ISSUES


No one seems to object to the transcriptions and posting of AK’s comments which are at www.krausenotes.blogspot.com. I’m putting comments and analysis on a separate blog, this one, so that people who don’t want to read such things don’t have to. This blog is set to accept anonymous comments, but I read them all and won’t tolerate flame wars. None have started.


Some of the most interesting and useful feedback on this material is coming in emails, some shared and others not shared, which I don’t want to post with names attached unless I have permission. I’m just going ahead to name the people AK named in her notes -- it’s been half a century since then, after all. Indeed, some of the email comments are arriving from people in that time period as well and those of us who know each other can probably guess who said what.


In good “discussion” mode, I’ll try to separate the issues from the people.


1. It is most moving that after fifty years the memory of personal relationships with AK have the status of love affairs, magical relationships that have inspired people for decades. They do NOT want that interfered with. Who would?


2. Likewise, there were a few people deeply wounded by past misunderstanding and schism and they, too, still hurt. To some this might be a reason to shut down, but to me it’s a reason to continue.


3. One opinion is that AK’s teaching methods are obsolete now. Students will no longer tolerate the confrontive and sometimes invasive tactics she used then. Indeed, some people wouldn’t accept them then, but they quietly went elsewhere. Is it a loss or a gain to give up the auteur model of teaching? Stanislavki was, after all, a Russian like the famously dictatorial ballet masters.


4. Is it true that academic theatre is nothing like professional theatre? You can still be tough on professional actors? (If Equity allows it.)


5. Some feel that theatre is totally different now. Whatever was important then is NOT important now. Or, to the contrary, theatre, esp. repertory theatre, is entering a renaissance that is vital and thriving across the country with new companies still being founded.


6. AK’s life trajectory is not really understandable without considering the time periods, the place, the administrators, sexism, and so on. No different from understanding a character in a play. (I confess -- this is my opinion.) All this happened before the Derrida Deconstruction craze, but we understand that, don’t we?


Mary Strachan Scriver

(Prairie Mary_



Showing posts with label Theory of Mind. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theory of Mind. Show all posts

Thursday, September 20, 2012

THE GLASS SKULL




Ever since way back when Pavlov was studying stimulus/response and Skinner was torturing rats (my psych prof showed movies of it and gave us hell for laughing at the rats with hot-foot), we’ve known that information from the senses went somewhere in the brain, something happened to them, and then the nerves sent messages to the muscles or to each other about what to do. (“Jump, you little rat!  Jump!”)  But no one could figure out what it was happening there in the skull  -- it was a black box.  Now we know how to look into that box -- it has become a glass skull.

But all along, people who taught acting DID know what happened in there.  The message came in from eyes, ears, skin or whereever; there was a moment when everything stopped.  (Alvina Krause called it -- SLAP!  -- Tim calls it “stop the world.”)  A moment of realization, of evaluating, of decision.  Then the response.  It can be observed; it can be felt.  But until recently it could not be seen among the neurons in action.

It was rhizomatous:  a little complex of neurons sorted the sights, another sorted the sounds, and so on.  Then they forwarded the sorted information to a place where it was weighed and possibly compared to things stored in the memory banks according to past sights, sounds, kinesthetic sensations, until it became a “gestalt.”  This all happened in a flash, esp. if the amygdala marked it DANGER!  And the brain said JUMP.  By that time the jump had happened.  

Or maybe it took a while, like overnight while the memory-sorting neuron complexes (from the front of the hippocampus to the back of the hippocampus) put this here and that there and like with like and threw out the trivia or nonsensical -- wait now, maybe that wasn’t nonsense after all.  And the person dreamt, watching the traffic passing, hailing a cab.  In the morning it was at the curb with the door standing open.

What’s interesting is that the most recent development -- the cutting edge of evolution -- is that not only can we see the other person stop/SLAP but we can tell from the response -- or maybe just the pause -- what it was that the rhizome neuron complexes were working on, realizing, deciding.  And beyond that, (this is the secret of acting) -- that when we see someone working their way through this sequence, it is to us as though we had done it, too.  “Vicarious,” they call it.  You watch someone dance and your muscles, ever so faintly, imitate what you see.

Even more interesting -- and sometimes perilous -- is that we all have several aspects of ourselves inside and those rhizomatous neural complexes can put these part-puppets to good use, setting up conversations among them.  You know the cartoon:  an angel on one shoulder and a little devil on the other.  There can be a whole school of little critters swarming around, some tougher and more intense than others.

Partly they are a matter of stored experience (memory) and partly they are organized by feeling.  Feel maternal?  Is that you, mom?  Feel powerful?  007 at your service.  Walter Mitty might drop by with a few adventures.  When Freud wanted you to repose on his couch and free-associate, he was hoping that your puppet show would activate and let him watch long enough to pick up clues about the puppeteer.

Jung had an idea you would draw on plot lines from the great classics.  The contemporary Internal Family Therapy shrinks figured conversation would probably sound like the supper table.  When my brother with the head trauma was looking for a cover story, he told us television plots, often courtroom tales.  We so often see life as being on trial -- I suppose, for the crime of being human.

Alvina Krause’s “method” was to watch closely when an actor was “acting” and try to deduce which neuron complexes were doing what.  She was very much aware that no two human beings have organized their brains the same way (after all, we are preschoolers when we set up our basic categories and who knows what has happened since then?) but she tried to know students well enough to have a good idea of what their “dashboard” conversations were like.  One thought everything was an intellectual puzzle, another saw only wine and roses, and a third was shuttling from one thing to another without settling.

Over and over in her notes you’ll read,  “I think what X is doing is trying too hard to . . .”   Then she would try to devise something that would derail that unhelpful process, whatever it was, into something that worked.  One of the funniest is the woman who was being so lyrical and poetic with her iambic pentameters that the sense left them.  To get her feet back on the ground, Krause asked her to say “mashed potatoes” at the end of each line.  That was the most ordinary, bland, unpoetic phrase Krause could think of.  It worked.  Suddenly the actress had her feet on the ground.

The riskiest was when an actor had gone off to cloud-cuckoo-land, some strangely dissociated parallel universe.  She would resort to a slap, the kind that movie heroes used on hysterical movie heroines while commanding, “Snap out of it!”  And then the heroine says,  “Thanks.  I needed that.”  You’d never get away with that today.  The main reason Krause got so close to her actors was so that she knew how to calibrate whatever she was doing, but there’s a total taboo on contact now.

Of course, the misfires and those impervious to such tricks simply left.  We writers watched very closely indeed.  Even though we were too -- what? -- to get on the stage.  But for us the cast of characters inside has never stopped talking to each other.  We can put it on a page rather than the stage.

The world comes at you:  sun in the morning, fog at night;  sounds of traffic and sounds of wind;  taste of wine and crunch of bread; smell of a lover and reek of death; and in your glass skull you weave a story about it.  Then -- wait, go back!  I was wrong!  It works better this other way.  SLAP!  Thanks, I needed that.

(Also posted at www.prairiemary.blogspot.com.)

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

WE CONTAIN MULTITUDES


In David Press’ 1971  thesis, Neal Weaver, now film and theatre critic for the LA Weekly, wrote a vivid description of Alvina Krause entering the auditorium of Annie May Swift Hall.  She generally waited until everyone was likely to be seated, then flung open the double doors at the back of the raked seats and strode down the central aisle.  It was an ENTRANCE.  Often she wore purple and there was a hanky tucked into her left wrist -- in sleeve or watchband, I suppose.

She was not a tall woman, not as plump as Margaret Mead, who had the same trick of taking charge of a space.  Mead had a “thumb staff” which her father had advised her would be a sign of authority to compensate for being short.  AK had her hair in a roll, anchored by a Spanish silver comb, and posture as erect as a military horseman.  This was her “platform,” in today’s jargon when every author must have a “platform,” a kind of shorthand identity.  She was projecting that she was the person in charge, that she knew what she was doing, and that the focus should be on her unless it was on the stage.

But she didn’t always stay in this role.  Sometimes, either to make a point or out of pure devilish mischief, she would become “kittenish” as one former student put it.  She tossed her head, peeked out the sides of her eyes like a bird, laughed softly, flirted her hands as though scattering rose petals at a wedding, maybe even twirled on her toes.  “Isn’t this fun?  Isn’t this just wonderful?  Will you play with me?”  We were eager to do so.

That wasn’t my favorite of her little shticks.  I liked best the one in which she became a little irish pipsqueak who pretended to be a great brawler, one who could not possibly be defeated -- particularly if he had enough whiskey in him.  An accent so thick it was practically unintelligible, he would talk up a terrible rage, while all the time backing up -- he threatened to tear his victim limb from limb, rolling up his sleeves in preparation -- but then saying he regretted having to go home and putting on his coat.  It was a demonstration of how a character could say one thing while conveying the absolute opposite with body language, and even the body language contradicting itself.

The first part of Alvina Krause’s career was about “interpretation” which I suppose we might now call “performance art.”   “ In art, performance art is a performance presented to an audience, traditionally interdisciplinary. Performance may be either scripted or unscripted, random or carefully orchestrated; spontaneous or otherwise carefully planned with or without audience participation. The performance can be live or via media; the performer can be present or absent. It can be any situation that involves four basic elements: time, space, the performer's body, or presence in a medium, and a relationship between performer and audience. Performance art can happen anywhere, in any venue or setting and for any length of time. The actions of an individual or a group at a particular place and in a particular time constitute the work.”

Some day I’ll sit down with my friend, Brian Rusted, who is a professor of performance arts in Calgary, and get this stuff figured out, but what i understand at the present is that what he studies is the interaction of a performance and an audience on a “meta” level.  One of the important aspects of this is how the performer moves in and out of personas as well as establishing a basic platform.  I will be very interested to see whether he has tried working with the new theories of brain function (Antonio Damasio).

Bob Scriver used to play dumb cowboy artist when he was pitching to a potential customer.  It drove me crazy because he was anything but -- he wasn’t even that much of a cowboy.  But he was very convincing and his ploy did indeed get the people -- who clearly expected a dumb cowboy and never questioned the song and dance -- to believe in him and show their own true selves.  Or maybe not.  Maybe their vibe didn’t ring true, which probably meant their check would bounce.

The counter-context to agonistic theatre, which is often intensely tragic, is trickster drama: shape-shifting, runaway, defensive, full of jokes and even slapstick.  Contradictions, ridiculous juxtapositions, seductions, and general foolery.  The best antidote for the all-in-black terribly serious drama student might be a little old lady skipping around, wafting her hanky and lilting some nonsense.

Somewhere in between tragedy and comedy seems to be irony -- comment through dissonant juxtaposition.  There’s been a lot of talk about that recently.  It gets harder and harder to pull off when every day brings more dissonant juxtaposition.  But fear not:  Robert Wright said this in the Atlantic.

Using magnetic resonance imaging, scientists seem to have located a part of the brain centrally involved in grasping irony.  The French research team that made the latest contribution to this effort presents its findings in the current issue of the journal NeuroImage. Referring to a part of the brain known as the "ToM network," the researchers write. "We demonstrate that the ToM network becomes active while a participant is understanding verbal irony."

“ToM stands for "theory of mind," which in turn refers to the fact that we naturally attribute beliefs and intentions and emotions to people we interact with. That is, we develop a "theory"--though not necessarily a theory we're consciously aware of--about what's going on in their minds. (An inability to do this is thought to play a role in autism.) And this "theory" in turn shapes our interpretation of things people say. The "ToM network" is a brain region--or, really, a network of different brain regions--that seems to play an important role in the construction of these theories.”
In short, you need to know your performer pretty well  before you can really grasp the irony.  And therein lies a deeper irony, because performers are generally invested in hiding their identity -- at least at the moment.  That’s the essence of performing, isn’t it?  Is that why everyone is so obsessively insane about what they call “truth”?   Isn’t insanity defined as the inability to grasp reality?
Alvina Krause was one of the sanest people I’ve ever known.  She taught acting successfully because she was always aware of what was what.  Those students who trusted her broke open their preconceptions and began to live.