Thursday, December 22, 2011

All That Attention

I've been thinking alot about attention, focus, energy, and the deep acting connection you can experience with your scene partners.  The other week I was rehearsing with a fellow actor some scene work for a class.  We were rehearsing in a small studio space and it was just the two of us working with no director.  We were working on a scene from The Night of the Iguana.  I was very pleased after one run through because I felt such a strong sensation of feelings from an intense actor connection between the two of us.  I felt my emotions tingling and it was like waking up from a dream and feeling certain that the dream was real.  In fact, the sensation was so "life like" that it resembled a true life experience that I might share with an intimate person in my real private life.  This is of course a truly fulfilling moment for an actor.  It is the type of sensation we strive so hard to fulfill over and over again.  But sometimes it can also be a frightening sensation.  That intense connection can sneak up and surprise you--sometimes even KICK YOU OUT of the moment because you aren't prepared for it.  Or possibly aren't vulnerable and open to receive such an emotional connection.  As I mentioned in my post There is Action and then there is ACTION, I believe THAT sensation is the energy that we exchange in real life.  It is the unspoken--but VERY defined--intent for HOW we want a person to FEEL.  Earle Gister would say, "It's like a LASER!"  And recently when I was thinking about this connection I couldn't help but compare this sensation to the image in the Harry Potter films when Harry and Voldemort lock magic with their wands! I think in real life most of us are not even aware of it--at least certainly not consciously--and if we ARE then we are socially HARDENED so as not to appear vulnerable to such things.  But it exists!  It IS the invisible connection we share with the world.  It's no different in acting.  But at this rehearsal something seemed incredibly POTENT and it got me thinking...what was going on in me as an actor to heighten this experience?  Was it something that I was doing or was it something else?

A few days later the answer came to me fairly quickly.  Of course, WITH the answer came more questions and experiences to ponder.  The answer came to me after we presented our scene in class.  I still felt a strong sense of fulfillment with the work just as I had in rehearsal.  However, the sensation of connection seemed less intense and somewhat distracted.  Why?  Well it was obvious at this point...in class we had an AUDIENCE.  When we were rehearsing there was no director--no outside eye--no audience to benefit from our performance and no communication beyond the two actors sharing the sensation in the room.  Now what we experienced in rehearsal would seem the coveted sensation for all actors, right?  To be so committed to your objectives that the world and all your worries just fall away leaving you with nothing but a truthful and deep connection to your character and your partners on stage?  But then to what greater purpose would that heightened actor connection in rehearsal serve?  I'll be the first to admit that I am as driven as anyone to fulfill that level of focus and the heightened connection--that drives away the outside world--whenever I take on a role BUT is our lust for pure "PUBLIC SOLITUDE" clouding our purpose to communicate?  Some might argue the only way to achieve a truthful acting experience is for actors to be so focused within the imaginary circumstances that they forget about the audience.  Then as a result the audience will experience a reaction just by being a witness to the event.  Well it's true, an audience will walk out of the theatre with an experience one way or another but isn't the energy (or awareness) that we direct indirectly TO the audience what allows the audience permission to experience and feel PART OF the event?  Or is that just a "trick" to help actor's cope with stage fright?

But I'm getting ahead of myself...back to that heightened actor connection.  In most cases our work ALWAYS takes place in the presence of others but as we are the origin of our creation let's start with those moments by ourselves.  Here we go...you at home in your room going over your lines and your role.  You are doing extensive invisible work through your imagination.  The character is taking shape and choices are presenting themselves through the inspiration of your imagination.  You are feeling excited about your exploration and look forward to the possibilities they will create in rehearsal.  Jump forward to a rehearsal with just your scene partner.  Now you have a new source of inspiration.  Your attention moves outside of yourself and your inner images.  You have a living obstacle to wrestle with.  Before you know it, the connection is strengthened from trust and familiarity.  Then with very little effort your character's emotional life is brimming with activity.  Your Truth of Performance is rivaling even reality.  The sensation is just as you imagined it would be or COULD be.  You think, "NOW it's ready to be seen."  Jump to rehearsal with your director--something happens--you can't focus because your awareness has widened.  Your attention is split between your responsibilities to your character and your desire to please your director.  After working the scene over and over again your focus shifts back to your character's tasks and making the adjustments from direction.  Now that awareness for the director begins to fade...but not entirely.  Why not?  If they had left the room and were watching from a two way mirror would you still feel their presence?  Even if we HATED them and could care less what they think...could we remove our awareness of their watching eyes?  Still your focus tightens on your character's needs and slowly you return to some semblance of that isolated moment of heightened connection.  Jump to presenting to a larger audience.  Your awareness widens more.  You feel over whelmed.  You place your performance in their hands and you struggle to keep your focus on the tasks you worked so hard to fulfill in rehearsals.  That sensation of heightened connection seems MILES away and no matter how hard you concentrate you can't seem to fulfill it!  I'm exaggerating--at least I hope--a worst case scenario to point out just how powerful a hold an actor's awareness can have over his/her technique.  Acting in a room with ONE other actor is a HUGE difference than with even one person, say a director, and an even bigger difference with an "audience!"  Which is why I wonder if it is even possible for an actor to "forget" about the audience at all!  I'm fascinated with WHAT it is in our attention or psychological makeup that recognizes and adjusts to this information.  Can you really EVER create the sensation of two people alone in a room without an audience?  If you could then would it even BE the same effect and would an audience benefit the same way?  OR is the same heightened connection actually taking place but somehow our attention has added a separate layer of awareness which makes it impossible to "recognise" the same sensation of connection?  How massive is an actor's attention and capacity for awareness? 

SIDEBAR: Isn't it also ironic that self awareness is so important to an actor's early development--especially with regards to our Actor/Self--but later it can be one of our greatest downfalls?

I came across a passage in Vakhtangov Directs that was inspiring with regards to this topic.  Rubin Simonov references Stanislavsky and then elaborates.

"In the book Building a Character, Stanislavsky wrote, "The singularity of our scenic communion consists of the fact that communion must take place simultaneously with the partner and the audience.  (With the partner directly and deliberately; with the audience indirectly through the partner.)  It is remarkable that with the first and the second the communion is reciprocal all through the play."

When an actor says, "I was so completely engrossed in my part that I forgot I was on stage.  I was not aware of the audience," he lies.  An actor never forgets that he is on the stage.  He makes pause in order not to break the audience's attention, he is perfectly aware of a cough or any other sound on the other side of the foot lights, he is always grateful to the audience for its attention, and he plays his role much better, is more inspired, when there is a dead silence--the sign that the audience is completely involved.  The audience, in its turn, also takes part in the performance: applauding during the performance, expressing its enthusiasm for the actor, letting him/her feel from the darkness of the auditorium that it is living with him/her all the peripetia of the play.  There is nothing wrong in such a communion between the actor and the audience.  On the contrary, when there is a close contact between the two, stimulating and exhilarating art is born."

WHAT a wonderful and positive view of our experience!!  I have felt those moments of dead silence were you HOLD the audience--almost as if you are looking straight in their eyes and telling them a close and personal secret...it certainly doesn't happen all the time...but fulfilling those moments is what the art is all about.  It is why we keep coming back.  These moments of JOY and pleasure on stage inspire me to search for ways to empower each of us throughout the overall experience--to change the fears and insecurities of an actor's awareness to that of artistic strength and purpose.  I truly believe that the acting experience is a constantly shifting experience on MULTIPLE levels of awareness.  An actor is always moving between his/her Character and his/her Self.  Moving between their fellow actors and the audience.  Sometimes simultaneously!  The skill is to move gracefully between the levels.  Just as bold characters are fulfilled through focus and purpose so are performances as a whole.  If EVERYTHING your character says and does is for the purpose of fulfilling their tasks and needs then it makes sense that every moment you are on the stage as an actor is for the purpose of communion with the audience.  Right?  It is an OPPORTUNITY and a moment to share a GIFT.  There is something freeing when you remind yourself this.  Suddenly the audience is not critical eyes of judgment but peers eager for a conversation.  YOU are making the CHOICE to PLAY/COMMUNE with them and as a result your awareness of the audience will drive your Actor/Self NEED to communicate.  This need to commune should out weigh your fears.  Now your Character's needs can take center stage BECAUSE fulfilling those indirectly fulfills your communication with the audience.

I started this post talking about that intense actor connection that we share with our fellow actors and reflecting on its truthfulness and its ability to be sustained during performance.  Like Simonov, I do not think it is humanly possible for an actor to remove his/her awareness of the audience.  Nor do I think they should attempt to.  I do not think that technique should be used to TRICK actors into being less-aware either.  Your technique is there to strengthen your abilities to fulfill your purpose as an actor--TO COMMUNICATE!  I believe that when that heightened connection I spoke of is experienced in a room with no audience to benefit--then it is without purpose.  It certainly isn't wasted because it fills us with a sensation of truth within our characters that will continue to grow.  However, if that ACTOR CONNECTION doesn't translate to an audience then it is selfishly only to the actor's benefit.  But as mentioned above when actors give selflessly to their fellow actors AND the audience stimulating and exhilarating art is born!

Friday, December 9, 2011

The Motion of Emotion

This fall I decided to take a scene study class.  It was some years since my last class so I wanted to find one that would be a creative outlet and also serve as an opportunity to grow as a teacher by collecting additional research and material for my own techniques.  I was fortunate enough to be accepted in Austin Pendleton's class at HB Studios.  First off, Austin is an amazing teacher.  He has a great gift for encouragement.  From a teacher's point of view his inspiration lies in his uncanny ability to constantly lift his students up instead of tearing them down.  He nurtures and encourages each actor's existing individual technique so they can grow with confidence. There is always good work and there is always room for improvement--which is always a GREAT place for an actor to be.  Then the other night Austin had to leave class early so we had a substitute.


SIDEBAR: I can feel the expectation for the "substitute bashing" to begin but that is not my intent.  Obviously there is that natural suspicion for someone new--someone who hasn't earned your trust.  I know I have a tendency to bring  those feelings with me and I expect my students at first to feel the same way about me--but just because you have a SUB doesn't mean there isn't something to learn.  And for the record THIS sub held his own.  He too was encouraging and offered useful feedback.  More importantly he made a great point that as actors--and teachers--we find ourselves dealing with different ways of talking about the same thing.  The vocabulary that one teacher or director uses can be very different than what we are accustom to.  So in acting, learning to filter feedback through your own vocabulary is a great skill to develop when constructing your technique.  Then  you can  adapt to any given situation you find yourself in whether in class or production.  I like to call it...you guessed it...TRANSLATION.  Seems simple enough but sometimes we get so stuck in our own view that we can't HEAR what is being said because the vocabulary we have grown to trust is hardwired to our process.


So back to the last hour of class--our substitute was giving feed back to an actress and he suggested something that is a very popular approach for fulfilling a difficult emotional performance.  Without going into the details of the scene I'll just say this...the character's objective and event of the scene was to convince her lover to stay with her because what they shared was far truer and more passionate than anything he could ever experience with his wife.  In the feedback the actress was asked if she had ever personally experienced a relationship with the same kind of desire and passion as her character.  She answered that she had and was actually currently IN that relationship.  SO it was then suggested to her that she use that personal experience to imbue her scene partner with the image of her current lover to inspire deeper desire and passion within her character and her performance. 


SECOND SIDEBAR: You know, I should say here that each actor has their own way into the work.  There is no definitive technique for every actor.  We all subscribe to a similar school of thought--which is usually a hybrid of MANY techniques.  The bottom line is that the actor must discover the character's truth and be capable of discovering it over and over again each night and every performance.  However, I believe there are healthy and unhealthy ways to do this.  I want to encourage the healthy way.


I'm sure that by challenging this feedback (and practice) I'll be stepping into IT but here goes.  I believe that this type of personalization in the work is risky and potentially dangerous.  I think it encourages bad habits and faulty short cuts.  And I think it is the line in the sand for many acting techniques.  For as long as I can remember studying acting, I have been exposed to techniques that love to blur the lines between the actor's personal emotional experience and the character's emotional experience.  From my earliest memories in high school of "sense memory" exercises to mime opening a trunk and pull out an object that is dear and sentimental to provoke an emotional response--to Meisner repetition that focused exclusively on my own personal emotional experience and "truthful" responses in front of an audience (even if it WAS just a class)--to technique classes in Chicago that boiled down to actors going up in class so they could either have a personal emotional break through or confess their attractions for fellow actors in order to make out because after all that was REAL.  We have all experienced these classes for better or for worse because at the end of the day we are all after the same result--SINCERITY OF EMOTION.


Stanislavsky addresses this early in his work.  And rightly so.  Understanding and recreating truthful emotions is one of an actor's greatest fears and challenges.  Probably because we are more concerned with the IDEA of how an emotion is supposed to be experienced--based on our OWN feelings of experiencing them in real life.  But how many of us TRULY KNOW what we are feeling in the heat of an emotional experience?  Very few of us I hope!  We should be too busy emoting to notice!  I doubt any of us are THAT self aware to dissect our own emotional experience in real time.  And if we could wouldn't that alter the experience so that we are no longer living our OWN life truthfully?  Thus resulting in a "performance" of emotions?  BUT I'm getting off topic...in acting a character's emotional life is always based somewhere in the actor's memory of sensations.  Which is unavoidable because we are the medium of our creation.  I believe that is why Stanislavsky called upon the subconscious here because of the "second hand account" that memory plays in our technique.  Memory of EVERYTHING is subjective to the viewer right?  Therefore, in our minds we build concepts of emotions and behavior based on our memories of our own experiences and our observations of others.  Then sadly most of the time the lazy actor just "pulls out" those concepts when their characters call for them.  Most of the time we are mislead to thinking that good acting is based on recreating our own emotional experiences--as we remember it--and then passing them off as our character's.  As a result we focus on the emotion and the behavior of that emotion as the benchmark for success--this will ALWAYS slam you into a creative dead end.  But time is short and results are what's important so the short cut of personal memories is pushed front and center.  It is believed that by digging up a personal emotional memory you can trigger "sincerity of emotion."  As a result this will FEEL exactly like you remember it which MUST be truth because it yielded a successful and believable performance.  But WHO'S truth?  Not to mention that trigger will fade and lose its emotional potency and you will be forced to dig up another memory.  Then every time you "refresh" your memory you move farther and farther away from what is going on with your character and deeper into your own emotional experiences.

In real life emotions are a complex mysterious part of the human experience.  In acting they shouldn't be.  As such, I believe that emotions are a side effect of action--fueled by a healthy imagination of the character's life and the given circumstances.  Stanislavsky puts it...


"Sincerity of emotions, feelings that seem true in given circumstances--that is what we ask of a dramatist."

And Meisner calls it...


"Living truthfully under imaginary circumstances."

These are the great mantra's of the modern day actor but I want to take a look at Stanislavsky's just a bit closer.  He calls "sincerity of emotion" the "the living human emotions, feelings which the actor himself has experienced."  This is very personal to the actor right?  But then he says "feelings that seem true" and explains it as "by true seeming we refer not to actual feelings themselves but to something akin to them, to emotions reproduced indirectly, under the prompting of true inner feelings." 

So what are these TRUE INNER FEELINGS if not your own emotional memories?

AGAIN!  I do not argue that a huge part of the acting experience is drawing inspiration from your real life experiences and your personal perspective.  I believe that who you are...your real life complex emotional mysteries...or as Stanislavsky put it, your subconscious is what True Inner Feelings are.  They are with us all the time and as I mentioned in my post on the actor's Sensory Storehouse, we have been collecting these true inner feelings all our life.  So I believe we already know all the sensations within the range of human emotions.  We KNOW what love feels like.  We KNOW what grief feels like.  We KNOW jealousy and rage.  The only thing a specific personal emotional memory is useful for is to associate the "unknown" sensation--or connecting the dots from sensation to experience--but the details are of no use to our character.  If we are playing a character who has lost a child and we have never gone through that ordeal in real life then it is not necessary to drag up a memory of what it felt like when our childhood pet or grandparent died in order to trigger a sincerity of emotion.  The focus shouldn't be on the emotion of loss or sadness.  Those are qualities and as a result you will end up playing the quality instead of the truth.  We all KNOW what it feels like to lose something.  The scale of that feeling is relative.  What is more important is what generates feelings and why.  What's the value of that loss?  Who are you without what you lost?  Who were you with it?  How does it affect your everyday life?  All your emotions are sitting on the shelves of your Sensory Storehouse like every other personal memory.  They are there waiting and ready.  Stanislavsky believed that you needed to coax your emotions to the surface with your imagination.  He was dead on!  I too believe that your imagination is the key.  By directing your focus on imagining specific detailed given circumstances then you will begin to create values for your character.  Then, just as with real life, your character's emotions will be effected truthfully and organically
by the actions of the story.


I recently read a very provocative statement in the book Stanislavsky's Protege: Eugene Vakhtangov by Ruben Simonov.  He speaks directly about the actor's emotions on stage .  Vakhtangov states "there are only two 'alive' feelings on stage: I feel good if I live creative, sincerely, well, those repeated feelings; or, I feel bad if I live them insincerely and badly."  When I read this it clarified everything I've always felt about an actor's life on stage or in action.  The separation of actor and character must always exist...and I believe that it is impossible for that separation NOT to exist.  This is the healthy way to approach acting.  Your true inner feelings--who you ARE--is what you bring to the role.  You offer your imagination and your well of life experience to the character.  It doesn't matter if that well is shallow or deep because with sensitivity, imagination, and clear purpose nature will take over. 

I'll end with this.  A week ago I was watching Inception for a second time.  In a scene with Cobb and Ariadne the dialogue struck a chord with me and while it was about dreams, I think the parallels to creativity and acting are unavoidable.  Take a look.


Cobb pauses, thinking.  Remembering.

INSERT CUT: Mal, hair blowing, turns to Cobb smiling, laughing. 
He smiles back.  They are on the same bridge.
COBB
I know this bridge.  This place is real-
(serious)
You didn't imagine it, you remembered it...

ARIADNE
(nods)
I cross it every day on my way to college.

COBB
Never recreate places from your memory.  Always imagine new places.

ARIADNE
You have to draw from what you know-

COBB
(tense)
Use pieces-a streetlamp, phone booths, a type of brick-not whole areas.

ARIADNE
Why not?

COBB
Because building dreams out of your own memories is the surest way to lose your grip on what's real and what's a dream.
 - Inception, by Christopher Nolan