My work in theatre, acting, directing, teaching, is an open book, an open session, always. The knowledge and experience I possess is not meant to stay secretive nor passed on only through select and quieted channels. I mention this because there is a trend going on, here in our city even, of theatre instructors who require participants and observers of classes to sign an affidavit stating they will not talk about what they see, hear and experience within the class. I consider this ludicrous. Laughable. Really there are not enough words to express my complete and utter dissatisfaction with and opposition to this practice. My reaction was/is "you've got to be joking!"
Especially, especially, if the teaching/instructing going on is based on someone else's practice and ideas - i.e. Stanislavsky, Grotowski, Suzuki, Strasberg, etc. At that point one needs not only credibility but accountability. Anyone is free to invent their own system or techniques for acting and directing and do with it what they will. But if you choose to base your work and teaching on someone else's principles and practice, and if you choose to advertise it and propagate it as such, you must have on your side truth, accuracy, integrity, and openness.
Instructors will tell you the proof is in the pudding, meaning the results on the stage. Well, yes, within reason and with common sense. But is has been a very, very, very, long, long, long time, IF EVER, that the results any of us have seen on stage were so damn good that they require, mandate, a code of silence and secrecy as to how they were achieved. I say for instructors, myself included, the proof is also in the pudding, meaning the accuracy and insight of knowledge, experience, and means of relaying and translating to students. My own work, as I said, is an open session with open invitation. Anyone at anytime could attend or participate in the workshops I have conducted and love, hate, praise or criticise the work. If I tell someone that this is Stanislavsky's or Grotowski's or Strasberg's ideas or principles or way of working, I am going to cite, as needed, all the examples and sources and cross references that I can. If I make something up or exaggerate a story, I am going to say "I am making this up, or I am exaggerating this story for specific effect here." And while I love Stanislavsky, Grotowski and Strasberg for example, I am not going to bias and enshrine their work on Thursday for my benefit on Friday. They don't need it and if I'm worth my salt, I don't either.
I have walked away from particular workshops that I have facilitated and said to myself, "that was terrible today!" Meaning, I did not achieve or convey or give the students what they should have expected. Conversely we have had some "never ending" sessions where people wouldn't go home because we were on a such creative roll. Each day, each session, each class is a new beginning, a new quest to discover and reveal that very day, certain creative principles. The wheel is not being reinvented, but hopefully rediscovered each time. The foundations are not being discarded but are reset each time. The knowledge is not new, but the application and experience of the day is. That's how it works - and if someone wants to talk about that to anyone else in any fashion whatsoever at anytime, "feel free" would be my motto and suggestion.
Just to take Stanislavsky and his work, his ideas for example. How do we know about it? Well, for starters, he kept a journal, a diary that he wrote in practically everyday, every week of his life, long lengthy entries. That gives us some insight to his progression of ideas and lets us know just what the hell he was doing, and what he was contemplating right up until he died. Then there are the books he wrote and published at specific times in his life, for specific purposes. These summarize his reasoning and give us specific examples of what he did and how he did it. Then there are the writings of his that were published in book form after his death. Again, giving us insight into the specifics of what, how and why. Then there are the thousands of letters written by him over his lifetime. Then there is the lifetime long body of works of his actual acting and directing and organizing theatres. For these there are written reviews, Stanislavsky's own promptbooks, and even still to this day a few first hand witness accounts (one of whom lives right here in Tucson and saw the Moscow Art Theatre on tour here in NY in 1923). Then there are the written witness accounts of his rehearsals and classes. There is the oral tradition of knowledge passed unbroken from Stanislavsky to second, third and fourth generations. If that is not enough, you can buy or rent a video, The Stanislavsky Century, and see the man doing his thing that way. All that material is out there for anyone wanting it. In other words, when it comes to Stanislavsky for example, why would one even want or think such a thing as secrecy is needed or should exist? Stanislavsky said explicitly where he got his ideas, what his influences were, told us what his own personal experiences were and told us over and over what suggestions he had for us. It's all verifiable, or should be if I tell you it is "Stanislavsky."
It seems a weird day and time for me when someone is asked to sign a paper in an acting class that ensures they won't go out and speak about the work to their friends, the press, whoever.
Put me on record for openess if I haven't made that clear already.
Especially, especially, if the teaching/instructing going on is based on someone else's practice and ideas - i.e. Stanislavsky, Grotowski, Suzuki, Strasberg, etc. At that point one needs not only credibility but accountability. Anyone is free to invent their own system or techniques for acting and directing and do with it what they will. But if you choose to base your work and teaching on someone else's principles and practice, and if you choose to advertise it and propagate it as such, you must have on your side truth, accuracy, integrity, and openness.
Instructors will tell you the proof is in the pudding, meaning the results on the stage. Well, yes, within reason and with common sense. But is has been a very, very, very, long, long, long time, IF EVER, that the results any of us have seen on stage were so damn good that they require, mandate, a code of silence and secrecy as to how they were achieved. I say for instructors, myself included, the proof is also in the pudding, meaning the accuracy and insight of knowledge, experience, and means of relaying and translating to students. My own work, as I said, is an open session with open invitation. Anyone at anytime could attend or participate in the workshops I have conducted and love, hate, praise or criticise the work. If I tell someone that this is Stanislavsky's or Grotowski's or Strasberg's ideas or principles or way of working, I am going to cite, as needed, all the examples and sources and cross references that I can. If I make something up or exaggerate a story, I am going to say "I am making this up, or I am exaggerating this story for specific effect here." And while I love Stanislavsky, Grotowski and Strasberg for example, I am not going to bias and enshrine their work on Thursday for my benefit on Friday. They don't need it and if I'm worth my salt, I don't either.
I have walked away from particular workshops that I have facilitated and said to myself, "that was terrible today!" Meaning, I did not achieve or convey or give the students what they should have expected. Conversely we have had some "never ending" sessions where people wouldn't go home because we were on a such creative roll. Each day, each session, each class is a new beginning, a new quest to discover and reveal that very day, certain creative principles. The wheel is not being reinvented, but hopefully rediscovered each time. The foundations are not being discarded but are reset each time. The knowledge is not new, but the application and experience of the day is. That's how it works - and if someone wants to talk about that to anyone else in any fashion whatsoever at anytime, "feel free" would be my motto and suggestion.
Just to take Stanislavsky and his work, his ideas for example. How do we know about it? Well, for starters, he kept a journal, a diary that he wrote in practically everyday, every week of his life, long lengthy entries. That gives us some insight to his progression of ideas and lets us know just what the hell he was doing, and what he was contemplating right up until he died. Then there are the books he wrote and published at specific times in his life, for specific purposes. These summarize his reasoning and give us specific examples of what he did and how he did it. Then there are the writings of his that were published in book form after his death. Again, giving us insight into the specifics of what, how and why. Then there are the thousands of letters written by him over his lifetime. Then there is the lifetime long body of works of his actual acting and directing and organizing theatres. For these there are written reviews, Stanislavsky's own promptbooks, and even still to this day a few first hand witness accounts (one of whom lives right here in Tucson and saw the Moscow Art Theatre on tour here in NY in 1923). Then there are the written witness accounts of his rehearsals and classes. There is the oral tradition of knowledge passed unbroken from Stanislavsky to second, third and fourth generations. If that is not enough, you can buy or rent a video, The Stanislavsky Century, and see the man doing his thing that way. All that material is out there for anyone wanting it. In other words, when it comes to Stanislavsky for example, why would one even want or think such a thing as secrecy is needed or should exist? Stanislavsky said explicitly where he got his ideas, what his influences were, told us what his own personal experiences were and told us over and over what suggestions he had for us. It's all verifiable, or should be if I tell you it is "Stanislavsky."
It seems a weird day and time for me when someone is asked to sign a paper in an acting class that ensures they won't go out and speak about the work to their friends, the press, whoever.
Put me on record for openess if I haven't made that clear already.
No comments:
Post a Comment