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!

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

Five Minutes of Imagination

"The actor relies utterly on the senses; they are the first stage in our communication with the world.  The IMAGINATION is the second." -Declan Donnellan, The Actor and the Target

When I started to working on this post I found my brain going blank.  I was at a loss of words--to discuss imagination!  Imagine THAT!  How is that even possible?  By definition, my imagination should inspire an ENDLESS amount of possibilities of word and thought!  But there I was finding it very difficult to IMAGINE where to START talking about the actor's most useful tool.  I mean, its so much part of who we are that we often overlook just how present it is IN our daily lives--not to mention the VITAL role it plays in the creation of art and acting.  And that thought inspired a revelation.  I realized that I wasn't actually drawing a blank.  My imagination wasn't being strangled or shut down.  My imagination was in fact RUNNING WILD!  But where it was running was the disturbing part.  I was so concerned with what NOT to say about imagination that my focus turned to insecure worries about crafting the "prefect" post.  As a result I sent my imagination off after failure.  There is no such thing as perfection and all I was really doing was allow my imagination to run amuck about useless fears.  But never the less my imagination WAS quite active. 

Our imaginations are CONSTANTLY at work.  They are alive and running all over the place every second of our lives.  I've always been taught that my imagination is like a muscle and if not exercised then it will grow dim and atrophy--and while this IS true I think an important element is missing.  Here was the revelation.  Your imagination IS like a muscle but I do not think it is just ONE muscle.  I believe it is made up of groups much like the muscles that work together to rotate, flex, and extend your arms, legs, or whole body.  One set pulls one direction.  Another set pulls a different direction.  With your imagination the muscles fall into two categories--creative and destructive.  And over using one WILL cause the other to weaken and waste away.  You may not notice until it is too late and your destructive imagination has grown so strong that it is the only one doing the heavy lifting.  In real life it is useful to cultivate a healthy dose of destructive imagination.  It keeps you safe and instigates precaution.  However, as an artist this muscle can cripple and there's the rub!  My writer's block was a perfect example of what we often DO with our imagination--we let it run to the dark side.  Our creation is over before it ever began.  We feel like the tap is closed and don't understand why we can't open the flood gates but in reality the flood gates ARE open and we are drowning in imaginary fear and insecurity!

As children our imaginations run wild with fantasies.  We conjure imaginary friends, we concoct elaborate and detailed stories of the adventures, we travel with a team of experts through the caverns of our closets, under our beds, and though the woods.  We use our imaginations to compensate and find creative solutions for all sorts of challenges we face in our early development.  And as mentioned above we also use our imaginations to stifle and halt our development with fear and uncertainty.  But for the most part the spirit of our imaginations are challenged and encouraged to thrive positively.  If you think about it our imagination is the driving force behind mankind's evolution and development throughout the history of time.  It makes me wonder if our imagination should be considered instinctual.  Because where would we be as a species if we never never thought two simple words--WHAT IF?

As an actor, your imagination is your greatest ally, your strongest asset, and you most useful tool.  Your imagination is what opens the door into every creative universe that you embark to re-create.  It is the link between your personal experience and the character's reality.  Your imagination is how you are able to experience ALL the experiences you HAVEN'T experienced and MORE.  It is the sights, the sounds, the smells, the tastes, and the touches of your creation.

In Stanislavsky's system he perfected the use of that marvelous phrase the "Magic If."  It was such a popular concept that it is used throughout most, it not all, modern schools of actor training.  You see it in the teachings of Meisner, Adler, Hagen, and Strasberg to name a few.  I believe the Magic If is so effective because its universal appeal to a core element of humanity.  Everyone thinks "what if" it was me?  "What if" (blank) were to happen?  Stanislavsky was just one of the first to articulate what artists do naturally.  However, what is brilliant about the Magic If is the use of our natural creative process as the corner stone in the foundation for the actor's technique.  Stanislavsky says it perfectly--the IF "works as a lever to lift us out of the world of actuality into the realm of imagination."

Still the realm of the imagination must be fed.  I MUST be encouraged to grow and be attended to on a continual base.  As actors we have an obligation to cultivate our creative imaginations and dissuade our destructive ones.  So it only makes sense that this is done with care.  Force will only produce destructive outcomes and strengthen the negative images.  So what if we think of our imaginations as something wild, like a wild pup?  That pup sees us as a threat.  There is uncertainty.  So we slowly coax her out of her lair.  We offer her treats.  We give her affection. We gain her trust.  Our imaginations are not that dissimilar.  The more confidence we build in our ability to coexist with this wild animal the stronger our bond will be.  Your creative imagination will eventually be like a loyal friend who will always be at your side.   

When I was in graduate school, Earle Gister was the mentor who introduced me to the concept of an actor's imagination as a muscle that must be exercised EVERY day.  He would ask us to dedicate at least five minutes each day to an imagination exercise.  This is a small commitment to make but the rewards are beyond valuable.  When you play with your imagination it's sometimes easier to start as an observer.  You don't have to create an elaborate VISION on the spot.  You just need to SEE to start with.  Maybe you are on a dirt road?  Maybe there is a huge oak tree looming overhead?  Maybe it's autumn and the leaves are bright red?  Where does the road lead?  Which brings me to the next helpful idea--let your imagination be active.  Let it TAKE you.  MOVE you.  FOLLOW it where it wants to go.  It will be safe because you are right there looking after it but give it some slack to explore the world it has suddenly found itself in.  Before you know it you are no longer an observer but a participant.  Always remember that TRUTH is found in the details.  Clarity and specificity will create a continual "living" picture that plays out in our performance and informs and arouses our emotions within the limits of the play. The details of truth are where your imagination thrives.  It draws inspiration from your sensory storehouse of personal images and memories and from there creates a clear and effective experience that has a living effect on the character.  As a result, every invention of your imagination must be thoroughly worked out and built on a basis of facts consistent with the world of the story such as:

When?  Where?  Why?  and How?
 
It is IMPOSSIBLE to discuss acting without the IMAGINATION.  It is the most crucial part of EVERY actor's technique.  An actor's imagination is like a hammer to a carpenter--you will always need it and need it close.  Never forget--if you find yourself artisticaly STUCK have faith your imagination will always show you the way out but you can't find your way out if you never ask the question.  What if?

Your Sensory Storehouse

As we begin to develop our technique we start with developing our Actor/Self--our instrument.  Therefore our investigation begins with ourselves and how OUR instrument works.  One of the key elements of investigation is the collection of information.  So with acting how do we do this--where do we start?  With our FIVE SENSES.

Developing an acute awareness of your senses is one of the first fundamentals of acting.  This seems obvious I know but it bears repeating.  And repeating again!  If our job is to create a truthful fabrication of reality then we must discover truth within the details of REAL LIFE--and those details are revealed by our senses. 

SO!  In real life how we see, hear, smell, touch, and taste the world is how we experience everything that is considered LIVING.  All of the external information, or stimulation, is received and filtered through our senses.  We are bombarded all day long with information.  Whether we are conscious of it or not, we are constantly storing up a massive catalogue of sensations in our memories.  This collection is how we learn, recognize, and identify our reality.  This is why most of our memories are accompanied by one or more remembered sensation.  Bottom line is that our senses perceive our existence.  Unfortunately, in our day to day life many of us take our senses for granted.  Sometimes this is out of necessity and we are forced or choose to ignore certain sensual information so that we can function/cope with our reality.  This may be good for real life but it's bad for our acting one.  As we develop our Actor/Self we have to be more aware of how our senses work and what they sense.  We need to become extremely observant!  We need to be more aware of what we see.  We need to learn to notice small details and the information those details can offer.  We need to learn how to hear more than what is being said.  We need to learn how to notice all the sounds that are constantly vibrating around us.  We need to learn to articulate the effect these sounds have on our experience.  We need to become aware of how important touch is and just as importantly--the absence of it.  We need to learn to feel presences within our personal space and how we define that space.  We need to learn how to notice that each person carries with them their own unique fragrance and that every place we go--every room we enter has its own particular smell.  We even need to pay closer attention to the way food, or drink, or dirt, or blood, or sweat tastes.  All our senses work together to create a fuller experience of reality and as an actor the more attention we can give to our senses the more fulfilled our Actor/Character experience will be. 

Important to note here!  Even if the Actor/Character has NOTHING in common with who WE--our Actor/Self--is we still draw all our INSPIRATION from our own PERSONAL store house of experience.  BUT always remember--drawing inspiration from our experiences is not the same as MIRRORING our experiences.

In real life it is impossible to go through our experience without collecting memories.  Some are easier than others to remember and some we try very hard to forget.  But for an actor it is essential for our artistry to collect as many sensual memories as we can.  We need be able to truthfully imagine whatever possible sensations the story and character may demand and our sense memories are the seeds from which our imaginations grow.  I think it is very important to distinguish here that sense memory is not the same thing as emotional memory or affected memory.  I will spend more time on emotional memory and my thoughts on the subject in a future post but for now--sense memory is simply memories associated with your five senses.  For example, if the tasks demanded by the story require that you are standing on a beach at dusk basking in the sunset--but in reality you are standing on the edge of the proscenium looking out into a (hopefully) sold out audience...or perhaps you are working on a film that is being shot entirely with computer generated imaging and you are standing in the middle of an empty sound stage surrounded by green screen--then as an actor, you must be able to truthfully imagine and experience every detail of that vision before you.  This is when you will draw inspiration from your memories.  Perhaps directly from a beach sunset that you have experienced personally.  You can recall the smell of salt from the ocean.  You can recall the sound or the waves crashing on the beach as the tide rolls in.  You can feel the cool evening breeze on your face and the soft sand--still warm from the afternoon sun--in your toes.  Once these memories spark inspiration then your imagination takes over to assist in the full developed of the character's experience. 

Now when we start out in acting most of our character's imagined and sensual experiences will be mirrored from those of our real life experiences.  It's not preferred but it's inevitable.  That sunset mentioned above will probably look and feel exactly like one we experienced as a child on a family vacation.  This is how we define what a sensual experience IS by associating it with our own experience.  However, I believe for your Actor/Self it is important to DISASSOCIATE your own personal sensual memories with the ones required of the character.  Your Actor/Self sense memories should only be used as an inspiration for your character's experience.  The trap we fall into is a SHORT CUT for truth but in the end it will always mislead you.  The shortcut is so tempting BECAUSE of the personal connection that resonates from our OWN experience but the pitfall is when we interpret our experience as the character's truth.  It's not.  It has all the residual essence of OUR interpretation of that experience and not the character's.  For instance, let's imagine you are playing an old "salty dog" sea captain who can't wait to get back out to sea.  As you long to set sail you reminisce about your life out on the ocean.  You recall the sights, the sounds, and the smells of sailing and fishing.  Now what if in real life you have a bad memory associated with the salty smell of the sea or the fishy odor of low tide?  You will clearly have no trouble filling your nostrils with the sensation of this odor but what additional memory baggage will YOUR sense memory evoke?  Will this create an obstacle as you create a character that is asked by the story to be filled with vitality from that odor?

"I don't understand!  How can you possible draw inspiration for your character FROM your own memories WITHOUT incorporating your experience into the characters?!?  Isn't that what I bring to my interpretation!?" 

When we take on a role WHO WE ARE is what gives our performance its uniqueness.  Even if we were to give the same line readings as another actor our performance would STILL be unique to us.  The way we sound, the way we look, the way we move, they way we see through the character's eyes will always be uniquely ours because no two humans are the same.  This is incredibly liberating!  And YES, who we are is all of our experience and history, memories and make up, however, bringing my own personal experiences into the character is only the beginning and can lead to artistic blockage if it is used improperly.  Allowing your personal experience into the work may give you a deeper understanding for the character's needs but the difference is that you cannot assume your experience is that of the characters.  What makes a performance INSPIRED is not only how YOU would react in the given circumstances but having the vulnerability and courage to let your experience transform beyond who you are to that of the character. 

I believe the difficulty is that ALL of our sensual memories carry with them an emotional memory--which may not be appropriate for the character you are creating.  Sometimes those are vivid emotional memories.  Sometimes they are not.  So what I suggest is that once you have identified a sensation you should store it as a "detached" sensation.  A bright light is just a glare that causes your eyes to squint.  A burn is just the pain of your skin being scalded.  The smell of fresh cut grass is just a crisp clean aroma with a hint of bitter wild onion.  All your sensual memories become independent "files" that can be uses for inspiration.  They are like sound bites of sensation.  I prefer to imagine a large storehouse with rows of shelves.  On each shelf are mason jars containing one sense.  It could be a fragrance.  Maybe it's the smell of cinnamon?  Maybe it's garlic?  It could be an object.  Maybe it's a piece of rabbit fur to touch?  Maybe a swatch of silk to see shimmer and feel cool against my cheek?  On other shelves are a collection of snap shots from sights that I have seen--either in person or from photographs in books or on the Internet.  You can choose however you would like to organize your sensual memories but I believe it is important for your Actor/Self development that your memories are visualized abstractly.  This way they are more accessible to the needs of the character.

When you take on a role you immediately start filling in that character's existence.  You are literally building the character from scratch.  As you create the world they live in within the story you are filling it with all of your sensual inspiration from your personal catalogue.  As your Actor/Character's NEEDS become clearer and are established then your Actor/Self's imagination will give appropriate values to your sensory inventory.  Now that they are connected to your Actor/Character's wants and needs the result will ignite your Actor/Character's emotional life to organically create truthful behavior and reactions.

I'm in no way suggesting that you shouldn't bring your personal experience to a role but I am suggesting that when you rely solely on your personal experience--and use your own memories directly (mirroring) for the character's wants and needs--then you immediately place limitations on your art and the depth your creation can go.  It will be like fitting a pentagon peg in round hole.  It looks like it will fit but it doesn't.

The bottom line is that everyone approaches the work differently but when it comes to character one rule is law.  You must always bring yourself to the character and never the character to yourself.

Investigation Now

I remember years ago coming home from college one weekend.  I went to church with my family on Sunday morning and I also went to a college age class for "Sunday school."  That class was taught by teachers that I had grown up with over the years and had learned to value their perspective.  After class I was so excited to share with one of these teachers some of the new and exciting things that I had learned and discovered while away at school.  The funny thing is that to this day I don't remember WHAT we were discussing but I do remember that what I was offering--for my beliefs--was very affirming stuff.  This is why I was so shocked and will never forget what was said in response.  I was told that the Devil works in mysterious ways and that knowledge can sometimes be dangerous.  WHAT!?!  I was furious.  That didn't even make sense to me.  How could knowledge and wisdom be considered EVIL?  So I went to the one man I always went to for inspiration--my Pop.  My father is a high school drama teacher but he started out in life as a preacher.  I retold the "advice" that I was given and how angry it made me feel.  What he said next changed my outlook on EVERYTHING.  His words grew to be the phrase I depend on as a mantra for my life AND my artistry.  He said...

"Truth has nothing to fear of investigation."

How perfect is that?  Truth has nothing to fear of investigation.  Nothing!  No matter where truth may hide, and truth has a funny way of hiding in all sorts of unseemly places, no matter the questions, the knowns, the unknowns, the suspicions, the theories, the doubts--no matter WHERE truth is hiding it welcomes investigation.  Because truth doesn't know how to be anything but the TRUTH.

!!WARING!!  This calling for truth presents a great challenge to each of us.  The challenge to be brutally honest with ourselves.  We may not like what we find.  It may not be the easy or popular answer.  It may not be what we were taught or always thought/believed it to be.  Sometimes accepting a truth that is buried deep inside us can be painful to recognize but in art--as an actor--when we DO accept those truths then we allow them to be elevated ABOVE ourselves.  We discover freedom to move deeper within the work--the characters we play and the story we are attempting to tell.  So dig away!

As actors TRUTH is the essence of what we seek.  Even if we're recreating a fabrication of reality we are always striving for truth.  Truth in our characters.  Truth in our actions.  Truth in our emotions.  Truth in our tasks and objectives.  It ALL has to be TRUE for the audience to benefit from the experience.  Even in abstract forms if you are not committed to the purpose of every moment--then every moment will appear false.  Truth is what we long for.  We desperately desire for our audiences to BELIEVE in the characters and stories we share with them because belief is what makes truth true.

So how do actors investigate truth?  The same way anyone would go about investigating in real life--with your senses, intellect, and imagination!  In the beginning we investigate ourselves and our instrument.  We search for truth within our Actor/Self.  We search to identify our personal habits and personal barbwire that our technique will eventually become entangled.  We investigate our instrument's greatest potential.  We identify our instrument's most challenging limitations and then investigate how we to move through them.  We investigate our experiences for inspiration.  We search for truth of courage and faith in our technique.

Then we investigate our Actor/Characters and search for their truth within the text of our story and in the heart of the story itself.  We seek out their purpose to the story.  We discover who they are and what they want.  We discover who they aren't and what they don't want.  We investigate their likes and dislikes to deepen and inspire their emotional lives.  We look at what they say and what they don't say and how they say it.  We investigate what THEY want and not what we think they want.

But the greatest thing about investigating for the actor is in the doing.  We get to ACT out our investigations.  We get to rehearse possibilities to discover if they are truths or not.  This is what makes acting so much fun.  The story and our character's truth is just waiting to be found and with every project we start--we set out to find it.  Be honest, don't be afraid--and start investigating!   

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.

There is Action and then there is ACTION

I want to talk now about ACTION.  What is action to you?  Is it your physical movements on stage--your blocking or staging?  Is action external or internal?  Can you be active sitting still?

To me "action" is at the core of what we do as actors.  It is everything that the actor does to fulfill their character's purpose within the story.  It's the driving internal force that keeps our characters moving forward to their goal.  We cannot ACT without action.

Stanislavsky opens his chapter on Action with an exercise.  Tortsov asks the actors to stand on the stage.  They were given no direction and left to their own invention.  As a result, and as you can imagine--perhaps even experienced if you have participated in something similar, the students were all over come with the "need" to perform.  Or they all acted out of self consciousness.  The students, as we all do for the first time, felt insecure and created and performed distractions instead of actions.  I remember the very first time that I experience a similar exercise.  I was asked to stand alone on the stage--which felt huge by the way--and all I could think about were every set of eyes watching me and waiting for me to do something.  I'm sure I made a joke or even "acted" out some silly gestures, but the only memories I have are of the sensation of fear.  THEN I was asked to count the seats in the auditorium.  This exercise is so basic and yet it has such a profound lesson.  By counting the seats I was given a task that had purpose.  The exercise continued and I was informed that I only had sixty seconds to finish counting AND if I guessed the correct number of seats then I would receive a prize.  I didn't by the way, but that additional task created STAKES--something I'll talk about later--and taught me that having something to accomplish gives my actions purpose and makes my "performance" active.  Watching and uncomfortable actor squirm may be amusing--even entertaining, but watching an actor who has purpose is engaging and far more interesting.  Therefore, one of the key fundamentals every actor should remember is that everything they do on stage or in front of a camera MUST have purpose and MUST be active.

In an An Actor Prepares, Stanislavsky has Tortsov demonstrate action by sitting in a chair on stage.  When a student challenges this as not active he replies with this:

"The external immobility of a person sitting on the stage does not imply passiveness.  You may sit without a motion and at the same time be in full action.  Nor is that all.  Frequently physical immobility is the direct result of inner intensity, and it is these inner activities that are far more important artistically.  The essence of art is not in it's external forms but in its spiritual content...On the stage it is necessary to act, either outwardly or inwardly."

 This "inner intensity" or "spiritual content" brings me to another way to look at action.  When I was in Drama school, Earle Gister taught us his version of Action.  To him, and soon to me, Action is the inner energy that actors send and receive.  This Action is described with the phrase: "How do I want to make my scene partner feel?"  At first this was a very foreign idea to me.  It didn't make sense.  How does this have anything to do with everything I've always been told about acting?  But then I started to see it in real life.  While driving I might see someone cut off another driver and the one who was cut off shouts and screams obscenities in return.  The one screaming isn't just angry about being cut off; he also wants the one who cut him off to FEEL like an idiot.  The one who cut him off may realize what he did and be ashamed, but with his pleading gestures from his car he wants the other driver to accept his apology and FEEL sympathetic.  Or when you see a young couple walking hand in hand with that smitten look all over their face and each lover is glowing.  That "glowing" is each one making the other to FEEL loved so they will continue to reap the benefits of that love.  Or maybe you've seen a parent disciplining their child because they were playing too rough with the other children.  The parent's behavior is stern but their Action is intended to make the child to FEEL ashamed.  The key to this idea of Action--and what MAKES it active--is that this inner intensity is driving us toward our wants and needs.  When acting we use this kind of Action to fulfill our character's objectives or tasks.  Asking "how do I want to make you feel?" drives the character's internal purpose and is active outwardly to our scene partners and audience.  It gives your acting that "spiritual content" that is so engaging.  It also gives you focus away from and off of yourself--which is truly one of the key philosophies of EVERY training system or method.

Try to look for this in your everyday life.  Notice it in your own behavior--especially when you are aware that you are going after something you want.  Are your actions intended to make the recipient FEEL a certain way in an effort to get you what you want?

If you are working on a monologue then try choosing an Action to play on the image of your scene partner.  Then try inserting the phrase "I want you to feel ______" after every sentence.  For example in Chekhov's The Seagull, Konstantin is speaking with his uncle Sorin about his mother Arkadina.  For this exercise I have chosen the Action to play on Sorin "I want you to feel sympathetic." 

Konstantin:  I love my mother, I love her very much; but her life is futile, she smokes and drinks and spends all her time fretting over that writer she lives with. (I want you to feel sympathetic) Her name is never out of the papers--and I'm fed up with it.(I want you to feel sympathetic) Sometimes I feel, you know, just an ordinary selfish impulse, and sometimes I'm sorry my mother is a famous actress and think if she were an ordinary woman, I could be happier. (I want you to feel sympathetic) Uncle, could anything be more hopeless and stupid than my situation? (I want you to feel sympathetic) I'll be round at her place sometimes in a room jam full of celebrities, actors and writers, and I'll be the only one of the lot of them who's a nobody and the only reason they put up with me is that I'm her son. (I want you to feel sympathetic) Who am I? (I want you to feel sympathetic) What am I? (I want you to feel sympathetic) I left university in my final year, due to causes for which, as they say, the editor accepts no responsibility; I have no qualifications, no money, not one kopeck and according to my passport, I'm a petit-bourgeois from Kiev. (I want you to feel sympathetic) Well my father was a petit-bourgeois from Kiev, although he was also a well known actor. (I want you to feel sympathetic) And when those actors and writers in her drawing room would turn their kind attention to me, it always seemed to me from their expressions that they were just gauging my insignificance.

I chose sympathetic for this example but Actions are discovered out of your characters objectives and tasks which you discover during rehearsal.  Action can seem complicated and clumsy at first and I hesitated to bring it up in my early posts.  However, I believe that Action is an essential building block and a crucial element to my aesthetics of acting.  It is something that takes time to develop but will become easier to fulfill with practice.  Eventually, it will become second nature and you will no longer even need to THINK about what Actions to send.  This is why I introduce it from the start.  It will continue to intertwine with my investigation of the acting process--mostly because I have found that it always leads to truth.  It is always connected to your tasks and is the engine behind fulfilling your objectives--which we will talk about in the future.

One of the things that always excited me about Earle was when he witnessed Action being sent.  He would perk up and always say, "Did you see that?  Like a laser!"  And he was right.  Action lights up acting with purpose.