Inhibitions

Inhibitions as mentioned before are the downfall of any actor. As I have already discussed these tend to become present when the actor starts to fear being wrong or not staying true to the character. Inhibitions arise because of that small demon appearing on our shoulder telling us we are doing it wrong or that we aren't feeling it.

No doubt these inhibitions lead to all kinds of subsequent problems, frustration on the part of the director, or missed opportunities by actors who let these worries consume them and take control.

The problem for the actor is how to overcome these inhibitions, how do we get rid of the little monster that tells us that we cannot do something?

As I will later discuss, Clive Barker, who made me think about the question, how do we act, also made me consider why actors have inhibitions and how best to tackle them, I would like to briefly talk about my experience of artistic inhibitions.

I primarily have two inhibitions while acting

1. The fear of giving a superficial or shallow performance

2. Forgetting lines

Stage fright is not something I suffer from as such, however like all actors, there is a certain element of nervousness before a performance caused by the aforementioned issues.

All actors are nervous before performance, and if they say that they are not, then they are lying. The most important thing to remember is that nerves are not always bad, and in fact can some times work to your advantage, the second thing is that your ability as an actor is in no way in correlation with how nervous you get, take Lee Evans for example, he claims to be a nervous reck and yet it is not noticeable and does not hinder the performance given.

From my experience nerves often dissipate a few minutes into the performance, there is always an element of anxiety before ones first entrance but once on stage the nerves are lost.

I will cover this in further post on inhibitions in relation to Clive Barker and then again in a post on the act of performance.

University and Inhibitions

While university can provide a safe and nurturing environment for creative and artistic exploration, it can also be a very intimidating and scary place for the young performer. Any situation in which you have to stand before your peers and perform leads to a sense o anxiety.

From what I have discussed so far one should consider the following:

- There should not be judgment from your peers in the first instance

- Inhibitions are cause by the fear of not doing it right - so just do it and see what happens (see improvisation)

- Not measuring up against another performer is also a worry that is hard to overcome but needs to be, do what you can, prepare as best you can and all will be well.

Points to discuss

- Preparation as an actor

- Preparation in the context of University

- Avoiding superficial Performance

- The act of performance

- Inhibitions in relation to Clive Barker

Para theatre continued

I have included here a more detailed explanation of para-theatre. This was a presentation I gave in Year One of my study.

© Mark David Hooper 2008-Present. This presentation was written and given by Mark David Hooper at the University of Exeter. This material should NOT be reproduced under any circumstance and I accept no responsibility for people that try to pass this off as their own work.

•Erik Exe Christoffersen states that the term Para-Theatre was first coined by Grotowski and is used to describe a situation in which the ‘boundary between the actor and the spectator is no longer present’ (1993: 17).

•The events that occur within restaurant spaces are a series of very specific actions which bring the participants into a non-daily form of fellowship and rhythm; participants are all executing similar actions in the same place at the same time.

•Consider that our restaurant has windows that enable people to look into the restaurant.

•One is now observing a Para-Theatrical event, watching people eat, talk, serve etc; people are playing roles.

•The person “playing” the waiter for example waits on the customers; taking their orders etc. Whilst the customers fulfill their role by talking, eating and drinking.

•An order of “play” is established through an unspoken cultural understanding of the activity they are a part of.

•If one chooses to stop observing and to walk in the door then one becomes part of the para-theatrical event and is expected to conform to the ‘rules’ of play, adopting the role of a customer.

•A restaurant could be said to have a script that governs the interaction that takes place between the establishment (the waiter/cashier) and the customer.

•“Would you like fries with that” is a phrase that we have come to expect when we are being served at the till of a fast-food restaurant.

•The words do not necessarily have meaning for the cashier

•It becomes almost a habit whereby the establishment has told them that this phrase must be communicated to the customer to elicit a response and so they include it in the interaction.

•Perhaps to symbolise the caring nature the restaurant has for its customer.

•Much like a play or piece of theatre, a script is used to communicate effectively with the audience (customer)

•Essentially the building is just an empty space until we fill it with objects

•These objects transform the space into a pub, café or in this case a restaurant.

•The liminal space is transformed into a restaurant with places for people to sit, chefs to cook and waiters to move around and so a place for para-theatre to take place.

•The structure of the meal (like a program)

•The code of conduct. If the restaurant is considered ‘posh’ then one dresses up in formal wear and conversation is kept to polite or intellectual conversation instead of subjects that may cause offence to the other people in the restaurant that are engaged in the act. – Conversations acceptable in McDonalds are not necessarily acceptable in the Ritz for example, we perform to satisfy what we think is being asked of us culturally.

•One performs for the benefit of others

•How one uses the cutlery – The ‘Correct’ way of holding the utensils; it would be frowned upon if you used you hands to tear apart the delicious gourmet steak in front of you.

•A restaurant could be considered para-theatrical as:

•It has a clear playing order

•People play roles

•There are people observing whether it is one customer looking at the other or people walking by outside

•All the world is a stage and all the men and women are merely players

– (Shakespeare, As You Like It)

Para-Theatre and Theatre Theatre... What is theatre?

Para-Theatre is an interesting concept and I first encountered this during the summer of 2009. It is the idea that everything and anything can be considered theatre. There have of course been theatrical and artistic movements that try to demonstrate this, which by it's definition then become just a performance and not para-theatre... the fluxus movement has a lot to answer for!

Para-Theatre is life as theatre. First we must consider what exactly it is we consider to be theatre... we could use the following as a definition/explanation of theatre:

A person buys a ticket for an event, who then goes at a specific time, to a specific place, with other people who have also gathered for the same purpose. They wait in a foyer or bar and are offered programmes and information about the event for which they have a ticket. They may buy a drink and can talk with other members of the congregation which may be termed audience members. They then enter a performance space, with seating facing a stage. The audience watches passively, while the people on stage who we shall call actors execute actions while speaking rehearsed and pre-prepared text.

However this is just one subjective definition of theatre some may agree or disagree, but if we agree that theatre constitutes as one person watching another then theatre is all around us. Take for example having dinner at a restaurant. People meet at one place usually at a specified time.

The waiters execute pre prepared actions and text, taking the customers to the table, taking order, while the customers watch and (less passively perhaps) react. If this restaurant were to have a glass front and people could see inside the indeed customers and waiters all become part of another performance.

It can be seen as a mirror reflected infinitely in another mirror, the world as a series of performances with actors and audience members - people watching people going about daily life.

All the worlds a stage...

Why Perform?

Escapism, narcissism, to change the world, to entertain, to help others, to tell a story, to be someone other than oneself, to work with like-minded people, to make sense of the world, to deconstruct the world, to alter reality, to escape reality, the act of performance itself...

What do I think? How can you tell. I know that for me it is more than likely a mix of all of these things. Escapism, definitely, no matter how bad the world looks for the duration of a performance the world beyond the theatre doors does not exist... sometimes the theatre doesn't even exist. I think the thing that interests me most is the notion of narcissism - the ego. Anyone who tells me that this plays no part in their wanting to perform is, for me, a liar. The simple fact is that performance, by it's nature, requires an individual to stand before an audience and to do something, be it perform an action or deliver lines, they made the active choice to become an actor and thus want people to watch them. 

Don't Feel it... Just Do it.

The inspiration for this post comes from a workshop I experienced at University. The class made it clear that their preferred method of performance was internalising and justifying each emotion that they had to feel in performance. If the scene demanded anger they would think of a time they were angry, if the scene needed love then they would think of a time they experienced love, this of course derives from Ribot's notion of emotional memory (explored by Stanislavski but was later rejected in favour of the actors truthful response to the circumstances of the scene). Ribot also explored affective memory, he discovered that when patients remembered times when they were healthy they recovered from illness quicker than those who were less engaged in the process of their recovery. 

It is very dangerous to take something like the method and begin using it. I have seen tutors work with young teens using emotional memory recall to make them feel angry and upset and while this was achieved, it was far from being ethical the young people were left feeling tender and upset and had no point of reference or techniques for a quick recovery.

The following is an extract from my log book from a lesson that demonstrated the two styles of acting without creating the real emotion.


13th October 2009


-->

The kinesphere – This is the idea that surrounding the body is a field of energy, varying in size according to the individuals awareness of their personal space. Eric Hetzler initially asked us to reach out and feel where this energy is either through the use of the mind or to feel externally with limbs to feel the difference between being within or outside of ones own kinesphere.

We then advanced and were asked to fill our kinesphere with different kinds of energy. It is important at this point to say that when filling the kinesphere we did so just through the imagination of a colour not through psychological process.

1. Angry energy – I used the colour red as my visualisation of the angry energy filling up the sphere. It had a physiological effect on me – my breathing changed – became shorter and sharper – and I felt tension in the limbs and a sense of release when Eric ended the exercise.

2. Joy. In this case the colour I saw was baby blue and again the exercise effected my breathing – longer and relaxed and there was a lasting sense of joy as the exercise finished.

We then moved onto a similar exercise where breathing and a set facial expression was used to create an emotion within the actor. Grit teeth, draw up lower eyelids, tilited head slightly – anger has been created – in the next moment a small smile, wide eyes and a tilted head – the feeling and appearance of love is created. 

I personally believe that no successful or proficient actor uses just one method, otherwise we are left in a painting by numbers situation. I think 'painting by numbers' is a good metaphor for stifling creativity. My uncle once tried to recreate Monet's Garden picture with a painting by numbers set - safe to say the end result was nothing more than a poor imitation of the original.  

I am always weary to draw to much focus to ‘how I act’ as it is too close to becoming academically and consciously involved – am I doing it right – how do I do it – should I be more psychologically involved – inhibitions are the actors poison.

However, with that said, I think that I do two things. In the first instance I create a character with mannerisms; a walk and a way of speaking, I then use these and react accordingly to the text and other actors. If I am in a scene where love is required I do not think of a time where I experienced love and force that upon the character, I will just simulate the attributes of love, this is enough and highly effective. The problem when one uses their own memories is that there is a lot of residual emotion left over and this means if one needs to be performing an angry scene and you think of something that makes you truly angry when you need to go into the next scene which maybe a love seen there is likely to be residual emotion left.

The idea of a kinesphere may be abstract and will be addressed later, but look beyond that for now.

Improvisation

Improvisation is something some of the most talented and experienced actors I know find hard.

This is interesting because every human being is capable of improvisation; we do it every single day of our lives, with our friends, partners, family, shop assistants the list goes on. Every interaction we have is an improvised theatrical performance with an audience of at least 1.

I will never forget going to watch Paul Merton at the Comedy Store in London and being enchanted by his ability to be witty and coherent instantaneously while performing in a 'who's line is it anyway' style performance. Now it is true that I am sure years of experience no doubt helped in the development of this skill, however there are surely other factors that play a part.

At University this was a question I considered early on in my studies -

From a personal perspective I believe that the ability to improvise is absolutely key in the development of a performer or indeed any creative professional, acting however will be the focus in this post.

Improvisation is at the very core of how I go about creating a character. The ability to improvise gives way to limitless possibilities to help answer the question HOW. Improvisation also develops the ensemble and creates inter-performer relationships.

Where To Start? At The Beginning! - The Young Performer

Robin Williams once said 'You are only given a little spark of madness, you mustn't lose it' and I think this is interesting in a discussion of acting and performing. How do we hold onto that spark of madness?

Finding a sense of ease is something that Michael Chekhov so often referred to. As a child, one often looks back and remembers a feeling of ease - a distinct lack of fear, not worry about how others perceive you or their judgements about you. It is a quality that we slowly lose as we grow older and it would seem it is something that we have to gradually learn how to achieve again through warm-ups, concentration exercises and general performance preparation - actor training.

With this in mind, it is easy to see how children are more often than not able to cope with the task of performance, there are of course other factors which will be considered later but it is a lack a inhibitions that we will focus on now.

Right from when we start school we are arguably taught not to be creative, we forget how to improvise creatively - we must paint inside the lines, we must write a story with a beginning, middle and end and so on.

Intuition is slowly lost at school and mechanical machines are created with 'rules' inhibiting action, and while of course these are necessary, they later form 'obstacles' for creativity.

I believe this is why the young performer can appear so talented with very little experience on stage. They are the children who who paint 1 green when it should be blue, they are unafraid to try new things, they are not in fear of 'getting it wrong' or doing the right thing, their lives are still about discovery and exploration.

It is always an interesting experience directing a cast of young people. I find myself learning from them. It is fascinating the way that they approach characterisation - that is not to say that they are always appropriate and often characters manifest themselves as larger than life characatures, but there is a sense of freedom as they create - millions of possibilities and none too ridiculous or absurd; there is a beauty to that as it seems to be lost as we get older. My point here is that the young performer has the ability to produce a raw kind of creativity and as we fall into habit and lose child-like playfulness, the raw creativity is much harder to find later on.

Aside from fear of judgement, one can also get caught up in academia and so called "thought processes", allowing too much academic thought to pervade in the rehearsal room can cripple artistic exploration, it stifles instinct.

If we become to fixated upon justifying every action that we perform on stage then more and more obstacles are created for the actor. The conscious intention should be converted into subconscious action, but a constant inner monologue of justification is inhibiting.