"What do you not agree with?"

          I happen to find the Meisner technique absolutely fascinating; it is unlike anything I've ever seen or heard of before, and I am truly intrigued by several of the methods he describes in his book. However, there are a few aspects that I am having a difficult time agreeing with fully.
          For instance, Meisner seems to, at least from what I've read so far, avoid or even look down upon in-depth text or script analysis. His technique is all about being "in the head", and while I do see the benefits of this approach, I think that analyzing the piece of material you are working on is equally as, if not more, important. Additionally, many of the key points Meisner makes are very vague and hard to decipher. He constantly points out that a good actor "really listens" and "really does", but often times does not explain it any further than that. If his students are unable to understand the true meaning of his words, I don't see how his technique could be effective in training actors.
          Don't get me wrong, I find Meisner's technique interesting and worthwhile to learn. However, like every other method, it does have its limitations and downfalls, and I don't think an actor should necessarily throw himself/herself into it fully and blindly without exploring other options.


Quote of the week:

"I'll tell you this: you cannot escape the impact of emotion, whether it's in a big theater or a tiny one. If you have it, it infects you and the audience. If you don't have it, don't bother; just say the lines as truthfully as you are capable of doing. You can't fake emotion. It immediately exposes the fact that you ain't got it."