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.

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'!