Why the AP?

A few years ago I was spending a great deal of thought on who the actor is.  I thought about what it means today to be an actor in New York or LA--or in Chicago, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Atlanta, San Francisco...what it means to be an actor in America.  I thought about our union challenges--how actors continue to struggle for rights at the negotiating table.  How our sister unions argue amongst themselves for individual guild benefits versus collective ACTOR benefits.  How more and more traditional union jobs are going non-union--and for the record, I'm encouraged that more actors are given the opportunity to work and be PAID to work BUT I'm concerned by how this will affect our collective bargaining power in the future. 

I thought about the current career models for the actor to make a living in theatre, television, or film.  I thought about the regional theatres, the bus and truck tours, and the nomadic nature an actor's professional life often takes.  I thought about the "star" system and how it has truly become standard business practice with Hollywood stars on Broadway, television stars on Off Broadway, and "Names" on the marquees in the regions.  Obviously, this is nothing new here and in a capitalistic culture it is impossible to run a business--even an artistic one--without productive sales.  But this prompted me to raise more questions, "is this the only way to sell tickets?"  Is this the only bar for success that an actor can aspire to?  What if you do not break into this "inner circle" of success?  Is it failure?  What IS success?  I thought about ways an actor might find stability within their career.  I thought about the old repertory models and could an acting company be considered "paid employees of the firm" so to speak, with full benefits instead of being independent contractors.  I know a few theatres around the country currently do something similar to this but could it, SHOULD it grow to be the norm?

I thought about the Internet, and You Tube, American Idol, and the onslaught of reality television.  I thought about the growth of cable networks and new venues for actors to find work but these thoughts also led to considering how flooded the market was/had become.  The scales were tipped and now the serious pursuers of the profession are competing with thousands upon thousands of fame mongers desperate for their fifteen seconds.  I even found myself considering what shortcuts I could take to secure better odds for "success!"

But as I considered all of these things I couldn't help but find my thoughts returning to what kind of actor I WAS and WANTED to be going forward.  How could I evolve as an artist?  What kind of actor would I strive to train?  What type of actor do I hope to inspire?  And the answer was always the same--the type of actor so many of my friends and colleagues have become and strive to be every day.  What I consider the WORKING CLASS ACTORS.  The actors who are not in that inner circle but year after year work as actors, teachers, and story tellers.  The actors who are STARS in their OWN community all year round.  The actors who create new avenues to reach their audience simply for the joy it brings them.  The actors who have to hustle to find sporadic acting work--and if they are lucky, they earn their union health insurance by securing the required number of weeks.  The actors who supplement their income with a number of odd jobs during the slow times--but never cease to carry on as actors and artists.  The actors who find a way to finance their passion to whatever capacity they can.

This thinking led me to THE ACTOR'S PROLETARIAT. 

The AP was started as an IDEA.  A concept.  A vision for a future community.  I want to shine a light on the committed work horses of the art form.  I want to celebrate the working actors who don't live in luxury or the tabloids.  The working actors who struggle to work AS actors.  I wanted to celebrate the backbone of the community by celebrating the essence of acting itself--the WORK.

In Stanislavsky's writings it is evident he was an advocate of the actor as an artist but he is also an opponent of the actor as a trade person.  To the contrary, I've always thought of artists as superb tradesmen and women.  I understand that his position is to elevate the status of the actor and give him/her a greater respect and purpose but I have never viewed the talents of a trades person to be lowly.  I will agree that perhaps it is possible to be a tradesman without being an artist but I do not think it is possible to be an artist without being a master tradesman.  Maybe Stanislavsky's prejudices are lost in translation or maybe I'm missing something but I have always valued the work ethic and moral character that hard working masters of trade exemplify.  I have always thought that craftsmanship and artistry went hand in hand.  I value the pride that rises out of hard work as it produces results that surpass even the individual's expectations.  And I'm moved by the humility that comes from being a member of a talented collective.

I am in no means suggesting a bias for a particular group of actor or artist with the inception of the Actor's Proletariat.  This is not an actor CLASS war.  No matter where you are in your career--no matter how you view success as an actor--no matter if you work in movies or non-profit theatre every actor does the same job!  We all ACT!  We all know and understand the work and dedication that is put into each creation, each job, and each production.  With the AP, I'm hoping to encourage dignity in EVERY actor's journey.  I want to restore faith in the romantic and idealistic reasons we all stepped in front of an audience in the first place.  It's easy to be realistic and cynical about the BUSINESS.  It's easy to forget why you wanted to be an actor under all the professional anxiety of your career.  It's easy be bitter about lost opportunities or ones you never had.  It's easy to abandon your artistic ideals to pay your bills.  And it's HARD to stay committed to your FIRST LOVE when your acting life seems so fickle.  But now is the time when the arts are on the chopping block.  Being an actor will only become more difficult in the years to come so it is now more important than ever to champion dedicated artistry.  To champion hard work.  To champion creativity and creation.  To champion actor entrepreneurship.  And I hope in a small way the Actor's Proletariat is doing just that!









 

Bad Intellectual Actor…Bad?

Over the years I have read several acting books where famous teachers have railed against actors intellectualizing about the work.  In my own experience I have been told by educators time and time again that I think too much.  Then not that long ago, I was discussing with a fellow cast mate about a challenge I was facing with my character in a play we were rehearsing.  I was hung up on the objective for a particular scene and it was producing a block.  When I explained my predicament he immediately went into lecturing me that I was being too intellectual--that I needed to make the "discovery" in rehearsal AND planning what to do before hand is always bad.  But something about this just does not sit right with me.  How can you blindly discover how to fulfill your purpose?  If this isn't real life and your character has a function--then does it not make sense to show up with an idea of the direction of that function?  So...

Is "intellectual" a bad word for actors?

Right off, I will address my own experience about thinking too much and say--after years of fighting the battle--I DO think too much.  I can accept that and acknowledge that this is my artistic cross to bear.  BUT what I also discovered--when I was totally honest with myself--was that my "thinking" too much was really all about insecurity.  I doubt this is an issue that I face alone.  In fact, it was an issue that prompted Stanislavsky, and many other acting giants, to seek ways of redirecting the actor's focus AWAY from their insecurities to produce a truthful acting experience.  So what did I learn in my case?  For me, I was always thinking about being validated.  I wanted to impress.  My hopes were that as a result of pleasing those I was performing for (the audience, the director, and my fellow actors) then I would gain acceptance and have value.  Well OBVIOUSLY this is thinking too much but it is thinking too much about the WRONG things.  Maybe I'm being too honest about my experience but I hope my honesty will help open the eyes of others who share the same challenge.  No one is immune to fear and insecurities but it is how we deal with them that define our artistic character.  We must stand against the power these emotions wield over our actions so we can stay true to our purpose.  If I'm intellectualizing and EDITING my acting choices with the "approval" of the audience in mind--then I am not fulfilling my responsibility to the character and the story.  And that IS bad.  But this is a symptom of my fear and not a result of my creativity.  So is intellectualizing still a bad thing?

-It must be because we all know that planning ahead always results in bad acting.  Truth is discovered in rehearsal--right? 

Well...sort of.  Sure, I get where this all comes from.  It has to do with "thinking" verses "doing."  Doing is active.  Thinking is static.  Thinking gets in the way of truthful acting and creates too many road blocks for spontaneity during performance.  All true.  FOR PERFORMANCE.  But rehearsals are another story all together.  To begin with you CANNOT go into rehearsal with a plan that only prescribes you making the choices you discovered while sitting at home the night before--looking over your lines--and expect everyone to go along with it.  Truth comes from a believable give and take with ALL of your fellow actors on stage.  Without it acting turns mechanical and behavioral.  All fine acting is inspired from outside of you and is returned from within you but is never about you.  While it is true, rehearsals are the place to discover what works--it is also the place where you discover what DOES NOT work.  It is a place to fail.  A place to experiment.  But like every experiment you have to bring theories to the laboratory.  These are the choices which are informed by your homework.  I don't care how "in the moment" you are--if you don't know what your character is in the room for then what's the point?  Actors should be armed with an infinite number of choices.  They should never just "show up" and expect the magic to happen because that kind of magic can't be trusted.  And actors should never sit by and wait for someone to TELL them what their character's objectives and tasks are either.  It is better to be "wrong" than to show up empty handed.  Because at the end of the day, discovering spontaneity in rehearsal is all about "setting" that spontaneity for production.  And once it is set then it is your job to relive that spontaneity time and time and time again by making what appears the same discovery over and over again.  In order to do this you need technique and a road map.

HERE is where the intellect is not a bad thing.  I'm not of the opinion that actors should be emotional blunt instruments to be led around by our noses.  We have to understand the story and our part in it.  It is what gives each of us ownership of our creativity.  So let's be clear what the "intellect" is.

intellect: the power or faculty of the mind by which one knows or understands, as distinguished from that by which one feels and that which one wills; the understanding; the faculty of thinking and acquiring knowledge.

When I read this definition it makes sense why so many acting philosophies are against it.  Most acting schools of thought are associated with emotions and feelings versus the mind and thought.  At this point the actor who thinks too much is told to be a director.  But your Actor/Self has to KNOW and UNDERSTAND what your Actor/Character's purpose is to the story.  Understanding that purpose does not create the character's emotional life but it will set you in the line of fire for conflict that will.  This brings me back to choices.  One thing to always remember is we can never be so bold as to be married to our choices.  As many writers will tell you--sometimes you have to kill your babies.  It's the same with actors.  So always have more than one ready to go because your choices are the only creative power you have as an actor.  Which means the more the choices the greater your creative contribution.  I should however offer a word of caution about using the word "power" here.  It should not send the wrong message.  This is not an "us against them" thing.  Actors are NEVER against the writer and director or ANYONE within the creative or production team.  Still we are IN SERVICE of their vision and when that service asks for OUR contribution we must deliver.  AND we must remember that in the end it is our responsibility to sacrifice our choices to their direction.  Always.  This is WHY when you show up with an endless amount of choices--each choice you offer versus the ones you are given--strengthens your creative investment.  That personal stake is what connects us to the work.  So in that respect your choices give YOU the power of creation.

-But you still have to discover each moment in rehearsal!

I'm not disputing the fact that ALL choices are fulfilled within rehearsal.  But they can be revealed through other means.  So what might that be--what can inform or inspire your choices?  Your HOMEWORK!  As I mentioned above, your homework is understanding everything about your character and their purpose to the story.  Who they are?  Where they are?  What they want?  Their objectives and the tasks they need to fulfill their purpose--and ALL of that is within the lines of the text.  The actor HAS to "discover" these things before they ever show up to rehearsal.  You MUST bring all that information with you each day.  This is where the INVISIBLE WORK starts to saturate your Actor/Self.  This is where your choices are born.  Like seeds they start to grow.  Sure you may be struck by inspiration one night while going over the script and think--"EUREKA, I've struck acting choice gold!"  That's not a bad thing!  But you can't FORCE it to work!  My idea of intellectual homework for the actor is like preparing for a long road trip.  You collect maps and local guide books.  You make lists of supplies.  You pack what you think you'll need.  You know the general direction you want to go and are prepared for whatever might come your way.  BUT since you are not taking this trip alone--you have to bring all your proposals and present them to your travel companions before anything can be decided.  You have to travel together.

Over the decades the focus of acting has centered on emotion, psychology, and reacting.  We are all taught to be truthful, honest, and organic through exercises that concentrate on the Actor/Self.  This is incredibly evident here in America.  The influence the Actor's Studio and Strasberg had on the legacy of acting in this country is palpable.  In my opinion, since its inception the "method" has done nothing but continue to churn out personality actors who dangerously flirt with damaging psychological techniques.  I do not deny the vital importance of emotion in acting.  Or the necessity of organic creation.  Or that honest reacting is a major component of the acting experience!  But with so much focus given to emotional recall and sensitivity I wonder if we have narrowed the actor's range and potential?  Are actors becoming blunt instruments instead of artists?

So is being considered an intellectual actor STILL a bad thing?

Not at all.  I believe that actors should be intelligent "thinking actors" who are in charge of their process.  Creators who use the text as a road map for their performance while at the same time capable of being emotionaly present and alive in the moment--TRUE.  It is important to understand and KNOW your character's purpose.  It is part of your Actor/Self's duty as you hover between nature and your sketch of it.  BUT it is important to know THAT is as far as your intelect must be allowed.  And here is where things get tricky.  Your intelect cannot cross over into your character.  Once the Actor/Character--your creation--is alive you must forget all about everything that you know.  I know this sounds imposible to do but once you have an understanding of what your character's purpose is then all your choices will come to the aid of that purpose.  It will no longer be an intelectual idea but a very personal need that drives your character THROUGH the story.  The marvoulous thing is that THIS event is what the "magic" feels like.  I believe this is the sensation of inspiration.  The truth is that THIS is technique!  If you ever find yourself lost by returning to your intellect--where your mind understands the direction that your creation is going--then you will always find your way back to TRUTH.

Dualism and the Actor Part 1

dualism : the state of being dual or consisting of two parts; division into two.

 It's possible that discussing dualism and acting could be a controversial subject.  We all want to simplify acting.  It has even been difficult for me to wrap my brain around the concept at times because my own study of the actor's experience seems to conflict with the idea of two identities existing within one individual.  But the more I thought about it--the more it made sense.  And perhaps "identity" has too much baggage attached to it--or is a confusing way to define the dualism of the actor.  I've also read it as two "perspectives" or two "consciousnesses."  Stanislavsky even explored this idea with the introduction of the conscious and subconsciousness of the actor.  Whatever you want to call it, I believe without a doubt our technique requires a divided focus to fulfill the artistry asked of us.

Before I ever started my "journey" back to the source I was fascinated with the idea of the actor as ART and ARTIST.  We are both creator and creation.  We are the medium for our own invention.  Which is actually a very unique position for an artist.  With the exception of performances captured on film, there is no tangible product produced that will carry on after an actor's death.  The actor's creation exists from performance to performance and lives on in the memory of the audience who was there to benefit from the experience.  And as such, our art is new with each character that we bring to life out of the depths of our imagination and our own physical and emotional pallet. 

So why even discuss this concept of dualism?  If we are in search of truth and our characters are born out of our own physical and emotional life then what's the point?  We become our characters--we are one.  Well I believe it all comes back to technique.  Mastering your technique gives you a greater sense of creative control across a broad range of genres, styles, and trends in acting.  If we desire truth in our acting we cannot sacrifice the main purpose of our performance--to communicate with the audience--for the sake of that truth, correct?  Not to mention again that what takes place in our acting ISN'T "true" but a semblance of truth.  Therefore our creation must always be within our control.  But doesn't "control" stifle inspiration?  Well returning to the source took me further back than expected and I found this gem:

"You may have your sublime moments, but they must come when the man of genius is hovering between nature and his sketch of it, and keeping a watchful eye on both." -Diderot, The Paradox of Acting

I just love the image of the actor "hovering between nature and his sketch of it."  As actors, I believe we become frustrated with the technical demands that performance asks of us.  We see them as a distraction from experiencing truthfully within our characters--but it is unavoidable.  With a strong technique AND an understanding of the concept of dualism an actor can have a solid creative structure and mastery of his/her art.

From the very beginning of my experiences as an actor I was taught to accept the image of the actor's physical self to that of a precious instrument.  We are encouraged to continually train our voices, our breath, and our movement--and rightly so!  Without these we have NOTHING to create WITH.  And right there the actor's focus starts to separate.  This is where you start to develop the identity of your "Actor/Self."


For a time I thought of the actor with three identities:

1) THE ARTIST   2) THE TOOLS   3) THE CREATION

But since the tools make up so much of whom the artist IS, it made less sense to separate the two.  In addition to the physical tools (breath, voice, speech, movement, and stage craft) your "Actor/Self" is made up of your internal tools such as imagination, senses, observations, and understanding of emotions and relationships.  The development of the "Actor/Self" is the foundation and technician behind the artistic creator.  Every artist, whether a painter, poet, musician, or dancer must learn the technical skills to execute their artistry.  The difference is for say that of a painter, who learns all the techniques for drawing, how to mix paint, and which brush strokes to chose for their creation--is that their painting will stand alone.  Since the actor is always part of his/her creation they must be able to distinguish themselves FROM their creation.  The "Actor/Self" does just that. 


SIDEBAR: I should mention at this time, in addition to being an actor, my other passion is visual arts.  I grew up drawing and sketching everything.  I moved onto oil paints and I've tried my hand at sculpting and ceramics.  For a time I even made my living as a scenic artist in Chicago.  One might also be able to make an argument that my love for painting portraits has a connection with my love for acting, but we can save that for the couch on another day.  As a painter, your tools are very important to your creation.  To name a few, the type of brushes, knives, or paint you prefer has a major influence on the execution of your art.  Your favorite brush creates your favorite stroke and so on.  These tools are the implements for your vision--and like all creation, that vision starts within.  But for a painter your tools are not part of yourself.  While you always care for and improve your collection--at the end of the day it's still just a paint kit.


When I started to really wrestle with dualism it stirred up memories from my career and training.  I recalled growing up hearing stories, or maybe just urban legends, about great actors who were so focused within their role that they blacked out on stage.  They didn't faint or become physically debilitated but rather had laps of consciousness and couldn't remember what happened to them while on stage.  They were lost in the character.  I would read articles about actors talking of BECOMING the character to the point they LIVED the role for the length of the project--never breaking.  Often I found myself in discussions--and even arguments--about what was considered schizophrenic behavior or dedicated character research.  I mean, I had NEVER blacked out in performance before--did that mean I wasn't dedicated enough?  Had I not successfully become the character?  As a matter of fact, from all my experience, I could never remember a time when I was ABLE TO forget who I was and what I was doing--so did that mean I wasn't focused enough?  Or worse, my acting was bad!?

SIDEBAR: I wonder, in training actors, have we focused our energy and vocabulary on phrases like "living the role" and "being the character" to the point we are blurring the lines of reality?  Don't get me wrong, I am a true advocate--as I've mentioned before--in the transformation of the actor into the character.  When rehearsing a role, I believe it's important for the actor to refer to him/herself as the character using the first person.  But how often are young actors reminded of where they end and the character begins?  And the time when the training is solid--are actors just being too lazy and moving away from their technique in favor of "inspiration?


I wanted answers to my questions and all my reading and research showed me this was not a new dilemma.  And, honestly it was only after returning to Stanislavsky's writings that I actually LEARNED about the concepts of the "Actor/Self" and the "Actor/Self on Stage" (also referred to as the Actor/Creator and the Actor/Character).  Now I had MORE questions!  Why hadn't I studied this?  I reflected on my own experience and I began to wonder if these concepts  have been left out of actor training in America all together.  Or if they haven't been completely brushed under the carpet then are they even being talked about or addressed indirectly?  Do we think so little of actor's intelligence that this is too complex a concept?  Will it only confuse them?  Is it even necessary?  Has actor training pared itself down to a minimalist approach where the actor is only concerned with their ability to react truthfully as "themselves" onstage?  Is that good enough?  Honestly, I really don't have an answer but I believe that our modern, or rather American, aesthetics have focused development more predominantly on the Actor/Self--which has atrophied the actor's abilities to become a more dynamic performer.  If you take for example Meisner--which has become the cornerstone for many actor training programs--his repetition exercises are great for developing the Actor/Self's sense of attention and honesty--reacting truthfully.  They are perfect examples for "living in the moment" but too often, I believe in production, this philosophy creates roadblocks.  Without a doubt actors are living truthfully within imaginary circumstances but are they so busy trying to fulfill a truthful moment for their Actor/Self that they are neglecting the needs and responsibilities of their Actor/Character?  Or more importantly, are actors having a difficult time translating their naturalistic technique to facilitate truthful performances in more stylized forms?

In the Reader's Digest version, when you look at Stanislavsky's take on the subject, his ideal situation is a fusion of the Actor/Self and Actor/Character.  He uses the phrase "I am" to define the state where the actor is completely submerged within the imaginary life and circumstances of the character.  It's a place where inspiration and the subconscious take over.  Once in this state the actor's greatest obstacle is a disruption of the "oneness" with the character.  This disruption is called "dislocation."  The obvious reasons for this are when the actor is distracted by their own personal thoughts associated with their OFF stage life.  And fusion cannot take place if the actor is conscious that he/she is performing.  So if you just skim the surface of Stanislavsky's system then it sounds like he advocates a loss of the Actor/Self to the Actor/Character through the use of emotional memory to evoke true experiencing.  Clearly not an advocate of dualism.  This is where the Actor's Studio, The Method, and most of the American tradition came off the rails.  BUT, what I've found interesting is that Stanislavsky considers the actor's ability to build multiple layers of attention (i.e. technique, lines, cues, blocking, etc.) to be part of the I am experience and not considered dislocation.  So how can an actor be thinking about their cues, staging, etc.--be "living" out the life of the character with constant emotional experiencing and NOT be conscious that they are performing?  I don't think that is possible.  This leads me to believe that an actor's technical perspective has to be considered separate and functional at the same time with the active imaginative life of the character.  In essence, the two exist side by side. 

Meyerhold actually devised a formula for the very subject: 

N = A1 + A2

N = the actor; A1 = the artistic creator and visualize-er; A2 = the one who executes the creation or the instrument of creation. Ironically enough, I find this formula more accurate for describing our modern American training-- and too often the actor is in service of the actor (N) with no unique creation for the character.  As I am a very visual person, I can appreciate the formula but to me this is reducing the actor to a functional participant or element of the director's creation.  Not the actor's creation. 

In Declan Donnellan's book The Actor and the Target he has a great way of addressing this:

"Irina needs to play as if from the inside of Juliet looking out.  Irina does not want to play Juliet as if from the outside looking in.  In a way, working out 'what Juliet wants' is the job for someone who knows Juliet or is writing about her.  But this is not how Juliet experiences things.  From inside Juliet, the world looks very different.  And Irina is playing as if through Juliet's eyes.  Irina is an artist.  Irina is not delivering a lecture on Juliet.  Irina needs to experience what Juliet experiences.  Irina needs to see what Juliet sees in the moment--and not with the benefit of hindsight."

The actress Irina is an artist looking at the world through the eyes of her character.  She still has all the faculties of the artist but is "creating" within the perspective of her creation.

And one more example from Henry Irving's preface to The Paradox of Acting:

"But it is quite possible to feel all the excitement of the situation and yet be perfectly self-possessed.  This is the art which the actor who loses his head has not mastered.  It is necessary to his art that the mind should have, as it were, a double consciousness, in which all the emotions proper to the occasion may have full sway, while the actor is all the time on the alert for every detail of his method."

We cannot sacrifice the actor's technique to an unreliable sense of experiencing.  After wrestling with these thoughts for years I've come to the conclusion that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a sane actor to ever forget they are an actor playing a role.  Furthermore, I think it is ESSENTIAL for an actor to NEVER to forget they are an actor playing a role.  I am in no way condoning a lack of focus or commitment to your craft, but I believe that the requirements acting demands for multiple layers of attention and multi-tasking makes it impossible to suggest full submersion into a role or a task.  In more theatrical performances actors are asked to carry out less psychologically driven actions.  I believe that dualism for the actor gives them the edge to fulfill those tasks in a dynamic and truthful fashion. 

When I was in graduate school I experienced something amazing and downright puzzling.  It has only happened in performance twice in my career to date.  The first time was while in class performing Hamlet in the "get thee to a nunnery" scene and the second time was playing Gus in a production of The Dumb Waiter. The only way that I can explain the experience is that as a character my actions and emotional life were completely intertwined with my scene partners and the fulfillment of the given circumstances but at the same time the actor in me felt the grasp my actions and the play had on the audience.  I was aware of myself in performance.  I was aware of and in communication with the audience.  I was aware of my fellow actors and scene partner.  I could feel the actor in them.  I was also aware of my character and their action, tasks and objectives.  I was aware of the character's awareness of the other characters within their world.  And this was all taking place within an emotionally and truthful existence.

I know it can be argued that this is just my capacity and ability for multiple layers of attention but I believe what was happening was a seamless collaboration of my Actor/Self and my Actor/Character.  The two creative consciousnesses working hand in hand to produce a truthful experience.  A living art.