I've been finding the work of the company creaping into my daily life. Thoughts of training follow me into the subway. I'm aware of the atmosphere in the station and how people move and adjust to one another. I hear the quiet conversations on the train, both physical and verbal. I'm pouring wine at my serving job with a sense of beauty and ease. I teach my classes with an open heart, and I'm slowly letting go of many reservations I have about acting.
I've taken many classes and workshops trying to become a better actor, thinking that the answers would appear in a three hour class with twenty participants. Over these past months, I've learned that diligence and committment to the work is where real progress lives. I find it fascintating that in a Michael Chekhov exercise called Staccato/Legato, we first fully committ to one direction, sending all of our energy out to that direction, first, and then collect energy back. We let go of energy to make room for something new to come in. I've done this exercise for years, but recently I have found myself doing the exercise before auditions or before my day job or at night before I go to sleep. Because being an actor means being present, in your work, in your space, and in your life.
Today, in the audition room I chose material I had spoken this past week in training. Words I knew well and felt passionate about. Words that didn't need performance or tricks. And I don't think I've ever felt more comfortable in a space or in myself.
Sometimes you have to fully committ to one direction and let all your energy go in that direction, and then be open to whatever energy you collect back.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
Michael Chekhov Technique - How does it work on you?
I have been leading the company in Michael Chekhov Technique for the last few months, and I would be really glad to hear reactions from the company. I am constantly discovering my voice as a teacher, and I have to be honest, it feels wonderful to be rooted in a technique, to know I have a specialty of sorts. That idea pushes me to get better at it - understanding the technique, teaching the technique, and ultimately applying the technique.
I would love to hear some reflections about your experiences with the work. Also, what questions do you have about applying the technique? Obviously, we are not only working with the MC Technique, so we don't get a lot of time to explore it necessarily. But what I think is wonderful is that it is so transferable and applicable in all that we do as a company. What are some connections that you are making between Chekhov and the Robert Taylor work, say? Or the vocal work that we do? Personally, for me, applying the principle of radiating to the Text Circle has been shapely for me. By simultaneously collecting and sending a connecting energy to the participants in the middle, by opening my New Eyes and sending energy back to the outer circle when I am in the middle - I have to say I have been consistently feeling a power that was previously fleeting. It's a grounding force that has allowed me to be open and supple when putting text on impulse.
So what about you? Please feel free to be candid. This blog is in place so that we can do just that, reflect, ask questions, and consider and share what we do as a company. Let's hear about it...
Cheers
Taylor V
I would love to hear some reflections about your experiences with the work. Also, what questions do you have about applying the technique? Obviously, we are not only working with the MC Technique, so we don't get a lot of time to explore it necessarily. But what I think is wonderful is that it is so transferable and applicable in all that we do as a company. What are some connections that you are making between Chekhov and the Robert Taylor work, say? Or the vocal work that we do? Personally, for me, applying the principle of radiating to the Text Circle has been shapely for me. By simultaneously collecting and sending a connecting energy to the participants in the middle, by opening my New Eyes and sending energy back to the outer circle when I am in the middle - I have to say I have been consistently feeling a power that was previously fleeting. It's a grounding force that has allowed me to be open and supple when putting text on impulse.
So what about you? Please feel free to be candid. This blog is in place so that we can do just that, reflect, ask questions, and consider and share what we do as a company. Let's hear about it...
Cheers
Taylor V
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Working with Ragnar: Crisis Moments in Sharing Engergy
Another application of the work that I found helpful for our text work was the idea of how when we are on stage we are constantly receiving energy from one source, holding it for a while, and then passing it on. He mentioned that sometimes we do want the energy and are happy to receive it, sometimes we do not want the energy and can pass it to someone else quickly, and sometimes we don't know what to do with it.
When we don't know what to do we experience a bit of a Crisis. Ragnar says that usually when we experience this, we "tame" the energy of the crisis with one or another device.
It made me think of the crisis moments of the text circle in our own technique and how we ought to be able to trust that being completely open to the other person will draw something out of us that is real, if we are open enough to reverence the crisis without trying to "tame" it.
I asked people not to "plan" what text they would use, but simply to go into the text circle with openness and to suspend IN the crisis until the text that the other draws out of us truly comes out. It was interesting to see the progression and how we resisted at first, but by the end of the exercise we were humming.
What was the crisis like for you? I saw some good honest work come out when people were able not to tame it, but to ride into it.
Thoughts?
When we don't know what to do we experience a bit of a Crisis. Ragnar says that usually when we experience this, we "tame" the energy of the crisis with one or another device.
It made me think of the crisis moments of the text circle in our own technique and how we ought to be able to trust that being completely open to the other person will draw something out of us that is real, if we are open enough to reverence the crisis without trying to "tame" it.
I asked people not to "plan" what text they would use, but simply to go into the text circle with openness and to suspend IN the crisis until the text that the other draws out of us truly comes out. It was interesting to see the progression and how we resisted at first, but by the end of the exercise we were humming.
What was the crisis like for you? I saw some good honest work come out when people were able not to tame it, but to ride into it.
Thoughts?
Working With Ragnar: Three Views
This past Sunday working with Ragnar Freidank, master teacher of Michael Chekhov Technique, brought new perspective to our own training and highlighted elements common to both that work well together.
In the first part of the session, Ragnar led us through personal exploration, almost as if we were inventing new "techniques." This felt freeing and clown-like, calling back the sense of wonder and joy that is so important in clown work. It also was a fresh way to access impulse in addition to the ways we have been working with impulse recently.
One of the first frames Ragnar asked us to consider was to imagine that we could see ourselves as we work and track where our attention goes as we work.
He mentioned three possible objects of focus: the "me" that has the idea of what to do, the "me" that does it, and the "me" that assesses how well it is going.
For me it was interesting in many ways. It seemed a good balance to go back and forth from one to another, and yet it revealed a prejudice. I found myself most pleased when I was "doing." And the inner voice of judgment seemed loudest when I was either in the "idea" me or the "assessing" me. So many teachers tell us not to think, yet Stanislavsky was always reminding his students that technique is a way to go to the unconscious through the conscious. But the prejudice against ideas and assessment seems to neglect these two important factors needed for a good balance.
How could I jump into doing without recognizing (with joy) the idea's source? Allowing myself to place my consciousness there occasionally reminded me of the presence of "Monsieur Marceau" in Gaulier's Clown Technique: if the clown is stuck and is not sure what to do, he simply asks his friend "M. Marceau, What should I do?" Of course anything the clown hears is right, the issue then becomes acting upon it and for how long.
Equally strong is the temptation to think that assessment would be stifling to the moment. But again in clown technique, it is only through a view of honestly assessing how well the process is going that we ever get to the clown's "drop"... that moment of honesty where the clown recognizes that there is trouble and then wiggles its way out of it in one way or another.
The trick seems to be able to float from any one of these views to the other without being tyrannized buy one sole view. Even if it seems to be the view with the most "freedom," if it is the only view and makes us neglect the other aspects then we need to let go even of this so-called freedom in the hopes of discovering a new freedom which includes all views without favoring one above the other, but allows each way of being to be useful to the process as a whole.
I asked the company to think of a freeplay of these three views as we went into physical training. What were some of your experiences of allowing these views to enter into the training?
In the first part of the session, Ragnar led us through personal exploration, almost as if we were inventing new "techniques." This felt freeing and clown-like, calling back the sense of wonder and joy that is so important in clown work. It also was a fresh way to access impulse in addition to the ways we have been working with impulse recently.
One of the first frames Ragnar asked us to consider was to imagine that we could see ourselves as we work and track where our attention goes as we work.
He mentioned three possible objects of focus: the "me" that has the idea of what to do, the "me" that does it, and the "me" that assesses how well it is going.
For me it was interesting in many ways. It seemed a good balance to go back and forth from one to another, and yet it revealed a prejudice. I found myself most pleased when I was "doing." And the inner voice of judgment seemed loudest when I was either in the "idea" me or the "assessing" me. So many teachers tell us not to think, yet Stanislavsky was always reminding his students that technique is a way to go to the unconscious through the conscious. But the prejudice against ideas and assessment seems to neglect these two important factors needed for a good balance.
How could I jump into doing without recognizing (with joy) the idea's source? Allowing myself to place my consciousness there occasionally reminded me of the presence of "Monsieur Marceau" in Gaulier's Clown Technique: if the clown is stuck and is not sure what to do, he simply asks his friend "M. Marceau, What should I do?" Of course anything the clown hears is right, the issue then becomes acting upon it and for how long.
Equally strong is the temptation to think that assessment would be stifling to the moment. But again in clown technique, it is only through a view of honestly assessing how well the process is going that we ever get to the clown's "drop"... that moment of honesty where the clown recognizes that there is trouble and then wiggles its way out of it in one way or another.
The trick seems to be able to float from any one of these views to the other without being tyrannized buy one sole view. Even if it seems to be the view with the most "freedom," if it is the only view and makes us neglect the other aspects then we need to let go even of this so-called freedom in the hopes of discovering a new freedom which includes all views without favoring one above the other, but allows each way of being to be useful to the process as a whole.
I asked the company to think of a freeplay of these three views as we went into physical training. What were some of your experiences of allowing these views to enter into the training?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
