“Practice isn’t the thing you do once you’re good. It’s the thing you do that makes you good.” -Malcolm Gladwell

Outliers - Malcolm Gladwell

     In addition to observing rehearsals at the American Shakespeare Center, I also continue to study theatre at James Madison University.  I initially had considered starting my internship over the summer, so that classes wouldn’t get in the way. However, I couldn’t have picked a better semester, because on the first day of classes, I discovered that my Voice for the Stage professor was then also working  as the Director of College Prep Programs at the ASC: Symmonie Preston.  It has made my internship even  more enriching than I believe it would otherwise have been, thanks to Symmonie referencing things in class that I have since observed in rehearsals or  facts about specific actors.

     Most recently, Symmonie had our class read Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers: The Story of Success. When you look at the cover of this book (right), it looks nothing like a theatre book. Psychology, math maybe, but not theatre, surely? And yet, it contains a lesson that every performer should learn: the 10,000 hour rule. 

     What exactly is the 10,000 hour rule? To explain, Gladwell begins by telling the story of Bill Joy, a famous American computer scientist. When Joy first attended the University of Michigan in 1971, the university had just opened their new computer center, which featured one of the most advanced computer science programs in the world.  This center became Joy’s life; a place where he could program for hours. This passion for programming continued into his graduate years at the University of California at Berkeley, where he ended up creating the operating system used in almost every computer around the world. 

Bill Joy

     So why does Gladwell enlighten us on Bill Joy’s success story? His intention is for us to analyze not just what he was able to accomplish, but exactly how he became successful.  Was it innate talent, or was it the hours he spent in front of the computer, honing his programming skills? When analyzing computer programming, Gladwell explains that it is “a wide-open field in which all participants were judged solely on their talent and their accomplishments...a world where the best men won.” Of course, to compare computer programming to the theatre world is a bit hard, as there are times where money and connections can also play a huge factor into your success as a performer.  However, Gladwell notes that “...the closer psychologists look at the careers of the gifted, the smaller the role innate talent seems to play and the bigger the role preparation seems to play”.  Yes, it helps to have talent, but what sets the amateurs and the professionals apart is the amount of time that you spend working on your craft.

     But how hard is working hard? How do we know when we are working as efficiently as we can be?  The answer Gladwell gives us: ten years or, to be more specific, 10,000 hours, to achieve mastery at your chosen  craft. This 10,000 hour rule applies to everyone. Although the actors currently at the ASC have proven their talent by being able to perform in such an amazing program, during their Renaissance Season specifically, they still rehearse 28 hours per week (not including the amount of work used to memorize lines outside of rehearsals), in addition to putting on performances Thursday mornings and throughout the rest of the weekend.  Since these actors are all ASC veterans, some of them with more than 40, 50, or even 80 ASC productions already behind them, in addition to their work at other theatres, those 10,000 hours are but the  beginning. It goes to show, no matter how talented you may be, you still have to practice just as much as anyone else to maintain, and gradually exceed your abilities.

     If you wish to be successful, you have to be willing to work for it; all 10,000 hours worth.  No matter what it may be. Besides, if it's your passion, shouldn't it not be work at all?

                                                                                -Rachel Z, The Aspiring Actress

Sources:

Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers: The Story of Success. New York: Little, Brown and, 2008. Print.

Stern, Tiffany. Making Shakespeare: From Stage to Page. London: Routledge, 2004. Print.

Image of Bill Joy: http://images.ted.com/images/ted/59819_254x191.jpg

Image of Outliers: http://www.codetrials.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/outliers-225x300.jpg

“I liked hugeously the actors. They are the goodliest, properest men” [and women].

     As I jotted down a few thoughts in my notebook while watching the lovely group of actors rehearse for their production of The Country Wife, I was caught off guard when I looked up and noticed actor Ben Curns, playing Horner, saying his lines to me.  Feeling a bit awkward and embarrassed, I smiled shyly back. I don’t believe I looked at my notebook for at least another hour into rehearsal, waiting to see if another actor would throw another line in my direction.  As I observed the rest of rehearsal, I realized that the abundance of asides provided the actors a plethora of opportunities to interact and connect with the audience -- to pull them into the world of the play.

     It’s interesting to watch how uncomfortable an audience member can become when actors interact with them. Even though  I’m an actress myself, just making eye contact was enough to make my face red.  Why? Frankly, it is just something that doesn’t occur frequently.  When you sit in a theatre today, more often than not you are expected to be quiet. Even the smallest sound will immediately send heads turning. Comparison between modern audiences and those of previous centuries show a large difference in behavior. In the late 1500s, it was a common practice for actors to interact and for the audience to respond. They would cheer, they would riot.  No matter what the circumstance, the actors had immediate feedback as to how the audience felt about a performance. “Spectators believed firmly in their rights and did not hesitate to exert their power to correct any grievance, actual or supposed” (Brockett).  Shakespeare’s ability to respect and to embrace the audience’s power is one of the many reasons why he was so successful.  He seems to have recognized the relationship between audience and actor and to have thrived in it, using it to his advantage, writing purposefully to “utilize the spectators so that they became, unwittingly, part-actors in the plays they observed” (Stern).  Audiences today frequently forget about this relationship.  Even when we don’t consciously and openly react to what’s occurring on stage, the audience still has power.

Peter Brook

     Recently I have been reading The Empty Space, written by English producer-director Peter Brook, who actually covers the connection between the actor and audience.  He starts out by discussing the idea of “deadly theatre,” defining it as “something depressingly active, but for this very reason capable of change.” Deadly theatre is not dead, but there is a significant amount of room for improvement.  We have all witnessed “deadly theatre” in some form. We can all remember that show that put us to sleep, or the one that made us wish over and over in our heads that it would just end already.  We will claim that “the acting sucked” or “the show was horribly written” or just flat out “I didn’t understand what was going on.”  However, Brook presents the point that the audience can be equally and, even more so, as responsible for what lacks in a production.

     In order to prove his point, Brook highlights an experience he had while lecturing at a university. He had a volunteer come to the front of the class and simply gave him a speech to read out loud. As the volunteer prepared, the rest of the class chattered on. But when the audience detected a shift in the manner of the volunteer, that he had a higher level of concentration and seriousness, the audience fell silent. This was when Brook instructed him to read.  The monologue was from Peter Weiss’s play The Investigation, which described the bodies of those within the gas chambers in Auschwitz.  In an instant, the audience understood why he was behaving so differently. “It [the audience] became one with him, with the speech the lecture room and the volunteer...vanished from sight...” and the content of the text took over.  This is yet another example of the potential to enhance the theatrical experience by addressing this connection. When there is a lack of love, openness, and attention from an audience during a performance, the quality of the acting has the potential to diminish. But because, in this situation, the audience wanted to hear, the volunteer was able to share the experience effectively, and therefore the experience was not deadly at all. 

     Although there will always be “deadly theatre,” one thing for certain is that this connection between actor and audience exists, which is a quality of theatre that provides a unique and rewarding experience that you can’t find anywhere else.  

                                                                                   - Rachel Z, the Aspiring Actress

Sources

Brook, Peter. The Empty Space. New York: Atheneum, 1968. Print.

Rodenburg, Patsy. Presence: How to Use Positive Energy for Success in Every Situation. London:  
     Penguin, 2009. Print.

"Western theatre." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition.

     Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web. 16 Jan. 2013. <http://www.britannica.com/

     EBchecked/topic/849217/Western-theatre>.