EMANUEL vs. JEREMY
...on ACTING!
April 10, 2002

Emanuel: You know, I concider myself as an actor. Allthough I have not done any "stage" work per-se, I still utilize the same skills that I did when I was doing theatre...im just appliying it to politics, business and people...
Jeremy: "acting" is just being real, truthful and truly listening to the other person. being affected by them emotional and/or physically. discerning behavior. it not only CAN be applied to real life... it IS real life. so it is natural to "use" acting in everyday life (ESPECIALLY politics and business) and the art of manipulation
Emanuel: Thats interesting. I dissagree completely with the first part of your statement. If acting was "being real" as you say, then there would be no need for a distinction. Acting is the concious effecting of real life...a mimicking if you will.
Jeremy: no way. acting is not mimicking. acting is, to quote Meisner, "living truthfully under imaginary circumstances." It is all about being real and REALLY feeling something and TRUTHFULLY reacting to things as they happen, moment by moment. the problem is people who "claim" they act (this is not directing towards you), but they "fake it". that is PRETEND, not acting. Keanu Reeves pretends, he ocasionally has a real moment, but in truth he is pretending. it's why Sissy Spacek in "In The Bedroom" placed all the props and furniture herself in her house. She had to BELIEVE it was her house and that things things that happened to her REALLY happened. That is how she does it. the difference between a beginning actor and a pro, is that they can snap inbetween the two places easily and with damage...
Emanuel: Wow
Jeremy: ...to themselves. It was difficult for me at the beginning of this training process at Playhouse to let go of an exercise once i was done with it. Now i can. not fully yet, but I will. that's the training.
Emanuel: You cant "act" and "be" at the same time. The second an actor believes he IS the role, he is no longer acting...he is nuts. What you are describing is the mental process to approch self convincing...the more you can identify with the role, the better the performance. But I belive that the second you "become" the character, then you are no longer acting. The difference between "pretending" and "acting" is purly semantic.
Emanuel: You cant "truley react" to somthing if you are following a script.
Jeremy: EXACTLY
Emanuel: ?
Jeremy: because the script is just words. the words are just thing that the writer types to help tell the story. it is not the actors responsibility to worry about the words. that is the writers job. the actors responsibility to be truthful under the imaginary circumstances that you are placed in. it is NEVER the actors responsibility to worry about the script. that is why there is a writer, director, script supervisor, assistants, rehearsals, etc. the actors job is to have the emotional life of the person. the words will happen. if you are being truthful, the words and the story WILL happen. there is no exact science to acting. it is a trial and error. sometimes you have it and sometimes you don't. but if you react truthfully to whatever the "other" gives you, EVEN if it's the wrong line...
Jeremy: ... in the wrong place or an accident or whatever, you should be able to continue with the story because you are reacting and living truthfully and real. if you are true, there is NO WAY to "screw up".
Jeremy: the only place where "acting" comes in, is the part about the imaginary circumstances. EVERYTHING else is just Emanuel or Jeremy or Tom Hanks being real and truthful to the situation they are in.
Jeremy: if the circumstances call that you are a killer for some reason for Boca Raton, FL with 2 kids and a heroion addiction, THOSE are your circumstances. everything else is just being real
Jeremy: the people that "screw up" acting (and i for one was VERY guilty of this) are the people who think acting is more complicated than it is. it is in reality very VERY VERY simple. but you have to trust yourself to let it be.
Jeremy: *end transmission*
Jeremy: did i scare you off?
Emanuel: Meeting, sorry
Jeremy: np
Emanuel: "To be or not to be... a taco" would not work as well as the way the line was written. The words are important, without them you dont have the "character" that was crafted... When you start adlibbing, then you have stopped acting and started being yourself.
Emanuel: The "imaginary circumstances" that you are refering to, are the "acting" part. They are the assumption of the false characteristics.
Emanuel: brb
Jeremy: acting IS being yourself (under imaginary circumstances). the words are important yes. to the writer. The words are the writers responsibility, they are NOT the actors. 1% of acting is words/blocking, 99% is being truthful and that emotional life that is beneath. you can have the best words EVER. Shakespeare! But if the person saying those words is not truthful, then the words mean crap. You might as well just buy the book or script and read that. you will get more out of it. Actors must memorize the words and commit them to a point that they are just part of that person. to the point that when you say "your line" that whether or not i have "memorized" my lines, that if i am truly listening to you and understand the given/imaginary circumstances, that i would know EXACTLY what to say...
Jeremy: ...in return.
Emanuel: "acting IS being yourself (under imaginary circumstances)".
Jeremy: the words are not important (to the actor). the emotional life and being truthful is. the words are the writers job. if an actor is professional, they will have those lines memorized and commited like they know their name and then will "forget about them". and when the opportunity for you to express how you feel is there, then you can say it. BUT only if you truly FEEL like you should say it. You should NEVER just say a line because it is the next line of dialogue in a script. you must be "pinched" to do so. there is this thing that Meisner speaks of called the "Pinch/Ouch" theory. You cannot say Ouch to somebody if they have not Pinched you. You cannot say your line unless it is PINCHED out of you. being truthful to your circumstances means only reacting when you are pinched to do so
Jeremy: yes, that is what i said. have i contradicted that?
Emanuel: That seems to be your motto...allthough what does that really mean. The imaginary circumstances cunote that you are imagining, or making believe. It is the semblance of reality, not the creation of a new one.
Emanuel: You have also forgotten the MOST important aspect of acting. We used to have a formula: Acting is A (the Actor), assuming B (the role), for C (the audiance)...when both A and C are aware of the process.
Jeremy: imaginary circumstances is the life of the "character". the given circumstances: age, birth, job, relationships, environment, the story, etc. EVERYTHING from OUT that affects that person. beyond that little thing, it is all about being TRUTHFUL.
Emanuel: C= the audiance is the most important element. If C is not convinced or does not exist then acting is just masterbation.
Jeremy: A should NEVER be aware of C. if A is aware of C, then A is not being truthful
Emanuel: A is allways aware of C
Emanuel: Otherwise A is not acting, A is being
Jeremy: acting IS being
Emanuel: Thats not true
Jeremy: (under imaginary circumstances)
Emanuel: I am right now...but im not acting, am I
Emanuel: under imaginary circumstances = pretend
Jeremy: are you under IMAGINARY CIRCUMSTANCES?
Emanuel: Am I pretending?
Emanuel: Im pretending to be lots of things...
Jeremy: you are focusing of the ONE part of a whole definition. Acting is NOT: Being Truthful *period*. Acting IS: Being truthful under imaginary circumstances.
Jeremy: i never said imaginary circumstances was pretending
Emanuel: How can you be truthful if you know that the core componant is fake?
Jeremy: ah, that's where training comes in. Come to playhouse sometime. they'll tell you.
Jeremy: that is why actors are paid big money. because it takes training to be able to believe.
Emanuel: Have you ever forgotten that you are Jeremy?
Emanuel: By the way...thats NOT why actors are payed big money. They are payed big money because they are entertaining. Otherwise Arnold, and most other "Big name stars" would never make a dime.
Jeremy: never. because that is who i am. you are misunderstanding. Living truthfully under imaginary.... doesn't mean Sir Anthony Hopkins was actually a homicidal cannibal. It DOES mean, that AS THAT cannibal, he lived it out TRUTHFULLY
Emanuel: Thats total bull...
Emanuel: It DOES mean, that AS THAT cannibal, he lived it out TRUTHFULLY? what does that mean.
Emanuel: How did he lived it out TRUTHFULLY?
Jeremy: When reacting to Clarice (Jodie Foster), he did not "PRETEND" to be angry or hurt or coy or whatever. He, as Hannibal Lector, needed to actually FEEL angry and hurt and coy, being prompted to actually feel that way FROM Clarice.
Emanuel: So was Anthony Hopkins really angry at Foster?
Jeremy: everything he felt was because Jodie Foster MADE him feel that way
Jeremy: No. Hannibal Lector was really angry at Clarice.
Emanuel: Who is Hannibal Lector?
Jeremy: really
Emanuel: I doubt he has a drivers licence, or a car, or a SSN number...
Emanuel: So who is he?
Jeremy: he is a homicidal, manipulative cannibal that what's his name wrote down in a story
Emanuel: ah, so he is a ficticious character.
Jeremy: In the imaginary circumstances of that life, he IS real and DOES have all those things
Emanuel: So how can a ficticious character be angry at anybody?
Emanuel: You mean in "make believe"
Jeremy: No. don't put words in my mouth.
Jeremy: I mean, in the IMAGINARY CIRCUMSTANCES of that world. To those people in THAT world, it WAS real.
Emanuel: So I ask again: how can a ficticious character be angry at anybody
Jeremy: you again misunderstand and are missing the point
Emanuel: But Hannibal dosent exist.
Emanuel: he is a character, that a man (anthony) played (pretended to be).
Jeremy: sigh. you completely miss the point
Emanuel: I know the point you are attempting to make.
Jeremy: apparently you don't.
Emanuel: You are not listening to the counter poiint
Jeremy: if you are trying to make your counter-point through saying they are pretending in a story... you -are- missing the point.
Emanuel: Have you heard a word I have typed?
Jeremy: i haven't heard it, but i have read every word. i begin to believe that you haven't read what i have written
Jeremy: Let me ask you a question, humor me:
Emanuel: go
Jeremy: Try and imagine this REALLY happening to you. I would say close your eyes, but then you couldn't read this: If you went out to a movie on you own one night, and you were going to see When Harry Met Sally in the theater... And when you got there, there were a bunch of people around, the smell of stale buttery popcorn is in the air, it's dark...you saw that sitting in the back row of the theater, I was there making out with Melanie. Place yourself in that position, in your mind's eye: How does that make you feel, honestly?
Jeremy: What would you do? What would you say? Truthfully?
Emanuel: I would walk over to you and Mel, and say in a calm cold voice...hey, I see you two are enjoying the movie. and then walk out. I would be totaly furious and would never speak to either of you again...(hows that?)
Jeremy: congratulations: you have just reacting truthfully off of the other person (me and mel), under imaginary circumstances. THAT is acting. We know this did not happen. We can walk away from it without continuing to FEEL furious. But at that moment, our PINCH of doing what we were doing, created the truthful OUCH of you feeling furious about that. THAT is acting.
Jeremy: THAT was not pretending you were furious
Emanuel: But im not angry...so I was not reacting, I was not acting at all
Emanuel: I was not furious, I said I would be furious.
Emanuel: And no it was not acting, it was imagining...
BUZZ!!!
Jeremy: one sec
Emanuel: k
Jeremy: oy. of course not. because you were not in that position. you can not be REALLY truthful without actually being in the situation. That's why i was trying to say try to imagine it REALLY happening. I know this was not ideal situation to do this...
Jeremy: have you ever daydreamed about something happening and it sparks an emotional response from you?
Emanuel: So what you are saying is that to really do that you must be in the situation....was Anthony Hopkins really ever in the situation where he was a mass killer?
Jeremy: oy!
Jeremy: have you ever daydreamed about something happening and it sparks an emotional response from you?
Emanuel: or even felt anger to the point where he killed someone?
Jeremy: have you ever daydreamed about something happening and it sparks an emotional response from you?
Jeremy: like your dream last night about being in israel and being under attack?
Emanuel: Sure...so?
Jeremy: how did you feel? afraid?
Emanuel: yah
Jeremy: were you ACTUALLY there?
Emanuel: at one point yes.
Jeremy: that's not what i asked.
Emanuel: Last night, no
Jeremy: when you daydream, and an emotional response to something happens, are you ACTUALLY there while it's happening?
Emanuel: no
Jeremy: But you still actually feel fear, or love or defensive or whatever? In that moment of DAYdreaming...
Emanuel: ok
Emanuel: so?
Jeremy: THAT is acting.
Emanuel: I was not acting last night
Jeremy: You were reacting TRUTHFULLY under IMAGINARY circumstances
Emanuel: Feeling somthing, is being...not acting. No matter what the stimuli.
Jeremy: EXACTLLLYLYLYLYLYLYLYLYLYLL@LL@L@@@!!!!!!!!
Emanuel: I might have been under "Imaginary Circumstances" but I was not acting.
Jeremy: YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES

Day Two Begins: 4/12/02

Emanuel: we still need to finish that conversation.
Jeremy: it would be difficult for me to jump back in that thing. i tried explaining this conversation to ehron and we came the conclusion that you are a dufe. no, but really, we came to the conclusion that the only way for you to understand what i was trying to explain to you was to do it in person. i still feel you misunderstood me the entire time.
Emanuel: I talked it over with my mom, and we took it in another direction.
Emanuel: We had a very interesting conversation about the ability to be two people at the same time...which is what I distilled your argument to be.
Jeremy: it's not something i feel i can type down and have you understand. honestly, no insult intended here, this is why there is this class and why it is not just a two hour seminar class or something. it takes time.
Emanuel: brb
Jeremy: now i am positive you didn't understand me. i was in no way say you should be two people at the same time. you distilled quite incorrectly.
Emanuel: If I understood you, you said that you had to hold yourself under imaginary circumstances...which to me means that you must be cognisant of yourself and the imaginary condition at the same time, while being aware of what is "real" and what is "imaginary." This would indicate a concious awareness of the process at hand. In the conversation I had with my mother, we dissagreed on whether this constituted a paridox or not.
Jeremy: interesting. but that proves to me that you did not understand what i was saying. BUT on that note, i feel you cannot be two people at once. A schitzophrenic may have multiple personalities, but even then they are one personality at a time. an actor places themselves in the shoes of another (the "character"), and acts and reacts TRUTHFULLY, SPONTANEOUSLY (not preconcieved), FULLY, honestly and completely off of the moment and hence off of whatever the "other" person gives you, whatever it may be. You cannot honestly say 'ouch' to something if it never ACTUALLY pinched you to say it/feel it in the first place.
Emanuel: I argued the acting comes down to the concept of choice. If you as the instument choose to affect as another person, then that is acting. If there is a lack of choice then that is simply being. For example, the multiple personality disorder person does not have the ability to choose who he wants to be, and when. That means that when he/she is in a state of one personality or the other, they simply "are" that person. An actor is one who can assume a "character," but who retains the reigns of conciousness in order to re-establish his/her own personality at will.
Jeremy: you seem to really be into this "BE-ing" someone else. I never said an actor should lose their minds and BE someone else's mind. It's a matter of taking the circumstances that are given, and being ABSOLUTELY TRUTHFUL and REAL with those circumstances. That doesn't mean replacing your mind with some "character".
Jeremy: i'll give you an example: Which would be more truthful and hence interesting and believable to watch. An actor needs to write a letter to someone in a scene. Is it more believable if the actor "pretends" or "acts" like they are writing the letter. Or is it more believable if the actor actually writes the letter in the scene? which is the audience going to believe?
Emanuel: Ahhhh, if you recall you were saying the other day that the audience is not needed for "real" acting to be taking place. So ultimately it dosent matter.
Jeremy: you are correct. I did say that and i hold to that. But that is not what i'm asking. I'm saying, Which one of those two scenarios would the audience/director/camera operator/ACTOR going to believe? (or is more -likely- to believe?)
Jeremy: the one who's PRETENDING to write the letter, or the one who is ACTUALLY writing the letter?
Emanuel: I hold that its irrelavent...if the actor is as good as you say, then he might be able to belive that he is writing the letter with out having to phisically do that. It would simply be another set of "imaginary circumstances."
Jeremy: lol. that is not a circumstance. a circumstance is, age, name, weather, job, relationships, etc etc etc.
Jeremy: not the act of doing
Emanuel: Why not? It is another set of stimuly, like being on a ship, holding a sword, having a sword fight, loosing a loved one, writing a letter.
Emanuel: It should all be one and the same, according to your theory,.
Jeremy: not true
Emanuel: How so?
Jeremy: IN FACT: using your own logic, an actor can't force himself to believe something that they are not. You cannot lose WHO YOU ARE. and therefore, an actor, no matter how good, if they are not actually writing the letter, they would not be able to make themselves believe something that is not there and true. BUT if you are actually writing the letter, then there is no trickery involved. There is no "fooling" yourself or the audience. There is no "pretending" writing the letter is hard or painful or sorrowful. Or "pretending" that the person talking to you while you are trying to write this personal letter is annoying you or frustrating you or bolstering you. The fact will be, you are ACTUALLY trying to write the letter, you will believe you are doing it, and therefore if someone tries....
Jeremy: ...to interfere then you will react accordingly and truthfully.
Emanuel: (hey stop typing, you only get one large response at a time. Some of us are doing this WHILE working )
Emanuel: I agree completely, you have said what I have been claiming all along: "an actor can't force himself to believe something that they are not. You cannot lose WHO YOU ARE." The only thing you can do, is more realisticaly portray someone you are NOT. Thus the acting, not being distinction.
Jeremy: that does not mean you need to lose who you are, that just means you need to believe in your circumstances and the truth and HUMANITY will shine through. A faker can be spotted a mile a way.
Emanuel: (Unfortunatly I associate acting with lying, and as we all know there are lyers that are very hard to spot...so I dissagree that you can spot a faker).
Jeremy: GAHAHAHAH
Jeremy: this is so frustrating
Emanuel: Deal with it!
Jeremy: i am. i feel you do not get what i'm saying
Emanuel: Then you are not saying it well.
Jeremy: Ahem: "we came to the conclusion that the only way for you to understand what i was trying to explain to you was to do it in person. i still feel you misunderstood me the entire time."
Jeremy: Acting is not something you can learn from a book (or writing in chat), by it's very nature, you must DO it, to learn it.
Emanuel: Yah, that just means that either your powers of explination lack the aptitude to correctly describe what you wish, or that you are using that as an excuse for getting your ass kicked by my superiour logic.
Emanuel: Thats bunk, any system can be talked about
Jeremy: just the fact that you call it a SYSTEM blow my mind!
Jeremy: I actually feel i have explained it quite well. I am frustrated and dumbfounded that you still seem to not get what I am saying.
Jeremy: how i would love for you to go to my class for ONE day. you can audit the class for free. if you were here i'd drag you in by the hairs of your chinny chin chin
Emanuel: I must tell you to be careful about using the class as a final authority...remember Landmark.
Jeremy: i knew you were going to say that. I know when you mentioned shaun, that's what you meant. the class is NOT a final authority. I am not even talking meisner. i am talking acting. i am am also meaning that the teachers are teachers and are much more experienced in this than I am, and know stuff I haven't yet explored. And they as coaches could offer better first hand examples than I could.
Emanuel: But Im not talking about the specific examples, I am talking about the theory behind it. Its the edicts of the method/philosophy that you are expounding that Im attempting to debunk.
Jeremy: lol
Jeremy: Say, what makes a good liar good and a bad liar bad?
Emanuel: Believability.
Jeremy: so, you would say that a "good liar" would be able to sell their story, because maybe they were being -truthful- about their lie. And therefore, those around the "good liar" believe them, because the "good liar" seemed truthful.... hmmm... interesting. and a "bad liar". What makes them bad? Well, if you can spot the lie. If it is obvious that the bad liar is not believing their own lie. That they don't seem to be truthful. Hence, those around the "bad liar" can spot that the "bad liar" is lying because the "bad liar" doesn't even seem to believe their own story. Am I right about that?
Emanuel: Absolutely NOT.
Jeremy: please explain
Emanuel: A good liar is aware that what he is saying is not true, but he/she have mastered the semblance of believability enogh to make other accept him/her at their word. This is where we go back to the audience componant...I believe that you must convince the audience, otherwise acting is pure self indulgent mastrubation. A bad liar is one who has not mastered the mechanism of the semblance of truth... He still knows that what he is saying is a lie, he just is not good enogh to convince others. Once either liar belives the lie, it is no longer a lie...thus it is no longer subject to the same rule.
Jeremy: sigh. I did not say that either liar BELIEVED the lie. I said that they were TRUTHFUL about the lie. There is a MASSIVE difference.
Emanuel: And that would be?
Emanuel: I dont know what you mean by being truthful about a lie. Stop talking in obscure bumper stickers...you are starting to sound like Ryan.
Emanuel:
Jeremy: That would be the arguement and what you seem to be misunderstanding the whole time.
Jeremy: the whole arguement is what i mean
Emanuel: So explain it...
Emanuel: How can one be truthful about a lie?
Jeremy: You do not have to believe in something to be truthful about it.
Emanuel: Just answer that in a susinct manner...
Jeremy: Okay. Easy:
Emanuel: go
Jeremy: When you lie, a good lie, you are trying to tell a story of what has happened. In order to convince another of what you are lying about, you play the "No, honey, I was not at the strip club, I was at a movie" card. The only way your girlfriend will believe you is if you try to be truthful and ironically honest with that about that lie. If you do not try to be truthful and make that lie the truth, then unless you are talking to an especially dumb log, no one will believe you.
Emanuel: Thats so untrue. The art of lying is much more complex, and has nothing to do with self convincing.
Jeremy: gah!
Emanuel: Lying is employed toward MANY diff ends. It can be telling a story of somthing that happened, or it can be an attempt to change somthing that will happen.
Jeremy: I NEVER SAID YOU NEEDED TO CONVINCE YOURSELF!
Jeremy: I SAID you must be TRUTHFUL
Emanuel: It all depends on the level of comfort with the cover story...the imaginary circumstance if you will.
Emanuel: YOU CANT BE TRUTHFULL ABOUT A LIE!!!!
Jeremy: YES. you can.
Emanuel: Thats is by definition a paradox.
Emanuel: Go ahead, be truthful about a lie.
Jeremy: oy
Emanuel: dont oy me
Emanuel: Give me an example of a truthfull lie!
Jeremy: You don't get it. Okay, this morning I went to go get my morning chai at Starbucks the asshole clerk asked me if i had tipped him in his jar. I was fairly offended that he asked and so I said yes just to get him off my back and he believed me and it wasn't brought up again. He believed me because even though I hadn't actually tipped him, I was "truthful" with my answer and he believed me. I knew I hadn't tipped him, I didn't need to actually BELIEVE i tipped him. I just had to be truthful about it and he believed me.
Emanuel: Main Entry: truth
Pronunciation: 'trüth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural truths /'trü[th]z, 'trüths/
Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trEowth fidelity; akin to Old English trEowe faithful -- more at TRUE
Date: before 12th century
1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an
Emanuel: Main Entry: truth·ful
Pronunciation: 'trüth-f&l
Function: adjective
Date: 1596
: telling or disposed to tell the truth
- truth·ful·ly /-f&-lE/ adverb
- truth·ful·ness noun
Emanuel: Main Entry: 2act
Date: 1594
transitive senses
1 a : to represent or perform by action especially on the stage b : FEIGN, SIMULATE c : IMPERSONATE
2 obsolete : ACTUATE, ANIMATE
3 : to play the part of as if in a play <act the man of the world>
4 : to behave in a manner suitable to <act your age>
intransitive senses
1 a : to perform on the stage b : to behave as if performing on the stage : PRETEND
2 : to take action : MOVE <think before acting> <acted favorably on the recommendation>
3 : to conduct oneself : BEHAVE <act like a fool>
4 : to perform a specified function : SERVE <trees acting as a windbreak>
5 : to produce an effect : WORK <wait for a medicine to act>
6 of a play : to be capable of being performed <the play acts well>
7 : to give a decision or award <adjourned wi

At this point Emanuel called me and we talked about it for about 10 minutes. We discussed the difference between TRUTH and TRUTHFUL. We discussed that my Starbucks story was a lie, but he believed me, so does that mean I was truthful about it? Truthful about a lie... We discussed the difference of theory and semantics. Really, I think to no end other than wearing us both out on the topic. Then, the phone cut out.

Jeremy: what happened?
Emanuel: Your phone cut out
Jeremy: i thought your phone cut out
Emanuel: Mine works fine
Jeremy: mines working
Emanuel: anyways...

All photos & content within this website are the property of Jeremy Asher or his associates, and may not be reproduced in any way without the express written consent of Jeremy Asher and his associates.