There seems to be a never ending list of people looking for a list of must have mentalism books on this and similiar site. The usual suspects are always named but one book (which I feel vitally important)is often missed, Constantin Stanislavski's ‘An Actor Prepares’. The book would later become the basis of the method which was famously adopted by the likes of De Nero.

I was therefore wondering who (if anyone) has read an actor prepares and uses it for building their character.

Some of us have commented before on the importance of Sttanislavski, not only AN ACTOR PREPARES but BUILDING THE CHARACTER, both of which are included in the wonderful new Benedetti edition AN ACTOR'S WORK. (CREATING A ROLE has also been newly translated by Benedetti as AN ACTOR'S WORK ON A ROLE.)In addition, the work of Michael Chekhov (Anton's nephew) are also seminal as are those of several other MAT members.

Mentalists, magicians and a whole host of others would benefit greatly by studying these brilliant theorists/teachers/performers. This is a rather long way of saying in my book you're right on!

This is good advice...a couple of good effects, solid scripting and the lessons taught in Stanislavski's series can make our art a better place

European actors are not that much into Stanislavski. During the making of Marathon Man Laurence Olivier was surprised by Dustin Hofman. He (Hofman) was totally into his role, he even trained for the marathon. Olivier asked him why he just didn't act as a character who runned the marathon. As an actor you act, you don't have to be.

On the other hand: in debating contests you can only win if you are the argument. Be the argument is an important lesson. So: be the mind reader. But only on stage, your partner ('significant other') will be running away screaming if you are a mentalist all the time. That's the same for all other professions: teachers shouldn't be teaching at home and police officers do not handcuff their partners while doing the dishes.

Stanislavski's method can be helpful, up until a certain degree or level.

In my humble opinion, anyone who reads Stanislavski should also take the time out to read David Mamet's book True and False. And make up their own mind. What works for some does not for others. There is occasionally an almost perverse "inner circle" of people who mention Stanislavski without the slightest idea as a "cool" thing to do. In case it isn't clear in this post though - no offense is meant or intended to be inferred to anyone who has posted here.

Read or watch Sir Anthony Hopkins talk about Acting.

It is much easier than most think.

You can complicate things. Anything.

I am a Professional Actor btw... Also a Mentalist. If that means anything.

'European actors are not that much into Stanislavski.'

Not wishing to offend, but I'd say that was a bit of a sweeping statement. Perhaps a fair few 'classically trained' English actors considered his work a little 'avant garde' or overly complicated (read this as: exhaustive and exhausting) but there is a long lineage of european actors using Stanislavski and his system. I had the fortune to study under Prof. Benedetti and it was an eye opener to see how important the Method of Physical Actions is in researching a role and how practical Stanislavski was in the pursuit of a worthwhile character (and his dedication to constant revision of his system in the light of new discoveries).
I find it so useful to action-for-action walk through what I do.
What can we learn? Well, plenty about your audience, about communion and indirect communication, about creating believable given circumstances and I really like Tempo Rhythm. Pacing; I am coming to realise more and more, is really integral to mentalism performances. It was always important to me as an actor, but now, I see the building of effects or arrangement of a set can make or break the through-line of a show. I love acting, I also lurve mentalism and what I totally enjoy when I see a pro is how they are so solid that the audience is rapt and on-task for the duration that the mentalist is on stage. On other threads right now, folk are talking about exposure and not exposing anything other than by indicating how you work by what you do or say as a character. I really like that idea, the idea that the character is enough to banish or forestall any lingering doubts or suspicions regardless of whether you are the guy who uses his five senses to create the illusion of a sixth or an incredible mind reader. On the whole though, whilst I am a fan of Stan, my mainstay is what I learn from recommended books and on here from the likes of Snr. Cassidy, Greg Arce, Rick Maue, LOTH and al the others that care to share and I use Stanislavski as a filter for sifting this information into a character.

Sorry for rambling....
Question:

Do you 'actors' out there (and it seems there is a blossoming band of those that are making/ have made the leap from acting in films and plays to mentalism) find that you naturally gravitate towards effects that lend themselves easily to spinning tales with a significant amount of drama (heart stopping, tears, channeling, long meaningful pauses)?

Anasi, as a director (and trained actor) I focus more on the concept of the show and the overall effect. From theatre I have learnt the saying if it doesn't add to the show then it distracts.

I agree with your observations on the system and English actors, even the RSC now use the method and the system for their productions.

I personally think ideas like the ordinate and superordinate motivation are great when preparing a theatre show ie what am I trying to do with this effect and how does this fit in with my overal motivation.

My main interesting in posting is that I've seen several mentalists this year and each appeared to be a magician doing a show. As I sat in one show I thought to myself there is no way he believes he's a mentalist, hes not drawing from any emotional memory when performing. A little pretencious I know but it struck me hard that I didn't believe him. From a technical side his routine was good which is a shame as if I had been able to suspend my disbelief I wouldn't have noticed this.

I think some none actors mistakenly think that the method and the sytem are about acting character when in truth its about finding the truth of the character and the situation in yourself, from you and your memories. Any way I'm waffling now..

I'm loving this thread!

Sorry was that meant to be sarcastic?

Anansi, I envy you studying under Benedetti. It must have been quite an experience!

No godot, relax... My girlfriend takes drama classes, and I was thinking about joining her. And I find this thread very interesting.

my bad, please accept my apology. I'm terrible at reading them face icon thingys.

Once you get past all of those embarrasing warm up exercies actings good fun but can be very emotional if your doing the method fully.

Check out (or turn back to)Chekhov's PSYCHOLOGICAL GESTURE, a brilliant way to capture all the entire essence of character.

Richard Burton in the medusa touch and equus...

and anthony hopkins performing Do as I Do in Magic...

and Robert Powell in Harlequin (a re-telling of the Rasputin story)...

Joy!

Ontiltsoon- Do it, join the course- can it hurt?
Gmeister- let's have a chat. I'd jump at the chance to talk to another interested individual about Stan and JB. For the record, as cantankerous as he is, he is a legend (and very funny too), though intractable on certain elemants of the system.

Iain- Gorgeous examples- especially The Medusa Touch. I still have nightmares featuring the legend 'WINDSCALE'. Though to be honest Iain, the sheer terror elicted by the acting had me colouring in paper crucifixes as protective devices, whilst I attempted to sleep in a Ramsgate caravan park watching a double bill of 'I Walked With A Zombie' followed by 'Salem's Lot'. There was a tree (blown by the wind) rapping on the window, which had me submerged beneath the covers as my folks enjoyed all that the 70's disco machine had to offer in Pegwell Bay.

Godot- we should definitely talk some more, I think what you say is relevant inasmuch as there are a good deal of folk that jump from effect to effect without having any kind of through-line or linking theme to what they were doing but I'm not so convinced as to the efficacy of Emotion Memory.
I saw Penn and Teller the other day( and they did a few mentalist effects so, I hope this is OK in 'Penny') in London and the congruency and fidelity of what they performed was based on definitive roles and story telling. They are what they are (and perhaps they are the same in real life and therefore need not layer on any character) but it seemed to me that they didn't need to dig into any emotional reservoir to present emotionally charged effects. EM (at least for me) is extra gravy after all the hard work is done on Sechenov style stimuli and physical exploration. As a director, I'd be interested to know what you think about Brechtian devices and the performer/audience relationship.

Let's keep talking....

That double bill lay have featured 'Zoltan-hound of Dracula' instead of 'Zombie'
Maybe it was all three.
Memory is foggy, just remember that I spent the night with colouring pens and duvet.

Anansi, would love to discuss Stanislavski et al with you. In my forthcoming novel, the Russian School plays a prominent part in the backstory and the Master himself even makes an appearance. My protagonist is a very special con man, a master of magic and mentalism, who uses Stanislavski, Chekhov and the others to inform his performances. Obviously I love this topic!

I would recommend Stanislavski only for those who either are advanced in the art or have access to a knowledgeable and experienced director. For those with neither a more accessible--and I think nearly as useful--book is Uta Hagen's "Respect for Acting."

While I understand your concern I think Stanislavski's essential thought can still be appreciated by actors on various levels especially in the new translations.

That aside Hagen's work is excellent and should be on every performers reading list.