PRACTICAL PROBLEMS IN
APPLYING METHOD PRINCIPLES
As previously mentioned, The Method has been
criticized all over the world since Lee Strasberg first started experimenting
with new techniques in acting and actor training, based on the work of
Constantin Stanislavsky, in the United States during the 1940’s. Many directors, actors,
producers, theatre critics and teachers who have never actually studied The
Method are strongly, often quite virulently, opposed to it as a training- and
acting technique. Judgments are often based on nothing but preconceptions, assumptions,
ignorance and a lack of understanding, though some detractors have had
unfortunate working experiences with Method actors incapable of applying their
skills judiciously, while others have studied The Method and found the
experience and working procedures to be unsatisfactory and even negative. Whatever the
circumstances, opposition and criticism from many quarters have been well
documented in the United States, Britain and elsewhere and the fact remains
that there must be a reason for it.
While I was studying
at the at the Lee Strasberg Theatre Institute in New York (1981 – 1984) my
peers and I were troubled by many questions as to how the work (sense memory,
emotional memory, the different Method techniques that were part of our
training) was to be successfully and correctly applied in practice by the actor.
At the time, the syllabus
was based on the practical training of the actor’s instrument with regard to
the following skills:
1. Relaxation.
2. The
ability to experience, express and use sense memory as an acting tool.
3. The
development of acting techniques based on sense memory.
4. The
application of sense memory to practical scene work – with emphasis on truthful
experience and the expression thereof.
5. Classes
in movement (jazz, Tai Chi, ballet), different accents, audition techniques and
directing for film and TV.
Fellow-students and
I spent many hours sitting around in restaurants trying to figure out answers
to the questions that were not being answered by our instructors. We were
confused and unsure since essential information about application of “the work”
was not being addressed specifically enough. Most of us felt that we were
stumbling around in the dark without a clue as to what to actually do with what we were learning and how
to do it effectively and gracefully. It became clear to me at this stage why many
so-called “Method actors” were doing bad work and causing The Method to get a negative response in the industry. Many were learning or had learned skills they had no idea how to
apply correctly and were making serious acting mistakes, calling the entire working
technique into question and giving The Method a “bad name” due to ignorance and
a lack of proper working methods.
Over the next week or two I will be discussing the solutions I've come up with as a teacher of Method in Pretoria, South Africa, in addressing the challenges and the gaps in instruction that my peers and I were struggling with in my New York days.
I hope you will find
the process informative and helpful as I continue this exploration into my
understanding of how the Method actor can learn to apply this most valuable
work effectively, correctly and truthfully and why I've added certain skills, like text analysis, to my courses!
I hope to see you back here soon ...
Stephanie van Niekerk
Director - Method Actors' Training Centre
0 comments:
Post a Comment