Joy and Pain
A tangent: teaching acting. If I were setting up an acting curriculum, I would have students spend the first semester watching the following video and trying to reproduce it themselves. Watch:
I'd have students pay particular attention to the older brother -- how he clearly went from laughing to surprise at how much it hurt to the realization that it was hurting A LOT - and then back to neutral again when his attention is drawn to the TV! It seems to me that this is the foundation of all great acting: portraying clearly on one's face and in one's body the changing thoughts and emotions of a character. Then I would have students spend time paying attention to the baby -- the pure joy that goes across his face.
Sounds easy, right? I mean, how much time would this take for students to accomplish? Well, watch some attempts, and compare them to the original:
And this:
It's not easy. But it is crucial to acting. If you watch one of the first scenes of The Godfather, you will see what I mean. When a petitioner whispers a request into Marlon Brando's ear, you can watch every word he says appear on Brando's face. Just like the kid in the YouTube video. To me, this is the essence of acting, whether tragedy or comedy. Work on this first, before you start getting scenes from plays to work on -- just focus on thinking thoughts and expressing them clearly and with commitment. Once you have experienced that, then you might start doing scenes.
I'd have students pay particular attention to the older brother -- how he clearly went from laughing to surprise at how much it hurt to the realization that it was hurting A LOT - and then back to neutral again when his attention is drawn to the TV! It seems to me that this is the foundation of all great acting: portraying clearly on one's face and in one's body the changing thoughts and emotions of a character. Then I would have students spend time paying attention to the baby -- the pure joy that goes across his face.
Sounds easy, right? I mean, how much time would this take for students to accomplish? Well, watch some attempts, and compare them to the original:
And this:
It's not easy. But it is crucial to acting. If you watch one of the first scenes of The Godfather, you will see what I mean. When a petitioner whispers a request into Marlon Brando's ear, you can watch every word he says appear on Brando's face. Just like the kid in the YouTube video. To me, this is the essence of acting, whether tragedy or comedy. Work on this first, before you start getting scenes from plays to work on -- just focus on thinking thoughts and expressing them clearly and with commitment. Once you have experienced that, then you might start doing scenes.
Comments
Acting isn't about repeating what other people do in any strict sense.
It's about finding the truth of a scene.
And then the examples you offer simply show bad, unengaged acting. No amount of training will ever help these copy cats "replicate" the moments of the brothers.
And Marlon Brando couldn't do it either.
It's silly what you're proposing.
I say sort of because I believe you're overthinking it.
People are either good actors. Or they aren't.
All teaching can give them are some techniques that may or may not help them.
Often, those techniques don't help at all, but it depends on the individual.
Schools, conservatories, etc, are places to practice acting and get notes. And again, it may or may not be helpful - depending on what kind of person and actor you are.
At best, all you can really say is, to paraphrase Spolin, nobody teaches anybody anything. But everybody is always learning from everybody else.
But since you teach theatre, my guess is that there is more than a little self-preservation in your POV.
Finally, minimal thinking? No. Bad thinking? Yes - but not minimal.
I don't.
And I haven't seen a teacher ever do anything other than uncover what is already there.
I do find you're advocacy of teaching here at odds with your POV on MFAs... what am I misunderstanding?
As far as undergraduates being taught to act, here is a recent email I've received: "Shakespeare on Wednesday was amazing. We were working on voice stuff, because Shakespeare needs a big ol' voice. First, after 27 years of being on this planet, I finally found out how to control my diaphragm. I don't know why it took so long to find a teacher who was just like, "Okay, here is the transverse abdominal, it's what you want to work, here are three different ways to find it, this is what it should feel like," and then makes sure you can find it. I went into a practice room after class and immediately noticed that singing was easier and not as hard on my throat. Then we did a thing where we got up in front of the class and he did hands-on stuff while we spoke some lines to get us breathing properly and using the breath. For me he just had me use falsetto and a very light voice, I assume so that I would not sit on my cords so much and so that I wouldn't try to 'fake' emotion by locking up in the throat. We just did repetitions of those lines over and over until finally I was in-tune with my breath and my emotions and then this huge sound just came pouring out. I can't even really describe it, all I know is that I was covered in sweat and that when I finished the class starting spontaneously applauding."
To me, that's persuasive.
Most of the MFA theatre programs I've seen don't have any of that.
Or the accompanying "learning to be away from Mom and Dad" lessons that come automatically with BAs.
Debt of course, is par for the course for undegrads, however. (The median debt for matriculating undergrads is 20 grand. MEDIAN.)
Until all higher education is free - which is unlikely and possibly not even a good idea considering the way the govt screws everything up when it gets more involved than it should - that will be the case.
However, it still seems odd that if you really believe that someone can be trained to act as well and impactfully as Marlon Brando, why investing in an MFA would be a bad idea.
(Obviously, I'm making a straw dog here since I don't believe it's possible to train anyone to act - as I said before, the best you can do is help someone uncover a talent or depth of talent they didn't know they had.
Undergraduate debt is nothing compared to graduate debt, which ranges anywhere from $40,000 to over $100,000. This is especially true if you feel compelled to attend one of the so-called "name" programs, who often offer no assistantships or scholarships. People often say they are buying "contacts," hoping that by working with "name" people they will get a foot in the door. To me, that is a waste of time -- you could take that $100,000 and team with several others to create your own theatre and do play after play.
I approve of undergrad for precisely the reason you mention: all the other classes. It is necessary to become educated and well-rounded.
That's my opinion, anyway.
A MEDIAN number means half are above and half are below. Which makes your 40k-100k number not very meaningful, since, there are many people who get free rides or breaks. And most "name" programs DO offer some help at some point (you are misinformed if you don't think so) - not to say it's enough.
As to contacts - you are and you aren't buying contacts ALWAYS. But anybody who goes to one of those programs just for that is making a mistake and deserve the onus of the debt they have created.
There is no money to be made in theatre. The sooner theatre people realize this, the sooner everyone can actually concentrate on the work.