I am most surprised to find that many actors who come to me have no repeatable system of work. I present a script and ask: "How do you work on this? What is your system?" Again and again I find that there is none. These actors are constantly working from their "feelings" of what the text may require and hope that their choices will please the casting directors. Most use random instincts as opposed to text analysis, believing that technique will trap them instead of freeing them to work on a spontaneous level. However, I believe freedom is the ultimate goal of technique. Random instincts produce random results which can not always be relied upon.

I find all other craftsmen, whether they be dancers, musicians or athletes depend solely on technique and leave the results alone. They are more interested in the process rather than the final outcome; recognizing that process ensures a successful result. When they put their attention to what must be done, rather than the way they are doing it, results happen. They begin to have consistency and confidence. They become less self-aware and more willing to explore and play. They take larger risks and challenge their own personal bests. They begin to have fun. I think actors should have these same privileges.

All the answers one needs are in the script. The character, how to use the environment, what objective to use and how to accomplish that objective behaviorally are all embedded in the text. So, the purpose of technique is to give you a systematic method for finding these clues and igniting the language. How do I go about actualizing and making the words come alive into dynamic behavior? How do I make a choice from text and translate it through my unique imagination?

I took acting classes to learn a way of work. I did not realize I was being 'directed' or 'given adjustments' by the teachers, which would make the scenes work, but leave me without a clue how to repeat what I did. I began to have a dependence on the teachers' opinion, rather than working by and for myself. And working for myself is what was required for an audition.

I had been told to 'just be myself' when acting. My response to that was, 'Which self?' We are all different people under different circumstances, so that premise is strange. Besides, children (the purest of actors) do not play to 'be themselves.' What would be the fun of that?

I wanted to be away from myself, in a joyful way, rather than to be trapped in myself. I wanted to learn how to discover rather than to know; to find and see rather than to show. To pay attention where I didn't have to concentrate. To be in a suspended state of imagination; not narcissism. I wanted to be unsafe and to be courageous and stand behind what I found the story to be from the author. To make a stand is the only thing that will give us confidence, and learning how to make choices from the written text strengthens that confidence so that the audition is yours, truly yours."

My teachers observations, about me coming a teacher, came from my critiques of peers in class and also from personal conferences where we discussed the value of not directing students but teaching from a specific repeatable technique, not from my opinion. He saw that in class, I would not concentrate on the result of things but focus on the step by step behavioral process of the scene. The honesty in acting comes from the body, not from the intellect, which is why I work very physically with my actors today. The camera watches the body, it does not listen. Most actors when reading a scene see the scene in their heads then act out those images. That unfortunately robs the artist of all true spontaneity and encourages cliché in the fact that most other actors see the same exact images which is why casting directors see the same audition over and over again. So, my job is to get the actor to be task oriented and get them to "illuminate" the dialogue by concentrating on subtext and physical impulse and to discourage them from "illustrating" the text, which is the writers job, not the actors. I find a lot of actors think like directors, by making preconceived psychological decisions about the text before their bodies "experience" the scene. Or else think like writers, by simply acting out the dialogue. I think acting is a little more than just story telling. When working from the subtext, it is then that the actors originality comes out and the acting becomes private, provocative and original.

I believe to have working actors within a class is a necessity not a luxury. It is a direct reflection to the work process of that class. Too many times, however, there is a snobby distinction in actors between who is working and who is not. I think this is unfair because that variable changes from month to month for us all. So the only place that should be constant and safe and progressive is a classroom (which is a laboratory) where the concentration is on the expression of imagination so that the work can become bold and original. There is only one you, and if you are totally yourself that is the very definition of originality itself. Not the acting out of the lines of a text to please your "idea" of what you think the casting person wants. Working actors need to look at who they are working exactly for, themselves or the ideas of others. I believe that a work is good to the degree it expresses the artist who creates it. A performance is the result of some deep inner belief which is so strong that you have to show what you want in spite of a lesser script or the commercial aspect of things. A performance becomes a state of mind. When students see working actors in the class are NOT concerned with the manipulation of trying to get a scene to look good but are trying to illuminate a part of their soul, they becomes encouraged because they can relate to that. It motivates the other students because they see that the whole point is to discover rather than to execute. They are encouraged by the attitude of the working actor when they are working for right reasons. We all must move from asking ourselves the question "How am I seen"? to "What do I see?" We act to express ourselves privately and personally. Working or not, that is what joins us. We desire to get to the point where we feel unsafe in our own feelings. An unsafeness which is valuable in that it lets the work teach us. Actors too many times want permission... to ask permission is to seek denial.

I think the purpose to class is to get work. But what kind of work do you want to do? I have had countless students who have Emmy Awards and have graduated from Juilliard and Yale, and yet come to me brittle and dry because of working from a result orientated approach that sometimes the industry requires... so they relearn process themselves from the other students and re-ignite their careers. This encourages everyone! When a working actor knows that the audition is a reflection of the class ...not the class a refection of the audition the other students realize it is not about getting it right or about ego and narcissism but about illumination privacy and originality..which is what casting people want to see."