ACTING METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
There are so many amazing books written about acting. Each person has a slightly different approach. Stanislavski's system has been extremely influential on the development of acting training in our country, but there are other great acting methods and techniques. Below is a short PowerPoint document about famous acting teachers from history. Below that are videos and information on the four most significant people who influenced acting in the United States over the last 100 years: Stanislavski, Hagan, Meisner, and Adler.
Stanislavski
An Actor Prepares, Building a Character, and Creating a Role
An Actor Prepares, Building a Character, and Creating a Role
|
|
|
Who was Konstantin Stanislavsky and why was he such a big deal?
- From Backstage.com (BY ALEX ATES | OCTOBER 29, 2018 | LAST UPDATED: FEBRUARY 27, 2020)
- From Backstage.com (BY ALEX ATES | OCTOBER 29, 2018 | LAST UPDATED: FEBRUARY 27, 2020)
Who was Konstantin Stanislavsky and why was he such a big deal? It’s better to start off with who Stanislavsky wasn’t. He was neither a professional actor nor a scientist. He wasn’t a virtuoso and he wasn’t an inventor. But, like many revolutionary thinkers, Stanislavsky found harmony between the curious and discontent. The chord he struck was already there (the French psychologist Théodule Ribot articulated the System’s emotional technique before Stanislavsky’s teachings). Stanislavsky merely plucked the chord in a new way. And its ring echoed throughout the world.
In Moscow, Stanislavsky had an affluent upbringing and dabbled in the performing arts as an amateur actor, opera singer, producer, and director. However, what distinguished him at the offset were two particular habits. The first is that he was a meticulous and prolific writer. The second? He was captivated with the patterns of human life. He documented detailed observations, created experiments, coined terms, and saw the rehearsal room as a laboratory for exploring the nature of humanity.
Stanislavsky’s curiosity about human behavior led to a hypersensitive observation of the world. One famous story tells of how, during a play’s rehearsal process, Stanislavsky noticed that an actor’s dog (who would accompany the actor to rehearsal) would always awake from its nap before the owner would beckon the pup. Stanislavsky posited that the dog could tell when the actors shifted from speaking like “actors” to speaking like everyday humans again. How could actors sound like everyday people on the stage under lights, with a fictional set and an audience watching their every move (a distinctly unnatural conceit)? This was Stanislavsky’s obsession.
What you should understand is that American acting pre-System was primarily presentational. Actors relied on big, broad gestures and a level of theatricality that was over the top by today’s standards. Though Stanislavsky understood that actors needed certain technical skills like vocal projection or cheating out toward the audience, he generally resented recycled theatrical gags and pandering populism. Stanislavsky’s System formalized tricks to circumvent the physical language of “theater” and find a more naturalistic style of authentic human life.
These tricks (or exercises) can be boiled down to these basic principles:
When an actor considers questions of circumstance for every single line they have, every single second they’re performing—every single beat—a rigor is added to the work of acting.
Actors were no longer shooting in the dark, waiting to be “inspired.” Charisma was no longer being misconstrued for artistry. Now, actors had a way of talking about and itemizing their process. Finally, actors had a system to demonstrate how complicated acting really is! In addition to giving actors the language to create a craft or technique, it also gave acting an academic legitimacy it had not quite achieved before. By giving actors tasks, they were encouraged to build up muscles and mechanisms for telling the story of their character even if the actor was having a bad day, not feeling well, or feeling disconnected. It provided an entry point for any play an actor was working on.
Stanislavsky’s assertions changed the way people thought about human behavior through the vessel of the actor. In this way, Stanislavsky is often compared to Freud—an imperfect pairing in many ways, but the two figures are similar in that they ignited the public’s imagination about human life and provoked controversies and debate.
In Moscow, Stanislavsky had an affluent upbringing and dabbled in the performing arts as an amateur actor, opera singer, producer, and director. However, what distinguished him at the offset were two particular habits. The first is that he was a meticulous and prolific writer. The second? He was captivated with the patterns of human life. He documented detailed observations, created experiments, coined terms, and saw the rehearsal room as a laboratory for exploring the nature of humanity.
Stanislavsky’s curiosity about human behavior led to a hypersensitive observation of the world. One famous story tells of how, during a play’s rehearsal process, Stanislavsky noticed that an actor’s dog (who would accompany the actor to rehearsal) would always awake from its nap before the owner would beckon the pup. Stanislavsky posited that the dog could tell when the actors shifted from speaking like “actors” to speaking like everyday humans again. How could actors sound like everyday people on the stage under lights, with a fictional set and an audience watching their every move (a distinctly unnatural conceit)? This was Stanislavsky’s obsession.
What you should understand is that American acting pre-System was primarily presentational. Actors relied on big, broad gestures and a level of theatricality that was over the top by today’s standards. Though Stanislavsky understood that actors needed certain technical skills like vocal projection or cheating out toward the audience, he generally resented recycled theatrical gags and pandering populism. Stanislavsky’s System formalized tricks to circumvent the physical language of “theater” and find a more naturalistic style of authentic human life.
These tricks (or exercises) can be boiled down to these basic principles:
- Actors should focus on a character’s tasks. What is your character doing?
- What action does your character need to enact to do the task?
- Why does the character do that particular action to accomplish that particular task?
- Why is that task important to that character? What is the character’s objective?
- What is getting in the way of your character reaching that objective? What’s the obstacle?
- What decisions would the actor make “if” the actor was in the character’s circumstances? (This is the premise behind the famous “magic if” principle).
When an actor considers questions of circumstance for every single line they have, every single second they’re performing—every single beat—a rigor is added to the work of acting.
Actors were no longer shooting in the dark, waiting to be “inspired.” Charisma was no longer being misconstrued for artistry. Now, actors had a way of talking about and itemizing their process. Finally, actors had a system to demonstrate how complicated acting really is! In addition to giving actors the language to create a craft or technique, it also gave acting an academic legitimacy it had not quite achieved before. By giving actors tasks, they were encouraged to build up muscles and mechanisms for telling the story of their character even if the actor was having a bad day, not feeling well, or feeling disconnected. It provided an entry point for any play an actor was working on.
Stanislavsky’s assertions changed the way people thought about human behavior through the vessel of the actor. In this way, Stanislavsky is often compared to Freud—an imperfect pairing in many ways, but the two figures are similar in that they ignited the public’s imagination about human life and provoked controversies and debate.
What do people mean by “Early Stanislavsky” and “Late Stanislavsky”?
What do people mean by “Early Stanislavsky” and “Late Stanislavsky”?One of the reasons Stanislavsky’s theories can be so confusing is that he changed them incessantly. Because his theories were neither scientific nor rooted in qualitative or quantitative data, his notions were flexible and fragile. This undefined nature is why those who commit to the System at orthodox levels can often find themselves in a quagmire. Because Stanislavsky changed his mind (a lot), we look at his theories in two waves: early and late. Many of his students who immigrated to the United States were trained in Stanislavsky’s First Studio. This first wave of theory was reliant on the concept of emotional recall (which we’ll discuss later). Near the end of his life, Stanislavsky changed directions and focused on physical action. He was also directing a lot of his attention to hybridizing his System with the conventions of opera. While some argue that Late Stanislavsky is a logical evolution from Early Stanislavsky, it’s not difficult to interpret it as Stanislavsky patently rejecting his own early teachings.
But before he could communicate his change of heart, his students had already set out for the United States and were teaching his early theories to eager, curious actors. For example, when the Actors Studio opened, nine years after Stanislavsky died, the curriculum for the famed studio was teaching an expired Stanislavsky System—one that was 31 years outdated. To this day, much of the United States’ acting training is rooted in the early teachings of Stanislavsky—not his later teachings. One can’t help but wonder what Stanislavsky himself would have to say about that!
But before he could communicate his change of heart, his students had already set out for the United States and were teaching his early theories to eager, curious actors. For example, when the Actors Studio opened, nine years after Stanislavsky died, the curriculum for the famed studio was teaching an expired Stanislavsky System—one that was 31 years outdated. To this day, much of the United States’ acting training is rooted in the early teachings of Stanislavsky—not his later teachings. One can’t help but wonder what Stanislavsky himself would have to say about that!
Uta Hagan
Respect for Acting
Respect for Acting
|
|
|
What are the key elements of Hagen’s technique?
- From Backstage.com (BY ALEX ATES | SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 | LAST UPDATED: FEBRUARY 27, 2020)
- From Backstage.com (BY ALEX ATES | SEPTEMBER 6, 2019 | LAST UPDATED: FEBRUARY 27, 2020)
The key elements of Hagen’s technique are substitution, transference, specificity, authenticity, and preparation.
Hagen communicated her philosophies on acting through exercises that she refined as a teacher in New York City; thus, her insights are best experienced kinesthetically and in layers. While Hagen’s technique was indeed in concert with the beliefs of the System or the Method, she encouraged actors to not overintellectualize their processes and instead root themselves in real activities and create confidence through rigorous preparation. While some teachers (like Strasberg) encouraged actors to mentally re-create the conditions of lived experiences to behave authentically onstage, Hagen taught the technique of substitution.
Substitution is a variation of emotional recall with clear parameters. Hagen believed that there was danger in an actor internalizing a technique and getting lost in a role. Through substitution, she wanted actors to find themselves in a part. Hagen said that if an actor attempted to re-create the conditions of a definitive nonfictional psychological moment they had experienced for the use of their acting onstage, it would be distorted, because the way we perceive circumstances in moments of high emotion is not necessarily logical.
Instead, actors should use an “imaginative extension of realities” within the fictitious circumstances of a play. As a principle, substitution is more about the actor convincingly putting themselves in the organic circumstances of the play rather than replicating the conditions of their own life onto the play.
Hagen aimed to encourage the actor to articulate moments where their life and the life of the play as created by the writer meshed. The work of substituting is something the actor must do herself—it is not something a director can construct. This adds to Hagen’s sense of an actor’s craft: Only an actor can articulate an adequate substitution, adding a sense of discipline and rigor to an actor’s function. It is the actor’s duty, Hagen said, to find their relationship to the character based on their own experience and perspective, a process she terms “transference.” And the work of substitution is merely a foundation for the actor to move into the realm of making definitive choices in the rehearsal hall or on the stage aimed at giving the actor a sense of confidence because they trust the circumstances of the character’s stakes.
However, Hagen is also very clear that an actor should never substitute circumstances onstage that they’re uncomfortable talking about or exploring publicly.
Another critical element of Hagen’s technique—which is to be applied in the rehearsal room or onstage—is the establishment of destinations. In her studio, Hagen always pestered students to fully utilize props, costumes, or even architectural features of the venue to motivate authentic action. During scene work, Hagen’s students always had a pile of props and furniture on the stage because it was their relationship to objects that manifested in naturalistic behavior. Some acting teachers use the term “sourcing” to describe this technique—the idea that an actor knows what to do or how to behave onstage by how they interact with objects and tools that would realistically be in the environment of the scene.
By focusing on destinations, actors are always forced to think regarding actions and objectives (“What do I, the character, want in every single beat of the play?”). This is rooted in the language of Stanislavsky and participates in the belief that an actor’s energy onstage is dependent on the actor having tasks that relate to the character’s objective or obstacles.
Hagen communicated her philosophies on acting through exercises that she refined as a teacher in New York City; thus, her insights are best experienced kinesthetically and in layers. While Hagen’s technique was indeed in concert with the beliefs of the System or the Method, she encouraged actors to not overintellectualize their processes and instead root themselves in real activities and create confidence through rigorous preparation. While some teachers (like Strasberg) encouraged actors to mentally re-create the conditions of lived experiences to behave authentically onstage, Hagen taught the technique of substitution.
Substitution is a variation of emotional recall with clear parameters. Hagen believed that there was danger in an actor internalizing a technique and getting lost in a role. Through substitution, she wanted actors to find themselves in a part. Hagen said that if an actor attempted to re-create the conditions of a definitive nonfictional psychological moment they had experienced for the use of their acting onstage, it would be distorted, because the way we perceive circumstances in moments of high emotion is not necessarily logical.
Instead, actors should use an “imaginative extension of realities” within the fictitious circumstances of a play. As a principle, substitution is more about the actor convincingly putting themselves in the organic circumstances of the play rather than replicating the conditions of their own life onto the play.
Hagen aimed to encourage the actor to articulate moments where their life and the life of the play as created by the writer meshed. The work of substituting is something the actor must do herself—it is not something a director can construct. This adds to Hagen’s sense of an actor’s craft: Only an actor can articulate an adequate substitution, adding a sense of discipline and rigor to an actor’s function. It is the actor’s duty, Hagen said, to find their relationship to the character based on their own experience and perspective, a process she terms “transference.” And the work of substitution is merely a foundation for the actor to move into the realm of making definitive choices in the rehearsal hall or on the stage aimed at giving the actor a sense of confidence because they trust the circumstances of the character’s stakes.
However, Hagen is also very clear that an actor should never substitute circumstances onstage that they’re uncomfortable talking about or exploring publicly.
Another critical element of Hagen’s technique—which is to be applied in the rehearsal room or onstage—is the establishment of destinations. In her studio, Hagen always pestered students to fully utilize props, costumes, or even architectural features of the venue to motivate authentic action. During scene work, Hagen’s students always had a pile of props and furniture on the stage because it was their relationship to objects that manifested in naturalistic behavior. Some acting teachers use the term “sourcing” to describe this technique—the idea that an actor knows what to do or how to behave onstage by how they interact with objects and tools that would realistically be in the environment of the scene.
By focusing on destinations, actors are always forced to think regarding actions and objectives (“What do I, the character, want in every single beat of the play?”). This is rooted in the language of Stanislavsky and participates in the belief that an actor’s energy onstage is dependent on the actor having tasks that relate to the character’s objective or obstacles.
Sanford Meisner
Sanford Meisner on Acting
Sanford Meisner on Acting
|
|
|
What are the key elements of Meisner’s technique?
- From Backstage.com (BY ALEX ATES | APRIL 3, 2019 | LAST UPDATED: FEBRUARY 27, 2020)
- From Backstage.com (BY ALEX ATES | APRIL 3, 2019 | LAST UPDATED: FEBRUARY 27, 2020)
The Meisner technique has three main components that all work hand in hand:
The foundation of Meisner’s technique is repetition, which removes the pomp of aesthetic acting and also gets actors out of their heads so they can rely on their organic instincts. It is these authentic instincts, as provoked by another person in the live moment, that capture realistic human behavior, Meisner taught. Repetition also creates a system of preparation that gives the actor the courage and confidence to feel comfortable in the scene.
Meisner preached that no choices should be made until a force provokes the choice, thereby justifying it. If an actor only responds to justified and organic stimuli improvisationally, they must be in-the-moment and watchful for that meaningful stimuli. This creates the “given circumstances” of the scene. Once an actor has a clear sense of the “given circumstances,” inspired by the stimuli, then they could create an abundant inner life for the character to draw from, Meisner taught.
Meisner also emphasized Stanislavsky’s concept of the “magic if.” Through his practice of “particularization,” Meisner encouraged students to use meaningful personal experiences to bring dramatic text to life.
- Emotional preparation
- Repetition
- Improvisation
The foundation of Meisner’s technique is repetition, which removes the pomp of aesthetic acting and also gets actors out of their heads so they can rely on their organic instincts. It is these authentic instincts, as provoked by another person in the live moment, that capture realistic human behavior, Meisner taught. Repetition also creates a system of preparation that gives the actor the courage and confidence to feel comfortable in the scene.
Meisner preached that no choices should be made until a force provokes the choice, thereby justifying it. If an actor only responds to justified and organic stimuli improvisationally, they must be in-the-moment and watchful for that meaningful stimuli. This creates the “given circumstances” of the scene. Once an actor has a clear sense of the “given circumstances,” inspired by the stimuli, then they could create an abundant inner life for the character to draw from, Meisner taught.
Meisner also emphasized Stanislavsky’s concept of the “magic if.” Through his practice of “particularization,” Meisner encouraged students to use meaningful personal experiences to bring dramatic text to life.
Stella Adler
The Art of Acting
The Art of Acting
|
|
|
What are the key elements of Adler’s technique?
- From Backstage.com (BY ALEX ATES | DECEMBER 24, 2018 | LAST UPDATED: FEBRUARY 27, 2020)
- From Backstage.com (BY ALEX ATES | DECEMBER 24, 2018 | LAST UPDATED: FEBRUARY 27, 2020)
Because Adler grew up in a family of professional actors, she believed acting was, well, a lifestyle. This belief manifested itself in an undying insistence on discipline—and this is perhaps the essential element of Adler’s technique (even over the use of imagination). Adler taught that the imagination could only be cultivated if an actor is consistently examining the nuances of life. When an actor deliberately notices the textures, aesthetics, and sounds of everyday life, the power of the imagination expands and the actor’s toolbox grows.
Once the actor’s imagination is pulsating with inspiration, they can conjure detailed and realistic mental images from which to draw truthful inspiration onstage. When those images are nuanced and textured, and when the actor can authentically express the details of their mental imagery to the audience, the actor delivers a quality of truthfulness.
Perhaps the third most crucial element of Adler’s technique to highlight is the focus on identifying, articulating, and expressing a character’s circumstances. Adler taught her actors to interpret the text for key elements that dictate the character’s nature—be it social, economic, religious, geographic; the list can go on and on. From there, the actor must do two things: First, the actor must identify ways to convey these circumstances through the completion of an action (something the character does to another character to elicit a specific desired response). Second, the actor must cross-reference the circumstances of the character with what the actor has observed in life about how those circumstances manifest in society.
Once the actor’s imagination is pulsating with inspiration, they can conjure detailed and realistic mental images from which to draw truthful inspiration onstage. When those images are nuanced and textured, and when the actor can authentically express the details of their mental imagery to the audience, the actor delivers a quality of truthfulness.
Perhaps the third most crucial element of Adler’s technique to highlight is the focus on identifying, articulating, and expressing a character’s circumstances. Adler taught her actors to interpret the text for key elements that dictate the character’s nature—be it social, economic, religious, geographic; the list can go on and on. From there, the actor must do two things: First, the actor must identify ways to convey these circumstances through the completion of an action (something the character does to another character to elicit a specific desired response). Second, the actor must cross-reference the circumstances of the character with what the actor has observed in life about how those circumstances manifest in society.