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.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Notes on Lev Dodin, Maly Theatre
Here are some of my notes from 2004 that I wrote regarding Lev Dodin, Maly Theatre. Enjoy.
-David
I finally got my hands on “Dodin and the Maly Drama Theatre: Process to Perfomance.”Some of my favorite stuff...-The Introduction by Simon Callow. It alone is incredible and almost single handedly gives or restores faith in theatrical possibilities.-For The Devils, the actors rehearsed three years and read 240 books as part of their immersion. -Many of the descriptions of the productions sound almost impossible – “Platonov” for example, with its behavioral combinations of music and dance would require everything we just are not “prepared” to do here in America as actors, individually or collectively. See below.-Quote from the book – “The Russian notion of the “life of a production” is particularly relevant for Dodin’s theatre where organic development and maturation are understood to be paramount.” (Their understanding and experience of “organic development and maturation” is not the same as ours! See the above – 3 years rehearsal and 240 books preparation, then three more years in production before the actors “felt relatively ready,” then three more for it to settle.). Overall it makes you question everything, and I mean everything, we think and do with our theatre in America. Dodin and his company did something we hardly know of or can fathom. Read the book if you get a chance. I can’t wait to read “Journey Without End.”
Inspired by reading the stuff on Dodin, I finally got around to watching “An Unfinished Piece for the Player Piano,” the 1977 film by Nikita Mikhalkov based largely on “Plantanov.” All I can think is that Russian actors must read the words of a script (or story), then imagine the circumstances and events from which those words might have arisen, construct a series of actions based on those events and circumstances, which the words then in turn can become part of. Whereas American actors, read the words and then construct a series of actions based on the literal meaning of those words and then use events and circumstances to make it “natural.”
As for the film itself – Among other things, I thought it was great how cinematically the setting, the environment, gradually, as the action progressed and the characters do what they do, drink, tell stories, play, touch, dance, went from being this literal place with overgrown shrubbery, insects, heat, and rain, to being a surreal and poetic place, serving as both hindrance and facilitator for the characters, right down to the final shot on the river with the fabulous morning light reflecting in the ripples. The light, the physical space, the views, the objects, played out symbiotically with the actors. Kind of like the descriptions of Dodin’s or Nekrosious’ sets, which have an immediate and tangible affect on the actors besides simply being a “setting” for the audience to understand something, i.e. place, time, metaphor, etc
-David
I finally got my hands on “Dodin and the Maly Drama Theatre: Process to Perfomance.”Some of my favorite stuff...-The Introduction by Simon Callow. It alone is incredible and almost single handedly gives or restores faith in theatrical possibilities.-For The Devils, the actors rehearsed three years and read 240 books as part of their immersion. -Many of the descriptions of the productions sound almost impossible – “Platonov” for example, with its behavioral combinations of music and dance would require everything we just are not “prepared” to do here in America as actors, individually or collectively. See below.-Quote from the book – “The Russian notion of the “life of a production” is particularly relevant for Dodin’s theatre where organic development and maturation are understood to be paramount.” (Their understanding and experience of “organic development and maturation” is not the same as ours! See the above – 3 years rehearsal and 240 books preparation, then three more years in production before the actors “felt relatively ready,” then three more for it to settle.). Overall it makes you question everything, and I mean everything, we think and do with our theatre in America. Dodin and his company did something we hardly know of or can fathom. Read the book if you get a chance. I can’t wait to read “Journey Without End.”
Inspired by reading the stuff on Dodin, I finally got around to watching “An Unfinished Piece for the Player Piano,” the 1977 film by Nikita Mikhalkov based largely on “Plantanov.” All I can think is that Russian actors must read the words of a script (or story), then imagine the circumstances and events from which those words might have arisen, construct a series of actions based on those events and circumstances, which the words then in turn can become part of. Whereas American actors, read the words and then construct a series of actions based on the literal meaning of those words and then use events and circumstances to make it “natural.”
As for the film itself – Among other things, I thought it was great how cinematically the setting, the environment, gradually, as the action progressed and the characters do what they do, drink, tell stories, play, touch, dance, went from being this literal place with overgrown shrubbery, insects, heat, and rain, to being a surreal and poetic place, serving as both hindrance and facilitator for the characters, right down to the final shot on the river with the fabulous morning light reflecting in the ripples. The light, the physical space, the views, the objects, played out symbiotically with the actors. Kind of like the descriptions of Dodin’s or Nekrosious’ sets, which have an immediate and tangible affect on the actors besides simply being a “setting” for the audience to understand something, i.e. place, time, metaphor, etc
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Shirley Ellis or is it Carlisle Valentine
I haven't seen it but I've heard from at least two good sources that Carlisle Ellis rocks the house in "Shirley Valentine" at Live Theatre Workshop. All my bias' (good and bad) probably will prevent me from seeing this show - the British thing, its a "chick flick," stuff like that you know. If I do go of course it would be to see Carlisle in the role. I think Carlisle has the most unique and interesting voice (as in vocal quality) of any actor or actress in Tucson. Wrapped around a British dialect gives me pause - not because Carlisle couldn't do it but because, well, its British! That aside, her voice is outstanding! Its rich, melodious, enchanting and she knows how to utilize it as real physical action, not merely pretty sounds or correct sounds. When she activates her voice, it is with clear and specific intent and the action is carried along. Put that together with her eyes and her warm personality and ka-boom, "Stage Presence!"
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Affective Memory as discussed by Stanislavsky
If you have read the comment under the "Phedre in HD" post, then you have read what to some will be (or should be) a revelation. If you haven't read the comment, you should, as it mentions more in the growing and unmistakable evidence that Stanislavsky held Affective Memory as his primary "discovery" and as the most important and foundational aspect of his work. Further, it puts Stanislavsky's ideas of "Physical Action" in the proper historical (time) and working (craft) context. What does all that mean or represent generally speaking? It means that if you believe, propagate or teach that Stanislavsky changed his mind later in his life, that Stanislavsky thought or learned that Affective Memory was "dangerous," that he concluded that the Method of Physical Actions was his/the ultimate technique, or any other such thing, you stand squarely outside of the actual facts and working practice of Stanislavsky. In short, you are completely wrong.
Now anyone is free to invent, concoct or borrow any ideas they want and to call it an "acting technique." If however, you say you teach "Stanislavsky" for example, and refute Affective Memory at the same time, you are wrong. It is as simple as that. Call it false advertising. You actually teach and propagate a myth about Stanislavsky.
Frankly I have been a part of these debates for a while now and and as the years have gone by I have heard and seen the people who propagate the myths about Stanislavsky's "last work" and The Method of Physical Actions as the be all and end all, while bad mouthing people like Lee Strasberg for example, ignore facts and evidence and create false impressions almost at will. Its funny now to see and hear them say "Oh, I don't engage in or worry about who is right or wrong anymore" because the new and irrefutable evidence is so much against them - Stanislavsky's own words burning in their ears! When there are no more excuses for them, when they can't justify or wiggle out of the facts any longer, they are quitting. Why they don't just say "Oh my gosh I have been wrong all these years" is beyond me. I mean if somebody showed me something so clear as Stanislavsky saying "Look David, Affective Memory is dangerous. I used to use it but then I came to the conclusion it didn't work or had to be used only in a certain way, very small doses at certain times. And David, I have happily come to the conclusion that the Pavlovian concepts as supported by my Soviet interpreters is the best way to go. Method of Physical Action all the way David!" Well I would have to reconsider what I believe, what I teach and what I say about Stanislavsky and his work. And I would do it! However, that has never come to pass despite all the years of people saying such notions were historical truths. The dominoes are falling the other way in fact, and fast!
The sadness comes from the fact that students and others will still hear and believe what they are told by these people as they claim to come with credentials, and the brilliance of Stanislavsky will continue to be lost behind an arsenal of petty personality rank, lasting Soviet dogma or trendy applications and concepts. Some simplistic or worse, some unattainably "great" version of Stanislavsky's work will permeate. The remedy for my sadness would come in the form of them saying "I teach a perversion of Stanislavsky's ideas and I ignore all relevant facts associated with the man's best work and thought." That would solve so many problems for current and future actors and others interested in Stanislavsky.
If this sounds harsh or "out of character" for me, so be it. Its not meant to be mean but it is meant to be completely straightforward. In the end its about Stanislavsky and a legacy of work by dedicated and serious theatre practitioners - and getting that legacy correct. Its been difficult but its not that difficult once we get everyone to look honestly at the facts, the record. The overall history is fascinating and sometimes intricate and includes a Russian revolution for godsakes! But as I said, doable, understandable.
Now anyone is free to invent, concoct or borrow any ideas they want and to call it an "acting technique." If however, you say you teach "Stanislavsky" for example, and refute Affective Memory at the same time, you are wrong. It is as simple as that. Call it false advertising. You actually teach and propagate a myth about Stanislavsky.
Frankly I have been a part of these debates for a while now and and as the years have gone by I have heard and seen the people who propagate the myths about Stanislavsky's "last work" and The Method of Physical Actions as the be all and end all, while bad mouthing people like Lee Strasberg for example, ignore facts and evidence and create false impressions almost at will. Its funny now to see and hear them say "Oh, I don't engage in or worry about who is right or wrong anymore" because the new and irrefutable evidence is so much against them - Stanislavsky's own words burning in their ears! When there are no more excuses for them, when they can't justify or wiggle out of the facts any longer, they are quitting. Why they don't just say "Oh my gosh I have been wrong all these years" is beyond me. I mean if somebody showed me something so clear as Stanislavsky saying "Look David, Affective Memory is dangerous. I used to use it but then I came to the conclusion it didn't work or had to be used only in a certain way, very small doses at certain times. And David, I have happily come to the conclusion that the Pavlovian concepts as supported by my Soviet interpreters is the best way to go. Method of Physical Action all the way David!" Well I would have to reconsider what I believe, what I teach and what I say about Stanislavsky and his work. And I would do it! However, that has never come to pass despite all the years of people saying such notions were historical truths. The dominoes are falling the other way in fact, and fast!
The sadness comes from the fact that students and others will still hear and believe what they are told by these people as they claim to come with credentials, and the brilliance of Stanislavsky will continue to be lost behind an arsenal of petty personality rank, lasting Soviet dogma or trendy applications and concepts. Some simplistic or worse, some unattainably "great" version of Stanislavsky's work will permeate. The remedy for my sadness would come in the form of them saying "I teach a perversion of Stanislavsky's ideas and I ignore all relevant facts associated with the man's best work and thought." That would solve so many problems for current and future actors and others interested in Stanislavsky.
If this sounds harsh or "out of character" for me, so be it. Its not meant to be mean but it is meant to be completely straightforward. In the end its about Stanislavsky and a legacy of work by dedicated and serious theatre practitioners - and getting that legacy correct. Its been difficult but its not that difficult once we get everyone to look honestly at the facts, the record. The overall history is fascinating and sometimes intricate and includes a Russian revolution for godsakes! But as I said, doable, understandable.
Stanislavsky built his theatres on integrity - personal and artistic. If we choose to associate ourselves with him, I believe we should do so in the same manner.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Regarding Lev Dodin's production of "Platonov"
Hi All, this was sent anonymously for posting. Please read and enjoy. I have heard and read about the brilliance of this particular production of Chekhov's "Unfinished Play" (Platonov) but have never seen it of course and have never heard it quite described in this fashion. It is a telling and insightful description and I will write more and hope to have more on Lev Dodin soon.
-David
After 30+ years of theatre experience I finally saw the kind of theatre I have been dreaming of seeing all that time. This was not the current production of Dodin's Maly Drama Theatre playing in the Lincoln Center Festival -- "Life and Fate" -- as I will see that tomorrow. No, this was a film of one act (2 hours long) of his production of Chekhov's "Untitled Play" commonly known as "Platonov". I have never seen perfect theatre before until this production. The sense of what a permanent theatre company and only a permanent company can achieve because they are all trained in the same craft approach and all share the same vision of what theatre is deep in their individual and collective beings was alive in every second of Dodin's profoundly illuminating and overwhelmingly humane production of Chekhov. It embodied what happens in theatre when rehearsals last for years and even after productions open they are allowed to continue to evolve year after year in both performance and in continuing rehearsals. There was no hint of the current popular approach to Chekhov where he is turned into an Oxford wit, simplistic postmodern semiotics or a Russian Neil Simon. The production was a comic delight but in a Chekhovian sense -- the truth of human thought, feeling and action, i.e. behavior and how so much of this living on our part is funny because we are so blind and desperate in our needs and self delusion. We may even see ourselves doing it but we cannot stop. All we can do is laugh at our own foolishness while loving it. Nothing is "hit" as being a comic convention and yet everything makes one smile and cry in delightful recognition of HUMAN beings. The acting is truly experiential action. As Meyerhold said, "words are only the embellishment on the tapestry of movement" meaning that theatre, fundamentally, has nothing to do with words. With Dodin, words are the embellishment on the tapestry of LIVING expressed within deeply imaginative theatrical form. Like all the great theatre masters, Dodin never turns his actors into puppets of some ridiculous intellectualized postmodern concept plopped onto the play's theme as a critical conversation piece for academic "brain theatre". His actors live as independent beings in the world of the play and production and with a moment to moment improvisatory reality that is absent on Broadway and American regional theatre but is the essence of great acting -- not to mention theatre itself. The staging is both the natural life of a group of friends and enemies partying by a lake -- the lake is on stage and people swim, play musical instruments, jump in from 20 feet above to commit suicide, splash one another, hang from pier poles, role up on the (actual)sandy shoreline, while lighted candles float by in the water -- and at the same time the staging is a theatrical expression of the psychological levels of the play and its people which physicalizes both visually and emotionally what it all means; what Chekhov is saying. The seamless mix of all the actors playing musical instruments all through the play -- actors form a jazz band as well as play as soloists -- at almost any unexpected time while doing it so unselfconsciously as to make the inherent theatricality here seem to be just a musical extension of the character's soul, coupled with the playing of early jazz music, gloriously playful dancing and gorgeously human singing of all of sorts makes this production truly theatrical in a way that defines what theatricality actually is -- a deepening and sharpening of content and form without loosing the living emotional humanity of the actor. The stage is alive with levels of existence. Scenes are played in the foreground while the entire implied life of the play's circumstances and the production's vision continue all over the multi-leveled set behind the text based action. Never have I seen the visions of Meyerhold and Stanislavsky so fully combined. Its as if Meyerhold had Stanislavsky's great actors in his productions or as if Meyerhold was directing as Stanislavsky worked with the actors. Both sides of the coin of real theatre were onstage when one usually only gets heads or tails in the name of some director's personal "style". It is truly living psychophysical theatre seamlessly imagined as a theatrical form. This is multi-dimensional living on stage and a perfection of direction, conception and execution unknown in American theatre. One actor plays a scene with a mixture of lust, longing, anger, love, amusement and bewilderment that I did not think possible for any actor to achieve as living breathing emotional truth on stage. Something so simple as a character turning a chair on its side and sitting on that side becomes immensely expressive of the moment and the character. Truthful feeling flows everywhere and the explosive nature of emotion is given free reign in a way American theatre lost long ago. Actors use an old Meyerholdian trick of writing certain lines on the walls of the set and Dodin makes this completely natural, justified and theatrical all at once -- true theatre. The ease and relaxation of the actors on stage is terrifying -- not to mention their concentration and imaginative action plus an interpersonal emotional freedom and flow. As if all this was not enough, Dodin fashions a masterpiece out of Chekhov's early and unfinished play. I had read the play as left by Chekhov years ago and found it a tangled mess. Dodin drops around 10 characters and several lines of action in the text; adds 10 waiters/servants for the gentry class in the play (they form the jazz band and serve as kind of stage hands in tuxedos moving furniture pieces on and off, albeit justified within the play's action and set a magnificent table full of real food that is eaten on stage, especially by one piggish character) and in the process Dodin shapes a literary masterpiece as well as its theatrical embodiment out of Chekhov's messy play. I left thinking this is the most brilliant Chekhov play of all. After finally seeing what the Stanislavsky's, Meyerhold's, Vakhtangov's, Brecht's and Strasberg's dreamed of theatre being it will be hard to stomach anything less. When the art of theatre is finally achieved it is like nothing else. Too bad its as rare as a unicorn.
-David
After 30+ years of theatre experience I finally saw the kind of theatre I have been dreaming of seeing all that time. This was not the current production of Dodin's Maly Drama Theatre playing in the Lincoln Center Festival -- "Life and Fate" -- as I will see that tomorrow. No, this was a film of one act (2 hours long) of his production of Chekhov's "Untitled Play" commonly known as "Platonov". I have never seen perfect theatre before until this production. The sense of what a permanent theatre company and only a permanent company can achieve because they are all trained in the same craft approach and all share the same vision of what theatre is deep in their individual and collective beings was alive in every second of Dodin's profoundly illuminating and overwhelmingly humane production of Chekhov. It embodied what happens in theatre when rehearsals last for years and even after productions open they are allowed to continue to evolve year after year in both performance and in continuing rehearsals. There was no hint of the current popular approach to Chekhov where he is turned into an Oxford wit, simplistic postmodern semiotics or a Russian Neil Simon. The production was a comic delight but in a Chekhovian sense -- the truth of human thought, feeling and action, i.e. behavior and how so much of this living on our part is funny because we are so blind and desperate in our needs and self delusion. We may even see ourselves doing it but we cannot stop. All we can do is laugh at our own foolishness while loving it. Nothing is "hit" as being a comic convention and yet everything makes one smile and cry in delightful recognition of HUMAN beings. The acting is truly experiential action. As Meyerhold said, "words are only the embellishment on the tapestry of movement" meaning that theatre, fundamentally, has nothing to do with words. With Dodin, words are the embellishment on the tapestry of LIVING expressed within deeply imaginative theatrical form. Like all the great theatre masters, Dodin never turns his actors into puppets of some ridiculous intellectualized postmodern concept plopped onto the play's theme as a critical conversation piece for academic "brain theatre". His actors live as independent beings in the world of the play and production and with a moment to moment improvisatory reality that is absent on Broadway and American regional theatre but is the essence of great acting -- not to mention theatre itself. The staging is both the natural life of a group of friends and enemies partying by a lake -- the lake is on stage and people swim, play musical instruments, jump in from 20 feet above to commit suicide, splash one another, hang from pier poles, role up on the (actual)sandy shoreline, while lighted candles float by in the water -- and at the same time the staging is a theatrical expression of the psychological levels of the play and its people which physicalizes both visually and emotionally what it all means; what Chekhov is saying. The seamless mix of all the actors playing musical instruments all through the play -- actors form a jazz band as well as play as soloists -- at almost any unexpected time while doing it so unselfconsciously as to make the inherent theatricality here seem to be just a musical extension of the character's soul, coupled with the playing of early jazz music, gloriously playful dancing and gorgeously human singing of all of sorts makes this production truly theatrical in a way that defines what theatricality actually is -- a deepening and sharpening of content and form without loosing the living emotional humanity of the actor. The stage is alive with levels of existence. Scenes are played in the foreground while the entire implied life of the play's circumstances and the production's vision continue all over the multi-leveled set behind the text based action. Never have I seen the visions of Meyerhold and Stanislavsky so fully combined. Its as if Meyerhold had Stanislavsky's great actors in his productions or as if Meyerhold was directing as Stanislavsky worked with the actors. Both sides of the coin of real theatre were onstage when one usually only gets heads or tails in the name of some director's personal "style". It is truly living psychophysical theatre seamlessly imagined as a theatrical form. This is multi-dimensional living on stage and a perfection of direction, conception and execution unknown in American theatre. One actor plays a scene with a mixture of lust, longing, anger, love, amusement and bewilderment that I did not think possible for any actor to achieve as living breathing emotional truth on stage. Something so simple as a character turning a chair on its side and sitting on that side becomes immensely expressive of the moment and the character. Truthful feeling flows everywhere and the explosive nature of emotion is given free reign in a way American theatre lost long ago. Actors use an old Meyerholdian trick of writing certain lines on the walls of the set and Dodin makes this completely natural, justified and theatrical all at once -- true theatre. The ease and relaxation of the actors on stage is terrifying -- not to mention their concentration and imaginative action plus an interpersonal emotional freedom and flow. As if all this was not enough, Dodin fashions a masterpiece out of Chekhov's early and unfinished play. I had read the play as left by Chekhov years ago and found it a tangled mess. Dodin drops around 10 characters and several lines of action in the text; adds 10 waiters/servants for the gentry class in the play (they form the jazz band and serve as kind of stage hands in tuxedos moving furniture pieces on and off, albeit justified within the play's action and set a magnificent table full of real food that is eaten on stage, especially by one piggish character) and in the process Dodin shapes a literary masterpiece as well as its theatrical embodiment out of Chekhov's messy play. I left thinking this is the most brilliant Chekhov play of all. After finally seeing what the Stanislavsky's, Meyerhold's, Vakhtangov's, Brecht's and Strasberg's dreamed of theatre being it will be hard to stomach anything less. When the art of theatre is finally achieved it is like nothing else. Too bad its as rare as a unicorn.
Friday, July 24, 2009
More on Phedre from Patrick
I am confused about theatre on many levels. One level of confusion makes itselfpronounced here as a "third voice" to the dialogue established by David'sresponse to Chuck's posting on his website about "Phaedre." To begin, I wasseated beside Chuck (his guest) when we saw the movie/play together. I felt sograteful to Chuck (someone who the theatre community continues to owe a greatdebt to) because he had invited me to witness something I afterwards felt wasVERY EXCITING for our community. I'll try to explian this, and it's difficult,largely because I don't in this moment know what I need, let alone what ourcommunity might need, as regards an aesthetic theatrical quality, and along theway I'll maybe respond to some of the points I'm remembering about the posteddialogue. It would be easier, maybe, to simply add a third "comparison" totheir two voices on David's site, but something tells me this is the better wayto express my view.I agree almost in entirely with Chuck's response and I agree with more than halfof David's. And I read them just now in the same sitting! How can this be? Apart from own confusion, apart from each of their responses being directedtoward different aspects (Chuck on the production as theatre/film and David onthe production as individual actor accomplishments/casting) there is my feelingthat I may be torn by not knowing whether I saw something new, something old,something in between (more likely) or what. I don't just mean the form of anHD film edited play, I mean "contemporary classical Greek theatre" --What excited me: it was different than most play productions or movies. I thinkof David's comment about not thinking theatre like this existed anymore. Iwould be all for more of it, the "extreme passion" sort (but I'm paraphrasingand generalizing poorly), because I think so much out there now is way too coldand minimal these days and that all the arts, maybe especially literature andfilm and plays, i.e narrative genres (yes, Howard! plays too are narratives!)are not going for the "extreme" of emotion. Partly for fear of sentimentality. But sentimentality is the underside, not the overside of emotion. "Pheadre" asperformed might be melodramatic but that is the more, not the less, of emotion,and I'd rather have the more.I agree with David's comments about Theseus (the actor) and Hyppolitus (theactor) and the real specific support David provides to back this up. (David isgood with specifics!)As for the rest of the cast, I always felt engaged, even when they were handwringing, and Helen Mirren, in particular, did a lot of this. But, as I findhands to be the second most expressive human feature, I was glad to have amedium (play film) that allowed me to watch her hands, up close, as much as Iwanted. (A whole discussion could ensue about the "medium" choices being made,i.e. when there were closeups or not, and Chuck remarks on some of this, and italways felt "good" when the camera did its thing, but we need Howard to jointhis part of the discussion, at least!)I'm reminded that to my left sat a woman who was mortified that a small group ofothers to the right of Chuck found a good number of the scenes laughable. Theylaughed out loud, at admissions of guilt, lust, incest, etc. Even here I wasconfused. At first I thought, hey, lady, let them laugh if they want, it's afree country. More and more though, I realized that the mortified woman wastaking the seriousness (call it melodrama if you want, but I don't think itwas) to heart and that the people laughing simply could not "buy" the goingson. What was it about extremes of human family dynamics they couldn't acceptas such? I have to say I don't think they were laughing at the acting (it'sjust my feeling) so much as laughing at the occurences. Here is maybe the onepoint I disagree with Chuck, if I'm remembering correctly something he saidabout the story not being plot driven . . . (again, a poor paraphrase) In myview, I thought: FINALLY! a play that goes for extreme twists, not just of fateor by fate, or even of actions, but by utterances of dialogue that turneverything, very often, on a dime, so to speak. In other words, I had theimpression they were laughing at the play. I don't think they believed thelines.Some things I really liked: The title character, played by Mirren, would feeland express one thing and almost overlappingly feel and say another,diametrically opposed, emotion. Ah, but this was the real strength (of theplay, of the production): they weren't diammetically opposed at all. Only ourreason finds them to be conflicting. Somewhere deep down inside the seeminglycontradictory feelings we feel and rarely express are all one. It's that big"one" (I don't know how else to say it just now) that is at the bottom of ourhearts that we are so incapable of uttering. That sounds so sappy. I don'tknow if I even know what I mean. But I think it relates to the notion of whatDavid brings up about the gods. Maybe what is "up there" is also "deep inside"(okay, again, maybe sappy, maybe obvious) and that we have to shout that muchlouder to reach it / tap into it. I don't know. But I do think this speaks toDavid's objections about feeling the people were "determined" by the godswhenever they let their emotions fly . . . this may be what gods are,manifestations of our inner feelings, and certainly, much of the rest of theworld sees them as such. I.e. maybe we have too "westernized" the greek godsand think them existing up there (okay, Mt. Olympus and all) when actually theyare the same but different "spirits" residing within. I came away from themovie liking that there was this kind of "down to earth, as in, inside me"aspects to the gods, EXCEPT, of course when Theseus addresses his speech toPoseiden (bad "acting") the way he did . . . Yes, there may have been too manyinstances of this, but more generally, I thought the actors were speaking tothe forces within each other, not elsewhere and maybe this was the"contemporary classical thing" I'd like to see more of?I'm reminded of something. I once saw Patrick Stewart, on film, render a longspeech by Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus (when he wails about "being the sea"as he cradles his raped and mutilated daughter) I always thought thespeech--the lines, the amount of them, the poetry, in their context--waspreposterous. Until I saw him do them. Actually, I still think the speech ispreposterous. But the actor "made them" not only believable, but riveting.Racine's lines are not "over the top" like this, but actually deal verydirectly with deeply troubling emotions. What am I trying to say? I've lostit. Maybe that in our revered Shakespeare, there is plenty that isoutrageously "unactable" and yet actors make it happen. In Racine, it's allquite close to the bone, and still people found it ludicrous? I don't know.Oh, well, one more thing. About Ted Hughes: I think his retelling of Ovid's"Metamorphoses" (poems which were among the last he wrote) are stunning. Here,in "Phaedre," I heard unevenness in the lines of the play. I can't technicallyexplain it, except to say that I heard places where the modern idiomaticexpressions didn't jive with the rest of the whole. I would want to visit theRacine on the page, see Hughes's changes, and say more, but . . .Thanks to Chuck and David for their insights.
Patrick
Patrick
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Phedre Thoughts Comparison
Chuch Graham has a review of Phedre on TucsonStage/Let The Show Begin. He saw it at the Loft of Sunday. My own thoughts on Phedre are below in my previous post. Just for fun, I've a assembled a few quotes for comparison. I love Chuck's use of language in his descriptions.
Enjoy.
You just don’t see theater like this anymore, at least not in the good ol’ USA.
-Chuck
I didn't think this kind of acting existed anymore. I didn't think this type of understanding, interpretation and execution of plays existed anymore
-David
Appreciating this kind of performance does require a different sensibility, a willingness to follow every actor over the top and straight down into dark twists of writhing personalities conveyed in pure animalistic frenzy.
-Chuck
Let me put that in perspective. I can endure, even enjoy at times, a little affectation and melodramatic ranting. This damn near wore me down though.
-David
“Phaedra” projects a torque-jawed realm of drama powered by such a muscular mental connection the visceral response is immediate.
-Chuck
It was a weird one-hundred percent falsely wrought presentation of a brilliant play.
-David
These acting talents are so much larger than life – their dialogue the brute force equivalent of broad swords and sabers hacking and slashing at each other. Lusty appetites on a mythic scale.
-Chuck
Cliche, Over-Acting and Obvious Wailing and Intoning of False Passions - Thy name is this production.
-David
Stripped of subtlety, rushing headlong into vein-popping expressions of conflict, the psychology of revenge feels cut from bulky blocks of granite compulsively banging away.
-Chuck
It was like a bunch of freaks suffering uncontrollably at the hands of the gods, fate.
-David
While the plot is never the point but more of an excuse for the characters to bludgeon each other with words, “Phaedra” does remind us “when passion boils, reason evaporates.”
-Chuck
Those traits that made/make the Greek Dramatists (and Racine in this case too) so interesting, things like complexity, reasoning, curiosity, were nowhere to be found in this production.
-David
Blood will be spilled before this is over.
-Chuck
Give a guy his beer drinking spear throwing moments!
-David
Enjoy.
You just don’t see theater like this anymore, at least not in the good ol’ USA.
-Chuck
I didn't think this kind of acting existed anymore. I didn't think this type of understanding, interpretation and execution of plays existed anymore
-David
Appreciating this kind of performance does require a different sensibility, a willingness to follow every actor over the top and straight down into dark twists of writhing personalities conveyed in pure animalistic frenzy.
-Chuck
Let me put that in perspective. I can endure, even enjoy at times, a little affectation and melodramatic ranting. This damn near wore me down though.
-David
“Phaedra” projects a torque-jawed realm of drama powered by such a muscular mental connection the visceral response is immediate.
-Chuck
It was a weird one-hundred percent falsely wrought presentation of a brilliant play.
-David
These acting talents are so much larger than life – their dialogue the brute force equivalent of broad swords and sabers hacking and slashing at each other. Lusty appetites on a mythic scale.
-Chuck
Cliche, Over-Acting and Obvious Wailing and Intoning of False Passions - Thy name is this production.
-David
Stripped of subtlety, rushing headlong into vein-popping expressions of conflict, the psychology of revenge feels cut from bulky blocks of granite compulsively banging away.
-Chuck
It was like a bunch of freaks suffering uncontrollably at the hands of the gods, fate.
-David
While the plot is never the point but more of an excuse for the characters to bludgeon each other with words, “Phaedra” does remind us “when passion boils, reason evaporates.”
-Chuck
Those traits that made/make the Greek Dramatists (and Racine in this case too) so interesting, things like complexity, reasoning, curiosity, were nowhere to be found in this production.
-David
Blood will be spilled before this is over.
-Chuck
Give a guy his beer drinking spear throwing moments!
-David
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Phedre in HD
I had a wonderful time getting together with friends, Howard and Royce, and their respective mothers last night, for a quick bite to eat (soup at Miss Saigon) and then to see "Phedre" the National Theatre's HD presentation showing at The Loft. For those of you who might not know, this is a Jean Racine version translated and adapted by Ted Hughes. Its a stage performance filmed in HD.
The company and the conversation of the night was glorious, a real treat.
The production itself, hmmm. There was a gentleman I didn't know sitting to my left. At the end he turned to me and said "You are a actor aren't you? Or involved in theatre somehow?" I half nodded the truth. He continued, "I thought she (meaning Helen Mirren as Phedre) was in over her head. I thought knowing her she would at least give some moments recognizable as real human behavior. Instead all we got was sing songy words and playing with the voice. What did you think?" I nodded again, in complete agreement with his quick assessment. Cliche, Over-Acting and Obvious Wailing and Intoning of False Passions - Thy name is this production. It was a weird one-hundred percent falsely wrought presentation of a brilliant play.
Let me put that in perspective. I can endure, even enjoy at times, a little affectation and melodramatic ranting. This damn near wore me down though. In all honesty, I didn't think this kind of acting existed anymore. I didn't think this type of understanding, interpretation and execution of plays existed anymore. Boy was I wrong. Its alive and well and apparently thriving at the National Theatre, London. From this production we would be forced to deduce that human behavior has only a handful of possibilities. If you are feeling bad, look down, or away from everyone. If you are thinking of love, look up with wide eyes. If you get some bad news, bend over like you were punched in the gut. If you have some news to tell, get generally excited and frantic. Everyone wring your hands at all times. And always, always, always, intone in the most obvious fashion the very sound of the words you are speaking, i.e. if the word is "roar," make a roaring sound with your voice as you speak it. If the word is "chopped," clip it sharp and hard and fast like you are chopping something. Whine and wail constantly and never, ever, ever do anything but be perfectly still if you are not talking.
Those traits that made/make the Greek Dramatists (and Racine in this case too) so interesting, things like complexity, reasoning, curiosity, were nowhere to be found in this production. It was like a bunch of freaks suffering uncontrollably at the hands of the gods, fate. As opposed to an epic and detailed battle of human thought and feeling and intention verses the gods, fate. Its a "battle" we all face, even as today we soothe ourselves with the mantra "everything happens for a reason" (meaning a good reason). Dramatist put this conflict on the page right up through Hamlet, which is more or less a turning point, eventually leading on to Dramas where humans started working and thinking in consideration with each other rather than only as heroic individuals in relationship to fate.
The Greeks had this notion, which is evident if you closely examine the script, the events, the words, that when emotion overtakes an individual, it is the gods intervening. That is why in those moments that read or seem to be "emotional" the characters are talking to the gods, cursing the gods, making deals with the gods, etc. The characters know the gods are stepping in. These actions, these times by the characters (the actors really) therefore must have a different quality than the rest. Prior to, or after the gods intervention, the emotion, there must be a real sense of human reasoning and feeling and individual control. There cannot be the same level or quality of emotion or else the logic is completely defeated and you end up with this unwieldy and unrecognizable blend of activity that this production had. For example, when the King finally makes the pact with Poseidon to kill his son, this should have a distinctive ritualistic quality of behavior that is different from the Kings otherwise behavior. The emotion is present and different. In this production that moment carried the same grouchy and irritated quality as the rest of the dude's behavior. Physically it was nothing really - actually kind of stagy and awkward. It could and should be a sadly but beautifully revealing moment and it simply wasn't. And lots, all, of those types of opportunities were lost, gone, non-existent in this production. The specifics just were not there and it makes me wonder how much the director and the actors even considered it all. I had a hard time believing that Phedre, in her supremely melodramatic state of suffering was capable of composing a letter to her stepson such as the one in Ovid's version for example. Now granted we/they were working with Racine's script as translated and adapted by Hughes, not Ovid's work, but even it (Racine's) offers and carries a certain degree of creative and complex thought and reason by the characters, guided by knowledge and intention - individual control in other words. To render those thoughts and words as if they are guided by whining and out of control emotional states makes no sense. It creates a falsity, an evident and confusing one for the spectator.
The fact that Hippolytus is supposed to be a hunter and love the dynamic activity of being outdoors, sport, while not completely lost in this production, is made non-influencing. Phaedra is supposed to like the fact that he "is not a man who looks like a girl." Hippolytus is rugged and tested and proven physically in every way except the way he wants - in war and large events. The actor in this production certainly had the potential for that except he looked more like Hollywood tanned and tamed. They should have taken those good looks and charisma and turned them wild instead. Let the actor have his day in the sun so to speak, not the tanning booth. Give a guy his beer drinking spear throwing moments! He's a John-John riding his bike, flying his plane, skateboarding, dare-devil waiting his turn. It should be reasonable and understanding that women of all ages want him. In this production he was a little too much like one of the confused cousins.
Each of the other characters have "traits" as given in the various legends and myths which to my way of thinking were not evident or present in this production and which also could/should play key factors in establishing or revealing the action. I won't go into them all.
Just to throw in something I did like - the running water, the faucet, plumbing - something the Greeks did have in that place and time. Too bad it wasn't used but once in a random way!
But what a great night otherwise! And I am certainly glad I got to see this trendy and popular HD filmed production.
The company and the conversation of the night was glorious, a real treat.
The production itself, hmmm. There was a gentleman I didn't know sitting to my left. At the end he turned to me and said "You are a actor aren't you? Or involved in theatre somehow?" I half nodded the truth. He continued, "I thought she (meaning Helen Mirren as Phedre) was in over her head. I thought knowing her she would at least give some moments recognizable as real human behavior. Instead all we got was sing songy words and playing with the voice. What did you think?" I nodded again, in complete agreement with his quick assessment. Cliche, Over-Acting and Obvious Wailing and Intoning of False Passions - Thy name is this production. It was a weird one-hundred percent falsely wrought presentation of a brilliant play.
Let me put that in perspective. I can endure, even enjoy at times, a little affectation and melodramatic ranting. This damn near wore me down though. In all honesty, I didn't think this kind of acting existed anymore. I didn't think this type of understanding, interpretation and execution of plays existed anymore. Boy was I wrong. Its alive and well and apparently thriving at the National Theatre, London. From this production we would be forced to deduce that human behavior has only a handful of possibilities. If you are feeling bad, look down, or away from everyone. If you are thinking of love, look up with wide eyes. If you get some bad news, bend over like you were punched in the gut. If you have some news to tell, get generally excited and frantic. Everyone wring your hands at all times. And always, always, always, intone in the most obvious fashion the very sound of the words you are speaking, i.e. if the word is "roar," make a roaring sound with your voice as you speak it. If the word is "chopped," clip it sharp and hard and fast like you are chopping something. Whine and wail constantly and never, ever, ever do anything but be perfectly still if you are not talking.
Those traits that made/make the Greek Dramatists (and Racine in this case too) so interesting, things like complexity, reasoning, curiosity, were nowhere to be found in this production. It was like a bunch of freaks suffering uncontrollably at the hands of the gods, fate. As opposed to an epic and detailed battle of human thought and feeling and intention verses the gods, fate. Its a "battle" we all face, even as today we soothe ourselves with the mantra "everything happens for a reason" (meaning a good reason). Dramatist put this conflict on the page right up through Hamlet, which is more or less a turning point, eventually leading on to Dramas where humans started working and thinking in consideration with each other rather than only as heroic individuals in relationship to fate.
The Greeks had this notion, which is evident if you closely examine the script, the events, the words, that when emotion overtakes an individual, it is the gods intervening. That is why in those moments that read or seem to be "emotional" the characters are talking to the gods, cursing the gods, making deals with the gods, etc. The characters know the gods are stepping in. These actions, these times by the characters (the actors really) therefore must have a different quality than the rest. Prior to, or after the gods intervention, the emotion, there must be a real sense of human reasoning and feeling and individual control. There cannot be the same level or quality of emotion or else the logic is completely defeated and you end up with this unwieldy and unrecognizable blend of activity that this production had. For example, when the King finally makes the pact with Poseidon to kill his son, this should have a distinctive ritualistic quality of behavior that is different from the Kings otherwise behavior. The emotion is present and different. In this production that moment carried the same grouchy and irritated quality as the rest of the dude's behavior. Physically it was nothing really - actually kind of stagy and awkward. It could and should be a sadly but beautifully revealing moment and it simply wasn't. And lots, all, of those types of opportunities were lost, gone, non-existent in this production. The specifics just were not there and it makes me wonder how much the director and the actors even considered it all. I had a hard time believing that Phedre, in her supremely melodramatic state of suffering was capable of composing a letter to her stepson such as the one in Ovid's version for example. Now granted we/they were working with Racine's script as translated and adapted by Hughes, not Ovid's work, but even it (Racine's) offers and carries a certain degree of creative and complex thought and reason by the characters, guided by knowledge and intention - individual control in other words. To render those thoughts and words as if they are guided by whining and out of control emotional states makes no sense. It creates a falsity, an evident and confusing one for the spectator.
The fact that Hippolytus is supposed to be a hunter and love the dynamic activity of being outdoors, sport, while not completely lost in this production, is made non-influencing. Phaedra is supposed to like the fact that he "is not a man who looks like a girl." Hippolytus is rugged and tested and proven physically in every way except the way he wants - in war and large events. The actor in this production certainly had the potential for that except he looked more like Hollywood tanned and tamed. They should have taken those good looks and charisma and turned them wild instead. Let the actor have his day in the sun so to speak, not the tanning booth. Give a guy his beer drinking spear throwing moments! He's a John-John riding his bike, flying his plane, skateboarding, dare-devil waiting his turn. It should be reasonable and understanding that women of all ages want him. In this production he was a little too much like one of the confused cousins.
Each of the other characters have "traits" as given in the various legends and myths which to my way of thinking were not evident or present in this production and which also could/should play key factors in establishing or revealing the action. I won't go into them all.
Just to throw in something I did like - the running water, the faucet, plumbing - something the Greeks did have in that place and time. Too bad it wasn't used but once in a random way!
But what a great night otherwise! And I am certainly glad I got to see this trendy and popular HD filmed production.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Technique and Value - Mastery and Liberation
In a letter from Franco Ruffini to Eugenio Barba, Ruffini mentions a distinction which he attributes to Stanislavsky regarding "the work of the actor" and "the work on oneself." The explanation is that Stanislavsky had entitled his first intended book for actors "The Work of the Actor On Oneself." And it's in two parts. Part one is "The Work on Oneself in the Creative Process of Experiencing." Part two is "The Work on Oneself in the Creative Process of Embodying." Ruffini implies that Stanislavsky, in titling his book so, had added two concepts together - work on oneself and work of the actor (work refers to training and preparation). In separating and explaining these two inter-related concepts Ruffini says "The work of the actor is the way to become a master; work on oneself is a way to become free. The way to master (the body, the feelings, the will) in opposition to the way to liberate (the body, the feelings, the will)."
I have had many conversations with friends and colleagues and students about this idea of Ruffini's. In setting Stanislavsky's work in this context of "mastery and liberation," Ruffini gives it an 'Eastern" philisophical bent - one that goes much further and is much wiser and much more insightful than merely saying Stanislavsky was influenced by Yoga or was "mystical." Ruffini goes on to put it in other terms though, "Western" terms if you will. He says "Mastery" is the way of "Technique" while "Liberation" is "Value." No matter the terms, to me there is brilliance in Ruffini's assesment - and truth, whether Stanislavsky overtly communicated such thoughts or not. An actor must master his/her body, feelings, will while at the same time freeing his/her body, feelings, will, arriving finally with technique and value.
What does it mean to "free" or "liberate" your body exactly? What would an example of such be? It sounds romantic and all to be free with your body and move uninhibitedly and all that. But thats a generalized condition and doesn't convey the precise work in this regard for the actor, of Stanislavsky and others intention. Therefore we turn Grotowski. We turn Strasberg, for concrete examples. Take a single, common, everyday gesture by an actor, something with the arms, hand, shoulder for example. In all probability the gesture is one of habit for the actor, one that he/she frequently generates in life as well. On the stage it may seem to the actor that he/she executed the gesture spontaneously - which may be true in one regard - but not in the important ones. The "value" of this habitual gesture would include its personal associations, its orgin, the level of awareness with which it was done, and its quality of energy. In all likihood it carries a large degree of "comfort" - rendering it banal. In short the body is slave to the habit in this case and all that does or doesn't go along with that in a particular gesture. Through concious technique though, ala Grotowski or Strasberg for example, technique which incompasses muscular relaxation, sensory awareness, rythm and energy and other related componets, the actor is able to "re-educate" their body and soon will reproduce the exact same gesture but now with a whole new "value." Through technique the body is freed from the habitual impulses and associations of its movement, and free now to imaginitively pick and choose, to create, its own impulses and associations. The same gesture is no longer banal but rather is imbued with an in-the-moment aliveness, executed with true spontenaiety and rich in meaning and consequence for both the actor and the spectator.
Master the technique and free the body. The same would be true for the feelings and the will if we follow through with Ruffini's premise.
This notion of "re-education," of mastery and liberation, for indeed it constitutes a re-education when undertaken, so as to be creatively free and not slave to habit, is the reason Stanislavsky stressed things like Sense Memory till his dying day and not Soviet Pavlovian ideas of Physical Action. One serves to assume and propose freedom of associations and impulses, the other assumes and proposes habitual and singular impulses and associations. And the layers, the depth and width of the genius of Stanislavsky's work and ideas becomes ever more intricate. His brilliance ever more clear.
I have had many conversations with friends and colleagues and students about this idea of Ruffini's. In setting Stanislavsky's work in this context of "mastery and liberation," Ruffini gives it an 'Eastern" philisophical bent - one that goes much further and is much wiser and much more insightful than merely saying Stanislavsky was influenced by Yoga or was "mystical." Ruffini goes on to put it in other terms though, "Western" terms if you will. He says "Mastery" is the way of "Technique" while "Liberation" is "Value." No matter the terms, to me there is brilliance in Ruffini's assesment - and truth, whether Stanislavsky overtly communicated such thoughts or not. An actor must master his/her body, feelings, will while at the same time freeing his/her body, feelings, will, arriving finally with technique and value.
What does it mean to "free" or "liberate" your body exactly? What would an example of such be? It sounds romantic and all to be free with your body and move uninhibitedly and all that. But thats a generalized condition and doesn't convey the precise work in this regard for the actor, of Stanislavsky and others intention. Therefore we turn Grotowski. We turn Strasberg, for concrete examples. Take a single, common, everyday gesture by an actor, something with the arms, hand, shoulder for example. In all probability the gesture is one of habit for the actor, one that he/she frequently generates in life as well. On the stage it may seem to the actor that he/she executed the gesture spontaneously - which may be true in one regard - but not in the important ones. The "value" of this habitual gesture would include its personal associations, its orgin, the level of awareness with which it was done, and its quality of energy. In all likihood it carries a large degree of "comfort" - rendering it banal. In short the body is slave to the habit in this case and all that does or doesn't go along with that in a particular gesture. Through concious technique though, ala Grotowski or Strasberg for example, technique which incompasses muscular relaxation, sensory awareness, rythm and energy and other related componets, the actor is able to "re-educate" their body and soon will reproduce the exact same gesture but now with a whole new "value." Through technique the body is freed from the habitual impulses and associations of its movement, and free now to imaginitively pick and choose, to create, its own impulses and associations. The same gesture is no longer banal but rather is imbued with an in-the-moment aliveness, executed with true spontenaiety and rich in meaning and consequence for both the actor and the spectator.
Master the technique and free the body. The same would be true for the feelings and the will if we follow through with Ruffini's premise.
This notion of "re-education," of mastery and liberation, for indeed it constitutes a re-education when undertaken, so as to be creatively free and not slave to habit, is the reason Stanislavsky stressed things like Sense Memory till his dying day and not Soviet Pavlovian ideas of Physical Action. One serves to assume and propose freedom of associations and impulses, the other assumes and proposes habitual and singular impulses and associations. And the layers, the depth and width of the genius of Stanislavsky's work and ideas becomes ever more intricate. His brilliance ever more clear.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
A Little Something Personal
Home alone, in the swimming pool and wearing swimming goggles, I am more like nine or ten years of age than forty-seven. Diving down four or five feet to retrieve those leaves off the bottom has become my deep sea expedition. It only gets worse from there - as in detailed. The green leaves mean one thing, the brown ones something else, and the black ones something else still. Then of course there are the reasons why I must dive down to these depths of this lost sea, along with the difficulties and the dangers of course. After I drank a Guinness, I took on the more superhuman qualities in my fantasy pretend. It was bad. Luckily I did refrain from making sound effects and talking out loud to myself during this episode. I'm chalking it up to acting practice!
Friday, July 17, 2009
Steve Anderson
Steve Anderson is offering a weekend intensive workshop for actors - check out details on steveandersonacting.com. If you have never met or worked with Steve then you are in for a treat. He is, simply put, an awesome person, teacher, director and actor.
I first encountered and met Steve a few years back when I attended a presentation of scenes by Nathalia Stage Ensemble, a kind of public presentation meant as a fundraiser/awareness raising opportunity. Steve came out and spoke to the spectators beforehand, gave an introduction to the group. I 'bout fell out of my seat! I knew the implications of what he was subtly and not so subtly saying. Nathalia he said, was going to create an ensemble of players, based on training and common technique and general philosophy and approach to life.
Let me mention that there are "ensembles" and then there are Ensembles. The first is the bandied about term that means lots of people on stage or no one is the star of the show, we all get along or group developed single show, things like that - common, ordinary, everyday stuff in theatre. The second one is rare, extraordinary, and you are about as likely to encounter one of these in America as you are to encounter a jaguar in here in Southern Arizona. They exist, or try to, but rarely do we find them manifest fully. Steve was talking about this second kind that night - a real theatre group - as opposed to merely a producing organization.
A producing Organization is a one that keeps in place Administrative Staff and usually an Artistic Director. They choose shows on the basis of several factors but more or less as a museum would, presenting the "best works" and "best new works" that seem relevant somehow for the day and hopefully shall be entertaining. Actors, as I wrote in an earlier post, do not yet factor in this process - even though they and the spectator are the only two irremovable elements in theatre.
Actors are jobbed in for a show then sent away once the show closes.
A real theatre group is one that keeps a permanent artistic set of people - actors and directors. This group exists or is alive in this way, as a living body of artists who share common artistic technique and philosophy. They envision their work as a long term endeavor - as opposed to a single show. Shows are chosen based on the group itself, the people, and the philosophy.
Back to Nathalia's night of scenes. I watched these scenes, which had been prepared in their workshops, and lo and behold, here were actors in the very beginning stages of developing a conscious technique, individually and collectively. More so, it was to my aesthetic taste, simple, real, honest, full. Or rather I could discern that as the intent behind the effort. Let me quote from Steve's website: "I believe that an actor must have faith in who they are, and that who they are is the very thing that makes their performance engaging and undeniably rich. We do not present a 'character' to an audience - we reveal parts of ourselves through that character." Music to my ears. Now before those of you who swear that the playwright is the only creative artist allowed in the theatre, and those of you who want pure academic and intellectual pursuit of "character" get carried away, let me say...shut up. Because you always assume its an "either-or" situation. Either the character, as represented by the little graphic letters on the page, is sacrificed for the blasphemous self-indulgence of the actor, or somehow, magically and impossibly there is this pure one-hundred percent adherence and rendition of some perceived perfect effect represented by the little graphic characters on the page. If by chance you are still thinking that or some resemblance of that, its time to grow up - theatrically speaking - and recognize that is a "yes-and" situation. YES the character as written by the playwright has specific purposes and intent AND those cannot be brought alive on stage by an actor without some in-the-moment self-revelation by the actor.
I next saw Nathalia when I went to see their production of The Hot L Baltimore which Steve directed. Here now before me was the next large step taken in the life of a real Ensemble, a beautifully conceived and executed production filled with the personalities of the actors flowing through, highly interesting. What it lacked in detail and spontaneity and full force would surely be remedied over time with continued work. Already though with this production Nathalia had achieved a level coherence and ease so as to be easily distinguished from the usual fare we see on stage. There was none of the posing and ACTING and wink-wink, nod-nod, and indication and oversimplifying going on that we usually witness. Not everyone was crossing downstage center to speak when it was there turn. The production had its own unique physical life - different from the conventional and cliched ones we usually see. I was impressed!
My next work with Steve really came in the form of a scene from the play Waiting For Lefty which I was directing as part of a project at Prescott College. Steve and Harris Kendall played Joe and Edna. How do I describe what they did? It was electrifying. It was painful - as in great sex painful. Yes, that good. Painful in the sense of what the characters were experiencing with each other, but oh so good! OMG! Steve and Harris would arrive at the rehearsal room with complete focus, ready to work. No chit chatting, none of that I feel tired today, or anything like that. Michael Jordanesque - performances are easy because the rehearsals are so difficult. (For anyone not understanding that reference, Michael Jordan, the basketball player, was known for his intensity and focus during practices, more so even than during actual games. He was known to chide, push and even fight his teammates when he didn't believe they were working hard enough during practice. He was known to set up his own competitive situations within the coaches set practice in order to make things far more challenging for himself than any game ever would be). They came to work and work they did. They would usually begin before I arrived ready myself in the room. I have been in many workshops, classrooms, and rehearsals since then - about six years or more - and nothing has come close to approximating the simple and profound atmosphere that Steve and Harris established for their work on that scene consistently. In the end they were indeed brilliant.
Later I had to good chance and fortune to do readings and smaller presentations, talks and discussions with Steve. He is magnificent to work with. He is charming and funny and polite and adaptable. He is intelligent and insightful and gifted. If you have the opportunity to attend his workshop - Go!
Addendum - here is what I wrote about Steve in a previous post, the one entitled "I love Patrick"
"Now Steve Anderson shouldn't need an introduction but he is perhaps the best kept secret in all of Tucson when it comes to acting, directing, teaching, play analysis, Theatre in general, and all around great work. He is not, however, unknown to his students and family and those of us who have been lucky enough to work with him. I have had to cancel many projects because Steve was not available and no one else would do. At least its so in my fantasy and imagination."
And here he is emerging with this workshop! Its great!
I first encountered and met Steve a few years back when I attended a presentation of scenes by Nathalia Stage Ensemble, a kind of public presentation meant as a fundraiser/awareness raising opportunity. Steve came out and spoke to the spectators beforehand, gave an introduction to the group. I 'bout fell out of my seat! I knew the implications of what he was subtly and not so subtly saying. Nathalia he said, was going to create an ensemble of players, based on training and common technique and general philosophy and approach to life.
Let me mention that there are "ensembles" and then there are Ensembles. The first is the bandied about term that means lots of people on stage or no one is the star of the show, we all get along or group developed single show, things like that - common, ordinary, everyday stuff in theatre. The second one is rare, extraordinary, and you are about as likely to encounter one of these in America as you are to encounter a jaguar in here in Southern Arizona. They exist, or try to, but rarely do we find them manifest fully. Steve was talking about this second kind that night - a real theatre group - as opposed to merely a producing organization.
A producing Organization is a one that keeps in place Administrative Staff and usually an Artistic Director. They choose shows on the basis of several factors but more or less as a museum would, presenting the "best works" and "best new works" that seem relevant somehow for the day and hopefully shall be entertaining. Actors, as I wrote in an earlier post, do not yet factor in this process - even though they and the spectator are the only two irremovable elements in theatre.
Actors are jobbed in for a show then sent away once the show closes.
A real theatre group is one that keeps a permanent artistic set of people - actors and directors. This group exists or is alive in this way, as a living body of artists who share common artistic technique and philosophy. They envision their work as a long term endeavor - as opposed to a single show. Shows are chosen based on the group itself, the people, and the philosophy.
Back to Nathalia's night of scenes. I watched these scenes, which had been prepared in their workshops, and lo and behold, here were actors in the very beginning stages of developing a conscious technique, individually and collectively. More so, it was to my aesthetic taste, simple, real, honest, full. Or rather I could discern that as the intent behind the effort. Let me quote from Steve's website: "I believe that an actor must have faith in who they are, and that who they are is the very thing that makes their performance engaging and undeniably rich. We do not present a 'character' to an audience - we reveal parts of ourselves through that character." Music to my ears. Now before those of you who swear that the playwright is the only creative artist allowed in the theatre, and those of you who want pure academic and intellectual pursuit of "character" get carried away, let me say...shut up. Because you always assume its an "either-or" situation. Either the character, as represented by the little graphic letters on the page, is sacrificed for the blasphemous self-indulgence of the actor, or somehow, magically and impossibly there is this pure one-hundred percent adherence and rendition of some perceived perfect effect represented by the little graphic characters on the page. If by chance you are still thinking that or some resemblance of that, its time to grow up - theatrically speaking - and recognize that is a "yes-and" situation. YES the character as written by the playwright has specific purposes and intent AND those cannot be brought alive on stage by an actor without some in-the-moment self-revelation by the actor.
I next saw Nathalia when I went to see their production of The Hot L Baltimore which Steve directed. Here now before me was the next large step taken in the life of a real Ensemble, a beautifully conceived and executed production filled with the personalities of the actors flowing through, highly interesting. What it lacked in detail and spontaneity and full force would surely be remedied over time with continued work. Already though with this production Nathalia had achieved a level coherence and ease so as to be easily distinguished from the usual fare we see on stage. There was none of the posing and ACTING and wink-wink, nod-nod, and indication and oversimplifying going on that we usually witness. Not everyone was crossing downstage center to speak when it was there turn. The production had its own unique physical life - different from the conventional and cliched ones we usually see. I was impressed!
My next work with Steve really came in the form of a scene from the play Waiting For Lefty which I was directing as part of a project at Prescott College. Steve and Harris Kendall played Joe and Edna. How do I describe what they did? It was electrifying. It was painful - as in great sex painful. Yes, that good. Painful in the sense of what the characters were experiencing with each other, but oh so good! OMG! Steve and Harris would arrive at the rehearsal room with complete focus, ready to work. No chit chatting, none of that I feel tired today, or anything like that. Michael Jordanesque - performances are easy because the rehearsals are so difficult. (For anyone not understanding that reference, Michael Jordan, the basketball player, was known for his intensity and focus during practices, more so even than during actual games. He was known to chide, push and even fight his teammates when he didn't believe they were working hard enough during practice. He was known to set up his own competitive situations within the coaches set practice in order to make things far more challenging for himself than any game ever would be). They came to work and work they did. They would usually begin before I arrived ready myself in the room. I have been in many workshops, classrooms, and rehearsals since then - about six years or more - and nothing has come close to approximating the simple and profound atmosphere that Steve and Harris established for their work on that scene consistently. In the end they were indeed brilliant.
Later I had to good chance and fortune to do readings and smaller presentations, talks and discussions with Steve. He is magnificent to work with. He is charming and funny and polite and adaptable. He is intelligent and insightful and gifted. If you have the opportunity to attend his workshop - Go!
Addendum - here is what I wrote about Steve in a previous post, the one entitled "I love Patrick"
"Now Steve Anderson shouldn't need an introduction but he is perhaps the best kept secret in all of Tucson when it comes to acting, directing, teaching, play analysis, Theatre in general, and all around great work. He is not, however, unknown to his students and family and those of us who have been lucky enough to work with him. I have had to cancel many projects because Steve was not available and no one else would do. At least its so in my fantasy and imagination."
And here he is emerging with this workshop! Its great!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Passing Strange and Wonderful
"Passing Strange and Wonderful; aesthetics, nature, and culture" is a book by Yi-Fu Tuan. It was published in 1993. It's one of those books you read and say to yourself "yes, yes, I know this. I recognize this. Because of acting. Because of theatre. Because of people like Stanislavsky or Lee Strasberg. I get it." I like this book alot actually.
Here is a quote from the third page of the main text:
"The aesthetic impulse, understood as "the senses come to life" directs attention to its roots in nature. But though rooted in nature (biology), it is directed and colored by culture."
You can easily guess what I like about that - the senses come to life!
Here is a quote from the prologue:
"Yet the pervasive role of aesthetic is suggested by its root meaning of "feeling" - not just any kind of feeling, but "shaped" feeling and sensitive perception. And it is suggested even more by its opposite, anaesthetic, "lack of feeling" - the condition of living death. The more we are attuned to the beauties of the world, the more we come to life and take joy in it."
Need I compare and begin to speak of sense memory and Stanislavsky's notion of "return to life" under the conditions of the stage - "Perezhivanie." No, I don't have to because Tuan does it in the book for me. In describing the "senses come to life," Tuan breaks down the sections of the book by each individual one, each sense, and is even wise enough to have a sub-title called "bonding and memory" where he describes the sense of smell as being powerfully linked to our past emotions and experiences. He describes evidence of life as movement, meaning in this case moment by moment sensory awareness and activity - just like old Stanislavsky did.
Later on he talks about how the senses function together forming action - Its like a Robert Ellermann acting class I swear! Not as precise as Ellermann but good none-the-less.
In terms of developing an Aesthetic Impulse, Tuan list five aspects or characteristics. The first three ring loud and clear in acting terms. 1. Timelessness and Sensory Delight 2. Capacity for Wonder 3. Remembrance of Things Past and - 4 and 5 are not bad for the actor either, Growth in Competence, Growth in Sensibility.
The second half of the book is Tuan comparing how these factors take shape in particular cultures. Its pretty fascinating reading some of the explanations and anecdotes.
Here is a quote from the third page of the main text:
"The aesthetic impulse, understood as "the senses come to life" directs attention to its roots in nature. But though rooted in nature (biology), it is directed and colored by culture."
You can easily guess what I like about that - the senses come to life!
Here is a quote from the prologue:
"Yet the pervasive role of aesthetic is suggested by its root meaning of "feeling" - not just any kind of feeling, but "shaped" feeling and sensitive perception. And it is suggested even more by its opposite, anaesthetic, "lack of feeling" - the condition of living death. The more we are attuned to the beauties of the world, the more we come to life and take joy in it."
Need I compare and begin to speak of sense memory and Stanislavsky's notion of "return to life" under the conditions of the stage - "Perezhivanie." No, I don't have to because Tuan does it in the book for me. In describing the "senses come to life," Tuan breaks down the sections of the book by each individual one, each sense, and is even wise enough to have a sub-title called "bonding and memory" where he describes the sense of smell as being powerfully linked to our past emotions and experiences. He describes evidence of life as movement, meaning in this case moment by moment sensory awareness and activity - just like old Stanislavsky did.
Later on he talks about how the senses function together forming action - Its like a Robert Ellermann acting class I swear! Not as precise as Ellermann but good none-the-less.
In terms of developing an Aesthetic Impulse, Tuan list five aspects or characteristics. The first three ring loud and clear in acting terms. 1. Timelessness and Sensory Delight 2. Capacity for Wonder 3. Remembrance of Things Past and - 4 and 5 are not bad for the actor either, Growth in Competence, Growth in Sensibility.
The second half of the book is Tuan comparing how these factors take shape in particular cultures. Its pretty fascinating reading some of the explanations and anecdotes.
Great Performances!
This post must begin with two disclaimer points.
-I have not seen every show in town in recent years.
-I frequent some theatres more than others when I do go.
That said, I am going to list some of the best work I have seen and remember on stage here in Tucson. I'm going to try and mention why I believe it was good in a brief kind of way - not in a purely objective way - I am going to let my personal bias, opinion and descriptions happen in this case. Since my list won't be all inclusive of the best work as many I just didn't see, I am hoping others will join in via the comments and remind me or tell me of some other great ones.
My list, in no particular order.
Caroline Reed in The Seagull - Tucson Art Theatre. A few years back under the direction of Cindy Meier, Caroline just rocked the house as Arkadina. Her thoughts and emotions as that character turned on a dime - a whirlwind of passion! In that same production Annette Hillmann as Masha and Harris Kendall as Nina were pretty darn incredible.
Susan Arnold in The Hot L Baltimore - Nathalia Stage Ensemble. Some might have forgotten this production or this group but not me, nor have I forgotten Susan's work in it. She was bold, funny, sarcastic, tragic, and everything in between seemingly all at once and throughout.
Christopher Johnson in Lemon Sky - Live Theatre Workshop. Simple and almost real, charismatic and charming, Christopher was excellent.
AnnaMarie Irons (formerly Greenwood in the billing) in The Glass Menagerie - Tucson Art Theatre. So real and so raw that people used to wait outside the theatre afterwards or come to the dressing room to see if she was O.K. I remember one particular person practically breaking down themselves until AnnaMarie came out to show herself and speak with her. There was nothing flamboyant in the work, just this profound and slow accumulation of events toward the tragic end.
Roberta Striecher in The Dead - Rogue Theatre. Just beautiful, artistic and beautiful. The one line regarding the most beautiful tenor will forever be lodged in my memory. Roberta's delivery had everything you could ever ask for in a line - thoughts of the past coupled with the present situation, emotions and circumstance, love, joy, sadness, intention, clarity, meaning, musicality, and several other things really, the list could go on and on.
Carlise Ellis in a show I saw several years back at the Cabaret Theatre, Temple of Music and Art.I have no idea what the show was and can't remember what group put it together. But I remember specifically Carlise's work. The show had minimal, as in almost none, set and props, just actors talking to the audience and to each other. It was an intimate and imaginative portrayal by Carlise, completely graceful but so very complex.
Kenton Jones in the Cherry Orchard - Rogue Theatre. An unusual, pretty darn daring and imaginative performance as Pishchik.
I'll keep my list that brief for now though there are certainly others I can think of. Fill me in on yours!
Monday, July 13, 2009
Togetherness
Recently I have had the privilege, and I mean that with the utmost sincerity, of being asked to help someone in a time of particular need. The requests came via email and many of you perhaps received them as well, as the "theatre community' is "small." One request had to do with an extraordinary opportunity, a chance to study and learn. The second request involves health and medical procedure.
I think everyone I know, family and friends, is inclined really to give help, aid, when and how they can when it is needed. In most instances it just goes without saying. There is a modest and completely honest way that many good people have of just looking out for one another. In these difficult economic times and with the constant strife and confusion heard 'round the world daily, that spirit of "togetherness" is slowly emerging, coming to the forefront. It showed itself largely after 9/11 but was quickly beaten back and repressed by the politics following. For a brief moment though, tragic as the event was, the world seemed "nice." In a space and time we all realized our need and love for one another, our interdependence, our mortality, etc. But not in that begrudging sense. We did it knowing and thinking that it was a good thing to do, the right thing - as opposed to something we had to do just to survive.
This time, I hope the rally of this kind of spirit has more friends in high and powerful places. Or that we just simply refuse to harden as a group. "Don't give me ice when your heart's on fire!" Besides desire and love affair, that line of Odet's speaks to the best ideas, the best feelings and actions in all of us. Odet's is always a call for action, for what's right and just. The first and most important step is to look after one another. That done, we can do our theatre, our work, talk, debate, and dream on.
Here's hoping the health and pursuits of happiness are, and will always be, open for all of us! And our ability to engage it this individually and collectively is not a dog eat dog war but rather a warm and refreshing journey!
I think everyone I know, family and friends, is inclined really to give help, aid, when and how they can when it is needed. In most instances it just goes without saying. There is a modest and completely honest way that many good people have of just looking out for one another. In these difficult economic times and with the constant strife and confusion heard 'round the world daily, that spirit of "togetherness" is slowly emerging, coming to the forefront. It showed itself largely after 9/11 but was quickly beaten back and repressed by the politics following. For a brief moment though, tragic as the event was, the world seemed "nice." In a space and time we all realized our need and love for one another, our interdependence, our mortality, etc. But not in that begrudging sense. We did it knowing and thinking that it was a good thing to do, the right thing - as opposed to something we had to do just to survive.
This time, I hope the rally of this kind of spirit has more friends in high and powerful places. Or that we just simply refuse to harden as a group. "Don't give me ice when your heart's on fire!" Besides desire and love affair, that line of Odet's speaks to the best ideas, the best feelings and actions in all of us. Odet's is always a call for action, for what's right and just. The first and most important step is to look after one another. That done, we can do our theatre, our work, talk, debate, and dream on.
Here's hoping the health and pursuits of happiness are, and will always be, open for all of us! And our ability to engage it this individually and collectively is not a dog eat dog war but rather a warm and refreshing journey!
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Theatre and the River - Keystone Elements
I've been thinking how those rascals involved with planning and implementing the Downtown District are not taking the Santa Cruz River into proper consideration. (As if I don't have enough other things to think about!). They cite the aspiration to "cultural preservation" and in a way the Santa Cruz is the oldest, largest, and most obvious reference point for "culture." It is the very reason in fact that people gathered in this location. Water. Therefore, I think it deserves more attention in the planning process as one of those "cultural" factors. In fact as THE cultural factor.
What has this to do with theatre? I'll get to that. I hope.
Restoration of the river would be complicated perhaps in terms of cooperation among groups and individuals. But it is as doable, if not more so, than many of the projects on the "to do" and "wished for" lists. I'm not the only, first, nor will I be the last, to propose this. The discussion has existed many times before - kind of. (Has it reached a Theatre Blog before? Probably not).
For those of you unfamiliar with our city, the Santa Cruz River flows South to North, out of Mexico and up to the Salt River near Phoenix. The Salt flows west to the Colorado, which flows then back South to the Gulf of Baja, Mexico. "Flows" in this case means during the rainy months.
The Santa Cruz passes just along the edge of the Tucson Mountain range, a rugged little group of peaks that sits just west of our Downtown area, literally a mile or two away from some points. Our downtown sits just east of the river itself and the city spreads out East, North and South from there in a large valley surrounded by other mountain ranges. One of the points I made, what I tried to articulate briefly at that planning meeting as a "strength" for our downtown area, was its proximity to this large "natural" area, the Tucson Mountain Park. Its unusual for a city this size to have such a feature unless it is next to a lake or large river or ocean.
We have depleted our water table in this region to the point where the Santa Cruz is dry almost year around. The exception is this time of year, rainy months. At one time though, early last century when the city began to grow, there were beaver on the river in this area and a ferry boat was in service to transport people across. Hard to believe nowadays. Imagining the river "restored" in this area and other points along its course, leads to all sorts of possibilities. My personal favorite at the moment is the possibility of birdwatching. Yes I said it! Birdwatching - not as in "chicks," though that is always an option too, but as in real flying birds with feathers. I'm no expert, but we all know birdwatching is a million dollar industry in southern and particularly southeastern Arizona which is a world class destination. And if the Santa Cruz were "restored" more migratory birds along with our local year around varieties would be inhabit its shores. The downtown area along the Santa Cruz could, would, become one of the hotspots for this activity - birdwatching!
Sounds a little silly or trite in and of itself, but you have to put it in context of a larger vision. It would be a whole ecological experience we are talking about. Come the river, come many things.
Besides the birds, Research and Education would, could be at the forefront. Those planners did say they wanted "Education" downtown. Of course they were talking about some classroom buildings and Pima Community College and other institutions holding forth there. Thats ok, but the "outdoors" along the river would, could become classroom as well. Link the River and Downtown to the Tucson Mountain Park expanse, and possibilities increase all around. The idea of real nature, as opposed to isolated funky "urban nature" spots, as an intergal concept and idea for development downtown starts to become attractive. Wouldn't it be amazing if our Downtown was permeable instead of asphalt and solid concretes?
We, Tucson, can never, ever, ever, in a hundred million years, build a downtown area with concrete and block and steel and asphalt that is even remotely close to all those city centers we constantly mention as examples or "goals" to be like. We can't do it! We never will! We will always be light years behind in that race - and industry, business, conventions, etc will be as scarce as they are now. But we could however get out of that particular race and get into our own completely different one. The changes would be sublte and simple really - but profound!
Imagine Nature, Art and Education as the leading principles. (Don't worry, I'm not forgetting the brewerys and go-go clubs!).
"If you have a garden and a library you have everything." -Cicero
"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." -Theodore Roosevelt
And letting everything else come in light of those principles, other business, civic activity, etc. the eco-community of downtown would begin to shape up.
Theatre then, under these circumstances, is the obvious and best connecting tissue - or to follow the ecological viewpoint more accurately, is a "keystone species' - one that gives and provides for a multitude of others. Theatre has the ability to incorporate the seemingly disparate elements in its fold and present them together in such a way so as to make collective sense and meaning.
What has this to do with theatre? I'll get to that. I hope.
Restoration of the river would be complicated perhaps in terms of cooperation among groups and individuals. But it is as doable, if not more so, than many of the projects on the "to do" and "wished for" lists. I'm not the only, first, nor will I be the last, to propose this. The discussion has existed many times before - kind of. (Has it reached a Theatre Blog before? Probably not).
For those of you unfamiliar with our city, the Santa Cruz River flows South to North, out of Mexico and up to the Salt River near Phoenix. The Salt flows west to the Colorado, which flows then back South to the Gulf of Baja, Mexico. "Flows" in this case means during the rainy months.
The Santa Cruz passes just along the edge of the Tucson Mountain range, a rugged little group of peaks that sits just west of our Downtown area, literally a mile or two away from some points. Our downtown sits just east of the river itself and the city spreads out East, North and South from there in a large valley surrounded by other mountain ranges. One of the points I made, what I tried to articulate briefly at that planning meeting as a "strength" for our downtown area, was its proximity to this large "natural" area, the Tucson Mountain Park. Its unusual for a city this size to have such a feature unless it is next to a lake or large river or ocean.
We have depleted our water table in this region to the point where the Santa Cruz is dry almost year around. The exception is this time of year, rainy months. At one time though, early last century when the city began to grow, there were beaver on the river in this area and a ferry boat was in service to transport people across. Hard to believe nowadays. Imagining the river "restored" in this area and other points along its course, leads to all sorts of possibilities. My personal favorite at the moment is the possibility of birdwatching. Yes I said it! Birdwatching - not as in "chicks," though that is always an option too, but as in real flying birds with feathers. I'm no expert, but we all know birdwatching is a million dollar industry in southern and particularly southeastern Arizona which is a world class destination. And if the Santa Cruz were "restored" more migratory birds along with our local year around varieties would be inhabit its shores. The downtown area along the Santa Cruz could, would, become one of the hotspots for this activity - birdwatching!
Sounds a little silly or trite in and of itself, but you have to put it in context of a larger vision. It would be a whole ecological experience we are talking about. Come the river, come many things.
Besides the birds, Research and Education would, could be at the forefront. Those planners did say they wanted "Education" downtown. Of course they were talking about some classroom buildings and Pima Community College and other institutions holding forth there. Thats ok, but the "outdoors" along the river would, could become classroom as well. Link the River and Downtown to the Tucson Mountain Park expanse, and possibilities increase all around. The idea of real nature, as opposed to isolated funky "urban nature" spots, as an intergal concept and idea for development downtown starts to become attractive. Wouldn't it be amazing if our Downtown was permeable instead of asphalt and solid concretes?
We, Tucson, can never, ever, ever, in a hundred million years, build a downtown area with concrete and block and steel and asphalt that is even remotely close to all those city centers we constantly mention as examples or "goals" to be like. We can't do it! We never will! We will always be light years behind in that race - and industry, business, conventions, etc will be as scarce as they are now. But we could however get out of that particular race and get into our own completely different one. The changes would be sublte and simple really - but profound!
Imagine Nature, Art and Education as the leading principles. (Don't worry, I'm not forgetting the brewerys and go-go clubs!).
"If you have a garden and a library you have everything." -Cicero
"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are." -Theodore Roosevelt
And letting everything else come in light of those principles, other business, civic activity, etc. the eco-community of downtown would begin to shape up.
Theatre then, under these circumstances, is the obvious and best connecting tissue - or to follow the ecological viewpoint more accurately, is a "keystone species' - one that gives and provides for a multitude of others. Theatre has the ability to incorporate the seemingly disparate elements in its fold and present them together in such a way so as to make collective sense and meaning.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
My Oh My Oh My
Has heaven come to Tucson Theatre?! Or what?! Waypoint Theatre is going to do The Trip to Bountiful! As in "The Trip to Bountiful" by Horton Foote! Have to wait until April '10 but this will help get me through this summer! (As in its supposed to be 109 degrees tomorrow!).
I do not know any details and I don't pretend to want to influence or make any suggestions about anything BUT...if Roberta Streicher, as in Roberta I Studied with Tamara Daykarhonova Streicher, was to play Carrie Watts, I think it would be just awesome. I can think of several other outstanding and very talented actresses here capable of playing this role, but none that have the age of Roberta. Or do I mean the youth of Roberta? And who knows, maybe there is someone already set for it. BUT, if they call me and say "Hey, who do you think should play Carrie Watts?" Imma gonna say ROBERTA STREICHER.
I do not know any details and I don't pretend to want to influence or make any suggestions about anything BUT...if Roberta Streicher, as in Roberta I Studied with Tamara Daykarhonova Streicher, was to play Carrie Watts, I think it would be just awesome. I can think of several other outstanding and very talented actresses here capable of playing this role, but none that have the age of Roberta. Or do I mean the youth of Roberta? And who knows, maybe there is someone already set for it. BUT, if they call me and say "Hey, who do you think should play Carrie Watts?" Imma gonna say ROBERTA STREICHER.
I wrote about this one month ago, June 12th, my post "Things Unknown Proposed As Things Forgot" (my rip off of Montaigne). And later that night I think I said "Please Lord let my wishes for things to come to pass in Tucson Theatre come true." And Waypoint is Faith Based and there is that picture of the sky I took yesterday. I confess to not having any religious inclinations in a long, long while - but the Lord works in mysterious ways and if Roberta plays Carrie Watts I'll go down right this instant and be Baptized again! (Last time I was 9 or 10 yrs old and I got a bunch of water up my nose and couldn't stop coughing).
Friday, July 10, 2009
Mind-Body-Soul
William Walker Atkinson (1862-1932) was an American who at times wrote under the pen name Yogi Ramacharaka. Among his works under this name are "Science of Breath," "Hatha Yoga," and "Series of Lessons in Raja Yoga." Published first here in the United States, these books eventually were translated and published in various countries around the world, including Russia. Stanislavsky, a very wealthy man who kept an up-to-date library, owned and read these books. (These books are still in print and available today from various sources btw). Ramacharaka's writing is not that of ancient or pure practice but rather as you might expect from that time and place, (Chicago, Ill. - School of New Thought) is full of reference and example of then current day philosophers, writers, artists, and scientists.
In his lifelong quest to understand and control the creative nature of an actor's work, Stanislavsky drew upon many resources, many ideas. First and foremost was his own work, his own experience as an actor as well as the work of actors whom he greatly admired. Eventually he came to the conclusion, and kept to the conclusion throughout his life, that the fundamental basis of an actors creativity was a process he called "Affective Memory," a term he borrowed from the French psychologist Theodule Ribot.
Affective Memory - you know, that "magical" way that our bodies and minds make the connection between the fictional circumstances of a play and our past and current experiences.
I don't mean as an intellectual exercise. I mean viscerally, instinctively, where the body begins to function "as if" the fictional circumstances are true, thereby becoming alive, real, not as a representation or mechanical copy of life, but as its own living theatrical presence - literally live theatre. When that Affective Memory process kicks in big time, all us actors know that everything becomes "easy" at that point. It just happens for us. Our bodies, our voices, our thoughts, movements, reactions, etc on the stage come correct. Short of that big time kick in, we are always struggling in some sense, thinking too much, trying, too aware, self-conscious, all to varying degrees. (Since it seems so "magical" when this 'as if" it were real process happens, Stanislavsky, in his simple genius, made what he called the "magic if" one of his first steps in helping an actor to facilitate his/her affective memory process. The "magic if" is the simple question - "what would I do if I were in these circumstances?").
Stanislavsky recognized and identified certain qualities, certain factors, about himself and other actors when the affective memory process seemed to be in full creative bore. Us actors know these now by terms such as relaxation, concentration, imagination, sensorally active and aware. In other words, when everything kicks in and comes correct, the actor is "relaxed," moving, speaking with ease and precision. The actor is "concentrated," doing tasks and activity with meaning. The actor is "imaginative" in the manner in which they do the tasks and activities, and the actor is connected to everything around him/herself on stage, the imaginary circumstances and everything they are doing, through moment by moment sensory awareness and feeling.
But the question is/was and forever will be "which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" Does the Affective Memory process lead to "relaxation" or does "relaxation" as one of the factors within help lead to the Affective Memory process fully engaging. The answer is actually "some of both."
They are mutually promoting. Which leads me now back to William Walker Atkinson, Yogi Ramacharaka! Almost. And more on the "chicken and egg" later.
Stanislavsky came to believe that this Affective Memory process, this meshing of life experience with fiction, turning then into artistic form and expression, sometimes called "inspiration," happened in the subconscious levels of the mind. In an earlier post, I wrote of Stanislavsky's three foundations for the type of theatre and acting he wanted to create - one of them you remember was the "Subconscious through the Conscious." This refers to the question that Stanislavsky posed for actors and actor training over and over in various forms. I'll paraphrase. "Is there not a conscious means by which to instruct and guide the creative subconscious process?" "Is there not some way to set the creative conditions so that Inspiration may come more frequently for the actor?" Again, Stanislavsky believed the answer to be yes. That question and his subsequent yes answer made/makes possible "The Stanislavsky System."
Now to the Yogi for real. In Series of Lessons in Raja Yoga, in the Eight Lesson, Ramacharaka gives a long explanation of the creative powers of the subconscious, quoting even, from among several others, Ribot (Remember Ribot? Affective Memory?). The Tenth Lesson, is how the subconscious mind may be activated by direct orders, instruction, from the conscious mind and conscious activity. This puts us back in the "chicken and egg" discussion. Now Stanislavsky is ready to work on "relaxation" for example as a way of instruction for the creative subconscious -or Affective Memory process as Stanislavsky has termed it in the case of actors and acting. Remember, that means Life Experience (Mental and physical processes) meshed with fictional circumstances which then turns into real, in the moment, living artistic form and expression.
Here is one short example, quote, from Lesson Ten:
The yogi takes the student when the latter is much bothered by consideration of some knotty and perplexing philosophical subject. He bids the student relax every muscle, - take the tension from every nerve - throw aside all mental strain, and then wait a few moments. Then the student is instructed to grasp the subject which he has had before his mind firmly and fixedly before his mental vision, by means of concentration. Then he is instructed to pass it on to the sub-conscious mentality by an effort of the Will, which effort is aided by forming a mental picture of the subject as a material substance, or bundle of thought, which is being bodily lifted and dropped down a mental hatch-way, or trap-door, in which it sinks from sight. The student is then instructed to say to the sub-conscious mentality: "I wish this subject thoroughly analyzed, arranged, classified (and whatever else is desired) and then the results handed back to me. Attend to this."
Actors will instantly recognize in that description, Relaxation, Concentration, Engaging the Will, and Imagination for example. How many of us in various formats, standing, sitting, laying down, have worked to "relax every muscle, take the tension from every nerve?" How many of us have had to focus on some "object" in our mind by means of concentration? How many of us have had to engage our will and turn that object, which we are "holding" fully in our being, by means of mental imaging and/or sensory awareness into an action of some sort? A wish? A desire? A want? An activity? We are in Lee Strasberg's class here as much as we are in Yogi Ramacharaka's.
In writing this post, I am not claiming or saying that Yogi Ramacharaka and these books are the sole or the main source of Stanislavsky's ideas on acting. (Nor are they his only and sole source of yoga or "eastern" thought). I am saying they are one of the influences, just one of many that make up the total of Stanislavsky's research and thinking on the subject.
What I will say more, though briefly, is that the details of this type of work, this real specific attention to body-mind-soul in acting, as a Stanislavsky tradition, is best represented in America by the line of Boleslavsky and Strasberg. They understood it in purpose, in specifics, and in practical application. Strasberg himself further developed the body-mind-soul connection with incorporation of ideas from others such as Moshe Feldenkrais - keeping the practical simplicity but preserving the depth and complexities of the work most akin to Stanislavsky and Ramacharaka - re-education of the self through movement, sound, imagery, and thought. Others co-opted the work and perverted it in various forms. The Soviets for example when they came into power used their understanding of Pavlov's ideas to turn the basis of the work into what became known as "The Method of Physical Action." In America, "The Method of Physical Actions" was propagated by Sonia Moore, after she learned about it from the Soviet Scholars when they came for a visit to the U.S. in 1964.
In his lifelong quest to understand and control the creative nature of an actor's work, Stanislavsky drew upon many resources, many ideas. First and foremost was his own work, his own experience as an actor as well as the work of actors whom he greatly admired. Eventually he came to the conclusion, and kept to the conclusion throughout his life, that the fundamental basis of an actors creativity was a process he called "Affective Memory," a term he borrowed from the French psychologist Theodule Ribot.
Affective Memory - you know, that "magical" way that our bodies and minds make the connection between the fictional circumstances of a play and our past and current experiences.
I don't mean as an intellectual exercise. I mean viscerally, instinctively, where the body begins to function "as if" the fictional circumstances are true, thereby becoming alive, real, not as a representation or mechanical copy of life, but as its own living theatrical presence - literally live theatre. When that Affective Memory process kicks in big time, all us actors know that everything becomes "easy" at that point. It just happens for us. Our bodies, our voices, our thoughts, movements, reactions, etc on the stage come correct. Short of that big time kick in, we are always struggling in some sense, thinking too much, trying, too aware, self-conscious, all to varying degrees. (Since it seems so "magical" when this 'as if" it were real process happens, Stanislavsky, in his simple genius, made what he called the "magic if" one of his first steps in helping an actor to facilitate his/her affective memory process. The "magic if" is the simple question - "what would I do if I were in these circumstances?").
Stanislavsky recognized and identified certain qualities, certain factors, about himself and other actors when the affective memory process seemed to be in full creative bore. Us actors know these now by terms such as relaxation, concentration, imagination, sensorally active and aware. In other words, when everything kicks in and comes correct, the actor is "relaxed," moving, speaking with ease and precision. The actor is "concentrated," doing tasks and activity with meaning. The actor is "imaginative" in the manner in which they do the tasks and activities, and the actor is connected to everything around him/herself on stage, the imaginary circumstances and everything they are doing, through moment by moment sensory awareness and feeling.
But the question is/was and forever will be "which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" Does the Affective Memory process lead to "relaxation" or does "relaxation" as one of the factors within help lead to the Affective Memory process fully engaging. The answer is actually "some of both."
They are mutually promoting. Which leads me now back to William Walker Atkinson, Yogi Ramacharaka! Almost. And more on the "chicken and egg" later.
Stanislavsky came to believe that this Affective Memory process, this meshing of life experience with fiction, turning then into artistic form and expression, sometimes called "inspiration," happened in the subconscious levels of the mind. In an earlier post, I wrote of Stanislavsky's three foundations for the type of theatre and acting he wanted to create - one of them you remember was the "Subconscious through the Conscious." This refers to the question that Stanislavsky posed for actors and actor training over and over in various forms. I'll paraphrase. "Is there not a conscious means by which to instruct and guide the creative subconscious process?" "Is there not some way to set the creative conditions so that Inspiration may come more frequently for the actor?" Again, Stanislavsky believed the answer to be yes. That question and his subsequent yes answer made/makes possible "The Stanislavsky System."
Now to the Yogi for real. In Series of Lessons in Raja Yoga, in the Eight Lesson, Ramacharaka gives a long explanation of the creative powers of the subconscious, quoting even, from among several others, Ribot (Remember Ribot? Affective Memory?). The Tenth Lesson, is how the subconscious mind may be activated by direct orders, instruction, from the conscious mind and conscious activity. This puts us back in the "chicken and egg" discussion. Now Stanislavsky is ready to work on "relaxation" for example as a way of instruction for the creative subconscious -or Affective Memory process as Stanislavsky has termed it in the case of actors and acting. Remember, that means Life Experience (Mental and physical processes) meshed with fictional circumstances which then turns into real, in the moment, living artistic form and expression.
Here is one short example, quote, from Lesson Ten:
The yogi takes the student when the latter is much bothered by consideration of some knotty and perplexing philosophical subject. He bids the student relax every muscle, - take the tension from every nerve - throw aside all mental strain, and then wait a few moments. Then the student is instructed to grasp the subject which he has had before his mind firmly and fixedly before his mental vision, by means of concentration. Then he is instructed to pass it on to the sub-conscious mentality by an effort of the Will, which effort is aided by forming a mental picture of the subject as a material substance, or bundle of thought, which is being bodily lifted and dropped down a mental hatch-way, or trap-door, in which it sinks from sight. The student is then instructed to say to the sub-conscious mentality: "I wish this subject thoroughly analyzed, arranged, classified (and whatever else is desired) and then the results handed back to me. Attend to this."
Actors will instantly recognize in that description, Relaxation, Concentration, Engaging the Will, and Imagination for example. How many of us in various formats, standing, sitting, laying down, have worked to "relax every muscle, take the tension from every nerve?" How many of us have had to focus on some "object" in our mind by means of concentration? How many of us have had to engage our will and turn that object, which we are "holding" fully in our being, by means of mental imaging and/or sensory awareness into an action of some sort? A wish? A desire? A want? An activity? We are in Lee Strasberg's class here as much as we are in Yogi Ramacharaka's.
In writing this post, I am not claiming or saying that Yogi Ramacharaka and these books are the sole or the main source of Stanislavsky's ideas on acting. (Nor are they his only and sole source of yoga or "eastern" thought). I am saying they are one of the influences, just one of many that make up the total of Stanislavsky's research and thinking on the subject.
What I will say more, though briefly, is that the details of this type of work, this real specific attention to body-mind-soul in acting, as a Stanislavsky tradition, is best represented in America by the line of Boleslavsky and Strasberg. They understood it in purpose, in specifics, and in practical application. Strasberg himself further developed the body-mind-soul connection with incorporation of ideas from others such as Moshe Feldenkrais - keeping the practical simplicity but preserving the depth and complexities of the work most akin to Stanislavsky and Ramacharaka - re-education of the self through movement, sound, imagery, and thought. Others co-opted the work and perverted it in various forms. The Soviets for example when they came into power used their understanding of Pavlov's ideas to turn the basis of the work into what became known as "The Method of Physical Action." In America, "The Method of Physical Actions" was propagated by Sonia Moore, after she learned about it from the Soviet Scholars when they came for a visit to the U.S. in 1964.
For those of you interested, I encourage you to get the books and take a look.
ps - see comments section under "Habima" post for reference on another great book/artist.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
"Like slicin psychological salami across the table"
If anyone wants to do "Awake and Sing" and cast me as Moe Axelrod I'll do it. Jus' sayin. I'm a little too old but I'll learn the lines and everything.
Perhaps the only playwright more quotable than Shakespeare is Clifford Odets. Yes I said it! More quotable than Shakespeare! And that'd be one of the reasons I want to play Moe.
"The doctor said it. Cut off a leg to save your life."
"I got enough fever to blow the whole damn town to hell."
"I wrote my name on you - indelible ink!"
"Say the word - I'll tango on a dime. Don't give me ice when your hearts on fire."
All from that famous scene with Moe and Hennie in Awake and Sing.
A few other Odets samplings -
"Go to hell!...but come back tonight."
Moody: "Why do you drink like that?"
Lorna: (pointing to her chest) "Right here - there is a hard lump and I drink to dissolve it."
"We're on the millionaire express tonight!"
"He's the genuine and only modest cock-eyed wonder!"
Anna: "Come back to bed Siggie."
Siggie: "Come to bed. Come to bed. What the hell is so special in bed?"
"The answer is no! - a big electric sign looking down on broadway!"
"You're so wrong I ain't laughing."
"Its skull and bones every incha the road!"
"Get brass toes on your shoes and know where to kick!"
"We'll die for what is right. Put fruit trees where are ashes are."
And a while back after Bill K's post about the type of play(s) he would like to see done, Paradise Lost by Odets was mentioned in the comments section. Here is a very short part of that play, part of a three person scene with Leo Gordon, Gus, and Pike. Late at night, drinking, talking.
Pike: Monkey Dust! Gibberish! What do we do when we hear some old bat outa hell say she is ready to give over every fine boy to be blown to hell in another obscene war?! What do we do!
Leo: Mr. Pike, I think you better not excite yourself.
Pike: Idiots out prowlin' the dynamite dumps by night! One struck match and we all blow to hell.
Gus: Better sit. You're lookin pale around the gills.
Pike: Who are we Mr. Gordon? If we remain silent while they make the next war - who are we then with our silence? ....(Edit)
Leo: We cancel our experience. This is an American Habit.
We cancel our experience. This is an American Habit. Yes, indeed.
My laying out these few quotes like this does not begin to convey the overall greatness of Odet's work, but its a small beginning, a small mention, for a playwright who is one of America's very, very best - but is all too rarely done.
Waiting For Lefty
Till the Day I Die
Awake and Sing
Golden Boy
Paradise Lost
Rocket to the Moon
Night Music
The Country Girl
The Flowering Peach
Big Knife
Take your pick of any of those plays.
Perhaps the only playwright more quotable than Shakespeare is Clifford Odets. Yes I said it! More quotable than Shakespeare! And that'd be one of the reasons I want to play Moe.
"The doctor said it. Cut off a leg to save your life."
"I got enough fever to blow the whole damn town to hell."
"I wrote my name on you - indelible ink!"
"Say the word - I'll tango on a dime. Don't give me ice when your hearts on fire."
All from that famous scene with Moe and Hennie in Awake and Sing.
A few other Odets samplings -
"Go to hell!...but come back tonight."
Moody: "Why do you drink like that?"
Lorna: (pointing to her chest) "Right here - there is a hard lump and I drink to dissolve it."
"We're on the millionaire express tonight!"
"He's the genuine and only modest cock-eyed wonder!"
Anna: "Come back to bed Siggie."
Siggie: "Come to bed. Come to bed. What the hell is so special in bed?"
"The answer is no! - a big electric sign looking down on broadway!"
"You're so wrong I ain't laughing."
"Its skull and bones every incha the road!"
"Get brass toes on your shoes and know where to kick!"
"We'll die for what is right. Put fruit trees where are ashes are."
And a while back after Bill K's post about the type of play(s) he would like to see done, Paradise Lost by Odets was mentioned in the comments section. Here is a very short part of that play, part of a three person scene with Leo Gordon, Gus, and Pike. Late at night, drinking, talking.
Pike: Monkey Dust! Gibberish! What do we do when we hear some old bat outa hell say she is ready to give over every fine boy to be blown to hell in another obscene war?! What do we do!
Leo: Mr. Pike, I think you better not excite yourself.
Pike: Idiots out prowlin' the dynamite dumps by night! One struck match and we all blow to hell.
Gus: Better sit. You're lookin pale around the gills.
Pike: Who are we Mr. Gordon? If we remain silent while they make the next war - who are we then with our silence? ....(Edit)
Leo: We cancel our experience. This is an American Habit.
We cancel our experience. This is an American Habit. Yes, indeed.
My laying out these few quotes like this does not begin to convey the overall greatness of Odet's work, but its a small beginning, a small mention, for a playwright who is one of America's very, very best - but is all too rarely done.
Waiting For Lefty
Till the Day I Die
Awake and Sing
Golden Boy
Paradise Lost
Rocket to the Moon
Night Music
The Country Girl
The Flowering Peach
Big Knife
Take your pick of any of those plays.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Greatest Season Ever
On my way to grab a bite to eat, I ran into Cindy Meier coming out of Kinko's copy shop. She was there picking up season fliers for Rogue Theatre. It is always a pleasure and joy to see and speak to Cindy - I always feel great afterward. Anyway, I took one of her fliers and on my walk back to my office I was marveling at the shows they have chosen for this season. And I have come to a decision. For theatres like The Rogue and other producing organizations who work on a "Seasonal" basis (not all do btw), I am declaring this season of shows by Rogue to be the greatest ever chosen in the history of Tucson!
Here is the line-up.
Animal Farm by Andrew Periale, based on George Orwell's novella.
A Delicate Balance by Edward Albee.
Our Town by Thorton Wilder.
Krapp's Last Tape, Not I and Rockaby, by Samuel Beckett
Othello by William Shakespeare.
That's not playing around.
For second place I am choosing Arizona Theatre Company's 1979-80 season
A Flea in Her Ear
Twelfth Night
The Glass Menagerie
Father's Day
The Seagull
The Three Penny Opera
How close it that?
Invisible Theatre, Borderlands, and even Live Theatre Workshop have some impressively chosen past seasons on their resumes. Some of them you can check out on their websites. Other theatres such as aka theatre and ghosts past I am working from memory. aka often had so many shows its impossible to know when one "season" ended and another begin.
Despite all the good ones, I am declaring The Rogue Theatre 2009-2010 Season "The Greatest Season Ever chosen by a single company" in the history of all Tucson Theatre!
Here is the line-up.
Animal Farm by Andrew Periale, based on George Orwell's novella.
A Delicate Balance by Edward Albee.
Our Town by Thorton Wilder.
Krapp's Last Tape, Not I and Rockaby, by Samuel Beckett
Othello by William Shakespeare.
That's not playing around.
For second place I am choosing Arizona Theatre Company's 1979-80 season
A Flea in Her Ear
Twelfth Night
The Glass Menagerie
Father's Day
The Seagull
The Three Penny Opera
How close it that?
Invisible Theatre, Borderlands, and even Live Theatre Workshop have some impressively chosen past seasons on their resumes. Some of them you can check out on their websites. Other theatres such as aka theatre and ghosts past I am working from memory. aka often had so many shows its impossible to know when one "season" ended and another begin.
Despite all the good ones, I am declaring The Rogue Theatre 2009-2010 Season "The Greatest Season Ever chosen by a single company" in the history of all Tucson Theatre!
Habima
If you have not read Habima, you must. You should. I'm referring to the book by Raikin Ben-Ari. Harold Clurman writes in the introduction to the book "It is no exaggeration to say the story is inspiring." Completely true, especially the first few chapters.
Habima is the National Theatre of Israel, located now in Tel Aviv - but this is the story of its beginnings, in Moscow, around the time of the revolution, 1917. It has been many years since I first read it, but is one of perhaps three books that makes me want to dedicate every fiber of my being to the cause of creating an art theatre. For those not quite that inclined, just the sense of you, your friends, your talents, your ideas, huddled together or working on the stage, full of innocence and hope, creating, anticipating - these are memories we all have - and dreams some still have - and dreams some are just finding - young and old.
Every artist wants their home - their artistic home. In this story of Habima, Ben-Ari recounts the groups work, their meeting and collaborations with Vahktangov, Birman, Michael Chekhov, and Stanislavsky himself, as they try to establish a specific theatre, a home for Jewish theatre artist in Russia, performing the plays in Hebrew. All odds are against them - but their love and pride of their heritage, their artistic aspirations and their dedication to one another sees them through.
Habima is the National Theatre of Israel, located now in Tel Aviv - but this is the story of its beginnings, in Moscow, around the time of the revolution, 1917. It has been many years since I first read it, but is one of perhaps three books that makes me want to dedicate every fiber of my being to the cause of creating an art theatre. For those not quite that inclined, just the sense of you, your friends, your talents, your ideas, huddled together or working on the stage, full of innocence and hope, creating, anticipating - these are memories we all have - and dreams some still have - and dreams some are just finding - young and old.
Every artist wants their home - their artistic home. In this story of Habima, Ben-Ari recounts the groups work, their meeting and collaborations with Vahktangov, Birman, Michael Chekhov, and Stanislavsky himself, as they try to establish a specific theatre, a home for Jewish theatre artist in Russia, performing the plays in Hebrew. All odds are against them - but their love and pride of their heritage, their artistic aspirations and their dedication to one another sees them through.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)