Do you recognize signs of intelligent life?
davidand...@my-deja.com
or have you been brainwashed by the media?
http://justice4jfk.tripod.com/jfk.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
lal...@my-deja.com
actors's creative powers seem to be blocked by the preoccupation with
the public, with fame, the presence of which seems to constrict their
inner freedom.....please pick up a "stanislavksi's legacy" and give it
a read...., intelligence?? maybe, but mostly just shallow trivial,
inartistic stuff....what it really means to be truthful on stage, well
i haven't seen anything like that discussed in this forum if that's
what you mean.
"an actor cannot be merely someone, somewhere, at some time or other.
They must be I, here, today.
-from conversations with senior actors of the Art Thearte (April 1936)
mary
These things such a truth on stage (much more needed, for film may I add,
stage is so overdramatic, it is hard to be truthful) have been discussed in
detail over and over...If you are so intelligent why don't you do a search
and see what you come up with. Only someone that did not check the facts
would make such a comment and not "see" past their nose>
Mary
<lal...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8k9hc6$k9d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
jame...@my-deja.com
> rarely in this forum is there signs of intelligenr life....
I love people who attack the intelligence of others that haven't mastered the
simple skills of matching verb tense, capitalization and spelling...
When you start your argument with three mistakes like that, it's hard to take
anything else you say seriously.
mary
stage" comment <VBG> I only meant that being "real" on stage is bigger than
on screen. I have felt every character I have ever played on stage and
sometime even more so than on film because I have that chance to "become"
for a whole 6-9 wks instead of a few hours or days. Know what I mean?
Just wanted to head off any possible attacks <VBG>he he he I love stage
work
<lal...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8k9hc6$k9d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> rarely in this forum is there signs of intelligenr life....most of the
> actors's creative powers seem to be blocked by the preoccupation with
> the public, with fame, the presence of which seems to constrict their
> inner freedom.....please pick up a "stanislavksi's legacy" and give it
> a read...., intelligence?? maybe, but mostly just shallow trivial,
> inartistic stuff....what it really means to be truthful on stage, well
> i haven't seen anything like that discussed in this forum if that's
> what you mean.
>
>
>
>
> "an actor cannot be merely someone, somewhere, at some time or other.
> They must be I, here, today.
>
> -from conversations with senior actors of the Art Thearte (April 1936)
>
>
lal...@my-deja.com
but because 55% of english speakers are functionally illiterate i
figured it wouldn't matter.....
In article <8ka2b6$tst$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
jame...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > rarely in this forum is there signs of intelligenr life....
>
> I love people who attack the intelligence of others that haven't
mastered the
> simple skills of matching verb tense, capitalization and spelling...
>
> When you start your argument with three mistakes like that, it's hard
to take
> anything else you say seriously.
>
DgSWEET
Uh, that should be, "Rarely in this forum ARE there signs ... "
>most of the actors's creative powers seem to be blocked by the preoccupation
...
This should be either "actors'" not "actors's"
Before taking shots at others, one should be pretty sure of having secure
cover. People in glass houses should buy curtains.
lal...@my-deja.com
> Well you are wrong about that!
>
> These things such a truth on stage (much more needed, for film may I
add,
> stage is so overdramatic, it is hard to be truthful) have been
discussed in
> detail over and over...If you are so intelligent why don't you do a
search
> and see what you come up with. Only someone that did not check the
facts
> would make such a comment and not "see" past their nose>
>
been there, done that, there's just this shit going on, petty quarrels
p...@antisocial.com
her grammar, yes that is very intelligent isn't it.
Spelling and grammar are not an indication of intelligence, look more
to the content please, she does have a point.
Eric Jarvis
>
> rarely in this forum is there signs of intelligenr life....most of the
> actors's creative powers seem to be blocked by the preoccupation with
> the public, with fame, the presence of which seems to constrict their
> inner freedom.....please pick up a "stanislavksi's legacy" and give it
> a read...., intelligence?? maybe, but mostly just shallow trivial,
> inartistic stuff....what it really means to be truthful on stage, well
> i haven't seen anything like that discussed in this forum if that's
> what you mean.
>
I'm not a big fan of truthful as the be all and end all of what
happens on stage...there must be a truth at the core of a
production otherwise it has nothing to anchor itself in the same
universe as the audience...but for me that is the only place
truth is essential...beyond that core I'm more concerned about
commitment
reality is not the only benchmark of great theatre...dreams are
important too...sometimes a two dimensional performance can show
things much more clearly than three dimensional...at those times
what matters is commitment to the dream
one of my favourite ways to approach a play (when it's
appropriate) is to portray a realistic central character
surrounded by "cartoon" characters that are larger than life and
very starkly portrayed...the truth in those cases is only there
for the central characters and the audience...the other
performers must concentrate on being committed to the
unbelievable
when it works it can be as rich as reality but much easier to
understand...but it's very hard to get it to work...largely
because more and more actors are trained to believe that the only
way you can judge a performance is by how "real" it seemed
in theatre dreams have as much validity as reality, otherwise
there is no point having theatre at all
--
eric
"all characters portrayed in this post are fictional and should
not be confused"
mary
and see what insues. If you are not happy with what you have found in your
searches then redirect your topic.
<lal...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ka77f$o9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > Well you are wrong about that!
> >
> > These things such a truth on stage (much more needed, for film may I
> add,
> > stage is so overdramatic, it is hard to be truthful) have been
> discussed in
> > detail over and over...If you are so intelligent why don't you do a
> search
> > and see what you come up with. Only someone that did not check the
> facts
> > would make such a comment and not "see" past their nose>
> >
>
>
> been there, done that, there's just this shit going on, petty quarrels
>
>
Jack Shaw
DgSWEET wrote:
> >rarely in this forum is there signs of intelligenr life
>
> Uh, that should be, "Rarely in this forum ARE there signs ... "
>
> >most of the actors's creative powers seem to be blocked by the preoccupation
> ...
>
> This should be either "actors'" not "actors's"
When one uses and "either" there is usually an "or." What happened here
> Before taking shots at others, one should be pretty sure of having secure
> cover. People in glass houses should buy curtains.
Good advice if one follows it.
Jack
mary
etc.....These subjects all have threads addressing the topic of "Being
Real". In the process you will find there is often many good discussions in
this group. So what if we all vent from time to time...Hell it feels good!
Only "Real" actors understand this need.
If you want "on topic only" discussions check out the Greenroom and ActPro,
but even there you better watch it :), don't get to cocky or you'll be
chewed up and spit out. Lurk for a while before jumping in, you'll save
yourself a lot of ego bashing <VBG>
Always being real,
Mary
<lal...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8k9hc6$k9d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> rarely in this forum is there signs of intelligenr life....most of the
> actors's creative powers seem to be blocked by the preoccupation with
> the public, with fame, the presence of which seems to constrict their
> inner freedom.....please pick up a "stanislavksi's legacy" and give it
> a read...., intelligence?? maybe, but mostly just shallow trivial,
> inartistic stuff....what it really means to be truthful on stage, well
> i haven't seen anything like that discussed in this forum if that's
> what you mean.
>
>
>
>
> They must be I, here, today.
>
> -from conversations with senior actors of the Art Thearte (April 1936)
>
>
starfish
"Eric Jarvis" wrote
>judge a performance is by how "real" it seemed
> in theatre dreams have as much validity as reality, >otherwise
> there is no point having theatre at all
Yeah but not truth as in "real", or truth as in "true to life" but meaning
it in this way:
"What does it really mean to be truthful on the stage? Does it mean that
you conduct yourself as you do in ordinary life? Not at all. Truthfulness
in those terms would be sheer triviality. There is the same difference
between artistic truth and inartistic truth as exist between a painting and
a photograph: the latter reproduces everything, the former only what is
essential; to put the essential on canvas requires the talent of a painter."
"creativeness on the stage, whether during the preparation of a part or
during its repeated perfomance, demands complete concentration of all your
physical and innner nature, the participation of all your physical and inner
faculties" :
that sort of truth, here's a wonderful passage
'"I know that everything by which I am surrounded on the stage is only a
crude representation of reality, that it is all make-believe. But if it
were real this is how I would relate myself to this manifestation, this is
how I would act" And from the instant that his soul is aware of the magic
phrase "if it were", the actual world around him ceases to interest him, he
is are carried off to another plane, to a life created by his imagination.
However, in giving himself up to it he may involuntarily alter its
factualness both in his invented framework for that life and in the feelings
related to it. His imaginary structure may prove illogical, untrue and he
will lose faith in it. The feelings aroused by this image, his inner
reactions to imagined circumstances may appear "contrived" and do not
correspond to the nature of a given emotion. Finally in his expressoin of
the inner life of his character, who is after all a complex human being, who
has never been in sufficiently perfect control of his entire human
apparatus, he may give false intonation, may not observe a sense of artistic
measure in his gesticulation, or he may be tempted to gain some cheap
effect, he may become mannered or stilted. In order to ward off all these
dangers which threaten the road of his stage creativeness and actor must
without let-up work on the development of his "sense of truth", which
supervises all of his inner and physical activity both when he is creating
and also when he is performing his part. It is only when his *sense of
truth* is throughly developed that he will reach the point when every pose,
every gesutre will have an *inner justification*, which is to say they
express the state of the person he is portraying and do not merely serve the
pursposes of external beauty, as all sorts of conventional gestures and
poses do.'
I love everything about that passage, except the fact that it's all *his*.
OK so that's what I take 'truthfulness' or 'artistic truth' to mean, whether
in a fantasy theatre, theatre dreams, Beckett's Endgame, Shakespearen plays
or an Ibsen play, truth is still needed. A perfect illustration of this in
that play by Pirandello - Six characters in search of an author. The good
old dramatic illusion V dramatic reality, illusions and reality in theatre
and real life, a big paradox really, ok, well, peace now.
jame...@my-deja.com
> Oh I see, you can't think of anything intelligent to say so you pick on
> her grammar, yes that is very intelligent isn't it.
>
> Spelling and grammar are not an indication of intelligence, look more
> to the content please, she does have a point.
I felt it was very appropriate to point out the irony of a person complaining
about intelligence while showing a lack of basic communication skills that
every actor should possess. I'm not saying she's not intelligent, but she
communicated her point in an unintelligent way.
As to her point, she seems to be frustrated with the "petty quarrels" in this
group. Judging from the sarcastic, baiting tone of your post, I think that
point was lost on you.
Eric Jarvis
>
> "Eric Jarvis" wrote
>
> > judge a performance is by how "real" it seemed
> > in theatre dreams have as much validity as reality, otherwise
> > there is no point having theatre at all
>
> Yeah but not truth as in "real", or truth as in "true to life" but
> meaning it in this way:
>
> "What does it really mean to be truthful on the stage? Does it mean
> that you conduct yourself as you do in ordinary life? Not at all.
> Truthfulness in those terms would be sheer triviality. There is the
> same difference between artistic truth and inartistic truth as exist
> between a painting and a photograph: the latter reproduces
> everything, the former only what is essential; to put the essential
> on canvas requires the talent of a painter."
>
exactly
>
> "creativeness on the stage, whether during the preparation of a part or
> during its repeated perfomance, demands complete concentration of all
> your physical and innner nature, the participation of all your
> physical and inner faculties" :
>
spot on...which is why I use the word commitment...the use of
every resource available to the performer both physical and
mental
>
> that sort of truth, here's a wonderful passage
>
> '"I know that everything by which I am surrounded on the stage is
> only a crude representation of reality, that it is all make-believe.
> But if it were real this is how I would relate myself to this
> manifestation, this is how I would act" And from the instant that his
> soul is aware of the magic phrase "if it were", the actual world
< around him ceases to interest him, he is are carried off to
another
> plane, to a life created by his imagination. However, in giving
> himself up to it he may involuntarily alter its factualness both in
> his invented framework for that life and in the feelings
> related to it. His imaginary structure may prove illogical, untrue
> and he will lose faith in it. The feelings aroused by this image,
> his inner reactions to imagined circumstances may appear "contrived"
> and do not correspond to the nature of a given emotion. Finally in
> his expression of the inner life of his character, who is after all a
> complex human being, who has never been in sufficiently perfect
> control of his entire human apparatus, he may give false intonation,
> may not observe a sense of artistic measure in his gesticulation, or
> he may be tempted to gain some cheap effect, he may become mannered or
> stilted. In order to ward off all these dangers which threaten the
> road of his stage creativeness and actor must without let-up work on
> the development of his "sense of truth", which supervises all of his
> inner and physical activity both when he is creating and also when he
> is performing his part. It is only when his *sense of truth* is
> throughly developed that he will reach the point when every pose,
> every gesutre will have an *inner justification*, which is to say they
> express the state of the person he is portraying and do not merely
> serve the pursposes of external beauty, as all sorts of conventional
> gestures and poses do.'
>
> I love everything about that passage, except the fact that it's all
> *his*.
>
it's a good set of thoughts...though it does imply that
naturalism is the objective, I don't think that implication is
intended, but I suspect that many will read it that way
>
> OK so that's what I take 'truthfulness' or 'artistic truth' to mean,
> whether in a fantasy theatre, theatre dreams, Beckett's Endgame,
> Shakespearen plays or an Ibsen play, truth is still needed. A
> perfect illustration of this in that play by Pirandello - Six
> characters in search of an author. The good old dramatic illusion V
> dramatic reality, illusions and reality in theatre
> and real life, a big paradox really, ok, well, peace now.
Pirandello is a writer who requires the ability to work on
several levels...on some of those levels the actor is being
realistic, on others they are being mythical or contrived
my view is that it's important to give the illusory and the
fantastic the same commitment as the natural...that the actor
must be able to have a range of relationships with the audience
beyond simply making them believe...the actor must also be able
to persuade the audience that they should "believe in me, but
watch this impossible fantasy I'm portraying"
I think it's important to be truthful on stage...especially when
being unrealistic...but I think it's always worth reminding
actors brought up on the naturalism of TV and film that theatre
is at it's best when it does more than portray reality
film and TV need realism much more than theatre does, that's
because unlike a film or TV show, a play is a real event actually
happening and involving real live human beings, the outcome of a
play is not fixed until the actors make the decision to stay with
the script (or not)...one of the reasons I think improv is
becoming ever more popular is that it's that mutability that
audiences can't get from recorded media that they look for in
live performance
WallO'Flesh
>well
>i haven't seen anything like that discussed in this forum if
that's
>what you mean.
>
Lurk longer and search the archives. It's been discussed. You
just have to sift through the flames and the crap.
IMHO, you might find that beginning a post with an insult merely
makes it seem like you're trolling, even if you have a good
point. Better to ignore the crap and ask positive, intelligent
questions or make points that add depth, rather than fan the
flames and sink to the same level that bothers you.
Just something to think about.
--Wall
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
DgSWEET
grammar, yes that is very intelligent isn't it.
Ah, solidarity. This, of course, is not puncuated correctly.
>Spelling and grammar are not an indication of intelligence, look more to the
content please, she does have a point.
They are an indication of willingness to do sufficient work to meet standards
of literacy. It is hard to take seriously the criticism of someone who attacks
others for intellectual laziness when the attack is phrased with evident
laziness.
Also, the attack was so bloody general as to be meaningless.
DgSWEET
>
>When one uses and "either" there is usually an "or." What happened here
Well, it seems we both should proof. Your "and" was supposed to be an "an,"
yes?
devalois
>one of my favourite ways to approach a play (when it's
>appropriate) is to portray a realistic central character
>surrounded by "cartoon" characters that are larger than life and
>very starkly portrayed...the truth in those cases is only there
>for the central characters and the audience...the other
>performers must concentrate on being committed to the
>unbelievable
>
Hm. What if you were to reverse that, Eric? Isn't the whole
panoply of Greek drama and comedy the fact that the chorus "gets
it" but the players don't? (please allow for the generalization
here)
Carl
'Wesistance is futiwe! Pwepawe to be assimiwated! Huh-uh-uh'- Elmer of Borg
devalois
mean, just look at the inane dialogue you started about whose
spelling and grammar is proper in this thread alone!
Honestly, we're not fucking grading here, folks! Get your heads
out of your asses and get back to your keyboards and post some
thoughts, please!
Leave an infinite number of monkeys alone in a room...and you get
mostly arguments about which monkey is smarter than the next.
Eric Jarvis
>
> Eric Jarvis <er...@last.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >one of my favourite ways to approach a play (when it's
> >appropriate) is to portray a realistic central character
> >surrounded by "cartoon" characters that are larger than life and
> >very starkly portrayed...the truth in those cases is only there
> >for the central characters and the audience...the other
> >performers must concentrate on being committed to the
> >unbelievable
> >
>
> Hm. What if you were to reverse that, Eric? Isn't the whole
> panoply of Greek drama and comedy the fact that the chorus "gets
> it" but the players don't? (please allow for the generalization
> here)
>
> Carl
>
absolutely...the Greeks wrote drama that had several levels of
reality...so did Shakespeare...pure naturalism is a very modern
experiment...and one that I think has produced very inconclusive
results :)
I haven't done anything classically greek as yet (though there
are a few I'm dying to have a go at) but it's a form of theatre
I'd love to try, with the direct real relationship between chorus
and audience to comment on the larger than life story...a lovely
way of working, it allows so much flexibility and
clarity...something I'd like to see contemporary writers
attempting more often
--
eric
"if a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing to excess"
devalois
you see as actually writing something worth working on, as a
director and an actor?
Eric Jarvis
>
> Let me ask you something here, Eric: of modern authors, whom do
> you see as actually writing something worth working on, as a
> director and an actor?
>
loads and loads...and I'll not be exhaustive here, it's just the
first few that come to mind
over here, working now, and getting produced
James Saunders, Harold Pinter, Brian Friel, Judy Upton, Paul
Goetzee, David Hare, Howard Barker, Phil Wilmott, Sarah Daniels,
Patrick Marber, Stephen Dinsdale, Tom Stoppard
likewise but not getting produced much if at all
Gary Swing, Hera Cook, Will Harrison, Nina Rapi, Sarah Clifford,
Sheila Buck, Ian Dagger
in the USA
Steve Patterson, David Mamet, Steffan Silvas (if I remember his
name right), John Guare
elsewhere
Grigory Gorin...my mind is going blank...I'm getting overwhelmed
by the number of shows I desperately need to do and haven't got a
production budget for :(
there's some great stuff out there
if you want me to define who writes the stuff I'm best at
directing, the writers who's style allows me to get into the
relationship between reality and performance, and who have
"soul"...then James Saunders, Harold Pinter, Gary Swing, Paul
Goetzee, Grigory Gorin, Hera Cook, Steve Patterson, Stephen
Dinsdale, Sarah Clifford, John Guare, Ian Dagger, Neil Gaiman
(he's not a playwright but I've done adaptations), Iain Banks
(ditto, but haven't done the adaptations yet)
that's without getting on to the writers of whom I don't know if
they are still alive
and sorry Jeff (Sweet)...I haven't read or seen anything of yours
to judge yet...I'm sure I'll love it :)
--
eric
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
mary
work but my own :)......My thoughts work faster than my typing. I'm in
continual "rough draft" he he he..
Mary
DgSWEET <dgs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000710234828...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> >and sorry Jeff (Sweet)...I haven't read or seen anything of yours
> >to judge yet...I'm sure I'll love it :)
>
> That's OK. I don't feel ignored or rejected. Honest. (I write subtext a
lot,
> can you tell?)
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
WallO'Flesh
>>
>I'm not a big fan of truthful as the be all and end all of what
>happens on stage...there must be a truth at the core of a
>production otherwise it has nothing to anchor itself in the same
>universe as the audience...but for me that is the only place
>truth is essential...beyond that core I'm more concerned about
>commitment
>
>reality is not the only benchmark of great theatre...dreams are
>important too...sometimes a two dimensional performance can show
>things much more clearly than three dimensional...at those times
>what matters is commitment to the dream
>
>appropriate) is to portray a realistic central character
>surrounded by "cartoon" characters that are larger than life and
>very starkly portrayed...the truth in those cases is only there
>for the central characters and the audience...the other
>performers must concentrate on being committed to the
>unbelievable
>
>understand...but it's very hard to get it to work...largely
>because more and more actors are trained to believe that the
only
>
>in theatre dreams have as much validity as reality, otherwise
>there is no point having theatre at all
>
....I think it may be helpful to point out, Eric, that from an
actor's POV any divergence between 'truth' and 'commitment' may
simply be a matter of semantics.
Although I think some younger actors may confuse 'truth'
with 'naturalism', any direct experience with the ideas shows
that it's not the case at all. Even the most naturalistic
acting-style has technical necessities that make it just as
UNrealistic as any other style, ranging from the subtle
(cheating out, projecting vocally, acting ON the line rather
than inbetween), to the moderate (a heightened sense of stakes
and emotional projection), to the overt (Mamet's kind of 'hyper-
realistic dialogue; 'Fuckin' LOOPY Fuckin' LOOPY,
fuckfuckFUCK...', which completes the circle into non-realism).
From a Stage-acting standpoint, there'll be very few times an
actor will be asked for COMPLETE naturalism, then, in that
sense; I may be playing a NYC bartender one week, a Moliere
Over-The-Top-Guy the next, the Duchess in a children's theater
production of 'Alice In Wonderland' the following. The one
thing I WILL be asked to do, though, every single time, is
invest so much Honesty into the core of the character that the
audience 'buys' it.
In staging the farce fight I recently posted about (Twelfth
Night), the actress playing Viola was concerned that the
audience wouldn't accept her character, much more realistic than
Aguecheek and the others, doing these Bugs Bunny cartoon
antics. I understood, and assured her that her personal 'bits'
never crossed that line...mainly because of her total,
unequivocal commitment TO those moments. That was where
the 'truth' lived, not the fact that she was bouncing like a
Beach Ball.
Bottom Line: If you, as an actor, BELIEVE that you're a 2-
dimensional comic book character...the AUDIENCE will, too. And
I think that's what most actors mean when they refer to Truth-
with-a-capital-T...not 'naturalism' per se, but that same
commitment that you mentioned, the commitment that sells it to
an audience.
There's reality, and then there's truth. Good theater has
varying degrees of reality but loads and loads of truth.
--Wall
DgSWEET
Opus (:>
> dimensional comic book character...the AUDIENCE will, too. And
> I think that's what most actors mean when they refer to Truth-
> with-a-capital-T...not 'naturalism' per se, but that same
> commitment that you mentioned, the commitment that sells it to
> an audience.
>
> There's reality, and then there's truth. Good theater has
> varying degrees of reality but loads and loads of truth.
>
comedy as well. Doesn't matter which kind. Farce, satire, sit-com...
As long as it's something YOU believe, the audience will buy it. I like
your distinctions between realism and truth. An actor must bring HIS
truth to the role, but that doesn't mean it's going to be natural. This
is something I'm constantly conscious of in studying Meisner, which
dictates naturalism while being very truthful to what you're doing.
Truth can also mean in relation to how YOU would react if you were in
the situation; Stanislavski's "magic if". Be as truthful to that as
possible, and you've got a product that the audience can get swept away
in.
--
Opus (:>
"King Lear's daughter had a bad case of Goneril."
http://www.carla.coble.com
http://members.home.net/coble/OpusGraphics -Original graphics
devalois
am, I'd only add Lanford Wilson (some of the time), and Ntozake
Shange. They capture disaffection with society very nicely.
Carl
'Wesistance is futiwe! Pwepawe to be assimiwated! Huh-uh-uh'- Elmer of Borg
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bill491
"Opus (:>" wrote:
> > Bottom Line: If you, as an actor, BELIEVE that you're a 2-
> > dimensional comic book character...the AUDIENCE will, too. And
> > I think that's what most actors mean when they refer to Truth-
> > with-a-capital-T...not 'naturalism' per se, but that same
> > commitment that you mentioned, the commitment that sells it to
> > an audience.
> >
> > There's reality, and then there's truth. Good theater has
> > varying degrees of reality but loads and loads of truth.
> >
> A most excellent post Wall. Herein lies the secret formula to great
> comedy as well. Doesn't matter which kind. Farce, satire, sit-com...
> As long as it's something YOU believe, the audience will buy it. I like
> your distinctions between realism and truth. An actor must bring HIS
> truth to the role, but that doesn't mean it's going to be natural. This
> is something I'm constantly conscious of in studying Meisner, which
> dictates naturalism while being very truthful to what you're doing.
>
> Truth can also mean in relation to how YOU would react if you were in
> the situation; Stanislavski's "magic if". Be as truthful to that as
> possible, and you've got a product that the audience can get swept away
> in.
Carla, you know I've been plugging the Sharon Carnicke book, "Stanislavski
in Focus," for a while. Here's another title to add to your must-read
list. One of my actors sent me a birthday present.... "Twentieth Century
Acting," edited by Alison Hodge (Routledge, London, 2000.)
I mention it because the editor writes a fascinating intro that explores the
19th and 20th century debates about naturalism versus realism versus
everything other ism's. The content of the book included essays of 14 of
the leading coach/teachers of the 20th century, including some of my mentors
(Adler, but not Lewis) and your beloved Meisner. Toss in Brook, Chaiken,
Grotowski, Meyerhold, Strasberg and of course, Stan the man, and it is a
marvelous summary of what means this stuff that dreams are made of.... a
better and more integrated survey, in my opinion that "Actors on Actors."
Ed, I hope you're reading.... you will appreciate the book as an overview,
even as you write your book on 21st Century acting.
Break a leg,
Bill
--
THE ACTING STUDIO
http://gvtg.com/theactingstudio
Eric Jarvis
>
> Can't argue with most of your lists, and as Amero-centric as I
> am, I'd only add Lanford Wilson (some of the time), and Ntozake
> Shange. They capture disaffection with society very nicely.
>
> Carl
>
I'll check them out...I've thought of a few more since
though...and there are three US playwrights I'm desperately
trying to remember the names of :)
devalois
here.
Eric Jarvis
>
> If you post titles, maybe we can play Who Wants To Be Literate
> here.
>
> Carl
>
I'm going to have to look up the show programmes...'cause I can't
remember the titles either...there's a local fringe theatre that
has good US contacts and has had a few seasons of new (to the UK)
plays by US writers...I know the Artistic Director quite well
(I've done 3 productions there) so I tend to just drop in to see
what's on...hence I'm a bit vague about what they were
WallO'Flesh
>> >>
>A most excellent post Wall. Herein lies the secret formula to
great
>comedy as well. Doesn't matter which kind. Farce, satire, sit-
com...
>As long as it's something YOU believe, the audience will buy
it.
....Thanks, Opie. :)
I learned the comedy lesson the hard way; early on, I was
missing that key ingedient anytime I played a comic role...just
floundered around doing artificial bits, not believing a whit of
it, waiting for the audience to howl at my comic brilliance.
(pause).
..I honestly had no idea the sound of a pin hitting the floor
at the back of the theater could be so crisp, clear and resonant
all the way up on the stage.
The acoustics in those places must've been amazing...
---Wall