Monday, January 7, 2013

Why "Stage Customs" Are Vanishing

Photo credit:  www.savagechickens.com
As it is the beginning of the year, this seems the perfect time to reflect on the State of Our Art.  Michael Feingold started the ball rolling last week in his Village Voice article, "A Case for the Return of Some Vanishing Stage Customs".  In the article, he posits that the theatre has lost such important customs as "cheating out" (literally facing the audience, so you can be seen and understood) and "counter-crossing" (when a second actor moves oppositionally to balance the stage picture when the first actor crosses the stage).  He also talks about how there seems to be less communication between the actors and audience, due to the effects of technology and the growing importance of casting stars, rather than telling stories.  It's a great article.  You should read it (after you read this one, of course).

In response to Mr. Feingold's article, we would like to discuss (in terms of acting) why some of these things are happening.  He hits the nail very much on the head when it comes to the diminishing effect that the theatre seems to have on audiences.  I find that I feel very similarly after seeing much of what NYC theatre has to offer.  That said, tricks like "Cheating-Out" and "Counter-Crossing" have always fallen short of the mark in terms of connection.  I recall a moment, working with my first acting teacher, Francis Gercke, where he very keenly observed:  "Just because you are looking someone in the eyes, it does not mean you are connecting."

We at The Seeing Place make a habit of seeing a lot of the theater in NYC - from Broadway to Off-Off Broadway.  What seems to be frequently missing is the art of storytelling.  Most actors, when asked, literally don't know what story they are telling.  Usually, that job is pawned off on the Director.  But no amount of powerful lines, pretty staging, or raw emotion can create a story on its own.  The Actor has to be aware of what he or she is trying to communicate, behaviorally.  The Director can lead all the best horses to the water, but they still have to drink for themselves.

As far as the art of staging goes, it certainly is an art.  But the main issue with acting right now seems to be a lack of craft.  We have been taught to believe that we go to study in a BFA program - and maybe even continue on to get an MFA - and POOF!  We're ready for the marketplace!  Right?  Perhaps.  It's a good start, anyway.  But very few programs stress the importance of professional training, beyond college.  As Sandy Meisner famously said, "It takes 20 years to become an actor."

I notice a lack of training, mostly, when actors are unable to be understood while emotions are riding high - either onstage or even in film.  Our voices naturally strain when big things are happening.  But the actor needs to be understood and expressive at the same time.  This is not something that is needed in reality - as my current teacher, David Gideon, constantly points out.  In fact, it is absolutely unnatural for people to relax and open up in times of great experience - be it tragic or joyful.  And yet it is the actor's job to open up and share at those very moments.  That is a skill that takes a great amount of time and effort to master - if anyone ever fully does.  I am constantly working in this direction.  It's really hard.

As far as the aesthetics of American theatre are concerned, there is a trend toward hyper-realism - as Mr. Feingold points out.  And that's fine.  As Shakespeare pointed out:  
"The purpose of playing, whose end both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere, the mirror up to nature; to show virtue her feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure."  
 However, that doesn't mean that we have to discard necessary customs in storytelling in order to behave with reality.  More and more, it seems like actors have lost the sense of Play onstage in the name of Reality.  In fact, it seems that our understanding of acting, altogether, has reverted back to what it was before Stanislavski began to teach.  So frequently, actors seem to hide behind the "fourth wall", rather than developing an understanding of how to be publicly private.

For me and for The Seeing Place, the beauty of the theatre has always been that both actors and audience can collect in a room and live through a situation.  In order to do that, we all need to suspend our disbelief together.  But the actors do need to live onstage.  Otherwise, we would be better served to hold a sociology conference.  There is the opportunity in the theatre for social issues to be examined hands-on.  That said, we can't ever forget that we are storytellers.  What actors do is very special.  It is not the same experience to read a play at home.

In conclusion, we agree with Mr. Feingold's increasingly relevant frustration with The State of Theatre in America.  And the ensemble of The Seeing Place is in our fourth year of fighting back against the marginalization of the theatre.  We specifically set out to put life back on the stage and spend significant rehearsal time pinpointing the stories we share on a nightly basis with our audiences.  Our first slogan, was "Because if you wanted a Sitcom, you'd just turn on the Tube."  That's not to devalue television, but to put it in it's place.  Television is a writer's medium.  Film is a medium for editors and directors.  The theatre is an actor's medium.  It traffics in behavior.  It is where we go to see ourselves.  That's why we chose to call our company The Seeing Place.

What do you have to say about all of this?  Please leave a comment, so we can share in one another's knowledge.  Building a community is of the utmost importance to us.

18 comments:

  1. This is one of the reasons I love being a part of The Seeing Place. We have high standards for ourselves as artists and the work we do. I feel like it can be easy to lose sight of what we are trying to do and to forget about the craft, focusing on staging or learning lines. The craft is what makes the work breathe and become the reason people come to see good theater.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree! And truly, I do believe that all professional artists everywhere put everything they have into what they do. The only distinction I'd give us is that we don't rely on talent alone. Regardless of the level on training actors brings to our table, we insist that they push themselves to do their best and most informed work. And our rehearsal process is structured in such a way that those things actually happen.

      Delete
  2. I'm thrilled Michael Feingold opened up the door to allow us to write this post (and thanks to TSPs Social Media Manager, Max Lorn-Krouse, for initially sharing the article with us!)

    I'm curious to hear what theatergoers think of these customs/conventions...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, thanks to both you and Max for bringing it to my attention.

      Delete
  3. I LOVE this article. It really lays out how much responsibility an actor has in their hands. It really does take a lot of work to fully prepare for a piece of theater. I have heard some actors say in the past, they don't like to prepare that much, in order to keep it "fresh". So WACK. Im mea, whatever floats your boat, but that freshness you talk about is just random spontaneity. What happens when you have to perform 8 times a week? For me to be able to truley play on stage, it takes ALOT of conscious work. Amazing moments come out of this, but as my Teach Bill Esper says: "Plan & Improvise." Great article!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This has got to be the most informed slang response ever. And you bring up great points. I constantly run into actors that don't want to prepare in order to "keep it fresh". And I think that tends to come out of a mindset of luck. I hear the same kinds of people pray to the "Theatre Gods" before shows - literally. For them, nothing is within their control. It's unfortunate - especially when, as Lee Strasberg said (in response to Olivier being crushed by not knowing what he did when he "nailed" Othello):

      "Why wait for the Gods to whisper in your ear? WE HAVE THEIR PHONE NUMBER!"

      Obviously, there's some Yiddish humor in there, but the point still stands. And only out of personal and informed preparation can anybody repeat their inspired work eight times a week.

      Delete
  4. "My words fly up, my thoughts remain below. Words without thoughts never to heaven go."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a really great quote - thank you so much!

      Delete
  5. Wonderful articles! I agree with all that's been said, in the article and the comments above. Thank you Mr. Feingold and TSP for bringing this up, which challenges we, the actors, to be held truly accountable in the art of storytelling. And perhaps, giving insight to the average theatre-goer on what makes good theatre.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Marnie. I hope the average theater-goer (or even the informed theater-goer) is able to take advantage of these articles. Please share them with your friends.

      Delete
  6. I like the comment about TV being a writer's genre, and film being an editor's/director's genre but theater is MINE. I have butted heads with many a director who didn't understand that - yes, wanghole, you need to have a good reason - or any reason at all - why I need to do a meandering loop around that chair or a slow cross downstage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To give you an idea of Lee Strasbergs humor, he would have said, in response:

      "Your paycheck!"

      That said, I absolutely agree with you on the artistic side of things. But usually, those sorts of directions are for picturesque storytelling - which is not necessarily a bad thing unless it overtakes a play. And it also doesn't necessarily need to interfere with organic work, so long as you see it for what it is.

      Delete
  7. Mr. Feingold's article raises some very interesting points, my favorite being: "I miss cheating because it establishes a link between actor and audience. It's an acknowledgement of the fact we all know: that when we go to the theater, we're not in somebody's kitchen or office or living room. We're in a theater watching a play, and its cast is in the same room with us, breathing the same air, performing for our benefit."

    As Brandon mentioned, the actors need to live onstage, but escaping the Brechtian notion that this is a play and at the end the curtain will fall and the lights will rise is ignoring a critical bond between audience and actor. An audience comes to a play to witness a part of human life and then leaves to examine how their lives compare (this last bit should be underlined). If the audience continually thinks of the play as ONLY real life, and nothing theatrical, then the play loses, what else, its theatricality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. And I tend to do all sorts of Brechtian stuff as both a director and an actor. But it's still grounded in the reality of the play, and only includes the audience's reality momentarily and for very specific points to be made. I've found that by placing the situation in the here-and-now, sometimes, it builds into a greater reality.

      One such example of this was when, at the end of Andrey's frustrated monologue to his sisters (who are offstage), I finally walked into the audience, sat down, looked at someone and said "They won't listen to me." It was written in the play. And it was a moment where, my frustration had grown so large that I decided to include the audience in it. They always laughed. But especially during a Chekhov play, there's so much concern about the reality and the drama of it all that we don't sit back and realize that these people are just like us, and that sometimes life gets so ridiculous that it's funny.

      Delete
  8. This is exactly why it's called "acting." We communicate with the audience by telling a story through our actions and our behavior. It is what brings the playwright's written language to life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You'd be amazed how many actors don't get that at all.

      Delete
  9. I think that solid storytelling is lacking in the contemporary theater - not because the actors aren't good, or knowledgeable, or aware, or trained properly - but because we've reduced the act of creating theater to an assembly line. 90% of the time, the playwright composes (or more likely, *had composed* long ago) their words in isolation somewhere, perhaps passes them through some readings and workshops, and then publishes them. Somewhere a director and a group of actors pick up that script, dust it off, and set about creating the live performance, most likely without the input of the author (who's probably dead at this point anyways). Assembly lines are great for producing a bunch of things which are essentially the same, but if it's a divine spark you're looking for, look elsewhere. Right now I think what we need is less "playwrights" and more "writers" - we need writers willing to lay down their egos and step into the process as a collaborative partner, engaging directly with directors/designers/actors as part of an overall creative effort. Sometimes this type of work still happens early in a new play's life - workshopping - however, the divine spark is usually lost when it moves along to its next, bigger venue, and the director and cast are swapped out for people with more recognizable names. It's like a game of whisper-down-the-alley - the original idea gets muddled by all of the hands it passes through until it's no longer recognizable - and the love & labors that went into its birth are forgotten.

    Unfortunately, it seems like the majority of people today love a good commodity. They love the familiar. They love Walmart, Applebees, Taco Bell. They love a name they recognize. Taking a risk on something new is something to be feared. They'll stand by bland and safe any day of the week. And so our theater has become that way too. But there's another movement out there that's gaining steam - people who see that assembly-line production is not meant for everything. You see it in all of these "hipster restaurants" popping up downtown & in Brooklyn - trendy places with ever-changing menus which succeed by linking up forward-thinking chefs with local, organic farmers in a close-knit collaborative relationship. Whereas, on the Applebees side of things, you have underutilized, under-appreciated chefs who hate their jobs mixing powders with water to create sauces which taste the same on both the West & East coasts. In case you got lost in the metaphor: farmers = playwrights, chefs = directors & actors.

    I think that small, savvy theater companies could learn a thing or two from these "hipster restaurants" about producing a quality product, and audience development...

    ReplyDelete
  10. I love this response! As the person who heads up The Seeing Place's marketing, I have spent a lot of time studying other "indie" businesses to see what's been working for them. But I hadn't thought to look at the restaurant industry, and I'm excited about this new avenue. Thank you so much for the great ideas and for your detailed feedback.

    Please come back again!

    ReplyDelete

We're so passionate about creating a conversation in our community - thank you for leaving your thoughts!