HOLLYWOOD ACTOR PREP by Dana Kaminski

Carey Mulligan: Currently An Oscar© Best Actress Nominee.

So young, so very talented. One of the two actor newcomers who shouldered a film, almost entirely, by themselves this year. The other, also an Oscar nominee, Gabourey Sidibe.

They both possess acting skills that blow most actors, twice and three times their ages, out of the ballpark.

I’m still ga-ga-ed. I am. No fooling. The more you really believe that a character in a film is really living and breathing what is happening on screen, the better the actor is, at acting. When you don’t see them  ’act’, then what they are doing, onscreen or onstage, is actually good acting. When you can see the acting, the actor isn’t performing well. When you can’t ’see’ them acting, and you only see the character, then it is fine acting. You are seeing something great, then. You are seeing art.

Truly great acting isn’t easy. The easier it appears, the harder it is to do.

It’s easy to lie, onstage. It’s almost impossible for most people, onstage, to tell the truth. To be authentic, to experience true emotion. Hell, it’s almost impossible for many people to experience emotion, fully and outright, in their daily lives. To easily express it.

I know what kind of depth, craft, and artistic awareness that it takes to turn the work that these two actresses turned out, takes. It’s so beautiful for me to watch them. The work of these two young women made me sit up and stop complaining about how the art form of acting is getting lost.

Really. If you haven’t seen both Precious and An Education , please do. Maybe watch them twice, if you can take it. One time, to get lost in the emotional experience of each film. And so you can get lost inside the characters that these two actresses so masterfully created.

I only suggest to see these movies a second time, to watch and see if you can see them do it. Do what they do. It’s really something, when you look at how real they are. How they are able to be those people they play.

If you can take it. I say that again, because I don’t know if I could do a second time…both these films hit deep into the emotions; Precious especially, packs a punch.

Here’s video of Carey Mulligan talking about an aspect of acting that isn’t commonly shared.

What are the specifically different working experiences; when playing a lead, and playing a supporting role?  Some of this stuff surprised me, and it made sense.

I’ve never carried a film. I’ve never been the main lead of a television show, even though it said so in the credits. I was credited as a star of the show, but I really supported the real lead actor of the show, who really was a star. A household name kind of star.

Like most professional actors; in my past I had enough smaller roles to know what it’s like. I know that pressure. I know what she’s talking about, when she defines it. When an actor has only two days of work, one day of work, even a week of work; if it’s a small fraction of time of the entire shoot, as an actor, you feel that extra pressure. You only have a certain amount of time, and it’s ticking. Anyway, there’s never an abundance of time, on a film set; and there’s a get-in-hit-it-and-get-out  mentality to supporting roles.  They don’t want to spend a lot on your salary, and they don’t want to use up a lot of film.

Supporting roles, too, are named that because they are. Supporting actors support the stories of the lead actors. They support the acting of the lead actors. There’s that pressure too. Sometimes, it’s a give and take between the supporting actor and the lead. Sometimes it’s not.

This is why I urge all actors, young and old, beginner and even the very experienced, to keep on working on their acting craft. For me to tell the inexperienced how badly they need serious skills, and very reliable skills, is not nearly as descriptive as it should be. Because whatever your skills are, no matter how great, as a supporting actor you will only get a fraction of that on that film. You better hope that you know how to leave your best piece there.

Because film lives forever.

Supporting player also means that the actor that the audience is focused on, is not you.

It shouldn’t be you. Your job is to play your part so real that your character is woven into the story, a part of the story. (That’s why it’s called an acting part.) If you are bad, you will stick out. Ruin the story. And your own career. You won’t be supporting the other actor, either.

If you are good, then you aren’t trying to be great. You aren’t performing out the wazoo, in other words. You are authentically real.

Most producers and directors are satisfied when a supporting player does that a supportive to the script and lead actor kind of job. That’s a professional actor. That means they breathe a sigh of relief because they hired the right actor for the job. They won’t have to fire you. The more authentic you are, the more you make sure you contribute to the story, that you weave yourself into the cast and the script; the more they will hire you for other parts.

And here’s a real secret and it’s a real paradox. It’s also against human nature. As actors, and people, we want to shine. We want to stick out. Naturally, that’s how we rationalize that we will advance.

Well, get this funky contradiction, the less you think about getting noticed, the better an actor you will be. The more you focus on blending in, the more respect as an actor you will get. The more real you are as an actor, without putting on a lot of attention getting stuff; the more professional and better actor you is how you will be perceived, and regarded.

For the professional actor with a strong craft, he or she is busy focusing on their craft and the role. Preparing for what is needed to do the scene, authentically.

When Carey Mulligan talks about being supported, as a lead actor…

She means support from the entire film crew. Especially, from the director and producers. The film’s success is dependent upon the lead actors. No amount of technical innovation or even great script can survive with terrible lead acting. The opposite is also true, on both sides: Great acting can make even bad tech and sorry scripts seem worthwhile.

It means she got to try different scenes different ways, that she was able to discuss her acting choices with the director, if she wanted. She got lighting tests to make sure she was lit to her best advantage. She had hair-and-makeup people just out of camera range to make sure that her hair matched exactly as it was in the last shot, etc. She had doubles of costumes, in case anything got spilled on hers. Most of all, she had the time and space to act. To relax into her character, and to have prep time, and time to do it well.

And if she didn’t do it as well as she knew she could have, she had another day to best it. Most actors never have that experience. Even those that work, a lot.

Underneath the video where Carey Mulligan talks about her acting experiences, I posted the new Wall Street trailer. It’s Carey Mulligan’s first acting role in an American film; and Academy Award Best Actress Nominee or not, it’s how she got a SAG card. She didn’t even have a one when she got so much notice, as an actor, for An Education; it’s a British film…and, at the very bottom of this post, is the trailer for An Education.

Here is a link to Oscar Prep, which is my Awards Season Blog. I posted a video from Newsweek, where the two young actresses I mention in this post, do a little more talking about acting, and their experiences.

♣♣♣

Please share with your friends and strangers too, if you think Hollywood Actor Prep is something they may enjoy, or if they will benefit from the information here.

Please feel free to comment. If there isn’t a comment box to type into, click on the title of this post. One will show up at the bottom of the this text, then. Speak up, speak out, speak against; or simply ask for something that you want to know but that I haven’t covered yet.

But do share. I am getting a bit burnt out, I must admit. (This time of year I do two blogs…)

If you value Hollywood Actor Prep, or Oscar Prep, please let me know by telling others in on it. Thanks.

Best,

:~Dana

Actor Nerves, Stagefright, Camera Fear, On-Camera Freeze, Pre-Scene Jitters, Acting Panic…

Whatever it’s called, fear and nervousness is something that all actors live with. In varying intensities, it ebbs and flows at different stages of everyone’s career. It does get better; especially after awhile, as an actor gets real acting experience. The more work an actor completes; on their own, the jitters somewhat subside, especially if the acting work becomes steady. (And, yes, steady work is uncommon in the acting profession.)

But, absolutely, acting experience does alleviate a lot of pre-performance terrors, when actors are no longer on-the-set virgins…

Yep, jumpin’ through that fire takes a lot of fear away. Once you’ve done it, at least you survived, and now you know what it’s like. Similarly, it’s even better if it was good for you and everyone else.

Even non-actors know about stage fright.

It’s what happens to anyone, before doing something important. It’s the thing that feels, at times, like your stomach climbed up into your throat and is choking you, and your talent. Sometimes, your ability to speak your lines. And, of course, speaking is a big part of acting. And when an actor chokes on their lines, they panic more. Right?

Everyone knows that fear can be debilitating. For those who have been there, it’s a terrible feeling, because it creates a lack of trust, in one’s self. Subsequently followed, by more fear, about fear.

And about how compromising it can be…simple performance anxiety.  (One only needs to see some spam to know that half of the world’s population knows what that is.)

If you are a sensitive actor, you feel fear now, just reading about it. I’m channeling it myself, from writing about it.

It’s a mythical misconception that experienced actors, professional actors, don’t get nervous.

It is absolutely untrue that successful actors feel no pressure.  Far from it. They have other pressures, to perform up to par. Some have feelings of fraud, and having to prove they aren’t; or making sure that each performance is as good as the last. Or better.

There doesn’t have to be a reason. That energy exists just fine, without one. It also comes and goes on it’s own. (I’ve seen hand-trembling in some big stars, on-set.)

No matter what level the actor: if the glands still work, the adrenals still surge.

What makes it different for successful actors; is that they have had experience handling their nerves, they are actually used to working under high pressure with internal churning. But there’s more.

Professional actors not only accept that nervous energy.

Often, they have a different interpretation about it. Commonly, it’s a motivator for even better, more authentic, acting.

Dealing with the adrenaline surge about acting, before performance, has everything to do with perspective. And utilization. Successful actors can take that energy and use it, as an acting tool. A powerful tool.

These Oscar© Nominated Actors discuss actor fear, and their methods of dealing with it; using (nervy) energy:

• • • • Sandra Bullock
      • Jeff Bridges
      • Morgan Freeman
      • Woody Harrelson
      • Gabourey Sidibe
      • Carey Mulligan

Thanks to Newsweek for this video.

For more about the Academy Awards and Oscar© Nominated Actors, visit Oscar Prep  [...another Dana Kaminski Internet Jam].

Share this post with a friend, you can email it by using an icon just below. Or put it on Facebook, please?

Thank you for paying the karmic fee here.

Best…

;~Dana

©Hollywood Actor Prep, Dana Kaminski

Big Misconception Acting Preparation, Altogether?

Are actors “born that way”?

With either, or all: charisma, looks, talent, emotional accessibility, comic timing, brilliant script assessment skills, and stage confidence, up the wazoo-la?

Some. Maybe. They may be born, even with a CAA agent, attached at the hip.

Still, actors work deeply, and  a lot, before ever arriving near the set or stage.

Preparing…

Before ever getting into hair-and-makeup, before any camera-lighting-test, before uttering any dialogue. They work their tails off, long before getting to what-most-people understand, as the acting work.

(Even those born with the best-looking tails.)

Johnny Depp, Interesting Actor, And Interesting Man

He has an intensive,artistic, and individual way of doing his Actor Prep.

He paints his characters.

That’s the first time I ever heard of an actor working that way.

Seems mighty effective, for him.

Every Actor Develops Their Own Way Of Working…And Prepping For A Job.

But don’t be fooled by the common belief, about acting. Or the ease that the really great actors make it appear, in the end result.

That ease is a derived mastery. It is a magical, yes.

All magicians take a long time to develop each illusion.

As do actors.

There isn’t an ‘acting talent’, who is born able to handle all the depth that great acting requires.

No amount of innate je-nais-c’est-quoi, serves anyone, reliably; under lights with a camera in your face, someone tweaking your clothes, all those lines, and all that pressure. Certainly, not for repeat takes, numerous different acting jobs, nor on a live stage in front of large audience of eyes upon you.

Truly being great in a role demands much research, study, work, artistry, assessment, creative process.

Overall, being a great actor, takes some real study and artistic development to get to a place where the ‘actor’s instrument’ is malleable. Played with ease. I don’t mean at the ideal, the mastery level. I mean really great, consistent, from role-to-role…acting ability.

Takes years.

Mastery Level Ability, + Skill, For Actors Takes Working And Reworking.

It’s a process to attain and a lifelong process, at that;  that continually evolves. It’s one of the things that makes the artistic part of being an actor so exciting.

That is, for those actors that are artistic in their work.  All good acting work involves artistry.

Its those type of actors that win the awards, almost always, in this Oscars-Golden Globes-et-al Awards Season.  (Here’s my li’l plug, in case you didn’t know–I have a site pre-Academy Awards, called OscarPrep.com.)

It’s also those actors that become household names, and whose work you may admire. You see the acting performance, you don’t see the acting prep work. They do it.

Most people aren’t aware of the underlying artistry. For each part. The depth, the breadth, the intensity, the time, the commitment.

Edward Scissorhands--One Of My Favorite Characters, Ever

Research Methods Of Actors, For Acting Roles

Each script, each role, does quite a bit of preparation process; to have a completed acting-product that not only hits the required ‘notes’, but does it well. Shiningly, like Depp.

There’s very specific emotional notes to hit, always. What about the script? A script is only and always about the story, and the actor must be adept at acting in order to be able to tell, specifically, the story.  This point is a bit more abstract, yet the most essential.

Primarily, that is the actor’s job, why they were hired, and why they are visible to the audience.

The character work; even emotional specificity, accuracy, depth and complexity, are actually secondary to the actor’s main responsibility which is to tell the story. Actor’s do their ‘part’. They ‘play a role’ in the story.

Script interpretation is a very necessary and high-level skill for an actor.

Research, to attain the most knowledge about the story and the elements involved, is almost always necessary. I don’t mean only for period pieces, or deeper more literate projects, either.

Johnny Depp is awesomely handsome, and a personification of cool. Admittedly, I am swooning now. All the world’s swooning doesn’t make it cheap, easy, and without artistry, nor individuality, for Johnny Depp. As an actor.

He’s deep, as an actor. He also does a lot of actor prep. That’s why he is so great. (Seriously. Trust me, here.)

Great acting just looks easy, especially when it’s so good.

The more intensive the actor prep, the more visibly wonderful is the performance. And real.

©Disney

How Actor Johnny Depp Prepared, For The Mad Hatter, Prior To Acting

When he takes on a role, Johnny Depp often paints a watercolor portrait of the still-forming character to help find his face and personality. After putting the finishing touches on his painting for “Alice in Wonderland,” Depp looked down at the Mad Hatter staring back at him from the canvas and giggled.

“I was thinking,” the actor said, “‘Oh my God, this one will get me fired!’”

Depp’s extreme vision for the character — who arrives in theaters on March 5 — creates yet another vivid screen persona for the Hollywood chameleon who has played Sweeney Todd, Willie Wonka, Edward Scissorhands and a certain scoundrel named Jack Sparrow. The 46-year-old actor said his Hatter’s springy mass of tangerine hair became a particularly important detail because of one of the suspected origins of the term “Mad as a hatter.”

In the 18th and 19th centuries, mercury was used in the manufacture of felt, and when used in hats it could be absorbed through the skin and affect the mind through maladies such as Korsakoff’s syndrome. Hatters and mill workers often fell victim to mercury poisoning which, in Carroll’s time, had an orange tint — hence Depp’s interest in adding brushstrokes of that particular watercolor to his portrait.

“I think [the Mad Hatter] was poisoned  — very, very poisoned,” Depp said. “And I think it just took affect in all his nerves. It was coming out through his hair and through his fingernails, through his eyes”

Depp’s research also took him down some unexpected literary rabbit holes with the writings of Carroll.

“There’s a great line in the book where the Hatter says, ‘I’m investigating things that begin with the letter ‘M,’” Depp said. “So I started kind of doing a little researching, reading a bunch. And you start thinking about the letter ‘M’ and Hatters and the term ‘Mad as a hatter’ and ‘mercury.’”

Depp was also intrigued by one of the Mad Hatter’s nonsense questions during a dizzying tea party: “Why is a raven like a writing desk?” “I think he is referencing Edgar Allan Poe,” Depp said, referring to the haunted author of “The Raven,” which was published in 1845, two decades before Carroll’s surreal tale reached the public. Depp let the two ideas germinate in his head and it informed his own Hatter concoction.

Burton, whose background in art and animation is well known, also draws his characters, and when he and his star compared their handiwork they grinned like the Cheshire Cat. “They were,” Depp says, “very close.”

The Hero Complex, Rachel Abramovitz

My very best,

:~Dana

Please share this Hollywood Actor Prep post, if you valued it. The more you share, the more I will write.

When you do, you are supporting me back, and helping create a strong actor community too. That’s very important. Thank you for your support.

Makes Me Wanna Move, Be A New York Actor Again.

The Labyrinth Theater is doing a fundraiser on December 7th, 2009, in New York. It’s called Celebrity Charades 7.  Here’s their video promos, check out these actors and how creative and enticing this whole gig is.

Damn, makes me remember the good stuff.

New York was always known to be the place that spawned the best actors. The most seriously, good, actors. The most artistically-grounded actors. There used to be a certain snobbery; doing movies, television, anything commercial, was almost considered to be selling-out. The idea of ‘movie star‘ was offensive to some hardcore New York Actors.  ‘Acting’, and ‘celebrity’, they were considered worlds apart.

BTW, here’s Labyrinth’s list of confirmed actors, so far, who will be onstage:

Philip Seymour Hoffman, John Krasinski, Billy Crudup,

Christopher Meloni, Jesse L. Martin,

Sam Rockwell, Julia Roberts,  Shannon Elizabeth,

Padma Lakshmi, Daphne Rubin-Vega, Julia Stiles,

Justin Theroux, Yul Vázquez, Kristen Wiig,

David Zayas, John Ortiz, Cynthia Rowley,

Bob Balaban, Bobby Cannavale, Tom Colicchio…

New York Acting Community, That Was Then…

I never liked snobbery, but I did like differentiation.  New York had a real reverence for the depth of acting, and the artform.  And those actors that had that same approach to their craft, lived in New York.

That approach never made it, somehow, across the country to California. Not before then, and, not after so many of the New York theater venues dried up, due to real estate inflation. Much of that acting sensibility did leave Manhattan, dissipating with the passage of time. With trends, and materialism.  The rise of celebrity, paparazzi, gossip, contributed too. And then, the movie studios were bought up by giant conglomerates…

Watching These Videos, I Missed My N.Y. 4th Floor Walk-Up

I missed Cafe Central. I missed the noise, the dirt, the subways to auditions. I missed a real community of actors, and discussions about craft and plays over drinks with other actors, of all different New York success levels. Alongside visiting actors from California, who would fly in to get a dose of the real thing; before heading back to LA so they could, once again, endure the necessary machine of The Industry.

Although there really aren’t many affordable living spaces, for actors, in Manhattan anymore, or any artists for that matter; I hear many of them did relocate, to Brooklyn. I hope so.

It was magical to be an actor then.  Different. Maintained an age-old reverence for acting, and standards.

Best-

Dana

Please share, as it’s the fee here, at Hollywood Actor Prep…Karmic thanks, back to you.

Support actors and the art of acting, please.

This post was one of two that were corrupted today and will be back on soon.  In the meantime… If you are inquiring about the workshop, and want information about it, please use the contact form.

Why A Form? …Because of the “Must-Do’s”, for one.

They separate the Professional Actors from everybody else.

I am only giving out what kind of information I will be covering in my new workshop, to those actors who are interested in attending! It’s far too valuable, and this is one category of information that I am just not giving away for free. Plus, I will be sharing real insider experiential stuff, and that is nowhere else…to be found.

If you are interested in really knowing what separates the professional actors from the non-pros, and how they got to be that way, and how you can be that, too.

Leave your name and email, on this form. Click here for the link. Only Dana Kaminski will see these email addresses…This form is very secure.

…Getting very psyched, and I hope you are too!

Best,

Dana

(This is what that other post said in it’s little summary—

Legal Disclaimer:

No promises, claims, or statements here. Except, of course, a virtual truckload of experiential, and individually-focused, information about how to be a professional actor. And getting you that knowledge, so that you meet the qualifications of professional acting. For this New…

Do you think that was what broke the database? …The idea of that ‘whole truckload of information’ that I have been holding onto for all this time, and about to release…??

Or was it the authentic emotional chops of the  Crying Actors post that went up the next day?

Unusual Week Here At Hollywood Actor Prep

I am doing the AFI Film Fest; am prepping Oscar Prep to kick in again, this year, just after that. I am wrangling interviews. Doing my mothering thing. Coaching some actors. Me, busy? Yuh.

I am going to do shake things up this week by doing it a little differently here.

I Discovered A New York Times Article That Was So Fertile With High Level Acting Stuff

Primarily because the writer Dennis Lim, focused on Matt Damon’s artistic sensibility, and integrity as an actor. How that plays out in terms of his professional career, as a well-known actor.

That’s a scanty description.  This article, ‘Eternal Role, Eternal A-List Character Actor’,  has subtly woven key phrases, and topics, that are an actor’s dream.  That is, if you are a certain type of actor;  the passionate, pontificating kind, and you could discuss all night long the finer points of acting craft, or role choices, etc.  Like I can. Perhaps you are also that kind, since you are here reading this… Hm?

I am in a hurry. (I mention that before?)

So this is what I am going to do, and it seems like it could be fun. If you find it activates your acting gland, or even your artistic discussion gland, movie appreciation gland, friend-0f-Dana gland, whatever: Please participate this week, because I am going to spend some time (when I can arrange some) into discussions on some of the points in this article, that concern actors. Especially because so many of these exemplify the standards and principles of Hollywood Actor Prep.  Priority, foundation, of quality acting; of solid professional acting careers.

I’m gonna start by not outlining or pointing out what the topics are. I’ve already made it easy for you, and also for all those dinky strange “acting coaches” in Podunk or wherever with qualifications of bologna, who write ‘E-zines’ and charge for their workshops. I’m certain by now, they have have more money than me, by rephrasing and regurgitating my posts as their own. (Remember my post last year about being careful about acting hoaxes and frauds?  Soonafter, frauds all over the net, posted articles to watch out for frauds. Ezines, and all. Did they charge you for that, by the way? I want to demand a commission.)

Speaking of reprinting (ahem), I am reprinting, word for word, portions of this New York Times article. By Dennis Lim. Who is a writer I admire, by the way; as is Kris Tapley, whose column this morning actually led me to this article, ‘Eternal Role A-List Character Actor’.

Here’s are the bits. Your first mission, should you choose to accept it, is to figure out the key phrase which we will be discussing a little, or the hell-out-of, in the coming week. I only pulled out bits the parts of the article with these phrases,  so it should be easy enough to copy into a hundred Ezines. For my authentic readership, I’m inviting you to comment below, either what the key acting phrases are, or which ones you think are the most valuable, or pertinent…You can also simply read it over and just plant some mind-seeds, so that when we get into it, you’ll be jumping full and hearty into a discussion.

That’s all I’m going to say for now. Except…Shall we begin?

(From Dennis Lim, The New York Times, on the actor, Matt Damon)

Details matter to Mr. Damon, who has put together his quietly impressive résumé with a curatorial eye, working his way to the top of the Hollywood heap while avoiding the traps of a typical A-list career. “The leading-man stuff doesn’t come easily to me,” he said. “I’ve always felt like a character actor.”

…

But the increasing variety of Mr. Damon’s roles and the almost perversely self-effacing ease with which he sinks into them suggest the thoughtful, restless sensibility of an actor who, as his frequent collaborator Steven Soderbergh put it, “is thinking about expanding himself as opposed to presenting himself as a movie star.”

In Mr. Soderbergh’s acerbic character study “The Informant!” (now in theaters), Mr. Damon transforms himself into a doughy, delusional executive who exposes an agribusiness price-fixing scheme. In Clint Eastwood’s “Invictus” (opening on Dec. 11), he’s a rugby captain entrusted by Nelson Mandela with bringing socially unifying sporting glory to post-apartheid South Africa. And he reteams with Paul Greengrass, who directed him in “The Bourne Supremacy” and “The Bourne Ultimatum,” for “Green Zone” (scheduled for a March release), in which he plays a chief warrant officer on a futile hunt for weapons of mass destruction in newly occupied Iraq.

“Matt has a lot of repeat business,” Mr. Soderbergh said. “That’s always a good sign. It’s the real indication of how people feel, if they want to have that experience again.” Mr. Damon has made two films with Gus Van Sant, three with Mr. Greengrass, five with Mr. Soderbergh (including all three “Ocean’s” movies). He has also worked with Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Terry Gilliam and Anthony Minghella.

“I’ve learned a lot just by standing next to these great directors and watching them,” Mr. Damon said. He shared an Oscar for the screenplay of “Good Will Hunting” and wants to direct some day. (Mr. Affleck has already made the leap, to some acclaim, with “Gone Baby Gone” in 2007.) Until he finds the right project, he’s happy to keep “arming myself with information,” he said. “Clint didn’t start until he was 39, and he’s had 40 great years.”

His watchful acting style comes partly from adopting the mind-set of a student on a film set. “He’s interested in the totality of the film,” Mr. Soderbergh said, adding that this was not necessarily a common perspective for an actor. The few times he required direction in “The Informant!,” Mr. Soderbergh noted, it was because the obliviousness of his character conflicted so starkly with his basic approach: “Matt has such a well-developed understanding of the context of a film, but he was playing someone who’s never aware of context.”

The hallmark of Mr. Damon’s screen presence is his intelligent physicality, his ability to convey plot points and character psychology through subtle, precise shifts in facial expressions and body language, whether playing the tightly coiled Jason Bourne or the schlumpy Mark Whitacre in “The Informant!”

…

But what Mr. Damon does in the Bourne movies is trickier than just making an intense cardio workout look good. “It’s the way he frames his physical choices as an actor,” Mr. Greengrass said. “It’s not just: oh, they’re after me, I’ve got to run; it’s about finding in what he does an impulsion to move. There’s an imminence about his acting.”

He singled out the foot chase through Berlin midway through “The Bourne Supremacy” that ends with Bourne jumping on a train. “The entire character hinged on that one dialogue-less moment,” Mr. Greengrass said, in which Mr. Damon “had to convey three different ideas: first, he’s evaded his pursuers; second, he feels a gnawing self-disgust because he’s discovered he’s a killer; and third, there is a huge implicit sense that he’s got a plan.”

For “The Informant!,” a very different kind of physical performance, he gained 30 pounds and had his face puffed up with prosthetics. The disguise obscures “the boundaries of the character,” Mr. Damon said. “It was all a metaphor for this guy being kind of undefined.”

That more or less sums up the quintessential Matt Damon role: the tabula rasa hero. It’s hard to think of another contemporary star who has played so many unknowable ciphers. Whitacre’s babbling stream of consciousness can be heard throughout “The Informant!,” but he proves to be an obscurely motivated protagonist and a hopelessly unreliable narrator. The amnesiac superspy Jason Bourne is an existential puzzle, not least to himself. Tom Ripley, of “The Talented Mr. Ripley” (1999), is an opaque shape-shifter, the antihero as identity thief.

For Mr. Damon, the appeal of embodying these ambiguous characters is in peeling back their inscrutable facades. “As an actor you have to make decisions about what their motivations are,” he said, “even if you don’t let on.”

Mr. Damon’s method, discreet to the point of invisibility, is premised on not letting on, not making it seem like work. “Even with a performance that big,” Mr. Soderbergh said, referring to Mr. Damon’s turn in “The Informant!,” “you never catch him acting.”

Morgan Freeman, who plays Mr. Mandela in “Invictus,” said that Mr. Damon is, “like myself, a journeyman,” meaning it as a compliment. “He always gets the job done,” Mr. Freeman said. “There’s no strain in his work.”

But understatement is often overlooked, as Mr. Damon is well aware. “There’s a style of acting that tends to get rewarded,” Mr. Damon said. After a pause, he added, “It’s not what I do.” (His one acting Oscar nomination was for “Good Will Hunting.”)

…

Mr. Damon’s existence as a public figure has coincided with the rise of warp-speed Internet-age celebrity culture. “People who thought they could control their image are from a different era,” he said. His overnight success made him a tempting target for a while, and he was mocked in everything from the Off Broadway spoof “Matt & Ben” to “Team America: World Police,” the animated satire in which the Matt Damon puppet is capable of uttering only his own name.

He acknowledged that he occupies an enviable position in the Hollywood firmament. Of the actors on “the shortlist who can get movies greenlit,” he said, “I probably have to deal with the least amount of nonsense around celebrity.”

…

His oddly low-key brand of stardom allows Mr. Damon, craftsmanlike actor that he is, simply to get on with the job. He is both ambitious enough to mention, more than once, “my list,” an inventory of filmmakers he still wants to work with, and modest enough to note that the list has already exceeded his wildest expectations.

Details matter to Mr. Damon, who has put together his quietly impressive résumé with a curatorial eye, working his way to the top of the Hollywood heap while avoiding the traps of a typical A-list career. “The leading-man stuff doesn’t come easily to me,” he said. “I’ve always felt like a character actor.”

…

But the increasing variety of Mr. Damon’s roles and the almost perversely self-effacing ease with which he sinks into them suggest the thoughtful, restless sensibility of an actor who, as his frequent collaborator Steven Soderbergh put it, “is thinking about expanding himself as opposed to presenting himself as a movie star.”

In Mr. Soderbergh’s acerbic character study “The Informant!” (now in theaters), Mr. Damon transforms himself into a doughy, delusional executive who exposes an agribusiness price-fixing scheme. In Clint Eastwood’s “Invictus” (opening on Dec. 11), he’s a rugby captain entrusted by Nelson Mandela with bringing socially unifying sporting glory to post-apartheid South Africa. And he reteams with Paul Greengrass, who directed him in “The Bourne Supremacy” and “The Bourne Ultimatum,” for “Green Zone” (scheduled for a March release), in which he plays a chief warrant officer on a futile hunt for weapons of mass destruction in newly occupied Iraq.

“Matt has a lot of repeat business,” Mr. Soderbergh said. “That’s always a good sign. It’s the real indication of how people feel, if they want to have that experience again.” Mr. Damon has made two films with Gus Van Sant, three with Mr. Greengrass, five with Mr. Soderbergh (including all three “Ocean’s” movies). He has also worked with Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Terry Gilliam and Anthony Minghella.

“I’ve learned a lot just by standing next to these great directors and watching them,” Mr. Damon said. He shared an Oscar for the screenplay of “Good Will Hunting” and wants to direct some day. (Mr. Affleck has already made the leap, to some acclaim, with “Gone Baby Gone” in 2007.) Until he finds the right project, he’s happy to keep “arming myself with information,” he said. “Clint didn’t start until he was 39, and he’s had 40 great years.”

His watchful acting style comes partly from adopting the mind-set of a student on a film set. “He’s interested in the totality of the film,” Mr. Soderbergh said, adding that this was not necessarily a common perspective for an actor. The few times he required direction in “The Informant!,” Mr. Soderbergh noted, it was because the obliviousness of his character conflicted so starkly with his basic approach: “Matt has such a well-developed understanding of the context of a film, but he was playing someone who’s never aware of context.”

The hallmark of Mr. Damon’s screen presence is his intelligent physicality, his ability to convey plot points and character psychology through subtle, precise shifts in facial expressions and body language, whether playing the tightly coiled Jason Bourne or the schlumpy Mark Whitacre in “The Informant!”

…

But what Mr. Damon does in the Bourne movies is trickier than just making an intense cardio workout look good. “It’s the way he frames his physical choices as an actor,” Mr. Greengrass said. “It’s not just: oh, they’re after me, I’ve got to run; it’s about finding in what he does an impulsion to move. There’s an imminence about his acting.”

He singled out the foot chase through Berlin midway through “The Bourne Supremacy” that ends with Bourne jumping on a train. “The entire character hinged on that one dialogue-less moment,” Mr. Greengrass said, in which Mr. Damon “had to convey three different ideas: first, he’s evaded his pursuers; second, he feels a gnawing self-disgust because he’s discovered he’s a killer; and third, there is a huge implicit sense that he’s got a plan.”

For “The Informant!,” a very different kind of physical performance, he gained 30 pounds and had his face puffed up with prosthetics. The disguise obscures “the boundaries of the character,” Mr. Damon said. “It was all a metaphor for this guy being kind of undefined.”

That more or less sums up the quintessential Matt Damon role: the tabula rasa hero. It’s hard to think of another contemporary star who has played so many unknowable ciphers. Whitacre’s babbling stream of consciousness can be heard throughout “The Informant!,” but he proves to be an obscurely motivated protagonist and a hopelessly unreliable narrator. The amnesiac superspy Jason Bourne is an existential puzzle, not least to himself. Tom Ripley, of “The Talented Mr. Ripley” (1999), is an opaque shape-shifter, the antihero as identity thief.

For Mr. Damon, the appeal of embodying these ambiguous characters is in peeling back their inscrutable facades. “As an actor you have to make decisions about what their motivations are,” he said, “even if you don’t let on.”

Mr. Damon’s method, discreet to the point of invisibility, is premised on not letting on, not making it seem like work. “Even with a performance that big,” Mr. Soderbergh said, referring to Mr. Damon’s turn in “The Informant!,” “you never catch him acting.”

Morgan Freeman, who plays Mr. Mandela in “Invictus,” said that Mr. Damon is, “like myself, a journeyman,” meaning it as a compliment. “He always gets the job done,” Mr. Freeman said. “There’s no strain in his work.”

But understatement is often overlooked, as Mr. Damon is well aware. “There’s a style of acting that tends to get rewarded,” Mr. Damon said. After a pause, he added, “It’s not what I do.” (His one acting Oscar nomination was for “Good Will Hunting.”)

…

Mr. Damon’s existence as a public figure has coincided with the rise of warp-speed Internet-age celebrity culture. “People who thought they could control their image are from a different era”, he said. His overnight success made him a tempting target for a while, and he was mocked in everything from the Off Broadway spoof “Matt & Ben” to “Team America: World Police”, the animated satire in which the Matt Damon puppet is capable of uttering only his own name.

He acknowledged that he occupies an enviable position in the Hollywood firmament. Of the actors on “the shortlist who can get movies greenlit”, he said, “I probably have to deal with the least amount of nonsense around celebrity.”

…

His oddly low-key brand of stardom allows Mr. Damon, craftsmanlike actor that he is, simply to get on with the job. He is both ambitious enough to mention, more than once, “my list”, an inventory of filmmakers he still wants to work with, and modest enough to note that the list has already exceeded his wildest expectations.

Are you thinking of getting into a heated discussion about acting, with me? I  hope so.

Follow me on Twitter. ReTweet this if you already are on there. Post it on your Facebook too, if you would. Thanks.

Best,

:~Dana

::

Director or Actor –For Either, It’s The Wisdom Of The Prep…

::

Screenwriter and Director,  Rodrigo Garcia, has a new film,  Mother And Child. Lead actors are  Samuel Jackson and Naomi Watts.

At the end of the clip, he spills some strong wisdom about prep. This wisdom, not only applies to directors; but is also solidly true for actors. It’s gospel.

Rodrigo Garcia:                                                                                                                                                   (Making Of)

You learn the same lessons over and over again. Sometimes, you forget them, and they are elementary.

You never recuperate from problems in the script.

You never recuperate from casting the wrong person…

So, the amount of directing, as it were, that you do before the first day of principal photography, has a large impact on the movie.

Especially new directors, they’re eager to be on set.

That’s the romantic part of moviemaking, to be on set with the stars, and the cameras are rolling,  and you feel like you’re the director,  you are actually doing it.

But I think the decisions made before the first day, before the camera rolls, are probably the decisions of the movie.

A scene from Mother and Child, actors Naomi Watts and Samuel Jackson.

Best,

:~Dana

Please post this  on your Twitter, or Facebook,  using the easy icons above.

Thanks for sharing this forward with other actors.

Michel Gondry is currently directing ‘The Green Hornet’.

You may know him from ‘Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind’

Some important revelations he makes:

Finish.

You don’t learn without completing.  Without suffering through your mistakes, to the lessons that are on the other side of them.

Start.

You know nothing without starting.

Not even where your areas of weakness are. Where you had better define, confront, and improve; or you probably won’t get a decent acting job, let alone a good one.

“Actors are like children.” Quote, unquote.

Not all. Not the extremely professional ones. And, even working professional actors of the very successful stature, can be immature in some areas.  Like all humans.

Here’s the flip side of what he calls being like a child: needing positive reinforcement, some guidance.

We all need support. ALL. That’s part of being human, part of working on a team.

It’s also part of working on a team. Seeking reinforcement from each other.

Actors want a director who can lead, guide.

And, yes, at the most professional level, the director should be running the show.

Therefore #1, I wonder if what Mr. Gondry is interpreting as an immature child-need, may really  be professional actor acquiescence and teamwork….Actors checking in to make sure that they are on the right track. Giving the director, and the script, what is needed from the actor.

Therefore #2, which I have said before, on Hollywood Actor Prep:

Directors aren’t dieties.  (Even if they are brilliant. And French.)Which brings us to…

Therefore #3, which actually circles back and reinforces what I wrote at the beginning of this post.  If an actor doesn’t start, and doesn’t finish, doing scenes or exercises in whatever classes they are in, continuing to study and do their craft exercises, auditioning,  their webisodes; whatever and all, consistently and with commitment…

[Pause, a second.Do I seem to be too heavy-hitting here? It reads a bit like that to me. And  I guess that's tough.  Because I could sugarcoat, or only say the things that are of the hunky-dory type, but that would get you nowhere.]

Because in order to be, and remain, a professional actor, you need to know your stuff.

You can’t be an apprentice.  You can really never know enough. It’s all process.

[Video from Making Of.]

Here’s an irony of professional acting.

You must be able to act, and act exceptionally, without a director; to be hired and work for a good one. You also  should be at a point where you have had so much experience; that you  know yourself and your acting abilities, so well, that you don’t need to go and get approval from the director.  You already should have a very clear and accurate assessment of your abilities, and they should be at or near professional level, before you ever begin auditioning. Ideally. For the higher level work, for quality projects.

That way, when you do get on a set, or on stage, you’ll be able to decipher if  your director is Godlike, and you’ve hit a great working situation, and are in a great work of art; or if your director is merde (that’s a French word), and you need to watch that he or she doesn’t ruin your performance or career. That’s a high level of acting, right there. To be able to do that, on a job.

If you are truly ready to be an acting professional…

There’s a good chance you will become one.  One sure way to tell is if your director treats you like you are merde, and it doesn’t even affect your performance one bit.  You don’t get affected by it, because you are truly confident, based on experience. (Not due to wishing, narcissism, or even self-help dogma.)

When you truly are a professional actor, inside, you will be able to tell, even in the most pressured work situation, that the director is treating you like merde, just because he’s French. Not because your acting isn’t spectacular. And right-on for the script. And even better than almost anyone else could do. Fa’Real.

Don’t forget that I am tweeting from The 61st Emmys, LIVE!

Sunday, September 20th, 2009.

My Twitter name  is __dana__..Tweet  back,    Emmy  Night!

Posting these videos tonight, to get them out quickly…

As  far as the videography goes, especially  in  the  Jim Parsons video, there is  nuttin’ much to do about that.

I asked a nice stranger standing nearby, to hold  the camera for me.

Why he zoomed in and out, and even  turned off the camera during a portion (cutting some very nice stuff out, of Jim’s!)–Well, uh, your guess  is  as good  as mine.
Serves me right, I guess.

“Don’t talk  to strangers…Especially when you want them to hold a camera for you…on the Red Carpet”

(My parents always told me that I insist on learning the hard way.)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Actor  +  Emmy  Nominee Jim Parsons, ‘The Big Bang Theory’

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Actor, Producer, Animation Voice, Philly Guy, Seth Green

Notice how Philly-ish I  sound  when I speak to  Seth?

Or is that just all in my head?

(Yes, always…”a very active imagination”.)

More interviews coming in the next few weeks…

—Unlike In Any Other Profession

“Is success in any other profession as dazzling, as deeply satisfying, as it is in the theatre? I cannot pretend to know, but I doubt it. There are other professions where the rewards are as great or greater than those the theatre offers, there are professions where the fruits of success are as immediate, and still others where the pursuit of a more admirable goal undoubtedly brings a nobler sense of fulfillment. But I wonder if success in any of them tastes as sweet. Again, I am inclined to doubt it. There is an intensity, an extravagance, an abundant and unequivocal gratification to the vanity and the ego that can be satisfied more richly and more fully by success in the theatre than in any other calling. Like everything else about the theatre, its success is emphatic and immoderate. Perhaps what makes it so marvelously satisfying is that it is a success that is anything but lonely–everyone seems to share in it, friends and strangers alike–and a first success in the theatre is the most intoxicating and beguiling time imaginable. No success afterward surpasses it.”
Moss Hart, Act One

Moss Hart was a prolific, Pulitzer Prize winning playwright, and theatre director.

Hat tip to ArtsJournal.com…

Freddy Rodriguez:: An Actor On The Panel At LA Film Fest…

On the dais, alongside him, were actors Melissa Leo (Frozen River, Homicide) and Andre Royo (The Wire).

Here’s a bit of what Freddy Rodriguez shared…

I think, as Melissa said, we all have been in different places in our careers.
We have that a luxury that we can choose and don’t choose and all that.

If I was speaking from a straight visceral reaction–it’s just that.

I have to have that initial reaction, to the project.

Sometimes it’s with a big production
Sometimes it’s with an indie film
Sometimes it’s with a first-time director
Sometimes it’s with a well-known director

But I think it all starts on the page and I have to feel it, ya know.
Because I sometimes feel like that if you don’t feel it then when you’re onscreen, you’re not going to be able to evoke that emotion, you know.

And you then as an audience member, are gonna be there, and you paid your 13 bucks.
And you say “Ach…Freddy’s phony.
He’s not really feeling that.
He did it for the check.”

I try, I never want people to pay their hard-earned money and then go and watch me in a film
and feel like I’m not really, you know, present.

So I have to choose the projects that I do according to that–
Whether I [feel what it takes]…to bring that character to life.

But then,
The flipside to that as they were saying, is that it’s also a business.

Sometimes a Steven Spielberg or somebody will call and says: “Hey I really want you to be a part of this project!”

Here’s an example:
I did ‘Poseidon’ with Wolfgang Petersen.
It was a small role, kind of a cool role.
But it was Wolfgang Petersen –and a 200-million-dollar movie
So–
Did I read it ad go “Awww, I’m gonna really sink my teeth into this?”
No! But you go–it’s Wolfgang Petersen –and it was Warner Brothers–and it was a gigantic 200-million-dollar movie.

Or, like when I did ‘Lady In The Water’ with M. Light Shyamalan.
This is a small part so I try to just take it and flip it into mine and
Make it special, even if it’s not there on the page.

–Sometimes you make those decisions according to whose involved.

What Bea Arthur Knew About Comic Acting

In the following video interview, there is so much brilliant information about acting.  About comedy.

The sheer amount of wisdom, that she shares in this video, about acting and comedy, is astonishing…

If you are unfamiliar with Bea Arthur, she is most famous for a television series that was hugely popular, in the ’70’s called “Maude”. It was a unique type of show for it’s time, historical. Bea Arthur played the lead role.

She was also a star on ” The Golden Girls”.

Her background was in the New York theatre; serious dramas, comedy shows, and musicals. (She was the original “Yentl, The Matchmaker”, on Broadway in “Fiddler On The Roof”.         

 For Ms Arthur’s bio, click  here.

I am featuring her, here, on Hollywood Actor Prep, because this great comic actress passed away this past week. It’s been said that she had “impeccable comic timing“.

Actress Bea Arthur Will Be Remembered As A True Artist

A few quotes from the acting wisdom  in this interview,  recorded in 2001:

I was bringing my New York Theatre Training to television. I was trying to turn sitcom into an artform…

I really feel that I am an exposed nerve. I don’t know how else to say it, but I am. I am moved by everything. By music, by the show I am in now, and certain songs, it just affects me so…

I have such a strong feeling about comedy.  I’ve seen so many excellent actors, who the minute they are told they’re in a comedy turn into G-d knows what, creatures from another planet. I mean the voice changes, they don’t look the same…

Belief, truth. Truth…Truth.

Hal Cooper who directed “Maude” said that some people have a funny bone and some people don’t.

I learned this from Sid [Caesar] : I’m fearless. I’ll take my time.

At the end, the interviewer asked Ms Arthur how she would like to be remembered. She replied, “As an Artist“.  

Sure thing, Ms Arthur…

Acting Intelligence, Moxie, and Keira Knightley

Keira Knightley has been been acting for some time, even though she is not yet 24 years old.  She’s got real actor’s wisdom, even at her young age, it’s evident in this interview.

In the following interview, I like all that she says about acting.  Acting in big films, acting in smaller films; and acting in period pieces. How and why she chooses different acting roles.  There’s something so lifeful, brave, and challenging about her simple little takes on it all. 

I was drawn, also, to the points she made…how rarely the intricacies and dynamics of female friendships are explored in movies; and, to the comments she makes about the archetypal power of first romances and how that dynamic carries through the other relationships that come after.

Intelligence and moxie.  Two things that actors need.  Two attributes that help beginning actors make their way through to a career. Two aspects of actors that help in defining, some, as artistic.  Two inherent traits that define real actors, necessarily.  

As for Keira Knightley, those two traits could have been responsible for her ascent to movie star, and to keeping her there. Rather, of course, than just being another pretty face, in a sea of many.  After reading this, you may see that her ongoing success and perhaps even her initial career breaks, weren’t accidental, or just luck.

This interview was originally a podcast, by Andrew O’Hehir for Salon.  The film that they are discussing is called “The Edge Of Love”; about the writer Dylan Thomas and his relationships. 

Actor Keira Knightley "The Edge Of Love"

Hi, Keira. So tell us a little bit more about “The Edge of Love.” What’s this movie about, as you see it?

Oh, it’s a film about a friendship group imploding. I think that is the best way I can put it. One of the people happens to be the poet Dylan Thomas, but I wouldn’t say that it is a Dylan Thomas biopic. I think it is more about friendship.

Right. I mean, people who are interested in Thomas’ poetry will be excited to see the film, and we do hear some snatches of it, here and there. But that’s not really a prerequisite, is it?

No, it is not. Not at all. Hopefully it will be a fascination if you do love Thomas’ work, but no. A lot of this film focuses on female friendship, around difficulties within love and friendship, you know. So, I think hopefully people that have no idea who Dylan Thomas is will still enjoy the film.

The character that you play is based upon, or similar to,  a historical person. You play Vera Phillips, who was, for a time, the lover of Dylan Thomas. The film is set during World War II, it’s a romantic film, a sexy film. I think those are all words that we can use.

I don’t know. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a romance. As for sexy, yes, I suppose there are a couple of sex scenes and yes, I think that sex, as far as being a discussion point, is rather a big theme within the film. But I think as far as calling it a sexy film, that makes it sound like a porn movie!

Well, all right. It is not a porn movie. B ut if it’s not a romance, it’s still a very romantic story about two couples who have this intense, overheated relationship with each other. And it doesn’t all go so terribly well, does it?

I’ve always been fascinated with World War II and with the ’40s as a period because, you know, there is this idea that people are living their lives with death raining down around them. They really have to grip onto life as much as they possibly can because they don’t know how much time they’ve got. Particularly in London, with the bombs falling from the sky, they lived each moment to its absolute max and I think that’s what these characters are doing. That can be incredibly explosive and volatile, and this was a friendship that burned very bright for a certain amount of time until it burnt out. I suppose in that sense it is quite a tragic story, and quite a romantic story.

That period when England was facing the Nazis, pretty much alone, in 1940 and ‘41, that’s intensely powerful. We’re almost 70 years after the fact, and it still plays a big role in the British nation’s sense of itself, don’t you think?

Gosh, I think that is a very difficult thing to know. I think it plays a huge role, just as Pearl Harbor has enormous relevance for America. Yeah, I think there’s the obvious fact that you still see the scars of the Blitz all over London and if you live here you can’t help but notice that. You know, we have all these huge new buildings, most of them built where the old ones were blown to pieces. My grandparents lived through the Second World War so there were stories all the way through, and my parents’ generation have grown up with a definite sense of coming through that. It’s a big part of our history, definitely.

You said earlier that you were particularly interested in that period. Is there something about you that particularly draws you to period films in general? You never seem to wind up playing, you know, the girl at the mall.

I’m not quite sure why, but the strongest female characters I’ve found have predominantly been in period films, more than in modern-day films. At least with the stuff that’s been sent to me. I love watching period movies because I think that watching films is about escapism and about fantasy and I find it easier to dive into a fantasy that I don’t know anything about, you know, that I don’t live day to day. I love that feeling of escapism that period films give me, and that books about different times give me, or paintings give me. But I wasn’t setting out to go, “OK, I’m only going to do period films.” I work in a very instinctual way and I respond to certain things and I have no idea why, but for some reason the last couple of films have all been period.

Did you consciously intend to do some smaller films at this point in your career, or to alternate smaller and larger films? I suppose it almost sounds insulting to call this a small film, because in some ways its ambition is pretty large. But it presumably doesn’t have the budget of a Hollywood film.

Oh, you know, it’s a very small film. I love working in Britain because it is my home and it means I can be with my friends and family and work at the same time. If you are working in Britain, a lot of the time you are doing much smaller budget. I like doing a mixture of both. Early on in my career I did some enormously huge-budget films, and to be able to switch it up a bit and do small-budget ones is great as well. I mean, whenever you do a period film it is always going to cost a lot more than the modern-day pieces, because you have to close off streets, you have to build huge sets, you have to do it up. But there was something about this film — because we didn’t have that much money, I don’t know — I thought everybody had to be incredibly creative and work very quickly. You didn’t have the luxury of doing 15 takes to get something right.

You said one reason to work in Britain is to be near your family. Certainly you have a family connection to this film.

My mum wrote it, you mean?

Yes, that’s what I mean.

Yeah, well, we’ve never meant to work together. Not that we meant not to work together, but it wasn’t anything that had ever been discussed. It was simply that, you know, on a couple of things that she’s done she has asked me for notes, and this was one of them. She was actually visiting me when I was filming “The Jacket” with John Maybury, who directed this as well. And she said, “You know, would you mind just giving me some notes on this?” And I read it, and went, “Oh, that’s amazing!” It was always the relationship between the women that I thought was so beautifully drawn. In a lot of films, getting female friendship right is very difficult, and I haven’t seen it in all its complexities very much. I just thought she caught something really fascinating between all four of them, but particularly the women.

So it sort of went from there and I took it to a producer and said, “Look, it’s rather good, can you help?” And they said, “Oh, is this something you’re interested in?” Actually I hadn’t even thought about it, but I said yes because I thought that was the only way that he’d read it! Then I went back to her and said, “OK, he’s reading it but I think I’m now involved. Is that OK?” And she went, “Oh, OK. Fine.” It sort of went from there.

Now, the female friendship in the film is between your character, Vera, and Caitlin Thomas, who is played by Sienna Miller. How did you and Sienna work that out, in terms of preparing that relationship? Did you spend a lot of time together? Did you feel like you had to get to know each other?

I knew Sienna a little bit before we started but not very well. Actually it was amazing, because she literally said yes to it two weeks before we started, so there wasn’t really much time to get to know each other. But we filmed quite a bit of it in Wales and we all lived together, and that was great. It was just one of those very fortunate things where all four of the cast members just clicked, you know? It doesn’t always happen, but it’s awfully nice when it does. It really helped the entire atmosphere that you actually had four actors that really enjoyed each other’s company and really got on.

I always enjoy seeing the Irish actor Cillian Murphy, who plays your husband in the film. Talk about that marriage, because it’s kind of a strange situation.

I mean, it’s a wartime marriage, so it is two people that don’t necessarily know each other very well. But they know that he’s going off to fight and might not come back, so they get married, and she gets … I don’t want to give too much away! They spend a lot of time apart and it’s that thing where you change in time apart. I think they’re apart about a year, and all of a sudden — you didn’t know each other that well and now you really don’t know each other and it’s quite a tricky balance, living with somebody who has changed so much that you don’t recognize them. So it’s a relationship based on that, on that unease of trying to figure things out and also living in violent times, very strange times.

Cillian, in a funny way, has the most difficult part because he’s the outsider. When he goes away to war, my character gets very close with Caitlin and Dylan Thomas and they start living together, they’re this very tight friendship group. When he comes back he feels very outside that. So it’s an interesting sort of push and pull between somebody who is feeling very ostracized by his experience and the people that he finds himself in the middle of.

Now, your character, Vera — and I think this is true to life — was probably Dylan Thomas’ first girlfriend or first lover, right?

Yeah. I think they were childhood sweethearts, I’d say, more than lovers. And it’s sort of a running theme, the innocence of that — they both look back at their relationship in a very nostalgic way and I think through rose-tinted glasses. It’s a fantasy for both of them. That can be very powerful between two people and it’s something you can never get in the way of. You can’t try to eliminate somebody’s past. It’s a very strong connection with those two, particularly, as I said before, because they are living in such violent times. You know, this peaceful childhood which seemed very romantic. I think for the other two characters this is something that shuts them out.

So they have this very strong connection together, and then I think there was something sexual within the relationship at some point. Obviously, for everybody that always adds a very strange tension. There is a tension between everybody and then Vera and Caitlin become friends, and Caitlin knows that there has been this relationship with her husband, that adds another layer of tension. It’s rather a tense piece.

Right, well, it’s almost an archetypal thing, isn’t it? These are meant to be specific characters in a specific setting, but many of us have gone through similar situations at some time in our lives. The presence of an old flame, or a pair of couples whose relationship is tense and unstable. These are patterns that occur a lot in human life.

Yeah, I’m sure they are. I think friendship in general is never a simple thing, or very seldom is it simple, particularly with very close friendships. I mean, even taking sex out of it, particularly between women it can be a very tense thing. So hopefully it will resonate with quite a few people, and you can recognize it and you can probably judge it quite harshly as well, but I think it is always something that you sort of understand on some level.

Your relationship with Sienna, or rather Vera’s relationship with Caitlin, is very intimate and also very competitive. 

Incredibly close and there is incredible jealousy. Which is what makes it interesting and I think that is what you see a lot in relationships between women. Not always, that’s an enormous generalization, but it is quite a common thing.

At the age of 23, you’ve already had this impressive career in film. Are there kinds of roles that you haven’t been able to do yet that you would like to look for?

Um, yes. I think every role I take, I take because I’m not quite sure that I can do it. And there are certain roles that I’ve been offered where I’ve gone, “Oh no, I can definitely do that, that’s easy,” and I don’t tend to think that’s the point; I think that you have to continue to push. It is not as simple as saying, “Oh, well, I’m not very good at this genre, so therefore I should try that,” or “This is what scares me.” It’s much smaller than that. It is reading a script and kind of going, “God, I don’t know if I can be relaxed enough to portray that piece,” or “I don’t know if I can be energetic enough to do that,” you know. But that’s the challenge and that’s what makes my job really interesting. I’ve been really fortunate. I have been in some films that I’m really proud of, and hopefully will continue to do so.

But I think the magic about this industry is that you always have to be ready to fall flat on your face in a very public way, and I have a couple of times. That’s what makes it so exciting, because when it works there is nothing like it, it’s amazing.

To hear the original podcast interview with  Actor Keira Knightley, click here.

Actors Need To Be Aware Of Their Blocks, and Issues

I know I’ve talked about this before in this blog, but it’s important, so I am bringing it home, again.

As an actor, you will be called upon to handle all the different emotions. If you aren’t comfortable expressing emotions, you may be in the wrong business.  All of us have some emotions that we feel are safe, or acceptable to express. We have others that don’t flow as easily.  We may not even be aware of our inability to easily express these emotions. That’s called denial, by the way.

I suggest that you observe yourself, just keep a casual eye out, in your daily life. First, note if some  of the socially-unacceptable emotions back you up. Like anger. Frustration.

What ones do you take pride in keeping inside, or under wraps, or under  your control. In our culture, that’s called restraint.

Denial and restraint are toxic to acting.

I am not suggesting that all anger should be expressed by screaming and yelling.  Often in acting, authentic anger breaking through restraint or delivered along with, and in sprite of , the shame of experiencing the anger; can make it more specific, and more poignant. More powerful.

But it must be something that the actor is aware of, in his own self, to be able to play.  At all. Without faking.  That kind of acting is very advanced, and it’s source is extreme-self-awareness.

If you have repressed emotions, you may not be able to define them as blocks–even if they are, in truth. Look over the beliefs of your cultural upbringing: Was it okay to cry?  To express disappointment? What about an entitlement to happiness? (These are just some examples…)

What about in your own individual family?  Were you given a “voice”? Respected? Which emotions were welcomed, and which were not?  Which ones got attended to; and which emotions were you, perhaps, punished for? Belittled? Or ignored?

How did your parents express their emotions, to each other? To you? How did they model emotional-appropriateness? Often, inhibiting emotional expression is modeled.  What attitudes did you subconsciously absorb?

Psychologists are finding that the outside world can have an even greater effect than your family. When you were growing up, what peers or teachers may have influenced the facility you have with emotion?

Often, those events that are prominent in  your memory, from your childhood, hold a clue. Do you have a memory from your childhood which changed you in some way? What about the ones that must’ve had an emotional charge, or else you wouldn’t remember them so clearly. Can you define what decisions  you may have made, from those experiences, way back when they occurred? Decisions about yourself? Decisions about your accuracy of emotion? Expressing emotion?

Permission To Act, With Authentic Emotion

Do  you give yourself permission to act?  Are you allowed to enjoy  yourself, on stage; according to you? What about to feel emotions? To express emotions? 

If you don’t, neither will the characters you play.

Is it okay to act without emotion? 

I don’t think so.

Acting that comes from unconnected skill, or pretending, sucks.  Acting that goes through “the motions” sucks. Acting that is one-dimensional sucks. Acting that isn’t authentic emotion, really sucks.

Experiencing And Expressing Authentic Emotion

…Is the most important thing that you must know how to do, as an actor.

If you are able to allow yourself to feel, and express, the gamut of human emotions, with those who you are intimate with, then you can channel it to your acting.

How do you do that, successfully?  With your acting craft.

…More about this, later on…

For Actors or Directors, or anyone involved in a creative process:

This is an amazing interview.  Director Spike Jonze (‘Being John Malkovich’)  reveals his original way of working  on his new movie ‘Where The Wild Things Are’…his process, his goals, his crafting a way to get to the ‘real’ place he wanted this film to be. 

If this wasn’t a Saturday afternoon; then I would spend more time giving you some excerpt-teases, take some more time to rope you in with description; but, instead, you are just gonna have to trust me and dive into reading this thing–it’s the bomb!

 It’s full of creative ingenuity, individual artistry, and accomplishing “truth”; and how he kept the little boy’s acting “real”.

Book Illustration

The Film “Where The Wild Things Are”

Spike Jonze, director; due to be released in October, 2009.

Actors in this movie are: Forest Whitaker, Cathleen Keener, James Gandolfini.  Most of the writing of the film was done by Dave Eggars, and Spike Jonze.

I am posting an interview with Spike Jonze, that I got from the “Aint It Cool” website.   At the bottom, will be the movie poster for “Where The Wild Things Are”.  If you click on the poster, it will open in a new page.  You can either print it out, use it on your desktop, or email it to a friend.

Crowning Max--Film Still

Moriarty: …You’ve gone at it in a way that is really unlike any other production like this I’ve ever heard of.

Spike Jonze: Yup.

Moriarty: Is it the fact that you guys came out of the commercial background and the video background and things where you’d been able to experiment that freed you up to think about effects this way? 

Spike Jonze: Yeah, we were talking about that recently. We’re working with this company, Framestore, it’s an effects company, and in dealing with them it’s so different from dealing with an effects company ten years ago because effects companies are so much more humble. And I think it’s partially because they used to hold the keys to the secret chest of magic or whatever, and a lot of directors who come up now through videos, it’s not as separate, doing effects; it’s just part of telling the story. And I do think with a lot of directors – and not even just like Robert Rodriguez or whoever, Fincher, Chris Cunningham, Gondry – it’s like effects are just one of the tools, as opposed to “Here’s a script that needs to be filmed, how do we execute this thing?” It’s more just one of the tools you use to create a feeling that you want the movie or story to feel like.

Moriarty: …Other guys…They just do what they’re told in terms of getting it onscreen. But you guys really seem like you break the mold of how these things are done when you approach it, and from the ground up you kind of build new ways of getting to these ideas.

Spike Jonze: Yeah, I think this one I just wanted to… from the beginning, I wanted it to feel a certain way. I wanted it to feel “real,” or not-real because it’s not “real,” I wanted it to feel like… like when I was a kid, and I would play with my Star Wars action figures, or read Maurice’s books and imagine me being Mickey in IN THE NIGHT KITCHEN, or whatever it was… it felt like it was everything, you know? It’s like your imagination is so convincing to yourself that… you’re there, you’re in it. And I wanted this movie to take it as seriously as kids take their imagination and not, like, fantasy it up. So I think it just started from that feeling, that it could feel like you were there with them, like Max was there with them, and not just in some fantasy movie.

Moriarty: I love that it’s not on a soundstage at all, that you just went to… is it New Zealand for the most part?

Spike Jonze: It’s actually Melbourne, right outside of Melbourne.

Moriarty: It’s phenomenal. It feels so rough, and organic, and there’s nothing about it that feels like a soundstage, or a backdrop, or a green screen. At no point do you believe that you’re on an artificial environment.

Spike Jonze: That’s great. Yeah, that was our aim, and it definitely was not easy. It made it a lot harder to take a little boy, these guys in suits, doing it all on camera. You know, so if they throw each other, it’s all on cables, and if we’re doing that, we’re doing it all on location. So it was definitely not the easiest way, but I tried not to think about that while I was conceiving it and just sort of conceive what would feel right. And I love the designs in the books. When I was a kid they were sort of seared into my subconscious – or unconscious.

[Laughs]

So I wanted to maintain the charm and feeling, because in the book the characters are so cuddly, but also dangerous. So I wanted to maintain the charm of Maurice’s characters, but then make them feel like they lived in this environment, and give them faces and eyes that could emote in the complexity of what the script needed them to be. And so that’s sort of where the designs came from. Also, I wanted him to be able to hug them, to be able to touch them and hug them, so…

Moriarty: I love how you didn’t have to sit around waiting for the Henson guys to get things to work, which is a separate art form, and you were just able to focus on the kid’s performance and not have fifteen tech guys trying to hit a cue at the same time. I think that must be insanity, trying to do that…

Spike Jonze: We were trying to make it as organic as possible, but even then… but the guys in the suits, the actors in the suits were incredible, and they really worked hard. I didn’t want performances of the suits or the animation to be like traditional puppetry or animation where everything’s sort of over-indicated, everything’s like “Wow wow WOW! Hey Max, how you doing!” It’s like they think everything has to be sold.

So we shot the whole movie with the voice actors on a soundstage, and we just shot it like a workshop. It looked like some sort of ‘70s experimental theatre or something like that, because it was just this blank soundstage with shag carpeting, and they were all in their socks so the sound was muted. It was just a really dead soundstage, sound-wise, and they could just act it out. We’d take foam cubes and build little trees or huts or whatever, and then we’d just workshop the scene like I would do with a live-action movie, and just find what the scene is about through blocking and improvising dialogue. And out of that stuff, then… because puppeteering and animation isn’t spontaneous in any way, but I wanted the movie to feel alive and immediate. I knew I could get that with Max, but I wanted the wild things also to have that kind of performance, so by doing that with the actors where everything is spontaneous, the guys in the suits would feed off of that. They would watch the tapes; we’d do playback for them so they’d be acting along to James Gandolfini’s voice in these speakers. And then the guy in the suit would just “feel” what Gandolfini did in his body and his shoulders, so after playback, when he starts to go, “Well… I don’t know, Max,” or whatever the line was, every little head movement would be intentional, because Gandolfini did everything with intention. They’re actors, so they aren’t even really thinking about it. With puppeteering, you have to decide what the intention is and then you have to figure out how to communicate it, because every puppet works differently. So nothing’s immediate or spontaneous about that form.

But with actors, it’s just something that happens between two or more of them. Somebody will say something, and the other will react in a way that just feels true in that moment. So we used that as the sort of basis for their performances and for the animation. It was like working backwards, finding what I wanted it to feel like and then creating a process.

Moriarty: Well the spontaneity works. I love the scene where they have the dirt clod war, because it almost felt to me like JACKASS. Like it’s got that kind of energy to it, where they’re aggressive and they’re big, and a little scary, and you feel like you could get hurt when they start going crazy around each other. But it also feels really loose, like they just have a giant dirt war fight. There’s nothing kind of ‘set piece’ about it. It just turns into this random bit of chaos. I liked that… 

Spike Jonze: Yeah. The process now is just so second nature to us, but we spent a long time after writing that script trying to figure out how to do it. Eric’s been on the movie for two and a half years, because he edited the voice shoot two years ago.

Moriarty: That’s an unusually long gig for an editor.

Spike Jonze: Yeah, we spent months just working on that voice shoot before we even shot a frame of the film. Then we took that to Australia.

Moriarty: Now was that with this Max?

Spike Jonze: No, he wasn’t in there because we didn’t want him to do the whole movie twice. We wanted everything to be spontaneous, so in that version we just used Catherine Keener. Me and her would basically switch off being Max with all the other actors. So I’d be Max and work a scene from inside, or Keener would be Max and I’d be able to stand outside the scene watching it. I can’t remember what we wore… we had this fur…

Eric Zumbrunnen: It was like a hat with ears on it.

Spike Jonze: Yeah, it was this hat with ears on it.

[Laughs]

It was almost like a raccoon-skin hat with ears that Keener found and gave to me for Christmas one year. So it was like whoever had that hat on was Max. But so yeah, with Max we didn’t want him to rehearse much, we just wanted him to show up on set and deal with whatever was happening. A lot of the energy on set was creating stuff off-camera for him to react to and engage in. That was like a whole movie into itself, the off-camera stuff for Max.

(More, later….)

Have a great weekend,

;~Dana

Please tell your friends about the Hollywood Actor Prep Blog.  

And follow me on Twitter: my user name there is   __dana__ .  (Link to Dana Kaminski’s Twitter page.)