quote:

Originally posted by renaissancesr24:
As far as the imagination, I don't understand the point of going to such great length to create something that isn't real. Why not just create something that is truthful. And using traumatic experiences should be approached with caution. Using these exercise can allow healing, but the traumatic experience being used should have happened some years ago. And acting must remain fun. The reason traumatic experiences can be hard to get in touch with is because they are emotionally painful and the mind tries to suppress or repress the experience as a defense mechanism. However, that isn't always healthy. The mind thinks it is protecting you emotionally, but too much use of a defense mechanism leaves wounds unhealed. Confronting something painful consciously and dealing with it causes healing.

I agree with this to a point. I DO agree that using situations from your own life, epsecially traumatic ones, should be approached with great caution. Personally, as an actor, I try NOT to use this method, a) because it doesn't work for me, and b) I've found that I sometimes become desensitized to things that have happened in my own life, and I don't like that. The first really emotional scene I had was a few years ago in my school play. I was fifteen and a few months before, I had gone through a very tragic experience involving a friend's death- the first death I'd ever experienced. During the rehearsal process, the director asked me if I was familiar with the stages of grief. When I said yes, he told me to use whatever had caused me to experience them. I tried this, but it just didn't work for me. Instead, I found that thinking only the character's thoughts works for me- and I've been using this method for three years. It doesn't help me in a scene where I need to cry to think, "Just remember when you went to the funeral" or whatever. I have to think what the character would be thinking.

Confronting something truamatic that happened to you CAN be a healing process- but you can push it too far. Once, in that same production, I did think about my friend and began to cry in the scene- and then I couldn't stop crying. One really needs to be careful when using their own life experiences.

TheatreLvr08 voiced something I have always been reluctant to express for fear of ridicule when he said "b) I've found that I sometimes become desensitized to things that have happened in my own life, and I don't like that. "

I have spent most of my life keeping things tightly buttoned up, it's the way I was raised, and have a limited number of experiences when those gates were really opened. Maybe I'm selfish but... they're mine. I I don't want to become desensitized to them either. I don't want to analyze them and ask why until they become exercises. There's a scientific theory that says the mere act of observing something changes it.

I guess that's why I'm grooving on the Practical Aesthetics I've been working with lately. When using their As-If technique, we were instructed to use an experience that COULD happen in our own lives, but not one that DID happen; we already know how we acted and reacted in that situation. Likewise, we are cautioned to be careful to choose something that really can happen, for instance, when I selected a 'coaching a kid' As-If, I was asked if I was actually a coach, and when I said no, was told to choose something else.

It's a new technique for me, but it resonates with me. When I try to remember lying on the rug in front of the fireplace in my grandma's house smelling the cookies as they burnt but how a-scared I was to wake her up because I could smell the sherry on her breath... well... I still just giggle.

This has been a great discussion and I hope I didn't screw it up. For the record, I'm in the "Get on the mountains and actually taste the snow" camp. Someone once told me to get out of my head and get out into the world. It seemed like good advice at the time.

This is such a great discussion! Well, I think we are all on the right track with our own approaches. There was one thing that I mentioned in an earlier post and I may have just washed over it a bit, not sure. Theatrelvr brought up the issue of not being able to conjure up the emotion during a scene using substitution, or a portion of sense memory work. Not sure if it was lack of being able to conjure up the emotion or just that it simply didn't work. My idea is that this sense memory work should be applied during REHEARSALS, and not during actual performances. If you work it enough in rehearsal, the emotion will migrate from your initial experience (ie. your friend's passing) to your scene's situation. You can assimilate your emotions from a personal experience, to form to your character's life IF you apply it during rehearsal. Once embedded in your psycho-physical self from hours upon hours of rehearsal, the emotion will be real on stage. For JB, I understand where you're coming from. I think the "just be" or the "acting is doing" theme is a simplified statement of what you're aiming for. When we are "just doing" things, do we not have those same emotions and fantasies in our everyday life? A lot of actors tend to "overthink" their work sometimes, instead of just getting up and trying. I think that a simplified idea of acting is "doing". yes, within doing, there are many things going on: thoughts, desires, grievances, joy, worry, pain, and etc. But in life, and in art, there is movement within time. Acting is action, and its constantly being molded and remolded because it's a living art. I think the term might have been taken out of context. Acting is doing because its not thinking. Acting is reacting, listening, and reacting again...all of this is "movement", which in turn, is "doing". DOING represents all those things because it incites reaction. In a philosophical sense, I think the term "Acting is doing" is brilliant. In a logical sense, it leaves a lot of open space for someone to interpret. A student will say, "what do you mean by doing?"
But I think you are wrong when you say doing is "indicating". Indicating is the opposite of doing imo. When you're indicating, you're pretending, or performing in a way to SHOW the audience what your intentions are. Acting, is doing what your intentions are, and living the life onstage, rather than showing us your living a life onstage. When you factor out the idea of performance, and focus on the life of your character, then you are acting. The catch to that is, you ARE performing, and there IS an audience watching you, so how do you keep your performance outward instead of turning it inwards? I think the key to that is what I like to call "internal recognition". You said it as well, we have an "obligation" to fulfill to the audience. I like to use the audience as the hub of my subtext. It's a technique that I use for my students to make sure they're doing all the technical things right. But if I place my subtext into the minds of the audience in an a-physical manner, my energy of the lonely character onstage is emitted towards its subtext hub, which is the audience, whether it be a crowd of 2000, or a single camera.

A couple of comments about what has been written:

1) All the methods from Practical Aesthetics are from Stanislavski, Adler and Meisner. None of it was created by David Mamet. What defines the "method" most is what it leaves out: imagination work, instrumental work, all kinds of emotional preparation tools, and more. There is no sensory work in that approach, for example.

2) TheatreLbr08, regardless of whether you use your IMAGINATION or you use a MEMORY from your past, both come from your brain, and your brain is designed not to get emotional about either a fantasy or memory UNLESS you use a specific process to ACTIVATE the fantasy/memory. Most directors and acting teachers have no idea how to teach step-by-step processes for ACTIVATING a choice. Thus, actors are told to simply "use" their fantasies or to "think about it." This is not acting process, and often fails actors. Most actors don't realize they can learn step-by-step processes to ACTIVATE choices. These processes don't fail. However, all craft processes can fail if the actor is emotionally blocked to begin with. So, actor training which ignores emotional blockage, like Practical Aesthetics, for example, is guaranteed to fail for a large percentage of actors.

The superior way is an approach to acting that is comprehensive -- for example, that teaches everything Practical Aesthetics teaches, but a lot more -- like sensory work and work to unblock actors emotionally. I've taught many actors who graduated from Practical Aesthetics training who are utterly blocked and lack emotional and imaginative process. This means they fail on the job...unless they learn the other tools the great teachers taught.

(Let me clarify, I teach everything taught in Practical Aesthetics. I just know that it isn't enough for most actors and leaves out a lot of the picture.)

3) Again, SecondBanana, "When I try to remember lying on the rug in front of the fireplace in my grandma's house smelling the cookies as they burnt but how a-scared I was to wake her up because I could smell the sherry on her breath... well... I still just giggle."

So would I, probably. Because this is not an acting process. This is not a specific approach to using memories, or fantasies, for that matter. It does not work, because it is nothing... You would need to learn sensory work or specific ways to image -- two fundamental tools you do not seem to have learned.

As an adult, you are rightly defended against the trauma of this memory. A teacher who would want you to go into that trauma probably doesn't know too much about psychology. And because you are rightly defended against this past trauma, the giggling is a perfect "compensation" to protect you from the vulnerability. This is a compensation I respect and honor. You don't need to go into these traumas to be a good actor if you learn a specific imaginative process. But if one WANTED to go into these traumas, you would still need a specific process, and thinking about it doesn't cut it.

And "what do I want" and "what is my action" is surely not enough, sorry Mr. Mamet. That's intellectual, not imaginative.


And all this would assume you'd done major consciousness work so that you are open emotionally -- to the whole range of archetypes. Most human beings haven't done this work and sadly, neither have many people who want to be actors.

Thanks for participating in the discussing, you didn't screw it up.

4) Avidactor said, "You can assimilate your emotions from a personal experience, to form to your character's life IF you apply it during rehearsal."

This would only be true if the actor has the specific tools to create a "character's life." These essential tools are unknown to many aspiring actors, and are left out of many acting classes. Sadly, the actors in these classes do not know what they are missing. I know, I've been in those classes when I was younger.

5) Avidactor, I never said, "Doing is indicating."

What I said was that "doing, without imaginative and emotional connection, is indicating." And actors who are filled with the shallow obligation to "do" suffer from this all the time.

In order to justify the shallow, old-fashioned statement that "acting is doing," you proceed to add all these meanings to the word doing that I agree with. However, these meanings are not INHERENTLY in the statement, "Acting is doing." You have to go out of your way to load the simple sentence with all this extra meaning! By doing this, you are inadvertently agreeing with me that the simple statement "Acting is doing" has no meaning, unless you attach it to all the stuff YOU are attaching it to -- and which I mostly agree with, by the way.

But I stand by my original statement, as I've seen it proven true in many of the old-fashioned classes I took when I was younger -- telling young actors "Acting is doing" fills them with tremendous performance obligation which, without a comprehensive imaginative process, can lead to indicating.

You also made a few statements that I think are ridiculous, when scrutinized.

For example, you wrote that sometimes acting is not pretending. Acting is ALWAYS pretending. It is pretending that is filled, imaginative, emotional, with extremely specific physical actions, vocal actions, and with imagined obligations and saying specific lines (usually). It is professional pretending.

You also said "Acting is not thinking." Um, yes, characters think. And human beings think. So yes, acting involves thinking. On film, acting is in large part thinking -- with extreme specificity. To say acting is not thinking is nonsense and I've seen these kinds of nonsense statements damage young actors. Actors are allowed to be extremely smart and to think. In addition to this, they must access and act from their imaginations and the whole range of emotional impulses. The best acting comes from the unconscious! Perhaps what you mean to say is that many young actors act from the rational part of their brain too much. Now there, I would agree. A large part of beginning training with our actors is about BALANCING where the acting comes from so that the pretending comes from the imagination and emotional world. Most actors are too rational because of socialization. But to say "acting is not thinking" is an extremist statement that just isn't true. Without thinking, there would be no way to play all kinds of characters who think a lot.

Acting teachers have the responsibility, in my opinion, to be extremely careful about what statements they make. Sloppy and old-fashioned vocabulary can damage young actors. It happened to me, when I was younger. And I witnessed these kinds of statements hurting young actors in many of the classes I attended in my ridiculously diverse training adventures in my own studies.

Lots of statements from the 20th century need to be re-calibrated for a modern understanding of how creative process works.

Avidactor, I offer you these thoughts with deep respect for your commitment to teaching. And I offer them in service of my respect for the work. It isn't personal. - Jason Bennett

Hey JB, great post man! Sheesh, maybe we can team up one day. Ok, I did oversimplify a few terms. Yes, when I said "acting isn't thinking, its action", I mean that actors tend to OVER-THINK their situation. They get too cerebral. Sometimes they do this because they have a bit of performance anxiety. We tend to keep ourselves inward until with "think" we are right. But by the time our mind is done computing what the right decision to make is, the show is already over and the audience has gone home. Yes, we need thought, we need to feel our subtext through, but we need to live the process and not just keep it bottled up in our psyche until we think the time is right. This is my point to taking risks and feeling the choices out as you work it. Acting is still action, in my opinion. And within action, we are still psychologically reacting, so there IS thinking. A great known statement is "the body cannot live without the mind". They are one. They have to work as a team. I see many students contradict themselves. Their mind and body do not work as a whole, but work seperately. I blame the mind on this one. They think too much, and stress themselves out. You are very right in saying we have to be careful in how we word our intentions. In class, I always use exercises that push the emphasis that the work of the actor is derived from both the body and the mind. My main issue is that 99.999 % of my students are totally green. So I have to take them step by step very carefully. I don't want to confuse them, and I don't want to stress them out. I focus on the physicaly self a great deal. newbies have issues with letting their body free for the character to fill it. they are too rigid, stiff and unenergetic. Some of them have great energy, but its misguided and unnecessarily wasted on choreographed and telegraphed gestures. And it all derives from unclear choices made up in their mind. I need to get them out of their mind first, before we move on.
As far as the term "pretending". I just don't like using that word. Yes, in a sense, we are "the great pretenders", but its more than that. Any 5 year old can pretend to be superman, but it takes more than that to "act" as superman. For pretending, all it takes is imagination, but for acting, it takes much more than that. Pretending is only PART of what we do. Yes, its one of the core parts, but anyone can spot someone pretending, but when we're living in the moment, and justifying the life we have on stage with psychological actions and genuine qualities, we are more than pretenders. We re-create life. Now, maybe all I just said is a glorified way of putting, PRETENDING, but I just don't see it that way.
Anyway, I love this topic, and I've seen great things from everyone!

This is a great topic and I wanted to see it still going. Also, reading back, JB you wrote this:


[QUOTE]Originally posted by JBActors:
A couple of comments about what has been written:

1) All the methods from Practical Aesthetics are from Stanislavski, Adler and Meisner. None of it was created by David Mamet. What defines the "method" most is what it leaves out: imagination work, instrumental work, all kinds of emotional preparation tools, and more. There is no sensory work in that approach, for example."


I was wondering if it was in regards to my Mamet reference. If so, I was only going for the rub that Mamet doesn't believe there are "characters", rather just words on paper, and we as actors create the character. It wasn't to be represented that I believed Mamet was a forerunner for sense memory. Carry on everyone.

i personally dont use it...because i dont relate any of the characters to myself everything is completely separate from myself...

Actually, I think Jason was referencing Mamet's role in the creation of Practical Aestheics, but let's wait for his response. Jason, I'm happy to read anything and everything you offer here!

I can still smell the cookies... mama!

quote:

Mamet

It all comes down to finding what moves you, what makes your wheels turn. If "sensory memory" works for you, then it works. Just don't hope it'll work for all the rest of the world. I see that in JB's reply.

While everyone's on the subject, I find Practical Aesthetics' "scene analysis" very useful. But then everyone should add his/her own things on top of that... otherwise we'd just read the story like a reviewer and don't need to go see actors play

Too true, Rio, Too true. I don't think I would survive in this biz without using Sense memory as a tool. I think some actors have the wrong idea bout sense memory, or even practical aesthetics. it encompasses so much, and i think most actors gravitate towards just certain aspects of the techniques. But hey, like you said, use what works. Its the same situation I was talking about in a former topic about using a casebook. There were certain things that didn't work for me because it, in my opinion, was "fluff", and not necessary for the creation of my character. In fact, something's are deemed so unnecessary, they would actually hinder my work, and start to confuse me in the process. A great release I use in my training when I start to get frustrated with the process is the sound and gesture exercise. What a way to build a physical character with real emotional energy. I ALWAYS use sound and gesture exercises in creating a role. But, I feel to fully take the advantage of it, you must understand the basics of sense memory.
Afool, it kinda makes me feel bad you don't take stock in any of this work! Im not saying you NEED to in order to be a great actor, but I think it really gets you in touch with your energy and your presence when you're performing. What kind of techniques do you use? Im just curious because you really seem to have a great understanding for the work, but you choose not to do many techniques that have been discussed. Just wanna know cuz im always willing to learn new ideas!
I know you said you distance yourself from your character. That for me would be impossible. I dont/can't take myself away from the person I'm "creating". I feel the character is always going to be a part of you, in some sense. Please don't take that as forming the character to fit my personality. Its more of a melding of characters. I form myself to fit the character, but that character is a culmination of my own interpretations of the situations he finds himself in. Without my own personality, I wouldn't be able to create one for the character.

Just wanted to bump this because I think it has valuable info in it, and I wanted to get more of your takes on the issue. Thanks!

I don't know how I did not stumble upon this thread earlier, but I love hearing everyone's opinions on this subject. I find it particularly fascinating how well each of you are articulating your thoughts on the subject. For me, a lot of the time, I feel it and am aware when a moment is really happening, and am at the brink of sanity (when you are so enveloped that you ALMOST cannot tell the character from your real self), but explaining how I come to be that way, and the process in which I do so are things I find difficult to do.

I spent a semester in school (in acting class) where we did these things, and what I learned, not only from performing and growing myself, but watching other people indicate versus when they were honest, truthful, and in the moment, has probably been one of the most rewarding experience of my life thus far.

Mira Felner's "Free to Act" discusses these ideas in great length, as well as others... just wanted to throw that in there for those of you who haven't read it and wanted another insightful not to mention educational perspective!

Thanks Ramblewoods! I haven't read Mira's book yet, but Im interested in picking it up! I think this is a wonderful topic that should be discussed. Many folks discredit this work. They feel its unnecessary. Personally, I feel that without bringing out your true understandings (and lack of understanding) of your senses, and your relationship to your perceptive nature within your work would really damage your truthfulness onstage. Eh, some are believers, and some aren't.

Ramblewoods, I thought that's just called "listening"?

quote:

Originally posted by Ramblewoods:
...I spent a semester in school (in acting class) where we did these things, and what I learned, not only from performing and growing myself, but watching other people indicate versus when they were honest, truthful, and in the moment, has probably been one of the most rewarding experience of my life thus far...

I suppose I did go off on a bit of a "listening" tangent, but we learned to incorporate that skill with sensory/emotional recall in order to make it most affective is what I was trying to get at I suppose... Nonetheless, ALL fantastic stuff in my opinion!

The most important thing is just staying in the moment.

quote:

Originally posted by MattBrown64:
The most important thing is just staying in the moment.

Yes, but staying in the moment itself is a task that an actor needs to prepare his/herself for. Most noobs at acting have NO sense of concentration, and they break character midway through the scene, fall flat on a psychological/emotional level, and lose the integrity of the character. This is where using certain techniques help the growing actor. Many great acting teachers have developed methods that really hone the skills of concentration. Stanislavski, Chekhov, Meisner, Hagen, Chubbuck, etc... have all laid down a path for us to travel down, and enhance.
Finding the moment is just one challenge for an actor. Im working on a theory about the psychological nature of human interaction with respect to given circumstances. Im trying to formulate a method to decode the cognitive, physiological, and emotional processes we as humans have assimilated during the course of humankind. Now, Newton stated, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction". The first law of motion is: "A particle will stay at rest or continue at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force."
Is it possible that the electrical impulses in one person within a given situation will mirror that of another? Most likely not perfectly "identical", but we can postulate that reactions will be very similar. For instance, if someone that you had no relationship with came up to you at a bus stop and spit in your face, there's only so many reactions one can have:
1)wipe your face off and physically harm that person (or spit back at them)
2)Wipe your face off and start screaming at them
3)Wipe your face off and start to cry
These are the logical reactions. The "equal and opposite" reactions.
These are PHYSICAL acts. But who's to say these physical acts don't trigger emotional responses as well?Depending on your personal demeanor will cause these reactions. Someone who is shy, timid, and scared of confrontation may opt for #3. Someone who lives to beat the shit outta people may opt for #1. Passive agressive folk may go with option 2. Of course, this is a simple example. How would you react if you got a phone call from your brother or sister letting you know your father just passed away and you haven't spoken to him in 10 years? This can also be simplified. You are either the type who says:
1)Who cares?
2)Oh my god, we never got to mend our problems!
These are emotional reactions. Physical reactions may be to have a drink, a cigarette, go to the funeral, etc...The physiological responses can be to break down and cry, get lost in thought, not eat, fall into depression, or even get sick. These are mostly caused by neurophysiology. This is where the playing field goes wild. This is the study of how our brains work.
Now, all of us can say, ok, who is our character? What is the given circumstances, blah blah blah. But by studying the psycho-physical self (in terms of the character), you're digging into a place that will change your initial interpretation like never before. Its fascinating work, and its fun to research all that is out there right now. I am trying to bridge certain reactions together, and formulate groups of reactive qualities within the mind. Some are easy to group together (ie. reactions of fight or flight, reactions of euphoria, rage...) Some are vague and may go into different categories depending on the subject's nature. Work in progress........

When we tell a story to someone about what happened to us, we SEE the place of where it happened inside our heads, right? So why not come up with a place.. any place! if you "have" the place as you act, your senses (vision, smell, etc) will do their job for you. and the best of it all: not only your senses but also your emotions.

In your own example try seeing your own kitchen at a specific point in time, e.g. springtime, you'll remember what spring smells like in your own kitchen etc. Then create a pre-liminary intention, such as reaching for the coffeepot or as if you're in a conversation trying to convince your brother into getting back to college. Then make the action of touching a hot stove specific: think about the physical actions of somebody who touches a hot stove. The person wouldn't immediately lift his hand once his fingers touch the stove.. there has to be half a second before he realises that the stove is burning hot...

Tom

quote:

Originally posted by Prospective:
Does anyone use it every time they act? How do you do it? How can you make it come up as a surprise? For example, your character onstage touches a hot stove, how do you feel it and make it an honest reaction that fast? Thanks!

Seems to me all that can be simplified:

1. To listen.. or be in the moment / receive / etc
2. Ask self: what's your personal point of view on what you've just listened to?
3. Rehearse it -- with the director preferably -- so that no.2 is in line with given circumstances (the blah blah )

Tom

quote:

Originally posted by avidactor:

at a bus stop and spit in your face, there's only so many reactions one can have:
1)wipe your face off and physically harm that person (or spit back at them)
2)Wipe your face off and start screaming at them
3)Wipe your face off and start to cry
These are the logical reactions. The "equal and opposite" reactions.

Now, all of us can say, ok, who is our character? What is the given circumstances, blah blah blah. But by studying the psycho-physical self (in terms of the character), you're digging into a place that will change your initial interpretation like never before. Its fascinating work, and its fun to research all that is out there right now. I am trying to bridge certain reactions together, and formulate groups of reactive qualities within the mind.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rio197:
Seems to me all that can be simplified:

1. To listen.. or be in the moment / receive / etc
2. Ask self: what's your personal point of view on what you've just listened to?
3. Rehearse it -- with the director preferably -- so that no.2 is in line with given circumstances (the blah blah )

Tom

True Tom, but this is simplifying the work in a butchered version of the "method". Let's go back to Stanislavski. He created the magic if. "What would I do if I were this character in this given circumstance." Now there is a great amount of debate about what this actually means. Americaniz