••○○•••°
I sit in my emotions. Only if I don't cheat them. Nothing beats it. Most actors are neurtoic (e.g. impulsive, uncontrollable, response) in that they internalize and program thought. However, that insecurity is not only seen by an audience. What happens is... an audience knows you are planning your next move. The audience can see how a plot unfolds. What an audience wants is to experience shifts in the actor without knowing why a choice was made. The emotional scale of the character is always present in truth telling by an actor. The actor cannot edit what is going on around them. The actor must be IN their BODY which translates into the psychological space that is your own mind. Most neurotic actors are insecure and not emotionally available to the scene in many ways. Therefore, it becomes an exhibited form. The shape and style of a scene must involve a special awarness that an actor conveys this silence to the world within them. The image than meets the audience. (Not felt in the action of what a scene entails.) The world around the actor is separate from being observed, this is because the audience doesn't know the inner life of the character. Only the actor knows what is space and time.
The surroundings are based on such an image of the actor.
Marco Almeida 2025
-The Peg
°•○●○○•○○•••
“Nietzsche’s idea is that things and actions are already interpretations. So to interpret is to interpret interpretations, and thus to change things, ‘to change life.’ What is clear for Nietzsche is that society cannot be an ultimate authority. The ultimate authority is creation, it is art: or rather, art represents the absence and the impossibility of an ultimate authority. From the very beginning of his work, Nietzsche posits that there exist ends ‘just a little higher’ than those of the State, than those of society. He inserts his entire corpus in a dimension which is neither historical, even understood dialectically, nor eternal. What he calls this new dimension which operates both in time and against time is the untimely. It is in this that life as interpretation finds its source. Maybe the reason for the ‘return to Nietzsche’ is a rediscovery of the untimely, that dimension which is distinct both from classical philosophy in its ‘timeless’ enterprise and from dialectical philosophy in its understanding of history: a singular element of upheaval.”
–Gilles Deleuze, from “Nietzsche’s Burst of Laughter” Interview
Photo by Bruno de Monès
°•○••••••
How do you know what the truth is underneath if you don't even know how to present the truth in itself? The truth is being present (in reality), is it not. Only then can someone be their truth. Like art, it is subjective. I am not making this up. I do acting as an artist because I want to fantasize. That is what makes art and makes it interesting. Truth, in my view, has to be rooted in philosophy. Not just anyone can do it. Which is why people get to be psychologically unstable and they bring it to performance based art. I am a cross between a Shakespearean and a romantic.
-Marco Almeida 2025
The Peg
°●•••●●°●•●
April 11th 2025
To what disease is of the mind and what is its cure if not a dream state into curing it.
Marco Almeida ©️ 2025
-The Peg
°●°●°○°●○°○°
What is the shadow vs what is projection of the shadow . . . In most cases what Jung is saying is probably right if not misunderstood. To properly distinguish or to characterize "the other" (i.e. the other = "person") What Jung wants us to refrain from doing is making "the other" (person) not subjected to our personal vices projected onto the other. This involves a tremendous amount of self awareness. Therefore, as we are aware of ourselves as what is the other person absorbs or are in the process of acquiring information incalculably. The source of our actions as related to the feedback they give you WITHOUT conflicted (e.g. dogmatic) thinking. Your self expression is in constant validation of the other - you just never know the difference. Unless we are aware of what is? To the other = the other plugs into us or unplugs from what is happening in direct relation.
MA2025
°●°○°○○°○°●°
You cannot be a musician by merely knowing how to sing. You may know all the steps of a dance but if you have not creation in your heart you are only functioning as a machine. You cannot love if your object is merely to achieve a result. There is no such thing as an ideal because that is merely an achievement. Beauty is not an achievement, it is reality, now, not tomorrow, and if there is love you will understand the unknown, you will know what God is, and nobody need tell you and that is the beauty of love. It is eternity in itself. And because we have no love we want someone else like God to give us that. If we really loved, not an ideal, do you know what a different world this would be? We would be really happy people. Therefore we would not invest our happiness in things, in family, in ideals. We would be happy and therefore things, family and ideals will not dominate our lives. They are all secondary things. Because we do not love and because we are not happy we invest in things, thinking that they will give us happiness and one of the things in which we invest is God.
J. Krishnamurti
Madras 6th Public Talk 23rd November, 1947
My Response:
What Krishnamurti is saying is to (a) understand love of "the other" ...this kind of machine-life you unconsciously lead and to understand (b) "what is" love are two separate things:
1 - that when you understand anything worth knowing you do not need to have a source to know it. (i.e. "the other") Therefore, love is something we do not necessarily ever think about... let alone understand as we think of acquiring knowability we can both tear down or build back up again and again.
2- if you take the first part of what you think, slice that in half, then if you consider what is you might know. What is Love turns into second hand knowledge. You are living life as a lie. Let that part of you go. Only this is the true way to god. (In unlearning what copies the idea of god and you act according to a machine-life. A lie.) You become something extraordinarily difficult to endure life if you do achieve this type of thinking onto others.
Marco Almeida ©️2025
- The Peg
°●°°°○°°○○°○°
All acting – all of it... an actor should only act because it should be timeless. Otherwise, you are not taking risks. Otherwise, the actor is only being what is rational to the part. The actor's job is to transform themselves into a character, or the audience could thereby think to themselves, what is stale performance art. Any classically trained, an actor, plots their humanity in reality, tests it outside of life's convention - if it crosses with performance art. (That is the challenge.) Any actor that would rather cheat or cop out on the truth, NOT trusting their true to life emotions are not at the center of the art. Here, is where metaphsyics joins in my personal space. I recall being in Winnipeg where I was in your seminar. Of which during the lecture you gave, I demonstrated exactly what I am talking about. My intent was raw as it felt. I did not feel a need to connect with the other actors. My attachment came from within. It was real to witness. It was to the moment, because I stayed in what that moment was. I was the only actor in that exercise who took risks and made choices. I didn’t haveto trust a process. I didn’t care what anyone else thought. I executed. Where the objective was met, you thought I was beating myself up post exercise. I WAS NOT!! I was investing in the catharsis I experienced in doing the exercise. ¹ If you are not feeling liberated as an actor. ² My point is if not. ³ Then, doing it for the wrong reasons is not on me. Full disclosure, Steve B~ / Marco Almeida ©️ 2025 -The Peg
°●•●°○°○
No comments:
Post a Comment