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 of effective communication ALREADY IN PLACE.
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.
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 no doubt thank you for it, 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 classifications 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.
