What's with all the fighting?
I don't know if it is like this in other cultures, but Americans will fight over anything. What angry, defensive little buggers we are!
I went to see my ex-acting teacher Alan yesterday. As we were talking he mentioned to me, with some surprise, how he recently had run into what he called "Meisner interference". I laughed having studied Meisner myself a few years before coming to New York. As a little background for the non-acting public at large let me say that there are many different methodologies promoted in American actor training. Devotees of any particular teacher (Sanford Meisner, Stella Adler, Lee Strasberg- to name a few) tend to cling desperately to their particular guru as if he/she were the only life preserver in shark infested waters. I've seen actors scream, throw heavy objects, and have wailing tantrums defending perceived threats to their acting messiahs. It didn't surprise me that Alan had gotten into a scuffle with a Meisner student. I was merely surpised that it hadn't happened before this since the man has been teaching for so long.
At any rate, this student had declared that what Alan (who is his own special brand of actor- a bit of an old school Stanislavski purest) was teaching was completely incompatible with Meisner's work. This is particularly amusing because Meisner's work is derived from Stanislavski's work. Meisner took the idea of "Communion" (which is focus on your acting partner to get to the emotional meat of the scene) and expanded on this concept. He studied it, developed it, and found it fascinating. I fail to see how this would, necessarily be incompatible.
This reminded me of my joyous and frustrating time in school when I thought everyone was freaking crazy because they were so attached to one way of thinking that they shut out and completely discounted anything else. Since my particular program was quite eclectic, the students created these elaborate scenarios where their favorite teacher could not POSSIBLY see eye to eye with another teacher! Why, their methods are so radically different that they could never work together in any productive manner! It is the common mistake of the student to believe that there is only one "way" of doing anything. The funny thing is, the more you study something- anything from acting to carpentry to theology- you'll find that there are an infinite number of ways to address any issue. The point is to learn the form and within that there is freedom.
The way actors fight defending their teachers is much the way different Christian sects battle one another or (as I have previously discussed) women will hold tight to parenting strategies or self-help gurus. We do a lot of this here in America. Communities have become so insular, so tiny, even in the biggest of places. For example, most New Yorkers I know don't have a fucking clue how Bush got reelected. Why? Because our social networks are so small that after high school we stop running into people who don't think like us. We avoid them like the plague. However, when we DO encounter "them" we tend to walk away thinking the other person is a damn fool not to have seen "the truth" the way we have. Whether it is politics, religion, economics, race, music, art or Star Trek we tend to get really worked up so that any and all situations are black and white. Either you are with us, or against us. Even my beloved social liberals have demanded that we always tow the party line. We have become so compartmentalized as a society that we push anyone who doesn't fit into our preconceived notions of "liberal", "conservative", "teacher", "politician", "parent", etc out to the edge. We shun them and completely dismiss anything they might have to say. (With the possible exception of John McCain)
But that's not the way people work. We are much more complex than that. Our thoughts, passions and beliefs do not come in prefabricated, modular boxes from IKEA. That may make things a bit more difficult and time consuming to sort through- but in the end isn't it worth it? What would it be like if we, as a society, once again valued discourse? What if we could stop taking a difference of opinion as a personal attack? What if we demanded that listening be a national obsession? What if we stepped back for a moment and agreed that being "right" (whatever the hell that means) is not as important as being fair? What if we actually took our professed love for rugged individualism seriously and took in each person as a person instead of an affiliation?
Of course, one of my own contradictions in this area is just how opinionated I am. However, I like to think of myself as a passionate student of ambiguity. What truly fascinates and motivates me are things I do not understand. I want to understand and I want others to want to understand. I know that right now things seem so important. Too important, in fact, to question your beliefs. I'd like to submit the argument that it is times like these when it is MOST important to challenge and question your own beliefs. That's what times like these are for. Ignore that and you just may have missed the opportunity to change the world.
I went to see my ex-acting teacher Alan yesterday. As we were talking he mentioned to me, with some surprise, how he recently had run into what he called "Meisner interference". I laughed having studied Meisner myself a few years before coming to New York. As a little background for the non-acting public at large let me say that there are many different methodologies promoted in American actor training. Devotees of any particular teacher (Sanford Meisner, Stella Adler, Lee Strasberg- to name a few) tend to cling desperately to their particular guru as if he/she were the only life preserver in shark infested waters. I've seen actors scream, throw heavy objects, and have wailing tantrums defending perceived threats to their acting messiahs. It didn't surprise me that Alan had gotten into a scuffle with a Meisner student. I was merely surpised that it hadn't happened before this since the man has been teaching for so long.
At any rate, this student had declared that what Alan (who is his own special brand of actor- a bit of an old school Stanislavski purest) was teaching was completely incompatible with Meisner's work. This is particularly amusing because Meisner's work is derived from Stanislavski's work. Meisner took the idea of "Communion" (which is focus on your acting partner to get to the emotional meat of the scene) and expanded on this concept. He studied it, developed it, and found it fascinating. I fail to see how this would, necessarily be incompatible.
This reminded me of my joyous and frustrating time in school when I thought everyone was freaking crazy because they were so attached to one way of thinking that they shut out and completely discounted anything else. Since my particular program was quite eclectic, the students created these elaborate scenarios where their favorite teacher could not POSSIBLY see eye to eye with another teacher! Why, their methods are so radically different that they could never work together in any productive manner! It is the common mistake of the student to believe that there is only one "way" of doing anything. The funny thing is, the more you study something- anything from acting to carpentry to theology- you'll find that there are an infinite number of ways to address any issue. The point is to learn the form and within that there is freedom.
The way actors fight defending their teachers is much the way different Christian sects battle one another or (as I have previously discussed) women will hold tight to parenting strategies or self-help gurus. We do a lot of this here in America. Communities have become so insular, so tiny, even in the biggest of places. For example, most New Yorkers I know don't have a fucking clue how Bush got reelected. Why? Because our social networks are so small that after high school we stop running into people who don't think like us. We avoid them like the plague. However, when we DO encounter "them" we tend to walk away thinking the other person is a damn fool not to have seen "the truth" the way we have. Whether it is politics, religion, economics, race, music, art or Star Trek we tend to get really worked up so that any and all situations are black and white. Either you are with us, or against us. Even my beloved social liberals have demanded that we always tow the party line. We have become so compartmentalized as a society that we push anyone who doesn't fit into our preconceived notions of "liberal", "conservative", "teacher", "politician", "parent", etc out to the edge. We shun them and completely dismiss anything they might have to say. (With the possible exception of John McCain)
But that's not the way people work. We are much more complex than that. Our thoughts, passions and beliefs do not come in prefabricated, modular boxes from IKEA. That may make things a bit more difficult and time consuming to sort through- but in the end isn't it worth it? What would it be like if we, as a society, once again valued discourse? What if we could stop taking a difference of opinion as a personal attack? What if we demanded that listening be a national obsession? What if we stepped back for a moment and agreed that being "right" (whatever the hell that means) is not as important as being fair? What if we actually took our professed love for rugged individualism seriously and took in each person as a person instead of an affiliation?
Of course, one of my own contradictions in this area is just how opinionated I am. However, I like to think of myself as a passionate student of ambiguity. What truly fascinates and motivates me are things I do not understand. I want to understand and I want others to want to understand. I know that right now things seem so important. Too important, in fact, to question your beliefs. I'd like to submit the argument that it is times like these when it is MOST important to challenge and question your own beliefs. That's what times like these are for. Ignore that and you just may have missed the opportunity to change the world.
posted by Bree O'Connor at 12:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home