Download acting discipline philosophy

ACTING DISCIPLINE PHILOSOPHY:
As exemplified through my own experiences as both an
educator and practitioner, I believe there are many rich gifts
that the study of Theatre can bear to students of any age;
regardless of experience, prior exposure or even “talent”. By
means of exploring the actor’s basic tools of Imagination,Voice
and Body, students can master a vocabulary of performance that
envelops and promotes life-long learning. Values central to the
field of Theatre, such as artistry, aesthetic and creativity, in
addition to such vital dexterities that transfer into the
“practical” world, (i.e. collaboration, communication, critical
thinking, emotional and physical awareness, increased selfesteem, and presentational skills) are learned and mastered
through course materials, first-hand experience, effective
pedagogy and supportive dialogue and exploration.
My personal approaches to teaching the craft of Acting,
cater towards the integration of several basic foundations found
in the life practices and teachings of Michael Chekhov, Uta
Hagen, Sanford Meisner, and Constantin Stanislavski. Chekhov
reminds me of the importance of the physical and psychological
“actor’s body”: giving life to form, beauty and both “internal
and external” atmosphere in time and space. Along with the
practicality of technique and a “common-sensical” ease, from Uta
Hagen, I adopt her focus on identity: a precept that understands
that to “truly know one’s self”, allows for a greater scope and
artistc capacity to identify with others. Amongst other things
from Meisner, I pass on the guideposts of “active listening”,
being honest, present and the “Reality Of Doing.” And from
Stanislavski, I transfer to my students the importance of textual
analysis and preparation in its various forms, leading towards
what I consider to be an inseparable marriage between “craft” and
“truth”. I have found that this “personal recipe” of
basic
acting principles which have guided my instruction and my own
artistry, to be very successful in addressing a wide diversity of
learners.
Meanwhile, my Voice Pedagogies draw strongly upon the
principles of
Kristin Linklater and Katherine Fitzmaurice, while
my Movement philosophy is greatly influenced by my exposure to
Alexander Technique, Anne Bogart’s Viewpoints and teachings by
Laban and LeCoq.
The Alexander Technique and its many components which focus
primarily on the ease of movement, efficiency and self-awareness,
are cornerstones in my approaches to addressing the actor’s
physical body. From there, I expound upon these concepts by
utilizing the vocabularies of Laban’s movement qualities, LeCoq’s
“neutral mask and body”, and the Viewpoints; in order to empower
my students to observe, analyze, manipulate and play within the
confines of time, physicality and concrete performance space.
Perhaps two of the most common misconceptions I have
confronted in numerous classrooms over the years, (particularly
amongst learners whom might be labeled as “novices”), involve the
drastic misconceptions that 1) Acting and Theatre as an artform,
doesn’t require discipline or
Theatre
hardwork and that 2) Acting and
(indeed many a performing art) is only for “beautiful
people” or “self-absorbed intellectuals”. Even for those students
fortunate enough to have gained access and exposure to Acting or
Theatre at some point in their lives, I feel these deceitful
misconceptions are commonly founded in the type of theatre
productions and pedagogy many people have experienced in their
middle schools, high schools or in their local communities.
Performance cultures where process is often sacrificed for the
gratification of product.
Time and time again, I have seen these ideas bleed through
these pupil’s work and skew their perceptions of what acting “is”
and what it “is not”. Of what the theatre “is” and what it “is
not”. Of what defines the theatrical experience and the senses.
(Indeed in some cases, I could even go as
far as to say that it
moulds their perceptions of what constitutes the “human
condition”.)
Nonetheless, these ideas and others, were things that I
myself struggled with as a budding young artist. Today, whether
in the classroom, the audition room,the rehearsal room,
or on
stage or on set, they still often invoke many moments of
discourse, introspection and wonder. Perhaps this is due to the
fact that pedagogy (or process) addressing the unique artistry
that lies within every individual, or the “paradox” of the art,
which involves “doing your research” and then being free enough
to “let it go”, is still rather hard to come by.
While there may never be a definitive pathway to answer
these queries in the classroom, I feel that my teaching style and
methods confront these issues head on. I see myself as a coach
and mentor, which places a great deal of responsibility on my
students. I do my best to individually cater to each students own
strengths and weaknesses through active exercises, constant
feedback, projects, scenework and reflective writing. Therefore
creating dialogue with each learner is pivotal. I must be able to
identify and support each student’s “creative voice”. To value
its contribution to my work and to our “ensemble of learners”.
My expertise has prepared me to assess and instruct my
students in all of these areas. It has also provided me with
varous insights that do not neglect the commercial aspects of the
Art of Theatre and the “busiess aspects” one must also consider.
But that the “calling” and “career” can coexist. I embody my
beliefs by connecting concepts with real world experiences and
know from personal experience as a learner, that students
accomplish mastery when they feel they have constructed knowledge
on their own. Then their “voice” has been heard. When they “own
it for themselves”, then it is theirs to give in return.
Emilio G. Robles