Jason,

I live in Los Angeles, and haven't been here too long. I have been searching these boards for some time, never posted, but found some fantastic information posted by you. This led me to your website which is equally as impressive. And without rambling too much further, I wanted to ask you about your thoughts and opinions on Archetype work, or Energy work it seems.

I have become enthralled in a way by Michael Chekhov's approach to the craft the more I delve into his vast knowledge. He was such an incredible man during his time on earth. You seem to synthesize your approach the way he did to an extent, but with an added zest of knowledge from 50 years of development that he didn't have the luxury of. I am utterly fascinated by this approach the more I contemplate it, and honestly can't see how one could approach a character another way. I'm obviously aware that no two individuals approach acting -- or life in general for that matter, the same way. But that's what seems Universal about Chekhov's ideas, a certain vitality he brought to it.

Are there any teachers you would be an advocate of in Los Angeles that would offer any type of work such as this -- because I sure as hell can't find anyone who seems to be half-way original.

Thanks, I'll be interested to hear your feedback.

quote:

Are there any teachers you would be an advocate of in Los Angeles that would offer any type of work such as this -- because I sure as hell can't find anyone who seems to be half-way original.

Hi JL21...nice screenname by the way, I almost used that myself (just kidding). I was curious as to how many teachers you researched in Los Angeles. You can find some of the best teachers on the planet in Los Angeles (and, sadly, some of the worst). I find it odd that you ask about "archetype" work-cause, oddly, the only time I hear of this word is from posts by Jason Bennett,or posts for Jason Bennett, or by Jason Bennett students. If this thread continues, I would love to list some great teachers in LA, but I have a feeling this is a setup to promote an acting teacher, and not a genuine post. Sorry, that's just my opinion.

Well Eagles, you are wrong again.

I don't need to set anything up to promote myself, my school is doing very well.

And you are also wrong about Archetypes -- plenty of brilliant people talk about them. Chekhov spoke about them in 1936. There is an entire field called Archetypal Psychology -- MANY books are written about them. There are classes in Universities and private schools all over the PLANET in Archetypal Psychology -- for psychologists and for writers and for actors. There are some books written for screenwriters about major Archetypes in Literature. There is a theater company in Europe, Pan Theater, devoted to Archetypal Psychology. There is a professor of acting at MIT who has written a book about DreamWork for Actors, Janet Sonenberg -- all about Archetypes and Dream Work.

Drs. Hal and Sidra Stone, who trained me extensively, worked with actors and acting teachers for about 30 YEARS, mostly in Los Angeles.

Eric Morris, in Los Angeles, gives "Subpersonality Workshops" and writes about Subpersonalities in most of his books. It's similar to Archetypes.

Michael Shurtleff talks about playing "opposites" in the book Audition. This is referring to ARCHETYPES.

Sanford Meisner talked about holding yourself in a POINT OF VIEW when you are playing a character. This is an ARCHETYPE. And he developed numerous exercises to cultivate your ability to do this.

Actors, when talking about acting, talk ALL THE TIME about accessing a "part of themselves" when they act. This is ARCHETYPE TALK.

People, when talking, say, "Well, a part of me wants to do this...but a part of me thinks that..." This a person, in conversation, accessing different PARTS of the personality.

Here is an article in THIS MONTH'S Atlantic Magazine about Archetypes/Selves/Subpersonalities and the fact that we are made of them. They DEFINE character. Why don't you learn about it?

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/multiple-personalities

Eagles, you have long been disrespectful to me with your absurd accusations. If you knew more about actor training, modern actor training, you wouldn't make the kinds of statements you do.

What I do in my work is re-frame old-fashioned actor training in NEW and UPDATED terms. You know why? BECAUSE IT WORKS BETTER! That would be WHY professional actors who study with me promote what we do all over the place. Because a lot of them came from other schools, with older teachers, and got much better results with me. If that offends you, I suggest therapy.

To the person who asked the question...

Obviously, in my response to Eagles, I've given you some information...

And I referenced Eric Morris in LA. But I have to tell you, objectively, that Eric doesn't do Archetype Work in the way that we do here. He studied with Dr. Hal Stone in the very early 80s and then again around 1992. As a result, his knowledge of the very deep psychology of the work isn't that extensive. I know, I studied with Eric a LONG, LONG time ago.

Chekhov teachers also teach a very outdated and superficial way of looking at Archetypes. They call them Qualities of Action, a lot of the time. And by the way, Actions elicit Archetypes, but also Archetypes cause Objectives.

For example, if I have a big Sexual Self. Then, I'll tend to pursue sex a lot. Right?

Or, I might have a Self/Archetype that wants to feel superior to others. So, in one situation I might use the Killer to threaten a person to feel superior. And in another situation, I might use the Sexual self to seduce someone I'm not even attracted to, just to feel like I can. Does this make sense? Or I might use a Vulnerable self to make someone feel bad for me, and then I feel superior because I could manipulate them like this.

Archetypes define our character. For example, Eagles constantly promotes conspiracies on this message board. He seems to have a PRIMARY SELF that sees conspiracies and hidden agendas in things. Others, read his posts and find his comments laughable. They would be more identified with an OPPOSITE kind of self, a more trusting self that doesn't see bad intentions all over the place. So the kinds of Selves/Archetypes that are around a lot in our lives shape our view of the world -- they cause and define our CHARACTER.

Another example from this message board is that a few posters don't like the kinds of things that I write because I'm not old-fashioned. They constantly promote the older ways of approaching acting. They sometimes make arguments that because I'm a younger teacher, I must be a fraud or not that good. So what is their primary self? It might be a self that looks to older people and is TRADITIONAL. Certainly, this is less primary for me. As you can tell from my posts, my PRIMARY self, with regard to this, is that I favor MODERN, NEWER, CUTTING edge ways of approaching things (like Stanislavski when he was alive).

So we have the opposites of Traditional versus Modern, at work in these acting debates.

Opposites are always the cause of conflict in drama -- ALWAYS. Learning about the Opposites in you is a beginning to seeing the opposites in a very deep way in scripts.

In terms of LA teachers, there are many great teachers in Los Angeles. But in terms of the kind of work we do with Archetypes, it is actually rather unique. What you can do in that area is find psychologists who have worked with actors who know the work. One of them is Dr. Martha-Lou Cohen, who has worked with actors for about 30 years, mostly in Los Angeles. She travels all over the world, teaching the work. She is in LA for a few days a month, because she recently moved to Berkeley. You can PM me for her contact info. She is brilliant. I would start with her.

So to sum up, ALL the traditional acting training is about eliciting Archetypes. It's just that, as Eagles demonstrates, they often use DIFFERENT TERMS. And the teachers aren't modern enough to understand that their exercises are about accessing archetypes -- often in a very crude and inefficient way.

For example, if you do Uta Hagen's "Substitution/Transference," you are doing to access an Archetype...But the Hagen teachers don't realize it.

For example, if you "play an action," you are doing it to elicit an Archetype.

For example, if you adopt a "point of view." This is accessing an Archetype.

If you "play opposites," you are accessing two opposite Selves/Archetypes.

If you create a "place" or an "atmosphere," you are doing it to access Archetypes.

If you put on a business suit, you are doing it to change your state-of-being, to access Archetypes.

If you make a physical choice to move very quickly and dart your eyes around fast, you are doing it to tell a certain story (of paranoia?) and to hopefully change your INNER state -- accessing an Archetype...

I suggest the books by Drs. Hal and Sidra Stone -- the first one is Embracing Our Selves. It changed my life when I was about 16 years old.

All this work completely made all my old-fashioned, vague acting training make sense. And then I took it and adapted it and added to it for work with actors.

The more you know about psychology, the better an actor you are going to be. EXPERIENTIAL psychological work is vital for actors -- Gestalt, Jungian work, Dream Work, Archetype Work. Intellectual psychological work is far less important.

I hope this helps. Feel free to ask more questions. - Jason Bennett