So like did anyone understand any central point that this guy was trying to make?? I mean I respect his opinions and viewpoints and I appreciate that he came to teach us what he knows but the manner in which he chose to instruct us was incredibly ambiguous and scattered. I mean if we're to imagine that all the oxygen molecules were clay compounds, then how could we even breath? And if we're told to imagine that there is a lump of clay in our hands and supposed to mold it, then how are we to move our hands outwardly and move like a rag doll-- what in the hell? And the flying, molding, and floating thing is strange in itself. And the ball thing has little to do with acting and focus as much as ergonomical diligence and practice ---- "isn't that why we're all actors instead of athletes?" quoth Sam (the rational male one) ---- Speaking of which, my female Sam was Sam (once again, the rational male one) with that 80's talk-show host wig on which made me laugh. So Stanislavsky's approach mutated somehow through Chekov's approach and then through our guest today.

I apologize if this is in any way rude or offensive to anyone, but i'm simply airing my opinion.

Love ya everyone
-- BrAd