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.

Aesthetics

What is "fine" acting?  

Well like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.  As much as I would all like to say with conviction that there is a definitive line between good and bad it just isn't so.  We all have an opinion of what we think is good and it all comes down to aesthetics.  Time to run to Webster again...

"Aesthetics: a particular theory or conception of beauty or art : a particular taste for or approach to what is pleasing to the senses and especially sight."

Due to the work of Stanislavsky and then The Group Theatre/The Actor's Studio here in America, the most popular aesthetic is some form of psychological realism or naturalism.  Audiences have come to expect their actors to appear as real as they are.  I mean look at our culture's obsession with "reality" television!  We want to see truthful emotion and true relationships.  It has to "feel" real!   And as actors we aspire to "be" real.  As a result, a number of "methods" or "systems" have developed over the last hundred years to produce believable performances.  Some of them focus so much on reality that actors are convinced they cannot truly BE the character until they have EXPERIENCED everything the character has experienced.  I do not subscribe to this idea.  First and foremost acting isn't real.  Let me say this again.  ACTING IS NOT REALITY.  For an actor everything that takes place on stage or in front of the camera is fictional.  More importantly--characters aren't real people.  They are a semblance of human beings.  They are not complex.  Characters exist in a story to serve a purpose within that story.  They are functional.  Even if they are based on real life or historical persons they are still just characters in a story.  They are something that we create--NOT something that we live.  Through our creation the audience has an experience.  We do not act the experience.  We act the action.  Then what becomes most important is that whenever we act our actions are TRUTHFUL. 

Therefore my aesthetics are those of Transformational Acting.  

I was very inspired by Declan Donnellan's book The Actor and the Target but in it he disputes transformational acting as flat out impossible.  He states, and rightly so, that there is no way for an actor to physically transform into another being.  It is true.  We do not live in an age where we can step into a shiny metal pod with flashing lights--flip a switch and BAM!  After a little molecular reconstruction we step out as Macbeth.  What we can do is take all of our experience, imagination, intelligence, creativity, and focus and then mold them--like clay--into something new.  We transform ourselves, as raw material, into our own unique interpretation of a character never seen before.  

We transform INTO the character or the "Who am I"--NOT the other way around.  

You know I recently overheard a summer blockbuster actor (who's co-stars are giant robots) say in an interview that the director was constantly encouraging the actors to ad lib and improvise which created an exciting organic experience.  Well what this actually says to me is one of two things.  One, it's possible that the dialogue was poorly written and the director clearly had no respect for the material and in the end it was irrelevant or two, the actors were incapable of delivering the written lines truthfully because they were unable to transform their own personalities to the wants and needs of the character.  Either way the result is "personality acting."  Where the actor conforms each role to their own character traits.  You always see the same tricks.  But when you transform to the character you set aside your habits and choices for the discovery of those in service to the character.  Despite the consistencies that exist within you as an actor--a new character is created out of your individuality.  In my opinion, transformation is a successful aesthetic for every style and genre of acting.  As long as TRUTHFUL transformation and TRUTHFUL action is committed to, then the audience will TRULY have an experience.  

That is what I consider "fine" acting.  When truth happens.        

An Actor's First Choice

Why do you want to be an actor?

I can't tell you how many times I've been asked this question.  First it started with my family, then of course in Acting 101 at college, and then Acting 102, followed by a number of strangers between then and now.  I can tell you that sometimes I knew the answer and then at other times I wasn't so sure anymore.

Maybe you've been asked this question a thousand times yourself.  In fact, you may even be rolling your eyes that I'm even bringing it up.  Obviously you KNOW in your heart why you chose to be an actor and you are tired of defending it.  Or maybe this is the first time you've thought about this question and you're searching your soul for how to answer this question.  Will your answer be honest?

Right off, if you want to be an actor because you just want to be famous then I applaud your honesty.  I have no judgment of you.  If we are all honest with ourselves then we would be able to admit that we have all longed for that at some point or another.  And why not?  With fame you are working all the time, with fame comes a more "stable" source of income and lifestyle, with fame you have a larger audience base to communicate with, and well...you're famous.  I think we all fantasies a little about our talents taking us to career heights.  AND this does happen for a few.  For a small percentage of us, fortune has smiled and granted fame and steady work.  And I am very thankful to hear in interviews more and more celebrity actors graciously admitting their fortune--to do the job they are lucky to do day in and day out.  But the thing with fame, like success in many professions, there are an endless number of variables that get you there and some of them may not be to your tastes.  I am not just talking about the proverbial casting couch but the artistic and personal values that make you who you are.  Obviously, hard work and your talent is how you want to arrive but what if that isn't enough and your desire for fame is so strong that you start to find yourself asking, "will fame be worth doing this?"  Instead of "Why do I want to be an actor?"  Or even better "Why do I want to communicate with my audience?" 

From a more noble perspective...OK I lied, I guess I am a touch judgmental...for most of us the young romantic will rush in to answer the question.  "I'm an artists and I want to be an actor to change the world, damn it!!"  I personally support and encourage this answer but I believe it needs substance to live.  Faith in this charge is crucial because it will take years to evolve and solidify your artistic purpose.  And once again I believe Stanislavsky makes a compelling argument...

"Now remember firmly what I am going to tell you: the theatre, on account of it's publicity and spectacular side, attracts many people who merely want to capitalize their beauty or make careers.  They take advantage of the ignorance of the public, it's perverted taste, favoritism, intrigues, false success, and many other means which have no relation to creative art.  These exploiters are the deadliest enemies of art.  We have to use the sternest measures with them, and if they cannot be reformed they must be removed from the boards.  Therefore, you must make up your mind once and for all, did you come here to serve art, and to make sacrifices for its sake, or to exploit your own personal ends?" -Konstantin Stanislavsky, An Actor Prepares

When you read this today it is remarkable how little has changed.  I love how he calls for actors to take a higher road--to be in service of an art form that has a responsibility to its society.  And throughout his writings he does not dispute the importance of an actor's career but rather direct focus on the actor's purpose for who he/she is.

In my second post I touched on this topic when I was detailing my definition of an actor but I don't think it can be asked OR answered enough.  In fact, I think you WILL and SHOULD continue to answer this question for the rest of your career.  With time the question might sound different like, "why am I still doing this?"  Or maybe "is this worth all the sacrifices?"  Or even, "is it time for me to do something else?"  Obviously only you can answer these questions.  I also would wager that if you're honest--I mean REALLY honest with yourself--that your answer will appear change from time to time. Which is why I truly believe that however you answer the question of "why you act" that answer will become your artistic touchstone.

"What do you MEAN my answer will appear to change?  Not me.  I KNOW why I act and nothing will ever change that!"  I hope so.  I truly do.  But in the pursue of your career it will take on many shapes.  There are times when it will be exactly as you have envisioned it.  You will be working with talented and creative professionals.  You will  be excelling in your own practice and networking successfully within the industry.  Other times, you may find yourself working less and your career stalled to the point it no longer looks even close to how you had envisioned.  You may feel that you have stopped making important networking connections and feel without direction.  With either scenario you will most certainly be tempted by desires or just plain personal needs that will put your confident answer in question.  Sometimes you may realize that you are no longer pursuing acting for the same reasons that inspired you in the first place.  Returning to your answer--asking yourself once more, "Why do I want to be an actor?" and answering it anew will always re-inspire your purpose.  Even if you have never wavered, questioned, or been tempted by cheaper pursuits just asking the question and declaring your answer can only strengthen your faith in your artistry.

I don't want to bring the room down and I certainly do not wish to dwell the past but in a few weeks it will be the ten year anniversary of September 11th.  At the time of the attacks on the Trade Towers, Pentagon, and United Flight 93 I was in New York and in full on career mode.  For all of us that day was a life changing event.  I was one of the fortunate ones.  I didn't lose any loved ones, unlike so many others that day.  And what I lost can't EVEN compare...but we all lost something.  For me it was justifying being an artist...to be an ACTOR seemed so embarrassing now.  All I could think of was how can I continue to pursue a career that is so vain when people are flying planes into buildings?  It seems silly to say it out loud but the terrorists killed my first love that day.  But after time and and rediscovery I found myself asking that tired old question again, why do I want to be an actor?  And this time the answer meant more that it had ever before.  Now my idea of artistic success was changing...or maybe just reverting.  I returned to my touchstone to remind myself why and how important an actor's responsibility is as an artist.  I returned to my touchstone to restore my faith in artistry.

On my desk at work I have two quotes taped to my computer screen:

"Without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable." -George Bernard Shaw

"Life beats down and crushes the soul and art reminds you that you have one." - Stella Adler

I truly believe that being an artist HAS to take on a higher purpose in order to give you the strength to BE an artist.  Whether that is to educate or change the way your audience thinks or just to make them laugh for two hours as they escape the worries of their lives what we do means something and changes the world just a little bit because we are here.

This past Spring I had the opportunity to hear Declan Donnellan speak at the Brooklyn Academy of Music.  Mr. Donnellan is the artistic director of Cheek By Jowl and the author of The Actor and the Target.  When he was asked by a patron on how to advise a young family member whether to go into theatre or not he joked firstly that they should do ANYTHING but go into the theatre.  Then finally, after he appeared to reflect almost tenderly on his own experience, he said, "Theatre is for people who can't do anything else."  Perhaps you are not as romantic or idealistic as I am and maybe this speaks more to your perspective.  Even if it is because you can "do nothing else" at least that's faith in something.  A great acting teacher once told me if you don't have faith then you better get some.  In something.

For the record, I'm not unrealistic about the pursuit of an artistic career.  With age and experience comes wisdom and sometimes cynicism.  But I am reminded of the Stanislavsky quote from Stanislavsky Directs where he uses the phrase "youthfulness in your acting."  I think his word choice (or the translation) is perfect.  Youthfulness!  To me this is all about purity of art and purpose.  It is how we felt when we first took to acting.  It is how excited we were to be on stage with a company of talented people all working together to tell a story.  It is the newness of youth, not the naivete, that inspires us to keep going.  It is the essence of how the 100th performance can feel and look like the first.  So you see WHY you want to act is your artistic lifeline and if you have faith in your answer then you can always return to your true purpose.

Rediscovering Stanislavsky.

No matter what school of thought you are partial to, it is impossible to ignore the massive impact that Konstantin Stanislavsky (1863-1938) has had on actor training.  After all he IS the father of modern acting.  Odds are that if you have studied acting anywhere then you have studied Stanislavsky.  His commitment and passion for deconstructing and developing the actors process was a life's work that changed the direction of acting and is still the predominate style today. 

Sidebar: Due to the fact that many older publications/translations spell Stanislavsky with a "y" and it is more familiar I have chosen to spell it that way within this blog.  However, it is also spelled Stanislavski, as you will see in modern publications and Internet searches...and occasionally I may even slip up from time to time here as well. 

I'm do not wish to focus on his biography at this time but rather his teachings, theories, and relevance for actors today.  If you are new to acting then I strongly encourage that you go and Google him stat!  Knowing when he lived and worked is incredibly helpful to understanding how he developed his "system." 

You know, it's amazing to me that his system has endured all these years.  Clearly during his time, there were other actors and theatres around the world breaking with tradition and searching for more realistic and truthful performances.  So what set him apart?  Why has he been so influential?  Was he the first actor to publish a detailed study of the acting process?  More importantly if I am to truly understand my own acting heritage then how much of his system do I use and does it actually work?  When returning to the source Stanislavsky is the best place to start.  He was the turning point from a more presentational performance to a more truthful and natural one.

First and foremost what I discovered that impressed me most was how he viewed being an artist in the theatre.  When you read his writings and the writings of others about him he truly saw the actor's way of life as a calling.  It was a noble pursuit that carried with it a great responsibility.  People don't talk like this anymore.  Sure you get a smattering of romanticized language sandwiched between bitterness and careerism--which is sadly a by-product of the current acting career model.  And it is probably unrealistic to imagine his rhetoric sharing common ground in this day and age, right?  Then again, he was at the peak of his career when his country on the brink of and during a revolution so perhaps his almost prophetic quality WOULD find an audience in a new generation of actors. 

Next, I believe another key element worth investigating which contributed to the longevity of his influence was his belief in a universal way of working.  His technique addressed many issues that were (and still are) common amongst actors everywhere.  He focused on developing a system of acting that would over come those issues and produce the desired aesthetics of acting--what he considered to be fine acting. He created a structured "How to" for actors that began to put creative power in their hands.  His system would help actors "create" roles instead of the old model of copying someone else's performance.  Not to mention he presented a technique that "demystified" an actor's greatest challenge - emotion!   However, while his system is without a doubt ground breaking, over time we've learned  that his work, as is EVERY actor's work, is subjective to his own experiences, challenges, and artistic preferences.  For example, he struggled with stage fright and vocal difficulties in his early career and therefore dedicated major components of his system to addressing and overcoming these issues.  While it is true that many actors suffer from the same challenges not ALL actors do and so there are aspects of his system that are NOT universal truths to acting.  In Rose Whyman's book The Stanislavsky System of Acting, Legacy and Influence in Modern Performance she outlines, in painstaking detail, the number of scientific, social, and political influences that contributed to how and why Stanislavsky developed the system as he did.  And in her closing remarks she makes a very important call to action to look at Stanislavsky "afresh."  I think as American actors we have simply been taught that he was the deliverer of "great" acting and here is what you should do...end of story.  However, what impressed me most about Ms. Whyman's book is how she brings Stanislavsky down off the pedestal and presents him as an actor in search of answers.  This is something that I can relate to.  This is something we ALL are.  This was inspiring to me and pushed me to reflect on his teachings in a new way.  He was an incredibly self observant artist but he was limited by his understanding of the science of his day and his belief HIS aesthetics of acting were the superior ones.  And perhaps they were and still are!  But despite his limitations his observations of human behavior in himself and his students is what gave us a universal foundation to build modern naturalistic acting upon.  Above all else, he proved that successful acting could be developed and created through a process that would deliver consistent results.  And as a result of those who agreed or disagreed gave birth to actor training as we know it.



Up next:  An Actor's first choice.