Paradigm Shifts: Things Change
I read a blog last week that called for a celebration of performing and an end to what the blogger called naturalism.
There’s too many inherent problems from the shifting semantics of genre definitions to even dare get stuck into a debate about the word naturalism.
The blogger was looking back and marvellous old screen performances where there was no attempt at truth, it was a celebration of the Actor’s performance, giddy and bold.
But things change. The blogger has a very narrow view of what he meant by naturalism, the sort of criticism of mumbling and shuffling that was levelled at Method acting, the blogger levels at those that want truth over performance.
Do the audience really come to marvel at the Actor’s virtuosity, that’s what performing is. I say no, they come to enjoy a good story, so get out of their way. To me the ‘performing’ actor is like a needy child showing off for their delighted and indulging parents. You will get your reward when the audience put their hands together for you at the end of the night. We do not squeeze and extort compliments from them with our ‘performances’.
Truthful performances are compelling to watch, but not in admiration of the actor, but that the audience become caught up in the story. We’re not shuffling and mumbling, we’re not just playing to the crowd, craving their indulgent attention.
The blogger compares actors to dancers and suggests that they never pretend they’re not dancing, neither should an actor pretend anything either.
But things change. Once Stanislavski’s ensemble were the envy of Western theatre, then Strasberg’s students took the film world by storm. These actors were for their own time and suited to their moment in history.
But what now? Now there’s room for a paradigm shift again. Nothing stays the same.
In the late 60s, the American director Jack Poggi went to Moscow observe authentic Stanislavsi system acting. But the training he witnessed was not like that in the Stanislavski books, the teachers and directors weren’t using objective and actions. They were working on fixing the moment to moment, line by line of each Actor’s performance. Things had changed, they’d moved on.
A couple of years ago when I was a university lecturer a theatre company claiming to teach the Stanislavski system, sent us a letter offering to teach our students this systematic acting approach. As my eyes gazed over their syllabus, I realised that this was not an acting course but a historical retrospective, not a systematic approach to acting but a way for the company to make extra money by doing the Stanislavski exercises they’d read from a book. Things have changed.
The way that I teach acting is in constant evolution, I talk openly with colleagues and students. I started off ten years ago, trying to help actors achieve ‘great’ acting using the system/method tools I had learned over the years. Then I came into contact with Mamet and for a few years, through the baby out with the bath water. Then I trained in the US and experienced Meisner and Practical Aesthetics. Evolution and change is part of the process of self development.
Practical Aesthetics throws away the trappings of turn of the century Russia, and keeps the essence, it pushes aside the emotional excesses of 50s/60s method, it even cuts Meisner to the quick, taking the common sense and leaving the rest behind. Things change.
It suits the needs of modern actors, it’s quick, practical and doesn’t mystify the actor’s job, and just like the needs of the industry and the changing tastes of the audience, it brings a vibrant truthfulness to the stage and screen, but without the ‘performing’, a truly watchable, captivating form of acting.
At every step we watch and check ourselves and evolve our tools. But the one thing that’s beautiful about it, is the way that the audience don’t marvel at the individual performances, because we carefully step out of their way, and let them enjoy the show.