Break a Leg

Nice blog Drew, I generally agree with you...though I think that people like Mamet and Cagney are speaking from a perspective of a person who is naturally good at acting, and just need to keep from complicating the craft...I do however think that for people that aren't naturally inclined to truthful acting, that the "method" can be of use. So you can't talk because you're a good actor. I saw a play directed and written by Mamet(Dr. Faustus at the Magic) and the acting was really bad, and it was clear that Mamet was directing them exactly as he purported in his book(which I've read) -- it felt like an awkward read-through, which I think that quality can be good for film and things that can be edited, but actually end up doing the opposite of what Mamet wants and stink of pretentiousness---ie---I don't have to even try---acting is just me standing there and talking---(sometimes it is) but Dr. Faustus was a little more complicated then just someone buying coffee and getting their change. Anyway, I'm not completely disagreeing with you, just a counter-point. Bring it!

Tahko, you seem to have absolutely misunderstood every point I was trying to make.

Hold on.

No, no, my mistake. You actually brought an intelligent extension of the discussion to the table. It's so hard to tell with the state of commenting on the internet these days. I'm used to reading comments on Digg.

I think you're 100% right. I think the real point, and I don't blame you for not picking this up since I made no reference to it at all, is that every actor needs to find the "method" that enhances their own craft.

I couldn't stand acting classes, so I stopped going. This may have stunted my craft's growth, but perhaps had I kept going would I have stopped acting? Who knows! Maybe I'm a better actor now than I would have been had I taken classes and workshops, etc. Or maybe not.

What Dustin Hoffman does obviously works for Dustin Hoffman, so who am I to criticize?

Drew Lanning, your blogs are always my favorite.

My biggest regret is that you weren't at the shoot I got to crash when I was in San Francisco.

Oh, and that I didn't get to see Flynn get stabbed in the leg and taken to the ER.

But mostly not meeting you.

Hehe...I think you're totally right. I've heard from actors who went through conservatory who said that the method training messed them up and it took years before they could trust their instincts again, which I think is really important. I think its totally individual, which is why they do call it an artform at times. I personally learned alot from being terrorized by the conservatory system, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger as they say...although... about 5 of my classmates hung themselves because of insensitive comments that our teachers made so I dunno...I guess its a risk that's sorta worth it.

At this point in the game, I could learn something from any classroom setting, any book, etc. I'm confident enough in myself and my craft to know what will work and what won't. When I was 22? Not so much. If you can survive a system that you refer to as having terrorized you, then you're already a better actor now than I was back then. Maybe you're better now that I am now, what do I know?

Anna, I'm sorry I missed you too. I'm also sorry I missed this stabbing in the leg incident, perhaps more so.

The good news is that we still have one scene left of mine to shoot, so it's not too late. You could even see me, Drew Lanning, die!

Ahem, Drew...can we not mention any stabbing, because I will f-ing shank you if you do it again.

And dude, I'm an amazing actor, haven't you seen Day-spa?

Man, am I late on this post!

Just thought that I'd put my two cents in as far as acting classes go. Acting classes are great...as long as there are no actors in them and no instructor.

I found the most maddening thing about the tons of classes I took was my classmates and the "group therapy" setting imposed by teachers just trying to "get everyone open up their instrument."

Pah.

In my opinion, Cagney and Mamet had it right (True and False is a great book. So is "Audition" by Micheal Shurtleff). They may have been over-simplifying, but they're right. It's just that some people take a lot of work to get there. And how does one do that?

The "Method" creates selfish, introverted, melancholy mumblers and the Meisner Technique will challenge your sanity.

But, you'll never know if you don't sample them. And a good acting class will allow you to do just that. You can learn the techniques, become more serious and then forget everything you've learned and get on with being an actor.

My two cents, too late.

I agree Robb, though not quite so vehemently.

I think what Mamet was getting at was to forget about acting and just do the work.

The problem is that if you have no foundation to work from, no trust in yourself and your craft, and no technique to fall back on when the "oh shit" moments happen, you'll quickly lose your way.

The truth I think is that there's nothing wrong with acting class or methods or techniques, because until you develop an instinct or sixth-sense for what the hell you're doing up there, you need something to fall back on to guide your way.

Then there are those characters, or scenes, or even single lines of dialogue that you have NO IDEA how to approach. It's at those times that I pretend like I actually paid attention in acting class, and start applying what I was supposed to learn. I apply and apply and apply until something finally clicks and I understand what I couldn't make any sense of before.

"Fake it 'til you make it." It's good advice.

So basically, I've probably done a complete about-face on my position in the original blog I posted. I do that. I'm an actor.

Amen.

I agree with some of what you're saying Robb...although I think the actors I knew in school who really applied a technique were actually alot more stable and less the "introverted mumbly actor" ---I don't think the technique neccesarily always makes for those people, I think it can attract them and justify their own tortured nature however, but I think its hard to say whether it promotes this behavior...I'm debating this, and I'm not really sure what we mean really by introverted mumbly actors...are these actors who don't have any friends and who are really awkward in public? Does the "mumbliness" have to do with their diction? It sounds like we're talking about a cliche...I would probably describe John Malkovich as a mumbly introverted actor, but would we debate that he is a good actor? Dunno...I need to have a little more life and stage experience before I can really state any absolute truths about acting, but I can say that what I do know is that with acting, or with anything in life, its a purely subjective thing and different people need different things to accomplish similar goals. I think Mamet has a point, but I don't think he's blown Stanislavsky out of the water. It'd be a little too simple if that was true. who are you btw Robb?

I'm just a fan of BaL and a student of countless hours of acting training (also a musician, you can relate. BA in theatre performance with double major in theatre design and one music history class shy of a saxophone minor. I went to school for a looooong time. I also have an internet show. You can click on my name to see it, though I hesitate to promote my show here).

I admitted that Mamet et al were oversimplifying. I also mentioned that it's important to learn different acting techniques.

My MAIN point was that it's important to sample the varying acting techniques out there. Not to get too vehemently tied to any particular one (and, man, do people get tied to techniques). They all have their usefulness in the proper situation.

My frustration with "the Method" is that, after doing the first (and only) Shakespeare play at the Strasberg Theatre Institute (West Coast), I was left with a sour taste in my mouth. The students were very nice and extremely eager, but they couldn't seem to wrap their heads around Shakespeare. It's not very compatible with "The Method."

In fact, Lee Strasberg's son decided that learning Shakespeare had nothing to do with learning how to act. Therefore, there will not be another Shakespeare show at that school. To me, that's like saying that learning how to peddle isn't an important step in learning how to ride a bike. My Shakespeare class taught me more about acting than any other class I took in college or elsewhere.

When I say that the actors are introverted, I mean on stage. Not in life (though, being actors, some are, of course). And when I say that they mumble, I mean that the Method actors I met weren't really prepared for performing on the stage. Their main focus was creating an inner life for their character. Almost exclusively. Which is great, as long as you don't have an audience (not too bad for the camera, though it can get a little self-indulgent if someone's not careful, not that that's an exclusive pitfall to the Method.).

So...yeah...I guess that's it. Sorry for the long reply. I love to talk about acting and theatre.

Hey---no not at all, I appreciate the long reply, now I see what you're saying and actually wholeheartedly agree. I think methods are good, but I think if an actor doesn't have the flexibility to try something new or let go of old ways of thinking that aren't helping them in a present situation, then they will get into trouble.

The mumbly actors certainly do sound like the worse kinds of actors, especially for shakespeare. I'd be curious to know more about the Strasberg school, he obviously has alot of contraversy around him, and is actually a big cause for alot of people turning their backs on the method.

I love talking about acting too, have you read the fervent years?

Ahhhhhh you're robb----I loved your amber turnipseed video--we all did! Awesome, I'm watching your first ep now...