The reaction in counter-action: how Meisner technique and active analysis complement each other

ABSTRACT

This article is an investigation into the difference between reaction and counter-action. The question arose during my experience of Active Analysis at the Stanislavski Acting Laboratory in California Riverside University. In the Meisner technique the emphasis lies on instinctive reaction, whereas in Stanislavski’s Active Analysis the action and counter-action are emphasised. Counter-action can be seen as the force working against the main action of the scene creating conflict. Having extensive knowledge of reaction, and experience of counter-action, it became important to understand the difference between the two concepts and the importance of both in actor training and application to text. Through research into Action-Perception theory, self-regulation and motivation, I attempt to dissect the fundamental discrepancies between the two principles. My findings show that reaction stems from impulse and instinct, whereas counter-action is rooted in motivation. When motivation and instinct are in conflict, self-regulation will attempt to supress the impulse and over-ride it with an alternative counter-action more suited to the overall motivation. As self-regulation is a limited resource, prolonged use will make this harder to control. Emotion control draws on the same limited resource as self-regulation. Suggesting that emotion regulation would be affected by a conflict in instinct and motivation. These conclusions have a strong impact on how emotions are manifested and produced in actors and warrant a re-evaluation of how actors reach emotional connection to the given circumstance, as well as how emotion is viewed and engaged with in actor training in general.

KEYWORDS:

• Action
• counter-action
• reaction
• Meisner technique
• active analysis

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Improvizations are often created spontaneously and without preparation, the actors become the creators of the script and are encouraged not to block each other’s inputs. Improvization practitioners like Keith Johnstone often work from game structure in order to further the creative dialogue between the actors (Gray, “Living Truthfully,” 727). For this laboratory, we defined an improvization as an interaction between the actors where the lines are improvized and the structure might be as loose as a set of given circumstances or in the case of our group stem solely from the inspiration of an object.

2. Gray, “Living Truthfully,” 727.

3. Meisner, Meisner on Acting, 36.

4. See note 2 above.

5. Esper and DiMarco, The Actor’s Arts and Craft; and Meisner, Meisner on Acting.

6. Gray, “Living Truthfully,” 729.

7. Carnicke, Stanislavski in Focus, 195.

8. Carnicke, Stanislavski in Focus, 196; and Merlin, Konstantin Stanislavski, 42.

9. Zarrilli, The Psychophysical Actor, 17.

10. Stinespring, “Principles of Truthful Acting,” 119.

11. Carnicke, Stanislavski in Focus, 200.

12. Ibid, 212.

13. Merlin, Konstantin Stanislavski, 34.

14. Email interview with Sharon Carnicke 07/06/2018:Q: My interpretation of it is that it is aiding something you want/need – rooted in the text?A: Yes, Philippa, you are correct. If we were working on a text you would need to link your character’s action or counteraction and also your choice of verb to the circumstances and facts of the text as written – what the character wants is usually encoded in the circumstances and facts. In the case of our lab, the action/counteraction and verb (when we had no text) were linked to what you want in terms of what your group set up as your circumstances. In early Stanislavsky, he actually used the word “want” to help actors see their scenes in active terms.

15. Baumeister and Vohs, “Self-Regulation, Ego,” 2.

16. Ibid.

17. Baumeister and Vohs, “Self-Regulation, Ego,” 5.

18. In this case, I refer mainly to the creation and development of Active Analysis.

19. Merlin, Acting: The Basics, 183.

20. Merlin, Konstantin Stanislavski, 42.

21. The idea to look at Action–Perception theory in terms of teaching of actioning in drama school was part of my MA Dissertation “Reaction in Action” 2012. Here the main exploration was how Meisner technique could be used to teach a foundation of actioning to drama school students.

22. Caine, “Natural Learning,” 2.

23. Decety, “Motor Cognition”; and Giorelli and Sinigaglia, “Perception in Action”.

24. Giorelli and Sinigaglia, “Perception in Action,” 49.

25. Ibid.

26. Social cognition is the encoding, storage, retrieval, and processing, of information in the brain, which relates to members of the same species.

27. Decety, “Motor Cognition”, 259.

28. Full quote: “In human beings the process is more complex and we therefore call it the natural perception-action dynamic” (Caine, “Natural Learning,” 2).

29. Decety, “Motor Cognition,” 262.

30. See note 3 above.

31. Blair, The Actor, Image, 41.

32. Haggard, “Intentional Action,” 695.

33. Haggard, “Conscious Intention,” 291.

34. Fuster, “Upper Processing,” 143.

35. Ibid.

36. The first stage of the laboratory consisted of free improvization stimulated from a chosen object. In the second stage, we took the situation the first improvization generated and structured it into characters with either Action or Counter-action and set verbs/tactics.

37. Gillett, Acting Stanislavski, 123.

38. Email interview with Carnicke 07/06/2018:Q: The other question was regarding my experience of the verb working against each other so strongly that it caused an emotional connection in me when the obstacle was too great to play the verb: all I was looking for her was a comment from you on that etude, if you had any thoughts on what we experienced there. A: Yes, the discovery that you made and what I said in our session was this: in his later years, Stanislavsky never asked actors to work on specific emotions. He saw emotion (like our ability to see or touch) as a sixth sense that comes naturally as a result of what we do. Active Analysis presumes that if you commit fully to your verb (provided that the verb is well chosen in terms of the scene’s circumstances and facts), emotion will result naturally (As it did for you in your etude)!

39. Meisner, Meisner on Acting, 39.

40. Pinker, How The Mind, 42.

41. Baumeister and Vohs, “Self-Regulation, Ego,” 3.

42. There is always a feedback loop present in our interactions, however, if there is not strong motivation the feedback revolves around the experience itself and it is evaluated from the perspective of past experiences and whether we want to change it or keep it the same (Csikszentmihalyi and Nakamura, Emerging Goals,108–109).

43. Baumeister and Vohs, “Self-Regulation, Ego,” 2.

44. Diamond, “Executive Functions,” 136.

45. Muraven and Baumeister, “Self-regulation,” 248.

46. Baumeister and Vohs, “Self-Regulation, Ego,” 4.

47. Koole, “Psychology of Emotion,” 22.

48. Gailliot et al., “Having Used,” 1.

49. Turner and Stets, “Sociological Theories,” 31.

50. Ibid, 27.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Philippa Strandberg-Long

Philippa Strandberg-Long is an actor trainer, director and researcher specializing in the Meisner technique. She teaches acting technique at several London conservatoires, coaches professional actors on and off set, and run workshops in the Meisner technique around the UK and Europe. Apart from this is also currently working on a PhD in Meisner technique and Cognition at the University of Kent.