Wow!! A great topic! I ran a manufacturing business for 10 years (in between careers in this business) and we believed that, by taking good care of all of the details of our people, process and product, the bottom line would work out - and it did. We never ran the business for the result, but, by working on each aspect of what we did, the result was there. I think that's not dissimilar from what you are describing here, Michael. Thanks for expressing it so clearly.
Like
Christopher Buckner
Oct 08
I've never given thought to style. Like you said, it's about objectives, at least for me.
Like
Guest
Oct 07
I thought I was going to slightly disagree with you on this one until you talked about reverse engineering and how your understanding of the people and their circumstances in for example procedurals are what make them speak fast and clearly etc. and style kind of being a byproduct of that.
Like
Wes Melton
Oct 07
I too am trying to read or reread the classic acting books, such as the one you were quoting from. I've been called out for my "collection" but I do view them as textbooks and almost always learn something new when read, whether first time, second or even later.
As always, your conversation on style makes sense. Style is a result, not a goal to achieve. When all else is there, style follows.
Thanks for the reminder.
Like
M Rouillard
Oct 07
I've been hearing the term "hat on a hat" for a long time, ie- showing your work to the audience. The simple fact is, this is not necessary nor is it truthful... it's what insecure "bad" actors do because they do not trust that, they themselves, are interesting enough... It's finally starting to sink in (not quickly enough in my self-doubting mind) that I AM enough, and that if my objectives are clear and my actions are truthful and justified in the text, and I'm living in the moment with my scene partner-like it's the first time ever hearing/saying those words- that there is ZERO need to "show my work" to the audience, because my work itself is enough, and…
Wow!! A great topic! I ran a manufacturing business for 10 years (in between careers in this business) and we believed that, by taking good care of all of the details of our people, process and product, the bottom line would work out - and it did. We never ran the business for the result, but, by working on each aspect of what we did, the result was there. I think that's not dissimilar from what you are describing here, Michael. Thanks for expressing it so clearly.
I've never given thought to style. Like you said, it's about objectives, at least for me.
I thought I was going to slightly disagree with you on this one until you talked about reverse engineering and how your understanding of the people and their circumstances in for example procedurals are what make them speak fast and clearly etc. and style kind of being a byproduct of that.
I too am trying to read or reread the classic acting books, such as the one you were quoting from. I've been called out for my "collection" but I do view them as textbooks and almost always learn something new when read, whether first time, second or even later.
As always, your conversation on style makes sense. Style is a result, not a goal to achieve. When all else is there, style follows.
Thanks for the reminder.
I've been hearing the term "hat on a hat" for a long time, ie- showing your work to the audience. The simple fact is, this is not necessary nor is it truthful... it's what insecure "bad" actors do because they do not trust that, they themselves, are interesting enough... It's finally starting to sink in (not quickly enough in my self-doubting mind) that I AM enough, and that if my objectives are clear and my actions are truthful and justified in the text, and I'm living in the moment with my scene partner-like it's the first time ever hearing/saying those words- that there is ZERO need to "show my work" to the audience, because my work itself is enough, and…