workbook session thoughts

Questions and thoughts following a particularly thought- and emotion-provoking workbook session....

An MFA is about being an independent learner. How does my previous work/life experience help me in this? I'm really lucky to have been kind of self-taught, in the sense that my formal training is very limited. I've learned on the job, for the most part. I've learned from incredibly talented, creative, admirable directors and fellow actors who have worked and do work professionally. As a result, I have done all of my learning as an actor as an independent learner. I have learned to be observant, I have learned to do my own research and self-train, I have sought training from people when I need coaching. I was also raised by generations of educators-- my dad has always said that education is an inherently selfish pursuit, which doesn't make it a bad thing, but it does illustrate this idea of independent learning. I also initially quit my undergraduate acting degree because I knew, at that time in my life, I needed to be an English major who could sit in the library and read and write papers alone. Independent learning is a thing I do very, very well. The challenge in our field and in this course is to balance the independence with the collaborative nature of theatre and acting. I also think I'm good at collaborating and respecting the independence of others, so I've got a good head-start in this effort.

When I get feedback, do I do something about it or do I say FU? When is it ok to say FU? Because it is ok! I should feel secure in my own ability and processes my can access myself-- without a director. But at the end of the day, I need to be able to to fulfill the vision of my director, as I was hired (or at least cast) to do. So it's a give and take. I think the FU comes in having integrity as an actor to know when I'm performing or making choices in a way that is good but doesn't serve the overall vision, and knowing the choices I want to make are still good ones. I think the only time to say a proper FU is if I am being asked to compromise my integrity as an artist (and therefore as a person) to such an extent that I can no longer stand by the creative result. I am lucky enough to have never been in that position enough to quit a project or cause some kind of creative scene, but my experience has definitely provided me the opportunity to know the difference between my creative choice and a choice forced from a director a scene partner. If it's for the good of the overall project, in general I have found I don't need to say FU.



Meanwhile, Zak makes some commentary about how it's "awesome" that "our group doesn't ask for validation" -- except that he LITERALLY DID after our first performance in acting class this term and we got all notes without any validation. He LITERALLY said, "Ok now what did we do well? I'm a typical American-- I like my critique sandwiched between compliments." My jaw hangs in amazement, at a complete loss as to what to think. I'm... just at at a complete loss.

For the record: I am not a "typical American", if this is what it means to be one.

September also had some questions today about how to recreate a moment, which also somewhat frustrated me, because after a year of MFA-level training she is at a loss as to how to be able to do that. It makes me feel precisely like: THEN WTF ARE YOU DOING IN A THEATRE TRAINING OR DOING ACTING. This is the exact, precise reason why many members of our cohort are terrified to be onstage with her. We never know from rehearsal to rehearsal (even on the same day!) what we will be given as her scene partner. While I am supportive and encouraging of exploration in rehearsal and even into performances (because obviously it is my job as an actor to keep a scene or a speech fresh for each performance), there is also a sense of consistency that is vital for an actor, particularly onstage. It is the opposite of encouraging for my classmate to admit and discuss her inability to comprehend, much less execute, a consistent performance after finding what "works" during a rehearsal process.

Alex's response was excellent, as his responses always are-- and much more diplomatic and understanding than I could ever be. His advice to be able to recreate a moment was to identify your actions specifically and make them precise. It does beg the question, does it leave you open to be in the moment? Does it leave room for true honesty to make actions specific and precise enough to recreate? It's less about recreating a moment and more about making it consistent-- MY FAVORITE WORD!

Consistent.

I'm really good at being consistent. And I know it isn't to a fault-- I know I can keep blocking and line delivery fresh, I know I can play a moment based on a specific audience that can alter somewhat based on the needs of the next audience, I know I'm open to my scene partners to respond based on their changes. But I will always hit my mark, I will always hit a cue, I will always be reliable to provide a consistent performance. And it comes back to objectivity-- which Alex mentioned specifically as well-- especially during a rehearsal process. I think that is another strength of mine, one I'm still honing (I find marks and feedback help me a lot to know if my objectivity is in line with what my tutors and directors think of my work).

I guess I take it for granted that consistency and objectivity are not inherent traits in actors. I take it for granted that this is a lesson some maybe don't learn until drama school. My fear is that based on the lack of awareness (self-awareness, spacial awareness, awareness of others) that some might be working to improve this term is actually being exploited in our rehearsal process. I fear some of my castmates need to be told specifically if and when they're not being objective or consistent-- myself included, but especially those who don't know how to do it. We discussed the fact that "success" can breed a self-satisfied attitude and that someone at the top doesn't need to tell everyone about it. I think the problem is less about bragging (in general) but more, again, about the lack of awareness. Ego puts yourself above or separate from others, and from self-improvement-- and I think that ego is also found in the lack of awareness and inability to be a respectful, reliable scene partner. But the problem is, what if direction or feedback is encouraging (or at least not discouraging) an actor from being consistent? How is the scene partner supposed to handle it?

Which is why, once again, I strive daily to be a reliable, consistent actor for the sake of my scene partners, and the audiences, and the directors vision, and the producers who have hired me.





I find it interesting that once again, as is the case every time we have these deep actorly talks, Zak is silent.