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
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 229 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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
May 3, 2026
Sanford Meisner on Acting was a helpful book. However, the long backstory and lengthy chapters caused this story to feel slow paced and repetitive. The voiceover work was not engaging and I found myself unable to focus at times. I gained some useful insight and have tremendous respect for Meisner and his work. I am glad I read this book.
Did Not Finish
June 14, 2026Have to return this book to my uni library and didn’t even try to read it once I started the new term 💔💔
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.
March 20, 2026
This is a philosophy book as much as it is an acting book. Actually it’s more of a life book than an acting book.
I read this in school and had this fuzzy memory of it. At the time it changed my perspectives on some things, and i was so sweetly proven true.
There are some brilliant, succinct quotes in here that i think many people should start living by.
The framing of acting as simply being with an audience to see it is lovely. Life is meant to be lived this way in my opinion. In this daily surveillance state we have been conditioned to self observe, to believe others are observing us, and the effects of that are similar to the acting he aims to train out of his students.
I’m enamored by his outlook on life/teaching. I’m enamored by people like him that left a mark on their field.
“it’s your personal example chosen from your experience or your imagination which emotionally clarifies the cold material of the text.”
emotions are clarifying!
I read this in school and had this fuzzy memory of it. At the time it changed my perspectives on some things, and i was so sweetly proven true.
There are some brilliant, succinct quotes in here that i think many people should start living by.
The framing of acting as simply being with an audience to see it is lovely. Life is meant to be lived this way in my opinion. In this daily surveillance state we have been conditioned to self observe, to believe others are observing us, and the effects of that are similar to the acting he aims to train out of his students.
I’m enamored by his outlook on life/teaching. I’m enamored by people like him that left a mark on their field.
“it’s your personal example chosen from your experience or your imagination which emotionally clarifies the cold material of the text.”
emotions are clarifying!
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.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 229 reviews