I went to a local concert the other night, it was a tribute band so the room was filled with musicians that worship at the altar of Pink Floyd. I got talking to one guy who admitted he was a guitarist but then he said something I've heard over the years and it always blows my mind, he said; " I was really into the guitar and then I went and saw John Mclaughlin and I was just blown away and I said I'll never be that good so I just hung it up right there." This is always said with the friendly tone of "We frustrated musicians understand how we got into the "frustrated" category, right?"   No, frankly I don't.

So, the theory is that if you can't be the best...ummm...ignore your art? Stop creating your version of that thing? In those encounters I've tried to wrap my head around this sentiment and all I've come to figure is, "I'm too scared to express anything but what the world sees as valuable, so, why put less than accepted genius into the planet?"

We all know a musician or painter or writer that hacks away at what we feel is useless art, but that's the beauty of art. What makes me break out in song at the supermarket, makes the next person change the station. Art is there for the taking and the using and the harsh criticism. Art is the thing we're all allowed to have polar opposite reactions to with a loved one, and still get along.  So...why if you have the impulse to play guitar would you not play it, no matter who found a guitar before you, and is seemingly gifted? Yes, it's a convenient excuse for someone who really didn't want to learn to play guitar. Yes, he's just looking for a bit of sympatico in a room of frustrated musicians, but I'm just floored that I've heard this exact same excuse before.  It's like the universal excuse for having given up on yourself and I find it a very odd thing to admit.

Art isn't about measuring up...it's about taking your measure and creating with whatever you got.

Consider this idea I found online this morning...advice from a CEO on how to be successful. Measure yourself in how many No's you're getting. Not many?  You're not trying hard enough.

NewsCred CEO Shafqat Islam: If you're not being told 'no' constantly, you're not pushing hard enough.

"Multiple people have told me this, and I don't know if I can credit it to a single person, but one thing that I think about is if you're not getting told 'no' enough times a day, you're probably not doing it right or you're probably not pushing yourself hard enough," Islam told Business Insider.
"I think that's a good piece of advice for anybody building a company because you hear 'no' so many times," Islam adds. "And I think that's normal, that's a good thing, that you're trying to trying to do something that's disruptive, that's groundbreaking, that there's going to be naysayers."

This is from a business article and it's not a direct parallel to our industry but it's close. If you're not hearing no...then you're not trying. I heard Mark Walberg in an interview mention that he was "trying for 4 years to get the story of Irish Mickey Ward made"...which became "The Fighter."  Everyone hears no. But if you're not getting a lot of them you're either gotten a "yes" and you're working...or you're not pushing yourself to get into a position to hear a no.

In my book I say the best revenge against a bad review is the comfort of knowing you put yourself in a position to be on stage or in a film or show...so that the reviewer had something to review. You did the right thing, you risked and got a place to go show off. It's the same idea and it seems being successful in the start-up business, the principle applies as well. You're not finding enough opportunities if you're not hearing a lot of no's.

When my father died I grew very tired of people telling me "he lived in me" so I "didn't have to miss him." Yesterday, the greatest High School Music teacher of all time, died. He was the greatest because he  provided that ever fragile tipping point moment in so many of our lives.  He gave us geeks and dweebs and dorks and nerds safe haven to express, and risk, and feel included for doing so. He never said no to anyone, if you were brave enough to show up, there was a place for you in the show. His stages were sometimes so crowded, the choreography wasn't much more than having the performers move their eyes in unison. His gravelly voice gave way to what became trademark quips like,  "We do shows with two intermissions so we can sell more orange drink!" or "Point of a gun, middle of the night; what's music?!" or, the saying that everyone imitated and started every show..."It's MAGIC time!" And it was. Magic.

I had never set foot in his classroom but I knew who he was and on the very day I was cut from the basketball team, I walked down the hall to tell my sister and she walked me into the play auditions saying, "Do the play with me, it'll be fun." I stood at the piano, scared, and sang, sorta, and finished and waited. This, although I didn't know it at the time, was my tipping point. He leaned forward and boomed " Where have you been!?" It was the only time I'd ever been so warmly welcomed into something special. Had it been anything other than welcoming, I wouldn't have stayed and it's doubtful I would have ever discovered acting. He tipped me into a place to belong in High School, which became a life direction and ultimately a career.

A few years ago I dropped by Summer stock to see Mr. Kloos and he hugged me and his hands shook and his speech was slurred and he complained that he simply couldn't speak and move well enough to direct the shows any more beacuse of "this damnned disease," but his spirit was the same and he played the piano and oversaw the crowded room of young performers. He took the stage and introduced me and showered me with compliments about my career and said "...and I'm so proud of him, he's done so well and... I taught him everything he knows!"  This wasn't a moment of tear jerking recognition for me because I already knew he was proud of me. We all did. He let us know we were all his favorites. He loved us and he loved the shows and he loved the music and we loved being there with him.

I'm not proud of the fact that I didn't see him more.  I always planned on the day I'd stop the curtain call of my Broadway show to acknowledge him but I never could, or I'd swoop in and pay for everything that needed anything in his world because I was so darn wealthy from my acting career, but I couldn't.   I wasn't able to do the big demonstrative thank you but I am able to honor his work by having his spirit live on in me. I teach every day and I start my classes each semester by saying, "If you are brave enough to come to this class and want to be an actor, I'm going to help you." It's my way of saying, "Where have you been?"

From a very sad, grateful, blessed Mark Flanagan; Thank you Mr. Kloos, you were a Titan when this scared kid needed a Titan. You taught me everything I know.

 

Theodore Kloos

1935-2013

 

 

 

 

This year, the first year ever, I was one of the SAG members asked to nominate feature film performances for the SAG awards. I was really happy about it because I'd finally be able to see every film I was unable to see during the year. In the past I have been blindsided by nominations for a film I'd never heard of. It's what makes any awards show of value to me, getting my eyes opened to the work of someone I wouldn't be aware of otherwise.  For me, the SAG awards represented a place where we actors had a tougher standard and pointed out the stuff that took the breath away from us insiders.

I took my work seriously, I was sent 30ish screener DVD's and many, many invites to screenings that I was unable to get to.  I watched every screener sent to me, even those, like Les Miserables, that were sent just 2 days before the ballot deadline. I put in my time and diligently set out to see if I could find the best of the best and something happened that I didn't count on: watching films back to back allows you to see how the convention of film overlaps from story to story, film to film and performance to performance. It made the unconventional stand out. I really liked learning that about the process.

This brings me to my point, and boy this is dangerous territory, because by no means am I knocking the actors nominated. The nominees are all deserving, they are all great actors and did great work. My issue is that, though I did nominate most of the actors that are now our nominees, there are some actors that I feel were overlooked due to factors that had nothing to do with their work. Popularity, notoriety of the film, or, just because people didn't watch all the films they were sent. It was a lot of time spent watching, but, I felt like the producers took the time to send me their film, the least I could do for my fellow actors was give them an honest look in an effort to educate the planet about what "we" find outstanding as actors.

This is where it gets touchy, but I assure you I'm just fighting through the idea that we as a union make this event happen, and potentially it's not being used to elevate awareness of the outstanding work of all our fellow artists. Perhaps it's just easier to nominate those who keep movies being made because they draw in the audience and we non-household name actors need them to keep us employed. Maybe I'm learning I'm naive and I alone hold out this purist view of the SAG awards, but if that's true, it feels like a missed opportunity because the Oscars have this base well covered. I understand there is no real harm done, one could hardly argue with anyone nominated as being great at their job, but as I read the nominations my quandry was; Was their work, this year, in that film, really "outstanding?"

I'm very hesitant to list the names that I voted for and no one in that group is a close friend, so I'm not involved on a personal level for any nominee. It struck me that perhaps the easy road was taken and votes were given to actors who are consistently great, or because they are a friend, or, worse yet, because time wasn't available to watch all the performances in contention and votes were made based on who is being talked about in the press.

For instance; I thought Michael Pena deserved a supporting nomination for his work in End of Watch, but I did not nominate Jake Gyllenhaal who was great, but for Jake Gyllenhaal, he wasn't outstanding. Michael Pena was. Logan Lerman and the cast of Perks of a Wallflower did outsanding work. Though we've seen her do this role in the past Leslie Mann absolutely elevated herself in This is 40. David Oloyewo was unknown to me and showed up in 3 films but it was the performance in the film I absolutely hated that made me nominate him. Ann Dowd turned Compliance, a terrifying movie about the power of being a cog in the wheel of authority, from a pseudo documentary into a shocking drama that had me yelling at the screen, "no way!"  These are a few examples and I have more, which just speaks to the level of talent that was on display. It made the job fun.

Outstanding is subjective, I realize that. This is just my thought on what being able to nominate for the SAG awards means to me; a way to alert the world to the absolute best acting in film.

 

 

I saw a post today and loved it.

It's about getting through being blocked and I'm stealing it for you. It's more for writers and designers but surely when looking the same words of a script ovger or trying to write the next scene weve all just been arrested by how stupid we are and how silly our ideas can be. We get stuck. Mostly by fear but also because we keep asking the same inner sources to deliver a newer and more brilliant idea.

I would add to this list...

1. Watch a foreign movie that someone told you is excellent or a noted reviwer claims is genius.Consider that the way a story is told in this country by this filmmaker is not what you are used to.

2. Read a great play again to hear something you didn't the first time.

3. Go to a small theatre production of a play you've never heard of and recognize all the effort these artists have put into just getting the evening off the ground.

4. Call a friend actor who is doing really well and tell them you are happy to see them working and moving forward. See what comes of the next few sentences from them. I bet you learn a lot.

What would you add? Do you have any can't miss get-through-it ideas?  Curious...

HERE IS THE POST!

About a week ago I was contacted by a girl who wanted to take class with me and as is customary we met to discuss it. As we started talking I asked her the normal early questions to get an idea of what she hoped class would be for her. I do this so I can see if the prospective student is realistic about what class can  offer you when you are on a acting career path. She told me she was currently in class at another school and that she just wasn't making progress with the teacher, so, because I understood the Meisner technique well enough to teach it, she wanted me to help her with the exercise called activities. Her teacher says her activities aren't good, and she wanted me to essentially give her a cheat sheet of ideas she could use to get through this part of the instruction and move on.

I was really thrown for a loop. "You are asking me to tutor you for your acting class...?"  As if this is the way everyone studies acting, she said "yeah!" and opened a notebook to an empty page and readied her pen. "Ummm...that's not how this works..." I began to explain the idea behind the exercise and she cut me off  "I get all that, but the teacher says my activities have no meaning so I want you to give me good ones with meaning..."

I explained that this was the point of the exercise. There was no correct answer...it was for her to find a very personal answer and she would have to do this for herself. She wasn't fazed at all by my reluctance and moved on and said "Can you just give me something that's difficult to do..." So I said " Well, for example if you wanted to do something difficult, you could tie yourself to a chair and try to get out of it. But you still have to know why would you want to get out of it..."

She cut me off sharply "That's ridiculous."

"Why?"

"Because that would never happen."

"Why?"

"Because it wouldn't"

"Never?"

"I would never be in that position."

"Never?"

"No,"

"What if you went to your 5 year old niece's birthday party and they tied you up for a game?"

"A grown-up would untie me. It's ridiculous. I don't want to do that. Think of something more realistic."

"Okay well let me ask you this...if there was a great movie role of a girl tied up who is a hostage in a bank robbery, would you tell the director at your audition that it was ridiculous that you would ever get tied up and therefore he'd have to change the script to hire you?"

"No. I'd do it for a movie, that makes sense."

"But if you won't do it in class, what makes you think you can do it in a movie?"

And here is where I learned all about her drive to be an actress...

She said "That's different. Class and movies are different..."

This was when I saw what she really wanted and I asked her why she was in class. She explained that she wanted the teacher to say she was good so she'd feel good about herself and have more confidence about her acting career.  "I just need you to help me get past this beginning stuff so I can get a scene and start acting..."

Ah.

Acting training for her isn't knowing what you're doing, it's about doing scenes until the teacher says you're good. If that means getting a tutor to show you how to cheat your way through a technique that's about living truthfully, then so be it. In her mind doing scenes is what mattered, the exercises were useless to her.

This isn't all that uncommon really. I told her I thought she should quit class, that it was never going to get easier or become interesting because she didn't want technique, she wanted scene study. And you know what...? She agreed with me. She thanked me for helping her and she left.

I don't actually think she'll stay with acting very long, but it got me to thinking about what people give up by not taking class. It's actually the very same thing that I concluded a few years ago was THE ONLY thing an acting class or technique can "give" you as an actor and that is ...a chance at fulfillment.

Did you ever hear someone who had survived something harrowing say " I didn't know I could do that until I had to." That's what class is. It's the place that you go to dig around and find out exactly what you can bring to the roles you hope to get. It's exciting to be in a movie and have the world applaud, but it's not necessarily fulfilling as an actor.  Years ago I was talking with a friend who is a huge star about a movie they did that had just come out and I asked, "Were you happy with your work?" and this person answered "Well the audience I saw it with loved the movie." I could hear they weren't all that pleased with what they did but luckily the audience's reaction was salving that wound.

Class challenges you in ways the professional world might not.  Class is about finding out how much you have of everything. The professional world just expects it to be there. How can you offer the world something you don't know you have? Hope? Pray the director pulls it out of you? I'm not saying the only way to know what it would be like to be tied up is by tying yourself up, but it's sure better than trying it out for the first time in the audition, or worse, getting the job and realizing you have nothing left for take 2.

 

Advice from CD Paul Schnee this morning in Back Stage. The bold is my emphasis. and something I stress in my book.

 

Q: What are some typical audition room mistakes?
"There's nothing really typical since every project we do is different. But in general it's nice to see people come in who can read the room. If I'm not in a chatty mood -- or certainly if you come in for the director and he or she isn't chatty -- then go with that. I can't stand hearing actors hold up their sides and say, "I just got this last night/this morning." I get it. You don't always get a lot of time with material. But when you say that -- or that you have a sinus infection or your allergies are acting up or you had food poisoning last night, all things I've heard -- you are apologizing in advance for not being good. And who knows? Maybe you'll be great. So don't apologize ahead of time. My advice is always, always, without fail, be polite and pleasant to every single person you ever meet anywhere. You never know if that assistant stage manager working on a crappy showcase you are in is going to be working at Warner Bros. in one or two years. We all live in a very, very, very, very small world.

 

Don't apologize and always be polite.  Easy rules to remember and live by.

I read a small thing this morning where a CD tells actors not to touch the CD during scenes where intimacy is part of the scene. She says not every CD was an actor so it's not comfortable. Hmmm, where did we ever get the idea that CD's were all actors at some point? Because a lot of them were and they take the time to remind us that they know our world intimately.

BUT this is good advice as you should treat them like they aren't part of the scene because that's how they like it. They believe they are just there to help you do both sides of the scene; yours and theirs. Wait... what? How can that be?

Well, even though they, as actors, never took an acting class where they did scenes with a partner who sat in the audience and simply threw them lines during the scene, that's how they treat auditions. Why? Because that's the system. They all agree that the best way to showcase talent is in a vaccum. It's one sided, so as not to confuse the director with the performance of someone else. This is where your frustration of watching mediocre actors who are working starts.  Some actors audition very well, but when it comes time to making the scene work with another real actor, they don't have the same skill. Real talent will prevail mind you, but this is what you are up against. The system.

It seems to fly in the face of when this same CD says -"I want (actors) to do the best job they can do, because then I can get the part cast and part of my job is done. I'm always rooting for the actor. If they do a good job, then I did a good job." - doesn't it? If they wanted your best work, wouldn't they set it up like a scene, like it will be when you have to do the actual job? Why would they continue to make auditions about doing one-man shows with dialog...?

I have been the reader in many auditions and only because I made that happen. I was asked a few times but only after I made myself available and called requesting the position including that they wouldn't have to pay me. I learned a lot about how actors treat the room and their work. It helped me audition better. I was also allowed, just a few times, to hear a bit of the dialog between readings and it's not flattering. They're just people, just like you, scared and insecure and hoping it all turns out okay. They have to decide on one of many versions of the same thing...you get to make decisions about one thing, you. So, see the advantage in that equation and make it a good one, live by it and show it off proudly. Within the system.

Then a bit later in the article this CD casually drops this bomb- "If you walk into the room and you give the best audition, and you look like the director's ex-wife, you're probably not going to get the job," she says frankly. "There's a human component in casting that people have to remember. You're dealing with people's emotions. So always do your best, and know at the end of the day that it doesn't mean you did a bad audition if you didn't get the part."

There it is. They're human. The system as flawed as it is, (except in theatre auditions where they always seem to have a reader)  promotes the flaws of a director who isn't capable of seeing talent with the distraction of bad memories, while stating they are trying to get the best cast possible.

This is what we are up against and it's also the thing that allows our humanity to be the very thing that allows a director to choose us, even when he can't explain exactly why. These little nuances that might drive your logical brain nuts should also give your creative brain comfort because it says you can't know what's the right thing to do to get the part. You can only be your full, true, self and apply that to the page and allow the "human component" to work in your favor.

 

I went today to see American Idiot at the Ahmansohn theatre with my 14 year old. I thought it would be one of those bridge musicals that we both got something out of and made going together special. It started out like a wild let-loose afternoon of rock music, and then... the rest of the show happened. For all it's spectacle...it bored me.  It lacked that thing I go to the theatre for: communication.

The actors tried really hard, and I'm guessing the non-Green Day songs were about something but as I sit here 4 hours later, I can't remember a single song lyric. Most of the lyrics were buried under the bass and guitar of the band so despite their great voices we couldn't get much of what was being sung.  There were maybe three paragraphs of spoken words, the rest was songs that led into songs.  I do consider myself pretty smart about theatre and I cannot tell you what that show was about. I can tell you generally what it was about but specifically...? I got nothing.

The show was a surprise date for my daughter and she admitted she was hoping to see it when we finally arrived in the lobby from our rain delayed drive downtown. It was all excitement before the show. On rainy drive home she tried to piece the show together and was very casual about it. She never asked me what I thought and our discussion of it lasted a minute or two. Then...done.

A moment a go I had to think of what I had done today and was shocked to realize that I went to a Broadway show that had almost no impact on me.  That's revolutionary to me. They always hit home. They always deliver something. I feel like an idiot really. I must have missed something.

It reminded me of the times when you see a bad movie and you can just tell the actors were left for dead by the director and the script wasn't a friend either.  The show was loud and constant and angst-ridden, and there was sex and drugs and loads of cursing and in what will be my only solid memory of the show, it closed with a full company acoustic guitar serenade. It just felt like a lot of effort with no focus.

Which brings me to this sad news...One of the biggest influences on me as a student passed away last week. His name was Greg Zittel and he was a hammer for specifics. He taught us our sense of truth was sacred and to never violate it. Maybe it's snobbery to think every show needs what he taught me in order to make sense, but my 14 year old didn't get the show either.  I salute anyone who puts art into the world so my criticism isn't based in, "why did they waste my time?" It's based in, "How did this miss the mark for me? Many people really liked it."  Luckily, art isn't a one-style-fits-all arena and as Mr. Zittel would say, "That's what makes you, you!"

Mr. Zittel made a lot of actors better. He will be missed. I love that he taught me that I am allowed to question art and simply because something is a hit, it doesn't mean I'm not an artist because I disliked it. He forced us to see that who we are is more important than which successful people or shows we might align ourselves with. To a 19 year old trying not feel like an idiot for thinking he had a ounce of talent which warranted the attempt at something as overwhelming as acting school in NYC,  he made the technique all so clear and useful, and, he made me feel like I was right, I did belong there.

May god bless your family Mr. Zittel, you left the world much better than you found it.