Who..

Constantin Stanislavsky developed the "Emotion Memory System". In this "system" actors were forced to recreate memories they have experienced in their own life, rather than their imagination. Really, almost no imagination was involved. It makes sense if you think about, if you want your performance to be truthful, you have to come from a place of reality, not fantasy. He was all about truth. Living and breathing the character. This system was proven ineffective however, due to the fact that many actors who applied it, suffered from hysteria. His system then evolved into what is known as the "Physical Action Method". in this method, an actor will preform physical movements or actions, to reach the desired emotion. Essentially, the actor is working from the outside in, which seems like the complete opposite from his original system. I think, only by applying both methods can you find some value in it. 


Micheal Chekov's approach, was using the outside to get in touch with the inside. He would explore the physicality of a character, in hopes of getting accessing the deep and subconscious side of a character. Chekov was one of Stanislavskys students, and so it makes sense that his technique is really a cross between Stanislavsky's two methods.


When discussing Lee Strasberg, you are really discussing Method Acting. Method Acting deals with combining the phycological state of the character, with the phycological state of the actor, until they almost become one. It is not so much playing a character, but playing yourself and making people believe that you are the character. A common question that is asked is, "What would motivate me, the actor, to behave in the way the character does?" It would be like if I'm in a scene in which I'm crying because I just found out my best friend died, I wouldn't be focussing on that actual circumstance to access the emotion, I would be focussing on something, that I Sabrina, could relate to.


Robert Lewis co-founded The Actors Studio. He focused on inner action and intention. "We must never settle for "what" we are doing and "why" we are doing it, but we also must ask "how" we are doing it. And if we have found the "how" we mustn't forget to justify the "what" and "why." He views what we are thinking as having a much greater importance that what we are saying or what we are doing. 


Stella Adler's technique was all about imagination, completely contradicting Stanislavsky, who incidentally was her teacher. There are four key points in her technique. One, acting is doing. An actor must always be performing an action while on stage, and must always know what the justification is for that action. Two, developing the imagination. An actor must observe the real world to enhance the imaginary world they create on stage. Three, training the mind. The actor must really know what is going on in the play. They need to read, analyze, explore and research. Four, size. Everything an actor does on stage needs to be big, and done with conviction. There must also be a deeper meaning to everything you are doing. 


Sandford Meisner's technique focused on how people interact. Their behavior, their reactions, their expressions... It was based on an actor's natural reflexes and impulses. Although this is most easily applied to improv, it can also be used in approaching a script. 

Expressionism...

What do I think about Expressionism? 

Well my first though was "Gee, expressionism sounds like expressing", which I now know is no coincidence considering that expressionism is all about the expression of feelings. Yes that's what all art is, but with expressionism, that's really all it revolves around. It's not about ideas, stories, or plots. It is more concerned with conveying emotion. I think anything more that, that can be found in expressionist art is the source of our imagination rather than the actual art itself. For example, when you see a painting of a little girl all alone standing in a field, your mind automatically begins making assumptions about who she is, why she's there, what she's thinking ect., but all the painting it really offering you is feelings of loneliness or perhaps curiosity. Yet there is no way to know if that was the artists intention. Maybe he really was trying to convey a detailed and in depth story about this little girl. There's no way to know. It seems that, by passing something off as expressionist, what you're really doing is simplifying something that is too complex for you to understand otherwise. So is expressionism a way of approaching art intellectually rather than creatively? It seems that way to me. I'm not saying that this is good or bad, or even if I like it or not (because I'm not really sure yet). All I'm saying is that it's interesting.

A Reminder...

I am once again reminded of what truly great acting is.


As I was sitting there in the audience of Wagner College's production of My Fair Lady, I knew very well where I was. I was in Staten Island, at Snug Harbor Cultural Center, in a theatre, watching a show. Yet, I felt myself, from time to time, almost believing I was in London, sitting in Professor Higgins's study, with Eliza Doolittle and Colonel Pickering. I formed relationships with them as though they where real people. I began to feel their pain or share in their happiness as though they were real people. And as far as I was concerned, as long as the lights were on and the curtain was drawn back, they were. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not delusional. I have a firm grasp on reality. I understand the difference between what is fake and what is real (well, for the most part). But, that's just it isn't it? Great acting isn't fake, it's completely, 100 percent real. Truly great acting, isn't acting at all. Of course this is something I already knew, and when I'm sitting in the audience I never seem to forget it. Yet, when I get up out of the audience and make my way onto the stage, it becomes harder and harder to remember.


I guess sometimes I just need a reminder.

I need to Blog...

You know, I've been busy. Or perhaps I've just been forgetful. Or maybe I've just been lazy. Who knows? 


I haven't been blogging, and I don't really know why. I mean, I like to blog. It's fun, it makes me feel like people are interested in what I have to say (which makes me feel smart and sort of boosts my ego), and it improves my writing (which I really love). And, most of all, when I don't blog, I feel bad. I feel irresponsible. I feel unfulfilled and lazy. I mean, I feel like my blog is a direct reflection of who I am. So, if I don't blog, than what does that say about me? Maybe this thing isn't really as important as I seem to think it is, or maybe it is. I don't know. But it doesn't matter. What matters is that I blog. I need to blog. It's as simple as that. 

I'm only human...

To act is not to act, it's to allow yourself to feel. I never had a problem understanding it, but experiencing, that's a whole other story. Today I got glimpses of what it's like, but it didn't last long. So what was the problem? Well, I figured out my problem last week. "When I begin to actually feel something, I get so excited that before I know it, I'm not feeling it anymore". That is completely, 100% true. Now, here's where it gets confusing. If you change "excited" to "scared", you will arrive at this weeks problem. Today in class, when I would actually start to feel something, it would completely freak me out, and then, guess what would happen? I wouldn't be feeling it anymore. I mean, this week we were working mostly with the emotion of anger, and believe me, no one hates being angry more than I do. So, naturally when I would actually begin to feel angry, I would instinctively recoil from it. Almost like a reflex I can't control. So one week I'm enjoying my emotions too much, and then the next week, I'm not enjoying them enough? It's a little bit of a dilemma. How can I possibly go about fixing a problem that keeps on changing? Well, I don't know. And quite frankly, I don't need to know; I'm not supposed to know. I mean, if I knew everything, I wouldn't be taking this class in the first place (and of course if I knew everything, I wouldn't be human).

Art is not math...

I think it's about time to blog about that amazing trip we had last friday.


Well clearly I've been putting this off, because I really have nothing to say (well, nothing that I can express in words which makes it a little difficult to blog about... maybe I should try interpretive dance?). I mean, Luke says it all the time, there are certain things that just can't be talked about, it's just understood. Which definitely holds true for much of the DADA art we saw, but then for some of it, that doesn't work. It can't be talked about, it really can't be understood, so then what? What am I supposed to do with it then? Well I guess the last thing that's left is emotion. If it can't be talked about, and it can't be understood, then I guess it can only be felt. I don't know about you, but when I'm looking at what is probably a 30 foot statue of a hula dancer, it most definitely makes me feel something. Even if it's only confusion, it gets a reaction out of me doesn't it? It makes me feel something. So wait a second, maybe I do get all this DADA art... or maybe I don't. You know what? It doesn't even matter. 


After all, if I could understand art the way I can understand lets say... a math problem, what would be the point?

Step 1...

Step 1: Admitting you have a problem

I think I've figured out my problem (well at least my main problem) , and I guess that's the first step. I'm pretty sure I was sort of aware of it before, but I don't think I was able to admit it or simply understand it until now. I had my revelation tuesday during our acting class. We were all siting around in a circle with Luke in the middle holding two water guns, one was full, and the other empty. He went around to everybody, one at a time, and stuck the guns in their faces. The point of this exercise was to experience true emotion. To have an honest reaction without acting. That was never a problem for me. In fact it was always quit easy for me to be in the moment and react truthfully. I really understand the whole idea that acting is really not acting. Now, here comes my problem. I didn't figure it out by myself, Luke actually pointed it out to me. He was saying how when you're in a scene, and lets say your scared because someone is holding a gun to your head. If you get really into it and feel actual fear, then all of a sudden you're like "Oh Yay! I'm scared!", and then your out of it. That, there is my problem. When I begin to actually feel something, I get so excited that before I know it, I'm not feeling it anymore. It's almost as if acting is too fun for me. I know it's a silly thing to say but I mean, even if I'm in a scene where I'm hysterically crying, I find myself really having fun, but I'm crying, and that's not supposed to be fun. I know I have to find a balance, but the question is "How?". I guess that'll be step 2...