Stars like to be likable. The Squid and the Whale is a perfect example. You get to the end scene, and that’s the point where the star turns to Noah Baumbach, the director, and says, “You know what’d be good? If I had a speech, heart-to-heart, a lot of tears. I’ve actually written something you might like.” It happens all the time. Noah and I — never. Not a word. If the guy’s got flaws, wear them on your sleeve. And stars don’t like to do that. And they’re paying you $20 million to do that thing you did that America loves, now just do it for them. It’s true.
Interview: D.W. Brown, Acting Coach to Stars and Future Stars
Posted on July 8, 2009 at 3:59 pm
D.W. Brown has trained, directed, and coached hundreds of actors and is co-artistic head of the distinguished and successful Joanne Baron/D.W. Brown Studio. His new book, You Can Act!: A Complete Guide for Actors is both practical and inspiring with tips, diagnostics, and reference material that guides newcomers and professional actors to everything from the classics to a shoot-’em up. He took the time to answer my questions about the book and his work.
On “Inside the Actor’s Studio,” I heard Alec Baldwin talk about the difference between an actor and a movie star. What do you think the difference is? Can you be both?
You certainly can be both because the ability to act is actually one of the traits that results in success for an actor. Imagine that. But there truly are other factors involved in being a star. Those would include the type you are, your basic physical attributes and your essential nature and how this present society responds to that type. There have always been femme fatale types like Angelina Jolie (Lauren Bacall), and the decent man like Tom Hanks (Henry Fonda); but we don’t seem to have much use for John Wayne types right now. There’s also the buzz factor. The industry feels a trend for certain people and their fame, a fame not necessarily related to their acting, and then it builds on itself.
I was surprised to see you say that “as long as you’re committing to the truth of your Action, you can pretty much be oblivious to whatever you’re saying and it will come off just fine.” How do you suggest an actor treat the words in the script?
Yes, I know it is heretical in some quarters to discount the text, but I’m only saying that an actor should do their job, trusting the writer has done theirs. It’s Shakespeare’s advice to actors when he said (through Hamlet’s mouth): “Suit the action to the word and the word to the action.” You use the words only as a blueprint to determine what you should be doing and, once that’s decided, you make the words total slaves to the thrust of your Action. Our society makes such a big deal out of the use of language and how you present yourself intelligently, an obligation to the words and their ideas is a curse. All these reasonable minds talking to reasonable minds. An actor needs to aim for gut.
Many actors are fine when they are speaking but get lost when another character is speaking. How do you teach them to maintain concentration?
We train the concentration of an actor so that they put their attention on what’s really going on, not just the words and how they themselves are coming across. The Meisner technique we teach at our school (The Joanne Baron/D.W. Brown Studio) is a brilliant method for getting an actor to habituate playing moments and working off their environment, mainly the subtextual interaction with other human beings.
What is the best way to prepare for a role set in another era?
Whatever the environment your character inhabits you have to examined the culture and its values, and then bring that to your performance; it may be by relating to events through the use of particularizations, which is saying to yourself: “This thing is to this character as blank would be if it happened to me.” By this I mean, if your character is discovered to be pregnant out of wedlock in the 60s, it might be for you as if you’d been discovered prostituting yourself. To play something set in a different era you might also have to alter how you carry yourself physically.
What is the best way to think about a character’s past? About the character’s goals?
The past may be hugely influential or barely at all. Although it’s often an interesting plot point, I think well-meaning actors tend to get too hung up on back story, whereas your character might simply have been born a shark or a saint. I do think connecting to a past can be very powerful if you think of the character as motivated for a larger purpose because of it. This might be the case with someone who, because of the sacrifices made by others to get them through college, strives passionately to succeed so as to honor them, or a person having been bullied taking revenge for all who have been bullied. I think a great way to think of a character’s goals is to imagine how it is that they want to be praised. Everyone wants to be praised. If not by the entire population, at least by that certain like-minded soul. Even a self-hater loves themselves as a self-hater.
Oscar-winner Karl Malden died today at age 97. Read the superb obituaries from Adam Bernstein of the Washington Post and Jim Cheng of USA Today. Bernstein described his appeal very well, saying Malden “excelled in plainspoken, working-class roles.” He had a wonderful integrity and sincerity — which is why he became a spokesman for American Express Travelers Checks for 21 years. No one ever said, “Don’t leave home without it” with more conviction.
I think my favorite Malden performance was the idealistic priest in “On the Waterfront.” He played a clergyman again in another of my favorites, “Pollyanna.” Talk about fire and brimstone!
“When I first started acting, I thought it was about the best liar. I thought the best liar was the best actor. But it’s the best truth-teller. To find the truth on those pages of black and white and to believe in it so much. It has to be honest; it has to be truthful.” Terrence Howard on acting, in an interview with NPR’s Scott Simon.
Many thanks to Brandon Fibbs for bringing this interview to my attention.
Matthew Goode was in Washington to talk about his role in the new version of “Brideshead Revisited,” on his way to Comic-Con to talk about his next role in “The Watchmen.” He pointed out that while they are very different in theme and tone, both are based on books that appeared on “top 100” lists of the 20th century. Goode, one of the friendliest people I have ever met, talked to me about “re-visiting” Brideshead following the award-winning BBC miniseries version that many thought of as the definitive version. By necessity shorter and sharper, this version is more explicitly focused on the relationship between Goode’s character, Charles Ryder, and Sebastian and Jula Flyte, the children of a wealthy Catholic family who live in the magnificent estate called Brideshead.
What were some of the concerns you had about taking on this role?
Ryder is almost mute in this in some respects. He observes and reacts much of the time. One of my slight trepidations when I finally saw the adaptation we were going to do, was the way we had to truncate the story down as opposed to the original which is practically verbatim. When setting out to do the role I wasn’t thinking, “Well, I have to do something different from Jeremy Irons.” It’s a different cast, a different script, a different time. Yes, we’re both middle-classy, tall, thin, streaks of piss playing the same part. But this is a different take on it. Jeremy Brock did a tremendous job adapting the book. It is told via this future voice of Charles, a voice that’s been let down by life, struggling to grapple with his relationships. He still doesn’t understand what love is, where does he fit in. My way into him was to peel back those layers of his psyche. He may be the loneliest person that’s ever lived on the planet, particularly with our version.
Is there a different emphasis in this version, which necessarily has to pare down or even excerpt the novel?
The focus here is more on ambiguity of his sexuality, his faith, and how much of a social climber Charles was, how he was looking for a place where he could fit in and feel at home. We had to eliminate some things and bring the character of Julia in earlier, too. We got permission from the Waugh estate. It has to be done; you only have two hours.
What is the connection between Charles and his friend Sebastian, who first takes him to Brideshead?
The only time Sebastian was happy at Brideshead was with Charles. That idyllic summer is his real childhood. It’s the only place Charles has ever been happy, too, It’s not about class; it is about being accepted. Sebastian is definitively gay, that is more directly portrayed. Sebastian is a petulant drunk. His unhappiness, like Charles’, is as much about bad parenting as anything.
Like the miniseries, the movie was filmed on location at Castle Howard. What are some of the differences?
I like our version of Rex more. If you take out the buffoonery, he wins. We see that Charles is a sponge for life and art, and any kind of belonging, the way he is looking for a place for himself, what drew Charles, Sebastian, and Julia together. They have comparable loveless childhoods, apart form the faith and class.
How do you handle the aging of your character in a story that stretches over so much time?
It’s nice that I’m in the intermediary point of being 30 and can just about pass for 20. As Charles gets older you slow down the rhythm and he becomes a bit colder. You don’t age things like the salute because even when he is older he is still trying to fit in, still picking up mannerisms from those around him. He doesn’t snap to, he doesn’t keep the thumb down, as he might if he was expressing his own personality. That’s the element to Charles. It’s not social climbing — it’s fitting in. But he’s liked by everyone. You wouldn’t have that if there wasn’t something sparkly in his eyes.
is both practical and inspiring with tips, diagnostics, and reference material that guides newcomers and professional actors to everything from the classics to a shoot-’em up. He took the time to answer my questions about the book and his work.