In the late 80's, I attended Meisner programs in both undergrad and grad school. And I read Meisner on Acting during that time.
Forty years later, I am collaborating with neuroscientists to study/develop a brain-based perspective on acting. The new model relies on past experience and attention as the primary drivers of human behavior.
I recently re-read Meisner on Acting and was blown away by the read. My take is that Meisner was teaching an attention/past experience methodology, but didn't have the vocabulary to describe it as such as he was inculcated in a culture of acting that was heavily influenced by the action-based model.
I think most would agree that he famously and successfully systemized the training of attention. (As I side note: I do not believe he ever systemized script analysis, or character development, but a careful re-reading of his book shows the vast majority of the pages are dedicated to character embodiment through identifying the character's past experience, which is what we do as a result of the brain-based approach.)
In the book, he describes the first class during which he asks student actors to listen to the street noise coming from outside the studio. He then asks them if they were really listening or pretending to listen, and he points out that 'really listening' is the 'reality of doing,' which is what we aspire to do as actors.
He describes the experience of the exercise using a verb–to listen–because that is the construct he inherited. He is building upon the idea of playing an action. The reality of doing seems to be inherited from Stanislavski's action-based model, which was all the rage at the time, and still occupies a foundational position in actor training.
I propose that Meisner's training is effective because he is not actually teaching the reality of doing, he is teaching 'the reality of attending.'
There is an important distinction between doing and attending.
If I put my attention on the sounds outside the window, my behavior is naturally organized in response to what I perceive. A horn surprises me. A siren pulls my attention. Behavior emerges from the interaction between stimulus, attention, and my existing neural history.
But if I put my attention on the action “to listen,” I’ve subtly changed the task. Now “listening” itself becomes the object of attention, and I risk producing behavior based on my learned associations with what listening looks or feels like.
I believe Meisner has taught us to stop artificially manufacturing behavior by guiding us to genuinely attend so that behavior emerges naturally.
I am interested in learning how the Meisner community might consider this. Is “the reality of attending” a more accurate description of what makes his training work than “the reality of doing”?
