Acting Techniques --a discussion — Page 2

i have heard great things about that Kohlhoss class. i wish i had the time/money to do things like that when i visit NYC as opposed to catch up on the shows i only get to read about in Houston!

---

Atlantic's repetition differs from the Meisner version. Atlantic encourages you to respond as fast as possible, without thinking at all about it. It's a rapid-fire exchange.

---

Cheno\
That is no different from how I studied. The point is to not think and be completely instictual(is that spelled right), I don't see where Meisner repetition would have to be slow. You repeat your partner's viewpoint until you have the instinct to change it. Is that different from Atlantic's.

By the way I also read the "Handbook" in highschool, it changed my life!

"But the idea is that time spent onstage thinking about a puppy that died is time away from the scene, away from your partner, away from achieving your goal."

No no no, getting to the emotional level I'm speaking of is not done onstage. It's all rehearsal and prep. All actors/people are different, and method-based tools on top of a basic action is what works for me.

I don't buy it when people say that it's just simply playing the action. It's not enough for me.

In fact, during the filming of Glengarry Glen Ross, there was a particular actor who was Atlantic-trained. Mamet was consulting (though he didn't direct) and he wanted this actor to use the simple Practical Aestrhetics approach. The actor himself admitted that he used WAY more than that, and had he only use PE, he would not have achieved the level of intensity necessary.

I don't know. I've seen actors who went through Atlantic, Stella, Esper Studio, etc. and I've seen some who were TERRIBLE, and some who were great.

I don't think any technique can guarantee anything.

---

I agree with what you're saying.

I personally just didn't find the as-if's AS invigorating as I would have liked. But then again, maybe if I chose different ones, and REALLY played with them (not for too long though) it would reconcile the things I was missing.

I actually find the PA technique really good for musical theatre. It keeps you focused on one goal. So many actors sing a song and you have NO idea why they're singing it. I even see it all the time on B'way.

Regarding the difference between Meisner and Atlantic repeition, I haven't studied Meisner, but friends of mine who've studied both versions tell me that with Meisner, you can let what they tell you affect you and sink in, before responding. Atlantic is just an immediate response.

---

I have tried to read Mamet's "True and False" three--yes, three--times, and each time have gotten only half-way through. It is very pretentious, but I do agree with many of his points. I think that the Method is misused by many actors to the point that it becomes--excuse my crudity--masturbatory.

An actor's job is to communicate the play to the audience in the clearest, most effective way possible. Every actor is different, and each has his or her own techniques. I don't believe there is ONE technique that MUST be used by all. However, I do think that sometimes, to relate to what Mamet says, you just need to say the f*cking line.

touchme--another misconception. You do not play your as if onstage. It is just a private rehearsal device to recall what it feels like to "put a jerk in his place" or "entice a lover to agree with your opinion" or whatever is the essential action of the scene. It's no different than a method actor using a death in their past to recall the feelings of sadness over a loss to play a scene where the character's lover dies. The only difference is that in PA you work with fantasies--things that have not happened yet. Things you do not know the outcome of so you don't get into the habit of playing the end of the scene--which a Method actor could easily do if they fall into that trap.

---

I have not read thi entire thread yet, but I thought I'd chime in and repsond to this, jrb...

"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!!"

I have been trained at Stella Adler Studios, which IS method, and I would say that it involves both unrealized fantasies and memories. The memories get you to the character, the imagination brings them to life...all of this is essentially creates that depth that we see in those mezmerizing, brilliant actors. The work of creating a past and using your imagination to bring everything in your personal rehearsal work, and in the moment during performance is what brings an actors to become so completely that character. That way, when you are up on stage, there is no focus on the result, but your imagination and other work has help that character step into your body so well, that the emotion, the physical, the verbal reaction comes.

As far as what you mentioned about seeing the fight you want to have...that is covered as well. The particulars of what you want in that scene are always important, and in addition, Adler technique there is a stress on the point of view of the character--which often leads you to the character's wants.

I have found Stella Adler's techniques to be difficult for some--it can be a very complex thing to work at or to grasp, but when you really grasp and apply the techniques, the characters that you play are incredibly real and powerful.

No, of course you can't KNOW what they've done to create the performance, but I've seen the transformation when someone actually does all that work to create the performance. It is a more layered, real character...whether or not we know everything that happened to them, there is depth in the character and the audience can feel it.

No, that's not what I'm saying at ALL. I'm saying that the most layered performances come from actors who find a way top truly have an understanding of the character or what the circumstances have made the character. It doesn't mean they have to go trhough Adler or any other similar process...it just means having an understanding. Often, a process like Adler's technique can help this understanding or clarify through this work.

What I'm saying is that if that level of understanding is not there, the performance can still be real, but a method like Adler's can aid in creating depth.

I'd never claim there's only one way to approach things. Different techniques work for different people.

I had a horrible experience with the Meisner technique.

I had an acting teacher at a summer program when I was about 17 that was only taught us Meisner. We were supposed to be learning several different ones, but he only taught Meisner. So he taught us the repetition exercises. We were instructed to be ourselves and respond as naturally off of the other person as possible.

I went up with my parter when it was my turn. We started. My partner took on a more frusterated angry tone, which made me smile (Why is she angry with me? I don't even know her??) and then angrier she got the more I laughed. The teacher got made at me and said I was using laughter as a defense mechanism and that I needed to take the exercise seriously. I told him I was, and that is how I reacted naturally based on what I was getting off of the other actor. I asked him if he wanted me to pretend I knew this person, and pretend I actually belived they were mad at me. He told me no, I'm supposed to be myself.

I found that a total catch 22.

I ended up getting an A for attendence and work completed but a F for attitude. My first failing grade. It made me cry.

Since them Meisner has been a great evil in my book. But it could have just been the teacher.

---

Updated On: 7/29/05 at 03:31 PM

academic theater (i went to college in the midwest) is often a crushing experience. i left my school angry and bitter and confused about so much regarding having a creative life. i felt like gregor momsa --that i had awakened to find that i was an insect. Try everything -- that is my answer --because no one knows what works for you. An actor has to have a magic bag full of tools. i learned great things from teachers at stella adler. i recommend stella's books that are basically her lectures from text analysis. these are priceless things. i also learned a great technique from carol fox-prescott about being at the top of your breath and seeking the joy of your own experience. (i HATED her class --but i have used what i learned there many times) joanne woodward said that different roles will require different things from you and that she uses selected tools for each one. i also know that whatever happens to me when i commit to a play or even working on a scene is part of the life of the character. my atoms rearrange themselves around the text somehow. everything is the play and everything is useful. i've always remembered what geraldine page said about intellectualizing--to paraphrase--i never want to work on something too deliberately -- to decide what it is--because then that's all it will ever be and that takes the heat out of it. ~ i think thereby she left room for her own genius to come through.
another story--during filming for postcards from the edge, off-camera shirley maclaine was all over the place, but when the camera was on she nailed it. someone said to meryl streep, "shirl's a mess-but she knows how to act." and meryl responded, "no one knows how to act. i don't know." if meryl doesn't know, i feel this relieves me of the reponsibility of having to KNOW, so i just begin. it helps me to take my mind off of the panic if i feel like i don't know what i'm doing.

---

Updated On: 7/29/05 at 03:53 PM