The Best Rehearsal

A couple of weeks ago we were rehearsing a short scene for an independent movie. After a few go-throughs we realized that we were acting the scene very well - but we weren't really experiencing the imaginary situation as people, as actors. So we thought it through again, finding the simple and most meaningful aspects. We talked about human behavior, logic, desires, hopes, conditions, all in simple terms and ideas. And lo and behold, we became people again in the scene, and not "acted people." It became honest, easy, personal, alive and creative in very small ways. And relaxed. It was a much more true rendering than what we had achieved prior with our "good acting" skills. Now, I have known this state before as an actor. In it you are impulsive, spontaneous, incredibly relaxed, connected, and wholly present. Finding this again was like a huge "oh yea!" for me, something I hadn't forgotten but which I had got away from in the kind of work I have been involved in most recently. There is so much cliche and fake energy and bad acting that is prevalent on stage these days. We are all guilty of it at times. Much of it passes as "good" just as we thought we had been good until we realized we were actually just "acty." So in these last two weeks I have been highly sensitive once again to what is possible and what can be when actors want what we dare to call "truth."

Worth Repeating for Shakespeare

Either the text that has come to us as Measure For Measure is a hodge-podge of lines and scenes not compiled in it's original performance form, or we can throw out any idea of Shakespeare's infallible genius or the notion that he always makes it easier on actors with "the words." Yes, there is still some interesting and some intriguing moments and implications, but its by no means a logical and coherent text, story, etc. Bluntly speaking, it's a mess, especially in terms of a time line and time frame, which is supposed to make for urgency to the moment. Yet it makes little sense in that regard.

A Mess.

The timeline and sequence of events is all screwy in Measure For Measure. Or else someone has to explain it to me. Some say the script that arrived wasn't the play that was performed. Seems likely to me at this point. I find it interesting and intriguing but I have "issues." Help me out someone - One day, two days, three days? More?

Acting!

That One Happy Moment. Faulkner.

Commedia

Mother Courage

The Cook

"Durn That Road, and It Fixin' Up To Rain"

Doing Faulkner.

Backstage

Going For the Big Moment

Who Are We?

Stanislavsky had the exercise/improvisation about the tree on the hillside. The actors had to portray themselves as trees. And of course the actors had to ask themselves questions as to their state of being, their purpose, etc. I'm changing it to the Sahauro Cactus on the hillside in my own work.

My own personal motto by the way is "Cultivate Heart. Nourish Nature." Some might right away recognize it's origin and implication or meaning. (I've posted about this before). It's from a larger phrase that essentially says/means Cultivate Oneness and adopt a Universal Mind while recognizing the Buddha Nature in all things. I consider it and use it for everything. Including acting and theatre.

Also, some people believe that Sahauros represent our ancestors or that our ancestors "live" as Sahauros. Tribute to our theatrical ancestors, our teachers.

And this Sahuaro stands above a rock on which I have lately spent time meditating, exercising, and just enjoying the views.

BoomTown Profiles - Matt Walley - Part Four, conclusion.

Matt Walley is a smart man, a good guy, and a highly talented theatre artist. He likes his dog, pro football (Bears Fan), family and friends. He has a wonderful sense of humor and a kind demeanor. People are comfortable in his presence. I am. Except when he is a clown. Then I’m terrified! It’s not him. Just me. Clowns you know. Actually Walley plays a wonderful clown. It is part of the work he champions. He brings it out of great tradition and the wonderful, engaging personality that I was just alluding to shines through in this creation of his. How can you not love Walley? And how can you not love his Clown? Every actor must choose how and where he/she will perform. And then you must study and work toward that. Walley has chosen a unique and interesting way of working. And he has studied and prepared himself well for the work he chooses. Walley and Angela Horchem have established Theatre3. In this venue, they create works which include the use of their wide range of skills - clowning, music, storytelling, beer brewing, arts and crafts, to name but a few…and of course acting. With other talented artists, Paul Amiel included, they have made some productions that stand on their own in terms of style and content and form. Seriously, they are part of this thing that is going on in Tucson that is completely “hairbrained” and makes everything exciting. Like when Joe and Cindy at the Rogue decide to have Patrick Baliani translate and adapt freaking Purgatorio for a production. Or Christopher Johnson decides that he can work 4 or five jobs, direct 19 plays, act in 8, take yoga, and post on Facebook. And next month is even busier for him. Or Michael Fenlason at Beowulf Alley decides that the theatre will give money to charitable organizations. To name but a few in a whole bunch of possible examples! Our renaissance is being created by all these people who just don’t know any better! Tip of the iceberg, tip of the iceberg. And now, even our spectators are getting seriously involved. Anyone read Pat McKnight’s emails and postings about the state of theatre here? The collective energy is fast growing. If only we could get that big State Theatre out of shambles.

Walley’s biography and resume as an actor and theatre artist, which I have only barely touched in these posts, is testimony of hard work and artistic progression and a life lived with purpose. I hope my thoughts and opinions in this brief description provide a glimpse, a small profile of the man and artist Matt Walley is. Having Tucson at the crossroads or vortex or as some ideological inspirational force in all of it is a marvelous happening. His presence as part of our theatrical landscape and topography puts him and us squarely in a place to learn, to create, and to grow. We, Tucson, are one.

Comments are open. Be respectful but be vocal.

BoomTown Profiles - Matt Walley - Part Three

Let me talk a short bit about Walley’s work. These are my words, my impressions and come from an admiring point of view. But I might get some things wrong, or incomplete. Don’t hold Walley himself to anything I say. Consider my thoughts and know my clear and strong point of view about the work of Stanislavsky and Strasberg, and the tradition thereof.

What jumps out to me when I think on the work I have seen Walley do, whether it be acting or directing, is a notion which I know from Evegeny Vahktangov. Rehearsals are judged or measured by the amount of material and inspiration they provide for the next rehearsal, and it is the in between time, from one rehearsal to the next, where the work “sinks in” or becomes alive for the actor. And the companion piece to that notion is that each rehearsal, each moment of rehearsal, is a creative act unto itself. Also Vahktangov. So I would say that this applies to Walley and his work. Each rehearsal stands out as sound kind of inspired endeavor, some creative action brought forth. There is never “hack” work. Never a time of simply blocking, or moving or going through the motions of the words and actions that seems to occupy large chunks of many rehearsal processes. With Walley it’s an adventure. You must work. You must discover, and you must do, always. And leaps and bounds appear from one rehearsal to the next. It may not be clear what is happening but thoughts are brought forth - and more importantly, the work is sinking into the subconscious, permeating the actor’s creative sense. And when the next rehearsal begins, the work begins anew with a vigor brought on from the previous rehearsal. You get the idea. The explanation is pretty easy. Creating that kind of working environment over time is not easy. But Walley does it.

I am thinking of Walley’s portrayal of Bill Walker in Major Barbara. As good actors do, though rarely, Walley embodied the entire theme of the play in his character. He didn’t just play his character’s actions and intentions, he played all the thoughts and ideas expressed in the play. It was a beautiful piece of acting. And it was that work and that kind of work which makes me long for a little more conscious craft ala Lee J. Cobb. Surrounded with like actors, and given the right material….who knows what could happen. As Bill Walker, Walley had subtle gestures and postures that distinguished him from other characters. It was a unique kind of awareness he held onto during rehearsals in applying and working with these postures and it carried over into the performances beautifully. Details and “unspoken” thoughts gave it a depth and an intrigue. That is kind of Walley’s way, finding the “hidden” details or nuances of action, and letting you as a spectator kind of discover or realize it along the way.

Lately I have noticed more and more actors with high talent fall into a deadly acting with a capital A kind of thing - in other words, they become atrociously bad as slaves to clichés and habits, especially when a scene calls for strong emotion and meaning and sensitivity. Actors just don’t have it available to them and so they throw out that tremor voice and that false energy and weird facial contortions and its all just fake junk really. Walley on the other hand, even if he cannot or doesn’t pull it off fully in the moment as an authentic experience, at least approaches those types of scenes with a care and consideration. He tries to figure out the specifics of what might occur in such a moment, and so he avoids clichés and the general badness that most actors bring. When Walley gets his hands on Shakespeare he is particularly adroit at putting together completely-logical-to-the-play and situation actions while bringing the words to actual life and meaning with the proper thoughts behind them. His Shakespeare is not mere recitation as is common. But rather is full character action and doing. His work on Shakespearian roles that I have seen has been an excellent example of his careful consideration and ability to empathize with characters, humans, in particular situations.

If you don’t know of or haven’t seen Walley’s work as an actor or director, look up Theatre3 here in Tucson. And when the time comes, go see it. But don’t hold me or Walley to any of these explanations that I have written here. For nothing will prepare you for what you will see. I don’t mean things are extreme. But Walley will somehow create something new, something different, something unexpected. It may engage you and it may not. But it will have come about from authentic exploration and noble attempt. Walley is uniquely dedicated as an actor, director and teacher, as evidenced by his continuing growth and change as a person and as an artist. He seeks and eventually he finds.

More to come in part 4. Walley is a big subject!

BoomTown Profiles - Matt Walley - Part Two

Matt Walley was “forced into” or perhaps “led toward” theatre in his high school days after pain and injuries to his body made playing football not such a good idea. He took to theatre right away, and those in charge took to him, casting him as the main character in his first play. Walley would go on to get an undergraduate degree in Theatre and would also heal and begin to refine his body. He became a weightlifter, a bodybuilder. He got big. But his acting career was kind of non-existent. He didn’t do much. Walley arrived in Tucson in 2001. He got a job in the stuntman show at Traildust Town. And also became involved in shows at Live Theatre Workshop, acting and later directing. For Walley, Live Theatre Workshop was a blessing - giving him much needed opportunity and experience as an actor, and later as a director. It was there at Live Theatre Workshop where he learned to really ply his trade on the boards. But he left Tucson, going on to New York and the prospects of more theatre work. Circumstances led him to apply for a graduate program. He got accepted and back out west he came, to California and his new studies at the Dell’Arte International School of Physical Theatre. There his “loves” coalesced - theatre, physical activity and body work, martial arts, nature. He excelled at the school completing his degree and perhaps most important of all met Angela Horchem. Together these two talented people conceived of the idea for a theatre, one where they could apply their deep knowledge of craft and their keen eyes and instincts for artistic expression, while engaging their bodies in physical ways - theatrically speaking! And so they went searching for a place, a home, a city, in which to begin this new endeavor. The first choice collapsed under economic strain, literally leaving making a simple living impossible. This was just after the crash of 2008. Tucson “beckoned” and they came. A Grande Steal for our city! (I can go on a long list of attributes about their combined knowledge and skills. But lets just say we are glad they are here.) Before I get to their work as co-artists and creators (which surely will be a profile unto itself sometime soon), I have to get back to Walley for a bit. By now, his body which at one point was a bodybuilder’s mass and strength, and by Walley’s account couldn’t move much, had become refined and given to detail and awareness and definite movement and needs. One only need watch Walley work and move on stage, or see him teach a TaiChi class or hell, drink beer. He has style and elegance and charm and grace. I saw Walley act back in the “old days” at Live Theatre Workshop. At least once I did. And I have had the pleasure recently of working with him at the Rogue Theatre, seeing him create a character over a rehearsal period, listening to, watching his way of work. I can’t quite piece together the details or the difference in his work then and now, but I believe there is a profound distinction. I can see him standing there on stage in the little Live Theatre performance space as Tom in the Glass Menagerie. I was freezing cold because it’s always, or used to always be, about 28 degrees in there. So my mind was numb. Fuzzy. I remember the simple but actor-ly way he stood and carried himself, hands at his side, neutral, actor neutral. He was good though. I have no doubt the show was rehearsed a mere six weeks at most, and the cast was together that amount of time at most. I am not critical of the show and Walley’s work in an artistic sense in that regard - but no show, no cast of actors, can come to much of a mature artistic fruition in six weeks of rehearsal. As much as we would like to think it can and does, and go so far to organize our work in that fashion, it just ain’t so. It doesn’t happen and it won’t ever happen. But you can get the resemblance of a better staged reading in that time. Sounds harsh. It’s not, just true. But anyway…Walley was good, or it was evident he could be really good. But as I said, I can see a profound change in his work from then to now. He is aware and alive in much more specific ways now. He attempts more. Bravery is his. At a point in his life when others might have stopped progressing artistically, Walley zoomed! And is still going!

End of Part Two. In Part Three I will touch more on Walley’s current work, his Clown, his directing, teaching, and of course Theatre3.

BoomTown Profiles Series - Matt Walley, Part One

Part One - "Along a Path."

In Tucson there is the theatre that most of us make, and then there is the theatre that Matt Walley makes. His work is the only real distinction in terms of style and form and content. For the rest of us, those who are at theatres such as Beowulf Alley, Rogue, Winding Road, Live Theatre, and others, the degrees of separation that distinguish our works are very small, almost non-existent really. Yes, some work can be categorized as more political or contains more sexual allusions, etc, but the form of production and the acting and the presentation is common and all of it falls within a small range of style and ability. Our audiences are expecting and view our work with a knowing eye and ear. But not Matt Walley’s. His is unique. And requires a different consideration. I recently spent a couple of hours in candid conversation with Walley, picking his brain about his work, his ideas and of course his hopes for the future, for theatre, for Tucson. Time well spent. Now if I had my way, Matt Walley would be studying the work of Lee J. Cobb and then using his own talent to create the same kind of characters, with all that soul, depth and largeness looming over the stage with dominance and power, wit and charisma, emotion and physical presence. But alas, Walley (as friends call him) has taken another path, and in this case, my personal “ loss” is a boom for other aspects of theatre. One little note, or fact, to make known right now is that Walley is the originator and founder of our modern “Late Night” series of theatre in Tucson. He “invented” it and popularized it. That is only one feather in his local cap as a theatre artist, but it speaks to his ability and ideas and intentions. But before I go too far into his directing and producing, I need to expand and explain my Lee J. Cobb reference - for acting like that is a rare, rare beast. As an actor Walley is supremely talented, but his depth and capabilities have only been partly tapped and showcased. That said, by Walley’s own admission and explanation, as an actor he has remade and reinvented himself a couple of times over. He has become physically accomplished and diverse, going from an actor who could not move well to an actor who is lyrical and rhythmic and highly expressive with his body. That makeover leaves him with a range of grace and power in his acting body that is formidable. His great wealth and talent and fairly untapped abilities however, lie in his emotional and mental capacities as an actor. There is largeness. And thus, my Lee J. Cobb comparison. All this I mention because I want to make the point that Walley, being a director and teacher, is keenly aware of what kind of transformation is possible when one embarks on a path of study and work. A path of study and work - this notion is one of the things (along with many other things) which makes Walley a blood brother to me (We still have to have the official ceremony). And now I’m going to tell you a little-known fact, and even less spoken of, almost never revealed, realized by few even for whom it is true. When a person embarks on a “path” of disciplined study and approach, one that is by a noble intent and nature transformative, (for example it may be a path of Kung Fu, or actor training in the manner and way of Stanislavsky) and if a person does this earnestly over time with empathy and compassion, that person becomes “Wild.” It’s an odd phenomenon to grasp, and I won’t explain further at the moment except to say Walley… might… be …wild. Jump, Jump, Jump ahead, change of subject again - when we as spectators watch a show developed and directed by Walley, we have to think and consider and even ask ourselves what is this? But we don’t do it out of total confusion. We do it out of the experience generated by the unexpected and different format and style which Walley presents to us. At the heart of that style is an actor, or a group of actors who function as poets/artists (per Walley’s lingo). This actor or group of actors have formed a point of view about life and/or subjects, or moments in life, and have created an expression of it by means of physical bodily activity. It makes it’s own logic and means, suitable as required, and becomes what Eugenio Barba might term “Biological..” Let’s say its alive as a being unto itself. But don’t assume alien or unintelligible. Walley’s work maintains a certain simplicity and elegance, born perhaps on his clever and patient sensibilities. His motto could be “its right there if you want to see it.” One would only have to look. But in Walley’s world, in his training, his approach, looking means really looking and becoming able to see anew. If you’re a spectator or an actor under Walley’s auspices, he will take you places in ways no one else can or will. There may indeed be a Eugenia Woods or some young person lurking out there in our theatre sphere ready to launch something equally different and challenging on us, but for now Walley stands alone on a cutting edge. End Part One.

Measure For Measure

Working now on Measure For Measure. Heavens to Betsy this play is just weird. What do any of us find interesting about it? It's stock full of convention, puns, confusing time line, incomplete action, etc.

Affective Memory - Short Note

There is no doubt in my mind that the best of actors consciously uses their emotional memories actively in their work. Now, some may not admit to it and some may do it accidentally, but it happens because...good acting with depth and meaning doesn't happen without it. I should repeat that. Without the actor's affective memory in active participation with the fiction of the play, good acting doesn't happen. And so it only follows in my book that unless actor training and preparation includes conscious and purposeful use of emotional memory, then you might as well play tiddly-winks or do gymnastics. Shakespeare knew this, Stanislavsky described it for us, and taught us how to consciously make use of it, Vakhtangov reinforced it and Strasberg freed it for all of us.

The Beginnings of Playscript Analysis. Quickly.

When I am looking at a playscript, the obvious task is how to turn it into a stage performance. So like many people I begin to analyse it in a particular way. I take note of my first general impression(and the actors general impressions)if this is a very first reading and introduction to the play. But at this point I do not go beyond the simple kind of "I liked it" or "It confuses me" or "That character stands out" statements. Very general, but no other discussion. The next go through the play is only to start gathering facts that are obvious in the script, all the where, when, who, etc. And only facts actually noted or evident. No making things up or suggesting that "it could be..." The gathering of facts can also mean/include such things as how often "time" is referred to in a particular script. I'm thinking of The Cherry Orchard when I mention that for example. In other words, some notable trait about the overall script can also be mentioned at this time. The next go through, is meant to start articulating what the sequence of actions is. And this is done like a story-telling process. "This guy is sleeping and this girl comes running in and wakes him up. He asks her what time it is and she starts going about trying to straighten up cushions, ...etc." Told like a story. Like a series of little events. Once you make that kind of "description," you have taken the first real step toward turning the words into action and stage behavior. Now you can have actors work immediately with the action itself, using themselves in their entirety. That is the beginning.

Yourself in the Circumstances, Doing, Senses.

Before the new days of "Physical Theatre" and "Gesture," before these words crept into our theatrical vocabulary and completely took over, actors used to speak of "Doing" on stage. You would hear questions from your teacher or director like "are you really doing that action or are you just pretending to do it?" "Did you actually see, or were you just indicating that you saw something?" The distinction was and is crucial. And should be even for those who feel they want to be engaged in "Physical Theatre." And the reason is this - a complete and full Physical Gesture must have real biological implications on both the actor and the spectator. When we speak about "Doing" on stage, what we are actually asking and wanting from the actor to is to engage his/or her senses actively in the fiction of the play. When the senses engage, biological implications begin to occur. This is part the process of using your own experiences, your own self, literally among the circumstances of the play.

Creating from Oneself

I am working on a post about how and why an actor needs to condition and discipline his or her mind for creative work. Some of it will pertain to a "first lesson" that I will facilitate in a workshop. The lesson is entitled "Ethics and Discipline of an Actor's Mind." But in the meantime, here is the beginning of a companion piece, a companion "lesson." The thought or the question is what constitutes talent or what is the first thing or the main thing that you would look for that may eventually give rise to great acting? For me the answer is the ability to create from oneself, from one's own experiences and feelings and thoughts. That means, to take a real life experiences, bring them to the moment as actual physical sensations and thoughts (not as intellectualized memory and metaphor) and fictionalize them into behavior that is conducive to the purpose for which you are acting. That process is distinctly different from a process of copying the behavior of others or simply indicating or implying through gesture as a means of communication with spectators.

Note from Girish Karnad to the Rogue Theatre

http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Join-Ganesha-at-The-Rogue-Theatre.html?soid=1102527957539&aid=74fqIWupCgY

Actors Listen

It was brought to my attention many years ago that listening on stage is very elusive and that actual, real listening where you hear and think and realize is extremely rare. And yet in many cases, it makes all the difference in the world in terms of quality of the scene and the acting. Of course actors know what's coming in terms of the lines and so they are anticipating what will be said. Additionally, they are busy going about their own behaviors, preoccupied with their "acting" so to speak. So typically they are not really hearing what is being said, or what is being communicated. The only cure I've found is a very conscious effort to become interested in what is being said and done, in detail. The actor who can listen with his/her mind and then with the entire being and body, that is an actor.

Modern Streetcar in Tucson Test Run

Notes From a Discussion - Stanislavsky/Strasberg, ETC.

The practical problem with the with the kind of work you are referring to is that it simply produces just that - an image. It makes a moment, an instance of something. But it doesn't give the actor a sense or a means of continuing on, of creating moment by moment by moment, and then letting the cumulative effect take its toll. Having watched and participated in many of these exercises (which are often willy-nilly or "another tool in your belt" kind of thing) I can tell you that the structure and format of the work is such that it ends at the creation of the "image" or "the moment." Now in that moment, within that image, the actor often has a very general "feeling" of being alive, having some sensations, some thoughts, some impulses, etc. But they are not understood or accepted to be something which actually leads you to the next bit of behavior. Rather they are accepted and understood to be static, or they are simply understood as a "see, you can produce feeling by this means of fantasy or physicality." The problem arises when the actor has to continue, has to do the next thing, the next bit of behavior, the next action. He/She does not know how to recognize and follow real deal impulse and so the next thing they do is something they think they should do and in that old way they turn to copying other actors, copying cliches, etc. As you said, back to square one that Stanislavsky tried to deal with. So these moments, these images, that are created in these formats may indeed be a kind of 'art" but they are not the living art of the stage that Stanislavsky was advocating. Now if you have someone like Michael Chekhov who was trained to and could work impulsively in the moment in a continuous manner and He or She was seeking to find a way to make a particular moment more "poetic" lets say, then such an exercise could possibly come in handy. But to think or assume that such exercises actually teach an actor what and how to do on stage over a continued period of time is wrong, because they don't. Strasberg's work on the other hand as an example, you know of course much better than I do, teaches actors how to recognize the impulses and how to continue with them - i.e. to act! The structure and format of a Sensory Exercise or an Improvisation doesn't end with the arousal of general feelings of experience. It uses smaller thought and desire and sensation or physical actions as an impulse to move along to the next thing and the next thing and the next thing, keeping the mind and body engaged at all times over a particular longer period of time as an actor must do.

Boomtown Profiles

Our city is a boomtown! Exploding in Arts and Commerce like never before. The young and the innovative and the ambitious have arrived in Tucson all at once. Given that I always seem to spend a portion of my day walking through our Downtown area and having the chance to see and meet many of the people on the scene, I think its time to finally start writing about some of these good people that are making great things happen. So, I'm gonna start that theatre artist profile section that I have always intended. And since I personally have a wide variety as interests (as many people do) I'm sure I will throw in a few business and civic minded people as well. Expansion and activity is the norm around here - time to get with it!

Ten Lessons on Top

Here are the titles of ten "Lessons" to be presented weekly as part of a scene-study class I will lead beginning this month.

Lesson One - Ethics and Discipline of an Actor's Mind.

Lesson Two - Active Analysis of a Playscript.

Lesson Three - Acting is the Essential Breath and Heartbeat of Theatre.

Lesson Four - Personal Experience Gives Rise to Spontaneity and Specific Behaviour.

Lesson Five - The Mind Asks, and the Body Responds.

Lesson Six - Creating a Logical Sequence of Actions.

Lesson Seven - Scenic Presence and Creative Expression.

Lesson Eight - If You Don't Feel It, Then It's Fake.

Lesson Nine - Joy and Creative Enthusiasm.

Lesson Ten - Mastering a Technique. Freeing Oneself From a Technique That One Has Mastered.

Question!

How can, and why does, an actor condition his/her mind for creative work?

Don't Think I Won't Be Using Emotional Memory!

Moment by Moment - so it goes

I had the opportunity to work for a few minutes with an actress of supreme talent. And what a few minutes it was. This was an audition situation. A rare happening, for me. The director in his wise ways gave a discription of the background of these characters leading up to their meeting, but did not describe what or how the meeting should happen between the two. But this is a director who imagines and thinks in behavior - what the character is doing and thinking and feeling - and speaks as such. Just before we started reading he said "and you two take your sweet time." Music to my ears of course. The main point though to this post is the ability of the actress I was reading with to be present and alive throughout, in big and small ways, and to work specifically in silences and in speaking, deeply and interesting and revealing. As the director was describing the what had been happening to the characters, I was letting it "sink in" and finding in myself what I thought and imagined to be what it was like to be this character. You know, the old "What would you do if you were in this situation?" I knew the characters pain and embarrassment would have to be there, but the action of the scene was going to be these two people rediscoving each other, through that pain and embarrassment. As soon as we started, I knew it would be "easy." Because of the actress I was reading with. And my actor instincts quickly said pay attention and let things flow moment by moment by moment. The directors wisdom about going slow was because he knew the specifics of behavior that existed in the silences, the thoughts, the laughter, the longings, etc. Finding a sudden treasure of an actess like this (although I was aware of her abilities before we started the scene) is an incredible artistic gift. Especially in that kind of situaton. And it reminded me that when you work on stage for an hour and a half with that kind of attention and moment by moment specificity, acting and theatre comes completely alive in the most unexpected and spontaneous of ways - the creative subconcious in full force. But to do what she did in those few brief minutes you have to have all those "things" we talk about all the time - you have to be relaxed, you have to be aware, you have to have actual literal thoughts, you have to allow for sensations to flow through you, you have to speak the lines out of the context that is your body and mind in that very moment...

Notes on Acting

Let’s say it’s well into rehearsal (months, not weeks) or perhaps even along into performance now with spectators present, meaning that I have actively explored and assessed all the facts and circumstances of the play fully and am acutely aware of relationships, intentions, actions, etc. Long ago I asked myself, what would I do if I were in that situation and/or what would make me do (behave) as the character seems to be behaving in this situation. Now I am supposed to be “acting.” So the question is what is it that I actually do during this time? What do I think, what commands do I give my body, etc? How do I create this behavior that is supposed to happen as “the play?” My answers here are based on my actual work. This is the stuff I do for better or for worse. I keep tabs on it. I notice it. I compare it. So to write about it is simple in some ways. But let me start with some things I don’t do. I don’t think much about the circumstances or the situation of the play in a pretending sort of way while I am on stage. I might say I never do that - but never say never you know. I don’t remember doing it recently. I don’t try to pretend or imagine that this person is my brother or I am in the forest or it’s time sing, or whatever the particular circumstance of the play is asking for. My mind is doing many things but it’s not pretending at all. Mostly I think of personal situations or issues or experiences that have happened to me during my life. Occasionally I give those thoughts a small imaginative twist - such as might happen in a dream, like putting two things in one place that in actuality never would be together. But these things are real to me never-the-less. Sometimes my mind is giving commands to my body, such as relax, or breathe deep and slowly, or move with this quality of energy, etc. Those type commands are things that have been noticed and needed over the process of rehearsal and have been integrated by me at particular times to create specific effects. Other times my mind is being aware of or creating the awareness for me that I am on stage, present in front of the audience. I make this fact a conscious part of my work, but I do it as sense of “sharing” or “giving.” If I have a main point to this post, it is simply that I do not make myself aware of or consciously work with the circumstances of the play while I am actually onstage acting. That integration has already happened - but what is needed to inspire that integration of imaginative fictional circumstance to real and actual behavior and life, is the very real part of me that thinks and feels and knows and understands. And that happens via the memories of my own life which I literally carry out on stage with thoughts, sensations, and sometimes physical actions. That’s how I act!

Richard the Third. Joe McGrath's work, part one, introduction.

Occasionally you will see someone on stage give an interesting performance. But in all honesty in three or four weeks of rehearsal, nothing of much depth is ever developed and put forth. It just can't and doesn't happen in that time frame no matter what anyone says or thinks. Those that laud every performance are deluding themselves and doing a disservice at the same time to the actors and the art. Oh, there is also the chance that they simply do not understand or believe that anything greater and deeper can transpire on the stage. And then of course they just want to be nicey-nice too. But the fact remains, acting, good acting is really difficult and it doesn't happen as often as most people think or claim - especially in our conditions of rehearsal around here. That said, I want to tell you about Joe McGrath and his performance as Richard the Third. Because that mind you, was great acting, the old fashioned way, the way I miss and long for in the theatre. Now there may be some who were lucky enough to see Joe's performance and who will not hold his work in the same esteem that I am about to, but if so, they are taking way too much for granted. But two things before I go on. I had a "front row" seat to Joe's work on this role as a fellow actor in the production. Also, I am on record in this very blog of insisting that Joe (at that time) needed rest and needed to find a way to shed the barnacles that had settled over his creativity. In Richard the Third, Joe found a measure of inspiration and determination which carried him through, especially in the last week of performances. If you saw Junius Brutus Booth play the part (lets just leave aside the British folk for a few minutes) you know, or you can imagine, how he grew into the role over time. The same is true for Joe. From opening night to closing night came a wealth of work, ever growing more and more fascinating. A living performance indeed. As I write, I am assuming that I need not tell anyone how difficult this role is. I mean this is a role that is a measuring post for actors. And most of us never have and never will play it. A hundred years ago the best role for actors was considered Othello, but modern actors usually consider Hamlet and Lear (if you live long enough) as the best and most challenging nowadays. And Richard the Third is right there behind them in difficulty and scope. So when you hear and see an actor creating this particular role with the kind of all out confidence and zest that Joe displayed, it is a rare treat. Just to handle the language itself with the kind of clarity and vigor and speed that Joe did is a feat. And in some places recitation is actually mistaken for acting. But since here we like and know that actual human experience is what makes acting - sensation, feeling, thought, intentions, awareness, speech, all happening in the moment - we know that the difficulty multiplies several times more from just the words themselves to the full experience behind and with those words. And it is the details of that work that I will begin to cover in the next post - which I will label part two.

It's Time

Time to ask of yourself, as it is everyday, to engage your will and effort toward some act of goodwill and kindness.

Discipline Your Mind

Day by day, little bit by little bit, you have to discipline your mind. For the actor the way to do this is by daily training. When you put yourself through your series of etudes and exercises, your mind has to come along and your thoughts are conditioned each day as your focus on what and how and why you want to do your job as an artist. Over time you build your mental strength and your develop your artistic taste and aesthetic to unwavering degrees. You build happiness and you build fortitude as an artist. And soon you will always approach your work with a personal respect and humility and honor.

Words and Thoughts

Many actors just do not learn their lines well enough. And without knowing your lines inside out, upside down, sideways, backwards and forwards,you just can't do any real work. Instead you will forever be anticipating and thinking the what and when of your lines and stuck in a kind of vocal pattern of line-speak. If on the other hand you can take the words and sentences apart and put them back together again quickly and easily under all conditions, being able to stress or not each word at will, where the words live in your body, then you can get to the real work and craft of acting. There is no gray area here, no alternatives, no new techniques, etc, that allow for someone to get away with not knowing their lines in this visceral way and still do real work. You have to be able to sing your lines, say them fast or slow, do various activities while speaking them, concentrate on other things while speaking them, stop or start freely with them. Once you can do that, then you are ready to do the other things that make acting come to life.

Stanislavsky and Nature, Wholeness, Simplicity, Life

Back in September '09 I made a post called Boimimecry about Stanislavsky and nature. Recently I made a short post called "Cultivate Heart. Nourish Nature." And once I conducted a workshop with a fancy title but that gave nod to nature and process. They are always on my mind... and so I am re-posting them together to consider larger contexts. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 Biomimics Bi-o-mim-ic-ry (From the Greek bios, life, and mimesis, imitation) 1. Nature as model. Biomimicry is a new science that studies nature's models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems, e.g., a solar cell inspired by a leaf. 2. Nature as measure. Biomimicry uses an ecological standard to judge the "rightness" of our innovations. After 3.8 billion years of evolution, nature has learned: What works. What is appropriate. What lasts. 3. Nature as mentor. Biomimicry is a new way of viewing and valuing nature. It introduces an era based not on what we can extract from the natural world, but on what we can learn from it. The above is from the first plate page of the book Biomimicry, Innovation Inspired by Nature, by Janine M. Benyus. About a hundred years ago, the great Russian stage director Meyerhold was borrowing ideas from man-made industrialization and turning out a fabulous training technique for actors known as Biomechanics. Before, during, and after Meyerhold, Stanislavsky was discovering ideas rooted in nature, in the natural world and in human behavior, and making his own science and practical technique for actors. Perhaps his work could have been called "Biomimicry - a conscious emulation of life's genius. Innovation inspired by nature." Perhaps the credo could have been "there is more to discover than to invent." In any case, Stanislavsky as most who know him know, was way ahead of his time. The three points listed in the above description of Biomimicry run exactly through Stanislavsky's work with actors. Point one, nature as model. Stanislavsky sought to find out what is the basic natural process that is "acting." In other words, what occurs that brings together fictional, made-up circumstance and living behavior in a way that becomes art, processed fully with human thought, sensation and feeling? The answer he called Affective Memory, and he described and articulated it and all its accompany details and qualities over a lifetime of work. This fundamental creative process he often said was akin to all other "magical" processes in nature, and he used many metaphors of such in his talks and work with actors. Point two, nature as measure. In the most simplistic sense, Stanislavsky knew that if an actor was violating what he called the creative laws of nature, the acting was "off." For Stanislavsky this measure of nature was his way of telling what kind of short and long term impact an actor's work would have on the spectators, how shallow or how deep it would it affect their sensibilities. Point three, nature as mentor. What could we learn from those characters in Uncle Vanya or The Three Sisters when they were presented to us not as metaphors or political operatives but as fully functioning living breathing human beings with all their interconnected and interdependent lives? An eco-system of a play? What would the actor-artist grasp in a visceral sense? What about the spectator? What is to be learned when you go "into the forest" or "into the play?" Nature runs on sunlight. Nature uses only the energy it needs. Nature fits form to function. Nature recycles everything. Nature rewards cooperation. Nature banks on diversity. Nature demands local expertise. Nature curbs excesses from within. Nature taps the power of limits. Ah, good ol' Stanislavsky! Gets better all the time! Now Workshop Outline... “Earth, Air, Fire, Water, Space and Time” A natural and empirical approach to pre-expressive training and creative presence for Actors and Directors. January 24th Dynamic Breathing, Movement, Sound Spirit (spiritus), Air, from inspiration (idea) to expiration (the end). In this session we are working with the very simple of idea of realizing we alive, that there is a biological basis from which we can proceed. We check our breathing and realize our ability to control it. We realize its impact and potential in doing so. The focus is internal. Breath creates movement – both outward and inside our bodies. These movements in turn can create sound. January 31st Awareness and Sensitivity of the Body and the Environment “The first step toward action and possibility is awareness.” In this session we begin with our awareness internally again, within ourselves, or on our own bodies. But then we slowly move our awareness outwardly, to our surrounding environment, making the realization that we have senses that give us information and help us to create a relationship with our envirionment. February 7th Rhythm, Music, Dance Biological impulses repeated in forms so as to create a behavioral experience. In this session we repeat movements, sounds, rhythms. This is the first step toward expression. It may or may not be something specific to be expressed. It could just be a sensation or a general feeling but now we are putting our bodies into expressive action. February 14th Memories and Associations of Sensation and Emotion “It is untrue and a complete nonsense that I have renounced memory of feelings. I repeat this is the main element of our creativity.” –Stanislavsky, January 1937 In this session we learn of our senses, thoughts, emotions as being storehouses for our experiences and offering us the chance to turn these particular memories into expressive action which is specific and purposeful, and also personal. February 21st Active Mind, Active Body – Creating a precise score of actions Text, from Texture, meaning “the weave” – Actors create and weave a series of actions as their performance text. The more intricate and detailed the weave, the richer the performance. In this session we are now aware that we must create some sense of logic for our expression which can be viewed by a spectator. This is done through a series of actions with can include, thought, feeling, movement, ideas, images, etc. February 28th Intrigue and Story through logical and illogical actions, interruption and displacement What lifts an action or series of action from the realm of the banal and into the realm of theatrical or poetic ,and thereby captivating the mind and senses of a spectator? In this session we realize that we must make things entertaining and arousing for the spectators. Our focus is not only ourselves, our score of actions, but on the spectators. We learn that through sudden stop –starts, breaks in logic, etc, we can capture their attention and interests. March 7th Wholeness and Creative Ardor Seeking to understand the particular scenic traditions and the cultural-historical context through which the performers unique personality manifests itself. Ultimately the score of actions, the expression must take some particular form. What is it that shapes this form? Habits? Traditions? Cliches? Personal desires? March 14th Energy and Adaptation Finding “the simplest human condition” for the stage With everything in place, we now seek a “return” to the most fundamental ideas – breathing, relaxation to ensure that these concepts have not gotten lost along the way. We seek to ensure that we have the right amount of energy for precise expression – the as needed – no more, no less. We have to make ourselves likable and watchable in that sense. And a short essay added in... Stanislavsky’s Notion – Return to Life. Stanislavsky’s first book intended specifically for actors is entitled “The Work of the Actor on Oneself.” The book is divided into two sections: Part One is “The Work on Oneself in the Process of Experiencing.” Part Two is “The Work on Oneself in the Process of Embodying.” Together, these form a suggestion of biological basis for an actor’s work on the stage. The “Process of Experiencing” implies that under the conditions of the stage, a person (an actor) has a tendency to go into a kind of artificial behavior, perhaps something copied, or perhaps a cliché understanding of a particular kind of behavior, or perhaps mere nervousness or getting carried away begins to dominate the impulses of behavior. To remedy this, Stanislavsky suggests a kind of “return to life” within the imaginary circumstances and world of the stage – a kind of “as if” it were true reality, where the person’s (the actors) biological being functions as it normally would with full sense and awareness. The “process of embodying” suggests that once an actor’s biological experiences are functioning, they then must have a particular kind of actualization, different from real life perhaps, in order to meet the specific demands required by the stage – and its accompanying group of spectators. It’s not enough for the actor to merely begin to experience, he/she must actualize the experience a way that is self motivating and comfortable, and in such as way so as to be expressive for the spectators. In order to help create this “return to life,” Stanislavsky suggested that the actor had to create a series of commands between the mind and body which replace the daily influences of the mind and body – thereby separating the fiction of the stage from literal reality. The created series of commands function as a substitution set which prompts the actor’s behavior on the stage. When the mind-body is reacting fully to this substitution set of commands, it is said that the actor is organic. Stanislavsky knew there were certain qualities which could aid the actor in this quest of organicity. Among those qualities was a sense of relaxation, concentration, and imagination. To develop those qualities, Stanislavsky invented a series of exercises meant to give the actor awareness and control over their breathing, their thoughts, points of attention, and movements. Once an actor achieved a level where he/she could accomplish this organic experiencing –embodying process within the particular conditions of the stage, Stanislavsky moved the actor on to his next ideas contained in the book “The Work of the Actor on the Role.” Here is where the peculiar creative nature of acting kicks in fully. Stanislavsky knew that there was/is a subconscious process which fuses the fiction of a play, the unreal, with the reality of the actor, his or her total being, their talent. Stanislavsky named this creative phenomenon “Affective Memory.” His ideas contained in “The Work of the Actor on Oneself” are meant to be a conscious approach leading to the activation of the subconscious in the creative process. Or another way of saying it is “placing the subconscious under direct orders from the conscious.” This is a concept Stanislavsky borrowed from Raja Yoga and put into practice for stage art, acting. These ideas that Stanislavsky had for the actor, function like a set of Russian dolls, one inside another, inside another, inside another. And to the list we must add yet another perspective consistent throughout Stanislavsky’s ideas. Stanislavsky considered The Work of the Actor to be a way of mastery, of technique. He considered the Work on Oneself to be the way of liberation, of freedom from the very technique one has mastered. He considered these two notions inseparable, one not fully able to exist without the other as applied to actors.

Abe Lincoln and Shakespeare, Richard III

Abraham Lincoln thought that perhaps Claudus' speeches were better written than Hamlet's. I mention that just as a way to say that Shakespeare had some influence on Lincoln. And isn't there a little Richmond from Richard III in Lincoln's words and approach at the end of the Civil War? I hear it loud and clear. Where Richmond sought to articulate a reconciliation in the War of the Roses, Lincoln in similar fashion and speech did the same.

Creative Enthusiasm

Stanislavsky often spoke of the importance of creative ardor and enthusiasm, suggesting that if you lose it during the course of a production, you will almost never regain it. He suggested you have to nourish it, cherish it, and let it carry forth in your work. We should all live and work each day with enthusiasm. And such enthusiasm must grow out of our beliefs and our aspirations and the confidence that can come with knowing the rightness and the goodwill of your work, your efforts.

Good People and Friends and Art and Caring

The other night I had the rare chance to go out and spend a few hours with some friends and actors who have spent a great deal of time in their adult lives working on their craft, being good people, being artists. It was a tremendous occasion. We did not dwell on cynical aspects or engage in fits of joke telling and horseplay as often happens when a bunch of actors are together. Rather we told personal stories, and questioned and acknowledged dedication and concern for our art, and found our way to what matters most for us as people, as a group who feels and believes in ideas. I will long cherish the time spent that night.

Richard the Third next post

I finished re-watching Al Pacino's Looking for Richard, because I just had to. It's such a great-fun movie for actors or people on such a quest, informative, smart, cool, etc. Then I watched a few Daniel Day-Lewis clips, some interviews, some scene work. All part of the continuing struggle for inspiration and meaning.

Beowulf Alley Theatre - Winding Road Ensemble and Row After Row

Beowulf Alley (the name itself is brilliant enough) is hosting Winding Road Theatre Ensemble and their new production Row After Row. I can't wait to see it! I am greatly saddened that Winding Road has not been able to develop as the actual ensemble and company that it was originally conceived to be (as I wrote about in a post a couple of years ago or so), never-the-less, the arrival of this work is a great thing. Look it up. The opening is April 18th.

Get There If You Can!

Here's the Deal...

O.k. this is the deal. You have to decide what your aesthetic for the stage is going to be. By that I mean you are picking from two options. One is to have an aesthetic that implies and/or indicates something is occurring or will occur. The other option is to actually create an occurrence, an event on the stage, in the moment. Sounds like a simple distinction and in a way it is, just that, simple. For myself, and many others, the first way is not the way of theatre, or rather of a living theatre, but rather is something more akin to story telling or suggestive illustration of events. It is however far and away the most popular and most frequent form. Now whether that is by accident, ignorance, or on purpose I don't always know. But it is what you most likely see if you go to the theatre. The other way, where things actually do occur, is the way that distinguishes theatre among the arts and makes it unique. It is the way of immediacy and of actual energetic material being transferred around between humans(if I may be so new agey). The first way is dead on arrival, dead as a doornail. The second way lives. And from that living material comes the possibility to create the power and sense of purpose that elevates the art toward large purpose. So you have to choose. Or you should choose. you have to be aware of the difference.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Spent the day thinking about the amazing story of Martin Luther King Jr returning to Memphis, giving his speech, then being shot and killed on the following morning - April 4th. It is a story that in all its depth is still not well known or understood. But I assure you it is poetic and tragic and the details of it are kind of mind blowing. It is overdue to be (re)told for what is actually there.

New Stuff to be done next season?

I'm not completely cringing, but I'm not exactly thrilled with the shows that our producing organizations are choosing for next year. But they know better than me. And I admit there are some inroads being made in some respects. The thing to keep in mind is that these groups do not function as a theatre company "with a permanent group of artist united on a permanent basis who more or less share a common view of life and art" (paraphrasing Harold Clurman) but rather as old time producing companies who job in artist for each show. In other words there are no actors and directors put together permanently who can develop their craft in relationship to each other. Instead administrators choose seasons of shows that they think exhibit a certain variety and entertainment value, and then they fill in actors and directors along the way. There are small exceptions to the rule, but they are just that, small. The Rogue Theatre (of which I am a member of the acting company - for full discloser) is making a valiant attempt with its company of actors and its ongoing training of artists. The Rogue keenly has its sight on certain production values and elements and is working with its actors to be able to sharply manifest that. Amazingly enough, this is considered by many in the theatre community to be not only a strange and unusual occurrence but a kind of unnecessary nuisance. Sad to say but as many have noted, the actor is just a part-time visitor to her/his own house. (And remind me to write a post about actors and skill-sets - to use a sports metaphor term - and how they are chosen via auditions). BUT, understanding and belief of what constitutes a theatre aside, and back to the shows chosen...I am excited about a couple of new plays being put on. And by new I mean new. Not new as in was written three years ago and played on Broadway last year. Or Southwest premier (whatever that is). But actually new! Not a silly staged reading or a kind of half-workshop blocking rehearsal with scripts in hand, but an honest to goodness production of a new play! I think there are at least two scheduled! Well, I did say small inroads.

Cultivate Heart, Nourish Nature

For a company/project that I am working on we chose as our motto the saying "Cultivate Heart, Nourish Nature." I like it for many reasons. It is adopted from a phrase that is perhaps better translated by using Mind for Heart, as in Universal Mind, or Oneness. And Nature refers to Buddha Nature, or the nature of all things. So you might say Cultivate Oneness, Nourish the Buddha Nature of all things. But the connotations and implications become many just as is, in its simplicity. So I love it really, embrace it.

Yikes and Yikes

I think it's going to be a go on North Korea. That's not theatre unfortunately and of course I hope that I am completely wrong and that peace and common sense prevails. But things don't look good that way.

Things I'm Craving

Apricot Jam. A long hike in the forest. Dancing. Something that smells really good...anything. A road trip adventure.

Getting Along

Back to work we go this afternoon for four hours or so working on Richard the third. Half the problem is always sorting out who the heck all the characters are and what they are doing around here, and what in the world are they talking about! All that being much clearer, much more understood, there is always the problem or issue with the language itself, those damn words! Now nothing is worse to my ear than "the tone" adopted by some actors when reading or performing Shakespeare. And mind you, reading is a separate function, task, skill from acting. Knowing the words, lines and using them in context of doing an action on stage is radically different than reading from a printed script while kind of indicating something is being meant, felt, wanted, etc. And so to me, acting cannot and does not take place until a person completely knows their lines by heart. Once you know your lines, you can rehearse. Until then, no. But anyway, even reading doesn't stop many of us from adopting that "tone." Drives me bonkers! The beauty of the language in both sound and meaning comes not from airy official sounding declamation or rhythmic vocal gymnastics or even from the obvious indicating of an implication from an individual word, but rather more from a total phrase, a total thought put together and expressed freely and easily. Actors tend to think that they need to stress so many words, and play their one action of explaining (to explain), so that the spectators get it. Big mistake and happens all the time and might be the single biggest reason that I myself hate going to see plays. (ok, hate is a strong word there). Don't they know that spectators can grasp whole thoughts, complete sentences all put together without constant pause and emphasis and gesture meant to further explain? Nothing ruins my ear more as a spectator that small, plodding, obvious phrasing. But given that we love our moments as actors and love to act we want to act the hell out of every word - especially in Shakespeare. But surprisingly enough, or not, if you are doing what you should be doing as an actor, the dialogue as composed by Shakespeare begins to take its proper place in an exacting way. An exacting way. Yes it requires some attention, as all language does, and some physical skill in breathing and articulation, and knowledge of meaning and music, but those things come to the forefront with all good acting. Emphasis on good.

What Are We Seeking With Our Work?

To make a brilliant work of art? To bring people together? To enlighten? Can you do such a thing in three or four brief weeks of standard rehearsals? Why do some declare every show to be great? Are they?

More Richard III - Shakespeare

Working on learning more and more of the details of Richard the Third. I am about to take on a new book - Blood Sisters, the women behind the war of the roses, by Sarah Gristwood. I can't wait to see what new information is to be had!

Problems!

As you can see, I rarely finish an essay these days. I only just get started. Mostly it is a time factor limitation and I hope to change things up in order to devote more time to writing soon. But my mind, my thoughts are often there still - on the work of the actor, helping, theatre, etc. There are so many things for an actor to consider (and to write about), and here are some of the "problems" in no particular order. 1. How to turn the fiction of a play into something personally meaningful. I don't for one split second buy into the thought that an actor need not have a personal interest in his/her activities on the stage. For I truly believe that if the actor is not personally caring and alive in a given role then there is no real art being made, none taking place. 2. How to teach the body to respond impulsively, fully and spontaneously to the commands given to it by the mind while one is onstage. Most plays completely lack any sense of designed spontaneity and too many actors cannot function fully while on stage, resorting to cliches and time tested habitual behavior which robs the work of nuance and meaningful human behavior and expression. 3. How to make the senses of the spectators and actors come to response, come alive and full during a performance. 4. How to repeat... An action, a gesture, a thought, a sensation, over and over and over in rehearsal and in the exact same way and keep it spontaneous each time. 5. How if you are able to achieve most of the above do you venture further along toward Stanislavsky's concept of "spiritual theatre," a place where the subconscious takes over the creative process and the strands of cumulative human experience which tie us together begin to become more and more evident and we literally know it, feel it, believe it.

Third Unfinished Piece - Only a Beginning Few Lines

A friend of mine and fellow actor decided to combine Michael Chekhov and Viewpoints exercises in a recent workshop that he was facilitating for us. Why on God’s green earth he would commit such blasphemy I know not. But alas he did. Viewpoints in and of itself is enough to send me running home. Michael Chekhov techniques require a kind of brilliant insight and explanation - which is rare - and so also come difficult to me. But that said, I will try to be fair and patient, as I tried to be in the workshop itself, and give some thoughts to clarify my feelings for flight. Now, I am not a cynical person and I am not an exclusive freak so you can’t read this and think I am simply dismissive. I just like my acting workshops to be about acting. In a dismissive and uncaring manner I would simply say Viewpoints is a fine way of organizing polite playground type of games so everyone gets along and feels included and Michael Chekhov techniques (in the wrong hands especially) are fruity illusions and metaphors trying to take the place of actual acting work. But my friend who was leading the workshop is a young man who takes his study seriously and is in the early stages really of putting together his own understanding of all the various crap, er, I mean ideas, he has been subjected to in his colleges and training centers. He hasn’t completed connected the dots or found his own experiences on stage yet as his theme. He is getting there though. And so when you are in that state that he is in as a theatrical artist Viewpoints - Chekhov happens. And in a world where everything is cool to try and combine, its makes sense. (So that answers my earlier plea as to why on God’s green earth this happened).

Another Unfinished Incomplete Essay

We don’t have directors who work creatively with actors and we don’t have actors who work creatively with playwrights and we don’t have playwrights who work creatively with designers and we don’t have designers who work creatively with directors….and so it goes, around and around. Now we do all know how to behave and get along (most of the time) and figure out together things that “work.” And we put those things that “work” onstage for the spectators to see. But out of this “working” environment periodically comes the actor or director who does not feel creative. And so they go on a quest for more creative means. Many go off and devise their own work, write their own plays, their own performances, make their own props, create their own particular space in which to perform. Some go so far as to make attempts to classify and organize a system or way of learning and creating stage art. Some see the stage as the empire and domain of the playwright (Playwright as God). Some see the stage as the empire and domain of the director (must have a grand vision and concept). Some see the stage as the empire and domain of the Storyteller (Actor who speaks words). And these ways of thinking shape how and what they organize as their way of working, as their method of creativity. All totally self-serving of course. The director/choreographer who envisions the stage as their domain invente ideas that make it so - such as “Viewpoints.” Here is technique that has little or nothing to do with the creative process of acting but some (or a lot) to do with generally making and keeping order on the stage. Similar self-serving approaches have been or are being invented (as we speak) for each of the ways that the world of the stage is imagined. Actors who understand that the stage is their domain but who don’t understand the creative process of the actor (or who don’t want to accept it for what it is) also invent a myriad of things to substantiate their view or belief. Let’s take Michael Chekhov as an example here. And so the possibilities and combinations of people feeling less than creative and their point of view about the stage gives us all manner of “techniques” and makes a muck out of what is creative and how creativity unfolds on stage. What is most often lost in these “techniques” is the human factor - the biological apparatus, the body that thinks and feels and desires and moves and senses and is - the one that has knowledge and awareness of past, present and future. To be fair, some techniques take up parts or a part of this notion. Movement but not feeling. Thought but not Sensation. And when it comes to the most burning of all questions for the actor and creativity, the fusion of the fiction and make believe of the stage with the very real and immediate in this very moment living and breathing person of the actor, what do we get? Most often the answer is a game of some sort, or the notion to simply “play like a child.” While those concepts may have their time and place and reason on occasion, they do not get at the core of the actors work. No, they just don’t. Nope, nope, nope. I’m shaking my head a hundred times. And so it comes down to the fact that if the essence of our art is not addressed in our training or in our application via our techniques, then its not even like we are leaving it to chance come eight o’clock performance time, its more like we are discouraging it and manipulating ourselves further away from its creative possibilities.

Unfinished Thoughts - Incomplete Essay.

Stanislavsky said that when an actor goes on stage to perform, the nature and demands of the craft most often inhibit, suppress or distort normal human functions that we take for granted in our everyday lives - thinking, sensing, feeling, moving. In haste and effort to overcome or counteract the problem, actors adopt cliche behaviors and/or devised behaviors to make their performance. The result of that according to Stanislavsky is an art that is superficial, and void of originality, creativity, and inspiration - arriving wholly short of potential. His answer to this was that actors should have “a return to life” while in the context of the role and under the specific conditions of the stage. Then and only then would there be potential for the art to have the detail and depth that could affect spectators in truly meaningful and profound ways. Another way of saying it is that actors tend to lose their “life” in their attempt to perform. “Life” is the essence of stage art. Without the “life” of the actor, the essence is lost and thus it’s art is lost. (becoming mere imitation). In order to restore the essence and the art, the actor must be revived on stage, must return to life. In order to follow and completely understand the ideas, logic and terminology developed by Stanislavsky, those meant to help solve the “lifeless” problem of the actor and bring about profound change to the quality of the art, it’s necessary to consider the three components that make up the issue at hand as Stanislavsky saw it . The three components are the actor her/himself, the role which is to be portrayed, and the stage itself, or rather the particular conditions and conventions that are associated and necessary for acting on stage. The actor of course is a living human being, with thoughts, feelings, sensations, movements, influenced by the past, doing in the present, and anticipating the future. The role is a fictional personality based on an interesting set of circumstances and situation. And the stage is that place where at eight o’clock spectators have gathered to witness and the actor has come to perform - a completely contrived setting. Individually considered, each of the components may be magnificent. And they might be brilliant even in pairs. But problems arise when you try to put all three together at once. When Stanislavsky sat down in front of his mirror in the privacy of his home, working at his own pace and time, for example, he could move and feel and think and assume as the role he was playing. Himself and the role worked together just fine. When eight o’clock came and he had to do it in public view surrounded by all the make believe stuff in the contrived setting, he couldn’t move and feel and think and assume in the same way he did earlier at home. And when he had to repeat the process every night, it only got worse. Himself, the role and the stage didn’t get along all together so great.

Beginning Work on Richard III

After the first reading of Richard III for the Rogue Theatre...the question had to be asked...Why in the world is this considered to be a good play? Somebody explain it to me.

The Warren Buffet of Theatre

Patient and Smart.

Friend's in Low Places.

A few oddball thoughts... I was in one of those cool old bookstores flipping through some stuff and I found a program from a showing of Kurt Weill and Lotte Lenya materials. Included were photographs of shows in Berlin from 1929 and thereabouts. The sets were great. One was a boxing ring in front of a very, very large intricately painted drop - but very casual as were most of the sets. I'm sure there were many times to have been in Berlin but I think that was a prime one! Rhinehardt, Piscator, all those guys, and even a very young Brecht. You know, we all realize that "Brecht" happened way before Brecht the man appropriated credit - but in some ways the official accepted history of Brecht's work and methodology is even more misunderstood and wrong than Stanislavsky's.... My theatre friends are all doing either clown work or storytelling or some such thing. I enjoy it as a spectator. I'm never very highbrow. But it leaves me lonely as an artist... Acting often behind a scrim in the Rogue Theatre's production/adaptation of Kafka's Metamorphosis, we have declared ourselves members of the Scrim Actor's Guild.