Dear Kavorka,

I was disappointed to see your topic closed -- it was apparently a hotly contested subject. But in the immortal words of Rodney King, “Can’t we all get along?”

Your post sounded very similar to the thread by “yummie” entitled, “NOBODY CAN TEACH YOU ACTING.” Outside of the obvious grammatical differences, the sentiments were virtually identical. I found your comments valid to some extent, seriously flawed in others.

Here’s my take.

I recently started my own thread entitled, “Are great actors made, or born?” My answer was unequivocal: “Born.” I don’t believe that an untalented actor can be made great regardless of the instruction. If that were possible, given enough training Arnold Schwarzenegger would eventually be at the level of say, a Marlon Brando. Sadly, we know that’s not the case. Although you and I apparently share an mutual mistrust of the entire concept of acting “gurus” (read: Marilyn Monroe and Paula Strasberg), don’t let that fact blind you to the importance of quality acting instruction altogether. You accurately quoted Brando as saying, “Everybody acts.” True enough. But does that mean that everyone is qualified to be an actor? Hardly. Unfortunately, skills like stage movement and diction aren’t taught in grade school. According to your theory, how do you explain the unforgettable wave of stellar film and stage talent whose careers were built and nurtured at The Actors Studio in the fifties and spawned the cadre of legendary American teachers who were all direct offshoots of Strasberg and Stanislavski’s method? Was this a result of pure chance or simple good fortune? I don’t believe in “luck” simply because it connotes something accidental, and no great acting career that I know of was created or sustained that way. Lee Strasberg and Stella Adler are long dead, true enough. But although the maestros have long passed, by your reckoning does it follow that the philosophies of say, Socrates or Jesus have no relevance to 21st century man? All professions and disciplines since time immemorial have roots deeply steeped in education, both written and verbal. To deny this fact is to deny gravity, or the sun. Don’t believe me? Without a farthing of training in the theatre, try walking onto a Broadway stage and attempt to give the crowd their money’s worth. For an additional thrill, throw in a basic time step and a couple of big show tunes. I’ll be generous and give you five seconds before you begin dodging day-old produce.

Given a role that suits them, even an uninitiated person can pull off a believable, if not great, performance. Some of these rare individuals have even won Academy Awards (read: Harold Russell for “The Best Days Of Our Lives” or Marly Maitlin for “Children Of A Lesser God”). But they were never able to sustain major acting careers because their entire careers were based upon their individual life experiences and respective disabilities, not the depth of their talent or extent of their range. When their particular physical challenges were longer required, they simply retired or became an aging participant on “Dancing With The Stars.” The reason is clear: TO HAVE LONGETIVITY IN THIS INDUSTRY REQUIRES GROUNDING AND EDUCATION IN PROPER ACTING TECHNIQUE. Arnold Schwarzenegger may have made millions playing a muscle bound dunderhead from a future inhabited by robots, but I doubt if he’d be considered for dialogue any more complicated than “Run to the chopper!!” When these types of actors lose their figures or their personal magnetism, they die a quick and merciful death (read: Steven Segal).

You equated acting with “SURVIVAL.” While mere survival is the primary objective of all life on earth, I have yet to see an amoeba give a memorable interpretation of Chekhov. An amoeba moves away from a heat source as a result of INSTINCT. Acting - be it professional or no - is a result of LEARNING. If you became a great actor on the strength of your survival instincts alone, could you confidently approach a typical Shakespearean role, one critically dependent on a thorough understanding of the mindset and history of Victorian times, with its attendant mannerisms, use of period wardrobe, intricacies of ionic pentameter and understanding of Elizabethan dialect as spoken in Shakespeare’s time? To suggest that these abilities can be gleaned simply from instinctual self-reflection would be to insult the very tenents and arduous training required to attain such levels of achievement. I’m quite sure that neither Ralph Richardson nor Sir Lawrence Oliver nor Dame Judith Anderson or Richard Burton were born with an innate understanding of the craft of classical acting anymore than a dirt lot ball player graduates to the big leagues simply by watching Yankees games on a Sunday afternoon. As I mentioned previously, I believe that great actors are born, not made. But to deny that with proper training an actor can’t be made better would be to negate the very act of self-exploration and expression integral to the entire process. It may seem odd that we need to go to school to learn what we should by all accounts already know. But that’s the ultimate irony of acting… the art of being private in public.

When you discover a precious gem, it appears to be a lump of coal. But under the steady hand of a gemologist chipping away the coal to reveal the perfect stone within, a “diamond in the rough” can become a thing of timeless beauty and lasting value. This is the essence of acting.

"Whatever works."

www.robertkim.com

What a great post! I was a little confused as to why kavorka thought I was angered by his/her/its original post though. I don't think I sounded agitated. Oh well. I can see a nerve was struck with Jason, and to be honest, it was rightfully so. I would pay $250 a month for classes I knew were benefiting me. If Kavorka only knew how much JRP charges! whooowooooooeeeee! Well Im off to teach a useless scene study class!

Yes, "everyone acts" just like

Everyone can run.

But knowing how to run and being a competitive runner are different things.

No one can simply run to their utmost potential in a 100 meter dash without training and hard work - preferably with someone who can coach you and help you progress.

In real life, we do "play our objective", are in the moment, have inner monologues, are accessible to what we're feeling and thinking, etc. -- without even being aware of it.

But to say that you can simply do that in an artificial environment like the stage or on a film set without learning the "craft" of translating what is real (human truths conveyed in the story) within a contrived/controlled environment of a stage or a set is naive. Moreover, you're not playing yourself -- you are bringing yourself to the character -- a very important distinction.

Yes, you can't teach someone to be as great as Marlon Brando just like you can't teach someone to run like Jesse Owens, but that doesn't mean you can just simply walk on stage or set AND have a performance that approaches your true potential without some help, coaching, "education" or training.

Anyhow, the horse is beaten dead.

There's more than one poster whose posts sound awfully similar to another's.

I certainly am entertained by Schwarzenegger's work, although I'd be surpised if he had no training--he seems smart enough to know it would help his longevity in acting, if that's what he chose to do.

Marlee Matlin certainly seems to have worked pretty consistently as an actor; I know she took time off for her kids and I think to produce, but her imdb page looks pretty full.

Overall there are two huge subjects here-acting as an art, and acting as a successful business--only a small correlation imo. Just take a look at most broadway/ob productions--the best actors I've seen sure aren't making a great living at it, and pretty much vice versa.

newbie to this site ..this particular post caught my eye..i actually just got done reading the karvoka article and alot of what he said made alot of sense ... in this particular post.....you also are making solid point's ...believe it or not we are all capable of becomeing actors it is true very true ..i just want to point out that none of the
'pioneering teachers " came close to stanislavsky with the exception of Stella adler ..... stanislavsky's system when it migrated to america was lost in translation ..his system was never ending ..there was nothing etched in stone they were more of guidlines alot of what was writtin in books was just him sharing his numerous experimentations....if you go back in time to the basis for acting is just based on a way of articulating our emotions and the way we express them in given circumstances .....you are right when you say that not just and anybody can walk off the street onto the stage or in front of a camera without the right understanding but its not impossible for and anybody to learn either......the matter of fact is not teachin someone to act its the complete opposite...arnold schwartzenagger isnt espressing himself hes just acting like someone expressing themselves..hes enteraining that concept ..and it pays off..hes and entertainer ...besides alot of the great actors were just being themselves to begin with ...i feel theres a proper way to express yourself and your emotions and theres the expliotation of emotions for personal means ...and u dont have to dump all this money into classes to do so..just have and understanding by studying the art of acting in itself ...just because you have countless years under your belt as far as education is concerned doesnt mean diddly squat of you cant prove it.. a diploma or degree is just a peice of paper..if you havent learned nething ..just like dumpin dollar after dollar into a class just because someone told you it was the place to be is foolish, .....if you havent actually learned nething....believe me anyone can be and "actor"...its just that nowadays its more done for vanity and the perks than for as a true art form...from my personal experiences it just takes understanding and patients as well as a will to constantly be learning....which is what most schools dont teach.. they just show you the ropes and class dismissed..instead of providing guidlines...learning is an on going process..the only person who touched on that was stanislavsky...there is no such thing as "set technique" because its and on going process soo all those who studied method . only got career's on just enough talent :/..



t

It appears that this entire topic can be summed up in a single question: IS GREAT ACTING A MATTER OF NATURE, OR NURTURE?

To find the answer, simply look at the record... how many of our most celebrated actors acheived greatness without the aid of some sort of formalized performance education? Suffice it to say, the number pales into insignificance. All the available evidence points to a combination of both innate talent, combined with the best instruction.

Now, let's expand my theory to include ALL performing artists -- singers and dancers, mimes and acrobats. With as much "natural talent" as they were born with, without the proper training could they have ascended to the level of a Baryshnikov or Pararotti? A Marceau or a star in the Cirque de Soleil? No one doubts the tendency for "the great ones" to have exhibited their various gifts early in life (read: Mozart). My belief lies in the reality of the transformational power of education to expand that natural talent to a higher level, in the shortest amount of time. Any exception or deviation from the fact proves the rule.

Kavorka made an important allusion to "SURVIVAL." I equate 'SURVIVAL' to simple, "EXPERIENCE." EDUCATION THEN, SIMPLY BECOMES THE PROPER UTILIZATION OF OTHERS' 'EXPERIENCE' TO GAIN FROM THEIR KNOWLEDGE, MAKING OUR UNDERSTANDING CURVE BOTH FASTER AND EASIER. Isn't that the essence of all education and learning? Would men be standing on the moon if not for the combined talents of millions upon millions making millions of mistakes then coming up with common solutions? It follows then, that given enough time we could all become Einsteins -- given the time.

I've noticed that the issue of money has apparently occupied a starring role in our discussion of acting technique. My question is simply this: Who hasn't been ripped off at one time or another by an uscrupulous or unprofessional person in our business? If that is the solitary determining factor by which you judge acting instruction (or any other aspect of our industry), you're in for a very rude awakening -- or need to re-read the advice of P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute... and someone to take them." Be wise in all your career decisions.

By the way, I'm proud of you guys... we can "all get along."

"Whatever works."

www.robertkim.com

Nothing Kavorka says is anything new. He has a very one-sided mentality towards the profession of acting. An actor of his caliber is best suited for community theatre. Not saying community theatre is bad, but it tends to hire the actors who are either in it for a hobby, or lazy about their craft, or scared of the professional side of it all. All in all, he's ignorant, and misguided about the craft. Its all good though, we all have to start somewhere!

^ i think you must have not read kavorka's article thoroughly..i dont think it was directed in any particular direction...it was more of a generalization..what he was saying has nothing to do with just community theatre it can be applied to anyway..i think the point he was trying to make was that...if you have the knowledge and know how you can do without paying for classes...alot of producers and agents are in cahoots also ...soo if you have ever found yourself in a situation where you were auditionin and at the end of it they told you need acting lesson's..and they suggest certain schools chances are their just helping out and old friend believe that it's true know someone whos has been in the buisness since she first was in the great gatsby ..this was advice she pasted down to me that she had recieved from the "farrely bros"...why would you listen to what a castin director or producer ...Your the actor their not ...if your knowledgable on something and someone isnt why would you listen to them?...why would what they say have any kind of relevance?......its best to just keep your best interests at heart...their job is to fil the roles not to tell you how to act ..when it comes down to it ..it doesnt matter how many classes you've taken in the end its all about the talent soo if you are really dedicated to what you do..whether you sit at home and studying and spend time at the theatre brushing up on your craft (constantly,something alot of actors dont ever do)..you'll have yourself a sucessfull fulfillling career

I see what you're saying afool, but thats really not how his article came across for me. But hey, diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folk right? It seemed he was bitching and moaning that people even taught acting classes, in general. He basically said you don't need any formal education in this craft. He even stated that you can wake up one day and just be a professional actor. That's why I said he was ignorant, and best suited for community theatre. He then shifted direction to the costs of schools. Now, here, I can understand where he's coming from. I, myself, work for a school that charges ginormous amounts of money for classes. That would be one of the many things I would change about this place if I could, but alas, I am just a lowly school teacher, and not an owner. I feel where he's coming from, but there's the old saying, if you think its not for you, DON'T GO. Why bitch about something if you're not even affiliated with it? I didn't see anything in his rant about CD's, or producers telling him to take classes. It seems to me if that WAS the case, then he really needs classes. I think he DOES need professional training. But, at this point in his life, it wouldn't work for him, because obviously he's already calculated that out of his equation, so he would block himself emotionally. Now, there are many things you cannot do on your own. Too many actors have the mentality that they don't need any coaching, or help. They do. We ALL do. I do, famous people do, the best actors in the world need coaching. Its not something like being a construction worker, and you go to school to learn bricklaying, cad, and the fundamentals of contracting, then you're off to work.
No sir. In acting, your work is constantly evolving. It is an art, a living art. There is no such thing as perfection, therefore, there is always something to learn. It is near impossible to learn it by yourself. He stated that all you have to do is pick up books like "an actor prepares", or "on the technique of acting", and you're all set. Books are a good source of information, not a good source of training. You need a teacher, a coach, a guide to help you along your path. For anyone to think otherwise, you must be crazy, or lazy.