What do you think?
Rate this book
Sanford Meisner on Acting
This book, written in collaboration with Dennis Longwell, follows an acting class of eight men and eight women for fifteen months, beginning with the most rudimentary exercises and ending with affecting and polished scenes from contemporary American plays. Throughout these pages Meisner is delight--always empathizing with his students and urging them onward, provoking emotion, laughter, and growing technical mastery from his charges. With an introduction by Sydney Pollack, director of "Out of Africa" and "Tootsie," who worked with Meisner for five years.
"This book should be read by anyone who wants to act or even appreciate what acting involves. Like Meisner's way of teaching, it is the straight goods."--Arthur Miller
"If there is a key to good acting, this one is it, above all others. Actors, young and not so young, will find inspiration and excitement in this book."--Gregory Peck
"This book should be read by anyone who wants to act or even appreciate what acting involves. Like Meisner's way of teaching, it is the straight goods."--Arthur Miller
"If there is a key to good acting, this one is it, above all others. Actors, young and not so young, will find inspiration and excitement in this book."--Gregory Peck
250 pages, Paperback
First published July 12, 1987
766 people are currently reading
4366 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 208 reviews
July 14, 2011
If I were to take Meisner’s class, I’m fairly certain I would be kicked out and never want to act again. He has an issue with introversion in actors. He’s all about getting the actor out of their head and relying on their instincts and gut responses. This certainly has its place, but I think that an actor’s brain is important. I want to be an intelligent actor. I think it is important for there to be intelligent actors. I don’t want to go to a play and see a bunch of brainless acting. There are times when you need to be able to think on stage and not react with your gut or your instinct. For instance, a cell phone goes off or an audience member falls asleep or walks out. You can’t stop the show and yell at them (though I have heard stories of some actors doing this). Or a prop is not where it’s supposed to be or your scene partner skips a chunk of dialogue. Your instinct would be to react to that, but instead you have to figure out an alternative, how to do the scene without the prop, how to get the dialogue back on track to keep the story cohesive. I also think it’s important to be able to intellectually look at a piece of writing and analyze it, to know what the message is as a whole, to recognize its comment on society, its cultural significance. Plus, Mr. Meisner, there are introverted characters! I think his repetition exercises would drive me absolutely batty. I understand their purpose, to boil everything down to being in the moment and to really listen to your partner and respond, but is that theatrical? I’ve seen Meisner trained actors in plays and they’re talking, they’ve found the truth in the scene, that’s great. But do people go to the theatre to just see other people talking? Maybe. But I think there needs to be some other layer of theatricality, of high stakes on top of that otherwise it isn’t very interesting. I also have issues with his approach to creating a character. I don’t think Meisner would be able to train actors to do comedy very well.
I do agree with some of his method, however. His emphasis on listening, the idea that everything in a scene comes from reacting to your scene partner, that is important. His preconceived circumstances preparation also resonates with me. I think it is mandatory to know where your character is coming from, what their expectations are, and what their emotional state is coming into a scene. But his description of a river of emotion and a small canoe on the river being the words that you say riding on top of that emotion seems to be lacking. I was taught never never to play emotion. That’s what they do in soap operas. I’m so SAD! I’m so ANGRY! I’m so JEALOUS! I think you’re missing some of the Truth in a play if you ignore the intellect and focus only on the emotion. I don’t think that’s interesting theatre. Meisner is constantly having his students weep and weep and do the scene incoherently through tears and praising them when that happens and they think. Aha! I can cry uncontrollably! I’m a great actor! I, personally, can cry uncontrollably, but what is difficult, what is more human, is to be in that scene, have that emotion, but try NOT to cry. If you see an actor weeping like crazy on stage, it’s like watching someone masturbate. Oh, look at me. You think, oh, look, as Uta Hagen says, that actor is crying REAL tears. You’re not in the story anymore, you’re not having an emotional response to the story and the characters, you’re taken out of that by watching an actor REALLY cry. Not the character.
However, Meisner’s recognition of the actor’s imagination is incredibly refreshing. Other methods I have studied have relied on personal emotional recall to reach a truthful emotional state in a scene and that feels really gross and like a departure from the moment when I have implemented it. Meisner says that you are still able to achieve emotional truth without thinking of some personal awful emotional thing that has happened to you in order to get there. The actor’s imagination is incredibly powerful and I’m glad to know that there is a theatre guru out there who supports using that in order to reach an emotional truth on stage.
Clearly, I have strong opinions about this book. I think it’s flawed in the way in which it is written as well. I have no doubt that Meisner was an incredibly gifted teacher, but the book is a log, a transcription of his class. It’s not really a tool that I can use because what made Meisner such an amazing teacher was that he lived in the moment of his class and tailored his exercises around the needs of the actors in his class and their particular needs in that particular moment and put into words for them specifically to get them to grasp a concept. When you read that 30 years later, it doesn’t resonate because I am not that actor experiencing that difficulty in the same way. It’s sad that there’s not a better book in his own words explaining his method on a more accessible level. I guess there are the Larry Silverberg books. Maybe they are better, but still. I would love to hear it in Meisner's words. What an incredible teacher. To be in his 80s, been hit by a car, have had a laryngectomy and figured out how to talk again through burping out words, and still STILL have a need to teach people how to act? Hobbling around and burping? I have so much respect for him.
I’m still on a quest for a book that I can use as a real reference every time I approach a role in a play. I guess Uta has come closest so far, but I’m going to re-read some Stanislavsky and see where that takes me. After all this Meisner, I am curious about what Lee Strasburg has to say since they differed greatly on several major points.
It was hilarious when Meisner would be having a glass of scotch and talking about actors and be incredibly crotchety and candid:
“It’s the theater that interests me, not acting. I don’t like actors very much, though I do like to act. It’s enjoyable-sometimes. But I don’t like what it brings to the surface in my personality: the self-centeredness, the childish vanity, the infantilism. That’s what an actor has to have.”
Wow. Tell us how you really feel, Sandy. I want to be child-LIKE, but I want to be able to listen and give to others on stage with me. And I want to be smart. I don’t want to lose my brain. I hope that means that I can still be a decent actor.
I do agree with some of his method, however. His emphasis on listening, the idea that everything in a scene comes from reacting to your scene partner, that is important. His preconceived circumstances preparation also resonates with me. I think it is mandatory to know where your character is coming from, what their expectations are, and what their emotional state is coming into a scene. But his description of a river of emotion and a small canoe on the river being the words that you say riding on top of that emotion seems to be lacking. I was taught never never to play emotion. That’s what they do in soap operas. I’m so SAD! I’m so ANGRY! I’m so JEALOUS! I think you’re missing some of the Truth in a play if you ignore the intellect and focus only on the emotion. I don’t think that’s interesting theatre. Meisner is constantly having his students weep and weep and do the scene incoherently through tears and praising them when that happens and they think. Aha! I can cry uncontrollably! I’m a great actor! I, personally, can cry uncontrollably, but what is difficult, what is more human, is to be in that scene, have that emotion, but try NOT to cry. If you see an actor weeping like crazy on stage, it’s like watching someone masturbate. Oh, look at me. You think, oh, look, as Uta Hagen says, that actor is crying REAL tears. You’re not in the story anymore, you’re not having an emotional response to the story and the characters, you’re taken out of that by watching an actor REALLY cry. Not the character.
However, Meisner’s recognition of the actor’s imagination is incredibly refreshing. Other methods I have studied have relied on personal emotional recall to reach a truthful emotional state in a scene and that feels really gross and like a departure from the moment when I have implemented it. Meisner says that you are still able to achieve emotional truth without thinking of some personal awful emotional thing that has happened to you in order to get there. The actor’s imagination is incredibly powerful and I’m glad to know that there is a theatre guru out there who supports using that in order to reach an emotional truth on stage.
Clearly, I have strong opinions about this book. I think it’s flawed in the way in which it is written as well. I have no doubt that Meisner was an incredibly gifted teacher, but the book is a log, a transcription of his class. It’s not really a tool that I can use because what made Meisner such an amazing teacher was that he lived in the moment of his class and tailored his exercises around the needs of the actors in his class and their particular needs in that particular moment and put into words for them specifically to get them to grasp a concept. When you read that 30 years later, it doesn’t resonate because I am not that actor experiencing that difficulty in the same way. It’s sad that there’s not a better book in his own words explaining his method on a more accessible level. I guess there are the Larry Silverberg books. Maybe they are better, but still. I would love to hear it in Meisner's words. What an incredible teacher. To be in his 80s, been hit by a car, have had a laryngectomy and figured out how to talk again through burping out words, and still STILL have a need to teach people how to act? Hobbling around and burping? I have so much respect for him.
I’m still on a quest for a book that I can use as a real reference every time I approach a role in a play. I guess Uta has come closest so far, but I’m going to re-read some Stanislavsky and see where that takes me. After all this Meisner, I am curious about what Lee Strasburg has to say since they differed greatly on several major points.
It was hilarious when Meisner would be having a glass of scotch and talking about actors and be incredibly crotchety and candid:
“It’s the theater that interests me, not acting. I don’t like actors very much, though I do like to act. It’s enjoyable-sometimes. But I don’t like what it brings to the surface in my personality: the self-centeredness, the childish vanity, the infantilism. That’s what an actor has to have.”
Wow. Tell us how you really feel, Sandy. I want to be child-LIKE, but I want to be able to listen and give to others on stage with me. And I want to be smart. I don’t want to lose my brain. I hope that means that I can still be a decent actor.
September 9, 2013
De-emphasized affective/emotion memory and instead put focus on the given circumstances of the play.
-acting is doing
-be specific
-an ounce of behavior is worth a pound of words
-emotional dialogue is a ping-pong game
-to transfer the point of concentration outside yourself
-there's no such thing as nothing
-don't think, work from your instincts
-follow your instincts: forget polite or what's socially acceptable; it's imposted, not natural
-don't do anything unless something happens to make you do it
-what you do doesn't depend on you; it depends on the other
-acting is emotional impulses, not intellectualizing
-the truth of your instincts is the root of your foundation
-when you enter the scene, have a reason for entering (it doesn't need to be death-defying, to get a can of soup)
-don't pick up cues, pick up impulses. If the impulse comes at the beginning of a person's line, sustain it; or find a new impulse as their line progresses.
-memorize lines, not emotions; let those develop through scene work
-don't act; live under imaginary circumstances
-acting is doing
-be specific
-an ounce of behavior is worth a pound of words
-emotional dialogue is a ping-pong game
-to transfer the point of concentration outside yourself
-there's no such thing as nothing
-don't think, work from your instincts
-follow your instincts: forget polite or what's socially acceptable; it's imposted, not natural
-don't do anything unless something happens to make you do it
-what you do doesn't depend on you; it depends on the other
-acting is emotional impulses, not intellectualizing
-the truth of your instincts is the root of your foundation
-when you enter the scene, have a reason for entering (it doesn't need to be death-defying, to get a can of soup)
-don't pick up cues, pick up impulses. If the impulse comes at the beginning of a person's line, sustain it; or find a new impulse as their line progresses.
-memorize lines, not emotions; let those develop through scene work
-don't act; live under imaginary circumstances
February 9, 2009
When I attended the Texas Educational Theater Association (TETA) convention last month, the name Sandy Meisner kept popping up. Most notably, Larry Silverberg, a Meisner devotee, did a double session teaching the early stages of the Meisner method. A few other workshop presenters referenced the man as well as they demonstrated various philosophies and rehearsal techniques.
Having come to my career as theater director through a bit of a back door, I sometimes find myself embarassingly ignorant of very fundamental aspects of the history of acting technique. I just recently read Stanislavski's "The Actor Prepares" and just thought it was the bee's knees (the same way a first year philosophy student has their naive eyes repeatedly opened as they learn first about Socrates, then Plato, then Aristotle, then Spinoza, then Locke, then Kant, then Kierkegaard, and so on...) So my first step on the road to illumination was Stanislavski, who beget Stella Adler and Lee Strasberg, and Harold Clurman, and one Sanford Meisner.
I know there are very definite distinctions between Meisner and Stanislavski. Though he started out as a student of The Method, Sandy states in this book that there are as many techniques for acting as there are acting teachers. He half-jokingly insists that all the rest are crap, and that his is the TRUE WAY, but as far as being a viable text for would-be actors, there are many striking similarities between this and "An Actor Prepares".
Most prominently, both books present themselves almost as narrative fiction. Instead of textbook like lectures on how to approach the methods in question, both men put forth themselves as a main protagonist, surrounded by the supporting characters who are their students. Stanislavski coyly changes all the names to protect the innocent, but Meisner rather bull-headedly insists on making sure the reader knows that it is HE who is the genius behind the lessons. This makes the book immenently more readable, and I felt I took enough away from this reading that my next productions will benefit greatly.
More than just learning a few little tricks, like when I read Spolin or Jesse, this book inspired me to try and achieve greater hieghts with my actors, and even to be a better actor in those rare moments when I still get to take to the stage.
This is my new favorite book on acting. Until I get around to reading Adler, or Stasberg, or Clurman, or whoever else is out there waiting to be consumed by my eager eyes.
Having come to my career as theater director through a bit of a back door, I sometimes find myself embarassingly ignorant of very fundamental aspects of the history of acting technique. I just recently read Stanislavski's "The Actor Prepares" and just thought it was the bee's knees (the same way a first year philosophy student has their naive eyes repeatedly opened as they learn first about Socrates, then Plato, then Aristotle, then Spinoza, then Locke, then Kant, then Kierkegaard, and so on...) So my first step on the road to illumination was Stanislavski, who beget Stella Adler and Lee Strasberg, and Harold Clurman, and one Sanford Meisner.
I know there are very definite distinctions between Meisner and Stanislavski. Though he started out as a student of The Method, Sandy states in this book that there are as many techniques for acting as there are acting teachers. He half-jokingly insists that all the rest are crap, and that his is the TRUE WAY, but as far as being a viable text for would-be actors, there are many striking similarities between this and "An Actor Prepares".
Most prominently, both books present themselves almost as narrative fiction. Instead of textbook like lectures on how to approach the methods in question, both men put forth themselves as a main protagonist, surrounded by the supporting characters who are their students. Stanislavski coyly changes all the names to protect the innocent, but Meisner rather bull-headedly insists on making sure the reader knows that it is HE who is the genius behind the lessons. This makes the book immenently more readable, and I felt I took enough away from this reading that my next productions will benefit greatly.
More than just learning a few little tricks, like when I read Spolin or Jesse, this book inspired me to try and achieve greater hieghts with my actors, and even to be a better actor in those rare moments when I still get to take to the stage.
This is my new favorite book on acting. Until I get around to reading Adler, or Stasberg, or Clurman, or whoever else is out there waiting to be consumed by my eager eyes.
November 9, 2017
Before cracking this one open, it's important to know On Acting is structured less as a self-help book and more like a documentary, tracking one of Sandy Meisner's acting classes from start to finish.
Maybe that's music to your ears. It's the closest you can get to raising Meisner from the grave and studying with him. But it also means you're getting second-hand wisdom. Much of the book's insight comes from critique of the fledgling actors' performances or their personal epiphanies, and by the end of the book I was staring down a half-finished jigsaw puzzle; one with large islands of perfectly assembled pieces, but no obvious way to connect them or any corner pieces to orient myself.
Sanford Meisner cheerfully admits that his teaching style is not for everyone. He even asks a few students to leave partway through the class. I'll chalk my dissatisfaction up to a disconnect between a jazzy, improvisational teacher and an analytical top-down student.
tl;dr As someone trying to approach acting as a serious craft after five years of dicking around, this book revealed a new mindset to me, but left me unsure of how to apply that mindset towards practical action.
Maybe that's music to your ears. It's the closest you can get to raising Meisner from the grave and studying with him. But it also means you're getting second-hand wisdom. Much of the book's insight comes from critique of the fledgling actors' performances or their personal epiphanies, and by the end of the book I was staring down a half-finished jigsaw puzzle; one with large islands of perfectly assembled pieces, but no obvious way to connect them or any corner pieces to orient myself.
Sanford Meisner cheerfully admits that his teaching style is not for everyone. He even asks a few students to leave partway through the class. I'll chalk my dissatisfaction up to a disconnect between a jazzy, improvisational teacher and an analytical top-down student.
tl;dr As someone trying to approach acting as a serious craft after five years of dicking around, this book revealed a new mindset to me, but left me unsure of how to apply that mindset towards practical action.
December 5, 2016
متاسفانه اصلا جذاب و گيرا و عملي نبود برام
May 22, 2013
I first read about The Meisner technique in an article one of my professors had us read for class. I was drawn to it because the technique was supposedly about achieving spontaneity and living in the moment, and being able to achieve that is probably my biggest weakness as an actor. I wanted to learn more about the technique and I came across this book when doing preliminary research for my thesis. I was not expecting this book to be so mind-opening. Meisner has such a deep understanding of the art of acting that he is able to explain ideas and concepts in simple, easy-to-understand terms. I look forward to the next time I act so I can try some of the exercises Meisner describes in here. This is the best book on acting I've ever read and I would highly recommend it to any of my theater friends.
November 19, 2018
Stopped reading this about half way through, because he kept saying the same things, even down to the same stories and anecdotes. The book could have been 50, maybe 75 pages long. The main point: acting is about channeling authentic emotion. You have to tap into real, genuine, unfaked emotion, and bring that out. His class was all about teaching actors to reach for and bring out the genuine, and extreme emotions which make for fascinating viewing. Once that lesson is communicated though, most of his teaching was about getting actors to hone that process, which is better taught experientially than through a book, which was why reading became more of a chore after getting about half way in.
July 29, 2011
This is the current rage in acting handbooks, and the basis for modern theatre acting style. It's solid, simple, and doable if you have the level of commitment it takes and the basic talent. Any actor should read this book, and you'll get a lot out of it.
January 21, 2025
I really like the ideas demonstrated here. We touched on them briefly in my acting education and then abandoned them for some reason. One thing that drives me nuts with Meisner, and with other acting teachers, is that he's not kind. I know he came from a cruel life, and maybe I'm a softy snowflake, but I cannot stand it when these guys say something ambiguous or unclear, and then get impatient when they're misunderstood. The teacher I had did the same thing and I'm still hurt by it.
April 21, 2021
In one of the introductions and forwards in this states that there are no good books on teaching acting, and I have to say that this belongs in that category. I think it's inherent in the medium - reading is passive, and acting is, well, action-based. While the words on page may have value, there's no practicality behind them when reading and all inflections and emotions are the reader's own. Its even one of the lessons of the book: That a lot of acting is reacting, and it's hard to react emotionally to dry words on a page. And more, there's not a ton of original thought in here that wasn't already really gone over by Stanislavski (from what I remember about his book), so I would suggest starting with An Actor Prepares instead of this one.
Also, I know it was the 80's, but I don't think Meisner would stand a change in today's "Me Too" world, and from the sounds of his personality, I don't think that's a bad thing. Crotchety, sexist, controlling... I don't think we would have had a good student-teacher relationship because he doesn't seem to respect that his students might have something to teach him in turn, and also, his disrespect for what writers want out of their scripts also left me scratching my head and brings us back to the age-old question of whether the actor is just a prop for the writer, or if the writer is simply a vehicle for the actor. My question is why can't it be both and why compete or look to unbalance it with ego?
All in all, this was a slightly valuable read because it reinforced some things from my current acting class, but for the most-part I could have done without it because I'm already learning those things in class and my teacher is so good that I got the lessons without needing this enhancement to his teaching.
Also, I know it was the 80's, but I don't think Meisner would stand a change in today's "Me Too" world, and from the sounds of his personality, I don't think that's a bad thing. Crotchety, sexist, controlling... I don't think we would have had a good student-teacher relationship because he doesn't seem to respect that his students might have something to teach him in turn, and also, his disrespect for what writers want out of their scripts also left me scratching my head and brings us back to the age-old question of whether the actor is just a prop for the writer, or if the writer is simply a vehicle for the actor. My question is why can't it be both and why compete or look to unbalance it with ego?
All in all, this was a slightly valuable read because it reinforced some things from my current acting class, but for the most-part I could have done without it because I'm already learning those things in class and my teacher is so good that I got the lessons without needing this enhancement to his teaching.
January 23, 2008
Wow! I am not even vaguely interested in acting, but Sanford Meisner was clearly a master and his genius comes through in this book. It is like reading a play, only it is an edited record of a fifteen month class he taught in the 80s. Almost entirely dialog, the book teaches about emotions and authenticity. What I learned is this: real acting is not acting at all. A great actor or actress puts themselves out in front of an audience, not AS themselves, but they put their truest emotions out there for everyone to see and the text and particular actions they portray are the vehicle for this revealing that they are doing. I suggest this book to anyone really, it's not just for people interested in acting at all, just for people interested in human life.
June 30, 2011
This book is a fabulous tool for actors. I feel that it is more beneficial to those who have studied or are currently studying Meisner's method in a classroom or workshop setting than those who are learning about it for the first time. I started reading it concurrently with a class solely dedicated to exploring the Meisner technique, and I think that was perfect. I just re-read it and the whole method became clearer through hindsight and mental repetition. ;) A good read for the actor or actress looking to hone his or her craft, but I would recommend working the method in a classroom or workshop in addition to reading the text.
August 23, 2011
This book is a peek into one of Meisner's classes, rather than an instructional book of the exercises he designed. There are vignettes of actors performing the exercises in class, the feedback given by Meisner, and the "Aha!" moments of what the actors learned from the exercises.
I really love the Meisner technique, I feel it is the best technique for learning how to be present with your partner and be open to spontaneous reactions based on how your partner is being with you (tone of voice, body language, eye contact, etc). I believe this technique is a must for any actor's skill toolbox.
I really love the Meisner technique, I feel it is the best technique for learning how to be present with your partner and be open to spontaneous reactions based on how your partner is being with you (tone of voice, body language, eye contact, etc). I believe this technique is a must for any actor's skill toolbox.
October 3, 2015
This book not only gives you insights on the mind of an actor, it teaches you to deal with common daily things and to create empathy with others. It's amazing how these techniques can be easily applied on everyday life and they teach you more about psychology than any book you can read. For actors, is a great tool of work, you can feel being there in the sessions with him. It's wonderful.
June 17, 2022
Every actor, new and experienced, should expose themselves to Meisner’s teaching methods. While so simple on the surface, his lessons bring out the best emotions from his classroom. He was the very best at his job for a reason, and having the chance to get a snippet of him in action is something any actor shouldn’t pass up.
April 29, 2008
I'm not going to parrot Sandy's maxims like everyone else. What I will say is that this book must be very strange if you've never trained in the Meisner technique. It would be like reading about Scuba diving or karate---a book will only do so much.
January 12, 2012
loved. Loved. LOVED this book!!!
October 22, 2018
tiny bit dry in terms of writing but the content in the book itself is still good nonetheless
December 31, 2025
Whilst most of the acting books I’ve read have been about theory in the sense of character building and the work you must do to enter the headspace of your creation, Meisner focuses on practice. Preparation is the antithesis of Meisner’s technique. He focuses entirely on moment-to-moment living with an emphasis on living off your scene partner and your impulses. While greats like Adler, Moss, and Hagen too emphasize this core aspect of acting, most of their teachings revolve around preparation.
The reason I don’t rate this book a 5, despite how insightful it may be, is because this book is more of a diary following a class of students Meisner taught; It’s not a direct spiel of his theories and practices on the craft. In turn, you have to really search through his teachings to the students to find nuggets of information, sifting through the text of the plays his students must preform, and the general chatter and feedback the students give to Sandy. The book is filled with tidbits of theory, it’s just hidden between the practice of that theory as done by the students.
The reason I don’t rate this book a 5, despite how insightful it may be, is because this book is more of a diary following a class of students Meisner taught; It’s not a direct spiel of his theories and practices on the craft. In turn, you have to really search through his teachings to the students to find nuggets of information, sifting through the text of the plays his students must preform, and the general chatter and feedback the students give to Sandy. The book is filled with tidbits of theory, it’s just hidden between the practice of that theory as done by the students.
August 28, 2022
I appreciate that this book was able to teach me the importance of internal and external honesty (and what that looks like) with the Meisner approach. However, I do not recommend this book. I recently heard the statement that this book was written out of pressure, not passion. I agree. Once more, it will not magically transform you, despite popular belief.
P.S. I don’t enjoy the uncomfortably numerous misogynistic moments throughout this book.
P.P.S. I am frustrated with the reviews of this book that seem to be reviewing the Meisner approach itself rather than this specific book ABOUT Meisner. This is a singular point of view written by a white, cis male from a time period before consent was prevalent in the classroom. Consider your source.
P.S. I don’t enjoy the uncomfortably numerous misogynistic moments throughout this book.
P.P.S. I am frustrated with the reviews of this book that seem to be reviewing the Meisner approach itself rather than this specific book ABOUT Meisner. This is a singular point of view written by a white, cis male from a time period before consent was prevalent in the classroom. Consider your source.
November 25, 2022
To quote my favorite line from my first big film debut, "Skim boarding ain't a game for sissies. It's a game for men. And I'm all about men." After reading this book, I'm quite certain the same can and should be said for acting. It seems that to do it right, which is to forget yourself, paradoxically you first must know yourself, incredibly, painfully well. There's a lot of useful and particular wisdom in here, but if you can't figure out how to use your memory and imagination to self-stimulate into honest emotional states (prepare), it's kind of all for not. That this is a skill a person can learn, that people do learn, is still totally bizarre to me. What a weird fucking thing to do.
Read
November 8, 2024Fascinating.
Still need to re read stuff about imagination. Always feel like I’m missing detail on what imagination is, means, feels like or does to the actor.
But yes, obviously Meisner is very clever, delightfully provocative.
Still need to re read stuff about imagination. Always feel like I’m missing detail on what imagination is, means, feels like or does to the actor.
But yes, obviously Meisner is very clever, delightfully provocative.
July 15, 2021
genius he's a genius
December 4, 2021
It works!! We have tried it.
January 3, 2023
Literalmente mis clases
May 8, 2024
genius.
July 3, 2017
This book is really great if you already have a basic understanding of what's going on in the Meisner technique. I know it talked about the challenges in writing a book like this and it works for the most part in this format. The last 40 pages or so are completely missable. All the hard learning is in the first half. It has helped my acting tremendously and immediately, although it's a hard concept to fully understand. 'The foundation of acting is the reality of doing' took me a long time to memorize, because it's hard to make sense of it. I love his 'fuck polite'.
The truth of ourselves is the root of our acting.
The playwright gives you what to say. Your job as an actor is to fill the role with life.
Remind me this afternoon of the actress I once heard of, who, when she got the role, wrote it out as if it were one continuous sentences, to that the other fellow always came in like an unpremeditated, spontaneous interruption.
What I am saying is that what you're looking for is not necessarily confined to the reality of your life. It can be in your imagination. If you allow it freedom - with no inhibitions, no properties - to imagine what would happen between you and Sophia Loren, your imagination is, in all likelihood, deeper and more persuasive than the real experience...(I'm) saying that (your) imaginations are every bit as strong, if not stronger, than the experiences we can recall from our past.
The text is like a canoe...and the river on which it sits in the emotion. The text floats on the river. If the water of the river is turbulent, the words will come out like a canoe on a rough river. it all depends on the flow of the river which is your emotion. The text takes on the character of your emotion.
In response to 'it's hard to let got', pg. 116 - Begin working on this problem by allowing yourself to overdo it. you should do what I do when I practice diving in the Caribbean. I just go! I know it's not easy. It's formidable. Just go! And don't give yourself a reason why you shouldn't! If you want to throw yourself on the floor and chew a leg of that table, it's fine with me. It's undignified, it's unmanly, it's ungentlemanly - but it's very good for your acting! I don't care when you learn the lines. And don't try to learn them in relation to the emotion you think you should have. First build a canoe and then put it on the water, and whatever the water does, the canoe follows. The text is the canoe, but you must begin by putting the emphasis on the stormy river. (It's your job as an actor to 'let it all out')
Don't do anything until something happens to make you do it. Don't come in from nowhere. Come in from some situation which has a circumstance in it that gives you a foothold for preparation....don't be an actor...be a human being who works off what exists under imaginary circumstances. Don't give a performance. Let the performance give you.
Shaw said Self-betrayal, magnified to suit the optics of the theatre, is the whole art of acting.
-find yourself in acting and reveal what's true about the scene.
-find a reaction in yourself.
The problem arises when that feeling of worthlessness is juxtaposed with something that is part and parcel of this business - namely, that you can't learn to act unless you're criticized. If you tie that criticism to your childhood insecurities, you have a terrible time. Instead, you must take criticism objectively, pertaining only to the work being done. Imagine if you said to a plumber ' I don't think you plunged that toilet well' and he burst into tears! It's only in the creative arts that self-confidence is such a problem.
-And do the opposite of what is expected in the truth for you as an actor.
And of course, this is proving more and more true:
“I wish the stage were as narrow as the wire of a tighrope dancer so that no incompetent would dare step upon it.”
The truth of ourselves is the root of our acting.
The playwright gives you what to say. Your job as an actor is to fill the role with life.
Remind me this afternoon of the actress I once heard of, who, when she got the role, wrote it out as if it were one continuous sentences, to that the other fellow always came in like an unpremeditated, spontaneous interruption.
What I am saying is that what you're looking for is not necessarily confined to the reality of your life. It can be in your imagination. If you allow it freedom - with no inhibitions, no properties - to imagine what would happen between you and Sophia Loren, your imagination is, in all likelihood, deeper and more persuasive than the real experience...(I'm) saying that (your) imaginations are every bit as strong, if not stronger, than the experiences we can recall from our past.
The text is like a canoe...and the river on which it sits in the emotion. The text floats on the river. If the water of the river is turbulent, the words will come out like a canoe on a rough river. it all depends on the flow of the river which is your emotion. The text takes on the character of your emotion.
In response to 'it's hard to let got', pg. 116 - Begin working on this problem by allowing yourself to overdo it. you should do what I do when I practice diving in the Caribbean. I just go! I know it's not easy. It's formidable. Just go! And don't give yourself a reason why you shouldn't! If you want to throw yourself on the floor and chew a leg of that table, it's fine with me. It's undignified, it's unmanly, it's ungentlemanly - but it's very good for your acting! I don't care when you learn the lines. And don't try to learn them in relation to the emotion you think you should have. First build a canoe and then put it on the water, and whatever the water does, the canoe follows. The text is the canoe, but you must begin by putting the emphasis on the stormy river. (It's your job as an actor to 'let it all out')
Don't do anything until something happens to make you do it. Don't come in from nowhere. Come in from some situation which has a circumstance in it that gives you a foothold for preparation....don't be an actor...be a human being who works off what exists under imaginary circumstances. Don't give a performance. Let the performance give you.
Shaw said Self-betrayal, magnified to suit the optics of the theatre, is the whole art of acting.
-find yourself in acting and reveal what's true about the scene.
-find a reaction in yourself.
The problem arises when that feeling of worthlessness is juxtaposed with something that is part and parcel of this business - namely, that you can't learn to act unless you're criticized. If you tie that criticism to your childhood insecurities, you have a terrible time. Instead, you must take criticism objectively, pertaining only to the work being done. Imagine if you said to a plumber ' I don't think you plunged that toilet well' and he burst into tears! It's only in the creative arts that self-confidence is such a problem.
-And do the opposite of what is expected in the truth for you as an actor.
And of course, this is proving more and more true:
“I wish the stage were as narrow as the wire of a tighrope dancer so that no incompetent would dare step upon it.”
October 6, 2013
Usually, when people hear about a book that's written about a certain technique or skill or how to do said technique or skill, they lose interest. No one wants to read about how to do something. That was my initial thought when a friend recommended, "Sanford Meisner on Acting." I'm a lover of the theatre and acting but every time I've tried to read a book on the two, I always end up falling asleep disappointed that I just wasted my time trying to read such a dry book. However, I was really interested in the Meisner Technique and I had been for a while so I gave it a go. Fortunately, I was pleasantly surprised. Actually, ecstatic would be a better word. The book isn't some ancient old man who believes only true theatre is Greek theatre and all that crap. The book is divided up into sections of what lessons Meisner teaches his classes. It's his teachings audibly recorded, and then written down word for word, so it's like you're in the class with Meisner. What's especially great about this book is that it's so relatable. Anyone could read this book and apply Meisner's teachings to their own personal life. While you read this book, I guarantee that you will have moments where you just stop reading and look up and say, "he just put into words what I've been thinking for so long!" It's actually mind-blowing. You don't even have to know anything about acting or theatre to read this book. Meisner talks a lot about Sigmund Freud who is a world wide known philosopher, author, and a collection of other things and he talks a lot about how Freud says that our two biggest suppliers of emotion in real life or in our imagination is sex and ambition. I was blown away by that because in one simple sentence, Freud had managed to sum up why humans do what we do. Meisner bases his lessons off of that and then goes from there. A huge lesson that Meisner talked about in the book was called "preparation" where, obviously, he's teaching his students how to prepare for the role. There is almost a science to it. What I found so interesting about it was that he said to prepare for a role, don't use old situations that are similar to your character's in the scene to try to recall those emotions, which is Stanislavski's Method, use your imagination. Meisner swears that your imagination is ten times stronger than your emotions and that it's the key to a true performance. However, he does say that the imaginative situation needs to be personal to you. For example, if your character in the scene is finally getting together with the guy/girl that he/she has been in love with since who knows when, but is just now getting what they want because the guy/girl had dated their best friend. You would use your imagination to create a personal situation that paralleled the scene's emotion. Overall, this book is a fantastic thing to read if you want a really good think. It's a lot to take in at points but the fact that it's a book about a very specific topic that everyone can relate to, is a huge testament to Meisner.
September 23, 2014
Excellent books about art are rare. Art, after all, is the medium that connects one soul to a distant other, and those who write about art too often forget that the souls, not the medium, are the sources of power in that connection.
Happily, Sanford Meisner learned that lesson before the publication of his first book on acting—which manuscript he discarded after finding himself "bitterly disappointed at the results." Meisner says more about this failure in the Prologue to this text:
Sanford Meisner on Acting, then, is not so much a book about acting, as it is a book about learning about acting. Meisner's decision to refer to himself in the third person throughout the text ("in the name of the art of theatrical self-revelation," he says apologetically in the Prologue) strips the text of the dehumanizing omniscience of a first-person narrator; as we follow these sixteen students through their 15-month course with Meisner it is as though we are auditing the class from behind the teacher's desk. We share the students' uncertainties about the goals of each assignment (Does it really prepare me for Shakespeare to participate in an apparently endless repetition of "Your hair is shiny"?), the fear with which they reluctantly discard old habits, the courage of both student and teacher in acknowledging that Meisner's technique isn't for every actor, or indeed every student of acting.
The book, then, provides a surprisingly human, refreshingly vulnerable narrative, from which the thoughtful reader can glean truths about Meisner's system of acting—both pithy Meisnerisms about "living truthfully in imaginary circumstances" and "living off the other fellow," and deeper, more universal reflections on what it means to connect the soul of the playwright to the soul of the audience.
It is, in other words, a book about art.
Happily, Sanford Meisner learned that lesson before the publication of his first book on acting—which manuscript he discarded after finding himself "bitterly disappointed at the results." Meisner says more about this failure in the Prologue to this text:
My basic principles were now on paper, but, paradoxically, how I uniquely transmit my ideas wasn't sufficiently apparent. My students weren't in those pages either, nor was the classroom in which we interacted week in and week out. Lastly—and this was the greatest lack—the drama inherent in our interaction, as they struggled to learn what I struggled to teach, was missing. I came to realize that how I teach is determined by the gradual development of each student.
Sanford Meisner on Acting, then, is not so much a book about acting, as it is a book about learning about acting. Meisner's decision to refer to himself in the third person throughout the text ("in the name of the art of theatrical self-revelation," he says apologetically in the Prologue) strips the text of the dehumanizing omniscience of a first-person narrator; as we follow these sixteen students through their 15-month course with Meisner it is as though we are auditing the class from behind the teacher's desk. We share the students' uncertainties about the goals of each assignment (Does it really prepare me for Shakespeare to participate in an apparently endless repetition of "Your hair is shiny"?), the fear with which they reluctantly discard old habits, the courage of both student and teacher in acknowledging that Meisner's technique isn't for every actor, or indeed every student of acting.
The book, then, provides a surprisingly human, refreshingly vulnerable narrative, from which the thoughtful reader can glean truths about Meisner's system of acting—both pithy Meisnerisms about "living truthfully in imaginary circumstances" and "living off the other fellow," and deeper, more universal reflections on what it means to connect the soul of the playwright to the soul of the audience.
It is, in other words, a book about art.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 208 reviews