|
Adult Acting Class 10-9-99
 |
Actors were
asked for their observations of themselves and/or others over the course of
the week, since the last discussion on subjective experience. Responses were
few at first. One actor reported she had been noticing the different ways
people walked (in reference to the “Character Walk” exercise), and
others commented on the changes that occurred in their different personal
feelings about the class itself. |
To
increase an understanding of the assignment, the Mission of the class was
reiterated:
The
intention is to give actors an explicit set of techniques
which allow access to the skills ALREADY IN PLACE
in order to effectively
One
of the most efficient ways of doing this is to adopt Richard Bandler’s method
of studying subjective processes that are free of content.
The assignment is to actively pursue the study of subjective experience at some time during the week. During any particular behavior, feeling, thought notice how you’re representing it in your head. When you think of that pleasant vacation 7 years ago, how do you know you’re thinking of it ( is it a picture, a feeling and smell of the beach, the sounds you heard then?), …and how do you know it was seven years ago? Compare it to the one six years ago, and find the difference that tells your brain they’re different.
|
We
briefly discussed Konstantin Stanislavsky and the Method(s). |
Stanislavsky
was dissatisfied with the productions of his day, so he started his own
company, the Moscow Arts Theatre in 1898. He
began directing actors in a new style based on the
psychological truth
of
the character.
This
meant the actor would need an understanding of the inner feelings and motives
for behavior of the character.
A
far cry from the common style of the day, which included stilted, generic
“types”, portrayed in an exaggerated manner.
The Magic If
was
the name for the self-resource-modeling technique he introduced to help you out
in those instances where you needed an “actual” reference with no personal
experience.
If I were
[this
person]
in
[this situation]
with
[these given circumstances]
what
would I do?
Given Circumstances
It's
my guess that Chekov had a little something to do with it, because Stanislavsky
was big on sticking to the text for the given circumstances, and Chekov’s
plays were getting produced at the MAT. Going to the script for the Given
Circumstances is of course reasonable and any playwright would thank you very
much, but…
here
in
the 21st century, more and more directors are taking liberties and
"improving" texts, including of course, the classics. There are
arguments on both sides about the appropriateness of this, especially in
academic situations, but directors can and do take liberties with the script, so
your Given Circumstance source may vary. It’s a great turn for the actor- be
prepared to make stuff up.
There
are some notes below describing these distinctions.
We
introduced Michael Shurtleff’s 12 Guideposts from Audition, and actors applied them quite effectively in the “Open
Scene” exercise, and in the few monologues we heard before time ran out. More
monologues will be presented using this model next week.
Some
Notes 4 U
Stanislavski’s
distinctions of beats, units, intentions, objectives, through-line and
super-objectives.
An
easy way to chunk these together is under the “what do you want, and what do
you get if you can have that?” question form.
Beats
These
are the smallest “chunk”, and refer to the moments in a character’s speech
or action when something changes-- a thought, idea or subject. Kind of a
macrocosm of the “Unit”. The “what do I want?” question is (can be)
ever-changing at every beat mark.
Unit
For
study and rehearsal scheduling purposes, the play may be broken down into units.
Like a beat, the unit is marked by a change in subject or idea, and more often
involves a physical change, as a character entering, or a missive arriving from
the Queen Ant. At unit marks note how “what do I want?” is effected. Try
“what do they want and how does it
effect what I want?” for a character
question at entrances.
Intentions
Here,
each speech/set of actions in a unit is dissected to discover (or decide) why
the character would say/do it, and what is hoped to be achieved by saying/doing
it. The intention, or “what do you want?”, behind every word, action or
thought would be based upon the overall motivation,
or
Objectives
which
are a step up on the chunking ladder. This “what do you want” is asked of
the character’s words/behaviors in the whole scene.
This is often done with a verb and a subject,
e.g.:
“to cajole” [him into joining]
“to seduce” [her into giving me the information]
“to defend” [my position even though I know it’s inaccurate]
Through-line
All
of these add up to the Bigger Question, “if you can have all that, what will
you get?” or “what do you want that for?” Traditionally, this is included
as a tidy key speech somewhere.
Super-objective
Decided
on a meta-level by the actors and director. A conclusion drawn from all the
different directions and motivations of each character.
Home Demos Puppets & Props Projects Portraits Site Map Contact