Rob Reece, head of the department of Actors’ Studio at the Whistling Woods International (WWI) in Mumbai, keeps shuttling between his phoren home and desi workplace. He took over the reins of responsibility after accomplishing about three decades of an enriching teaching experience at his own US-based workshop. He has both acted and directed in films, television series and theatre projects for nearly 40 years, and has worked with Hollywood big shots, like Jonathan Demme, Martin Landeau, Eric Morris, Sydney Pollack and Lee Strasberg, John Sturges, Michael Caine and Clint Eastwood. Reece, who is referred to as Hollywood’s “acting guru”, has been, since several ages, holding the honourable post of a life-time member of The Actors Studio and the Screen Actors Guild in the US. Since establishing his workshop and production company in 1980, Reece has been a leading proponent of “method acting” derived from Constantin Stanislavski, Lee Strasberg, Tibetan Zen, Depth Psychology, Theory of Holes and Actors Studio. At his new stint, Reece has introduced the magic of “method acting” to the bright and competent candidates of WWI in a series of intensive classes and workshops.

Excerpts from an interview:

Q: Why have you opted to join an Indian acting institute? How did the association happen?
A: Well, I have had a great passion for acting and filmmaking disciplines for over 40 years. Earlier on, I was enticed by the kind of training or “school of acting” that some of the best actors across the world have emerged and evolved with. This is when I discovered a method of training which had originated from Constantin Stanislavski, Richard Boleslavsky, Lee Strasberg and several other stalwarts who were devoted towards solving the usual, recurrent creative problems of talented actors.
The opportunity to introduce a new system that answers the paradox of acting to the many talented brigade of actors in India is an irresistible challenge in its own. Simultaneously, I was informed about the opening of a prestigious post of HOD at the Whistling Woods International’s acting department by its dean, a very accomplished entertainment executive and my dear friend, John J. Lee. After sending a detailed proposal, I was invited to India where I met the ace “showman” filmmaker Subash Ghaiji. His sincerity, integrity, unyielding passion and foresighted vision for excellence was inspiring. I feel extremely honoured to be invited to work and co-ordinate at the epicentre of a leading artistic and professional community within the precincts of a globally acclaimed academy like Whistling Woods.

Q: Since you’re an experienced acting teacher and an exponent at your craft, what difference have you been noticing between a US workshop and an Indian acting school apart from the basic cultural differences?
A: Actors all over the world mostly possess the same human and acting issues. If we map the socio-psychological landscapes in general, we’ll find that the majority of us tend to have similar problems arising in areas of creativity, vulnerability, expression and spontaneity. However, there are minor exceptions to this rulebook. Indian pupils are often prone to be more reserved and conflict-phobic than the US students. They need considerable amount of time to open up from their shell with complete conviction. Moreover, they are more sensitively private about their sexuality and hesitant to the public displays of affection between men and women.

Q: You have practically straddled with all the three mediums — be it films, television and theatre, for nearly four decades. What is the difference or similarity among these three departments and how difficult or challenging was it for you to switch gears from one path to another in terms of acting as well as direction?
A: The foundation of all artistic expressions comes from the same hot-spring of creativity, which is predominantly unconscious or subconscious to be precise. And the essential truth of our core identities — which revolves around who actually we are. The responsibility of an actor plus director is to tell stories that convey human conditions emanating from this valley of truth and remains the same throughout each artistic medium. The vital differences are only the technical adjustments that each medium complies with. In theatre, the actor has the luxury of longer rehearsal times, but needs to calibrate his instrument to be louder or more animated in his gestures depending upon the size of his theatrical canvas. In film acting, the same authenticity of a character applies even more, because the camera captures everything in minute detail. “Less is more” is the dictum, more often than not permissible here. There are less extended rehearsals than theatre but unlike the latter, there is always an opportunity to redo it with each take. Television is often the most demanding space as there is limited time to rehearse and you may not receive your lines till before the shoot starts. Acting well on tube actually requires more skills as you have very little time to prepare and warm up to the final take. That is why the tendency to ham or indulge into superficial acting looms larger on small-screen. Film and television acting require a comfort-zone and know-how of basic parameters related to the key essentials like camera, sound and lights but a good director will always guide the raw, less experienced greenhorns. One of the director’s tasks is to remain objective and an actor’s task to be subjective. Directing in each different medium has its obvious technical differences but a helmer’s chief task is to create an ambience wherein actors, both established as well as novices feel free to deliver their goods and up the ante. Film and television have immense possibilities to be more intimate with close-ups that invite us to sneak a peek into a character’s life. Television and particularly cinema are a director’s medium who is the supreme captain of the ship. His palette is always full with a riot of different paints and brushstrokes, readily available at his disposal.

Q: You’ve been hailed as Hollywood’s acting guru and have worked with a host of industry bigwigs at the US-based Actors Studio. How has been the experience all along?
A. Working with and observing the very talented and committed bunch of artistes first-hand has always been truly inspiring and necessarily an important part of my entire creative exercise to facilitate that crucial development of my craft. Honestly, I have been blessed to learn a trick or two from all of them.

Q: Is it always feasible to maintain your natural self on 70 mm or sometimes “method acting” is necessary to suit one’s characterisation and meet the demands of a film script, especially in mythological dramas or in a period piece?
A: The best actor’s training stint lifts an actor to a different layer altogether and lends him with supple flexibility in optimum utilisation of his gifts. The truth is that, there is no one else up there acting in the clouds but the actor himself below on the ground and if he is blessed with a wiseman’s acumen and a bonafide craft to boot as his veritable asset, he is then certainly able to reject and select and use different facets of himself to not only deliver justice but add credence to any given role under the arclights. A good example is Hollywood’s living legend Al Pacino (President of The Actors Studio) who traverses the range between a Michael Corleone’s character in Coppola’s ageless celluloid gem — Godfather — a realistic historical drama and that of Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy, a story based on cartoon characters which is in turn an exaggeration of reality in a mythical way. Both characters are compelling but are evoked from a truth based on developed circumstances spawning out of the storyline. Etching out a role in a historical plot simply requires a well-trained actor to create and employ all the cardinal aspects of a given time, place, society and relationships in a comprehensive manner. The key criterion of an actor is self-belief and 100 per cent assurance in his portrayals on screen. If the actor cannot believe himself, no one else would. Period.

Q: While handling the current crop of Indian students who are wannabe actors at the same time, did you ever feel that they are abreast with world cinema and can be absorbed into the same fold? What’s your opinion on Bollywood actors?
A: There are several eye-grabbing talented pupils at Whistling Woods and many are familiar with word cinema or are currently learning the finer nuances of it. In terms of quality analysis, good or great actors are always able to surpass their local roots to play upon a world stage. And there are some feisty, bold and defiant filmmakers who have it in them to break away from a prefixed mould and tread the offbeat track. One such breakthrough independent film is undoubtedly Firaq by Nandita Das. Also, the film she was featured in as a tormented Rajasthani woman-crusader — Bawandar by Jug Mundra — is a classic example of issue-based thought-provoking projects in India. Contrarily, mainstream Bollywood bandwagon has to play it by the ear and pander to the fiscal factor.