|
Mission
History
Philosophy
Shows
Articles
Links
Member
Sign-Up
|
|
Just a thought...
You know, over the centuries theatre has evolved in many ways, from the first Greek chorus so long ago to as many current day variations as there have been
"ages." Since that fateful day when Thespis first stepped forward and delivered his solo lines, theatre has never been the same. Each style today is vital, valid, and true, as they make up the whole that is Theatre (with a capital T). Every culture on the planet has developed some form of theatre, and they all have their "rules" as it were. But with few exceptions (we imagine) these have changed over the years from a very rudimentary origin to the more refined approach found today.
In the twentieth century Constantin Stanislavski developed his System,
which would ultimately become known (in the US) as Method acting, in part through the interpretation of the works by his contemporary Anton Chekhov. A few astute individuals here recognized he was on to something important, learned all they could from him, and brought that knowledge to America. But even his first theories were later determined (by him) to be incomplete and he made modifications to his approach that were not incorporated in this country by his followers and proponents. He was never satisfied with his work to the point of claiming to have "arrived" at the ultimate perfect method.
He, for one, kept working at it. And so it goes on.
Now, there are certainly some good ideas floating about "out there" right now, and there are some time-tested standards that make sense. Not every rule was made to be broken. Many people have spent years improving on every single aspect of theatre, be it acting or writing or set design or what-have-you. And much improvement has taken place.
But the simple truth (if you ask me, and if you keep reading then it's assumed you intended to) is this: if ever comes the day that the art of theatre gets to the point where it is finished, and the one true way to act - write - direct - perform - whatever has been definitively measured and cast in stone, that day will mark the death of theatre.
Even Stanislavski, in his early days of developing the acting process he became known for, stumbled and failed. But he did not quit. He tried something new, something no one had ever imagined, and early on recognized it did not work. So he tried something else, and again, until he felt he had succeeded, however temporarily. And even when he felt he had discovered the one true way to acting, he recognized its inherent shortcomings and began working on it again.
So, what lesson shall we draw from this? Perhaps, a corollary to the age-old "If at first you don't succeed, try try again." Shall we now amend that to "...and when you do succeed, start again"? That there is always room for improvement? That
"good enough" ... isn't? That even the greatest teachers can still learn?
You're no doubt familiar with that other age-old witticism, "those that can, do - those that can't, teach." Jeez, we hate that saying. Think about it. Those who teach cannot do? They are incompetent? But we seek them out to teach
us how to do what they can't? And is not "teaching" something to "do" to begin with? Perhaps "those that can" cannot actually teach in a structured format, but we can learn from them. And how anyone can teach anything that they don't know how to do to begin with is beyond me.
Frankly, we think everyone can do, and everyone can teach. And that's the idea behind the Intentional Theatre. People coming together to the process, like an Amish barn raising. Bring your talents and abilities and knowledge and share them with others, as they with you. For if you truly think you don't have something still to learn,
well...auditions for "Rumors" are next week. Break
a leg! ######################################################################### The
more things change, right? I'm looking back over this today, Nov
22 2008, and asking myself, "is this what you think today?"
The short answer, yes. The long answer, you'll need to buy me a
couple of beers. Over the four years we've
been in production, we have played host to 44 creative spirits, mostly
actors and some artists (our All-Media Show 2007), and some have
returned to our stage bringing the number of actual appearances to
57. And I would dare say I have learned something from everyone
one of them. I hope I have returned the favor in some small way. My
thinking on what is acting, directing, and theatre has grown in some
ways, and simplified in others. Through it all, I have retained
the essence of my belief that when given the opportunity, the actor when
encouraged and given the freedom will as easily find the truth to the
moment as will the director, and in cooperation they will both get there
sooner. I'd like to think I have found my way as director to an
easier path towards that realization, and especially in fostering that
cooperative spirit in the actor as we both journey in search of the
playwright's truth. For when not allowed that freedom and
encouragement, the actor becomes a laborer, punching a clock and
adhering to a job description that asks little more from them than
attendance. In my process, I include all the players in
the creative development. Every actor is open to offer
suggestions, whether about the greater picture of the production, the
story as a whole, or even about another character. I find that
with all the experience and talent the cast brings to the stage, drawing
on that makes the whole if not greater than the sum of its parts at
least easier to fashion. So I try to ask the important questions:
What's going on here? Who are these people? What do you want to do
now? And then I try to do the hardest thing of all - shut up and
listen. I'll keep trying.
Intentional Theatre Ministry of Cant.
Revised: March 02, 2009
Address
problems to "webmaster" @ intentionaltheatre.freehomepage.com
By the way - it's a pun.
|
