Practical Aesthetics
Tackling Talent: Part 2 with ACS Assistant Coach Ian Watt
Friday’s have become special days at the ACS studio. Over the last few weeks we’ve been working through a DVD of Meisner classes. It’s a real treat to watch the man himself training actors in his own techniques. At 8 hours it’s a bit of a marathon but it always sparks off lots of discussion.
We’ve been thinking about talent. The core skills of Repetition, Script Analysis & As Iffing can all be developed through hard graft – so does the term TALENT even fit with the Practical Aesthetics ethos of acting? Does it matter how TALENTED or UNTALENTED you are?
Talent is a difficult term to understand to begin with. One dictionary definition is – a natural ability or giftedness. So someone with talent has an aptitude for certain things or an innate ability to achieve a level of skill or competency. Now here’s a much misunderstood term. Competency sounds like an apology for being just-about-passable but is defined as a combination of aptitude, knowledge, understanding and attitude.
Two indisputable talents sprung to my mind – Picasso and George Best. Picasso’s early works are worth a look if you ever thought he couldn’t draw and Best was such a great footballer that Pele, the Brazilian legend, signed an autograph for George with the words “from the second best footballer in the world.”
Yet Picasso said it had taken him a lifetime to learn to draw like a child and Best worked so hard in extra training to develop his weaker left foot – it became stronger than his right. Without doubt both showed signs of having great talent at an early stage in their lives but they also demonstrated they had a great work ethic – even in Best’s case.
But all of Best’s aptitude for balance and ball skills didn’t help him extend his playing career and Picasso’s understanding of form and hand to eye co-ordination wasn’t the reason he continued to produce works until he died aged 92. Maybe the difference between them was attitude.
Mamet wrote a private letter to the original students of Practical Aesthetics before their first performance – ‘A good actor trains his voice and body and analytical powers even though this training is taxing and “no one may ever notice.”
I feel talent shines out. It is obvious and noticeable – especially to those who can’t. So how does that fit with the P.A. approach? To be honest – I dunno. I like the idea of talent being a gift – something you’ve simply been given. It’s nothing you can or should take any credit for – it’s just the way you are. If you perceive a gift as something of value then you’re likely to take care of it – nurture it and not hide it at the back of a cupboard next to the horrendous cardigan you got from granny last Christmas.
REAL talent makes something difficult look easy to do – SO easy that everyone thinks they can do it. Ultimately I guess you can either use it or choose to waste it. My advice – which you didn’t ask for – is nurture however much talent you have whether it be great or little. Don’t worry about whether you have it or not, work hard and concentrate on developing the skills you need. If you are tenacious enough to keep on learning – you might surprise yourself and manage to be competent!
Thanks
IAN
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
Does Practical Aesthetics work for Physical Theatre?
In yesterday’s Acting Blog, I stated that: “A technique of acting must work all the time, every time.” An anonymous (American?) commenter asked:
“Does PA work for physical theater?”
I feel that there are about eight different answers to this question, so we’ll have to take this one in parts.
For me, the answer is very much a Yes. However, it’s worth working through the entire answer to this question to see why:
First of all, when I said that a technique of acting must work all time, every time, I was referring to actors working in films, television and theatre on scripted pieces. I was referring to what we might refer to as ’straight’ acting. I was also referring to it working consistently for the actor, on each stage and set they tread – rather than Practical Aesthetics being some kind of answer to everything.
Because of course, Practical Aesthetics is no use at all for installing televisions or baking cup cakes. So part of my answer is Yes, it will work if it is useful to you. The answer is No, if it is not useful to you. A fork is great for eating with, but sometimes you need a spoon, right?
Next, of course, it depends on what we mean by Physical Theatre, according to various resources I checked, the term is a ‘catch-all’ meaning:
- Mime
- Contemporary dance
- Theatrical Clowning and other physical comedy
- Some forms of puppetry
- Theatrical Acrobatics
I’m sure many would argue that Physical Theatre is in fact, an entirely separate art form and has it’s own individual skill set, that an actor must learn separately from the main acting technique.
I do not believe that Practical Aesthetics is a catchall. However, it can’t hurt to apply some principles from Practical Aesthetics to ANY of these individual art forms. In this case, Practical Aesthetics might be considered to enhance this skill specific training.
Practical Aesthetics is also a philosophy of making theatre (Mamet’s new book ‘Theatre’ due out in April 2010 should offer us all more) and so many of the great principles of pragmatism offered by Practical Aesthetics are useful to any creative person or group. If we just take one idea of ‘Invent Nothing, Deny Nothing, Accept Everything and Get on with it!’ we can see how easily that this ethic could be used by the Physical Theatre practitioner in the creation of their work.
Furthermore, if we ask if PA useful for the creation, rehearsal and performance of Physical Theatre itself, then the answer is a resounding Yes. If we take the example of DV8, which in its recenty physical theatre performance ‘To be Straight With You’ used physical performance enhanced by the spoken word, then we can see that it could be useful and work well.
And if we remove the spoken word and think of a company such as the German-based, Russian monks of physical theatre such as Derevo, there are many principles and tools in the basics of Practical Aesthetics that could help, enhance or develop this type of work and its rehearsal/creative process.
Practical Aesthetics, is primarily an action-based approach. It isn’t about words but actions. As Mamet has one of his characters in American Buffalo say ‘Action talks and Bullshit walks’. Much of the early Practical Aesthetics training is learning to work on real spontaneous impulse. Those trained in PA learn to work truthfully from moment to moment, in a physical sense, they become great observers they learn to respond truthfully to what the other person is doing within the truth of the moment, – these are all surely useful, or vital to excellent physical theatre.
We train first and foremost to learn to act through the body – as Meisner said ‘the foundation of acting is the reality of doing’. Sandy also wanted an exercise where ‘there is no intellectuality’. Where we learn to work from the intuitive centre, where we allow ourselves to become impulsive – this can only aid the physical performer.
Additionally, when you add Practical Aesthetics training to something like Viewpoints, then you get a creative philosophy and practical tools that feed off each other and stimulate fascinating creative work.
So the answer is yes, many of the principles and some of the approach itself is suited to making and performing physical theatre, and finally yes, if Practical Aesthetics could be useful to the making, rehearsal and performance of Physical Theatre, then yes, it would work.
So I guess, my overall answer is yes, it works well for physical theatre, if you mean a physical theatre performer who wants to work impulsively, living in the moment, responding truthfully to other performers, to the situation or circumstance, to music, stimulus or mood. Yes, if you want to learn to work without denying those impulses. Yes, if you like to work in action. Yes, if you like to take too much thought out of the equation and move towards action. Yes, if the essential actions of Practical Aesthetics can stimulate the performer physically, yes if tactics lead a physical performer to express themselves physically, rather than simply in words.
In general and in the specific, does Practical Aesthetics work for Physical Theatre? Yes. Yes. Yes.
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 Techniques are Pointless
BellaLuce asked ‘What acting techniques/exercises have you found particularly pointless?’
Hmmm. Acting Techniques and their exercises are necessary. The trouble is that most of them are entirely pointless. They do keep you occupied, they’re often fun, or least they make you feel like you’re working, or mostly, they frustrate and irritate you into complying with whatever the teacher says you’re meant to think/feel/do/pretend.
We need technique. The problem is that most of them are nonsense. Acting teachers and Professors of Theatre don’t want you to know that, because it undermines most of their careers, and frankly, the way they earn their living.
Personally, I’ve always had what I jokingly call ‘a Wank Radar’, anything that seems like self-gratifying, time-wasting, pretendy-crap almost definitely is so…
Sandy Meisner said that acting was ‘the ability to live truthfully under imaginary circumstances. To me this is a good enough starting point for acting. When I teach acting, I think of acting as something a little simpler. Look at the person you’re meant to be speaking to and speak the lines with a similar intention to the character in the scene.
Many people have a talent for acting, some don’t even bother to train, they simply go on their gut instinct and the gift they were given. I must confess some admiration for this. Nonetheless, it is my belief that talent is never enough. It can take us so far, then we need a little help. To some, that means ‘technique’, some think of a ‘methodology’, some look to the stars, but let’s be clear – many can do well on talent alone – but without the challenge, someone or something to work from, a framework, you end up stuck in the same place.
However, any technique that doesn’t immediately make its use applicable to your work as an actor is suspect, not necessarily pointless but suspect. It becomes pointless, when after a few hours of work reveal no positive benefits towards actually acting the damned scene.
I have been warned for my whole career not to get stuck into one technique. The people that told me that usually realised that the techniques they learned were bullshit, so they took a bit of that technique and added to a bit of something else, and sort of bungled together a technique from toilet rolls and sticky-tape. It’s a nice idea, the so-called Linguini-effect (it’s become the mainstream approach to acting in many drama schools in non-technique schools)- throw enough technique at the actor and hope some of it sticks.but basically it sucks because the results are unpredictable, inconsistent and cannot be relied upon to produce results each time you work. A technique of acting must work all the time, every time.
For me, that is Practical Aesthetics, a simple, no-bullshit approach to acting. It works for me, it works for the actors that use it and it works for the students at ACS Studio. It can work for you too.
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
Improvisation and the Advanced Glasgow Acting Class
I want to tell you something about the project my advanced students are currently working on in their Tuesday evening classes. Not because I am trying to persuade you to join them, cos I’m not, but because I think it might be interesting to hear about the work we’re doing together.
The advanced acting class at Acting Coach Scotland is a place where students that already have a firm grip on the technique of Practical Aesthetics explore more advanced elements of the technique and the training. This is an invite-only class and the standard of the student is high.
In this block of classes, we’re doing something different, we’re creating improvised scenes from scratch, working on them for a while and then handing them to playwrights to work up into script scenes.
The project started with the students creating an improvisational scenario for two other acting students. We do this with the tools of Practical Aesthetics. The student actor created a scenario, involving two people in a situation. They determined the location and what the individuals wanted from each other in the scene. Then they decided upon Essential Actions for the characters in the scene.
The next part involved a story conference with the students telling each other their ideas and I worked as story editor, working out any kinks, strengthening any parts of the story that I felt were vulnerable and challenging some of the thinking behind the decisions made.
The ‘actors’ for each scene then created an As-If for their improvised scene, to make a personal connection to the circumstances of the scene. Then they go from Repetition to connect with their partner, to Repetition with Action to begin to habituate the essential action whilst staying connected with their improv partner and finally into the As-If to bring it all together.
The students will work for a couple of weeks now on exploring the scene through improvisation before our three playwrights Ann Marie di Mambro, Chris Dolan and Philip J Larkin come in and watch the work in progress improvisations. They’ll then take their notes, their impression of the scenes and an audio recording of the improvisations and spend a week creating a scripted scene from it. The students will then work on rehearsing the scenes under my direction and using Practical Aesthetics to bring the scenes to performance.
I’ll keep you up to date with how the scenes develop and the process the students go through as they experience the generation and fruition of ideas into their performance.
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
The Principles of Acting and NOT the Rules of Acting!
When I teach acting classes in Glasgow, I’m often very strict about the way that I approach Practical Aesthetics. It’s almost like there are a set of rules and I’m making the students stick to them. I suppose from the outside, that looks rather restrictive. In our journey from unconscious incompetence to unconscious competence, somewhere, we have to learn the ropes. But I don’t think that it’s my job to teach ‘rules’. I don’t approach acting with a rule book in mind that people must stick to, instead, I believe that I espouse the principles of pragmatism, a practicable approach to acting that we called Practical Aesthetics, the approach formulated by Mamet and Macy and developed by its practitioners ever since.
Principles? Rules? What’s the difference? A rule says THIS is the way that YOU (and all) MUST do it. Principles say ‘this works, take it or leave it’.
Firstly, acting is not about rules. Although the rebellious acting student wants to break them, usually before they’ve discovered if there are any. Anxious students, wanting to be perfect (the route to stiff, mechanical thinking, behaviour and action) try to obey rules, and get confused and upset when it doesn’t all work out like 2+2=4. Rules are easy to follow, but art and craft of the actor is based on principles, and these are a little more grey in their definition, but they work, time and again. If you’re willing to spend the time learning them.
We live in a get-it-quick culture. We want to take the shortest route anywhere. We will usually do the least possible to get the desired result. But becoming a professional, and I mean that in the fullest sense, becoming a professional actor means opening one self up to the richness, fullness and thoroughness of the craft. If asked to familiarise yourself with the work of Pierre Marivaux (or anyone for that matter), do you read one and scan Wikipedia? Or do you spend time reading his work, reading about his work and learning who he was and what made him tick. Most people wouldn’t bother, but this thoroughness, it permeates through your entire work ethic.
If you practice everything as if there is nothing to lose, when it comes to the real thing, you will flounder under the pressure. Thoroughness in everything, thoroughness in all. This is a principle.
Excellence in acting requires graft, perseverance and a thorough grounding in the principles of the craft. I believe and when I teach my acting classes in Glasgow, or anywhere in fact, it starts with the simplest principles and it ends with those self same principles.
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
History of the Meisner Technique
Back in the Thirties, Sanford Meisner was one of the members of The Group Theatre, probably the most important theatre company in the history of the American theatre. The Group’s work was based on the work of the Russian actor, director and father of modern acting, Stanislavski. At some point in their work together, Sandy Meisner fell out with Lee Strasberg over his unnecessary emphasis on the use of the personal emotions of the actor. Meisner felt that the imagination and emotion could be stimulated by the imaginary circumstances of the play/scene. Of course, Strasberg went on to make acting look like a cross between an CIA interrogation and a Freudian therapy session, but Meisner’s work slowly and quietly grew in the shade of Strasberg’s light.
Sandy defined acting as ‘living truthfully under the imaginary circumstances of the play’. His approach is rigorously based in what is known as ‘the reality of doing’.
Meisner worked out of the Neighborhood Playhouse in New York City, he created his own way of working, a systematic approach, still based on the teachings of Stanislavski, but focused on the principles of real human behaviour. His training included a great deal of emphasis on helping the actor to allow their own natural impulses to flow unimpeded, something that socially, as human beings, we’re not too comfortable with. Meisner trained actors to work with their real impulses and real behaviour, rather than pretending.
One of the founding exercises of Meisner’s Technique is called Repetition, of the Repetition Exercise or Game. It’s a simple game, seems on the surface to be a bit ridiculous, but over time, it becomes more and more useful to the actor. In the exercise, two actors stand opposite each other and respond truthfully to each other through a statement that is repeated. The statement is derived from something in the other actor’s behaviour, such as ‘You’re nervous’. The statement is repeated and without help from the two actor, it changes naturally in response to the behaviour of the other actor. The actor must stop thinking about about themselves, a place their attention fully and completely upon their partner. Sandy’s own focus was said to be:
“to eliminate all intellectuality from the actor’s instrument and to make him a spontaneous responder to where he is, what is happening to him, what is being done to him.”
Of course, the Meisner Technique is much more than simply Repetition, yet this remains the foundation technique that allow the student to access the ‘reality of doing’, to ‘live in the moment’, and to ‘work off the other fellow’.
My own teaching uses only a portion of Meisner’s work, Practical Aesthetics itself has some basis in Meisner, because Mamet studied briefly, for one year with Sandy, but it takes the necessary and leaves the remainder for the dedicated Meisner students. In class, we use Repetition as the foundation technique that all students use to develop ‘other awareness’ and learn to be in the moment and to work off the other actor. For many of our students, this is an extremely challenging exercise, but like playing scales at the piano, it is an exercise necessary to develop some of the skills and qualities that we believe are essential to becoming the best actor that you can be.
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
10 Things to Know About Practical Aesthetics
1. Forged by David Mamet, William H Macy and their students at The Practical Aesthetics Workshop from of elements of Aristotle, Meisner and Stanislavsky.
2. Practical Aesthetics is taught at the Atlantic Theater Company’s Acting School in New York and Los Angeles, Practical Aesthetics Australia and Acting Coach Scotland in Glasgow.
3. Practical Aesthetics literally means a Theory of Art that’s Capable of Being Put To Use.
4. The technique is heavily influenced by the teachings of the Stoical Philosophers.
5. There are several books that talk about the technique including David Mamet’s True and False UK/USA, Bruder et al’s Practical Handbook for the Actor UK/US and Karen Kohlhaas’ The Monologue Audition, UK/US.
6. The technique is made up of 3 main components, Repetition, Performance Technique and Script Analysis but features elements of voice and physical training from Viewpoints and Suzuki to Committed Impulse, Pilates, Laban and Yoga.
7. It offers a viable alternative to the dominant ideology of self-indulgent Method acting.
8. Practical Aesthetics is a valuable tool for the actor, director and the writer equally.
9. In an interview, David Mamet called the Stanislavski system ‘a practical aesthetic for the actor based on the Aristotelian idea of unity’.
10. Practical Aesthetics focuses on the actor’s will, their intention and the actions that lead from it.
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
The old Stanislavsky Strasberg debate again…
A great man once said “history is written by the victors”. He forgot to add the word ‘present’ before the word ‘victors.‘
According to all my fan/hate-mail and various authors there has been a change in the historical landscape, I am corrected again and again by zealots of a new faith, who BELIEVE, oh they really do. Of course, this simply contradicts what others have been writing for years, but apparently, it’s overturned
They say that they now have facts to indicate that Stanislavski never really changed his ideas, the Method of Physical Action has been mostly proven to be little more than Father banging the Master’s Red Drum.
Stella Adler they discredit as a naive, hysterical child that didn’t understand Father’s advice. Well, she would have to be, otherwise Strasberg is wrong and she becomes Mother and Father’s inheritance passes onto her. I guess a 1930s American would seem strange to a 1930s Russian.
Which means of course that if Stanislavki didn’t change his central ideas and it was only a ploy of the Red Menace, that must mean that Strasberg was the truest heir in America. conveniently the new truth makes Strasberg the straightest line.
This means that MOPA and all work leading from it can be dismissed as the incorrect, politically coloured propaganda of the Soviets. This is a mighty neat way to square it all away and leave Strasberg the only true son. But they say there are facts and so…
It seems that the Method people are in possession of new facts, and they are busy now writing history.
The trouble is that Debate 101 teaches us that any intelligent mind can string together a collection of facts and posit them as an argument.
The courthouse has taught us that it is not those who are in possession of the facts that win the day, nor is the truth ever conveniently on the side of the good. But those that can offer a palatable viewpoint may have their perspective accepted as the truth.
Being in possession of the facts or a perspective on the facts in the great Stanislavsky Strasberg debate is an endless debate. Neither side will persuade the other to lay down their arms, the real battle is not for converts but for conscripts and volunteers.
And so now they comfortably say Method and system, Strasberg and Stanislavsky and mean the same thing; now they are the only true disciples of Father’s heir. They have the direct line to the source. Finally they are vindicated.
This leads to an awful conclusion of facts for me. If the Red Menace force-created MOPA and Strasberg is the true connection, then Mamet’s criticisms of Stanislavsky that are traditionally batted away with the claim that it is misjudged aggression for Strasberg are infact justified. Because now when criticises father, he also means son too and vice versa.
It is now easy to swat away Practical Aesthetics as the bastard Commie son of a politically compromised school of acting. Summoning up the old fashioned distrust of everything Soviet as bad, and therefore everything Democratic and American as good, Practical Aesthetics becomes easily dismissed. If you think everything is black and white or red and red, white and blue. It all becomes terribly simple. American = Method = system = Russia.
And yet, and yet, when I watch an actor that uses Practical Aesthetics and I see nuanced, moving, beautiful, powerful acting that people find captivating to watch. Even if Practical Aesthetics was inspired by Soviet-influenced philosophy, so what? It works.
It never strays into self-indulgence, I see find the appropriate emotional pitch within the scene and not without it. Those who think that As-If takes you out of the scene, are just wrong, it is a way on inserting yourself into the scene, rather than taking you into it. Sure, you use a personal experience to identify analogous circumstances to understand how to go about doing the Essential Action, but once the scene begins, you’re back in the scene.
In the end, this debate has no end. All the scholars disagree, their facts disagree, so what can we trust? Only what works. Each time, every time, consistently.
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
Where do actors get their ideas from?
To my mind, there are many types of actors, but I want to introduce the idea that there are TWO types of actors, the creator and the creative interpreter. Neither is better, both can professionally and successfully do their job, but how they go about it is completely different. These are MY understandings of the difference between these two different types of actors, it’s likely that others will disagree and that within both categories, there are splinters and cross-overs or hybrids, as we might call them.
The creator is an inventor, they are on the same level as the choreographer or the composer. This type of actor originates work that may be based on the script, but also based on influences that come from outside of the script. They consciously create or invent as part of their art. This type of actor primarily considers themselves as a creative equal in the process of making theatre or film. They use improvisation, they use character diaries or histories, they research their role historically, they use many sources to help them ‘build a character’. It seems to be that this actor looks primarily to creative act as their main job, that creating a character is the main task.
I would consider this type of acting as that demonstrated by those from the Strasberg, Adler, Stanislavski and Michael Chekhov schools.
The creative interpreter does not create, they interpret the work of others, and in doing so, they are a creative in their own right. They are the dancer or the musician. What they do IS creative, but it takes its emphasis from their skill at achieving artistic results based on someone else’s creation. The writer’s work is the central source of ideas for this type of actor, they place the script and telling the story of the play above all else. This type of actor considers works primarily from the moment, the script and the other actor. This actor does not invent moments, they let moments happen to them, this actor does not aim to be creative, they do not feel that this is the job of the actor. Their job is to tell the story of the play, just like the dancer’s is to dance the dance, or musicians is to play the music. This type of actor does not build a character, they play a role. I found a definition of role as ‘the characteristics of your behaviour’. This actor does not create these characteristics, they allow their own characteristics and behaviour to ’stand in’ for the character and let the illusion of character do the rest.
I would consider this type of acting as that demonstrated by those actors that use Practical Aesthetics.
Neither school is right, neither is best, it’s all about what suits you. If you can effectively mix and match, do so. You do not need to slavishly follow any technique, style or method, you need to find what works effectively and CONSISTENTLY for you. You need tools with which to approach the role and they must work all the time.
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
Mary McCann from the Atlantic Theater Company talks about Practical Aesthetics
A promo video for Atlantic, but it’s good to hear Mary McCann talking about Practical Aesthetics.
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
Miles Wide: Criticism of Practical Aesthetics
A very interesting thing happened this week, I found a fascinating article from an acting coach in San Francisco. In it, he claims to have found the location of a weakness in Practical Aesthetics, a flaw in the Common Sense approach to acting. So I set a task for my advanced students to evaluate the article and let me know their thoughts. Ironically, on the very day that I published the task for my students, I received an anonymous message from somewhere out in the blogsphere asking me if I thought the author of the article had got the criticism spot on. Well, it is an interesting article, but I’m sad to say that like bad artillery, it’s miles wide of the mark, miles wide.
I thought that for my students, the unknown commentator and anyone interested, I would respond.
Andrew Utter runs Mother of Invention acting school, a great name for a school, and it also sets out his stall, necessity and need being vital to his way of thinking. He says he finds ‘plenty of good things to say about Practical Aesthetics’ but believes that he has discovered its limitations. Whilst he spends 220 words establishing his credentials, he doesn’t mention whether he has trained in Practical Aesthetics or just vigorously read A Practical Handbook for the Actor and perhaps True and False (has he read Robert Bella’s chapter on Practical Aesthetics in The Training of the American Actor? (UK Link).
He doesn’t mention any training in Practical Aesthetics, which leads me to believe that he has not studied it rigorously or intensively. It’s clear that he is experienced and well qualified, but not in Practical Aesthetics, at least not so that he acknowledges it. If he has, I’m not sure he understood it.
He rightly acknowledges that Practical Aesthetics is a ‘problem’ based approach to acting. This is in line with Stanislavski’s own practice of using the term ‘zadacha’ which can be translated as ‘problem’. In fact, when you read through the blog post, Utter’s only real criticism of Practical Aesthetics is that they ‘neglect what I call the sources of true urgency within’. Utter’s real problem with Practical Aesthetics (or his misunderstanding) comes from his belief that Practical Aesthetics is lacking ‘a strong way of addressing the precise WAY in which it is urgent to solve these problems’.
Firstly, the problems that he suggests for imbuing ‘an actor’s work with clarity, lucidity and credibility’ aren’t universal enough. They are concrete, but they don’t offer a universal enough way to connect character’s want with actor’s action. ‘Getting someone to marry you’ or ‘getting someone to lend you the car’ will NEVER initiate the actor to care, because these things don’t compel them.
Utter says that the trouble is that Practical Aesthetics doesn’t compel us to CARE about the problem. That’s true, his examples of the problem, do not compel us to care, because these involve the WANTS of the character and not the universal essential actions that Practical Aesthetics uses. Essential actions help to connect the actor with the character’s problem/desire/goal. Stakes are certainly important, but if you do not phrase the problem in a way that the actor can take urgent action from, you simply make it impossible to care about it, so Utter is right, actors do not CARE about the WANTS of their character, but they must find a way to care, and this is achieved through the universality of an essential action.
In Practical Aesthetics, we connect to the problem, or in our case, the Essential Action by way of an ‘As If’, we work out what ‘to win an ally’ means to us by saying ‘It’s As If…..’ and we work out what it means to us by using an analogous scenario that connect us to it. This provides a level of care by asking two questions, why now and what if you don’t. This guides the actor to the compulsion of care and also automatically sets the stakes.
I’m somewhat confused by Utter’s belief that his teachers invented the notion of objective and super objective, because essentially that’s what he’s describing. Or let’s be more precise, he suggests that there are two types of objective, one is the problem, and the other is the need served by the solving the problem. Interesting, but any Practical Aesthetic actor would now be pointing at their copy of Aristotle’s Poetics and pointing out that this was given to them on their first day of Script Analysis class when told that the second question you ask when analysing a script is ‘What is the character’s underlying need’. Sorry, your teachers didn’t invent this. Aristotle wrote it down 3000 years ago.
Utter suggests that the actor needs to connect to the underlying need. But the character’s underlying need only compels them to take action with urgency, they simply cannot be in an attempt of solving the problem AND be thinking about the underlying need at the same time. Furthermore, the underlying need is the character’s, not the actors. But more importantly, the current problem always outweighs anything else., even the higher need. In Meisner’s words ‘that which hinders your task IS your task’, or in other words, we focus on the task (another translation of the word zadacha) at hand, because it’s immediacy demands more focus than the long term goal.
Utter believes that As-Iffing is similar to Uta Hagen’s ’substitution’, which she later renamed ‘transference’ just as Utter does, but it isn’t the same thing. It simply provides us with a way to compel us. I think this is where Mr Utter’s lack of Practical Aesthetics training shows, because this is where his actual practical training is lacking. The actor uses ‘As If’ exercises to develop in the body the habit of performing the action with the size, speed, tempo, rhythm and compulsion provided by the As If situation. When this is habituated, the actor does not need to care for the character’s cares, they are imbued into their actions through habituation in rehearsal.
You do not need to care about the scene, you need to habituate the necessity, the need, or what the care/stakes DOES to the way that you perform the actions of the character. Once habituated, it’s not something that you need to worry about any more.
The problem is that the actor NEVER need care about their character’s needs, we do not need to care about the needs of fictional people, since they do not exist, but what we do need to do, as Utter suggest is to compel the actor to how the ‘care’ drives the character’s actions, and therefore their own.
The final part of Mr Utter’s problem with Practical Aesthetics is a little bit vague, so it’s somewhat difficult to dechiper. It attends to Utter’s solution, and essentially, it lets the reader know why his school, and his way of working solves this problem and is therefore more appropriate to the actor than Practical Aesthetics. Having not really understood As Iffing, not really understood Practical Aesthetics, his solution may well work, but it has nothing to do with a criticism of Practical Aesthetics. So whilst Utter’s criticism of Practical Aesthetics is wrong and misguided, he doesn’t really explain how he resolves it, it’s something to do with finding, naming what it is that the person gives you that you cannot do without. Why you care about the person enough to want to achieve the goal. These are taken care of in the ‘Why Now’ and ‘What if You Don’t’ of As-Iffing. The As If is a point of departure, a reference point or a way of understanding the content, I can make head nor tail of Utter’s vague technique for naming ‘what a brother means to you’, nor can I see that it has anything at all to do with the scene you are playing.
If Mr Utter reads this sometime, it would be great if he could go into more detail, his criticism is quite well thought through, it’s just a shame that his conclusion is weak and difficult to make any sense of. It seems the least practical part of his entire very articulate and intelligently written blog post is his solution.
To you, the best
Mark
Mark Westbrook is an acting coach based in Glasgow, Scotland.
The Essential Action
The Essential Action is a vital part of the scene analysis tools for Practical Aesthetics. When you understand how to build a good essential action for yourself and you can glean them from the script, you will be one step closer to making acting simpler and more fun.
So what is an Essential Action? It’s something like Stanislavski’s ‘task’, it has the quality of something that needs to be achieved. It is like boiling down the essence of what the character is trying to achieve from the other character in the scene. It is an active task, with a quality of a goal or objective about it, and according to the original PAW members and the current Atlantic Acting School teachers, it has 9 criteria:
1) It must be Physically Capable of Being Done (the character’s aim is tangible, so must yours be)
2) It must be specific (Stanislavski used to say that generality is the enemy of all art, so get specific)
3) It must have its test in the other person (takes the focus off you and makes you much more interesting)
4) It must have a physical cap (a sign that you have achieved the essential action transformed into a physical essence)
5) It must not be manipulative (don’t try to control the other actor, influence yes, but not control)
6) It must not presume a physical or emotional state in self or other (getting someone to stop crying… presumes…)
7) It must not be an errand (Send a message – that’s an errand – to get someone to do my bidding, now that’s an Essential Action)
It must be in line with the playwright’s intentions (as close as possible, you never know their internal intentions, but those of the play)
9) It should be fun. (this is important, but not ha ha fun, something that engages your sense of play)
They usually start with the words ‘to get someone to….’, some practitioners exchange the ’someone’ for more relationship specific word, and some remove it all together, so ‘to get someone to share their terrible secret’ can become ‘to get a loved one to share their terrible secret’ or simply ’share your terrible secret’. I like the relationship context, it helps you to find an analogous connection to it through an As If.
The essential action offers the actor a way of taking the essence of what the character is doing and turning it into something that he or she can do too.
So you read the scene and you reckon the character’s essential action is ‘ to bring someone down a peg or two’. It’s a lovely fun thing to do in a scene and it fully engages the actor in the psychophysical task of trying to get their scene partner to ‘down a peg or two’. By offering the actor a way of coming into line with the character, we create the illusion of character. The actor always has something to do on stage, the essential action gives them that something to do, they move beyond the words, they move beyond the printed scene into a relationship that triangulates the playwright’s words, the actions of themselves and their scene partner and the imagination of the audience. When all these work together, when you begin working off the other actor, using your essential action and the words of the playwright, you enter flow and so do the audience.
To you, the best
Mark
Mark Westbrook is an acting coach based in Glasgow, Scotland.
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
‘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.
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.
NEW Acting Classes in Glasgow Announced
Mark’s latest acting classes have just been announced. All classes run for 8 weeks and further details are posted at Mark’s Acting Coach Scotland website, take a look at the class timetable to find out more, further details will follow.
From 6th April, a new Introduction to Acting with Practical Aesthetics class will begin from 6.30-8.30 at Q! Gallery. This is a great opportunity for people to discover Practical Aesthetics for the first time. Even if you’re experienced, this is an opportunity to discover this new technique from the ground up.
On the same evening, from 6.30-8.30, Mark will be leading a new 8-week class on Acting in Shakespeare, a unique opportunity to work on sonnets, monologues and scenes to grow comfortable and fearless of the Bard.
From the 7th APril, the STEP 2 Practical Aesthetics class will begin. This is the chance for those who have already completed the introduction class to take their understanding of this simple approach further and to discover its tools at a higher level. This class will run 6.30-8.30pm
Again on the 7th April, the Invitation-Only Scene Study Class will run for 8 weeks on Tuesday evening from 8.30-10.30pm and is only available to people that have studied Practical Aesthetics and are looking to work on applying it to scenes.
FINALLY, Mark will be giving a TWO DAY INTENSIVE MASTERCLASS in Practical Aesthetics for Helen Raw at Raw Talent in Edinburgh. This is a special opportunity to work intensively on this new pragmatic approach to acting, as created by David Mamet and William H Macy. For further details, visit Raw Talent. EVEN IF YOU’VE STUDIED PRACTICAL AESTHETICS WITH ME BEFORE, THIS COURSE INCLUDES ALL THE PHYSICAL TRAINING WE COULD NEVER DO IN A TINY STUDIO.
For more details, please contact me
Robert Bella on Acting
Hi All Actors and Acting Students (and anyone else who stumbled along)
I’m feeling a little better and if I’m lucky, snow not withstanding and if this virus has abated somewhat, I might make it to Dublin tomorrow.
I wanted to give a tiny quote from Robert Bella, one of my teachers at the Atlantic Theater Company in New York City, I’d like your thoughts, so please, if you have the time, tell me what you think on the matter:
“Anyone can learn to act, and act well. Some people are born with a gift for acting, and they may progress in learning how to act at a faster rate than others. But having talent doesn’t mean they have craft”
Robert Bella in his chapter on Practical Aesthetics in The Training of the American Actor.
Please tell me your thoughts or discuss them with others here, this is a blog, but think of it as a sometime forum for thought on acting.
Best Wishes
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.
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 | ||||