I have just begun studying the work of the Polish Theatre's hero, Jerzy Grotowski. I am amazed by his thoughts and insights into acting as an art form and I really can't wait to work with his techniques in my classes this coming year.
First of all, Grotowski is different from most other teachers in the United States. When "The Method" was introduced to America in 1923, it became synonymous with "good" and that is not always the case. Each ideologist has their own way of looking at things. I was fascinated to read and contrast several methods in the wonderful book The Acrobat of the Heart by Stephen Wangh, one of my infamous eBay purchases. For example, he quotes Strasberg quite a bit. As he is considered the quintessential proponent of method acting, I was surprised to realize that I had Strasberg a little bit wrong.
Classes had taught me that Method acting was feeling and applying an affective memory to the acting situation. In other words, recalling a situation from the past using all your sensibilities then applying that memory to the current acting problem. In his book, A Dream of Passion, Srasberg actually says, "the aim of affective memory is not really to feel or see or touch something--that is hallucination--but to remember the mood when doing that." WOW! Now this book was published in 1987 and everything I have ever seen prior to this had been written by or about Strasberg in the 30s and 40s, so he could have changed his mind like Stanislavski did. Why didn't we then change our teaching?
Wangh was one of the first students of Grotowski at NYU when he began what is now referred to as the experimental theatre course. I am interested in talking to Lourdes Mendez about it, because that is the program that she entered over a year ago and I already sense a new maturity about her discussion that surely must translate into her work. So, Lourdes, have they begun Grotowski yet? LOL.
From his work, Strasberg developed what he called the "emotional memory" exercise. In this exercise, he asked students to recreate a specific event in their life. They must pick an older memory, at least seven years or more, and it must be one in which they felt extreme emotion--anger, joy, fear or whatever (sort of like Harry Potter when he first creates a patronus-ha, ha, ha.) Stanislavski taught that we can create a memory through sensory recall--how did it smell, taste, sound etc. In what became known as "The American Method" Strasberg convoluted this theory a bit by saying that we can stimulate our emotions by creating that memory.
Later in his life, Stanislavski decided that by concentrating on developing feelings, he had neglected the body. Thus he created what we refer to as his Method of Physical Actions. He reveals to us in his book Creating A Role that he came to believe that behind every action, unless it is rote or purely mechanical, there is a hidden action or feeling. Thus he began work with physicality. But, Strasberg was still old school and although Stanislavski had changed his mind about the importance of stimulating emotions through muscle control, Strasberg continued to teach emotional recall and it continued to be the dominant instruction taught in the U.S. (and pretty much still is).
So, where does Grotowski fit into all of this? He actually picked up the studies into physicality where Stanislavski left off. In the book, The Theatre of Grotowski, by Jennifer Kumiega, she quotes him as saying, "we do not possess memory, our entire body IS memory and it is by means of 'the body-memory' that the impulses are released."
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Medieval History Survives Today!
This weekend was my nephew's wedding, so I never dreamed I would take a trip back in time and see an actual piece of Medieval Theatre History come to life. As part of the festivities, we were going all over the place. In one of the clubs, there was a mandorla!
What, you are probably asking, is a mandorla? Well, it is a piece of scenery that they used during the days of medieval theatre that I have always wondered about and now have a pretty good idea of how it works!
Most of you probably know that when the Romans killed theatre, it was submerged in history for quite a few years. When it resurfaced, it was in the home of its archenemy, the church. (It was the Roman Catholics that did away with it...lol) The priests did all the services in Latin (even as late as when I was a girl in the 60s.)
In order to illuminate the Biblical stories for the locals, they began to do plays in the church aisles. Small pieces of scenery, called mansions, were sporadically placed among the pews and in the transepts of churches. Each mansion represented a place such as the stable in Bethlehem or Herod's throne room. The areas in between the mansions were called plateas (playing spaces). As the plays became more popular, the scenery became more elaborate.
One of the things that these peoples did, was create a representation of Heaven called a mandorla. This was a huge circular piece that hung from the ceiling, usually in the narthex (lobby). They would poke holes in the piece and using candlelight, which would shine through, created beams of light that would dazzle people as they walked underneath. Simple, right? It gets even better than that! They would hang children from this object dressed as cherubs or angels. There were generally twelve of them dangling there. Some say this represented the twelve tribes of Israel and other historians suggest it was symbolic of the disciples of Christ. I rather lean towards the latter, since the plays were mostly about the life of Jesus at this time. (These were called miracle plays, revolving around the miracles Christ performed. Other types of plays were mysteries about the lives of saints and morality plays which taught a lesson and revolved around personification of human traits.)
In any case, this madorla would hang about people to remind them of Heaven as the came into the mass. Amazing. Now the one I saw this weekend didn't have children suspended from it, thank God, but it was huge, with holes and was lit from within. It was truly like walking under a piece of Heaven.
What, you are probably asking, is a mandorla? Well, it is a piece of scenery that they used during the days of medieval theatre that I have always wondered about and now have a pretty good idea of how it works!
Most of you probably know that when the Romans killed theatre, it was submerged in history for quite a few years. When it resurfaced, it was in the home of its archenemy, the church. (It was the Roman Catholics that did away with it...lol) The priests did all the services in Latin (even as late as when I was a girl in the 60s.)
In order to illuminate the Biblical stories for the locals, they began to do plays in the church aisles. Small pieces of scenery, called mansions, were sporadically placed among the pews and in the transepts of churches. Each mansion represented a place such as the stable in Bethlehem or Herod's throne room. The areas in between the mansions were called plateas (playing spaces). As the plays became more popular, the scenery became more elaborate.
One of the things that these peoples did, was create a representation of Heaven called a mandorla. This was a huge circular piece that hung from the ceiling, usually in the narthex (lobby). They would poke holes in the piece and using candlelight, which would shine through, created beams of light that would dazzle people as they walked underneath. Simple, right? It gets even better than that! They would hang children from this object dressed as cherubs or angels. There were generally twelve of them dangling there. Some say this represented the twelve tribes of Israel and other historians suggest it was symbolic of the disciples of Christ. I rather lean towards the latter, since the plays were mostly about the life of Jesus at this time. (These were called miracle plays, revolving around the miracles Christ performed. Other types of plays were mysteries about the lives of saints and morality plays which taught a lesson and revolved around personification of human traits.)
In any case, this madorla would hang about people to remind them of Heaven as the came into the mass. Amazing. Now the one I saw this weekend didn't have children suspended from it, thank God, but it was huge, with holes and was lit from within. It was truly like walking under a piece of Heaven.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Using the Archetypes to Build Characters
If you read my last blog, on using Elements to build character, the movie Air Benders probably made a lot of sense to you. I was surprised to find out that was the plot line. That being said, let's talk about the archetypes.
At The Globe, they teach the four basic archetypes: the Sovereign, the Warrior, the Lover and the Trickster--also called the Magician. There are several others, that I will write about in a different blog. I am still researching the history behind those. In any case, these archetypes can be used to form a foundation for characterization just as the elements can.
In a group I begin in the same fashion. I write the name of the archetype on a piece of newsprint and then I divide the class into four groups. Each group must identify the characteristics they would most associate with that type of person. Then round robin, the groups change position until they have all had a shot at each of the papers. When this is complete, I add a movement.
The Sovereign, in some studies called The Monarch, holds their hands above their head as if they were placing a crown there or, perhaps, as if they were holding the crown in place. Students then walk around the room with their hands as if they were the sovereign. After they have moved in character for a few minutes, I give them a mantra. For this archetype, I generally use "Heavy is the head that wears the crown." I then have them walk reciting the mantra.
For the warrior, the movement is to hold one arm straight in the air as if it was a sword. The general mantra is "I will fight for right, even if I must die for it."
The lover moves freely and reaches out to everyone that passes by. They repeat, "God is in his heaven and all is right with the world." The trickster is a little more complicated. The trickster holds his arm in front of his face as if he were hiding behind a cloak. He whirls and moves in a dervish fashion, avoiding eye contact unless he chooses it. The words I use with this character are, "They can't see me if I don't let them."
Now here is where it becomes interesting. Pretty much every character contains their foundation in one of these archetypes. Think about it! When using this technique in a rehearsal scenario, I generally ask the actors which archetype their character is most like. then I ask them to pick a line from the script that they identify with and that most exemplifies the character.
For example: when I played Amanda in The Glass Menagerie, I used the Sovereign to create her. I walked as if she were the Queen. I chose the line "Deception, deception, deception." By understanding that Amanda was the monarch in her own world, it became very easy to develop the attitudes and personality of her character. In this particular instance, I used Laura as The Lover and Tom as The Warrior. Laura tried to please both her mother and Tom, gave her heart to the one boy who was nice to her in school, was the only one who mourned the loss of her father. Tom, on the other hand, was constantly in battle. He fought for freedom from the domination of his Mother. He was also in battle against the job he disliked, the home he disliked and the father he envied (for having escaped). The cigarettes he smokes on the porch are his sword. He uses them as an act of defiance. The same with his drunken bouts.
You can also use the archetypes to create character by applying them to the other characters (as an actor). Amanda, while she perceives herself as the Sovereign, sees Tom as The Trickster--always hiding what he is doing and what he is thinking. She thinks he is defiant in order to bring down the monarchy.
Playing with archetypes can be very enlightening. I urge you to try it the next time you do a show.
At The Globe, they teach the four basic archetypes: the Sovereign, the Warrior, the Lover and the Trickster--also called the Magician. There are several others, that I will write about in a different blog. I am still researching the history behind those. In any case, these archetypes can be used to form a foundation for characterization just as the elements can.
In a group I begin in the same fashion. I write the name of the archetype on a piece of newsprint and then I divide the class into four groups. Each group must identify the characteristics they would most associate with that type of person. Then round robin, the groups change position until they have all had a shot at each of the papers. When this is complete, I add a movement.
The Sovereign, in some studies called The Monarch, holds their hands above their head as if they were placing a crown there or, perhaps, as if they were holding the crown in place. Students then walk around the room with their hands as if they were the sovereign. After they have moved in character for a few minutes, I give them a mantra. For this archetype, I generally use "Heavy is the head that wears the crown." I then have them walk reciting the mantra.
For the warrior, the movement is to hold one arm straight in the air as if it was a sword. The general mantra is "I will fight for right, even if I must die for it."
The lover moves freely and reaches out to everyone that passes by. They repeat, "God is in his heaven and all is right with the world." The trickster is a little more complicated. The trickster holds his arm in front of his face as if he were hiding behind a cloak. He whirls and moves in a dervish fashion, avoiding eye contact unless he chooses it. The words I use with this character are, "They can't see me if I don't let them."
Now here is where it becomes interesting. Pretty much every character contains their foundation in one of these archetypes. Think about it! When using this technique in a rehearsal scenario, I generally ask the actors which archetype their character is most like. then I ask them to pick a line from the script that they identify with and that most exemplifies the character.
For example: when I played Amanda in The Glass Menagerie, I used the Sovereign to create her. I walked as if she were the Queen. I chose the line "Deception, deception, deception." By understanding that Amanda was the monarch in her own world, it became very easy to develop the attitudes and personality of her character. In this particular instance, I used Laura as The Lover and Tom as The Warrior. Laura tried to please both her mother and Tom, gave her heart to the one boy who was nice to her in school, was the only one who mourned the loss of her father. Tom, on the other hand, was constantly in battle. He fought for freedom from the domination of his Mother. He was also in battle against the job he disliked, the home he disliked and the father he envied (for having escaped). The cigarettes he smokes on the porch are his sword. He uses them as an act of defiance. The same with his drunken bouts.
You can also use the archetypes to create character by applying them to the other characters (as an actor). Amanda, while she perceives herself as the Sovereign, sees Tom as The Trickster--always hiding what he is doing and what he is thinking. She thinks he is defiant in order to bring down the monarchy.
Playing with archetypes can be very enlightening. I urge you to try it the next time you do a show.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Characterization Through Using The Elements
The singular, MOST amazing experience I have had as an educator is the summer I spent studying at The Globe Theatre in London. If you would like to read about the travel experiences surrounding that, you can go to my profile and look at my travel blog. The most important part, however, was the exposure to completely new teaching methods by the practitioners at The Globe. My classroom was changed forever. In witness to this, one of my students wrote in her journal that first year, "I have learned more about characterization in the past three weeks than I did in the three years before." Quite a testament.
One of the things that was different for me, was the use of the elements and the archetypes in developing characters. I had used animals in this fashion. Most good drama schools has some form of animal exercise that is a commonality. To equate a character to water, earth, air and fire was a revelation. Then to add in the sovereign, the warrior, the lover and the trickster--purely amazing. My next blog will be about using the archetypes.
The Elements
I have enumerated the elements we used above, so I needn't reiterate them. The practitioners at The Globe used the following exercises to introduce them to the teachers: First, they wrote one of the elements on four different sheets of newsprint. We were divided into groups and each was assigned to one of the sheets. On that paper we were asked to list attributes of a person who could be described by that element--for example, water was seen as whiny by some and fire was seen as a hot head. After a few moments of brainstorming, the groups were shifted round robin until each had the opportunity to express themselves and add to the personification.
As we presented the lists to each other, a pattern began to emerge for each of the elements. It became apparent that we perceived them uniquely and occasionally as a stereotype. For example, one group thought the air element represented an air-head, blond was also on the list. However, a little below that was the thought that an "air" person was free-thinking, spiritual, quiet. Fascinating!
We then added a stance to each element. The one in the photo above is "Earth". It is rock solid, hard, pushing against air. For water we all bent at our waists and flowed gently along. Fire is depicted with hands above the head, burning and waving as the flames move--the other attached photo. The final pose is air: standing on tiptoes, you allow your hands to drift from the position of fire to your sides--cutting slowly through space, pushing air as your move. This generally happens slowly, but could be quick, depending on the character.
Historically, scientists have used the four elements to describe the world and its surroundings for thousands of years. The Greeks, under the tutelage of Aristotle, added a fifth, aether. He taught that the original quartet could be associated with the sky, sea, earth and wind but there wasn't among those an explanation for space, also described as void. Fascinating! What type of person could be represented as Void? As a WoW player, I shudder to equate. LOL. The Japanese, however, say that Void represents Heaven. I found reference to Aristotle's teachings and was interested to see the following:
Air is primarily wet but also hot.
Fire is hot but also dry.
Earth is dry but also cold.
Water is cold but also wet.
There is a lovely diagram for this in his treatise, On Generation and Corruption. I have to figure out how to copy and paste into these notes!
Why did I look into this? Because something was triggered that reminded of me of studies in philosophy and religion classes of my college days. It seems there is foundation for the use of the elements that touches us in many ways!
So on with the acting. After we had determined which human traits could be applicable to each of the elements (excluding void)we were asked to walk around the room as a "water person" or a "Fire person". I liked this part a lot, although it was tiring to traipse around a rather small rehearsal facility. I liked it because it got us out of our heads and on our feet. (How Meisner is that?) My classmates were quite good at translating the lists into physicality. Some of the things I observed were: people felt that an air person would move with an upward pull, perhaps on their toes; fire involved quick movements and solid steps, fire people also seemed to lead from their heads and/or shoulders where as a water person seemed to lead from the torso.
When the physical traits became ingrained in our movements, we then began to apply bits of dialogue. We took various characters and analyzed what we knew of them. Which element best suited that person as they acted in that scene?
Richard III became one of my favorite plays to use because the titular character changes so much depending on to whom he is speaking. The fiery monologist who plots his evil at the beginning of the play is not the watery poetic who woos Queen Anne only moments later. I have begun to use this in my course work with advanced classes. I love it.
Application: if a student can begin to associate the movement and thought process of their character in any play, they can discover more of what makes that character a person, rather than something flat and living in the "void".
Meeting Lloyd Richards
In the summer of 1997, I had a unique experience. I got to meet one of my theatre heroes--African American director and Dean of the School of Drama at Yale, Lloyd Richards.
That year, I was fortunate to be accepted into the Yale Summer Conservatory program. It was one of the most engaging academic pursuits of my life and certainly of my career. We went to class at 8 am and studied until 11 pm, then it was off to our rooms in the Hall of Graduate Studies to do homework and try to capture a few moments rest.
My room at Yale was select. It was directly across from the common bathrooms and had a window seat with mullioned windows that opened onto the Dean's accommodations. There was a huge overstuffed chair in front of a fireplace with a large bookcase on either side. I could very happily have lived there for much longer than one summer!
In any case, we were engrossed in Voice, Directing, Design, Stage Management, Lighting, Acting...just about every possible venue that theatre has to offer, and to be honest the schedule albeit exciting was grueling.
To give us a break, the theatre professors arranged for the class to go to The Eugene O'Neill Center in New London, Connecticut. It was to be a pleasurable time for us and my group of companions took to it with relief. Being one of the few who had a vehicle, I drove my van up the coast of Connecticut with my friends. Just blowing off steam and classes for awhile was worth the drive but at the end of it, we had an experience to end all experiences.
The O'Neill Center is above all else a theatre research facility. There are several performance venues, three that I can think of, and they were all busy that day. Each had a production in the works--mostly works in progress from their new playwrights fellowship. Several new playwrights are selected each year and workshop their writing using a company of stock actors that live in a house on the grounds for the term. Some productions get a staged reading in the barn, others are give a full production at the outside stage that lies adjacent to the barn. There is also a little amphitheatre with scaffolding for seats that could house a theatre-in-the-round style production.It was in the latter that I met Lloyd Richards.
Mr. Richards had retired from Yale some years earlier, in 1991 I believe, so that he was in residence at the O'Neill Center at this time was pure coincidence and pleasure. He was a striking looking man and even though his years must have been advanced by then, one could hardly say he was in his dotage.
We were scheduled to work with our voice instructor in the amphitheatre. Having spent the morning on the rocks watching the sea and sharing confidences about family and theatre with my Friends, we were all quite willing to put in a little work--we were learning Cecily Berry's techniques, which was new for most of us. As we entered the theatre, there Mr. Richards sat. He was dressed all in white, and he looked cool as a cucumber, although the day was somewhat warm.
I had long admired Mr. Richards for his work with one of my favorite playwrights, August Wilson. Those of us fortunate enough to be early to class that day, had the opportunity to hear him speak about working with Wilson, discovering the play Fences and all manner of information and reminiscences of his days at Yale. He spoke for close to an hour and impromptu as it was, he was eloquent and completely held us in his thrall. To say that the voice lesson took second place to this opportunity would be an understatement. I know we had one, but I can't remember a thing about it and I would dare to say the rest of the class could not either. Mr. Richards dominated our thoughts for the rest of the day.
We saw a strange production that evening, I don't think it ever got beyond that workshop phase, although I looked for it many times. I suppose it could have taken on a completely new identity after the O'Neill Center work. We ate with the actors in the house and chattered excitedly about all we had learned from Mr. Richards.
It was one of those completely amazing days.
That year, I was fortunate to be accepted into the Yale Summer Conservatory program. It was one of the most engaging academic pursuits of my life and certainly of my career. We went to class at 8 am and studied until 11 pm, then it was off to our rooms in the Hall of Graduate Studies to do homework and try to capture a few moments rest.
My room at Yale was select. It was directly across from the common bathrooms and had a window seat with mullioned windows that opened onto the Dean's accommodations. There was a huge overstuffed chair in front of a fireplace with a large bookcase on either side. I could very happily have lived there for much longer than one summer!
In any case, we were engrossed in Voice, Directing, Design, Stage Management, Lighting, Acting...just about every possible venue that theatre has to offer, and to be honest the schedule albeit exciting was grueling.
To give us a break, the theatre professors arranged for the class to go to The Eugene O'Neill Center in New London, Connecticut. It was to be a pleasurable time for us and my group of companions took to it with relief. Being one of the few who had a vehicle, I drove my van up the coast of Connecticut with my friends. Just blowing off steam and classes for awhile was worth the drive but at the end of it, we had an experience to end all experiences.
The O'Neill Center is above all else a theatre research facility. There are several performance venues, three that I can think of, and they were all busy that day. Each had a production in the works--mostly works in progress from their new playwrights fellowship. Several new playwrights are selected each year and workshop their writing using a company of stock actors that live in a house on the grounds for the term. Some productions get a staged reading in the barn, others are give a full production at the outside stage that lies adjacent to the barn. There is also a little amphitheatre with scaffolding for seats that could house a theatre-in-the-round style production.It was in the latter that I met Lloyd Richards.
Mr. Richards had retired from Yale some years earlier, in 1991 I believe, so that he was in residence at the O'Neill Center at this time was pure coincidence and pleasure. He was a striking looking man and even though his years must have been advanced by then, one could hardly say he was in his dotage.
We were scheduled to work with our voice instructor in the amphitheatre. Having spent the morning on the rocks watching the sea and sharing confidences about family and theatre with my Friends, we were all quite willing to put in a little work--we were learning Cecily Berry's techniques, which was new for most of us. As we entered the theatre, there Mr. Richards sat. He was dressed all in white, and he looked cool as a cucumber, although the day was somewhat warm.
I had long admired Mr. Richards for his work with one of my favorite playwrights, August Wilson. Those of us fortunate enough to be early to class that day, had the opportunity to hear him speak about working with Wilson, discovering the play Fences and all manner of information and reminiscences of his days at Yale. He spoke for close to an hour and impromptu as it was, he was eloquent and completely held us in his thrall. To say that the voice lesson took second place to this opportunity would be an understatement. I know we had one, but I can't remember a thing about it and I would dare to say the rest of the class could not either. Mr. Richards dominated our thoughts for the rest of the day.
We saw a strange production that evening, I don't think it ever got beyond that workshop phase, although I looked for it many times. I suppose it could have taken on a completely new identity after the O'Neill Center work. We ate with the actors in the house and chattered excitedly about all we had learned from Mr. Richards.
It was one of those completely amazing days.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Augusto Boal and Forum Theatre: The Predecesor to Reality TV?
Okay, so I just used that tag line to drag people in. LOL. I don't really believe that Boal's teachings were like reality televison. The Forum Theatre is/was so much more than that!
For those of you not familiar with Boal or the Forum Theatre, grab the book Games For Actors and Non-actors. It will get you in touch with what he is all about. His games about trust and power are essential to the understanding of his teaching. He is an amazing Brazilian theorist, at times very controversial, and definitely worthwhile for performers to experience.
The Forum Theatre was an interesting style that used an open theatre format to create social reform. The basic premis is as such: a scripted play would be performed. Then the audience was invited to "change" the script. The show is performed again, but the viewers, whom Boal called spec-actors, may freeze the show at any time and step into a role, changing it. This is a great way to brainstorm new ways to address situations.
A few years ago, when I was new to the teachings of Boal, I explained this to one of my IB Theatre classes and they took it upon themselves to "create" a social experiemnt. It backfired and caused a huge scandal among the students. They 'fessed up amid the disaster and I was able to advise them on how they went wrong. The important thing to remember with Forum Theatre, is that it is planned improvisation. That first scripted moment is the impetus for critical thought that gets the group going.
Boal can be said to have influenced much theatre in the United States--including but not limited to the A-Train Theatre Group. This wonderful ensemble gets on the subway in upper Manhattan and rides it to terminus, performing all the time. They start a "play" when they get on and the other riders become part of the cast as they interact, comment, get on and off and even ignore the actors. By the end of the ride, a wonderful spectrum of social interaction and performance has been created. I have actually ridden the A-train, and always hoped to be part of one of these unannounced programs. Not so lucky.
The large group freezes can also find their way back to Boal, although that route is rather zigzagged as opposed to head-on. The first one that I remember seeing took place in Grand Central Station. At an appointed time, everyone froze. People not involved in the action (or lack of action)stopped and stared, and some even joined in. The entire freeze only took about two minutes, but it was artistry! The moment captured a glimpse of society that was fascinating. What fun!
My favorite game from my studies in Boal is one in which you create a scene of power. I first played it at an event sponsored by the Orlando Shakespeare Festival. They gave us, a triad, five minutes to use our chairs to create a scene of power. For a group basically composed of theatre teachers, this wasn't too hard. However, when they asked us to create the same scene "giving power" to another, it was more interesting. People actually jockeyed for position so that they could be the "one". As I reflected on this later, I came to the conclusion that this is what high school students do--vie for a position in the play. Everyone wants to be the star, not relizing that the person IN power is not always the person who HAS power. Hmmm. That is some food for thought.
For those of you not familiar with Boal or the Forum Theatre, grab the book Games For Actors and Non-actors. It will get you in touch with what he is all about. His games about trust and power are essential to the understanding of his teaching. He is an amazing Brazilian theorist, at times very controversial, and definitely worthwhile for performers to experience.
The Forum Theatre was an interesting style that used an open theatre format to create social reform. The basic premis is as such: a scripted play would be performed. Then the audience was invited to "change" the script. The show is performed again, but the viewers, whom Boal called spec-actors, may freeze the show at any time and step into a role, changing it. This is a great way to brainstorm new ways to address situations.
A few years ago, when I was new to the teachings of Boal, I explained this to one of my IB Theatre classes and they took it upon themselves to "create" a social experiemnt. It backfired and caused a huge scandal among the students. They 'fessed up amid the disaster and I was able to advise them on how they went wrong. The important thing to remember with Forum Theatre, is that it is planned improvisation. That first scripted moment is the impetus for critical thought that gets the group going.
Boal can be said to have influenced much theatre in the United States--including but not limited to the A-Train Theatre Group. This wonderful ensemble gets on the subway in upper Manhattan and rides it to terminus, performing all the time. They start a "play" when they get on and the other riders become part of the cast as they interact, comment, get on and off and even ignore the actors. By the end of the ride, a wonderful spectrum of social interaction and performance has been created. I have actually ridden the A-train, and always hoped to be part of one of these unannounced programs. Not so lucky.
The large group freezes can also find their way back to Boal, although that route is rather zigzagged as opposed to head-on. The first one that I remember seeing took place in Grand Central Station. At an appointed time, everyone froze. People not involved in the action (or lack of action)stopped and stared, and some even joined in. The entire freeze only took about two minutes, but it was artistry! The moment captured a glimpse of society that was fascinating. What fun!
My favorite game from my studies in Boal is one in which you create a scene of power. I first played it at an event sponsored by the Orlando Shakespeare Festival. They gave us, a triad, five minutes to use our chairs to create a scene of power. For a group basically composed of theatre teachers, this wasn't too hard. However, when they asked us to create the same scene "giving power" to another, it was more interesting. People actually jockeyed for position so that they could be the "one". As I reflected on this later, I came to the conclusion that this is what high school students do--vie for a position in the play. Everyone wants to be the star, not relizing that the person IN power is not always the person who HAS power. Hmmm. That is some food for thought.
In Memorium--Terry Rest in Peace
A day ago, the Orlando Theatre community lost one of its own. Terry Newby lost his fight with cancer.
I first met Terry in the early 80's when we were all (and I do mean everyone)doing Civic Theatre. I was one of the house Stage Managers at that time and we did countless shows together. Everyone always wanted to be around Terry because he was always laughing and keeping everyone going.
Last year, when I began my fight with kidney cancer, Terry was the first one to contact me. He advised me on what to expect. He told me how to handle everything from the loss of friendships to the loss of hair (which never happened to me). Our conversations bolstered me more than he will ever know.
On July 12th, I will be six months cancer free. Terry was always one of the first to "like" my posts about survival and to send me encouraging words. Not having that will put a hole in my heart that nobody else will fill.
My favorite quote has always been from Act V of Hamlet, "The rest is silence." And for Terry, it is. No more pain, Sweet Prince. Only the silence born of love that expresses everything.
I first met Terry in the early 80's when we were all (and I do mean everyone)doing Civic Theatre. I was one of the house Stage Managers at that time and we did countless shows together. Everyone always wanted to be around Terry because he was always laughing and keeping everyone going.
Last year, when I began my fight with kidney cancer, Terry was the first one to contact me. He advised me on what to expect. He told me how to handle everything from the loss of friendships to the loss of hair (which never happened to me). Our conversations bolstered me more than he will ever know.
On July 12th, I will be six months cancer free. Terry was always one of the first to "like" my posts about survival and to send me encouraging words. Not having that will put a hole in my heart that nobody else will fill.
My favorite quote has always been from Act V of Hamlet, "The rest is silence." And for Terry, it is. No more pain, Sweet Prince. Only the silence born of love that expresses everything.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Monologues Part 2: Okay, I Got It. Now What Do I Do With It?
So, finally I have the perfect monologue and I have read the play twice. I know a lot about my character and know her place in the world of the play, so I can start to build. The first thing I do, is read it again. LOL. I can hear some of my students groaning from here. By the time I am done working a monologue, I may have read the play ten times...no lie. More if it is for a scene and lots more if I am directing. But that's a different blog.
This time, when I read the play, I am looking for the Key Facts about my character. What is said about her? I look in the stage descriptions, I look in the dialogue of others and I look in the things that I say myself. I assemble a list of Key Facts that I call the Hot List.
From these, I will pick the three things that I think are the most important. In the first person, (in other words, as the character) I write about each of the key facts. For example, if I choose the fact that my character lives at home with her mother, I would write how it felt to live at home with a parent when you were an adult, I would talk about the annoying habits my mother has, I would mention the way I always feel defensive about coming home late or perhaps after being out all night. Where do these things come from? Inside the script that I have now read three times!
Seems like a lot of writing, doesn't it? But knowing how I feel when I am in character really helps me build a viable monologue.
Now, in Larry Silverberg's workshops, he asks you to bring a newspaper article that you feel incites a strong feeling in you. If I am working with a class, we do this as well, but when I am working on my own I usually skip this part. The premise of the article is for you first to write about it extensively as yourself, then to write again as your character. This is a way of discovering a common ground between yourself and the person you are going to create. It works very well, especially if you are less experienced or having trouble determining how your character thinks. For my personal development, I find that writing about the key facts essentially establishes the same thing.
Once you have found the commonalities, it is easy to start getting under the skin of the character. Like an onion, you have to peel away the layers to get to the core of the who the person inside might be.
Another thing that really works for me, in finding the emotional condition of the character, is working with a partner that hurls a trigger phrase at you. For example, if you are doing a scnee in which you lose your children to a kidnapper, the partner would hurl the words, "You'll never see your children again." And you improvise the inner monologue of that frightened mother. Whenever you seem to be flagging, have the partner give you the phrase again. Repeat this action over and over until you are out of your head and into your heart building the character. It is reminiscent of the Meisner work I have spoken about in other places. You have to stop thinking about response and start acting on impulse--on what is happening now, not in the past or what might happen in the future.
This time, when I read the play, I am looking for the Key Facts about my character. What is said about her? I look in the stage descriptions, I look in the dialogue of others and I look in the things that I say myself. I assemble a list of Key Facts that I call the Hot List.
From these, I will pick the three things that I think are the most important. In the first person, (in other words, as the character) I write about each of the key facts. For example, if I choose the fact that my character lives at home with her mother, I would write how it felt to live at home with a parent when you were an adult, I would talk about the annoying habits my mother has, I would mention the way I always feel defensive about coming home late or perhaps after being out all night. Where do these things come from? Inside the script that I have now read three times!
Seems like a lot of writing, doesn't it? But knowing how I feel when I am in character really helps me build a viable monologue.
Now, in Larry Silverberg's workshops, he asks you to bring a newspaper article that you feel incites a strong feeling in you. If I am working with a class, we do this as well, but when I am working on my own I usually skip this part. The premise of the article is for you first to write about it extensively as yourself, then to write again as your character. This is a way of discovering a common ground between yourself and the person you are going to create. It works very well, especially if you are less experienced or having trouble determining how your character thinks. For my personal development, I find that writing about the key facts essentially establishes the same thing.
Once you have found the commonalities, it is easy to start getting under the skin of the character. Like an onion, you have to peel away the layers to get to the core of the who the person inside might be.
Another thing that really works for me, in finding the emotional condition of the character, is working with a partner that hurls a trigger phrase at you. For example, if you are doing a scnee in which you lose your children to a kidnapper, the partner would hurl the words, "You'll never see your children again." And you improvise the inner monologue of that frightened mother. Whenever you seem to be flagging, have the partner give you the phrase again. Repeat this action over and over until you are out of your head and into your heart building the character. It is reminiscent of the Meisner work I have spoken about in other places. You have to stop thinking about response and start acting on impulse--on what is happening now, not in the past or what might happen in the future.
Working With Monologues--Find The Perfect Script For You!
First of all, let me say that in my 43 years in the business of theatre, the most often asked questions that I get concern monologues. Of course they are a fundamental of the industry, whether you are auditioning for a role, a scholarship or a school. Why then is it then, that so many people don't know how to do it?
My favorite book on monologue preparation is Larry Silverberg's wonderful, Loving to Audition. If you have this book, what are you doing reading this blog? Run get it. Do it now! If you don't have it, most of what I have to say about monologue preparation is the same kind of stuff. When I was performing, I used this book and I had a 50-60% casting ratio. That's pretty good, ask anyone who is out there running the gamut.
The first step is finding a monologue that you absolutely love. If you don't love it, you are not going to perform it well. Trust me, I have seen thousands of monologues in my lifetime and you can ALWAYS tell. So where do you find a monologue? Some people buy a ton of books (and keep the Borders I am sitting at in business). that's not what I do, however (sorry free wi-fi and mint tazo tea). To find the perfect monologue, I plan an afternoon at the downtown library. Quite methodically, I go through the stacks of plays and pull out a bunch of them--either ones I know but had forgotten about or ones that are new to me--and then I scan them for long passages. The ones the meet the length criteria, then get added to the "read pile". (After making sure that they are gender appropriate, of course.) When I have narrowed my search down to ten or twenty plays, I begin to read them. Yes, luv, I said READ them. I read the play from cover to cover. I contextualize my character that way.
Usually this narrows my choices down to one or two. Those are the scripts that I check out. The whole library experience might take two hours--usually its about five. I like to be thorough!
The selections that I take home I then read again. I read them in one complete sitting--if I am interrupted, I begin the process again. It is important that you get the total feel of the character's world and their place in that world.
Once I have decided that this is The One, I write that monologue out longhand. Having another brain bubble at that thought? I grab a couple of sheets of notebook paper and write my monologue down, and here's the rub: I take out all punctuation and capitalization! Why? Because that allows me to interpret the character in my own way and to make discoveries about her that are unique. I never would allow the grammar police to interpret my performance. As I rehearse and prepare my piece, I may add my own punctuation and diacritical markings. This is the first phase of making the character come to life within me.
My favorite book on monologue preparation is Larry Silverberg's wonderful, Loving to Audition. If you have this book, what are you doing reading this blog? Run get it. Do it now! If you don't have it, most of what I have to say about monologue preparation is the same kind of stuff. When I was performing, I used this book and I had a 50-60% casting ratio. That's pretty good, ask anyone who is out there running the gamut.
The first step is finding a monologue that you absolutely love. If you don't love it, you are not going to perform it well. Trust me, I have seen thousands of monologues in my lifetime and you can ALWAYS tell. So where do you find a monologue? Some people buy a ton of books (and keep the Borders I am sitting at in business). that's not what I do, however (sorry free wi-fi and mint tazo tea). To find the perfect monologue, I plan an afternoon at the downtown library. Quite methodically, I go through the stacks of plays and pull out a bunch of them--either ones I know but had forgotten about or ones that are new to me--and then I scan them for long passages. The ones the meet the length criteria, then get added to the "read pile". (After making sure that they are gender appropriate, of course.) When I have narrowed my search down to ten or twenty plays, I begin to read them. Yes, luv, I said READ them. I read the play from cover to cover. I contextualize my character that way.
Usually this narrows my choices down to one or two. Those are the scripts that I check out. The whole library experience might take two hours--usually its about five. I like to be thorough!
The selections that I take home I then read again. I read them in one complete sitting--if I am interrupted, I begin the process again. It is important that you get the total feel of the character's world and their place in that world.
Once I have decided that this is The One, I write that monologue out longhand. Having another brain bubble at that thought? I grab a couple of sheets of notebook paper and write my monologue down, and here's the rub: I take out all punctuation and capitalization! Why? Because that allows me to interpret the character in my own way and to make discoveries about her that are unique. I never would allow the grammar police to interpret my performance. As I rehearse and prepare my piece, I may add my own punctuation and diacritical markings. This is the first phase of making the character come to life within me.
There's A Method to My Meisner Part One
Thoughts on the Theories of Theatre Great Sanford Meisner
I have long thought that Sanford Meisner had the right idea when it comes to learning how to act and as I research and teach various methods, I am more convinced than ever. In my advanced drama classes next year, I am going to present the theories of many great acting teachers: Adler, Strasberg, Boal, Hagen, Stanislavski (du-uh) and of course, my hero, Sanford Meisner. I have been spending hours looking up exercises, reading documents, books and websites. By the time we get back to classes, I am going to have a study guide to end all study guides on theory for my students. In the meantime, I am going to blog my thoughts on my discoveries, more to help me keep them in order than anything else.
I first came across Mr. Meisner's techniques when I picked up volume one of the definitive series written by Larry Silverberg. For years I had struggled with the ideas of dredging up your past and applying it to the stage. There are too many things in my history that best lie suppressed in a thoroughly unhealthy way. I kept thinking, if I have to dig up this pain to create the reality of my character, I am not a very good actor.
Meisner believes that you can "live truthfully in imaginary circumstances". He taught listening, really listening to your acting partners is the beginning of true skill and that learning to act is a lifelong process.
He is also a proponent of eliminating self by letting go of pre-conceptions. One of the main ways he teaches how to do this is through his repetitions.The first time I taught Meisner, I realized that many teenagers have a difficult time with this theory. One of my students wrote in his journal, "This is shit." every day for a month when we were doing the initial exercises. Adolescents want to control their acting. They read a script, get an idea of what the character is about and then form a notion that they base their whole character build upon. While some may think this is excellent industry on their part, it doesn't take into account what the other people in the scene may be thinking about or allow any spark of spontaneity into the work. Additionally, it doesn't make room for the creative process of rehearsal. Rehearsal should be a time of discovery and collaboration. Meisner believed that all you need is with the other person.
The repetitions are simple observations at first. "Pink shirt" or "crooked nose" in a ping pong game between scene partners. This becomes "You are wearing a pink shirt" and adds an element of truth, "I am wearing a pink shirt." So many people think this is the seminal point of conversation but it is not. The repetitions go back and forth ad nausea, only changing when something compels the change. Emotionally it is flat. It is so hard to get out of your head and let go of controlling where the repetition goes. Which is why "this is shit" is a reality for some students. They can't trust the other person to give them what they need.
By the way, the boy that wrote that in his journal came to visit three years later. While he was waiting for me to be finished with class, he watched me working on Meisner's theories. I thought, "What a day for Adrian to be here. He hated this work." However, this turned out to be a eureka moment for the young man. "I finally got it," he confessed. "Just now, while I was watching, it made sense for the first time." I tell that story at the beginning of every session with Meisner. It's okay not to get it, if you just let it happen. Eventually it will all come clear.After the repetitions there is a series of "Coming to the Door" exercises which involve working off a partner. Starting with "coming home to be alone" and moving into "the activity", Meisner builds on moments of truth.
6/20/10
I have long thought that Sanford Meisner had the right idea when it comes to learning how to act and as I research and teach various methods, I am more convinced than ever. In my advanced drama classes next year, I am going to present the theories of many great acting teachers: Adler, Strasberg, Boal, Hagen, Stanislavski (du-uh) and of course, my hero, Sanford Meisner. I have been spending hours looking up exercises, reading documents, books and websites. By the time we get back to classes, I am going to have a study guide to end all study guides on theory for my students. In the meantime, I am going to blog my thoughts on my discoveries, more to help me keep them in order than anything else.
I first came across Mr. Meisner's techniques when I picked up volume one of the definitive series written by Larry Silverberg. For years I had struggled with the ideas of dredging up your past and applying it to the stage. There are too many things in my history that best lie suppressed in a thoroughly unhealthy way. I kept thinking, if I have to dig up this pain to create the reality of my character, I am not a very good actor.
Meisner believes that you can "live truthfully in imaginary circumstances". He taught listening, really listening to your acting partners is the beginning of true skill and that learning to act is a lifelong process.
He is also a proponent of eliminating self by letting go of pre-conceptions. One of the main ways he teaches how to do this is through his repetitions.The first time I taught Meisner, I realized that many teenagers have a difficult time with this theory. One of my students wrote in his journal, "This is shit." every day for a month when we were doing the initial exercises. Adolescents want to control their acting. They read a script, get an idea of what the character is about and then form a notion that they base their whole character build upon. While some may think this is excellent industry on their part, it doesn't take into account what the other people in the scene may be thinking about or allow any spark of spontaneity into the work. Additionally, it doesn't make room for the creative process of rehearsal. Rehearsal should be a time of discovery and collaboration. Meisner believed that all you need is with the other person.
The repetitions are simple observations at first. "Pink shirt" or "crooked nose" in a ping pong game between scene partners. This becomes "You are wearing a pink shirt" and adds an element of truth, "I am wearing a pink shirt." So many people think this is the seminal point of conversation but it is not. The repetitions go back and forth ad nausea, only changing when something compels the change. Emotionally it is flat. It is so hard to get out of your head and let go of controlling where the repetition goes. Which is why "this is shit" is a reality for some students. They can't trust the other person to give them what they need.
By the way, the boy that wrote that in his journal came to visit three years later. While he was waiting for me to be finished with class, he watched me working on Meisner's theories. I thought, "What a day for Adrian to be here. He hated this work." However, this turned out to be a eureka moment for the young man. "I finally got it," he confessed. "Just now, while I was watching, it made sense for the first time." I tell that story at the beginning of every session with Meisner. It's okay not to get it, if you just let it happen. Eventually it will all come clear.After the repetitions there is a series of "Coming to the Door" exercises which involve working off a partner. Starting with "coming home to be alone" and moving into "the activity", Meisner builds on moments of truth.
6/20/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)