One of my students from my freelance class lent me "Al Pacino in Conversation with Lawrence Grobel". I'm sure there are mixed feelings about Pacino's work - there's mixed feelings about any prominent artist; I happen to be a fan myself. I saw him onstage twice in Boston, first in the '73 Richard III - which was also my first encounter with live Shakespeare - at a church and then later (I think it was later, my inner timeline gets a little fuzzy) in Arturo Ui at the Charles.
Any fan would enjoy this book, but taking it even deeper, this book is a wonderful look inside the mind of a serious, working actor. I don't agree with everything he says -- I will never like the Strasberg Method (as I've said, I lean more toward Meisner and actual Stanislavski) but I accept that many people swear by it. I also agree that Strasberg himself was an excellent actor. However, I will point out that many people we consider Method actors had other strong influences -- Brando had Stella Adler, Pacino himself studied at HB and was mentored by Charlie Laughton (not Charles Laughton, different person altogether).
This is consistent with my belief that it takes many teachers to create a master.
What is so wonderful about this book is the peek inside Pacino's mind - hints of his process and his values. There are insights about his characters and what he looks for when he's constructing them, what he aims to pull out of himself. It's a good book for any serious acting student. He is clear about his choices, good and bad. You may not agree with everything he does or chooses, but it will lead you to think about your own process, it will lead you to choose.
Also, I love that he freely quotes Shakespeare in normal conversation, he's not afraid to let his brains or his passions show. By the end of the book, I felt as if I'd been in a master class for actors.
This is a book that requires more than one reading - like Pacino himself, it reveals itself progressively.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
Timon's Other Hero
Between volunteering as Actor's Shakespeare Project and ushering, I've seen the show about four times. For any theatre student -- and I consider myself an eternal student -- this has been a great education. The show has evolved and deepened -- my last time there was Saturday. There is a level of trust and cohesion among the actors that has expanded tremendously.
I want to talk about a supporting character today, Alcebaides, the soldier. He evolves and grows as Timon declines. Timon abandons Athens -- Alcebaides conquers it. Timon, in his rage, calls for destruction and Alcebaides in his triumph brings justice.
It's gotten to the point with this play that it has me in its teeth and keeps chewing at me. It annoys the hell out of me but it won't let me go. Each viewing gives me new realizations. I don't agree with everything I see but since it all makes me think, I'd say the director and actors have done their job well.
Timon is a play that clearly highlights the lead actor and it's probably one of the most text-heavy plays Shakespeare ever wrote. The danger of a tour-de-force play is that the central character is frequently the only one fleshed out --look at Rostand's Cyrano de Bergerac for example. Cyrano is the only multi-dimensional character in the play - the other parts are more or less cardboard cutouts, woefully underwritten. Don't get me started on Roxane who only function is to be the unattainable romantic object! Even in the original French, it's a bitch of a part. I've seen about ten versions and only one actress - Anne Brochet, in the film - really brought the character to three dimensional life as an intelligent, willful and passionate woman. She, however, had the advantage of several non-verbal scenes. Sinead Cusack did very well - I saw her on stage in NYC in the 80s and she was the first Roxane who seemed to have a brain. So did Jennifer Garner in her Broadway debut but it's a badly written, disjointed part. For an educated, articulate woman, most of the time she - Roxane, not Garner - speaks in sentence fragments. As I said, don't get me started!
Timon on the other hand, fleshes out its other roles, which gives strong support to the lead. Flavius the steward, Apemantus the misanthope and Alcebiades the conqueror are all given depth and passion. This in turn brings out more nuance in Timon. It all works.
Timon is represented as a military leader and we first see Alcebaides as his servant/subordinate. From the beginning there is a deep affection bewteen them and a strong respect. They spar like puppies until Alcebaides gets in an unexpected jab that both winds and delights Timon, who is clearly mentoring him. They are at once mirrors for each other - both are betrayed by the corrupt government, both are enraged. They are also counterpoints - Alcebiades grows and advances as Timon progressively unravels. Alcebaides is activated while Timon self-destructs.
Alcebaides is played by Daniel Berger-Jones who is one of those actors that could, if he wanted to, simply coast by on his looks. However, as an artist, he has too much integrity. There is a depth to his work and a grasp of the character's inner life that he brings to this character. He has a tremendous attentiveness to the other characters - there is an alertness, a watchfulness toward them, especially in the scene where he is speaking on behalf of a condemned friend. His responses are mercurial, each giving way to the other, from earnest pleading to incredulity to rage. The court scene is both a personal disagreement bewteen the characters but also archetypal as a confrontation between idealistic youth and rigid, conservative rage At the end of the scene, as he cradles the body of his executed friend with unexpected gentleness, the first line of his monologue - "I'm worse than mad!" - escapes from him with a dangerous growl.
His biggest challenge is holding his own in his final meeting with Timon. I would say this is one of the hardest scenes, because it is very easy to lose the stage to Timon. But he an d Allyn Burrows play off each other with power, Berger-Jones holds his own. But the mock-sparring has turned to real conflict and we can see the injury that Timon's rejection causes him is more painful than the recent wound in his side. He plays the scene, he told me, as a final loss of an important father-figure, recognizing and grieving this loss but also grateful for what he has received.
In many ways, Timon of Athens is a play of extremes - from the lead character's extreme wealth to his fall to extreme poverty. From his overwhelming need to give to his ultimate need to reject. It is his symbolic son, Alcebaides that brings the healing. He does conquer Athens but instead of destroying it as Timon urged, he punishes only specific enemies. He is the new order, rational and balanced. In most mythologies the son comes into his own when the father dies. Loss of the father, either actual or symbolic loss, is part of a man's growth, of coming into his own destiny.
I want to talk about a supporting character today, Alcebaides, the soldier. He evolves and grows as Timon declines. Timon abandons Athens -- Alcebaides conquers it. Timon, in his rage, calls for destruction and Alcebaides in his triumph brings justice.
It's gotten to the point with this play that it has me in its teeth and keeps chewing at me. It annoys the hell out of me but it won't let me go. Each viewing gives me new realizations. I don't agree with everything I see but since it all makes me think, I'd say the director and actors have done their job well.
Timon is a play that clearly highlights the lead actor and it's probably one of the most text-heavy plays Shakespeare ever wrote. The danger of a tour-de-force play is that the central character is frequently the only one fleshed out --look at Rostand's Cyrano de Bergerac for example. Cyrano is the only multi-dimensional character in the play - the other parts are more or less cardboard cutouts, woefully underwritten. Don't get me started on Roxane who only function is to be the unattainable romantic object! Even in the original French, it's a bitch of a part. I've seen about ten versions and only one actress - Anne Brochet, in the film - really brought the character to three dimensional life as an intelligent, willful and passionate woman. She, however, had the advantage of several non-verbal scenes. Sinead Cusack did very well - I saw her on stage in NYC in the 80s and she was the first Roxane who seemed to have a brain. So did Jennifer Garner in her Broadway debut but it's a badly written, disjointed part. For an educated, articulate woman, most of the time she - Roxane, not Garner - speaks in sentence fragments. As I said, don't get me started!
Timon on the other hand, fleshes out its other roles, which gives strong support to the lead. Flavius the steward, Apemantus the misanthope and Alcebiades the conqueror are all given depth and passion. This in turn brings out more nuance in Timon. It all works.
Timon is represented as a military leader and we first see Alcebaides as his servant/subordinate. From the beginning there is a deep affection bewteen them and a strong respect. They spar like puppies until Alcebaides gets in an unexpected jab that both winds and delights Timon, who is clearly mentoring him. They are at once mirrors for each other - both are betrayed by the corrupt government, both are enraged. They are also counterpoints - Alcebiades grows and advances as Timon progressively unravels. Alcebaides is activated while Timon self-destructs.
Alcebaides is played by Daniel Berger-Jones who is one of those actors that could, if he wanted to, simply coast by on his looks. However, as an artist, he has too much integrity. There is a depth to his work and a grasp of the character's inner life that he brings to this character. He has a tremendous attentiveness to the other characters - there is an alertness, a watchfulness toward them, especially in the scene where he is speaking on behalf of a condemned friend. His responses are mercurial, each giving way to the other, from earnest pleading to incredulity to rage. The court scene is both a personal disagreement bewteen the characters but also archetypal as a confrontation between idealistic youth and rigid, conservative rage At the end of the scene, as he cradles the body of his executed friend with unexpected gentleness, the first line of his monologue - "I'm worse than mad!" - escapes from him with a dangerous growl.
His biggest challenge is holding his own in his final meeting with Timon. I would say this is one of the hardest scenes, because it is very easy to lose the stage to Timon. But he an d Allyn Burrows play off each other with power, Berger-Jones holds his own. But the mock-sparring has turned to real conflict and we can see the injury that Timon's rejection causes him is more painful than the recent wound in his side. He plays the scene, he told me, as a final loss of an important father-figure, recognizing and grieving this loss but also grateful for what he has received.
In many ways, Timon of Athens is a play of extremes - from the lead character's extreme wealth to his fall to extreme poverty. From his overwhelming need to give to his ultimate need to reject. It is his symbolic son, Alcebaides that brings the healing. He does conquer Athens but instead of destroying it as Timon urged, he punishes only specific enemies. He is the new order, rational and balanced. In most mythologies the son comes into his own when the father dies. Loss of the father, either actual or symbolic loss, is part of a man's growth, of coming into his own destiny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
