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.

SUBLIMINAL SEDUCTION

These examples of subliminal advertising are mostly from the 70s. How do you like the word "sex" airbrushed into the ice cubes in the gin glass (above)? Some people say they can see a man standing upright in the gin bottle. The reflections on the table are his legs and the cork is his penis.

More airbrushing (above). Benson & Hedges were accused of deliberately showing their ad characters in hell. That's because smokers were believed to have had an unconscious death wish and maybe yearned to be punished by death for smoking.


An airbrushed penis (above) in the hell girl's back.

The rest of the pictures need no comment. Subliminal sex images and words were believed to add appeal to a picture, even to pictures that weren't trying to sell anything.

TOLSTOY'S "WHAT IS ART?"

That's Tolstoy pictured above. I was thumbing through his "What is Art?" today and I was reminded all over again of what a terrific thinker the man was. I don't always agree but it doesn't matter. The best best writers are worth reading whether you agree or not.

Here's (above) Tolstoy's definition of art. It has to do with the transmission of experience. I assume he means transmission with skill but he doesn't say that.

The word "infected" is important. It keeps coming up again and again. A great work of art infects its audience like a benign disease. They're mostly incapable of resisting the infection and they'll likely spread it to others. That's how art contributes to the spread of great ideas.

Some people through malice or stupidity are resistent to artistic infection and Tolstoy has no use for them. For Tolstoy critics fall into this category. I like critics myself. They're often wrong but they get useful arguments started and stimulate the market for art.

I wonder what Tolstoy would make of the picture of the grimacing boy above. My guess is that he'd hate it. He believed that in order to infect, a work of art has to be capable of infecting. In other words, it must contain an experience that people will welcome or that touches them deeply.

Tolstoy was a Christian and he believed that Christian themes are uniquely appealing because they deal with the universal brotherhood of man and exclude nobody. He said art can inadvertantly become exclusionary, appealing only to aristocrats or to people we'd call "hip" today. Amazingly he said Beethoven's Ninth was like that. It was something for the art crowd.

Examples of art he approved of were Dickens "Christmas Carol" and "David Copperfield" and Hugo's "Les Miserables."

Dickens also put a lot of stock in sincerity. The editor who wrote the preface thought this was ridiculous since, if you take it literally, it means that an actor who plays a killer must really want to kill the other actors. Maybe Tolstoy did take it to this extreme but the idea is still useful on some level.

Sincerity and earnestness is precicely what a lot of modern media lacks. It's a measure of the greatness of some writers that they dare to voice great truths even though the truths are intuitive and are often difficult to express with words.

MORE CARTOON ANATOMY!

How about a few more words on how laughter happens? I'm obsessed with finding out why the cheek enlarges so much, even for a smile as shown above. Mark Mayerson says the cheeks enlarge to accommodate the extra skin which is pushed out of the way by the smile. He's almost certainly right, but...well... where's the wrinkles you'd expect to see if skin was being packed that way? And why don't you see the skin traveling upward in steps, into the cheek?

I really shouldn't pursue this. The answer is probably obvious and I'm just being dense.

Here's a picture (above) that seems to confirm Mark's opinion. The cheeks don't bunch up much, maybe because the skin is spread all over the side of the face. Boy, this face resembles a screaming baboon!

The small picture on the lower left (above) is interesting. It shows the lower jaw receding backwards into the face as the woman laughs. The upper teeth don't seem to move much.


Of course it's an effort to hold a smile very long. You get tired of keeping the cheeks up. When the strain becomes unbearable (above) you stop supporting the cheeks and the meat collapses downward, back into it's home in the muzzle.

I've seen lots of flabby muzzles, especially on middle aged men and Star Wars fans.

ANATOMY FOR CARTOONISTS

Right now I'm reading "The Artist's Complete Guide to Facial Expression" by Gary Faigin.

I must have seen this book in stores and on friends' shelves dozens of times and for some reason it never made an impression on me. Maybe all the formal anatomy put me off, maybe the author's drawing style failed to impress. It's funny how you can be indifferent to something one day and be utterly blown away by it the next. That's what happened here. I love this book now!

Here's a sample lesson dealing with the way we smile. I'll begin with a description of the human mouth. OK, think of the mouth as a Coke can. The teeth (above) wrap around the can then, at the ends, the mouth flares out a little to the side.

Here's (above, left) a downshot of the human muzzle at rest. The Coke can effect isn't evident because the muscles around the mouth are slack and sagging and cover up the can. The mouth is flat against the face.

Now the face smiles (above, right). The smile muscles pull back the skin around the mouth and stretch it in the direction of the ear. The Coke can is now revealed.

I know what you're thinking: what happened to the muscles that used to sag and droop around the muzzle? Where did they go? The answer is that they travelled up into the cheeks!!!! Um... well... don't quote me on that.

I'm ashamed to say that I don't know how muscles expand and contract. I assume the fibers elongate and contract like the straw tube in a Chinese finger trap. Whatever the real explanation I prefer to think that the mouth muscles have little legs and run up into the cheeks where they sit and play cards till the mouth is ready to normalize again. It's my blog so I can believe whatever I want.

The chin seems to raise a little when we smile. I suppose that's because the skin and muscles in that area stretch out and become thin. That dimple on the extreme left, next to the cheek, seems to indicate that a muscle up there is pulling on the chin.

Fascinating, isn't it!? I'll post more about this as I read it.


BTW, thanks to the commenter who recommended this book a couple of weeks ago!

BE BACK THURSDAY!

A commenter wrote in to say that "Dodsworth" will be on Turner Classic Movies (TCM) this Saturday at 5 pm! Is that 5 pm Pacific Time? I think so.

The film isn't for everybody. It's not cinematic and it's all talking -- no action. It's pure melodrama. What makes it worth watching is that in the details it manages to sketch out the author's image of an ideal man, which is close to my own.

It raises interesting questions about the nature of masculinity, the purpose of life and how it should be lived, and what romance consists of. If you hated my lion post you're not going to like this film because it's all about a human lion.

ME ON A HAPPY MEAL

I've been walking around Disneyland all day and my feet are killing me! I need a subject for a quick post and this Happy Meal is it. This won't impress adults very much but if any kids are reading this they'll think I'm a demi-god for appearing on a McDonald's box.

The artist doesn't want me to use his name so don't try to pry it out of me!