It Is Difficult Beyond Description, Yet Possible

The more I work with aspiring actors and the more I get into what
makes an actor successful, the more I am aware of just how terribly nearly
impossible it is to succeed at professional acting. There are lots of reasons
for that including the colossal number of aspiring actors and the nature of the
business.

It is difficult to imagine how many
aspiring actors there are. Every year
in the US alone, more than ten thousand graduates of academic and professional
acting schools are added to the total. Then there are the thousands and thousands of those who do not go to school , but who just try
to become actors without that expense. And no wonder when the cost of college acting majors and acting schools
cost thirty to forty thousand dollars a year! But numbers and cost are not the
only obstacles to be overcome if one is to be an actor.

The acting business is a very closed
society that only allows newcomers when such newcomers have such a look,
personality, experience and talent as to make the business want to include
them. Each actor who gets into the
business does it in a little different way. The way professional plays and films are cast contributes to the closed
society. Except for small roles, films
and plays mostly are cast from the actors that the producers and directors know
and trust. Only rarely are they willing to give a newcomer a chance. Sure there
are sometimes ‘open’ auditions. But these are mostly sham. They are required by the actors’ union and
are really just ‘going though the motions’ rather than honestly looking for new
talent. But new talent is found.

In spite of all these things new talent
turns up on TV and on the stage and in the movies. There are some who call this luck, but honestly, it is when
preparation meets opportunity that new faces appear. This means that to become a professional actor, one needs a heap
of experience and training. I think the
experience is the more important. Even
when some people in the industry say that the actor’s look is most important,
they also say that charm, confidence and talent are also important for
success. Experience and training hone
one’s charm, confidence and talent. When the actor with these qualities meet the casting director looking
for the same type, new talent often is seen on TV and in the cinema or on
Broadway.

Acting: A New Definition

I think we need an entirely new definition of acting because of the motion picture. It has taken a
Century for it to happen, but what was acting a hundred years ago, even fifty
years ago, is not what acting is today. Looking at a list about screen acting
that I was sent, one item is "be yourself, that's who they
hired." This completely eliminates
the business of characterization, doesn't it?

I have been writing that I
don't think there is any such thing as the Academy Awards "Best
Actor". Screen acting is mostly
the technology of filmmaking and has very little to do with what the actor
does. Film acting is doing nothing
except feeling emotion that is expressed naturally in the eyes. The actor does not try to show anything with
his uyes, he just does it naturally.

Returning to what Don
Richardson says acting is in “Acting Without Agony: “Acting is being other
people,” I think we have a basis for defining acting and what an actor does
when he ‘acts.’ Acting is assuming
that you are someone else (the character in the film or play) and behaving as
though you were that person. You enter the imaginary world of the screenplay
and you respond emotionally to the stimuli in the world of the film. Do you have to go through a rigorous
preparation of creating a character? No. The screen writer has done that. Only if you are portraying a historical
personage whose mannerisms and speech are well documented do you need to
research and practice those things. Other wise, in fictional roles, the actor’s job is much easier. He assumes being the character the
playwright or screenwriter has created in the script: and, using the dialog and
blocking given him, he behaves as though he were the role. He needs no information that is not in the
script, no backstory, imaginary biography, or character analysis. The actor and the character are one and the same when the actor is acting.

David Mamet also gives
insight into what acting is in “True and False.” He says that the actor stands in lieu of the character. Since the character is not a real person and
cannot be on the set, the actor must represent the character by taking his
place. Thus, Acting is taking the character’s place on stage or in front of the
camera, When he does that he is being
someone other than himself. And yet the
actor is still himself. It is his
emotions that must be expressed in the dramatic situations he finds himself.

What Stanislavsky originally
wanted as well was for the actor to be himself on stage. Mamet, Richardson, and
I agree, as do many, many other acting teachers and directors.

Why We Want to Be Actors--Honestly

Hundreds of young people have contacted me wanting to be actors. They almost always include in their email that they are not interested in fame or money or that they want to influence the world for good.

Really??

With almost no exceptions, every actor I have known gives up on having a professional career because they have not achieved the success in fame and money that they had hoped they would. Acting is a very selfish undertaking. . You do it because YOU want to do it. You want to be known as an actor.. Yes, you want to entertain the public, but that is because you want them to adore
you.

Acting, most people believe, will bring them fame, money and admiration. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to reach that high a point of success as a professional and for those things to happen. It does on rare occasion actually happen, and that is what continues to spark the wide-spread interest in becoming an actor.

Everyone wants to be admired. Humans have a need to be thought worthy. And many people choose acting as a means to attempt to meet those needs. Now, let's leave it at that. These are not
bad things. They are normal things. People do not have to apologize nor make up some altruistic motive for wanting to be an actor. Those of us who have been in the business for many years know that such motives are false. Though it is true than many actors do philanthropic work, we know that people want to be actors to meet their basic needs for acceptance and admiration -- for love in many cases.

It is more than tiresome to read how aspiring actors try to justify their acting on some sort of philanthropic base. That is just baloney. You love acting. Enough said. Who cares why
you want to act? What matters is how good you can act. I know that when talent agents get cover letters from young people that include altruistic reasons for wanting to become actors, they just laugh and through the letter in the trash.

So it is time to be honest about why we want to become actors. We want to do it to feed our egos and to make us feel important. That's fine. Leave it there. You really do not have to tell anyone why you want to become an actor. They actually know already. So stop covering up your selfishness. It is OK. But don't flaunt it either.

It is just as bad to say openly that you want to be an actor so you can be rich and famous. Since this is true of all actors, it becomes boring to hear it repeated and repeated. What you should always say is, "I want to become the best actor I can be." And let it go at that. No problem. Best wishes and God bless, Doc

PS. Don't talk too much about wanting to be an actor. Just be one.

How not to be embarassed when acting intense scenes on camera

First, I would say relax and not worry about it because you are most likely a beginner and are not working in the same way that professionals would do. That is, the production is not as effectively done, and the acting, therefore is not as effectively done. Second, If you mess up because you get embarrassed and laugh, then shoot it again, that's what the pros do. And they do exactly that--they giggle and break character. Third, you are an untrained actress, inexperienced outside of home made and school videos. It takes a long time (years) for actors to learn to be perfectly comfortable doing intense scenes. The best thing you could co is to be in some school plays and get more acting experience. Finally, putting yourself into the imaginary circumstances of the film and doing the role is something you need to concentrate on. Use your imagination to create the situation and characters of the film, then stay focused on that so you don't think about yourself being anything other than the character. This,of course, sounds easier that it is to do. But with practice you can become quite good at it.
One of the things an actor has to do is reveal her emotions. You have heard of good acting being vulnerable? That means that the actor shows his or her true inner emotional feelings. Sandford Meisner, perhaps the most famous of movie acting teachers said it takes twenty years for actors to finally be able to do his technique which accomplishes what we are discussing here. You have to be able to be so involved in the moment of the scene that there is nothing in your head but the moment. You never think about the fact that you are acting and there is a crew there. You just do the scene--you just react honestly and without inhibition to the stimuli of the scene.

Should you go to an expensive acting school?

I don't think it is necessary to go to expensive acting schools to be a successful actor. It is necessary to take a few classes,but not a full two or three year program. And it certainly is not necessary to have an academic degree.

Here are a few different ideas about acting schools. \

1. Most
of them don't care if you ever become an actor, they just want you to enroll
and pay tuition. See item 5 below.

2. There are very few jobs even if you do graduate and are
taught how to find them. I say in the Introduction to my book, The Tao of Acting, that acting schools exist on the lie that there are jobs waiting for their graduates.

3. It is not the school that makes the actor, rather
it is the actor who makes the school. Doesn't matte where you go it you are
talented.

4. Thirty to forty thousand dollars a year is outrageous. Why should
it cost so much? Why aren't successful actors teaching aspiring actors for nothing? I do that and I don't make a lot of money. But whatever happened to serving the art?

5. Most of the older schools are just existing on their past
reputations and have become bureaucracies. AADA, Stella Adler, Tisch, etc . fall
into this description. Probably NYCDA as well. SUNY Purchase, I don't know
about. But I do know that actor training and academics is a poor fit.. The point is you can go to WM Esper Studio for half what it costs at
other drama schools, But again if you are talented, you don't need two years of
acting school.

6. Julliard
remains high on the best schools list. But it has transcended the academic model to be effective with actor training.

7. No school can guarantee you work when
you graduate. That depends on you.

8. When picking an acting school. First decide if you are going to get a degree and do not mix academic schools with
conservatories. They are not the same. An actor does not need an academic
degree. Nor does he need to be a graduate of a conservatory. He needs to be
special.

Musicals and Method Acting

I was recently contacted by a young actor who was researching Curly in Oklahoma!
He wanted to know if I had any suggestions about where he could find out more background about the role because he wanted it to reflect a strong sense of truth and the utmost depth of characterization. I referred him to the script.

Those of you who know my writing, know that I think deeply researching roles in plays beyond what is in the script is only valid for playing historical and real people such as Streep doing Maggie Thatcher or LaPone doing Evita. But researching fictional characters beyond the confines of the script is nonsensical and a waste of time. This is especially true in Oklahoma! and similar musicals.

Oklahoma! is not about the reality of Oklahoma becoming a state. That is just the background for the melodrama involving Curly, the hero; Jud, the villain; and Laurie, the heroine. The play is no deeper than that. Curly is not an authentic cowboy, he does not dress like one, nor act like one. He dresses and acts like a hero in a melodrama. If he were a real cowboy of the time,he would have bad teeth, leathery skin, body odor, and venereal disease.

Curly has no deep psyche or background for what he does. He is a hero. The actor wanted to know how to personalize the role if he didn't do all that research. The answer is that the uniqueness of his physical appearance and voice would do that. Acting is a blending of the role and the actor. The role as presented in the script and the physical and emotional presentation of the role by the actor. What makes an outstanding Curly is magnificent singing and the effective presentation of the hero of the piece.

Yes, many actors do a great deal of analysis and research when playing a role. I happen to believe that most of it is wasted effort and at times detrimental to the show. Method acting just doesn't work for musicals. In fact, nowadays, it doesn't work very well for any sort of acting. Today's actors do not act, they react. They need talent, not technique because technique is artificial. Stanislavsky, Adler, Strasberg, Hagan, etal, contradicted their search for realistic acting by creating techniques including analysis and affective memory which provided artificial backgrounds and responses rather than the reality they sought.

Picking an Acting School

I have been advising people about what acting school to attend. Remember the lists of the best schools on this blog are not my lists. I disagree strongly with some of the schools included and cannot understand some of the schools that have been omitted. But people like lists. I will add some notes to that post in the near future.

The problem with acting schools, conservatory or academic, is the enormous cost. The usual tuition is $30,000 a year. Minimum time is two years. Academic BFA Acting programs are at least four years. And housing, meals and living costs are additional. Roughly, one is looking at between $100,000 and a quarter of a million dollars for such acting training. And there is no guarantee of employment after all that time and expense.

Is it worth it? I say, "NO!" Acting is much to iffy as far as getting employment is concerned. There are schools that have shorter programs for less money that will suffice to train you as an actor. Wm. Esper Studio in NYC is one. If money is really tight, you can just take the summer program.

My approach to becoming an actor favors not going to a full program at an acting school, but instead to take selected classes and workshops as you pursue your goal.

In most cases, it is going to take years to break into the business, why waste two to four years in acting school when you can get a jump on it right away. Of course, I am assuming you are very talented, highly experienced with a strong resume and have the ability to support yourself while becoming an actor.

As far as choosing an acting school. That is something for the wealthy to do. Most people have to become an actor first and then go to school. It is not a bad way to proceed.