Can anyone help me? I am considering using her method? Before I buy her books, sign up for classes, I was wondering what the method was. I would do a search but my thingy isn't working. Can anyone explain briefly?
Is it a form of Strasberg? Or method? Does it use memory? ObjectiveS? etc.

This is really being over-simplistic, but here goes anyway.

Stella Adler was a student of Stanislavski. I believe she may have been the only American to be taught acting by him.

She disagreed with Lee Strasberg about teaching The Method -- Strasberg generally advocated the use of emotional memory and substitution, and Adler believed the emotion came from believing in the moment.

The Meisner technique is also The Method, but it is more Adler than Strasberg. Meisner uses some unusual techniques to get student actors to know themselves well enough to respond naturally on stage to imaginary circumstances. Again, I'm being over-simplistic.

quote:

Originally posted by Morgin Felicia:
Can anyone help me? I am considering using her method? Before I buy her books, sign up for classes, I was wondering what the method was. I would do a search but my thingy isn't working. Can anyone explain briefly?
Is it a form of Strasberg? Or method? Does it use memory? ObjectiveS? etc.

Here is one of my posts about it. I love it. I have many more.

Ok. It is the imagination technique. Whereby you really work on putting yourself in that character's shoes so you can imagine how they would really feel. The idea is that if you are in touch enough with the character, you will not be acting but really feeling what they would befeeling so it is more truthful, less fake and far more real. Robert de Niro uses this formula and can you think of a better or more gifted character/lead actor? He uses nothing of himself in his work, everything is dreived form being connected to his character and THEIR emotions, not his. The first few classes of technique, you will do exercises to work the imagination like a muscle. Examples are eating a watermelon, feeling the seeds in your mouth, the smell, imagining the juices dripping down your chin, the smell etc. Another one is you are in a concentration camp and watching a child die, touching their face etc. BEING PRESENT in the moment. I can watch any actor now and pick them apart for not being thruthful or present. If you really understand the character and what they are going through, you can be present an convincing. Don't yell, cry, scream etc or force anything. Imagining the circumstances and so on will help anything you do come more naturally. You will do things like describing a homeless person you create in your mind. Then you will work with a partner on one page of dialogue where you will be cops, reporters, hairdressers and you create the circumstances behind the dialogue and deliver it as such. In my class the girls had to do "Blanche" from "Streetcar" and the guys had to do the mean guy from "Amadeus." The trick is don't think what you would do. You have to imagine what THEY would do. In technique 2 I worked on a scene from "Closer" with a scene partner. We performed them at the end of that semester. Then script breakdown I did next, then scene study. DO NOT DO SCENE STUDY WITHOUT TECHNIQUE FIRST!!!!! This goes to all of you. You cannot truly understand your characters on a deep enough level if you skip the technique classes. Technique is the foundation or your work. There are two types of actors who win awards. Those who get lucky and are "now" or popular- i.e. Nicole Kidman and those who study their craft diligently for years and EARN them i.e. Al Pacino, Robert de Niro, Meryl Streep. I know who I want to be! Any more I can help with feel free to ask. I love this school and swear by it. This is THEATRE training. That is the type of training that creates and develops the best and deepest performances from actors.

Yes, I caught the typos!!!

Here's the cliffsnotes version of American Method (which Stella Adler's techniques are a branch of)

I'm sure you're familiar with Method Acting. Method Acting comes from Stanislavski. There are now three main versions of American Method, Strasberg, Adler, and Meisner.

Strasberg was an advocate of what's called emotional/affective memory. This is using past emotions to generate current emotions. Some famous people who studied this version of Method were/are James Dean, Marilynn Monroe, Al Pacino, Paul Newman.

Stella Adler (Stanislavski disciple who studied alongside Strasberg) went to Russia to study with Stanislavski, himself. Stanislavski was originally an advocate of emotional memory, but he realized that it was flawed. Over time, a memory can change. For example a memory that was once traumatic as a kid is now a silly memory. Stella went back to the U.S. and said Strasberg was wrong and formed her branch of American Method. Her version focuses more on imagination. Robert DeNiro and Marlon Brando were from this school.

Sanford Meisner (another Stanislavski disciple along Strassberg and Adler) also thought the emotional memory was junk so he formed his own version of American Method. His version focuses more on instincts and reacting to the moment. He defined acting as "living in imaginary cirumstances." Some people who use Meisner are/were Gregory Peck, Robert Duvall, Steven McQueen, Jon Voight, Jeff Goldblum, just to name a few.

Here's some good books to check out:
-A Dream of Passion-Lee Strasberg
-Art of Acting-Stella Adler
-Sanford Meisner on Acting-Sanford Meisner

In addition to their books, here are some other good books to check out:
For a good book about all three of the Methods:
-The Unconscious Actor- Darryl Hickman

Additional reading on Meisner:
-Actor's Art and Craft-William Esper

Additional reading on Strasberg:
-Strasberg's Method-Lorraine Hull

Hello,

First of all, this original post was posted on two sections of the board. Morgin, you don't need to do that to get a response in the future. It clutters the message board and turns readers away. So I'll just respond to the posts on this thread, and make a note on the other one.

Ok, I have to pick and choose what I respond to, because there are numerous errors and misunderstandings in the previous responses. There is also some good information. Remember, read everything with a grain of salt on these message boards -- any poster could be some lonely woman or man in Kansas who has never studied acting and hates themselves and has a vendetta against someone and just posts and posts away on a message board because she has no life. You never know. Unless a poster identifies themselves and explains their training background, you really have no idea how to judge the merits of their writing. That's really important to remember when reading anonymous message board posts. I'm glad everyone is participating. It's great. Just please don't take it personally if I add my own thoughts or suggest amendments to yours. It's about the WORK, not about you or me.

First thing I'll say is that Stanislavski never decided "emotional memory" was flawed. He simply moved on to other areas of focus as he moved through his life. He didn't need to spend 50 years developing emotional memory, he did that work when he was young. So it's a very common myth to think he kept over-turning his earlier work. He didn't. He added to it. And it IS flawed, so is EVERY approach to acting. No tool works for everyone all the time. It's why actors need many tools and processes -- because nothing works all the time. But you cannot deny emotional memory has served plenty of Master actors. It does. Just like the opposite approach serves plenty of actors, even the SAME actors -- in different situations and on different days.

There really is a misunderstanding out there, that is increasingly outdated, that all these Masters' work does not go together. It is based on the fact that each of them had absolutely gigantic egos and seemed to need to believe that you had to to do what they taught or you would completely fail...and not only that, if you didn't follow their way, you were evil or something. So Adler hated Strasberg, who hated Meisner, who hated blah blah blah. They all hated each other, even though they came from the same womb: the Group Theater. Everyone should read about the Group Theater.

So for many years there was this idea, based on the lack of understanding of psychology in the mid 20th Century, that there is this giant distinction between "using yourself" and "using your imagination." It promotes the false notion that the psyche is neatly divided into TRUTH AND PERSONAL REALITY...and then in some other area of your brain there is THE FAKE IMAGINATION. But this outdated way of looking at the brain is not believed by any modern psychologist anymore and not by any modern, respected acting teacher who follows current understandings of psychology (and shouldn't acting teachers be up to date?). NOW HEAR THIS: You can never NOT use yourself when you act. You can never ONLY use your imagination. Similarly, you can never NOT use your imagination. And you can never ONLY use personal experiences. You are always using both, whether you know it and admit or not, because of how your brain works. Your past is always influencing you, period. Your fantasy life is always influencing you, period. It isn't either or. The teachers who promoted that were just wrong. Period. Objectively wrong. Now, what you CAN do is choose where to direct your FOCUS when preparing to act. And isn't it best to have the OPTION of doing whatever works? To sometimes use memories, to sometimes use fantasies -- and here is a modern idea -- USE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. Take a memory, add a fantasy to it! Take a fantasy, add some personal "truth" to it. In the real world, we need to produce the result...on cue...now...when the director says action. We don't have acting teachers sitting on film sets insulting you for not following their religions. Thank God.

So you can have lengthy discussions about who was right and who was wrong, and who is superior and blah, blah, blah about all these dead teachers. But it's a big waste of time. And it's actually quite a destructive waste of time and here is why:

There are plenty of teachers who talk with one another, who work with one another, and who are scholars of the FIELD of actor training. They may not be as obvious in advertising as the teachers who are locked in the past, but there are plenty modern teachers who see that ALL THE OLD METHODS GO TOGETHER! You don't have to choose one way versus the other. It's a non-issue in 2008.

If you have an acting teacher who has studied all these old ways, and who understands modern psychology and creativity research, you can see that the tools that each of these past Masters' developed FIT TOGETHER. You can use the Sensory Work that Lee Strasberg developed and combine it with the "Reminisce" exercise Stella Adler created and get startlingly wonderfully better results than just picking one or the other. I've seen it with my own eyes about 1,000,000 times at this point. Did you know you can now earn a PhD in Creative Psychology -- that is, HOW creativity/acting works? Isn't that neat? I'm going to be doing that soon. I can't wait.

There is also a common misconception that the old Master teachers' ideas are incompatible with each other. For example, the lie told about Strasberg actors is that they are "self-involved." Really? Well, tell that to all the actors who won Academy Awards who were trained by him. Strasberg did NOT teach actors to be self-involved. HE AGREED WITH MEISNER that actors MUST work off one another. It's just that Lee also allowed his actors (as if actors should have to get permission from their teachers to do what works! That's so old-fashioned...) to create Sensory Worlds to create experiences. Guess what? It works for plenty of great actors.

And guess what? Meisner's principles work for plenty of great actors. Guess what? Adler's Method of Physical Actions work for plenty of actors.

Guess what? Teachers who combine MULTIPLE approaches to acting get better results with their actors. These teachers include Susan Batson, Larry Moss, Michael Howard, Eric Morris, Sande Shurin, Tony Greco, Richard Seyd, Mary Boyer, Janet Sonenberg, MOST University professors and programs thoughout the country...and...um...me...It's just a fact, I'm not asking you to study with me...sheesh. And there are many more teachers who share this philosophy. -- MANY MORE. I'm meeting them at trainings and conferences all the time. More and more we're talking with each other and helping each other improve! It's the wave of the future and the cutting edge of now.

So go to an old-fashioned school if you want to. I did when I was younger. And I would personally never settle for outdated training like that again. It would be like going to a Dr. that only knows surgical methods from 75 years ago...like putting leaches on you to suck out your blood, isn't that fun? And studying with that Dr. who thinks everyone else is an idiot. It's just an outdated, dumb point of view. I know some readers' think I'm not classy when I state my case like this. But I'm not Barack Obama running to please everyone, I'm an acting teacher who wants to help as many kinds of actors as possible. So I'm just going to speak my truth here, knowing that the old guard with the old training will freak out and maybe even personally insult me. Oh, well.

So I recommend modern books about acting, not the books by the people who died 40 years ago. Now, the thing is, some of the modern books simply steal the ideas of the old teachers and add nothing. I can't do anything about this. You have to do tremendous amounts of research if you want to receive the best training around. Some of the modern books steal ideas and add nothing. But some of them, like Larry Moss's book, build on the past tremendously. And read Eric Morris's books. Read them all with a grain of salt. After you read Morris, read Mamet. They hate each other. And they are both right. Make it your goal to figure out how to use BOTH their points of view. THAT is creativity.

So I advocate finding a teacher that you PERSONALLY connect with -- that you feel safe with and who pushes you. Go where the warmth is. It's VERY much about the personal connection with the teacher. And I also advocate you find a teacher who is an expert in the FIELD of acting -- who makes it their mission to study MANY ways, MANY tools because they understand that actually they can go together for you.

See...you may use Sensory Work in this situation...and Meisner's principles in that situation...and Adler's actions in that situation.

You may have a director who tells you he needs a very specific emotional result right now. You better be able to do it. You may be on a set with a green screen and have no "place" to actually be in and be able to create everything vividly with your imagination. Maybe there is no other actor there. Maybe it's ALL about memories of the character. Maybe you need Chekhov and Eric Morris work in this situation. Or you maybe want to be the kind of actor who TRANSFORMS themselves physically and vocally -- then you need physical approaches to acting -- like Externals techniques.

In some situations, you may need to use a personal memory and think of how YOU would do it. In another situation, you need to think of the character as someone else entirely in order for your psyche to feel SAFE to go to a specific imaginative and emotional place -- like being a Nazi.

What I would suggest you do NOT need is a teacher who will limit you -- who will tell you there is a right way and an evil way to approach acting. There isn't. There is WHATEVER WORKS. Anyone who limits you or represses you or invalidates the development of YOUR VERY OWN PROCESS does not understand how creativity works. Anyone who teaches step-by-step, one size fits all approaches to creativity make no sense to me. Creativity requires YOUR OWN view, YOUR OWN process, YOUR OWN creation. How can a one-size-fits-all approach to acting be creative?

No two GREAT actors can ever have the same approach to acting. Period. It isn't possible, because you are totally unique and because the options are so necessarily vast. You don't need to learn outdated dogmas about acting. You need to learn OPTIONS that current professionals use with success. I spend LOTS of time interviewing professional actors about WHAT WORKS. And then I add new tools and ideas I hear about to my notes and worksheets that are available to my students. We offer literally YEARS of options for what to do when working on scripts and in rehearsals. We're like a Supermarket of ideas for you to choose from. Ok, I'm not asking you to consider my school. I'm simply telling you exactly what I would personally expect from an acting teacher I would work with. And I do have my own teachers, by the way. But at this point in my own learning, I have to go to psychologists and other consciousness teachers to deepen my personal process as an actor -- because I've pretty much exhausted all the modern methods. I also tend to work with voice teachers, who do very deep emotional voice work (not technical crap), because I'm a singer as much as an actor.

Ok, when these subjects come up, I want to write for hours about them. Because these are the subjects I'm passionate about. I know it's hard, but look for a teacher and school that brags about being current, not old. Look for a school with teachers that are creators, not repeaters. Look for a school with teachers that embrace you and facilitate your INDEPENDENCE and developing YOUR OWN ways, instead of "teachers" that force feed you rules and dogmas developed 50 years ago.

What does this mean? It means your search isn't going to be easy. It means you can't settle for average training. It means most schools you look into are not going to meet these qualifications, because most training is rather crappy -- just like most law schools are crappy, most beauty schools are crappy and most dance schools are crappy. Will you settle for average, mass market actor training? Or will you will find the teachers who work with the elite actors? What kind of actor do YOU want to be? What kind of actors do YOU want to work with? Look around in the classes you investigate, are you inspired by the actors' commitment and consciousness? If not, maybe it isn't the place for you. Or maybe you want cheap and common training that accepts anyone. I hear lots of people on these boards promote those schools. And the actors I respect wouldn't be caught dead in them.

I won't single anyone out on this thread, but I did just re-read through to see if I wanted to say anything else, and I will just say that it isn't true at all to say there are "three main versions of the American method." There really isn't any American method. At this point, teachers teach all over the world. The best learn from each other. The most modern are not addicted to the past at all and do not recognize all these black and white out-of-date distinctions about training. There are actually dozens of Master teachers in this country whose work overlaps each other and each has added their own ways. It's really quite wonderful.

If you choose a legacy school to attend, expect to be trained by teachers who are interested in promoting the past and their dead gurus, instead of promoting YOUR WORK.

Well, I'm off to drive for many hours in South Florida. I hope no one needs to insult anyone or tell anyone how dumb they are. Let's all think through our posts and take time to clarify our thoughts before posting. Then, readers will learn the most. And that's the point.

- Jason Bennett

quote:

Guess what? Teachers who combine MULTIPLE approaches to acting get better results with their actors. These teachers include Susan Batson, Larry Moss, Michael Howard, Eric Morris, Sande Shurin, Tony Greco, Richard Seyd, Mary Boyer, Janet Sonenberg, MOST University professors and programs thoughout the country...and...um...me...It's just a fact, I'm not asking you to study with me...sheesh. And there are many more teachers who share this philosophy. -- MANY MORE. I'm meeting them at trainings and conferences all the time. More and more we're talking with each other and helping each other improve! It's the wave of the future and the cutting edge of now.

It's not so new. The multiple technique angle was the philosophy of my teachers back in the early 1990's. They called it a smorgasboard - we got to sample everything and they helped us find a process tailored to our individual needs.

Oh, it's older than that! I mean, the idea of more than one acting tool. The best professional actors, when all those great 20th Century teachers were alive, didn't just study with one of them. They learned many ways of approaching the work...of course.

But there are new discoveries all the time -- clearer, better, more accurate ways of describing the way acting works. This helps design more reliable, effective acting tools. There is work that is on the cutting edge that even 15 years ago, they hardly knew about. And it really helps actors get easier and deeper and more reliable results.

So while a multifaceted approach isn't new, you are right, it's important to know that CURRENT teachers who innovate (as opposed to "teachers" that just repeat old ways) are always improving -- as human consciousness expands, so does the way we train actors.

But I also take note that of course you're right, JimtheUmp, it's the NORM for working actors to know MANY approaches to acting, not one. BUT, it seems clear some very vocal posters on these message boards don't seem to get that. You hear them promoting really outdated schools and very narrow ways of thinking about acting.

I can't quite figure it out. Maybe you have some thoughts about it. Because it sure is disconnected from the world of working actors and current teachers. I'm doing my best to educate, but sometimes when I explain what is the norm for working actors and the best teachers around, a few posters seem to think I'm being controversial. Nothing I say is controversial, I think. It's pretty much all accepted as obvious to the people who are working in the arts today.

- Jason

quote:

Originally posted by JBActors: it's the NORM for working actors to know MANY approaches to acting, not one. BUT, it seems clear some very vocal posters on these message boards don't seem to get that. You hear them promoting really outdated schools and very narrow ways of thinking about acting.

There is of course nothing contradictory about saying - as is true - that many modern teachers teach or draw on a variety of methods, and saying that the methods they typically draw on (as is generally true) are those of the very "outdated schools" in question.

JBActors.com offers a typical example:

quote:

We continuously study all the other acting schools (Adler, Chekhov, Hagen, Meisner, Strasberg, Mamet, Morris, Spolin, Stanislavski and more) so that our actors are not missing out on anything: you get all the major acting tools and philosophies, synthesized into a clear, specific, practical approach to acting

Note the word: "synthesized". Not "transformed" or "moved beyond". Not a word about any of these methods being "outdated". In fact, prospective students are specifically told:

quote:

you get all the major acting tools and philosophies

That is, those same philosophies that the owner of the school has spent so much effort in proclaiming "outdated".

So, no, it's not unusual for acting schools that came after those "outdated schools" to themselves promote their names - which after all are the ones most people recognize and that prospective students will be looking for.

quote:

I can't quite figure it out. Maybe you have some thoughts about it.

Approaches to the craft can be intensely personal. Actors who find techniques that work well for them invariably believe all other actors should work the same way. Many of them become acting teachers.

quote:

Originally posted by jimtheump:

quote:

I can't quite figure it out. Maybe you have some thoughts about it.

Approaches to the craft can be intensely personal. Actors who find techniques that work well for them invariably believe all other actors should work the same way. Many of them become acting teachers.

Rude.

Let's get back to Adler:

quote:

You won't hear me talk much about emotions. That's because emotions aren't doable. Actions are doable, and if you do them correctly, they prompt the feelings.
When I worked with Stanislavski in Paris he stressed the importance of the imagination. He explained how important it was to use the imagination on the stage. He explained in detail how important it was to use the imagination on the stage. He explained in detail how important it was to use the circumstances....
All the emotion required of you can be found through your imagination and in the circumstances of the play....
If you need an action you can't find in a play then you can go back to your own life - but not for the emotion, rather for a similar action. In your own personal experience you had a similar action to which you had an emotional response. Go back to the action and the specific circumstances and remember what you did. If you recall the place, the feeling will come back to you.
But to remain in your personal past, which made you cry or gave you a past emotion, is false, because you're not now in those circumstances. You're in the play...
..If you go to your memories you're creating your own play, not the author's...
Staniskavski said that one can demand of an actor that he do something. You can never demand of him that he feel something...
The Art of Acting, 139-141

I hope the above quote makes it clear that the idea of STARTING with an emotion, of using that to drive everything else is not a new idea, it's an OLD idea. One that modern acting has been moving away from for decades.

Our emotions are there. We need to get out of their way and let them work, rather than trying to grab hold of them and, like a doting parent, demand that they perform for the nice people.

In terms of modern research, note too that this statement:

quote:

Go back to the action and the specific circumstances and remember what you did. If you recall the place, the feeling will come back to you.

has been verified rather literally by neurological research. That is, the sense memories of a particular meaningful event are physically stored near the emotional content. If we try to access that emotional - and often traumatic - memory directly, all kinds of blocks are likely to kick in. One way to trick the emotion is to start with the sensory artifacts, and then let the closely associated emotion come out on its own.

The most dramatic example I know of this was in the filming of the documentary "Shoah", on the Holocaust. The interviewer would ask someone who found it too painful to talk about a certain incident to instead, for instance, describe the coat their father was wearing when the Nazis took him away. This in turn would lead to emotional revelations.

A great insight for actors to use - and one Stanislavski and Adler seem to have found without benefit of more recent research.

Hello,

Most of what JimChevallier quoted I agree with, however some of it is outdated or doesn't apply to all actors or all circumstances.

It is false to think that the action-emotion axis is a ONE WAY STREET in acting. It isn't. It's a two or three way street, or even more ways in.

1) That is, activating emotional life CAN IMPEL ACTION.

2) The reverse: Taking an action can result in emotional life.

3) Imagining something, very specifically, can result in an overwhelming NEED to take ACTION. Experience leads to action.

Further, for some actors using memories works just fine, and does not cause the problems Adler writes about (although she didn't write that book). For other actors, and in certain memories, using them activates healthy protective mechanisms, as she refers to -- and emotional life is blocked. Or, if an actor only uses memories and has no idea how to create an imaginary world, the actor may become self-involved. It becomes about them, not the play, as Adler cautions about.

Next, from "The Art of Acting," "All the emotion required of you can be found through your imagination and in the circumstances of the play...."

This is correct for some actors, and utterly false for others. Most aspiring actors come to acting with creative/emotional blocks. A primary goal of actor training is to OPEN UP THE ACTORS TO THEMSELVES AND THE WORLD AROUND THEM. This quote above falsely implies that total devotion to the imagination and the play will always result in filled emotional life. Bullcrap. Not if the actor comes to acting with emotional repression. For many actors, these blocks must be addressed, directly and safely, in actor training -- before the circumstances of the play or the imagination will yield anything. It's normal for blocks to arise over and over again, throughout careers, in all kinds of ways. Failure to understand this, which both Adler and Stanislavski were guilty of, results in actors feeling or being judged as untalented when simply "using their imagination," "attending to the circumstances," and "playing actions" is NOT ENOUGH.

Further, if the writing is CRAPPY, like in a lot of TV -- there is not enough in the circumstances to result in stunning acting. In this situation, you need an actor who knows themselves VERY well, who knows how to bring layers and dimensions to crappy writing. This kind of seasoning is the result of a high level of consciousness of one's psychology and a high level of consciousness about what audiences find entertaining. It is WHY you forget so many guests on Law and Order -- they are simply being "truthful" and "playing actions" and adding NOTHING to the script. They are forgettable. They need to learn how bring FIREWORKS to shallow scripts. This ability is why, if Anthony Hopkins or Meryl Streep guest starred on Law and Order, you would not forget their performances. Same writing, same rather formulaic situations -- but Master actors who know how to bring the depths of their soul and their imaginations to these circumstances will make the story-telling riveting anyway. This isn't simply looking to the script and playing actions. How absurd and primitive to view acting this way. I would think these actors would find such a suggestion insulting.

Being creative isn't about being a puppet to the circumstances and the script, and simply playing actions. It's about bringing a very deep artistic point of view, a lifetime of meaningful living, a deep capacity to manifest Archetypal energy, a profoundly developed imagination and a library of seasoning about what works and doesn't work for modern audiences.

What is also not understood by Adler, Stanislavski and their religious followers is that their actor training philosophies were CULTURALLY CONDITIONED. If one eats Mushrooms and studies Timothy Leary, one should know that all actor training is a construct -- influenced by the geo-political/religious/educational level/cultural/historical/psychological (and lots more) factors playing on the particular acting teacher. The 20th Century teachers obsessed about action, because the culture they lived in was obsessed with action. It was a culture that didn't have time for feelings. Discussing feelings, or even knowing about them, was thought of as obnoxious. SO THIS CAUSED THE ACTION-BASED ACTOR TRAINING. We humans have now moved beyond this anti-emotional prejudice -- so have actors.

Current teachers have moved beyond that. We understand that all that is said about the importance, ability to and specificity of playing actions is fine. We also recognize these religious rules promoted by early acting teachers are only SITUATIONALLY TRUE. That is, on film set on one day, it might be about actions. On another day, it might be about emotional result. One day you might have another actor you are playing off of. In another scene, you might need to be self-involved and obsessed with the character's memories of being molested as a child because that is the story being told. And thinking of it as "playing actions" is weird and absurd.

So these very narrow, absolutist rules being promoted by Adler and Stanislasvki teaching long ago are simply true and not true. It depends on the circumstances. If an actor limits themselves to understanding acting with these limited religious ideas about acting, your career is in BIG TROUBLE.

But great actors don't limits themselves like this. Not these days. No great actor would say they simply play actions. And if they did claim this, they'd be deluded. Case in point would be William H. Macy. He created "practical aesthetics" with David Mamet. It's the simple action-based way of looking at acting. And it excludes discussions of emotional life and sensory work -- which is so odd that all these teachers do this -- when deep emotional life is part of what entertains and invokes audiences.

And if you watch William H. Macy, it's obvious he does a lot more than simply play actions and be a puppet to the script/director. That's nonsense. There are certainly far more versatile actors than Mr. Macy, but in his work you see psychological, physical and vocal adjustments in much of his work. I should think he would find it insulting if someone would suggest that he's just a puppet, "using his imagination, "serving the play," and "playing actions."

It's such an absurd oversimplification of creativity that it must be comforting to many. "Ahhh....acting and creativity is so simple...Well, Adler said it! Others said it. It must be so. Oh thank God, this relieves my fear that something very deep is going on in acting, that I'll have to work my butt off to grapple with the deepest questions humanity is grappling with...That isn't what acting is about...It's just shallowly playing actions and using my imagination, getting it all from the circumstances...Then, EVERYTHING JUST MAGICALLY HAPPENS. Yay!!! Comforting...and religious nonsense..."

But I can see why these absurd oversimplifications are promoted by some religious devotees. It's comforting, it's accessible to the masses. The average masses eat this simple stuff up. The acting Masters are doing so much more. They are energy Masters. They are Shamans. They are holding up a mirror to themselves on the deepest levels. These great actors hold up a mirror to the audience. These great actors are not totally caught up in "culture" -- and the associated repressive ideas about reality. These actors stand slightly outside or far outside culture and normalcy and ask themselves, "What is REALLY going on in this play, beyond the headlines, behind closed doors, on this planet, outside what the masses believe?"

To engage in such deep questioning, as an artist, goes way beyond what Adler and Stanislavski could conceive of in their day. They never dreamed of using dreams for your acting. They never knew that Quantum Physicists would suggest that dreams may be windows into alternate universes, that when we act and our acting is stunning -- that maybe we are actually channeling the world of the play from somewhere else. Perhaps, Michael Chekhov was right, that when we act we are accessing an objective world of the play and characters that exist in other dimensions. Alder and Stanislavski couldn't conceive of, because of their cultural conditioning and more limited psychological understanding, the reality that what is REALLY going on in amazing performance is ENERGETIC EXCHANGE. Audiences feed on the energies the creative work brings them. This is what they find entertaining.

So actor training must be about increasing the actors' consciousness -- imaginatively, emotionally, energetically, vocally, physically -- and on and on.

THEN, and ONLY then, do the concepts of script analysis and playing actions have meaning. Sure, when an actor is emotionally open and unblocked, Adler's quotes make sense. Not if the actor isn't. And there are plenty of acting situations, character situations, etc. where discussions of actions is limiting, repressive and takes you in the "wrong" direction away from telling the story.

Teaching rules and old religions about acting is easy. And unwise. It doesn't evolve actor training. Acting is the study and communication of human behavior through story-telling. As humans evolve, so too does the complexity of the story-telling. As our understanding of consciousness and creative psychology evolve, we can be more comprehensive than Adler ever could. And we are. We salute her brilliance, and the brilliance of all those past Masters. And the ultimate salute, as Anne Bogart would say, is to stand on their shoulders and reach new vistas and see new truths and develop new processes.

Like Anne Bogart, I would say I stand on the shoulders of all these Masters. And our work goes way beyond their work, too.

The fact is, I work all the time with actors who have been trained in Stella Adler's ways, or other teachers narrowly obsessed with playing actions. I watch their work grow in leaps in bounds, I feel their deep relief, I am stunned by their performances...after they are exposed to newer and different complimentary ideas about acting. They thought all there was to actor training were 50 year old tools that were vague and inaccessible to them. They started to doubt their talent. They didn't know what was wrong. Then, they learned comprehensive approaches -- more ways to think about acting -- and their work made evolutionary leaps.

But the reverse is true. I've worked with actors who came to me from teachers that were too emotionally based. And these actors need intellectual script analysis, they need to learn to pursue goals, grapple with obstacles and play actions. A modern teacher can be expected to teach a comprehensive approach that transforms the traditional, singular ways of actor training through synthesizing all the past ways and adding in the new.

And there are many teachers who teach this way. What is dying out are schools devoted to only one or two sets of rules about acting. Rules are for religionists. Explorations and creative chaos are for the actors who do deep work. Newer books about acting integrate multiple views about acting -- resulting is a far easier time for the actor. Thank God, for my own work, that I studied so many approaches to acting.

I have ALL kinds of tools and ways of thinking about acting to call on when I work. My Lord, if it was limited to Adler's views my work would fail on a regular basis. Sometimes, her thinking is just what I need. Sometimes, I need Eric Morris's ways of thinking. Sometimes, I need Roy Hart's work. Sometimes, I need games from Viola Spolin, sometimes ideas from Anne Bogart's world. Sometimes, Archetypal Psychology solves the puzzle. Sometimes, Spiral Dynamics or Humanistic Psychology.

It's so wonderful to be current in my training and thinking about acting -- as a performer. And it's so sad to hear others worshiping the past with no interest in the present. It's sad what they probably miss. But if they are happy, that's all that matters I guess -- unless it's Sarah Palin running for office. Then, these flat-earthers are dangerous.

- Jason Bennett

quote:

Rude.

Rude how? That's my experience. Perhaps you mistook my post as directed at someone here. It is not. I don't know anyone here enough to form such an opinion of them.

Hi, I thought what JimtheUmp wrote was accurate. However, plenty of actors do understand that whatever their process is will not be the process of other actors.

Also, there are some acting teachers who teach because they need to earn a living -- not because teaching is their first love. These teachers generally offend me, as a person devoted to perfecting the art of teaching.

- Jason

Hello,

Another problem with the Adler/Stanislavski references above are that it presents what in logic is called a "false dilemma."

The false dilemma is that actors must choose between "the imaginaton" and "memories for emotions."

This was true back when Adler was developing her thinking, 40 years ago, because of the primitive understanding of the way the brain works. It was thought the imagination was fake and that memories were real. Any modern psychologist will tell you that's nonsense.

And now actors can learn to access Archetypes consciously -- this is how Master actors do emotional preparations. Each Archetype radiates a specific emotional life, energetic life, voice, physicality and physiology. Archetypes both impel you to and define HOW an action is played, or a goal is pursued. The acting teachers back then couldn't train actors to consciously access Archetypes. So ALL the acting tools were about getting at Archetypes indirectly.

For example, you play the action of killing with in the hopes that it will evoke the energy of the killer in you. This, in turns, changes the look in your eyes, the quality of your voice and energy you radiate.

Or you recall the memory of being attacked to evoke the killer in you for the scene.

No matter what old-fashioned acting tool you choose, the purpose is to elicit Archetypes that will be appropriate to tell the story.

Each character is defined by a unique make-up of Archetypes. And each moment in a scene is characterized by a collection of Archetypes. Actions elicit archetypes and archetypes can impel archetypes.

In the end, it's actually all about Archetypes. These universal energy patterns then move, sound and say the lines a certain way -- and this tells the story. And the audience receives an energetic/archetypal feeding.

We are energetic clumps of Archetypes seeking out opposite Archetypal energy clumps and feeding off of their energy or exchanging energy with them in a mutually beneficial way. And this is what is going on in acting, too. As audience members, we are entertained when the performance facilitates us accessing Archetypes and Realizations within ourselves.

We are seeking beauty. And we want to FEEL IT, not simply understand it.

- Jason

quote:

Actions elicit archetypes and archetypes can impel archetypes.

This should have read,

Actions elicit archetypes and archetypes can elicit actions.

I just had a class at Margie Haber Studios with Saxon Trainor, a Stella Adler Disciple. I am so blown away! I've read Stella's book, but never really applied her teaching until now. It's just so amazing how using your imagination can make such a difference when cold reading or doing a scene in general!

Thanks guys! I think I'm going to take her teen class in the spring.