Workshop Essay

I have never thought about how acting worked. I assumed an actor was trained to express different emotions and when a script came they acted what was necessary. I never thought much deeper than that when it came to acting. Now, I wasn't completely wrong with this assumption, what I lacked in my thought process was where the actor gets these emotions from. As we learned in the intensive, there are a few notable ways to achieve this. One could use one of Constantin Stanislavski's techniques, which involves an actor to draw from their emotions for a character from past experiences and remembrances of the actor. Or one of Sansford Meisner's techniques such as repeating, where an actor spontaneously makes a comment based on his or her partner, and the comment is repeated back and forth between the two actors in the same manner, until it changes on its own. I learned that there are many techniques that can be used and it all depends on preference. Personally, I thought that Robert Lewis' technique made the most sense. His theory revolved around the idea that there are many branches of an actor's preparation for a role. Meaning an actor's emotions aren't the only factor that should be taken into account when practicing for a role. If an actor is playing an astronaut, an actor should study up on astronauts. However, for my independent project, this idea felt a little silly. I played a drug dealer and I felt I had the stereotypical drug dealer down. However, I had a hard time relying on the second half of this equation, my emotions.

For my independent project, I acted in a play written by Julian. I played the stereotypical drug dealer with a big heart. When it came to acting before and during the intensive workshops, I just read what I thought was right. Figuring out what a character is doing and why they're doing it, usually isn't a problem for me. And judging from the feedback I've gotten in the past, it's kind of worked in my favor. I just acted what I thought those situations would be like in real life. However, my original technique did not work in my favor for this particular role. Acting like typical, loose drug dealer wasn't an issue. It was simple, really. The biggest problem I had was at the climax of my particular scene where Grace's character hits on me. When I first went over the scene, my first instinct was to of course be shocked, but at the same time be sympathetic. I was leaning more towards sympathetic. When I asked how I did, everyone told me that I hardly looked shocked. I tried again. Still wasn't surprised enough. I kept trying over and over again and I couldn't figure out why I was having such a hard time putting myself in that place. I wasn't sure if it was more a personal disconnect, that I wouldn't personally act that way in that situation therefore I couldn't put myself into that situation, or whether it's because I'm more of an introverted person and I just couldn't push myself to get to that place. Then I realized that it wasn't necessarily about the situation being so real, but more entertaining. Not that someone couldn't act in the way I did in real life, but I felt that most people would probably keep more of their true feelings to themselves. The problem I had was not being able to trust my own instincts and feelings. I found it so difficult to exaggerate the truth for some reason. A lot of the time during practice I couldn't bring myself to really go for it because I kept thinking that it wasn't the truth. It became weirdly personal in a way that I wasn't expecting.

In the end, I'm not sure how I did, mostly because I don't think while I'm acting. My brain completely shuts off and I just feel like I'm saying words. It's a strange feeling because when I'm done I don't have much recollection of what I did. I believe that the workshop helped me a lot on my acting because now I have an idea of where everything comes from and how it gets there. It's also interesting to watch others act in real life. I get more of a sense of what people are doing and why they're doing it, and it's pretty interesting. I'm not much of an actor and I'm not sure how much acting I will do in the future when it comes to plays and things of that nature, but I do know that this workshop has helped me with my acting in everyday life and that's much more than I expected to get out of this.

Acting Workshop

I've always liked the idea of acting. In my head it seems so easy, understanding and breaking things down usually isn't a problem for me. However, when it comes to producing it on stage, I have no idea what I'm doing. I just kind of read the lines and see what happens. Sometimes it works. I find when I think about the lines it's more unnatural and uncomfortable. I never realize what I'm doing or how I did until afterwards when I get feedback. I don't think I've done too terribly in anything so far, or at least that's what I'm led to believe. We'll see. I think it also depends on the scene and the character. Today it worked out in my favor. I got a character I could relate. However, if I were given Ms. Mendoza, I probably would've crumbled. I don't like to be loud.
I've found acting to be fun. I think acting is a great skill to have even if you're not pursuing it as a career. I think it's useful to know how to act, because it can only help in certain situations. I also believe that it helps you to see when others are acting. It's kind of a funny thing. I've already started to notice it in, just a tiny bit.
Overall I think acting was the best workshop for me. I can't believe I learned as much as I did in just a week. I like it.

Define

Constantin Stanislavski- 1863-1938, was a Russian actor and theater director who was part of the socialist realism movement. He came up with a "system" made up of 3 branches: magic if, motivation and objectives. He believed that if an actor was to follow this "system", they would successfully create any experience any desired emotion. One earlier technique used for the system involved a "round the table analysis," which was a process in which the actors and director literally sat around a table and put their thoughts and characters on the script until a clear understanding was formed. He also associated with method acting, particularly the concept of Emotional Memory. This teaches actors to draw from emotions for a character from past experiences and remembrances of the actor. In 1897, Stanislavski created the Moscow Art Theatre.
I take from this that Stanislavski's methods were based on the actor feeling the part as opposed to acting the part. He believed that if the actor could put himself in the character's shoes, that he would be golden. I could see this working to a certain extent, however, if an actor is given a role that they have not experienced in real life, than what would they do?
Michael Chekhov- 1891-1955, was a Russian-American actor, director, author and theater practitioner. Was a student of Constantin Stanislavski who later on found Chekhov's work to be a betrayal of his principles. Much like Stanislavski, Chekhov explored the question of how to access the unconscious creative self through indirect non-analytical means. Chekhov taught a range of movement dynamics such as molding, floating, flying, and radiating that actors use to find the physical core of the character. His techniques seemed more external, though they were meant to lead the actor to a rich internal life.
His technique seems similar to Stanislayski's "system", but the difference is that Chekhov uses physical movements to get the same result. I believe this is probably more effective because it's easier to become a character when you prep yourself, meaning you can build yourself up for it. As opposed to recalling a memory that one never had in order to play a role.
Lee Strasberg- 1901-1982, was an American actor, director and acting teacher. He is considered "the father of method acting." He co-founded the Group Theatre in 1931, which was hailed as "America's first true theatrical collective." In 1951, he became director of the non-profit Actors Studio in New York City which is considered "the nation's most prestigious acting school.
Strasberg also founded the The Lee Strasberg Theatre & Film Institute and Film Institute in New York City and in Hollywood to teach. He required that an actor, when preparing for a role, dig into not only the character's life in the play, but also, "Far more importantly, into the character's life before the curtain rises. In rehearsal, the character's prehistory, perhaps going back to childhood, is discussed and even acted out. The play became the climax of the character's existence."
This I could see working. This helps the actor really become the character by having him create his own connection with the character. Essentially, an actor is imagining what this character's past, present and future is going to be like, they're just branching off from the script.
Robert (Bobby) Lewis- 1901-1997, was an American actor, director, teacher, author and founder of the influential Actors Studio in NYC. He was an early advocate of the Stanislavski system. His theory revolved around the idea that there are many branches of an actor's preparation for a role. He believed that Stanislavski intended that the actor prepare internally and externally, rather than only relying on internal techniques such as affective memory. In the 1970's he was the head of the Yale Acting and Directing Departments. Lewis made a point that there was a "generation of mumblers", whose acting conveyed the truth of the actor but not necessarily the truth of the character on the stage.
This is exactly what I was thinking. One couldn't act based solely on their past experiences.
Stella Adler-1901-1992, was an American actress, acting teacher and founder of Stella Adler Studio of Acting in Los Angeles. She was the only American actor to study with Stanislavski. Adler once said: 'Drawing on the emotions I experienced, for example, when my mother died to create a role, is sick and schizophrenic. If that is acting, I don't want to do it.' She later dismissed Stanislavski's theory, as did he, and came to the conclusion that instead of an actor having to experience the actual circumstances of a character, they must at least know something about the circumstances. For example: if a movie is about horseback riding than the actor must know something about horseback riding.
Sansford Meisner- 1905-1997, was an American actor and acting teacher who created the "Meisner technique" based off of Stanislavski's "system." An example of what would happen between 2 actors in a class: "They were given a single line of dialogue, told to turn away, and instructed not to do or say anything until something happened to make them say the words (one of the fundamental principles of the Meisner technique). The first student’s line came when Meisner approached him from behind and gave him a strong pinch on the back, inspiring him to jump away and yelp his line in pain. The other student’s line came when Meisner reached around and slipped his hand into her blouse. Her line came out as a giggle as she moved away from his touch." The goal of the technique was to "live truthfully under imaginary circumstances." He is also known for his repetition exercise, where actors are where one person spontaneously makes a comment based on his or her partner, and the comment is repeated back and forth between the two actors in the same manner, until it changes on its own. The goal is always to react truthfully, allowing the repetition to change naturally rather than manipulation. Sanford Meisner and his life partner James Carville founded the Meisner/Carville School of Acting on the Caribbean island Bequia in 1983.

Expressionism

Expressionism portrays emotions rather than the subject. Expressionistic pieces focus more on the feeling than the actual story. Judging by what I've seen so far of the Expressionist era, most of the emotions expressed are negative ones and are quite exaggerated.
I particularly enjoy the piece "Höre" by Else Lasker-Schüler. It's like I feel her jealousy while reading, and it's as if I can picture her confronting her ex. She changes the emotions subtly throughout the poem and it's so wonderfully condescending. I like how she kind of dangles herself in front of him as if to say: this is what you're missing. However, one can tell that she is the one who is probably hurting the most, and she expresses this beautifully.
Expressionism pieces saturate the raw emotions in specific scenes or situations. This is different from standard pieces because usually one is given the task to figure out the emotions and put them together within the context, thus getting the picture. As opposed to this movement which is more straightforward, pure emotion. I personally enjoy this movement because I love the emphasis on the emotions, because I believe that in any art piece, emotion is the core, and is perhaps not as prominent. I believe it's interesting to see the emotions distorted as the main the focus.

second post 2011

I was actually pretty excited to start the acting class, admittedly. Last year I wouldn't have been into it in the slightest but it's more fun for me. It's not as hard in a way, there's no overthinking, I just kind of do it. And to lose myself in that sense is fun, and releasing. It's also entertaining to watch the freshman, because I feel their pain. The reason I felt uncomfortable my first is because I thought too much. But now I realize it's more about instinct in most cases, and it's nice. I like it. I'm excited for more classes. Now that I feel more comfortable, I'm up for pretty much anything. Almost. I think.

I'm also enjoying STAC art. I like that there's no boundaries. I think the result is better that way. I'm almost finished with mine and I'm already proud of it. This is going to be a good year. Probably.

today

I wasn't sure what to expect out of today's activity but I was pleasantly surprised. To be honest, I don't think I really learned anything new about myself because I was just listing things I knew I liked. I don't really like too many things so it really wasn't a challenge coming up with them. However, I had asked Ilana to interpret my part of the mural and just by looking at it she said "It looks likes you don't want to bother anyone else because you made yours so small." I didn't really notice that, but it was true. That's one of the reasons why I enjoyed doing this. I wanted to capture as much of me as I could on that wall because I know that this is going to be somewhat permanent and when I come back to visit I want to see and remember how I was as a 17 year old. So I think in that way the project was a bit different for me. I didn't figure out anything really new about myself, and that's not what I wanted to take out of it, instead I wanted to be as sure as possible with myself and basically throw it all up on the wall. That's why this is so special to me. I want to document everything that's going on with me right now as much as possible and this mural only helped, and for that I thank you. So don't ever paint over it. Ever. Please.

Last day of Workshops

Well, in a few hours will be my last workshop with Reed. I missed the last Jim Bonnie workshop so I'm happy that I will attending this one.

The last workshop I got a lot of positive feedback on my really rough draft so I'm kind of excited for everyone to read the final product. I still don't think it's perfect given the time constriction but I think it's decent. At first I was a bit apprehensive about writing anything mystery just because I had never done it, or at least without realizing it, but I'm pretty proud of myself. Hopefully everyone will like it. Or at least tell me they like it.

I don't want to summarize the whole experience until it's over so for now this is what you get.

Good morning.