Lola Cohen - The Method Acting Exercises Handbook

"I have encountered talented actors who have worked with the ideas and techniques of Lee Strasberg, Michael Chekhov, Sanford Meisner, Stella Adler, Elia Kazan, Uta Hagen, Robert Lewis, and Kim Stanley, all highly regarded, who have made indelible contributions to both The Method and the craft of acting.  I believe there are more similarities between these artists than differences in their search for authenticity and truth.  You will find threads connecting their words and methods to the work of Konstantine Stanislavski, Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko and their trailblazing creation of the MAT.  Explore the different approaches and take from each those things that resonate most with you to illuminate the precarious human condition by making conscious artistic choices in your work."
                                                                                          Lola Cohen
                                                                                          from the Introduction to
                                                                                          The Method Acting Exercises Handbook


We were in a Starbucks somewhere north of the Strasberg Institute on 15th Street.  I had just observed Lola's four-hour Method Acting class.  I remember an exchange of fragments of questions, ideas, observations -- I love walking on the streets of Manhattan; I hardly noticed where we were -- I shared my own experiences teaching differently, but somehow felt an affinity with Lola's class comments, and what she said at that little table as she reached into her bag and said, "I want to read something to you -- something I've written in my introduction to my new book..."  She read the above-quoted paragraph.

I've only had time to skim through the contents of this new book.  I encourage you to read it as thoroughly as I plan to.  I think I will read familiar points of view with which I agree, those with which I won't agree, and definitely those I'd want to explore in depth one day with Lola.

Many books on acting technique have been published since those that were published by some of the masters Lola Cohen listed above, I have read inaccuracies and misunderstandings of their points of view in many of these books, or poor attempts at re-inventing the wheel.  That's why another book that thoroughly explains the criterion of the American acting technique is definitely not one too many, especially when the criteria seem to be more and more misunderstood as time goes by.

Elly Stone - About Voice, Breath

I had the privilege, at the end of 2016, to spend time with Elly Stone in New York. We often sat at her kitchen table over breakfast or an evening snack, and we talked about acting and singing, and acting technique and she shared with me some memories of acting classes, in particular, with Stella Adler.

We commiserated over the lack of good voices, good diction, in young actors.  One morning she showed me how to position my torso so that there would be an available endless breath, without tension, that would support my voice indefinitely.  She acknowledged that the Alexander technique was useful, but that Feldenkreis was far more useful because of its attention to the pelvis, and that it's from the pelvic area of our bodies that the breath must come.  She said, "Voice, in its natural state, is fueled by your breath and if your posture is correctly aligned, your breath will be drawn from a repository that never becomes empty."

She suggested I listen to Burt Lahr in the recording of Waiting for Godot (on YouTube).  I suggest you do the same, and listen to her singing Marieke from Jacques Brel is Alive and Well and Living in Paris.

Jeff Daniels in 'Blackbird' -- Notes on Technique

There are interesting comments from this veteran actor regarding his work in Blackbird.  What surprised me was his anecdote about his director's (Joe Mantello) direction about how "it needs to be spontaneous...if it's on your mind, let it come out of your mouth...don't manufacture some motivation with your objective that you learned in acting class 20...."

Jeff Daniels had an "objective" in this interview, and he described what was on his mind; that is, he was thinking and describing his thoughts.  Was he able to articulate everything that was on his mind? Was he aware that he had an "objective"?  Was he aware that what he was trying to do (his "objective") in this interview is no different from the behavior of the character he created?

Some of the points of view expressed in this interview reinforce my contention, expressed elsewhere on this blog, that the teaching of the basic technique, that is, Stanislavski and his colleagues as interpreted by the members of the Group Theatre has been lost in the tangential dogmatic "argument" between Adler, Strasberg and Meisner.

Performance Technique and Study

NOTE:  The class described below was held briefly and then suspended.  Unfortunately, actors who study with me privately and are working professionally are not able to devote the time necessary for the class, and less experienced actors often have not learned the discipline required for rehearsals and attendance.  I devised this intensive class because it became clear to me that scene study alone does not provide adequate training in understanding how to develop and perform a character through the arc of a drama.  Anytime an institution would ask me to teach this class, I'd be interested in teaching it.

Based on my viewing of various actors' theatre performances in New York during September and October, 2016, both on Broadway and off-Broadway, as well as those collected at the Performing Arts Library in Lincoln Center, I've decided to offer a performance technique study class.  This class will be more extensive and intensive than a traditional scene study class.

The three-hour class will be held Saturdays from 10:30 am - 1:30 pm at the Complex (6472 Santa Monica Blvd., in the Villa Studio).  The class will be limited to a maximum of ten actors (additional classes will be offered, if necessary), and will be conducted as follows:

The actor will choose a character from a play (one, two or three acts*) and will work on scenes from that play that will include the entire line of action of the character from the beginning to the end of the play.

The first character preparation will be from contemporary plays only (e.g., J. Shanley, L. Hansbury, D. Margulies, S. Karam, S. Shepard, L. Wilson, N. LaBute) omitting A. Miller, T. Williams or E. O'Neill.

As I've always taught in this practice, after the actor has become familiar with basic elements of technique derived from Stanislavski as developed by the members of the Group Theatre (action/objective, specific circumstances, previous circumstances, relationship to inner and outer objects, fourth wall, etc.) on the work of those playwrights, O'Neill, Williams and Miller will be studied, then the realistic plays of Strindberg, Chekhov and Ibsen, and finally, classic verse such as Shakespeare, Moliere, Lope de Vega.

Included will be Uta Hagen's ten object exercises, an exercise introduced by Kim Stanley (the "need" exercise), and an introductory exercise introduced by Ludwig Donath (the silent action exercise) which is a prelude to Hagen's "talking to oneself" exercise.  These exercises will be rehearsed in preparation for class work just as scene work from the plays will be well rehearsed.  In New York I participated in and observed, in review, most of the exercises of the Group Theatre teachers as currently taught, and I think that these exercises are the most directly supportive of the actor's challenge in performance.

I will explain the purpose of this approach, which I've never offered, at the first session on Saturday, November 5, 2016, at the Complex, in the Hammond Studio at 10:30 am.  There is no charge for this first session that will include time for Q&A.  Agents and acting teachers are invited to attend.

(*Certain screenplays may be acceptable.)

Ahh, "Why do I say, 'I'm not a homosexual?'" John Cazale

My imaginary banner across the proscenium arch in a scene study class is this question from John Cazale.

Artistic Interpretation or Mimicry?

 

                       

         






As a matter of personal preference, it's my policy to not reveal the names of actors who study with me.  I suppose I consider it confidential if they privately study or prepare for a role with me.
This policy seems to be appreciated by the actors who work with me.  With the permission of Russell Charles Pitts, I'm temporarily breaking that policy.

I want to discuss two separate categories:  Artistic taste and artistic criteria.  Elsewhere on this blog I've made my case for artistic criteria; not so regarding artistic taste.  In particular, the actor's performance in a role that depicts a person who has been in our lived experience.

Mr. Pitts contacted me when the Tupac Shakur bio-pic was casting.  We worked on the audition sides that were provided by the CD.  The CD told Russell that his audition tape would be forwarded to the producer, but to be patient regarding his callback because a "world-wide" search was on to find an actor for this role. During the ensuing months, on his own, Russell worked on the physical behavior of Tupac.  He also asked me how he could further keep the character alive in himself (we didn't have a script to work from).  I suggested he transcribe, verbatim, one of the Tupac interviews we'd studied, and rehearse it as he would any scene.  Since we had the opportunity to consider interpretation in more detail than in a 48-hour audition preparation time-frame, I encouraged Russell to avoid mimicry (you're not him; even f you resembled him, never would you be able to achieve his essence, the particular sparkle in his eyes; but you can aim for your understanding of his essence; your interpretation of his essence").  In the attached comparison of Tupac's interview and Russell's interpretation of Tupac's interview, I think we had the beginnings of an artistic interpretation of character.

Consider also the difference between art and mimicry in Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of Truman Capote, and Tony Jones's portrayal, especially since Mr. Jones physically resembles Capote more than Mr. Hoffman in a comparison with Mr. Capote himself:

Or, Michelle Williams's artistic interpretation of Marilyn Monroe:

Or, the chilling work of art created by Meryl Streep in her interpretation of Ethel Rosenberg.  In this scene from Angels in America, I think both she and Al Pacino performed not mimicry, but a fully-drawn interpretation of character.  Interestingly, there was much less for Ms. Streep to go on in terms of observing the character, yet in my opinion, taking into account her other biographical portrayals, it was her most profound rendering of the essence of the character.

I Call Your Attention To:

Please note what Gabriel Byrne says here about the emotion coming from the words.  Regardless of opinions of his performance in this particular production (which I long to see particularly because of disagreement regarding it), how many times must actors discover the validity of his experience before they trust it?

The words in a sentence express a thought.  Connection to the thought by expressing it fully leads to the emotion regarding it.