Uta Hagen | Acting Style

Over the week, I've found there aren't many noted female practitioners, which I was surprised enough about to start writing a whole blog post on, namely 'The Lost Women of Theatre'. During research for that, I finally came across what I had been searching for: a female drama practitioner who had a profound influence on acting, enough to warrant a legend left behind. So here she is... HAGEN.

Uta Loompa Doobidy Doo

Now, I'm going to start this time with a clip of Uta herself explaining her method, and then I'll summarize afterwards. Hearing her explain what is, in my mind, precisely what acting should be, is excellent.

So immediately, we should understand we're dealing with naturalistic acting from the same 'get the audience emotionally invested' approach as Stanislavski. I think this should be the solid starting point from where to birth any acting method, as unlike with all of the practitioners we've looked at thus far, you're going to end up with something real. Not real in an unrehearsed, 'raw' way, but in a true to life way.

So what is Hagen's method? Well, unsurprisingly called the Uta Hagen technique, it focuses on having a grip on reality mixed with imagination, channeled through a trained set of skills like voice, movement and your knowledge of acting itself. Perhaps the most important part of Hagen's method is the actor fully becoming their character, not just inside but out. Sometimes it's easy to become a character in your head but unless you can show the audience what that involves, you aren't truly acting as them.

To achieve this level of immersion, you must come to learn and accept yourself, harnessing your physicality and vocals as tools, truly understanding yourself so you can manipulate it into the character. One of her methods was called substitution, which is somewhat identical to Stanislavski's 'emotion memory', something she references in her works: you substitute what you have felt to show how the character feels. Maybe this is not a case of someone's own method but the definitive method to realistic acting as a whole. You have to use what you know, that much is clear, even if the character is far from yourself. Perhaps one of Hagen's best quotes is:
'Find yourself in a part rather than lose yourself in a part'.

The reason for walking is destination. One of the students mentioned this in the above clip; Hagen told her students never to pace for everywhere you walk should have a destination.

Here's a sample acting exercise of Hagen's: Three Entrances.
When you walk into a scene, think:
 - What did I just do? 
 - What am I doing right now? 
 - What’s the first thing I want?

It's all about motivation and emotion and that's why I love this method so much. It works. It works because it aims not to send out a certain message or be a metaphor or put off the audience. It serves to immerse the viewer in a story. It is therefore, without a doubt, my favorite method on the list so far. And being able to see Hagen at work on film, like in the clip above, makes her to me even more of a helpful source than the likes of Stanislavski. I think we just found my favourite practitioner... join me next week to see if Uta can be overtaken!

-BEST-

HAGEN - 'THE UTA HAGEN TECHNIQUE'

GROTOWSKI - 'POOR THEATRE'

ARTAUD - 'THEATRE OF CRUELTY'

MEYERHOLD - 'BIOMECHANICS'

-WORST-

Jerzy Grotowski | Acting Style

Coming right up, the third slice of acting styles. I'm hoping for some naturalistic acting but let's see what we get... Today, GROTOWSKI.

Albus Dumbledore

Now, what can a man influenced by both Stanislavski and Brecht (and Meyerhold!) come up with? As it turns out, something quite good indeed.

Grotowski- phew, what a name. Can we call him Jerzy instead? Right, Jerzy was born in Poland and he is best known for his creation of 'poor theatre', so named for it is quite literally an inexpensive process, focusing on the skill of the actor and disregarding the 'lavish' costumes and sets. Immediately, his influences are clear. It's Stanislavski acting in a Brechtian setting, right? Let's just hope no Meyerhold backflips are involved.

Now, Jerzy's 'poor theatre' wasn't just a way of stripping the excess for ease. No, he truly believed theatre should be a process proved through poverty, for he thought it could never beat the technological advances of film and TV. In other words, theatre wasn't spectacular so it shouldn't pretend to be. Cheery.

Now, this idea is where I feel the problems arise. Why make something with the aim to make it... just alright? Yes, the performance is meant to be a raw emotional display, but it can be viewed as amateur for its plain and in-complex ideas. Of course, like with Artaud, I shouldn't critisice something for being what it's meant to be, and Jerzy Grotowski did want his theatre to be about the simplest of human feelings that we might normally keep close and not reveal. In this sense, he was an excellent teacher of naturalistic acting, because naturalism is about these emotions we can all relate to and feel. It's about quite literally showing the audience someone else. Of course, stripping away factors like common use of props and set disadvantage this realism in the sense of making it true to the real world, but I think they might actually heighten the reality.

Jerzy's techniques force the unaltered, bare story to emerge from something, even if in a dramatized physical manner. Watching examples of 'poor theatre' is a fast way of seeing the Meyerhold influence, but it isn't overdone and usually allows something traumatic and unwatchable like a killing or an assault occur with a simple push or shove. It quickens the pace and gets to the point, without having to show us a crime we probably don't want or need to see in order to still get the message.

To conclude, 'poor theatre' is accessible, used in schools commonly for its lack of set and equipment that may be hard to find. It evokes emotion, raw and loud and done right, I think it is a very useful tool. Whilst Jerzy's work didn't reach far in his time, it's clearly influenced many classes, productions and ideas since, having an impact on the whole history of theatre. His work was intense because there wasn't anything to bring an actor up but the actor themself. And it is for that reason, that it is my favourite style thus far and goes to the top of my very unserious chart.

-BEST-

GROTOWSKI - 'POOR THEATRE'

ARTAUD - 'THEATRE OF CRUELTY'

MEYERHOLD - 'BIOMECHANICS'

-WORST-

In the next post, I'm hoping to locate a female practitioner's work to better even the playing field. Will the upwards spiral continue? Find out in the next post. *superhero music*

Antonin Artaud | Acting Style

This is the second installment in the series on acting styles by various practitioners throughout the ages. Today, pronounced 'Art-oh', it's ARTAUD.

No, I didn't get mixed up with Dracula.
This is Artaud.

If you can't already guess from his picture above, Artaud's techniques were not for the faint-hearted, intended to provoke fear in those who witnessed them in action. Infact, the name of his acting technique was 'Theatre of Cruelty'. Yes, you read that right. Yes, you should be afraid.

Much like Meyerhold last week, Artaud was at odds with his drama idol, who had made a huge name for himself. Whilst Meyerhold was taught by Stanislavski and separated himself to create non-naturalistic styles, Artaud was the opposite, working in the style of Brecht and separating into what could be seen as more naturalistic acting. Okay, not quite naturalistic, but it shared the same values...

See, Artaud was more focused on the emotions rather than the message, with his specific aim being to make the audience realise their deepest and darkest fears (told you he was creepy). Artaud was somewhat against the idea of an audience coming to simply watch a play in a theatre and go home unchanged. This is where his ideology of Brecht comes in, but he turns it on his head by literally wanting the audience to participate. You don't watch an Artaud play, you experience it.

It is here, as with most practitioner's work, that the idea sounds fantastic in theory, and whilst I don't think the outcome is bad as such, in practice it is slightly different.

One of the main ideas in an Artaud production is to not do what the audience expect, to have an eerie silence suddenly interrupted by a character cursing at the audience, blaming them for something. It is certainly different but I feel it only works for what is was made for: a presentation of different themes. That's it, a display of ideas, not quite coherently placed, failing to be strung together by any kind of story. But, since this is the point, it cannot be criticized for this reason. Furthermore, unlike with Meyerhold, I do feel the outcome leaves an impact. This comes down to the fuel and objective for the style: emotion. However non-naturalistic Artaud's work is, it still tries to evoke something in the audience, some kind of pathos that makes going to see (or rather experience) his work worthwhile.

One of Artaud's most famous and interesting ideas was muting vocabulary of his characters without muting them completely. They still make sounds: grunts and squeals and shouts, but don't always say anything. It's strange to see and hear, and makes again for some amusing pieces of work, but Artaud did this to show emotion is a universal language. He wanted anyone to be able to grasp how the characters were feeling without having to say a word. A simple set of movements or expressions can heighten the emotion, sometimes more powerful than any dramatic monologue.

Of course, we can't skip past the fact that some of his ideas were outlandish. He was after all both influenced by heroin and mental illness that ended him up in straight-jackets and mental institutions many a time. But it is what is born from this madness that many still appreciate today. It is for that reason that I place his 'Theatre of Cruelty' above last week's entry: 'biomechanics'.

-BEST-

ARTAUD - 'THEATRE OF CRUELTY'

MEYERHOLD - 'BIOMECHANICS'

-WORST-

Still, whether or not I'll find any sane techniques on this journey is still unbeknownst to me.