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.