Nerves

Austin:  So since I’ve returned to New York, I’ve jumped back into auditioning…

Tom:  God love ya for that…

Austin:  …and it’s difficult for me not to be hyper-aware of how much my nerves play a role.  Sure, we’re always nervous about performing, but I’m really interested in WHY we have to be.  So I want to talk about some of our experiences, the ways we deal with them, the ways we incorporate them and what is at the root of this sometimes crippling sensation.  

Tom:  Great topic.  Where should we start?

Austin:  Let me ask you this: can you recall a particular event that stung you pretty bad because of nerves?  And maybe talk about what you gleaned from that experience.

Tom:  If by “recall a particular event,” you mean waking up in a cold sweat remembering every bad audition I ever gave because of nerves, um, then yes, I can recall those instances.

Austin:  I love how you seem to remember each “bad” audition or nervous event so specifically.  It’s as if I could see you playing back the footage in your mind.

Tom:  I was.  And it’s a nightmare.  Yes, I get nervous before auditions – and opening nights, and close-ups for the camera – and I would imagine most actors do.  So... why?  Is it because we want to prove our worth?  Show people that we’re good?  Prove people right for casting us?

Austin:  Well, THAT is the big question.

Tom:  I’ll never forget one of my most embarrassing mess-ups due to nerves.  I was performing in a documentary play about Abraham Lincoln - this was back when I was in college - and we did a special performance on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade.  I had one of the first lines in the play, a quote from Lincoln that was something like, “There is no romance about my early life,” and I was so darn nervous that what I ended up saying was, “I was not born in a log cabin.”  Now, um, yes, Lincoln WAS in fact born in a log cabin, so for that performance we rewrote history.  All because I was so nervous!!!!

Austin:  You’re killing me!  I love that!  And we ALL have stories like this!  For example, I always, ALWAYS get stage fright right before I go on stage or the director says “action,” but once I’m in it, or the “unknowns” of the audience are dispelled, then I can settle into my job and do what I set out to do.  But in those initial moments I’m saying to myself, ”This is crazy!  I'm about to go out there and PRETEND to be someone else and do all these really vulnerable or risky things.  What is the world going to think of me?"

Tom:  I think you’ve really hit on it.  Once you’re on stage - and doing “what you set out to do” - things are fine.  One thing you and I have talked about a lot is that need to use the scene partner.  Get something from them.  Do something to them.  And once we’re on stage, we’re doing that, we’re active, and the audience (and the nerves!) go away.  But that moment before, when we’re by ourselves and there is no scene partner, that’s rough.

Austin:  One of my favorite things Earle (Gister) used to say was “get off yourself,” which makes so much sense.  Once you start thinking about the other person in the room with you, then you stop thinking about the things that YOU think you are not fulfilling.  Not bad advice for real life either!

Tom:  Absolutely.  Of course, that still doesn’t entirely solve the audition challenge, especially if you’re doing a monologue.  But the principle needs to be the same.  The difficulty is that the intention often becomes the actor thinking “I want to get this job” as opposed to the character thinking “I want to get such-and-such from my scene partner.”  A deadly trap.

Austin:  So glad you brought it back to the audition.  You’re so right, that THING takes over and you start to fantasize about “when I get this job it’s going to change my career!”  WTF!!??  How about focusing on “when I fulfill this moment with my scene partner, then I might be respected for the work I do and remembered for THAT”?  

Tom:  Yes, and it hurts just talking about all this because - again - I remember all those bad auditions.  (And yes, Austin, some of my auditions were really baaaaad.)  I think there are two things actors can do to help themselves in this quest.  One is to put all the focus on the scene partner.  “Get off yourself.”  And the other is to find some way to get rid of “unnecessary tension.”  That’s how Richard Brestoff talks about it (The Great Acting Teachers and Their Methods) and I like that, because some tension is necessary.  But if we can get rid of the unnecessary stuff, that will help. 

Austin:  I like “unnecessary.”  It’s like imagination...some is good for ya and some is bad for ya.  But that’s for another lunch.  I do want to play devil’s advocate for a second because it’s easy for us to talk about the ways to avoid these pitfalls and it’s easy for us to KNOW in our hearts and minds what to do, but these desires for career success can really do a number on an actor.  

Tom:  You’re absolutely right.  It’s really easy for us to say all this, especially me, since I’m not auditioning much these days.  So of course, I can throw out all kinds of grand pronouncements, but the reality is often something else altogether.  

Austin:  But is it wrong to let those passions get carried away?  And is it wrong to have that drive to get the part?  How can you find a way to deal with THAT part of yourself while at the same time combatting fear and nerves?

Tom:  I don’t think it’s wrong at all to have those passions, it’s just a matter of finding … balance.  (Cut to: Blog #1)  And of course, things get easier the more we do them, so that helps, but I think one thing that can help is acknowledging that it’s OKAY to be nervous.  Everyone else is too.  The problem is that too often we assume we’re the only nervous actor at the audition.  EVERYONE IS!!

Austin:  Is everyone else just as nervous?  

Tom:  I think so.  In my L.A. days I was an audition reader now and then, including for a big James Cameron film, and many of the people who auditioned were highly recognizable actors … and they were nervous.  They wanted that job.  They knew it was going to be a big film and could shape their career.  And that was reassuring to me, that others got nervous also.  

Austin:  That’s a great story!

Tom:  And in terms of my own nervousness, I’ve come to realize that the majority of my TV roles came when I was the first to audition … or the last to audition – because those were the times I saw the fewest actors and so didn’t psych myself out.

Austin:  We DO get psyched out by other actors.  But WHY?  Sometimes I think seeing all the other types kinda frees things up a bit, because I see the perfect actor that I would cast so then I can just go do my thing and not think about it too much.  

Tom:  That’s a fantastic way of looking at it.  I think so much of this goes back to finding that mindset that allows you to accept nerves and still go out and do good work.

Austin:  The audition nerves are one thing – and they’re probably the most familiar nerves that most actors deal with – but how about the nerves we get AFTER we have the job?  Is that about failure or validation or the fact that we have to reenact some pretty vulnerable and potentially embarrassing things?

Tom:  I can only speak for myself, but I think it’s more about validation.  Frankly, I think most actors are such exhibitionists (and I mean that in a good way) that showing their vulnerable side on stage actually has a certain appeal.  For me, nerves on stage are about “wanting to please,” and if we can get past that, we can be better actors.  But we are so conditioned to please others - parents, teachers, directors, audiences - and while I’m not suggesting we ignore them, it’s got to be something bigger than that.  If we try to please, then our focus is outward and we’ll constantly be evaluating ourselves … and getting nervous about the results.

Austin:  OH, THE CATCH-22 OF IT ALL!!  Once again we come back to balance.

Tom:  Exactly.  It ALWAYS comes back to balance.

Austin:  I think we get into acting because we enjoy the feeling of being good at something.  So we WANT – we desire – to do our job well and be recognized for our work.  But then when we are IN the work, we have to focus on something completely selfless and focus on the task and our partners.

Tom:  It’s like if we focus on the work and the partner and don’t worry about being good, we have a chance at being good.  But if we try to be good, we probably won’t be.

Austin:  Well put.

Tom:  And in terms of handling nerves, there are those techniques that some people use.  For example, a physical warm-up.

Austin:  Or reminding yourself of the objectives. 

Tom:  Or imagining the audience naked, although that just makes me giggle.

Austin:  Oh the naked audience!  Is there anything better??  I think the other thing to really remember is to be prepared.  

Tom:  Absolutely.

Austin:  I know in the past I’ve had a rather cavalier attitude about preparation on a few things – you know, I wanted to let the creativity have an organic quality about it – and as a result I let doubt in the back door because I wasn’t as prepared as I should’ve been.  When you are rock solid with your preparation, then you have more faith in the work.

Tom:  I can’t believe we haven’t talked about this before.  If you’re unsure of lines, for example, that has an awful lot to do with your state of anxiety, be it a performance or an audition.  And going back to my Lincoln story, that was a remounted production, and we didn’t have that many brush-up rehearsals.  (I know: excuses, excuses.)  If so, I would have known that yes, Abraham Lincoln was in fact born in a log cabin.

Austin:  RIGHT!  Plus, I think it’s important to talk to yourself in a healthy way.  Every time I have ever thought of forgetting my lines – even when I had them DOWN – I would inevitably go up on a line.  Only because I introduced the idea!  We have to talk to ourselves in a way that promotes encouragement and confidence.  Not doubt.

Tom:  Amen to that.  We need to accept nerves and not make them worse.

Austin:  It has to be about that forward momentum.  When we start to think about what we did wrong or what we COULD do wrong, then we stop living in the moment.  I love Declan Donnellan’s idea about fear (The Actor and the Target) because he talks about it in terms of staying in the present (another popular acting fundamental) and how that’s a gift.  The past has already happened and the future can never be known so all that we have is right now.  That NOW is focusing on fulfilling the task at hand.  It’s a difficult place to be but I think that is why I love the image of being able to SIT in the work.  

Tom:  And that’s such a strong image because it also goes back to the language of “letting things land” on stage.  But there’s one more word I’d like to throw out: personalization.  If we continue to personalize everything - our lines, our actions, our bodies - then that too takes the focus off ourselves.  If I’m doing a role (be it an audition or a performance) and I remind myself of the VALUE of what it means to me, that goes a long way to getting out of myself as well.

Austin:  Man, you are preaching to the choir!  And you are opening up my favorite can of worms on technique.  And the perfect means to combatting nerves: technique!

Tom:  Ah, a new can of worms sounds like a new lunch … and a new topic.

Balance

Tom: In our year of lunches and conversations, the one word we kept coming back to over and over … was balance.  An actor needs balance.  So why is that, do you think, and in what ways does an actor need balance?

Austin:  Well, for me the first thing that comes to mind is actor self and actor character.  But more importantly – and this evolves with maturity – is a balance between art, career and life!

Tom:  And balance between playing to the partner and being aware of the audience.  Balance between taking the work seriously … but not taking yourself too seriously.  But I want to go back to your first comment: actor self and actor character.  What do you mean by that?

Austin:  You know, I was never taught those terms when I was in school.  In fact, most training – at least modern American thought – believes in little-to-no separation between the actor and their work.  And I do believe that the closer you are to the character then the more fulfilled your performance.  But I discovered those terms from re-reading Stanislavsky and from the writings of one of his students, Evgeny Vakhtangov.  It introduces the dualism that exists between the actor and their creation.

Tom:  So where do you stand with that?  Do you believe there should be little-to-no separation between the actor and their work?
 
Austin:  Now I do believe in this dualism because I truly believe that an actor is – and should always be – aware that they are on stage and they ARE performing.  After all, what we do IS for the audience.  Therefore, the only real emotions that an actor can experience while working is pleasure that they fulfilled a moment, or frustration/disappointment that they did not.  Everything else is a fabrication – no matter how truthful or realistic it may feel on the inside – but a fabrication of the actor’s imagination.  And I like to think of it as the actor is driving the character, if that makes sense.  I know this is not a very American tradition in thinking, but I believe that it is a more healthy “balanced” way of approaching art.  Would you agree?

Tom:  I think so, and I definitely think we should revisit the words “truthful” and “realistic” at a later time…

Austin:  Without a doubt!

Tom:  But I guess where I get hung up is that there are many actors, and many successful actors, working in many different styles.  Some seem to wholly invest into “being the character,” which strikes me as perhaps borderline unhealthy, but then again, it seems to work for some actors.
 
Austin:  Daniel Day-Lewis in “Lincoln.”

Tom:  Exactly.  And that was an amazing performance.  And on the other side of the coin, there are some actors who are wildly aware of the audience, and sometimes that works as well, but often – frankly – I want them to forget about us a little.  It’s the balance that I like.  But even saying that, I know there are some actors who land on one part of the spectrum…

Austin:  …and others who land on another.
 
Tom:  Right.  So let me ask you this, and let me put it in the most simplistic terms: when you say it’s a fabrication of the actor’s imagination, are you saying that’s a good thing or a bad thing?
 
Austin:  I believe that the fabrication of the actor’s imagination is a “good” thing.  I hate to use a term like “trick,” in fact coax or lure is probably more positive terminology, but I believe that the imagination triggers an actor’s natural emotional instincts.  I believe that’s the thing we’re really after, because we KNOW what we’re playing with is fictional – a creation – but we allow our resources to be used for that creation.

Tom:  It’s that balance of knowing and tricking.

Austin:  Yes, and I think the place where it can go south is when personal and private experiences are exploited in unhealthy, schizophrenic ways.
 
Tom:  I completely agree.  And let me just point out that we often use the phrase “going south” for negative connotations.  Aren’t you from the south?

Austin:  You know, one of my favorite sayings – and yes, I am a southern boy so it might seem odd – is “that went South faster than Sherman!”

Tom:  I love it.

Austin:  But one last thing about those actors who DO submerge themselves in the character.  I think it takes a strong technique to walk that tightrope.  We are all after the same thing – truth – but not everyone is strong enough mentally to handle that way of working.  So I think it’s dangerous to teach young actors – who haven’t even matured emotionally themselves – to start dabbling with the dark arts, so to speak.
 
Tom:  I confess, early on as a teacher I think I was far more concerned with emotion than I am now, if only because the students were craving it and I thought I’d give it to them.  It became a yearly thing: on the first day of class, students would ask, “Are you going to teach us how to cry?”  And so we concerned ourselves with that.  But I came to realize that it is indeed a tightrope (there’s that balance again) and all that can come at a later time … if at all.  And actually, I prefer the notion of “personalization” rather than “emotion.”

Austin:  Have you ever seen actors who almost enjoy rolling around in their own emotional junk because they think that’s what fine acting is?

Tom:  Oh, yes, and I’m guessing you have as well.  I once did a play with a guy who was really into “the emotion,” and he wanted all the cast to get down and dirty and for everyone to “feel it.”  I got so frustrated that once, during rehearsal, I blew up at him.  I mean, I just lost it.  And he LOVED it.  It’s exactly what he wanted: my personal meltdown.  It didn’t help me as an actor, and it certainly didn’t help my performance, but what it showed me was that people have vastly different ways of working.

Austin:  You bring up an interesting point that I want to touch on, about the other actor LOVING your actor self reaction to his work.  What bothers me most about his technique – or lack of one – is that I feel most of those choices are driven from the actor, NOT the character, and they are in no way in service of the story but to the actor’s ego.  I always say, another Stanislavsky-ism, “We go TO the character, we don’t bring the character to us.”  And yet again we bring all of our OWN personal and emotional experiences with us TO the character.
 
Tom:  Which brings us to the emotional event.  Why does emotion play so big a part in all of this?

Austin:  I don’t know if you feel this way, but still, after so many years acting, my first choices are about giving it everything, almost OVER-acting, because somewhere I feel like that is what it’s all about.  Or that by really going for it, then that’s more truthful because it has more value, or the intensity will trigger emotion.  It’s clearly not the case, but I wonder if this sensation is some residual or instinctual belief that THAT is what acting is really about: showing the world that you can do it.

Tom:  I know what you’re saying.  Some part of us remembers the performances that knocked us out when we were kids - why we became actors in the first place - and so we strive to do the same thing.  Not with technique, but with EMOTION.  It’s a trap.
 
Austin:  Exactly, as if we have to deliver a memorable product that is tangible enough for the world to say, “you are talented, son!”  But with balance, we can even things out.
 
Tom:  Of course.  It always comes back to balance.  I think back to the Greeks and their notion of the world: “Everything in moderation.”  (Of course, Benjamin Franklin took it one step further:  “Everything in moderation, including moderation.”)  Every aspect we talk about with acting - actor self vs. character self, emotion vs. technique…

Austin:  …business vs. craft…

Tom:  …work vs. play, it all requires balance and moderation.  And that’s harder than hell because, frankly, some things – like playing emotion on stage – just feel so darn good.  But the actor has to find that balance.  Don’t you think?

Austin:  Without a doubt!  I think that it’s even harder since most creative types have really addictive personalities!  But let me ask you this: do you think emotion trumps the connection we have with our fellow actors?

Tom:  I think what trumps emotion is the actor trying to get something from (or do something to) their scene partner.  If that WANT is active and believable, then as an audience member I’m engaged, I’m interested.  Period.  So, in that case, connection (true connection, not SHOWED connection) trumps emotion.
 
Austin:  And do you think it’s more important for the actor to have the experience or the audience?  More specifically, can the audience have an emotional experience without the actor having one?

Tom:  I don’t think the actor is responsible for the emotion of the audience; the play and the circumstances and the character’s struggles will help achieve that … assuming the script is good and the actor is honestly trying to achieve something from someone else on stage.  So yes, the audience can definitely achieve an emotional experience without the actor achieving one.  Having said that, I think it’s important for the actor to be present.  They don’t need to cry, for example, but they need to be present, so I as an audience member believe their struggles, their wanting to get something from other characters in the play.

Austin:  Yes, for me it is ALL about that need – the active pursuit of an objective or task.  I think that if we want to talk about real life – and I do like to compare our creative work to the workings of reality – we are always after something, even if we aren’t aware of what that is or we can’t articulate it.  The difference is that in real life we don’t have a known end, so to speak.  Theatre takes place in that imaginary world where the actor’s choices have to be active enough to be compelling to watch, and that comes from that specific focus from going after something.  That’s when I am moved by a performance.

Tom:  Agreed.  And there’s that balance again: knowing the “known end” (I love that!) and yet allowing yourself to be tricked into not knowing … so you’ll fight like hell to get it.

Austin:  I think we’re always going to come back to balance.