HOLLYWOOD ACTOR PREP by Dana Kaminski

Pete Hammond And Tom O’Neil Discuss The History Of Oscar® Acting Awards, And Deserving…

Two Oscar Pundits discuss a long history of actors winning Academy Awards for movie performances that were really because of earlier performances, in previous film,  or for longevity of acting career.

There is something to be said for longevity of career. Especially if an actor gives great performance after great performance. That, to me, says that is maestro level acting chops. Very high-level, to be held in high esteem. Longevity of acting career, with repeated  high-level acting, bears a message that the great acting that the actor did in one movie wasn’t a fluke, or because of a great director, or even a good casting fit.

I think there should be another Oscar for that. Separate from an individual acting Oscar, and in addition to the Lifetime Achievement Oscar for Acting.

Seriously. An Oscar  can be awarded to show that we do respect and revere our accomplished and high-level actors. To Actors, that show, repeatedly, a great artistry.

Should we also have an Oscar for being lovable? I am serious about this too. George Clooney and Sandra Bullock are so loved by the public. I love them too. Her a bit more than him, but that is just a personal thing because I think she’s a bit more real than him, more authentic.I think she works hard, very hard.  Movie star status is important to the movie business. The Academy Awards are a movie-star-affair. Maybe there should be an additional movie star award, at the Oscars.

That way, the great acting performances will be the only criteria that gets rewarded by the Best Actor and Best Actress awards, and the Supporting acting categories as well. Not get all muddied up with these other categories or past performances.

I find this video interesting, and I love the history. When I started Oscar Prep, I used vintage footage from past Academy Awards, but then they put the Academy kabosh on that.

This video goes Oscar Vintage, so I dig it. Pete Hammond and Tom O’Neil really know their stuff, their Oscar® history…

(By the way, I disagree a bit with what they say about Sandra Bullock’s acting choices. That, later in another post.)

You can find these two Oscarologists, Tom O’Neil and Pete Hammond at the LA Times.

Enjoy

Dana

Acting Sad :: Not About Crying-On-Cue, It’s About Authenticity Of Emotion

In my own, private, acting-stash folder, I’ve been saving these photos of well-known actors:

• • • Willem Dafoe
    • Daniel Craig
    • Ed Harris
    • Forrest Whitaker
    • Gabriel Byrne
    • Michael Madsen
    • Paul Newman
    • Tim Roth
    • Ryan Gosling

I think these photos are an homage to the beauty of emotional truth. To real, authentic emotional acting. To these male actors’ craft. Each still photo provides, in a glimpse, the beauty that is the art of acting. The depth of great acting.

I look at them, myself, from time to time.  These photos honor my craft. They remind me of why I  committed myself, so passionately, so assiduously, for a very long time…to developing a masterful acting craft.

Sometimes, these photos renew my faith in the industry; when I’m feeling skeptical, or think it’s all about money, marketing, beauty, comics… These guys are well-known professional actors with longevity, and it is clearly not accidental. This special group is famous for a reason.

Thanks to artist, Sam Taylor-Wood for these photos ©2004

I Recorded Richard Lewis, With His Permission       …Of Course

This was at a special benefit organized by daughters of well-known comedians, to benefit a home for women in recovery, called “The Lenny Bruce Home”. Most of the audience were people who came to see the strong line-up of performers; which were Bobby Slayton, Dom Irrera, Paul Mooney, and of course, Richard Lewis. There were groups of friends of the comics in the audience as well.

I am posting this video today, for a few reasons. One, it’s Friday, and I like to put something funny up on Fridays, when I can. The second reason is that I am planning to write some posts about comedy acting, since the networks have a lot of comedy shows in development, ready to produce.  Comedy is not easy, as you must know. It’s a whole added-on layer, when you act. To say the very, very least.  Most acting teachers don’t know how to be funny, and act.  Almost none of them can be funny at all. If they are, they may not know how to translate that into teaching students; or they may be teaching a load of horse stink, if they do.

There’s some very wonderfully developed, dramatic acting techniques out there; and I urge every actor to choose one, and learn it well. There’s a reason that Stanislavsky and others after, developed such serious techniques. That’s great, because for any young actor,  it’s easy to find ways to be a better dramatic actor.  It does take commitment, but it is do-able.

Not so, for comedy.

There’s reasons for that too, that it hasn’t been developed.  One of those reasons is what I told you about acting teachers already.  The others could fill up at least a whole other article… I mention it only because I urge all students to be careful, when they hear a teacher claim to be able to teach comedy.  Or when a dramatic acting teacher does so, when a student brings into class,  a funny scene. It’s very easy to be taught some very wrong stuff, about comedy acting. That’s all I want to say: beware. It’s much better to have an acting teacher who knows their dramatic craft and how to teach it, very well; and doesn’t know comedy at all. Than one who claims to know both and is really not a master of either, as a teacher; or worse, teaches you some bad skills. You really do need to first, be a good actor, period.  That is, to later be great, at comedy acting.

Not for stand-up, however. To do stand-up, you need to be born funny.

And then you need lots and lots of experience onstage, for which you need serious chutzpah to be able to endure.  That is how stand-up acts are developed, and even stand-up ‘brands’; as well as good solid comic writing skills, comedy performing skills, and simple but-not-so-simple comic timing.

I can teach comedy; but I only do so with those who already have a great solid, acting technique in place, already.  I also regard my ability to teach comedy acting too valuable to simply give it away, online. Sorry. But, I do have lots of basics to share about comedy acting that isn’t master class level or refined skills, but can be very beneficial.

Another reason that I posted this is:  this video is Richard Lewis, onstage, in process.  It’s not a memorized act, line-by-line, topic-by-topic with usual segues (seg-ways: it’s  how a comedian bridges one topic to another). You can hear how he specifically chose material for this particular audience; he’s forgetting stuff, he’s adding to earlier stuff topics, later on… Especially, I want to point out how loose he is. Onstage, he’s at home. He’s been doing this for years, and it shows. He’s also amongst peers, and that may be contributing.

The obvious is, that Richard Lewis has an ease that you wouldn’t see in a younger, fresher comic.  The stage is familiar turf to him. As is writing his material, and performing it. He’s got a long history of results, positive ones. He’s used to getting laughs, used to being a professional comedian. Used to performing, used to being the funny guy, and being in the spotlight.

It’s an interesting juxtaposition, Richard Lewis’s ease onstage, alongside his comic ‘brand’. (You know how I dislike that word, when actors are taught to sell their artistry as if it’s a kind of soap, but in Richard Lewis’s case,  in the world of comedy, it’s a valid term.) His ‘brand’ is neurotic, worried, obsessive, keyed-up. And, for 30 years, his brand has been ‘funny’.

I’d love to hear your feedback after watching this.  Comments are open, just click down at the bottom of this post, where the smaller words, called ‘tags’, are.

In the next post I’ll tell you about Richard Lewis’s special, and brand-suited, acting preparation before he jumps onto the stage.

Enjoy,

;~Dana

[This video should probably not be recommended to kids. ]

Please pay the Hollywood Actor Prep fee, which is to share with at least one other person. Thanks for supporting actors, and for spreading funny around.

The actor, Ben Whishaw first became known at age 21, when acting in a Shakespeare play. Time Magazine says about Whishaw’s acting, in Hamlet:

Whishaw has been anointed the next great British actor from his Hamlet, at 21, in 2004. “Go and see Trevor Nunn’s Hamlet,” one London critic wrote. “In 40 years’ time you will be able to tell the grandchildren that you saw Ben Whishaw’s first great role.

Ben Whishaw is still in his early-ish 20’s, and some of his other acting credits include: ‘Perfume: The Story Of A Murderer’ and ‘I’m Not There’.

The currently showing film, where Whishaw’s got the lead acting role, is Jane Campion’s ‘Bright Star’. He plays the poet, John Keats. The entire film covers only two years in Keats’ life: when he was in love; and when he also wrote his best poetry.

YAMATO: Keats’ style of poetry emphasized nature and the poet giving himself over as a vessel to channel the universe. Is there a similar sense for you about the craft of acting?

WHISHAW: Yes, definitely. I think that’s one of the things I said to Jane when I auditioned. At the audition, we worked a little bit on the scene where I say that line, that a poet doesn’t have an identity because he’s always filling another body; whatever he’s looking at, he becomes that thing. I said, I think that’s a bit what it’s like to be an actor — sometimes you can lose a sense of yourself because you’re always trying to understand this other person. So I think you’re absolutely right, both are trying to become a vessel, a channel or something.

The entire interview, by Jen Yamato can be found, by clicking on the interviewer’s name. I do plan on running more excerpts, pertinent to actors and the craft of acting, throughout the rest of this this week.

Thank you to Jen Yamato, for the excerpts; and for doing the types of interviews that have the type of depth that can be appreciated by those in the acting arts.

Stripped Down :: One Actor’s Experience

Some actors say that having craft liberates them. Other actors use sensory or vocal exercises. Some actors use props, or various styles of preparation.

Some actors let the makeup or the costume inform the way they let their characters flow.

British actor, Steven Butler, is liberated by the lack of costume.

In London’s West End, he acts naked.

He is naked.

In front of an audience. Each and every performance.

Read what it is like, for this actor:

“There’s Nothing Like Winning An Acting Part…To Get You Down To The Gym…

By Steven Butler, The Guardian

“

When my agent called on April Fools’ Day to ask if I’d like to audition for a nude musical comedy, I could only assume he was joking. After several weeks of standing starkers on stage, six nights a week, in front of up to 140 people at a time, it seems I’ve had the last laugh.

I’d never been naked on stage before and, like most people, the thought of volunteering for that universal nightmare of full-frontal nudity before a jeering audience scared the bejesus out of me. But I’m an actor, and we’re nothing if not an ambitious lot, so with the help of a gym membership and some hair removal cream, I found myself at an audition at the King’s Head having my singing, dancing – and jiggly bits – judged for Naked Boys Singing!

Despite a stomach knotted with nerves, I was pleasantly surprised to find I rather enjoyed it. Who knew one’s inner exhibitionist could be coaxed out so quickly? Apart from a particularly awkward moment when the panel wanted to chat and I couldn’t decide where to put my hands, it was all very easy. A week later, I was offered the job. (A day after that, I moved into the gym and began an affair with rice crackers and beansprouts).

The sight of seven flaccid penises taking part in a naked cancan isn’t something you can ever really get used to but if it’s odd for us, I figure it must be even more bizarre for the audience. And yet, the moment before we ripped our towels off for the first time, all my neuroses were put under the spotlight: “Am I too fat? Too thin? Is my member the wrong size, shape or colour?”

Eight weeks and a West End transfer later, it’s hard to remember what I was so nervous about. We’ve had every audience reaction from raucous cheers and laughter to bemused gasps and – my personal favourite – total silence, apart from a woman in the front row giving us an extended “Ewww”. One man even stripped off and gave us a naked standing ovation. (Note: this is not a requirement if you enjoy the show. Clapping will suffice.)

Something brilliant happens in that split second before you let it all hang out. It’s not so much that you scale the “What will the audience think?” wall – you simply abandon all hope of ever getting over it because it’s way too high and there’s barbed wire across the top. Instead, you relax in the knowledge that there’s nothing in the world you can do about your body anxieties, so you just get on with it.

Full-on nudity isn’t something audiences will encounter very often in the theatre. As a result, through a sort of osmosis, they seem to absorb much of the performer’s discomfort. Instead of us, it’s them worrying: “Am I looking too closely? What if they catch me sneaking a peek southwards? Am I enjoying this a little too much?”

Ultimately, I’ve found the boundaries blur between the performer and the audience when nudity is thrown in the mix. At the very least, the show becomes more intimate – afterwards, people approach us like old friends. It’s disconcerting when you don’t know each another at all and they’ve ogled all aspects of your anatomy. Even so, there’s a truth to the cliche peddled about nudity: it is liberating. And even pretty enjoyable.

“

Obviously, from the photo, you can see that there are other actors in this play who are also naked onstage. The brave actor on the left is David Lucas, and on the right is Nathan Taylor.  The author of this piece is in the middle. The play is called “Naked Boys Singing.”

As you can see, they are not boys.

(I can only imagine what kind of visitor will find this post, by way of search engines!)

best,

=~Dana

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…

Los Angeles actor, Garret Dillahunt, plays quite an evil guy in ‘The Last House On The Left’.  In this interview, he makes a great point about “acting craft”.  

The interviewer asks him if he changes, as a person (inside) when he plays such a character; one who rapes, and easily carries out some very awful violence.  

From the Los Angeles Times:

Are you one of those people who has fundamental changes in yourself based on your work?

You mean like roles affecting you outside of the job? You know, I don’t think I am! There wouldn’t be much craft in it if you actually become those people. I like feeling like I have some skill.

I feel like you are going to have to defend “The Last House on the Left.”

You mean to you? I’m real proud of it, which is an odd thing to be proud of. I’m proud of this rape-and-pillage movie. There are reasons that I consciously did the thing — but there’s something about that basic story that is speaking to people, and I think did to me when I read the script. And I think it’s because the job situation is getting weird, people feel so powerless right now. People feel like they’ve been raped by — fill in the blank, the economy, 9/11. Wes Craven last night called 9/11 the ultimate home invasion. Not meaning to be glib — but that feeling of violation we all had. People are really responding to the film in a visceral way — and I think it gives them some release. I kind of feel like it will defend itself. Wow, I got so deep there.

OK. I will see this movie.

It’s an art-house horror film. I saw it with a couple friends and, man, it’s so relentless and believable. I felt mugged. Sort of happily mugged? Is that possible?

I do hate reading a synopsis with the word “disembowel” in it.

I don’t think we disembowel! Sara Paxton, who plays Mari Collingwood, the victim of the assault, I’ve worked with her before. I was happy about that at first. Then I thought maybe it’s a bad thing — you don’t do this to friends! But she was so game and tired of playing mermaids and Snow White kind of characters. So she really went for it.

You’re at that age now where you feel like she’s really young, right?

I’m kind of in between. You’re like, oh, she’s of age now. And then you’re like, oh, pervert!

But you’ve been married forever, right?

I’ve only been married for a couple of years. We’ve been together for a long time. We don’t have to write about any of that!

Do you get “Terminator” blow-back from fans? 

I get recognized more — it’s one of the first characters I played that looks like me. There’s a lot of “Terminator” fans out there, which belies the ratings!

The “John From Cincinnati” set — I got the sensation that this was a very weird time and experience for people.

It seemed very similar to the “Deadwood” experience for me. I love writers! I get nervous around writers, because I’m a frustrated writer myself. I’m a terrible writer. I have a degree in journalism, and I thought that was what I was going to do. And I drifted through college and found acting kind of late. [David] Milch was so good to me, and it really changed me — I don’t mean professionally, it changed things for me, in the way I view material. . . . Working that inspirationally must be expensive, which you have to be realistic about if you’re a network or a money guy. What made “Deadwood” special killed it, but I wouldn’t trade it for anything. For anything! And I owe a lot to that experience. Spiritually. Praise the Lord! I do that too. I get embarrassed about waxing on and I cut myself off at the knees. That’s a nice little trait there, FYI.

Why did you think you bombed out as a writer?

I might be a little hard on myself. I was a fine writer! I worked for my little hometown newspaper. I thought I was going to write fiction.

And how do you do when you have to do TV?

A lot of shuffling of feet and blushing. But I’ve tried to minimize the stuttering. I try to look happier. I think I just have one of those faces. I can be having the greatest day and strangers will pass me and say, “Smile!” And I’ll say, “What’s my face doing — and . . . you!”

 

Actor Garret Dillahunt

Besides “The Last House On The Left”, Garret Dillahunt is a series regular on television, in ”Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles”. His other movie roles include “No Country for Old Men”, “John From Cincinnati”, and “Deadwood.”