As far back as I can remember I’ve been burdened with a deep-seated inferiority complex about my lack of intellect. This seems ridiculous to others who may be- on paper at least- less well qualified. Yet despite the nine O-levels, two A-levels, my good BA honours degree, and even that Distinction in Speech & Drama at Post Graduate level I still beat myself up for being thick. This stems from always feeling out of my depth as a child- treated by my parents and siblings, my schoolteachers and friends as if I was a bit soft in the head. I can now see that this was the impetus behind me studying so hard for all those years for all those bloody certificates and qualifications. I had a point to prove to ‘Them’, and to my self I suppose. And until relatively recently I have continued to flog myself to achieve some kind of academic status and credibility. And what a VAIN endeavour- in all the senses of that word! For what in the end does it all add up to? I have a career teaching others the same set of values, a career that extols the virtues of those silly academic qualifications. A career I have very little passion for any more.
I have a deep understanding and compassion for the academically challenged, but no sympathy at all for the lazy and wilfully ignorant who constitute the vast majority of my students. But, ironically enough, I reserve my most poisonous contempt for those who are gifted and lazy/ungrateful.. I earned all I have with blood, sweat and tears. I fucking worked for it without having any real natural aptitude. And yet I still find myself advocating the meaning of qualifications with no real faith in their importance- the chasing after the spurious and empty credibility of ‘decent grades’ and ultimately meaningless qualifications.
And yet here I sit in my study this evening, drafting an application for an MA in Acting Classical and Contemporary Text for the RSAMD. I ran out of space on the form listing all my qualifications and relevant experience. And yes, OK, it will be nice to have another piece of paper, assuming I get accepted on the course and do well enough; but- you know what?- for once in my life this is not why I am considering putting myself through the torture of formal education again. Because for once it isn’t fear of humiliation or failure that motivates me any more. It’s love.
And, yes, I know how just how lame that sounds. But these last two or three years I have begun to get in touch with transformations taking place at a very profound, ineffable level. I have found myself gradually shifting my focus away from the strivings of 'achievement' and egoic 'point scoring', and towards a far richer and more soulful- and actually quite self-effacing and humbling- perspective. And this is for me a paradigm shift. Of course to the outside eye I still look like I'm the same old me. But I’ve worked hard at finding a way through the fog of ‘adulthood’- a constructed identity that has grown quite dense around m. I've begun to value the importance of my latent gifts for connection with spirit- the child-like creative play where life has its true beginnings. “My Highest for His Best” has far less to do with being recognised for cleverness now than it ever has before. I have learned (un-learned?) to now be truly grateful for simple Passion and Devotion, to apply myself to the gifts of Kindness, of Faith to plain and untestable convictions. I know that far more than Knowledge and Understanding I seek Connection and Flow with my divine source- the Light, or the Seed, as we Quakers are wont to call it. Love. If I get accepted on this course it is not so I can improve my employment prospects. It's not so I can share my expertise with others in the classroom either. I am simply anticipating the unadulterated joy of expanding my consciousness at unplumbed levels, and most probably in ways I will never be able to fully articulate or justify to any one else. This will sound ridiculous to everyone else- especially other drama students and even the lecturers. I am looking to explore the profound union between my spirit and my art. But I can’t write that on my application form or I risk coming across as a time-waster/ wanker/ nutter. So I’m forced to trot out the predictable empty bollocks about 'augmenting my skils', 'enhancing my employment prospects', blah, blah, blah...
Utter shite of course. I don't actually care if they fail me.
No, this is something to do with becoming that ‘mystic without a monastery’ of which Caroline Myss speaks. (Actually, she was in Scotland for 3 days last week, lecturing at Findhorn and I would have loved to have gone along and met her if it hadn’t have been for Tally’s Blood.)
But right now it is much more important I know I am doing this for me…
For God.
And for Love. Pure and simple.
:-)
Showing posts with label Focusing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Focusing. Show all posts
Thursday, 27 November 2008
Sunday, 24 August 2008
Michael Chekhov and Focusing
I received an interesting email yesterday from an academic, one Christelle Nassar, at the University of Lebanon in Beirut. She's writing a book on Michael Chekhov, and wants to introduce his ideas to the Arab world.
How cool is that? :-) I've spent the last couple of hours composing a response, which I've just emailed her.
Dear Christelle,
What attracted me to Chekhov in the first place? Well, lots of things! First of all, his methods are not cerebral, always psycho-physical. They get the actor ‘out of his/her head’, never a good place for an actor to be! Also it forged a unique amalgam between what we now recognise as ‘Process work’ and an in-corporated, embodied, practical mysticism- but from an Actor's perspective. I had been interested in all these areas for a number of years but Michael Chekhov was for me the final piece in jigsaw that completed the picture of my own hitherto blurred sense of purpose and direction as a theatre artist.
I had struggled to find a philosophy that fully honoured the spiritual component within my creative life as an actor until I came across Michael Chekhov’s book. The concepts of Higher Ego, Radiation, Psychological Gesture, Inner Gesture, Feelings of the Whole, of Ease and Beauty, the Imaginary Body and what he refers to as 'the Objective Reality of the Imagination' etc were all drawn together into an articulate and coherent approach that made absolute sense of my own experience of my journey as an artist. Each element provided an access point to (- for want of a better phrase-) ‘Divine Inspiration’. Chekhov is never reticent or embarrassed about commending the deep, unconscious spiritual forces which underpin, inspire- and even compel- the actor’s ‘desire for transformation’. Of course, in the modern British theatre culture any such reference to spirituality in connection with the actor’s art is usually derided, even ridiculed as inherently pretentious or “luvvie” by those inside (and outside!) the profession. The fact that Chekhov was willing to be courageously unfashionable and to actively embrace the spiritual forces and religious origins of the art of acting deeply impressed me. In my view, he offers a radical and visionary dismantling of all the prejudices that seemed to be holding theatre and the art of the actor back from evolving to the next stage of its evolution. Here was the real possibility of what Peter Brook terms the Holy Theatre. Chekhov continues to provide us with a highly practical and at the same time deeply spiritual approach to the work.
Now, Gendlin’s Focusing, and Bio-spirituality, have a great deal in common with Chekhov’s ideas. They are all concerned with discerning and embodying images from the ‘edge of awareness’; the act of defining, refining and redefining of felt shifts (or “grace unfolding”) that can be then be worked with. These felt shifts- the removal of the actor's creative and psychological blocks- are gifts from the Higher Self, from the Higher Source and they are the tools for inner metamorphosis and eventually outer transformation- whether that be in the therapeutic or the artistic context.
The Psychological Gesture is the physical equivalent of Gendlin’s “Getting a Handle”. Chekhov’s concepts of Active Waiting and the Creative Gaze are also very similar if not identical to clearing a space, where one patiently and gently asks, “What is there?” Both processes allow us to disengage from the thought stream and connect with the present moment. They both ask us “How does it feel in my body to connect with these thoughts and feelings?” They open us to the body’s wisdom. I am convinced that Chekhov would completely agree with Gendlin when he says:
“Your physically felt body is …part of a gigantic system of here and other places, now and other times, you and other people - in fact, the whole universe. This sense of being bodily alive in a vast system is the body as it is felt from inside”
In Dr Edwin McMahon and Dr Peter Campbell.’s “Bio-Spirituality – Focusing As A Way To Grow” they say:
“There are two critical issues in spiritual development…The first is to discover a holistic approach for letting go of the mind’s omnipotent control as a prelude to allowing some broader wisdom within the entire human organism to speak. The second is to allow the unique next step that is “me” to emerge as an integral, harmonious expression of some Larger Process”.
This is the same ‘me’ that Chekhov would call the Higher Ego.
Chekhov says: ”The usual ego is not what stirs our imagination. To turn our consciousness upon it, to see the concreteness of its specific powers and qualities, is a means of strengthening our connection with it.”
Whenever I start a theatre rehearsal I adapt an exercise taught by Graham Dixon at the Michael Chekhov studio where he has the actors standing at the edge of the acting workshop space and step over an imaginary line that runs a metre or so inside the circumference of the room beyond which is the space which the higher Selves are to do the work ahead. The letting go of the everyday self is in my adapted version done in the same way as listing all the preoccupations of the everyday self that is done in the second step of focusing. I keep asking “And what else” whilst the participants silently list in their heads their respective worries and concerns which might stand in the way of doing the work. I ask them to wait at least 2mins before let them all go and then they cross over the imaginary line. Having done this shedding of everyday concerns and then decided to dress in their higher selves the ensemble meet in the centre of the room where I may ask indic=vidi=uals to devlop psychological gestures, a sense of how different physical centres manifest the archetypal eb=nergies of their characters.
Chekhov allows us to believe that we do not become greater actors by striving to be more than we are, but by surrendering to our talent, as if it were a gift of grace which we already possessed but simply lay hidden deep within if only we can get out of the way of our own lower egos. This is why, for me, his most profound teaching is really to do with his techniques for uncovering and honouring our imaginations as a reality because he suggests we “leave our personal things behind us” and enter into the mystical realm of the soul, or the Higher Ego.
It may very well be due to my own limitations as a teacher but, in my own experience teenagers benefit least from this way of working. Their egos are still making a massive claim on their attention and it is difficult for them to stay in a place of not quite knowing. They can be extremely reluctant to risk making fools of themselves, and prefer to demonstrate they 'already know the answers'! After 15 years of teaching this age group it is my view that too much uncertainty and ambivalence are anathema for the vast majority of 13-18 year olds- professional and non-professional, experienced and inexperienced. Experienced adult actors benefit most from Chekhov’s ideas, those who have maybe studied and worked with Stanislavski’s principles and then feel the need to go deeper. Preferably, the actors have a spiritual connection to their work (although they don’t have to believe in God!), and have learned to appreciate the value of ‘active waiting’ and meditation as part of their artistic process. I find that Focusing can help them understand the worth of this dimension to their work, but only if they are prepared to be open-minded! For those that are, it can open them up to a deep and untapped inner reservoir of imagination and extraordinarily inspired choices.
There is an entire industry of workshops and courses that aim to give actors a practical experience of Chekhov’s techniques. However if the actor does the exercise in the books on his/her own as Chekhov himself recommends I can see no reason why they cannot assimilate and learn just as much, if not more- and certainly more cheaply! Having said this, it may be helpful to have a trusted witness (just as in so called ‘Authentic Movement’ work)- a director, friend or colleague perhaps- who is sensitive enough to be able to monitor and guide the Psychological Gesture work.
Chekhov’s writing is so clear that most intelligent and sensitive actors can learn the techniques and their uses in their own living room, independent of any practical group workshop or formal tuition. Having said that there is much to be gained from working with an ensemble who all drawing on a common vocabulary for the work they are doing. An ensemble who are united in their sense of purpose can support and guide each other through the process, whatever particular theory that might underpin the work itself- whether that be or Chekhov. Grotowski, Stanislavski, Brecht- whoever...
Stanislavski does mention the spiritual component to the art of acting if you are prepared to look closely enough. He writes of prana and radiation-and was very influenced by ideas of yoga- but his approach is at the end of the day very cerebral- as if he were saying that the actor can summon inspiration by concentrated acts of will. But the books are muddled by the fictional framework he uses to advance his ideas, and very difficult to read. Chekhov takes the very best that Stanislavski has to offer, and comes up with a book that is masterfully lucid but more far-reaching. Chekhov takes us further into the realms of the imagination and its mysterious connection with the actor’s body, Chekhov knew that the imagination and the Higher Ego were far more powerful tools for the artist than the mechanistic and ‘utilitarian’ approach of Stanislavski’s. Stanislavski’s theories have been taken up in the American tradition of acting by Lee Strasberg, and there are many in the west who still believe this to be the pinnacle of what it means to be a committed theatre artist. Of course most Method actors would dispute my assumptions about their process as being purely mental- or 'willed'; and admittedly I’m overstating things. But there has always seemed to me to be an implicit requirement of self-immolation bound up with the Method actor’s process. A “you can’t really be a serious artist unless you are prepared to hurt yourself” kind of creed. Both Stanislavski’s and Strasberg’s students were encouraged at times to generate unnecessary unhappiness and harmful psychological turmoil within themselves. In its extreme forms there is very little creative joy in this way of working; a deeply unhealthy level of self-bullying, in fact. Many of Strasberg's star pupils were seriously fucked up by what he asked of them- hence the early deaths, suicides, clinical depression, drug addiction, etc. But I share Chekhov’s view that the audience don’t really want to see the performer really suffer: the feelings should have what he called “an artistic fragrance”. Chekhov insisted the process should be joyful. In addition, he understood that the audience could tolerate the ambiguity of knowing that what is happening on stage is a fiction and yet could still be utterly engaged in the performance and the feelings. There is a gentler and more open method of acting that allows the heart and the imagination to soar rather than encouraging the actor to fix himself within intense, self-involved and rigid narcissism. There is also, I believe, an erroneous assumption in Strasberg’s Method (admittedly a perversion and a misunderstanding of what Stanislavski was actually saying) that if the actor feels emotionally authentic then that authenticity will inevitably communicate itself to an audience, and so move them. This is more often than not demonstrably untrue. Neither Strasberg or Stanislavski ever solved the problem of how to capture the genie in the bottle so that the truth of the character could be recreated each and every time through the use of the actor’s personal “emotional memories”. Chekhov likened emotional memory exercises to trying to dig up a corpse and make it alive again. Chekhov’s techniques helps come much closer to achieving a reliable connection with the ineffable because he does not start from the thinking, or even the emotions, but from the body. I know his techniques work for me anyway, and I do not fuck myself up in the process either! Method actors might accuse me of “acting”, of cheating or lack of authenticity, but you only have to see Strasberg and Chekhov acting on film to instantly know who is the better actor!
Hope this is of some help, Christelle. Let me know if there is anything else. I've attached a CV of my acting work as requested.
The very best of luck with your research- it sounds an absolutely fascinating challenge. It would be great if you could send me a copy when you're finally done! :-)
"Chekhov’s name is known in Lebanon and the Arab world, but there are no Arabic versions of his books nor serious researches on his work, therefore, I chose to write my study in Arabic in order to familiarize the Arabic speaking acting students, actors, trainers, and directors with his work. I have also chosen to work on Chekhov because he addresses the actor directly and suggests to him means of elaborating his part on his own during a mise en scène…
A part of my study will be based on Chekhov’s books “To the actor” and “On the actor technique”. And a second part of it – equally as important as the first – would be a study of the application of the Chekhov’s by people other than Chekhov himself…
Therefore, I would be much obliged, if you as a professional trainer in Chekhov’s acting method, (and using his method as an actor) would answer some questions that allow me to use your personal experience (I would appreciate having your personal CV), and that of your studio as essential references in my study.
1. How were you introduced to Mikhail Chekhov’s method in acting?
2. Have you learned the method through Chekhov himself, a trainer, Chekhov’s books…?
3. How did you become a trainer through Mikhail Chekhov’s method in actor training?
4. Are you familiar with other acting methods?
5. In your personal opinion and experience, what are the particularities of Chekhov’s method in actor training (what made you choose this method)?
6. Do you follow the exercises given by Chekhov in his books “To The Actor” and “on the acting technique” the way they are? Or, you prefer to make changes (such as adding other exercise, deleting some, combining others…)? In case you do, would you please give some description of the changes, and of the reasons behind them (I would like to know particularly why you chose to combine Chekhov’s method with Eugene Gendlin's Focusing/ Bio-spirituality, how you did it, and what were the benefits of this combination)?
7. What are the most common difficulties you encountered with the trainees?
8. Were this difficulties the same for acting students, professional actors, and for non professionals interested in theater?
9. Do you think reading Chekhov books would suffice for an experimented actor or director to teach his method?
10. Comparing with other actor training methods, why – regarding your experience – should an actor choose to be trained in Chekhov’s method?
11. Particularly, and since Chekhov was Stanislavski’s student, what do you, as an actor trainer, think the strong points of Chekhov’s method are, and where do you see the differences between both methods?
12. Chekhov addresses the actor directly, and asks him to try the exercises while reading them in order to understand his method. Based on you experience in teaching his method, do you think the person or the group of persons who want to become actors can train themselves alone by reading the book and applying the exercises?
Thank you in advance,
Christelle Nassar "
A part of my study will be based on Chekhov’s books “To the actor” and “On the actor technique”. And a second part of it – equally as important as the first – would be a study of the application of the Chekhov’s by people other than Chekhov himself…
Therefore, I would be much obliged, if you as a professional trainer in Chekhov’s acting method, (and using his method as an actor) would answer some questions that allow me to use your personal experience (I would appreciate having your personal CV), and that of your studio as essential references in my study.
1. How were you introduced to Mikhail Chekhov’s method in acting?
2. Have you learned the method through Chekhov himself, a trainer, Chekhov’s books…?
3. How did you become a trainer through Mikhail Chekhov’s method in actor training?
4. Are you familiar with other acting methods?
5. In your personal opinion and experience, what are the particularities of Chekhov’s method in actor training (what made you choose this method)?
6. Do you follow the exercises given by Chekhov in his books “To The Actor” and “on the acting technique” the way they are? Or, you prefer to make changes (such as adding other exercise, deleting some, combining others…)? In case you do, would you please give some description of the changes, and of the reasons behind them (I would like to know particularly why you chose to combine Chekhov’s method with Eugene Gendlin's Focusing/ Bio-spirituality, how you did it, and what were the benefits of this combination)?
7. What are the most common difficulties you encountered with the trainees?
8. Were this difficulties the same for acting students, professional actors, and for non professionals interested in theater?
9. Do you think reading Chekhov books would suffice for an experimented actor or director to teach his method?
10. Comparing with other actor training methods, why – regarding your experience – should an actor choose to be trained in Chekhov’s method?
11. Particularly, and since Chekhov was Stanislavski’s student, what do you, as an actor trainer, think the strong points of Chekhov’s method are, and where do you see the differences between both methods?
12. Chekhov addresses the actor directly, and asks him to try the exercises while reading them in order to understand his method. Based on you experience in teaching his method, do you think the person or the group of persons who want to become actors can train themselves alone by reading the book and applying the exercises?
Thank you in advance,
Christelle Nassar "
How cool is that? :-) I've spent the last couple of hours composing a response, which I've just emailed her.
Dear Christelle,
I first discovered Michael Chekhov’s ideas about 7 or 8 years ago, when I happened to see a video of Joanna Merlin leading a workshop on Psychological Gestures, and I was immediately intrigued. I googled Chekhov on the Internet and what I read on various websites (Lisa Dalton 's particularly) constituted kind of an epiphany for me. I ordered the book immediately. I read it from cover to cover in a single afternoon, and then immediately reread it. It was as if all the blocks and frustrations and difficulties I had been having as an actor were dissolving. His vision for what he called the Ideal Theatre of the future filled me with hope, and the techniques he offered the actor offered the perfect way of avoiding the mind having too much control over the creative process. I could finally stop feeling guilty that I had always secretly found so many of Stanislavski’s techniques quite tiresome, long-winded and so mechanical! (More of which later!) I subsequently attended the Michael Chekhov Studio in London (http://www.michaelchekhov.org.uk/) under the tutelage of Graham Dixon. In addition I have attended the Michael Chekhov in the 21st Century Symposium at Dartington Hall, the venue for Chekhov’s own theatre studio, in 2005. I continue to amass a growing personal library of Chekhov related books, literature CDs and DVDs.
I am as you might have guessed somewhat evangelical about Michael Chekhov's ideas and techniques!
Yet I still have no formal teaching qualification in Chekhov methodology or techniques. This is quite deliberate. Although I am fully aware that there are various certificated courses available I am not convinced Chekhov himself would have approved of a formal program that leads to an official license or piece of paper to prove I have the credibility to use his ideas. I am an artist, not an academic. Besides Mischa’s whole philosophy resists fixed and inflexible theory which might strangle growth. He believed the art of acting, although founded on spiritually eternal principles accessible to all, was also, at its best, an organic process/experience that does- and indeed should- move with the times! In contrast, the educational institution tends to rigidify and ossify ideas and ideals! Chekhov insisted that the individual actor-artist should be quite free to take whatever he/she finds useful in his book, and disregard the rest. This freedom to choose was very important to me as an actor, and the fact that Chekhov wasn't promoting yet another prescriptive, rigid theoretical framework for the art of acting- (Stanislavski!)- appealed to me too. Chekhov’s ideas made me feel so much more liberated and creatively free than all the other theoretical approaches offered by theatre practitioners I had studied- Stanislavski, Meisner, Hagen, Strasberg etc.
In the last few years I have shared many of Michael Chekhov’s ideas with a number of theatre companies in Scotland, incorporating them into the rehearsal process of my productions of Timon of Athens, Awake and Sing!, A Hard Heart, The Crucible for the Ramshorn Theatre in Glasgow- as well as Razed Curtain Theatre Co’s improv troupe and their production of Anna Karenina last year, Macbeth for the Shakespeare Schools Festival UK to name a few. I am an acting coach for individual actors too, and I am a regular workshop leader on Chekhov for The Actors’ Bothy at the Glasgow's Centre for Contemporary Arts (http://www.theactorsbothy.com/)- a weekly class offered to professional actors. In addition I have offered introductory weekend sessions in Chekhov’s techniques through the University of Strathclyde. The techniques seem to come as a revelation to many Scottish actors and it astonishes me that he is not more widely used or regarded.
I am as you might have guessed somewhat evangelical about Michael Chekhov's ideas and techniques!
Yet I still have no formal teaching qualification in Chekhov methodology or techniques. This is quite deliberate. Although I am fully aware that there are various certificated courses available I am not convinced Chekhov himself would have approved of a formal program that leads to an official license or piece of paper to prove I have the credibility to use his ideas. I am an artist, not an academic. Besides Mischa’s whole philosophy resists fixed and inflexible theory which might strangle growth. He believed the art of acting, although founded on spiritually eternal principles accessible to all, was also, at its best, an organic process/experience that does- and indeed should- move with the times! In contrast, the educational institution tends to rigidify and ossify ideas and ideals! Chekhov insisted that the individual actor-artist should be quite free to take whatever he/she finds useful in his book, and disregard the rest. This freedom to choose was very important to me as an actor, and the fact that Chekhov wasn't promoting yet another prescriptive, rigid theoretical framework for the art of acting- (Stanislavski!)- appealed to me too. Chekhov’s ideas made me feel so much more liberated and creatively free than all the other theoretical approaches offered by theatre practitioners I had studied- Stanislavski, Meisner, Hagen, Strasberg etc.
In the last few years I have shared many of Michael Chekhov’s ideas with a number of theatre companies in Scotland, incorporating them into the rehearsal process of my productions of Timon of Athens, Awake and Sing!, A Hard Heart, The Crucible for the Ramshorn Theatre in Glasgow- as well as Razed Curtain Theatre Co’s improv troupe and their production of Anna Karenina last year, Macbeth for the Shakespeare Schools Festival UK to name a few. I am an acting coach for individual actors too, and I am a regular workshop leader on Chekhov for The Actors’ Bothy at the Glasgow's Centre for Contemporary Arts (http://www.theactorsbothy.com/)- a weekly class offered to professional actors. In addition I have offered introductory weekend sessions in Chekhov’s techniques through the University of Strathclyde. The techniques seem to come as a revelation to many Scottish actors and it astonishes me that he is not more widely used or regarded.
What attracted me to Chekhov in the first place? Well, lots of things! First of all, his methods are not cerebral, always psycho-physical. They get the actor ‘out of his/her head’, never a good place for an actor to be! Also it forged a unique amalgam between what we now recognise as ‘Process work’ and an in-corporated, embodied, practical mysticism- but from an Actor's perspective. I had been interested in all these areas for a number of years but Michael Chekhov was for me the final piece in jigsaw that completed the picture of my own hitherto blurred sense of purpose and direction as a theatre artist.
I had struggled to find a philosophy that fully honoured the spiritual component within my creative life as an actor until I came across Michael Chekhov’s book. The concepts of Higher Ego, Radiation, Psychological Gesture, Inner Gesture, Feelings of the Whole, of Ease and Beauty, the Imaginary Body and what he refers to as 'the Objective Reality of the Imagination' etc were all drawn together into an articulate and coherent approach that made absolute sense of my own experience of my journey as an artist. Each element provided an access point to (- for want of a better phrase-) ‘Divine Inspiration’. Chekhov is never reticent or embarrassed about commending the deep, unconscious spiritual forces which underpin, inspire- and even compel- the actor’s ‘desire for transformation’. Of course, in the modern British theatre culture any such reference to spirituality in connection with the actor’s art is usually derided, even ridiculed as inherently pretentious or “luvvie” by those inside (and outside!) the profession. The fact that Chekhov was willing to be courageously unfashionable and to actively embrace the spiritual forces and religious origins of the art of acting deeply impressed me. In my view, he offers a radical and visionary dismantling of all the prejudices that seemed to be holding theatre and the art of the actor back from evolving to the next stage of its evolution. Here was the real possibility of what Peter Brook terms the Holy Theatre. Chekhov continues to provide us with a highly practical and at the same time deeply spiritual approach to the work.
Now, Gendlin’s Focusing, and Bio-spirituality, have a great deal in common with Chekhov’s ideas. They are all concerned with discerning and embodying images from the ‘edge of awareness’; the act of defining, refining and redefining of felt shifts (or “grace unfolding”) that can be then be worked with. These felt shifts- the removal of the actor's creative and psychological blocks- are gifts from the Higher Self, from the Higher Source and they are the tools for inner metamorphosis and eventually outer transformation- whether that be in the therapeutic or the artistic context.
The Psychological Gesture is the physical equivalent of Gendlin’s “Getting a Handle”. Chekhov’s concepts of Active Waiting and the Creative Gaze are also very similar if not identical to clearing a space, where one patiently and gently asks, “What is there?” Both processes allow us to disengage from the thought stream and connect with the present moment. They both ask us “How does it feel in my body to connect with these thoughts and feelings?” They open us to the body’s wisdom. I am convinced that Chekhov would completely agree with Gendlin when he says:
“Your physically felt body is …part of a gigantic system of here and other places, now and other times, you and other people - in fact, the whole universe. This sense of being bodily alive in a vast system is the body as it is felt from inside”
In Dr Edwin McMahon and Dr Peter Campbell.’s “Bio-Spirituality – Focusing As A Way To Grow” they say:
“There are two critical issues in spiritual development…The first is to discover a holistic approach for letting go of the mind’s omnipotent control as a prelude to allowing some broader wisdom within the entire human organism to speak. The second is to allow the unique next step that is “me” to emerge as an integral, harmonious expression of some Larger Process”.
This is the same ‘me’ that Chekhov would call the Higher Ego.
Chekhov says: ”The usual ego is not what stirs our imagination. To turn our consciousness upon it, to see the concreteness of its specific powers and qualities, is a means of strengthening our connection with it.”
Whenever I start a theatre rehearsal I adapt an exercise taught by Graham Dixon at the Michael Chekhov studio where he has the actors standing at the edge of the acting workshop space and step over an imaginary line that runs a metre or so inside the circumference of the room beyond which is the space which the higher Selves are to do the work ahead. The letting go of the everyday self is in my adapted version done in the same way as listing all the preoccupations of the everyday self that is done in the second step of focusing. I keep asking “And what else” whilst the participants silently list in their heads their respective worries and concerns which might stand in the way of doing the work. I ask them to wait at least 2mins before let them all go and then they cross over the imaginary line. Having done this shedding of everyday concerns and then decided to dress in their higher selves the ensemble meet in the centre of the room where I may ask indic=vidi=uals to devlop psychological gestures, a sense of how different physical centres manifest the archetypal eb=nergies of their characters.
Chekhov allows us to believe that we do not become greater actors by striving to be more than we are, but by surrendering to our talent, as if it were a gift of grace which we already possessed but simply lay hidden deep within if only we can get out of the way of our own lower egos. This is why, for me, his most profound teaching is really to do with his techniques for uncovering and honouring our imaginations as a reality because he suggests we “leave our personal things behind us” and enter into the mystical realm of the soul, or the Higher Ego.
It may very well be due to my own limitations as a teacher but, in my own experience teenagers benefit least from this way of working. Their egos are still making a massive claim on their attention and it is difficult for them to stay in a place of not quite knowing. They can be extremely reluctant to risk making fools of themselves, and prefer to demonstrate they 'already know the answers'! After 15 years of teaching this age group it is my view that too much uncertainty and ambivalence are anathema for the vast majority of 13-18 year olds- professional and non-professional, experienced and inexperienced. Experienced adult actors benefit most from Chekhov’s ideas, those who have maybe studied and worked with Stanislavski’s principles and then feel the need to go deeper. Preferably, the actors have a spiritual connection to their work (although they don’t have to believe in God!), and have learned to appreciate the value of ‘active waiting’ and meditation as part of their artistic process. I find that Focusing can help them understand the worth of this dimension to their work, but only if they are prepared to be open-minded! For those that are, it can open them up to a deep and untapped inner reservoir of imagination and extraordinarily inspired choices.
There is an entire industry of workshops and courses that aim to give actors a practical experience of Chekhov’s techniques. However if the actor does the exercise in the books on his/her own as Chekhov himself recommends I can see no reason why they cannot assimilate and learn just as much, if not more- and certainly more cheaply! Having said this, it may be helpful to have a trusted witness (just as in so called ‘Authentic Movement’ work)- a director, friend or colleague perhaps- who is sensitive enough to be able to monitor and guide the Psychological Gesture work.
Chekhov’s writing is so clear that most intelligent and sensitive actors can learn the techniques and their uses in their own living room, independent of any practical group workshop or formal tuition. Having said that there is much to be gained from working with an ensemble who all drawing on a common vocabulary for the work they are doing. An ensemble who are united in their sense of purpose can support and guide each other through the process, whatever particular theory that might underpin the work itself- whether that be or Chekhov. Grotowski, Stanislavski, Brecht- whoever...
Stanislavski does mention the spiritual component to the art of acting if you are prepared to look closely enough. He writes of prana and radiation-and was very influenced by ideas of yoga- but his approach is at the end of the day very cerebral- as if he were saying that the actor can summon inspiration by concentrated acts of will. But the books are muddled by the fictional framework he uses to advance his ideas, and very difficult to read. Chekhov takes the very best that Stanislavski has to offer, and comes up with a book that is masterfully lucid but more far-reaching. Chekhov takes us further into the realms of the imagination and its mysterious connection with the actor’s body, Chekhov knew that the imagination and the Higher Ego were far more powerful tools for the artist than the mechanistic and ‘utilitarian’ approach of Stanislavski’s. Stanislavski’s theories have been taken up in the American tradition of acting by Lee Strasberg, and there are many in the west who still believe this to be the pinnacle of what it means to be a committed theatre artist. Of course most Method actors would dispute my assumptions about their process as being purely mental- or 'willed'; and admittedly I’m overstating things. But there has always seemed to me to be an implicit requirement of self-immolation bound up with the Method actor’s process. A “you can’t really be a serious artist unless you are prepared to hurt yourself” kind of creed. Both Stanislavski’s and Strasberg’s students were encouraged at times to generate unnecessary unhappiness and harmful psychological turmoil within themselves. In its extreme forms there is very little creative joy in this way of working; a deeply unhealthy level of self-bullying, in fact. Many of Strasberg's star pupils were seriously fucked up by what he asked of them- hence the early deaths, suicides, clinical depression, drug addiction, etc. But I share Chekhov’s view that the audience don’t really want to see the performer really suffer: the feelings should have what he called “an artistic fragrance”. Chekhov insisted the process should be joyful. In addition, he understood that the audience could tolerate the ambiguity of knowing that what is happening on stage is a fiction and yet could still be utterly engaged in the performance and the feelings. There is a gentler and more open method of acting that allows the heart and the imagination to soar rather than encouraging the actor to fix himself within intense, self-involved and rigid narcissism. There is also, I believe, an erroneous assumption in Strasberg’s Method (admittedly a perversion and a misunderstanding of what Stanislavski was actually saying) that if the actor feels emotionally authentic then that authenticity will inevitably communicate itself to an audience, and so move them. This is more often than not demonstrably untrue. Neither Strasberg or Stanislavski ever solved the problem of how to capture the genie in the bottle so that the truth of the character could be recreated each and every time through the use of the actor’s personal “emotional memories”. Chekhov likened emotional memory exercises to trying to dig up a corpse and make it alive again. Chekhov’s techniques helps come much closer to achieving a reliable connection with the ineffable because he does not start from the thinking, or even the emotions, but from the body. I know his techniques work for me anyway, and I do not fuck myself up in the process either! Method actors might accuse me of “acting”, of cheating or lack of authenticity, but you only have to see Strasberg and Chekhov acting on film to instantly know who is the better actor!
Hope this is of some help, Christelle. Let me know if there is anything else. I've attached a CV of my acting work as requested.
The very best of luck with your research- it sounds an absolutely fascinating challenge. It would be great if you could send me a copy when you're finally done! :-)
Yours truly,
Mark Coleman
Mark Coleman
Wednesday, 13 August 2008
What I Did on My Holidays
These last seven weeks have been so creative for me, and I’ll be sorry to see them come to an end. This coming year will test just how much I have worked on in these last couple of months, applying the I’ve lessons learned to all the practical challenges ahead. Although Karen and I have had the chance for jaunts and excursions to Dumfries, Ayr, Troon, the Campsies, Kilsyth and Edinburgh, our holiday has been- well not so much a vacation as- a ‘stay-cation’. But it has meant I’ve had oodles of time to read - about 30 and a half books in all (the half being A Course in Miracles)- mostly spiritual biographies, psychology and philosophy- but also a good bit of poetry, even a little drama too (But only for fun!). I’ve been writing, de-cluttering the house, ‘doing Shakespeare’ for the Bard in the Botanics folk at the Glasgow Fair weekend, growing vegetables, Quakering and catching up with friends I’ve not seen in years (Davey and Grace, Georgette and Nat, Steve, Stuart, John and Mia). And making new friends!- something that had become quite thorny for me this past year or so. Nicola Maharg and Martha Hatch; Eric and Danielle from the Bothy; mad Gino, John Creed, the wonderful Margaret, and naughty David.
Karen has been busy too what with her dialect coaching for the BBC, and auditioning for acting jobs. I’m so excited that she seems to have worked out what she wants to do with her future now too. I will be ‘manifesting’ away for her over the next few months as she strives to make her dreams come true.
I’ve had my Tarot read (twice!), I’ve begun Alexander and Reiki treatment, and started some heart-voice work too.
I’m also proud to report I’ve now got the ball rolling with directing my next 2 directorial projects- Ann Marie Di Mambro’s nostalgic romcom, Tally’s Blood at the Ramshorn, and Lorca’s House of Bernarda Alba for Giffnock Theatre
But I remain proudest of the massive amount of inner work I’ve done. I believe this will prove to be my most worthwhile and lasting achievement of this summer. This time has helped me to consolidate and disentangle my sense of direction and purpose; to refine my understanding of it from a spiritual as well as artistic perspective. This has been due to the fact that I have adapted my meditation process by fusing it with the Focusing practice. This has helped me tremendously to forge stronger links with my Inner Light as a Quaker- and I know these will have a real and noticeable impact on how I tackle the challenges of the next 12 months. I want to start applying some of this inner direction outwardly in the community now. I have come to realise that bringing others to know, trust and connect with the Spirit of the Divine within themselves is the imperative that draws together and unifies all the strands of my life.
I continue to wrestle with my impatience and my passive-aggressive tendencies. However I have hopefully become a little bit more trusting of myself and others. I have really needed this time to ask deep questions of myself and to centre on what greater purpose I might be serving through my work as a teacher, director and actor. But progress has been rapid and very far-reaching. I feel different: lighter, truly positive, more joyful, inspired and loving. Hope it lasts!!!
Karen has been busy too what with her dialect coaching for the BBC, and auditioning for acting jobs. I’m so excited that she seems to have worked out what she wants to do with her future now too. I will be ‘manifesting’ away for her over the next few months as she strives to make her dreams come true.
I’ve had my Tarot read (twice!), I’ve begun Alexander and Reiki treatment, and started some heart-voice work too.
I’m also proud to report I’ve now got the ball rolling with directing my next 2 directorial projects- Ann Marie Di Mambro’s nostalgic romcom, Tally’s Blood at the Ramshorn, and Lorca’s House of Bernarda Alba for Giffnock Theatre
But I remain proudest of the massive amount of inner work I’ve done. I believe this will prove to be my most worthwhile and lasting achievement of this summer. This time has helped me to consolidate and disentangle my sense of direction and purpose; to refine my understanding of it from a spiritual as well as artistic perspective. This has been due to the fact that I have adapted my meditation process by fusing it with the Focusing practice. This has helped me tremendously to forge stronger links with my Inner Light as a Quaker- and I know these will have a real and noticeable impact on how I tackle the challenges of the next 12 months. I want to start applying some of this inner direction outwardly in the community now. I have come to realise that bringing others to know, trust and connect with the Spirit of the Divine within themselves is the imperative that draws together and unifies all the strands of my life.
I continue to wrestle with my impatience and my passive-aggressive tendencies. However I have hopefully become a little bit more trusting of myself and others. I have really needed this time to ask deep questions of myself and to centre on what greater purpose I might be serving through my work as a teacher, director and actor. But progress has been rapid and very far-reaching. I feel different: lighter, truly positive, more joyful, inspired and loving. Hope it lasts!!!
Thursday, 7 August 2008
Orange 3
I sense Raeonis is starting to feel playful. There’s a mischievous glint in his eye. (Surely not...!) With one hand he crumples up the now blank piece of paper and somehow conjures it into a ball made from elastic bands! (You know the kind of thing bored office-workers make?) He throws it t
oward me. It’s quite heavy.
oward me. It’s quite heavy. We chuck it back and forth between us for a while. We’re getting more animated with the rhythm of this movement. It's getting heavier, though. And heavier.
Then he suddenly stops; grasping the elastic-band ball in his right hand.
[“Now, you know what this is about, don’t you, Mark?”]
Oh, not a drama game, for godsakes?
"No, Raeonis, no. No, I don’t."
It’s to do with drama though, isn’t it? And then, as if to help me, from nowhere he conjures an orange. Another orange.
It's a real one this time. He begins to show off, juggling (very UN-angelic behaviour this!): coolly throwing the two spheres in a very deft and dextrous manner from one hand to the other, all the while continuing to stare right at me.
I resent him thinking I might find his clowning entertaining. (It only occurs to me as I write this, several days later, that maybe that was the very point he was trying to make, revealing just how dull and irritating watching a performer demonstrating his 'amazing' skills can be!) My own gaze resists connecting with his. I choose instead to follow the trajectory of the elastic-band ball over the orange, anything rather than allow him the pleasure of believing he's impressing me. I’ve always been drawn- against my better will it has to be said-to things like elastic-band balls; juggling. I guess I’m intrigued by the patience and skilfulness that can make these things happen, and at the same time vaguely annoyed by them too, wondering how on earth anyone could justify wasting so much of their precious time on that stuff.
Raeonis drops the elastic-band ball.
Clomp!
He interrupts my perplexed gaze with that wise, inquisitive peering he does.
[“I know you understand the meaning of this. After all, this is what you do!”]
Me? What? I don’t juggle. And I’ve never made an elastic-band ball! What does he mean?
I grope for handles, none quite fit. Let it come to you, I tell myself. The homemade elastic ball symbolises- what? Play?
[“Not really play, no.”]
What?
Time-wasting?
A riddle?
[“A riddle.? Yes, kind of. Compare it with this orange!”]
Erm… getting caught up in artificial stuff instead of what’s natural…er?
["Again. Try another fit!”]
Inner tension, neurosis, worry?
[“No… colder..”]
Teaching… school?
[“Getting warmer, warmer…”]
… What’s the word????… The word… is…-
Formulation. Formulations!
[“Bingo!”]”
Formularising.
[“And? What else??”]
Idle theoretical work! ... Man-made, cleverly constructed stuff... all that thinking about the natural creative will that strives for a foothold in art, to gain the status of ‘practical application’ but cannot ever be the thing itself, which in fact strangles it instead. Impressive, attractive, so clever-clever and in the end utterly pointless!...
Raeonis nods slowly, sagely, forlornly. [“Yes. Yes... Yes”]
Ouch. I get it. How much time and energy I waste! Wrapping ideas round and round and round themselves.
Raeonis makes a gestures of admonishment. Cease! it says
[“Calm down, Mark! Stop beating yourself up. You’re being too hard on yourself,- as usual!”]
Raeonis is always so compassionate and forgiving but here he is comparing my thinking self- that educated, egoic self- with my natural creative gut-feeling ,God-given instinct. And I'm pretty sure I know which side he's on! It's the old ‘Science’ versus 'Nature' thing. I feel guilty, even though he tells me I really shouldn’t.
Of course I know guilt’s a waste of time of everyone’s time and it's going to tie me up in even more knots. He lifts the elastic-band ball, and I can see that it has become even heavier now. Well, that'll be my guilt, I realise.
Raeonis decides to be playful again. He holds up the ball, and announces in a piss-taking, declamatory tone,
[“Introducing The Professor!”.]
Professor?
He holds up the Orange. [“…And The Possessor.”]
Possessor… ?
What’s that? Professor...? Possessor…?
"You mean like the Talk versus Walk?"
[“Precisely.”]
Why must he communicate in this irritating code? Why can’t he just tell me this stuff, instead of making me work so hard for meaning?
A pause. I’m suddenly tired, tetchy.
I follow his eye-line to gaze at the Orange more carefully, trying to be interested by it. I’m failing. I feel just like a schoolboy in a Maths class; frustrated that I’m being slow, not really getting it. I’m feeling chastened, impatient. What now?
[“Bear with me a little while longer, and then rest.”]
He kicks away the elastic-band ball, which has now grown into a medicine ball. It scoots away at high-speed snapping off vicious elastic bands as it goes whooshing away, out of sight into the mist of turquoise.
I'm relieved it’s gone.
[“Not much longer now, Mark. Focus on the orange. Shine your light, go inside. You know how. Let the convoluted questionings go. Just flow into it right now; let it happen. Trust you’ll remember whatever you’ll need to remember. Relax your head…”]
He has confidence in me. I start to regain confidence in me! I trust him, and so relax into a sort of warm, liquid weariness, looking into the Orange, awaiting my inner light to absorb, breathe in and assimilate... Sensing it like a true synaesthete. I know how to do this, I know how to do this, but Lord I’m so tired. Still I surrender (or I’m being surrendered!) to this experience.
And then....
It’s as if a deep sensation of density that I’d never been conscious until now has melted away. I feel very light. At the same time the orange is flopping open into 6 equal segments (Like a Terry’s Choclate orange, or those pieces you get in Trivial Pursuits I realise afterwards!) in Raeonis' hand. I spasm into a chuckle. The pieces are shining, all the various colours of the rainbow. Uh? My six senses? Yes. The six stages of focusing? Inner knowledge? Yes. The rule of six? (What on earth’s that?!?)…. It's- it's Creation.
["Yea!"]
God created the world in 6 days?!
[“Yes. All of that! But just stop all your questions right now. Just watch! You're gonna love this...]
The pieces are rising up out of his open hand and they’re gliding towards me one by one. They’re merging with me just like the words and the cartoon -orange did before. Each piece taking its place according to its colour where my first six chakras are, lighting them up. Raeonis smiles again turning to leave, and as he does my final crown chakra just bursts into a sun by itself, bathing my whole body and as far as i can see in a violet aura, beyond me and way out into the blue. Oh wow.
I am reclaimed. Reclaimed by a full, extraordinary energy and power. It feels so... so intensely joyful, so invigorating.
[“Enjoy,”] says Raeonis
[“And don’t forget… Write it down!”].
He’s gone.
……………………….
It's several days later and I reckon now, although much of this could indeed be a gift from the divine- and one which still fills my heart with an intense gratitude to my Source- that bits of it might also be the products of my overactive imagination! A blend of the two perhaps, who knows? Well, whatever or wherever it all came from it really astonished me with its eidetic clarity, its amazingly vivid colours, how moved I was by it all. If it was just some kind of manic episode during a meditation, it was all so incredibly positive, so salutary, and really, really helpful too. I don't feel like questioning it.
I mustn't be tempted to analyse it to death. I think this ‘vision’, if that’s what it was, was actually warning of the dangers of cerebral analysis, and instead telling me just to trust my own ‘creative genius’. I believe I was being told to take that 'instinct' back into my teaching when I return to school next week, and also into my directing of Tally's Blood.
In the end I'm convinced that must be why ‘Raeonis’ communicated with me in imagery and symbols instead of words. It was because what he needed me to grasp was in the end much too ineffable and subtle for words alone. And he needed to bypass my 'Elastic-Band' brain! I do know he had some very challenging and profound messages for me, ones that I really don’t want to blench or strangle with rational thinking.
So, you know what…? I’m just gonna simply allow it all just to seep into soul at its own pace, granting the profound significance of it the permission it needs to work at a deep unconscious level.
This much I do know-
It’s good.
:-)
End
Then he suddenly stops; grasping the elastic-band ball in his right hand.
[“Now, you know what this is about, don’t you, Mark?”]
Oh, not a drama game, for godsakes?
"No, Raeonis, no. No, I don’t."
It’s to do with drama though, isn’t it? And then, as if to help me, from nowhere he conjures an orange. Another orange.
It's a real one this time. He begins to show off, juggling (very UN-angelic behaviour this!): coolly throwing the two spheres in a very deft and dextrous manner from one hand to the other, all the while continuing to stare right at me.
I resent him thinking I might find his clowning entertaining. (It only occurs to me as I write this, several days later, that maybe that was the very point he was trying to make, revealing just how dull and irritating watching a performer demonstrating his 'amazing' skills can be!) My own gaze resists connecting with his. I choose instead to follow the trajectory of the elastic-band ball over the orange, anything rather than allow him the pleasure of believing he's impressing me. I’ve always been drawn- against my better will it has to be said-to things like elastic-band balls; juggling. I guess I’m intrigued by the patience and skilfulness that can make these things happen, and at the same time vaguely annoyed by them too, wondering how on earth anyone could justify wasting so much of their precious time on that stuff.
Raeonis drops the elastic-band ball.
Clomp!
He interrupts my perplexed gaze with that wise, inquisitive peering he does.
[“I know you understand the meaning of this. After all, this is what you do!”]
Me? What? I don’t juggle. And I’ve never made an elastic-band ball! What does he mean?
I grope for handles, none quite fit. Let it come to you, I tell myself. The homemade elastic ball symbolises- what? Play?
[“Not really play, no.”]
What?
Time-wasting?
A riddle?
[“A riddle.? Yes, kind of. Compare it with this orange!”]
Erm… getting caught up in artificial stuff instead of what’s natural…er?
["Again. Try another fit!”]
Inner tension, neurosis, worry?
[“No… colder..”]
Teaching… school?
[“Getting warmer, warmer…”]
… What’s the word????… The word… is…-
Formulation. Formulations!
[“Bingo!”]”
Formularising.
[“And? What else??”]
Idle theoretical work! ... Man-made, cleverly constructed stuff... all that thinking about the natural creative will that strives for a foothold in art, to gain the status of ‘practical application’ but cannot ever be the thing itself, which in fact strangles it instead. Impressive, attractive, so clever-clever and in the end utterly pointless!...
Raeonis nods slowly, sagely, forlornly. [“Yes. Yes... Yes”]
Ouch. I get it. How much time and energy I waste! Wrapping ideas round and round and round themselves.
Raeonis makes a gestures of admonishment. Cease! it says
[“Calm down, Mark! Stop beating yourself up. You’re being too hard on yourself,- as usual!”]
Raeonis is always so compassionate and forgiving but here he is comparing my thinking self- that educated, egoic self- with my natural creative gut-feeling ,God-given instinct. And I'm pretty sure I know which side he's on! It's the old ‘Science’ versus 'Nature' thing. I feel guilty, even though he tells me I really shouldn’t.
Of course I know guilt’s a waste of time of everyone’s time and it's going to tie me up in even more knots. He lifts the elastic-band ball, and I can see that it has become even heavier now. Well, that'll be my guilt, I realise.
Raeonis decides to be playful again. He holds up the ball, and announces in a piss-taking, declamatory tone,
[“Introducing The Professor!”.]
Professor?
He holds up the Orange. [“…And The Possessor.”]
Possessor… ?
What’s that? Professor...? Possessor…?
"You mean like the Talk versus Walk?"
[“Precisely.”]
Why must he communicate in this irritating code? Why can’t he just tell me this stuff, instead of making me work so hard for meaning?
A pause. I’m suddenly tired, tetchy.
I follow his eye-line to gaze at the Orange more carefully, trying to be interested by it. I’m failing. I feel just like a schoolboy in a Maths class; frustrated that I’m being slow, not really getting it. I’m feeling chastened, impatient. What now?
[“Bear with me a little while longer, and then rest.”]
He kicks away the elastic-band ball, which has now grown into a medicine ball. It scoots away at high-speed snapping off vicious elastic bands as it goes whooshing away, out of sight into the mist of turquoise.
I'm relieved it’s gone.
[“Not much longer now, Mark. Focus on the orange. Shine your light, go inside. You know how. Let the convoluted questionings go. Just flow into it right now; let it happen. Trust you’ll remember whatever you’ll need to remember. Relax your head…”]
He has confidence in me. I start to regain confidence in me! I trust him, and so relax into a sort of warm, liquid weariness, looking into the Orange, awaiting my inner light to absorb, breathe in and assimilate... Sensing it like a true synaesthete. I know how to do this, I know how to do this, but Lord I’m so tired. Still I surrender (or I’m being surrendered!) to this experience.
And then....
It’s as if a deep sensation of density that I’d never been conscious until now has melted away. I feel very light. At the same time the orange is flopping open into 6 equal segments (Like a Terry’s Choclate orange, or those pieces you get in Trivial Pursuits I realise afterwards!) in Raeonis' hand. I spasm into a chuckle. The pieces are shining, all the various colours of the rainbow. Uh? My six senses? Yes. The six stages of focusing? Inner knowledge? Yes. The rule of six? (What on earth’s that?!?)…. It's- it's Creation.
["Yea!"]
God created the world in 6 days?!
[“Yes. All of that! But just stop all your questions right now. Just watch! You're gonna love this...]
The pieces are rising up out of his open hand and they’re gliding towards me one by one. They’re merging with me just like the words and the cartoon -orange did before. Each piece taking its place according to its colour where my first six chakras are, lighting them up. Raeonis smiles again turning to leave, and as he does my final crown chakra just bursts into a sun by itself, bathing my whole body and as far as i can see in a violet aura, beyond me and way out into the blue. Oh wow.
I am reclaimed. Reclaimed by a full, extraordinary energy and power. It feels so... so intensely joyful, so invigorating.
[“Enjoy,”] says Raeonis
[“And don’t forget… Write it down!”].
He’s gone.
……………………….
It's several days later and I reckon now, although much of this could indeed be a gift from the divine- and one which still fills my heart with an intense gratitude to my Source- that bits of it might also be the products of my overactive imagination! A blend of the two perhaps, who knows? Well, whatever or wherever it all came from it really astonished me with its eidetic clarity, its amazingly vivid colours, how moved I was by it all. If it was just some kind of manic episode during a meditation, it was all so incredibly positive, so salutary, and really, really helpful too. I don't feel like questioning it.
I mustn't be tempted to analyse it to death. I think this ‘vision’, if that’s what it was, was actually warning of the dangers of cerebral analysis, and instead telling me just to trust my own ‘creative genius’. I believe I was being told to take that 'instinct' back into my teaching when I return to school next week, and also into my directing of Tally's Blood.
In the end I'm convinced that must be why ‘Raeonis’ communicated with me in imagery and symbols instead of words. It was because what he needed me to grasp was in the end much too ineffable and subtle for words alone. And he needed to bypass my 'Elastic-Band' brain! I do know he had some very challenging and profound messages for me, ones that I really don’t want to blench or strangle with rational thinking.
So, you know what…? I’m just gonna simply allow it all just to seep into soul at its own pace, granting the profound significance of it the permission it needs to work at a deep unconscious level.
This much I do know-
It’s good.
:-)
End
Monday, 4 August 2008
Orange
The strange significance of this image will become a little clearer to the reader (and to me, I trust!) over the next few days. I must first give my mind a chance to catch up with, and deliberate on my inner experience and hopefully prepare to articulate something of what happened during my Experiment with Light focusing meditations last evening. This odd image contains a message for me, a challenge to take action. Whilst wishing to avoid coming across as though I have completely lost the plot, it's feels much more vital that I honour and describe this vision and its deeper meaning with as much integrity as I can: faithfully, coherently and completely. Right now I feel terribly timid about doing this, but know I must. If I do not I am very likely to just slip right back into my customary torpor. And if I do set myself the challenge of writing it down here at least it can then possibly serve as a salutory reminder of how I might begin to fulfil my soul's purpose. Suffice to say, for the time being at least, that this image of an orange bathed in light came to me in response to my asking the question: "What next, Lord?". His answer resonated so deeply I was moved to tears!And yet I must be patient for now, as I seek discernement just to check that what happened was real- not just my crazed imagination. It may take me a few days, perhaps even a few weeks to assimilate the full signifcance of what's occurred, to test it's validity before I get round to describing it here. However, just for now I include this picture as reminder to myself that something does appear to have shifted deep within my heart- and I seem to have been afforded an extraordinary and unexpected glimpse of what I am being called to do with my life from now on.
More to follow.
Sunday, 20 July 2008
A Description of my Current Process
This is part of a long letter I sent to Aileen Crow today. Aileen is an Authentic Movement (AM)practitioner I discovered via the internet whose work as a dance teacher along with Barbara Chutroo (see http://www.focusing.org/bodywork.html) seems to have a great deal common with the organic synthesis of Eugene Gendlin and adapted Michael Chekhov PG techniques I employ in my own work as an actor/acting teacher. AM is an expressive improvisational movement practice that allows a group of participants a type of free association of the body. It was started by Mary Starks Whitehouse in the 1950s as "movement in depth". Here, I begin by describing my own approaches to the process of acting and teaching, and then go on to write about how part of my process seeems to have much in common wih AM.
I am new to the idea of AM, but I think I may have been using it without being aware of it for a number of years in my synthesis of Michael Chekhov's Psychological Gesture exercises and Eugene Gendlin's Focusing in my rehearsal process. I tend make use of Focusing, albeit in a more truncated and less formal way than Eugene Gendlin prescribes in his book both in my theatre and sometimes my teaching work as well as in my spiritual devotions (I am a recently 'convinced' Quaker). I have in the last few months discovered a shorthand version that more closely resembles the Quaker bio-spirituality adaptation of George Fox's centring process as described by Rex Ambler in his beautiful Light to Live By, which I often use as part of my own meditative practice, but also in my creative life as an actor. I will make use of the focusing model far less often when it comes to directing or teaching High School drama classes. I find them a difficult age group to introduce the concept of focusing to, and as adolescents they're rarely comfortable about going too far inward! I have however made good use of focusing when doing individual audition coaching with very able older students (16+), and with adult actors. I have however done Chekhov workshops with adults that I've adapted through adding in focusing techniques by way of relaxing the students into becoming more trusting and patient with what their bodies may be telling them. This has opened up a whole new way of approaching acting and characterisation for Scottish actors who have at best a cursory knowledge of Chekhov, and no knowledge at all of Gendlin!
When I use focusing in my own acting process and when doing personal audition coaching I will employ an amalgam of focusing and Psychological Gesture, Sense of the Whole, Objectives, Centres and Archetype exercises, many of which are similar to those outlined in Franc Chamberlain's excellent book Michael Chekhov (Routledge Performance Practitioners). Chamberlain, whom I was lucky enough to meet, albeit briefly, 2 or 3 years ago at a Chekhov conference at Dartington Hall, combines his practical teaching of Chekhov's work in Dublin with focusing too and I detected much evidence of this in many of the excellent exercises he describes at the back of his book. I have tried to establish email contact with him but he's never replied, a real disappointment...!
Of course both focusing and Chekhov's exercises are psycho-physical processes and have much in common with AM as i understand it. All three connect the inner life to a communication with the body, which is really the essence of acting it seems to me. All three techniques seek to determine pathways by which the heart and soul can be fully em-bodied and in-corporated, the inner made outer, the invisible made visible. And focusing, of course, works just as well in the creative/artistic process as it does in the therapeutic/counselling context. Equally, Michael Chekhov's On the Technique of Acting was my first introduction to the Rudolf Steiner spiritual concept of Inner Self, or the Higher Ego. The two methods have a real synergy and complementarity, and work almost symbiotically in my own experience. I have a feeling AM might do this too.
I am new to the idea of AM, but I think I may have been using it without being aware of it for a number of years in my synthesis of Michael Chekhov's Psychological Gesture exercises and Eugene Gendlin's Focusing in my rehearsal process. I tend make use of Focusing, albeit in a more truncated and less formal way than Eugene Gendlin prescribes in his book both in my theatre and sometimes my teaching work as well as in my spiritual devotions (I am a recently 'convinced' Quaker). I have in the last few months discovered a shorthand version that more closely resembles the Quaker bio-spirituality adaptation of George Fox's centring process as described by Rex Ambler in his beautiful Light to Live By, which I often use as part of my own meditative practice, but also in my creative life as an actor. I will make use of the focusing model far less often when it comes to directing or teaching High School drama classes. I find them a difficult age group to introduce the concept of focusing to, and as adolescents they're rarely comfortable about going too far inward! I have however made good use of focusing when doing individual audition coaching with very able older students (16+), and with adult actors. I have however done Chekhov workshops with adults that I've adapted through adding in focusing techniques by way of relaxing the students into becoming more trusting and patient with what their bodies may be telling them. This has opened up a whole new way of approaching acting and characterisation for Scottish actors who have at best a cursory knowledge of Chekhov, and no knowledge at all of Gendlin!
When I use focusing in my own acting process and when doing personal audition coaching I will employ an amalgam of focusing and Psychological Gesture, Sense of the Whole, Objectives, Centres and Archetype exercises, many of which are similar to those outlined in Franc Chamberlain's excellent book Michael Chekhov (Routledge Performance Practitioners). Chamberlain, whom I was lucky enough to meet, albeit briefly, 2 or 3 years ago at a Chekhov conference at Dartington Hall, combines his practical teaching of Chekhov's work in Dublin with focusing too and I detected much evidence of this in many of the excellent exercises he describes at the back of his book. I have tried to establish email contact with him but he's never replied, a real disappointment...!
Of course both focusing and Chekhov's exercises are psycho-physical processes and have much in common with AM as i understand it. All three connect the inner life to a communication with the body, which is really the essence of acting it seems to me. All three techniques seek to determine pathways by which the heart and soul can be fully em-bodied and in-corporated, the inner made outer, the invisible made visible. And focusing, of course, works just as well in the creative/artistic process as it does in the therapeutic/counselling context. Equally, Michael Chekhov's On the Technique of Acting was my first introduction to the Rudolf Steiner spiritual concept of Inner Self, or the Higher Ego. The two methods have a real synergy and complementarity, and work almost symbiotically in my own experience. I have a feeling AM might do this too.
My own version of AM emerges somewhere in that misty hinterland between the last stages of Focusing and the beginnings of the PG. For me this authentic movement bit represents a sort of border crossing, a place where the sense images and words of the Focusing part of the journey are transmuted and translated into the physical semiotics of physical gestures, before they then finally mature into a series of workable PGs. This hinterland is also a crossing point between the inner and the outer, a dynamic space where my own feelings as an actor, as an the artist and my inklings about the nascent character- begin to blend and then merge. in a kind of dance. It's the really fun part, in fact!
The ways and degrees to which focusing and Chekhov are combined in my own acting process tend to vary from role to role, from day to day to be honest. I'll use whatever works. Sometimes I will begin work by focusing on a phrase in the text, or perhaps an emotion that comes from it which feels 'fuzzy' to me somehow, or difficult to grasp, and as I deepen focus on this I'll begin to allow a psychological gesture to emerge from it that helps me to discover and refine my inner understanding, my deeper knowing, of the words. A connection, and then a compassion emerges from the physical sensation/image accompanying it which is frequently a very fertile stimulus for merging with the character's psyche. At other times i may work from an archetype which the character ostensibly resembles. For example, during my initial preparation to play Prospero in The Tempest earlier this year, I focused over a number of sessions using the stimulus of the Magician Tarot card, in combination with lines/phrases that moved me in the text), and those armchair focusing sessions then became expressed in my living room through what i now realise was a form of AM, and then developed into a series of psychological gestures (PGs) that became a basic scaffolding for Prospero's inner journey from revenge to forgiveness in performance.
I am aware that during the formative stages of the PG it is not helpful for me concentrate on forming a movement that is necessarily beautiful, or artistically satisfying even,- however it does have to be meaningful, authentic for me. Once I do sense it is properly authentic, and heartfelt, I will then seek ways to pare it down, economise on any extraneous and unnecessary business that takes away from the purity and beauty of expression, "a mini-work of art" to borrow Chekhov's phrase. Not that the public ever sees it. In fact I will very, very rarely use PGs in performance unless it is a highly expressionist piece or it is the starting point for long-form improvisation piece. Otherwise I have never been tempted to use anything that might resemble AM or PG in actual performance. Instead I will use a memory of the PG (what Michael Chekhov termed the "Inner Gesture" ) which will help me to sustain connection with the role when ever i am danger of slipping away from full immersion in my character. But the PG is private usually.
Sometimes my imagination will draw me to nature or even architecture or furniture design as the inspiration for characterisation ideas and movement. For instance, I was lucky enough to play the title role in King Lear in a production for the Ramshorn Theatre in Glasgow eighteen months ago. For the very first scene I hit upon the idea, during focusing in fact, of Lear as an oak tree. I knew immediately this was right as i could feel it all over, and not just in a localised area of the body. My real work began from there in terms of physicalising the character, and eventually finding a voice for him. This all came from the PG for an oak tree in all sorts of weathers and seasons. Just like the old drama school cliché of "Being a tree", in fact! And all this was arrived at through a intricate blend of using focusing and PG, combined i suppose with what i now understand to be something resembling Authentic Movement, and in this particular case it work tremendously well for me. I personally find it tends to work best with 'poetic' or verse texts. When I directed Howard Barker A Hard Heart a couple of years ago, for instance, the introduction of PG to the rehearsal process unearthed a beautiful range of choices for the actors inhabiting very complex roles, using highly difficult language. And although I did not however use any focusing during this production two of the actors who became friends have subsequently become very interested in using focusing as a tool for growth.
In addition, I am happy to say that my own Focusing has done much to help ameliorate my short temperedness and impatience in the rehearsal room too. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)