Theater Talk: James Grissom on Tennessee Williams

Irresistible -- although I've shared my thoughts in an earlier blogpost regarding James Grissom's Follies of God, here are some more anecdotes from Mr. Grissom himself.

Alan Rickman - Homage

   
Aside from enjoying Mr. Rickman's performances over the years, it was a particular pleasure to hear this interesting actor provide resonating anecdotes and an observation about the interrelatedness between oneself, the character's writer, and the audience in this interview.

Let's End the Specious Argument of Beloved Dead Masters

In particular, let's end the "argument" between Adler and Strasberg.  There is no substance to their false reasoning upon which impenetrable citadels have been erected.  Their false feud has become so rigid, that in the years since their deaths "imagination" and "affective memory" have become meaninglessly iconic, have taken on the fervor of a religious war that has produced a horrible result: the basic technique has become so remote that it's no longer stressed as the most important aspect of the technique the Group Theatre used from Stanislavski and his colleagues.

My first post (August, 2011) expressed concern that although some aspect of the technique Group Theatre members (Adler, Meisner, Strasberg, and by extension, Hagen) used from Stanislavski is still taught today, I rarely see it in current professional performances.  Since then, more than one influential Hollywood agent has told me that they think American actors are not well trained.  Ouch!

Is this point of view known where actors go to be trained?  Most colleges and universities have Theatre Arts departments where a student can obtain an advanced degree in the art of acting, and where at least one of the points of view of the Group Theatre members is taught.  In addition, there's the Strasberg Institute, the Actors Studio, the several Stella Adler academies, Meisner studios, the HB Studio, and hundreds of coaches who either studied with one of these masters, or coaches who studied with one of the coaches who studied with one of these masters!

I think that "disciples" (June, 2012 post) who stubbornly pursue the specious argument between Adler and Strasberg, Meisner and Adler, or Strasberg and Meisner, turn words into fetishes, and no longer stress the basic elements of the technique is precisely why we see so much "indicated" acting from graduates of reputable institutions.

None of the teachers from the Group Theatre disagreed on the criteria that constitute a good performance.  They disagreed, somewhat, on how to achieve it and sometimes created their own exercises to achieve it.  To speak of a "Meisner" technique, a "Strasberg Method" an "Adler" technique, or the "personalization" of Hagen (ludicrous if it weren't so insulting) is to not understand the basic, fundamental elements of the technique that all of them attributed to Stanislavski.

I suggest that the various camps gather in a symposium, be willing to face each other with their divergent points of view, and look into the possibility that there is no substantive difference between imagination and life experience, that they are instead paying homage in a worshipful rather than critical way to these masters, the very masters who taught us so well about the contradictions, the complexities, of character.

Actor Warrior Intensive at the Stella Adler Studio: Now You're Talkin'!

December 25, 2012 Post -- Revisited

My post of December 25, 2012 titled "Is There an American Acting Tradition?" discussed Kenneth Branagh's production of Hamlet.  I stated that only in the exchanges with the American actors did Mr. Branagh leave the traditional "representational"  (as Uta Hagen described it) style of British performance of Shakespeare, and spoke as if the thought had just occurred to him.

I think it's more accurate to say that Kenneth Branagh's performance of Hamlet in that production moved between the two styles of performance.  In particular, note his scene with Horatio regarding his impending duel with Laertes that begins with "We defy augury..."  His performance in that scene is definitely not "representational."

What was troubling to me was that Mr. Branagh didn't seem to be aware of the difference in style.  He didn't seem to make a conscious artistic choice between the two styles of acting.  This lack of definition continues (Branagh's production of Hamlet will be 20 years old in 2016) to this day. 

Tom Stoppard - Ideas from the Actor's Collaborators

Apologies -- the video I'd chosen was removed and I couldn't obtain it again.  In this one, Mr. Stoppard briefly discusses the space between the writer, actor and audience.

 I emphasis to actors their need to hold the dialogue of every script sacred; every word in every sentence sacred -- to not paraphrase, add or substitute words regardless of how mediocre the actor thinks the dialogue is.  The story is not about you.  The execution of telling the story is about how what the writer has written resonates for you so that the character you create is the third party to your collaboration with the writer, and as I've mentioned earlier, the final collaborator is the audience, and not necessarily every member of the audience, as Mr. Stoppard commented in the previous video I'd chosen.

The actor limits himself and chokes his ability to create a unique human being when he tries to tailor the written sentences to himself.

Tennessee Williams and James Grissom

James Grissom has made an enormous contribution with his book, Follies of God - Tennessee Williams and the Women of the Fog.  To me, it seems a "must read" for actors, directors, writers.

Since this is a blog about acting technique, here's a quote from the book:

     "Tenn had believed that actors were incapable of thought in their acting, that perhaps they were discouraged from displaying this action in their work.  American actors, he felt, demonstrated, indicated, spoke, moved, and all intentions, all motivations, all desires had been worked out prior to performance -- in study with an acting coach, perhaps, or in discussions with a therapist.  Nothing, however, appeared to Tenn to happen in real time in that shared space.  This began to change for him with [Laurette] Taylor in The Glass Menagerie, where one saw a woman range from deliquescence to giddiness to machination to panicked improvisation in a matter of minutes.  It happened again with Brando in Streetcar -- a human being caught in all the gaudy abundance of his being. 'Marlon never did anything physical twice,' Tenn told me.  'He let his body sweat and move as nature chose on that stage, and he hitched or removed his shirt accordingly.  He scratched where it itched, in that time, in that moment.  He wiped real sweat off of his brow in real time, regardless of where he was in the script.  He dragged life and thought onto that stage.'

     No one, however, in Tenn's estimation, brought the process of thought and intention to the stage as Geraldine Page did."

The impression Page made on Tennessee Williams and later on James Grissom creates, along with her work, a portrait of Geraldine Page that is for the reader and viewer to absorb.  

Here's my anecdotal addition:  When I met Ms. Page, in wanting to connect with her somehow, I said, "What you and I have in common is Uta Hagen."  To which she replied, "Ahh, Uta!  I took everything she taught me and turned it into cash!"  I don't remember her putting her hand to her mouth as Mr. Grissom has described, although I'm familiar with that characteristic gesture, but it seems to me that I can still hear her high-pitched giggle after she said that.