THE OTHER POTTER

"It's a Wonderful Life": the film is falling out of favor lately, largely because it's been on the vintage favorites list for a long time and people are looking for something new. Too bad, it's a great film. Anyway, I brought it up because I want to talk about one of my favorite sequences in the film, the one where Potter tries tries to buy off George Bailey with the promise of a high-paying job.

It's an interesting sequence because Potter's been treated as a one-note villain up to this point so you'd expect him to play the sequence in a high-hatted, "Take this offer or else!" kind of way. Instead Potter uncharacteristically tries to sweet talk Bailey. Watch the clip. It begins 4 1/2 minutes into the video.

Did you watch it? What intrigues me about this is that it's a simple attempt at bribery that doesn't add anything to the story, yet it manages manages to be one of the best scenes in the whole film. Think about it. We already knew that Bailey and Potter were enemies. We already had abundant evidence that Bailey preferred integrity to money. The sequence tells us nothing new, and yet....

What I'm going to argue here is that the sequence exists for a theatrical reason. Up till now the Potter part of the story simply laid down information. It took great pains to let us know who the good and bad guys were. That's fine so far as it goes, but live theater people know that audiences crave scenes where they can boo the villain...where they're tempted to yell, "Don't go in there, Dick! he's got a gun!" Even in the middle of a story, they want sequences that end with the patriotic triumph of right exemplified with angelic choirs waving the flag and the villain being hissed off the stage.

Not only that, but actors need scenes where they can shine and not simply be pawns racing ahead to the next plot point. In this sequence Barrymore gets to be sunny for a while. This means he can anchor his performance in a deliberately insincere sing-song, which live audiences love to re-act to, and actors love to play.

That's all I have to say on the subject of live theater and film, but I have a copy of "Cyrano de Bergerac" on the desk in front of me and it wouldn't be much trouble for me to scan in a couple of terrific paragraphs that I read last night. Let's see...Okay...here goes!

Great, huh? Here's an excerpt from the same scene, a couple of pages later:





Wow! Good old Cyrano...a real force of nature!

ACTORS: HOW TO FIND YOUR SCREEN PERSONNA

Here it is (above), "The Beast." How many actors have come to grief because they sought roles that fit their real personalities, rather than their potential cinematic ones? The truth is that The Beast doesn't care what roles you play or would like to play. It arbitrarily accepts you in some roles and not in others. Or maybe it doesn't accept you at all. It's scary!

As an example, here's me in a YouTube spoof on Match.com. Fast forward to the two minute mark where I play a seedy gigolo, turning around to face the camera. I play a lot of characters in this film, but that's the one that seems to come off the best. It's odd because in real life I'm the opposite of a seedy gigolo. I only discovered that I was passable at it because I tried a bunch of random things in front of the camera that day, and that was one of the few the camera would accept...that and an old lady, another unlikely pick. You could say that the camera decided what I'd do, not me.

 In my opinion beginning film actors should film and photograph themselves constantly, then comb through the footage for what may be the few seconds that actually work. If the camera likes you,  if only for a short time, then that's a clue as to what the camera will accept from you, and you can build on that.

A PORTFOLIO PIECE FOR A DRAMATIC ACTOR

Here's (above) what they call an "Actor Demo Reel." YouTube is full of them. The Hank Harris example I used here is far better than most and yet it still disappoints on some level, (actually, the first example on the reel isn't so bad) and I was curious
to understand why.

The answer it seems to me is that Harris geared himself up to play the kind of "post-modern" roles that TV offers now. Post-modern man perceives himself as a statistic, a victim, a cork on the waves of social and psychological forces. That's so different than the way people perceived themselves in the golden age of fiction when it was believed that man possessed free will and was on the Earth to undergo a trial, and when people still believed in good and evil.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhoaSrrA6YQ


But it also has to do with tapping into weird, supernatural forces. Harris is always believable and appealing in the parts he plays in the demo, but is that all there is? Didn't Margaret Hamilton transcend "believable and appealing" when she played the Wicked Witch of the West in "The Wizard of Oz?" Wasn't Peter Lorre more than simply scary and convincing in "Stranger on the Third Floor?" How about Garbo in "Grand Hotel?" It seems to me that it's an actor's job to bring to the project a pre-existing character of great power and iconic significance.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoyEHyB4MnQ&feature=related


Then there's technique. It seems to me that a good actor lays down a tone and a rhythm that other actors can bounce off of. Actors playing a scene are like musicians in a jazz combo. They're laboring to create sounds that combine into a beautiful, satisfying whole. In my opinion you can learn more about this from the great character and supporting actors than from the stars.

I admit that I don't know anything about dramatic acting. If I did I'd probably have a lot more respect for what Harris did in the demo.


NOTE: In order to publish this post I had to delete my two previous ones dealing with solo dancing and Jim's sense of film. I started this post before I began the others (then saved what I'd done as a draft) and now, when I try to publish it, it will only post beneath the others where it won't be seen. The only thing I could do was to delete the top posts. My deepest apologies to commenters on the two deleted posts.

MORE DELSARTE ACTING THEORIES

I just re-read one of the Delsarte acting posts I put up months ago. Gee, I didn't do a very good job of explaining it. Let me try again, using my own words and my own sketches this time.

Delsarte believed that certain movements are highly symbolic and powerful. When you're happy you want to throw your arms up in the air. When you're sad you want to put your head down and slump forward. Probably everybody in the world recognizes and uses these gestures...everybody except actors.

Delsarte believed that actors avoid these obvious gestures because they seem too over-the-top, too caricatured. He thought that was a pity because no other gestures convey so much power. He created a system for using gestures like these without looking ridiculous.

In the sketches above, drawing A is a watered down version of the gesture that's full strength in drawing B. The second has a lot more power, especially when seen from the side, but it might be too strong for some scenes. Delsarte says, use the broad gesture anyway, but do it at an angle that would flatten it a bit from the audience's point of view, as in drawing C. Interesting, huh?



Delsarte wanted to bring broad gestures like the one on the left above, back to acting. Of course extended arm poses aren't the only type of broad action he was interested in. The guy on the right doesn't simply talk to his friend to get his attention, he grabs his arm before speaking. That conveys to the audience that what the speaker's saying is important. The arm grab's a powerful symbol and Delsarte wonders why we don't use it.

Sometimes a gesture combines two powerful symbols. Here's (above) a gesture indicating strong emotion that ends with a strong but unexpected "come hither" gesture.

INTERESTING ACTING VIDEOS

How about a couple more theater videos then I'll lay it to rest for a bit? "Method Actor Boyfriend" (above) is a really terrible clip, even though it was probably fun to watch live. It's a skit about a girl who invites her method actor boyfriend to a party. The reason I put it up is that, flaws and all, it raises interesting questions about stage movement.

Looking at it, I wonder why the method guy fails to dominate the scene. The actor could be better but let's put that aside. The method guy shouts and has all the funny lines and yet his girlfriend is the one our eyes keep coming back to. Why is that? Why doesn't the method guy steal the show?

I'm not an actor so I can only guess at the answer, but it was probably a mistake to allow some of the party people to move around more than the the star. Also the background design and lighting might have directed attention better. The girlfriend is the best actor in the film and I think it would have been a mistake to deliberately diminish her role to make the boyfriend look good. If anything I would have given her a little more to do because she's such an interesting contrast to the guy.

It seems to me that what the boyfriend needed (apart from voice control)was better stage movement. When he leaned into the character he was threatening the two of them should have backed up for a couple of steps as if his glance had the power to push. He should have showed us the hand before he licked it. In short, he should have given more thought to his stage movement. The people reacting to him should also have paid more attention to theirs. I always thought animators would benefit from a careful study of live action stage movement.




Above is a short interview with Stanislavski himself! I'm amazed! I didn't know he was ever filmed. Well, he has charisma, you have to give him that. He completely dominated the interviewer without ever moving from his seat.




Here's (above) David Beckham talking to another actor who does a great imitation of Al Pacino. I love the rhythm these guys have going.

WHAT GOES ON IN ACTING CLASSES?

These are doodles from a live action film about acting called "Method Madness" by Peter Linder. I've heard that acting classes can get pretty brutal and Linder has confirmed my worst fears.

ACTING THEORIES

I thought I'd talk about dramatic acting theories. I should warn you that I've never had an acting class in my life. I'm interested in slapstick comedy and I know of no school where you can learn to fall flat on your face the way Buster Keaton did. Anyway I still have opinions about drama and I'll talk about one or two of them here.


Uta Hagen (in the first video, above) is a terrific actress! You might have seen her in "Boys from Brazil" where she played an imprisoned German nurse. She had a sequence with Laurence Olivier -- Laurence Olivier! -- and your eyes were on her the whole time, not Olivier! Not too shabby! Anyway she's a leading acting theorist. She's always talking about how actions are the result of conscious decisions and I use that insight all the time in storyboarding.

In the video above Uta says she hates to see acting that looks like acting. Aaaargh! With much humility I have to beg to differ. I like acting that does look like acting. Think of Olivier's opening speech in "Richard III" or the way Laurel and Hardy used to act. It was artifice: beautiful, stylized artifice.






Here's (above) a film about Sanford Meisner's Russian-influenced technique. Meisner in his old age had the world's funniest voice. It was gravelly and gulpey like Janice Joplin trying to talk while drinking from a water cooler. Meisner was famous for yelling at students and for promoting the full-strength Stanislavsky Method. This is fine for dramatic actors but I think funny people should be wary of it. Look at how good Marilyn Monroe was in her pre-Method days ("Some Like it Hot") and how horrible she was after the Method ("The Misfits").






Here's (above)Ian Mckellan explaining his acting method. He says he just pretends. MCKellan is just kidding here and his dialogue is scripted, but I've heard Olivier say the same thing and he really meant it. British actors used to be puzzled by the American Method theories. They were more interested in training the voice and in finding rhythms in the text. I feel the same way. If I was an actor I'd want to study elocution for a few years before studying acting. I'd want to do Cicely Barry (famous author and voice coach) before doing Uta hagen.





This last video (above) is by Michael Caine. It's about film acting exclusively. Caine did a terrific job here but it assumes the student has already learned the fundamentals of stage acting somewhere else. It's still worth watching. Caine is remarkably clear and has a real knack for teaching. Watch all six parts on YouTube if you have the time.

KISSING DOODLES

We're all in a romantic mood from reading about the vist to Uncle Eddie ("Theory Corner for Women" a couple of days ago); what could be more appropriate than some kissing drawings?

WHAT IS GOOD ACTING?

My intention in this article is to contrast what I consider flawed acting with a sample of the genuine article. The flawed acting is contained in the student film above, a two minute 3D animated film called "Interview." This film is far better than a lot of student work I've seen and I have to say I enjoyed it in spite of the fact that I'm about to rip it. My apology to the talented, deliberately anonymous filmmaker who I hope never reads this. OK, watch the clip then come back and we'll talk about it....

Well, what did you think? My problem with it is that the character is simply giving us a graphic description of what the words say. The visual doesn't add anything. In other words, they're's not acting. Good acting isn't just mouthing the words. Good acting is performance. Good acting is just like tight-rope walking or juggling or ballet dancing. You have to pull off something difficult and entertaining that an audience would be willing to pay for; something they'll imitate and talk about the next day.

A good actor creates a memorable character. He's not content to settle for acting that's simply "convincing." Convincing behavior is all around me, right outside my window and it's free. I don't need to pay an actor for it. What I am willing to pay for is hyper-reality: clever, beautiful, fun artifice that I'm willing to accept as real but isn't. Watch the Peter Lorre clip below and you'll see all these factors operating. Lorre could have played the role as a straight-forward psycho thug. Instead he creates a character who's a sickly, spacey, oddly-appealing troll. See what you think!

HOW I ALMOST BECAME A MOVIE STAR! (PART I)

I don't know if I have enough bandwidth to tell this story, even in two parts. I'll do my best. Here goes....

A long time ago a friend with connections got me a job storyboarding for a big Universal film called "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas." It was an expensive film for its day and the actors were some of the time's most expensive actors: Dolly Parton, Burt Reynolds, and Dom Deluise. I wasn't a union member but the director liked my work so he paid for a union storyboarder and didn't use him, just so I could work on the film. It was great! I had a fancy office next to the director, I got to hob-knob and explore, and the work was really fun!

One day I was sitting on a box eating a tunafish sandwich on a soundstage, watching the dancers rehearse. The girls were wearing next to nothing so you can imagine that I was pretty absorbed, so absorbed that I failed to notice that someone was watching me. When I finally turned around I was amazed to see that Dom Deluise was right behind me, staring down at me. He lunged at me and shouted, "I've been watching you! You'd be perfect to play my dumb assistant!!!! You're an actor aren't you!!!???" I was completely dumbfounded and, with tuna dripping from my mouth, I blurted out. ".......Uh...no." He looked disappointed then bolted up. "It doesn't matter! You want the role don't you!?" I nodded yes. "Then you've got it!!!! I'm gonna talk to Collin (the director) right now!" And he stormed out.

I was in seventh heaven! I'd been...even now I have to swallow when I think about it...DISCOVERED! I could live in Beverley Hills, snub all my friends, wear cheetah-skin jackets, live (as Ren would say) de highlife!...MY SHIP HAD COME IN! My feet barely touched the ground! When I went home that night I raced to the phone and called everybody I knew but to my suprise they were skeptical: "Eddie, think about it. Dom Deluise is probably a nice guy who promises things like that to people all the time and nothing ever comes of it. You're just getting your hope up for nothing!" So many people said that that I began to think they were right and over the next week I gradually put it out of my mind.

One day I got a call summoning me to the director's office. He said, "Dom Deluise has been pestering me for a week. He says he has to have you for the dumb assistant. Have you ever acted before?" Weeeeeeeelll, this time I was prepared! I confidently rattled off every grade school play and pageant that I was ever in, making it seem like the whole kid world would have collapsed without me. Collin listened blankly then looked out the window. After an eternity he said, "OK... you've got it! But remember! Less is more!!!" WOOOOOOWWWWW!!!!!! Thank God for buck teeth! Moments later I found myself in the parking lot jumping up and down and punching the air! SUCCESS! SUCCESS AT LAST!!!!!!

TO BE CONTINUED TOMORROW...........(copyright Eddie Fitzgerald 9/7/06)

GOOD ACTING IS GOOD READING

I'm not a professional actor so I'm sticking my neck out on this. I hope the pros will let me know if I don't know what I'm talking about. OK, here goes....

Good live action acting is good reading. Acting is not a branch of psychology or dance, it's a type of music. That's why the most important part of rehearsal is the reading. The actors and the director sit around a table, scripts infront of them, and try to find the rhthym of the dialogue. They're like a jazz combo trying to figure out how they all fit together. Some may come out of the reading with a larger role to play and some will come out with a smaller role to play. Sometimes an extra line or an extra character will be mandated. It's all part of the quest to find the overall "sound."


When I use the word "reading" I'm not only referring to what happens around the table but also to the literal act of reading itself. Good acting is frequently rhetorical and oratorical, even when it's fairly intimate. Thinking about acting as a sort of heightend speech from a podium prevents an actor from getting too precious and emotionally self-indulgent about a line. It reminds him that his main asset is the quality and control of the voice itself. A good actor knows that how you say something is often even more important than what you say.

MORE ABOUT DELSARTE

Readers who hated the last post I did about Delsarte will probably hate this one too. It's a hard sell to convince people that Delsarte's old-fashioned "tie-the-pretty-girl-to-the railroad-tracks" school of acting is actually worth studying.


  Here's the picture (above) I posted a few days ago. Look at it closely. The woman refers to the man as a giant, yet she's looking down and her hand is at waist-level. Why isn't her hand way up? She should be pointing up to the sky, shouldn't she? The guy's a giant after all. When she says he acted like a dwarf she looks upward disdainfully. What's going on? How come at the mention of "dwarf" she looks up, where she didn't at the mention of "giant?" Why is the orator defeating our expectations? Why don't her expressions and attitudes describe what's happening in the dialogue?

The Delsartean answer is that her gestures are describing what's really happening in the scene. the emotional point of the scene is that she's heart-broken with disappointment. The description of the guy is secondary, and is only an excuse to convey her emotion. The idea that gesture shouldn't slavishly follow text is extremely interesting. I remember a quote from Norbert Weiner: It is a cybernetic law that the more expected a communication is, the less information it contains." In other words, gestures that only mirror the dialogue are boring. Gesture should ADD to what the dialogue tells us!


Delsarte is full of ideas like this. How about the one where he says gesture should always preceed dialogue? Or repeated expressions of the same thought should always be identical? Or never dwell on the final word? Or geture should always be choreographed? Or...well, you see what I mean. It doesn't matter if the man is right. What's important is that he stimulates our imaginaton!

MOVEMENT THEORIES OF DELSARTE

A while back I talked about Laban's theories of gesture. Maybe I should give equal time to gesturist I like a lot better: Francois Delsarte. Delsarte was the 19th century theoritician who came up with the over-the-top acting style you see in some silent films, the ones where the poor old lady is thrown out of her house by the evil, black-caped landlord. The technique is so old-fashioned and so funny-looking that our entire modern theory of acting exists to refute and bury it. That's too bad because nothing better has ever been invented.

I'm not saying that we should throw out all the great performances of the last 100+ years and go back to stylized caricature. What I'm saying is that we should keep what was of value in Delsarte: strong sillouettes, an emphasis on style that seems real rather than realism, and acting with the whole body rather than the face where it's appropriate.


If you think Delsarte was only studied by campy, second-rate actors, think again. Among his advocates were dancerIsadora Duncan and fundamentalist preacher Billy Sunday (above and below). I'd like to add Lawrence Olivier but that's a guess and I haven't read it anywhere.
Billy Sunday is the best American orator I've ever heard. You can hear him here at: http://billysunday.org/audio/prohibition.wav
Delsarte was a elocution theorist as well as a movement specialist. Billy Sunday didn't try to tone down Delsarte, he pumped it up and exagerrated it. He was the most popular preacher of his day. I've never seen a film of Billy but I've seen a lot of still pictures. He must have put on quite a show.

BOOK REVIEW: "ACTING FOR ANIMATORS" BY ED HOOK