Studio8790 for Actors

12/24/2025

The vile, crooked, fascist, ignorant beyond belief bit of garbage in the picture is the true threat to our national security. American will NEVER live down that it elected him President. And I, as well as millions of others, will NEVER EVER have any respect for, or accept any excuses from, the idiots who elected him because they are exactly. like. him. Their legacy will live in infamy throughout the world.

“The Failing New York Times, and their lies and purposeful misrepresentations, is a serious threat to the National Security of our Nation."

02/03/2023

Well the Christmas season is over. Yeah, it takes me a little longer. Got the outside lights down quickly, but now I need to take care of the tree. Also have been dealing with some pet health issues.

Next I want to talk about why it's actually not bad to 'play yourself.' First though, a little theatre folklore for you.

a little note: Theatres abound with ghostly superstitions. I'll share a little fun I once had in that regard next time.

No matter if it's a local stage show or a major Broadway production, these long-held theater traditions and superstitions are still going strong.

10/27/2022

To method or not to method. Part. 3

Am I still talking about the ‘method?” Yep.

I’ve already suggested that the so-called ‘method’ errors in a couple of big ways. It tends to elevate the actor to a greater importance than the character and the playwright’s script, and it actually leads to a subtle—and sometimes not so subtle—form of over-acting and distorting the character the playwright had in mind. It diminishes the discipline that is such an important part of the actor’s craft.

One of the key disciplines of an actor’s performance is a rather simple one in three parts. Make sure the audience hears you; make sure they understand you; Give them some understanding about what you are saying (and doing), and why you saying (and doing) it. The key is this: Giving them understanding is dependent on making sure they hear and understand you.

A number of years ago, I heard a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company say that across the pond they considered John Wayne one of America’s greatest actors. He added it was because in England they still consider the dialogue to be everything, and John Wayne always nailed dialogue. And he was right.

Don Richardson rants about actors who are so busy methodizing their character that they can barely be heard, even with the assistance of state-of-the-art microphone pickups, and they can hardly be understood at all. They are the mumblers. There is no excuse for them. You can find them all over prime-time television, and in films. Their “street talk” is so obscured that just deciphering what they are saying is near-impossible. And no, it’s not because of my advanced age. I have no problem with shows like “Blue Bloods,” “NCIS,” or any of the David Wolf “Law and Order” franchises. “Chicago PD,” and “SWAT” on the other hand are at times almost unintelligible.

Go back and watch some Brando films, also the Rocky (and Rambo) series. Brando’s and Stallone’s ‘mumbling’ characters are always easily understood. For that matter, for all of his fame as a ‘method’ actor, watch Brando both very carefully and you will see that he always know exactly what he was doing. He was great not because he was ‘method.’ He was great because he was disciplined, and a master of his craft.

It is not hard to speak clearly. You just make sure to pronounce your consonants clearly, especially those at the beginning and end of words. However, you choose to build a character—and I have always maintained that the best actors are a hybrid of “method” and craft— do that, and oh yeah, speak up a little.

Never ever forget. The dialogue tells the story. And the story, not the actor, is everything.

10/10/2022

To method or not to method. Part 2

Now where was I? Oh yes, to method or not to method. Let’s consider that now that we have a little background. So the supposed “method”—Remember, Stanislavski said he never intend to start one—developed in an effort to make acting more natural, less staged and more ‘real.’ And that’s the first reason I don’t care much for it. It doesn’t accomplish that.

It doesn’t accomplish that because by placing the importance on the actor instead of on the character, it invites excess, tortured, self-aware and in a sense arrogant work by actors who are focused in making the character into their own idea of what they want to make him or her instead of on the character him or herself, as developed by the playwright’s of screenwriter’s description and direction along with such minor bits of evidence as the character’s own dialogue, actions, reactions to other characters, and theirs to him/her.

People within the ‘method’ school like to refer to “the actor’s truth,’ a clear indication that the actor comes before the character, who shall be bent to the actor’s will, instead of the other way around.

The other reason I don’t care for method acting is simpler. It’s unnecessary. It might have been necessary back in 1878 or 1910, but in today’s theatre, every good director and actor already does exactly what Constantin Stanislavski sought. They analyze the script, strive to understand what it tells them about the character, and through study and rehearsal, realize believably the characters presence, actions and reactions. Instead of an “actor’s truth,” they intelligently find the character’s truth.

I would like to recommend the best book about acting I have ever read. The title is ACTING WITHOUT AGONY. The author is Don Richardson, who directed over 800 prime time television episodes, three Broadway plays; whose work won Emmys and Peabody Awards. The bad news is that it is no longer in print, and if you are able to find a copy, it will be costly. If you are truly dedicated to becoming an excellent actor, it will be cheap at the price.

You might also try finding it at your local or school/college library.

10/10/2022

To method are not to method. Part 1

That is indeed the question. I started thinking about this again when I received a mass-mailing email from a young actor/instructor who headed one of his emails as “finding the actor’s truth.” That one sentence, to me, is a good thumbnail summary of everything I find questionable about “the method.”
First a very quick review of what got the whole idea of a method of acting started. In a nutshell, it came from two things: the legitimate need to develop a more natural form of acting to replace the stilted oratorical style that dominated the 19th century, and more notably, the work of the famous Russian director, Konstantin Stanislavski, in doing just that.
This was not something new. Edwin Booth, who was considered the greatest Shakespearean actor and greatest Hamlet of the 19th century, spent much of his career campaigning to develop a more natural style of acting here in America, specifically for Shakespeare and the classics. Contrary to a lot of popular belief, what Stanislavski did espouse a “method of acting.”
What he did do, was to approach this goal of more natural, and therefore more believable, acting from the standpoint of encouraging actors to study the script more closely, and endeavor to apply serious analysis to the character that they were playing, and that character’s relationship to other characters within the play. From this developed the concept of a character’s motivation in portraying more natural and powerful portrayals.
I said that I would be keeping these entries short, because it will enable me to post far more often, and also because no one wants to read a novella in a space like this. So, I will put an end to this particular post, as well as tease the next one, by saying that much of what was—and is— taught by American artists as a “method” of acting not only distorts Stanislavski’s work — the Russian master was later driven to proclaim that he never intended an “acting method” — but leads actors to a number of extremely bad habits in their work.
More next time

10/10/2022

Okay, this one is over 300 words. I tried to make it shorter, but it didn't work out. I think they are good words. :)

Now where was I? Oh yes, to method or not to method. Let’s consider that now that we have a little background. So the supposed “method”—Remember, Stanislavski said he never intend to start one—developed in an effort to make acting more natural, less staged and more ‘real.’ And that’s the first reason I don’t care much for it. It doesn’t accomplish that.

It doesn’t accomplish that because by placing the importance on the actor instead of on the character, it invites excess, tortured, self-aware and in a sense arrogant work by actors who are focused in making the character into their own idea of what they want to make him or her instead of on the character him or herself, as developed by the playwright’s of screenwriter’s description and direction along with such minor bits of evidence as the character’s own dialogue, actions, reactions to other characters, and theirs to him/her.

People within the ‘method’ school like to refer to “the actor’s truth,’ a clear indication that the actor comes before the character, who shall be bent to the actor’s will, instead of the other way around.

The other reason I don’t care for method acting is simpler. It’s unnecessary. It might have been necessary back in 1878 or 1910, but in today’s theatre, every good director and actor already does exactly what Constantin Stanislavski sought. They analyze the script, strive to understand what it tells them about the character, and through study and rehearsal, realize believably the characters presence, actions and reactions. Instead of an “actor’s truth,” they intelligently find the character’s truth.

I would like to recommend the best book about acting I have ever read. The title is ACTING WITHOUT AGONY. The author is Don Richardson, who directed over 800 prime time television episodes, three Broadway plays; whose work won Emmys and Peabody Awards. The bad news is that it is no longer in print, and if you are able to find a copy, it will be costly. If you are truly dedicated to becoming an excellent actor, it will be cheap at the price.

10/01/2022

Too method are not to method.
That is indeed the question. I started thinking about this again when I received a mass-mailing email from a young actor/instructor who headed one of his emails as “finding the actor’s truth.” That one sentence, to me, is a good thumbnail summary of everything I find questionable about “the method.”
First a very quick review of what got the whole idea of a method of acting started. In a nutshell, it came from two things: the legitimate need to develop a more natural form of acting to replace the stilted oratorical style that dominated the 19th century, and more notably, the work of the famous Russian director, Konstantin Stanislavski, in doing just that.
This was not something new. Edwin Booth, who was considered the greatest Shakespearean actor and greatest Hamlet of the 19th century, spent much of his career campaigning to develop a more natural style of acting here in America, specifically for Shakespeare and the classics. Contrary to a lot of popular belief, what Stanislavski did espouse a “method of acting.”
What he did do, was to approach this goal of more natural, and therefore more believable, acting from the standpoint of encouraging actors to study the script more closely, and endeavor to apply serious analysis to the character that they were playing, and that character’s relationship to other characters within the play. From this developed the concept of a character’s motivation in portraying more natural and powerful portrayals.
I said that I would be keeping these entries short, because it will enable me to post far more often, and also because no one wants to read a novella in a space like this. So, I will put an end to this particular post, as well as tease the next one, by saying that much of what was—and is— taught by American artists as a “method” of acting not only distorts Stanislavski’s work — the Russian master was later driven to proclaim that he never intended an “acting method” — but leads actors to a number of extremely bad habits in their work.
More next time.

09/27/2022

I maintain both a page (Studio 8790 For Actors), and a group (Lose the Blonde, Print the B Roll) here on Facebook. I am woefully bad at making regular posts to both of these. I blame the time I spend on other writing, but I realize that it’s also because I get hung up trying to say too much, so that the process becomes daunting. This bothers me, because I really do love commenting on both film and acting & directing, the latter of which I taught for forty years and did a good deal of.
I have a fix. I’m going to have another go at contributing regularly to both of these and I will keep each entry under 200 words. This will make them easier to write, and I’m sure, more comfortable to read, as well.
Off we go. The next entry will be an actual, well, entry. You might also try your local public or collegiate library.

11/16/2021

"Every single time I'm handed a gun on set, I look at it, I open it, I show it to the person I'm pointing it to, we show it to the crew," he said. "Every single take you hand it back to the armorer when you're done, and you do it again."

I don't think there was any malicious intent on anybody's part. But a message to actors, and especially those in the largely un-regulated regional and community theatre arena. The final, ultimate safeguard when handling ANY kind of firearm is the ACTOR.

When the stage manager, or armorer, or the nice and certainly conscientious prop person who's helping out because someone else is sick, hands you that 'safe' weapon and assures you of its harmlessness, YOU open it and check it. ANY weapon in YOUR hands needs to be declared harmless by YOU personally before it's used.

George Clooney has shared his thoughts on the tragic shooting on the set of the film "Rust."

10/13/2021

Hey it's been less than 2 weeks. I'm getting better. :)

Heading: Auditioning 201

I hope you read Auditioning 101. This follow up is considerably shorter. There is one more key to auditioning well. If you practice it, you will find more success. What is it?

Confidence.

That's it. Believe in yourself. If you have done your preparation (see Auditioning 101), you should be ready to do well. So be confident. Don't be afraid of others auditioning for the same role. Do not, ever, give them the benefit of fearing them.

Follow through on what you have prepared: ..Play the character you have rehearsed. Don't just read the lines...React to the other characters just as you would in performance.
(note here- never be afraid of taking time to react. It is in reacting that your character's personality shines)..Act with energy. Own the scenes you read.

And if you see someone else do something you really like, don't be intimidated by it. Think about how you might use just a little bit of it in your own performance. Just don't do a copy/paste.

Don't ever, ever, give away the role. Make someone else take it.
Do your preparaton...audition like a lion (lioness), not a wall flower,..and you will be able to walk away knowing you have done well, even if somebody else gets the role. You're not going to get them all (God how I wish! LOL), but I am very sure you'll increase your success rate.