FACEBOOK DISCUSSION - THE CLOSED LOOP

ACTORS: The moment you are in (as in: Being in the moment.)is part of a closed loop. If you miss a response beat to the environment, to others in the scene, to your own inner process - the loop is broken. Reality is broken. It may be impossible to recover. Why do we miss these beats?!

Dave Rossetti and Mike Sheer like this.

Mike Sheer: the same reason why I lose most of my chess games, thinking too much about oneself. :(

Mark Schoenberg: Terrific answer, Mike. Global self consciousness.

Mark Schoenberg: In the "real" world, we never miss a stimulus - we respond naturally to everything that affects us. But in the world of "play" stimuli aren't there until we put them there. So part of "becoming" is creating a world in which everything affects us. There aren't any blanks. Every moment is played in the appropriate psychological time frame and we never rush, become distracted or ignore a beat. We can never break the reality loop. Never.

Mike Sheer: Wow yeah...deep. u could lool at it too like the difference btwn speaking a language you've just learned as opposed to your native one. Ie. Speaking 'language' of acting as opposed to just being your actual self.

Mark Schoenberg: It's actually a 2nd self, Mike-one that's been retooled to live in the world of the play. But just as real.

Keith Assoun: I would have to say it's from not listening closely enough tell your fellow actors. Not that I could ever be accused of that lol.

Alix Gazzard: we miss the beats because we are consumed wiith our own inner dialogue not what is happening right now.. on the stage.. its thinking ahead of what is happening in the now..

Rico Tudico: Because we start to think about it rather than let it affect us.

Bill Gray: It's been said before, but once you have even a hint of the feeling of "Hey, this is going pretty well!", you are doomed. Because you have left "the moment". One does not think about breathing, one simply breathes with all the confidence of life. So must a performance manifest.

Mark Schoenberg: These are great comments. The heart of it is the necessity to behave in the fictional world exactly as if it were the real world. If anything "self" driven intrudes, something that is extraneous to the moment, the world of the text, the whole shebang falls apart. Responding to stimuli is another key. A stimulus can come from 3 places: The people in the moment with you, the environment and from your own inner process.

Sean Bardgett: I find that you have to learn to listen to and absorb everything else around you which allows you to get those beats in the moment you are playing. Its when you stop listening and overthink that the cycle gets broken!

Mark Schoenberg: Film provides debits and credits to the process. Biggest negative is time. You usually don't have the luxury of preparing the work over a decent rehearsal period. On the plus side, you only have to work on a few minutes of text from one day to the next. Also - in film, you have to be quicker and more flexible in terms of decisions - and without a fluid imagination and very good command of your tools, you're in for a hard time. But whether it's film or stage, once you've gotten some kind of plan together - YOU HAVE TO LEAVE THE DAMNED PLAN BEHIND ON THE DAY. IF IT'S NOT IN YOUR MUSCLE MEMORY, YOU'RE TOAST. . . CRISPY CRITTER DONE!!!

Dave Rossetti: This last comment is gospel.... Do all your homework, then forget it all when it's time to play.

Mark Schoenberg: It would be Agreat thing if every actor on the planet watched other people in a room, in the middle of a real world, torrid conversation - and note, in particular, what they do in pauses and silences, what they do after making a particularly good point themselves and are waiting expectantly to see how the other folks in the room respond. THE ACTOR MUST DO EVERY SINGLE BIT OF WHAT HE/SHE OBSERVES IN THE EQUALLY "REAL" WORLD OF THE TEXT.

Mark Schoenberg: In order to do so, of course, the actor must be relaxed, in the moment, with no self-consciousness and completely focussed on and responding to each stimulus as it arises. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE BUT THE MOMENT. EVERYTHING IS IN THE PAST AND NOTHING IS IN THE FUTURE. THERE CAN BE NO EXPECTATIONS BEYOND THE MOMENT.

Mark Schoenberg: THE ACTOR MUST NEVER INTERPOSE HIMSELF BETWEEN THE PERSON HE HAS BECOME IN THE PLAY AND THE MOMENT. THE MOMENT BELONGS TO THE REALITY OF THE TEXT!!!

New Facebook Thread - Developing Emotional Beats

ACTORS: In 1951, Luther Adler, an American Jew and a staunch member of the famed Yiddish Theatre, played Adolph Hitler in two distinguished films. More recently, we've seen Anthony Hopkins as Dr. Hannibal Lecter, a certified serial killer and grade a maniac.

Taking it on faith that Adler would not have started the holocaust and Hopkins would not have really fried up human liver and served it with a delightful Chianti - how do you think these two distinguished actors came to grips with their respective roles?

John Byrne: In creating them....from the text. You have to start somewhere. Hopkins once said in an interview, that he stripped away everything he might think about serial killers to the bare bones and then slowly build a base on which to draw from in creating hannibal.

Mark Schoenberg: If I replied that the text is only useful for purposes of emotional identification, would that seem reasonable? If yes, why?

Dana Thody: You cannot judge a character for doing something you wouldn't. You must look at what they get from doing what try are doing. If you look at Hitler; he believed what he was doing was right. If you start from there you can start to build a character that had developed distinct feelings for a specific race and how he felt his power was going to help the world by eradicating that race.

Mark Schoenberg: How about playing, passionately: "I believe what I am doing will be a great service to mankind!" Make no other association with race - and just say the words? Will that work? If so, why?

John Byrne: Interesting. If use the character Hitler, from which point are you starting? From when he came to power? Or from before? How you build the back story or interpret the history might rely heavily on the emtional triggers which then might influence "your choices" in playing the character.

Mark Schoenberg: Here's where I'm going with this. The text provides you with a definable series of emotional choices. You don't, for example, have to feel anything about ANY racial implication. Irrelevant. You mark the point, thusly: I am obsessed with doing this. I will devote all my power to accomplishing this! Fervently.

Mark Schoenberg: All of us understand and have felt an obsessive desire to accomplish a task. You develop that emotional beat, and simply say the words. . Context makes Hitler a monster. It's the most direct way to deal with, not just personally difficult text, but with ANY text.

John Byrne: True. I once had the pleasure of auditing a Stella Adler workshop in Los Angeles. Her thoughts were the same. Play the scene straight on, no holding back. Mark the point, the moment. If in a controlled fever giving everything to the text and what it asks of you as an actor, but also being 110% to the actor to which you are performing. One sniff of not being true...won't help you or the play or your fellow actors.

Mark Schoenberg: So the text guides emotional choices, regardless of specific content. You stay away from context completely. Context screws you up. Especially if it's unpleasant- a la human liver and chianti. Play the specified emotion, let the script deal with context!!

Dana Thody: Agreed. Find the emotion for doing things and don't get bogged down or freaked out by the context of the script plot and work of the play you are in.

Sean Balfour: empathy

Mark Schoenberg: Do you have to empathize to deliver text authentically? I dunno, Sean.

FACEBOOK DISCUSSION: CAMERA VS. STAGE

ACTORS: I want to know what the biggest difference - in performance - is, between working on stage and on camera.

Sean Bardgett: On stage you're playing a character, on camera your being a person!

Mark Schoenberg: I dunno, Sean. You have to be what the text dictates in both stage and film. As I said yesterday, I don't like the word "character." You are always a person, aren't you?

Logan Brown: Projection! Both vocal and physical...

Colin Paradine: Size. Big for the stage, small for the camera. And yes Mark, I agree, text always dictates who you are.

Sean Bardgett: But it doesn't dictate how you feel!

Emily G R Martin-Johnson: as colin said - size matters....wait what are we talking about?

Sean Bardgett: Lol!

Mark Schoenberg: Okay. Now we're getting into it, folks. The big difference. In film, your audience is a foot away! You work for that audience. Everything is sized to meet that reality. BUT YOU DO NOT CHANGE WHAT YOU FEEL. You can compress it, redistribute it - but DO NOT as many Canadian actors do and as many bad acting teachers teach - DUMB IT DOWN. An intense emotion is an intense emotion. PERIOD. Ever wonder why we fall asleep watching home grown movies? Inner intensity and commitment and drive must never be compromised - simply rejigged for camera. Look at DiCaprio in "The Departed." Particularly the Psychiatrist scene with Vera Farmiglia.(?) Is that too big, too intense? Bullshit. It's amazing. Sean Penn in "Mystic River" when he finds out his daughter's been murdered. These are iconic examples of emotion ratcheted up, but controlled for the medium. We need to teach that and encourage screen actors to go for it and manage it properly.

Mark Schoenberg: So if you buy into that, what physical tool does the actor have to be aware of and use, perhaps, to greater effect than he might on stage?

Colin Paradine: ‎100% agreed Mark! Sean, the text should indeed tell you how you feel. After all that text IS who you are when acting.

Mark Schoenberg: You bet!

Tracey Leaver Taylor: Speaking from my own experience on stage if you make a mistake you can't take it back, on tv you can re do it!

Colin Paradine: And Emily, size does indeed matter... Or so I've been told.

Frank Moher: ‎"What physical tool does the actor have to be aware of and use, perhaps, to greater effect than he might on stage?" Eyes.

Mark Schoenberg: Correct, Frank!!

Dave Rossetti: I have to fight through this claustrophobic feeling when in front of a camera, but not on stage. Not sure if that makes sense... just a feeling I get.

Frank Moher: Woo-hoo!

Mark Schoenberg: Maybe, Dave - because there's a ton of equipment around, a bunch of essential folk who aren't in the scene doing essential things - so a myriad of distractions impinge on the reality of the mise en scene. Hard to make love with the sound guy,sipping a Dr. Pepper, swinging a boom over your naked butt. Makes you feel jammed up unless you can drive it out of your consciousness.

Mark Schoenberg: Which, by the way, you need to do. Stage - there's just the environment and the audience - much more actual space.

Mark Schoenberg: Getting back to "the eyes." Clooney Vs Oldman in the best actor thingie. George doesn't use his eyes. Clark Gable without inner drive. His performances are 50 yards wide and 2 inches deep. Oldman, on the other hand, brings everything to an ocular point. The moments are lasered out - even though the performance is so restrained, you might wonder what's going on inside the guy. But he fascinates you because you SEE the subtle ebb and flow of emotion. A beautiful thing to watch. And that's the interior process I'm talking about. What every film actor should aspire to. Use your eyes to channel emotion.

Mark Schoenberg: Stillness, managing inner life, intensity. Eyes. These are techniques that must be learned and assimilated. Payton Manning doesn't have to think about how to throw a football. He spent thousands of hours thinking, doing, thinking, doing. It's all part of his muscle memory now. His body and his instincts respond automatically to the situation on the field. If he forces the ball, thinks about the throw or the process, he's going to be intercepted. It's being in the moment with perfect control of your tools and assets. Listen up, folks..

Jacob Barker: Great thread Mark.

Mike Lummis: I love the story of when Oldman auditioned for Dracula. All these guys had come in dressed in black/goth/period styles of dress. He walks in in jeans and a t-shirt and just stands there and scares the shit out of everyone. They said it was like being in front of a 200 yr. old monster. As Oldman says, do your homework and the rest is easy. I think the biggest differnce between stage and screen is that theatre is live and ALIVE. The energy and the fact that something is happening creates an energy. My biggest challenge in film is finding energy and focus when a lot of it is hurry up and wait.

Mark Schoenberg" He was a monster in "The Professional." Great film. Didn't get overwhelmed by him in the Batman movies. Also great in the Joe Orton biopic, "Prick Up Your Ears."

Mark Schoenberg: As for the hurry up and wait problem, Mike. I suggest actors practice what I call the "Moment Before" protocol. Example. Day one you shoot scene 180 where you're banging on the door of the Church trying to escape two bad guys. The night before the shoot, you have to find scene 180, make sure you know ir upside down and backwards (forget the rewrites in the morning :) ) and most important - place it in the arc of the screenplay - so that you know exactly what's happened to you, physically, emotionally etc -. Just before the scene is shot next day, you go to the moment before - get it cooking internally (NO THOUGHT) and let it rocket you into the scene when you hear "Action." Where you start the moment before depends a lot on your own personal process. I suggest you get it going when you hear "Actors, First Positions."

Mark Schoenberg: ‎" . . .so that you know exactly what's happened to you prior to the action in scene 180." You provide an emotional and physical context for what you have to do as scene 180 begins. Clear as mud.

Mike Lummis: Perfectly put,Mark. You're absolutely right. Oldman is unbelievably good in State Of Grace,as well. Wow!

Mike Lummis: I must say that one advantage film offers is the actual locations and set pieces. I played a bank robber and we shot in a real bank and ran out and dove into our getaway car and peeled off. Not hard to get into it with all that stimuli.

Mark Schoenberg: Right. What stage can never do. But film can never give the actor the experience of contiguous performance - where every scene builds, without breaking the momentum, through to the end. And the feedback you get from the living audience. Well . . . most of them are living.

Mike Lummis: That's the thing. Theatre is the actor's medium because you get to go through the play sequentially and take the journey uninterrupted. As a director, I used to take offense at this notion. "Wait, what about the director?!!" The director is Crucial in preparing the actors.

Mike Lummis: In film, you're at the mercy of the cutting room floor. But,like you said,Mark, the buzz of live theatre cannot be duplicated.

Mark Schoenberg: The old Warner Bros stock company used to make movies in sequence. Maltese Falcon and the like. Those were the days.

Mike Lummis I think Carnage by Polanski was filmed in sequence.

Mike Lummis: Like you said,if you know the script inside out,you can plug in regardless of the sequence. But the waiting just drains me sometimes. I love showing up at a theatre,getting ready in the dressing room and getting out onstage. Much more exciting.

Mike Lummis: Gotta run. Great discussion,yet again.

Angela Froese: What I love is the whole rehearsal process in theatre, it's so creative -- not much rehearsing in film.

Mark Schoenberg: Unless you're doing "Lord of the Rings." :)

Angela Froese: lol! :)

Tony Fletcher: Great thread..'The Moment Before' an acting essential..esp useful in film/TV & critical in auditions. Laurence Olivier was once asked how he judged his on camera performances. 'It's all about the eyes'..he said..'if I get those right..I'm happy'. Gary Oldman easily one of the best actors of his generation....he'll eventually get that damn Oscar. And every young actor should study & analyse Anthony Hopkins' work in 'Silence of the Lambs' - a masterclass in how it's done. The moment we first see him onscreen still sends shivers down my spine..!

Gilda Farrell: My biggest difference is continuity. In a play you experience the growth of the character the way the playwright intended him or her to grow. In film the priority is location and you experience the growth of the character in bits and pieces out of sync. I find that less satisfying than stage. Also an audience is more satisfying to relate to than a hand, or a crew.

Jeff Topping: I'm retired now, but if I remember correctly, the actor's eyes. The back row of a theatre can not read them, while the camera is pushed right up into them. Camera work is also much more physically restraining, depending on what is the angle. the closer it is, the less you can move.

Jeff Topping: the non rehearsal process of camera work as well is a huge difference. and finally the paychecks.

Gilda Farrell: Also, in plays, I like the words. In movies you get to grunt a lot and look soulful. But in plays you can have the most magnificent words, illuminating the human condition, coming out of your mouth.

Luciana: Carro Money.

ACTORS: That string of comments I put up yesterday, was meant to illustrate, this: Instinct, intuition, imagination are the critical components to success. Technique can be acquired along the way - but it must NEVER BE FOREMOST in your presentation - or even in your thought - about process.

Technique is the INVISIBLE base which helps channel process. But we must NEVER see it or be aware of it. ANYTHING at all that puts you in your head is counter productive and must be avoided - no matter the teacher, director, school. You will not succeed with technique layered on top of your own reality.

Question: How do you achieve this?

Laurie Mayper: I am not an actress. Isn't it desirable if actors learn all the techniques in a class or workshop setting, practice and risk mistakes, but then on the job, the challenge is knowing which one to use for each scene, and using the skill to do it well? The best actors make it look easy on screen or on stage, because they look natural, and you can't tell they are acting. I took a short acting course in order to improve my script writing, and acting (for me) was not easy and I did not do it well.

Sean Bardgett: Its like life, you have to live in the moment and and be aware of your surroundings like any person would. Your soaking in your environment rather than questioning it.

Mark Schoenberg: ‎Laurie Mayper - That's because, it IS natural, Laurie. The point, I think, is that you must be able, from the get-go, to move seamlessly into the REALITY of text. Technique provides the structure on which you hang the reality. Like everything we do growing up, we think to problem solve. Mom says"use your head", dad says " think it through - ad nauseum. So for a kid wanting to be an actor, feeling before you think is counter intuitive. Yet - it is the only thing that actually works. In the examples I posted yesterday, I talked about Gary Sinese who was self taught. Instinctively, he understands that to be real, the only thing that counts is what he feels in the moment. Acquired technique tells him what to do with what he feels - but the craft is invisible. In your acting class, you were, undoubtedly, plagued by consciousness of self - which is a beginning actors worst nightmare. When we are "in the moment" we are never self-aware. If a new actor can't get through that - he can't, unfortunately, be an actor.

Sean Bardgett: Not a successful one anyways!

Mark Schoenberg: Coffee houses are filled with 50 year old baristas who say they're actors. But they are really baristas. Nothing wrong with that, except their dreams prevent them from living a life free of illusion. Don't get me wrong. Plenty of very talented people, don't get the break they need, or the timing is wrong - or , or, or. But it's the ones who hang onto a mistaken idea of what they're able to achieve that I feel badly for.

Mary Beth OD: I think it just helps to be a little bit wrong in the head. Then, you can invest in whatever reality suits you, or your needs!

Mark Schoenberg: MB - If you choose to live a large part of your life through non-existant people, you ARE wrong in the head. Tee Hee, as Calypso Schoenberg would say.

Mike Lummis: As Mamet says,"The audience will teach you how to act." You can study for years but the real lessons are learned onstage. Sometimes too much learning has confused me and I go back to the basics of trying to be genuine and react to my partner. I saw a 13 yr. old in a film by Ingrid Veninger and he was brilliant. He'd never acted before and was the most natural performer on screen. I asked him how he did it and he said,"Well, I look at my lines and I ask myself,'How would I say that?' He wasn't being precocious. He meant it. It's deceptively simple,like all forms of art.

Mark Schoenberg: It is so simple, folks don't know how to do it. It actually just requires "the doing of it!"

Mark Schoenberg: ‎Mike Lummis Further to Mamet. The audience is a great barometer of when you are 1) cooking or 2) shitting in the pot. You have to have the instinct and imagination to know which is which.

Acting Without a Net MONDAY, MAY 14, 2012 FACEBOOK Discussions

Because I've been so busy the past 18 months, I decided to open up ACTOR oriented discussions on Facebook. This has proved both popular and informative. For your reading pleasure, here are some of the unedited discussions about acting, directing and other theatre/film related subjects. ENJOY!!

ACTORS: Let's talk "tactics." Wild buzz word.

Dave Rossetti: How am I gonna get what I want out of this person....? How many different ways can I try? Instead of asking politely for the watch back...I may just take the watch by force, smooth you into giving it to me, guilt you into it, bribe you, trick you, distract you, .... the plan of ACTION!

Mark Schoenberg: Where do impulses for different tactics come from, Dave? Kinda like the chicken and egg question. Do you think it first? Or does your imagination prompt the action, which is then made a generic part of your performance structure? Or are these actions somehow simultaneous?

Mark Schoenberg: So it's like: Who is this guy who's coming into being through me, based on textual parameters put forth by a writer? It has to be through me, 'cause "me" is all I've got to work with. I can fool around and adjust "me" to move toward the text, but it's always me, 'cause the text ain't got no flesh and blood.

Mark Schoenberg: And so, let's say I fiddle around and adjust my voice, my physical being - maybe I'm doing Rick III - . Does it happen, that my imagination, all by itself starts to fill in some blanks. Like auto suggestion at work. So that "tactics" begin to suggest themselves without any conscious help from me. Is that possible? Is it preferable? Suddenly I've got the horse and cart in the right order, maybe?

Mark Schoenberg: Bubba Watson, long, long hitter - young rebellious golf pro - won The Masters a few weeks ago. He claims he never took a golf lesson, doesn't have a coach. He picked up a club when he was a kid and . . . c'est ca. How is this possible?

Mark Schoenberg: Here's what critics said about Mario Lanza: "superbly natural tenor. . .though a multitude of fine points evade him, he possesses the things almost impossible to learn. He knows the accent that makes a lyric line reach its audience, and he knows why opera is music drama."

Mark Schoenberg: ‎"Hendrix learned to play by practicing for several hours a day, watching others play, getting tips from more experienced players, and listening to records."

Mark Schoenberg: Jimmy "Stewart returned to his hometown to work as a brick loader for a local construction company and on highway and road construction jobs where he painted lines on the roads." At Princeton "He excelled at studying architecture, so impressing his professors with his thesis on an airport design that he was awarded a scholarship for graduate studies; but he gradually became attracted to the school's drama and music clubs, including the Princeton Triangle Club. His acting and accordion talents at Princeton led him to be invited to the University Players, an intercollegiate summer stock company in West Falmouth."

Mark Schoenberg: Errol "Garner was self-taught and remained an "ear player" all his life – he never learned to read music."

Mark Schoenberg ‎"GARY SINISE: We both (Nick Cage) are intuitive actors, we're both self-trained actors. He started differently than I did: he learned his craft from doing movies, I started my own theater company, but we both are intuitive actors, we're both self-trained actors and this self-taught attitude toward it all kind of brought us together. We automatically had some respect for each other, we were both interested in what the other had done in the past, work that we'd seen each other do, so we were ready to go and work together."

The GODOT Challenge . . .

Like some of the greatest playwrights of the 20th Century, Samuel Beckett didn't believe in spelling out what he had in mind relative to the details of performing his work. Arguably, his greatest play is "Waiting for Godot" - a work that is generally regarded as a masterpiece and which seems to have a particularly strong effect on inmates when performed in prisons.

When done badly (as it often is!) Godot has a soporific effect on anyone unfortunate enough to sit through it. To do the play justice, the director and actors must morph into Beckett's world and into the interior of his characters in order to figure out just what the hell's going on!

Here are a couple of clues. Beckett had a brilliant sense of shabby humour and regarded vaudeville as high art. He believed in creating pathos and tragedy with characters who are, largely, clowns. Extended Emmett Kelly clowns! Although not in whiteface. The characters are tragic and also HUGELY funny. Action is overripe and intense, and situations marvelously ludicrous.

Here's the thing. He writes extended stage directions and NEVER ONCE gives the actor instructions on how to play the damned things.

So here's the challenge. Below, I've inserted the opening of Act II of "Waiting for Godot", just as Beckett wrote it. So dear friend, take me through it beat by beat and connect it all up - keeping in mind everything I've outlined for you in the opening paragraphs. I'll check back in in a day or two. Bon Chance!

As always, questions, comments are always welcome!


Waiting for Godot


ACT II


Next day. Same time.


Same place


Estragon's boots front center, heels together, toes splayed.

Lucky's hat at same place.

The tree has four or five leaves.

Enter Vladimir agitatedly. He halts and looks long at the tree, then suddenly begins to move feverishly about the stage.

He halts before the boots, picks one up, examines it, sniffs it, manifests disgust, puts it back carefully.

Comes and goes. Halts extreme right and gazes into distance off, shading his eyes with his hand.

Comes and goes. Halts extreme left, as before. Comes and goes.

Halts suddenly and begins to sing loudly.

VLADIMIR:

A dog came in–

(Having begun too high he stops, clears his throat, resumes:)

A dog came in the kitchen
And stole a crust of bread.
Then cook up with a ladle
And beat him till he was dead.
Then all the dogs came running
And dug the dog a tomb–

(He stops, broods, resumes:)

Then all the dogs came running
And dug the dog a tomb
And wrote upon the tombstone
For the eyes of dogs to come:

A dog came in the kitchen
And stole a crust of bread.
Then cook up with a ladle
And beat him till he was dead.

Then all the dogs came running
And dug the dog a tomb–

(He stops, broods, resumes:)

Then all the dogs came running
And dug the dog a tomb–

(He stops, broods. Softly.)

And dug the dog a tomb . . .

He remains a moment silent and motionless, then begins to move feverishly about the stage.

He halts before the tree, comes and goes, before the boots, comes and goes, halts extreme right, gazes into distance, extreme left, gazes into distance.

Enter Estragon right, barefoot, head bowed. He slowly crosses the stage. Vladimir turns and sees him.

You better build!!

After all my talk last weeek about the importanceof "becoming" . . . I thought I better refresh your memory about the importance of STRUCTURE!!Once you're comfortable in the skin of the character and the world of the text, that's when you start to build the performance.

Remember the text is a construction with a beginning, middle and end. The writer moves the text forward via interaction between characters, movement of plot and exposition. So you, my friend, have to take your emotional shifts, changes in rhythm, construction of character arc and so forth - from the clues in the text.

On the one hand, I'm asking you to enter the world of the text and the interior of the character - and on the other hand, I'm suggesting that once you've done that, there's work - perhaps conscious application of craft - you engage in to build every moment of the performance.

Then, of course, the task is to merge both parts of the work, the act of becoming and the creation of structure, into a seamless whole. Who said being an actor was easy!? It's also true that both sides of the process can develop during rehearsal. You make discoveries along the way that change the way you perceive both character and individual moments - so that adjustments are made, sometimes right up to the last minute.

Film on the one hand and Theatre on the other, make different demands on how you work. As do writers. Chekhov and Beckett, for example, require a different process - one which I'll go into in a coming post - than, say, an episode of CSI Miami. The latter, of course, is all about the tilt of the head and sunglasses!

What's a Nice Guy Like Michael Caine Doing in a Movie Like This!?

If you've been off-planet for the last few weeks, you haven't heard anything about writer/director Christopher Nolan's INCEPTION. . . .That's not necessarily a bad thing. For those of you who don't know much about Christopher Nolan, a brief history. He burst onto the scene in 2001 with "Memento", an inspired outing that remains one of the best films of the early 21st Century. He followed up with two very good Batman movies, starring Christian Bale - and never lost his fascination with the blurred line between reality and the inner reality of the mind's eye - how we perceive things, memory - often the workings of the sub-conscious or what we experience in dreams.

Nolan's budget for "Memento" was around $5,000,000. His budget for "Inception" was near $200,000,000. I'm not being unkind when I mention that "Memento" remains 50X better than "Inception." It's the simple truth. Here's why.

"Memento", if there is such a thing, was a straight forward mystery wrapped in an enigma. It kept you on the edge of your seat, your mind working hard and your expectations aroused. In the end you were able to figure it out. With no CGI, Green Screen, Blue Screen, multiple cameras, cast of thousands, lavish sets or any of that nifty stuff. 2001. Movies have travelled far in 9 years. Oh so far. Not always for the better.

"Inception" is a state of the art video game, wherein story is not nearly as important as the wow factor. And you will leave the theatre with a "Wow!" But right after "Wow!", comes "HUH!?" Or "WHA . . .!?" Those of you who see it stoned (or who wish you had been stoned) might say, "Man . . . you gotta see it 2 or 3 times to get all the stuff packed in there!" Yeah? Really? Nonsense! "Inception" won't make any more sense after the 3rd viewing than it did after the first. Take two Percocet and call me in the morning.

It's not my intention to review "Inception." You already have a pretty good idea what I think about it. I'm firmly set in the 25% of critics who thought it was shoddy, but that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that movies like "Inception" and "Avatar" threaten to make the actor irrelevant. Any one of 3 dozen actors could have done "Inception." And DiCaprio's performance was a clone of "Shutter Island" which was a clone of a handful of movies he made in the past 10 years. "Blood Diamond" and "The Departed" are unique in DiCaprio's canon - because they challenged him, brought out a kind of focus through his eyes, an emotional strength I hadn't seen before. No special effects, no CGI - story was the prime thing - thus character became the prime thing as well. In "Inception", the story is a shell game, a two-bit hooker dressed up like Princess Grace.

So where does that leave us. We don't all have the luxury of choosing the stories we want to make - which, of course, is what a nice guy like Michael Caine is doing in a movie like this. He's of a certain age, the movie comes with built in caché and he's getting a pay day. You, dear friend, had better find a way to fill even the dreariest script with a unique voice that makes people in high places sit up and listen. DiCaprio doesn't have to do that any more. Pity.

Looking Back . . .

It's possible I've grown wiser over the years. . . Perhaps. I may have gained new insights into this thing - this process that haunts me. One thing I've certainly realized is that it's impossible to explain that which is inexplicable. I may have said that recently somewhere, as a matter of fact. It's like trying to put words to intuition or deja vu. These are things you feel, but might have to write a dissertation about - then still come up on the short side when it comes to explaining a specific experience. Actors tell me all the time, "I can't find a word to describe this emotion." We've all been there.

As I think about my own students and compare their work to what I see from established actors, it's hard to avoid a conclusion that's been staring me in the face for a long time. I can and have helped hundreds of young actors improve their work. And now with the internet, I can do Skype video sessions with clients across the country - anywhere in the English speaking world, actually. And as I think aboout all of this, I remember two conversations with two different teachers that suddenly have more relevance than they've had in the past.

The first talk took place many years ago. The teacher, an old mentor of mine, looked at me and smiled sadly. "You know, kiddo, this is all crap." "What?" "Teaching actors. It's crap. All we can do is hold up a light and guide talented kids in a useful direction. If they haven't got the goods, there's no way you can stuff it in." "Like stuffed peppers?" I changed the subject.

The second talk came just a couple of years ago. A coach I used to hang out with was upset about the fact he was running into trouble on a movie shoot. He'd been hired on as a dialogue coach. "Every time I work with that damned kid, I pump him up and he gets the right thing goin' on. Soon as I leave him and he's ready to do the scene, he falls back 60%. He can't retain the work." I thought for a minute. "Maybe it's because you're playing the beats for him. If it's not coming through him - who knows, right?" "When did you get so fuckin' smart?!" That was obviously that. And I hadn't thought much about it since then. But I am now.

If the actor's own instincts can't plug into the emotive point the teacher's illustrating, then trying to parrot the teacher is a waste of everybody's time. So what do we do? Not everybody comes to the table with the same tools. I remember kids who came to me so tied up in knots, they were barely audible when they started to work. I remember others who struggled along for a couple of years before the penny dropped. And I remember the ones who seemed to get it right off the bat - only to fail somewhere along the way.

The ones who consistently amaze me, inspire me and give me hope - are the ones who have the imagination to move into the world of any given text and allow themselves to inhabit it. To become. Plato hated actors. Although I'm paraphrasing, he was appalled by those crazy people who could conjure up fear and actually feel the hair on the backs of their neck rise - or who, if on an imagined beach, could feel the sand between their toes. Lunatics. So this has been going on for a couple of millenia at least.

What I MUST remember. When I discover a student can be on that beach, feel the sand between his toes, it's my duty to hold up the light and guide him/her. When, or if, I finally discover a student who steadfastly stays outside the world of the text, my duty is to counsel him or her to find satisfaction elsewhere. I'm not done with this.

Dangerous Assumption . . .

One of my favourite students arrived yesterday . . . ready to attempt a difficult monologue I'd assigned her from a minor Kubrick film. As usual, we shmoozed, played with the dog and so on - until she ran out of delaying tactics, took a deep breath and said, " I guess I'm ready . . .kinda." And she started the work, then ran down in the middle - and finally ground to a halt well before the end.

"Yes?", I said, mysteriously. There's nothing like a bit of mystery to reinforce the Guru image. "It's not flowing. I'm forcing it." "MmmmHmmm", I murmured, softly. Nothing like a good murmur to ratchet up the mystery.

All you Smart Alecs out there know, of course, I was stalling - trying to get my radar activated. So we talked about it. And I discovered that her preparation, while thorough, had been lacking in certain critical areas.

"What are you remembering at the beginning of the monologue?", I asked her. She thought for a moment. "Well . . .I'm remembering how I felt when I saw him on the beach." "What beach? "Why is that important? It's a beach!" She was frustrated. I wasn't about to make her life any easier. "Cape Cod.", I said. "They summer at Cape Cod. And if you follow that through - to the hotel, the images she conjures up, the context - you start to get a fuller picture of the kind of woman she is. We're not talking Coney Island here."

Light at the end of the tunnel. This talented young actor had missed the imaginative cues that would lead her into the world of the text and subsequently into the psyche of the woman she was trying to become. Next week, we'll see whether or not there's a difference.

I think the lesson here is that before you drop into the trenches and examine the text line by line - you have to summon up an act of imagination that makes the text real, produces visions that you can hear and taste and smell - and lead you unerringly into the life of the character you're portraying. Finding beats and emotional shifts won't work if you are in your own every day reality. Never assume a beach is just a beach. Feel the sand and the sun through the reality of the script and see the ocean through the eyes of the character. Only then can you get down to work!

Getting Ready to Work . . .

So . . . a student arrives Friday Evening. I watch him go through his routine. Cell phone off. Everything out of his pockets. Keys, ipod, wallet (he'd already paid me), monologue (which he claimed he knew) unfolded and ready on the table should he need it.

I had an epiphany-of sorts. This young man had been going through the same routine every week for over two years - and it finally occurred to me that the problems I was trying to solve for him might be linked in some way to this opening ritual. I'm slow off the mark sometimes.

"George" (a nom de guerre), I said. "Why do you take all that stuff out of your pockets before we start?" He looked puzzled. "Uh . . . I dunno. I just do. I'm getting ready to work." Blam! Lightning strike. Burning right into my legendary, but obviously slow moving, perceptor bank.

George was getting ready to work. A mental, thought out process. "Hey, George", I said gruffly. "Nix on the getting ready to work shit! Put all that crap back in your pockets, leave - come back in, throw your backpack down - play your moment before and start. And, no. You can't have your money back!" George was stunned. "But . . ." "No buts - do it!"

And George did it! Reluctantly at first, but he did it. The methodology here was a little extreme, but it worked. Sort of. But it will get better. Here's what happened. By "getting ready to work", George was establishing that his sub-conscious told him going into actor mode was different than the reality of every-day George mode and that his actor process had to account for the differences, thereby thrusting him firmly and irrevocably into his head.

The reality of character and text has to flow freely without conscious preparation for playing the scripted material. Any self-awareness about getting ready to enter the world of the scene, immediately puts that old devil "thought" into the picture. And acting is not, I repeat NOT about thinking. You have to be able to slide into the world of the character and the scene without thinking about it - your preparation at home and in rehearsal takes care of all the thinking, thank you. Presentation is all about just doing it! More about this again and again and again in future posts.

Reflections on Earlier Reflections . . .

It's so simple, yet so complicated!! Trying to explain an emotional process is akin to an enforced, conscious definition of what happens to you internally when the hair on the back of your neck stands up - or you get goose bumps - or your heart starts to race.

In my last post, I talked about how learning to drive a car moves from conscious application to muscle memory - and I blithely remarked that the actor needs to do the same thing with lines and emotional connection. You learn the lines, make emotional associations and voila!!

What I forgot to mention was that the actor is dealing with turning fantasy into reality - while the perspective automobile wrangler is dealing with reality all the way. The actor, on the other hand, has to move through the "unreal" scenario of the script in a completely natural state. So before lines and emotions become part of muscle memory, you, dear actor, have to be comfortable in the skin of the character and the environment in which that character lives.

We are talking about the use of imagination to move you from your reality to the living, vibrant reality of the script. And it's the quality of imagination that distinguishes between run of the mill acting and great work. The gifted actor (think Meryl Streep) morphs. She becomes. If you watch "Doubt" and "Julie and Julia" back to back, you can't help but be astonished at the astonishing transformation Streep goes through and how different the two characters are.

But I'll betcha dollars to doughnuts - Ms Streep knows all about associating lines with emotion and letting them become part of her own, personal flesh and bone. I will likely keep relecting on these reflections in upcoming posts!

In The Moment - Reflections

In my meanderings - both as a teacher and director, perhaps a philosopher of sorts, as well - it occurs to me that, no matter what the endeavor, being "in the moment", is essential to success. I'm not referring to artists exclusively. "In the Moment" applies to athletes of every stripe, surgeons, teachers, speakers, lathe operators - actually almost any kind of task you can think of.

Successful people, no matter how much conscious thought they've given to a product or a process - in the heat of battle, as it were, are always IN THE MOMENT. How does it apply? Well, let's take a simple example.

Those of us who drive (cars) can remember how nerve wracking it was when we first slid behind the wheel of the old beater we probably learned on. In my day it was a clutch and brake pedal on the floor and a 3 speed and reverse shift handle on the steering wheel assembly. Does that date me? Hmmm. Anyway those first agonizing lessons were filled with self-awareness, stage fright and a heightened consciousness of everything I was doing, just waiting for the inevitable wreck. Or so I thought. Well . . . the wreck never happened and as I persisted the mechanics of driving became 2nd nature. The entire process shifted from self-consciousness to muscle memory - and after a fairly brief time, it seemed the car was going by itself.

Now relate that, dear actor, to picking up a script for the first time, learning the lines, making the emotional associations - all of which in the early days of rehearsal - require a lot of conscious thought as part of the process. But as you get closer to "the day", if you trust yourself enough to allow all thought to become part of your muscle memory, you'll be IN THE MOMENT when the director calls "Action" or the Stage Manager anounces - "Places."

Wheat and Chaff

Well . . .it's been a year - almost to the day - that I've been seen on these pages. Time to get going, encore une fois.

Yesterday one of my promising young students showed up with news. He's auditioning for Steven Spielberg on Monday! So we worked through the sides and he demonstrated clearly that in the two and a half months since I'd seen him, nasty habits had sneaked back into his repertoire. Begone said I! Not to the kid . . .to the habits.

There's this ruinous tendency among young Canadian film actors (maybe it's worldwide!) that being sized correctly for camera means flattening the performance to the point of a flat monotone. Somnolent. Deadly boring. No way to greet Mr. Spielberg!

Bad acting teachers and schools that employ them haven't found a way to inform movie hopefuls that their performance must be internally vibrant, with shifts at every punctuation mark - and external evidence that every line is produced via inner process. This is not rocket science!

It goes without saying that on a film set you don't tear down the scenery and have to be ever mindful the camera and mike are nearby, picking up everything you do with unrelenting clarity.But the wheat is the vitality of the performance! The chaff is all the nonsense you hear about reducing your work to an invitation to a sleepover.More about this soon.

Riding Streetcar(s) can be Tricky . . .

Two young women in my class are doing the 1st Blanche/Stella scene in "Streetcar." No big deal, right? Wrong. On the surface, Stella seems to be placid and quiet while Blanche natters on, nervous and uncomfortable. But both women have to locate the tense underscore that Williams provides in order for the scene to succeed. On first reading this essential fact eluded these two talented actors.

Remember that in any scene, the actors have to be aware of their objective and their obstacles. Blanche's are clearer than Stella's. But it's absolutely essential that Stella find her keys so that the tension and conflict between the sisters works.

And you have to look past the dialogue to find them. That's the problem. Many young or inexperienced actors flounder when they try to find answers exclusively in the dialogue while ignoring the subtext.

Williams gives us hints IN the dialogue, which demand that we look closely at subtext. Stella is defensive about: her living conditions, her marriage to Stanley (she hasn't even told him that Blanche is coming to visit - fearful of how he's going to respond), and her pregnancy - which she doesn't know how to share with Blanche. Further, she has to deal with Blanche's nervous state and the obvious fact that there's something wrong. If the actor digs through this rich subtext, all she needs to know reveals itself.

The problem for the actor lies in knowing where to look. Once you remind yourself that the solution to an acting issue often lies BENEATH the surface of the text, a light appears at the end of the tunnel. These 2 young women are now confidently on their way!

Where does it come from?

In working with young clients over the past week, I noticed a strange phenomenon. Their attempt to produce deep emotion came from the chest - and in one case - from the shoulders. Really. It's definitely a symptom of the actor being in "the head", but presenting the problem in terms of physical location had a powerful effect.

I pointed out to my younguns that when we are in the throes of deeply felt emotion, be it anger, fear, love - what have you, the felt component is centered low down, in the gut. If you reflect on this, dear actor, you'll realize that we're affected by what we feel in our core, not our shoulders or chest.

I asked one student to put his hand on his lower belly and to produce felt emotion from where his hand was located. The result was immediate and astonishing. Stuff began to volcano up and out in a way that literally knocked him back - tripped over the dog and landed on the couch. He's not cured. Not yet. But it's a start. I'm reminded of Stanislavski's work with producing theatrical truth from the outside in. You can get to the moment by physical means. The inside connects to the outside, which has to happen anyway, of course, but there are lots of ways to get there. Whatever works!

In any event, friends, if you feel trapped by thought, try bringing the emotional beat down to your core and see if it rumbles up in a way that defies your head and pays homage to your living soul!

After - Beating . . .Shakespeare

Not a subject for battered persons, I should hasten to say! No, no, dear friends. I was with one of my talented clients the other day - a new actor - and we were working over Portia (The Merchant of Venice) - figuratively speaking. The beating thing again. Forgive me. And even though this lovely young woman was doing lovely things, there was something awry. Amiss. Eureka! The after beat.

For those of you who might have missed this in an earlier post, the after beat (my own term, I think - being a brilliant coiner of terms)is what you play after the last word leaves your mouth and which either helps you to demand a response from the other character, yourself or which connects you to the next word that's about to come out of your mouth. Making sure you play the after beat, guarantees you won't drop out of the scene. Guarantees it!

When doing Shakespeare, Iambic Pentameter in particular, the problem for the actor is amplified because there are no pauses for transition available. Real pauses would break the rhythm of the line. So the after beat is played as a "breath beat", usually at punctuation marks. Thus the integrity of the line is maintained.

My young friend knows all this, but was still beaten off (I'm really sorry - can't resist. Pun-ish me!)by after beat issues. I learned something important. What she hadn't done in her study of the monologue was to actually write the after beat down, in colloquial terms, and learn it as she learned the text.

I then insisted that after doing this, she rehearse the monologue at half speed, making sure the lines and the after beats were joined together into a consistent whole and only then, bring it up to speed. I love it when I learn something new. And I love my students for giving me the opportunity!

Take that, Sucker!

Every time I see an actor, especially before an opening, going furiously over lines, making sure he/she won't forget them at a critical moment, I think: "Sucker!" Perhaps something kinder, but the caution's the same.

The play's been rehearsed for 4 weeks, the lines at the last rehearsal were perfect - so why is the actor worried about forgetting? Probably because the lines were memorized, not learned properly. Psychologically, if you're worried about lines and go over them just prior to opening, you are creating a perfect scenario. You WILL forget. And you've set it up!

On the other hand (there are five fingers, yuk)if the lines have been learned, not memorized, then the implication is they've been assimilated through association with an inner emotional beat and become part of muscle memory. Actors who go about learning lines this way spend much less time studying the script and find themselves absorbing dialogue AS THEY REHEARSE.

About 15 years ago, I found myself having to take on Friar Laurence in Romeo and Juliet, 4 days before opening. It was a 15 show run and the good Friar had to go on with "The Bible" in hand. What I found was that as I adapted to the environment and interacted with other actors, the text began to stick and I actually had very little "book" work to do. After the 5th performance, the Bible became a prop and I didn't have to refer to it again.

Try it. Not Friar Laurence, heaven forbid! But try dealing with your lines this way. It's far more organic and really helps keep you out of your head.

On Camera actors have a somewhat harder row to hoe. Get the sides 24 hours before the audition and show up ready to go. Memorization may be the only salvation in that case - or as in having to learn three scenes for tomorrow's shoot after putting in a 12 hour day on set. I suspect, however, that the best film actors will tell you lines are learned, not memorized. Take that, sucker!

More, More Shakespeare. . .Always be prepared for surprises!

With Shakespeare, you can't count on anything! It's true, for the most part, noble or high born characters speak in verse and low born folk in prose - BUT NOT ALWAYS. It's far safer to look at all of this in another way. Serious, passionate, elegant matters can be expressed in verse and lighter, witty matters can be expressed in prose.

Sometimes Wiley Will uses verse and prose in the same scene - with upper class and lower class characters uttering both. A great example of same is in Romeo and Julietwhere Romeo, in his encounter with The Nurse, (II,4)teases her, and not nicely, either, in prose, and she replies in kind. But when they turn to the serious business of Romeo's meeting with Juliet, Romeo speaks in verse and Nursie follows right along. So they're both speaking verse, low born and high born. When the matter's resolved, though, and the bantering resumes, they both revert to prose. Pretty tricky stuff, dear actor, and you have to deal with it seamlessly and without effort. Seeing and understanding the pattern is the key to success here.

I haven't touched on Rhymed Couplets yet, so here's a light, and I hope, deft touch. The young lovers in A Midsummer Night's Dream are fools - or, more properly, foolish. Shakespeare emphasizes their shallowness by having them speak (not entirely, mind you) in rhymed couplets. They come off as silly things and again, actor friends, If you understand the purpose behind the writer's choice of style, it's a big help in discovering what to do with and how to play the text.

The other use Shakespeare devised for the rhymed couplet was to use them to end things. Scenes, acts and the like. As in Hamlet (II,2)

". . .- the play's the thing
Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.

That ends Act II, Scene two of Hamlet - and, similarly, ends today's sermon.

More Shakespeare . . .

How to speak him. Well part of what you need to know, anyway.

Shakespeare wrote in three modalities.

Iambic Pentameter

Rhymed Couplets

Prose

Which mode he chose depended on many things, chief among them, the status of the character, the nature of the drama (or comedy) and the issue at hand.

In this post, I'm going to concern myself, primarily, with how the great man used Iambic Pentameter. To begin, Iambic Pentameter is usually spoken by noble or high-born characters. Prose, as a general rule, is reserved for lower born characters. A regular Iambic line has five "feet", or stressed syllables. There are irregular lines, but that's a subject for another day.

In a regular line - such as "O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!" (Hamlet, II,2)the stresses fall on O, Rogue, Peasant, Slave and I. The actor should find the pulse of the 5 beats in the line and be guided by them as he speaks it.

Amazingly, more often than not, the actor finds that the emotional content of the line is amplified by how he speaks/stresses the words. This isn't some airy-fairy fiction. It's fact. If you try it, you'll believe. It's not mysterious, but it's absolutely beyond the realm of imagining that Shakespeare was able, time and time again, to produce dramatic fiction, constrained by the rules of Iambic Pentameter, and create dialogue that surpasses anything ever written. That's genius, alright.

Anyway. In order to keep the meter, the actor can't take pauses, moments for reflection etc. as he might in a modern text. Shakespearean text depends on momentum in order to achieve its effect. The actor, therefore, must make his transitions either on the line itself or while other characters are speaking. But, in any event, he must make all the appropriate emotional shifts. The most important thing in this regard is to use the punctuation marks as keys for when emotion shifts - and you have to do it in rhythm. It's often appropriate to take a "breath" beat when you hit a period.

A fine example of a very good actor doing a breathtaking job with text can be found in Kenneth Branagh's delivery of the St. Crispin's day speech from Henry V. With a minor exception here and there, that, dear friends is how you do it! More about build and release in Shakespeare - "Surfing the Text" in a later post.