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.