Wondering if anyone can reccomend a well-received, no bs acting class where one actually gets to work almost every class and that has a specific technique. I will work extra shifts for the right class if need be.

I think the actor's boot camp seems interesting but I had a bad experiance with Meisner method in college-- namely that I hate the repetion exercise (!) but it may have been more so the instructor than the methodolgy-- does anyone have strong feelings about this approach/philosophy?

Any reccomendations about Meisner or specific LA classes/schools would be really appreciated.

Thanks!

I took Meisner awhile back, and I truly think it's the best foundation an actor can have. Yes, there are some situations in which you need to have other tools, but no good teacher would eve tell you that Meisner is all you need. I feel that it grounds all one's work in the moment, in realty. I highly recommend it.

I learned Meisner at the Acting Corps of North Hollywood... but they tech more then just Meisner.

Hi there, so I just moved back east from LA I was there for almost 11 yrs. The bigest thing I miss aside from my best friends is my teacher. I imagine it's not like anything you have study
before, but I will tell you he boils it down, reminds you of why you are doing this. it's fun, not easy but fun

His name is Harry Mastrogeorge, he has taught forever and is terribly respected in LA

His number 323 343 9102

You can tell him Victoria Prescott sent you.

Good luck

thanks for your help!

Meisner work helps many actors. I studied with two Meisner disciples when I was younger and I teach all his major concepts in my work. Most of his major concepts are taught by all the other major 20th Century schools, too.

Just remember there is no physical work in Meisner training, there is no characterization work in Meisner training, there is no voice work in Meisner training. There is also only very primitive work to free you emotionally. And there is very little work to develop your imagination, by comparison to other schools of thought. And there is usually only one emotional preparation technique taught, which certainly wasn't enough for me or any great actor I know.

More and more, acting teachers are teaching newer, more well-rounded approaches to acting -- which means they are teaching Meisner's work...and much more.

Specifically about Repetition, I use it when needed. But I have more modern exercises that get actors grounded, deep, connected and truthful far more quickly and reliably. Because of this, if I used Repetition, I would be "Stuck in the past," in terms of what we now in 2008. I do use this exercise, but I use it only in some situations and I actually have changed the format of it in a way that works better. That's my job -- creating a unique prescription for each actor I work with, instead of teaching the same thing to every actor. To me, that's vital for creative work. How can you have creativity if you simply do what was done in the past? I can't.

I am not dissing Sandy's work. He was one of the many 20th Century masters. Part of the reason there are so many Meisner schools is because Meisner work is so simple and easy to understand. But this is also the reason you need more work than this -- it leaves so much out, virtually anyone can teach it and understand it. But for the more complex acting, you need more complex systems of training. This is my opinion, and I know it's going to piss off the older-fashioned 20th century orthodoxy.

And I'm sorry about that. I respect differences of opinion. But I'm interested in principles of great work, and that's why I am chiming in here and speaking up for modern, comprehensive training.

So once again, Meisner was a Master teacher and I respect his work and it is part of what modern teachers offer their students. I respect Meisner teachers and Meisner students -- I have taught MANY of them. Go for it. And do whatever works.

- Jason Bennett

Meisner was fond of saying that the craft should do away with itself. His "technique" was actually very simple. He said this himself . . . joking that it just took twenty years to learn.

That's why people often complain about the repetition technique. It isn't exactly exciting. It can be . . . but in the beginning it is only . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I think there are some problems with the Meisner technique:

He fails to address those students that are "crippled" by social obligation, upbringing, etc. They will never be actors in his opinion. He sends them home instead . . . .

He claims Strasberg introverted the already introverted. In my humble observation, Meisner numbs the intellect and magnifies the impulsive aspect of the actor. This is a useful aspect of acting, but it isn't all of acting nor should it be. It is a only a small fraction of human behavior.

Strasberg most likely sent Meisner down this path. He sought a technique that was polar opposite of Strasberg's.

Mamet decries the Method teachers to be frauds. Personally I think he should have taken a deeper look at Meisner . . . it seems to me that Mamet's thoughts on acting merge quite well with Meisner. If the actor works impulsively . . . someone has to be responsible for the other aspects of character. Mamet says that is the writer. The words and actions are all of the character and emotion you will ever need. The actor should just say the lines.

Mamet also seemed to suggest that the inner emotions that an actor feels naturally by putting him or herself on stage work perfectly as emotions for the character, because the character is never quite certain that he will achieve his objective (the basis of good screenwriting . . . conflict).

This is where, in my limited understanding, that he parts with Meisner. Meisner is teaching a way to operate in spite of the intellectual process . . . in spite of doubt.

Of course my comments are far from all inclusive or even accurate. Think of them as musings. If Mamet or Meisner saw them they'd be sighing in disgust.

I am drawn to a concept heavily used by Eric Morris and, even, Hagan. Being. Being totally. Mamet would agree with this concept.

Meisner, I think. . . has redefined what being is all about . . . retrained the human process through mindless repetition.

His process gets you out of your head. There are other processes to get you out of your head; there are processes that allow you to focus on the other actor. I think these are important processes, but I think Meisner was too simple in his approach and went too far.

I'm still wrestling with the acting process myself. Who is the greater actor: the actor that organically reacts during the entire play and that is comnpletely unpredictable . . . or the actor that goes exactly where he sets out . . . or the actor that does a little bit of both; the actor that organically travels from each sign post that he has put within the performance. Mamet gets pissed that actor dares create sign posts . . . how dare the horse (actor) disobey the master (director or writer).

I compare this to Hollywood and Indie films. I think some Indie directors, when they shoot a film, have no idea what they want to say or where they are going. In many ways, I respect the director more that has a specific vision . . . while allowing for organic deviation to be if it supports the original vision.

This ended up being much longer than I intended, but acting is such a unique and interesting subject.

Thanks!

There is only one teacher of the Meisner "approach" in Los Angeles who knows what the hell he is doing. That's William (Bill) Alderson. Alderson was the Associate Director of the Neighborhood Playhouse for 20 years. He has been teaching in LA for almost 25 years now and is located in the same studio location Meisner used when he re-located to Los Angeles.

http://www.aldersonstudio.com/

And no, it is not limited or elementary or any of that crap. Don't listen to it. Some of the greatest actors who have even graced the stage/screen found all they needed or will even need within it's robust framework. It expands beyond your limitations, if you're willing to do the work, and lures you to follow. But, it's not just a "repetition" exercise. Anybody who tells you that does not know what the hell they're talking about. And, if they're telling you it's "limited" and they've got a better mousetrap -- in other words, selling you their own classes -- beware, buyer. Look at the history. But, do not enter into the work if you are not serious.

And, beware of "techniques". As my now RIP teacher used to say (also a former NPlayhouse instructor), "Acting is not complicated; but it's awfully damned difficult." Nobody can "teach" you to act. Meisner doesn't try. It's a path, a journey, through which you will learn, in your own way and your own time. And, when you get it, you won't be able to explain it to anyone, but you will know no other way.

Living truthfully under imaginary circumstances.

Simple.

Awfully damned difficult.

Good luck.

Call Bill.

Sorry, forgot to mention, Mamet studied with Meisner but he never got it.

That's why he pooh pooh's it.

He couldn't do it.

Revere Mamet for his writing. It's great stuff. he knows squat about acting.