The Big Read - A BIG ABSURD!

I don't know if you have heard of the BBC's The Big Read?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/bigread/ Here is some information, if somebody is curious about it.
Anyway, this year the Bulgarian National Television organized the same 'contest' we had to choose our favorite book of all time. Last night we 'choose' our favorite book - Под игото by Ivan Vazov (the so-called patriarch of the Bulgarian literature) and a book I really can't stand. And I can't stand it for a good reason - because it's no literature, it's no art for me. It was one of the novels we had to read in school and it's one of the novels I as a Bulgarian am expected to love. Anyway, I can't love a novel, which doesn't make me care about its characters the least. Some of the other finalists were The Lord of the Rings, One Hundred Years of Solitude, Master and Margarita and East of Eden.

And I don't believe the statistics that most of the people who voted to select the 'winner' were in their 20's. It's kind of absurd to vote for a novel simply because it's supposed to be something you cherish because of being a Bulgarian. And nobody, nobody really can say it's a novel he/she loves. At least not people in their 20's. As an old relative said: It's a book you HAVE TO RESPECT AND APPRECIATE! Why? For what? Maybe I'm still immature enough to understand why I have to RESPECT a book I had no pleasure reading, but I doubt I'll ever understand that. There were four other Bulgarian novels on that list and one of these novels - Тютюн - is an amazing novel on its own and a more deserving 'winner' for me. I don't get how Под игото wins only because it SHOULD (as people say) because it represents the Bulgarian national identity, but NOBODY (and I mean NOBODY!!!) really would like to grab the book and actually READ it! None of my professors would ever read it! None of the folks I study with would grab it and READ it! Then WHY IS IT OUR FAVORITE BOOK?! Because it represents the Bulgarian identity?! Because some professors in literature think that it represents the Bulgarian identity?! I think it's a shame, because I believe that 99% of the people who voted for this book have not even read it. Or left it at page 5, because it's that boring! And the book - OUR FAVORITE BOOK - SHOULD be a book people read for pleasure and love because of that! And not a book we should read, but nobody (!) really likes. Sorry, but not even my grandmother would pick it as her favorite book!!!

My Method Acting essay - still in progress (and it should be ready pretty soon)

I'm still writing my essay on Method acting and therefore I decided to watch a lot of performances. An interesting fact: while Laurence Olivier played Hamlet on stage in London, he once confessed that while he performed the To be or not to be monologue and the audience was amazed by his emotions, he was actually thinking of the wine he'd drink later that same evening. I actually think that he said that just to get some attention, because he was obviously confused by the Method and couldn't communicate with Method actors (like Brando, James Dean, De Niro, Al Pacino etc). I think I mentioned in my last entry that Brando calls him an architect of an actor in his autobiography. Anyway, I decided to watch as many of Elia Kazan's films as I could. I realized that Kazan is really a great director of actors. There's so much attention for detail in the performances actors give in his films. I just watched East of Eden again. I first watched it two years ago, but now I realize I knew little about acting at the time and I now realize what a great job James Dean does in the film. I finally got a copy of A Splendor in the Grass and I'm going to watch it tonight. Yesterday I watched for the first time Wuthering Heights with Olivier in the lead and I enjoyed it pretty much, even though I couldn't get rid of the feeling that he's faking emotion all the time. It's always tricky to judge other actors because of the information you have about them. And the more performances they gave you see the harder it gets. An example: Of the Old Hollywood actors, I like Bette Davis (and I've only seen one performance: that in All About Eve, and let's face it, it's hard to not be impressed by that one). But all the others: their performances are all about their charisma and their own image and not about the characters they're playing. I've seen a few performances by Katharine Hepburn (many of the professors at the Academy consider her a great actor), but every time I see her on screen, I see Katharine Hepburn. She's always the same. Always the same gestures. Always the same mannerism. And I cannot find the connection to her characters.

Anyway, I'm still a little bit confused by the Method. I don't get it fully. I think I understand most parts, but some are still big question marks.

I'll write later about the Elia Kazan films - with some brief reviews.

Method acting & the To Be Or Not To Be monologue & stuff

I've been kind of busy these days. I'm writing an essay on Method Acting and even though I enjoyed doing the research and analyzing performances - thinking as a stage director is something I feel is a very rewarding experience - it's just eating up my days. And right now I'm just sketching out my ideas about the performances I watched and am going to analyze.

A friend of mine recommended watching a very interesting series, which some nice fellows uploaded on youtube - it's called Into the Actor's Studio. It's fun to watch all the episodes, because they're actually inviting some famous actors (like Meryl Streep and Robert De Niro as well as some directors - such as Martin Scorsese; even though I'd prefer them inviting some theatr directors as well) and they're talking about their experience of acting. Of course, I started with Meryl Streep being a guest and I enjoyed it pretty much. Anyway, for me it's hard to say if Meryl Streep is a Method actor. All the characteristics are there, but I doubt she's doing her work consciously following the Method. She just adopted some of the Method's characteristics, but I don't consider her a Method actor. Meryl herself states that she cannot talk about her process the way other actors do, which she finds funny, since people often discuss her as a very technical actor. Anyway, just watch these videos. They're entertaining and it's really funny seeing Meryl Streep discuss working with a coach for her Irish accent in Dancing at Lughnasa. (If you don't know, Meryl's considered a master of doing different accents.) Here's the segment:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syi9rm2Wfw0&feature=related

I started reading Marlon Brando's autobiography Songs My Mother Taught Me.
It's huge, but easy to go through and there are some interesting stories he's telling and the text made me curious about who Stella Adler was for example. I've never known all that much about her - an actor, an acting coach, a collegue of Lee Strasberg (whom Brando openly dislikes). Anyway, it was funny to read that Laurence Olivier refused to do accents, because he just didn't consider it a possibility to talk like a peasant. Olivier himself didn't feel comfortable around actors of the Method and considered acting being something on the surface. That's why Brando calls him an architect of an actor, because he didn't change anything in a performance once he's analyzed it and shaped its form. His performances never changed, which I think is kind of impossible for a stage actor. Where's the meaning in such a strategy? And above all, where's the pleasure from being on the stage? That's why I decided to write about Olivier and other Shakespearean actors (Kenneth Branagh) as opposed to the Method actors (Brando, James Dean etc etc). Anyway, just for fun, I started to think about the different approaches to Act Three, Scene One, which is To be or not to be.

I've never done the monologue. Just read it a few times (and I have to say I like the Bulgarian translation pretty much) and I think that the big challenge an actor finds in it is finding the rhythm. Of course, there is another huge problem (for the director and actor) - it's a long monologue and the stage is supposed to be empty, which makes it even harder for it to work. The actor has to get all the attention, but that while he remains kind of passive! And he doesn't even move on the huge empty stage! How can somebody make it work? I think that the success of such a scene depends on the actor's charisma and I wonder if a lavish set could actually help or would rather do some harm! I've never seen Hamlet on the stage and I think that directors rather shy away from it. It's the monster play. Anyway, I've seen two adaptations - Laurence Olivier's film from 1948 and Kenneth Branagh's adaptation from 1996 (which contains the whole text!). And it's interesting to see that Olivier and Branagh struggle not only with the text, but with the visual decisions as well. Laurence Olivier's version of the monologue appears to me more as a visual presentation, even though I don't like most of his work on the film. Especially the transitions just don't work most of the time. But I have some issues with Branagh's visual strategy. This is the scene, which represents Hamlet's crisis and the dilemmas he faces most clearly in the whole play. But at the same time it happens through words, because Hamlet remains passive, melancholic and quiet on the surface. He doesn't display any great emotion. Just the eyes - eventually. (Even though in Olivier's version - we barely see Hamlet's eyes directly.) It's all about the words and the idea that while he says something, he surpresses some even greater emotion. Then why the mirror in Branagh's version? Why does he show Hamlet's reflection in the mirror? And that from such a POV that we barely see Hamlet's eyes? The static camera really helps the viewer to focus on the voice and the text, but the strange POV rather confuses. We don't get the contact. But film and to a certain degree theatre are about the visual aspect of presenting the words. Laurence Olivier does a lot of POV change during that scene and I think that it was a clever idea to make the scene outside the palace and with all the mist around him and the sea - you just get the visual idea of the unquiet words. The camera is instantly moving and helps providing the idea of isolation. Anyway, it's just the beginning of me working with this scene and I think it could help analyzing it. Right now all my thoughts are just a chaos. So any help is welcome. :D

Here are the links to both Branagh's and Olivier's approaches to the scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTG0vXniDQY - Olivier's Hamlet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JD6gOrARk4 - Branagh's Hamlet


But anyway, now I'm going to have some coffee with friends. And in the afternoon I'll continue working on the essay.

Party in Veliko Tarnovo

A very good friend of mine is celebrating her birthday on Saturday, the 7th of March, so we're going to Veliko Tarnovo, which is my absolutely favorite Bulgarian city. If you get the shot, go there. It's absolutely an one time experience. There's so much history and atmosphere there.

You could spend the whole day going to meseums and to all these historical places - all kind of palaces (which are situated on the tree hills surrounding the city) and it's gonna be a great adventure, and of course in the evening you can hit the clubs. And then you get up the next day and drink your coffee while being surrounded by all this majesty around. It's amazing.

I just feel it's something of a place I always would come back to. To get energy and to meet friends. It's an university town as well and I've got lots of friends studying there. Anyway, I'm really exicted about going. I go there at least twice the year (even more often, if my economy allows it) and I never get tired of it. It's not a really big city, but there are lots of people and life everywhere. Coffee shops, restaurants, clubs... And by the way, it has this patriotic feeling because of being our Medieval captial. I found some nice pics on the net. So tell what you think if you feel like doing it ;-)!

And of course there is this small part of the town, which is a real attraction for tourists and I love it myself. You can go there and visit a coffee shop and it looks exactly like it did hundred years ago and you go in and order coffee and they make your coffee in this old-fashioned way. And it's real fun drinking coffee there and having a day, which offers you both full speed entertainment the way we know it and some touch with old times. Here's a pic of this street. (Anyway, the pic's awful, but I couldn't find a better one.)


And I love the "Sound and Light" spectacle they do from time to time. They do it during the night and it's something, which I would recommend to everyone.



So I'm going on Saturday! I can't wait!

Friends

It's 1:30 a.m. and I just finished watching L'auberge espagnole. Anyway, a friend of mine has been in Germany on an exchange program for half a year and we haven't even had much talk on the net during the period. And now she's back and we have an appointment for coffee tomorrow. But it feels kind of weird to meet her after so much time. When she called me, I was happy to hear her voice, but at the very same time I don't know if she's gonna be the same person - not in a dramatic way, but I mean - would we be able to talk to each other the way we did half an year ago? With some people it just works and it feels like if we just had coffee yesterday, but with others it's kind of the end. I have a friend, with whom I used to spend a lot of time two years ago. We were together every single day - drinking coffee, hitting the clubs etc etc, but now we see each other once in a while and we just don't know what to talk about - we talk about what it was for two years ago and nobody seems to enjoy it. And it feels strange, like if we aren't meant to be friends. And it feels strange that we spent so much time together two years ago. Anyway, I just feel a really strange fear that my friend and I won't be able to talk about anything tomorrow and it's kind of just putting an end to a friendship, which meant something to me. This entry is rather ridiculous, I suppose.

Martenitsa

First of all, I wanna tell you about a Bulgarian tradition, which is a very nice one and I love it. Every year (on the 1st of March) people give each other martenitsa. It's a small piece of adornment, made of white and red yarn and people are wearing it from the 1st of March until the 22nd of March (when the Spring arrives). There is another option, which I like more and it's to wear it until you see a swallow in the sky. The martenitsa, in Bulgarian - мартеница, is a very nice thing to give, because this way you wish the person you give it to luck and a good health in the upcoming year and it symbolizes the beginning of a new life.

Of course there is a legend, which explains this tradition and we all learn it in school. Here's the legend, taken from wikipedia:


Khan Kubrat's (632–665) five sons went hunting accompanied by their sister Huba. When they reached the Danube river they saw a silver stag. Mesmerized, the men did not dare shoot at it. The stag crossed over to the opposite bank of the river showing them a ford.

A bird flew bringing them bad tidings. Their father, the founder of Old Great Bulgaria was on his deathbed. In his last hours Kubrat's last will was to tell his offspring—Bayan, Kotrag, Asparukh, Kuber and Altsek—not to sever the still tenuous link between the different Bulgarian tribes. His sons vowed to defend Bulgaria.

Soon after their father’s death, the Khazars invaded the land. The Khazar's Khan Ashina conquered the capital Phanagoria. Huba, Kubrat's daughter, was captured by Ashina. Hoping to give her brothers a chance to freedom, Huba attempted suicide but was stopped by the guards.

Her brothers kept their vows in different ways. Bayan stayed with his sister and recognized the supremacy of the Khazars. Kotrag went northwards, to the River Volga, while Asparukh, Kuber and Altsek went south to search for a new land without oppressors.

The brothers who left secretly arranged with Huba and Bayan to send word by a golden thread tied to the leg of a dove if they were able to find a free land. One day a falcon sent by Asparukh flew into Huba's room and she and Bayan quickly made plans to escape. Just as they were looking for a place to cross the Danube River, Khazar pursuers spotted them and rushed toward them. Trying to find a ford, Huba let the falcon free. She tied a white thread to its leg and handed it to her brother. Just as the bird was about to take off, an enemy arrow pierced Bayan and his blood stained the white thread.

While Huba and Bayan managed to reach the newly discovered land by Asparukh (present-day Bulgaria), they were both mortally wounded. Asparukh rushed to the side of his dying brother and sister but he could not save them. After their death he tore the pieces of white-and-red blood stained yarn and adorned his soldiers with them.

Staying home & watching films

I've got a cold and I'm staying home a third day now and I started to actually enjoy not having to attend my acting classes every day and instead I just watch movie after movie and it's real fun.
Yesterday I watched a film I've never really heard of before. It's written and directed by Cameron Crowe and I'm not his biggest fan in the universe. But this one - which is his debut film - is the kind of a film that I just started watching with no expectations at all and then it worked for me. It's called Say Anything and stars a very young John Cusack. After watching the film, which is really very romantic and very funny and very touching, I did some research on the net and I was surprised to learn that it's a film, which got an enormous reaction at the time it premiered. I wonder why there is no DVD edition of it out there or maybe I just ignored it, but the film's worth the watch.

It tells the story of Lloyd Dobler, who is the regular guy - an absolutely mediocre student, kind of shy and unsecure, who on his high school graduation asks out the school valedictorian (wow, a new word! lol!), who is headed to England after the summer to study on a prestigious fellowship and even though everybody thinks they're a ridiculous match, things just work for them. Anyway, the story is not only about that, but about family, love, vocation and much more. And even though it's a very intelligent romantic comedy, it's all about the acting, which is very natural and unforced (and I love that in acting!) & the great romantic story. I've never ever liked John Cusack that much, but here he's amazing, very charming and just a guy everyone could have a crush on - absolutely unpretentious and giving and devoted and very funny, very clumsy. And very romantic. And I just like the idea that the film fools with cliches. Lloyd isn't the guy who will find what he wants to do with his life after falling for this great young woman. He just loves her, but realizes that while she's special, he just isn't. But it isn't a problem and it isn't something the film is focusing on. It's about finding love and about being in love and not caring about if you two are a perfect match in the eyes of your family or friends (just because everybody thinks that Lloyd and Diane aren't, because he's totally out of her league)...there are some really great scenes and and the film is very simple and very natural and connects... as always Cameron Crowe creates some very nice dialogue and some charming characters... and it's just the unpretentious little movie that somehow becomes a little great movie.... everything clicks perfectly.... and this one not only made me laugh and entertained me. I even cried at the end and I don't know why. Maybe because I have a cold... :-)