(This is a continuation of my last post. You may want to read that first.)
It can be argued that Realism was born for 20th century media, for TV and film. Lord knows, an actor’s face thrown onto a large movie screen is ENORMOUS, and the smallest expressions and gestures become enormously informative. A little “too much acting” in a movie can immediately be WAY TOO MUCH ACTING. Right? That’s what directors and teachers will tell you, especially those steeped in “The Method”.
Well, they’re simply wrong. In fact, they’re somewhat deluded. I recommend to you the work of any of dozens of beloved film actors, whose work was “larger than life”. Start with Laurence Olivier, perhaps the greatest actor of our time. Look at the wonderful work of Jack Nicholson, or even Marlon Brando, famed Method Actors. Yes, you can see elements of the method at work in Brando and Nicholson. (Olivier didn’t care for the Method.) But look at how LARGE their performances are! They’re not all that “subtle”, it’s all usually right out there, bigger than life, hard to miss. I would beg you to watch 20 movies you love, and list your favorite performances. Though they will be filled with genuine human emotions, those will almost always be expressed in a manner larger than life.
THAT’S BECAUSE ACTING IS BY ITS VERY NATURE LARGER THAN LIFE! It was at the start, when we played Gods.
Imagine for a moment an audience. Who are they? People, that’s all. People with jobs, people with families, people with problems. People. They each come to the theatre, or their TVs, or Movie Theaters, with THEIR OWN LIVES DRAGGING IN BEHIND THEM. This guy didn’t eat dinner, he may be fired tomorrow because his boss hates him, he had to pick up the baby-sitter, he has a backache and gas! Yet, he picks up the wife, pays over $100 a ticket, and shows up to the theatre on time to see your play!
The same sort of story applies to nearly EVERY PERSON who watches ANY ENTERTAINMENT. They all have lives, and they all have immediate problems. When in history was the audience’s life ever easy or simple? Never! Even kings get gas! Why do audiences come to the theatre, the movie house, the TV, and in the hundreds of millions? How has theatre survived a history of wars and disasters and personal angst for over 2,500 years? It survives because the audience is willing to believe that whatever is happening on that stage is BIGGER, MORE IMMEDIATE, MORE URGENT, MORE IMPORANT THAN ANYTHING THAT IS HAPPENING IN THE AUDIENCE’S LIFE. What happens in that play, that movie, is LARGER than their lives. So, for a little while, they can watch others, and laugh and cry at someone else’s problems.
Acting doesn’t work well when played “small” or “real”. For one thing, far more often than not, it’s just boring as hell that way. The “realistic” approach works against the strengths of theatre and cinema, the very reasons the audience comes to us in the first place. Remember, theatre started out as a tribute to Gods, Gods perceived to have created the universe, not little men with gas. Though you will find little men with gas in many comedy, what happens to them in the play or movie sure seems enormous to them. That’s why we can find them funny.
Stanislavsky liked to create real, working sinks in sets requiring a kitchen. WHY? The audience knows what a sink is, they’ve lived with sinks forever. They don’t CARE that you can make a sink work on stage or in a movie! Why should they? They don’t pay huge amounts of money to stare at your set and proclaim, “Wow! Running water! There’s something you don’t see every day. Well, I do…”
What audiences care about is HUMAN EXPERIENCE, and IDEAS BIGGER THAN THE LIVES THEY’RE CURRENTLY LIVING. They are looking for a deeper understanding of life, one that will help them survive better. They’re also looking for relief from stress and strain, a few hours of pleasure, problems which aren’t theirs and which don’t actually harm or threaten them. This is what an actor provides, with the aid of other theatrical and filmic artists.
A stage is a small, empty space that begs for symbols to walk through it, not flesh-and-blood human beings. All live performance operates on a level of METAPHOR… symbols that represent larger ideas or truths. Yes, the audience must accept that the actor is believably portraying Hamlet, or whatever role. To be moved, the audience must accept the actions and people they’re watching as plausible. They must be identifiably HUMAN, so that the human audience can understand and relate to their plight. The more recognizably human the performance, the better. However, this does not require the actor to “play small” or real”. There’s a huge difference between “small and real”, and “identifiably human”. We just aren’t that small, not in our own heads. What happens to each of us sure seems big and important, to us.
And the actor…surprise…is not required to suffer as his character suffers, or to experience emotional trauma, or experience ANYTHING that the character experiences, as the Method espouses so often.
“You must suffer for your art”.
Horse pucky.
Art should be a celebration of life, and that includes acting. I’m not in any way suggesting that a CHARACTER might not experience pain, of course it can and will! But YOU, the actor, most certainly do NOT need to experience ANYTHING a character would experience in order to portray a character with complete believability! I know this flies in the teeth of most of what you’ve been told about how to act, but it’s true, nonetheless. What you do have to do is CONVINCE AN AUDIENCE THAT THE CHARACTER FEELS WHAT HE FEELS, THINKS WHAT HE THINKS, AND EXPERIENCES WHAT HE EXPERIENCES.
What YOU feel at any given time is entirely your own business. You may feel everything and nothing, and it should have no bearing whatsoever on the quality of your performance.
Think for a moment. What if you were cast as a character that had to die? How would you “experience” death and then communicate it to an audience? Were you going to have the experience, come back from the dead, and then play Hamlet? Good luck with that, and welcome to an incredibly short career!
What if you had to play a great King, having never been a King? One who must go mad, such as King Lear, perhaps the greatest role in the English language? Sure, you could find some emotional parallels in your own life, but face it, you’ve probably not gone mad at any time in this life, nor been a king.
You can’t BE Lear! You’ve been YOU for a long time, and that’s tough enough. But you can UNDERSTAND Lear and his experiences, through your own creativity and intelligence. And you can, in the NOW, manufacture any emotion or thought or experience that you wish. You are fully capable of creating ANYTHING that any character must express, without ever having experienced what the character experiences! It’s true. We call this “imagination”, something the Method and other schools of acting seems to more or less deny in favor of a dubious quantity of experience. Imagination has NO limits. Experience? Very limited. If you’re relying on experience to underpin your acting, there aren’t a lot of roles you’re going to be able to play.
And once you thoroughly understand a piece, you can intelligently select those emotions, thoughts, and physicalizations (physical qualities and motions) that will BEST COMMUNICATE THE CHARACTER. And then create them, as needed. And re-create them every night for ten years, if so needed.
You are far smarter, more able, and more creative than The Method, or many other schools of acting, give you credit for.
This is the core thinking behind the Ethical Art Technique. You can create, rather than “re-experience”. You can understand, rather than just “feel your way through” a piece. You can celebrate as an artist, rather than suffer.
________
Tonight (Wednesday) I teach my workshop for professional actors in Los Angeles. Tomorrow, I'll start a practical discussion with you on how to build a career. If you have questions, I can always be reached at cctauthor@aol.com.
Steven
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
The History of Acting - Part One
A History of Western Acting
(But first, the link that I promised yesterday. It's not live yet, you'll need to copy and paste it into your browser to see the interview with Denszel Washington and Viola Davis.
http://www.dailyactor.com/2010/04/denzel-washington-and-viola-davis-on-the-broadway-revival-of-fences/)
As far as we know, the first actors were probably pre-language. They may have been "cavemen" of some sort, trying to communicate to others of their kind the thrill of a hunt. Since this happened pre-history, we have no record of their early efforts. Such performances, born out of a pre-language need to communicate, had to have been very physically involved.
_____________________
EXERCISE:
Try this right now. Communicate without words to someone you know, some wonderful or interesting experience you had. Don’t stop until you’ve gotten it largely across. You can use sounds. Observe how physical you need to be to accomplish this?
_____________________
What we do know is that some 2,500 years ago, the Greeks started to present the first theatrical plays. It appears they began as religious events, performed (probably in song) by a group, called a chorus, wearing masks. The first plays were doubtless religious rituals, tributes to unseen Gods.
Then, someone got the bright idea of separating from the chorus and portraying a particular personality in one of the celebrations, such as the Greek God of wine, Dionysus. Putting on a mask uniquely designed to create the appearance of the character, he stepped forward from the group and spoke (or sang) the first dialogue, “I am Dionysus. I did this!”, and the chorus answered. Tradition tells us that this first actor’s name was “Thespis of Icaria” (around the 6th Century B.C.). Since that first performance, actors have been known as “Thespians”.
At the birth of theatre, it is believed that the writer always directed his own work. This was a trend continued for thousands of years, until very recently. This means the first Greek authors of tragedy, Aeschylus (525B.C.-456 B.C.), Sophocles (496 B.C.-406 B.C.) and Euripides (480 B.C.-406 B.C.), were also the first directors, as was Aristophanes (456 B.C.- 386 B.C.), the author of the first comedies and satires, and Menander (342 B.C.-291 B.C.), the father of the “domestic comedy”, the comedy taking place in the home, and often about family.
The history of acting is the history of theatre, as film didn’t exist as a media until the late 1800s, and TV and radio are 20th century inventions. Sadly, then, we have no recording of the first great performers, or the first 2,300 years worth of performances.
We know that the Greeks wore massive masks when performing, with megaphones built in to amplify their voices in large amphitheaters. They were forced to “declaim”, or to speak boldly and as loudly as possible. Probably volume was a more desired result than subtlety in early acting. They wore shows with enormous bottoms, a foot or more tall, as they were playing Gods and needed to appear larger than life. They clomped about in those shoes throughout their performance.
_____________________
EXERCISE:
Try this right now. Get a paper bag big enough to place over your head. Cut small holes for eyes and a mouth. Place a cone of some kind in the mouth, to amplify. You can make one from paper and tape, about two inches long. Tie bricks, or something large, to the bottom of your shoes. Go to a large, open and outdoor area like a football or baseball field. Do it with a friend if possible. Then, mask on, speak for about ten minutes through the mask and homemade megaphone, while walking about.
_____________________
Theatre largely died after the Greeks, with the exception of a few strolling troops of performers in Rome who did farces and comedy, as exemplified by Plautus (254 B.C.- 184 B.C.), whose comic pieces, sometimes adapted from Aristophanes, were performed on the city streets of Rome. Acting was a profession held in low regard to the war-like Roman.
Theatre died again, until reborn in Churches as religious dramas of little lasting quality, in the 1200s-1400s, in Europe. Actors still carry a legacy from that time. When performing on stage, “upstage” means to move away from the audience toward the back of the stage, and “downstage” means to move toward the front of the stage and the audience. This comes to us from these days, when religious dramas, considered beneath the dignity of the Catholic Church, were performed on the Church Steps, with the audience seated on the road before the church. At this time, there was no such profession as “actor”.
This changed first in Italy, as troops of actors, picking up where the Roman, Plautus, left off, toured from city to city playing largely improvised comedies using the same stereotyped characters over and over. This was the famed “Commedia Del Arte”, a school of acting that was to influence comedy for centuries, and which can trace its real birth back to Plautus, and Aristophanes.
It should be clearly stated, so you know, that actors were despised throughout history, until the 20th century or so. The Catholic Church had a nasty tendency to excommunicate them, cutting them off from God and religion, as “undesirables”. Actors, once dead, were not buried with “good Christians”. Unless supported financially by royalty, one actually had no way to survive as an actor, not until around the 1700s. Acting, since the Greeks, has not been considered a “noble profession”, and was certainly never lucrative, not until our time. And still, there were actors.
Commedia made its way through Europe, as a part of an expanding Renaissance, a period of rebirth in Europe of knowledge and art. Along with Commedia, a new interest in the works of the Greeks and Romans flooded the continent. These interests made their way to England, and were latched onto by many great writer, the greatest of all (and of all writers) being William Shakespeare (1564-1616 A.D.). The greatest plays ever authored were directed by and featured Shakespeare himself as an actor, in their first productions. Bu perhaps the first great actor after Thespis was Shakespeare’s star, Richard Burbage (1568-1619), who portrayed the first Richard III, Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth and Othello. Burbage, a man from a poor family, was the most in-demand actor of his day, performing in other great author’s works as well, such as in Ben Jonson’s Volpone. At this time, there were no actresses in England, as only men were allowed on stage. Yes, this means the first Juliet was a man.
Shakespeare offered advice to the actors of his day, through this speech delivered by Hamlet, through the lips of Shakespeare’s greatest actor:
Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue. But if you mouth it, as many of our players do, I had as lief the town crier spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus, by use all gently, for in the very torrent, tempest, and (as I may say) whirlwind of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness. O, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb shows and noise. I would have such a fellow whipped for o'erdoing Termagant. It out-herods Herod. Pray you avoid it. Be not too tame neither, but let your own discretion be your tutor. Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature. For anything so overdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature, to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure. Now this overdone, or come tardy off, though it make the unskillful laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve, the censure of the which one must in your allowance o'erweigh a whole theatre of others. O, there be players that I have seen play, and heard others praise, and that highly (not to speak profanely), that neither having th' accent of Christians, nor the gait of Christian, pagan, nor man, have so strutted and bellowed that I have thought some of Nature's journeymen had made men, and not made them well, they imitated humanity so abominably. Reform it altogether! And let those that play your clowns speak no more than is set down for them, for there be of them that will themselves laugh, to set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh too, though in the mean time some necessary question of the play be then to be considered. That's villainous and shows a most pitiful ambition in the fool that uses it. Go make you ready.
You’ll notice that the greatest dramatist in history never suggests that the ACTOR need feel anything? His concern is for what the AUDIENCE will feel and understand. It is the audience’s response he continuously refers to.
The theatre found its greatest master of comedy, and one of its greatest comic actors, in France. Moliere (1622-1673), a trained lawyer, had a terrible stutter, and put it to use to gain huge laughs in his many, great comedies.
Acting continued along these lines for centuries, until the 1800s. In the mid 1800s, a shift occurred in the arts. A new kind of artist decided that art should “hold the mirror up to nature” far more realistically than Shakespeare had intended in Hamlet’s speech to the players, and with far more “realism” than Shakespeare’s plays ever exhibit. The school of “realism” in art started in Northern Europe. It was felt by these new-age artists that art should represent life. In this author’s opinion, this was the worst thing that has ever happened to the arts. In theatre, the Russian playwright, Ivan Turgenev (1818-1883), started the trend. The first theatrical apostle of realism was Henrick Ibsen (1828-1906). Ibsen’s first great play, A Doll’s House, told the tale of a dysfunctional marriage, and a wife who finally leave her husband, an act called by many theatrical critics the “door slam heard ‘round the world.”
Suddenly serious dramas were being authored about the “common man”. Everyday problems became the source of theatre, and actors learned to play “smaller”, more “real”, more “life like”. In doing so, techniques were thought necessary that would assist an actor to access his “real” emotions and portray them. At about the same time, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) created analytic theory, psychoanalysis. This pseudo-science, a nearly random string of theories unsupported by any real data, pretended to understand the functions of the human mind. (Psychologists and Psychiatrists still make this ridiculous claim, though they can’t seem to cure or help anyone.)
A Russian director, and a student of psychoanalytic theory, Constantin Stanislavsky (1863-1938) developed the first “usable system” for an actor, largely based on the actor’s ability to recall and relive personal experiences repeatedly. He believed the actor should “live the part”. This author disagrees with nearly all of Stanislavsky's teachings. Stanislavsky himself is often said to have denied “The Method” he created at the end of his life, as unworkable. Even he suggested strongly that the student not stick to his technique, but that they create his own. In this, he was correct.
His teachings have been made more destructive through the work of several “master teachers” throughout the world, who have left a string of broken actors and shattered lives in their wake. Some great actors have come out of the Method, this is true. One wonders how much better they might have been without the Method to hamper them. One wonders if some of their careers could have been more productive, or their lives, longer.
The great Russian playwright, Anton Chekhov (1860-1904) wrote many theatrical masterworks. He said they were comedies, and in the classic sense, they are. (I’ll explain this to you in a later chapter on Theatrical Schools and Styles.) Yet Stanislavsky directed the great writer’s works like they were intense, serious, psychological dramas. Modern, BAD directors do the same thing to Chekhov’s works. “The Method” is, in fact, infected by a “seriousness” which does not often suit the arts very well.
Let me state this plainly for you. The history of theatre and acting is NOT realism. Theatre does not support the realistic, not very well, and until 150 years ago, the theatre correctly avoided realism like a plague. Shakespeare is regarded by one and all as the greatest author of theatre known to man, and his plays simply never descend into “realism”. Nor do any of the great playwright’s works, prior to Turgenev. There’s nothing wrong with progress when it is truly an advance is man’s understanding. Realism in theatre is not an advance, it denies what theatre is, and finally, is degrading to both artist and audience.
MORE TOMORROW!
Steven Horwich
(But first, the link that I promised yesterday. It's not live yet, you'll need to copy and paste it into your browser to see the interview with Denszel Washington and Viola Davis.
http://www.dailyactor.com/2010/04/denzel-washington-and-viola-davis-on-the-broadway-revival-of-fences/)
As far as we know, the first actors were probably pre-language. They may have been "cavemen" of some sort, trying to communicate to others of their kind the thrill of a hunt. Since this happened pre-history, we have no record of their early efforts. Such performances, born out of a pre-language need to communicate, had to have been very physically involved.
_____________________
EXERCISE:
Try this right now. Communicate without words to someone you know, some wonderful or interesting experience you had. Don’t stop until you’ve gotten it largely across. You can use sounds. Observe how physical you need to be to accomplish this?
_____________________
What we do know is that some 2,500 years ago, the Greeks started to present the first theatrical plays. It appears they began as religious events, performed (probably in song) by a group, called a chorus, wearing masks. The first plays were doubtless religious rituals, tributes to unseen Gods.
Then, someone got the bright idea of separating from the chorus and portraying a particular personality in one of the celebrations, such as the Greek God of wine, Dionysus. Putting on a mask uniquely designed to create the appearance of the character, he stepped forward from the group and spoke (or sang) the first dialogue, “I am Dionysus. I did this!”, and the chorus answered. Tradition tells us that this first actor’s name was “Thespis of Icaria” (around the 6th Century B.C.). Since that first performance, actors have been known as “Thespians”.
At the birth of theatre, it is believed that the writer always directed his own work. This was a trend continued for thousands of years, until very recently. This means the first Greek authors of tragedy, Aeschylus (525B.C.-456 B.C.), Sophocles (496 B.C.-406 B.C.) and Euripides (480 B.C.-406 B.C.), were also the first directors, as was Aristophanes (456 B.C.- 386 B.C.), the author of the first comedies and satires, and Menander (342 B.C.-291 B.C.), the father of the “domestic comedy”, the comedy taking place in the home, and often about family.
The history of acting is the history of theatre, as film didn’t exist as a media until the late 1800s, and TV and radio are 20th century inventions. Sadly, then, we have no recording of the first great performers, or the first 2,300 years worth of performances.
We know that the Greeks wore massive masks when performing, with megaphones built in to amplify their voices in large amphitheaters. They were forced to “declaim”, or to speak boldly and as loudly as possible. Probably volume was a more desired result than subtlety in early acting. They wore shows with enormous bottoms, a foot or more tall, as they were playing Gods and needed to appear larger than life. They clomped about in those shoes throughout their performance.
_____________________
EXERCISE:
Try this right now. Get a paper bag big enough to place over your head. Cut small holes for eyes and a mouth. Place a cone of some kind in the mouth, to amplify. You can make one from paper and tape, about two inches long. Tie bricks, or something large, to the bottom of your shoes. Go to a large, open and outdoor area like a football or baseball field. Do it with a friend if possible. Then, mask on, speak for about ten minutes through the mask and homemade megaphone, while walking about.
_____________________
Theatre largely died after the Greeks, with the exception of a few strolling troops of performers in Rome who did farces and comedy, as exemplified by Plautus (254 B.C.- 184 B.C.), whose comic pieces, sometimes adapted from Aristophanes, were performed on the city streets of Rome. Acting was a profession held in low regard to the war-like Roman.
Theatre died again, until reborn in Churches as religious dramas of little lasting quality, in the 1200s-1400s, in Europe. Actors still carry a legacy from that time. When performing on stage, “upstage” means to move away from the audience toward the back of the stage, and “downstage” means to move toward the front of the stage and the audience. This comes to us from these days, when religious dramas, considered beneath the dignity of the Catholic Church, were performed on the Church Steps, with the audience seated on the road before the church. At this time, there was no such profession as “actor”.
This changed first in Italy, as troops of actors, picking up where the Roman, Plautus, left off, toured from city to city playing largely improvised comedies using the same stereotyped characters over and over. This was the famed “Commedia Del Arte”, a school of acting that was to influence comedy for centuries, and which can trace its real birth back to Plautus, and Aristophanes.
It should be clearly stated, so you know, that actors were despised throughout history, until the 20th century or so. The Catholic Church had a nasty tendency to excommunicate them, cutting them off from God and religion, as “undesirables”. Actors, once dead, were not buried with “good Christians”. Unless supported financially by royalty, one actually had no way to survive as an actor, not until around the 1700s. Acting, since the Greeks, has not been considered a “noble profession”, and was certainly never lucrative, not until our time. And still, there were actors.
Commedia made its way through Europe, as a part of an expanding Renaissance, a period of rebirth in Europe of knowledge and art. Along with Commedia, a new interest in the works of the Greeks and Romans flooded the continent. These interests made their way to England, and were latched onto by many great writer, the greatest of all (and of all writers) being William Shakespeare (1564-1616 A.D.). The greatest plays ever authored were directed by and featured Shakespeare himself as an actor, in their first productions. Bu perhaps the first great actor after Thespis was Shakespeare’s star, Richard Burbage (1568-1619), who portrayed the first Richard III, Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth and Othello. Burbage, a man from a poor family, was the most in-demand actor of his day, performing in other great author’s works as well, such as in Ben Jonson’s Volpone. At this time, there were no actresses in England, as only men were allowed on stage. Yes, this means the first Juliet was a man.
Shakespeare offered advice to the actors of his day, through this speech delivered by Hamlet, through the lips of Shakespeare’s greatest actor:
Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue. But if you mouth it, as many of our players do, I had as lief the town crier spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus, by use all gently, for in the very torrent, tempest, and (as I may say) whirlwind of your passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that may give it smoothness. O, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb shows and noise. I would have such a fellow whipped for o'erdoing Termagant. It out-herods Herod. Pray you avoid it. Be not too tame neither, but let your own discretion be your tutor. Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature. For anything so overdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the first and now, was and is, to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature, to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure. Now this overdone, or come tardy off, though it make the unskillful laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve, the censure of the which one must in your allowance o'erweigh a whole theatre of others. O, there be players that I have seen play, and heard others praise, and that highly (not to speak profanely), that neither having th' accent of Christians, nor the gait of Christian, pagan, nor man, have so strutted and bellowed that I have thought some of Nature's journeymen had made men, and not made them well, they imitated humanity so abominably. Reform it altogether! And let those that play your clowns speak no more than is set down for them, for there be of them that will themselves laugh, to set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh too, though in the mean time some necessary question of the play be then to be considered. That's villainous and shows a most pitiful ambition in the fool that uses it. Go make you ready.
You’ll notice that the greatest dramatist in history never suggests that the ACTOR need feel anything? His concern is for what the AUDIENCE will feel and understand. It is the audience’s response he continuously refers to.
The theatre found its greatest master of comedy, and one of its greatest comic actors, in France. Moliere (1622-1673), a trained lawyer, had a terrible stutter, and put it to use to gain huge laughs in his many, great comedies.
Acting continued along these lines for centuries, until the 1800s. In the mid 1800s, a shift occurred in the arts. A new kind of artist decided that art should “hold the mirror up to nature” far more realistically than Shakespeare had intended in Hamlet’s speech to the players, and with far more “realism” than Shakespeare’s plays ever exhibit. The school of “realism” in art started in Northern Europe. It was felt by these new-age artists that art should represent life. In this author’s opinion, this was the worst thing that has ever happened to the arts. In theatre, the Russian playwright, Ivan Turgenev (1818-1883), started the trend. The first theatrical apostle of realism was Henrick Ibsen (1828-1906). Ibsen’s first great play, A Doll’s House, told the tale of a dysfunctional marriage, and a wife who finally leave her husband, an act called by many theatrical critics the “door slam heard ‘round the world.”
Suddenly serious dramas were being authored about the “common man”. Everyday problems became the source of theatre, and actors learned to play “smaller”, more “real”, more “life like”. In doing so, techniques were thought necessary that would assist an actor to access his “real” emotions and portray them. At about the same time, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) created analytic theory, psychoanalysis. This pseudo-science, a nearly random string of theories unsupported by any real data, pretended to understand the functions of the human mind. (Psychologists and Psychiatrists still make this ridiculous claim, though they can’t seem to cure or help anyone.)
A Russian director, and a student of psychoanalytic theory, Constantin Stanislavsky (1863-1938) developed the first “usable system” for an actor, largely based on the actor’s ability to recall and relive personal experiences repeatedly. He believed the actor should “live the part”. This author disagrees with nearly all of Stanislavsky's teachings. Stanislavsky himself is often said to have denied “The Method” he created at the end of his life, as unworkable. Even he suggested strongly that the student not stick to his technique, but that they create his own. In this, he was correct.
His teachings have been made more destructive through the work of several “master teachers” throughout the world, who have left a string of broken actors and shattered lives in their wake. Some great actors have come out of the Method, this is true. One wonders how much better they might have been without the Method to hamper them. One wonders if some of their careers could have been more productive, or their lives, longer.
The great Russian playwright, Anton Chekhov (1860-1904) wrote many theatrical masterworks. He said they were comedies, and in the classic sense, they are. (I’ll explain this to you in a later chapter on Theatrical Schools and Styles.) Yet Stanislavsky directed the great writer’s works like they were intense, serious, psychological dramas. Modern, BAD directors do the same thing to Chekhov’s works. “The Method” is, in fact, infected by a “seriousness” which does not often suit the arts very well.
Let me state this plainly for you. The history of theatre and acting is NOT realism. Theatre does not support the realistic, not very well, and until 150 years ago, the theatre correctly avoided realism like a plague. Shakespeare is regarded by one and all as the greatest author of theatre known to man, and his plays simply never descend into “realism”. Nor do any of the great playwright’s works, prior to Turgenev. There’s nothing wrong with progress when it is truly an advance is man’s understanding. Realism in theatre is not an advance, it denies what theatre is, and finally, is degrading to both artist and audience.
MORE TOMORROW!
Steven Horwich
Monday, July 5, 2010
What IS Acting?
The following is taken from the first chapter of a book I've authored on the acting technique I teach, which is called Ethical Art. There will be times I take excerpts from the book, and other times I write about something current. I think this part of that first chapter gives us a strong starting point. Enjoy! And do the exercises when they show up if you want the maximum gain. Don't just read. Acting is an active thing!
_____
Acting Defined
Let’s start with the most basic of information. You probably know a great deal of what will be discussed in this chapter, but at worst, it’s a worthwhile review. Perhaps your understanding of acting can be clarified and refined.
Acting could be defined as: the use of a human body and/or voice, intelligence, and other human qualities, in order to create the acceptable illusion of a specific Being (person, animal, etc) or Object, including that specific Being or Object’s experiences, thoughts, emotions, and existence during a given event or series of events.
Acting is used in a number of ways, today:
ACTING AS A WAY TO AVOID TROUBLE, HOMEWORK, AND THE POLICE:
I’m sure you already have a good grasp on this usage of acting. Every seven year old who insisted with perfectly straight face that Spot ate their homework, gets this. Let’s move on.
ACTING IS A CRAFT:
One dictionary defines a craft as: an occupation or avocation requiring special skills, especially manual ones, including carpentry, sewing, pottery, etc.
Acting can be and often is an occupation, as we will discuss. Needless to say, many people make a living as actors. It can be an avocation, a hobby done for fun. It requires very specialized skills, something discussed throughout this book. Many of the skills are manual, involving control over the body and it’s functions in order to create an effect. The actor uses his body and voice to carefully etch the illusion of a character. Acting can be defined as a craft, accordingly, and in it’s “starter”, more rudimentary phases, when an actor is developing skills, that is exactly what an actor is, a developing craftsman.
ACTING IS ART:
All art, any art form, has principally to do with communication. Artists are professional “communicators”. An artist is a specialist who selects what he wishes to communicate, and in what manner or method, using what media and tools.
An artist is one who has mastered to some extent the tools of a craft, and transcended that craft. His works communicate. His works are received and understood. His works also move an audience to feel emotion. Often, art leads its audience to think new or better thoughts, or to spiritual heights. Great art does all of this, and more, and it does it every day.
To be an artist, one must have truly mastered many of the tools of that art form, and its techniques. To become a great artist, one must have accomplished this to a very high degree, and be gifted with a real vision of what one wishes to communicate. One must then be able to communicate that vision to the audience compellingly and consistently, using the art form selected. We’ll discuss what makes a great artist at great length, later in this book.
A person who understands and can use the tools of acting to create emotionally compelling performances is an actor, and is using the skills of acting to create art.
ACTING IS AN AVOCATION (A HOBBY):
Acting is fun. Many people try acting out while still in school, and continue performing in local amateur and semi-professional situations while pursuing a livelihood in other fields. Some very expert actors can be found performing regularly in community and local theatres all over the world. This book is no less for the “amateur” actor than the award-winning Broadway regular. Good acting is good acting, wherever it is found.
ACTING IS A PROFESSION:
Actors pour into Los Angeles, New York, and London from all over the English-speaking world, in order to pursue a career in acting. These cities are where “the INDUSTRY”, or “the BUSINESS” of acting is focused. Los Angeles is where one generally comes to break into film, and TV. London and New York have thriving film and television industries as well, but are renowned for their professional theatre.
A professional actor is an actor who MAKES THEIR LIVING BY ACTING. An actor can make a living doing TV, film, theatre, radio, commercials, print work (print advertisements), voice over work (i.e., doing cartoon voices, radio work, etc.), and in new ways being invented as we speak, as the media used to communicate performances varies and expands. Regardless, a pro is paid to act. Don’t mistake it, just being paid does not make one a great, or even necessarily a good actor. But being paid does make one a professional.
_____________________
EXERCISE:
Which manifestations of acting are you interested in? Acting as Craft? Art? Hobby? Profession. All of the above? Some of the above? Decide which ones you are interested in and why.
_____________________
If one is in a UNION, one of the organizations established to represent actors and their rights, one is generally considered a professional, as well. These include (in the United States) the SCREEN ACTOR’S GUILD (SAG), for most film and television, The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), who represent daytime Soap Opera, radio talent, some commercials and other areas, and ACTOR’S EQUITY ASSOCIATION (AEA), for professional performers in the theatre. However, many actors today get work outside of these union’s jurisdiction, in non-union jobs, and are paid for that work, sometimes in rates as high as Union jobs. More on unions later.
WHAT ACTING IS NOT:
It is as just as important to understand what acting is not, or what it should not be. Acting is NOT “therapy”. It is not a way to work out your personal problems. In fact, and this may deeply offend a few readers, acting is not about the actor and his needs. It’s not about you. It’s not about the “rush” you feel when the curtain goes up, though this is a perfectly fine thing. It’s not even about the satisfaction the actor experiences when the audience gives a standing ovation at the end of the performance, though that is a wonderful thing, as well. It’s not even about the awards you may win someday.
Acting is about the character you play, and the communication of that character, in full, sent by you and received by the audience. The audience (or producer, however you want to look at it) foot the bill. They pay so that the production exists and so that you are paid. Your job is to entertain THEM, not yourself. You’re paid to communicate your character and the entire piece that the character appears in, to the best of your ability, so that the audience may be moved in various ways and feel that their time and money were well spent. If you want to observe and admire a performance, buy a ticket and sit with the audience. An actor is NOT a part of the audience. He is, however, a large part of the reason the audience gathers. An actor is NOT the critic, sent by the local newspaper to write nasty or pointless things about the actor’s performance. The actor is the performer the critic is watching tonight. It is not the actor’s job to critique his own performance. It isn’t even the actor’s job to worry over what the critic will write and say about the actor! It is the actor’s job to deliver a performance, first and last.
An Actor is also NOT the writer. It is not his job to rewrite dialogue, story, or anything else, especially in the theatre. There has grown over the years a sad and unfortunate tendency in TV and film for performers to believe they somehow know more about writing than professional writers. They don’t, and a result of this trend is a steady decline in the quality of works presented cinematically and on television. When a writer sells a work in TV/film, the work is called a “property”. And just like a piece of property, say a desk, once sold, the buyer may do anything he wants to it, including sawing off the legs and turning it into a snow sled. This is, fortunately, not generally the case in theatre, where the writer’s work cannot be altered except by the writer. It is of course true that there are actors who are also fine writers. But one should always be aware of which hat one is wearing at any given time. If you’re being the “actor” today, be the actor. When you’re the writer, then be the writer.
A writer selects his words very carefully, if he’s a decent writer. The words are not arbitrary. They are selected to create a desired effect. It is a part of the actor’s job to DELIVER THE WORDS SELECTED BY THE WRITER in as compelling a manner as possible. It is not his job to rewrite those words.
In much the same manner, the actor is NOT the director, set designer, choreographer, musical director, costume designer, light designer, stagehand, grip, best boy, producer, or anything other than an actor! Just as you, the actor, wish to have control over your own responsibilities as an actor, these other specialists will insist on control over theirs. It’s one thing to make the occasional suggestion (when asked for, or when the creative situation truly allows for a non-critical discussion). All too often, the actor thinks he “knows best” what the costumes or sets or direction should be. These things may be discussed if such a discussion is allowed or invited, but the specialist in that area should always make decisions for his own area.
Taking this further, actors are NOT acting teachers, not while they’re acting in a piece, even if they may be acting teachers outside the production. It is NEVER your job as an actor to critique a fellow actor’s performance or work, not even to improve your own performance, and especially when you haven’t been asked. Even when asked for your help or opinion, you’re courting hatred and disgust from your fellow actors if you offer any critique of their work. Think what you want about other actors. That’s your right. But keep your thoughts to yourself.
In short, an actor is NOT a member of the audience, is NOT a critic, NOT a writer, director, designer, choreographer, acting teacher, or anything other than an actor, not while he or she is acting! He may be any or all of these things, at other times. But while acting, he’s an actor whose job it is to create thoroughly a role, making it interesting and compelling, and then communicating it (as a part of a larger presentation, usually) in a way that an audience may understand and be moved by the creation.
(End of excerpt from the book, The Ethical Art Technique)
________
Well, that's where I'd like to start. Let's agree on why you are an actor, and what we're trying to accomplish. I'm FINE if a part of your goal is to make money as an actor, even a lot of money. Why not! Money in this civilization is an indication of acceptance and what the world thinks of one's value. It's a good thing when artists are highly value. Art is a very important product of civilization, and good (or great) artists should be honored and compensated well. But money cannot be the only reason one acts, or I can almost assure you that you'll fail. You had best be doing this because you LOVE LOVE LOVE to act, because it's a tough profession in many ways. And it would be better still if you plan to use your art to make the world a little bit better of a place to live. Things are getting pretty ugly out there, the world can use all the life-affirming art it can get.
Now, here's a link you may enjoy! It's on Daily Actor, and it shows a great interview with Denzel Washington and Viola Davis about acting in film and on stage. It was brought to my attention by a student, Devin Rice, who is very intense about his own career. Take a look, they know what they're talking about and there's something to learn when actor's with that kind of experience open up. (I've never tried to insert a link into a blog. If it does not show up, I'll find a way to share it with you tomorrow.)
Another post tomorrow!
Steven Horwich
_____
Acting Defined
Let’s start with the most basic of information. You probably know a great deal of what will be discussed in this chapter, but at worst, it’s a worthwhile review. Perhaps your understanding of acting can be clarified and refined.
Acting could be defined as: the use of a human body and/or voice, intelligence, and other human qualities, in order to create the acceptable illusion of a specific Being (person, animal, etc) or Object, including that specific Being or Object’s experiences, thoughts, emotions, and existence during a given event or series of events.
Acting is used in a number of ways, today:
ACTING AS A WAY TO AVOID TROUBLE, HOMEWORK, AND THE POLICE:
I’m sure you already have a good grasp on this usage of acting. Every seven year old who insisted with perfectly straight face that Spot ate their homework, gets this. Let’s move on.
ACTING IS A CRAFT:
One dictionary defines a craft as: an occupation or avocation requiring special skills, especially manual ones, including carpentry, sewing, pottery, etc.
Acting can be and often is an occupation, as we will discuss. Needless to say, many people make a living as actors. It can be an avocation, a hobby done for fun. It requires very specialized skills, something discussed throughout this book. Many of the skills are manual, involving control over the body and it’s functions in order to create an effect. The actor uses his body and voice to carefully etch the illusion of a character. Acting can be defined as a craft, accordingly, and in it’s “starter”, more rudimentary phases, when an actor is developing skills, that is exactly what an actor is, a developing craftsman.
ACTING IS ART:
All art, any art form, has principally to do with communication. Artists are professional “communicators”. An artist is a specialist who selects what he wishes to communicate, and in what manner or method, using what media and tools.
An artist is one who has mastered to some extent the tools of a craft, and transcended that craft. His works communicate. His works are received and understood. His works also move an audience to feel emotion. Often, art leads its audience to think new or better thoughts, or to spiritual heights. Great art does all of this, and more, and it does it every day.
To be an artist, one must have truly mastered many of the tools of that art form, and its techniques. To become a great artist, one must have accomplished this to a very high degree, and be gifted with a real vision of what one wishes to communicate. One must then be able to communicate that vision to the audience compellingly and consistently, using the art form selected. We’ll discuss what makes a great artist at great length, later in this book.
A person who understands and can use the tools of acting to create emotionally compelling performances is an actor, and is using the skills of acting to create art.
ACTING IS AN AVOCATION (A HOBBY):
Acting is fun. Many people try acting out while still in school, and continue performing in local amateur and semi-professional situations while pursuing a livelihood in other fields. Some very expert actors can be found performing regularly in community and local theatres all over the world. This book is no less for the “amateur” actor than the award-winning Broadway regular. Good acting is good acting, wherever it is found.
ACTING IS A PROFESSION:
Actors pour into Los Angeles, New York, and London from all over the English-speaking world, in order to pursue a career in acting. These cities are where “the INDUSTRY”, or “the BUSINESS” of acting is focused. Los Angeles is where one generally comes to break into film, and TV. London and New York have thriving film and television industries as well, but are renowned for their professional theatre.
A professional actor is an actor who MAKES THEIR LIVING BY ACTING. An actor can make a living doing TV, film, theatre, radio, commercials, print work (print advertisements), voice over work (i.e., doing cartoon voices, radio work, etc.), and in new ways being invented as we speak, as the media used to communicate performances varies and expands. Regardless, a pro is paid to act. Don’t mistake it, just being paid does not make one a great, or even necessarily a good actor. But being paid does make one a professional.
_____________________
EXERCISE:
Which manifestations of acting are you interested in? Acting as Craft? Art? Hobby? Profession. All of the above? Some of the above? Decide which ones you are interested in and why.
_____________________
If one is in a UNION, one of the organizations established to represent actors and their rights, one is generally considered a professional, as well. These include (in the United States) the SCREEN ACTOR’S GUILD (SAG), for most film and television, The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), who represent daytime Soap Opera, radio talent, some commercials and other areas, and ACTOR’S EQUITY ASSOCIATION (AEA), for professional performers in the theatre. However, many actors today get work outside of these union’s jurisdiction, in non-union jobs, and are paid for that work, sometimes in rates as high as Union jobs. More on unions later.
WHAT ACTING IS NOT:
It is as just as important to understand what acting is not, or what it should not be. Acting is NOT “therapy”. It is not a way to work out your personal problems. In fact, and this may deeply offend a few readers, acting is not about the actor and his needs. It’s not about you. It’s not about the “rush” you feel when the curtain goes up, though this is a perfectly fine thing. It’s not even about the satisfaction the actor experiences when the audience gives a standing ovation at the end of the performance, though that is a wonderful thing, as well. It’s not even about the awards you may win someday.
Acting is about the character you play, and the communication of that character, in full, sent by you and received by the audience. The audience (or producer, however you want to look at it) foot the bill. They pay so that the production exists and so that you are paid. Your job is to entertain THEM, not yourself. You’re paid to communicate your character and the entire piece that the character appears in, to the best of your ability, so that the audience may be moved in various ways and feel that their time and money were well spent. If you want to observe and admire a performance, buy a ticket and sit with the audience. An actor is NOT a part of the audience. He is, however, a large part of the reason the audience gathers. An actor is NOT the critic, sent by the local newspaper to write nasty or pointless things about the actor’s performance. The actor is the performer the critic is watching tonight. It is not the actor’s job to critique his own performance. It isn’t even the actor’s job to worry over what the critic will write and say about the actor! It is the actor’s job to deliver a performance, first and last.
An Actor is also NOT the writer. It is not his job to rewrite dialogue, story, or anything else, especially in the theatre. There has grown over the years a sad and unfortunate tendency in TV and film for performers to believe they somehow know more about writing than professional writers. They don’t, and a result of this trend is a steady decline in the quality of works presented cinematically and on television. When a writer sells a work in TV/film, the work is called a “property”. And just like a piece of property, say a desk, once sold, the buyer may do anything he wants to it, including sawing off the legs and turning it into a snow sled. This is, fortunately, not generally the case in theatre, where the writer’s work cannot be altered except by the writer. It is of course true that there are actors who are also fine writers. But one should always be aware of which hat one is wearing at any given time. If you’re being the “actor” today, be the actor. When you’re the writer, then be the writer.
A writer selects his words very carefully, if he’s a decent writer. The words are not arbitrary. They are selected to create a desired effect. It is a part of the actor’s job to DELIVER THE WORDS SELECTED BY THE WRITER in as compelling a manner as possible. It is not his job to rewrite those words.
In much the same manner, the actor is NOT the director, set designer, choreographer, musical director, costume designer, light designer, stagehand, grip, best boy, producer, or anything other than an actor! Just as you, the actor, wish to have control over your own responsibilities as an actor, these other specialists will insist on control over theirs. It’s one thing to make the occasional suggestion (when asked for, or when the creative situation truly allows for a non-critical discussion). All too often, the actor thinks he “knows best” what the costumes or sets or direction should be. These things may be discussed if such a discussion is allowed or invited, but the specialist in that area should always make decisions for his own area.
Taking this further, actors are NOT acting teachers, not while they’re acting in a piece, even if they may be acting teachers outside the production. It is NEVER your job as an actor to critique a fellow actor’s performance or work, not even to improve your own performance, and especially when you haven’t been asked. Even when asked for your help or opinion, you’re courting hatred and disgust from your fellow actors if you offer any critique of their work. Think what you want about other actors. That’s your right. But keep your thoughts to yourself.
In short, an actor is NOT a member of the audience, is NOT a critic, NOT a writer, director, designer, choreographer, acting teacher, or anything other than an actor, not while he or she is acting! He may be any or all of these things, at other times. But while acting, he’s an actor whose job it is to create thoroughly a role, making it interesting and compelling, and then communicating it (as a part of a larger presentation, usually) in a way that an audience may understand and be moved by the creation.
(End of excerpt from the book, The Ethical Art Technique)
________
Well, that's where I'd like to start. Let's agree on why you are an actor, and what we're trying to accomplish. I'm FINE if a part of your goal is to make money as an actor, even a lot of money. Why not! Money in this civilization is an indication of acceptance and what the world thinks of one's value. It's a good thing when artists are highly value. Art is a very important product of civilization, and good (or great) artists should be honored and compensated well. But money cannot be the only reason one acts, or I can almost assure you that you'll fail. You had best be doing this because you LOVE LOVE LOVE to act, because it's a tough profession in many ways. And it would be better still if you plan to use your art to make the world a little bit better of a place to live. Things are getting pretty ugly out there, the world can use all the life-affirming art it can get.
Now, here's a link you may enjoy! It's on Daily Actor, and it shows a great interview with Denzel Washington and Viola Davis about acting in film and on stage. It was brought to my attention by a student, Devin Rice, who is very intense about his own career. Take a look, they know what they're talking about and there's something to learn when actor's with that kind of experience open up. (I've never tried to insert a link into a blog. If it does not show up, I'll find a way to share it with you tomorrow.)
Another post tomorrow!
Steven Horwich
1st Post for actors! An introduction
Hi, actors! My name is Steven Horwich. This is a blog for you! In it, I'll be posting articles all about that thing that you are either already doing, or about to do - acting! This is oriented toward those of you who are pros already, or who want to become professional. It is for actors for the stage and screen.
Quickly, I have been in this business for nearly 40 years. I appeared in leads in over 150 stage productions in Los Angeles when I was "younger". I've directed well over 200 stage productions, as well as some film and TV. I have an Emmy Award as a writer and director, and Dramalogue Awards (Los Angeles) for writing, directing, set design, and music and lyric writing. I've had my shows produced all over the world, and have directed productions throughout the United States, in Canada, and even in Russia. I've taught acting for over 35 years at the University level, in High Schools, and in my professional workshop in Los Angeles.
So, what do I know that you want to know? What do I know that you NEED to know to keep your career going, or to jump start it? That info will fill a lot of posts! This is just an introduction. If you want to know what I know - if your career as an actor is important to you, and receiving free and useful info on how to audition, how to prep for a job, how to ACT is going to be helpful to you...read my posts. I'll offer an enormous amount of advice, as well as interesting links to interviews and materials you will want to know about. What else will be discussed here? Nothing, if it isn't directly related to acting.
My experience and ideas will be at your disposal here. Why? Because actors are important, and the art of acting is (in my opinion) in decline. Let's make sure together that acting gets better, and that it remains an important art!
Looking forward to sharing the concepts I've taught many actors over the decades with you.
Steven Horwich
Quickly, I have been in this business for nearly 40 years. I appeared in leads in over 150 stage productions in Los Angeles when I was "younger". I've directed well over 200 stage productions, as well as some film and TV. I have an Emmy Award as a writer and director, and Dramalogue Awards (Los Angeles) for writing, directing, set design, and music and lyric writing. I've had my shows produced all over the world, and have directed productions throughout the United States, in Canada, and even in Russia. I've taught acting for over 35 years at the University level, in High Schools, and in my professional workshop in Los Angeles.
So, what do I know that you want to know? What do I know that you NEED to know to keep your career going, or to jump start it? That info will fill a lot of posts! This is just an introduction. If you want to know what I know - if your career as an actor is important to you, and receiving free and useful info on how to audition, how to prep for a job, how to ACT is going to be helpful to you...read my posts. I'll offer an enormous amount of advice, as well as interesting links to interviews and materials you will want to know about. What else will be discussed here? Nothing, if it isn't directly related to acting.
My experience and ideas will be at your disposal here. Why? Because actors are important, and the art of acting is (in my opinion) in decline. Let's make sure together that acting gets better, and that it remains an important art!
Looking forward to sharing the concepts I've taught many actors over the decades with you.
Steven Horwich
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)