David Mamet
The Puzzle
After discussing this idea with two of my private coaching students Craig and Paul, I thought it would make an interesting blog post for today:
Craig and I were analysing a scene from Fargo and Craig pointed out that this way of working was fun because it’s like a puzzle, in a separate class Paul commented that it may be a puzzle for the actor but the writer never intended it to be so. I would strongly agree with both of them.
Working on text is a puzzle. It should be approached with the same open-mindedness, curiosity and tenacity that one might face a logic puzzle, a riddle or even a crossword or Sudoku puzzle.
A puzzle is a challenge that is intended to be solved. Our puzzle is how to take the literary artefact of a play (dead wood with ink blotches) and transform it into the living, breathing performance of an actor.
The puzzle is a way to view scene work which actors often find difficult and irritating – it’s the bit they often find most frustrating. In classes, we make sure that our students have strong puzzle skills before they go on to work freely on scenes. Without them, they’re simply making shit up and that isn’t acting, it’s improvising on the theme of the play, which is disrespectful to the writer and the craft of acting.
Actually, this topic reminds me of something Mamet writes in Some Freaks, so I thought I’d share some of it with you:
In his chapter entitled ‘Stanislavsky and the Bearer Bonds’, Mamet discusses Stanislavsky’s Puzzle – a scene that Stanislavsky set his students to improvise, telling them that when they could analyse and perform that scene, then they would know how to act. Mamet says “What is the answer to Stanislavsky’s Bearer Bond problem? Stanislavsky said that when one knew how to correctly analyse and perform the problem, one would know how to act; so, then the question is, How Does One Act?’ You start with a conundrum. You have to find the answer yourself.
Great acting involves puzzle solving, faced with the conundrum, stay curious, don’t give up, don’t try to get around the problem. When you finally find a solution, you have the keys to the kingdom. Now the real work begins.
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
Mamet on Acting – Part 1
It would hard for anyone to read my blog and not read in my obvious admiration for the contribution to drama, theatre, film, and acting that David Mamet has made. His ideas certainly have inspired me greatly over the years as a director, acting coach and writer and they still do. I don’t always agree with him, or some of his highly provocative statements (“Repetition is BULLSHIT” – to a recent Atlantic Theater Company Acting School class*) but there’s a lot that can be gleaned from him. His word is not law, but many times, it inspires and agitates, and it makes us question, that’s the important bit. Coming up with the answer can take a life time, and that’s okay.
Here are some of my favourite moments of David Mamet talking about the topic of acting, and these I do agree with.
“The theatre is a profession of mountebanks and misfits, much like myself, who’ve come in through the backdoor because no one else would have them and learned to find a place in society by getting up on the stage and doing plays that people need to hear, doing them well in an interesting, provocative and unusual manner. Who haven’t had the life bred out of them.” I think any of us that work in the arts know this feeling, a feeling of being an outsider, and many still are outsiders to the outsiders, those who live on the fringe of the misfits. Perhaps these days, the gate keepers are employed to keep people from coming in the backdoor quite so readily.
Mamet talks about organic acting and relates it to objectives, this is important for Practical Aesthetics practitioners, this is great for scene analysis, As-Iffing or playing the scene:
“A child who doesn’t want to go to bed. A lover who wants a second chance. A man or woman who wants a job. Someone who wants to get laid. There’s nothing that these people won’t do. And that’s called having an objective. Having an objective is just a fancy word for wanting something real, real bad. When all of us, or any of us, are in these situations, there’s nothing we won’t do. All our attention is on the other person. And we’ll change horses in the middle of the stream to do anything to get them to give us what we want. Now when you see that in an actor on the stage it’s awfully damned compelling. Because what the great actor is doing on stage is changing his or her tactics to get what they need from the other person on stage, rather than performing what they dreamed up at home.”
*And let’s face it, whilst it was Meisner that created the exercise, it’s Mamet that taught it to his original NYU Practical Aesthetics Workshop class, and part of Practical Aesthetics it has become, perhaps these days, he doesn’t think it works, I’ll do some investigating and see what I can find out!
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
Skill and talent and the balls to arrive at your own conclusions…
Most of the good things about theatre that I learned, I learned from David Mamet. Most of the bad things I learned for myself through my own mistakes. I fell into every trap, self-laid and other. Becoming good at something requires the conviction that you will not give up until you’ve done a thing. If you don’t have that conviction, sooner or later, you get soft, you look for something secure and safe, and soon.. oh soon, you’re no longer doing the thing any more.
If you’re a working actor, you know the feeling, you occasionally get the desire for something more secure. You feel a little shame that you can’t always put bread on the table. But you know that you can’t do anything else half as well as acting and you couldn’t give it up if you tried. Because some of us are simple designer and engineered to be humanity’s storytellers, to express things for the community, you find us in all cultures throughout time, we are a necessary evil. We are neglected, we are poorly paid, we are occasionally funded and we are visciously protective of any position that we attain.
If you desire to be a working actor, you have all of this to look forward to in the future. But you can do it. The trouble is that safety and security will beckon you at every stage on your journey. Shouldn’t you just give up? Go on, give up and.. go teach high school or something, it’s certainly easier. It’s more difficult to stand in, take the pain, put up with the rejection and face the wind and keep going, keep going until you get where you want to be. Too many falter at this stage, when they reach what Seth Godin calls the ‘Dip’. That time when your resolve weakens and the other thing looks easier than the doing the difficult thing.
If you are training as an actor, taking classes, or you’re thinking of becoming an actor, be sure that this is going to be a rough crossing. At no stage will it be glamorous, even when it’s glamorous. At every stage, it’s going to be difficult, but it’s also going to be wonderful. But at the moment when you leave school, when you’re out there on your own, when you have educated your body and mind, it just requires the will, the guts or as the taekwondoists call it, indomitable spirit.
As David Mamet says in American Buffalo, you need “Skill and talent and the balls to arrive at your own conclusions”.
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
Acting: It’s Never Too Late
It’s never too late to become an actor. I get lots of messages asking if it’s too old at 24 or 27 or 30. One of my favourite actors is the British actor (born in Britain) and Steppenwolf member John Mahoney, he played Frasier’s father in the long running series about the Seattle Radio Shrink.
Mahoney began acting in his late 30s after a career as an editor and English teacher. He became close friends with David Mamet who nurtured the actor’s fledgling career. It’s never too late. However, something that Mamet says is really important on this topic. Whilst it’s never too late, it will take you many years to discipline yourself and learn the lessons of the business. For those of us who were lucky to be brought up in the theatre, it’s in our blood, or in our bones, it’s first nature to us to know the way things work. It will take you some time. Meisner says it will take you 20 years to become a master actor, well, that’s good enough for me, it will be worth the effort.
I teach classes with many mature members, one of my advanced students and a good friend is in his 50s but young in spirit when it comes to performing. It’s never too late if you’re willing to learn the lessons of the stage. They’re not always pleasant, they’re not always rewarding, but if it’s what you want, it is never too late to become the actor you wanted to be.
Characters come in all shapes, sizes and ages. Sure it can take a long time to get acting into your bones, but it’s worth the wait.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
More Inspiring Quotes on Acting
Thought I would offer you some more quotes that have served me well over the years. These are some of my favourites:
Acting is living truthfully, under the imaginary circumstances of the play - Sanford Meisner
Your talent is in your choice – Stella Adler
“At the Neighborhood Playhouse School of Theatre, Sanford Meisner said, ‘When you go into the professional world, at a stock theatre somewhere, backstage, you will meet an older actor, someone who has been around awhile. He will tell you tales and anecdotes, about life in the theatre. He will speak to you about your performance and the performances of others, and he will generalize to you, based on his experience and his intuitions, about the laws of the stage. Ignore this man!’” David Mamet
“Study, find all the good teachers and study with them, get involved in acting to act, not to be famous or for the money. Do plays. It’s not worth it if you are just in it for the money. You have to love it.” Philip Seymour Hoffman
“Men acquire a particular quality by constantly acting a particular way. You become just by performing just actions, temperate by performing temperate actions, brave by performing brave actions.” Aristotle
FOR MY STUDENTS: “It’s not enough to have talent. You have to have a talent for your talent.” Stella Adler
FOR MARK COLEMAN: “I wish the stage were as narrow as the wire of tightrope dancer, so that no incompetent would dare step onto it. – Goethe
Quotes aren’t just cool things to say to people, they’re great for reminding you of important truisms about acting and the stage. I love having them around, they act as reminders to me. Hope you enjoyed.
Action: A Point of Agreement
I know that sometimes I’m a little OTT with my rejection of other methodologies, so in the spirit of strength through flexibility, I’d like to offer these great quotes that I found on the topic of ‘action’ in relation to action. Here we see a gathering of points of agreement and it’s encouraging to see that it’s possible for us to pursue different pathways and still be aware that there is a similar ‘through-line’ throughout all of our work as actors, acting coaches and directors.
In The Training of the American Actor speaking about Strasberg, Louis Scheeder writes “he had come to believe that the actor should work on individual moments of action so that character might achieve the stated objective of a given scene”
In his Interview with Matthew Roudane, Mamet says “The action is what the character doing. That’s what the actor must do. Acting has absolutely nothing to do with emotion or feeling emotional. It has as little to do with emotion as playing a violin does. You have to study emotion. People don’t go to the theatre to hear the emotion; they go to hear the concerto. The emotions should take place in the audience. It just doesn’t have to be dealt with from the actor’s viewpoint.”
That interview with Roudane is particularly interesting and I advise anyone with a serious interest in Mamet, Acting or the industry in general to take a read. This theme of action is something I’m going to continue with over the next few weeks, as the Latin ‘actio’ is the route for acting, actor and action, it seems to make sense that action is the core of the actor. The extent of which, I believe defines our particular acting technique of style.
Days of Poorly Poorly
Hello Blog Readers
I’ve been ill for the past few days and it’s wretched as although I like my bed, too many days spent inactive is a killer to the mind, as restful as it might be to body. Anyway, unable to teach or work in other ways, I’ve sat planning out my National Theatre of Scotland masterclass coming up at the end of this new month.
If you have too much time on your hand and the ability to use the Internet, you can get in all sorts of trouble, so rather than getting into trouble, I started looking for good stuff on the Internet, or particular iTunes. If you guys have iTunes, type in Kristen Johnston for a good interview with a ‘famous’ Practical Aesthetics practitioner, she’s famous for being the sister in Third Rock from the Son, but she’s a legendary stage actress now too. It’s part of the American Theatre Wing’s free podcasts, so download and enjoy.
Next, there’s a great David Mamet speech, he was speaking at Stanford. It’s not all about acting, but it’s interesting enough. It’s good to hear the man speech. Type ‘David Mamet Art Politics Judaism’, you’ll find the speech free to download. I particularly like the bit where he refers to his programme ‘The Unit’ as a ‘this stupid tv show’.
These things we do when we’re poorly.
What is Drama? My own view…
Hi there, like me, many of you have been involved in drama for many years, perhaps all of your lives. But I thought I would offer a succinct description for those new to drama, or those who want a new perspective on what drama is…
What is Drama?
The study of Drama involves exploring the practical elements of theatre-making including such skills and practices as acting, writing, direction, lighting, stage management, speech and movement. Drama also refers to the action of a play, and the art of writing and producing plays. In Greek, the word ‘Drama’ literally means ‘to do’, which comes from the word for ‘Action’.
Why Do We Love Drama?
Human beings love drama because stories and storytelling are essential to human culture. It is both personal, communal1 and universal. We find examples of dramatic storytelling throughout society, culture and history. The Cave Paintings at Lascaux demonstrate our ancestors had a need to record and tell their stories for others. Before language evolved, before stories could be told orally, they were told through paintings. With developments in language evolved oral storytelling and theatre. Written language and eventually the invention of the printing press allowed stories to be read by anyone. Radio allowed stories to be broadcast to millions. Cinema and television became ways to unite visual and verbal storytelling. The Internet, with Blogging and YouTube has made anyone a potential storyteller. Computer and console gaming are all ways that the user can interact and take an active part in the story themselves.
Story is journey. The hero, the protagonist or central character undertakes a quest and changes as a result of the journey. The hero does not always win the day, but it is not the winning but the journey that fascinates us.
We share the journey with the protagonist, they stand in for us and we experience their journey vicariously2. We also have a journey as we travel through our lives. Like a good story, we also have a beginning, middle and an end from which ‘no traveller returns3’. In our own story, like that of the hero, we have no idea of what will happen next. The same shared sense of suspense keeps us interested until the end. If the reader, the viewer or the audience member gets ahead of the story, they begin to lose interest.
As David Mamet succinctly suggested, “People have tried for centuries to use drama to change people’s lives, to influence, to comment, to express themselves. It doesn’t work. It might be nice if it worked for those things, but it doesnt. The only thing the dramatic for is good for is telling a story.”
Best Wishes
Mark is a professional acting coach based in Glasgow, he runs ACS – Acting Coach Scotland.
Practical Aesthetics Guide Part 3
Script Analysis
A vast amount of blood, sweat and tears is produced when a writer creates a good script. Every word on the page or even lack of them, are there for a reason. It’s the actor’s job to read, absorb and analyse the scenes written and formulate ideas, observations and decisions on how to act upon that information.
In Practical Aesthetics, scene analysis follows simple, flexible and effective steps. You are encouraged to define:
What the character is literally doing
This is as simple as it sounds; identify what the character is actually doing in the scene, without judgement or metaphor. This might be as plain as having a job interview with a prospective employer, buying some flowers from a shopkeeper or a couple talking about troubles in their relationship. Knowing this gives you the anchor for the scene, and requires no clever interpretation – it’s the base level of what the audience sees.
The Wants
Having established what the character is literally doing, you then move on to defining what they actually want over the period of the scene. However, it’s important for ‘the want’ to be based on the other person in the scene. And so, it becomes about wanting something from the other. With the last of the above literal situations, an example might be the girlfriend wants the boyfriend to swallow his pride.
The Essential Action
From there, the actor takes that information and formulates it into what Practical Aesthetics describes as an ‘essential action’. Again, as was mentioned earlier, the actor is focusing what they do to the other person. Therefore, encapsulating the entirety of the scene, the essential action should be expressed in the form of ‘getting something from someone’. If we use the couple again, her essential action might be to ‘get a loved one to take a chance’.
The choice of essential actions can be vast, but the Practical Aesthetics approach dictates than an essential action is only valid when it meets all of nine criteria set out:
1) It must be in line with the playwright’s intentions
2) It must not be an errand
3) It must have a cap
4) It mustn’t be emotionally or physically manipulative
5) It mustn’t predetermine an emotional state
6) It must have its test in the other person
7) It must be specific
It must be physically capable of being done
9) It must be fun
It’s not important to explain these here, but it is important to know that this checklist forces the actors to get to the crux of what they want to achieve, and gives them focus and a sense of purpose in the scene.
The beauty of Practical Aesthetics is that none of these guidelines prescribe a method of achieving your essential action. Yet it does help you formulate a huge array of potential tactics you might use to get there. This brings up the following questions:
Q. Which tactics do you use in the scene?
A. Whichever one seems to work.
Q. How do you know if your tactics work?
A. Look for the evidence in the other actor!
Q. What if the other person in the scene is creating obstacles and refusing to bend?
A. Use a different one and try again – make it impossible for them not to be affected.
Remember, your scene partner has identified their wants and essential actions and potential tactics to affect you too. Thus, the game is on; let the playing begin.
The ‘As-If’
In rehearsal, the Practical Aesthetics Actor will take the essential action and personalise it to mean something to them. So if the essential action is to ‘get a loved one to take a chance’, they might say it’s ‘as if I was convincing my brother to get over his ex, and ask out the girl next door’. The key is, it must mean something important to you, and it must be plausible enough for you to invest your energy in it.
This gives the actor the basis for trying out different tactics with a scene partner using improvisation, without initially concerning themselves with the actual text of the play.
The object of this exercise is for the different tactics to become habitual, and the actual text of the scene can be introduced later, now those tactical muscles have been flexed.
A good actor is an intrepid explorer of scenes, and a Practical Aesthetics Acting Class gives you the map and the compass. The beauty of it is, how you interpret them, and how you choose to get to your treasure is up to you, and there’s never only one journey.
With all the above preparation, analysis and practice put in, the Practical Aesthetics actor can embark on any given performance with the confidence of knowing what they are setting out to achieve, and the freedom and flexibility to act and react to what is actually happening in that specific and unique moment in time, with whoever is on stage with them.
Practical Aesthetics avoids the trap of the Method Actor; self absorption and self analysis. By taking the attention away from you and onto the other, you truly become liberated to act and live in the moment. You’re no longer trapped inside your head; no two performances will ever be identical, and the magic of storytelling casts its spell on the audience.
That’s what makes Practical Aesthetics so wonderful an approach; like an athlete you have done everything you need to prepare for the race, and are skilled enough to let your instincts take over once the starting gun has fired.
Like an athlete though, the Practical Aesthetics actor has to work and train hard. The approach is not complex, it’s not mystical, and it doesn’t require psychological introspection. Its capacity to help you grow as an actor is limited only by your courage of determination, commitment and application.
As any good Practical Aesthetics teacher will tell you, great acting skills are about hard work and application – it’s not a question of simply ‘talent’ or being ‘gifted’. A Practical Aesthetics Acting Class give the acting student the tools and techniques required to gather information from the script, apply some key criteria that means something to them, and carry out specific actions in a scene with a free-flowing, un-rehearsed manner.
In summary then, Practical Aesthetics Acting Classes equip the actor with practicable tools designed that give the actor freedom of choice over what ‘to do’ rather than worrying about how ‘to be’.
Mark Westbrook is a professional acting coach, visit his Acting Coach website for more indepth articles, class times and information.
Stanislavski and Strasberg get confused…
Hello All
Recently, I’ve been accused of getting Strasberg and Stanislavski confused with each other. That puts me in good company because that’s often a volley of shot aimed and fired at Mamet in his condemnation of Strasberg. I don’t believe that I confuse the two; I have a strong grasp of the main elements of Stanislavski’s ‘system’ and Lee Strasberg’s ‘Method’ and where they differ from each other. My criticism of Strasberg is not the same as my criticism of Stanislavski, and when I refer to the Method, I’m talking about what Strasberg created from his understanding of Stanislavski and not what Stanislavski endeavoured to create over the many years of experimentation in his life.
However, if it is true that Strasberg and Stanislavski are often confused with each other, my research has indicated to me one reason why people may indeed confuse them.
Some of the blame, I’m afraid lies with Lee Strasberg and a lecture that he gave on acting before his death. I’d like to reproduce some of that lecture here to assist the debate or add fuel to the fire:
Here are two extracts from Strasberg’s speech:
“It’s not an American version, it is the truest form of what Stanislavski tried to achieve and never achieved, as he himself admits…”
“In my book it will be clear that I believe that we are the true representatives of what Stanislavski endeavoured to do all of his life’.
In the same lecture, he mentions Stanislavski’s ‘last’ book ‘An Actor Prepares’. If Strasberg’s understanding of Stanislavski derives entirely from this book, he is basing his work on early Stanislavski and unfortunately missing out on the later work that was published. Of course, we all should know that ‘An Actor Prepares’ was only the first part of the trio of books, the ABC of Acting that Stanislavski produced and that were published after his death, the latest one being published much, much later in the Sixties in America, meaning that by that time Strasberg had taken Stanislavski’s early work and extended that work in exclusion from Stanislavski’s later work on method of physical actions.
Strasberg visited Moscow while Stanislavski was still alive. He chose not to visit Stanislavski. Why would someone who felt that he held the true mantle of the Master, avoid meeting his truest source of inspiration?
These are questions, alas we have no answers.
Best Wishes
Mark
David Mamet on Drama
As David Mamet succinctly suggested, “People have tried for centuries to use drama to change people’s lives, to influence, to comment, to express themselves. It doesn’t work. It might be nice if it worked for those things, but it doesn’t. The only thing the dramatic for is good for is telling a story.”
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
Archives
Posts
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||