Arfies
09-14-2021, 04:59 PM
Here's a fascinating article (https://atomicjunkshop.com/dick-york-after-bewitched/) about an acting class taught by Dick York in 1982.
From poster Jim MacQuarrie:
_________________________
Dick took what he called a “gestalt” approach to acting, talking about how the whole is greater than its parts and how everything is connected to everything else, and that the subtext conveys a lot more honesty than the text, if you take the time to ferret it out, and that an actor has to bring everything into the performance; the spoken and unspoken, the mental, emotional and physical, the past and possible future of the character, and create a complete and complex real person to inhabit.
To give you a sense of how abstract and esoteric his approach was, our textbook for the class was Language in Thought and Action by S. I. Hayakawa. Now, granted, this academic treatise on semantics is pretty brilliant, dissecting as it does the origins of English, the significance of shades of meaning, and how one’s vocabulary influences one’s thought processes. Reading it will make you smarter, and I highly recommend it if you can slog through it. While all of that is true, it takes a particular kind of mad genius to see this book as an acting textbook. But guess what, it is.
_________________________
Dick was, as might be expected of someone who went through what he did, a bit gruff of manner, but a big-hearted guy who was generous with his time and advice, and a pretty good storyteller. Only once did I ever see him get really angry.
Two of the guys in the class (I think their names were Mike and Steve, so that’s what we’ll call them), Mike and Steve, brought in a videotape they’d shot of themselves doing a scene they wrote. Steve was a somewhat physical guy, having worked as an escape artist at one point, and the scene involved a conflict between the two of them that escalated into a fight and ended with both of them tumbling down a flight of stairs. The clip ended, and they stood beside the TV, smiling and self-satisfied, happily waiting for comments on their performance. Dick stood up and roared. He was not having any of it. He told them it was beyond stupid that any serious actor would risk his health and career doing stunts. He told them if they wanted to do stunts, they could get the hell out of his class and go do stunts until they ended up in wheelchairs, and told the rest of us that if a director ever asked us to do anything that looked even a little bit dangerous, we should refuse, walk off the set if necessary, and call in the Screen Actors Guild if we had to. “Actors do not do stunts! Your body is the only instrument you have in this job and you cannot afford to break it!”
It was pretty obvious to everyone that Mike and Steve had pushed a button; Dick’s anger and regret over the on-set accident that nearly destroyed his life was not far below the surface, but it only broke through when he saw somebody taking stupid risks and thoughtlessly endangering themselves. He didn’t want anyone to ever go through what he had. He really wanted to hammer home that point about being young and thinking you’re bulletproof. That was the only criticism I ever saw him give that was entirely negative and devoid of nuance. And they had it coming.
Dick York was an original thinker with a unique approach, and I learned a lot from him, not only about acting, but thinking and formulating sentences. I still have my copy of Language in Thought and Action, a book I wish was required reading for politicians. (S.I. Hayakawa served as Senator from California from 1977 to 1983.)
_________________________
In case you’re wondering how Language in Thought and Action could possibly be an acting textbook, here’s the short version:
1. Acting starts with thought. If your thinking is right, your actions will be right and your character will be believable.
2. Much of our thought, especially in regard to performance, is verbal, basically talking to your self inside your head.
3. The more clearly and precisely you can think, the more clear and precise your performance will be.
4. The more you understand the origins of English and the ways that vocabulary influences thought (HOW you think about a subject affects WHAT you think about it), the more effectively and specifically you can tailor your internal monologue to produce the emotional response needed for the role.
It’s right there in the book’s title, “Language in THOUGHT and ACTION.” What is acting? Thought and Action.
If you’re an actor, buy the book and learn to think in character.
From poster Jim MacQuarrie:
_________________________
Dick took what he called a “gestalt” approach to acting, talking about how the whole is greater than its parts and how everything is connected to everything else, and that the subtext conveys a lot more honesty than the text, if you take the time to ferret it out, and that an actor has to bring everything into the performance; the spoken and unspoken, the mental, emotional and physical, the past and possible future of the character, and create a complete and complex real person to inhabit.
To give you a sense of how abstract and esoteric his approach was, our textbook for the class was Language in Thought and Action by S. I. Hayakawa. Now, granted, this academic treatise on semantics is pretty brilliant, dissecting as it does the origins of English, the significance of shades of meaning, and how one’s vocabulary influences one’s thought processes. Reading it will make you smarter, and I highly recommend it if you can slog through it. While all of that is true, it takes a particular kind of mad genius to see this book as an acting textbook. But guess what, it is.
_________________________
Dick was, as might be expected of someone who went through what he did, a bit gruff of manner, but a big-hearted guy who was generous with his time and advice, and a pretty good storyteller. Only once did I ever see him get really angry.
Two of the guys in the class (I think their names were Mike and Steve, so that’s what we’ll call them), Mike and Steve, brought in a videotape they’d shot of themselves doing a scene they wrote. Steve was a somewhat physical guy, having worked as an escape artist at one point, and the scene involved a conflict between the two of them that escalated into a fight and ended with both of them tumbling down a flight of stairs. The clip ended, and they stood beside the TV, smiling and self-satisfied, happily waiting for comments on their performance. Dick stood up and roared. He was not having any of it. He told them it was beyond stupid that any serious actor would risk his health and career doing stunts. He told them if they wanted to do stunts, they could get the hell out of his class and go do stunts until they ended up in wheelchairs, and told the rest of us that if a director ever asked us to do anything that looked even a little bit dangerous, we should refuse, walk off the set if necessary, and call in the Screen Actors Guild if we had to. “Actors do not do stunts! Your body is the only instrument you have in this job and you cannot afford to break it!”
It was pretty obvious to everyone that Mike and Steve had pushed a button; Dick’s anger and regret over the on-set accident that nearly destroyed his life was not far below the surface, but it only broke through when he saw somebody taking stupid risks and thoughtlessly endangering themselves. He didn’t want anyone to ever go through what he had. He really wanted to hammer home that point about being young and thinking you’re bulletproof. That was the only criticism I ever saw him give that was entirely negative and devoid of nuance. And they had it coming.
Dick York was an original thinker with a unique approach, and I learned a lot from him, not only about acting, but thinking and formulating sentences. I still have my copy of Language in Thought and Action, a book I wish was required reading for politicians. (S.I. Hayakawa served as Senator from California from 1977 to 1983.)
_________________________
In case you’re wondering how Language in Thought and Action could possibly be an acting textbook, here’s the short version:
1. Acting starts with thought. If your thinking is right, your actions will be right and your character will be believable.
2. Much of our thought, especially in regard to performance, is verbal, basically talking to your self inside your head.
3. The more clearly and precisely you can think, the more clear and precise your performance will be.
4. The more you understand the origins of English and the ways that vocabulary influences thought (HOW you think about a subject affects WHAT you think about it), the more effectively and specifically you can tailor your internal monologue to produce the emotional response needed for the role.
It’s right there in the book’s title, “Language in THOUGHT and ACTION.” What is acting? Thought and Action.
If you’re an actor, buy the book and learn to think in character.