9FFBJ JkiXjY\i^M\ijlj:_\b_fm )Yffbjfe XZbefnc\[^\[ XZk`e^jpjk\dj m`\kfXnXb\e k_\XZkfin`k_`e 9P><I8C;=I<<;D8E K?<D@:?8<C:?<B?FM?8E;9FFB1 K?<C<<JKI8J9<I>EFK<J =FIK?<8:KFI <[`k\[YpCfcX:f_\e% 9pC\eXi[G\k`k% Iflkc\[^\#E\nPfibXe[Cfe[fe% Iflkc\[^\#E\nPfibXe[Cfe[fe% )'(gg%#)+%0,gXg\i% (/)gg%#)+%0,gXg\i% ?8K@JK?@J=8J:@E8K@FEKF8:K#KF9I@E> useful in opening the actor who is “stuck” in his head. to life a story in the form of a script or a narrative that asks I come to these texts with a bias in my own personal to be illustrated? Is it the appeal of assuming the psyche of training. I studied in the 1940s with Alvina Krause, who another, of exploring an alternative world and inhabiting created her own set of exercises from reading Stanislavsky another set of responses other than our own? Or is it simply a and observing professional actors. I then studied briefly layer of pretend, of living in the imagination as an extension with Bobby Lewis and Harold Clurman, and also consider N of childhood memories and fantasies? Whatever explanation Jerome Robbins and George Cukor as important mentors. I we favor, “acting out” or “being possessed” seems to exist was an early member of the Actors Studio and became most in every culture, and “acting” in front of an audience in our active in the ’60s when I was an observer and a moderator of Western society is thousands of years old. The “sharing” the Directors/Writers Unit at the Studio. It was there that of storytelling seems to be essential in our consciousness. I encountered Strasberg, as well as Elia Kazan and Cheryl An endless stream of books, techniques, instructions and Crawford. So my bias is heavily weighted on the side of instructors has been developed to help us accomplish this the Group Theatre experience as those artists interpreted with greater skill, ease and truthfulness. Stanislavsky’s system in their individually diverse ways. I had Two books on acting as taught by acknowledged masters heard of the name Michael Chekhov and his “psychological have recently become available. The Lee Strasberg Notes is a gesture” on the periphery of other training, but that tech- collection of previously unpublished transcripts of Strasberg’s nique remained mostly an anecdotal mystery. Until now. classes on acting, directing and Shakespeare, compiled and Strasberg’s training, or “the Method,” as it became edited by Lola Cohen. In The Michael Chekhov Handbook: For known, relies heavily on exercises and techniques to unlock the Actor, Lenard Petit, artistic director of the Michael Chek- the psychic and sensory memories locked within an indi- hov Acting Studio in New York City, details the technique of vidual. The Chekhov technique, by contrast, is based on the eponymous Russian actor and theoretician whose system the imagination and a series of movement exercises derived evolved into an alternative of Stanislavsky’s. The books read from archetypes. Both of the preceding statements are gross as if they came from opposite ends of a spectrum, yet they simplifications of these masters’ techniques; to evaluate reach conclusions that lie somewhere in the center. their effectiveness, one must read their books to digest their Both books profess a search for “truth” in behavior. I individual voices, and one must work the exercises aimed at do not know how to define truth in acting except to observe expanding the actor’s instrument (which is his or her self). that you recognize it when it is present or recognize the These are not competing techniques. They both seek absence of it. Truth is, in fact, subjective, an agreed-upon to open up the actor’s physical instrument to respond freely assumption. Both techniques profess to be solidly based on to stimuli in the moment. They both rely on awakening the the Stanislavsky system, but each master has extended and actor’s imagination as a door to inner emotions. But their emphasized different elements of the training. Strasberg methods emphasize different ways of going about this. The dismisses Michael Chekhov with a few sentences, but I think Chekhov technique seems more playful and childlike in its the Chekhov technique has much to offer. It is particularly approach to the physical; the Strasberg technique draws (++ 8D<I@:8EK?<8KI<F:KF9<I(' upon a more inner-directed psycho-physical playwriting, and there is a short essay on on the re-training of conditioned habitual foundation. They both advocate relaxation Shakespeare and Stanislavsky. I miss Lee’s behavior and responses. and concentration as a way of opening a acerbic wit and humor, but the notes convey Neither book seems to me a beginner’s channel to the senses. Strasberg says, “When a rich feast of penetrating insights and obser- text. For the actor with some previous expe- you use your imagination for unlocking the vations on theatre, acting and actors, from rience or basic Stanislavsky training, both doors to all the senses, you become real, Edmund Kean to Laurence Olivier. books can be enriching and expanding. As alive, vivid and true. You will then have the Reading Petit’s Handbook led me to a Petit puts it, the Chekhov training “is much belief, the faith, the imagination to create DVD demonstrating the exercises. It helped easier to do than to talk about it. And it is not the living reality that is demanded by the fill out and amplify the text. The author really worth talking about before you have performer.” observes that the Chekhov technique “is the experience of it. It is all about having an In laying out the steps to accomplish often described as ‘outside in,’ while other experience. After this happens, then we can a mastery of the Chekhov technique, Petit approaches, involving more thinking and talk about it.” describes a series of exercises based on less movement, are described as ‘inside out.’ I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been teaching archetypes (without narrowing them to That is how the two techniques of Chekhov acting for a very long time, and I never have stereotypes). His prose is clear and precise, and Strasberg are often characterized.” But known how to use a textbook to create results although the technique’s working vocabulary Petit goes on to argue the opposite: “In (though Uta Hagen and Stella Adler can be is peppered with unfamiliar terms like “inner my opinion, the Chekhov technique is not useful for beginners). But at certain stages in and outer body,” “sweet spot,” “molding” ‘outside in’; it is perhaps the most ‘inside out’ an actor’s development, there are books worth and “radiating.” These exercises lead to process there is. For the actor, it is the body recommending to stimulate and amplify the the capstone of the Chekhov process, “the that has to be mastered. There is no other training—and these two books by modern psychological gesture.” “The psychological way, because that is the instrument.” masters are worthy additions to that list. gesture will lead to the inner and emotional The Chekhov techniques for acting impulse,” writes Petit. “The body cannot lie are, indeed, based in one primary point of >\iXc[=i\\[dXe#Xk_\Xki\[`i\Zkfi# when you open the channels to the senses reference—movement. Strasberg’s exercises `j[\Xef]k_\jZ_ffcf][iXdXXkk_\ through large physical actions.” are more centered in a psychological concept, Le`m\ij`kpf]Efik_:Xifc`eXJZ_ffcf] Strasberg presents it another way: which leads to emotional release through k_\8ikj% “Some people have the idea that what we concentration on the sensory experience and want to do is ‘free’ the actor. I don’t give a damn about freedom in that sense. Our work isn’t about freeing the actor. I want to put the actor in an artistic prison. The idea that expression is freedom is wrong. Expression means that you have something that you want to express in a way that is clear and true.” The Chekhov credo, as Petit describes it, seeks the same end: “There is a spiritual element to this work that must be acknowl- edged. This spiritual element is not religious. The creative spirit (imagination) is differen- tiated from the reasoning mind [in that it] can grasp understanding through archetypes and through a desire to find wholeness.... The rational mind works through analysis. Analysis separates and divides, whereas synthesis unifies.” Petit goes on to quote William Blake, who he calls “imagination’s fearless champion.” Blake wrote, “What is now proved was only once imagined.” Blake, Petit explains, “saw the imagination as a divine and active gift in human beings. It is our connection to pure energy.” The Strasberg notes are edited by Cohen from hundreds of hours of classes and seminars videotaped at the Strasberg institutes in New York and Los Angeles. The book contains cogent comments from Stanislavsky on the topics of directing and F:KF9<I('8D<I@:8EK?<8KI< (+, 9FFBJ Knf]fik_\9Xi[ N_f\m\inifk\J_Xb\jg\Xi\Ëj gcXpj#k_\i\ËjXiX]kf] XlkfY`f^iXg_`ZXcZfek\ekkf Zfek\e[n`k_ 9P><I8C;N<8C<J K?<K8@EK<;DLJ< :FEK<JK<;N@CC 9pIfY\ik9iljk\`e% 9pAXd\jJ_Xg`if% PXc\Le`m\ij`kpGi\jj#E\n?Xm\eXe[Cfe[fe% J`dfeJZ_ljk\i#E\nPfib#Cfe[fe# )//gg%#)-Zcfk_% KfifekfXe[Jp[e\p%**0gg%#)-Zcfk_% LI@E>8I<:<EK:8CC$@EK<C<M@J@FE@EK<I$ about “the Shakespearean obsessions.” Authorial intrusions view, a reader asked Scott Turow about the autobiographical find their way into any line, character or action that helps implications of a character in his most recent book.