Acting Techniques --a discussion- Page 2

[Love4Cheno]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 3:02pm

I've studied at Atlantic also. I love Karen Kohlhaas. What I like is that I am able to clearly define an objective and an action. With that backbone, I can "embellish" with other tools I've learned. One class I love is Anthony Bova's, in the Eric Morris system. It's highly method-based, but it gets me to an emotional level I hadn't been able to attain before. Of course, this is all for prep, before walking onstage.

Personally, I just need to feel emotionally invested when I'm playing an action, and Atlantic's technique alone wasn't doing it for me. That's just a personal preference.

I highly recommend Karen Kohlhaas' monologue class.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 3:18pm

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!

[diva007]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 4:10pm

JRB-
Repetition is a meisner exercise, were you meisner trained?

Me- Meisner trained 3 years in a conservatory, under a notorious Meisner teacher. It was HELL and I loved it!

[Love4Cheno]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 4:16pm

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.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 4:24pm

Love4Cheno--I understand what you are saying, but I think the Atlantic's point (and many acting techniques would agree) is that you can't play an emotion. You can't choose an emotion. An emotion is the result of action.

Let's say you have a scene where you are fighting with your spouse. Your action is to put a jerk in her place. Now, in both your as if (which might be telling off your boss for not paying you well) and in the scene, when you as the character go to tell your spouse off, you are going to have an internal reaction. But it may vary from nite to nite. You may be in a happy mood that day. You may be in a depressed mood that day. These factor in--and you have to be true to them. You can't force emotions. So deciding that you will be angry in the scene is futile. If you force it, you will not resonate truthfully onstage. The audience will see this.

Having said that--what the hell do you do when a director asks you to cry or "play an emotion"? Well, you raise or lower the stakes accordingly. And, if all else fails, you rely on tricks.

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.

[diva007]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 4:27pm

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!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 4:30pm

diva--my grad program was Meisner influenced, but I believe that the exercise was poorly conveyed.

I don't know whether it differs from the Atlantic or not (which does derive the exercise from Meisner). As I understand it, Meisner, too, wanted you to stopping thinking and just repeat until you notice something new. Don't look for things. Because in a performance, you don't have time to intellectualize the other character's state of mind/emotion. You need to be able to immediately gauge this (as you would in real life) to change your tactics in the scene. Maybe they seem madder than last nite, so you instantly back down a titch. Or maybe they smiled at you and it pisses your character off--you have to play true to these things because the audience sees them.

Updated On: 7/28/05 at 04:30 PM

[Love4Cheno]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 4:31pm

"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.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 4:36pm

Well, I think I will be apt to use whatever I can to get the work done. I do think as you mentioned earlier that PA is an excellent foundation for any technique.

And, I do not view PA the same way you do regarding the lack of emotion. The as if brings out your emotions. The difference again is that in method you are acting out experiences you have already had. In PA, your as if gets you to act out experiences you have not had--that you do not know the end result of.

Everytime, I played out an as if, there was emotion. But I didn't choose the emotion in advance. In real life, you don't say to yourself, "I'm going to get really angry at this person". You just get really angry at them and you tear them a new ***hole. You do the action. You want THEM to do something. How do you get them to do that thing? Not by being emotional--by DOING.

:)

Updated On: 7/28/05 at 04:36 PM

[Love4Cheno]

Posted: 7/28/05 at 4:42pm

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.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 2:19am

The problem with the "as if" as a technique is that it ALWAYS rings as untrue. You are not telling off your boss at your day job, the character in the play is telling off another character in the play. The paralel always breaks down at some point, so you have to realize this when you're doing the exercise. I see SO many actors make this mistake -- they think crying about their dog dying is the same as crying because they just finalized their divorce. While it helps sometimes to get that emotion at your fingertips, it never fits the scene -- the SCENE fits the scene. So, play the scene, and it will find you.

While "as if" works as an exercise, if you are using it onstage, you are mistaken. You HAVE to drop technique when performing and just play the scene, and if you have done your work, it won't be stale when you perform it...if you are performing one night and it goes stale, you know you have work to do on that section -- but work outside of performance time.

That's my two cents on "as if"

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 2:30am

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.

[Desperado]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 3:07am

Thanks. I'm gonna check that book out.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 3:23am

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.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 4:56am

Precisely my point, jrb. If an actor uses as if onstage, they are misusing it.

In fact, any time an actor uses anything from their life on stage, they are mistaken -- stage is meant for characters working out their problems, not you and me. That is what rehearsal is for.

Any actor (Method or not) can fall into the trap of claiming an end state...it is easy to do...cause you know what's coming...

PA isn't different from Method as far as utilization of fantasy...often the "as if" for Stanis. was imaginative. So, there is no real difference in the way it gets treated between those two schools.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 11:02am

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.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 11:31am

Well, that's why different actors have to find what works best for them. :)

I'm not saying that I intend to ONLY use PA in my work, though it is definitely going to be my foundation. I am familiar with Adler's beliefs, and I respect all of the great teachers. But, I am fond of that which makes PA practical. It's not like you can watch an actor and KNOW what they have done to create that performance.

And, it's fun to devil's advocate things.

TRUE AND FALSE is a very shocking read. But, I found that exciting. I like the rebel in Mamet, even if I'm not sure what all I agree with or not in the book.

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 11:34am

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.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 11:46am

So, you are telling me that only someone who goes through the Adler or similar process gives great performances? Are you really saying that?

When Brits don't use that technique?

Do you think William H Macy's work is "less than"? Or Felicity Huffman's?

Would it make you think less of Dustin Hoffman to know that he believes that there is no such thing as the character? This coming from the man who created Rain Man and tons of legendary performances?

[BroadwayGirl107]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 12:19pm

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.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 3:14pm

Here's another thought: probably the most central to my own acting technique:

It has literally nothing to do with how I feel or have felt. It has EVERYTHING to do with how I can affect and audience.

I think so many actors think they translate if they just feel it. While this is sometimes true, it doesn't always turn up on stage that way. It all depends on the style of the peice you are working on. It is rare to hear an acting teacher speak of the style of the literature. I wish every acting teacher would...but, they don't.

[buffyactsing]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 3:31pm

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

[buffyactsing]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 3:43pm

diva007, did yours throw chairs?

[Garland Grrrl]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 3:53pm

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

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 4:28pm

buffy--sounds like a terrible teacher. In that exercise, you go with whatever is there. Your laughter was the truth of the moment. What did she want? For you to affect a state of mind--which would have been false?

touch me--for presentational work (usually comedy), I gauge the audience, but for contemp dramatic work, I do not act for the audience. I act for the other actors. I put my focus into them--not the audience.

PA would suggest that you are always focusing on achieving your goal--and that goal is found in the other character and nowhere else. I agree with that--and that may come to affect my comic work.

"It is important to be clearly specific--not specifically clear."

Updated On: 7/29/05 at 04:28 PM