uta hagen-daas

I question such intense “introverted” training in acting. Maybe I’m a bit hostile to the way she structures her manifestoes. For example: she believes that when something is not “working” on stage, which is another can of worms entirely, because who is the judge of whether something works or not? (Postmodern. I know.) But she blames a “failure” of a certain act on behalf of the actor. Now, if I were an actor, I would not like my work to be called a “failure” or that Uta Hagen knows exactly what my problem is. It seems that she makes assumptions too quickly, and assumes that all actors operate the same way, her way. 

Yes, I know she was a phenomenal actress and teacher, I can’t discount that. But this intense introverted approach will only really help those who need training in introversion, meaning extraverts. And not all people are. 

Something that I have read in nearly all of the books on acting, which I have read over the past few weeks have emphasized the fact that “the actor’s body is their instrument, and should be trained in technique just as any pianist or violinist”. However, most of these books are focused on such theoretical jargon, that you can barely get an outline of their own method. 

A budding pianist would never crack open a book of verbal theory on piano and expect to get a firm grasp on piano technique. The same with these books, they make a nice summary of the troubles of being an actor and different ways of feeling into a role, but where is the discipline? How does this translate for an actor?

From my own experience, as a pianist, playing “three blind mice” as a five year old was no artistic achievement, but being ingrained with those tones, rhythms, muscle memory for 12 years certainly helped when I tackled chopin and debussy in high school. 

So what should the actor learn? Is it just physical training –  voice, movement – or emotional training –  being able to free up emotions easily and appropriately? That’s the main gist I get from these writers and from conservatory training. But I think they are missing something, and that is their worldview. Artists cannot be islands, in their own world of creativity. They must know what they think about the world, from training of the mind – whether it be history, philosophy, or psychology –  because art comes from necessity in the world. We can keep repeating plays, again and again, but without some connection to right now, are we simply a living museum? I digress.

Back to hagen -daas… she also believes that if you are playing the circumstances and actions of the character so realistically and you are so enveloped with the character, then the audience will be moved. There are so many things that I find odd in this statement. First, I don’t think I have ever been moved by watching a “realistic character”, I’m moved by either the story, or the relationship between characters, not “Cindy Lou Who” herself. That places a great amount of pressure  on an actor. I don’t think this statement of Hagen’s works like a Harry Potter spell. Also, the audience is not some force that reacts to the actors with a blank slate, there are audience members who walked in right after an arguement, or wanted different seats, there are so many factors at play. The actor can really only present his role, for the purpose of the play, not put all that pressure on himself or question his “success” as an actor.

 

p. s. – yesterday I was asked if I knew that Jesus was a Jew.

Do they really think southerners are that ignorant?  Obviously this specific individual knows  nothing about me.