The debate as to if actors should feel or merely imitate is as old as theatre itself. More importantly, at least since Stanislavsky, those who believe actors should feel what they portray (if they hope to have any affect on their audience) have worked hard to develop a consistent method to achieve just that. So whilst you are still entitled to the opinion that feeling can't be taught and actors shouldn't have none, if you've ever enjoyed performances by Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, Robert Deniro or Anthony Hopkins you might want to reconsider writing it off so casually!
If you search on 'eyes flashed red with anger' you will get multiple hits. You will see ancient pictures of red eyed soldiers in battle, and see it on No masks.. I had dismissed these as symbolism, until I saw my bosses eyes actually go red for an instant when I angered him. Blood temorarily flooded into the veins in his eyes. If I had seen that in any acting I would believe. Being angry has physiological effects that acting angry cannot emulate. You can act being in love, but not make your pupils dilate like they can do in the real thing.
You can see great actors at work in a poker tournament, trying to act a hand different from the one they hold. Time and time again you can see their audience, other great players, seeing through it. I did hear a doctor tell how a poker player had to give up playing after having an early valve replacement. The other players could hear it when he got a good hand.
Having had chance to read some of the previous posts more carefully ... I wonder of there is a real gap between my expectations of 'teaching' and the more purist views. I fully appreciate the sage views expressed by Amir ... but Amir is a trained dancer and has an expertise in dance education that the vast majority of MJ teachers cannot expect to meet. For all the debate about using 'several styles of dance' to help drive Blues forward ... why? I think the ambitions of most instructors should be far more humble.
Those that really want to take their Blues to another level will have to adopt the age old path of enlightenment ... seek out the best of the genre and learn at their feet. For the mortals, the best I can expect to communicate is how to do 'UK Blues' a little better. Understand a little better how/why to; feel the beet; make varying connection; when to lead and when to led the lead transfer etc etc. I don't see any of the 'mortals' making a quantum change ... but if we can help to spread a little more technique and a little more musicality .. then I reckon we are doing our job well. To be brutally honest, I've seen many talk about the technique/feeling/musicality of true Blues, yet fail to demonstrate such when they come to dance.
I know there is such a gap for myself. It's explained, I think, by the fact that most of my experience with blues over the last few years has been in the Lindy world... it's too easy for me to forget that. Hence my mild shock at Martin's earlier summary of MJ beginners' blues - when we teach blues for beginners, we begin with weight transfer & connection techniques / exercises, and work up from there. My mistake in this thread has been to assume a similar approach is used in MJ.
Depending on what that level is... but that surely applies to most disciplines. One learns from readily available teachers / resources until they are no longer enough. Then one goes further afield. The problem with learning blues in the UK lies in finding high-level blues teachers (and sometimes, once you've found them, wishing they'd spend just a little more time actually teaching blues. You know who you are. Except you probably aren't reading this. Ho hum )
I'm tempted to agree here, but if Martin's slightly brutal (to my mind) summary of UK beginners' blues is really the true picture, I don't think a quantum change is completely out of the question. Although I agree it wouldn't be easy.
Brutal, yes, but I agree there's far too much truth in that. Of course - I might say the same of you if I saw you dance. Or you of me
I was trying to contradicit Amir's contradicition.
Undoubtably searching for a feeling within oneself will help in acting out that feeling. There are reports of actors that can shed tears on demand, and of scenes being cut because they became too traumatic and relationships broken because the actor brought the character home. Actors can often feel what they are portraying, but it could be argued that is displacement and no longer acting. e.g. appearing to act being sad because a child is ill is actually being sad because their dog died.
Another consideration is that feeling something does not necessarily mean conveying that emotion to others, which is what acting is.
Another aspect of the subject is that acting something can result in you feeling something. I read a report that said forcjing a smile actually resulted in the smiler feeling happier. More than once I have turned up at a dance not in the mood at all, but after a few minutes on the dancefloor I am good for hours, and usually wanting more when it ends.
I do not think blues dancing is within everybody, but I do believe that, if it is in there, it can be found. Even if it is not in there it can be acted, and that acting can be taught.
I have not seen anyone who's style (or genre) I would want to emulate: I have seen several excellent teachers and dancers who do specific things I would like to be able to do, but as a whole package I would rather be me. I can try and find what fits and change what doesn't. I would rather do a workshop on techniques to use in your blues dancing than one on how to dance blues. I can dismiss the second one if I disagree with it's content, even if I would learn something from it. The first I can't really disagree with, even if I never use the content. Much more useful (to me at least).
The problem is that most "true Blues" is not for show -it's for the dancers dancing it. :shrug:To be brutally honest, I've seen many talk about the technique/feeling/musicality of true Blues, yet fail to demonstrate such when they come to dance.
Maybe I just need to look harder ?
My own view on what "blues" is is based on some of the more inspirational dancers (leads) I have seen and been taught by -
Tramp's blues style is too much showmanship and "big" moves for my taste, but the timing and use of the floor I like. Marc's close work and movement is really cool, but I'm not that convinced about his timing. DavidB has a mastery of the follower's movements that is hard to compare, but doesn't move with the follower as much as I like. Franck puts a lot of himself into every dance and can be very subtle, but the way he contrasts movements and expresses the music is not to my tastes. Amir has amazing control of himself and his movements and understands how this moves the follower, but he has a grace and flow I'll never manage and am not sure would sit well with me. Howard has good contrast in his dancing, but is too 'distant' for my tastes. Adam has a general style I like, but there is too much jovial humour and 'cheekiness' that breaks the mood for me...
I think that most of my learning what & how to move with blues dancing has been through experience dancing with the likes of Drathzel, Lisa, Freya, Caro, Rachel, (to name the more 'travelled') and many more of the 'expressive' dancers.
Hmmm...
Actually, I don't think I get enough learning
If there was a consistent and singular way to dance "blues" then none of the variations noted above would exist. It's what makes the MJ variant of blues so expressive and all-encompassing. Every teacher can teach something new and different, every pupil can choose what they add into their own dancing from that. Everyone hears music subtly differently, everyone expresses music differently. I don't want to dance as a carbon copy of any particular dancer/teacher: I want to dance as me. I want to find a point where my hearing and my partner's hearing overlap and we dance to our music. How someone else dances can give insight into how I can dance, can help me understand how it applies to me, but I don't want to put on a skin and be someone else: I want to be me.
{Re: looking "good" - I think it's a bi-product of having good timing and control. It's about looking in control and looking like you know what's going to happen before it does. Do that and you will look "good". Being good makes you look good because you develop these qualities. But you can look good without actually being that good because you just concentrate on the end product rather than the steps to build it.}
Last edited by Gadget; 30th-March-2009 at 09:49 PM.
I'm hoping that's the case ~ otherwise the hard earned timing and control I have learned so far will not make me look any better.
{Not that I learned them to look good in the first place }
to be honest when i am dancing i really dont care what i look like
when i dance its for mine and my partners pleasure not anyone else s
if i can give my partner the joy of the dance and the sensation of elation (the moment when the track finishes and the tension between me and my partner is released can be quite incredible) that i feel at the end of a good dance then i have done what i set out to do
I believe great actors, have the ability to, store and recreate the emotions that they've experienced in real life.
They take themselves back to particular situations, tap in and unlock the same emotions but then use them to act the part.
So, the emotion they're portraying 'is' real but maybe just not about the situation they're acting out?
MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
"If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine
(I've been busy for a while, sorry for the late replies)
I've never seen that in real life. Are you telling me I've never seen anyone angry, ever? In other words, do you really believe everyone expresses all kinds of anger in the same way, all the time?
Sometimes I am very sad, but I don't cry. Sometimes I cry but I'm not actually very sad at all.
Instead of looking at old masks wouldn't it be easier to just ask actors if they feel anything when acting?
Since I have worked with many professional performers I can tell you that I and most people I know do in fact feel the emotions they are trying to portray, or at least attempt to.
But this in no way concludes the debate, which isn't so much 'do actors feel' but 'should they?' In other words, if I could train my eyes to fill with blood, (like some actors can cry at will, and some yogi can lower their heart rate) would that be enough, or is there more to acting than physical emulation?
The predominant philosophy behind most modern schools of acting is that there is.
As a personal anecdote, about ten years ago I did an acting exercise with a professional actor, where you just repeat the same line at each other until inspired to change it. Anyway, he got so angry that I found myself shaking long after we had finished the exercise, although he seemed perfectly calm as soon as we had finished. For days afterwards, I wondered if he was actually angry with me about something I didn't know about, or if he really could just switch it on and off like that. So whether he was 'just acting' or whether he had channeled some anger from something else and used it in the exercise, he fooled me.
And of course, this doesn't prove anything either. Like I said earlier, its a huge and ancient debate, and a couple of personal anecdotes do little to contribute in either direction. I'm just hoping to inspire a little healthy scepticism and not have entire careers and professions written off so casually.
I don't follow your arguement. The question was 'can the emotional aspect of an art form be taught'? I use those names as examples of great actors who studied a system which seeks a methodolgy to evoke the emotional content of their performances.
The fact that the best actors use this method does not in itself prove anything. But since they thought it was worth while then you might at least pause before completely writing it off.
The fact that I believe that a subject is teachable does not mean I believe everyone can learn it to the same standard.
I believe economics, maths and sailing are all teachable subjects, but not that everyone who studies them will become great economists, mathematicians or sailors.
A question for you. For each of these people, you've described things you like, and things you don't about what they teach.
Would the 'negatives' (for want of a better word) dissuade you from learning with these people?
If not, how would you approach a workshop held by one of said folk - during the workshop, would you try the bits you liked and ignore the rest?
Would you try out absolutely everything they taught to the best of your ability, then adopt the bits you liked at the end?
Would you try out what was taught, just not necessarily exactly as taught (adding your own slant to it, and adapting it to your style during the workshop?)
Or some other option I haven't listed here I am quite curious about how you approach this.
Ok ... so are you saying that when sad, you physical present no signs of sadness? And, if so, are you (in some way) repressing or trying to repress those symptoms/signs?
Quite clearly, emotions can be 'bottled up' (if not, the phrase would not exist).However, some historical chap said something about 'What is impressed internally, will be expressed externally' .... Greek chap .... Stavros .... errrrm, no .... Harry Stokracees, I think! One or two psychologists talk about repressed emotions 'leaking out', especially when least expected. But then again, some of those psychologist are, quite frankly, in need of therapy of their very own!!!
Dunno .... but, I have heard it said, by an actor that .... 'if you can't make it, fake it ... and if done enough, it might seem real (and, in fact, feel real)' Maybe she was sane and sensible.Originally Posted by Amir
Oh yes! I fully agree, and appreciate all points raised [and offer mine own for appreciation!!!]Originally Posted by Amir
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks