Acting Techniques --a discussion

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 5:42pm

Actors: What school(s) of thought do you follow?

College left me feeling like I had NO technique. Professors were not clear, articulate, or capable of creating practical tools for an actor to use. Theatre games were played that never came with (clear) instruction on their applications to the real work. WHY are we repeating each other's sentences? Why are we "exploring our space"? Why are we acting like baboons and making sexual mating calls? I don't know what kind of freaking cookie my character would eat!! (Very "Nothing" from ACL) So much time and money wasted.

And we actors are notorious for not wanting to speak up and admit that we don't know what the heck is going on. So, we just go through life feeling like hacks.

Well, I have felt like this until I discovered A PRACTICAL HANDBOOK FOR THE ACTOR, which was written by the first students of David Mamet. Mamet and Macy founded the Atlantic Theater Company ( http://www.atlantictheater.com/ ) which has a school which teaches Practical Aesthetics, essentially Mamet's simplification of the craft of acting by way of Meisner. I took the part time class this past spring and it was revolutionary. I plan on continuing this fall.

Read TRUE AND FALSE by Mamet and see even deeper Mamet's rebellious views on the craft of acting. Even if you don't agree with everything he says, you can certainly agree with parts, finding them to ring so true. Mamet basically despises The Method. And, I have to say, I have come to agree with many of these views. It is better to play out your unrealized fantasties than to play your memories. Who cares that you had a fight with your bf a few years ago? What we want to see is the fight you WANT to have with your bf if he dares cross the line with you!!

Now, I believe that no matter your technique, you can gain something from the classes at the Atlantic. As with any acting class, you leave your beliefs at the door and as in Rome, respect and take in everything being taught to you. As soon as the class is over, you can take the parts that work and leave the rest. But, I would recommend being open minded about keeping things that may even seem wrong at first.

I believe that even a Method actor can benefit from the two part classes--the first part dealing with analyzation and the second part dealing with Meisner's repetition.

Analysis - I NEVER truly knew how to take a scene and pin point what the character wanted. More importantly, I didn't know how to APPLY this in my work. This class FINALLY taught that to me.

Repetition - I had done this before but I could never have told you what the hell it was supposed to do for you. Now, I FINALLY know. An actor shouldn't act for the audience. An actor must search the other character(s) for signs of how far they are from achieving their objective. And any time spent worrying about what the audience thinks or anything else is time spent away from your character getting what he wants (and is breaking character).

So, that's the direction my technique is finally heading. Simple, PRACTICAL, clean work on the script. Living in the moment.

What is yours?

[MusicalDirector109]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 5:46pm

"A Practical Handbook for the Actor" is a WONDERFUL book. I use it often. Living and playing the moment is what its all about.

[apdarcey]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 5:50pm

this is going to sound bitchy and it's not meant to, but it sounds as if you've had a lot of bad teachers in the past.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 6:02pm

Of course. Most teachers of acting are hacks. Or they only know how to teach people to act on community theatre or educational stages. When you out grow that, you are left with nothing and feel very confused.

I will say I did have some excellent teachers before the Atlantic. One that taught voice work/vocal coaching. One, who was a great Broadway producer, and one who is a professional actor at the Alley Theatre. I learned great things from these 3 people. But, I didn't learn great theory until the Atlantic.

And, I have to say that I learned SOMETHING from everyone. Just not what I talked about it the first post.

Updated On: 7/27/05 at 06:02 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 6:13pm

apdarcey--what is your technique?

[Pinguin]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 6:28pm

I'm not a fan of Mamet's technique...it's far too intellectual for me and for a lot of people can easily lead to surface acting. Of course, I don't do Strausberg method either, 'cause it leads to a lot of internal acting.

I'm all about Uta Hagen (and some Stanislavski of course) combined of course with a strong sense of script analysis. Respect for Acting by Uta Hagen is a GREAT book!

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 6:30pm

back when i had aspirations, i really liked Shurtleff's AUDITION...not just for cold readings, but as a basic beginning acting guidebook.

The only caveat i'd have about repitition exercises is that both players have to know what the game is about for it to be truly helpful. No matter what the technique used to approach, it can get really pretentious really fast.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 6:31pm

I'm curious in what way you see Mamet's work as too intellectual? It's quite the opposite as it just strips away a lot of the extraneous things people often pile onto acting.

And what is surface acting?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 6:35pm

Well, repetition can get tedious when you are new to it. But it strengthens your skills at quick observation--being attuned to your partner. The idea is that one should never have line readings. You are constantly bouncing off of that person.

It's the difference between going in to a basketball game and playing off of the moves of the other team or just playing rehearsed moves regardless of what they are doing. The latter would lose the game everytime.

Updated On: 7/27/05 at 06:35 PM

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 6:38pm

from what i have observed in the acting community in Houston, a lot of success depends on the situation, and not the prep or the technique applied. i think actors often succeed or stumble based on their environment: the rest of the cast and what levels they bring, the director as acting coach (versus as provider of concept or visual/aural stylist), the source material itself, etcetera. i have seen very bad acting in some contexts, followed by amazing results from the same actor in a new set of circumstances.

i'm not discounting good technique or prep, but i do think actors might need to develop a very fine-tuned, objective as possible, way to self-coach. That is hard to do, however, without imposing your views on fellow castmates and impinging on the director's responsibility. A pretty challenging Catch-22.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 6:49pm

Tx--I've done quite a bit of professional work, as you know and have seen, with the clueless acting technique in place. And that's all fine and dandy in Houston, Tx.

But, not in NYC where you have to be at the top of your game--and THEN you might get work. And the people who are most successful and consistent HAVE their own technique--whatever it is. Whatever works for you is what you should do. But, to walk into an audition or rehearsal process ambling cluelessly is destructive. And, I don't want to be a good actor. I want to be a great actor. So, instead of resting on my laurels and tricks that have gotten me a lot of work, I constantly want to learn and refine my craft--and that is a life long mission.

And, when professional-behaving actors come together to work, there should be no need to discuss or debate acting techniques. You come in. You do your work. You leave. The catch 22 you describe is only present for those actors who need to deflect from their fears and insecurities. And what those kinds of actors are really saying is "please make my job easier".

If I come across an actor who is merely giving prearranged line reading, then all I can do is act off of that. Even then, they won't always be 100% the same. If actors aren't listening onstage, then that becomes the reality of the scene. How do I make this character listen to me?

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 7:05pm

though i did use Houston in my example, i have seen the same thing in NYC, LA, and other cities. i hear what you're saying, but i don't think any person making any kind of a living as an actor walks into any audition or rehearsal "clueless." They may rely on tricks or tics, yes; they may be damn attractive and coast by on that; they may always play themselves; but they are likely to have some kind of "thing" going for them. Even if it's not analyzed and practiced technique.

That's what i mean about "situational".

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 7:05pm

The best acting advice I ever got was from my mom -- who is not an actor, but just a wise woman: I was parroting some technique my teacher was teaching us in class to her as being "the best" technique, etc. She said, "I think you should make your own technique."

The real truth is that technique should only be used when we're having problems...some teachers think we should use it all the time...I totally disagree. We use technique when we don't know what to do. We use it to discover how not to use it.

The best technique books, I think, are the ones that encourage imagination (my biggest problem with Strasberg is his lack of focus on imaginative performance in favor of memory work). My biggest problem with meisner is that he doesn't speak often enough about internal listening...I've found that most characters I play speak out because of an internal cue combined with an external one, not merely an external cue from others (which repitition is, in most Meisner classes -- as well as Atlantic Th Co classes, design themselves to teach).

I think the best actors I know use pieces of everything. Oddly enough, British actors get so much respect because of their "intellectual" approach to acting. I've found most classical training has been the most effective for me as an actor.

One of the best books I've ever read on acting is an ultra-practical book called "About Acting" by Peter Barkworth -- very British, and VERY fun to read/learn from.

Ultimately, though, the more tools you have in your belt, the better job you'll do as you try to fix yourself so you can fit into your character's body and soul.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 7:12pm

Tx--that usually creates sloppy, cliched, uninteresting performances. Actor who always give us the same thing every time they walk onstage.

touchme--I think the goal is to be so in touch with your "process" that you don't think about it. You just do it. You only think about it when you run into an obstacle.

And, I agree. Learn as much as you can and use whatever aids you.

I like the PA and Meisner technique because it asks the actor to use his imagination and to always stay organic--never relaxing on the stage and just walking through a part. Always being present and working off of new information to achieve your objective.

[Pinguin]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 7:17pm

It focuses too much on analyzing and not enough on emotional work, in my opinion. I don't think you can ignore the success of Stanislavski's work in emotionally opening up actors, which I don't think Mamet addresses enough. There is not much focus on the inner life of characters, since everything is supposed to come from the script. It becomes all in the head, of like, "ok, for this line I am doing whatever action."

Of course, this isn't always true...and I think script analysis is very important and I know a lot of good Atlantic actors...but I think Mamet also trusts that all scripts are going to be as well written as his; the words don't always speak for themselves, sometimes you have to give them meaning.

Again, like everything else, it's not for everybody :0)

When I say surface acting, I'm referring to acting that while everything is "right" -like the choices made are good choices, but the oomph and emotional intensity isn't there. I've seen a lot of actors who are definitely DOING actions, but that other half of the equation isn't present. The opposite would be FEELING a lot but DOING nothing (you know, like being able to cry really well but it's sort of this unspecific display of emotion instead of serving the text).

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 7:29pm

Well everything you just described is an incorrect assessment of what is taught at the Atlantic.

The last step of the analysis is the As If. What is this scene like to me? Well it's as if... This step is the same as "method" with the key difference being that you are imagining something that has NOT happened yet.

Stanislavski failed miserably at performing Shakespeare. PA can be used on ANY genre.

We were never taught "for this line I do whatever action". We were taught to

1. Figure out what the character is literally doing in the scene. What does he want?

2. what is the essential action of the scene?

3. What is this like to me?

Then depending on what the other actor is giving you, you use the applicable tools to get them to do what you want. But, none of it is preplanned. And, yes, emotion is a part of this. But, you don't play an emotion--you can't. If you cry or laugh or get angry it happens as a RESULT of what is happening in the scene--not because you have decided that your character should be happy or mad or sad. What if the other actor decides to play the scene the exact opposite? What if they already are giving you what you want? You don't start screaming at them if they are responding. You might have thought your character needed to do that--but you can't now.

Of course, subtext is part of the work. And acting isn't just the lines. It's the lines and everything between. A crappy bit of dialogue can be made grand if the actor uses it to fulfill an objective. That's why we wouldn't mind seeing some actors read the phone book.

PA is not surface acting. The emotions are there. Have you ever felt that Macy or Felicity Huffman or Matthew Fox or Mary Steenburgen or Mary Beth Peil were surface acting? They are all company members/alum to name but a few.

Updated On: 7/27/05 at 07:29 PM

[Pinguin]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 7:50pm

I was exaggerrating with the "for this line I do whatever action" thing, but point being that it's still an intellectual exploration of the scene without the physical and emotional exploration that is called for in other methods...there is too much THINKING involved because you're finding those actions through intellectual exercise instead of listening to your body. -I know that the studio does physical work as well, but I'm more talking about more off text creative work that I think is lacking...

To each his own :0)

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 7:55pm

yes, to each his own, but I must defend incorrect information. :)

And, I guess in agreeing with what I am being taught, I don't understand what physical and emotional exploration is needed.

You learn your lines by rote.
You do your analysis.
You work out the blocking with the director.
You carry out your objectives.

That's it in a nutshell. Not too intellectual at all.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 8:03pm

jrb...

I have to disagree with what you state as the "goal"...aka "to be so in touch with your process that you don't notice it"...

but, my disagreement is mainly a symantic one (which is important...because we are talking about training actors using symantics)...i'd say the goal is to LITERALLY not use technique when you don't need it. When you talk about being so in touch with your technique, you cannot seperate that from something you notice...yes, i am in touch with my own ability to walk...it was something i learned...but, now i know it...so i don't have to ever think about it. in fact, most of the time if I think about it, i trip, or i start to walk funny...at the very least, I am self-conscious. So, while we are saying the same thing, I think talking about it in terms of "forgetting it" is a closer verbalization to the truth.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 8:09pm

Well, it's semantics, if we are going to do semantics.

And, I disagree with you. A seasoned dancer doesn't go into rehearsal and performance and think, "ok! First position. Prepare! Spot!!" etc. They just DO it. A singer doesn't think about the breathing. They just breathe.

Now, if either one of these people run into a turn or song that troubles them, they might go back to the basics to discover the solution to a problem.

A seasoned actor can look at a scene and automatically do the analysis. And then just do it. When you learn or are new to any technique, you follow the steps. You don't throw off the training wheels right away.

So, it's not that they forget it--it's just part of them without thinking.

Updated On: 7/27/05 at 08:09 PM

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 8:59pm

I think you missed the point. We are talking about the same thing, clearly. I'm saying that my way of speaking about it overcomes the mistake many actors make which is to overanalyze. Your way of speaking about it runs the risk of overanalysis.

An actor simply CAN'T forget learned technique, so to say to them they should know it so well they can do it without thinking about it is stating the obvious. Saying they should forget it eliminates the risk of over-analysis of a part.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/27/05 at 9:02pm

I have no idea what you are trying to say, but I do know it is not anything I have tried to say!

I'm not asking anyone to overanalyze.

Updated On: 7/27/05 at 09:02 PM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 1:12pm

bump

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 2:06pm

i think you may have missed my point too, JRB...i was not defending what i see as being acceptable (actors who come into audition/rehearsal with tricks/tics/physicality only/playing themselves), i was just stating that i see it in NYC as well as Houston in response to your statement about how different it is there. i see what i was talking about also in imports to the Alley and Stages and TUST from NYC and/or LA...

Don't get me wrong, i think studio work is great and technique is useful. But ultimately, it is how a performer works in a given situation in front of an audience that matters. As a singer, i'm sure you're familiar with what Shurtleff refers to as the "practice room phenomenon" where as you work in the practice room (or acting studio) there might be the feeling of great success and evolution---but in front of the teacher (or an eventual audience) that same feeling is not present. That's what i mean about "situational"...the context of your performance, whether achieved by technique or response to the ever-changing performance factors, is the ultimate goal.

The rest is interesting, certainly, but very very very internal and subjective to the practicioner.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 2:36pm

Gotcha!

I agree--there are sloppy actors everywhere. What I was trying to say was that you can get away with it more outside of NYC. But, I agree--a lot of crappy NYC actors were brought to Houston.

And, I believe that it doesn't matter what technique you use. There have been brilliant performances by people who just DID it. They just knew instinctually what to do. It doesn't lessen the value of the performance one bit. If you strike gold, you strike gold. It doesn't matter how you struck it.

But, I do believe in developing your craft. And, I'm not here to tell anyone that their technique is wrong. I'm all for debating why we have chosen the acting philosophies we have vs the ones that don't work for us. And, it comes from a place of respect. But, in the end--what works for you is grand. And what works for you doesn't matter to me when we walk into the rehearsal studio or onstage.

So what other acting philosophies are out there?

Updated On: 7/28/05 at 02:36 PM