Minor Project: Paper work

This is a blog post with the paperwork and physical work for this module that doesn't include theory work and research. I am putting it on here as there is an issue with my work space on the University VLE but I would still like this work to be seen and marked.
Here is the link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-ycpDnkQK4D-LqVlV8v8VDBeXx4yVej-?usp=sharing

Minor project: Survey Results

Following my survey, I have regularly checked the results to see if the income of results has stagnated and at this point it has, therefore I felt this was an adequate time to put the results together and to start drawing conclusions on them. Without further ado, here is the responses and conclusions of the survey.

Not the most important of questions but it does give an idea of the demographic I was working with and specifically, I can see from this that my audience had at the very least some degree of acting knowledge and as such this was useful because it meant that everyone would have some idea of what good acting was and on top this a large number of people said they watch and analyse films often, thus meaning that I could expect some insightful, informed responses, in theory. 

 The second question was to further gauge the audience so as to see if they appreciated acting to a similar degree to myself and also to see if it was a big factor for my audience. I found from this that performance for most people has blown them a way somewhat, aside from a few people who said they haven't been blown away but do appreciate acting and one person who said they don't really appreciate acting. This means then that again, I can hope for some strong responses from people on the subject because they all fit the idea criteria for the kinds of people I want to be answering the questions on acting.

 The next question (which I have accidentally cut off) was essentially, if you have been blown away, what performances did this? This question then allowed me to gain some understanding of what good acting looked like to people because now I could go away (and I will) and analyse some of these performances to see why I feel they are good and couple that with the responses to the next question to hopefully pick apart a good performance and therefore go into the practical side of this module and from there help me to have a quality of acting to strive for. The answers themselves were varied, from common blockbuster films to indie foreign films, however, there were some common recurring names, most predominant of which was Tom Hardy, followed by Eddie Redmayne and then Leonardo Di Caprio. These are all actors that would be considered to be in their prime at the minute so it makes sense that they would be at the forefront of people'e thinking when we talk about quality acting performances. There were other replies which I have seen that I had already identified such as Daniel Day Lewis, who I did a post about, this was reassuring for me as it confirmed I was already on something of the right track. Upon looking at the actors people were choosing as well, I also noticed that there was a very strong and extremely relevant theme running through them, this was method acting. The majority of the performances people were referencing were that of method actors. This then suggests that this would be the best way to go about acting, based solely on this survey, however, I do recognise that this relatively small sample is not enough to generalise such a big statement.

 Question 4 was to further expand upon people's idea of good acting by then finding out why they thought the particular performances were good. This is hard to generalise what the consensus was because there was such a wide range of answers and the question was very open to a person's view. However, there were a few recurring themes that were given in different ways. The first of these was that the line between actor and character be invisible, this means that the actor must make you believe that they are the character and you must essentially forget that it is a performance. This idea is tricky because as soon as you begin to forget it is a performance, you then stop praising the performance and instead become emotionally invested in a person. The second thing that people said often which is fairly similar to my first point was that the emotion of the actor feel authentic and real, the opposite of which I would guess is what people describe as wooden acting. I think that it is important for emotion to feel real so that audiences can feed off of this and get invested into the characters and have an enjoyable, emotional experience.

The final question was for the person taking the survey to rank the above characteristics in order of importance. If we take the values of these at face value, the ranking goes as follows:

1. Ability to show strong emotion
2. The actor's voice i.e. diction and accent
3. Facial expressions and eye movements
4. Movement and gestures.
5. How much the actor looks like the character (i.e. costume, make-up etc.)

The first thing I would like to say about this is that I am in no way surprised that the fifth on the list is costume and make up. I was expecting this because this is not really to do with the acting, it is just the exterior of the character, sort of like an outer shell that the actor then fills with thought and emotion, which they can do without the necessary look, That being said, four people did still think that this was the most important factor. This is the main issue with this question, it is entirely subjective and the results reflect the fact that different people will look to different aspects. None the less it is still valid research. The number one on the ranking came as no real surprise given the feedback on other questions, emotion is key to a good performance, the reason I limited this to strong emotion is that all of the other available aspects are means of portraying emotion, but I feel that strong emotion is a skill of its own and as such I added it to the list and people responded by naming it their most important aspect.
Voice and facial movements were fairly close when it came to what the second most important aspect to people this to me is extremely interesting as these are the two ways that actors can portray emotion in a subtle manner, therefore it is somewhat telling that this appears to be divisive because it essentially splits people in two about how they want the actor to portray the emotion they're looking for. Some people want passionate speech and strong dialogue, others want subtly in an actors face and the emotion to shine through their eyes. That is what this tells me, and while there is no real conclusion to be had from this, I feel as though this split is fine and the answer is that an actor should have mastery of both and neither is more important. Finally there is movement and gestures in 4th place, I feel like this is unfair, I genuinely think that the reason this is so low is that people simply undervalue it, I know that is the nature of this question, but the way that a character carries themselves is so important to a portrayal, I can't help but feel that  this has been undervalued. That being said, the questionnaire has reflected what people think and clearly they think that movement and gestures isn't a pivotal part of acting in the same way that the others are, perhaps I should acknowledge my own bias in this and say that the survey has proven me wrong.

Minor Project- Mamet and H. Macy

while researching into acting theory I came across a relatively new theory that was made by two people who are still very much active in the film and theatre industry. These two people are David Mamet and William H. Macy. The first of these two men (David Mamet) is a theatre and film director, though he predominately works in theatre, it is in this that he met and frequently collaborated with the second gentleman that he formed these acting ideas with: William H. Macy, an actor probably most famous for playing the lead role in the 98 Coen Brothers' film Fargo. Macy and Mamet collaborated on many theatre productions before eventually forming the idea of practical aesthetics.

Mamet and H. Macy respectively

Instead of going into huge detail about what practical aesthetics is I would instead like to do a basic outline of its four steps and key elements followed by a scenario that puts these into effect. So without further ado:

Practical aesthetics involves breaking a scene down into 4 steps:
The literal: A basic summary of what is going on in the scene.
The want: what does the character want the other to say or do.
Essential Action: What the actor wants within the scene (not the character, these need to be recognised as separate).
The ‘As if’: This is the reasoning behind the external action and relates it to the actors own life.

Lets then put this into practise, heres a scenario: A man trying to save his daughter in a hostile negotiation. 

The literal: two men discussing the terms of a girl’s release.
The want: He wants the other man to let his daughter go and say there will be no problem
Essential action: To save a loved one.
The ‘As If’: It as if one’s own daughter has been kidnapped and he will save her out of love and duty.

This technique is centred around the actor and what it is that they are doing in order to achieve the goal of the scene, it is also centred upon the moment and spontaneity in order to get authentic portrayal in a basic manner. And just like other method techniques and responses it encourages and thrives most when an actor is improvising from the headspace of a character.

This is response to ‘the method’ that is often said to be a very introverted technique and self centred performance practise, though it is praised for making acting simple for actors, though simple doesn’t necessarily mean easy. The theory of practical aesthetics has often been criticised for over simplification.

Minor Project- Strasberg and De Niro

The second actor who I know to be a method actor and who used the Strasberg method who I have decided to research is 2 time academy award winner: Robert De Niro. De Niro for a time was considered to be the best actor in the world, in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, almost everything he was in received high praise and he too was often highly praised. It was during this time that he was in the performances I have decided to look at for this post: Taxi Driver (1976), Raging Bull (1980) and Deer Hunter (1978). But before I get to analysing the king himself I would like first to give some background. De Niro was often teased growing up for his dream of being an actor until eventually he basically put his money where his mouth was and dropped out of school in Senior year to pursue the dream. He then joined Stella Adler's acting school where he tried under her and also under Lee Strasberg, it was during this time that De Niro learned 'The Method'  learned the intricacies of acting and getting into character. From here he did some small time uncredited roles and some short films before getting his big break in the 1973 film Mean Streets where he wowed audiences and critics alike and perhaps more importantly, formed a (what would be) long career of collaborations with director Martin Scorsese. Two of the previously mentioned films (Taxi Driver and Raging Bull) were with Martin Scorsese at the helm and without further introduction, I would like to start by talking about Taxi Driver.

This scene is nothing short of iconic, it has been quoted and parodied a million times over in various other medias, the performance from De Niro is spectacular throughout the film, but this is most evident in this scene when we see De Niro in full flow as Travis Bickle, to give context to the scene, Bickle has just bought his new guns and is planning his big shoot out of some pimps who he is looking to save a girl from. In this scene, Bickle is fantasising about being a hard man of sorts and how he could threaten them and intimidate them. The 'acting' in this scene is completely invisible, there is no signs at all that this isn't a hidden camera filming a real person, It perfectly encapsulates the manner in which people fantasise and pretend when no one is around, it is essentially the same as the air guitar we're all guilty of when no one is looking. The first way we see De Niro in the mid of Bickle is through his exaggerated but not over acted movements, the nods of his head, the pointing to himself and the crossing of his arms. These are all movements of someone who is playing something in there head as though it was a film. Let me elaborate on this, I'm not saying De Niro is over acting for the camera, Im saying Bickle is over acting for the camera he has created in his mind, the difference is that De Niro is acting as a man who is playing a scene of his own for his own fantasies. Then theres the monologue itself, it feels a little strange to call a monologue as even though it is only one person talking to themselves, it does feel more like we're witnessing just one side of a dialogue. Anyway, the dialogue, the delivery is spot on for the desired effect, he speaks slightly under his breath as though he doesn't want anyone to hear and know that he is playing out his role play like a child. This is until Bickle get lost in his own act and picks up the volume and intensity for his famous "you talking to me". The other really intense thing in this scene is De Niro's eyes, all throughout he locks eye contact with what we assume is himself in his reflection and he is somewhat scowling, this to me shows genuine emotion written across his face which again serves to highlight that De Niro is in character. However, despite all of that, the biggest sign of Strasbergian acting through this whole scene is that the entire thing is completely improv. The original script simply called for Bickle to look at himself in the mirror, De Niro simply went into the mind of the character and pulled the entire scene and all of the lines completely from the world he had created for Bickle, it is this fact alone that makes this my favourite acting performance ever because of the depth of the character and the fact that De Niro was capable of sustaining Bickle without the fabricated world of the script.

The second film in De Niro's filmography I wanted to look at was Deer Hunter, in particular I wish to look at the "This is this scene", in this scene Michael gets angry at Stan (played by Jim Cavazale) for wanting to borrow his boots for seemingly another time is a long list of times. The two argue before eventually Michael reaches his peak and grabs a bullet and waves it at Stan saying the line that "this is this", a line which really makes little sense both in and out of context. This is this is essentially a nothing line that has no meaning. That is until the performance gives it meaning. The way he waves the bullet, coupled with his harsh and commanding tone show us as the audience that Michael really is finished with Stan and his requests and he wont take it anymore. The strange thing about this is that if a man was waving a bullet and shouting at someone it would be easy to take this as a veiled threat that they will shoot them. This is by no means the case, the performance is much more subtle and nuanced and instead of being a threat it is more a reminder that Michael is in charge within the social constructs of the characters and the film. In this scene we see great agitation from De Niro, he's grimacing and his mannerisms give every indication of his agitation but nothing in the scene shows why, the script, the cinematography, the narrative, none of them, not one of these tells us why the character is so psychologically distressed at his friends request, The way De Niro plays the character suggests some kind of prior experience that has some lasting mental hold over the character but none is explained in the film. The signs given can be interpreted in many ways due to their ambiguity in comparison to normal behaviour, however, the plethora of ways this can be interpreted all lead back to a fractured psyche within the character. The fact that this is the case shows a strong and well developed character that De Niro has expertly crafted and inhabited. All of these behavioural abnormalities can be traced back to a damaged mind that is idiosyncratic, individualistic but most importantly off all, realistic

In preparation for the role of Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull, De Niro famously but on a lot of weight and subsequently lost it during production in order to play the older, larger, LaMotta before then going back over and portraying the professional boxer side of Jake's life. One thing that is less known about this performance and perhaps is more impressive is that to get into character De Niro spent time with the real Jake LaMotta and in that time was trained by him to box to a professional standard. As if this wasn't enough for him to engage with the character, De Niro then took on and won a few bouts of relatively high level boxing. Interestingly, he didn't like the film and didn't think much of the performance, the reason? It hit him too close to home, upon seeing the violent behaviour of himself towards his brother and his wife he was overwhelmed with emotion and asked his wife if that was how it was, she replied "you were worse". LaMotta conceded eventually that the portrayal was excellent and for him it was like reliving his memories, regardless of the pain it caused. With regards to the performance, from a method stand point, it would not have been the standard character building process for De Niro as he had a real person to model himself on, he didn't have to make a world for a character and create a personality, instead he had to adopt these things from a man who already had all of these things, this was probably more difficult for him as there is much less freedom to explore potential personalities and traits, the performance would live or die by its authenticity. As De Niro won an oscar for his performance, I think we can assume he did a good job. But how can we see evidence of De Niro being in the head of his character in the above clip. The most obvious sign of this is the somewhat flamboyant hand movements, these at face value appear to be a fulfilling of a thoughtless stereotype of Italians and particularly Italian-americans, however, by all accounts, this is not and over the top caricature but rather a genuine representation, you see, Jake LaMotta was apparently someone who was very expressive with his hands in this manner and De Niro must have picked this up when building his character of La Motta, thus meaning when De Niro assumed the role of being La Motta, his new subconscious reverted to these gestures because that is what Jake would do. The second way we see him really living in the role is his short temper, now obviously he is scripted to do certain things and show emotion in the scene but you really get the feeling that it is genuine anger on show as he flips the table, the main way this emotion manifests its self within the performance is through his De Niro's line delivery, the 0 to 100 hundred in the blink of an eye approach to his volume really serves to highlight his anger but also serves to act as a means of asserting his dominance in the situation and to try and subdue his wife to submitting to his wants. The other thing I would like to quickly point out as well is how De Niro carries himself, its a very unique style of movement, he's almost hunched forward but yet he also pushes his chest forward. This shape really accentuates his muscle and also makes him cut an imposing figure despite his small build. This gives his a pit bull like air that screams that he would fight anyone and doesn't know his limits. This from what I can tell is a perfect way to describe LaMotta at this point in his life, careless, strong and aggressive, this is all masterfully expressed simply in how De Niro walks across a room, this is evidence yet again that De Niro is living the character because subtle details like this are done as second nature and these for me are the details that sell a character to an audience.

Minor Project: Strasberg and The Joker

After researching the Strasberg method I decided that it would be useful to see it in action in professional films so as to see how all the theory comes together into a performance. My plan for doing this is to identify three method actors (which at this point I already have) pull out some of their best performances and from there analyse the evidence of method acting and if possible find out how they prepared for the role and see how this relates back to the performance.

The first actor and performance I would like to talk about in this series of posts is Heath Ledger and his portrayal of the Batman villain: The Joker, in the 2008 film The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan). This performance won Ledger an oscar, unfortunately the award was given posthumously, it is widely believed that it was the performance that ultimately cost him his life as the method was taken somewhat too far and caused serious mental illness in Ledger that he sadly couldn't handle. It is worth mentioning at this point that this is not and never will be completely confirmed but with the information we have, this seems like the most likely outcome. One of the things that Ledger did in preparation for this role was he locked himself in a isolated hotel room for around six weeks. During this time he read the source material for the film, practised voices for the role and all the while kept a journal of his experience. He did this in order to explore and portray a darker version of the joker than had been previously explored on the big screen. The resulting journal had some intense ramblings from Ledger from when he was in character, as well as some drawings of hyenas, stills from A Clockwork Orange and a Joker card. Most harrowing and insightful of all was the ending of his journal, it simply said "BYE BYE". The journal also contained lists of things that The Joker found funny; things like AIDS and the idea of geniuses suffering from brain damage (he was trying to achieve a dark character after all). Perhaps interestingly, in between takes Ledger dropped the character and was said to be the antithesis of his character, though this is a great example of a method actor at work, this is not typical of method actors, usually they will stay in character between takes so as to keep up, Ledger didn't do this and apparently he would skateboard on set and hug the crew, which I think we can agree The Joker wouldn't do. Anyway, that is a lot of background, lets talk about his performance.

Id like to start by analysing a small piece of his acting before going onto something a little more substantial. In this scene we start with The Joker laughing, this doesn't particularly come from Ledger being in character per se but it does give an early look at the type of character we are about to see, his psychotic nature is almost immediately evident in his laugh, this is then obviously emphasised by what occurs just after his arrival but we will get to that. The set up for the magic trick shows early signs of how Ledger is in character because he completely ignores the threats of the mob boss in front of him, this is completely evident in his intonation and the way he puts his arms behind his back and leans slightly forward like a performer on a stage. This is the beginning signs of a synthesis between actor and character that is usually only achieved through method acting and becoming the character. Then we come to the actual magic trick, the reaction afterwards is one of the best moments in terms of acting from the hole Joker performance, the "Tadaa" is so perfectly timed and emphasised that it can't be anything but The Joker's authentic reaction to his trick. This is then followed by him fixating briefly on where the pencil was as if impressed by his own trick as well as stumbling to get on a chair. It is in moments like this where method acting is most evident, when they have to react, I have no doubt that him sitting on the chair was meant to be smoother but he knocks the chair away slightly and as a result must react. In this instance it would be so easy to cut and retake or to break character, but The Joker doesn't need a retake because it isn't a film to The Joker, and as far as Ledger is concerned, while that camera is rolling, he is The Joker.

The other scene I would like to talk about is much more substantial in terms of content in comparison and showcases even more the lack of divide between Ledger and character. My personal favourite aspect of this captivating performance is the two very subtle facial features he utilises that really sell the character, these are firstly the clenching of his jaw to flex his temple and make it look like he's almost chewing on something, this makes his words look like hard work but also really sell the illusion of madness as if Joker is twitching and unstable. The second feature is the licking of his lips, Im not entirely sure why but this adds to the illusion of insanity, if pushed for an answer I would say that it paints the joker as being obsessive, he continuously does this as if irritated by something that isn't there, sort of like an itch that wont go no matter how much it is scratched. However, that isn't really the point, the main point is that these are constant and very clearly subconscious, this means that Joker is alive and manifested through Ledger, the only way to act subconsciously is to be in the mind of the character and adopt their mannerisms, which we clearly see he has done in this case. The other key aspect of this performance is his line delivery, to say he sounds out of breathe would be a disservice, the best way to describe his delivery is as if every few syllables is at the end of a breath, he also only delivers a few syllables at a time to add a pacing to the lines which gives an air of tension in what he is saying that when coupled with the action of the scene makes it that much more tense. The other side of his delivery is the effortless and seemingly random transition between a sort of high pitched jovial but unnerving tone, to a gruff, harsh tone that has an air of aggression in it. This effortless switch really sells The Joker's instability, this is because it makes him seem like he is flitting between two conflicting personalities that are at war in his head. If this was not an authentic reaction to the mind of the Joker being a genuine persona then the switch between two personalities wouldn't flow anything like the same and we would probably see something a little more like Gollum from the Lord of the Rings, which is a great performance in its own right but it has much more telegraphed switches in personality, whereas Ledger needed them to be seamless and less obvious from a spectator view point, this is because this schizophrenia is more like The Joker suppressing one side of himself than a direct swap between two personas, it is as though the Joker side of himself that is a clown and makes jokes is just a facade to mask his aggressive, darker nature that wants to hurt people. All that being said this all comes together in one very unhinging, very believable and a very (from an actors viewpoint) dangerous portrayal of a character that will go down in history as one of the best single performances in a film ever, its just a shame at the cost of a life that had to be paid for this masterpiece of acting.

Minor Project: Lighting set up

As I have mentioned in my previous posts, my aim is not to improve my camera work and lighting skills in this module however, it can be said that both of these can add to a performance if done correctly. As such, we took the time to light the scene properly and mimic the shots as best we could without spending an unnecessary amount of time in comparison to the pay off. So we spent a good amount of time lighting the scene, we did this because when it comes to the real thing we want it to feel like a complete film shoot so the actors are as close to a fully functional film shoot as possible so that anything I learn can be carried over to future shoots. Anyway, to get back to the point of this post, I am simply writing this to evidence the lighting that we did and how close I feel we got to the source material and also how we might improve it going forward.

This is the first lighting set up for the Mid on Mr Holden (the Blade Runner), for this Liam used a red head pointing from the side to simulate the big window in the real scene, this was then covered with scrim to disperse and dampen the light. The light next to this was another red head with a blue gel to act as a fill light to give the dusk effect of the scene by adding blue highlights and to slightly fill some shadow on this side and accentuate shadows on the other side.

 This is the original shot.

This is our recreation of the shot.

I think that when you consider that the cinemascope black bars will crop down our shot more, I feel that we got the framing pretty close in all honesty. The lighting too is pretty close, the only issue I would potentially point out is that perhaps our shadows are a little bit too strong and we could have maybe done with another fill light on the opposite side just to add some of the detail back to that side of Liam's face, otherwise I would say we did quite a good job. One thing I will also point out is the background, it will become more of a problem when we see the other shots and their completely different background that the green curtain is a bit of an issue. But all in all, I am a fan of this shot, I think we did a good job.

This is the second lighting set up which covers Shaun's side of the scene and lights his face in a similar way to how we lit Liam, the set up was the same just flipped, nothing special.

 This is the second shot we tried to mimic

Again, if we factor in the black bars, this shot is almost spot on, we really benefitted from having the images in front of us to really nail the framing. Aside from this, I feel the lighting was a little off on this one, the shadow is less 50/50 than on the original, in the original shot there is almost a line down his face that the shadow forms, on Shaun the ration is more 60/40 light to dark, and again, like with the last shot the shadow is potentially a little too intense. All that being as it may, it is a very good and solid recreation of the shot.

 This was the last shot we attempted.

This was the final shot we attempted and it used the same lighting as the previous one so the issues here are the same, the only thing to mention is the shot itself which is almost spot on, potentially the angle is a little off but I think it might be the shadow or the shape of Shaun's face that makes me think this way, in actual fact I think that the shot is fine. It has the same issue of a too harsh shadow and an off ratio of shadow to light on the face but again this is a great shot and I would be happy to take this forward to the real thing if we just correct those minor issues.

Minor Project- Survey

After giving some thought about what makes actors good or bad, I decided that all the theory in the world was fine but it wouldn't necessarily tell me what normal audience members who simply digest films on a regular basis thought of what made acting good. The logical way then for me to get this kind of feedback was to conduct a survey. I did this through Survey Monkey's free service which was extremely useful and well presented, the only issue was that it affords you only 5 questions unless you pay the premium price, which I decided against. Having only five questions I had to maximise the value of these questions and try to extract the most information I could so here are the questions and why I asked them.

The first question was to establish the demographic of the answers and to see what degree people engage with film. For example if I hadn't asked this question then I may be getting replies from people who don't watch films, thus meaning that there would be little to no point in me listening to their opinions on acting. It would be like me giving an opinion on The olympic sport of hurling, I know what it is and I've seen it maybe once but I couldn't give you any kind of confident thesis or opinion on it (well I could but that's more about my character than the point I'm trying to make). The second question is to establish whether or not people hold acting in such a high regard and its importance and also its craft, if someone has not been blown away, it means they are either not watching good acting or they do not regard it as highly as perhaps they should.

The next question is to allow me to research further into what has been said and look for myself the kind of performances that people are considering to be the best, this also means that I can diversify my own views of 'good' acting, as it is true that people will have their own perceptions and from this question I can see a diversity of answers and see a kind of spectrum of acting people consider good. This then links to the next question because from here I can see why people like these performances so much and I can then synthesise these answers with my own opinions and get a broader understanding of what good acting looks like for a wider audience

The final question was to really nail down what it was that made a performance so good, admittedly this was based upon some of the factors that I look for in a good performance and I will say that I did wish to add an optional box to add your own suggestions about important acting factors but the software wouldn't allow me to unfortunately. That being said, I can still use this question to see what people believe to be the best qualities and factors in a performance.

So that is the survey I have put out there for people to answer, I will look at the results after it has had time for people to respond and I will no doubt do a post analysing said results.

ps. if you would like to take the survey here is the link, it would be a great help if you were to do so:

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/BMLPGVJ

Minor Project: Wilson- The Byrds

Wilson's goal of merging the two screens is evident in the manner by which he works with his performers. He formed the Byrd Hoffman School for Byrds (named after the dance teacher who had helped him overcome his childhood speech issues. All but one of Wilson's Byrds were untrained and as a such weren't limited by the preconceived ideas or styles that they would perhaps be subjected too through a formal acting education. As these people were taken essentially from the streets the workshops taught them to not come at it with their preconceptions of what acting, or dancing would look like or how it should manifest itself. Wilson instead encouraged them to find their own styles of movement and expression. In a a way it could be said that Wilson was in fact teaching the Byrds not to act. This allowed them a freedom of expression that then gave audiences a freedom of interpretation, in other words they could make of the performance what they wished, there was no existing pretext for the quality of meaning of the performance. You see, movement isn't explicitly natural, nor is it completely functional either, if we compare basic movement patterns of people who have been raised in an asian background to those of someone raised in western culture, we see vastly different movement patterns, such example is in the way we greet people and/or show them respect, in Asia it is not uncommon to bow to people, In the west this would seem very out of place. From this we can then infer that they way we move is undoubtedly shaped by our culture and social understanding. This is important because your basic social subject will 'write their movements based upon their culture and social understanding, they will then read the movements of others based upon those same rules. Byrds performed in a manner which was not readable by these traditional means as their kinesics (non-verbal communications) were not built upon standard ideologies, they were sign posted to viewers as being uninterpretable in this way. With no cultural logic available to interpret the work of Wilson, a spectator has no choice but to respond subjectively, thus relying upon their internal screen.

One way in which Wilson very successfully portrayed this idea of non-conventional movement was through his collaborations with performers who were sensorially or intellectually impaired, this was because these people synthesise the world differently and as such this shines through in their performance. Most famously Wilson did this when working with painter Raymond Andrews who was deaf and mute, unfortunately this meant that he had been limited so much so that no one would give him work in theatre until Wilson did, though this is a painter not an actor, this is still relevant as it is just a medium of expression. It was said that Andrews had a very unique portrayal of space on a canvas and spacing as he was in a world he perceived as being open and also empty. Wilson and Andrews collaborated frequently, perhaps most fruitfully on Deafman Glance where Andrews also acted as a small boy.

Wilson's works always feature 'icons'; Abe Lincoln, Einstein, cowboys, dinosaurs, astronauts and other such seemingly iconic images. He does this because by including iconic imagery the viewer is automatically invited to interpret them, this acts as a technique of sign posting that says that the signs can be read. However, the diverse and seemingly crazy pairings of such iconography means that these readings inevitably become frustrated, this is because, as I have explained, Wilson's work doesn't conform to any discernible logic. Ironically, this production technique of almost dream-like plays and set pieces looked to escape from cultural expectations and labels but, in doing this was to be considered 'acultural' which is in itself a label, and the irony is that this label comes with it a whole host of preconceptions and ideas which viewers will carry into their viewing of a piece of Wilson's work.

How then, is this important to my personal work, well, academically it has taught me the importance and significance of movement from a cultural point of view, for a character to be realistic they must move appropriately with the time and culture they exist in. This is something I will look out for in my actor's performances. The other thing I have learned is that this can be broken, it usually gives a surreal effect to the piece but with practise and skill it can be broken and someone can be directed to move freely outside of the cultural expectation which surrounds them. In all honesty, this wasn't the most useful of my researches, however, this is completely fine because though it doesn't help me greatly in this module, should I want to create a surreal or dream like piece, then this is something I could definitely revisit and employ within my works.

Minor Project: Sandford Meisner

Sandford Meisner is one of people like Strasberg  who took what Stanislavski was doing and reshaped it into his own technique this came about as a falling out with Lee Strasberg about how acting should be taught and particularly around its focus, Strasberg focused upon the emotion and persona that should be presented from an individual in a scene, whereas Meisner wanted to focus upon the other person in the scene and make the performance authentic throughs these means.
Meisner himself worked with and trained with the likes of Sydney Pollack, Robert Duvall, Tom Cruise and Diane Keaton as well as other oscar winners such as Jeff Bridges, Anthony Hopkins and Jack Nicholson. This then shows that there is certainly a degree of credibility to what Meisner was teaching.

Meisner’s technique revolved around the identification of  two issues within actors, firstly that they don’t listen and second being that they are self-conscious. As I previously mentioned Meisner looked to focus the actors upon each other rather than on themselves and their own performance. This dealt with the first issue of not listening because by having them focus on someone else they are locked onto another person so to speak so they will be listening. It also deals with the self conscious issue because again they are no longer thinking of themselves they are now thinking of what the other person is doing and not worrying about their own performance in front of the camera. The beauty of this style is also in the fact that the emotion comes from the scene based upon  relationships that are played out between characters. Once the actor has a good understanding of the mentality and personality of the character then they can form relationships on top of this. When said relationships have been formed it is at this point that the acting really shines and begins to feel authentic and real because it is a real outpouring of a genuine relationship on show.

This acting style is also extremely useful from a directorial stand point because it is capable of completely absorbing issues into the performance without a hitch. Because of the complete focus on the external rather than the internal and the self then if something external goes wrong it can be quite easily just absorbed and worked around because of the genuine encounter between two people rather than a fabricated performance. This, like other method performance, also makes improvisation very easy for the actors, if an actor has really engaged with the ideas of this technique it means that they will have no issue in adapting to whatever the other person has said regardless of what it is, this again comes back to the authenticity and the fact that if a relationship is genuine they will react regardless just as a real person would react to something a friend (for example) says to them. This comes back to an idea I have thought often, which is that if you really want to see if someone is in character then you need to ask them to improvise something, in doing this if the improvised bit is seamless from the rest of the performance then they are completely engaged with the character. I would like to briefly explain the most famous technique from Meisner was his repetition technique, this technique was a simple exercise where two actors would stand opposite each other, one states to the other an item of the others clothing, the other actor (not the one who said the clothing article) then says how the actor in front of them seems emotionally, i.e. "I think you seem happy" the actor then repeats the item of clothing over and over and the actor says how they feel every time. The idea of said technique is to let the actor move and act freely without thinking about what they are saying or doing. This is the first and probably most important exercise in Meisner's arsenal.

Minor Project: Strasberg Method

The most commonly implemented and talked about method of acting in the modern era is without a doubt the system of Method acting. Method acting is considered by its creator (Lee Strasberg) to be a evolution and continuation of Stanislavskian acting. Though there are some differences in the two systems, this is by no means far from true, the two systems are very much concerned with real emotion and with getting the actor into the head of the character so that the actions and reactions in their portrayal are genuine.

There are four key components to the method and its portrayal, the first of which is 'new ease' or naturalness on stage, they should be able to use their bodies freely and express themselves through movement in non symbolic ways that allow them to simply be their character. This was in direct defiance of the acting of the time during Strasberg's early days in theatre. The acting of the time was often described as aristocratic, this is characterised by very clear diction and correct postures and gestures. This was very stylish and had a certain swagger to it but for the most part was very clearly artificial. Strasberg however, aims to give actors freedom, their movement should not be defined by the conventions that theatre sets for them but should instead be a free expression of the character they are portraying. This comes from a wider idea which aims for the complete portrayal of truth on the stage, to give a slice of a real world that has been created by the producer of the play and feels real to the audience. Aristocratic acting then not only appeared to be artificial, it also created artificial meanings, anything that was created in the actors portrayals was therefore inauthentic and by extension not a genuine expression of their intention. As a response to this component, Strasberg would defy conventions by giving actors roles which they were not physically optimised for, which is what commonly occurred in theatre, rather than basing it upon acting skill. This made the actors awkward and rough in comparison to traditional aristocratic acting but it did make them more free to create genuine expression. This freedom of expression made a fundamental shift in performance, when we see an actor being 'awkward' it serves as sign that they are engaging with the world of the character rather than striving to impress the members of the real world, this is key to a realistic performance and a portrayal of truth.

(Master and apprentice- Al Pacino and Lee Strasberg on set of Godfather 2)

The second key component of The Method is the expression and creation of the character's 'inner life'. The basis of this component is that the actor must create and maintain a sense of reality surrounding their character. This focus means that Strasberg performances are punctuated with dense minute details that evidence and highlight the creation and implementation of this fake world that the character inhabits. These are details like facial expressions, vocal inflections and nuances of gesture. All of these subtle details serve as sign posts for the internal mind and world of the character and the actor expresses these just as they would in real life away from cameras and audiences. To put an example of this with the explanation: in The Godfather 2 the moment before Michael slaps Kay Adams, we see his eyes dart around and his lips quivering, the reason for this, the genuine rage inside of Al Pacino because at this point he is Michael Corleone and within the world of Michael Corleone his is irate at Kay for (what he views as) killing his son, the hard part in this I would imagine for Al is to stop himself actually hitting her because the rage is genuine, it would make sense that he would want to lash out. That being said I am probably doing Al Pacino a disservice by even suggesting he may lose control, the man is a model professional after all.

The third key component to this whole process is heightened emotionalism, while it can be said that this is similar to the second component of the internal life, it is probably more accurate to say that one derives from the other. This component comes around to a system which Strasberg uses to create 'true emotion' and this system is called the "emotion memory exercise". To explain this system we must first understand Strasberg's three types of memory (of which one gets split another two times): Mental memory, remembering a fact, physical memory, knowing how to carry put tasks like walking and tying laces, and finally affective memory, which comes in two halves: Analytic memory, which deals solely in physical sensations which was used in Strasberg's tasks of handling imaginary objects which is deigned to get actors engaged with creating imaginary worlds. The second half is emotion memory, this is the ability to draw upon and mould emotionally memories so that they may draw upon them as the basis of their performances. These memories are intended to be drawn upon as experiences not as facts. What is meant by this is that instead of saying "It was cold" one would say that "My hands felt cold" this draws attention to how it made you feel and from this the emotional and physical conditions of the scenario can be drawn upon during a performance. Performances of this manner will therefore deal with strong emotions rather than a time when an actor felt a little happy they will draw upon a time of great joy and recreate that strong emotion, this means Strasbergian performances can be characterised by their strong emotional responses and portrayals which is what component three is all about. This does however, mean that at first glance these performances may seem implausible and unnecessarily over the top, however, this spontaneity and passion shows an inner self in the character which makes them psychologically readable and thus much more believable from an audience stand point.

The fourth and final component doesn't particularly have a name but the gist of it is the disconnect from script and character. Allow me to explain this, actors like Brando and Dean were often criticised for their mumbly performance and seemingly odd pronunciations and stutters. However, after Strasberg became more accepted in the mainstream it was realised that in fact this was not an issue with the quality of the actor, but rather this was signifying something bigger than what the words could portray, an inadequacy in the the quality of words to display an emotion or feeling. You see it is a very human thing to be lost for words or to wrestle with the correct words for a scenario. If a character knows exactly what to say in every scenario and has no issues with elocution then they appear to be very one dimensional and they do not come across as genuine in the slightest. Now I am not suggesting that an actor should stutter over every word or deliberately deliver lines badly, what I mean is that genuine emotion is key and this is conveyed through real human utterances. This is why improvisation is such a big deal for Strasberg as it shows a unison between actor and character as they are able to speak and act in character as though the person is organic and real. This is equally useful because it adds depth to a production where it otherwise may not exist. If we return to the Godfather example from earlier (and ignore the slap that follows) we can just from the actors performance understand his moral code, his emphasis on family and his disdain for his wife, all from a subtle movement on his face. Now, is this good acting from a aristocratic point of view, probably not because it doesn't follow any of their conventions as they would prefer some form of gesture to signify anger and probably some accompanying words. This is why Shakespeare productions are often problematic for Strasbergian actors, this is because the script and delivery are somewhat set on what they can be and as such there is not much call for the kind of acting Strasberg pioneers, Shakespeare is very much of the aristocratic style with long flamboyant prose and symbolic excessive gestures. This then has been a description of Strasberg's method and method acting, this is widely the most used acting system by top actors and as such it was important for me to grasp if I am to understand what a 'good' performance from these standards is.

Minor Project: Shot analysis- Blade Runner

For this post I would like to detail the technicalities of the scene I am looking to mimic, this is the opening dialogue scene from Ridley Scott's Blade Runner. In this scene we have a Blade Runner interviewing a replicant so he can discern whether or not the man in front of him is in fact a replicant. This scene is excellent mainly due to the tension of it but there is also something compelling about the content, the Voight-Kampff (the psychological test for whether someone is a replicant) is an interesting subject due to the nature of the questions and their odd but somewhat philosophical questions that elicit an emotional response in both character and viewer. However, the acting and substance in this scene is for another post, this post is concerned with the logistics of the scene and how the scene plays out visually. While I am aware that my project does not concern visuals, it would be naive to think that they have no part to play in what I hope to achieve and as such I feel it is important for me to get these right so they can be a catalyst for the actors to shine.

 This is one shot that starts high up and pulls into a two shot before cutting into the next shot. This is an excellent introductory shot as we straight away know the setting and we also see from here that Leon (the replicant) has been called into the room and as such his role as the less powerful participant is established. From the setting we also are given a glimpse of the character being one of at least a few as his office appears to be part of a block of more, meaning he isn't particularly special, but we see from the character that he does have a degree of prestige.

 We then cut into a shot of a mystery machine setting itself up, this creates intrigue as we do not yet know what this machine is for or its relevance to the scene. I believe that the character will feed off of this because he too in this scene doesn't know what the machine is, this is something that aligns us to Leon in a sense because the machine is odd to us both.

 We then cut to a side angle close-up of Leon, this could be considered to be similar to a prison mug shot in a sense as it resembles the side view of an inmate that is commonly asked for when a suspect comes in. The other significance of this shot is that it is our first view of the character, couple this with the prison style shot and we are given the impression then that this man is a convict of sorts. The lack of complex or busy background also is used to draw us only to the character and makes him the sole focus, unlike later shots which have many other elements on show.

 This is the machine setting up further, I believe this is to make the set up more interesting and to further establish the machine as a key element in the scene, this also makes for an easy way to show dialogue in an interesting yet basic way whilst actors are still moving around in the scene, this helps hugely with continuity.

 This is the reverse shot of the one previous and as well as fulfilling the role of the previous shot, it also serves to show Leon sitting down in a much more interesting way than him simply sitting down.

 This is the final piece in the puzzle of deciphering what the machine does and it ties up that enigma of what the machine was there to do. We can now see that it is scanning his eye, this is coupled with the fact that close to this point we will find out from the dialogue that the Blade Runner is looking for an emotional response and as such the eye is scanned to look for something that may give it away.

 This wide shot of the two of them sat at the table establishes the distance physically and metaphorically between the two, with the eye scanner acting almost like a physical barrier between the two, this isn't the last time in this scene that this will be the case. The fan in this shot is used to create movement in the shot which makes it flow much nicer but it may also be a preemptive warning to say to the viewer that things will get heated, which they certainly do.

 This is used to cut back into the scene and remind us of why the two of them are having the exchange that they are having, the slow pumping of the machine and the fan in the previous shot are as well paired to create a slow rhythm for the scene which in turn creates tension because the pace of the scene begins to speed up as the tension builds.

 This is a Mid shot of Leon that makes it look as though he isn't talking to the man in front of him but rather the machine, it looks almost as if he is squaring up to it as though he was to fight it. Although the look on his face is more of confusion so this then seems more like he is studying the machine than he is sizing it up.

 This is the reverse of the previous and again features the eye scanner, though in this case it is much closer to the subject and as a result seems somewhat like a shield or a a fake wall between the two men. It is also of note that this shot is much busier than its predecessor, perhaps reflecting the minds of the two men, showing Leon is much more empty headed.

 This section is a basic shot reverse shot sequence as the two exchange words, the pacing of this is key and cutting in the right places to see the emotion in each character (particularly Leon) as the two converse.

 The shot goes closer into Leon's face as we start to get more to the centre of his mind and also as the Blade Runner's scrutiny of him intensifies, the low angle on this however, does also make Leon seem more powerful than previously, this perhaps suggests that when he feel threatened or like his is being interrogated he becomes more dangerous, this is a lot to infer from a shot but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.

 To match the closer in shot of Leon, we also go closer to BR, this intensifies the scene as the empty spaces are being filled by the two men, drawing the focus further into their exchange and the significance of what they are saying. It is of note that no matter how focused on the two we become the eye scanner still separates the two and acts as a barrier between the two.

 We go yet again closer into Leon's face to intensify further his emotions and to aid the actor in their portrayal of emotion, this is because this close into his face, every subtle movement  is noticeable and every subtle movement serves to highlight the confusion and agitation in the character.

 The shot is not matched by  a BR equivalent at this point which shows how the focus is definitely upon Leon and he is being scrutinised intensely. It is almost like he is under a magnifying glass and being closely watched. It is at this point we realise that this scene is not at all about the Blade Runner and Leon is the main focus.

   We have a back and forth in this format to ramp up the tension somewhat and to intensify the line of enquiry from the Blade runner, until the shot pulls out again between cuts and we see that Leon has been let off the hook somewhat, though we still keep watch on his face, it is not as intense as the previous exchange.

 We then cut back to the eye machine and are firstly reminded that this is a test and that Leon's eyes will eventually give him up if he fails the test. This also gives us an indication that the Blade Runner has potentially seen something to that effect and is on to Leon.

 Here we go back to a relatively calm shot reverse shot of the two exchanging words as BR questions Leon further but with not real intensity or vigour, he is just calm waiting for the chance to again gain the emotional response from Leon, this still builds tension between the two but it is done in pacing more than shot type, at this point we are almost certain that BR is onto Leon which makes the scene all the more intense.

 Then we go back right into Leon's face and we see the panic and intensity all on show in his face, with no distraction or any misleading objects, this is simply a full view of Leon with all his emotion on show.

 We then go back to the eye scanner and we are again reminded that he is on trial of sorts, this also gives us the impression that his eyes have finally given him up and the machine will tell BR exactly what he has been looking for.

This then intensifies further because we are now right up to BR's face and we are suddenly very trapped in the emotion of the two people and there intent, we see nothing but pure emotion from the two at this point and they feel much closer together, like they are building to an aggressive conclusion, like two men getting right in at each other. Though, all the time the eye scanner is still present to act as a metaphorical barrier between the two of them.

 The whole scene plays out like a game of cat and mouse and when the cat (BR) is most intensely stalking his prey it pulls right into their faces to convey the intensity, we pull back out of the intense close-ups because BR lets up the pressure on Leon, however, he doesn't let up completely, we know this because we are still fair close into Leon's face, so much so we can still study him as BR is studying him.

The game is up, BR has what he wants, and has a resolution, we now longer need to study Leon, we can pull out of the exchange and see where it goes from here, this feels like the exchange has drawn to a conclusion as we now have the feeling of being able to leave save for the final few formalities in the scene. The shot slows the scene right down and sets it up for the quick jarring change of pace that comes in the final segment of the scene.

This quick shot of Leon shooting through the table is on for less than a second and the series that follows is over the space of around 4 seconds, thus changing the mood from tension to action.

 The close-up of the flash being shot shows the path of the bullet and also the anarchy and mess it causes, also the spilling liquid is symbolic of the blood that we don't see coming from BR because the shot has already hit by the time we cut.

 This is a simple shot to show what happens to BR but interestingly we no longer see the eye scanner, showing the barrier he hid behind is no longer there and it did not save him in the long run, you see the eye scanner represented BR's intelligence and also his perceived power over Leon, but all of this disappears when Leon points a gun at him.

The final shot illustrates the point of the previous shot even better, it shows Leon rising above the scanner and everything it stands for in order to show he is more dangerous than those things could hope to control and as such he is able to overcome BR and shoot him despite BR being the controlling force in all of the prior shots.

That is a summary of the shots and the meanings in this scene, where possible I have tried to explain how this helps the actor and how the performance shines through certain shot choices, this has certainly been a useful exercise for me as I now see that performance can be enhanced throughs the camera as well as the actors.