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!

We all use different tools when we act. For some it takes years and years of practice.

sensory memory is when you smell the smells, taste the tastes, etc right? or am i confusing that with something else?

Hello Prospective,

Here is an entry on our website in our incomplete "Acting Encyclopedia" about the Sensory Process. The older fashioned, and more limited term is called "Sense Memory." Sensory Process

I say older fashioned because Sense Memory was limited to using real memories and experiences by the teachers in the 20th Century. Many of them, including Strasberg and Stanislavski, didn't realize that you can use the Sensory Process to create IMAGINED realities with tremendous specificity, yielding deep emotional truth. So it isn't just a memory anymore, it's Sensory Process -- see the difference?

In terms of creating the hot stove, I would argue that isn't necessary for great acting. You can do that work if you want to and it sure would help to develop your imagination. But simply reacting "as if" the stove is hot is enough for great acting, in my work with the best actors around.

Now in terms of the deeper kinds of realities you need to experience while acting, like for example if you are playing a character that was raped -- in that case, I think "creating" the rape with specificity and detail is VITAL for great acting. It is a requirement, in fact. And the Sensory Process can help you with this. In fact, for most actors, it's vital. And many aspiring actors have little or no training in this area. Worse, some of the training out there is simply foolish and misleading...

I generally do not favor using "real" memories that are traumatizing or intense, because the psyche is quite healthily "defended" against real memories. Many older-fashioned acting techniques rely on "getting around" these protective defenses, so you actually experience traumatic events in your acting. While this works for many actors, I don't generally teach it, because now we know how to teach USING YOUR IMAGINATION to create anything. However, the prime directive in acting is using whatever works!

The problem with the imagination in the 20th Century is that teachers simply said, "Use your imagination." (Some still do!) But most acting teachers didn't know HOW to teach actors to use their imagination. Now with modern psychological understanding, imaginal psychology and various creative therapies, the field is far more evolved in 2008. Thank God.

So our faculty can teach a whole lot more than Meisner, Strasberg, Chekhov or Adler could back in the 20th Century. But we couldn't do this work without the work that these past Masters did. Now I can tune in to each student and offer them exactly what they need.

So Sensory Process is one of the five fundamental tools actors need to understand VERY specifically in order to do great work: Sensory Process, Imaging, Externals/Outside-In, Improvisation and Archetype Work.

I find that most aspiring actors have only a vague sense of each of these tools. Most aspiring actors who THINK they know what each of these tools are don't. And many are plainly misinformed about each of these tools. The results of this are tremendously lower chances of being a successful professional actor with a long and varied career.

In order to do great work, your acting must be specific, dimensional, and theatrical. And the 5 fundamental tools actors use are vital to achieving this. I hope this post helps. I don't have time to post very often, but I'd be happy to take more questions on the subject.

- Jason Bennett

Hey Prospective,
Have you ever studied any of Strasbergs work? It is what I'm trained in and I would say choose a sensory that gives you that reaction within your whole body. For example: cold shower. The moment you are in the shower taking a nice hot shower and all of a sudden someone flushes the toilet and the water gets frickin' cold. It's that split second of ah!. It takes lots of practice. If you do know what I'm talking about it, try it. Other wise, do what ever works best for you. Best of luck!

I've tried it, and it's never worked great for me. I've had some limited success, but have found other things that are much more effective for me. I have found it's too cerebral.

That being said, I've seen other people use it and do great work.

Dear Iceman,

It isn't possible for the sensory process to be cerebral. So that means it's quite likely you didn't learn the process.

Most people who come to my school who say they have done sensory work haven't done any sensory work at all. They had crappy teachers who had no idea what they were doing.

Sensory work is the opposite of cerebral work. It's SENSORIAL, in the SENSES.

But you have to have a good teacher to teach the step-by-step process to you. Many are incompetent.

- Jason Bennett

quote:

While I was counting the make-believe money I recalled the exact method and order in which this is done in real life. Then all the logical details suggested to me by the Director developed an entirely different attitude on my part toward the air I was handling as money. It is one thing to move your fingers around in the empty air. It is quite another to handle dirty, crumpled notes which you see distinctly in your mind's eye.

127 Stanislavski, "An Actor Prepares"

Just before this the Director has directed the actor step by step through the sequence of actions. On page 133 he emphasizes the importance of focusing on small physical actions to build up a sense of reality.

Well, I think the sensory process IS cerebral...to an extent. Imagination is key to sense memory. Emotional imagery is very important. I know I'm using the term "imagery" in a loose sense here. I don't merely mean a visual image. I mean all of the senses sight, sound, taste, touch, smell, AND emotional repsonses to those senses. For instance, in my class I ask the students what they think of when I say October. Most of them say "Halloween". Good, what does halloween make you smell? "wet leaves", "the chill of snow in the air", "pumpkin pie", "fresh baked cookies" they would reply. Good, now what do you see? "Cloudy skies", "bare trees", "scary decorations". Then what does it feel like? "cold", "smooth, with ridges" (I assume they were thinking of pumpkins), then I go into the other senses and add, ok, how does it make you feel? They say things like, "excited", or "sad". All of that came from the word October. Right now, its February, so they had to go back in their mind to relay this information, so it is, in part, cerebral. I apply this exercise with the scenes or monologues we work on. We go over the senses of the scene. This is NOT applied during actual performance, but rather the rehearsing. During performance, I have them focus on their scene objectives, and motives for obtaining their goals. They focus on listening to their scene partners and using the mentality of the character to get what they want.
I feel sense memory is best used in times of study, not in actual performance. There are things to be careful with sense memery. As Mr. Bennett says, there's so much we've accomplished as a society in terms of psycho-physical relationships. And we've gone beyond just simple imagination. But the mind is MORE than imagination. It is a memory card of emotions, visions, thoughts, dreams, etc. It is a bank for actors to deposit and withdraw from. We must recognize its importance. Ivanna Chubbuck is a great teacher, no doubt, but there is one flaw I find in her teachings. That is the use of substitution. I don't feel it is necessary for an actor to imagine, or "place" someone in their real life in the part of their recipient. It then becomes a scene about the actor, and not the character..(Mamet lover's will have a field day with me, Im sure). I think it interfere's with the relationship between characters when you pull someone from your everyday life into the work of the production...this is, however, just my opinion. Sense memory is a tool for guidance. I use it everyday, even subconsciously. We all do. After an initial read of a play, we all get images in our head of what it all looks like. What about the rest? What do the other senses tell us? What do you all think?

A very delayed response to JBActors

The Sensory Memory I was speaking of was the "old version" in which you use memories from your life. That is the one with which I have had limited success, and what would you call it other then cerebral considering the experiences are coming directly from the brain?

As far as create IMAGINED realities, I have had more success with this, though only when I create imagines physical realities in the moment, not imagined history (because that, again, becomes cerebral). But I wouldn't call this "Sensory Memory" as the memory component is removed.

quote:

The Sensory Memory I was speaking of was the "old version" in which you use memories from your life. That is the one with which I have had limited success, and what would you call it other then cerebral considering the experiences are coming directly from the brain?

I believe what you're referring to is more often referred to as an "emotional object", or possibly another term.

What I was taught as "sense memory" (presumably what's generally referred to here as a "sensory memory", even if some have their own alternate definitions of the latter term) is pretty much what Stanislavski describes: that is, pretty literally, learning the sensations associated with an action so that, when you perform it on stage, you are not just "miming" the action, but really participating in the sensory experience (in the same way that, emotionally, you might relive something from your past or even experience an immediate and specific emotion using emotional objects.)

This certainly IS a cerebral experience to the degree that you have to break certain actions or experiences down into individual moments (again, as described by Stanislavski) so that you can practice them in the proper order and in relation to the main action you are engaged in.

Example: You're playing a tailor whose wife has just left him. He sews on a button while telling a friend about the event. To convincingly portray the action itself (without props and even, to some degree, with them) you need a specific understanding not only of how to sew on a button, but of how a tailor who does this numerous times a day would do it. Having perfected, through both thought and action, this gesture, you may also use an emotional object (someone who's deserted YOU, for instance) to layer the emotional life on top of the action. But you would be using two different techniques in this case.

Clearly, some sensory experience then awakens emotions and working on a sense memory may also yield emotional results. But in its simplest form it's very much like what a classic artist did when he studied some small gesture or action in daily life in order to incorporate it into a larger tableau. Numerous sketches of a butcher chopping meat, for instance, may result in a single image of an executioner's arm, holding an axe over a saint's neck. The power of the painting may lie above all in the saint's martyrdom, but be subtly reinforced by the accuracy of the executioner's gesture.

Sense memory allows a similar exactitude in the actor's "painting", whether or not it also sharpens the emotion that may be the most compelling element in the overall picture.

I think sense memory is more than visual. You have to go beyond just visual images. We have the ability to not just "paint" a picture, but smell it, hear it, taste it, etc..So many actors neglect the other senses when studying with sense memory exercises. It makes a performance one dimensional (imho) when you just focus on the pictoral images. In any imagination, we can freeze time and picture the scene. Thats the easy part, but transferring that image to the rest of our senses, and then on to our psycho-physical self is the challenge that I see most students face.
There is controversy over this whole subject. Some actors believe sense memory is useless, and its a waste of time. I find it very valuable in training. My mind isn't focused on the specifics in performance, but rather the overall essence. While in training, thats where I do the breakdowns of each sense and find what it is that is striking. I think as actors we do have to focus on more than just the visual when studying this approach.

Sense Memory is a Mega approach to work, and its not just an acting exercise either. The brain does in fact record memory through the senses. This si why some salivate when craving a food, because they can use the sense of taste to recreate what that taste would be. Our dreams are complete sense memory and the best example. Now if those stimuli that exist in our dreams don't exist right then and there, then how do our minds react to them in a dream? Through sense memory. Now if you can be scared from a nightmare, can't you create the same on stage or in front of a camera? Yes. It takes years of practice and hours a day. It's science really, and then its used as an acting tool.

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. Whereas when they are left in the unconscious, things can roam around and change your behaviors and thoughts in ways you had no idea. They can affect yourself self-esteem, confidence, etc... which are all vital to an actor. In fact, I've known a few actresses who had been molested early on in their lives. I believed this to be the root of their low-self esteem and lack of confidence, and shyness, as is the case with most victims of such a thing. I once saw an actress recreate her rape experience on stage. She fulfilled the material, it was painful for her, but she was an a healthy enough state where she could handle what happened to her and deal with it, because she had dealt with it in her life through therapy and such. Acting should always remain fun, so have fun. However, we do get paid for our emotions and have to be able to go there sometimes, its our job.

renaissance, you have a great perspective on this subject! one thing though that a lot of folks tend to forget about...something that a few actors may have problems with, and a few might not so thats why this idea isn't always thought of. Its about when you said that you don't have to go to great lengths to use your imagination, and you should just make the work "truthful". yes, truth is something we go for in our work, but there's more than that. We are actors, and we work to make truthful, believable, and real, but we also have an obligation to our audience to "entertain". By entertain, I don't mean to just have them amused. It also means to educate them in the world around them, in the environment we live in. This is where tangible work can thrive. However, there are other parts of entertainment where imagination is 90% and logic is 10%.
You brought up the situation of pain, rape to be exact. You touched on sense memory as an event that happens, and in many cases uncontrolable. This is fact. Ivanna Chubbuck brings this up in her training and uses it as a backbone of her technique. BUT what if the role calls for more than that? We use logic in our work, but what if the character is going through an illogical situation. Let's look at Superman, or Spiderman, where acting as a logical human being is not always going to cut it. Imagination is something that you have to use in order to make yourself something truthful. You have to go to great lengths to stretch your imagination to create a character that can break through walls, block bullets, fly through the air, etc. We play people that go through extraordinary events. We have an obligation to play our parts with integrity and precision. I do have a problem with the Chubbuck approach and even Stanislavski with sense memory because it doesn't touch on playing roles that are imbedded in the fantastical, or the unreasonable. Michael Chekhov has a better understanding for the craft of acting (imho). I think the key to unlocking any part, is held within the imagination, as well as other facets of the human entity. The Chubbuck technique praises substitution as a key to creating a solid scene. I disagree! Why use substitution? I don't want to see a scene about the actor. I want to see a scene about the character. I see what substitution "can" do, but I think it actually weakens the character, rather than strengthening it.

is there a way to smell smells, taste tastes if you have never in your life tasted those tastes or smelled those smells?

i seem to be able to recreate a steak sizzling smell/sound, but i don't know if i could if i had never heard it before. would your acting coach/partner/director just have to tell you how it smells, etc.?

The little Captivate screen in the elevator of my office building had a headline the other day that stated blind people dream when they sleep even though they've never seen the people, places or things that might actually be in the dream. The visual manifestation in their mind is a result of the amalgamated experience of their other senses.

By analogy, couldn't this transfer to sense memory? If you've seen a cooked steak, why can't you fill in the blanks with your other senses? Or, you could use a substitution. If it's supposed to smell good, use your favorite meal as a child. Maybe you'd come home and smell your mom cooking macaroni and cheese. What was your reaction? How did it make you feel? Etc. If it's supposed to smell disgusting, you can do sense memory exercises with the most vile smelling thing you've ever experienced being served up on a plate.

I've always used sense memory to inspire a certain emotion or create a certain feeling of environment which would affect my behavior. Not necessarily for any type of accuracy. I try to not be as literal as possible, too, because often I'll make discoveries I never would have if I just smelled the steak and nothing else!

A few responses to things various people have written in this thread...

1) If an actor is emotionally blocked, sensory work may be useless. These actors may consider sensory work cerebral or pointless. They are often unaware the reason the acting tool isn't working is because of other issues.

2) If an actor is emotionally blocked, it may seem they do not have much of an imagination. Thus, freeing the actor emotionally is often a requirement before any sensory work or imagination work can accomplish anything. Many very talented actors are imaginatively blocked because of social conditioning.

2) A sensory process cannot be merely cerebral because the senses live in the entire body. When the actor learns a specific sensory process, which some actors clearly misunderstand in this discussion, the process is not merely cerebral. If it doesn't get experiential results in the body and voice, the actor is either emotionally blocked, lacks specificity, lacks concentration, lacks good instruction in sensory process, etc.

3) The sensory process and/or substitution does not inherently result in actors becoming self-obsessed or "leaving" the given circumstances of the story. This only results when the actor lacks imaginative process or lacks a good acting teacher. Substitutions, when combined with an IMAGINATIVE PROCESS to create the world of the play, can take actors DEEPER into the imaginary world and into relationship with the other actors -- not away from it.

For example, if I want intimacy with the other actor, and the story demands I become like a helpless child and very vulnerable, I might use a sensory process to create a place and memory that will allow me access to these archetypes, before the scene starts. Once the archetype of "helpless child" is accessed, I then transition my attention to the givens, the other actor, etc. And now I'm very deeply relating to the other actor, from the "character's point of view." This assumes that I have created the IMAGINARY WORLD vividly and specifically in my pre-rehearsal work. If I haven't, and MANY aspiring actors don't know how to do this, then it may become "all about me." Again, this failure is a result of lack of training or an incomplete approach -- not a flaw of substitution. Almost no acting tools or concepts work in ISOLATION. In other words, substitution may fail if the actor lacks a PROCESS for activating the substitution (many do), is emotionally blocked, and/or hasn't created the imaginary world. But see, combining Chekhov and Adler and Strasberg and Hagen (and more) into a complete approach means you get the best of all these worlds. And frankly, actors don't fail when they have a comprehensive approach to acting. Most failures I hear about arise from an actor only studying one person's view of acting (like Meisner). It is superior to learn the tools that all these great teachers developed.

4) Stanislavski's method of physical action arose from an extremely limited understanding of human behavior. It was the best he could do at that time. Psychologists at the time had "action based" views of the personality. This 90 year old view is not enough for most actors.

One of the most destructive concepts that young actors hear is "Acting is Doing." Acting is a lot more than doing. Sometimes, it is being. Sometimes, it is being emotional. Sometimes, it is being unemotional. Sometimes, it is physical, sometimes we are distracted by a memory and barely moving. Reducing acting down to "doing" is very bizarre and misleading.

5) Renaisance wrote: "As far as the imagination, I don't understand the point of going to such great length to create something that isn't real."

Well, first of all, we could get into a very deep metaphysical debate about the meaning of real. The imagination IS real, from many different points of view. I think it is very possible that our imaginations and dreams connect us to different dimensions and alternative realities. But I digress...

The imagination is what motivates and causes YOUR ACTIONS and YOUR BEHAVIOR. Your psyche is sensory memories, your imagination, language -- in other words, YOU are your imagination. Intellectual decisions do not cause many of your actions. FANTASIES cause your objectives and actions. Thus, actors should spend far more time emphasizing the imaginative process, as opposed to shallow intellectual questions like "What do I want?" The more developed your imagination, and the more you create the world of the play with it, the DEEPER AND MORE PROFOUND your answers to the "analytical script analysis" questions will be. If you don't create the imaginary world and characters, then you cannot possibly have deep insight into the scripts or characters!

The imaginative process work that goes in many acting classes is shallow and useless -- no wonder may students don't know the point. Great training is rare. Lots of the training in this city, some of the "schools" with most ads, is a giant scam.

- Jason

quote:

"I started this class by saying that the basis of acting is the reality of doing... If you're really doing it, then you don't have time to watch yourself doing it...That's very good for your acting."

Sanford Meisner, " On Acting", 1987, p.24

quote:

ACTING IS DOING Acting and doing are the same. When you're acting you're doing something,

Stella Adler: The Art of Acting (2000 edition) - Page 44

quote:

the first definition of acting is "doing." To act is "to do." When you
describe it that way, it unburdens the student...People are emotional. It's the things that stop them from being emotional that should be dealt with. I believe that acting is doing, not feeling. I know other teachers say that also, but I mean it....

Eva Mekler, "The New Generation of Acting Teachers", 1987 - Page 173, 336 ("A series of interviews with 22 well-known acting teachers, who have turned out a regular supply of stage, film, and TV actors. Interviewees are grouped into East Coast, West Coast, and university teachers. While all come from a realistic tradition of acting, usually the American versions of Stanislavski, they have moved away from and beyond the accepted traditional approaches and goals of acting. The interviews articulate many of these changes.")

quote:

"Acting" is doing! Everything I have dealt with up to this point should lead to
action

Uta Hagen, "Respect for Acting", 1973 - Page 184

quote:

Acting is doing

Viola Spolin, "Theater Games for the Classroom: A Teacher's Handbook", 1986 - p. 28

quote:

The very act of striving to create an emotional state takes one out of the play

David Mamet, "True and False: Heresy and Common Sense for the Actor", 1999 - p. 11

Dear Jim,

You might be interested to know that I've read all of those books about 20 times each. And I've studied acting with teachers trained personally by almost all of these great teachers. And I stand by what I wrote, as do most brilliant actors.

Acting is not simply doing. To reduce what Marlon Brando did down to "doing" is ridiculous.

When Anthony Hopkins played Hitler or President Adams or Richard Nixon it was far more than doing. He claims he can't even remember what happened when he was "channeling" energies in certain scenes! That isn't just "doing."

When I am performing, it is far more than "doing." I have never been satisfied by a performer who is simply "doing."

I have seen plenty of actors "do" with no life, no emotional dimensions in their work, no passion, no access to the intense archetypal gods, or to any imaginative inspiration.

Ok, let me re-phrase what I wrote in the previous post.

Doing is part of acting. But acting is far more than doing.

ACTING IS LIVING FULLY, MOMENT TO MOMENT, WITHIN IMAGINED OBLIGATIONS.

That's a far better statement than "Acting is doing."

What the hell does a young actor do with the statement, "Acting is doing?"

You can barely do anything with that.

I saw Michael Clayton last night. At the end of the movie, George Clooney is sitting in a cab and the camera is on him for about two minutes. Is he simply "doing?" Does that fully explain the inner emotional and thinking journey he is on? NO. To tell a student, ok, in this scene DO. Huh? That's not going to yield great acting. Nope, never seen it.

Doing, without emotional connection and imaginative connection, is INDICATING. Doing is useless without all the rest of the ingredients.

Once again, the teachers of the 20th century, who you are quoting, were informed by two factors:

1) The world war 1 and 2 generation were an ACTION BASED generation. This is the generation that those acting teachers came from. They did not believe in discussing feelings! They were not very introspective. They were highly suspicious of any kind of self-improvement work. THIS INFLUENCED THE ACTING TEACHERS, who promoted these cultural values. Emotions were insulted and therapy vilified. Well, times have changed.

2) The psychological theories of emotion and "acting" of the time, which also heavily influenced these teachers, were shallow and limited compared to what we have now. This resulted in a FALSE focus on "acting" as a key to understanding human "character." Psychologists and acting teachers had no idea about how the brain, imagination, personality, and great acting work in the manner we do now! Quoting the past means one is living in the past. Actors do this at their own peril.

And the proof is in the pudding.

The actors I work with do great work. I would be very proud to have ANY of the teachers you quoted see the professional level work our actors do. I would be happy to have them see my own performing, in fact. Students come to our school from all the old schools. And their work improves by leaps and bounds in startling ways, because our view of things is modern and more complex.

Acting is far more complex than doing. It IS feeling, it is thinking, it is being, it is fighting, it is being distracted by memories and fantasies, it is moving, it is being still, it is being vulnerable, it is being emotionless, it is STORY-TELLING. Story-telling is more than doing.

Acting is not ONE THING. Such simplicities are insulting to this art form. Acting is many things, acting is contradictory. Why? Because life is not one thing. Life is complex and contradictory. The best actors grapple with these struggles in their work. And it is far more rich and unpredictable than simply doing.

Come on, what I'm writing is basically obvious if you think about it. This isn't controversial. Think for yourself. Acting is just doing?

You don't really believe that. No one does, unless they are shallow, out of touch with themselves, and oblivious to the richness of what it means to be human.

You know I'm "doing" things all day. Is that acting????? Should I get an academy award for taking out the trash???? Of course not. But if I took out the trash filled with a COMPLEX INNER LIFE, MULTIPLE EMOTIONAL DIMENSIONS, CONNECTING TO RICH FANTASIES AND IMAGINATIONS, spontaneity, unpredictability, in the context of a vivid and deep STORY and imagined situation -- then maybe I should get an award. Think about it. It's obvious.

Simplistic notions about acting, like "acting is doing" are extremely seductive. We can understand it. It seems easy and clear. But this is precisely why this statement has very little training value. If it is simple and easy for anyone to understand, when it comes to the complexity of LIFE and ART, you know you're probably in trouble. Evolution is a journey towards increasing complexity, consciousness, and connections. It is a journey towards increasing density. Acting is a deep expression of what it means to be on this journey. Saying it is merely doing is, as time goes by and with what we now know in 2008, laughable.

- Jason Bennett