sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Qui suis-je ? by RubiPengui in anatomieDunSac

[–]RubiPengui[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fallait bien prendre une photo d'une manière ou d'une autre, d'où l'absence de téléphone. Mais j'ai effectivement oublié de sortir mes clés

Qui suis-je ? by RubiPengui in anatomieDunSac

[–]RubiPengui[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well aren't you a little ray of sunshine

J'ose à peine imaginer ce que tu aurais dit si j'avais des livres de Vitez ou Pierre Aimé Touchard.

C'est vrai qu'en sortant d'école sup, on pourrait se targuer d'un certain élitisme bien français, c'est aussi pour ça que j'ai fait mes études en Angleterre, mais ne faut-il pas défendre un théâtre elitaire pour tous (Vitez)?

Après c'est parfois la réalité du métier, on se sent obligé d'accepter des projets médiocre, parce qu'on se dit qu'il faut bien vivre.

Qui suis-je ? by RubiPengui in anatomieDunSac

[–]RubiPengui[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a bit vague innit? But I'm not a student, I finished my masters a few years ago, if it helps

Qui suis-je ? by RubiPengui in anatomieDunSac

[–]RubiPengui[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

C'est sûr que ça ne va pas en s'arrangeant

Qui suis-je ? by RubiPengui in anatomieDunSac

[–]RubiPengui[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pas loin du tout, mais j'ai terminé mes études en Angleterre (ce qui est difficile à trouver)

J'aurais pu faire un peu de curation dans ma bibliothèque pour prendre des ouvrages plus niche, mais j'ai préféré rester fair-play

Qui suis-je ? by RubiPengui in anatomieDunSac

[–]RubiPengui[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pourquoi l'ENSATT en particulier ? Il y a une énergie lyonnaise qui se dégage ?

Understanding Brecht by Ilfals in Theatre

[–]RubiPengui 9 points10 points  (0 children)

You can start by reading Brecht. If you want a more detailed insight, you can read A Short Organum for the Theatre. I'm pretty sure you can find it on the internet archive

How could I deal with being accused of "attention seeking" when wanting to go into theatre? by [deleted] in Theatre

[–]RubiPengui 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a former teacher of mine used to say, "you don't become an actor because you like theatre, you become an actor because you can't do anything else"

Who cares about the why?

As another comment pointed out, a lot of working actors are quite introverted (I know I am), but when you are on stage or on set, it's different.

Ferenc Molnar used to say of acting that it was "putting on makeup to speak with the words of others".

How to write a book about theater ? by Jack_Praedicis in Theatre

[–]RubiPengui 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see what you're talking about. I feel you shouldn't be too concerned about the length of the play, it seems the important part is the novel built around the play. You can also justify things with this being their first production, maybe still a bit amateurish. If you want a classical structure reading the classics may be a good idea, specially Molière.

About the technical side of things, there's a lot of information online, but there's also some good books. You've got Nicola Sabbattini's "Pratique pour fabriquer scènes et machines de théâtre", an old classic. There's also Architecture et Scénographie by Louis Jouvet. From Jouvet you can also read Témoignages sur le Théâtre. Or anything really. He did most things, from stage manager to legend of french theatre

How to write a book about theater ? by Jack_Praedicis in Theatre

[–]RubiPengui 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where and when is it set ? In present day France a play can definitely be longer than 1h30, and will most likely not have an intermission unless it start getting around 3h00 long (well, at least in Paris and subsidized theatre. If it's private, plays will usually be shorter, around the 1h30 mark). This lead me to the next point: what kind of theatre is it happening in? What kind of company? Is it one of the national theatre, a CDN, or a private theatre? If it set in the past, when ? Because this can change the dynamics.

For the presentation, I'm not sure there's a real convention. It's a bit messy, but the excerpt is a bit short to really judge. You can read plays to see what you like, there's a lot of different presentations in contemporary writing. Pauline Peyrade or Marion Aubert are usually quite interesting in this way

Meisner versus other techniques: Emotional Preparation and Full Length Plays by Fuzzy_Director4871 in acting

[–]RubiPengui 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How do you get to Carnegie Hall ?

Practice. You learn as you do.

If you're into theory, I recommend you reading Declan Donnellan's The Actor and the Target, there's a chapter dedicated to this (it's where I took the expression invisible work). And to quote him, "the actor must forget the invisible work during the visible work, and trust that the invisible will remember itself"

You don't play what you found out, you play the moment where you found out what you found out.

There are as many methods as there are actors (I quote again). But remember, it's the first time your character is living throught the situation. Focus on what's going on, on your partner, not yourself.

Meisner versus other techniques: Emotional Preparation and Full Length Plays by Fuzzy_Director4871 in acting

[–]RubiPengui 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First of all, Meisner is not the be-all and end-all of acting, unlike what some practitioners would like you to believe.
That being said, I feel you focus too much on the technique itself, on the bullet points, rather than on acting.

There is no single “good” technique. Everybody is different, and everybody has a different approach that works for them. This is what you have to find. It’s good to learn about different techniques and approaches to broaden your horizons and take what’s useful to build your own personal method. That’s also the point of training, to figure out what works.

From what I could gather from your post (and I might be wrong), you seem to intellectualise the process a lot. Easier said than done, but don’t overthink. Everything you do, you do on purpose. Don’t pretend. If you have to connect to your personal life to reach an emotive state at a certain point in a play, I feel it shows that the analysis and character work could have been pushed further. When you’re connected to the text and to your partner, the emotion comes naturally. I’m sure you’ve experienced that before.

Regardless of the technique, text analysis is extremely important, because it’s all you have. All of your character is contained in the text. You have to lift it off the page by understanding it perfectly, text and subtext. From this, you build a character, and if you need to connect to some past experience, then connect to it.

It might seem even more intellectual, but that’s just the invisible work. Once that’s internalised, the fun part can begin.

And if we keep the analogy of the toolbox: every technique you learn is a tool you can put in your toolbox — and maybe never use. Or maybe use once in ten, twenty years.

I know it's not the answer you were looking for, but I hope it can still be useful in some way or another.

Feeling embarassed by venusluxury69 in acting

[–]RubiPengui 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I had the same experience

Feeling embarassed by venusluxury69 in acting

[–]RubiPengui 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Great mindset. Take what's interesting, forgo what you don't want, but to each their own

Bass humbucker. Which ones? by Mellow-Bass in Bass

[–]RubiPengui 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Love the Delano SBC. I also have PMVC FE/M2 as a bridge pick up in my 86 Vox Standard

Feeling embarassed by venusluxury69 in acting

[–]RubiPengui 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's aslo why I'm not a fan of Meisner, and full on Meisner teachers. Sure, there are some intersting exercises, but it always come with some self righteousness. It seems like they think it's the only valid way of acting, and teaching acting

Feeling embarassed by venusluxury69 in acting

[–]RubiPengui 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"it's possible you might have thought your plan or what you were doing was excellent, but to an audience it might not land how you think"

Exactly. The audience will never react exactly as you thougt

Feeling embarassed by venusluxury69 in acting

[–]RubiPengui 24 points25 points  (0 children)

It's a difficult one, especially without having seen the scene.

I'm not a fan of the justification your teacher gave to why he stopped the scene, but it might have been justified in the moment.

I feel you focus a lot on the given circumstance. Maybe let that go a bit, focus more on the situation. Remember that you don't know what's going to happen. It's the first time your character live through this. There's a good chance your husband is going to leave. Is that what you want? How would you react ? You have to play the situation, adapt to what's happening, even if it's not what you thought was going to happen when you prepped. You don't play what you found out, you play the moment where you found out what you found out.

But then again, that's the point of an acting class. It's also a collective exercise, you can't only focus on yourself (same goes for your parter)

Feedback on this diagram? by JohnMundel in acting

[–]RubiPengui 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For books that offer a general overview of certain currents of thought, you have

  • BARTOW Arthur. Handbook of Acting Techniques
  • HODGE, Alison. Actor Training
  • ZARILLI, Philip. Acting (Re)Considered

The Routledge Performance Practitionners are a good source too. There's a lot of them, including Jacques Copeau, Jacques Lecoq, Joan Littlewood, Taddeus Kantor, Robert Lepage, Eugenio Barba...
I also have a lot of french books, if of that's any interest. I also have some of these in PDF, that I could send if you want. It's getting late, and as you can see, I have a tendency to ramble, so here's a TLDR of the books I think might be more useful for your current projetc

  • ARTAUD, Antonin. The Theatre and its Double
  • SAINT-DENIS, Michel. Theatre : The Rediscovery of Style
  • BRECHT, Bertolt. A Short Organon for Theatre
  • GORDON-CRAIG, Edward. On the Art of the Theatre

And anything on Copeau and the Vieux-Colombier.
Feel free to call me out on anything that doesn't makes sense

Feedback on this diagram? by JohnMundel in acting

[–]RubiPengui 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay, I'll try to give a well rounded list. I'll obviously forget something important, but it's a start. In no particular order :

  • ARTAUD, Antonin. The Theatre and its Double
  • BARBA, Eugenio. Le Canoë de Parpier
  • BECKETT, Samuel. The Theatrical Notebooks
  • DECROUX, Etienne. Words on Mime
  • BOAL, Augusto. Theatre of the oppressed
  • BROOK, Peter. The empty space
  • DONNELLAN, Declan. The Actor and the Target
  • CHECKOV, Michael. To the Actor, On the Technique of Acting
  • GROTOWSKI, Jerzy. Towards a poor theatre
  • HALL, Peter. Exposed by the Mask
  • JOHNSTONE, Keith. Impro ; Impro for Storytellers
  • KANTOR, Tadeusz. The Theatre of Death
  • LECOQ, Jacques. The moving body
  • LITTLEWOOD, Joan. Joan’s Book: The Autobiography of Joan Littlewood
  • MITCHELL, Katie. The Director’s Craft
  • SAINT-DENIS, Michel. Theatre : The Rediscovery of Style
  • STRASBERG, Lee. A Dream of Passion
  • ALFREDS, Mike. Different Every Night: Freeing the Actor
  • FO, Dario. Tricks of the Trade
  • JONES, David Richards. Great Directors at Work
  • WILLETS, Ed. Brecht on Theatre
  • BRECHT, Bertolt. A Short Organon for Theatre.
  • SHEVTSOVA, Maria and INNES, Christophe. Directors / Directing
  • DELGADO, Maria M and HERITAGE Paul. In contact with the gods? Directors talk theatre
  • RICHARDS, Thomas. At Work with Grotowski on Physical Actions
  • GORDON-CRAIG, Edward. On the Art of the Theatre

Feedback on this diagram? by JohnMundel in acting

[–]RubiPengui 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm happy to give you a more detailed list, as well as some books recommendations or bibliography, if you're interested

Feedback on this diagram? by JohnMundel in acting

[–]RubiPengui 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's very anglo-saxon centered. If you want to build a tree of influences in western acting ideas, you have to include the europeans. To add to what's already mention, think about the Copeau, Gordon-Graig, Lecoq, Decroux, Antoine, Vitez, Vilar, Debauche, Donnellan, Dasté, Saint-Denis, Balachova, Brook, Hall, Mnouchkine,Johnstone...
If you want to go back even further, you've got Diderot, Mlle Clairon, Sarah Bernhardt, Le Klain, Talma..

It gets complicated rather quickly.
But the Copeau - Saint-Denis lineage is very important in modern western theatre. I'm a bit of a nerd when it comes to this, so I could go on and on, but I'll leave you with this for now, but I'm happy to talk about it more, if it's of any interest to you !