I received an invitation to a "Stanislavski Symposium." I was very happy to get this invitation because it meant two things - first is the obvious, the topic is Stanislavky! Second it means Phil Bennett is back to work doing one of the things he loves, teaching actors. And that is good news.
Its no secret and I make no bones about how I disagree with Phil on his interpretation of fundamental aspects of Stanislavsky's work and teachings. Never-the-less, I will be there as an observer at this event. The workshop is billed to include a lively discussion on "Stanislavski's Lost Term," exercises in "The Method of Physical Actions," and a demonstration on "How to Use Active Analysis through Physical Action." If you haven't yet signed up or are not yet planning on going, I encourage you to do so. See the Beowulf Alley website for details.
Now, "Stanislavski's Lost Term" is borrowed from a chapter in Sharon Carnicke's book "Stanislavsky in Focus." Its the title of chapter seven in the latest edition. (I wrote of this book just like three posts back). The term in question is the Russian word "perezhivanie." Its an odd title for the book chapter because the word (its meaning and concept) was not lost or forgotten or unknown at the time Dr. Carnicke found it for herself and wrote the book. That aside, this particular chapter, like most of the book, is a marvel of hodge-podge. If I were to make a list of erroneous and misleading statements and sentences from this chapter you would need ample, ample time for your reading.
The depth and breath of Dr. Carnicke's misunderstanding about "perezhivanie" comes alarmingly as the first sentence in the third paragraph which reads "In the first place, it does not name anything concrete that can be described and learned, but rather identifies a creative state that the System, with luck, can foster." GULP! (As in Dear Lord is this really what she thinks?!)
She goes on in the next paragraph "In the second place, experiencing [her translation word for perezhivanie] expresses a totality that cannot be broken down into component parts." GULP! (As in Its worse than I thought!). Next paragraph "In the third place, experiencing resides within the tacit dimension; it can be known but not expressed." GULP! (As in can we change the title of the chapter to Carnicke's Lost Mind?).
So let me get this straight right off the bat - you can't describe it or learn it, can't identify a single component of it, and you can't express it but you can know it. Well, all I can say is that its too bad Stanislavsky didn't read Dr. Carnicke's book. It would have saved him a lifetime of work. All he did his whole life was describe it in detail, teach it, and express it through his work and writings, and did so with great enthusiasm I might add. In other words, if Dr. Carnicke has read Stanislavsky and thought about it, and has come to that conclusion on the term "perezhivanie" then there is a fundamental problem in her outlook and understanding. And that problem is highlighted further in the next paragraph when she (correctly in her logic) asks "So then, what is experiencing?" Now I want to say this next part right so you get what her answer is...but I can't stop laughing as I type...I know that's terrible...its terrible and I shouldn't be laughing...I'm sorry...O.K. her answer is "contemporary jargon calls this state "flow," a term coined by US psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalye who studies subjective accounts by athletes and artists at peak performance." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry I couldn't hold it back.
Alright, I'm up off the floor, and I really shouldn't be laughing. This book after all is hailed in some academic and professional circles as insightful and genius. So why would I laugh? Well, since I'm not in one of those circles, let me count the ways! Is this the very same Dr. Carnicke who consistently throughout this very same book accuses and criticises Lee Strasberg of demeaning Stanislavsky's work and ideas with popular psychology interpretations?! The kettle has called the pot black! (and no I ain't racist). Flow...that's like "in the groove." And there is nothing wrong with the concept of that particular state of being as it relates to various activities, but as an explanation for "perezhivanie" it is wholly lacking. It is eighties sheik though!
Dr. Carnicke goes on to conclude this section of the chapter with this gem - "The ability to recognize a subjective state of experiencing in oneself ultimately offers the only direct means of appraising one's acting. If I feel this "happy moment," I can infer that the System has worked for me. " ...Is it just me or are you speechless too?!
So now we know, so far, that according to Dr. Carnicke, as she understands and interprets Stanislavsky, "perezhivanie" is a subjective state of being - that can't be learned or described really but its like the contemporary notion of "flow" and when you feel a happy moment in your acting that is how you know you're in perezhivanie. Well, I can certainly see how the broad based complexity of that would be lost on Lee Strasberg and all the other American theatre practitioners who studied Stanislavsky all those years. How could we have expected them to grasp such a deep and detailed and specific and elusive idea as that? No wonder this book is hailed how and where it is...and I shouldn't laugh again...Yes, that must explain it - a subjective state of being, that can't be learned or described really but its like the contemporary notion of flow and when you feel a happy moment in your acting then you know you are in perezhivanie. I get it.
Now lest you think I am being too facetious, or too hard on Dr. Carnicke, unfair or cutting her short, read that section. Because that is it. That is how she defines "perezhivanie." Now she does go on to include three other sections in the chapter in an attempt to tell us how lost or confusing its been up until publication of her book. Those sections are called "The Word," "The Concept" and "The Oxymoron of Theatrical Truth." Given her weird but false premise, these sections get even more hodge-podge, weird and false.
This is not to say that Phil at his presentation will present "perezhivanie" in this way. That remains to be seen. No jumping the starting gun on this.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Rambling Note re scene work
Here is a kind of short, rambling note I wrote to my scene partner (yes, I'm working on a scene) trying to define an overall approach and understanding.
I'm completely open to approaching the work on this scene in any fashion really, but I'll tell you my own process, tendencies and ways of trying to understand, grasp and create the scene. If it is helpful for us along the way, good - but if not, no big deal. First I try to determine what the basic situation of a scene is, and then what is the main event of the scene. For example in Joe/Edna from Waiting for Lefty, the basic situation is a married couple, after long individually stressful days, having been separate from each other, now together, in their living room, furnishings gone and kids sleeping in the next room. Simple and obvious stuff. No rocket science or insight yet. Just things that anyone and everyone can understand, get. Its crucial though because the actors will have to eventually create the basic situation fully because out of it comes the event, the action of the scene. (Sometimes there is an obvious and profound relationship between the situation and the event, but not always). It depends on the skill and apptitude of the writer. In Joe/Edna the event is that Edna convinces Joe to get his buddies, his fellow cabbies together in order to try and take back control of their union, their livelihood. The event arises from the situation - and in order for the event to have its proper impact on spectators, the logic of the characters behavior must flow out of a fully created basic situation. Therefore, for me, the first order of business and work of the actor is creating that basic situation of a scene. In our scene as I currently understand it, the basic situation is two individuals, both alone in a park, each there on their leisure time. And the event of the scene is that they meet. Again simple and obvious. As we progress with the work we may determine or describe the event as a "magical" meeting or a "mundane" meeting. We may discover that the basic situation includes rainy day. In other words, the details will follow, eventually, based on our work and on the rest of the play - with good analysis. Working on creating "the place" last night was for me, a step toward creating the basic situation of the scene. Going forward there will be additions and specifics to consider in the situation - like why they are there and all that. As that work comes to fruition the event itself, the meeting, will take whatever significance and style it will and in time we will shape it to our artistic likes. So, part of the point of this explanation is to say common things that I hear many actors ask or consider up front - such as what is my "intention" or what do I want from the other character in this moment and what is my obstacle - can be completely left aside for now. Stanislavsky brought those heady kinds of questions forward late in the game, as needed, to make behavior more specific or appropriate. The wisdom is that if the scene is well written and the basic situation created and understood logically and fully, the event can't help but take place with detail and specifics.
I'm completely open to approaching the work on this scene in any fashion really, but I'll tell you my own process, tendencies and ways of trying to understand, grasp and create the scene. If it is helpful for us along the way, good - but if not, no big deal. First I try to determine what the basic situation of a scene is, and then what is the main event of the scene. For example in Joe/Edna from Waiting for Lefty, the basic situation is a married couple, after long individually stressful days, having been separate from each other, now together, in their living room, furnishings gone and kids sleeping in the next room. Simple and obvious stuff. No rocket science or insight yet. Just things that anyone and everyone can understand, get. Its crucial though because the actors will have to eventually create the basic situation fully because out of it comes the event, the action of the scene. (Sometimes there is an obvious and profound relationship between the situation and the event, but not always). It depends on the skill and apptitude of the writer. In Joe/Edna the event is that Edna convinces Joe to get his buddies, his fellow cabbies together in order to try and take back control of their union, their livelihood. The event arises from the situation - and in order for the event to have its proper impact on spectators, the logic of the characters behavior must flow out of a fully created basic situation. Therefore, for me, the first order of business and work of the actor is creating that basic situation of a scene. In our scene as I currently understand it, the basic situation is two individuals, both alone in a park, each there on their leisure time. And the event of the scene is that they meet. Again simple and obvious. As we progress with the work we may determine or describe the event as a "magical" meeting or a "mundane" meeting. We may discover that the basic situation includes rainy day. In other words, the details will follow, eventually, based on our work and on the rest of the play - with good analysis. Working on creating "the place" last night was for me, a step toward creating the basic situation of the scene. Going forward there will be additions and specifics to consider in the situation - like why they are there and all that. As that work comes to fruition the event itself, the meeting, will take whatever significance and style it will and in time we will shape it to our artistic likes. So, part of the point of this explanation is to say common things that I hear many actors ask or consider up front - such as what is my "intention" or what do I want from the other character in this moment and what is my obstacle - can be completely left aside for now. Stanislavsky brought those heady kinds of questions forward late in the game, as needed, to make behavior more specific or appropriate. The wisdom is that if the scene is well written and the basic situation created and understood logically and fully, the event can't help but take place with detail and specifics.
workshops
This past Monday night I attended Steve Anderson's Open Acting Workshop. If there is a better teacher within a 500 or thousand mile radius I don't believe it. If you haven't been, go.
Likewise, short notice but check out Beowulf Alley's website for a workshop Phil Bennett is doing this Saturday the 24th.
Likewise, short notice but check out Beowulf Alley's website for a workshop Phil Bennett is doing this Saturday the 24th.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Street Theatre - The fox and the cat
This morning, driving through the neighborhood, I saw a fox. The four legged kind. It darted out into the street, paused and looked back from where it had run from, then continued on quickly into a desert scrubby area between the houses. I do believe it was the first fox I have ever seen around here. Now I don't know my foxes (the four legged kind) well enough to say what kind it was and I haven't yet tried to look it up. But, it was low to the ground, had a bushy tail and a long little snout.
Later in the afternoon on a walk to the neighborhood store, I came across The Cat in the Hat standing on the corner holding a sign. "How does my hat look?" she asked me (yes this Cat in the Hat was a woman - and I am refraining from any crude terms...kind of). "It looks wonderful!" I said. "We all have to take our turn out here" she said, "only for a half of an hour. I'm almost done." She was referring to the employees of a nearby store which was selling costumes for Halloween. "Well, you're doing great" I said, "Looks hot!" "Yes, it is hot in this get-up" she said. (Now I meant a different kind of hot but I didn't go there with her). I left her with a good luck kind of thing and went on my way.
Later in the afternoon on a walk to the neighborhood store, I came across The Cat in the Hat standing on the corner holding a sign. "How does my hat look?" she asked me (yes this Cat in the Hat was a woman - and I am refraining from any crude terms...kind of). "It looks wonderful!" I said. "We all have to take our turn out here" she said, "only for a half of an hour. I'm almost done." She was referring to the employees of a nearby store which was selling costumes for Halloween. "Well, you're doing great" I said, "Looks hot!" "Yes, it is hot in this get-up" she said. (Now I meant a different kind of hot but I didn't go there with her). I left her with a good luck kind of thing and went on my way.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Stanislavsky in Focus...or Not.
Oh dear. Sometimes you have to undertake and write and explain things that you don't want to but which need to be set correct, or straight, or better. This post is one of those.
Occasionally, but not as often as you might think, I do a quick search on the Internet for "Stanislavsky" and sometimes I even read the found entries. Well, I did one very recently and did read some entries in some blogs and elsewhere. Several were related to the book "Stanislavsky in Focus" by Dr. Sharon Carnicke. There were enough entries to make it seem like a kind of outbreak again of this material. For those unfamiliar with this book, the premise is that here in America, due to inadequate translations of Stanislavsky's writings, his books as published in America, and an apparent mis-understanding or mis-interpretation of Stanislavsky's ideas and work by Lee Strasberg and others, but especially by Lee, our knowledge and grasp of Stanislavsky and his work is poor, wrong, or incomplete, with entire notions missing. That is the premise. The book is hailed in certain circles as a definitive and practical account, a long overdue correction and clarification, the so-called righting of the myth in America of who and what Stanislavsky intended and did in his work with actors. These recent Internet offerings by people who have recently read the book confirm this circle of thinking. It is a clever piece of work Dr. Carnicke has put together to be sure. Clever, meaning often misleading and downright wrong - but not something your average Stanislavsky or theatre reader would catch or understand in that way, and so the book passes as truth. And that is a sad thing.
Now I'm just a guy who likes Stanislavsky, nature and sports, but I can smell a fake and a cheat of a book when I read one. I won't go into numerous examples, but I will use one from the book that touches upon scholarship, accountability, interpretation, and integrity and shows the absolute shoddy and bad work by Dr. Carnicke that is present throughout the book in its details. Chapter nine of the newest edition is called "Emotion and the Human Spirit of the Role: Yoga." The first sentence reads as follows
“When Strasberg writes that for Stanislavsky “the actor’s internal means […] was still called at that time the ‘soul’” (1987:67), we understand that Strasberg wishes to replace “soul” with “subconscious,” reflecting his own assumptions about acting as grounded in popular psychology.”
At face value, after reading that sentence, we would assume that she is quoting Lee Strasberg (from his book "A Dream of Passion") and that Strasberg is talking about or somehow referring to Stanislavsky and there must be something in the way he says it or in what he says that is obvious and would lead us to understand, as she says, that to him this notion of "soul" in acting really has to do with "subconscious" as it is understood in popular psychology. And from the title of the chapter we know that later she will explain that Strasberg was wrong and that Soul means Soul as understood in Yoga practice and thought.
Dr. Carnicke needs Strasberg to appear wrong so that she appears right, or more right. It is a theme that runs throughout the book, meaning this example as it unfolds, is a microcosm of the entire work and her modus operandi. To better understand this and move forward, let me set out the paragraph from Strasberg's book that is cited. Here it is
Equally important was the implicit recognition that not just the actor’s technical means – his voice, speech, bodily actions – could be trained. Boleslavsky contended that the actor’s internal means – what was still at that time called “soul” – could be trained. There were concrete methods or exercises that dealt with the most difficult aspects of the actors work, such as imagination, emotion, and inspiration. The means of arriving at the actor’s imagination, emotion and inspiration were through concentration and affective memory.”
Notice any problems? I do. The first one is that Strasberg is not talking about or referring to Stanislavsky. Second is that Strasberg is not talking about or referring to Stanislavsky's use of the word or concept of soul. Third is that nothing about what is there would lead us to believe that Strasberg wants soul to mean subconscious. I could go for four and five but I will spare you for now. Three significant errors in one little sentence! Who would have thought it possible? Can you mess up that bad even if you try to?! There is a density to the wrongness combined with an audacity to see it through to print that is baffling.
Just to be on the safe side, lets examine what Strasberg is saying, what he is talking about and referring to in this particular paragraph that Dr. Carnicke has chosen to quote from. Strasberg is referring to his days at the American Lab and classes with Richard Boleslavsky. He is talking about what he learned from Boley. In case anyone harbors doubt, Boleslavsky is not Stanislavsky. When Strasberg says an actors internal means was at that time still called "soul' he is simply mentioning a universal historical use of the term, not anything particular to Stanislavsky or even Boleslavsky. It was a widely used and common term for a long period of time - like when Shakespeare wrote "is it not monstrous that this player here, but in a fiction, in a dream of passion, could force his soul so to his own conceit..." The general thinking was that you couldn't train or practice these internal workings of the actor, this soul. It was a puzzle as to how it all worked, and Shakespeare's Hamlet character marvels over it. And now for Strasberg, here was Boleslavsky saying you could indeed train and work on an actors internal means - an actors imagination, emotion and inspiration - and the way to do so was through concentration and affective memory. Its that straight forward and doesn't need me really to interpret it for anyone - least of all Dr. Sharon Carnicke (or whoever did the research for her).
So the question is how and why would someone draw out the statement from it as Dr. Carnicke did that "we understand that Strasberg wishes to replace "soul" with "subconscious" reflecting his own assumptions about acting as grounded in popular psychology?" Its a hell of a leap and I don't have the answer. I could come up with a few theories but I would sooner invite Dr. Carnicke to give us an explanation of her abstract reasoning. In the big picture its helpful to just make something up if one wants to go the route of "good" argument where you have a foil who is not only wrong but evil too. Strasberg is this kind of foil for Dr. Carnicke in this book. He is so bad and evil in this book that surely what Dr. Carnicke presents as alternatives is not only correct but is good hearted and decent.
So there you have it - one small catch from a sea of mistakes and misleading statements. The research and scholarship on Stanislavsky has long gone beyond Dr. Carnicke's assumptions and theories presented in this book. Time will show and tell. In the meantime, if you've got the book in hand, keep your own close eye on the facts and logic as presented.
Occasionally, but not as often as you might think, I do a quick search on the Internet for "Stanislavsky" and sometimes I even read the found entries. Well, I did one very recently and did read some entries in some blogs and elsewhere. Several were related to the book "Stanislavsky in Focus" by Dr. Sharon Carnicke. There were enough entries to make it seem like a kind of outbreak again of this material. For those unfamiliar with this book, the premise is that here in America, due to inadequate translations of Stanislavsky's writings, his books as published in America, and an apparent mis-understanding or mis-interpretation of Stanislavsky's ideas and work by Lee Strasberg and others, but especially by Lee, our knowledge and grasp of Stanislavsky and his work is poor, wrong, or incomplete, with entire notions missing. That is the premise. The book is hailed in certain circles as a definitive and practical account, a long overdue correction and clarification, the so-called righting of the myth in America of who and what Stanislavsky intended and did in his work with actors. These recent Internet offerings by people who have recently read the book confirm this circle of thinking. It is a clever piece of work Dr. Carnicke has put together to be sure. Clever, meaning often misleading and downright wrong - but not something your average Stanislavsky or theatre reader would catch or understand in that way, and so the book passes as truth. And that is a sad thing.
Now I'm just a guy who likes Stanislavsky, nature and sports, but I can smell a fake and a cheat of a book when I read one. I won't go into numerous examples, but I will use one from the book that touches upon scholarship, accountability, interpretation, and integrity and shows the absolute shoddy and bad work by Dr. Carnicke that is present throughout the book in its details. Chapter nine of the newest edition is called "Emotion and the Human Spirit of the Role: Yoga." The first sentence reads as follows
“When Strasberg writes that for Stanislavsky “the actor’s internal means […] was still called at that time the ‘soul’” (1987:67), we understand that Strasberg wishes to replace “soul” with “subconscious,” reflecting his own assumptions about acting as grounded in popular psychology.”
At face value, after reading that sentence, we would assume that she is quoting Lee Strasberg (from his book "A Dream of Passion") and that Strasberg is talking about or somehow referring to Stanislavsky and there must be something in the way he says it or in what he says that is obvious and would lead us to understand, as she says, that to him this notion of "soul" in acting really has to do with "subconscious" as it is understood in popular psychology. And from the title of the chapter we know that later she will explain that Strasberg was wrong and that Soul means Soul as understood in Yoga practice and thought.
Dr. Carnicke needs Strasberg to appear wrong so that she appears right, or more right. It is a theme that runs throughout the book, meaning this example as it unfolds, is a microcosm of the entire work and her modus operandi. To better understand this and move forward, let me set out the paragraph from Strasberg's book that is cited. Here it is
Equally important was the implicit recognition that not just the actor’s technical means – his voice, speech, bodily actions – could be trained. Boleslavsky contended that the actor’s internal means – what was still at that time called “soul” – could be trained. There were concrete methods or exercises that dealt with the most difficult aspects of the actors work, such as imagination, emotion, and inspiration. The means of arriving at the actor’s imagination, emotion and inspiration were through concentration and affective memory.”
Notice any problems? I do. The first one is that Strasberg is not talking about or referring to Stanislavsky. Second is that Strasberg is not talking about or referring to Stanislavsky's use of the word or concept of soul. Third is that nothing about what is there would lead us to believe that Strasberg wants soul to mean subconscious. I could go for four and five but I will spare you for now. Three significant errors in one little sentence! Who would have thought it possible? Can you mess up that bad even if you try to?! There is a density to the wrongness combined with an audacity to see it through to print that is baffling.
Just to be on the safe side, lets examine what Strasberg is saying, what he is talking about and referring to in this particular paragraph that Dr. Carnicke has chosen to quote from. Strasberg is referring to his days at the American Lab and classes with Richard Boleslavsky. He is talking about what he learned from Boley. In case anyone harbors doubt, Boleslavsky is not Stanislavsky. When Strasberg says an actors internal means was at that time still called "soul' he is simply mentioning a universal historical use of the term, not anything particular to Stanislavsky or even Boleslavsky. It was a widely used and common term for a long period of time - like when Shakespeare wrote "is it not monstrous that this player here, but in a fiction, in a dream of passion, could force his soul so to his own conceit..." The general thinking was that you couldn't train or practice these internal workings of the actor, this soul. It was a puzzle as to how it all worked, and Shakespeare's Hamlet character marvels over it. And now for Strasberg, here was Boleslavsky saying you could indeed train and work on an actors internal means - an actors imagination, emotion and inspiration - and the way to do so was through concentration and affective memory. Its that straight forward and doesn't need me really to interpret it for anyone - least of all Dr. Sharon Carnicke (or whoever did the research for her).
So the question is how and why would someone draw out the statement from it as Dr. Carnicke did that "we understand that Strasberg wishes to replace "soul" with "subconscious" reflecting his own assumptions about acting as grounded in popular psychology?" Its a hell of a leap and I don't have the answer. I could come up with a few theories but I would sooner invite Dr. Carnicke to give us an explanation of her abstract reasoning. In the big picture its helpful to just make something up if one wants to go the route of "good" argument where you have a foil who is not only wrong but evil too. Strasberg is this kind of foil for Dr. Carnicke in this book. He is so bad and evil in this book that surely what Dr. Carnicke presents as alternatives is not only correct but is good hearted and decent.
So there you have it - one small catch from a sea of mistakes and misleading statements. The research and scholarship on Stanislavsky has long gone beyond Dr. Carnicke's assumptions and theories presented in this book. Time will show and tell. In the meantime, if you've got the book in hand, keep your own close eye on the facts and logic as presented.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Following the Winding Road
If you received your invitation to the launch party for Winding Road Ensemble, you might have noticed, if you are like me, that thirteen(!) people are inviting you. Why do I think this is so great? Because most theatre organizations are started by one, two, three or maybe four people. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with that - but if you long to witness a real theatre, an ensemble of like minded folk who continuously train and prepare themselves individually and collectively to present works that bespeak their experiences, well, you need some bodies! And Winding Road apparently has them. And, if memory serves, they will be presenting a play by one of their very own. More wonderful news there. I cannot and would not pretend to speak for Winding Road of course, but right off the bat they seem to have all the inherent traits that set a real theatre apart from a mere producing organization. When I say producing organization, think Arizona Theatre Company. They have a permanent group of administrators who oversee individual productions consisting of various unrelated artists and works. Each show is a piecemeal endeavor with actors jobbed in to fill roles solely for a particular show. The administrators view their organization as having the same function and responsibility as a museum, e.g., presenting classic or "professional" work to a wide audience. Actors, whose very home should be in the theatre, are just temporary and usually one-time visitors there. In contrast, a real theatre company grows and nurtures its own artists over time, actors, writers and directors, with a conscious and deliberate effort, working in specific relationship with one another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)