YOUR IMPULSE FOR THE SCENE

In case we don’t have a chance to work …

I looked back over a few of your audition tapes in an attempt to figure out if we’re doing something wrong. As a big believer in learning from mistakes, I do this all the time. [It’s the reason I haven’t re-read my book. I looked at one page and found it nothing but inadequate.]

The biggest issue, of course … which will eventually save you …, is that you look very young. Nothing you can do about that. But, here’s another thing:

You know what songs and scenes are about for sure, and eventually you get there. But often in the opening image, you’re “playing” what the scene is about. I can’t remember which one it was, but in the opening shot you were kind of smiling at whomever you were looking at. And it looks indicated. As if the actor is thinking, “I think he’d smile here.” 

I’m fairly certain the second you’re on camera the people watching the audition make their decision. They may not do it consciously, but the impression is there. I urge you to talk out the impulse for the scene and then trust it. Let the impulse lead you into the dialogue or the scene or the song. And make it a simple impulse. An impulse is not the plot. Most actors do not experience the plot, they report it as if it’s just something to know. 

“Fuck, she’s hot” is an impulse. “This is bullshit, man” is an impulse. “I’ll show you” another example. As long as you’re saying it in an active manner, it will feed the scene. Obviously you will talk out a lot more before you bring it down to a few words, but trust your impulses. They are smart and well-thought out, but they must be experienced, not reported. 

Another way to do this is to ask yourself “why?”. Why am I telling her this? Why am I going out there? And, again, the answer is not the plot. It’s an active verb. This is the traditional way to approach actions. But it’s really important to be aware that “the way you say it is the way you’ll do it”. If the answer to why am I telling her this is “to enchant her”, make sure you feel that when you say it. I’d use ‘telling her that'  instead of ‘why am I singing to her’ … but that’s me. Justifying why someone is singing instead of talking is probably a master’s thesis.

If you think of any scene, any song, as a continuation of something that is happening, it should help. There’s a scene going on and then I start talking … or start singing. Nothing just starts. The play has already been going on before anyone sees me. But the issue here is that it is really going on experientially and I don’t just make an arbitrary actor choice of how to play it. 

The audition piece of yours I saw where you were smiling at the beginning of it started me thinking. There was no reason for you to be smiling. And that’s where you have to be really careful. Like I said, you get to what the scene/song is about, but it has to be there at the beginning. When you rehearse, talk out what leads you into a scene numerous times. I think it’s part of the actor’s talent: the ability to know when you’re “there” – and ready to start. It’s the reason you start very broadly and then it takes less and less. The reason I encourage actors to guard against plot, is that we have a tendency to report the plot - and not experience it. If I ask an actor, “what just happened?”, they will tell me the plot and there is no sense of how it affected them. 

In life when we tell someone about something that happened (a plot), we always experience it. “I got on the subway during the 5 o’clock rush hour” is totally experienced when it happens in life. I know what the person went through. When we’re doing it as preparation for a play it seldom affects us. It’s like we’re setting the scene, which is not a very experiential action. It has that grocery list quality.

WHAT’S GOING ON IN THE SCENE: NOTES ON ANIBAL’S RUBEN AUDITION

The one with the accent: You have to be very careful with accents. It becomes more about the accent than what you’re talking about. And it starts right away.

One of the most important issues about any scene/any monologue is that as soon as I see you, I have to know what’s going on. And in this case I have no idea what’s going on. In fact, I think maybe he’s not too bright. It could be what the filmmakers are looking for, but I find the accent to almost be a parody of an accent.

There’s no real sense that you’re talking to someone who has died. Or that it’s been a long time. This is a deceptively difficult scene. Apparently there is a huge problem with the dead father. Ruben hasn’t come to the grave – or come to a ‘memorial’ in a long time … and his mother won’t come at all. But there is something very sweet about this character – and he seems to want to forgive his father. Or something in that world. He is trying to find a connection with the father. And it’s not clear to him how to do it.

This is really what’s going in the scene. The problem with playing “the words” is that you’re playing what that dialogue might sound like without any play at all. It’s the reason I’m fond of saying that the biggest sin of the actor is reading a piece of text and deciding how to perform it. Be aware of this. You did the same thing when we started working on your play. You thought that because he asked “what’s for dinner?” that he was being friendly. It’s a universal issue. It’s the reason I made a discussion of this issue in the second chapter of my book.

This guy is way too confident in my estimation. But, who knows, it may be what the director/writer thinks the scene is about. It would have been nice of them to give a bit more context. However, I don’t think that he’s coming there just to have a drink with his dead father – to send him off to the afterlife.

There is another clue besides ‘it’s been a long time’ and ‘the mother not coming’: “you look like you’re going to a hat party, can I come … no … okay” – is really sad. He’s trying to reach out to his father and can’t.

My thought is that the scene is way too perky. It doesn’t have any difficulty. One of the reasons that I think it’s important to be clear in every scene: what is the problem? It opens you up to how to play it – and the choices you must make in order to do that.

I don’t think there is anything more difficult than the relationship between a father and son. Huge plays are written about them. In fact the biggest plays in the American theater are written about them. [Long Day’s Journey Into Night – Death of a Salesman – All My Sons] My father died fifteen years ago. I thought that once he was dead I would get  him off my back, but he’s still lingering. I have thought about going to talk to his headstone, but I still can’t figure out what to say. Difficult to know where to say “I know you did your best” or “fuck you”.

I think maybe Ruben is there to forgive his father. But he still isn’t confident about it or how to do it. When he wants to go to the party and his father turns him  down, it’s crushing.

Anyway … these are the general thoughts off the top of my head. The biggest problem I see is that the accent gets more attention than what’s really going on with this guy. And you have to really be clear what’s going on (and I don’t mean the plot) with every character … and we see if from the second we see you.

By the way, in both scenes you did a “bit” where you choked on the drink. If you make such a choice it has to be real. Not faked. Those are things you have to really rehearse. Brando was interviewed by Larry King and he said Stella Adler had taught him everything he knew. I asked Stella what it was she taught him. She said (as she often did when asked that question), “I never taught Marlon anything. He knew.” (a brief pause) “Well. One thing. He did an exercise in class once and I stopped him by saying, ‘Never lie.’ He thought about it and redid the exercise. And he never lied again.”

The non-accent one is better, but I still don’t know why he’s there.

There needs to be a clear reason why you say everything you say. “You look good” “You look happy” ‘like a super-hero’ … all of it. He’s not giving an opinion about a picture. When he’s talking about the picture, it’s because it’s too difficult to talk about what is really going on.

This is really the basic problem. There needs to be a clarity about what the scene is about. Like the first scene of Ludlow Street. The impulse of the scene was something along the  lines of “this is hopeless” or “I can’t deal with this” … and the dialogue at the beginning of the scene made sense. And it set up what was going on with him for the whole play. He was losing control. He was fighting the fact that he was of no importance. That does something to a man.

Like I said in my text, I think it takes a lot of time to really let this kind of piece simmer in your being. It’s a very difficult scene.

ON ANA DE ARMAS

A few takeaways from the article are that she didn't speak English at all when she was first cast in a Todd Phillips film. She learned English phonetically in 4 months but still had no idea what she was saying. 

"Every person in the room was like, 'She has no clue what she's saying right now.' But the thing is, I knew exactly what was happening in the scene. It was a crazy combination of 'She has no clue' and 'She's doing it!’”

Clearly this is bullshit. Of course, she knew what she was saying. It actually tells you the importance of playing an action (and the stupidity of fellow actors!). When I was directing Waiting for Lefty in Seoul, I didn’t speak Korean, but I knew when the actors weren’t playing an action, because the scene made no sense. In fact at one point they stopped and through my translator accused me of studying Korean secretly. 

Max von Sydow (look him up) was a well known Swedish actor (Ingmar Bergman films) when he was cast to play Jesus in an epic film called The Greatest Story Ever Told. [John Wayne played the soldier at the crucifixion and utter an unforgettable line reading.] Even my brilliant son spoke no Russian when he was cast as Dimitri in Madam Secretary. He learned the pronunciation from a Russian girl in his class. The vocal coach on set guessed that his accent indicated he was from Ukraine. “Exactly what I was going for!” he assured her.

Spielberg always believed that if you turned the sound off, you should still know what’s going on in a film.

All of this is a clear indication that the most important thing in a scene is the action. The words will give you nothing. “What is going on in the scene” or perhaps “the impulse” for the scene is what we need to know. Always be clear why you’re saying what you’re saying.

Ana de Armas might indeed be good. We’ll see. The reason the kid playing Elvis is being poo-pooed by many people is that he never moved beyond imitation. Acting is not just the words. You have to own the soul of your character. And then be clear what’s going on in the scene.

More secrets to come.

MJ

CORRESPONDENCE WITH KARIM

KARIM: If an actor doesn’t get the impulse correctly then he’s doomed, would you agree?

MILTON: It’s not as clear as that. In fact, I regret to report that nothing is that clear in acting.

The impulse is there to put you in the mindset for the scene or monologue or play. There’s just an impulse that “takes you out on stage.” For numerous actors it’s unconscious. I suppose you’re doomed as an actor if say (like Andrew Garfield) you think the impulse for the scene with your father is “poor me” as opposed to “you need to face the truth, Dad.” The biggest issue is that most actors ‘go out there’ to say lines of dialogue. And that’s where they run into trouble.

KARIM: Can we run into the danger of doing the impulse as us and then going into the character?

MILTON: There is always a danger of thinking ‘what would I do in this circumstance’ even if you’re not really asking yourself that question. 
As an example, your response was ’Those Bastards! I’ve given them my life (?) and this is how they thank me!” That was definitely how you would respond.

If you can possibly get away today and join class, do. Having Deb Margolin in class should prove very helpful.