I think for most of us acting is just something that we DO. No matter how much training, who we studied with, where we went to school, what technique we prescribe to, whether "inside out" or "outside in" most of us have a process that we can do but don't really know how to talk about. And after all, if its OUR process and it works then what's the point of talking about it?
Well that's all fine and good until we run into an artistic block. When our process breaks down and we find ourselves feeling vulnerable and without direction. This is a horrible and frightening place to be for an Actor. What then? It's like getting lost and you have no map to find your way. From my experience, both personally and from observing my colleagues, this is the point where Actors begin to be "difficult." We become less generous with our fellow Actors because we are so focused on our insecurities and the blockage. We may even start to doubt direction and even question ALL the work we have put in so much time to create.
But I believe this is INEVITABLE for every Actor. There is no way around it. At some point in your career you will come up against a role that seems to elude you. A character that confuses you. It might be just one tiny moment or scene or emotional component of your character but it's going to happen. That's OK! We are not machines that coldly go through the motions of creating a "living" role on stage or screen. And thank the heavens! We bring with us a human element and an endless number of wonderful and complicated variables and possibilities for the equation. Not to mention that the Actor's ego and confidence can be fragile from time to time or we may even become over sensitive to elements of external influences. It's frustrating and scary when it happens but like the great Epictetus saying "it's not what happens to you, but how you react that matters." These are the moments where your training and skill will determine how you react. These are the moments that will truly define you as an artist. These are the moments when you grow.
As I began to teach workshops and coach actors I was forced to reflect more closely on my own process. I have always been a keen investigator of the text but coaching Actors goes far beyond helping them to dig through a script for characterization and direction. I've always relied heavily on the process that I had developed from the training that I received in Drama School but I still wanted to understand more. I wanted to be able to offer more. I wanted to gain a broader knowledge of HOW acting has evolved to where we are and what we might have missed. How I can continue to build upon the traditions of the past and contribute to the training of more fulfilled actors for the future?
So I hit the books!
Over the last few years I have been reading and rereading all of Stanislavsky's collected works. Then I read and reread every acting book on my shelves from Meisner to Hagen to Boleslavsky to Donnellen. I've searched for clues for the art's evolution by studying Michael Chekhov and Vsevolod Meyerhold. My goal is to get to the core of what Actor Training is all about and all it CAN be. My hope is by looking into the past of the masters and comparing it to my own experiences and artistic awareness I will be able to discover a new way of working. If our instincts are built on and informed by the commitment and faith we have in our training then it is imperative that we are articulate about the details our artistic process entails. I know that many of our Nation's University training programs and Acting Studios are committed to offering each student a unique process but I wonder how many young talents are walking into the profession with a clear understanding of what their unique process is really. I HOPE they are! I know that I didn't when I left my undergraduate institution. I knew that I had studied the "fundamentals" of acting and learned about Stanislavsky's five questions - Who, Where, When, What, & How. I knew a little about Period and Styles and I had acted in more than a dozen shows but I still relied mostly on my instincts. Even when I left graduate school I still had some questions! I knew again that I had taken more classes, this time in voice and speech and done hours of scene study. I had performed Shakespeare and Brecht and Chekhov and certainly knew my way around breaking down the text. But I still hadn't discovered how to get the Actor/Artist (Self) and the Actor/Character (Self on stage) to play nice together. Or that the two even existed!
Maybe I'm a late bloomer, maybe this is all just subjective, maybe it was assumed that I knew more than I actually did, maybe it was implied that I would put it all together later in my career but I believe that a clearer more transparent (since this word is in vogue now) Actor process should be brought to the foreground. Clearly it is somewhere because we have many great examples of talented actors. Or is it? The only way we ever evaluate acting is in the performance. If the performance was a success then the actor must be doing everything correctly...correct?
When Actors have a strong grasp on their process then no matter the vocabulary or terminology used in production they are able to translate this into fulfilling creation. They are also confident and capable to make endless adjustments! No matter what comes their way there will always be a way out. From my experience, training consisting of a toolbox (the actor) and the tools (specialized skills) to be pulled out and used accordingly is in service of the director. Do not get me wrong, I am not talking about Actor anarchy. I do not believe that Actors should be difficult or contrary to the director's vision and certainly NOT contrary to the purpose of the story! BUT! I do believe that Actors with strong technique bring with them choices that make them more valuable creative contributors. They are no longer pawns or the "talent." They are not insulted or shaken by criticism or vague direction. They are able to bring with them a force of imagination and creativity that is always at their fingertips. Is it too dogmatic to think creative power is an actor's right and responsibility? Is it wrong to believe that an actor could have a universal process that will work from Shakespeare to Wellman and Shepard to Ibsen? A technique that can be used in naturalistic drama and empathetic theatre, and turn around and be just as successful in visual/symbolic theatre that is intended to be emotionally reactive? Is this even possible?
I think it is and I think that it starts with developing a strong process that can address these needs. This is what I hope to explore and discuss in future posts. Do you remember what it is like to pick up your script the week of tech or even in the final dress performances and see words the playwright has given you that you had somehow paraphrased or even worse left out? Do you remember how there is new life breathed into your work from this discovery? New inspirations and sometimes a new direction? That is what returning to the source has been and continues to be for me. I hope it will be for you as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment