Archive for March, 2009
Plays You Should Read & The Follow On
Yesterday’s acting blog was about reading plays and learning to love language. In class this evening, whilst an actor worked on a piece of Shakespeare, I introduced the idea of End Stopping. Let’s not get into a debate about that right now, but it suddenly threw some light for us on the Mamet film piece from the Verdict that another student was doing. We found that the significant words in the end stopped verse in Shakespeare had comparable words in the script from the Verdict.
William H Macy often says that David Mamet writes in iambic pentameter, so I wasn’t entirely surprised to see a relationship between Shakespeare and Mamet’s work. But it does underline and support the need for a love of language, a passion for plays, which builds a sensitivity to scripts of all kinds and allows actors young and old an enhanced access to the plays they rehearse and perform.
Now, yesterday, I also mentioned a list of plays that I think you should read. In the spirit of this, I’ve prepared a list of plays, but please please do not write telling me what should and shouldn’t be included. This is a representative sample, to get people started, not a be all and end all.
In no order at all:
1) Antigone – Sophocles
2) Midsummer Night’s Dream – Shakespeare (Much Ado About Nothing is even more accessible if you want a simpler starting point)
3) Tartuffe – Moliere
4) School for Scandal – Richard Brindsley Sheridan
5) Ghosts – Henrik Ibsen
6) Miss Julie – August Strindberg
7) Uncle Vanya – Anton Chekhov
8) The Plough and the Stars – Sean O’Casey
9) The Glass Menagerie – Tennessee Williams
10) Look Back in Anger – John Osborne
11) The Caretaker – Harold Pinter
12) Angels in America Part 1 – Tony Kushner
13) Oleanna – David Mamet
14) How I Learned to Drive – Paula Vogel
15) Fat Pig – Neil Labute
Happy Reading!
Read Plays
I’ve been watching a great webcast with Larry Moss. Now I was expecting Larry to be a giant asshole, because of the way he was in the Backstage article I posted a few weeks ago. After his berating of Mamet, I immediately wanted to dislike him, but much of the webcast is excellent. It’s true, I don’t agree with about 40% of it, but he’s sincere and he’s passionate and he’s a proper acting teacher, rather than most of the charlatans that operate in our profession. It’s a very recent interview, so enjoy
Part of the excellent webcast and Larry Moss is talking about scene analysis, and he says something like ‘You’ve got to fall in love with writers’. And how right he is. Acting is falling in love with language, because language is the only portal to action, language is the only portal to character for the actor. That makes a lot of sense. Only through your understanding of the play will have access to the role. Fall in love with great writers, Shakespeare, Ibsen, Miller, Williams, Shanley, Moliere, Aristophanes, they will teach you so much about words and language and good writing, that you will know what to do with all kinds of writing. Read plays, read great plays and if you want some suggestions, ask me and I’ll tell you some to read. Shakespeare is a great start, think it’s difficult? It is! But you get used to it, and it demands your literacy. I noticed that my younger students suffer from a lack of literary awareness and this makes them much less sensitive to language, and particularly they don’t easily
I’m 100% serious. One of my Top 10 essential tips for an actor is READ PLAYS. Read lots of plays. If you can’t afford to buy them, go the library.
Practical Aesthetics people will find some very relevant and some very familiar sounding terminology. However, he does move towards the use of imagination. I find it difficult to find truth in imagination, my common sense sets off alarms. Being asked to believe in the pretend doesn’t work for me, it requires faith, a faith that I don’t think I need. Unfortunately towards the end of the webcast, Larry starts responding to a message (feels like a plant) about Mamet. He believes Mamet is misinformed and destructive. Has anyone actually read True and False, or do they just generalise?
Watch the Larry Moss webcast for yourself here.
More Great Quotes on Acting
If you know me, or you’ve read my blog much, you’ll know I’m really fond of a powerful quote. I think it’s great when someone says something succinctly, and if that something chimes with you, it makes you nod your head in agreement. Well, here’s a few choice quotes on acting that get my head nodding.
“Never forget acting is a big fat trick we play on an audience”
William H Macy
“The ideas of the great playwrights are almost always larger than the experiences of even the best actors.” Stella Adler
“The actor is the athlete of the heart” Antonin Artaud
“Working in the theatre has a lot in common with unemployment”
Arthur Gingold
“It is a difficult profession and a frightening profession. Why is this? Just as the character doesn’t know how he’s going to survive, as an actor, when you get cast in that role, the fear is, How am I going to pull this off? And we have technique, which we bring to bear to cover every base that you possibly can. But the question remains, How do I pull this off?, and the answer is not forthcoming‹never has been, never will be. You have to walk in terrified that you’re going to fail. There’s no getting around the fact that most actors, a lot of the time, feel like frauds. And the mature actor says, “That’s great.”
William H Macy
“Create your own method. Don’t depend slavishly on mine. Make up something that will work for you! But keep breaking traditions, I beg you” Konstantin Stanislavski
Sorry folks, I don’t provide citations to these quotes, enjoy them, they’re not meant for essays.
Best Wishes
Mark Westbrook – Acting Coach Scotland
0800 756 9535
Character Motivations: Underlying Driving Needs for Actors, Writers and Directors
Yesterday, I wrote about what to do with the script, examining the starting point for actors, writers and directors when it comes to script analysis.
Today, I want to just highlight one of those questions, WHAT IS THE CHARACTER’S UNDERLYING DRIVING NEED?
But what are the needs? How do you establish them? Well, it is often produced through the conflicts the character meets and the obstacles they attempt to overcome. However, if you’re unsure about how to even start with needs, they are personal and basic, it you like, they are what Marshall Rosenberg calls Present Needs. They drive the character throughout the play, and without identifying it, you fail to make an effective bridge to the character through the script.
What kinds of needs are there? Rosenberg splits them into the following sections:
- CONNECTION such things as Acceptance, Security, Love, Respect.
- PHYSICAL WELL BEING such things Sleep, Food, Sex, Shelter. (Maslow in Essence)
- HONESTY such as the Truth and Integrity.
- PLAY such as Joy, Creativity, Expression.
- PEACE such Order, Harmony and Inspiration.
- MEANING (a huge category this but) such as Understanding, Hope and Purpose.
- AUTONOMY such as Freedom, Choice and Independent
To see ALL of Marshall Rosenberg’s PERSONAL NEEDS and use them as a short-hand lexicon when answering this question, this is a link to Rosenberg’s site page about Personal Needs. Writers, directors and actors, print them out and use it as a sort of sheet cheat for working out the Underlying Driving Needs of your characters.
When I recently analysed the re-working of my old play Swingboats, I found that using this question made it clear in the script when characters were just talking and when they were involved in the drama of the play.
I really hope this helps!
Best Wishes to You!
Mark Westbrook – Acting Coach Scotland
What to do with a Script
No one ever taught me to professionally read a script of any kind. Over the years, I muddled through. If you read a script like a story, you are reading it from a literary narrative perspective. There’s nothing wrong with that, but you are missing an understanding of the sense of the dramatic. I worry that Drama Schools and Universities do not teach students how to read a script properly. Why not? Cos no one taught them either. So, we get a set of highly analytical tools that offer us an academic perspective, which is no use to anyone who wants to use it to produce, act, write or direct.
Coquelin once wrote that the actor “must read the play carefully over many times, until he has grasped the intention of the author”. Too many actors are willing to accept their first impression of the script, and then rush off to highlight their lines in pink. But without the tools to discover ‘the intention of the author’ who can blame them? It doesn’t matter how many times you read a play as a story, if you don’t understand how the play is made, you’re off to a losing start.
Only after going to the Atlantic Theater Company’s Acting School did I have anything like a set of tools that could be used for professionally reading a script. At Atlantic, we were taught to use some simple Aristotelian ideas to disect a script and come to a solid understanding of it so that we could figure out our character’s part in the script.
I’d like to offer you these tools in an easily accessible format and talk you through them. My advanced students won’t find this particularly new, but might find the explanation interesting. When I pick up a script, I read it once through for pleasure – I published a guide to read throughs in a past blog. From then on, I’m looking at the script as a tool of work, so I ask the question:
Q – Who’s Story is it? In other words, who is the protagonist? Over the years, many people have described the protagonist in many different ways, but I would define it as the character that undergoes the most change in the course of the events of the play/film.
Q – What is the Protagonist’s Driving Underlying Need? I’ve added the word ‘driving’ to my own training, because I felt that the need should compel the character throughout the film or play.
Q – Through the Script, What Conflicts Arise As the Protagonist Attempts to Fulfill their Need? Make a list, all the things that happen, that others do (the antagonist or antagonists), they do to themselves that serve as barriers or obstacles to the fulfillment of the need. Work through the play until you know all the conflicts, you’re uncovering the ‘drama’ of the story of the film or play as you do so. Drama after all is conflict in action.
Q – How does the Protagonist Change During the Course of the Story? Look at their starting point, the need. Look at the conflicts. Now see where they end up.
Then I do something of the same for the antagonist, and lastly for my character to see how I fit into the overall story. (If I’m not in the lead role or the antagonist)
I use these exact same questions when I’m writing a play to ensure that the character’s have clear driving needs, conflicts and journeys. The clarity is provides to me as a writer is astonishing. This is the clarity it offers the actor too. Yet, I fear, still many are willing to pick up the script and start talking, as if the words were all there was there.
Is this all there is to know? No. Of course not. BUT, if this IS all you did, you’d still be better off than the people who only read the script through or immediately got their highlighter out and starting counting the number of lines they’ve got in the script. These questions unlock the script, and help you start approaching the role. Whether you’re an actor, director or writer, these questions each help you gain clarity.
Try it out, if you have any questions, contact me.
All the Best
Mark Westbrook is an actor trainer and acting coach based in the United Kingdom.
A Great Book on Stanislavsky or if you like Stanislavski
If you’re a Stanislavski Geek like me, and you’ve read everything written about him in the English language, you’ll love Stanislavky in Focus. The second edition of Sharon Marie Carnicke’s book. Her care and attention, as well as her experience as a Russian speaker and a professional actor and director mark this book out for special attention.
Carnicke knows her stuff, she really goes at this with 100% and I’ve loved reading it, furthering my knowledge, filling in gaps and reassuring myself of things I thought I knew. But there’s a small problem, in a couple of sections, I’m being asked to take Carnicke’s word that she’s able to read between the lines of the Russian texts (things I’m clearly never going to read) in order to glean the REAL meaning. Okay, I used to be an academic, I know that the reading between the lines is not a robust way to make a conclusion about anything. I know Carnicke is highly experienced, I utterly respect her, wish I could do my PhD with her, but I’m concerned about this reading between the lines business, it doesn’t smack of the same authenticity as the rest of the book. Still you should buy the book, it’s a great read, but don’t expect a practical guide, this is Stan Geekery at our best.
Carnicke’s short rebuttal of Mamet’s views on Stanislavski leads me to believe more than ever W H Macy’s claim that Practical Aesthetics is ‘the next generation of Stanislavsky’. Rather than persuading me that Mamet is wrong (sorry NAME DELETED), it’s convinced me that Mamet is much closer to a stripped bare version of Stanislavski. Anyway, let’s not get that into debate, the book (and many of my own critics) offers a perspective quite close to ‘if Mamet knew what ‘I’ knew about Stanislavski, he would realise that he’s wrong. Well, okay, that’s possible. HOWEVER, and this is a MASSIVE however, the Stanislavski that Mamet knows, that almost EVERYONE in the world knows is NOT the Stanislavski that Carnicke knows, the poorly translated, Method, US-biased books, the censored USSR version, – instead, the Stanislavski that we all know is the Stanislavski that anyone had a chance to know. Strasberg and Meisner didn’t meet Stanislavski in person. They were never taught by him. None of us were. None of us have had a chance to get to know the ‘real’ Stanislavski until Carnicke’s book. After my reading of the book, I’m more convinced than ever that Practical Aesthetics is the convertible edition of Stanislavski’s work, stripped back, essential and fun. If you want to do other stuff on top of PA, that’s fine by me, whatever floats your boat.
Buy this book if you’re interested in the history of the development of Stanislavski’s system and the Method. I’m waiting til the Whyman book goes paperback before I buy it, but apparently according to NAME DELETED it’s going to show me how wrong I am and how wrong Mamet is and well, I wouldn’t be too surprised if it showed that Lee Strasberg was actually Stanislavski, because each of us reads these texts, picking up the parts that strengthen our individual argument and ignoring those that don’t.
An example of this comes in Carnicke’s book, she talks about university programmes teaching Stanislavski and she speaks about ART, the American Repertory Theatre and Brustein and the relationship with Harvard Institute of Advanced Theater Training. The MFA Acting students go to Russia, they learn Stanislavski there etc etc. Yet, she fails to mention that this highly regarded course begins with… an intensive training in Practical Aesthetics from Scott Zigler (warning GRUMPY photo), one of the authors of A Practical Handbook for the Actor and Director of the Institute. Is this Carnicke making a mistake, or avoiding muddying her reader’s perspective with ART/Institute’s condoning Practical Aesthetics? I don’t know, I hope she reads the blog some day and tells me!
Mark Westbrook is a professional actor trainer and acting coach in Glasgow, Scotland and according to most of his critics is uneducated, under-trained poorly trained, wrongly trained, badly trained, badly misinformed, misdirected, deluded, eluded, avoided and persuaded. Read here what his students think.
Congrats to Lauren Marshall
We’d like to congratulate one of our private students Lauren Marshall, who has earned a place to do Musical Theatre through the highly competitive audition process at Arts Educational School in London. Nice one Marshall!
Shame she’s not photogenic too eh?
- Mark -
Acting Masterclass Postponed
Unfortunately, due to illness (not mine), my Acting Masterclass at the NTS has been postponed. I’m gutted, but it has given me three days to write. Every cloud.
Guest Blog on Comedy Acting with Ian Watt
Today’s blog is a Guest Blog on Comedy Acting, written by our Guest Blogger Mr Ian Watt.
I noticed the subject of corpsing was raised in Mark’s blog recently. The practical solution was for the actor to focus on their essential action and it got me thinking about other banana skins which can trip up an actor in the serious matter of comedy acting.
• Playing the lines for laughs
Laughter is a powerfully seductive sound of to a performer. It both comforts and confirms – the audience likes you! Its addictive quality, however, can tempt the actor to play the lines or action for laughs. They then find they’ve stepped beyond the imaginary circumstances of the play and turned it into a sketch show destroying the focus on the narrative or “story”.
My own experiences as a Stand Up comedian taught me to look audience members in the eye and that it was often very useful to carry a big stick! Comedians make direct contact with the audience; if and when the laughs come they can enjoy them with them. The comedian’s sole aim is to rack up the laugh count and squeeze as many as they can from their material. The actor should match their performance with the author’s intent and the overall context of the story.
An audience comment after a play I performed in recently was “It was good because the actors didn’t laugh at the same time as the audience.”
• Anticipation and signalling
Especially on long runs, the actor runs the risk of “showing” the audience something funny is about to happen. The actor knows what is coming next, anticipates the joke and the riotous laughter to follow. The audience picks up on the signal and the potentially side-splitting moment the writer has crafted is reduced in the process. Comedy is devious. It often depends on surprise and misleading the audience.
• Ignoring the audience reaction
Another common pratfall for the actor is to disregard the audience’s laughter. This can result in important lines being drowned out. The actor has to pause the thought and action until the audience is ready to continue. Laughter can break the actor’s concentration of being in the moment.
• Summary
Mark’s solution to the corpsing problem is probably the best advice to take with you on stage – focus on the other actor and concentrate on achieving your essential action. Finally, a Polish director once commented to me “Fucking stand up comedians!” Yes – comedy is a funny thing.
Ian Watt is an experienced actor, comedian, teacher and designer. He appeared in Mark Westbrook’s production of The Emotional Life of Furniture at the Tron Theatre in Glasgow. He also attends Mark’s Acting Classes in Practical Aesthetics and Monologue Preparation.
Hamlet’s Advice to the Players
In the past, I’ve had the fond priviledge to teach the techniques of acting Shakespeare to young actors. This is NOT a post about acting Shakespeare. Instead, what I aim to do is to light your imagination around some exceptional acting advice that Shakespeare offers us when a fussing Hamlet offers his amateur perspective on acting, to the professional players that arrived at Elsinore. Amateur he may be, but thoroughly helpful the advice is, to all of us. So this post is focused around understanding Hamlet’s advice and how it can help you too.
I’m just going to focus on a portion, but to me, it’s the portion that really counts, I don’t doubt the rest is valuable, but this is what I’m going to blog about today:
HAMLET:
Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to
you, trippingly on the tongue: but if you mouth it,
as many of your players do, I had as lief the
town-crier spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the air
too much with your hand, thus, but use all gently;
for in the very torrent, tempest, and, as I may say,
the whirlwind of passion, you must acquire and beget
a temperance that may give it smoothness. O, it
offends me to the soul to hear a robustious
periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to
very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who
for the most part are capable of nothing but
inexplicable dumbshows and noise: I would have such
a fellow whipped for o’erdoing Termagant; it
out-herods Herod: pray you, avoid it.
FIRST PLAYER:
I warrant your honour.
HAMLET:
Be not too tame neither, but let your own discretion
be your tutor: suit the action to the word, the
word to the action; with this special observance, o’erstep not
the modesty of nature: for any thing so overdone is
from the purpose of playing, whose end, both at the
first and now, was and is, to hold, as ’twere, the
mirror up to nature; to show virtue her own feature,
scorn her own image, and the very age and body of
the time his form and pressure. Now this overdone,
or come tardy off, though it make the unskilful
laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve; the
censure of the which one must in your allowance
o’erweigh a whole theatre of others. O, there be
players that I have seen play, and heard others
praise, and that highly, not to speak it profanely,
that, neither having the accent of Christians nor
the gait of Christian, pagan, nor man, have so
strutted and bellowed that I have thought some of
nature’s journeymen had made men and not made them
well, they imitated humanity so abominably.
Shakespeare/Hamlet tell us to speak the lines ‘trippingly’, that’s with a general swiftness, not to labour over them. He insists that it is performed ‘as I pronounced it to you’. It’s easy to think that he’s asking them to repeat it as he has said it, in other words, he’s a bad director, giving line readings, but instead, see it as Shakespeare saying ‘As I have written it for you’ (I can hear Mamet saying ‘Just say the f*cking lines!’).
‘But if you mouth it’ but if you ‘mouth’ the lines, if you simply go through the motions, as many actors do, I’d rather anyone, even the Town Crier, shout the lines out, cos that would be better than simply mouthing the lines. This is an anti-dote to people who think Mamet’s instructions to speak up and ‘just the say the lines’ means just mouthing the lines. Don’t be so naive and simplistic about it, there’s much more.
Next Shakespeare warns us about extraneous gesture, ’soaring the air too much’, he tells us that our gesture and movement must be gentle, or let’s think subtle. Then he warns against getting too carried away in the emotional storm of a role, but instead, temper it, with smoothness. Mamet could have written the same thing. The next part, ‘Oh it offends me’ well, for the Method actor, you’d say, it offends you to see someone hamming it up, and being empty or not living the role, or feeling the emotion. For the Practical Aesthetics actor, we’d say much the same about the Method actors. 
)
Hamlet/Shakespeare continues warning us, not to be too tame, don’t be too subtle and underact, but let your ‘own discretion’ your Common Sense, be your guide. And then some simple and brilliant advice. Suit the action to the word, the word to the action. Connect what you’re doing with what you’re saying, what you’re saying with what you’re doing – a call for psychophysical action?
Then we get a special note, a special observance – don’t step beyond the modesty of truthfulness, for anything that goes beyond this, is not acting, it is not ‘playing’. And then Shakespeare/Hamlet gives us a beautiful description of the purpose of acting/playing: to hold the mirror up to nature. Note here he doesn’t say to become nature, to ape nature, to copy nature, to become the role, to tell a story BUT… ‘to hold the mirror up to nature’. In the mirror is the reflection of nature, not nature itself. In other words, truthfulness, but not necessarily realism.
Print out Hamlet’s Advice, or buy the play, consider it, it provides us with much food for thought today as it did back around 1600 when it was written.
Best Wishes
Mark Westbrook
Mark Westbrook is a professional acting trainer and coach, based in Glasgow, Scotland.
The Stoics, Practical Aesthetics and the Actor…
Practical Aesthetics is highly influenced by the philosophies of Joseph Campbell, William James and the Stoical Philosophy Epictetus. On joining the Atlantic Theater Company’s Acting School, one is instructed, much as they themselves were, to read Epictetus’ Enchiridion, which means HandBook (An Internet Version is Here). It is part of an Ancient Philosophical School called Stoicism. It is undoubted that Mamet, Practical Aesthetics and the Atlantic Theater Company and its members have become strongly influenced by The Stoics. Mamet often mentions them in his plays and their ideas strongly influenced Practical Aesthetics.
In a recent chat with SOMEONE WHO DOESN’T WANT HIS NAME HERE, he told me he didn’t want to be guided by a 3000 year old Greek Philosophy,even my good friend Mark Coleman insists that since Aristotle (another Stoic) existed PRE psychology, it’s not possible to base an acting technique on ancient philosophy. I guess I would reply to Mark that you could make the same suggestion of Shakespeare too. Yet, his advice in Hamlet’s ‘Advice to the Players’ is some of the best ever offered to actors. Still pre-psychology, yet full of wisdom. Prior to the discovery of psychology as an art (it ain’t a science, you can’t SEE the mind) psychology still existed, we just didn’t have a label on it. To NAME DELETED I say, I understand why you’d want a contemporary American philosophy for a contemporary American lifestyle, but I want a working philosophy for a British lifestyle, and I don’t really care where the influence comes from.
I cannot help find the Stoicism of Epictetus incredibly important and practicable today. Epictetus was a slave in the Roman Empire, he was so admired for his intelligence by his master, that he was given his freedom. That’s some intellect. You can read the Enchiridion for free online, although it’s a little impenetrable, that’s why I suggest a wonderful book called ‘A Manual of Living’, it is a a modern interpretation of the Enchiridion by Sharon Lebell.
When I woke this morning, I received some irritating news, in fact, I knew it last night, but today was a confirmation, and I opened the book and read these words:
QUIETLY ACCEPT EVENTS AS THEY OCCUR
Don’t demand that events happen as you wish them to. Accept events as they actually happen. That way peace is possible.
p22 A Manual for Living – Sharon Lebell/Epictetus
Then as I flicked through the book, I saw this too:
EVERYTHING HAPPENS FOR A GOOD REASON
As you think, so you become. Avoid superstitiously invested events with power or meanings they don’t have. Keep your Head. Our busy minds are forever jumping to conclusions, manufacturing and interpreting signs that aren’t there. Assume that everything that happens to you, does so, for some good.
p32 A Manual for Living – Sharon Lebell/Epictetus
So I offer you some honest advice, you can read the Enchiridion for free online, although it’s a little impenetrable, but I suggest this tiny little book, a wonderful book called ‘A Manual of Living’, it is a a modern interpretation of the Enchiridion by Sharon Lebell and I ask you to consider this little book, available for less than a few pounds. I’m not selling it, I’m just saying, in this little book you will find advice that can pragmatically help you with the following and more:
- Coping with NOT getting the Part
- Jealousy of OTHER actors success
- Bad Press/Reviews
- Not Knowing How to Achieve Your Acting Goals
- Focusing on What’s within your Control in an Audition Process
- Working with and not against your Impulses
- Standing Up for Yourself in a Disrespectful Industry
- Become less stressed and more relaxed at home or on the job
Of course, this book isn’t a book designed for actors, so you’ll have to read between the lines, but in its few little pages, A Manual for Living will surprise you with the relevance of the inspiration it provides. It’s small enough to fit into your trousers or coat pocket, it’s advice will provide you with a lifetime of insight as an actor, and as an individual.
I say with all sincerity and honesty, it is a remarkable little book, a guidebook, a handbook, a manual for looking at life. I’m a pretty no-bullshit guy, and this impresses the heck out of me.
Best Wishes
Mark Westbrook
Mark Westbrook is a professional acting trainer and coach based in Glasgow, Scotland.
Image by JDFalk
Getting into Character
If you’ve read any of my previous posts on this topic, you’ll already know what I’m about to say, but I’d like to explain it a little more.
Much of our training, the curriculum, even individual outcomes for qualifications demand that we’re able to ‘get into character’ or ’sustain character’. I remember long ago at college, one of the criteria to be marked on was ‘can effectively step in and out of character’. Well, whatever that means, I’d like to take the opportunity to describe how I believe you can ‘get into character’, or at least have that feeling.
The times that you have ‘felt’ in character, you were not the character, no one can be, it’s a well meaning nonsense. During these times, you made a connection to the text that allow you to perform the actions of the character in such a way that you were felt it working right. In other words, you were not the character, but you were doing something very similar to the character, you were performing their actions.
I agree, you may have felt ‘in character’, I understand, I’ve felt it too. But I wasn’t and sadly, neither were you. What happened is that you performed these actions consistently and repeatedly and they weren’t the types of actions or tactics that you would do yourself that you felt removed from yourself. Add to this that you became so immersed in what you were doing that your SELF consciousness didn’t prevent you from you enjoying acting the role. Furthermore, you were so immersed in it, that you felt that everything you were doing WAS the character. Well, it was, but it was you doing the character’s actions without fear, self consciousness – it was you truly focused. Have you ever been to the cinema/movie theater and watched the film and found yourself really sucked into the film and then you think… oh yeah, I’m at the movies, well that’s what’s happening to you on stage, your focus, your concentration and attention was so powerfully drawn that you had a brand new experience. Under these conditions, you felt highly successful and surprised and named it ‘being in character’ because you didn’t know what else to call it.
BUT but you cry, what about all these actors saying it takes ages to get ‘out of character’, and haven’t I felt that feeling where it’s hard to shake the character off. Yes. Yes! I know that feeling too, but it wasn’t you inhabiting the character, it was the characteristics of the character inhabiting YOU.
Spooky? No, no, read what I wrote, it wasn’t the character inhabiting you, it was the habitual characteristics of the character being inside you. What does this mean then? It means that if you perform the same repeated psychophysical actions repeatedly, you will eventually habituate those actions and any associated feelings. You will then find it a little difficult to shake them off immediately. Some of the residual connection between action and feeling will remain. That’s why you struggle to shake off the character. I remember in university my friend playing Carol in Oleanna. She came home and was horrible to everyone, she said ‘oh sorry, I’m just struggling to get out of character’. Everyone laughed, but the theatre students took it very seriously. But when we examine that situation, she had been rehearssing the final act of Oleanna, where Carol’s actions, her tactics are very negative, challenging, confronting, insulting and attacking. If she spent all day performing those, no doubt she habituated those tactics and any associated feelings.
For some more advice on ‘Getting into Character’ see this helpful YouTube Video.
‘This is Me’ Monologues
It’s about time that I wrote something about the ‘This is Me’ Monologue. This is an idea identified by Karen Kohlhaas, Master Teacher of Audition Monologues at the Atlantic Theater Company’s Acting School in New York City. The ideas and principles that I express in this blog posting come from Karen Kohlhaas, although the words are my own. Karen’s ideas came to me through training, her two books and the DVD that she produced. Karen has an excellent website The Monologue Audition (also the name of her first book) that you should all visit. I recently ordered her second book ‘How to Choose a Monologue for ANY Audition’ and this can be ordered through her website – it costs me about £14 including postage from the US, and arrived within a week. It’s not as practical as the original book, but the advice is also practicable – meaning it isn’t a theory, it’s advice borne out of practice.
ANYWAY – the This is Me Monologue:
The ‘This is Me’ monologue is your base monologue. It allows you to show off your natural ability, style and personality. It is not a chance to show range. It is a chance to offer the casting director, agent or director you baseline. This is Me, without the trapping of characterisation (yuck). This is Me is a great way to show what they are getting when they cast you.
This a well thought through, carefully prepared, well learned piece that sells you. YOU, not your ability to play Widow Twanky or a Psychopath, it’s selling YOU, it’s called ‘THIS IS ME’ for a reason. Ensure that you have one of these in your arsenal of monologues. And you should have an arsenal of monologues. One or two monologues for each medium and several for theatre. So you might have:
- 2 or 3 THiS IS ME pieces
- 2 film monologues (contrasting)
- 2 radio monologues (contrasting)
- 2 theatre monologues (contrasting comedy pieces)
- 2 theatre monologues (constrasting drama pieces)
- 2 theatre monologues (classical and yes, contrasting)
How many of you have done this MUCH preparation?
But the ones that will give them the best chance of seeing who they are employing or taking onto their books is the THIS IS ME Monologue.
Karen suggests that a THIS IS ME monologue is defined not by what it is, but by what it isn’t. Here’s a list of what to avoid for a THIS IS ME monologue.
- Monologues outwith your playing age/range
- Monologues in an accent other than yours
- Monologues with heightened language (and therefore requiring a heightened playing style)
- Monologues with anything shocking or graphic (THINK – choose something I could show my ‘Mother-in-Law’)
- Monologues that a self-written
- Monologues that attempt to demonstrate range
- Monologues that are intensely…. ANYTHING.
- Monologues that allow you to hide behind
- Monologues that talk about someone else constantly (THIS IS ME should be about… YOU!)
- Monologues related to the industry or business
- Monologues for women about what a shit your husband, boyfriend etc is… they flood the market.
- Monologues that a particularly negative in any way.
SO WHAT SHOULD A ‘THIS IS ME’ MONOLOGUE BE?
* CONTEMPORARY
* ABOUT SOMETHING YOU CARE ABOUT
* WELL WRITTEN (has a beginning, middle and end)
* NOT TOO LONG (2 minutes max)
* AUDITON SPECIFIC (film for film, theatre for theatre)
* GENRE/STYLE SPECIFIC (funny for comedy, drama for drama)
* SOMETHING YOU DO WELL.
This is a perfect piece to offer a new agent or casting director. Use it to impress and to introduce. This is something you can do at home, you take time and pride over and you can kick butt with it. Once you have a strong THIS IS ME monologue, then you’ll find choosing other monologues much easier.
How to Stop Corpsing on Stage or in Rehearsal
Many thanks to Mahmoud Osman for asking his question about uncontrollable laughter in rehearsal or even on stage. This is what we in Britain call ‘corpsing’. Many great actors like Brian Blessed are notorious corpsers, but there’s no shame in it, it’s very natural. However, it’s not something that’s desired and so you need help to prevent it.
Let’s start with an idea. When you find something funny, you laugh. When you’re under pressure and you find something funny, the laughter is a way of letting out the pressure. When you’re under pressure and you want to laugh and you stifle the laughter, it creates more pressure. Laughter is a natural and spontaneous part of being an actor. There’s nothing wrong with it, and it cannot be willed away. However, it may not feel appropriate, or perhaps your character should not be laughing at that time.
An MFA student told Mahmoud he should get further into character. Nonsense! There is no character to get further into. That’s as useful as suggesting if you get a flat tyre that you should become one with the wheel. Character is a collection of actions, the sum of your characteristics, the sum of the things that you do. When you do these things in the pursuit of a goal, using someone else’s words and before an audience, it’s called theatre. And so the illusion of character is created for the audience. The instruction to go ‘deeper’ into character is hogwash, this will not help you one bit with the corpsing. BUT, there are solutions.
Laughing is natural and during rehearsal, you should feel free to express laughter when you find something funny. The director might not consider it appropriate and you may feel a little embarrassed that the laughter keeps poking out. True, true.
You need to set your focus onto a task. You might call it an objective, a goal, or an essential action, and you need to be in the process of achieving it during your performance, whether in rehearsal or on stage. It’s no use trying to achieve the character’s task, objective, goal or essential action, because you are not that person, you need something that you can do personally, although it does need to have similarities to the task of the character. So, if you find yourself corpsing, it means you do not have anything concrete to focus on. You need to choose a strong essential action and then set about trying to achieve it:
Some examples of an Essential Action:
- To get someone to back down
- To get someone to hold up their end of the deal
- To get someone to let their hair down
- To get someone to join the party
- To get someone to reveal the terrible truth
- To get someone to stand on their own two teeth
- To get someone to ride the bull
- To get someone to crown me Queen
- To get someone to give me the greenlight
Of course there are many more of these, hundreds. But let me repeat, it’s pointless having an essential action that you have to ‘believe’ in. Anything that your common sense will junk as ‘nonsense’ will be nothing more than deluding yourself. Have a practical task that’s capable of being done and has its test in the other person and you’ll soon realise that you were so focused during the show/rehearsal/take that you didn’t have the time to laugh or do anything else for that matter.
I hope this helps. All the best
-Mark-
Mark Westbrook is a professional acting coach based in Glasgow, Scotland.
Apologies
Apologies, the site has been up and down all day and it was impossible to write anything.
I’m due to write an article on ‘Corpsing’ for my new friend Mahmoud Osman, a good topic, and I will, but it will have to wait until tomorrow.
We have an article on the ‘This is Me’ Monologue coming up on Saturday and I promised I would write about constructing an ‘Actor’s Biog’ too, so you’ll have that to look forward to!
Apologies again, this was outwith my control, and as any good Stoic would say, what’s outwith my control, isn’t within my power.
Best Wishes
Mark Westbrook
Acting Coach Scotland
Lee Strasberg: Stanislavski/Stanislavsky’s Rightful Heir?
As you may know, several weeks ago (is it months?) I published a post called 10 Reasons That I HATE Method Acting, a bit of a publicity piece aimed at getting attention for the blog. I admit it. I do believe what I wrote, but it’s main intent was to get responses, so thanks to all the Method people who have attempted over the last few weeks to correct, educate, and belittle me. Some of your messages were very interesting and even enlightening. Not one of you have managed to convince me yet that a stripped down version of Stanislavski’s work known as Practical Aesthetics is less than effective, but I take some of your points. (Particularly the points made by NAME DELETED, a Strasberg expert from NYU who then politely asked me to delete his comments).
However, from David Strasberg, NAME DELETED and many of their former students, I am receiving a very loud and clear message. I’m hearing the words ‘Method of Physical Actions’ is discredited and Strasberg is the Rightful Heir and only genuine continuer of Stanislavski’s wishes. (Despite never meeting him, but don’t worry, they’ve got an excuse for that one too).
Now Lee Strasberg passed away a long while ago and so we’re left in a pickle. We can’t ask him and he can’t tell us. The same applies to Stanislavski or Stanislavsky, depending upon your preference. So, we’re left with the ‘documents’ proof positive one way or another that proves/disproves who is the rightful heir. One book gives the Strasberg the crown, another takes it away. Strasberg’s loyalists see the argument through the lens of The Method and the Method of Physical Action loyalists deny them. It’s kind of fun to be out on the sidelines watching the battle royale. I intend to ask Bella Merlin what she thinks at some point, between her and Jean Benedetti, our picture of MOPA is built. Although the Strasbergians tell me it’s now discredited as part of the horrible Soviet institution. A convenient argument for a return to pre-MOPA approaches, particularly favoured by Strasberg.
I’m beginning to wonder how far into this debate I want to go, I’m fascinated, and the books and articles that are suggested by all my Method correspondences will prove very helpful. They’ve also helped me to produce a thorough picture of the most common assaults on David Mamet and Practical Aesthetics.
I invite you all to join me in the stands for this debate, because it’s fascinating. As always, those of us that hold an opposing viewpoint are reduced to the role of ‘idiot’, ‘ignorant’ and ‘unknowing’. Sure thing.
An Exclusive Chat with actor Kevin Pollak
Kevin Pollak is an actor and comedian based in Los Angeles, CA. He recently joined the social networking site Twitter and has begun to utilise both it and YouTube as a means of connecting with his audience. In this this exclusive chat for Acting-Blog.com with Philip Larkin (no, not THEE Philip Larkin) Kevin Pollak talks about acting, twitter and his television shows.
ACTING-BLOG.COM: Kevin Pollak, most of us know you from your acting roles in films such as Willow, Wayne’s World and The Usual Suspects – although you were originally a standup comedian, from a very early age and still are for that matter – but Why did you decide to become an actor? How did that happen?
KEVIN POLLAK: I decided to become an actor at the age of six or seven, actually. I used to exit the theater, after having just watched a film, and proceed to “act” as whatever character from the film I enjoyed the most. I would be that character for several days after. Although my mom would laugh, it went usually from cute to annoying in under 24 hours.
ACTING-BLOG.COM: What’s the best advice you could give to actors?
KEVIN POLLAK: Just be prepared to give your life to it. If the rejection doesn’t destroy your will to live, it’s a lifelong commitment. And not to go Yoda on you, but it’s important to “try” to learn from the journey, and not be so focused on the destination.
ACTING-BLOG.COM: Just very recently, you have began ‘tweeting’ on Twitter and using your YouTube Channel to post videos. Just what or who exactly prompted you to join these sites?
KEVIN POLLAK: A pal, Jason Calacanis (Mahalo.com), introduced me to Twitter by signing me on, and the next thing I knew I had “followers”… For anyone who suffers from “Hey, look at me” disease as badly as I do, this “followers” thing was just too good to pass up. Then, as I was doing on-going commentary on Twitter during the Oscar telecast, and ended up with a shit-ton of replies, all insisting I was making it the best Oscars they had ever watched, I was hooked for life. It was during that Twitter-a-thon that I met a fella’ named Jipsi who then brought me to the community of YouTube.
ACTING-BLOG.COM: Were you shocked at the vast number of followers that quickly evolved to what I now believe to be above 82, 000 people on Twitter?
KEVIN POLLAK: If you mean MY followers, then yes, I was completely shocked. As I write this, it’s at 131,000 and change, and two days ago I was on a radio show, and they looked it up and it was 120,000, so…yeah, it’s “evolving” at a shocking rate. If, on the other hand, you did NOT mean MY followers, then I have no idea what that “82,000” means…
ACTING-BLOG.COM: Does that huge following intimidate you at all?
KEVIN POLLAK: It makes me smile and giggle a little, actually. First of all, it’s ridiculous, and I can’t really take it tooooo seriously. It’s really kinda’ cool. I do feel a sense of responsibility…but, really, just to keep up the flow of my tweets, and the juicy goodness, therein.
ACTING-BLOG.COM: I know that you’re filming a show for the history channel entitled, ‘What Every American Should Know’ – seemingly; a lot of your followers have become interested in this and anticipate it’s airdate – Does this prove how beneficial Twitter can be in gaining interest in your current projects?
KEVIN POLLAK: No doubt Twitter seems to be a potentially powerful marketing tool, but I really think those who choose to market themselves walk a thin line. I know for myself, I worry about crushing that delicate balance between answering all the “replies” that ask what future projects of mine they can look for, and just whoring every single spec of work I’m tinkering with…
ACTING-BLOG.COM: In terms of resources such as writers, actors and designers -Do you think a medium such as YouTube or Twitter could ‘get the ball rolling’ for projects that you have considered in the past, that you just haven’t had time to unfold?
KEVIN POLLAK: There does appear to be a greater, sudden, interest coming from Twitter land in what someone such as myself is “up to.” Whether or not they will follow through with their alleged loyal following is yet to be seen. I believe they will. I hope they will, and it certainly is one of the main factors in my decision to do Kevin Pollak’s Chat Show, which will debut as a live streaming video talk show on Sunday, March 22nd, at 5pm, PST. I’ve mentioned that a lot, and people have responded hugely with their alleged interest. If it’s genuine, then we’ll do the show every Sunday at 5pm, PST. If not…
ACTING-BLOG.COM: Do you think that Twitter could prove a useful resource for finding new writing or acting talent?
KEVIN POLLAK: It could, certainly. That’s one of the things I’m curious about. That would be truly a wonderful aspect of Twitter land. No pressure, btw.
ACTING-BLOG.COM: Would you recommend that other artists join YouTube or Twitter? If so, What benefits do you think can arise from its use?
KEVIN POLLAK: I have recommended it to others and I believe several are already into to it. The benefits, as well as the possibilities are boundless, if you ask me. Oh. Wait. You just did, so yeah.
ACTING-BLOG.COM: Kevin Pollak, It has been a pleasure.
KEVIN POLLAK: You’re welcome- It’s my pleasure.
Kevin Pollak is an actor and comedian who regularly produces his own YouTube videos and starred alongside Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men.
Photograph by Mitchell Weinstock 2009
Some Great Suggested Audition Monologues from NIDA
I often think that if you can’t be bothered to seek out good monologues, you don’t deserve a place at drama school anyway.
BUT I realise we no longer live in a culture where kids read plays for fun, well, where anyone really reads plays for fun like when I was younger, heck, I’m only 32, and I feel old saying that. However, I have to recognise that something has changed and the amount of help out there might have improved but the average person trying to find a drama school audition monologue probably has no clue where to look. They end up in those semi-dreadful audition speech books, and doing the same old speeches the auditors have heard dozens of times over.
I found a couple of online packs of suggested monologues that are used by applicants to NIDA (Australia’s National Institute of Dramatic Art) for male and female applicants. They look pretty good, they’re probably not entirely legal on the site, (maybe they are, I don’t know) but if you find them useful it could help you. These aren’t just suggestions, they are the whole monologue, you should still attempt to read the entire play if you’re doing the piece for your audition.
The female monologues and the male monologues are from NIDA, all rights are reserved to the playwright and I’m not including any of the material on my own sites for copyright reasons.
I hope these are useful to you. Remember, there’s no such thing as a perfect monologue, just find one that you like and that you understand. That’s half the battle.
Mark
Mark Westbrook is a professional acting coach based in Glasgow, Scotland.
To You, The Best!
Mark Westbrook is a Professional Acting Coach and runs Acting Coach Scotland, a private acting studio offering acting classes in Glasgow, masterclasses, workshops and audition coaching for actors at all levels.
His acting studio is based in Glasgow, Scotland, although he teaches all across the United Kingdom. All Blog Posts © Mark Westbrook 2009
Thinking about Tactics
Tactics (traditionally called ‘actioning’) are the ‘how’ the actor works off their partner and how they deliver the lines of the text. You should never have to think about the right way to say a line for two reasons. First, the line has its own rhythm and cadence and second because with the correct tactics being played, the line will take care of itself.
So what is a tactic? A tactic is a strategy for achieving a goal. A tactic is best expressed as something that you can do to someone else to get what you want from them. THREATEN, BULLY, COAX, TORMENT, TEASE, FLICK, DODGE etc. Tactics are playable by actors, they immediately engage the actor in an entire psychophysical process that brings them alive in the moment. By using tactics, the actor is always engaged in a continuous flow of action.
How do I pick the right tactic? After you’ve selected your target, your goal or objective, then you will know what kinds of tactics you might play. If you’re goal is to ‘Knock Someone Off their High Horse’ you might choose DERIDE, INSULT, MOCK, TEASE, LOWER, KICK, UNDERMINE as tactics. Again, they are immediately playable, but not all tactics suit all situations. Some, like PUNCH, SLAP, SPANK or KISS sound very physical, but they are not meant to be literally performed. These tactics given you a sense of the quality of the tactic, without you have to overtly perform this action.
Tactics need to change, it’s too easy to get locked into similar or the same tactic, so you should have a reserve ready. Some actors add tactics to the sides of their scripts and that can work quite nicely, but it tends to mean they set in concrete their tactics and their reactions very early on. Ideally, you should be able to play any tactic that you believe will work within the given circumstances.
To learn more about tactics, why not contact me, even come to an acting class starting soon!
-Mark-Mark Westbrook is a professional acting coach based in Glasgow.
A REALLY excellent article from Backstage about the difference in Acting Techniques
Hey All
I rarely write these shorties with links, but I REALLY think you should read this excellent article in Backstage.
Please read it, you’ll greatly benefit from it, it’s very interesting and it was hard to find!
http://pages.prodigy.net/delossbrown/backstage.html
It’s an excellent look at the various approaches to acting, particularly American, but it gives Karen Kohlhaas a chance to express about Practical Aesthetics and gives Larry Moss a chance to call Mamet ‘asshole’. Moss says he’d say it to his face, I reckon Mamet would kick his ass.
Search
Recent Posts
- Tackling Talent: Part 2 with ACS Assistant Coach Ian Watt
- Tackling Talent: Part 1 – A Guest Blog from ACS Assistant Coach Karli Evans
- Know your Job
- Finding Fulfilment
- Do NOT Let the Director Near the Lighting Board
- A Few Good Resources
- The Wood for the Trees
- Lessons from Sandy…
- Making Excuses
- I don’t trust Acting Schools
- Advice to the Advancing Acting Student
- New Glasgow Acting Classes Begin Tonight!
- Gatekeepers: A Secret about the Acting Industry
- The Skills of the Actor
- The Craft of the Actor