I've BEEN SIDETRACKED! If you're looking for part 4 of the 5 P's of Professionalism series, this isn't it...but stay tuned! Okay, so let me explain what's going on here. When I come across some bit of information that just needs to be shared, I am calling a "sidetrack" so I can give a bit of attention to it in between series. It's really that simple. Hope you enjoy this BHS Sidetrack!
Since I've made the decision to increase my online footprint via twitter, I've been fortunate to connect with some great people. One of these individuals is Erin Cronican, and rather than summarize her credentials myself, I'll use a quote directly from her wonderful blog:
"Erin Cronican's career as a professional actor and career coach has spanned the last 25 years in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego. She has appeared in major feature films and on television, and has done national tours of plays and musicals. She has worked in the advertising & marketing departments of major corporations, film production companies, theater magazines, and non-profit acting organizations."
Erin is down-to-earth, friendly, willing to connect, inform and chat about all things acting-related. She has some wonderfully insightful things to share about the business so when I saw this tweet that was related to something that is so relevant and vital for anyone involved in acting training/teaching, I had to jump in to the discussion on acting theory. Start here to get some background on this blog series. It's from a blog put together by Erin and Brandon Walker's The Seeing Place Theater collaborative. If you can, it is definitely worth checking out. I got to part six and started to craft a comment. I was so into the content and response that I didn't realize until 1-2 pages in that it was no longer a comment anymore. I knew I was officially sidetracked. Here are my comments on the issue:
Understanding history and where/how something originates is an essential part of our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. In the world of acting, the more understanding we have, the better off we often are. Acting theory is one of those essential parts of understanding our place in the acting stratosphere. What I enjoy most about author Brandon Walker's Basics of Acting Series is that it takes something so complex and expansive and streamlines into something more palatable.
There is so much myth and misconception about acting theory that it often is overwhelming to even think about discussing. As it mentions in the series, I completely agree that Stanislavski (and the master teachers that followed him) can get daunting and somewhat overbearing at times for actors. I think that there was a strong trend in the 20th Century to call ourselves a particular type of actor: "I'm a Meisner actor," or "I'm a Hagen actor," etc. There is nothing wrong with the identification to these great and influential teachers, but it often is used with a sense of arrogance. I am always a bit turned off by that. It almost alienates anyone who doesn't have the means or ability to head to any of those schools. Do not misinterpret my feelings about these great teachers: they are great. They all have contributed amazing and influential things to the craft of acting and anyone who has the opportunity to study and train in their schools should feel honored. But what if you can't make it to those schools due to limitations financially, logistically or even artistically? Can you be a good actor without "the method?" Can you be a successful actor if you haven't studied in a conservatory or top acting program? I say yes. But it will take some serious work and focused personal study and research. And it will take taking this research and study to create a personal acting theory. Walker says this in his sixth entry:
"Stanislavski has been overquoted to say, "Create your own method. Don't depend slavishly on mine. Make up something that will work for you!" But in order for us all to do that, we have to first learn ourselves. By keeping our attention on the teachers and their teachings, we do exactly what Stanislavski warned us against. We, instead, have to take their teachings and time-tested understandings of human behavior and use them to discover ourselves."
I think Walker is spot on here in his summation of Stanislavski's call to create a personal method. I often talk to my students about learning and applying from a variety of teachers, instead of relying only on one method or approach. Again this is not to say that the master teachers or theorists are bad to study...I think one would be remiss to not encourage a thorough examination of their ideas. It's very much like my thoughts on the media: get your news/info from one source will lead to a somewhat closed-minded and insular way of looking at things. Expanding your training and study to a variety of theories and methods is helpful in creating a more well-rounded personal theory that is grounded in many strong principles from all of the great teachers.
David Mamet's True and False: Heresy and Common Sense is in many ways a shocking wake up call to actors and creatives everywhere who often fall into the trap of what he calls "Ancestor Worship." In this chapter he brilliantly outlines his problem and issue with the arrogance and difficulty of lifting teachers (Stanislavski and those who followed him) to "worship" status. It might seem odd for someone who trained extensively in Stanislavski-based theory to come out so fervently against it, but contrary to what modern day political pundits say, it is okay and often healthy and wise to change or modify your views on a given issue. It also doesn't change the fact that Mamet is clearly on to something crucial to the acting training "debate:" that acting does not have to be about who you study with, your ability to experience what your character experiences or losing yourself in the character as many of us were led to believe after studying many of the greats. All of these techniques are beneficial but should not necessarily be held up on some "acting technique pedestal." This is the "heresy" portion of his book.
As you read the rest of the book, you can't help but get a sense that Mamet's current approach to acting seems simplistic and non-cerebral, but it is effective. Ultimately, it challenges the actor to take the focus off of the great teachers and heroes of the past, and places it on the actor's present (script, scene, other actor). It forces us to trust our own instincts (Meisner would say 'impulses') and react as naturally and believably as possible. This is the "common sense" of his book.
I often tell my actors to "live in the now, not the past, as you move into the future." Too much focus on what happened to you in the past (emotional memory...worth pointing out that Stanislavski vehemently denounced this concept later on) and too many assumptions and machinations about what "will happen if I do this or that;" both get in the way of what is at the core of many of the great master teachers: believability of what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING in the PRESENT onstage.
Wherever we fall on the acting theory timeline or menu, let's not forget that what matters is that we never stop studying, expanding our horizons, and learning from the greats...and perhaps just as important: the people who are right in front of us on and offstage.
Thanks to Erin, Brandon, and http://theseeingplacetheater.blogspot.com/ for BHStudio's first ever "Sidetrack." Here's to more.
Thank you so much, Ben! I'm thrilled that our blog has promoted such an insightful and passionate response.
ReplyDeleteMy feelings on the idea of taking a little from each teacher and then making it your own: I personally find this approach a little confusing, because (using this example) when it comes down to solving difficulties, I'm never sure which approach I should anchor to. My interpretation of Part Six of the series is that to clamp down on any one technique and lose yourself in it is a dangerous prospect, because it doesn't allow for "you" to show up in your work. In order to make sure that you're expressing yourself in your work (as opposed to expressing Adler, Strasberg, Meisner, etc.) you have to get to know yourself. And to do this, you want to find the acting technique that makes you feel most alive, open and challenged and use that work to explore opening yourself up fully as an actor.
When trying to help my students understand the purpose of choosing a teacher/technique, I often liken the process to finding a good therapist. You want to find someone you feel safe with, but who will challenge you to open up in ways that will be useful for your progress. And you want someone rooted in a specific philosophy that had a structure, so that as you go deeper into yourself you have something to tether yourself to. If I were to go to three therapists to try to address why I'm having trouble relating to my sister, I'll definitely learn 3 different approaches to getting what I need but it will either a) confuse me because I'm bouncing back and forth between ideas or b) take me three times as long to get to where I need to be because I'm constantly retooling myself for each new technique.
I don't profess to be an acting teacher - I'm a professional actor who runs a theater company that values the actor's process in rehearsal, and asks the actor to continue to explore the situation of the play while in performance. We do this by asking actors in rehearsal to prepare their work and be able to tell us what they're doing to achieve their objectives. It doesn't matter which technique that they use, only that a) THEY HAVE ONE, b) that they can explain to us, and c) are able to use it to bring themselves to their work. We hope that our blog series demystifies the process of understanding the acting techniques that shape modern American Theater.
As a side note to address your thoughts about actors who live in remote areas and do not have access to fancy schools - I think that reading books and watching videos by some of the great teachers is a good place to start (some have been noted throughout the series - be sure to check our blog for more details.) Once an actor has a sense of which technique speaks to them, they can start talking to local teachers to see who might have an understanding of that technique. I agree that actors in smaller markets are able to get good training and experience if they work for it. Both Brandon and I got excellent training in San Diego, another small market, so we understand the pressure actors feel when they don't have access to "fine" education. I really applaud your efforts in bringing good, solid information to your students and, again, thank you so much for sharing our blog with your readers!
Thanks for the reply and inspiration, Erin. I completely agree with you on the importance of actually settling in on a technique rather than a post-modern "whatever I think I should do" approach to acting technique. I was attempting to explain this in the following section:
ReplyDelete"I often talk to my students about learning and applying from a variety of teachers, instead of relying only on one method or approach. Again this is not to say that the master teachers or theorists are bad to study...I think one would be remiss to not encourage a thorough examination of their ideas. It's very much like my thoughts on the media: get your news/info from one source will lead to a somewhat closed-minded and insular way of looking at things. Expanding your training and study to a variety of theories and methods is helpful in creating a more well-rounded personal theory that is grounded in many strong principles from all of the great teachers.
I think our main points are the same here: that too much of one thing and one thing only can be more detrimental than good. Like finding a good therapist or I could argue good therapies (Marci Liroff also talks about this in my next blog entry...look for it Monday!) or getting our news from more than one source is a healthy and wise response in life. Settling in on only ONE acting approach or technique at all times can be problematic, distracting and somewhat limiting in my opinion. I think that we have to look at all of the approaches that are out there, decide which work for us, and then as you said BE ABLE TO USE IT.
Finally, I also tried to communicate that theory and technique are necessary for any artist, but in many respects they can only take us so far. We need to do script analysis, emotional mapping, etc. AND when those lights go up or action is called, we have to shift our focus to the "human" element of acting staying in the moment onstage, reacting to the other and genuine listening.
Again, I think in many respects we are saying much of the same things here and I greatly appreciate your comments here! Look forward to more!