Grover's Corner is Coming to Our Town

"Our Town" in our town begins at the Rogue Theatre January 7th. Check out their website for the details. Among others in a fine looking cast is Robert Anthony Peters - all around great guy and terrific actor.



Why is it that people like Robert and Cindy Meier (and others in the cast I'm sure) who show themselves simply and beautifully, the ones we ultimately find the most interesting, fascinating and captivating? What is it about their curiosity and joy for the way life functions that gives rise to the enormity of their thoughts and their feelings(?) - creating depth and magnitude, perspective and meaning in their everyday actions. My gosh they embody this play - they are the play!



There is a dictum, attributed to Stanislavsky, regarding acting that says the difficult must become easy, the easy must become habit, and the habit must become beautiful. Its tricky though because in reading it or hearing it at first glance without explanation, it implies a progression from one thing to another, seemingly leaving behind what was, and ending with something that is beautiful in form and content. But that is not the dictums intent. It's intent is to imply an "adding to" rather than "progression from." So when we get to Easy, Difficult is still present. As we get to Habit, Difficult and Easy are present. When we get to Beautiful, Difficult, Easy, and Habit are there as well.

Substitute what words or concepts you will if necessary, apply the dictum to life, and the same holds true. People like Robert and Cindy, simple and beautifully shown, contain all the difficulties and everything else along the way. Nature has all the same forces at work today that were present at "the creation." And in the tranquility of a beautiful garden we can discover all the those complexities that will reveal it to us in a whole new way.

So who knows what we may find in this particular "Grovers Corners."

Train Running

Post Play

How come there aren't any good post players anymore?! O.K. this doesn't really have anything to do with theatre, its basketball, but its a damn good question and therefore worthy here - and in time I may find a connection between the two.

What happened to the days when you could throw the ball down low and get a bucket?! It doesn't really happen anymore, not like it used to. Gone is the great footwork, the jump hooks, sky hooks, up and under, slide move, drop step, head fakes, power moves. All gone. I have grown completely tired of a high post on ball screen followed by a drive down the lane with or without a kick out pass, and the weave to "attack the rim." For goodness sakes that is, or should be, so easy to defend! Of course most team defenses these days cannot but its easier done that said on here - take my word.

Double Check

This past Saturday, I took a trip, along with several other adults and a group of eight young adults, to the Double Check Ranch. This ranch practices what is called in our modern terminology "sustainable agricultural" or "natural" farming. The beef (cows) is all grass fed, throughout its life. There are mobile chicken coops to move chickens from field to field as a means of fertilizing. Grass fields are not plowed before seeding, only mowed in order to keep the underground system of organisms intact.

The day itself was absolutely gorgeous, the weather crisp and clear. You could see forever. The ranch is situated in the San Pedro Valley, just along the San Pedro River. In fact, much of its acreage extends into the river itself. It's beautiful there. I cannot describe our hosts as anything other than lovely, wonderful, spectacular, and inspiring. Put all that together...It was a great time.

Imagine a place where everyone is friendly, kind, easy-going, and affectionate - and I mean everyone, adults, kids, dogs, horses, cows, etc. And all about you is life and beauty in various forms. And the work, though never ending and no doubt long and difficult at times, is all about solving problems in ways that help make everyone happy. That was the Double Check.

They are online at http://www.doublecheckranch.com/

Say It Loud

I will be reading the role of Galileo from Brecht's play by that name tommorow...courtesy of my friend Patrick. It's part of a symposium that he hosts for retired professionals and academics, one of whom is a former Nobel Prize winner. The question is, how does a tall, slender man like myself find his inner "Falstaff" in a couple of days? I'm working on it.

There is a speech, or monologue or whatever you call it, toward the end of the play given by Galileo. Patrick is correct in his assesment of this speech when he says that its rendition carries the meaning and the purpose and the overall understanding of the play. How does/did Galileo feel about his work, his recantation, collectively? With a little more than 24 hours to go I'm working on that as well.

A Dream of Passionlessness

Last night I dreamed I was in some kind of terrible production of Hamlet. At first it was supposed to be this ultra relaxed portrayal, but it turned completely casual and boring. Next there were swings and Bob Marley songs. Then horror of horrors, there was that thing that people refer to as "Brechtian" (which ruins Brecht's ideas but what the heck) where people turn and comment to the spectators on the action of the play. At least I knew my lines though. Very often, well, not that often, when I dream I am in a play, I never know my lines and I haven't been to a single rehearsal! I think that must be a common theme. Anyway, thank goodness I'm wide awake now and have no plans or desires to play in any Hamlet shows right now.

Love's Labor

A few days back, I rode the city bus from my work to an event downtown. Sitting across from me in the back of the bus was a young man who I noticed kept smiling to himself, seemingly thinking of or remembering something funny. Well, turns out he was thinking of something exciting. A few blocks before the final station downtown he reached in his pocket and took out a ring box. He opened it and turned my way to show me. "It's pretty nice huh?" he said. "It's very nice," I replied. He nodded in agreement and stared happily at the ring. "Do you have someone special that is going to get that ring?" I asked him. "Oh yeah!" came his energetic and sure answer. Our conversation went on from there covering his search for a reasonably priced ring, one he could afford. His struggle and attempts to get time off from work in order to get to some of the stores in time. His worry about whether or not his girl would like it. And how he should present it to her, and where would he hide it in the meantime. He was a picture and model of a certain innocence and pure belief. He was young and blue collar. His smile held the happiness of love and dreams for the future. At the final station I wished him well, one man to another, with earnestness and pride in fellowship. The future was now.

A couple of days later I was driving down a major thoroughfare. Stopped in traffic near a crowded intersection I looked over to see one of those human billboards, a guy wearing a sandwich board.
He was waving to the traffic, smile on his face - yes, the same smile he had on the bus going downtown. "Right on," I thought to myself.

Times are tough, and even during the days when they seem easy, people are often just trying to survive, make a living and be with the ones they love. I think we call it life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - and we owe it to ourselves to give it full honor in its various forms.

Perezhivanie, Stanislavsky

I received an invitation to a "Stanislavski Symposium." I was very happy to get this invitation because it meant two things - first is the obvious, the topic is Stanislavky! Second it means Phil Bennett is back to work doing one of the things he loves, teaching actors. And that is good news.

Its no secret and I make no bones about how I disagree with Phil on his interpretation of fundamental aspects of Stanislavsky's work and teachings. Never-the-less, I will be there as an observer at this event. The workshop is billed to include a lively discussion on "Stanislavski's Lost Term," exercises in "The Method of Physical Actions," and a demonstration on "How to Use Active Analysis through Physical Action." If you haven't yet signed up or are not yet planning on going, I encourage you to do so. See the Beowulf Alley website for details.

Now, "Stanislavski's Lost Term" is borrowed from a chapter in Sharon Carnicke's book "Stanislavsky in Focus." Its the title of chapter seven in the latest edition. (I wrote of this book just like three posts back). The term in question is the Russian word "perezhivanie." Its an odd title for the book chapter because the word (its meaning and concept) was not lost or forgotten or unknown at the time Dr. Carnicke found it for herself and wrote the book. That aside, this particular chapter, like most of the book, is a marvel of hodge-podge. If I were to make a list of erroneous and misleading statements and sentences from this chapter you would need ample, ample time for your reading.

The depth and breath of Dr. Carnicke's misunderstanding about "perezhivanie" comes alarmingly as the first sentence in the third paragraph which reads "In the first place, it does not name anything concrete that can be described and learned, but rather identifies a creative state that the System, with luck, can foster." GULP! (As in Dear Lord is this really what she thinks?!)

She goes on in the next paragraph "In the second place, experiencing [her translation word for perezhivanie] expresses a totality that cannot be broken down into component parts." GULP! (As in Its worse than I thought!). Next paragraph "In the third place, experiencing resides within the tacit dimension; it can be known but not expressed." GULP! (As in can we change the title of the chapter to Carnicke's Lost Mind?).

So let me get this straight right off the bat - you can't describe it or learn it, can't identify a single component of it, and you can't express it but you can know it. Well, all I can say is that its too bad Stanislavsky didn't read Dr. Carnicke's book. It would have saved him a lifetime of work. All he did his whole life was describe it in detail, teach it, and express it through his work and writings, and did so with great enthusiasm I might add. In other words, if Dr. Carnicke has read Stanislavsky and thought about it, and has come to that conclusion on the term "perezhivanie" then there is a fundamental problem in her outlook and understanding. And that problem is highlighted further in the next paragraph when she (correctly in her logic) asks "So then, what is experiencing?" Now I want to say this next part right so you get what her answer is...but I can't stop laughing as I type...I know that's terrible...its terrible and I shouldn't be laughing...I'm sorry...O.K. her answer is "contemporary jargon calls this state "flow," a term coined by US psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalye who studies subjective accounts by athletes and artists at peak performance." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry I couldn't hold it back.

Alright, I'm up off the floor, and I really shouldn't be laughing. This book after all is hailed in some academic and professional circles as insightful and genius. So why would I laugh? Well, since I'm not in one of those circles, let me count the ways! Is this the very same Dr. Carnicke who consistently throughout this very same book accuses and criticises Lee Strasberg of demeaning Stanislavsky's work and ideas with popular psychology interpretations?! The kettle has called the pot black! (and no I ain't racist). Flow...that's like "in the groove." And there is nothing wrong with the concept of that particular state of being as it relates to various activities, but as an explanation for "perezhivanie" it is wholly lacking. It is eighties sheik though!

Dr. Carnicke goes on to conclude this section of the chapter with this gem - "The ability to recognize a subjective state of experiencing in oneself ultimately offers the only direct means of appraising one's acting. If I feel this "happy moment," I can infer that the System has worked for me. " ...Is it just me or are you speechless too?!

So now we know, so far, that according to Dr. Carnicke, as she understands and interprets Stanislavsky, "perezhivanie" is a subjective state of being - that can't be learned or described really but its like the contemporary notion of "flow" and when you feel a happy moment in your acting that is how you know you're in perezhivanie. Well, I can certainly see how the broad based complexity of that would be lost on Lee Strasberg and all the other American theatre practitioners who studied Stanislavsky all those years. How could we have expected them to grasp such a deep and detailed and specific and elusive idea as that? No wonder this book is hailed how and where it is...and I shouldn't laugh again...Yes, that must explain it - a subjective state of being, that can't be learned or described really but its like the contemporary notion of flow and when you feel a happy moment in your acting then you know you are in perezhivanie. I get it.

Now lest you think I am being too facetious, or too hard on Dr. Carnicke, unfair or cutting her short, read that section. Because that is it. That is how she defines "perezhivanie." Now she does go on to include three other sections in the chapter in an attempt to tell us how lost or confusing its been up until publication of her book. Those sections are called "The Word," "The Concept" and "The Oxymoron of Theatrical Truth." Given her weird but false premise, these sections get even more hodge-podge, weird and false.

This is not to say that Phil at his presentation will present "perezhivanie" in this way. That remains to be seen. No jumping the starting gun on this.

Rambling Note re scene work

Here is a kind of short, rambling note I wrote to my scene partner (yes, I'm working on a scene) trying to define an overall approach and understanding.


I'm completely open to approaching the work on this scene in any fashion really, but I'll tell you my own process, tendencies and ways of trying to understand, grasp and create the scene. If it is helpful for us along the way, good - but if not, no big deal. First I try to determine what the basic situation of a scene is, and then what is the main event of the scene. For example in Joe/Edna from Waiting for Lefty, the basic situation is a married couple, after long individually stressful days, having been separate from each other, now together, in their living room, furnishings gone and kids sleeping in the next room. Simple and obvious stuff. No rocket science or insight yet. Just things that anyone and everyone can understand, get. Its crucial though because the actors will have to eventually create the basic situation fully because out of it comes the event, the action of the scene. (Sometimes there is an obvious and profound relationship between the situation and the event, but not always). It depends on the skill and apptitude of the writer. In Joe/Edna the event is that Edna convinces Joe to get his buddies, his fellow cabbies together in order to try and take back control of their union, their livelihood. The event arises from the situation - and in order for the event to have its proper impact on spectators, the logic of the characters behavior must flow out of a fully created basic situation. Therefore, for me, the first order of business and work of the actor is creating that basic situation of a scene. In our scene as I currently understand it, the basic situation is two individuals, both alone in a park, each there on their leisure time. And the event of the scene is that they meet. Again simple and obvious. As we progress with the work we may determine or describe the event as a "magical" meeting or a "mundane" meeting. We may discover that the basic situation includes rainy day. In other words, the details will follow, eventually, based on our work and on the rest of the play - with good analysis. Working on creating "the place" last night was for me, a step toward creating the basic situation of the scene. Going forward there will be additions and specifics to consider in the situation - like why they are there and all that. As that work comes to fruition the event itself, the meeting, will take whatever significance and style it will and in time we will shape it to our artistic likes. So, part of the point of this explanation is to say common things that I hear many actors ask or consider up front - such as what is my "intention" or what do I want from the other character in this moment and what is my obstacle - can be completely left aside for now. Stanislavsky brought those heady kinds of questions forward late in the game, as needed, to make behavior more specific or appropriate. The wisdom is that if the scene is well written and the basic situation created and understood logically and fully, the event can't help but take place with detail and specifics.

workshops

This past Monday night I attended Steve Anderson's Open Acting Workshop. If there is a better teacher within a 500 or thousand mile radius I don't believe it. If you haven't been, go.

Likewise, short notice but check out Beowulf Alley's website for a workshop Phil Bennett is doing this Saturday the 24th.

Street Theatre - The fox and the cat

This morning, driving through the neighborhood, I saw a fox. The four legged kind. It darted out into the street, paused and looked back from where it had run from, then continued on quickly into a desert scrubby area between the houses. I do believe it was the first fox I have ever seen around here. Now I don't know my foxes (the four legged kind) well enough to say what kind it was and I haven't yet tried to look it up. But, it was low to the ground, had a bushy tail and a long little snout.

Later in the afternoon on a walk to the neighborhood store, I came across The Cat in the Hat standing on the corner holding a sign. "How does my hat look?" she asked me (yes this Cat in the Hat was a woman - and I am refraining from any crude terms...kind of). "It looks wonderful!" I said. "We all have to take our turn out here" she said, "only for a half of an hour. I'm almost done." She was referring to the employees of a nearby store which was selling costumes for Halloween. "Well, you're doing great" I said, "Looks hot!" "Yes, it is hot in this get-up" she said. (Now I meant a different kind of hot but I didn't go there with her). I left her with a good luck kind of thing and went on my way.

Stanislavsky in Focus...or Not.

Oh dear. Sometimes you have to undertake and write and explain things that you don't want to but which need to be set correct, or straight, or better. This post is one of those.


Occasionally, but not as often as you might think, I do a quick search on the Internet for "Stanislavsky" and sometimes I even read the found entries. Well, I did one very recently and did read some entries in some blogs and elsewhere. Several were related to the book "Stanislavsky in Focus" by Dr. Sharon Carnicke. There were enough entries to make it seem like a kind of outbreak again of this material. For those unfamiliar with this book, the premise is that here in America, due to inadequate translations of Stanislavsky's writings, his books as published in America, and an apparent mis-understanding or mis-interpretation of Stanislavsky's ideas and work by Lee Strasberg and others, but especially by Lee, our knowledge and grasp of Stanislavsky and his work is poor, wrong, or incomplete, with entire notions missing. That is the premise. The book is hailed in certain circles as a definitive and practical account, a long overdue correction and clarification, the so-called righting of the myth in America of who and what Stanislavsky intended and did in his work with actors. These recent Internet offerings by people who have recently read the book confirm this circle of thinking. It is a clever piece of work Dr. Carnicke has put together to be sure. Clever, meaning often misleading and downright wrong - but not something your average Stanislavsky or theatre reader would catch or understand in that way, and so the book passes as truth. And that is a sad thing.

Now I'm just a guy who likes Stanislavsky, nature and sports, but I can smell a fake and a cheat of a book when I read one. I won't go into numerous examples, but I will use one from the book that touches upon scholarship, accountability, interpretation, and integrity and shows the absolute shoddy and bad work by Dr. Carnicke that is present throughout the book in its details. Chapter nine of the newest edition is called "Emotion and the Human Spirit of the Role: Yoga." The first sentence reads as follows


“When Strasberg writes that for Stanislavsky “the actor’s internal means […] was still called at that time the ‘soul’” (1987:67), we understand that Strasberg wishes to replace “soul” with “subconscious,” reflecting his own assumptions about acting as grounded in popular psychology.”


At face value, after reading that sentence, we would assume that she is quoting Lee Strasberg (from his book "A Dream of Passion") and that Strasberg is talking about or somehow referring to Stanislavsky and there must be something in the way he says it or in what he says that is obvious and would lead us to understand, as she says, that to him this notion of "soul" in acting really has to do with "subconscious" as it is understood in popular psychology. And from the title of the chapter we know that later she will explain that Strasberg was wrong and that Soul means Soul as understood in Yoga practice and thought.

Dr. Carnicke needs Strasberg to appear wrong so that she appears right, or more right. It is a theme that runs throughout the book, meaning this example as it unfolds, is a microcosm of the entire work and her modus operandi. To better understand this and move forward, let me set out the paragraph from Strasberg's book that is cited. Here it is




Equally important was the implicit recognition that not just the actor’s technical means – his voice, speech, bodily actions – could be trained. Boleslavsky contended that the actor’s internal means – what was still at that time called “soul” – could be trained. There were concrete methods or exercises that dealt with the most difficult aspects of the actors work, such as imagination, emotion, and inspiration. The means of arriving at the actor’s imagination, emotion and inspiration were through concentration and affective memory.”



Notice any problems? I do. The first one is that Strasberg is not talking about or referring to Stanislavsky. Second is that Strasberg is not talking about or referring to Stanislavsky's use of the word or concept of soul. Third is that nothing about what is there would lead us to believe that Strasberg wants soul to mean subconscious. I could go for four and five but I will spare you for now. Three significant errors in one little sentence! Who would have thought it possible? Can you mess up that bad even if you try to?! There is a density to the wrongness combined with an audacity to see it through to print that is baffling.

Just to be on the safe side, lets examine what Strasberg is saying, what he is talking about and referring to in this particular paragraph that Dr. Carnicke has chosen to quote from. Strasberg is referring to his days at the American Lab and classes with Richard Boleslavsky. He is talking about what he learned from Boley. In case anyone harbors doubt, Boleslavsky is not Stanislavsky. When Strasberg says an actors internal means was at that time still called "soul' he is simply mentioning a universal historical use of the term, not anything particular to Stanislavsky or even Boleslavsky. It was a widely used and common term for a long period of time - like when Shakespeare wrote "is it not monstrous that this player here, but in a fiction, in a dream of passion, could force his soul so to his own conceit..." The general thinking was that you couldn't train or practice these internal workings of the actor, this soul. It was a puzzle as to how it all worked, and Shakespeare's Hamlet character marvels over it. And now for Strasberg, here was Boleslavsky saying you could indeed train and work on an actors internal means - an actors imagination, emotion and inspiration - and the way to do so was through concentration and affective memory. Its that straight forward and doesn't need me really to interpret it for anyone - least of all Dr. Sharon Carnicke (or whoever did the research for her).

So the question is how and why would someone draw out the statement from it as Dr. Carnicke did that "we understand that Strasberg wishes to replace "soul" with "subconscious" reflecting his own assumptions about acting as grounded in popular psychology?" Its a hell of a leap and I don't have the answer. I could come up with a few theories but I would sooner invite Dr. Carnicke to give us an explanation of her abstract reasoning. In the big picture its helpful to just make something up if one wants to go the route of "good" argument where you have a foil who is not only wrong but evil too. Strasberg is this kind of foil for Dr. Carnicke in this book. He is so bad and evil in this book that surely what Dr. Carnicke presents as alternatives is not only correct but is good hearted and decent.

So there you have it - one small catch from a sea of mistakes and misleading statements. The research and scholarship on Stanislavsky has long gone beyond Dr. Carnicke's assumptions and theories presented in this book. Time will show and tell. In the meantime, if you've got the book in hand, keep your own close eye on the facts and logic as presented.

Following the Winding Road

If you received your invitation to the launch party for Winding Road Ensemble, you might have noticed, if you are like me, that thirteen(!) people are inviting you. Why do I think this is so great? Because most theatre organizations are started by one, two, three or maybe four people. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with that - but if you long to witness a real theatre, an ensemble of like minded folk who continuously train and prepare themselves individually and collectively to present works that bespeak their experiences, well, you need some bodies! And Winding Road apparently has them. And, if memory serves, they will be presenting a play by one of their very own. More wonderful news there. I cannot and would not pretend to speak for Winding Road of course, but right off the bat they seem to have all the inherent traits that set a real theatre apart from a mere producing organization. When I say producing organization, think Arizona Theatre Company. They have a permanent group of administrators who oversee individual productions consisting of various unrelated artists and works. Each show is a piecemeal endeavor with actors jobbed in to fill roles solely for a particular show. The administrators view their organization as having the same function and responsibility as a museum, e.g., presenting classic or "professional" work to a wide audience. Actors, whose very home should be in the theatre, are just temporary and usually one-time visitors there. In contrast, a real theatre company grows and nurtures its own artists over time, actors, writers and directors, with a conscious and deliberate effort, working in specific relationship with one another.

Biomimics

Bi-o-mim-ic-ry
(From the Greek bios, life, and mimesis, imitation)
1. Nature as model. Biomimicry is a new science that studies nature's models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems, e.g., a solar cell inspired by a leaf.
2. Nature as measure. Biomimicry uses an ecological standard to judge the "rightness" of our innovations. After 3.8 billion years of evolution, nature has learned: What works. What is appropriate. What lasts.
3. Nature as mentor. Biomimicry is a new way of viewing and valuing nature. It introduces an era based not on what we can extract from the natural world, but on what we can learn from it.

The above is from the first plate page of the book Biomimicry, Innovation Inspired by Nature, by Janine M. Benyus.

About a hundred years ago, the great Russian stage director Meyerhold was borrowing ideas from man-made industrialization and turning out a fabulous training technique for actors known as Biomechanics. Before, during, and after Meyerhold, Stanislavsky was discovering ideas rooted in nature, in the natural world and in human behavior, and making his own science and practical technique for actors. Perhaps his work could have been called "Biomimicry - a conscious emulation of life's genius. Innovation inspired by nature." Perhaps the credo could have been "there is more to discover than to invent." In any case, Stanislavsky as most who know him know, was way ahead of his time.

The three points listed in the above description of Biomimicry run exactly through Stanislavsky's work with actors. Point one, nature as model. Stanislavsky sought to find out what is the basic natural process that is "acting." In other words, what occurs that brings together fictional, made-up circumstance and living behavior in a way that becomes art, processed fully with human thought, sensation and feeling? The answer he called Affective Memory, and he described and articulated it and all its accompany details and qualities over a lifetime of work. This fundamental creative process he often said was akin to all other "magical" processes in nature, and he used many metaphors of such in his talks and work with actors. Point two, nature as measure. In the most simplistic sense, Stanislavsky knew that if an actor was violating what he called the creative laws of nature, the acting was "off." For Stanislavsky this measure of nature was his way of telling what kind of short and long term impact an actor's work would have on the spectators, how shallow or how deep it would it affect their sensibilities. Point three, nature as mentor. What could we learn from those characters in Uncle Vanya or The Three Sisters when they were presented to us not as metaphors or political operatives but as fully functioning living breathing human beings with all their interconnected and interdependent lives? An eco-system of a play? What would the actor-artist grasp in a visceral sense? What about the spectator? What is to be learned when you go "into the forest" or "into the play?"


Nature runs on sunlight.
Nature uses only the energy it needs.
Nature fits form to function.
Nature recycles everything.
Nature rewards cooperation.
Nature banks on diversity.
Nature demands local expertise.
Nature curbs excesses from within.
Nature taps the power of limits.

Ah, good ol' Stanislavsky! Gets better all the time!

What happened to, or where are, those who came before us?

I was flying commercial, several thousand feet above the Republic of Texas, looking down at the trees, the rivers, the tributaries, the land. Not that it matters but I was on my third bloody mary... potent little suckers. I had almost finished reading "1491," a captivating book that considers the Americas pre-Columbus, and supposes that the societys and cultures here were as vast and sophisticated, as complex and diverse as any in Europe at the time. And so looking down I was imagining the people of that time, managing their lives, farmers, hunters, craftspeople, warriors, politicians, artists perhaps. And I was thinking of the land itself, how if I was on the ground below I could just reach down and pick up a fossil, millions of years old perhaps. This area of Central Texas had once been underwater, a shallow sea and the build-up of shells as fossils, limestone as cliffs is enornmous. Maybe the water went all the way up and formed a shore along the the Llano Estacado, the high, staked plains above and to the west of Abilene. The oldest known human remains of North America have been discovered on those plains. Perhaps they were hunters following ancient herds of bison or mammoth. And then there is the Marty Robbins song, a sad but melodic refrain of lost love, somewhere out over the Llano Estacado. These thoughts, images and sounds were running through my head as the airplane dipped south and east, eventually flying along the Gulf of Mexico, over the great Mississippi just above New Orleans, bound for Atlanta and the busiest airspace and landing strips the world has ever known.

Like Old Times - Theatre and Dissent

Yesterday morning I was lucky enough to have been at a presentation by a Prescott College Student regarding Theatre and Dissent. It was shades of the old days at the Tucson Center when Esther would have two or three would be "subversives" in her office and I was being subpoenaed by the FBI to testify.

This particular student that did the presentation is a hardworking all around good person who takes on his education with full stride. He hasn't just joined a cause and gone to work. He has spent a multitude of time researching, comparing, gaging and trying to understand the complexities of this world, including the injustices and the atrocities.

Led by a powerful mentor, Mr. Howard Allen, for this course, this student took on the study of some difficult plays - Antigone, A View From the Bridge, The Mad Woman of Challiot, Julius Ceasar among them - all plays with "dissent" from moral or political or personal standards, but not your overt and obvious ones really, Antigone aside. In other words there was no "Waiting For Lefty" (although he may go one to explore Odets Paradise Lost as part of his follow-up).

Patrick, who was also present to hear, and I drank some espresso (mediocre we decided, although we do not claim the abilities to distinguish the finer aspects of espresso. Our measurement was that he said it was like the espresso he drank in Orvieto at a cafe where he was advised "not to be seen" if he wanted to to be considered a person of refined tastes) and settled in to listen. I might have made a mistake giving Howard Allen espresso. Has anyone ever known Howard not to be at full alert at any given time? No telling what he accomplished later that morning. In any case, the presentation prompted a good amount of discussion in the little available time we had so we agreed on an informal meeting over beer at a later date to finish it off.

Bias and Anxiety of a Spectator

My favorite theatres in town to go to are Beowulf Alley and The Rogue. But at the moment I am having a difficult time being or getting excited about their first shows. Beowulf is doing Seascape. Yes I know Albee wrote it and I know it won a Pulitzer Prize... but the whole lizard couple and all...I just don't feel it...yet anyway. And The Rogue is doing Animal Farm. Yes, I can imagine all the music and puppetry and a little razzle dazzle story telling, the politics, etc, but it doesn't touch a nerve in me as a spectator that gives or makes for the hint (or better) of excitement...not yet anyway.

I can experience a show and enjoy it objectively well enough, whatever it is. But my personal opinions and aesthetic taste in theatre is specific, perhaps narrow. I like shows where there is an obvious artistic challenge and sense of theatrical unearthing. I like great and large roles within great and large plays, where actors and directors attempt to come to concrete terms with how to make the material, the script, alive and meaningful on stage. I like theatrics but I don't like shows that are tricked out with novelty. I like emotion on the stage - real emotion, not fake, crappy indicated joy and pain, but the real deal, happiness and sorrow. I don't buy the argument for a second that if the actor cries the spectator does not or if the actor laughs the spectator does not. I do buy into Brecht's idea that you can have the spectators laughing when the character is crying and vice-versa though. Brecht always loved the real tears on stage. He called his type of theatre Epic Realism to contrast it against all the other theatres around him claiming to be Epic but which operated with a sense and style melodrama and fake behavior. Brecht said he wanted it real, like life, but set out in Episodic ways which show characters in various light and logic. By doing so he could indeed induce tears in the house while the characters were seemingly laughing on stage. I like that. And I like a good story as much as the next person - however it is told - but especially with surprises.

Like any good spectator though a show does not have to fit my personal taste or conform to "how I would do it." The Rogue Theatre has produced two of my all-time favorite plays these last couple of years, The Cherry Orchard and Six Characters in Search of an Author. Neither production was as I personally envision how the play can live on stage, but as a spectator at their productions of these scripts I was captivated in various ways.

Some theatres in town have absolutely left my consciousness, though I try my best to keep them in mind - Arizona Theatre Company and Invisible Theatre being the most prominent. There has been nothing intriguing or desirable about their shows for me, the choices of the scripts, and the actual productions themselves, over the last few years that has made me take notice or make me have to go see them. Perhaps I am to blame as much as them for this malaise, I don't know. As much as I hate to say it, they seem to present their shows with a kind of polite triteness while wrapped never-the-less in some socially relevant and entertaining context. I have arrived therefore at the "who cares" point. I hope to break out of it or be broken out of it soon.

Live Theatre Workshop verges on this same scenario for me - polite and trite. But sometimes it manages to escape itself, to free itself from its self-imposed imprisonment and make artistic headway. BTW if you have ever read the mission statement or sense of purpose or whatever they call it these days for Live Theatre Workshop let me know if you are amazed as me at all the things they intend to do - so many buzz words I got lost. Anyway, I do like the fact that at times they come up with a little gem of a production one way or another in and around the murder mysteries and bland comedies. Picnic is going to be one of those this year for them. I feel it. And their late night series, though I have seen a couple of presentations that I kind of enjoyed, is just not my cup of tea, not these days anyway.

I am making my personal preparation as I like to do as a spectator for those scheduled shows that I am excited about. For example I am re-reading and looking over Othello - even as I am finishing some thoughts on King Lear with Patrick. He has recently sent me some wonderful materials and some of his own perceptions and thoughts on that play following the discussion of it in his Honors course he was teaching earlier this month. I've got a few months to go on Othello but I like to make it "a journey." Picnic, The Glass Menagerie, Trip to Bountiful, come later in "the season" as well and I will be returning to those plays in various ways prior to seeing the productions themselves.

In the meantime, I am working on that "in" for Seascape and for Animal Farm. So, if you have any insight, great reasons, fun facts, know of sexy performers in the shows, or any reason small or large why I should be chomping at the bit as a spectator for these, please, please, please let me know.

Tennyson's Ulysses - As Tribute to Teddy K.

It little profits that an idle king,
By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
Match’d with an aged wife, I mete and dole
Unequal laws unto a savage race,
That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me

I cannot rest from travel: I will drink
Life to the lees: All times I have enjoy’d
Greatly, have suffer’d greatly, both with those
That loved me, and alone, on shore, and when
Thro’ scudding drifts the rainy Hyades
Vext the dim sea: I am become a name;
For always roaming with a hungry heart
Much have I seen and known; cities of men
And manners, climates, councils, governments,
Myself not least, but honour’d of them all;
And drunk delight of battle with my peers,
Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy.
I am a part of all that I have met;
Yet all experience is an arch wherethro’
Gleams that untravell’d world whose margin fades
For ever and forever when I move.
How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
To rust unburnish’d, not to shine in use! As tho’ to breathe were life!
Life piled on life
Were all too little, and of one to me
Little remains: but every hour is saved
From that eternal silence, something more,
A bringer of new things; and vile it were
For some three suns to store and hoard myself,
And this gray spirit yearning in desire
To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.

This is my son, mine own Telemachus,
To whom I leave the sceptre and the isle,—
Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfil
This labour, by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and thro’ soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
Of common duties, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness, and pay
Meet adoration to my household gods,
When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.

There lies the port; the vessel puffs her sail:
There gloom the dark, broad seas. My mariners,
Souls that have toil’d, and wrought, and thought with me—
That ever with a frolic welcome took
The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed
Free hearts, free foreheads—you and I are old;
Old age hath yet his honour and his toil;
Death closes all: but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
’Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Corrections for Open Studio

SORRY!Figures, the day after I send this out, I have to change the dates. The Open Studio will now be on Mondays ONLY in September, rather than Mondays & Thursdays.So, the Open Studio dates are: September, 7, 14, 21, 28 from 6-8:30 p.m. We're beginning with these dates only to gauge interest and will add more dates if attendance is pretty good. So, invite some friends!
Thanks! Steve

From Steve Anderson

Hey, all.Starting Open Studios. Here's the info. C'mon in and jam for a while. It'll be fun! Hope to see some of you there.The Open Studio for Actors, a new actor training series under thedirection of Steve Anderson, announces Open Studio Sessions forActors. The goal of the open studio is to provide a safe, creative,and empowering atmosphere for actors who wish to explore theirpotential without a major time or financial commitment. There is noadvanced registration for the open studios; actors simply show up andpay for each individual session. Each open studio session willinclude relaxation, kinesthetic awareness, and various exercisesdesigned to give the actor the tools to layer sense of stillness,focus, place, relationship, character, impulse, and intention-drivenaction. Actors are encouraged to bring scenes or monologues to workon. Steve Anderson earned his MFA in Acting in 1991 and has beenteaching and directing ever since. He has worked with actors from thebeginner to the Broadway pro and is consistently regarded as a giftedacting teacher. For testimonials and more detailed information,please visit www.steveandersonacting.com.WHAT: Open Studio Sessions for ActorsWHEN: Every Monday and Thursday evening from 6-8:30 p.m., beginning Sept. 3WHERE: Artfare. 55 N. 6th Avenue, Tucson - 3rd floorFEE/REGISTRATION: $10.00. No advanced payment or registrationrequired. Simply pay at the door. Credit cards are not accepted.WHAT TO BRING: Bottled water, towel, scenes and/or monologues to work onQUESTIONS: Contact Steve through www.steveandersonacting.com or callhim at 520.981.0145

Bill Killian

Brecht said "All Art contributes to the greatest Art of all, the Art of living."


Bill Killian tells me he is seventy going on seventy. I don't believe him. He is twenty-one all the way - and a bit of a Renaissance man. I offer a few examples of his deeds and interests, in no particular order, but with freestyle commentary.


Bill has made over one-hundred basketball free throws in a row more than forty-seven times. Just this past week he made 197 out of 200. This is staggering. His form and rhythm when he shoots the ball is impeccable, flawless, and seems effortless, graceful, poetic. Now when I was a kid, I beat the then world record holder, Ted St. Martin, in a free throw shoot out. I made 10 out of 10. Ted missed his first shot, didn't shoot again, but claimed he made 9 out of 10 on the certificate he gave me. I hate to have to dust off my shoes and head down to the gym to give Bill a little competition but I might have too! The only problem is I really don't think I would stand a chance vs Bill. Therefore, I am staying at a distance, preferring to cheer Bill on and admire his ability in this skill which he often shares with young players, teaching them proper habits and the fundamentals of shooting. Bill's personality, love and enthusiasm combined with his knowledge, practice and experience make him an ideal teacher of this sort.


Bill has been to more Actor's Gymnasium sessions with me than anyone. Therefore - I love him no matter what! It's not just that he attends though. His presence has been crucial for many reasons. Bill's work as an actor existed of course long before Actor's Gymnasium and will continue well after Actor's Gymnasium but for this space and time, Bill has shown his great commitment to his craft, his art, with the work he has shared with all of us in Actor's Gym. The list is a long, long one if I tried to mention each session that jumps to mind when I think of Bill's work. But I will give you two, as classic examples, though seemingly opposite types of work.

The first one is of a monologue from Horton Foote's "The Man From Atlanta." Bill presented this work to us in several forms the first time he brought it in. He did it first that day as a straightforward monologue. He worked on it a second time that day, not with the language of the piece but instead with music playing. (For those unfamiliar with Actor's Gymnasium the short explanation is that we explore and work on ways to make ourselves more scenically expressive as actors). In that repetition with the music playing, Bill worked his way through various actions of the character, sometimes metaphorically, touching certain rhythms and moods. A couple of weeks or so later, Bill was ready to present the monologue again to us, having continued his work on it at home in the meantime. Let me clarify something though. Most, most, work on monologues in workshops and classes consist of a stage where the actor has almost learned, memorized, the lines of the text itself, or has just learned the lines and is now trying to work out the basic action and activities as to how best present it to spectators. Depth and detail, meaning layers and layers and layers of human behavior within a specific event and situation are usually nowhere to be found. That is not the case with Bill here. With this monologue Bill was well in to the depth and detail and we were trying to figure out how to organize it craftwise and draw it to a poetic rendition. And then it happened. Bill, as the character, begin to actually live in the space with full blown thoughts and emotions and physical actions, at one point picking up a picture of his son in the most simplest of fashions as he spoke - a loving, heartbreaking moment as he gently but deeply felt asked for his son back. On that day Bill was not just a good actor, he was a great one. One that day Bill was not just a technician with the ability to speak and move and indicate skillfully, he was an artist in the deepest and widest and best sense, revealing to all of us something unique, something profound, something captivating. It was great!


(And BTW the next week Bill, in typical hardworking and practical fashion, was right back at the rigours of the daily physical and vocal exercises that are the "beginnings") .


The second example is when we were all working as group, or taking turns rather, with the words from Hamlet's To Be or Not to Be monologue. Bill and Tom Wentzel were ripping through segments of the speech using the most bizarre and unexpected vocal qualities and intonations. I was on the floor dying of laughter. I won't give further details now but it was hysterical. You should have been there!

Bill has purchased many books and DVDs on theatre and acting that he has generously shared with us and he has participated actively in a ton of research on various topics that we have done through Actor's Gymnasium. He has always been a conscientious supporter of theatre and the arts in general here in Tucson as well as in Phoenix (that god-forsaken soul-less wasteland of a town to the near north).

Bill recently came out of retirement and started back to work again as a Chaplain. This time he is at Corondelet counseling the grieved and anyone seeking spiritual comfort, advice and guidance. If there is a more practical and sympathetic ear than Bill's in this regard I haven't seen it. And, in addition to his daily duties (if I may use that word) as a husband, father and grandfather, Bill is completing a book of poetry. Now this isn't one of those I wrote ten poems kind of books. Bill has so far selected over eighty-five poems from a working catalogue of over five-hundred that chronicle his life and work, much of it theatre related.

And one last thing. While I have seen Bill upset and bothered, I have never seen him without a smile and kind words and compliments for everyone present. Bill, you have made a work of art of your life! Thank you for all you have given us and keep up the great deeds!

Winding Road Theatre Ensemble

They just keep coming! Another announcement for a new theatre company and its first production here in Tucson. The new one is Winding Road Theatre Ensemble and the show is an original one by Lesley Abrams entitled Dorothy Parker's Last Call. It is to be performed in the Cabaret Theatre at the Temple of Music and Art in mid October. Check the TTA list for the specifics.

I like that they have "Ensemble" in the name. The question is what does that word mean to them. To me of course it means a permanent group of actors and directors who share common artistic views and who plan and implement their work as a long term endeavor, training and preparing themselves consciously as an ensemble in order to achieve their artistic aims. For the general theatrical world it means a loosely knit group of artists who often work together when they don't have better or different offers and projects going on. Fundamentally that makes for a huge difference. In any case, it is exciting to hear about them and regardless of their form I wish them the best.

Glen Coffman, the director of this first show, studied acting at the HB Studio according to their announcement. That means hopefully he at least carries some amount of "Method" tradition in his work. He directed the production of Lemon Sky at Live Theatre Workshop which I wrote a long post about here on this very blog. I don't recall how I worded it in the post itself, but the acting in that show, even though it obviously did not have the amount of rehearsal time it truly needed to come to fruition, showed evidence of earnest and sincere and creatively imagined work. Aside from that terrible set in that terrible performance space which is Live Theatre Workshop, I sensed an attempt at real theatrical life. Perhaps freed from the constraints of time and place that comes with being jobbed in as a director with these various companies, Glen will be able to establish and create his artistic vision much more fully and definitely with his workmates at Winding Road.

Shaping a Theatrical Conciousness

To write of shaping a theatrical consciousness assumes that there is one, that theatrical consciousness exists. In that regard I may be starting this post all wrong. I may need to write of developing a theatrical consciousness. Hmm. Lets consider both notions at the same time, one big effort - developing and shaping a theatrical consciousness.

But what the heck is a theatrical consciousness? Rendering a precise definition will be difficult. In general it would refer to being actively cognizant and aware of the purpose and implications of theatrical spectacles, of having a strong sense and opinion of aesthetic, and some recognition of elemental functions. If we had a measuring gauge for this, in terms of the average spectator in our society, and for many of our theatrical artists themselves, its safe to assume that the reading would be "parochial." As we might expect, our theatrical consciousness has come into being by our experience and exposure to the habitual and accepted practices of the time and place - whether from one show or from nitty gritty work on hundreds of shows.

Articulation of types of theatrical consciousness is almost endless. Ask someone to describe theatre and it becomes showbiz, art, politics, revolutionary action, literary pursuit, personal journey, etc. Browse through books on theatre and indeed you will find these titles, Theatre as a Weapon, Educational Theatre, Feminist Theatre, The Art of the Stage, Theatre Anthropology, Epic Theatre, Black Theatre, My Life in Art, and Theatre of the Oppressed, to name but a few. There are thousands! While these for example attempt to change or offer perspective, many remain on the parochial level. But not all. Occasionally we run into an experience in our theatre that alters, widens and deepens our theatrical consciousness, lending specificity to our understanding and appreciation. See for example the post in this blog on Lev Dodin's Platonov by an anonymous poster.

For most of us though, we have been to a few shows, we have acted in a few shows, maybe even directed a few shows, we've read some reviews and had discussions with our friends and we have a select few favorite shows and/or performances we can list. In the end though, we typically hold the same assumptions on every single one of them. For example, regarding the "Who Done-It" I saw at live Live Theatre Workshop and the "Literary Masterpiece" I saw at Rogue Theatre, as a spectator I assumed that in both cases it was my responsibility to listen closely and pay attention at all times, lest I miss some clue or important bit of information that will be crucial to my understanding and appreciation by the end. The performers assumed they had to subtly but clearly and with a certain naturalness articulate the words and express the meaning behind them in order to ensure the spectators heard and understood the author whose story was being staged. And do so briskly lest the spectators become bored. My friends and co-workers assumed and expected I would relay to them my complete reaction and experience to the shows the following mornings. Its kind of like the way we "do business" in theatre and this collective way is part of our theatrical consciousness, having been developed and shaped over time.

Let me extract from that description one point, one sentence, for further explanation. "And to do so briskly lest the spectators become bored." Here the assumption is "entertainment." Our theatrical consciousness has been developed and shaped in such a way that we expect as spectators to be entertained by the performers. We do not expect, in other words, to have to entertain ourselves, or find for ourselves, our sense of enjoyment and entertainment. It will be provided we assume by the performers. The logic then goes that this "entertainment" will keep my attention focused at all times on the words the performers are speaking and the actions they are doing so as to finally give me that overall appreciation and understanding of the story.

Since I am not loathe to comparisons...lets say I went to a baseball game. Not one of those god-forsaken professional ones but just some game in the park. I go there lets say with the express purpose of being a spectator to the game, for my own enjoyment. In such an instance, I will not assume that the ballplayers are going to entertain me or that the game itself will move along at such a rapid pace that my full attention is undeniable. Apples and oranges? Yes, but thats ok.
In the long run, the game itself my be exciting with a dramatic finish, or it may turn out to be somewhat typical. Either way, I will, as a spectator, find myself entertained by the action even though it moves at a snails pace most of the time. Brisk pace is not necessary, nor is purposeful attempt by the players themselves to entertain. What I do expect of them though, the ball players, is to be fully involved in the event of the game itself. They may wave at me in the stands at some point but when the pitch is being thrown they are swinging away.

By way of this specific example I am not suggesting that all productions are too fastly paced. I'm trying to articulate the kinds of expectations and relationships we have, that endure in theatre as a result of our theatrical consciousness, individually and collectively. If I took it down to an elemental function and asked what do actors do, the responses again would be varied and somewhat parochial - an actors entertains, an actor does, and actor acts, an actor communicates what the author's intent is, an actor performs the characters actions, etc. If I said an actor takes in information and process it via their affective memory and senses to make living behavior you could disagree with me. On the other hand, you could disagree that a tree takes in water and light and makes branches and leaves. Or I could tell you that a tree stands on a hill, or blows in the breeze, or looks pretty. Any of these would signify part of our theatrical consciousness and our understanding or appreciation for actors, as well as the way we relate as performers to one another.

Make Sure to

Check out Chuck's posting on Bill Dell on the Tucson Stage site. It's a great service that Bill does for all of us, with consistency and ethics. Thank you Bill.

Tonights New Play Reading.

The new play scheduled to be read at Beowulf Alley Theatre this evening sounds fascinating. I hope to make it there. Check out the details on the TTA List or Beowulf's website.

Cast Your Actor

From the TTA List - "Male Actor Wanted to Play Dead For One Scene In Low Budget Movie."

I won't be the only one to drag out the stereotypes for this. What the heck, here goes.

The Newly Minted Stanislavskian Actor: "What would I do if I were dead? How long have I been dead? What killed me? Are my ancestors appearing to me in death? Are bright lights moving towards me? How low is the budget?"

From the "Its All in the Text" Actor: "The text indicates I'm dead, but I'm thinking if it says I'm dead the author could actually be indicating life by the absence of it so now I'm confused about how still I need to be. I mean if I twitch wouldn't that indicate more of what the author really intended?"

From the Veiwpoints Actor: "So much seemed to be happening as I was laying there during the rehearsal. My body was telling me that its ok to just be dead, to be in this moment for me and it seemed so easy to be ok with my body for once in my life and just be still and quiet and let whatever was going to happen happen but then nothing really happened but I was ok with that."

From The Practical Aesthetics Actor: "But I'm supposed to be doing something and concentrating on another actor! How can I do that when I'm doing nothing but laying there with my eyes closed?!"

From the Actor Who Claims No Technique: "So last night I was out with my girlfriend and this group of people came by talking about where they were going on vacation and I said to my girlfriend hey we should go on vacation but she thought I meant separate va...what? oh, you want me to lie down. Sorry, I was telling him about what happened to me last...oh, sorry. I am laying down...anyway, my girlfriend thought I meant separate va...yea, I can close my eyes, ok, ok."

From "The Professional": "Just tell me where to die - but make sure my costume isn't stepped upon."

From the Actor who Studied Boal: "This is crap! Why should my character die? I think it says more politically to live in this situation rather than die. The dynamics of power suggested by this death have more to do with eurocentric influences of male dominated ideas of sexuality and influence. We need to have a counter scene where I live!"

From the Just Tell Me What You Want Actor: "Just tell me what you want. You want me to lay down and just be still? Ok, I can do that. Just tell me what you want. Why put all the horror make up on me if you want me to be still and just lay there? Tell me what you want. I mean you want all this make-up or do you want me?"

Tucson is Out of Control

Are we really big and bad enough, our theatre community here in this city, this area, to have the Arizona Rose Theatre AND The Arid Rose Theatre?! AND the new group in Marana and the group in Green Valley? It seems like week by week new efforts, new groups, spring to life. Its out of control! Its totally fabulous but who would have thought!

Right now its like web domain names - you gotta get the name of your theatre company while and when you can. Therefore, I'm staking claim to the following names. (Not that I have any intent of going beyond Ubi Sunt or Actor's Gymnasium but just for fun.)

Creosote Umbrella Theatre
Teatro Camino Real
Blue Skies and Art
Pueblo Gardens Stageworks
Adobe Players

And then there are names of Theatres around the U.S. and the world that I admire that I wish had thought of like Menos Fortas or Remains Theatre Ensemble for examples.

Send me your favorite names for groups.

Always Learning! and Learning to Learn!

Well when you put it out there, it comes back to you they say. You know, the whole concept about you put something out in the "universe" and then all of a sudden its everywhere for you.For me I guess you could say "the British are coming! the British are coming!" Those British actors and their work with words that is. And lots of questions about it.


Let me preface all this though. I like anything to do with the work of acting, deciphering texts, directing, etc. I'm not about hogde-podge anything goes and everyone do their own thing, but when it comes to a practical working skill, craft, that an actor does in the actual process of acting, including speaking, I'll take it. What I don't like though is common. I don't like when certain elements fall out of context or assume an emphasis unduly. Further, like anyone, I don't like when a craft element becomes a cliche of itself.


An actor with a rich, strong, articulate, flexible voice who knows how to "handle" words and dialogue as an expression grown out of the total experience of the character - yes indeed! Heady, vocal gymnastics, intellectually ground together at the expense of real experience - boring! Booorrriiinnnnggggg! boring!


Stanislavsky's work with words and language is as exhaustive and comprehensive as any ones, detailed and precise in his analysis and use of sounds, meanings, musicality, etc. It wasn't pure luck that the big man was known to have tremendous vocal quality and ability - he worked for it.

But now back to the British. Like many young actors and others, I spent a couple of months working with and learning from members of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Yes, I had my crush on one of them too, a pretty and engaging lady with a sexy dialect. We all had our crushes at that time. (That's important to this post...somehow). We also had some terrific get togethers and parties in the foothills where the RSC members were holed up at the time. (That's important too). What I learned in that time has always carried forward - I'm talking about working with texts and words again now - and I have built upon it as could be expected.


There was a time when the British with their great tradition of "language" far outpaced us Americans in the ability to be expressive in this regard as speakers and orators and actors. That time is gone. Americans are way better now. Yep, I said it! Way better. That's no slam on the Brits. They are still good and admirable and can teach us, but we, Americans as a whole, are more diverse and dynamic now in our developments and uses of language. Who would have thought I would be promoting or holding up rap music as a kind of example - but there you go.
I'm not suggesting it holds the poetry of Shakespeare (as much of it is closer to nursery ryhmes), but the intricacies and the cleverness and the overall sound and action of the words is unique in form. Love it or hate it, it is an American original (as original as we can get in America) and part of a larger complex movement or way with words that has taken hold. We have more regionalisms and sub-cultures old and new, than does UK, each with their own unique sound and details which our playwrights have been able to take hold of for good use. In this case, size matters! As does depth!

That said, I do love watching some of those UK actors in action. Who wouldn't or who doesn't? Royce has been keeping me refreshed in the work of some of the best. Recently he sent me a video of Trevor Nunn working with David Suchet and yesterday with Howard we watched John Barton working with Patrick Stewart and David Suchet on Shylock. My favorite thing about Trevor Nunn in this case, although he didnt go very far with it under the circumstances of the demonstration, was what he told David Suchet at the beginning of their work. They are working on a sonnet. Nunn suggest the first thing that must happen is that Suchet must use an imaginitive and personal substitution to make the words come alive out of a specific situation and circumstance. He gives Suchet a very simple and personal imaginitive substitution for the context and tells him he should focus on this as he speaks the words. Suchet does so. As this work demonstration is brief, they do not follow up with any specifics or other adjustments to this but it is telling in and of itself. Suchet's talent is evident when he takes Nunns suggestion and you see him that first time through using the language to articulate what he is thinking and feeling and doing, exploring his being, his relationship with the world around him with the language, hearing it himself for the first time, making discoveries, all that. The subsequent times through when Nunn asks him to consider certain arrangements and sounds of words, Suchet's action becomes that tired old obvious one that so many actors do - to explain! In the most obvious of fashion. And to show! In the most obvious of fashion. While somewhat entertaining and admirable, the specifics and complexities of life and the poetry are lost, the dualities that existed in behavior and meaning are gone, all at the expense of an intellectual appreciation of the "text."

A more obvious contrast exists in the work with Barton and Stewart and Suchet. Stewart in each of his scenes as Shylock plays an intellectual analysis and understanding of the language, literally, at all times. In other words, he plays an abstaction. Suchet on the other hand plays the life of Shylock as could be created based on the circumstances and events, as real behavior done in actuality. The layers and details and complexities of Suchet's work stand in sharp contrast to the very general and one demensional effort of Stewarts. Suchet makes a human being. Stewart makes words. Suchet's language, the poetry, the meanings, the sounds, intonations are far more beautiful and elegant and impactful than Stewarts. Stewarts words have nothing to hold on to except a single overall action, and that action itself exists only on Stewarts charisma and general energy. There is no depth, no substance as there is in Suchets.

Break time!

Patrick on Language, Shakespeare...

Several things come to mind here in relation to David's post about words, language, Shakespeare, etc. In a dream, Graham Greene taught me that in writing fiction, dialogue must be action. (He reiterated the notion in his autobiography, "Ways of Escape.") Perhaps for obvious reasons, this notion is a given in theatre (though not always the case) and less generally considered in fiction, where we don't think as acutely of every passage needing to propel action forward. So it was a fabulous lesson. When you think about it, this "dialogue/action" occurs naturally in the best fiction writers, and doesn't occur at all in weaker writers. Pick up 9 out of 10 novels in the store and you can practically "see" the story "take a break" as chunks of dialogue sit there, maybe revealing character, certainly taking up some pages, but not necessarily developing "action" as it is understood in theatre, i.e. dramatic, sense One of the reasons I liked the Phaedre, as a play, was that the dialogue propelled the action forcefully. The acting has been criticized as emoting, but the lines themselves, maybe Ted Hughes had something to do with this, the lines themselves kept the story moving forward potently. I.e. the lines were action. Now when David speaks about words as actions in his post, the sense I think is primarily of them as physical action. (Not that he's minimizing their other values, of course, but simply that his post is about the actor's physicality.) And this brings us to Shakespeare. To this day, I hear exceptionally brilliant people, such as George Orwell, say that Shakespeare endures most primarily because of his poetic qualities. That the plays themselves, as plays, are faulty enough not to have endured the centuries were it not for their unparalleled linguistic genius. I also hear exceptionally brilliant people, such as Howard Allen, say that the reason Shakespeare is taught in virtually every English Literature and Theatre program in the world is because he has survived the test of time ON THE STAGE. His plays continue to be produced the world over---and in obviously weaker translations of hundreds of language---and this is why he is still read. In this moment, and probably in most moments, I think Orwell is more right. Shakespeare is our Dante, and he endures for some of the same reasons. By the way, for an experience of language primarily as action, and language which at times stops action, read The Divine Comedy. And we'd probably say that in many Shakespeare plays, the same thing happens. That passages (which are often cut today) do not necessarily move the action forward. I think this may have more to do with our shortened attentions, or, if you will, our quicker mind frames, than with the actual text. I have a suspicion that 16th century audiences found much more of the Shakespeare's text as "active" because they thought differently than we do. Maybe the porter scene in Macbeth (Shakespeare's leanest tragedy) was not simply a "relief" (comic or otherwise) but a propelling forward of the plays thematic action. The "gardener" scene in Richard II is another example that comes to mind. And this brings us to Chekhov's Orchard. The study of "time" in the text by Bill Killian that David describes and then develops as part of his process/production seems a strong example of the indivisible qualities of poetry and action---Chekhov's work as a whole seems particularly apt in this regard. In other dramatists, as in other fiction writers, one can more readily see whether the dialogue propels the action or not. In Chekhov, as David's process emphasizes, the beauty is in the union of theme, action, dialogue, etc. More can be said, but we'll leave it to Gertrude to close with her calling for "More matter, less art." But let's question this plea. She too was all too ready to divorce truth from reality. Patrick

King Lear at the Honors College UA

We had a great time yesterday attending Patrick's class at the Honors College and trying to answer questions from the students regarding King Lear. The questions were sharp, astute and required some serious consideration from us at times. I am still considering the last one, "How would you dress The Fool?" Metaphorically, or perhaps representationally and even literally The Fool is Art. He is Theatre. He is Entertainment. But how to dress him? You could say well it depends on the context or how you conceive of the entire spectacle. True. On the other hand, how you construct that character could release the entire spectacle in your imagination.

To me the play is like a well done fairy tale, as Patrick described it at one point, tragic though it is, and something about that Fool's getup I think could be a hinging point. I'm not jumping to any conclusions about fairy tales or cliche costumes - but the question still has me thinking.

Language, Words, Vocal Sounds.

Several questions, comments and readings have conspired to prompt me to write on language, words, and vocal sounds as pertaining to theatre and acting. It seems to be hot sub-topic in the footsteps of Phedre and Platonov. I won't attempt to completely summarize or bring home certain points in this post. That will have to come in later discussion. I'll just mention a few ideas or thoughts that have come to mind recently on this wide topic to get started.

When an actor "speaks" or makes sounds on stage, I consider it "Physical Action" and no less so than any other part of the body in movement or motion. The total process from breath and impulse to thought and intention to precise activation of the vocal cords, resonance and articulation should be taken into consideration. The sound produced affects the spectators (and other actors) senses and should be generated and intended to do so with specific reason.


French writers like Racine and Genet wrote words in a fashion that was meant to be performed in a way that was rhythmically inundating, something akin to modern Amercian rap, fast, witty, biting, non-natural, loud and clever. The sound and delivery of the language, coupled with the thoughts behind it was meant to overwhelm. Translated to English and delivered vocally in that belabored British stage cadence with the impression of individual words manipulated ad-nauseam, the language becomes stagnate and obvious. The power and surprise of the language is gone, the Phedre production being a classic example.


Watching and listening to actors in Odin Teatret go through vocal training and practice was eye and ear opening. The possibilities seemed endless in combination of speed, sound, rhythm, resonance, and flexibility. They did not appear to be shy or inhibited about sound, the quality, the volumes, the pitches, etc. Odin Teatret's productions though do not begin with a written script, words as representation. They begin, originate, with a series of physical actions by actors individually. The actions are then put into a dramaturgical form (the dramaturgy) by Eugenio Barba as director. Words and dialogue get added as necessary in the process.


Lev Dodin said regarding Maly Theatre's work on King Lear "From the beginning, we very much wanted to force ourselves to hear the plain and coarse sense of Shakespeare's words... Killing what was poetic - this was one of our aims. Killing the poetic so as to get to the poetry."


Bill K. once did a detailed study of the style and themes of the language in The Cherry Orchard when we were working on that play in Actor's Gymnasium. For example, he noted over a hundred (I forget the exact number) references to Time in Chekhov's script. Things like "we're gonna be late" "Is the train on time" "How soon?" "It was springtime" "My watch has stopped." I'm paraphrasing but you get the idea. Bill's study was the kind of "probing" that Lev Dodin and his actors do over time with the various aspects of a play. In this case it was Language, Words. We then worked in Actor's Gymnasium to determine how we could apply this theme of Time theatrically. Chekhov himself had indicated in notes for example about the actual, literal time certain acts should require on stage. We used a cuckoo clock to interrupt action in one of our improvisations of the early scenes of the play. We worked on a "flashback" dream sequence. We thought about how in "silent" moments on stage when there were no other sounds, there could be the ticking of time always present and noticeable then. This type of activity was language interpreted and applied.


Shakespeare never used an exclamation point nor did he include much of the punctuation you see in most editions of his work today. Granted punctuation was different in Elizabethan England than it is today but comparing what Shakespeare actually included with what Riverside and other editors do is a little frightening at times. Their punctuation is just that, theirs and not necessarily the "correct" punctuation and certainly not Shakespeare's punctuation always. If you are into strict adherence or interpretation of punctuation in order to determine meaning or intent or emotional content, be careful when using these various editions.