The Actor's Essential Reading List

OK, this is in response to a number of people recently asking me which books I would recommend that an actor read. I'm never really sure how to answer that question, because what lights my fire might not light theirs. What I've decided is that there are three distinct answers to the question, so I'll present them all here.

Answer One
I suppose that there is a canon of sorts that every serious theatre craftsman should be familiar with just in terms of history, major movements, styles, etcetera. I have no doubt that such canonical lists abound on the internet so I won't reproduce them here. Check out any online course syllabus from any drama class at any major university, or look at the reading lists on amazon.com. Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to suggest that these works are without value to the individual actor. They have great value and are canonical for just that reason. However, like so many things canonical, if not approached in the right way, they become merely relics of old ideas, read just because they happened to survive rather than to plumb their depths. I know far too many actors who have read Quintillian, and Aristotle, and Craig, and Stanislavski, and Artaud, and Brook, and Grotowski, and whoever else you might care to name, in the former manner and are no better for it except to be able to say that they have read them. By all means, read them, read them all, but read them with a drive to learn from them, not simply because someone says they're important. Life's too short for that.

Answer Two
Read anything and everything that fuels your individual fire. It doesn't matter what it is: literature, genre fiction, non-fiction, comic books, bubble gum wrappers, or Congolese midget porn...whatever fuels you creatively as a human being fuels your craft and your art. Never let anyone tell you differently. If someone does, refer them to me. Better yet, just tell them what I would tell them: "Sod off!"

Answer Three
These are specific books that have directly influenced my thoughts on theatre and acting, or have had a direct influence on my acting. They are all theatre related and in no particular order.
The Actor's Eye by Morris Carnovsky: An artistic treasure trove that so clearly crystallizes what we are trying to so as actors. Unfortunately out of print.
The Intent To Live by Larry Moss: An excellent, if somewhat indulgent, primer on the basics of Stanislavski, and much more accessible than the translations of Stanislavski.
The Actor and the Target by Declan Donnellan: Provides some nice refinements to the System's basics as well as proposing some provocative new ideas.
Stanislavski in Focus by Sharon Carnicke: Clarifies a number of misconceptions and places them in their histroical context. Makes one wish for newer translations of Stanislavski's work.
The Empty Space by Peter Brook: The only book listed in everyone's canon that really did anything for me.
Playing Shakespeare by John Barton: Indispensible if you're planning to take on the Bard (and if you're not, what the hell's the matter with you?)
Speaking Shakespeare by Patsy Rodenburg: See above.
Improvisation for the Theatre by Viola Spolin: The introductory material alone is worth the cost of the book.
Book on Improvisation by Stephen Book: Takes everything you ever knew about acting and turns it inside out. The ideas and the work are immediately applicable and up the stakes like nothing else I have come across. My Bible.

The following books, also in no particular order, are not theatre specific, but I cannot emphasize enough their impact on what I belive and do.
Freedom from the Known by Jiddhu Krishnamurti: Just when you thought you knew what inspiration was....
Zen in the Art of Archery bu Eugen Herrigal: This is what training is like.
The Book by Alan Watts: Will teach you everything you ever need to know about being part of the whole.
Living Without a Goal by James Ogilvy: Will teach you everything you need to know about being in the moment.
Dune, Dune Messiah, etc by Frank Herbert: Not the stories, the epigrams.
No Boundary by Ken Wilber: Blows away all of the excuses.
Finite and Infinite Games by James P. Carse: Nothing is the same after this....
The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran: The most sublime statement of Love and Divinity ever penned.

So there it is.
Happy reading.

etonne-moi!

Shagging Fungoes (Acting)

Thanks to all of you who took the time to respond to the last post.
Good thinking, all!
I'd just like to toss out a few thoughts of my own in response to your thoughts.
I'm sure there are those audience members who go to a play or movie looking for the acting, just like there are those who go to see a magician who are looking for the trick. They miss the point. It's about losing yourself in the experience. If you want to see how the acting is done, get off your dead ass and do a show. Brecht was seeking a very particular effect for a very specific ideological reason, which is all well and good if you want your theatre to be political. But the theatre isn't about politics, though it can be political; it's about entertainment. And remember that to entertain means 'to hold among' or 'to hold the attention of.' That's what the acting has to do before it does anything else: hold the attention of the audience. Utlimately, why the audience is there and what they are looking for doesn't matter. We do what we do and gift it to them, and, like any gift freely given, they are free to do with it what they will.
As for Meryl, well, she's just damned awesome isn't she? And it doesn't matter one bit whose thoughts you're seeing, though in truth it's both: it's really the actor's, but within the imaginary circumstances of the play/movie which you have suspended your disbelief to enter, it's the character's. All that matters is that you see it and believe it. When it's good, it's transcendent.
In general I'm in agreement with what Adam said except for one thing: how you, the actor, would respond in a given circumstance is irrelevant. No playwright wrought you. If personalizations, and what ifs and magic ifs and adjustment work for you as an actor and the audience believes your behavior, then rock on. However, for most, I find this approach to be self-indulgent. Often it leads to the actor simply being himself on the stage saying a different person's words depending on the play...which is pretty damned dull after a few shows. I don't care about and don't want to see how Larry, Richard, Mel, Kevin, and Ken react to the appearance of their dead father...I want to see how Hamlet, as interpreted by those artists, reacts.
In the end it's all just attitude-driven bullshit...and that's what makes it so damned fun!
Coming Next: The Actor's Essential Reading List.
Watch for it!!!

Acting: A Working Definition

Sanford Meisner was one of the most influential and respected acting teachers in American history. His teaching brought a new level of artistry to the craft of acting and his work is, rightly, studied by any serious student of acting. However, like most that have a significant impact on a field of endeavor, he was reacting to weaknesses he perceived in the work of others, specifically in the teachings of Lee Strasberg. In this vein, I would like to take a look at one of Meisner’s most significant legacies, his definition of acting and react to what I perceive to be a weakness therein.

Sanford Meisner defined acting as follows: living truthfully under imaginary circumstances. At the time, this was probably the most succinct and useful definition of acting put forward, and it still serves many actors well. However, there are several difficulties with this definition which bear close examination.

Of the three essential elements of Meisner’s definition, the final element, imaginary circumstances, is the most crucial in terms of setting the context for the other two, living and truthfully. Circumstances refer to all of the elements of the play that come to bear upon its performance. Here the idea of the play must be clearly understood. The play is the imaginary reality in which the characters exist and live out their imaginary lives. The play is what is directly provided by the playwright, the perceptual concept provided by the director, and the interpretive choices made by the actors in service of the playwright and the director. Everything else, e.g. lighting, costumes, music, sound, all of the elements that can be termed production, are peripheral to the play and, while they all may, and, ideally, should contribute to its performance, are not necessary to its performance. This is the fundamental reason that theatre is infinitely generative: given the same script, every new constellation of artists will generate a different play. Indeed, even if all of the production values are rigidly controlled for and precisely the same night after night, the play itself as performed will be unique to the particular artists performing it at that particular time.

The key word in this part of the definition, however, is imaginary. Nothing that happens in the play is real. The production itself is real; the play is imaginary. No matter how natural or realistic a setting may be, it is not what it purports to be. No matter how believably the actors may behave (a point I will return to), they are not the characters they portray. The play is an imaginary reality, a symbolic construct that, when successful, points to something concrete in the lives of its audience.

Acting takes place within a set of imaginary circumstances. It takes place within a framework of fundamentally unreal, though fully realized, details that create a context within which the audience may empathetically engage the play and come away changed for the experience.

So, if acting takes place within a set of imaginary circumstances, what, exactly, is taking place? It is categorically not living, nor is it truthful.

If the actor is living the part, then the actor is not acting. Living the part is not acting, it is schizophrenia, a breakdown of the distinctions between what is real and what is imaginary. The actor is always there witnessing the acting. No matter how immersed an actor may become in a role or a scene or a play, this witness always remains. Ideally, it is this witness that guides the performance, keeping it from becoming self-indulgent. This is the danger in the misuse of Meisner’s definition, it can lead to a self-indulgent quest for the actor’s holy grail: being in the moment. With the exception of the myriad misunderstandings of Stanislavski’s seminal work in the early twentieth century, no single acting concept has been so misunderstood and led to so much self-serving work. To put it plainly: characters are never in the moment. This is patently obvious when you accept that characters do not exist, they are imaginary. The actor who destroys the integrity of a scene and claims that his actions were justified because he was in the moment and that’s what his character would have done, betrays a terrible ignorance of his part of the whole play and demonstrates a narcissistic hubris of the highest degree. It is the actor that must be in the moment, not the character. The actor, as witness, must strive to be fully alive and present from moment to moment to moment in order to guide the performance, to respond properly to subtle (or not so subtle) changes in individual performances, and to revel in the playing. It is this revelry that is the actor’s greatest pleasure in performance: the scintillant joy that comes from the playing itself, a playing that is completely imaginary.

Acting is not truthful. There is nothing of the truth about it. It is a lie. At its best, it is a sublimely well-crafted lie that the audience freely agrees to buy into. At its worst, it exposes itself for the lie that it is in performances that are unwatchable and which an audience, no matter how forgiving, cannot participate in. Like living, truthfully centers the actor on himself and on his personal reality, which is of no concern to the audience. It doesn’t matter whether or not the actor feels the living truth of his character’s circumstances, it only matters that the audience does. As Stephen Book says, “We are not paid to have an experience; we’re paid to give the audience one.” Our creative and personal payoff must be in doing that, not in flailing about in the midst of our own personal and emotional reveries, an all too common form of masturbatory acting deriving from the actor’s mistaken belief that it’s all about him.

Acting is not about the actor, it’s about the audience. It’s about what we give to the audience. With that undersdtanding, I would amend Sanford Meisner’s definition of acting as follows: acting is behaving believably under imaginary circumstances. Set within the same context of properly understood imaginary circumstances, this takes the focus off of the actor and puts it with the audience. It does not matter whether or not the actor has an experience or not, feels an emotion or not, believes what he is doing or not, identifies with the character or not, it only matters that the audience finds the actor’s behavior to be believable within the imaginary circumstances of the play. The audience cannot see an actor’s thoughts, intentions, backstory, emotions, magic ifs, substitutions, or objectives; the audience can only see and experience what the actor actually does on the stage. And, to be effective, what the actor does must be believable to the audience. No matter how outrageous, or subtle, so long as it is believable to the audience, it is effective. And effectiveness, as measured by the audience for whom we play (as well as by our own artistic sensibilities), is a much better and, ultimately, finer arbiter of our work than our own, all to often, self-indulgent and self-aggrandizing feelings.

Note: Since drafting this piece, I have been fortunate enough to have read Ronald Rand’s Acting Teachers of America: A Vital Tradition. In it, Julie Garfield, daughter John Garfield, graduate of the Neighborhood Playhouse School of the Theatre, and student of Sanford Meisner gave the following variation of his famous definition (attributed to Meisner, himself): Acting is the reality of doing moment to moment under imaginary circumstances.

And just like that...poof...it was gone...

Something Wonderful This Way Comes...

Fall 2007

Peter Shaffer's

EQUUS

This Flattering Glass

damn...

Da Count: Supporters...athletic and otherwise

This Flattering Glass closes tomorrow, and we cannot even begin to put into words how honored, humbled and proud we feel about the whole experience. We've never worked with a group of people more dedicated to excellence than this cast and crew.

But Da Count today is for another group of people: those who have supported us. Chris and Julie Ann for faith and space and lights. Marcel for advice, video tape, and just being there. Nora for being president of our fan club. Suzanne for being a treasure beyond value. Mike, Nancy, Kate, Patrick, Will, Donald, Jessi, and Charles for congratulations, encouragement, and very kind words. Everyone who has seen the show for taking time out of their lives.

Vive le bullshit!

This Flattering Glass: This Is Who We Are

This Flattering Glass: Lovely Ladies

More of Us

TFG Reviews

Here are the reviews for This Flattering Glass. The first was posted at www.fresnoundercurrent.net/node/446 by Jessi Hafer on May 1, 2007. The second was posted on April 30th by Donald Munro at www.fresnobeehive.com/archives/2007/04/theater_review_7.html#more

Review One: Timeless Noir, Magic Relationships
Theatre Ventoux boldly embraces Richard II, a generally unfamiliar Shakepeare play, and gives it a fresh and enthralling vibe in This Flattering Glass. This adaptation sounds true to the original, complete with “thou hast” and so forth. Visually, it looks more like an episode of the Sopranos or a classic film noir, with a carefully crafted visual style generated by sleak suits, lighting and shadows, a quick shot of alcohol between lines, actor mannerisms, and a drawing of “swords” by way of aimed guns. The play opens with a montage of quiet misdeeds set to Johnny Cash, the intensity rising through the expressions on the actors’ faces.

Throughout the play, the driving force is not Shakespeare’s words, but the relationships between the characters. Sometimes, in other plays, you get the feeling that those acting, though talented, approach their fellow actors as if they were props. In Flattering Glass, you really sense the magnetism between the actors. It’s not simply how the characters react and interact. The true subjects of the play ARE the depths of what occurs between any two characters. Theatre Ventoux accomplishes this with a natural, genuine feel, through the ways one character will lean uncomfortably away or deeply towards another character, the way they may glance away and then back in distrust or thought.

That said, their moments alone are not lacking either. In speech, they don’t stay still or just talk to the audience, but they are always doing something that feels natural and appropriate. They deliver their lines through their postures. They deliver their state through a controlled move of a chess piece or a more random turn of a playing card.

There is risk in any adaptation in the choices of what to change and what not to change. In general, I wonder about Shakespeare adaptations that update the people without updating their speech. Why call the leader with a tie and a gun a king rather than a president or mob boss? Why call a gun a “sword,” even if tongue in cheek?

That said, overall Theatre Ventoux maintains the integrity of Shakespeare’s story and makes sound artistic choices. Historic notions of the divine right of kings (and their modern and ubiquitous equivalents) were delicately and continuously interwoven into the production’s more modern appeal. Matt Otstot is fantastic as King Richard, slimy and sleek. Angry characters (and there are many) are seething and subtle rather than explosive and uncontrolled. Those entrenched in their conniving approach their cooperatives with the caution of politicians.

Theatre Ventoux graciously cut some of Shakespeare’s original characters, shaving away some of the unnecessary duration without compromising the story. Those that are left are adeptly brought to life by several of Fresno’s finest: Ronald Blackwell, RJ Blak, Hal H. Bolen II, Melissa Geston, Arthur Koster, Rene Lastreto II, Renee Newlove, David P. Otero, Jessica Reedy, Julia Reimer, Gregory Taber, Stephen Torres.

All of the elements of This Flattering Glass come together to create an artistically mature and refined experience, a truly commendable accomplishment for the company’s first full length production. I hope you get a chance to catch one of the four (as of this posting) remaining performances: Friday, May 4; Saturday, May 5; Friday, May 11; and Saturday, May 12. All performances are held at the California Arts Academy at 4750 N. Blackstone at 8pm. Personally, I can’t wait to see what Theatre Ventoux comes up with next.


Review Two: Theater review: "This Flattering Glass"
Greg Taber and Lisa Mercier-Taber, in their director notes for "This Flattering Glass," an original adaptation of Shakespeare's "Richard II," say that the real story in this play is love. I think that's a stretch. Sure, it's possible in any work that delves into the human condition to find a connection to love -- whether it's "passionate, deep, tender, forbidden, unrequited, self-indulgent, shallow, desperate, abusive, destructive," as the directors put it -- but even in this heavily truncated version of the play, in which the number of characters has been reduced to a third and most historical references stripped from the text, love isn't what I think of. The complete and utter incompetence, obliviousness and sad detachment of a ruler for his people still seems paramount.

Still, I give this Theatre Ventoux production lots of points for ambition, verve and a strong viewpoint. There is a timelessness to Shakespeare's tale that resonates no matter if it's 1377 or 2007, and in his heavy editing of the text, Greg Taber finds an intriguing core of meaning. Today, in our society, our politicans are more likely to launch attack ads against each other than employ assassins, but the conflict (and venom) is in many ways the same.

The time and setting of the production is a sort of modern-day, Armani-tinged, Mafia-style power struggle. The men wear vibrant ties and modern suits, and the women look sleek and chic in well-cut dresses. A hint of decadence wafts through the production: hard liquor, cards, lascivious nudges and winks between principal characters. Richard (Matt Otstot, who has nice moments of smug narcissism), is more interested in flirting and pawing with his devoted cousin, Edward (nicely played by a measured Stephen Torres) than royal decorum. When another cousin, Henry (RJ Blak) becomes involved in a dispute with Mowbray (Rene Lastreto II), he takes the opportunity to banish them both.

But Richard, it seems, is not a very good politician. Even an absolute ruler must rely on some form of legitimacy, and Richard endangers his through callousness. Gaunt (a well-cast Ronald Blackwell), the ailing father of Henry, is the ultimate recipient of Richard's cruelty in a murder scene that is staged in this production with the requisite chilliness.

There are some elements of the story that get lost in this adaptation -- any subtleties in the relationship between the king and queen, for example. And the idea of the divine right of kings is also underplayed, which seems a shame, considering the political state of the world today.

What I like best about this production is its intensity. From the set -- stark but swathed with rousing purples, reds and blues, with the throne a leather Mission-style chair -- to the brooding medieval music supplemented by Ladysmith Black Mambazo and Joni Mitchell, you're never far from life-and-death. The acting, overall, is not as strong as it could be in an amateur production, and sometimes the pace of the show falters, particularly in several of Richard's monologues. (There are some fine supporting performances, including Arthur Koster and Greg Taber as thuggish father and son.) But overall, there's a ferociousness of spirt that carries "This Flattering Glass" a long way. I might not totally love it -- passionately, desperately, abusively or otherwise -- but I love the idea of it. I look forward to more productions from Theatre Ventoux.

REVIEW!!!!!!!!!

www.fresnobeehive.com

I just wanted to extend my most sincere thanks and gratitude to Greg and Lisa and the rest of the cast and crew. Without any of you we would not be able to play and WOW the audiences!

Hey, let's get together and crank this thing out 4 more times! Yay!!!! ;-)

Thank you!!!

Viva la Bullshit!

Alais!