I think it's an interesting and realistic approach to say that there's something wrong with saying that " It" is something nonspecific for an actor. The Second Circle idea allows an actor to have some reality and grounding in the kind of ambiguous ideas of how to be a good actor versus a bad actor. I mean personally, I always have doubt about the idea of being a good actor because there is no distinctive method or goal as far I understand. The whole "everyone's different" lark is extremely discouraging when you're a student since that freedom of your own method leads me (at least) to wonder where to begin. Sure there are techniques we're taught and trained in, but at the end of the day anyone I've talked to says that there just has to be a 'youness' when you walk into a room to audition that is ambiguous and intimidating to consider. The first-second-third circle concept allows a student to assess themselves about where they are as an actor, and have a list of qualities on where they want to be to improve.
I appreciate that there are reasons why the first and third circles are useful, but that their risks or difficulties are clearly laid out. In my limited experience of actors and acting, there's always been a difficulty in my mind about what says an actor is good or bad unless it is blatantly bad (shouting,over gesturing, obnoxious) or blatantly good (moving and convincing, which isn't hard to convince me in because I am both gullible and emotional).
The video and reading really grounded the concepts for me and made this kind of generalized idea of how to be an open, responsive actor more categorized. I think that having an assessment or a method of figuring out where you lie on that spectrum would be really useful to young, aspiring actors and allow them to always have a goal towards the center, to be open, reactionary, considering the outside while processing within.
Over all, I'm really intrigued. Lately in my classes there has been a lot of 'build your theatre library' talk, about books that are worth having and reading over and over throughout one's theatrical career. This is definitely one I would like to invest in. I need to buy a bookshelf, honestly. After all, that's a pretty wholesome goal as well, building a theatre library. You've got all these great voices that we're taught about but not really delved into like Bogart, or Brecht ( I mean if you wanna look at Brecht that's something you gotta dedicate more than a semester's time to) and it seems to be Rodenburg is one of those voices that Tim is touching on for us, to give us some perspective and a place to start improving ourselves and our techniques, but who is worth investigating beyond the classroom criteria.
This is kinda long now-- long story short, too long didn't read, I found that having a spectrum and some guidelines made the idea of acting more tangible to me than just some dream where people either have it or don't. That it can be practiced, improved on, and gauged beyond the obvious.
Cool stuff, right?
Rio
Nice post Rio!
ReplyDelete