.
My Ego tends to drown out my still small voice even in prayer and meditation. My own egoic avoidance/distraction strategies typically include
Panic-mongering, and/or Flattery
-when it comes to major life-choices.
The question of whether I give up teaching and go back to acting, or just stay put is still troubling me. My ego keeps butting in; either warning me I will suffer financially/spiritually if I make the 'wrong decision', or it tries to convince me what I am doing is really great, how much I deserve recognition, approval, money, success, blah, blah. Discernment and inner alignment becomes impossible as my Ego just can’t seem to keep its trap shut. I can't get clear reception because of the static interference.
Freedom or service…? Creativity or security…? Love of art, or mature, responsible living…? Accountable to my talent? To God? To my heart… ? Common sense???
Aaaahhhgghhh!!!
It feels far TOO important right now I choose wisely :-( I guess what I really mean is I desperately need objectivity and detachment (if that's not a total paradox!) from my fear and my vanity, and be capable of resting quite content with whatever my heart/soul finally decides.
.
Saturday, 27 September 2008
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Saturday, 20 September 2008
Tally's Blood 2
'
Last night’s read-through was a real pleasure, and what a relief it was to discover my instincts with the casting are vindicated. I’ve assembled a lovely collection of people with a wealth of talent. It’ll be lots of fun working with them. Having said this, I’m afraid I ended up having to read in for one character. This was because I had been forced to sack the actor playing Luigi (CZ) before rehearsals had even begun. He’d decided to relocate to Oxfordshire without telling me after I’d cast him back in July! He informed me he had enlisted on a TEFL course down there, starting at the beginning October, and wouldn’t be able to make rehearsals for four weeks. He asked me if the theatre would refund his travel expenses to commute from England, as well as find digs for him! When I told him this wasn’t possible he begged to sleep on my sofa. I couldn't help but feel sorry for him as he’s obviously experiencing mental health issues, having only just discharged himself from a psychiatric unit, and is currently homeless. Despite being perfect casting for the role of Luigi, and by all accounts an amazing actor, in the end I was forced into the difficult decision of letting him go. I tried to do it gently but he wouldn’t take the hint. When the penny did finally drop he became angry with me; but, as I told him, I have to think of the team.
CZ “You’re under-estimating me, David… I can do this.”
Me “My name’s Mark.”
CZ “-Huh?”
Me “Mark... My name’s Mark.”
CZ “Sorry, yeah, of course. Mark. No, as I was saying, you’re under-estimating me… I can do this... Please, you’re not listening to me… There’s no problem. No problem at all... All I’m telling you is I need this… I need this chance to prove I can make it as an actor, that's all David.”
…And so he continued, calling me David, and pleading with mounting desperation at the end of the line, as I got later and later for work.
In the end I just have to remind myself I’m not his carer, I'm only a director. Is that harsh??? India, my wonderful assistant, confessed she’d become increasingly uncomfortable speaking to him. She’d spent so much time and effort trying to get him to commit to rehearsals and still he kept refusing to be pinned down. The only rehearsal he would promise to attend was the read-through itself. But when he told me yesterday morning that he wasn’t going to come to that either, well I guess my patience-, which was by now hanging by a thread anyway- finally snapped.
For some strange reason he’d keep speaking in Italian to India over the phone (which really unsettled her, as she’d already told him she couldn’t understand the language) in their hour-long conversations! All she'd wanted to know was when he was coming up! I can’t help but feel guilty that India’s detailed rehearsal schedule, on which she’d worked so hard, is already totally obsolete. But at least now he’s gone she can relax..
What it is that attracts me to casting a token loony in every show I direct? The last three shows I’ve directed have almost come unwound because I’ve cast a wild-card nutter. (I’m thinking of D.W. in Anna Karenina, Remi R. in A Hard Heart and now CZ in Tally’s Blood).
Hearing the script read aloud confirmed to me that Tally’s Blood is not great drama. It is simple entertainment. It has heaps of emotional warmth and sentimentality, but it isn’t by any stretch of the imagination profound art. The action and dialogue requires a light, unobtrusive touch from me. The pace and rhythm of rehearsals need to be kept rapid to maintain buoyancy and the actors’ energy levels. Nothing need ever be laboured, or too heavily weighted with interpretation, as that would only strip bare the weakness in the writing. Massimo’s monologues are clunky and incongruously abstract. There are too many superfluous stage directions- often the sign of an inexperienced playwright; the characters are corny and the relationships are clichéd... I love it though- I can’t help myself.
The issue with CZ disconcerted me at a personal level, not just for his sake but because it forced me to think again about my decision to forsake the financial security of salaried employment next summer. I don't want to end up like him. I fear ending up poverty-stricken, needy and desperate. I know that I won’t be able to sign on for the first 13 weeks, and my savings are only going to keep us going for 3 months at the most. My more courageous friends who strive to make a living from their art alone are constantly struggling to make ends meet, and live in constant debt even when they've managed to make a name for themselves. With the recession beginning to hit home, matters are likely only to get worse. My resolve is being severely tested, and I can’t help but fret I may be in danger making a foolish decision. I want so much to be able to trust my Inner Satnav, but common sense tells me it is going to be a rocky road ahead. The sensible part of me is tempting me to play safe:
“ What’s so wrong with continuing to do both- acting and teaching- just as you’ve done for the past 15 years?” it whispers.
Get thee behind me!
Still, I haven’t handed in my notice yet, and my boss is off sick for the time being, so this has bought me a little more time to consider things. I must achieve some clarity about this before I proceed. I have to ask if it’s really just that my timing is wrong. Should I just be patient and wait another couple of years…?
I'm annoyed at my weakness. Prayer and meditation are not of real help to me right now for some reason. I can't seem to hear Him properly. WHY?
"Eli, Eli lama sabachthani...?"
I'll write about what I decide next weekend.
.
Last night’s read-through was a real pleasure, and what a relief it was to discover my instincts with the casting are vindicated. I’ve assembled a lovely collection of people with a wealth of talent. It’ll be lots of fun working with them. Having said this, I’m afraid I ended up having to read in for one character. This was because I had been forced to sack the actor playing Luigi (CZ) before rehearsals had even begun. He’d decided to relocate to Oxfordshire without telling me after I’d cast him back in July! He informed me he had enlisted on a TEFL course down there, starting at the beginning October, and wouldn’t be able to make rehearsals for four weeks. He asked me if the theatre would refund his travel expenses to commute from England, as well as find digs for him! When I told him this wasn’t possible he begged to sleep on my sofa. I couldn't help but feel sorry for him as he’s obviously experiencing mental health issues, having only just discharged himself from a psychiatric unit, and is currently homeless. Despite being perfect casting for the role of Luigi, and by all accounts an amazing actor, in the end I was forced into the difficult decision of letting him go. I tried to do it gently but he wouldn’t take the hint. When the penny did finally drop he became angry with me; but, as I told him, I have to think of the team.
CZ “You’re under-estimating me, David… I can do this.”
Me “My name’s Mark.”
CZ “-Huh?”
Me “Mark... My name’s Mark.”
CZ “Sorry, yeah, of course. Mark. No, as I was saying, you’re under-estimating me… I can do this... Please, you’re not listening to me… There’s no problem. No problem at all... All I’m telling you is I need this… I need this chance to prove I can make it as an actor, that's all David.”
…And so he continued, calling me David, and pleading with mounting desperation at the end of the line, as I got later and later for work.
In the end I just have to remind myself I’m not his carer, I'm only a director. Is that harsh??? India, my wonderful assistant, confessed she’d become increasingly uncomfortable speaking to him. She’d spent so much time and effort trying to get him to commit to rehearsals and still he kept refusing to be pinned down. The only rehearsal he would promise to attend was the read-through itself. But when he told me yesterday morning that he wasn’t going to come to that either, well I guess my patience-, which was by now hanging by a thread anyway- finally snapped.
For some strange reason he’d keep speaking in Italian to India over the phone (which really unsettled her, as she’d already told him she couldn’t understand the language) in their hour-long conversations! All she'd wanted to know was when he was coming up! I can’t help but feel guilty that India’s detailed rehearsal schedule, on which she’d worked so hard, is already totally obsolete. But at least now he’s gone she can relax..
What it is that attracts me to casting a token loony in every show I direct? The last three shows I’ve directed have almost come unwound because I’ve cast a wild-card nutter. (I’m thinking of D.W. in Anna Karenina, Remi R. in A Hard Heart and now CZ in Tally’s Blood).
Hearing the script read aloud confirmed to me that Tally’s Blood is not great drama. It is simple entertainment. It has heaps of emotional warmth and sentimentality, but it isn’t by any stretch of the imagination profound art. The action and dialogue requires a light, unobtrusive touch from me. The pace and rhythm of rehearsals need to be kept rapid to maintain buoyancy and the actors’ energy levels. Nothing need ever be laboured, or too heavily weighted with interpretation, as that would only strip bare the weakness in the writing. Massimo’s monologues are clunky and incongruously abstract. There are too many superfluous stage directions- often the sign of an inexperienced playwright; the characters are corny and the relationships are clichéd... I love it though- I can’t help myself.
The issue with CZ disconcerted me at a personal level, not just for his sake but because it forced me to think again about my decision to forsake the financial security of salaried employment next summer. I don't want to end up like him. I fear ending up poverty-stricken, needy and desperate. I know that I won’t be able to sign on for the first 13 weeks, and my savings are only going to keep us going for 3 months at the most. My more courageous friends who strive to make a living from their art alone are constantly struggling to make ends meet, and live in constant debt even when they've managed to make a name for themselves. With the recession beginning to hit home, matters are likely only to get worse. My resolve is being severely tested, and I can’t help but fret I may be in danger making a foolish decision. I want so much to be able to trust my Inner Satnav, but common sense tells me it is going to be a rocky road ahead. The sensible part of me is tempting me to play safe:
“ What’s so wrong with continuing to do both- acting and teaching- just as you’ve done for the past 15 years?” it whispers.
Get thee behind me!
Still, I haven’t handed in my notice yet, and my boss is off sick for the time being, so this has bought me a little more time to consider things. I must achieve some clarity about this before I proceed. I have to ask if it’s really just that my timing is wrong. Should I just be patient and wait another couple of years…?
I'm annoyed at my weakness. Prayer and meditation are not of real help to me right now for some reason. I can't seem to hear Him properly. WHY?
"Eli, Eli lama sabachthani...?"
I'll write about what I decide next weekend.
.
Thursday, 11 September 2008
Listening and Acting
'
Two inspiring and thought-provoking snippets emerge from my recent reading, which I want to note here.
Firstly:
'Former CBS anchor, Dan Rather, had a tough time interviewing Mother Teresa.
“When you pray,” asked Dan, "What do you say to God?"
"I don't say any thing," she replied. "I listen."
Dan tried another attack. "Well, OK... when God speaks to you, then, what does He say?"
"He doesn't say anything... He listens."'
And from Quaker Faith and Practice (21.32)
"Along the paths of the imagination the artist and mystic make contact. The revelations of God are not all of one kind. Always the search in art, as in religion, is for rhythms of relationships, for the unity, the urge, the mystery, the wonder of life that is presented in great art and true religion."
'
Two inspiring and thought-provoking snippets emerge from my recent reading, which I want to note here.
Firstly:
'Former CBS anchor, Dan Rather, had a tough time interviewing Mother Teresa.
“When you pray,” asked Dan, "What do you say to God?"
"I don't say any thing," she replied. "I listen."
Dan tried another attack. "Well, OK... when God speaks to you, then, what does He say?"
"He doesn't say anything... He listens."'
And from Quaker Faith and Practice (21.32)
"Along the paths of the imagination the artist and mystic make contact. The revelations of God are not all of one kind. Always the search in art, as in religion, is for rhythms of relationships, for the unity, the urge, the mystery, the wonder of life that is presented in great art and true religion."
'
Saturday, 6 September 2008
Tally's Blood 1
'
Tally’s Blood is an extremely popular play in Scotland: up there (-or do I mean ‘down there’?) with the likes of The Steamie and Men Should Weep in terms of its profile and reputation. But the critics may well have a point when they claim this status is undeserved. I have to take this into account before I get steeped in the rehearsal process and can no longer be properly objective. Tally’s Blood is not of the same calibre as Romeo and Juliet, it never pretends to be, even though it ostensibly deals with similar subject matter. But it feels important for me to acknowledge its shortcomings before I go into rehearsal. It’s probably unkind of me but I can perfectly understand why some would think the drama is about as multifaceted and complex as an episode of River City or Home and Away, with characters that are just as conventional and 2-dimensional. However the sentimentalist in me can’t help but have a soft spot for it. Call me soppy and simple-minded but it makes me laugh and cry, even if it doesn't make me think. Only the intellectual snob could condemn it utterly. It never pretends to make any serious demands at all on the audience. It deals with notions about romantic and parental love that never go beyond the blindingly obvious and trite. It is not by any stretch of the imagination what might be called a ‘deep’ drama. It’s pure, shameless entertainment. Now, because I am used to directing plays that only four or five people ever really want to see (and those four usually belong to the chin-rubbing cognoscenti), Tally’s Blood is clearly a very different kettle of fish.
Imagine my surprise and delight (-quickly supplanted by crushing dread) when I discovered that 400 tickets have already been sold. Yikes. It is still 10 weeks before we open. I fully cast the play just yesterday, yet the theatre tell me the tickets are going like hot cakes, with almost a half of the 10-night run completely sold out! This has never happened to me in 30 years, either as a director or as an actor.
Even though Tally resembles nothing more than a soap opera (albeit with socio-historical scruples) this doesn’t mean it is going to be a piece of cake to direct. Far from it. I foresee much work to be done in terms of deprogramming the actors who may believe they are required to dig deep. Their journeys will involve un-learning, just getting them to relax, have fun and not give themselves a hard time. Most of them are highly versed in performing far more sophisticated dialogue, and they must be discouraged from over-complicating things by trying to be clever, or worse- agonising over their characterisations, or dwelling on ambiguities where there really are none. Clever-clever, meta-theatrical references and allusions to "the Artistic Process” which I’ve been so enamoured of in my past work would be utterly out of place here. Di Mambro’s play is an uncomplicated piece of populist, ‘rom-com’ nostalgia with a token PC stab at the serious theme of racism. Full stop. Rosinella, Lucia, Hughie etc- all are bog-standard tellyfodder archetypes. It will be enough for it all to be played in primary colours. Simplicity must remain the watchword. It’s not high art by any stretch of the imagination, and any attempt by me to impose a directorial interpretation that seeks to ‘enhance the writing’ in smart ways will merely ensure the show dies a death. Keep it really simple, Mark… and rehearse it fast! Get the laughs and those tear-jerker moments and you won't go too far wrong.
I like the fact that the play is about love. That is important to me. But di Mambro isn’t trying to be poetic or high-minded about any of this. I'd just be happy if I can shame a few hard-bitten cynics into dabbing away moisture from the corners of their eyes.
60% of the director’s job is really to do with my casting it properly. I like to think I have done this, although time will tell. Meanwhile I’m just really looking forward to getting the cast together and starting properly in just over a fortnight’s time.
Imagine my surprise and delight (-quickly supplanted by crushing dread) when I discovered that 400 tickets have already been sold. Yikes. It is still 10 weeks before we open. I fully cast the play just yesterday, yet the theatre tell me the tickets are going like hot cakes, with almost a half of the 10-night run completely sold out! This has never happened to me in 30 years, either as a director or as an actor.
Even though Tally resembles nothing more than a soap opera (albeit with socio-historical scruples) this doesn’t mean it is going to be a piece of cake to direct. Far from it. I foresee much work to be done in terms of deprogramming the actors who may believe they are required to dig deep. Their journeys will involve un-learning, just getting them to relax, have fun and not give themselves a hard time. Most of them are highly versed in performing far more sophisticated dialogue, and they must be discouraged from over-complicating things by trying to be clever, or worse- agonising over their characterisations, or dwelling on ambiguities where there really are none. Clever-clever, meta-theatrical references and allusions to "the Artistic Process” which I’ve been so enamoured of in my past work would be utterly out of place here. Di Mambro’s play is an uncomplicated piece of populist, ‘rom-com’ nostalgia with a token PC stab at the serious theme of racism. Full stop. Rosinella, Lucia, Hughie etc- all are bog-standard tellyfodder archetypes. It will be enough for it all to be played in primary colours. Simplicity must remain the watchword. It’s not high art by any stretch of the imagination, and any attempt by me to impose a directorial interpretation that seeks to ‘enhance the writing’ in smart ways will merely ensure the show dies a death. Keep it really simple, Mark… and rehearse it fast! Get the laughs and those tear-jerker moments and you won't go too far wrong.
I like the fact that the play is about love. That is important to me. But di Mambro isn’t trying to be poetic or high-minded about any of this. I'd just be happy if I can shame a few hard-bitten cynics into dabbing away moisture from the corners of their eyes.
60% of the director’s job is really to do with my casting it properly. I like to think I have done this, although time will tell. Meanwhile I’m just really looking forward to getting the cast together and starting properly in just over a fortnight’s time.
'
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
Tuesday, 19 August 2008
START
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
(Benjamin Franklin)
This is just one of those famous quotes that tends to haunt the reader like some ghostly rottweiler, gnawing away at one’s heels. It just won’t let go of you. Discounting or ignoring it won’t do you a blind bit of good. Of course, that’s because, although brutal, it’s bloody true. It condemns the spinelessness that’s prepared to settle for the specious support of the status quo, or indeed the stupidity of one who plumps for the compromise of a salary cheque for a job one increasingly despises!
I have felt like a songbird in a gilded cage for a long time. The tired old axioms and clichés that say “There’s no way out”, “Life’s shit and then you die”, etc have never troubled me as much as Ben Franklin’s words because they are lies. “Like it or lump it”, “Never, never bite the hand that feeds you”, etc, etc. What’s truly astonishing to me is that it is the rational, common-sense thinkers, the pragmatists, who are content to propagate this philosophy of resignation and self-imposed imaginative impoverishment. And so you find some of the most intelligent, creative people just squandering their entire lives, silently resenting the system without ever really testing the veracity of the ancient creed that keeps them trapped in it. It was ever thus. The Powers-that-be would rather have you believe you have no real choice. You must shut up and surrender your liberty if you want your owner to continue to spoon-feed you through the bars. Take the money and do your share of the work. Just as long as you stay in that safe little cage everything’s gonna be fine.
I’m afraid I’ve accepted this for far too long, and it’s time for me to own up and do something to make old Benjamin- not to mention myself!- proud..
Few of us ever come to realise that the powers conferred upon our employers are entirely illusory. Paper tigers in fact. The only weapon they have when you think about it is their cash. Still they expect dutiful abeyance and respect as they dispense it. The boss had to climb up his/her greasy pole to ‘get where he/she is today’, and even though from the lofty standpoint of expensive ivory towers they may be able to look down on the rest of us, if they have kept a grain of perception they eventually come to the frightening realisation that actually it really wasn’t worth it after all. They have become dead inside. Does God really care about their worldly status? But they can’t be seen to admit that, it would make their life-work utterly meaningless! And so their souls continue to fossilize, and they are damned if they are going to stop now (And of course they will most likely be damned if they don’t!). Anything rather than taking responsibility for their own lives, and taking a chance. They’d much rather you depended on others, just like they do in fact, for money, security and position, relying on others to give you any sense of worth or purpose, always blithely ignoring the still small voice of integrity or moral conviction that whispers the harsh truth. Anything, anything rather do the courageous thing, to stand up and just turn round and say, “Thanks anyway, but no. I choose life,” and walk out on it.
Safety is addictive. It rapidly becomes a greedy monkey for your back. And then it kills you- just like heroin.
I don’t in the end wish to condemn anyone for this addiction. It’s everywhere. For instance, Margaret Morris, our head teacher is doing her job well. She likes me. She gave me a big hug on my first day back! Most of the teachers like her. But her heart isn’t in education really, and she admitted as much to me yesterday. Still she has a nice house and can go to fancy destinations on her holidays. I know how hard it can be to break free of this culture of obedience to a false idea. Especially if you may never have realised it is actually false.
It wasn’t easy, and it’s take me a long time to wake up to this, and then to muster the courage to act on it; but it felt so liberating to walk into Margaret Morris’ office yesterday morning and ‘calmly’ hand in my notice of resignation. I was trembling, with a mixture of fear and excitement, but I knew I was doing the right thing. It was actually thrilling. Just like I was alive again, in fact! She even admitted that she envied my courage, and wished she had the strength of will to do what I had decided to do! A number of other people- Jimmy, Laura, Linda, Suzanne, have reacted in the same way now the news has begun to leak out. I will be missed theyall say, but they are glad I am following my heart. I know they are thinking “I wish I could do that!”
I have resolved to make my mind and my heart fully and wholly congruent as best as I can from this time on I intend to be faithful to the idea of living adventurously, according to my soul’s convictions. This requires guts, integrity and determination. It would have been wrong to wait until I felt desperate, unbearably miserable or angry before I jumped ship, or in fact to do this for any other reason than it is simply the right thing for me to do. To be honest I am no longer confident I am serving others to the best of my capabilities. I have more to offer than being babysitter to boys and girls who don’t want to learn. I am very good at my job, but I could be providing far better service if I were working in a different environment, with those who weren’t constantly needing me to justify why they are doing what they’re doing, but were taking responsibility for their own development. I can no longer permit myself to be enslaved by any one or any thing any more. I hate the idea that I’m cramming these poor kids into mental cages too. And so this means I must cut loose, take responsibility for my own future. I’m an artist, not an educator. There is a huge difference.
I have not made this decision rashly but after much thought and inner searching. I may very well become poor as a result of this decision, and that’s OK-at least I will be me! I’ve never been what might be called a natural rebel, that’s not why I did this. To be honest I haven’t dropped out so that I just fall into another role that’s not really me again. I am doing this because I can be of better service to humanity doing something else, something closer to my heart, something I love. It won’t necessarily be easier- actually the very opposite! It’s bound to be much, much harder), but God and I agree on this.
God makes no guarantees of success, none whatsoever. No, I’m flying blind. All He does guarantee is that He will continue to love me. It’s become paramount to me that I demonstrate how much I love him, and I will do that by trusting His guidance. From this Christmas onward, when I leave the teaching profession for good, after nearly 15years of service, I will be obeying my heart. I want to write; I want to act and direct. I’ve become slow, lazy, old and fat, and it is time I gave myself permission to operate at 100% of my true potential before the curtains are drawn. There can be no turning back now.
I’m 48 years old on Saturday (eek!) and I do not want to look back on a wasted life of disappointment and shirked opportunity. I would hate to be old and in a chair regretting not having given my life’s passion a real try.
“Life”, as Bob Marley says, “is worth much more than gold”.
We’re jammin', Bob.
I have felt like a songbird in a gilded cage for a long time. The tired old axioms and clichés that say “There’s no way out”, “Life’s shit and then you die”, etc have never troubled me as much as Ben Franklin’s words because they are lies. “Like it or lump it”, “Never, never bite the hand that feeds you”, etc, etc. What’s truly astonishing to me is that it is the rational, common-sense thinkers, the pragmatists, who are content to propagate this philosophy of resignation and self-imposed imaginative impoverishment. And so you find some of the most intelligent, creative people just squandering their entire lives, silently resenting the system without ever really testing the veracity of the ancient creed that keeps them trapped in it. It was ever thus. The Powers-that-be would rather have you believe you have no real choice. You must shut up and surrender your liberty if you want your owner to continue to spoon-feed you through the bars. Take the money and do your share of the work. Just as long as you stay in that safe little cage everything’s gonna be fine.
I’m afraid I’ve accepted this for far too long, and it’s time for me to own up and do something to make old Benjamin- not to mention myself!- proud..
Few of us ever come to realise that the powers conferred upon our employers are entirely illusory. Paper tigers in fact. The only weapon they have when you think about it is their cash. Still they expect dutiful abeyance and respect as they dispense it. The boss had to climb up his/her greasy pole to ‘get where he/she is today’, and even though from the lofty standpoint of expensive ivory towers they may be able to look down on the rest of us, if they have kept a grain of perception they eventually come to the frightening realisation that actually it really wasn’t worth it after all. They have become dead inside. Does God really care about their worldly status? But they can’t be seen to admit that, it would make their life-work utterly meaningless! And so their souls continue to fossilize, and they are damned if they are going to stop now (And of course they will most likely be damned if they don’t!). Anything rather than taking responsibility for their own lives, and taking a chance. They’d much rather you depended on others, just like they do in fact, for money, security and position, relying on others to give you any sense of worth or purpose, always blithely ignoring the still small voice of integrity or moral conviction that whispers the harsh truth. Anything, anything rather do the courageous thing, to stand up and just turn round and say, “Thanks anyway, but no. I choose life,” and walk out on it.
Safety is addictive. It rapidly becomes a greedy monkey for your back. And then it kills you- just like heroin.
I don’t in the end wish to condemn anyone for this addiction. It’s everywhere. For instance, Margaret Morris, our head teacher is doing her job well. She likes me. She gave me a big hug on my first day back! Most of the teachers like her. But her heart isn’t in education really, and she admitted as much to me yesterday. Still she has a nice house and can go to fancy destinations on her holidays. I know how hard it can be to break free of this culture of obedience to a false idea. Especially if you may never have realised it is actually false.
It wasn’t easy, and it’s take me a long time to wake up to this, and then to muster the courage to act on it; but it felt so liberating to walk into Margaret Morris’ office yesterday morning and ‘calmly’ hand in my notice of resignation. I was trembling, with a mixture of fear and excitement, but I knew I was doing the right thing. It was actually thrilling. Just like I was alive again, in fact! She even admitted that she envied my courage, and wished she had the strength of will to do what I had decided to do! A number of other people- Jimmy, Laura, Linda, Suzanne, have reacted in the same way now the news has begun to leak out. I will be missed theyall say, but they are glad I am following my heart. I know they are thinking “I wish I could do that!”
I have resolved to make my mind and my heart fully and wholly congruent as best as I can from this time on I intend to be faithful to the idea of living adventurously, according to my soul’s convictions. This requires guts, integrity and determination. It would have been wrong to wait until I felt desperate, unbearably miserable or angry before I jumped ship, or in fact to do this for any other reason than it is simply the right thing for me to do. To be honest I am no longer confident I am serving others to the best of my capabilities. I have more to offer than being babysitter to boys and girls who don’t want to learn. I am very good at my job, but I could be providing far better service if I were working in a different environment, with those who weren’t constantly needing me to justify why they are doing what they’re doing, but were taking responsibility for their own development. I can no longer permit myself to be enslaved by any one or any thing any more. I hate the idea that I’m cramming these poor kids into mental cages too. And so this means I must cut loose, take responsibility for my own future. I’m an artist, not an educator. There is a huge difference.
I have not made this decision rashly but after much thought and inner searching. I may very well become poor as a result of this decision, and that’s OK-at least I will be me! I’ve never been what might be called a natural rebel, that’s not why I did this. To be honest I haven’t dropped out so that I just fall into another role that’s not really me again. I am doing this because I can be of better service to humanity doing something else, something closer to my heart, something I love. It won’t necessarily be easier- actually the very opposite! It’s bound to be much, much harder), but God and I agree on this.
God makes no guarantees of success, none whatsoever. No, I’m flying blind. All He does guarantee is that He will continue to love me. It’s become paramount to me that I demonstrate how much I love him, and I will do that by trusting His guidance. From this Christmas onward, when I leave the teaching profession for good, after nearly 15years of service, I will be obeying my heart. I want to write; I want to act and direct. I’ve become slow, lazy, old and fat, and it is time I gave myself permission to operate at 100% of my true potential before the curtains are drawn. There can be no turning back now.
I’m 48 years old on Saturday (eek!) and I do not want to look back on a wasted life of disappointment and shirked opportunity. I would hate to be old and in a chair regretting not having given my life’s passion a real try.
“Life”, as Bob Marley says, “is worth much more than gold”.
We’re jammin', Bob.
... Shew wa doo wah!
:-)
:-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)