The Physical Actor is a comprehensive book of exercises for actors. It is carefully designed for the development of a strong and flexible physical body able to move with ease through space and interact instinctively on stage. Annie Loui draws on her training with Etienne Decroux, Carolyn Carlson, and Jerzy Grotowski to bring contact improvisation (CI) into the theatrical sphere. She explains how it can be used to develop alert and embodied listening skills in the actor, and how to apply it working with texts on stage.
This book will guide the reader through a full course of movement skills, including:
• Partnering skills
• Spatial awareness for groups and individuals
• Fine motor control through mime
• Heightened coordination and sustained motion
New for this edition are additional partnering exercises, in-depth applications of contact improvisation to monologues and scenes, and a chapter on devising physical theatre performances.
Annie Loui works as a director/choreographer and is the Artistic Director of CounterBalance Theater. Her original physical theater pieces have been seen in France, Monaco, West Germany, Italy, and the United States. She runs the Movement Program for MFA Actor Training at the University of California, Irvine.
Second edition published 2019 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
The right of Annie Loui to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice : Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Routledge 2009
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book
ISBN: 978-1-138-29184-3 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-415-78934-9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-22284-4 (ebk)
Typeset in Univers by codeMantra
Warm -up: what we do and how we approach it 5
Warm-up sequence 8
The c at 8
The bridge 10
Neck stretch 13
The butterfly 14
The plough 18
Sternum lift 20
Spine undulation 23
Floating 24
Fast abs 26
Realign against the floor 27
Spine twist 28
Devising
Movement theater creation: the early work 201
Generating original work 202
Preliminary exercises 202
Structural elements: building blocks for construction 204
Movement theater: the guidelines 206
Critique 207
Devising with a group:
CounterBalance Theater examples 208
Jane Eyre : our practical creative process in adapting literature for the stage 209
The Iliad: Menin (Rage) : slow motion as a combat tool 215
Reading Frankenstein : causality between live performers and technology 217
Elsewhere : isolations and physical theater as a metaphor 219
She : spatial orientation in staging 221
CounterBalance: steal from us! 222
Acknowledgments
Thanks to my parents, the theater director Wayne Loui and Professor Tuck Loui, for being shining examples, and always encouraging their children to create.
Thanks to my colleagues at UC Irvine for their congenial support especially Robert Cohen and Richard Brestoff for sage advice, friendly coffee, and c areful reading. Large thanks are due to Talia Rodgers, my editor, who had faith. This second edition was supported by the patient Stacey Walker, gracious technical editing of Franc Chamberlain, and thoughtful comments from my colleagues in movement practice, Charlie Oates, Loretta Livingston, Dick McCaw, and Libby Worth. Thanks for technical support from Carmen Burgess and Adalid Aguilar.
A nd finally, thanks to my students over the years of practice in the studio. If you had not gone on the journey, this book would not exist.
Illustrative photos: Michael Lamont and Skye Schmidt.
Practitioners: Annie Loui, Karin Hendricks, Evans Jarnefeldt, and Ethan Sawyer.
Additional practitioners: Michael Calacino, Kayla Kearney, Chris Mansa, Gavin Mueller, Xander Ritchey, Grace Theobald, and Thomas Varga.
Additional contact improvisation photos: Adrian Alita and Sean Tarrant.
This manuscript was written in Torre San Severo, Italy, and in Silverado, California.
Introduction
What do we look for in a good actor? Engagement with the text, an understanding and passion about the ideas or point of view expressed; and an engagement with the “other” (whether actively onstage with them, or revealed in a monologue). We also demand that indefinable quality, a compelling “presence.” All of these elements draw us in and compel us to live through the actor. Theater is a vicarious art form—we are all voyeurs experiencing emotion or ideas through a character’s eyes—and we want to be drawn in, but it takes a forceful actor to bring us into their world. How do we create these “living” moments, and what can we do to elevate the actor’s performance to this level of charged reality?
An alert, physical body is a conduit for emotional impulse, and the wellarticulated and flexible body is capable of expressing nuance of emotion and “range” of being (from age to gender to psychological disposition). Michael Chekhov speaks of “radiating,” Stanislavski refers to “projecting” and Eugenio Barba to “bios.” Ultimately, the actor relies on their physical instrument in voice and movement for this expression. A strong physical presence can be nurtured through exercises oriented toward relaxation within oneself, and a complete engagement with the objectives of the character. Strong physical actors will be in a relaxed state of readiness, kinetically aware of the space they are in, the people they are around, and the imperceptible influences of motion and rhythm that surround them. Physical actors use all their senses, intuition, and intellect to “inform” their physical being and actions on the stage without self-consciousness or over-intellectualizing.
I believe that every alert actor has the potential to develop these instincts, skills, and presence regardless of size, weight, or previous training. This can be achieved through a combination of physical and mental preparation, as well as a bit of courage.
In this book, I will discuss theory and related studio exercises oriented toward the realization of our “uber”-actor. We will explore fundamentals of physical preparation in stretch, strength, and alignment; and the relationship of the actor to the physical environment, to the group, and to a specific “other.” I have incorporated exercises over the years from different exemplary teachers of theater, dance, and martial arts, some of whom I have had the great good fortune to study with personally. Over my career working with actors onstage and in the classroom, I have tweaked these exercises toward my own specific goals. I believe this is called processing information and is the way in which I can bring my own very personal accumulation of knowledge and experience to the field. My training in Europe under the corporeal mime master Etienne Decroux and the Polish Tomaschevski mime/ballet master teacher Ella Jarosovitcz has greatly influenced my understanding of the usefulness of the articulated autonomous body. Work with dancer/choreographer Carolyn Carlson at the Paris Opera, and with the experimental theater director Jerzy Growtowski (as well as related studies in aikido and contact improvisation) has given my work in the theatrical physicality of mime a connection to sustained motion, instinct, and directed energy.
Mime trains the artist to structure physical images in space. There is always a resolution—even the most abstract work has a beginning, middle, and an end. By its very nature, mime organizes the body and mind in tandem to communicate, because in most cases the mime is both the performer and playwright, and the director/choreographer. The young actor practicing mime also learns to connect impulse and emotion with gesture—even the smallest rotation or inclination of the head, chest, or pelvis realigns emotional impact in the audience’s eye. Every movement counts. Accuracy of the motion informed by intention (I turn my head to see what made the noise, and my chest rises in anticipation of drawing closer to my destination) makes the actor compelling. So we gain accuracy of hand–eye motor control, connection of idea or emotion to gesture, and a certain physical and intellectual self-reliance through mime. But for its many positive aspects, traditional mime imposes a rigidity and stylization on the body that does not always translate directly to the naturalistic contemporary stage.
So we temper mimetic control with the fluid spontaneity of contact improvisation. A dance improvisation form developed in the 1970s by modern dancer, choreographer, aikido practitioner Steve Paxton, contact improvisation (CI) is defined as a partnering form that consists of an energy and weight exchange between two people. Contact emphasizes alert physical “listening,” complicity of weight, and instinctive responses. Basic tumbling, energy exchange exercises, and partnering dance lifts are its fundamental building blocks. A good contact practitioner develops an alertness to physical nuance, an ability to follow through a line of motion, and an unconscious kinetic attentiveness to the “other” that is deeply attractive to the voyeuristic audience. Contact improvisation in the acting studio translates directly to scene work, and plays out in a heightened and relaxed attentiveness between scene partners, and surprising reveals of subtext. Without consciously imposing objectives, actors interrelate spontaneously, dynamically and elegantly, and the outcome is an imprinted ability to deliver emotional and physical honesty in a scene. Taken one step further, we explore a contacted relationship in scene work taken into realistic blocking, leading the actor full circle from the movement studio back to the stage.
On a parallel track, the physical actor training exercises are also building blocks for movement construction, both in original movement theater pieces, and in service of larger works. CounterBalance Theater was created in 2012 as an umbrella for my larger physical theater constructions. After directing theatrical adaptations of great literature by the wonderfully imagistic playwrights Sarah Ruhl, Mary Zimmerman, and Charles Mee Jr., (who I still turn back to), I settled into the exhilarating process of creating adaptations using the training techniques we already practiced. And this seemed both a simpler and more honest approach to approximate our own truth. Here we examine the CounterBalance construction process: from the inception of idea through to scripting, and on to a disciplined and inclusive rehearsal period through to performance.
I teach these techniques in the professional acting training program at UC Irvine, and in the process of curriculum development there, discovered the natural interplay between the authenticity demanded in contact and the personal honesty demanded in acting classes in personalized scene study. We capitalize on it to the student’s benefit, and I am daily grateful for the symbiotic nature of the fundamental Acting and Movement courses (if you want to know more, see “Contact Improvisation to Scene Study: Authenticity in Word and Deed” Dance, Theater and Performance Training Journal, (TDPT) Routledge, Fall issue, 2013).
Random
documents with unrelated content Scribd suggests to you:
CHAPTER X
INSPECTION. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF ARRIVING IMMIGRANTS
The immigrant first comes under the official control of the United States government when he arrives at the port of destination. There are a number of seaports on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts designated by the Bureau as ports of entry for immigrants. Entry at any other ports is illegal. The facilities for the inspection and care of immigrants differ in extent in the different ports with the demands placed upon them, but the general line of procedure is the same in all. As New York has the most elaborate and complete immigrant station in the country and receives three quarters or more of all the immigrants, it may be taken as typical of the fullest development of our inspection system.
A ship arriving in New York is first subject to examination by the quarantine officials. Then the immigrants are turned over to the officers of the Immigration Bureau. All aliens entering a port of the United States are subject to the immigration law, and have to submit to inspection. First or second class passage does not, contrary to a common impression, secure immunity. Cabin passengers are given a preliminary inspection by the officials on board the vessel, and if they are plainly admissible, they are allowed to land without further formality. If there is any question as to their eligibility, they are taken to Ellis Island, and subjected to a closer examination. While there, they have to put up with the same accommodations as are accorded to steerage passengers. During three months of the spring of 1910 twenty-five hundred cabin passengers were thus taken over to Ellis Island, and the commissioner in charge at that port was led to
government officials who are conscientiously doing their best to perform a most difficult public duty.[146]
It would not be safe to say that there never has been any brutality on Ellis Island, or that there is none now. Investigators of some reputation have given specific instances.[147] It would be almost beyond the realm of possibility that in so large a number of officials, coming in daily contact with thousands of immigrants, there should be none who were careless, irritable, impatient, or vicious. How much of maltreatment there may be depends very largely upon the character and competency of the commissioner in charge. The point is, that no one is qualified to pass an opinion upon the treatment of immigrants, except a thoroughly trained investigator, equipped with a full knowledge of the laws and regulations, and an unbiased mind.
One thing in particular which impresses the dilettante observer is the haste with which proceedings are conducted, and the physical force which is frequently employed to push an immigrant in one direction, or hold him back from another. It must be admitted that both of these exist and they are necessary. During the year 1907 five thousand was fixed as the maximum number of immigrants who could be examined at Ellis Island in one day;[148] yet during the spring of that year more than fifteen thousand immigrants arrived at the port of New York in a single day. It is evident that under such conditions haste becomes a necessity.
The work has to be done with the equipment provided, and greater hardship may sometimes be caused by delay than by haste. As to the physical handling of immigrants, this is necessitated by the need for haste, combined with the condition of the immigrants. We have seen that the conditions of the voyage are not calculated to land the immigrant in an alert and clear-headed state. The bustle, confusion, rush, and size of Ellis Island complete the work, and leave the average alien in a state of stupor and bewilderment. He is in no condition to understand or appreciate a carefully worded explanation of what he must do, or why he must do it, even if the inspector had time to give it. The one suggestion which is immediately comprehensible to him is a pull or a push; if this is not administered with actual violence, there is no unkindness in it. An amusing illustration of the dazed state in which the average immigrant goes through the inspection is furnished by a story told by one of the
officials on the Island. It is related that President Roosevelt once visited the Island, in company with other distinguished citizens. He wished to observe the effect of a gift of money on an immigrant woman, and fearing to be recognized, handed a five-dollar gold piece to another member of the party, requesting him to hand it to the first woman with a child in her arms who passed along the line. It was done. The woman took the coin, slipped it into her dress, and passed on, without even raising her eyes or giving the slightest indication that the incident had made any different impression on her than any of the regular steps in the inspection. It would be a remarkable man, indeed, who could deal with a steady stream of foreigners, stolid and unresponsive to begin with and reduced to such a pitch of stupor, day after day, without occasionally losing his patience.
The information collected at the port of entry is sufficient, when compiled and tabulated, to give a very complete and detailed picture of the character of the arriving immigrants, in so far as that can be statistically portrayed. The reports of the Commissioner General contain an elaborate set of tables, which are the principal source of accurate information on the subject. In the following pages these tables will be summarized, with the intent of bringing out the most important facts which condition the immigration problem in this country. Data from other reliable sources will be added as occasion requires.
During the period 1820 to 1912 a total of 29,611,052 immigrants have entered the United States. Of these, the Germans have made up a larger proportion than any other single race, amounting in all to 5,400,899 persons from the German Empire. Until very recently the Irish have stood second; but as far as can be determined from the figures the Italians and natives of Austria-Hungary have now passed them. There have been, in the period mentioned, 3,511,730 immigrants from Austria-Hungary, 3,426,070 immigrants from Italy, including Sicily and Sardinia, and 3,069,625 from Ireland. But if the 1,945,812 immigrants from the United Kingdom not specified could be properly assigned, it would probably appear that Ireland could still lay claim to second place. The other most important sources, with their respective contributions, are as follows: Russian Empire, 2,680,525; England, 2,264,284; British North American possessions, 1,322,085; Sweden, 1,095,940.[149] When it is considered
