become involved in this thread, rather I'm curious if
your time at Yale overlapped with that of my old mentor, Bobby Lewis.
Break a leg,
Bill
--
THE ACTING STUDIO
http://gvtg.com/theactingstudio
Opus (:>
would be nice to see someone else's opinion on this matter besides my
own. I just haven't had the time to respond in detail to his last post.
--
Bill
>
> Why not Bill? You certainly know what you're talking about, and it
> would be nice to see someone else's opinion on this matter besides my
> own. I just haven't had the time to respond in detail to his last post.
Nor do I, Opus. I was just asking this poster about a possible
connection with my mentor, Bobby Lewis.... and am also curious about
what's happened with the Yale program. Margaret Mancinelli, who I
recommended to the Directing MFA program, swears by the connections (not
the training) she made there.
Hmmmm, I've learned my lesson... I should have taken the time to write
to Reg privately.
beckynot
Bill wrote:
>
> "... I'm curious if
David M. Evans
thought you should know
--
"What's he then that says I play the villain?"
Remove NOSPAM to reply
Opus (:> <sp...@iamnot.com> wrote in message news:376C6513...@iamnot.com...
> > Not wanting to make any assumptions about your last response, it seems that
> > you have a very strong devotion to the Meisner Technique.
>
> Um, yes, I guess I do. But I also have a strong devotion to
> Stanislavski. Meisner just happens to be the one I'm immersed in study
> with at the present.
>
> <Snip list of credits>
> Hmmm. Well, I guess I should be impressed by that, and I know you
> weren't listing them just to impress me, so we'll move on. But, with
> how you say you approach a character, and all of the training you've had
> along with experience, I can't see how you've developed the ideas that
> you have, unless, as I suspect, the college program at Yale is just not
> above any other college training one receives. I guess just because
> it's Yale doesn't necessarily make it a good one. (;> It obviously
> sounds like, from the awards you dropped in there, that you've had some
> great performances though.
>
> > I will avoid further use of metaphor in this response since it seems to
> > have caused you some confusion in my recent postings.
>
> Good idea; I think you weren't coming off clearly with the use of them,
> and hence, possibly clouded what you were trying to say.
>
> > You seem opposed to approaching the physical life of performance in favor of
> > some organic method (not that the two are separate). You speak highly of
> > Meisner
>
> Yes, I guess I am opposed to that physical aspect, since it is the text
> that should be explored and considered to be more important. The only,
> and ONLY time I approach a character from the physical, is when I am
> doing an EXTERNAL CHARACTER. And then I usually begin to work from the
> wardrobe and accent. Those are the two that defines the *person* for me
> firstly, then the rest of the physicalizations come. But that is all I
> do with physicalizations. And I think there is a difference in defining
> one's person, as opposed to already having a character mapped out on
> stage, feeling bored and then trying to find some place to put your
> hands.
>
> Organic method, is exactly the term. By studying Meisner, you go
> through processes and exercises of learning how to let your reactions
> completely stem from your organic center. If your reactions are not
> motivated by the text, and are not natural, then the opposite of natural
> is fake. If you are hindered emotionally from giving yourself over to
> the text, then there will be no emotional depth to your performance.
>
> Meisner, in the beginning of his book, tells us about a George Bernard
> Shaw 1895 review of an Italian actress by the name of Eleanora Duse.
> Without going into the particulars, she was doing a performance once,
> and she was in a position where a guy who had gotten her pregnant and
> dumped her, suddenly came back to see her 25 years later. She and the
> young man were then sitting in the living room. When she looked up at
> him to see how much he had altered, she began to blush. As Meisner
> says, "All of a sudden she realizes that she's blushing, and it gets so
> bad that she drops her head and hides her face in embarrassment. Now
> that's a piece of realistic acting! It doesn't happen to her everytime,
> but that blush is the epitome of living truthfully under imaginary
> circumstances, which is my definition of good acting. That blush came
> out of *HER*. She was a genius!"
>
> Reg, that one blush could never have been rehearsed, or expected. "An
> ounce of emotion is worth a pound of words."
>
> I guess I should give you some of why I speak highly of Meisner. About
> a year ago, I got with a private coach here in town, since I felt like I
> just wasn't getting to the next level of my career where I should be.
> During our sessions together, we discovered that I had no real basis of
> technique to speak of. No foundational teaching, and I have a minor in
> Theatre Arts from one of the top ten colleges in Liberal arts in the
> country. But Stanislavski was only a test question and never explored.
>
> So she suggested that I get into classes in which a technique was being
> taught. Now, without bringing up that old Strassberg vs. Meisner
> argument, she was not a personal proponent of Strasberg, and she knew no
> one in town who taught it to begin with, so Meisner was our choice. I
> decided to be open to it.
>
> The reason I'm so vehement about not approaching a role from your mind,
> but your gut reactions to the text, is because for 4 years, that's the
> only kind of acting I'd done. I have been told that I'm one of the top
> comedic actresses in the area by some of my peers, yet I found myself
> not progressing like I wanted to. I got leads in roles where overacting
> is what the audience actually paid for, and to give them realistic
> technique was death. They didn't want to see realism; they wanted to
> laugh themselves into a stooper, pat you on the head and tell you what a
> great job you did, then go home feeling great about themselves. That
> wasn't enough for me.
>
> So what I'm saying, is that before I had any technique awareness or
> training, I approached all of my roles from the exact same way. "Well,
> what am I going to do that's funny here?" "I think this needs a
> gesture." "Hey. I wonder if a fall would be great here?" "I think
> breaking the fourth wall would be a hoot right now." It was expected of
> me, and I was the best around for doing it. I am known by some
> directors to just take off on an improv when the time's right, and
> that's not only expected of me, but asked of me, for comedic effect. In
> fact, that's what gets me hired by certain directors. They love it that
> I'm not afraid to improv. BUT, it was doing nothing to further my
> career. I needed something more.
>
> So I bought all of the books on technique I could get my hands on, and
> read. Read, read, read. Then I took notes, and read them again. Then,
> when a class came up, I enrolled. I studied with a guy who went to
> Julliard, and he and I talked a lot about comedy. He said watching me
> trying not to be funny was as painful as watching Robin Williams trying
> to hold it in. So we began to talk about that fine line that occurs
> when you're trying to go for the comedy, but yet remain realistic and in
> the moment. It's a VERY fine line, and I'm still trying to find it. So
> it's in my nature to be naturally funny, but I wasn't being completely
> truthful to the text at the same time.
>
> > You define the theater as "living truthfully under imaginary circumstance".
>
> Meisner's quote; not mine.
>
> > The main
> > difference between our two points of view is that you see performance from
> > the perspective of the actor and I insist upon considering a performance --
> > or acting as a whole -- from the perspective of the audience for whom "my"
> > theater solely exists.
>
> I'm not sure why you'd be concerned about that, if you are acting at
> this particular juncture. If you're directing, then great. It's your
> job to worry about all of it. But if you're acting, then the only thing
> you need to worry about is whether you're living in the moment and
> reacting to each and every thing going on within your 4 walls. If you
> are truly doing that every single night, then your performance will
> automatically re-create itself anew each time you perform. I would
> think you're going to drive yourself crazy worrying over extraneous
> things that have nothing to do, nor should have anything to do with what
> you do.
>
> > There are questions of trust and patience as well. It will take a longer
> > time for an actor to learn to create the illusion of truth than it does to
> > exist instinctively in an imaginary world, but the payoff is great.
>
> How so? Honestly, I've never ever heard of anyone even teaching this
> kind of thing. It's much easier to just live truthfully under imaginary
> circumstances, than to worry about creating another illusion. That way,
> you've got all of your bases covered. Sounds like maybe you're making
> this harder than it has to be.
>
> > One can
> > learn to summon (emotionally recall) what has been discovered and have it be
> > reliable and repeatable.
>
> Ah-ha. Strasberg's fatal flaw. What he failed to realize, is that your
> memory is a very unreliable tool where the emotions are concerned. What
> effects you deeply on one day, will not have the same effect on you the
> next, so therefore, you cannot trust it to be able to summon the things
> that are going to be used as tools for a performance. If you are
> relying on your memory to make your performance the same night after
> night, then forget it. It ain't gonna happen. It can't; it's humanly
> impossible.
>
> And besides. NOW you suddenly mention the emotions and how to summon
> them? But why? Don't you have your gestures down pat? You've
> maintained through this whole thread that one does not need them. That
> one can successfully repeat a performance based on gestures and
> affectations alone. That the emotions are only secondary in importance
> to the physical. Hmmm. Sounds as if maybe you're not even sold on your
> own ideas, for you've just bounced around.
>
> > I am talking about developing technique which is
> > every actors personal responsibility and only comes from hard work,
> > experience and an enormous amount of trust in one's ability.
>
> Yes, and so am I. So what's your point? If one wishes to be a great or
> even good actor, of course it's their responsibility to obtain
> training. However, the technique I'm talking about, is one grounded on
> the text and the emotions it evokes. Not centered around gestures.
Opus (:>
Opus (:>
that Yale's curriculum is right on THE mark each and every time, from
one year to the next? No, and very naive to think that way. I'm not
going into an analysis of their curriculum to determine it's worth, but
from what I've heard so far, it just doesn't sound as if what they're
teaching is some of the more common thoughts on the subject.
> I agree entirely Carla, but the goal is to be natural, and contribute one's
> performance to creating what is actually, the "illusion" of reality.
Exactly, except I don't agree that it's an illusion at the time you're
onstage. To you, for all intents and purposes, it's real. Period. And
I've been saying that throughout all of my previous posts. Sounds like
we're on the same side on that one, so I don't get what you're saying.
My point, was that the more you concentrate on gesture and affectations,
then the more the performance is going to appear to be canned, instead
of being truthful and natural, as if that's the way everyone would
react. Anytime you take yourself out of the moment, it's going to take
you out of character, which in turn is going to create a stilted,
contrived performance. No more will it seem natural and unrehearsed;
the spontaneity will be gone.
> What works for Reg works for Reg. What works for you works for you. What
> works for me. . . etc.
Uh, yes of course. ????? However, we were discussing this issue, both
sides of the coin. No harm in that. That's what this group is for;
sharing information. I wasn't saying anything to the contrary. Perhaps
I get a little emphatic in my viewpoints, but doesn't everybody? That
certainly doesn't make me any less open-minded.
David M. Evans
Thought I should know. Like I didn't?
Sorry, didn't know if you did or not- I know I didn't until about a year
ago.(re: Yale Drama)
> Does that automatically mean
> that Yale's curriculum is right on THE mark each and every time, from
> one year to the next? No, and very naive to think that way.
Never said that- In fact I am very uncomfortable with the idea that
instruction in any creative endeavor can be "on the mark". Art is
subjective. As is technique.
>No, and very naive to think that way. I'm not
> going into an analysis of their curriculum to determine it's worth,
And even if you did, this analysis would still only reflect YOUR truth.
The quality of Art is not quantifiable. It is not geometry.
>To you, for all intents and purposes, it's real. Period.
Agreed. That happens for me intuitively. It just happens. I have no idea
why that is- If I tried to explain to you how it does, I couldn't. And
if I could- it would still only be how it is for ME.
> I've been saying that throughout all of my previous posts. Sounds >like we're on the same side on that one, so I don't get what you're >saying
I was not taking "sides" my entire point is that acting is not written
in stone. What's important is what works for an individual- and the
proof is the product on stage. And even then it is inthe eye of the
beholder- I have seen performances I thought were great, others thought
they stunk.And vice versa. The audience brings it's own experience and
colors each moment based on the individual perception. The audience's
suspension of disbelief is the successful creation of the illusion. It
matters not a whit whether the performer feels real or not to the
performer. In fact, I know of veteran actors who take PRIDE in not
feeling a thing! I wonder why they act- but there are such actors, and
working ones at that.
> My point, was that the more you concentrate on gesture and affectations,
> then the more the performance is going to appear to be canned, instead
> of being truthful and natural, as if that's the way everyone would
> react. Anytime you take yourself out of the moment, it's going to > take you out of character, which in turn is going to create a stilted,
> contrived performance. No more will it seem natural and unrehearsed;
> the spontaneity will be gone.
I understand your point perfectly Carla, and what you say is also true
of me.I would never dream of it. I would never coach someone to do these
things, either. But who am I to say they may not work for someone who
has been exposed to every technique in the book and opts for this
approach?
>
> > What works for Reg works for Reg. What works for you works for you. What works for me. . . etc.
>
> Uh, yes of course. ????? However, we were discussing this issue, both sides of the coin. No harm in that. That's what this group is for;sharing information. I wasn't saying anything to the contrary. PerhapsI get a little emphatic in my viewpoints, but doesn't everybody?That certainly doesn't make me any less open-minded.
I was only pointing out that there is more than one way to skin a cat-
I did not mean to imply you were not open-minded. It just seemed like
you were being a little adamant. My mistake. I was actually attempting a
reconcilliation of what I feel is essentially a non-issue. Certainly did
not mean to imply total disagreement or agreement with either P.O.V.
--
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in HERE! This is the war room!"
-President Merkin Muffley
Remove NOSPAM to reply
Opus (:>
guess we all have at some time. Yes I have been adamant; I'm learning
so much about this topic, so I like discussing it emphatically. It's so
nice to have an actual acting DISCUSSION on here lately. Non-issue?
Hmmm. I don't know. Could be one of those things that is relevant to
one and non-essential to another.
Oh life. Life, life, life. Okay, I'm sleepy now. You know, I wished
that more folks would've jumped in and shared their own p.o.v's.
Would've made for a more lively discussion. Anyway, I've enjoyed it.
--
David M. Evans
Anyway, I've enjoyed it.
Me too Carla- Usually I don't get involved with technique discussions
because people often are so married to their own concepts. But this one
intriqued me, mainly because Reg's point was such HERESY! LOL
Sleepy too, nighty night.
> > --
> > "Gentlemen! You can't fight in HERE! This is the war room!"
> > -President Merkin Muffley
> > Remove NOSPAM to reply
>
> --
>
> Opus (:>
> http://www.Carla.Coble.com - Acting site; not all links are viable yet.
> http://members.home.net/coble/OpusGraphics -Websets and Graphics
> http://drewcarey.acmecity.com/kate/43 -Blade Pro Presets
>
> "Well my dad has only had 4 bypasses, and he eats all the steak he
> wants."-- Hank Hill
--
Opus (:>
Reg Flowers
The shame for me was that so many assumptions have been made about my
technique that it astounds me I'm having a discussion with actors who
believe in remaining open to the truth.
The "instincts" in reading my responses have been in out of the spirit of
"good forum" where one responds with ideas on the topic (which in this case
was Gestures) and not directly to an individual to tell them they are wrong.
(i.e. I'm sorry, Reg, you are wrong)
It seems that one person agreed with me on one pointy and that is
"The audience's suspension of disbelief is the successful creation of the
illusion."
I am a very emotional actor and individual. I have had to carefully consider
each of my responses before posting so I would not subject the NG to my
knee-jerk response to the condescension and mocking I felt from some in
regard to my prior submissions. I am simply sharing the experience of being
a working actor who is confronted with the truth of what goes during actual
production.
I would love to sit in with my most talented friends and do nothing but
experiment with deepening relationships and emotions (which I have never had
an issue with -- I'm one of those actors you hate that can cry on cue every
time AND HOW I BELIEVE) but I know most directors, producers, designers and
audiences are not interested in what goes on inside my mind and my heart.
They are interested in what I cause to occur in their minds and their hearts
and that is probably as it should be, else why would they go to the theater?
Real emotion is often too small for the stage. I laugh at myself when I'm
bawling real tears like a fountain and afterwards consider the FACT that no
one in the balcony saw so much as a single tear fall. I felt it but the
folks who paid good money in the second tier were scratching their heads.
If I want to act just because I like to feel emotions and experience new
characters, then I should definitely only work from the inside. But if I am
trying to tell a story, I have to consider the medium and do what is
necessary to make the story clear (let the audience judge whether it's good
or truthful)
Now, I'm sure many folks are not concerned with my meager little theater
career or theater in general, but if you think theater demands behavioral
adjustments...what about film? In film you don't get nearly the opportunity
as in theater to exist in the given circumstances. You get a few moments at
a time. You have to be on your mark. Sometimes acting to a stand-in because
the shot is your angle and the other actor has been sent on break
In the BUSINESS of theater and film and entertainment and art, there are
adjustments that must be made to generate product so one must have the tools
in place to make those adjustments on a dime or else there can be no career.
Finally, a warning:
Those who cherish working with actors who are only interested in the reality
of a scene:
What happens when you have a scene were that person kills you?
I'm not just being argumentative when I put that forth. I have known actors
who have thrown their scene partner from the stage -- one who tried to
strangle his scene partner. I had an actor leap on me while I was onstage
in a mask and I was knocked down and left to foolishly scramble to my feet.
I had an actor get so angry with me that he left the stage before the scene
was over
There was one comment I made about having a broken leg and dealing with it.
The response was "what does that have to do with it?" EVERYTHING. You
cannot depend on the reality. If my character is sick I cannot act myself
truly sick (or if I could it would be of little benefit after one
performance). If my character hates your character, I should never have to
feel myself hating, what if I have never hated anyone, how do I know if I'm
doing it right. I would have to create the shape of hate. Better I create
the shape of the moment otherwise we fall into playing qualities.
I have some much to say about technique but I can't go on about it any more
in this thread just because the energy seems more about disagreeing than
sharing practical experience and technique.
I would be crushed to have anymore responses that were simply to dispute as
opposed to adding actual examples of effective ways to WORK and not just
theory or ideals of acting which we mostly agree upon anyway and are
completely useless in a production environment.
I am filtering this subject line out so if you want to discuss this with me
you'll have to respond to me directly in a new message or start a new thread
focusing on this new topic, since the focus of this topic was supposed to be
GESTURES a valid topic that was totally and tragically avoided.
RF
Opus (:>
out, would you? I thought we were having a good discussion about
technique, both sharing what we know to be true, when suddenly I'm
accused of condescension and mocking.
> I have had to carefully consider
> each of my responses before posting so I would not subject the NG to my
> knee-jerk response to the condescension and mocking I felt from some in
> regard to my prior submissions.
YOU FELT being the key words here. I was doing none of that. Didn't
even consider it.
I too was using what I know to be good forum. And I do believe I was
told, BY YOU, to not apologize for saying what I felt. I've been in
tons of conversations where I have been told 'no Carla, you're wrong
about that', and of course things progressed as normal. No shouting, no
accusations, and life keeps on a spinnin.
> I am simply sharing the experience of being
> a working actor who is confronted with the truth of what goes during actual
> production.
And so was I. I've have done just as much as you have in "the
BUSINESS".
<snip rest>
> Finally, a warning:
>
> Those who cherish working with actors who are only interested in the reality
> of a scene:
>
> What happens when you have a scene were that person kills you?
>
> I'm not just being argumentative when I put that forth. I have known actors
> who have thrown their scene partner from the stage -- one who tried to
> strangle his scene partner. I had an actor leap on me while I was onstage
> in a mask and I was knocked down and left to foolishly scramble to my feet.
> I had an actor get so angry with me that he left the stage before the scene
> was over
>
> There was one comment I made about having a broken leg and dealing with it.
> The response was "what does that have to do with it?" EVERYTHING.
A WARNING? Like now you're trying to make everyone look out for those
who like to work from their emotions? And as for the broken leg, I
thought we agreed that you would leave out the analogies, since you
yourself said it confused the issues? Why are you responding to that
now? I just did not happen to agree with how you viewed the two as
being parallel, that's all, and I said that.
> You
> cannot depend on the reality. If my character is sick I cannot act myself
> truly sick (or if I could it would be of little benefit after one
> performance). If my character hates your character, I should never have to
> feel myself hating, what if I have never hated anyone, how do I know if I'm
> doing it right. I would have to create the shape of hate. Better I create
> the shape of the moment otherwise we fall into playing qualities.
If that's what you believe, then so be it. I disagree completely and
totally with you, and apparently Meisner, Stanislavski, and everyone
that these men taught did also. Just how do YOU act sick then?
In this month's newsletter by Ed Hooks, he gives some quotes from
Aristotle's apologetics, and the one I like, is: "Given equal natural
talent, those dramatists who are themselves emotionally affected are
most convincing; one who is himself distressed distresses, one who is
angry conveys anger most realistically."
That was written over 2000 years ago, and I did not write it, but I
believe in it.
> just because the energy seems more about disagreeing than
> sharing practical experience and technique.
You know, it's perfectly fine to disagree Reg. There's nothing wrong
with it. If we all agreed, then it would be dull conversation.
Disagreeing stimulates the mind. It stimulates the thinking. It's a
shame that you apparently viewed it as an affront, which is certainly
not how it was meant. If you read all of the threads, then you saw
David Evans and I disagree about some things last night, but we said
good night and went to bed. No big deal. I guess I've touched some
nerve in you is all I can think of, so for that I apologize. But I've
enjoyed talking about this. And I've had people writing to me privately
saying that it's been a fascinating thread for them to read also. So,
by talking about it in a public forum, AND DISAGREEING every once in a
while, lots of people learn from that, lots of new questions are touched
upon and THAT is what a forum such as a ng is about.
If I wanted to just disagree for the sake of it, then I have parents to
talk to. But we BOTH were sharing our points of view, and I happen to
disagree with some of yours. Does that mean the conversation should
end? Good grief, I hope not. What is the point of sharing information
and p.o.v. if you are not going to then talk about them?
> I would be crushed to have anymore responses that were simply to dispute as
> opposed to adding actual examples of effective ways to WORK and not just
> theory or ideals of acting which we mostly agree upon anyway and are
> completely useless in a production environment.
Yeow! Now that's condescension. You have taken my words, words in
which I've also spent a lot of time mulling over, thinking of the
correct ones, and you've completely told me in a line or two that I'm
full of sh--, and I don't appreciate that one bit. For God's sake, I
thought I WAS adding actual examples and effective ways to work. What
the hell would you call it? You think I just spent three hours of my
life and 500 lines of worthless code just to tell you that the sun is
shining? So what you're saying now is that you've been the only one
here to give brilliant examples of how to work EFFECTIVELY? You know
what that says to me? That YOU DISAGREE with me. So please do not yell
at me for disagreeing. You know, I didn't put down anything you've
said. I questioned lots of it, but I've never stooped to say what you
just did to me. We WERE discussing theory; theory about how to approach
a character.
> since the focus of this topic was supposed to be
> GESTURES a valid topic that was totally and tragically avoided.
You speak in generalities an awful LOT of the time. Where in hell did
that topic get avoided? Lots of folks gave her great advice, and she
thanked all of us for it. She even thanked you I believe. You call
THAT avoiding? Stop being dramatic and grow up. You got your feelings
hurt, and now you're pouting. Well cut it out.
I have enjoyed reading what you have to say up until this point, and
you'll probably have a lot more good things to say. When you finally
cool down, I'm sure that things will be fine and this will not seem like
such a big deal to you.
After that next to the last paragraph however, I have no desire to
continue this further with you, since I do not wish for every one of my
ideas to be A) dumped on and called ineffective and theoretical (hey
babe, it's ALL theory) B) be accused of wanting nothing more than to be
argumentative and C) to suffer more condescension from you.
Good day, and best of luck to you; and I mean that.
MANDRLAW
My 2 cents: inside, outside, it's all tools for the toolbox. Use what works.
My experience (Northwestern undergrad, Meisner training in NYC, dozens of
productions onstage and on camera) has been that the best work feels like an
improv every night. Yes, of course you know the next moment, so does your
partner (and you maintain a level of consistency throughout the run), but you
gotta forget that you do, or you DO get that "canned" feeling.
Note to Reg re: keeping your fellows safe and secure from night to night:
You said it. I once worked with a guy who was so into "I must FEEEEEL the
moment" that he nearly killed me one night. I had no idea what he'd do from
show to show. (I should've been tipped off by the fact that he was immersed in
a Brando biography during rehearsals!)
Anyway. All tools for the toolbox.
Opus (:>
supposed to get angry with me. Of course the director allowed us to
improv most of that blocking, and he left bruises on my neck and arm
every night. I was glad when THAT run was over. Of course he had never
had any technique training either....
--
Zrky
>moment" that he nearly killed me one night.
He was an idiot! The "rules" of acting, as I learned them: Don't hurt
yourself. Don't hurt anyone else. Don't leave the scene.
This whole choreographing of gestures thing? Who teaches that? Has anyone
simply told the original poster that GENERALLY emotions will drive the gestures
and if you've been given gestures by the director, it your job as an actor to
find the emotion that would cause that gesture?
Opus (:>
someone got into it with me over the whole thing. I finally had to shut
up, since I was apparently offending this person, not only with WHAT I
was saying, but the WAY I was saying it.
Finally a bunch of people chimed in, and said that however you get there
is fine; it all works differently for different folks. Which is true,
but tonight after class, I was talking with my Meisner instructor about
that very thing. I told him that yes, even Stanislavski had said once
that you could get to the emotional core through externals, but it was
extremely hard. You know what he said to me? The ones who can
truthfully do that, and successfully, are ones who have had the other
knowledge and training. That is icing on the cake, but you cannot rely
on the mind, through use of some external gesture, to get you to that
emotional center, and he said the ones who were being truthful about
being able to do it, are ones who have had years of other technique
training. His bottom line? If a performer cannot connect emotionally
to their own character, then their performance is not going to bring any
emotion out of you, the audience.
So yes, thank you! I tried to say the exact same things, and the more I
discussed it, the more I got accused of things that just hadn't even
occurred to me.
Oh well. Live and learn.
--
MANDRLAW
break the furniture.
>I told him that yes, even Stanislavski had said once
>that you could get to the emotional core through externals, but it was
>extremely hard. You know what he said to me? The ones who can
>truthfully do that, and successfully, are ones who have had the other
>knowledge and training. That is icing on the cake, but you cannot rely
>on the mind, through use of some external gesture, to get you to that
>emotional center, and he said the ones who were being truthful about
>being able to do it, are ones who have had years of other technique
>training.
Agreed. Still, you pull the goods from wherever you can. Sometimes you delve
and delve, and it's puting on the guy's coat that makes everything come
together for you.
Great old story about Maurice Evans, doing the "G.I." Hamlet in the 40's. He
was the producer and playing Hamlet, and could allegedly be standing in the
wings smoking a cigarette, talking to the stage manager about the box office
take that night -- "How much!? That's terrible!" -- hear his cue, stub out the
cigarette and go on into the scene! (How emotionally connected the resulting
scene was is anybody's guess, but I like the image just the same).