New School Acting & Old School Apologist
Jeremy Whelan
>
> > His student (also in the cast)epitomized his cult-like approach.
Perhaps it was enthusiasm for a new and better way, and since your
directing doesn't inspire that, you can't recognize it.
Since I missed it, what student of mine, what production, where, and
what was the set up?
Cult, calling someone a cult, what a cheap cop out.
The best thing you can think of is to call me a cult, that's funny,
really funny. Anybody with half a brain only has to try the tape
technique for fifteen minutes and they know, it's a better way of
working. You want to scare people away from their own brain, their own
common sense, by calling me a cult. Dude, the people who tremble with
fear at trying something new for fifteen minutes aren't exactly the
people I'd mind going against in a big time audition. I understand you
people are just trying to suck a buck from some dead ideas, but don't
attack me for trying to advance the art and craft of acting. I will
expose your ignorance or worse yet your deliberate deception because
you're too old or too lazy to learn something new and exciting.
I somehow have not been able to receive posts from this newsgroups or
others
for days. Actually it started the day I called the hand of old school
types who tried to discredit the advances made by New School Acting.
Advances which are based on 50 years of educational and brain science
research by some of the smartest people in the world, excuse me... so
what's that about? What people who read these newsgroups should realize
is that, putting down my work is just a way of selling books and classes
based on ideas that are way way old. It is seldom about the art and
craft of acting, it's about people with a seriously financially vested
interest in keeping that old school jive alive. So don't be fooled boys
and girls, ladies and gentleman, go to http://www.newschoolacting.com
and judge for yourself. Think, what I say and what I do makes sense.
Duh?
Look, if you have ever done a scene or a play, try the tape technique
for 15 minutes. I promise you, unless you are missing a few vital genes,
you'll see that it is better than anything out in the world of acting
today. When you see/experience the wild major advance this approach
gives you, you will not have a problem taking on the more subtle
techniques that New School Acting offers you. All the negative bull you
are hearing against my work will show for what it is, manipulation or
lack of perception. While some of the people who fight progress are
just misguided, others are fighting for their financial lives and
couldn't care less if you ever become a better actor as long as your
check is good. I can prove what I say, if you have 15 minutes. It's
free, get it from the web page.
Just something to think about.
jeremy
http://www.newschoolacting.com
Christopher Jahn
> il professore wrote:
>>
>> > His student (also in the cast)epitomized his cult-like
>> > approach.
> Perhaps it was enthusiasm for a new and better way, and
> since your directing doesn't inspire that, you can't
> recognize it.
No, it's more like that il profesore got it right.
> Cult, calling someone a cult, what a cheap cop out.
> The best thing you can think of is to call me a cult, that's
> funny, really funny. Anybody with half a brain only has to
> try the tape technique for fifteen minutes and they know,
> it's a better way of working.
I tried it. It was usable, if ungainly for large productions.
But I didn't see any huge benefits over traditional methods.
> I understand
> you people are just trying to suck a buck from some dead
> ideas, but don't attack me for trying to advance the art and
> craft of acting.
IF this is what you were doing, we'd all be behind you. But
in fact it appears *you're* just trying to suck a buck. *I'm*
not selling anything - *YOU* are.
> I will expose your ignorance or worse yet
> your deliberate deception because you're too old or too lazy
> to learn something new and exciting.
Jeremy, in three years you have yet to expose anyone's
ignorance but your own, and all it takes is a review of the
archives now in Google to see that.
>
> I somehow have not been able to receive posts from this
> newsgroups or others
> for days. Actually it started the day I called the hand of
> old school types who tried to discredit the advances made by
> New School Acting.
Now comes the Paranoid Conspiracy Talk.
Jeremy, problems with your news feed have nothing to do with
anyone here.
And it's hard to discredit unproven claims. It's equally hard
to credit them.
> Advances which are based on 50 years of
> educational and brain science research by some of the
> smartest people in the world, excuse me... so what's that
> about?
Blah blah blah... I've read your books, and sifted through
your site, and in the three years I've been blowing whole in
your claims, you have YET to cite one single instance how any
of the research you point to is reflected in your work.
> What people who read these newsgroups should realize
> is that, putting down my work is just a way of selling books
> and classes based on ideas that are way way old.
Again, just who is the one selling a book? It ain't me. Just
who is selling classes? I'm to busy working in theatre to
take on any students right now.
> It is seldom about the art and craft of acting, it's about
> people with a seriously financially vested interest in
> keeping that old school jive alive.
Jeremy, you making it up out of whole cloth, now.
I use and espouse acting methods that *work*. I don't have any
vested interest in them other than the fact that they DO work.
And they work for everyone who uses them. And who uses them?
Everyone who is working. Pick up a playbill, read a bio.
If something came along that worked better, I'd use it. Having
read all your books at this point, I can say "New School" ain't
it.
The first 69 pages are Jeremy telling you why everyone else is
wrong. Except for the moments he's congratulating himself.
Pages 81 through 98 are dictionary definitions.
Pages 103 to 200 are the "Thesaurus of Emotions", basically
blank charts that you fill in.
Here's New School acting in summary:
Memorize all the words for all the different emotions.
Write them down.
Assign them attributes.
Here's a quote from page 14:
"Love does not smell like a flower, it smells like a lily.
Anger does not sound like a mad dog, it sounds like a mad Pit
Bull."
There is nothing "new" about the "New School." It's what
Stanislavski and Stradberg and the rest REPLACED. It's a step
backwards, not a step forward.
Jeremy, you're full of shit.
But by all means, I hope you get lots of students; it'll cut
down on the competition. Your students will be making faces and
grimacing, and the rest of us will be working.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Any man who hates dogs and babies can't be all bad.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Isabella
Jeremy Whelan wrote
> What people who read these newsgroups should realize
>is that, putting down my work is just a way of selling books and classes
Um, I sell neither books nor classes.
So far, you have said NOTHING specific about *why* your technique is better
or even *what* your technique does that is different than anything else out
there. Why don't you tell us about some specific tools that you give actors
to help them in their work, instead of attacking those who question your
methods? Classically, the personal attack is used to deflect criticism when
the attacker can't find a way to explain or justify their position--why
don't you break that stereotype? We're not attacking you, we're criticizing
the lack of specific detail you've shared on your method. Perhaps if you
clarified or expanded your idea instead of merely restating your original,
non-specific posts or personally attacking your critics, we could have a
discussion?
Allison Williams
il professore
news:3B5CD302...@eticomm.net...
> il professore wrote:
> >
> > > His student (also in the cast)epitomized his cult-like approach.
> Perhaps it was enthusiasm for a new and better way, and since your
> directing doesn't inspire that, you can't recognize it.
> Since I missed it, what student of mine, what production, where, and
> what was the set up?
> Cult, calling someone a cult, what a cheap cop out.
Jeremy,
Instead of your usual hyperbolic outbursts, why not take a moment to read
the right mail. before posting. I never made the above statement.
NORMAN B. SCHWARTZ
>Il Professore <
ilp...@home.com
Artistic Director/Santa Barbara Actors Theatre, Inc.
http://www.sbactorstheatre.org
de Valois
be true, what with the "dude" and the paranoia stuff.
*If* your technique is really that much advanced, then anything anyone says
against it will be proven wrong. Period. Why do you care what a few dozen
malcontents (to coin a phrase) have to say against it? There are perhaps a
thousand, maybe two thousand people, who will read these exchanges. There
are five billion people here.
You'd serve your cause better by promoting the technique with examples and
specifics, so that we can examine it and debate their merits.
--
Carl
We're bigger than Jesus! - JWLennon
Jeremy Whelan wrote in message <3B5CD302...@eticomm.net>...
Jarrod
>
>"Love does not smell like a flower, it smells like a lily.
>Anger does not sound like a mad dog, it sounds like a mad Pit
>Bull."
>
>There is nothing "new" about the "New School." It's what
>Stanislavski and Stradberg and the rest REPLACED. It's a step
>backwards, not a step forward.
What's bothersome about JW is not that he has a different system,
whether it's old, new, or hybrid. It's the fact that he can't just
teach the system and let the results speak for themselves-- the man
simply cannot stop promoting himself, and chooses to do it by casting
himself in the John the Baptist/Savinarola mode. He's a gadfly: by
nature he will pester and annoy to get a response. Ignore him.
Doesn't that make sense?
On the other hand, the quote you gave can be an example of a good
practice-- be specific in all things: a lily or abelia or whatever
rather than a general "flower", a specific emotion rather than the
generic "emotional", a specific intention which generates an emotional
state rather than playing "an emotional state".
Wall O'Flesh
> >
> > > His student (also in the cast)epitomized his cult-like approach.
> Perhaps it was enthusiasm for a new and better way, and since your
> directing doesn't inspire that, you can't recognize it.
>
Jeremy, settle down! You're so irate you're insulting the wrong
people. I said the above, not the Prof. Get your facts straight
before you speak. I know, that's probably a new concept, but give it
time. Let's look at this slowly....
"enthusiasm for a new & better way?" Possibly. I was interested at
the time...but he couldn't explain it. He couldn't explain what was
new, what was better, and he became angry when asked. Sound familiar?
Also, his "new and better" way had him cast as a background guy
during crowd scenes. Most of the time he was moving furniture
inbetween scenes. Yeah, I'm intimidated by him at an audition....that
"new" school really gave him the "edge at auditions".
Oh, please, before I forget...let me pause to thank you...in a
different post (one you obviously missed), I warned people about your
infomercial techniques...and predicted that your next step would be to
insult the questioner, infering that your "new" technique is only for
those "smart enough to recognize it". Thanks for immediately doing
that to The Prof...it should be obvious to anyone now. All too easy.
> Since I missed it, what student of mine, what production, where, and
> what was the set up?
I'm shocked. You don't remember? I would think, with all the wild
success you've had, watching your students run roughshod over the
competition and taking the world by storm, such a horrible experience
would be rare for you. Does such a thing happen alot? Can't you sort
out one "persecution" from the rest? Sounds like the story I told
must hapen to you quite a bit, pal. Sorry.
...No, I think in this case I'll keep you guessing. For the same
reason I don't brag about experience/credentials/endorsements or
anything else on usenet...because when you strip away all of that,
your IDEA has to stand on its own. I'll let that idea stand, and
folks can absorb what is useful. Plus, the actor in question is a
misdirected young kid (early 20s) who deserves better than to be raked
in a public forum. If you wanna do that to him, he'll have YOU to
blame.
> Cult, calling someone a cult, what a cheap cop out.
> The best thing you can think of is to call me a cult, that's funny,
> really funny.
Breathe, man, breathe. You're starting to rant. I thought of quite a
few things to call you, "cult" was just the beginning. Again, you
should get your info straight, THEN respond. Keep working on it.
Repition is the Mother of skill! :)
>Anybody with half a brain only has to try the tape
> technique for fifteen minutes and they know, it's a better way of
> working. You want to scare people away from their own brain, their own
> common sense, by calling me a cult.
Ah-ha! Thank you again. I (and others) also pointed out that one of
the tried-and-true advertising gimmicks you use is 'association'...you
associate the apple with the orange, the Tape Technique with
Emotionology. Don't cloud the issue here, Jeremy, I wasn't talking
about the TT...I was talking about EMOTIONOLOGY. I actually gave the
"TT" a pretty positive response. And hey, by that logic, Kelsey
Grammar is apparently the only 'name' actor walking around with more
than 50% of a brain. Interesting. Have you asked him for a quote
regarding emotionology? Has he just not had the time to write one?
I'd be very interested in what he had to say regarding that
specifically, not the TT.
And there was a very specific reason I called your approach
'cult-like'. The standard operating procedures of said organizations
involve misleading information that exaggerates aspects that support
it and ignores aspects that do not. They use highly stylized,
manipulative rhetoric that is purposefully UNSPECIFIC (there's that
word again), meant to entice the listener into a certain 'feeling'
rather than convince of a specific idea. They use generalized
'feeling' adjectives that really don't say anything, like 'new',
'better', improved','exciting'. I'll leave it to the people reading
this (who, I think, probably have better than half a brain) to
recognize how much you use these tactics in this post ALONE, much less
your others. Whether its to sell spiritual enlightenment, the glory
of some god's kingdom, pepsi, or cheerios, it all boils down to the
same idea: Said techniques are used for the express intent to SELL
something.
>Dude, the people who tremble with
> fear at trying something new for fifteen minutes aren't exactly the
> people I'd mind going against in a big time audition. I understand you
> people are just trying to suck a buck from some dead ideas, but don't
> attack me for trying to advance the art and craft of acting. I will
> expose your ignorance or worse yet your deliberate deception because
> you're too old or too lazy to learn something new and exciting.
>
...I make no money selling or teaching anything. But don't just take
my anonymous word for it; the proof is archived for anyone to see...if
you read my posts, you'll notice I espouse an ecclectic,
'absorb-what-is-useful' approach...hardly something that'd sit well
with your 'old school', moustache-twirling villains. I guess it's
that pesky, irritating idea that the IDEA, not the packaging, needs to
stand on its own, right? If you could just get rid of that you could
REALLY take over the Acting World.
(Side-note: "Dude"?!? Jeremy, aren't you like--what, 55 years old?
What the hell are you doing using the word "Dude"?!?)
> I somehow have not been able to receive posts from this newsgroups or
> others
> for days. Actually it started the day I called the hand of old school
> types who tried to discredit the advances made by New School Acting.
Hmmmm...maybe it was an Anti-Spam Program.
> Advances which are based on 50 years of educational and brain science
> research by some of the smartest people in the world, excuse me... so
> what's that about? What people who read these newsgroups should realize
> is that, putting down my work is just a way of selling books and classes
> based on ideas that are way way old. It is seldom about the art and
> craft of acting, it's about people with a seriously financially vested
> interest in keeping that old school jive alive. So don't be fooled boys
> and girls, ladies and gentleman, go to http://www.newschoolacting.com
> and judge for yourself. Think, what I say and what I do makes sense.
Jesus Christ, Jeremy, you're making this too easy!! You accuse your
opponents of a conspiracy against you so they can 'continue making
money', then you lead directly into a COMMERCIAL!!! Complete with
link!! In the SAME PARAGRAPH!!! Are you SURE you 'missed' ALL those
other posts--? Because I'm starting to think of you using terms like
'self-sabotage', here.
...and is "brain science" the technical term?
> Duh?
LOL...no comment really necessary on that one, is there? D'you mind
if I use that as my sig line? I'll give you full credit...
> Look, if you have ever done a scene or a play, try the tape technique
> for 15 minutes. I promise you, unless you are missing a few vital genes,
> you'll see that it is better than anything out in the world of acting
> today. When you see/experience the wild major advance this approach
> gives you, you will not have a problem taking on the more subtle
> techniques that New School Acting offers you. All the negative bull you
> are hearing against my work will show for what it is, manipulation or
> lack of perception. While some of the people who fight progress are
> just misguided, others are fighting for their financial lives and
> couldn't care less if you ever become a better actor as long as your
> check is good. I can prove what I say, if you have 15 minutes. It's
> free, get it from the web page.
Hey, now...none of that misdirection. BE SPECIFIC. The TAPE
TECHNIQUE is free...but the "subtle techniques" that the sucker--ah,
"student" will be led to "take on" costs money. It's really great to
offer the 'carrot' for free...but if you wanna learn more you have to
buy the book for $X....if you don't understand the book you need to
take JW's class for $XXX...and so on.
For the benefit of those reading this, let's analyze the above
paragraph and see how it compares to typical infomercial ad copy--for,
oh, let's say a Fat-Burning Formula:
> Look, if you have ever done a scene or a play, try the tape technique
> for 15 minutes. I promise you, unless you are missing a few vital genes,
> you'll see that it is better than anything out in the world of acting
> today.
Also known as: "If you're like every american who wants to lose weight
and firm that midsection, try the FATBURN2000 risk-free for 30 days.
We guarantee that you'll realize it is THE most EXCITING and EFFECTIVE
Fat Vurner on the Market today!!!"
>When you see/experience the wild major advance this approach
> gives you, you will not have a problem taking on the more subtle
> techniques that New School Acting offers you.
AKA: "When you start to see the fat melting effortlessly off of you at
a breakneck pace, you'll agree--nothing works like FATBURN2000!! Then
you'll be elligible for the ADVANCED program--new
SUBTLETECHNIQUEBURN3000!!!"
>All the negative bull you
> are hearing against my work will show for what it is, manipulation or
> lack of perception.
AKA: "Stop trying those worthless FAD DIETS that just cut calories
and make you excercise, they never work!!" (screen shows overweight,
exasperated people overacting and using bad form while they play with
well-established exercise equipment)
>While some of the people who fight progress are
> just misguided, others are fighting for their financial lives and
> couldn't care less if you ever become a better actor as long as your
> check is good.
AKA: Not everyone can be slim and beautiful...not everyone has
FATBURN2000...but you're one of the SMART ones! You use FATBURN2000!!
Are you going to let the Evil, Fast Food Franchises keep you fat your
entire life, while they make themselves rich?? NO! You know that's
thier goal in life, don't you? To keep you fat?? Are you going to
stand for it!! NO!! You have
FATBURN2000...AND....SUBTLETECHNIQUE3000!!!!"
>I can prove what I say, if you have 15 minutes.
AKA: "You can lose 100lbs in 30 Days!!!"
>It's free,
AKA: "and it's risk-free! Try FATBURN2000 for 30 days, if you don't
like it return the Unused Portion and get your MONEY BACK!!" (Fine
print appears on bottom of screen for 3 seconds: "You will be charged
in full for SUBTLETECHNIQUE3000")
>get it from the web page.
AKA: "Order your risk-free FATBURN2000 by calling 1-800-FAT-GONE, or
send a check/MO to...."
Finally, Jeremy, below you'll find the original post in question, to
avoid any confusion. The regular text is me, the text with the little
">"'s in front of them are Allison's. After you're done here, go read
her post...she has some interesting questions about the SPECIFICS of
emotionology...looking forward to finally getting some answers.
You owe me a beer, by the way...that pamphlet didn't cut it.
--Wall
ORIGINAL POST FOR JEREMY (originally from last week):
Amen. And to echo Bill's fine comments, at least 50% of the shame of
JW appears to lie in the fact that he's more interested in making
rhetorical, "If-I've-said-it-once"-type derogatory comments regarding
all other techniques...his information exagerates points that support
his argument and at best completely ignores points that don't; at
worst, he attempts to place the blame on YOU for being stupid enough
to question him. Listen closely to the way he phrases things, and
you'll recognize a pattern you might see elsewhere...in advertising.
The "Sales-Pitch" approach alone should be someone's first red flag.
> Jeremy Whelan is a nice guy,
Unfortunately I can't agree with you here; I met him a few years ago
at a bar after a production and watched as he travelled from bar stool
to bar stool, gave unsolicited critiques of the actors' performances,
and offered to solve thier Craft Deficiencies by introducing them to
Emotionology...at the low, low price of $19.95. I was one of the few
willing to give him a chance; bought him a beer, listened intently to
his theories...and when I attempted to question him further on the
SPECIFICS (important word, that)of his craft, he became agitated,
repeated his rhetoric over and over, then insulted me for being a
brainwashed cow. Keep in mind I'd given him the upmost respect up to
that point. For my troubles (and, I guess for buying him the beer), I
was awarded with a pamphlet to read detailing the "basics" of
emotionology...if I wanted to learn more--? You guessed it! I had to
buy the book. I walked out that night feeling like I had beers with a
hare krishna.
His student (also in the cast)epitomized his cult-like approach. A
nice enough guy, but the minute you started talking craft his eyes
would get kind of--glazed, I guess, he'd get angry and start reciting
platitudes. Sad.
So maybe I'm just a bit biased.
>and the tape technique is fun to play with
> (though it takes forever).
I'll give him that; Standing alone, with no mention of emotionology,
the Tape Technique can be useful as a rehearsal tool. Unfortunately,
it's time demands make it completely impractical for the schedule of
most professional productions. If any young actors are interested in
this facet of JW, I'd suggest utilizing it as a "Homework" tool when
working on your character in private. Spend money on that if you have
to, but by God don't get sucked into the Sales Pitch.
..and it is worth repeating that Kelsey Grammer was very specific
(there's that word again) about talking ONLY about the Tape Technique.
>But his recent book was 40% dictionary
> definitions and 40% repeats of a worksheet page that I'd rather photocopy
> myself than see padding out his book.
>
> Oh--and didn't we all spend a lot of time in school learning to play an
> action rather than an emotion? How about Mr. Whelan bases his next book
> around a list of verbs? --Allison Williams
>
...And a double-amen, sister. :)
Herein we find the fatal flaw of JW's Technique, accounting for the
OTHER 50% of the "shame" mentioned earlier: It's UNspecificity. Used
as a single step in the a-b-c process of craft, examining a single
emotion in the broadest, dictionary-sense of the word is an obvious
starting point to craft...but just a start. Perhaps assigning it a
color makes it a bit sharper in the actor's mind, and they can take
another little step forward. But eventually you hit a wall (no pun
intended), and you have to figure out, in the most SPECIFIC terms
possible, exactly what it is your character is DOING. Not what he's
FEELING...because that doesn't translate well to an audience, it's too
general. Feeling is a way to help the actor tell the story by
allowing him to be in the moment...but you still gotta tell the story.
Fine, my sadness at this moment might be "teal" or "aqua", but have I
figured out exactly what the hell I'm talking about? Only by knowing
that will an audience be able to translate my actions on stage. It is
here, in analysis, that JW's emotionology falls flat on its face and
breaks its jaw: It actually takes the indulgent, unspecific, mental
masturbation that we see all the time in B movies or Community Theater
and promotes it as the "end result". Even worse to be presumptious
enough to assume that it's "new"...I've been seeing that technique for
years. I call it "Bad Acting".
God knows I'm probably gonna draw fire for this, but it's important
that any younger actors realize what some of us are saying about this:
Any individual technique is a tool, to be put in the box with all the
others, nothing more. No carpenter walks around with only one hammer,
claiming that "the old screwdrivers are crap". Be very cautious of
salesmen who claim thier way is "THE" way, the "ONLY" way, and all
others are wrong. If you can learn about JW's Stuff without paying
him gobs of cash, by all means do so...give JW the respect that he
doesn't give the other teachers. But absorb what is useful from it
then discard the rest. Incorporate what you like into YOUR craft, and
always realize that there's no "magic hammer", no one tool to fix
everything...use it as a single facet of the individualized process
you use to get to the point where you can simply "be" on stage. But
make your OWN intelligent decision...don't let him push you into
anything. And when/if you get to the point when you realize that these
techniques are useful only as beginning steps to a process (and I
believe most of you will), don't be afraid to try something else, or
get MORE specific. You're the only one who knows what's "THE"
way...because you yourself need to create it, with pieces from all the
techniques that've come before.
OK, I'm officially late. Let the Flaming begin.
And Mr. Grammer, no lawyers please. ;)
--Wall
PS. Anybody else wonder why Kelsey and David HP haven't done Toby &
Aguecheek somewhere yet? It's a natural, and would sell tickets out
the dupa...
Christopher Jahn
>>Here's a quote from page 14:
>>
>>"Love does not smell like a flower, it smells like a lily.
>>Anger does not sound like a mad dog, it sounds like a mad
>>Pit Bull."
>
> On the other hand, the quote you gave can be an example of a
> good practice-- be specific in all things: a lily or
> abelia or whatever rather than a general "flower", a
> specific emotion rather than the generic "emotional", a
> specific intention which generates an emotional state rather
> than playing "an emotional state".
Being specific is good. But DOES love "smell like a LilY?" Doe
it have a smell? Does anger have sound, and is it always the
SAME sound? So much of what we do is contextual, and to assign
specific attributes that may not carry over is simply ludicrous.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
And where you are ain't no good unless you can get away from it
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Jeremy Whelan
well, that's novel. thanks for making me laugh.
please do excuse me if I get frustrated. I've asked for 15 years to get
off your collective butts and try a technique for 15 minutes, but you
would rather spend 10 years talking about something than get up and do!
the hallmark of old school is talk it, think it to death, new school
"does", it's physical, visceral. chris says he read all my books, doubt
it, but if so, what's that say? anyhow chris if you had a problem using
it in full production, anyone knows that I'm always happy by phone
e-mail whatever to guide anyone through this new experience. but i never
got a call. easier to say this sucks than how do i do this, whatever. as
far as my combative side, well i'm an irish guy who sometimes just gets
pissed off, sue me. obviously, when someone says i'm full of poop, and i
don't exactly agree, but that was then this is now. just, for those who
can, think how i would have greeted that a few years ago. so i am more
comfortable with what i've done. i guess that comes from people around
the world getting the best results of their creative lives using my
ideas. on the paranoid side, i'll quote a great contemporary
philosopher,as cobain said, "just because your paranoid doesn't mean
their not after you." they found his brains all over the garage wall,
but i don't think courtny did it.
i do think it noble that so much thought and effort to explore the craft
is spent by people involved with groups like this. it's just that many
never seem to get tired of running in circles, and very old one's at
that, it's a wonder that you don't suffocate, your heads are barely
visible from the ruts you've dug from going over the same old ground all
the time, i'm just trying to help.
the only thing more boring than seeing that happening is imaging the
lurkers who watch it year after year.
as to the crying thing, get a life, well get a technique anyhow. that
ball thing of sandies ,ugh, don't listen to that kids and forget stan's
dead mom thing too, why hurt yourself, needlessly, all that can happen
is that you'll be creatively inferior, redundant is not the natural
habitat of creativity, it is in fact a prison for it. forget the old
school boys cry against Emotionology, try it, it works. i mean how many
times do you think you can kill that puppy and get away with it?
ciao,
jeremy
http://www.newschoolacting.com
de Valois
Christopher Jahn wrote in message ...
>Being specific is good. But DOES love "smell like a LilY?" Doe
>it have a smell? Does anger have sound, and is it always the
>SAME sound? So much of what we do is contextual, and to assign
>specific attributes that may not carry over is simply ludicrous.
>
Whoa, Christopher...are you perhaps going to an extreme here?
Yes, love can smell like a lilly, if you were around them when you fell
deeply in love. Anger can sound like a pit bull, if you were in a fight with
a pit bull owner. But I didn't see where that small example was being
extended to a generality. Did I miss something?
Christopher Jahn
> >He's a gadfly:
>
> well, that's novel. thanks for making me laugh.
> please do excuse me if I get frustrated. I've asked for 15
> years to get off your collective butts and try a technique
> for 15 minutes, but you would rather spend 10 years talking
> about something than get up and do! the hallmark of old
> school is talk it, think it to death, new school "does",
> it's physical, visceral. chris says he read all my books,
> doubt it, but if so, what's that say?
It says that I've read your books. It says that I've done some
research. It means that I've tried to understand your position,
and tried to explore your Manifesto.
It says that you're wrong about me, and possibly wrong about all
of us: we don't sit around on our "collective butts". We
explore, we experiment, we push limits.
Whereas you simply dismiss everything I say out of hand; "you
got a vested interest in the status quo".
My "vested interest" is in playing the role. My "vested
interest" is in reaching the audience. My "vested interest" is
in a cohesive, effective production that touches everyone
involved.
> anyhow chris if you
> had a problem using it in full production, anyone knows that
> I'm always happy by phone e-mail whatever to guide anyone
> through this new experience. but i never got a call.
Every time I've asked you to clarify your work, either on this
group or alt.acting, you've blown me off. You've told me that
in order to clarify your work, either I have to become one of
your students, or that I'm too stupid to understand your genius.
This is a matter of record, available to anyone on Google.
With OTHER books, and OTHER approaches, the book USUALLY
communicates; here's what we're trying to do, here's how you do
it."
Your book "New School ACting" is merely diatribe. It doesn't
explain how to accomplish anything. It outlines what you
percieve to be the difference between YOUR method and "old
school"{which is basically everything else}. And most of the
faults that you list for "old school" are spurious where it's
not downright false.
NSA starts from a false premise, and peters out fairly quickly.
> easier
> to say this sucks than how do i do this, whatever. as far as
> my combative side, well i'm an irish guy who sometimes just
> gets pissed off, sue me. obviously, when someone says i'm
> full of poop, and i don't exactly agree, but that was then
> this is now. just, for those who can, think how i would have
> greeted that a few years ago. so i am more comfortable with
> what i've done. i guess that comes from people around the
> world getting the best results of their creative lives using
> my ideas. on the paranoid side, i'll quote a great
> contemporary philosopher,as cobain said, "just because your
> paranoid doesn't mean their not after you." they found his
> brains all over the garage wall, but i don't think courtny
> did it.
>
> i do think it noble that so much thought and effort to
> explore the craft is spent by people involved with groups
> like this. it's just that many never seem to get tired of
> running in circles, and very old one's at that, it's a
> wonder that you don't suffocate, your heads are barely
> visible from the ruts you've dug from going over the same
> old ground all the time, i'm just trying to help.
If we're in a rut, you haven't proved it to date. What makes
you think that the profession as a whole is "in a rut?" Give us
some specifics.
>
> the only thing more boring than seeing that happening is
> imaging the lurkers who watch it year after year.
> as to the crying thing, get a life, well get a technique
> anyhow. that ball thing of sandies ,ugh, don't listen to
> that kids and forget stan's dead mom thing too, why hurt
> yourself, needlessly, all that can happen is that you'll be
> creatively inferior, redundant is not the natural habitat of
> creativity, it is in fact a prison for it. forget the old
> school boys cry against Emotionology, try it, it works.
What, memorizing a prepared list of emotions and endlessly
recycling them isn't redundant?
Answering your critics with " you're just out to get me" and
failing to back up your position with anything factual in nature
is definitely redundant.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
I've learned that no matter how much I care, some people are
just
assholes
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Richard Hellesen
thread are thinking...
Don't know about you, but man, it feels like curling up in the motel
room listening to some loud couple on the other side of the wall arguing
all night about the right way to have sex. I sort of wish they'd just
relax and enjoy it, or at least go with whatever works....
And anyway, other than being a distraction, I'm not sure it's going to
affect what we're trying to do on our side of the wall...
Nighty night.
RH
Wall O'Flesh
> And it came to pass that Jarrod wrote:
>
> >>Here's a quote from page 14:
> >>
> >>"Love does not smell like a flower, it smells like a lily.
> >>Anger does not sound like a mad dog, it sounds like a mad
> >>Pit Bull."
> >
> > On the other hand, the quote you gave can be an example of a
> > good practice-- be specific in all things: a lily or
> > abelia or whatever rather than a general "flower", a
> > specific emotion rather than the generic "emotional", a
> > specific intention which generates an emotional state rather
> > than playing "an emotional state".
>
> Being specific is good. But DOES love "smell like a LilY?" Doe
> it have a smell? Does anger have sound, and is it always the
> SAME sound? So much of what we do is contextual, and to assign
> specific attributes that may not carry over is simply ludicrous.
I think the point that both Jarrod and Carl are making, here, Chris,
is that the specificity, whether verbal or visual, should not relate
to the emotion unless it's SITUATION-specific. Anger can be "Blood
Red" in a certain scene of the Scottish play, but very different in a
scene from '12th Night'.
Furthermore, I believe the specificity needs to take a quantum leap
forward in the craft...assigning it a general 'color' and acting by
the seat of your pants 'viscerally' without first getting very
specific mentally/emotionally cuts a character's development off after
stage one; If on the first read of the Scottish Play, you decide your
anger here is 'red', fine...but the next step is "Who am I angry at,
Why am I angry at them, what implications does my anger have on my
current life, etc, etc"...all of a sudden, then you have an action to
play. Otherwise you might just end up chewing up the scenery with
vague, 'blood red' attitude.
...I don't mean to sound like I'm talking down to you; judging by your
posts you already know this stuff. :) Just wanted to clarify what I
thought the original point was.
--Wall
Christopher Jahn
This is also the point I'm trying to make. Jeremy has you
creating a static value instead of a dynamic one.
>
> Furthermore, I believe the specificity needs to take a
> quantum leap forward in the craft...assigning it a general
> 'color' and acting by the seat of your pants 'viscerally'
> without first getting very specific mentally/emotionally
> cuts a character's development off after stage one; If on
> the first read of the Scottish Play, you decide your anger
> here is 'red', fine...but the next step is "Who am I angry
> at, Why am I angry at them, what implications does my anger
> have on my current life, etc, etc"...all of a sudden, then
> you have an action to play. Otherwise you might just end up
> chewing up the scenery with vague, 'blood red' attitude.
>
Perzactly.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( Dionysian Reveler
Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art.
To reply: xjahnATyahooDOTcom
Isabella
>please do excuse me if I get frustrated. I've asked for 15 years to get
>off your collective butts and try a technique for 15 minutes, but you
>would rather spend 10 years talking about something than get up and do!
Please do not generalize about people whose work you do not know, in fact,
now that I think about it, whose work you have never even *asked* about.
For the record, I'm a mask and physical theatre specialist. It doesn't get
much more visceral than that.
So far, the only one "talking" here is you. And you have been too busy
bashing what you *assume* everyone else's work to be that you haven't
thought to ask "Hey, what do you folks do when you act or teach? Maybe I
have something that you would like to explore/add/use." Perhaps we'd be
more receptive to your ideas if your entire theory didn't rest on the
assumption that the rest of us are unprofessional, out-of-work morons.
Allison Williams
Bill491
Isabella wrote:
Nicely stated, Allison. Very civil, also. Expect JW to ignore your post, or
to perhaps continue to rant and rave about how you and anybody else who doesn't
immediately "get" his techniques is a member of the old school.
Share more about this statement.... "I'm a mask and physical theatre
specialist."
"Mask"..... is this akin to Grotowksi's mask exercises, which I still use? How
do you use the term? "Physical?" Share what you mean.... my training
integrates Lessac, Linklater and Alexander with many of the KS-American
hierarchy. (You know, the very ollllld school. <g>)
Break a leg,
Bill
--
THE ACTING STUDIO
http://gvtg.com/theactingstudio
Scout
boon...@tosthesalonen.org (Bonnie) wrote in
<Xns90E9CA1A9boon...@216.85.213.5>:
>u screwtop man
>
>"de Valois" <de_v...@nailedandused.com> wrote in
><w1e77.10026$Px1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>:
Isabella
>Nicely stated, Allison.
Many thanks!
>Share more about this statement.... "I'm a mask and physical theatre
>specialist."
My partner and I direct, coach, teach and perform with an aesthetic of mask
work and physical theatre, including circus, stage combat, commedia, mask,
and contact improvisation. I came out of improvisational theatre and street
performance and studied at DePaul and a small liberal arts college in
Florida, and my partner, also with an improv/new vaudeville background,
studied at University of Nevada-Las Vegas and the Dell'Arte School of
Physical Theatre in northern California. We feel influenced by Dario Fo,
Avner Eisenberg, Julie Taymor, Big Apple Circus, clown (not the kind with
the big shoe dance, the Bill Irwin kind), Gary Izzo, a little Viewpoints,
and the students of Decroux and Lecoq. We also do a lot of Shakespeare, and
our philosophy is that if an actor can do Commedia and Shakespeare, they can
do anything--Shakespeare is the ultimate textual/verbal/emotional
involvement, and Commedia is the ultimate physical/emotional involvement.
"In Shakespeare, anything a character thinks comes right out of their
mouths, in Commedia, anything a character thinks is immediately acted upon."
We translate this work to "straight" acting by focusing heavily on
intention/obstacle/tactics, which we call (not original to us)
"intention/invention."
Most of our work is based on the idea of psychophysical response--the idea
that by committing fully to an action, the emotional content will arrive
appropriate to the action. Sometimes the action is literal (running across
the stage, you become panicky, the audience reads panic) sometimes
figurative (an intention within the scene) but we try to get our students
and actors to explore a literal action even if it's not what they end up
using in the final performance. We use papier-mache masks as exercises, as
character/scene explorations, and as performance tools. For example, our
last production was an adaptation of a Japanese folktale, The Tale of Tsuru.
The cast was a mixture of masked and unmasked actors--the masked characters
were the villagers and doubled 2 or more each, the unmasked characters were
played singly and were the focus of the story--the people to whom change
happened, or who underwent a transformation.
In rehearsal, all the actors (both groups) chose masks that reminded them of
their characters and worked on an extensive mask improvisation that ended
several sessions later with each actor endowing a simple prop object (a
stick, a piece of cloth, a cup) with a personal significance. The
characters then paired up (in another extensive exercise) and gave each
other their objects as gifts. The over-bearing mother gave her hen-pecked
son a bundle of cloth shaped as a baby, which for the actors illuminated a
section of the script in which the son is symbolically given his manhood by
his mother (she leaves him be with his girlfriend instead of nagging him to
come away). The depth of emotion they accessed while performing a simple
action without speaking, and with a heightened physical committment to their
characters' postures and walks stayed with them as we later unmasked the
son, put the mother in her character mask, and played the scene with the
lines.
In that show, we also spent time on contact improvisation (a kind of
interactive improvisational movement) that led to some of the blocking for
fight scenes, and the four 'gossipy women' having a funny onstage blocking
pattern that supported the idea that they were always listening and trying
not to be caught being nosy--in the improv, they gave themselves the
criteria that they would always be shoulder to shoulder, with two as eyes
and two as ears, and always conferring before doing anything. Simplified,
it stayed in the show.
We just finished a production of Love's Labours Lost in which we acted and
were movement coaches, and a great deal of our work was using the parallel
Commedia characters to the characters in LLL to illuminate possible
relationships and give the actors more options as they made character
choices--for example, we explored the status exchanges between Moth and Don
Armado, and how Costard changes status as he moves between the groups of
commoners and the nobles.
As a whole, we think that our work is supplementary and complementary to
what we think of as the traditional "character analysis" work. While we
have done the physical work exclusively with some shows, it's very hard to
do with actors who don't otherwise have a working process, unless their
long-term focus has been on physical work. Most of our employment has been
with groups whose actors have a strong background in emotional/textual work,
and who are now looking for a way to become more invested in the physical,
or in a different "doorway" to their work.
For vocal we share Linklater (not certified, just passing on what we know)
and I also teach a lot of Yoga for their backs and for focus.
That's what's on the top of my head--do you want to know more, or shall I
shake you awake? :)
Allison Williams
Commedia Zuppa
Bert Morris
>
> Bill491 wrote
> >Nicely stated, Allison.
> Many thanks!
>
> >Share more about this statement.... "I'm a mask and physical theatre
> >specialist."
snip
> That's what's on the top of my head--do you want to know more, or shall I
> shake you awake? :)
>
> Allison Williams
> Commedia Zuppa
Dear Allison,
No need to shake! Just cross-post this to Jeremy Whelan! I learned more about
what you do, your training, your approach, working methods and applications in 6
short, concise, well written paragraphs than I learned about New School Acting
in all of JW's volume of rehashed, inaccurate, illogical, pseudo-craft,
self-serving hype.
And to think, this was a post off the top of your head (it proves you've GOT one
and know how to use it!)...
Regards,
Bert
Isabella
Allison Williams
Bert Morris wrote in message <3B627A93...@erols.com>...