Breaking Down Actors - Do we really need it?

In answer to my title, I'm not entirely sure we do. Simple enough. (I didn't have a clever way to start this blog so I thought I'd go straight for the point of the matter, then set out my thoughts.)

Let me clarify on what I mean by 'the negative breaking down of actors' in regards to a few scenarios:

I am not referring to actors having truthful emotions and breakdowns within the moment. If an emotion is really living it may cause a response one might call 'breaking down'. A debate for another day is this idea of the actors dual conscious where, within a theatre setting, how do you go from the depths of despair and upset in one scene. To the very next scene which carries a different emotional preparation. Another day.

What I am concerned with is the development of actors and the way teachers handle them. Teaching acting is a very nuanced, and sensitive art. You can run the risk of damaging an actor's confidence and their own mental well being if this is done wrong. Even down to so much as the way you word criticisms, no matter how constructive, in the end the comment is about the person and often what can be taken away from this, by the actor is 'The problem is with you', 'you are wrong', 'you are not good enough', 'you aren't connecting to that role' etc etc. unlike a pianist for example, whereby you can diagnose a missed key, a rhythmic blip or to simply say, 'that was wrong, but if you practice you'll get it right'. The same cannot always be said to an actor. 

It makes me angry when I hear teachers threaten to be harsh. I've heard the phrase 'if something is shit, I'll tell you it's shit' as a threat before the student-actor even began to perform.  Is it me or does that then put the student actor in to a worrisome state of impressing the teacher, rather than to just exist truthfully in the moment.  The teacher suddenly becomes the most important person in the room, and a rehearsal room is not a place for ego.  I hear reports of teachers in prestigious schools, charging you in excess of £10,000 a year for the privilege of being there, screaming 'that was shit' in the face of students.  I often find that actors do their best work when they are empowered to do so, and are not under pressure to achieve a result, often being "pleasing the teacher".  More on results in a bit. I don't feel the need to bully my actors, I am quite a passive teacher, perhaps too passive in certain situations however, the fact remains I see better work from actors who only have to worry about the person in front of them in the given moment.

Within Meisner Technique work, I am very happy to let my actors play and explore and discover what happens, and then analyse what happened, the effects the work has on each actor etc. The truthful, emotional results can be staggering. I say can be, because neither I, nor the actors know what is going to happen, it is wholly dependant on what happens in the moment. I sometimes worry, when I hear of teachers putting pressure on actors, suggesting that an exercise is only good when actors either kiss, fight or end in floods of tears. Whilst I have seen exercises resulting in all of these, it has never been because I demanded it of my actors. Rather, it has been a truthful response based entirely on the other person. If a teacher pushes you to reach a pinnacle of emotion, surely then, as an actor your attention is now split between the exercise and trying to cry/attack/kiss. Internally you are trying to make yourself feel something, or in other words, play to a result in order to satisfy the teacher, or at least his/her demands. Sometimes the most truthful and honest moments happen in a whimper, rather that a shout and the difficulty again is in recognising what is truthful and what is not. That is the job of a teacher.

Have you had experiences similar to any of the ones I've mentioned? Share your thoughts on here or tweet me.

@AdamStadius

 

Why I'd never be a Method Actor

So, this week I'm going a little out of my knowledge area to talk a bit about Method Acting.

By Method Acting I'm referring specifically to acting that takes on Stanislavski's principles of Acting as developed by Lee Strasberg at the Actor's Studio. Not necessarily the practice of specific Method Actors.

Famed Method Acting names get banded around quite a lot: Al Pacino, Daniel Day-Lewis, Robert DeNiro, Dustin Hoffman etc. All fine actors (though my acting teacher would ferociously disagree with the latter) but you can't argue the fact they have all had fantastic careers, with the occasional stumble here, there and everywhere, who hasn't.

Day-Lewis is perhaps the most chronicled Actor by the ways in which he prepares for roles. For the film My Left Foot he lived in a self imposed state if paralysis for the duration of the filming, to gain an insight in to the character. After The Boxer, his trainer insisted he could turn pro if he wanted and during Lincoln, he insisted in being addressed as Mr President throughout filming, never breaking character. You'd hate to be married to the guy right? I don't believe THIS level of preparation is wholly subscribed to by practitioners of Method but the urban myths prevail. 

Now, were I to take on the role of a homeless person, should I go and live on the streets myself? In order to gain an insight in to the characters world? For one simple matter, I wouldn't want to. But suppose I did. Am I not simply generalising that all homeless people have a similar experience?  In all honesty, whatever best helps you is fine by me, each actor creates their own method eventually, and who am I to criticise, it's just not for me.  But regardless, this isn't my biggest issue with Method Acting.

Emotion Memory/Affective Memory

Perhaps one of the most debated topics within actor training; the practice of recalling your past experiences to stir your emotions within your work on a role.

If you have time, here is a wonderful article on Stanislavki's system with a large sector given over to the emotion memory debate (but I'll give you some abbreviated highlights):

http://homepage.smc.edu/sawoski_perviz/Stanislavski.pdf

The fact of the matter is that Stanislavski chucked emotion memory from his system in his later years in favour of the Method of Physical Actions, which would later go in to the current trend of Actioning.  Stella Adler had the sense to go back and work with Stanislavski after the Group Theatre disbanded and brought back his new principles.  Strasberg instead ran with Emotion Memory, developing it in to the newer, radical Affective Memory, defined by a Starbergian student as

'the conscious creation of remembered emotions which have occurred in the

actor’s own past life and then their application to the character being portrayed on stage'

The 'conscious creation'....whereby you're not truly living within the moment, but being forced to vanish within yourself to attempt to bring up past emotions.  Here, you're introverting the already introverted, because that's what we are.  As extroverted as one might appear, the fact of the matter is actors are working with ourselves consistently, our body, our instincts and our feelings are our tools and a permanent process of self awareness is in effect.  By asking you to put your attention in to your past, how can you be engaging with the present moment, and the actor opposite?  Also, we run the risk of squeezing for every last drop of emotion within ourselves, tensing and searching deep to try to feel something, it's ugly to watch someone squeeze emotion out, and you know when you're watching it. 

I titled this article 'Why I'd never be a Method Actor' because, emotion/affective memory is not for me.  Quite simply, I've had an alright life.  I certainly didn't get in to acting because I wasn't loved enough as a child, or to deal with some life-issue.  Granted I have memories, I've gone through the usual relationships, break ups, arguments, my childhood dog dying, a whole array of stuff.  But ask me to liken the death of my dog to say, a character who loses the love of their life and I'll laugh in your face.  Plus, as time moves on those memories have different meanings to me.  Were I to have had major trauma growing up that would be a different story, why would it be even remotely helpful for me to bring up horrific past memories in front of my peers?  Eventually, you'll end up with such an unstable, internalised, collective of actors requiring consistent therapy.  Surely it's not healthy for anyone's craft.  And let's not forget, an audience don't come to the theatre to watch you have feelings, they come to have feelings of their own.

Within my work, I've seen an actor in truthful tears based on an exercise in which she was no longer able to have children, based on a past abortion.  For this actor, there was no such memory to grab on to and yet the moment was served and the emotion truthful, it was gorgeous work and the other actor responded beautifully.  The imagination can be more fruitful than the memory when we stop squeezing for results.  The process is much more beneficial than the result, and that's where the real work happens.