This resonates.
As a frequent public speaker and coach of others in public speaking, the top priority is to just deeply understand the material. The second priority is to create the habit write like you publicly speak (i.e develop a style).
You put these together, and you have no choice but to explain it the way you’d have written it anyways. This enforces resilience against interruptions and allows for improvisation.
But this is hard. It requires two great efforts: to deeply understand the material, and to craft a speaking/writing habit that makes for powerful, public speaking.
It doesn’t surprise me then, that actors do the same.
I am reminded of Socrates, who lamented the practice of memorization being replaced with writing. Today one might dismiss this idea as silly, since memorization alone is frequently associated with dumb parroting and regurgitation, neither of which imply any depth of understanding.
But from this discussion, we see the old man may have been on to something! If understanding something deeply is necessary in order to memorize it well, then one might achieve understanding as a secondary effect by aiming to memorize something by heart.
Fun facts, there is an important Islamic tradition where group of people (tens or hundreds thousands of them) called Hafiz memorize the entire Quran. If for example, God forbid, that the entire written copies either physicallly or digitally of the Quran are completely destroyed, it can be recreated completely in no time. This practice is considered a living miracle since no other holy book has this crucial feature and it is also well known that even the Pope do not memorize the complete Bible.
The Bible is about ten times the length of the Quran though. Some people like John Goetsch and Tom Meyer currently have most of it memorized nonetheless, but Christians largely believe that God will supernaturally preserve the Bible no matter what, so memorization is just for personal betterment and to better share it with others.
To add, Jesus only commanded the spread of the Gospel, and not the books or writing, but rather just teaching about Jesus and how he provides salvation through his sacrifice.
Non of the gospels were written during his presumed lifetime.
After all, the point is not that a certain selection of appropriate texts be considered the end all and be all of existence, but rather that the Bible is supposed to be a history of what other people did while under Gods rule during their lives so that you can get an idea of how to live under Gods rule in your life.
People get hung up on the dead past rather than the living present. They say God is unchanging and eternal and neglect that he built an ever-changing universe of entropy for us to live in.
Even the "Gospel" means "Good News" or "Glad Tidings". What good news comes from 2,000 year old texts? It's not news at this point, it's history.
The Good News comes from people today choosing to be better, to do better, to not oppress, to not commit evil acts against others but to do good things to other people, to say kind words from a good heart because they believe in a better world coming tomorrow.
You know, until you put it in this context, it hadn't occurred to me how--from some perspectives--"convenient" that is. :)
I mean. Bibles are everywhere. It is really hard to imagine all of them getting destroyed all at once. Even harder to imagine a scenario where that happens and yet we have humans still around after that.
We have left one on the moon! https://episcopalnewsservice.org/2019/07/19/the-only-bible-o...
I sincerely hope this doesn't get taken the wrong way but this seems like a worldly solution to a Godly problem. Is the God in the Quran not sovereign? Why would He need humans to protect the Quran?
Again, not a critique, just a curiosity.
Because even when you’re all powerful, it’s hard to find good help
The Guru Granth Sahib Ji (GGSJ) has also been memorized by some people. It’s much rarer than in Islam, but the GGSJ being written in verse with defined melodies/meter helps with memorization. It is much longer than the Quran though, and there isn’t as much emphasis on memorizing the whole thing (the daily prayers are commonly known though).
Nitpicking Alert!!!
The Pope Should be more concerned about the Gospel, I think.
I heard there are people who memorise the Quran without knowing the slightest bit of Arabic?
And there's also the Kiwi chap, Nigel Richards, who memorised the whole French Scrabble dictionary in order to win the French world Scrabble championship, without learning any French in the process.
(Whether you call what he did to the French word list 'understanding' is up for debate, I guess. I am fairly sure he went much deeper into understanding the underlying probability distributions of letters in French words than most speakers, but he couldn't read a newspaper.)
I heard there are people who memorise the Quran without knowing the slightest bit of Arabic?
True, I am doing this myself. 4 days a week and plan to continue for the next 10 years. Memorized several pages so far with a lot more to go without understanding any of it.
May I ask why? I as an atheist did memorize some part of the Bible for the fun of it but I understand the language.
Because it is important to me as a Muslim. Also it is challenging, interesting, to try and memorize an entire book.
... but wouldn't it make to learn classical Arabic alongside with that?
In Islam there's a certain reverence for memorizing the Quran, unlike in Christianity.
In fact, being a Hafiz or your child being a Hafiz is a point of pride.
This in part goes back to Islamic lore/history.
Another part is that there is the belief that there are rewards associated with, being accompanied by angels iirc.
It's possible to just memorize the words, of course. But for myself, I find that very tedious and difficult to make myself do (nor very worthwhile), and much prefer becoming deeply acquainted with the text in order to memorize it.
Yes, understanding can help memorisation. I was merely arguing against understanding being _necessary_.
Memorisation without understanding often ends up producing things like Mariah Carey's classic hit "Ken Lee".
I went to a Saturday school for many of my childhood years, as my dad wanted me to learn Arabic. They were bad at teaching the language, but did get us to read the script and memorise several Quran verses. You were supposed to get "rewards" in heaven just for memorising without understanding. To this day I can recite Al-Fatiha [0] despite not understanding a word, being an atheist, and not having prayed for maybe 15 years.
[0] https://myislam.org/surah-fatiha/
Same, as a kid there were a whole bunch of bible verses to memorize, which was required. To this day I can recite quite a few of them, and (despite now being an atheist) I still occasionally have some of them pop into my head in situations where it might be relevant. Memorization is an extremely powerful tool, and particularly religions have known and used this for millenia.
This extraordinary book from Frances Yates explains how before writing, scholars and story tellers would visualize architecture so they could store memories in rooms, then they would walk from room to room and recover memories, for example to tell very long stories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Memory
Also covered in the more contemporary book Moonwalking with Einstein with its discussion of building one’s own “memory palace.”
Also referenced a number of times in the excellent Hannibal series.
Memorization def gets a bad rap, for the reasons you mention.
Yet I bet most folks who have memorized a poem or a passage---out of an affinity for it, not when demanded by a teacher---know the value. Memorizing something means you can roll it around in your head whenever you want, think about it from this perspective or that, and let the brain really absorb the ideas the words express.
It's good.
I totally agree. I've spent time learning several poems of Robert Service (The Cremation of Sam McGee, The Spell of the Yukon, The Men Who Don't Fit In) because I've enjoyed reading them. Now, I don't need a book, I just recall one from memory any time I like. I'm not an actor so I had none of the techniques that they would use to learn lines. It was purely rote memorization through repeated readings and recitation.
I agree, but I think it does depend on what the objective is. If preserving the literal accuracy of the source material is important, then memorization deserves it's bad rap and is worthy of much criticism.
That's not to say that people can't memorize things accurately (there are plenty of kids who memorize Bible and Quran verses verbatim for example that can easily disprove that), but memories are fallible in ways that writing isn't, particularly when it comes to comparing sources for accuracy or historical value.
On the other hand, if the objective is to understand and appreciate the source, even simply for personal edification or enlightenment, then I agree completely: memorization is a wonderful technique for doing so.
Worth noting that India's oldest poetic/litergical traditions, the Vedas, were transmitted orally for at least 1500 years, and developed elaborate systems of memorization and pronounceation to ensure they passed down (almost) unmodified.
In Mauritania there is a village where most people who lived there are blind. This is how they learn to memorizw the Quran which is more than 600 pages, each have 15 lines.
Similar to how using flash cards doesn’t really help in developing that deep understanding… but the action of making them sure does.
and further complicating the situation is people like me who write not to re-read, but understand, which then helps to memorize. Circle complete!
I'm sure it's a tradeoff. Like adding a disk to a computer that only had RAM.
You have access to many orders of magnitude more data, but it is substantially slower to access it.
All considered, I'm glad we did the upgrade.
This doesn’t make much sense: actors don’t write their material, they are given it. They can’t write like they speak, and also they can’t improvise
Actors (especially big names) can and do improvise all the time, in almost all movies.
It's rare they say all lines exactly as in the script. In fact often the script gets updated with ideas that came up during shooting including improvised lines.
Just because you hear that they do, doesn't mean it's always allowed or that it will make it into the film.
Sometimes a line just isn't working and an actor or the director or the writer or a grip will come up with something that works and that's what you hear about. Those are exceptions and not the rule.
The director has the final say. Often others higher up have the final say. If he wants you to say the line as written, you will say the line as written.
I didn't say it's "always allowed". There are difficult directors with very specific vision they want to express 100%. It's that that is the exception and not the rule, however.
In general it's more common that some lines will change and be improvised by the actors, than not.
It's even practical, some lines come off as stiff when the actors tell them verbatim, others just can't be replicated in a longer emotionally charged scene (where the flow and the emotions carry the performance), and so on.
DUH!
A fascinating topic around my family is the playwrights who insist that the play be delivered precisely as written, most of whom are the same playwrights who refuse to allow genderswapping roles (even innocuously), updating pop culture references, etc. They are not the norm, and pretty much everyone understands that performance is as much a part of the creative act as writing, with all the deviations and imperfections that suggests. And that's without even getting to the idea of consciously changing the script midstream that you mentioned.
Harrison Ford says, "I know," instead of "I love you, too" (or something like that) in Empire Strikes Back's carbonite freezing scene. That's an immensely significant and meaningful update.
For actors it's slightly different, but the whole "becoming the character" part is, to me, the "writing like they speak" part. By fully inhabiting the character, they will be compelled to speak in the manner written in the given situation.
And as the other comments mention, actors very often do alter the lines. Behind the scenes footage and interviews with actors reveal this often happens because they think the screenwriter/director got it wrong in that particular moment -- that their character wouldn't respond like that.
The Han Solo example is a good one. Hours of takes saying "I love you too" and then Harrison Ford has a flash of clarity and realizes Han would NEVER respond like that. Calls for a quick take, "becomes Han Solo", says "I know" and the rest is history.
If you watch any side by side of a film audio / final and the script you'll realise what you're saying simply isnt true.
It's very rare that a conversation scene mirrors the dialogue exactly 1 to 1. Obviously there will be certain lines where the director wants exact delivery but actors very often deliver a slightly different line than as written.
If anything this frequency increases the higher level of profile / skill the actor has.
There are countless examples where a director is asked about scenes and defers the credit to the actors for improvising something particularly well or coming up with a better line to convey the same point - they are the ones, after all, in charge of personifying the character that was written. They may feel a different delivery suits the character better.
A few years ago, I came into the orbit of a public speaking coach, and he and I worked together for a few weeks. Your comment fascinates (and reassures) me, because he was emphatic that I had to abandon my own natural way of speaking entirely, and adopt a "persuasive persona" that sounded to me like a Saturday Night Live parody of a TED talk. This has exactly the opposite of the intended effect, because any anxiety I felt about speaking was multiplied by my anxiety about how I sounded and "staying in character". By comparison with the linked post, however, I was attempting to stay in a character that I didn't understand, with no thought given either to understanding what I was saying or, crucially, understanding who I was speaking to.
This got me thinking about the people who find value in his style, and I realized that the consistent feature was that they didn't care about understanding the material and, in some cases, were so incapable of doing so that the notion wouldn't occur to them. Not dumb, just not interested. They were simply transactional, and almost always very, very scared of talking in public, and this coach's method allowed them to get through it.
This also helped me realize that I don't particularly suffer from stage fright or public speaking anxiety, which has been a benefit, though it's important to note how insignificant that actually is. A family member has worked on stage with some extremely successful actors, and it's REMARKABLE how many of them have absolutely crushing stage fright. To me, that's more interesting than the line-learning thing: you take a person, someone most people in this thread would have heard of, and imagine them hiding out in a bathroom because their terrified of going onstage, then they get out there and utterly blow the room away. Something about pretending to be someone else unlocks so many actors.
This ties right back to my friction with this public speaking coach, because he was attempting to coach me into playing pretend, though without any empathy or understanding. So this guy is producing two categories of students: people like me who want to understand the material and the audience and simply speak like a better version of ourselves, and people who sound like they're selling you a car they've never driven but doing so competently, checking more "good public speaker" boxes at a superficial level.
I'm guessing the great actors and public speakers do both: love the material AND love the act of becoming a person you want to listen to.
Yeah I heavily disliked most public speaking coaches at institutions precisely because of this.
FWIW, I mostly coach juniors at work who will brilliantly describe their current project to me at their desk but then fall apart in the conference room in front of peers and seniors. Mostly it's because they're trying to recite some prepared speech that doesn't sound like they normally talk (often desperately trying to impress the room). So I tell them their mastery of the material will impress the room and you sound plenty fine when explaining it to me at your desk. I don't have a full semester of instruction time to make them develop a style -- I have one hour the day before the meeting. So it doesn't produce great political orators. But it does help produce people who can walk through some deep technical work in front of their bosses.
And love that character too. That takes some self discovery, experimentation, and practice. Which is why I referred to it as a great effort.
Addendum: To give some credibility to my method, I often point out to them that they sound their best when speaking during data reviews. These are sessions where, following some kind of test, engineers gather to review sensor outputs. You have no time to prep a speech -- these are quickly assembled within hours of a test and are very much often just a loose collection of screenshots and quick annotations and the engineer in question usually spends that time copy pasting screenshots or driving back from a test site.
But once it's their turn to talk about some really obscure looking line graph, they will deliver some great, great public speaking. Why? They've spent the last 6 hours staring at this graph and know deeply how to interpret it.
By the way, this has given me reason to believe that Investment Banking decks largely are just to force junior associates to undergo the above process.
This is my experience as well, and ironically mirrors my time as a manager. I want to understand and empathize with people, and there are managers and orgs who absolutely don't want that, and want the "people who sound like they're selling you a car"
I don't understand what does the "writing and speaking should be the same" thing is supposed to achieve for public speakers.
It means that if your speech is written in the way you casually speak, it's easier to remember it (since you'll not have to remember fancy words or turns of phrase that you wouldn't normally use). The idea being that it's easier to remember or reconstruct speech that comes natural anyway.
It will also be easier to improvise and fit the tone if you forget what you were supposed to say.
Aside from the above, which are about memory, it's also good for making it natural: you'll sound more authentic/natural speaking as you normally do, than trying some fancy speech, and it will also be easier to add off the cuff remarks that also fit the tone, like an idea that occured in the moment, or to respond to something that happens just before/while speaking.
I'd add to those the necessity to have some distance from the material to avoid the recency effect. You can have that distance either because you'll be talking about something you haven't worked on for at least a couple of weeks, or because you've developed an ability to retain a birds eye view and adopt an outsider's perspective even when you're in the weeds. A lot of academic talks go wrong because, although the speaker deeply understands their topic, that teeny tiny detail that they were fiddling with yesterday is really not the thing they should try to communicate today, but they can't help themselves. Yet ask that same person to talk about their previous work, and you'll get a high quality impromptu introduction to the field.