Hey TrueBlue (Diane) a few of the ole gang are now back in New York City from touring and other activities. We'll catch up in person soon. As far as answering the call for making comments here, we'll see. For my part these comments of NotEntirelyMyself sound coherent. I know some have gone so far as to suggest that all this "doing," these objectives in other words do not necessarily make for "good" acting. it must be something else. Anyway more later. And others of our "clan" will be saying Hi.
After 2 years at the Playhouse I beleive that the problem with repetition is that it very rarely leads to anything except anger. That's the lowest form of emotion. It's always annoyance and frustration that comes out. Not very fun or playful. :(
@lancemcquaid - In the early stages, the repetition exercise does tend to release anger. However, that is merely an early breakthrough for most students. Of course, I don't know who you studied with at the Playhouse. Like you, I studied at the Playhouse for two years - acting with Sandy, Bill Esper, Fred Kareman, & Martin Waldron (for voice & speech) . After that I continued with Sandy in his private class. In later years, Fred Kareman expanded on the repetition exercise in his private class.
@legatofancier Hello There. I'm interested in what you said about Fred Kareman expanding on the exercise. Do you mind explaining that more fully. I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
@trueblue4321 - Fred Kareman was a gifted teacher whom I studied with again at the studio he shared with Wynn Handman. Fred did not so much expand (a poor choice of words on my part), put minimalize the repetition exercise. Working with professional actors, he eliminated some of the elements that Sandy gradually introduced into the exercise that eventually created a full improvisation. It reduced the point of the exercise to stimulating pure organic responses. Fred passed away in 2007.
@legatofancier It was a pleasure to read your comments regarding Fred Kareman. Like many many others I loved and respected him. After studying with him for a few years Fred was kind enough to allow me to sit in for a couple of his nine month sessions with the purpose of starting my own classes in the studio. He was a generous and wise mentor to me and a great friend whom I shall never forget. His first day speech to his classes introducing the work was a thing of beauty.
@trueblue4321 I think it worthwhile to keep in mind that anyone when they write something down here must subject themselves to the demands that language makes upon logic and thus the inexplicable has no place. Fred would say in class (referring to the work in class before interpretation) this is that part of acting you cannot really talk about. So before I answer your question about Fred’s first class speech please consider the a quote to follow
"A lot of actors using our approach wind up with one improvement: they use themselves better logically. They think better. They may be fed by a bit more of sensation, but sensation and impulse never become fully expressive. But sometimes when they are not tense, when they have no problems . . . something happens which enables the impulse to express itself, and they are transfigured. That is what great acting is – not just impulse but a true relation between impulse and expression.”
@trueblue4321 I called Fred Kareman’s speech, with which he began the first class, a thing of beauty for its excellence. That if there were a canon for speeches about learning to act, Fred’s first class speech would be honored as a classic for its clarity, its appeal to worthwhile ideals for acting, it’s recognition that each student would have a different journey, which would be respected and given its time, and finally (cont,)
@trueblue4321 . . . what I believe to be Fred’s absolutely correct interpretation of the “reality of doing.” It is the reason why I posted the previous quote of a man who certainly understood the challenges of acting as well as anyone in the 20th century.
Now a direct quote from Fred speaking to his students during their first class: “and the key to the whole craft is the reality of doing. The reality of doing. Now does anyone want to take a shot at what that means, (a student answers “it means what it says, really doing something,”) and Fred responds “okay okay that’s as good an answer as any but let me tell what the reality of doing is that is so misunderstood, (cont)
. . . "you see everyone says “really do it man, reeeeally Do it . . . and of course you’re gonna do whatever it is you do. (Pause) The reality of doing is for very special people . . .when they act . . . the reality of doing is for people who are penetrable . . . vulnerable . . . expressive. The reality of doing is when something happens to you this much, this much, and that much (Fred would part his fingers to indicate different amounts) and it is expressed this much, this much and that much
@legatofancier - I have heard this same comment about Mr. Kareman. That he was down to earth and was quite the teacher of acting. I thank you and certainly appreciate this information very much. If I may ask you a couple of more questions-how would you differentiate his work with William Esper? When I read Mr. Esper's book much of what I'm reading about the training seems to be mostly Stanislavsky and beyond repetition and emotional preparation more Stanislavsky. Thanks for your insights
@trueblue4321 - When I was at the Playhouse, I was in Bill Esper's first year group (Bill Alderson taught the other two first year groups). Fred Kareman taught auxillary first year classes. Bill Esper continued to teach Sandy's technique much the way Sandy taught it. Fred developed powerfully after he left The Playhouse He minimalized the repetition exercise, boiling it down to very pure responses. Fred worked with Wynn Handman (who had once taught at The Playhouse) for some years.
@trueblue4321 And so Fred’s interpretation is at odds with the “standard” definition of THE REALITY OF DOING of say William Esper’s definition in his book “that if acting begins with really doing, (his students) have been acting all their lives. They’ve made coffee, watched movies, done laundry. Committing themselves to actions.”
Is the difference important? I look forward to input from others who may be interested.
@NotEntirelyMyself Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I appreciate it. Food for thought. Ooops, no thinking in acting. By the way whose quote were you using?
@trueblue4321 By the way whoever you are TrueBlue all my input here (for whatever it is worth) is not meant as a criticism - everyone knows that YouTube is filled with all sorts of opinions and "attacks" for better or worse - Bill Esper, his faculty and many other acting teachers in NYC have a well deserved reputation. They love their students. What I'm interested in by laying this little thought out in the best way I could is to provoke some thought. So if you have any thoughts please share.
@trueblue4321 And tell your acting friends to come check out these thoughts and give their input. I'd be interested in hearing what they have to say. As would, perhaps, other people.
@trueblue4321 and one more thing you crazy loon you I'm not sure at all that you are going to get any rational discussion here on YouTube. I checked out the other comments just for fun where there was all that Sturm and Drang over Maggie F who teaches, and the other guy JJ and her young student (at least she sounds young) vivienj007 and you see what can happen. So be careful here. Someone may BITE.
@NotEntirelyMyself - Fred maintained that he taught "Kareman". He didn't want people referring to it as "Meisner". Honestly, I don't know what might have happened between Fred & Sandy. However, in Fred's class he sometimes mentioned The Neighborhood Playhouse or Martha Graham, but he never mentioned Sandy. Maybe someone could shed some light on the matter. As far as I'm concerned, the differences regarding "the reality of doing" are somewhat academic.
@legatofancier You imply a great deal sir! You invent conflict and intrigue where there was none. Even inviting comments as if there is really anything real to comment upon. You write that “Fred maintained that he taught "Kareman" and so paint a picture of a man busy differentiating himself from Meisner and even uncomfortable when hearing Meisner’s name associated with his work. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither was really a concern of his.
You misunderstand me. True, Fred disliked labels. That's fine. Fred maintained that he taught fundamentals. Several other students told me that when they mentioned Meisner to Fred, he emphatically said that he taught 'Kareman". However, Sandy's name was conspicuous by its absence in Fred's class. In that regard, he did differentiate himself from Sandy. That's OK, it was his class. Sandy was well known for falling out with some of his assistants..
@legatofancier My response, in part, was fueled by my ambivalence about the purpose of exploring what may or may not have been going on in Fred’s psyche because he didn’t use Meisner’s name in his class and further, as you claim, was emphatic about it with his students. I see quite clearly that you feel it was conspicuous by its absence. I’d be interested in learning from you why you feel that way.
@NotEntirelyMyself - Martin Waldron taught at The Playhouse. He said, "Fred is an excellent teacher." That opinion was shared by virtually everyone who came in contact with Fred as a teacher. Martin was not only one of Sandy's former students, but Sandy's personal friend as well. He asked Sandy, "How do you want to be remembered, as a great teacher?" Sandy replied, "As an influence." One night in professional class Sandy said, "This is something bigger than all of us." Has including himself.
@legatofancier - Encountering Fred years later in his private class, it struck me odd that he mentioned The Playhouse & Martha Graham in his background, but omitted mentioning Sandy. Fred's long association with Sandy, and the inescapable fact that that Sandy's influence was obvious in what Fred taught, would have aroused the curiosity of anyone who studied with both of them. Other students told me emphatically not to call Fred's work "Meisner."
@legatofancier - Fred taught in his own way, which was excellent. However, it would have been simple justice to mention Sandy as an influence - no more, no less. Sandy frequently mentioned how much he learned from Stella. In later life, he credited Lee as a great influence. Sandy had some blow ups with some of his former assistants. I don't know if that was the case with Fred. However, Fred's behavior could not help but make me wonder about it. "An ounce of behavior is worth a pound of words."
@legatofancier I respect your feelings. I believe we are in similar positions. Each of us admires and respects our teacher - in your case, Meisner, in mine, Kareman. I can understand the injustice you felt having studied with Meisner and later coming to Fred’s class then being told by other students not to mention Meisner. That the work in class was “Kareman.” As if, perhaps, Fred was unfairly taking credit for what he was teaching by not acknowledging the influence of Meisner.
@legatofancier Each student who later became a teaching assistant of Meisner’s at the Playhouse must have had a complicated relationship with Meisner (and he with them) given the typical psychological issues that universally affect the acting teacher guru-disciple arrangement that existed.
@NotEntirelyMyself - It is common knowledge that Sandy fell out with David Pressman; Herbert Bergoff; Wynn Handman; Mordecai Lawner; Robert X. Modica; & (famously) with Bill Esper. In most cases they made peace in later years. Sandy could be tempestous, to say the least. The mentor/protege relationship often gets complicated when the protege begins to achieve the level of a master himself. Fred definitely achieved master teacher status, although I suspect he would have dismissed the idea.
@legatofancier William Alderson’s “Sandy says . . (In memoriam)” on his website is one example of the kind of deep feelings that are usually attached to the guru-disciple relationship. Bill Esper, in his book writes “Sandy’s technique and reputation” are his responsibility to maintain and further that his own work in the field and the prestige of his school “all lie at stake with every student who graduates.” As if Espier has now become Meisner. T
@NotEntirelyMyself - Naturally, I respect your feelings, as well. Personally, I considered Fred a great teacher. To call him "excellent" was not to damn with faint praise - quite the opposite. For me, Sandy will always be "THE" teacher. Of course, I was still in my teens when I began to study with him. Not only did I graduate from the two year program at The Playhouse (where I first encountered Fred), but I continued with Sandy in is private class. That made a pwoerful impact.
@legatofancier Thus the special powers Esper endowed Meisner with long ago, Esper has now completely internalized. I only bring these things up because of your wonder about what happened between Fred and Meisner. Perhaps Fred in his response to Meisner’s insistence to his assistants on how to teach, how to treat students, perhaps how “to be” even, went completely in the other direction - Fred simply erased Meisner from his classroom. Who knows?
@NotEntirelyMyself - Fred mentioned teaching with Richard Boone at The Playhouse. Boone filled in for Sandy after Sandy's first surgery for cancer. Fred's failure to mention Sandy was bound to make me wonder. It was my impression that Sandy only insisted that his assistants teach in a specific way if they were actually teaching what has come to be known as "The Meisner Technique." There is no one way to learn or to teach. You will not find be arguing with what Fred taught, or how he taught it.
@legatofancier Sanford Meisner certainly has a great deal to be proud of. The “Meisner Technique” is taught around the world. Though it goes without saying that it is not automatic that any of it be taught well. As you well know that depends on the teacher. And as you’ve noted, Fred was an “excellent teacher.” His students have called him “inspirational,” “a great gift in their life” “invaluable” and so on.
@NotEntirelyMyself - The lasting influence of such members of The Group Theatre as Adler, Clurman, Kazan, Lewis, Meisner, Odets, & Strasburg was a foregone conclusion while they were still alive. Sandy (never known for his modesty LOL) wishing to be remembered as an influence, was only hoping to be acknowledged for what he had already acheived. Just remember, he said, "This is something bigger than all of us." Certainly Fred knew that as well as anyone, and probably better than most.
@legatofancier His reputation was that he was one of the “leading acting teachers in America,” not unusual accolades for any acting teacher that did as well in his work with students as Kareman did. Given Sanford Meisner’s great opinion of himself, his work (not unusual for a man who had accomplished what he had accomplished) it makes sense that being a “great acting teacher” would not be enough for him. He would want to rise to the level of an “influence” which he has.
@NotEntirelyMyself - One of the girls in my class with Fred at Carnegie Hall (she had graduated from Julliard), said to Fred that the reason that she knew he was not a charlatan was the fact that he did not advertise. We all had a good laugh at that, because it was so very true! Unfortunately, I know at least two people who teach who advertise themselves as "first generation" Meisner students, who only sutdied with Sandy for one year at The Playhouse. Now really THAT bothers me!
@NotEntirelyMyself - Yes, it's all in HOW Sandy's work is taught! At the moment, my impression is that Sandy's work has surpassed Strasburg's Method in popularity. If so, that's because it's healthy! Fred was firmly in that tradition. Surely you realize that if anyone were teaching like Fred today they would be a credit to the acting profession! You are right to preserve Fred's legacy. It shouldn't be allowed to die with him. My only reservation was that Fred might have acknowledged Sandy.
@legatofancier Kareman was certainly a remarkably gifted teacher but that was never the point in his class, for he was the most down-to-earth caring understanding human being you’ve ever want to meet and he gave his all to his students. He also understood that only Meisner taught “Meisner.” He knew Kareman was teaching “Kareman” just as Esper teaches Esper. He laughingly shrugged off labels (Meisner, Boleslavsky, whatever ,even Kareman) that some students wished to give to the work (cont)
@NotEntirelyMyself - You're preaching to the choir. Why mount a defense where no defense is necessary? As a matter of fact, Sandy did have issues with David Pressman; Wynn Handman; Mordecai Lawner; Robert X. Modica; & Bill Esper. Honestly, I don't know for a fact if there was an issue between Sandy & Fred. However, like many of us, I was trained to work off behavior. Fred's behavior made me wonder if there was an issue. There is no malice in wondering.
@legatofancier for what exactly would be the point of giving it a name? It was . . . after all "the work." Kareman developed the work, the actor training in his way that would have made Meisner proud if he was a man who allowed that his work could be developed. You tell me. I can assure you though the differences in Kareman’s work with actors were decidedly NOT academic whether it was based in the principles he espoused for the “reality of doing” or his introduction of “emotional preparation."
@NotEntirelyMyself - Where's the argument? Fred's take on "the reality of doing" was perfectly fine. As far as I'm concerned, it was just the opposite side of the same coin from Sandy originally taught. THAT'S GREAT! Cf course, that's just a personal impression. It ain't about being academic.
@legatofancier Students who had studied with Esper, for instance, or other teachers, were often heard to express that their work in Fred’s class was of a kind they’d never done before whether referring to repetition or work on Spoon Rivers.
@NotEntirelyMyself - That strikes me as being very healthy. People who were trained as actors by Sandy, and in some cases trained as teachers, went on to teach somewhat differently from Sandy. Again, that can be very healthy. Frankly, I can't imagine Sandy would have taken issue with what Fred taught. Of course, Fred was very clear that he was not teaching "Meisner" per se. There's nothing negative in it, quite the contrary - it meant growth for many of Fred's students.
it is true that you'll see anger but legtofancier's is relevant. I don't know I'd call it a breakthrough. However the task of ridding yourself of self-consciousness is no easy task and so part of the defensiveness especially in the exercise will be "anger." Getting beyond that takes alot of relaxation in the exercise. Finally only you know how to bring that to your work.
were you there when meisner let bill esper go, claiming he was ruining his theatre actors? (no character development). i simply was adhd. not good actor material. unfocused, holly hunter was in my class, a summer enrollment class, and martin waldren was still there, what a great guy. enjoyed him imensely. hunter was the gifted one. amanda plummer was in our alternate class(2 at the same time). great memories. bill esper's a great teacher for film, so real.
Found this video very useful, have been researching the Meisner Technique and the video sums up the main and important excercises and activities that Sanford teached, and the reasons why he taught them, what he hoped the actor to achieve.
For someone who studied Meisner's techniques for two years she makes the huge inexcusable mistake of twice referring to Meisner's teachings as "the method". 'The Method' was essentially Lee Strasberg's own version of Stanislavski's techniques known as 'The System'.
Meisner did not advocate the method, in fact he called it's practitioners "guinea Pigs" being experimented on.
Meisener himself taught his students to summon the character's feelings, not their own as 'The Method' did.
thanks for the advice its really helpful. im having a hard time trying to learn acting right now . i really dont know what steps i should take to help fill in that gap of experience so i can step up with the rest of the actors and actresses. right now im taking Psych. as a major and theatre as minor, and i was wondering do i have to major in theatre to be an actress or do u think i should keep my strategy?
A degree doesnt make you a good or bad actor. From my experience and point of view asll it maters it that you undertake a jurney through acting lessons, books, and learning from all types of methos to the point tht you crate a fusion of everything that you have learned in your past. A fusion that unlocks your truth and the ability to portray a character truthfully. Hope it help, good luck!!!
well to be an actress you need to really want to act. you need to audition for plays/ movies whatever you are into. and get cast in a show and do that as much as you can. every time you act youll get better...
I think the end, about getting frustrated with theatre, is the best thing anyone can tell young actors. I myself am only 23, and in my final year of my undergrad, we had a workshop with a casting director from NY come and sorta help us realize where we fit in as actors with what roles or whatever. And it was nice to be told at least where i fit in at this current time because it's not where i see myself. I see myself in the roles i can play 15 years from now, and that does get frustrating.
wow! so are oyu still acting or was that the end?? sometimes I think some things are meant to be or not meant to be. Guess you were meant to be a mom and wife not an Actress, cool either way.
what if i leave in australia,,,i really wanna know if i have anychance..
ninomid1 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
way to blame it on your family at the end.
hellsingorg2 4 months ago
Decent video - ExploreTalent is still a scam though.
ActorRyanFelton 7 months ago
One thing I will always remember
A bad actors will always try to act, a good actor will do it naturally.
PimpingRice 7 months ago
Comment removed
legatofancier 9 months ago
Comment removed
legatofancier 9 months ago
Hey TrueBlue (Diane) a few of the ole gang are now back in New York City from touring and other activities. We'll catch up in person soon. As far as answering the call for making comments here, we'll see. For my part these comments of NotEntirelyMyself sound coherent. I know some have gone so far as to suggest that all this "doing," these objectives in other words do not necessarily make for "good" acting. it must be something else. Anyway more later. And others of our "clan" will be saying Hi.
MrAntoineArtaud 1 year ago
After 2 years at the Playhouse I beleive that the problem with repetition is that it very rarely leads to anything except anger. That's the lowest form of emotion. It's always annoyance and frustration that comes out. Not very fun or playful. :(
lancemcquaid 1 year ago
@lancemcquaid - In the early stages, the repetition exercise does tend to release anger. However, that is merely an early breakthrough for most students. Of course, I don't know who you studied with at the Playhouse. Like you, I studied at the Playhouse for two years - acting with Sandy, Bill Esper, Fred Kareman, & Martin Waldron (for voice & speech) . After that I continued with Sandy in his private class. In later years, Fred Kareman expanded on the repetition exercise in his private class.
legatofancier 1 year ago
@legatofancier Hello There. I'm interested in what you said about Fred Kareman expanding on the exercise. Do you mind explaining that more fully. I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
trueblue4321 1 year ago
@trueblue4321 - Fred Kareman was a gifted teacher whom I studied with again at the studio he shared with Wynn Handman. Fred did not so much expand (a poor choice of words on my part), put minimalize the repetition exercise. Working with professional actors, he eliminated some of the elements that Sandy gradually introduced into the exercise that eventually created a full improvisation. It reduced the point of the exercise to stimulating pure organic responses. Fred passed away in 2007.
legatofancier 1 year ago
Comment removed
legatofancier 1 year ago
Comment removed
legatofancier 1 year ago
@legatofancier It was a pleasure to read your comments regarding Fred Kareman. Like many many others I loved and respected him. After studying with him for a few years Fred was kind enough to allow me to sit in for a couple of his nine month sessions with the purpose of starting my own classes in the studio. He was a generous and wise mentor to me and a great friend whom I shall never forget. His first day speech to his classes introducing the work was a thing of beauty.
NotEntirelyMyself 1 year ago
@NotEntirelyMyself Could you share what you think what was special about the first class speech?
trueblue4321 1 year ago
@trueblue4321 I think it worthwhile to keep in mind that anyone when they write something down here must subject themselves to the demands that language makes upon logic and thus the inexplicable has no place. Fred would say in class (referring to the work in class before interpretation) this is that part of acting you cannot really talk about. So before I answer your question about Fred’s first class speech please consider the a quote to follow
NotEntirelyMyself 1 year ago
"A lot of actors using our approach wind up with one improvement: they use themselves better logically. They think better. They may be fed by a bit more of sensation, but sensation and impulse never become fully expressive. But sometimes when they are not tense, when they have no problems . . . something happens which enables the impulse to express itself, and they are transfigured. That is what great acting is – not just impulse but a true relation between impulse and expression.”
NotEntirelyMyself 1 year ago
@trueblue4321 I called Fred Kareman’s speech, with which he began the first class, a thing of beauty for its excellence. That if there were a canon for speeches about learning to act, Fred’s first class speech would be honored as a classic for its clarity, its appeal to worthwhile ideals for acting, it’s recognition that each student would have a different journey, which would be respected and given its time, and finally (cont,)
NotEntirelyMyself 1 year ago
@trueblue4321 . . . what I believe to be Fred’s absolutely correct interpretation of the “reality of doing.” It is the reason why I posted the previous quote of a man who certainly understood the challenges of acting as well as anyone in the 20th century.
NotEntirelyMyself 1 year ago
Now a direct quote from Fred speaking to his students during their first class: “and the key to the whole craft is the reality of doing. The reality of doing. Now does anyone want to take a shot at what that means, (a student answers “it means what it says, really doing something,”) and Fred responds “okay okay that’s as good an answer as any but let me tell what the reality of doing is that is so misunderstood, (cont)
NotEntirelyMyself 1 year ago
. . . "you see everyone says “really do it man, reeeeally Do it . . . and of course you’re gonna do whatever it is you do. (Pause) The reality of doing is for very special people . . .when they act . . . the reality of doing is for people who are penetrable . . . vulnerable . . . expressive. The reality of doing is when something happens to you this much, this much, and that much (Fred would part his fingers to indicate different amounts) and it is expressed this much, this much and that much
NotEntirelyMyself 1 year ago
@trueblue4321 It has nothing to do with really doing anything.
(Fred would then walk over to a small dresser and open the top drawer)
“Jesus Christ it doesn’t take a genius to open up a drawer."
NotEntirelyMyself 1 year ago
Comment removed
legatofancier 1 year ago
@legatofancier - I have heard this same comment about Mr. Kareman. That he was down to earth and was quite the teacher of acting. I thank you and certainly appreciate this information very much. If I may ask you a couple of more questions-how would you differentiate his work with William Esper? When I read Mr. Esper's book much of what I'm reading about the training seems to be mostly Stanislavsky and beyond repetition and emotional preparation more Stanislavsky. Thanks for your insights
trueblue4321 1 year ago
@trueblue4321 - When I was at the Playhouse, I was in Bill Esper's first year group (Bill Alderson taught the other two first year groups). Fred Kareman taught auxillary first year classes. Bill Esper continued to teach Sandy's technique much the way Sandy taught it. Fred developed powerfully after he left The Playhouse He minimalized the repetition exercise, boiling it down to very pure responses. Fred worked with Wynn Handman (who had once taught at The Playhouse) for some years.
legatofancier 1 year ago
@trueblue4321 And so Fred’s interpretation is at odds with the “standard” definition of THE REALITY OF DOING of say William Esper’s definition in his book “that if acting begins with really doing, (his students) have been acting all their lives. They’ve made coffee, watched movies, done laundry. Committing themselves to actions.”
Is the difference important? I look forward to input from others who may be interested.
NotEntirelyMyself 1 year ago
@NotEntirelyMyself Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I appreciate it. Food for thought. Ooops, no thinking in acting. By the way whose quote were you using?
trueblue4321 1 year ago
@trueblue4321 The quote is from (Lee) Strasberg At The Actors Studio , the tape recorded sessions edited by Robert H. Hethmon.
NotEntirelyMyself 1 year ago
@trueblue4321 By the way whoever you are TrueBlue all my input here (for whatever it is worth) is not meant as a criticism - everyone knows that YouTube is filled with all sorts of opinions and "attacks" for better or worse - Bill Esper, his faculty and many other acting teachers in NYC have a well deserved reputation. They love their students. What I'm interested in by laying this little thought out in the best way I could is to provoke some thought. So if you have any thoughts please share.
NotEntirelyMyself 1 year ago
@trueblue4321 And tell your acting friends to come check out these thoughts and give their input. I'd be interested in hearing what they have to say. As would, perhaps, other people.
NotEntirelyMyself 1 year ago
@trueblue4321 and one more thing you crazy loon you I'm not sure at all that you are going to get any rational discussion here on YouTube. I checked out the other comments just for fun where there was all that Sturm and Drang over Maggie F who teaches, and the other guy JJ and her young student (at least she sounds young) vivienj007 and you see what can happen. So be careful here. Someone may BITE.
MrAntoineArtaud 1 year ago
@NotEntirelyMyself
MrAntoineArtaud 1 year ago
@NotEntirelyMyself - Fred maintained that he taught "Kareman". He didn't want people referring to it as "Meisner". Honestly, I don't know what might have happened between Fred & Sandy. However, in Fred's class he sometimes mentioned The Neighborhood Playhouse or Martha Graham, but he never mentioned Sandy. Maybe someone could shed some light on the matter. As far as I'm concerned, the differences regarding "the reality of doing" are somewhat academic.
legatofancier 9 months ago
@legatofancier You imply a great deal sir! You invent conflict and intrigue where there was none. Even inviting comments as if there is really anything real to comment upon. You write that “Fred maintained that he taught "Kareman" and so paint a picture of a man busy differentiating himself from Meisner and even uncomfortable when hearing Meisner’s name associated with his work. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither was really a concern of his.
NotEntirelyMyself 9 months ago
@NotEntirelyMyself -
You misunderstand me. True, Fred disliked labels. That's fine. Fred maintained that he taught fundamentals. Several other students told me that when they mentioned Meisner to Fred, he emphatically said that he taught 'Kareman". However, Sandy's name was conspicuous by its absence in Fred's class. In that regard, he did differentiate himself from Sandy. That's OK, it was his class. Sandy was well known for falling out with some of his assistants..
legatofancier 9 months ago
@legatofancier My response, in part, was fueled by my ambivalence about the purpose of exploring what may or may not have been going on in Fred’s psyche because he didn’t use Meisner’s name in his class and further, as you claim, was emphatic about it with his students. I see quite clearly that you feel it was conspicuous by its absence. I’d be interested in learning from you why you feel that way.
NotEntirelyMyself 9 months ago
@NotEntirelyMyself - Martin Waldron taught at The Playhouse. He said, "Fred is an excellent teacher." That opinion was shared by virtually everyone who came in contact with Fred as a teacher. Martin was not only one of Sandy's former students, but Sandy's personal friend as well. He asked Sandy, "How do you want to be remembered, as a great teacher?" Sandy replied, "As an influence." One night in professional class Sandy said, "This is something bigger than all of us." Has including himself.
legatofancier 9 months ago
@legatofancier - Encountering Fred years later in his private class, it struck me odd that he mentioned The Playhouse & Martha Graham in his background, but omitted mentioning Sandy. Fred's long association with Sandy, and the inescapable fact that that Sandy's influence was obvious in what Fred taught, would have aroused the curiosity of anyone who studied with both of them. Other students told me emphatically not to call Fred's work "Meisner."
legatofancier 9 months ago
Comment removed
legatofancier 9 months ago
@legatofancier - Fred taught in his own way, which was excellent. However, it would have been simple justice to mention Sandy as an influence - no more, no less. Sandy frequently mentioned how much he learned from Stella. In later life, he credited Lee as a great influence. Sandy had some blow ups with some of his former assistants. I don't know if that was the case with Fred. However, Fred's behavior could not help but make me wonder about it. "An ounce of behavior is worth a pound of words."
legatofancier 9 months ago
@legatofancier I respect your feelings. I believe we are in similar positions. Each of us admires and respects our teacher - in your case, Meisner, in mine, Kareman. I can understand the injustice you felt having studied with Meisner and later coming to Fred’s class then being told by other students not to mention Meisner. That the work in class was “Kareman.” As if, perhaps, Fred was unfairly taking credit for what he was teaching by not acknowledging the influence of Meisner.
NotEntirelyMyself 9 months ago
@legatofancier Each student who later became a teaching assistant of Meisner’s at the Playhouse must have had a complicated relationship with Meisner (and he with them) given the typical psychological issues that universally affect the acting teacher guru-disciple arrangement that existed.
NotEntirelyMyself 9 months ago
@NotEntirelyMyself - It is common knowledge that Sandy fell out with David Pressman; Herbert Bergoff; Wynn Handman; Mordecai Lawner; Robert X. Modica; & (famously) with Bill Esper. In most cases they made peace in later years. Sandy could be tempestous, to say the least. The mentor/protege relationship often gets complicated when the protege begins to achieve the level of a master himself. Fred definitely achieved master teacher status, although I suspect he would have dismissed the idea.
legatofancier 9 months ago
@legatofancier William Alderson’s “Sandy says . . (In memoriam)” on his website is one example of the kind of deep feelings that are usually attached to the guru-disciple relationship. Bill Esper, in his book writes “Sandy’s technique and reputation” are his responsibility to maintain and further that his own work in the field and the prestige of his school “all lie at stake with every student who graduates.” As if Espier has now become Meisner. T
NotEntirelyMyself 9 months ago
@NotEntirelyMyself - Naturally, I respect your feelings, as well. Personally, I considered Fred a great teacher. To call him "excellent" was not to damn with faint praise - quite the opposite. For me, Sandy will always be "THE" teacher. Of course, I was still in my teens when I began to study with him. Not only did I graduate from the two year program at The Playhouse (where I first encountered Fred), but I continued with Sandy in is private class. That made a pwoerful impact.
legatofancier 9 months ago
@legatofancier Thus the special powers Esper endowed Meisner with long ago, Esper has now completely internalized. I only bring these things up because of your wonder about what happened between Fred and Meisner. Perhaps Fred in his response to Meisner’s insistence to his assistants on how to teach, how to treat students, perhaps how “to be” even, went completely in the other direction - Fred simply erased Meisner from his classroom. Who knows?
NotEntirelyMyself 9 months ago
@NotEntirelyMyself - Fred mentioned teaching with Richard Boone at The Playhouse. Boone filled in for Sandy after Sandy's first surgery for cancer. Fred's failure to mention Sandy was bound to make me wonder. It was my impression that Sandy only insisted that his assistants teach in a specific way if they were actually teaching what has come to be known as "The Meisner Technique." There is no one way to learn or to teach. You will not find be arguing with what Fred taught, or how he taught it.
legatofancier 9 months ago
@legatofancier Sanford Meisner certainly has a great deal to be proud of. The “Meisner Technique” is taught around the world. Though it goes without saying that it is not automatic that any of it be taught well. As you well know that depends on the teacher. And as you’ve noted, Fred was an “excellent teacher.” His students have called him “inspirational,” “a great gift in their life” “invaluable” and so on.
NotEntirelyMyself 9 months ago
@NotEntirelyMyself - The lasting influence of such members of The Group Theatre as Adler, Clurman, Kazan, Lewis, Meisner, Odets, & Strasburg was a foregone conclusion while they were still alive. Sandy (never known for his modesty LOL) wishing to be remembered as an influence, was only hoping to be acknowledged for what he had already acheived. Just remember, he said, "This is something bigger than all of us." Certainly Fred knew that as well as anyone, and probably better than most.
legatofancier 9 months ago
@legatofancier His reputation was that he was one of the “leading acting teachers in America,” not unusual accolades for any acting teacher that did as well in his work with students as Kareman did. Given Sanford Meisner’s great opinion of himself, his work (not unusual for a man who had accomplished what he had accomplished) it makes sense that being a “great acting teacher” would not be enough for him. He would want to rise to the level of an “influence” which he has.
NotEntirelyMyself 9 months ago
@NotEntirelyMyself - One of the girls in my class with Fred at Carnegie Hall (she had graduated from Julliard), said to Fred that the reason that she knew he was not a charlatan was the fact that he did not advertise. We all had a good laugh at that, because it was so very true! Unfortunately, I know at least two people who teach who advertise themselves as "first generation" Meisner students, who only sutdied with Sandy for one year at The Playhouse. Now really THAT bothers me!
legatofancier 9 months ago
@legatofancier And to be the creator of something bigger than himself, which outlasts him. It has.
NotEntirelyMyself 9 months ago
@NotEntirelyMyself - Yes, it's all in HOW Sandy's work is taught! At the moment, my impression is that Sandy's work has surpassed Strasburg's Method in popularity. If so, that's because it's healthy! Fred was firmly in that tradition. Surely you realize that if anyone were teaching like Fred today they would be a credit to the acting profession! You are right to preserve Fred's legacy. It shouldn't be allowed to die with him. My only reservation was that Fred might have acknowledged Sandy.
legatofancier 9 months ago
@legatofancier Kareman was certainly a remarkably gifted teacher but that was never the point in his class, for he was the most down-to-earth caring understanding human being you’ve ever want to meet and he gave his all to his students. He also understood that only Meisner taught “Meisner.” He knew Kareman was teaching “Kareman” just as Esper teaches Esper. He laughingly shrugged off labels (Meisner, Boleslavsky, whatever ,even Kareman) that some students wished to give to the work (cont)
NotEntirelyMyself 9 months ago
@NotEntirelyMyself - You're preaching to the choir. Why mount a defense where no defense is necessary? As a matter of fact, Sandy did have issues with David Pressman; Wynn Handman; Mordecai Lawner; Robert X. Modica; & Bill Esper. Honestly, I don't know for a fact if there was an issue between Sandy & Fred. However, like many of us, I was trained to work off behavior. Fred's behavior made me wonder if there was an issue. There is no malice in wondering.
legatofancier 9 months ago
@legatofancier for what exactly would be the point of giving it a name? It was . . . after all "the work." Kareman developed the work, the actor training in his way that would have made Meisner proud if he was a man who allowed that his work could be developed. You tell me. I can assure you though the differences in Kareman’s work with actors were decidedly NOT academic whether it was based in the principles he espoused for the “reality of doing” or his introduction of “emotional preparation."
NotEntirelyMyself 9 months ago
@NotEntirelyMyself - Where's the argument? Fred's take on "the reality of doing" was perfectly fine. As far as I'm concerned, it was just the opposite side of the same coin from Sandy originally taught. THAT'S GREAT! Cf course, that's just a personal impression. It ain't about being academic.
legatofancier 9 months ago
@legatofancier Students who had studied with Esper, for instance, or other teachers, were often heard to express that their work in Fred’s class was of a kind they’d never done before whether referring to repetition or work on Spoon Rivers.
NotEntirelyMyself 9 months ago
@NotEntirelyMyself - That strikes me as being very healthy. People who were trained as actors by Sandy, and in some cases trained as teachers, went on to teach somewhat differently from Sandy. Again, that can be very healthy. Frankly, I can't imagine Sandy would have taken issue with what Fred taught. Of course, Fred was very clear that he was not teaching "Meisner" per se. There's nothing negative in it, quite the contrary - it meant growth for many of Fred's students.
legatofancier 9 months ago
@lancemcquaid
it is true that you'll see anger but legtofancier's is relevant. I don't know I'd call it a breakthrough. However the task of ridding yourself of self-consciousness is no easy task and so part of the defensiveness especially in the exercise will be "anger." Getting beyond that takes alot of relaxation in the exercise. Finally only you know how to bring that to your work.
Vacheron123 1 year ago
Great humanity and truth of who we are live in the exercises created by Sanford Miesner... 100% process of self discovery.. true test of the artist..
dilloncr 1 year ago
ACT before you THINK, was on esper's wall.
reeblite 1 year ago
were you there when meisner let bill esper go, claiming he was ruining his theatre actors? (no character development). i simply was adhd. not good actor material. unfocused, holly hunter was in my class, a summer enrollment class, and martin waldren was still there, what a great guy. enjoyed him imensely. hunter was the gifted one. amanda plummer was in our alternate class(2 at the same time). great memories. bill esper's a great teacher for film, so real.
reeblite 1 year ago
i took bill esper's repetition class back in 1980.
reeblite 1 year ago
you look too young to have studied with meisner. did you study with bill esper?
reeblite 1 year ago
Found this video very useful, have been researching the Meisner Technique and the video sums up the main and important excercises and activities that Sanford teached, and the reasons why he taught them, what he hoped the actor to achieve.
MrWesleyJThomas 2 years ago
Lots of good tips here if you can find them :-) Thanks for posting this piece!
I'm not fussed on who started what and what name they called it, I'm fussed on what I can learn from whomever, as I make my journey.
DrBacca 2 years ago
For someone who studied Meisner's techniques for two years she makes the huge inexcusable mistake of twice referring to Meisner's teachings as "the method". 'The Method' was essentially Lee Strasberg's own version of Stanislavski's techniques known as 'The System'.
Meisner did not advocate the method, in fact he called it's practitioners "guinea Pigs" being experimented on.
Meisener himself taught his students to summon the character's feelings, not their own as 'The Method' did.
eieiowens 2 years ago
true say!!! if it looks like your acting, its not good acting....
deadeviln13 2 years ago 10
What a beautifull person, I can see sje is very sharp and a good actress.
vivaelrock87 2 years ago
The repetition exercise devised by Meisner is one of the most fun activities I've learned in my twenty years of classes.
kwixotic 3 years ago
good
BTV1989 3 years ago
thanks for the advice its really helpful. im having a hard time trying to learn acting right now . i really dont know what steps i should take to help fill in that gap of experience so i can step up with the rest of the actors and actresses. right now im taking Psych. as a major and theatre as minor, and i was wondering do i have to major in theatre to be an actress or do u think i should keep my strategy?
AzeraRock 3 years ago
A degree doesnt make you a good or bad actor. From my experience and point of view asll it maters it that you undertake a jurney through acting lessons, books, and learning from all types of methos to the point tht you crate a fusion of everything that you have learned in your past. A fusion that unlocks your truth and the ability to portray a character truthfully. Hope it help, good luck!!!
vivaelrock87 2 years ago 11
@vivaelrock87 Get an education!!! (Key Advice from professionals all around the globe)
FlexBillionaire90 3 months ago
well to be an actress you need to really want to act. you need to audition for plays/ movies whatever you are into. and get cast in a show and do that as much as you can. every time you act youll get better...
deadeviln13 2 years ago 2
it's fantastic
sujian110 3 years ago
good
xiaohui1352 3 years ago
cool
leomandy222 3 years ago
very helpful
reneezhao7078 3 years ago
acting tips are great
silinda11 3 years ago
Dinah Lenny? sorry, don't know who she is, but maybe what she saidz good!
jessica9290 3 years ago
good
anpengfei250 3 years ago
I think the end, about getting frustrated with theatre, is the best thing anyone can tell young actors. I myself am only 23, and in my final year of my undergrad, we had a workshop with a casting director from NY come and sorta help us realize where we fit in as actors with what roles or whatever. And it was nice to be told at least where i fit in at this current time because it's not where i see myself. I see myself in the roles i can play 15 years from now, and that does get frustrating.
polishactor 3 years ago
thanks 4 ya tips,
very good!
kkcat9290 3 years ago
it's fantastic
vickyly8811 3 years ago
so good
Anna0626123 3 years ago
so great
lizaihui15 3 years ago
wow! so are oyu still acting or was that the end?? sometimes I think some things are meant to be or not meant to be. Guess you were meant to be a mom and wife not an Actress, cool either way.
blakebymharris 3 years ago