Acting Techniques --a discussion- Page 3

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 7/29/05 at 5:38pm

jrb...be careful of that kind of a reduction...sometimes it works to do drama for the other actors...other times, if you play to the other actors, you lose the story, and you lose the audience to your technique instead of the story. Often, also, comedy works best when you play it to the other actors -- sometimes it doesn't...I've just found these sorts of rules are text-dependent. The only hard and fast rule for me is that it is about affecting the audience.

As a result, I tend to agree with Meryl Streep -- every time I start something new, I have no idea what I'm doing -- I am totally lost...then I pull out a few tricks (aka "technique") and it slowly becomes a cohesive whole.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/30/05 at 8:40am

Well that is where I disagree with you 100%. It is NOT the actors job to "tell the story" or "help the story". That is the writer's job and the director's job. I can only pursue my character's objectives. That is all. They do that work.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 7/31/05 at 4:32pm

jrb...yeah, we definately disagree 100% on this one.

I'm much more of an "actors should be team players" person -- everyone's job is to tell the story, not jus the writer. I think the more you do work, the more you'll realize that the perfect world is when an actor doesn't have to do ANY work...they just have to say the lines, and the story tells itself. Unfortunately, not every piece is written in that style....which makes some choices wrong for the story, and others right -- even if some choices seem "more true" to the character. Often we have to undersell our performance to allow for the main character to shine more fully. It's a tricky balance, but I think telling the story is ALWAYS more important than being "truthful"...because not all plays require the actor to be truthful.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/31/05 at 4:41pm

No, we aren't talking about the same thing at all. I didn't address collaboration. I didn't address the creative process where actor input is asked for.

I'm talking about being onstage in performance and showing instead of doing. I'm talking about being more concerned with the audience understanding the story than on what your character is doing--achieving his or her goal. If all of the actors are acting to each other to achieve their goals, the magic happens. The writer and director are the ones to watch and fix the show from the objective pov. You need to trust that they are doing their jobs.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/31/05 at 4:44pm

This bears repeating and is the crux of of what I am saying:

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

When you try to make things clear for the audience, you are being indicative--YAWN.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/31/05 at 4:47pm

I forgot to say something else in response to what you said. Acting is not ever just saying the lines. The lines are only one part of what you do to achieve your goal. You use the lines, your body, your reactions as well as your actions.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 7/31/05 at 4:57pm

Indicating is not acting for the audience...it is acting for yourself. It means you don't trust the audience to be smart enough to "get it". Audiences are savy, and should be treated as such. I don't mean indicating. I mean there is a different kind of error that you clearly haven't come across -- the actors who act always internally -- they are never concerned with whether or not something reads to an audience...they are only concerned with how they can feel something more fully.

THAT is the other kind of error -- it is a balance...not too much internal...not too much indicative external work. you must find a balance. A delicate balance.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/31/05 at 5:37pm

And, I would never say that an actor should act internally--in fact, I think that everything I have said and everything PA stands for would be against acting internally. You act for the other actors--you are trying to make a change in them to get what you want. Your focus is in them. It's not about how I feel or what emotion I am feeling. It's about how do I get this other character to give me what I want. That's conflict. And, the audience is very smart--they don't need me to act for them--to clue them in on my "emotional state" or where we are in the story. If I do my job, they will be just fine.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 7/31/05 at 9:14pm

If you ever get a chance to work on any experimental theatre, or Eastern theatre...acting for the other actors doesn't work as well...

My ultimate point being...I think actors need to shift techniques for the style of the peice theya re working on...and so many actors don't know how to do that...because they get trained one way and become brainwashed by that technique.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 7/31/05 at 11:14pm

Well, I'm not brainwashed if that's what you are getting at.

And, I'm also very aware of the types of theatre you are alluding to.

So, having said that, can we end this pissing contest?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/2/05 at 4:40pm

bump

I want to hear from other people what gets them going as an actor--what inspires them.

[flaemmchen]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 8:31am

I'd not seen this thread before today, and as I was reading the first page, I got all excited that someone else finds Mamet as effective as I do! Of course, I mostly studied Stanislavski in school, and I don't discount him or the method because I do use it, but I love the immediacy of Mamet technique. It really helps keep a scene fresh because you're just going for it, and it keeps you focused on what's really happening in that moment.

A teacher can definitely affect your perception of a certain technique. I still shudder when people talk about Alexander, because I had the most horrible teacher when I took it in a summer program. People keep telling me it's kind of crucial for an actor because it helps you get back in touch with your body, but I just can't bring myself to do it! Sad.

I'd really love to try Suzuki one day. It looks so intense, and I think I'd enjoy every second.

Updated On: 9/17/08 at 08:31 AM

[rio197]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 9:58am

sorry, it seems my postings just went to the woods i.e. all gone!
lemme try again:

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

I think this is where I got stumped most of the time..
however, I think one can use a technique to get to know what the character really wants: psychoanalysis.
I recommend Sigmund Freud's book "A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis" it blew my mind Updated On: 9/17/08 at 09:58 AM

[Pippin]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 11:08am

"however, I think one can use a technique to get to know what the character really wants: psychoanalysis."

allow me to disagree on this one. Psychoanalysis may help in beginning preperations to get into your character, but it is an intellectual activity, and being an intellectual activity, it makes the actor go right to his head, not his emotions. The worst thing that actors do when they are in a scene is that they are psychoanalyzing, or second guessing themselves as they are speaking. That is not truthful. That is manipulating truth, and comes across in an untruthful and ungrounded performance.

One of the hardest thing to do is get out of your head once you are in it. It takes great concentration, but then, you are spending all your energy on getting out of your head to be available for the scene, and your acting partner, instead of focusing that energy on being completely available and "in" the scene. it is an endless circle and is one of the worst situations actors can find themselves in.

Psychoanalyzing is also akin to judging yourself, which you must never do. One of the worst things that an actor can do is judge his or her own character, becuase then the audience will see your performance being affected in a negative fashion, as you are trying to coax the audience into feeling about the character the same way that you are. And that's not how it should work. The audience is smart, and they need to judge for themselves how they feel about the person they are seeing on stage.

Updated On: 9/17/08 at 11:08 AM

[blondebaby589]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 12:03pm

A very useful little guide is "Tips: Ideas for Actors" by Jon Jory. I believe there's also a second one out now. And he has one out for Directors, which is always useful for the actor as well.

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 12:53pm

In real life, we do not think about why we are happy, rather we just are happy because we are reacting to a situation that makes us feel that way.

I agree with those that say we should make our own technique. Art is an ever-evolving thing, and changes and personal styles are what make it unique...it would not be right for every painter to use the same styles/techniques, so it certainly would not be so for actors.

I try to learn from every technique presented to me. They each have something great to say, and I take them all with respect and gratitude.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 1:10pm

What a blast from the past!

I think that's a fantastic way to be, TtP. I took a musical audition class recently and the ideas presented were very new and went against things I had been taught before. But that's good to think outside what you think you know. And considering she was a major casting director, she was offering advice that was applicable not only for her auditions but likely musical auditions in general based on TODAY's standards. What casting people want to see these days.

So, I'm going to incorporate her ideas into what I'm doing--see how it goes. See how it feels for me. It's exciting.

[myshikobit]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 1:24pm

I've had a very general varietized acting education, and I'm not formally trained with any one program. I personally think one should implement different techniques for different shows and characters. For example, right now I'm playing "Ed" in "You Can't Take It With You" (actual show) and "John Proctor" in the "Crucible" (in a class), as well as doing a scene from "Great Expectations" (both Pip and Orlick). For Ed, I just picked a voice (stole it from my coworker, lol), made a generic background, determined his life's purpose, and I'm good. For John, I did an extensive character analysis, and I didn't spend any time picking a voice. For Orlick, I did the same thing. For Pip, I said screw it (all of Dicken's young men protagonists are just single dimensional objects of pity: it's the other characters that Dickens does brilliantly with). Basically, my point is that acting is like making a soup: there's no specific recipe. There's no right or wrong answers. There's some ingrediants you probably wouldn't be wise to use, but you could put a billion odd ingrediants in a bowl and put water in and have a soup.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 1:53pm

I tried to melt. I really did. I should have gone to an acting school, that seems clear.

[rio197]

Posted: 9/17/08 at 4:49pm

"allow me to disagree on this one. Psychoanalysis may help in beginning preperations to get into your character, but it is an intellectual activity, "

now Pippin, analyzing a script is an intellectual activity anyway! I wrote specifically in regards to PA's step 1 which is the analysis part. When you read a script for the first time of course you can "feel" it out. Most of the time this works.. but when it doesn't, that's when we use a technique. Could be psychoanalysis, could be something else.
Back to PA... when you've found what the guy/girl wants, and chose an action to pursue it, if it doesn't do anything for you that's where the "as-if" comes in. It's something that turns your wheels that'll serve as a mnemonic device to remind you what it feels like. Then the "as-if" and the "listening" will get you out of your head.
But sure, finally I'm not saying you have to use only PA.

"Psychoanalyzing is also akin to judging yourself, which you must never do"

Freud would disagree with you on that :) his analysis technique is about deconstructing the person's dreams (or in the extreme, neurotic acts) in order to discover that unconscious wish, that unseen fixation and understanding the mechanisms that transform the wish into the dreams / acts.
To put it into our field of acting, it's all possible to use it in order to understand what the person on paper (aka character) wants. And to get around being judgmental I always confide that my character is always right, no matter how weird / evil he is. Maybe that can solve the problem of trying to coax the audience into feeling a certain thing about you?

and ThankstoPhantom, in agreement I'll say "all acting theories are USELESS.. unless the ones that work for you"

[ahmelie]

Posted: 9/18/08 at 10:11pm

Wow, I'm loving this thread, and I feel it deserves a bit of a bump.
I'm only a sophomore in high school, so my acting classes are very much a buffet of acting styles (and a rather laid-back approach at that, unfortunately). So, at this point, I can't really attest to which school of thought I side more with. But I can tell you as I feel out the different styles and exercises and experiment with different ways of approaching a character, I'm beginning to know what I like and don't like.

I hate the intellectual, written aspects of preparation that I'm forced to do for school. Marking beats, writing character histories, writing subtext, I despise it. It seems so extraneous to me to go beyond the text, I have everything I need right there. At the end of a show, my script is destroyed with questions and answers written in every margin, but if something isn't brought up in the play, I don't think its necessary for me to even think about it, because if I make it important enough to my character for the audience to become aware of it, I'm likely to just confuse them. If its just a tiny subtlety that no one but me could possibly pick up on, than all I've done is waste time.

One of the things I love about what Mamet had to say in True or False was the idea of never "Um"ing or adding words in order to save time and find a safe moment. I love seeing an actor take an emotion and run with it, even if its scary or confusing. But I can't agree that going to school for acting is useless, as those startling and fantastic moments just won't come to you every night, and you need something to do in case it doesn't happen.

I also love Viewpoints. I am most intrigued by an actor that is physically in their body and is aware. I am so annoyed by an actor that isn't both physically and mentally present 100% of the time. And I think constantly having that awareness of what's going on in yourself, as well as your relationship to others is half the battle for an actor.

But, I have the feeling that I'm really a Meisner girl, as my favorite exercises that we've done in my class have been, to my knowledge, Meisner exercises. Lots of repetition. Personally, I am triggered most by what I'm given, and I try to allow the other character's lines to guide what I'm doing more than my own.

And I also try to allow what's affecting me at any moment to work itself into the scene, and not deny any emotion, even if I feel it may betray what the character "should" be feeling. No matter what it is, I try to grab that feeling by the balls, and run with it.

My apologies if any of this is obvious or extremely basic, I'm in the very early stages of figuring out my technique.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/18/08 at 10:29pm

Actually, Ahmelie, that was a fantastic post. Quite brilliantly perceptive I'd say you are.

[rio197]

Posted: 9/19/08 at 5:27am

Well said, Ahmelie. blue shirt

touchinthemorning, I saw you wrote: "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,"
I reckon there's an answer to your concern. Meisner once said "you respond to what's happening inside you when you hear your partner" (I'm paraphrasing here). This is on the video that he made with Sydney Pollack. And he didn't teach just the repetition but also "the pinch and the ouch". Maybe this last part is not taught well in the "meisner class" of most theater education?

[ahmelie]

Posted: 9/19/08 at 11:45am

actually, I'm curious as to if anyone else doesn't include a character history on their process. I've been told for years that it is a fundemental of process work and that I really won't come across many acting styles that it isn't an aspect of. How abnormal am I to find that it doesn't help me in the least? Do all of you write an extensive character history for every role?

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 9/19/08 at 1:06pm

Not everyone believes in writing out a character history. I think if it works for someone, fantastic. I think any research one wants to do to understand something about the character is great. Especially for externals. And, I say use whatever you can to create a brilliant performance.

But at the end of the day, the writer did all that for you. Your job is to play what's on that page.

Sidenote: one of the greatest advantages that comes from this freedom? Cold readings. Of course, what happens before the scene and after the scene can affect choices made for performance. But if you don't have that information just yet, you can still play the scene.