{"id":154648,"date":"2020-01-14T12:09:26","date_gmt":"2020-01-14T17:09:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/?p=154648"},"modified":"2022-09-30T14:01:15","modified_gmt":"2022-09-30T18:01:15","slug":"interview-with-jennifer-mccabe-on-camera-acting-training-and-the-actors-process","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/?p=154648","title":{"rendered":"Interview with Jennifer McCabe: On-camera Acting Training and the Actor’s Process"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jennifer McCabe<\/a> has been teaching acting and directing in various capacities for almost 25 years. After getting her Master\u2019s through the MFA program at the Actors Studio, she first worked with Enact<\/a>, a not-for-profit arts-in-education company which goes into at-risk schools and detention centers throughout New York City, using theatre games as drama therapy for conflict resolution and behavior modification. She started an acting class at the YMCA in Hoboken, gathering a small local following. After appearing as a lead in the independent film The Pack<\/em>, the film’s director Alyssa R. Bennett brought her on as faculty at Stonestreet Studios<\/a>, the official onscreen acting school for students at NYU Tisch drama. McCabe teaches on-camera acting techniques, and also supervises and directs the students\u2019 film projects. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nJennifer McCabe; photo: Lev Gorn<\/i><\/p>\n

\nCurrently, McCabe teaches at Stonestreet, as well as at the UGFTV NYU Film<\/a> program, teaching Rehearsal Techniques and Performance Strategies for student directors, helping them understand how to collaborate with actors. McCabe is also an Assistant Professor at Lehman College<\/a>, in the Department of Music, Multimedia, Theatre & Dance. <\/p>\n

Her private studio, Jennifer McCabe Studios, offers private acting classes in NYC as well as retreats and workshops at her studio in the Hudson Valley.<\/p>\n

Alongside all of this, McCabe has also had a busy career as an actress, originating roles on off-Broadway, working regionally as well as on network and cable television and in film. McCabe\u2019s knowledge and approach in her teaching is not theoretical. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nMcCabe in “Blindspot”. NBC series; 2016<\/i><\/p>\n

Over the years, McCabe has developed a series of exercises which are not just revelatory in concept but also practical in application. In her experience as a teacher, she witnessed young actors baffled at how to transition from stage training to on-camera acting. She witnessed self-consciousness in preparation and process, students second-guessing their choices, students with a lack of freedom in their work. Self-consciousness and a lack of freedom is death to creativity! <\/p>\n

McCabe’s concepts and exercises are specific to her as a teacher, developed by her through painstaking work and study and observation to address different challenges actors face. There’s \u201cJump Then Justify\u00ae\u201d (it\u2019s now a registered trademark), and \u201cThe Detective\u201d, and \u201cThe Tightrope\u201d and more (I quoted McCabe on her “Sunbeams” exercise<\/a> in my essay about Kristen Stewart). She is working on a book where she elaborates on these (and many other) ideas and exercises, expressing her specific “stamp” as a teacher on the eclectic study of acting. <\/p>\n

Recently, I sat down with McCabe to interview her about her work. This is just the tip of the iceberg with her approach, but I thought it would be really interesting for people to learn more about what she does, the exercises she has created, and why.<\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nPhoto: Alex Schaefer<\/i><\/p>\n

\nSheila O’Malley:<\/big> You\u2019ve been acting and teaching for the majority of your life. Your parents were actors. Were you inspired by them to go into it, or was it just the air you breathed, and so it\u2019s a natural progression for you?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jennifer McCabe:<\/big><\/strong> Probably the latter. I think it\u2019s an example of experiential learning. Experiential learning is unconscious. Knowledge seeps into your skin, you don\u2019t really know that you have the perspective that you have, and yet you are still able to apply it.<\/p>\n

SOM:<\/big> In my work as a film critic, I have found a lot of misunderstanding about the director-actor relationship, and what collaboration even means or looks like. You teach the film students at NYU collaboration techniques, so I wonder what collaboration means to you, and how do you translate that to the students?<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> True collaboration means: if you have red, and if I have blue, we create purple. It\u2019s pretty straightforward. The result of the collaboration came out of each of us contributing our own part, and the result never existed prior to that. Collaboration is not me conceding<\/em> to you, or you dealing<\/em> with my ideas and begrudgingly following through. That\u2019s not collaboration. Collaboration is: We are creating something that never existed before. What you see onscreen when you pay your 15 bucks and you eat your popcorn would never have existed without the collaborative process between the actors and the directors.<\/p>\n

SOM:<\/big> Even directors who are not known for being actors\u2019 directors, all of them say 90% of the job is casting well, and then just mainly leaving the actors alone to do what they do.<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> I tell my students that when they try to guide actors in a scene, it can be something small. Go and whisper to an actor about his scene partner, \u201cShe owes you 50 bucks.\u201d Whatever it is. It can ignite the scene. That\u2019s the director\u2019s job. They tweak. They finalize tone. They support an actor.<\/p>\n

SOM:<\/big> What are some of the things you noticed when working with young students that made you develop all of these different exercises and workshops we\u2019re going to be talking about?<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> My observation was that the NYU drama student spent the majority of their time second-guessing themselves, second-guessing their choices. When you enter a rigorous conservatory program like that at such a young age, it is mostly about seeking approval from a teacher. So that when the students come to advanced training at Stonestreet, many of them second-guess every choice they make, and they have almost no sense of agency or autonomy in their own work. Who are you as an actor, but even more so, who are you as a person? Their confusion makes sense. They\u2019re young! They\u2019re 20, 21 years old when they get to Stonestreet. Their relationship to acting is, \u201cAm I doing the right thing for the teacher?\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nMcCabe teaching a scene class<\/i><\/p>\n

SOM:<\/big> Do they feel like they can\u2019t make mistakes?<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> Not only do they feel like they can\u2019t make mistakes, but most of them also don\u2019t have a relationship to process<\/em>. <\/p>\n

What I mean by process is: You and I grew up where you start somewhere and maybe 10 years later you have a little result from that 10-year process. There\u2019s a process you must undergo in order to gain the result that you are seeking. But these kids have no concept of it as a process. <\/p>\n

The whole other part of it is: who am I as a human being? Can I enjoy<\/em> myself in this process of what I\u2019ve chosen to do with my life? <\/p>\n

The Lehman students are different from the NYU students. Many of the Lehman students have full-time jobs and families, there are a lot of different cultures and backgrounds. There\u2019s also less technique, because they haven\u2019t come up through a conservatory program like the NYU students have. <\/p>\n

Work ethic is the main thing that unifies people who are studying acting, regardless of their background. How hard do you want to work, what\u2019s your relationship to your own process, and – very important – are you having any fun? Process should be fun. If those things aren\u2019t in place, then your demise is imminent. You\u2019re not going to last. <\/p>\n

You have to understand what you love about it and you have to be willing to do the work.<\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nJennifer McCabe, directing \u201cSince Feeling Is First\u201d with DP Steven Gladstone. Produced by Stonestreet Studios (2010).<\/i><\/p>\n

Justification<\/strong><\/h1>\n

SOM:<\/big> I really want to hear about this workshop you\u2019ve developed called Jump Then Justify, but first: Can you talk about the concept of \u201cjustification\u201d for actors, for those who might not understand? There\u2019s justification in blocking, like, \u201cIf I leave the room, I have to have a reason for leaving.\u201d But what are the less obvious forms of justification?<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> Let\u2019s say, for example, you get a script and there\u2019s a line, and it\u2019s all caps, with exclamation points, \u201cI AM SO ANGRY!!!\u201d Chances are the actor will feel an obligation to scream the line, since it\u2019s capped with exclamation points and also the line SAYS \u201cI am so angry.\u201d Of course we want to oblige. Now, if you\u2019re Al Pacino<\/strong>, you\u2019ll eat a donut and say it with a smile on your face.<\/p>\n

SOM:<\/big> He would probably scream it though.<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> You\u2019re right. Robert De Niro<\/strong> would be the smiling donut-eater. But if you scream the line just because the script says you have to, then what an audience could potentially see is that the line isn\u2019t coming from an authentic place. An audience may think, \u201cWhy is that person screaming? They don\u2019t seem upset. The person who spoke to them didn\u2019t seem to evoke that response.\u201d This is the \u201cpinch and the ouch\u201d of Sanford Meisner<\/strong>\u2019s work<\/a>. You don\u2019t say \u201couch\u201d if you haven\u2019t been \u201cpinched.\u201d And how loud you \u201couch\u201d is dependent on how hard or soft you\u2019ve been \u201cpinched\u201d. <\/p>\n

If you want to honor the script and scream the line \u2013 which I recommend \u2013 although you don\u2019t always have to \u2013 then you have to justify<\/em> where that loud scream is coming from. Is it coming from what\u2019s happening internally for the character and they\u2019ve held off expressing it until that moment? Or did something the other character say to them really piss them off? <\/p>\n

Justification means that the way you say a line has to be believable for YOU. Of course, \u201cfake it til you make it\u201d can work too. Lee Strasberg<\/strong> said that. There are moments where you maybe don\u2019t believe what you\u2019re doing but an audience believes it \u2013 that\u2019s legitimate, and it\u2019s part of what it means to be an actor. <\/p>\n

But 99% of the time, an actor has to make sure that everything they say and everything they do \u2013 why I cross to the kitchen and grab the Cheerios at that specific moment \u2013 has to be justified.<\/p>\n

Jump Then Justify\u00ae<\/strong><\/h1>\n

SOM:<\/big> So how did the \u201cJump Then Justify\u201d workshop come about, and what is it designed to address?<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> When I was acting in high school and college \u2013 before my serious training in grad school \u2013 I felt free as a bird. I was totally self-expressed onstage. Every moment I had felt justified. I was tapping into everything that had come before, all of my experiential learning, and it was being expressed through my acting.<\/p>\n

The reason Jump Then Justify came up was that I wasn\u2019t seeing this kind of freedom with the students at NYU. I teach an on-camera acting class at Stonestreet, and by the time they get to me, they have already had two and a half years of training, Sanford Meisner Repetition exercises<\/a>, Sense Memory<\/a>, other techniques. They\u2019re coming in to my class and doing prepared scenes for the camera, and after we shoot the scene, we talk about it and what I was finding was, I\u2019d say to them, \u201cDid you do anything to prepare for the scene?\u201d And the answers were always very general. In other words, they were totally shut down, or they were making weak choices, or they were second-guessing the choices they did<\/em> make. There was a total lack of confidence and lack of a sense of ownership over their own process as an actor. Through no fault of their own, by the way.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

.—.Apr 11, 2010 : Bronx, NY :.Jen McCabe directs NYU student film on 18th Street between 2nd & 1st. Produced by Stonestreet Studios.—.Rob Bennett for The New York Times<\/p><\/div>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> One of the main differences between preparing for a scene for stage and preparing a scene for screen, is there\u2019s very little rehearsal for screen acting. The rehearsal for a play is the opportunity for an actor to form the character and create beats and feel the music of the piece. For screen, that happens alone at home in front of a mirror and you\u2019re making all your continuity choices \u2013 that translates as \u201cblocking,\u201d by the way \u2013 all of those get established and determined before you set foot on set. It\u2019s a very solitary process.<\/p>\n

SOM:<\/big> Susan Sarandon said stage acting is like sex, and screen acting is like masturbation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> That\u2019s great! Michael Caine<\/strong> said, \u201cPlays are performed. Movies are made.\u201d So you have to have a full sense of autonomy as an actor when you set foot on set. You have to be able to take care of yourself 100%. The rehearsal process for stage is the whole reason that people do theatre, quite frankly. Yeah, it\u2019s great having a live audience, but the rehearsal process is what\u2019s really glorious. <\/p>\n

So the NYU students were accustomed to having time to work, to having a discovery process under the guidance of a teacher, who helped them formulate their performance, and the choices they made in the scene. But in the real world, you\u2019ve gotta come with all of your choices already made, and<\/em> the justification for every single one of your choices. Your script analysis has to be on point.<\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nJennifer McCabe directing \u201cChemistry Project\u201d. Produced by Stonestreet Studios (2009)<\/i><\/p>\n

Freud\u2019s Theory of Primary Process and Secondary Process Thinking<\/strong><\/h2>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> And so I became obsessed with why the NYU actors were second-guessing themselves and experiencing, as a result, a lack of freedom of expression.<\/p>\n

I came across Freud\u2019s theory of primary process and secondary process thinking in Richard Hornby<\/strong>\u2019s book The End Of Acting<\/a>\"\"<\/em>. It fascinated me, so I started to do more research into it. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\nPrimary process thinking originates from a primary place: instinct, impulse, going with your gut, the Id. Secondary process thinking is logic, reason, analysis.<\/p>\n

I wondered how this might apply to creating characters. Typically what actors do is they\u2019ll read the script, they\u2019ll analyze the script, break down beats \u2013 all of which you\u2019re supposed to do \u2013 but when they create characters as a result of all this work, they are creating characters from secondary<\/em> process thinking. It\u2019s all from analysis of the text. <\/p>\n

What I wanted to explore was: what about creating a fully realized character in just five minutes<\/em> using only primary<\/em> process thinking, your imagination, going with your gut, impulse. This is the \u201cJump\u201d part of the exercise. I have a pile of photographs on a table, photographs of people – regular people, not celebrities – taken from magazines or books or whatever. Each student picks a photograph, looks at it, and then they have to get up and \u201cbe\u201d the character for an on-camera interview, where I speak to \u201cthe character\u201d and ask them questions. And what happens is the character is developed instantly<\/em>, through the actor\u2019s imagination but also the actor\u2019s unconscious<\/em>, which is what I am most interested in. Experiencing the unconscious<\/em> creation of a character is primary process thinking.<\/p>\n

And then after you do that, everything gets justified. The Jump is primary process. The Justify is secondary<\/em> process: everything gets justified, every choice you make, but since the character came from your unconscious, it\u2019s already justified. You\u2019ve created a character, who has authentic responses coming out of a primary process place.<\/p>\n

The most important component I have discovered in developing this workshop is that they must do the primary process part first. If you do secondary process first, and then move to primary, it doesn\u2019t work. <\/p>\n

So what happens is, they look at the photograph of a person for five minutes, and then get up to do the interview, and they have to answer my questions in character, and it\u2019s unbelievable the stuff that happens. It\u2019s total transformation. I ask \u201cWhat are your hobbies?\u201d and out comes the answer. There\u2019s no hesitation, no second-guessing! I\u2019ll ask: \u201cWhat do you like to eat?\u201d And the \u201ccharacter\u201d will say, \u201cWELL! I DEFinitely don\u2019t like SPAGHETTI, let me tell you that right NOW\u201d and there\u2019s a lot of bigness of behavior, there\u2019s confidence and aliveness, they\u2019re unpredictable, spontaneous, there\u2019s weeping, there\u2019s anger, it\u2019s incredible to watch! I do this exercise on camera, not just because you get to see them up close but also because it helps create the illusion that it is a real interview. The students thrive in this exercise.<\/p>\n

SOM:<\/big> It reminds me a little bit of all of the \u201ccouple interviews\u201d in When Harry Met Sally<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> That\u2019s it exactly. And there are a couple of different ways I\u2019ve applied it. Actors can use it for auditions. When an actor gets a breakdown for an audition, they\u2019ll get 3 or 4 sentences that describe the character, and they\u2019ll also get a set of sides, and\/or if it\u2019s a film they\u2019ll get the script. The first thing the actor does is scour the sides for their role and they start trying to memorize the lines right away, and if they have the script, they\u2019ll read it over and over. This is all good. <\/p>\n

Instead, though, what I have explored with my students is: don\u2019t read the sides first. Just look at the character breakdown, the 4 or 5 sentences that describe the character: \u201cDown-and-out mom, grew up in the outskirts of Chicago, addicted to meth<\/em>\u201d \u2013 whatever. Go on Google images, look in magazines, find a person that you think looks like this, a person you have in your head after reading those sentences. And then stare at this picture. And then go around your home doing some physical activity as<\/em> this character. Wash the dishes as this character. Only after that\u2019s done do you go to the text. <\/p>\n

In doing this, you have created a character that no one has created before. Whatever you do will be not typical. It will not be a stock character. It will be unique to you, AND you have ownership over your own process. It\u2019s a beautiful way to create a character. The freedom I get to witness as a teacher is fantastic, and best of all, they\u2019re having FUN! It\u2019s not enough to just interpret text and say the lines. There\u2019s a whole other world at work here.<\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nMcCabe in “The Joke’s On Them”, written\/directed by Gary O. Bennett; stills by Gary O. Bennett (2019)<\/i><\/p>\n

SOM:<\/big> In that zone you describe, the zone the students reach during \u201cJump Then Justify,\u201d it\u2019s almost like they really can\u2019t do anything wrong.<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> You cannot do anything wrong during this exercise. That\u2019s exactly it. Nothing. And once you have a visceral experience of that, especially as a young actor with a lot of self-doubt, you don\u2019t forget it. That experience is now in you. It\u2019s become experiential learning for you. This is also what directors need from actors, and what casting directors need to see in an audition: actors who are confident enough in their process to be like: \u201cI\u2019ve made this choice, it might be wrong, but every single choice is mine, and every moment is justified.\u201d If you present only red, they can work with that, they can counter with: \u201cLove all that red, now just give me only blue.\u201d Or \u201cgive me less red.\u201d If you go in there and give them all the colors of the rainbow, it\u2019s too much, it\u2019s too general.<\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nMcCabe filming\/directing “Pleasure Princess\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

The Channels<\/strong><\/h1>\n

SOM:<\/big> Can you talk about the differences between stage acting and screen acting, and how you help actors who might be stage-trained to transition to the different medium? You\u2019ve developed some exercises to deal with this.<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> One of my jobs is to teach them techniques for screen and how to take what they\u2019ve already learned doing plays and re-calibrate<\/em> it for the screen. One of the images I have used is this idea of Channels<\/strong>. <\/p>\n

For stage, the actor has a lot of different Channels through which they can communicate. Blocking is a Channel in which to express the character, the objective, the conflict: they can cross down center, they can cross up left. They can express status \u2013 dominance, submission \u2013 through blocking. Another Channel is gesturing. Raising your arm up to your head to express exhaustion or overwhelm, pointing at someone, turning around quickly, putting your hands on your hips in musical theatre! Skipping onto stage. All a channel for an actor to communicate. The Voice. Lots of prosody and variance, lots of ups and downs. And then facial expressions! A big expression to reach the person in the 120th row, is another Channel, another opportunity to express.<\/p>\n

For screen, the actor really only has one channel, essentially. In reality, they have more than one channel, but when they\u2019re learning this medium, when they\u2019re just starting out, it literally looks like they\u2019re the Tin Man up there, because they have the camera on them, and they freeze up. So it helps them to focus on one Channel.<\/p>\n

For the most part, cinema is about the face and the eyes. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nNorma Shearer, “A Free Soul” (1931)<\/i><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> When I work with actors on how to re-calibrate for the screen, I use the example of a body of water with all of these little channels coming into it. If you cut off the channels, leaving only one \u2013 the face and the eyes \u2013 the pressure increases. The emotional life doesn\u2019t disappear from the channels you cut off – in fact, it\u2019s more<\/em>, because it\u2019s all being forced into one place. <\/p>\n

Our job as actors is to figure out how to craft that, how to use<\/em> that. Otherwise, actors would just be having catharsis all over the screen and that\u2019s not what we go to the movies to see. We go to the movies so we<\/em> can have the catharsis, and the actor crafts the performance so that we get to have that catharsis. I mean, actors have moments<\/em> of catharsis, but for the most part \u2013 what leads up to the catharsis has to be highly calibrated by the actor. <\/p>\n

This leads to what I call The Detective<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The Detective<\/strong><\/h1>\n

\n\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\nJM:<\/big><\/strong> The main difference between a stage audience and a screen audience is that the screen audience needs to be a detective when they\u2019re watching something. They need to put on the fedora and grab the curvy pipe and the spiral notebook and they need to investigate what they\u2019re watching. Now, it\u2019s passive<\/em> investigation, but it\u2019s what keeps them engaged and keeps them from changing the channel or checking their phone. You get invested in trying to figure out what is happening onscreen. <\/p>\n

When an actor does a scene, and his<\/em> eyes are dry, but you in the audience are sobbing \u2013 that means the actor is doing something right. He\u2019s giving you the opportunity to have your own experience of the performance. He\u2019s not telling you how to feel. He\u2019s not forcing you to feel a specific thing. That is the goal.<\/p>\n

One of the most challenging aspects for an actor who\u2019s come from stage is: if you think of John Patrick Shanley<\/strong>, he writes heart-on-your-sleeve characters who are also deeply damaged and traumatized. We have to be able to honor the musicality of his writing and the rhythm and tempo of his characters, as well as their big-ness, and we have to have that read in a 300-seat house. Therefore that requires us to express it like Cher<\/strong> expresses \u201cSnap out of it!\u201d in Moonstruck<\/em>. Your acting has to be that on point, you have to act the line as it\u2019s written \u2013 in Shanley, it\u2019s all in the language, the emotion is all in the line<\/em>. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nCher, “Moonstruck” (1987)<\/i><\/p>\n

\nJM:<\/big><\/strong> And this is most of theatre, because the venue \u2013 with the fourth wall \u2013 means that you\u2019re on a proscenium, we\u2019re watching you, and therefore you must show us something<\/em>. <\/p>\n

But for screen, you\u2019re being invited into something you\u2019re not really supposed to be involved in, you\u2019re witnessing something private. An actor is trained for stage to honor the venue, and be respectful of the fact that \u201cThe play\u2019s the thing\u201d. For screen, \u201cthe play is NOT the thing.\u201d I mean, it is<\/em>, but it isn\u2019t. It\u2019s the moment-to-moment subtextual inner monologue that is “the thing” onscreen, the vulnerability of a human in front of me whom I am witnessing having an experience.<\/p>\n

SOM:<\/big> How does an actor allow the audience to be a detective?<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> Don\u2019t help the audience. This is one of the things I noticed in the Netflix series Unbelievable<\/em>. I love Toni Colette<\/strong>, but the difference between her performance and Merritt Wever<\/strong>\u2019s performance is kind of what I am talking about. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nMerritt Wever, “Unbelievable” (2019)<\/i><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> Wever did not help the audience, and her performance is incredible because of it. Colette had moments where she helped the audience. Even with something as small as an eyeroll, you\u2019re helping an audience, you\u2019re helping them to understand what your state of mind is. Don\u2019t. Just have the state of mind<\/em>. <\/p>\n

The audience wants to be the detective, and so let them<\/em>. By showing<\/em> them, by indicating<\/em>, we are taking that opportunity away from them, we\u2019re not allowing them to make up their own minds about what\u2019s happening in the moment. <\/p>\n

A connected idea to all of this is what I call The Pollock<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The Pollock<\/strong><\/h1>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> Our responsibility as an actor is that everything you do and say is justified. That is your first responsibility. And then you have a responsibility to communicate it. <\/p>\n

The communication is like Jackson Pollock<\/strong> flinging the paint onto the canvas. What ends up on the canvas, there\u2019s nothing he can do about that. He\u2019s only responsible for the origination of whatever conjured the movement of his arm \u2013 intellectual, emotional, physical, mental. Whatever ends up on the canvas – shapes, textures \u2013 the viewer takes care of the rest. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nHans Namuth, Jackson Pollock at work in 1950. Photo: \u00a91991 Hans Namuth Estate Courtesy Center for Creative Photography, the University of Arizona.<\/i><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> This process is the crafting<\/em> part of it. You\u2019re fully responsible for the moment you\u2019re crafting. What I mean by crafting is very specific, as in: I decide I am going to look up after the line, as opposed to looking up before the line. That\u2019s a moment you choose to craft because it will tell the story slightly differently. We are fully responsible for our crafting. However, once it\u2019s done, it\u2019s not our responsibility. Leave room for the audience to be a Detective. <\/p>\n

This is all connected to my Tightrope<\/strong> theory. The Tightrope is about an actor\u2019s experience of what is or is not a \u201cgood take.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Tightrope<\/strong><\/h1>\n

\n\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\nJM:<\/big><\/strong> One of the problems I was coming up against with young actors on-camera is that because they\u2019ve come from stage training, they\u2019re accustomed to a rehearsal process, and so when they are asked to hit their mark, say their lines, keep the continuity, make sure they\u2019re listening, all with lights in their face, and crew members around them, their judgment of what it means to \u201cland a take\u201d is when all of those things are in place, and they don\u2019t screw up. What\u2019s the goal of a tightrope walker, would you say?<\/p>\n

SOM:<\/big> Don\u2019t fall.<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> In order to what?<\/p>\n

SOM:<\/big> So I get across the wire.<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> That\u2019s the goal. If you equate that process to a \u201ctake\u201d in film, then my students think: \u201cI didn\u2019t fuck up a line, I hit my mark, I was listening and responding, and therefore it was a good take.\u201d NOT TRUE.<\/p>\n

Now there are exceptions, because when you\u2019re doing a Law & Order<\/em>, and you have to say a line, open a door, and hand someone a file, it\u2019s specific and there\u2019s not room for exploration. But \u2013 and I can say this, because I am an actor and I have experienced it \u2013 there is room for this whole other world of acting for camera.<\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nMcCabe on “Law & Order: SVU” (2011)<\/i><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> Here\u2019s how it goes: We roll camera, we slate, we have speed, we have action. And the actor starts walking across the tightrope of the \u201ctake\u201d. They say their lines, they take their jacket off \u2013 but then they stop listening, because they have mental tension, and then they forget their line, and then they miss their mark \u2013 and so they have fallen off the tightrope. <\/p>\n

And here\u2019s my thing: That\u2019s actually the goal, right there<\/em>. The camera\u2019s still on you (unless you say \u201cCan we start again?\u201d and then you\u2019ve ruined the take. Don\u2019t ever do that.) But it\u2019s what you do with the moment when you\u2019re off the tightrope<\/em> that IS acting. It\u2019s not only acting, actually, it\u2019s the human condition. It\u2019s vulnerable. You\u2019re in between two worlds. You\u2019re in the given circumstances \u2013 \u201cgiven\u201d meaning the factual circumstances: I\u2019m an actor in front of a camera, I\u2019m on a set, I\u2019m on location \u2013 and also the imaginary circumstances \u2013 I am this character in this fictional world. When you fall off the tightrope, you are in the two worlds simultaneously, which is a fascinating place for a human being to be. <\/p>\n

And my thing is: That\u2019s the gig. <\/em><\/p>\n

It\u2019s what you choose to do in that moment when you fall off the tightrope – your grace under pressure – that matters.<\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nMcCabe directing \u201cSince Feeling Is First\u201d Produced by Stonestreet Studios (2010)<\/i><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> There are things you can do: you can breathe, you can focus on the givens \u2013 \u201cI\u2019m aware of my sneakers, I\u2019m aware of the sound of traffic\u201d, whatever \u2013 or you can engage in a physical activity which reduces tension and gets you focused on something other than the fact that you\u2019ve fallen off the tightrope. <\/p>\n

If you were to keep the camera rolling \u2013 and you can trust that they will, because they don\u2019t want to cut \u2013 then you get to have ownership over the moment when you\u2019re off the tightrope.<\/p>\n

And then you get back on the tightrope, and you hit your mark, and so you go back and forth and back and forth between these two worlds. I find it very freeing for actors who feel locked in the on-camera process, having come from stage, where they are allowed to move around, or stop a scene during rehearsal and try it again. You can\u2019t try it again while camera\u2019s rolling. You have to keep going. It\u2019s your job to learn about your instrument so that you get to say how the rest of the take goes<\/em>. You are not a victim to the take.<\/p>\n

This is what training is about. You have to be in complete control of your instrument as an actor, and this takes a ton of training. If you can have full freedom and ownership over the moments when you are \u201coff\u201d the tightrope \u2026 that IS on-camera acting.<\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nMcCabe on “The Americans” (2015)<\/i><\/p>\n

SOM:<\/big> Do the students take to it?<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> No. It continues to be a really big challenge for them. Honestly, I think it gets easier as you get older, because ultimately it is about an understanding of the self. You need technique and training, but once you have a sense of autonomy as a self, once you\u2019re not afraid of being seen, it does get easier. Being seen by the camera is being seen by the audience. Being seen is very vulnerable. Most students of acting hide behind the character, because that\u2019s what they did when they did Guys and Dolls<\/em> in high school \u2013 but that doesn\u2019t translate for screen. At all. Even a Jerry Lewis<\/strong> or a John Ritter<\/strong> or a Peter Sellers<\/strong> or a Charlie Chaplin<\/strong> \u2026 they do \u201cbig\u201d work, but their performances are not Guys and Dolls<\/em> in high school. They are all<\/em> willing to be seen by the audience, which means they are all<\/em> vulnerable. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nJerry Lewis, “Artists and Models” (1955)<\/i><\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nPeter Sellers, “The Pink Panther” (1963)<\/i><\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nJohn Ritter, “Hero at Large” (1980)<\/i><\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nCharlie Chaplin, “The Gold Rush” (1925)<\/i><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> If you\u2019re not willing to be vulnerable, if you\u2019re not willing to be seen, then you will do very general work, very safe work. <\/p>\n

And this makes me think of The Revenant<\/em>. It\u2019s been on my mind and it\u2019s connected to this.<\/p>\n

I watched The Revenant<\/em> here in this room, and I was so scared by the bear attack scene that my dog brushed up against me and I screamed, because I thought it was a bear. I love horror films, but The Revenant<\/em> is not a horror movie, so I was trying to figure out why I couldn\u2019t shake that scene. It stayed with me for days. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> I did a little research about how the scene was done. There was a crane pulling him around, and there was a computer-generated bear, but here\u2019s the deal: the REAL gig is that Leonardo DiCaprio<\/strong> acted like he was being attacked by a bear. You could have all the computer generation in the world, you could have the best crane pulling him around, you could have a real bear! \u2013 but if you don\u2019t have an actor willing to act as if \u2013 AS IF \u2013 Stanislavsky\u2019s<\/strong> \u201cas if\u201d<\/a>! \u2013 they are being attacked by a bear, then you do not have a bear attack scene. And no one can do that but the actor. <\/p>\n

And it is fake, DiCaprio knows it\u2019s fake, but when he\u2019s DOING it, it\u2019s real. And that, to me, is one of the ultimate sacrifices. This is the true generosity of the good actor. Because the kind of terror he had to experience, the depth he was willing to go to \u2026 this is vulnerability. You have to be willing to go there. You have to be willing to be seen, like DiCaprio was willing to be seen. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nLeonardo DiCaprio, “The Revenant” (2015)<\/i><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> This is what you have to pay attention to when you watch a movie as a film critic. You gotta pay attention to that aspect of it. You have to address it. He didn\u2019t just \u201cmake it believable.\u201d What was he willing to do<\/em>, what was he willing to experience<\/em> in order to \u201cmake that believable\u201d?<\/p>\n

SOM:<\/big> Montgomery Clift said once to a friend something like \u201cThe hard thing is that my body doesn\u2019t know I\u2019m acting. My body thinks it\u2019s real.\u201d Or I think about Meryl Streep in Sophie\u2019s Choice: she said she did not prepare for the \u201cchoice scene\u201d. She didn\u2019t even look at the script, or learn the lines. Just thinking about the scene, it was there for her. Of course she\u2019s talented. But there are other things in play. Imagination. Empathy.<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> When we are children, we play make-believe games in the sandbox, and we completely believe what we are doing. Empathy is a skill. You can be born with a level of it, but you can also develop it. Actors should have it, and they should have it well developed. <\/p>\n

For my lecture on \u201cJump Then Justify,\u201d I talk about the power of the imagination, and trusting in your own imagination, and how when I was a child, I would create these games, and \u201cbe\u201d these characters, and I had no doubt about what the characters could and couldn\u2019t do. I mean look at The Lord of the Rings<\/em>. That whole world was created out of one man\u2019s imagination and we believe it all.<\/p>\n

The Pod<\/strong><\/h1>\n

SOM:<\/big> I am really interested in how concentration is different for an actor onstage, as opposed to on camera. Or maybe it\u2019s not different at all.<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> There\u2019s something I talk about that I call The Pod<\/strong>. The Pod essentially addresses another aspect of the re-calibrating an actor has to do when moving from stage to screen, and it has to do with what we would call bigness, although I don\u2019t like to use the words \u201cbig\u201d and \u201csmall\u201d because onscreen acting has nothing to do with big or small. <\/p>\n

In my lecture about the Pod, I say: When you walk into a Starbucks, you notice groups of people talking. There are two girlfriends, looking at their phones and texting. There are two co-workers staring at the same laptop. Maybe there\u2019s a couple in the middle of an argument, staring down into their cups. I call these \u2013 Pods. <\/p>\n

Let\u2019s say you have two actors acting in a scene at a diner. You are on location at a real diner, there are background actors, there\u2019s a waitress, all the crew on the other side of the camera \u2026 your job as an actor is to draw a dotted line around the booth, creating a little Pod, and instead of acting for a 400-seat house, instead you are existing at the diner with this person across the booth and it\u2019s incredibly intimate. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nEthan Hawke and Julie Delpy, “Before Sunrise” (1995)<\/i><\/p>\n

\nThe Pod is almost like Viewpoints<\/a> work, mainly with the concept of Kinesthetic Response<\/strong>, which is: your sense of your self in space, your reaction to space, your sense of proprioception. Kinesthetic response is like: this space between us right here, what is my response to it? Who am I in this space? <\/p>\n

So the Pod is another way for actors to re-calibrate. The Pod affects the performance. When I\u2019m having a moment in my real life, I don\u2019t feel an obligation to \u201ccomment\u201d on my state of mind. I just have the state of mind. Those two people sitting at the Starbucks, they don\u2019t think anyone\u2019s watching them. But when you observe them, you can see how subtle and yet also how eloquent behavior can be. There\u2019s that saying: If you think it, we will see it.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
\nMcCabe directing \u201cSince Feeling Is First\u201d with DP Steven Gladstone. Produced by Stonestreet Studios. Photo by Rob Bennett for The New York Times (2010)<\/i><\/p>\n

The Sunbeams<\/strong><\/h1>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> One of the things I also noticed that happens for a lot of actors who are transitioning from stage to screen is that they don\u2019t understand that they need to develop a relationship WITH the camera, not TO the camera. I use the example: \u201cI have a very interesting relationship to my mother\u201d versus \u201cI have a very interesting relationship with my mother.\u201d When you hear those two things, what do you feel?<\/p>\n

SOM:<\/big> Relationship TO my mother means it\u2019s about how you\u2019re negotiating the relationship, separately from your mother. Relationship WITH my mother \u2013 it\u2019s shared between you and your mother.<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> Right. And so often beginning students have a relationship TO the camera. And their relationship TO the camera is: they experience it as an unfriendly thing with teeth coming out to get them, they experience the camera as heavy judgment, heavy criticism. <\/p>\n

So instead I have them imagine there\u2019s a sunbeam coming out of the camera lens. It\u2019s this beautiful sunbeam, and wherever your face is in relation to the lens, is where the beam hits your face. Chin, left cheek, forehead, neck, and they begin to experience the sunbeams, and also what the sunbeams allow for. <\/p>\n

When you view it in action, it\u2019s quite beautiful. The actor totally transforms and opens up. The actor lets the camera in, and when you let the camera in, it means you are letting yourself be seen. They\u2019re letting themselves be seen, and they\u2019re experiencing a more positive relationship WITH the camera.<\/p>\n

If you look at some of the great actors, they know exactly what to do with their face, depending on where the camera is. They are in relationship WITH the camera. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nJoan Crawford, “Mildred Pierce” (1945)<\/i><\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nRobert De Niro, “Goodfellas” (1990)<\/i><\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nGena Rowlands, “Faces” (1968)<\/i><\/p>\n

\nJM:<\/big><\/strong> If you have a relationship WITH the camera, it\u2019s symbiotic, it\u2019s shared, through the length of any given take. <\/p>\n

The Sunbeams<\/strong> exercise starts the process of allowing young actors to explore that feeling, because if the camera is always jagged teeth, and it\u2019s always scrutiny and negativity \u2013 then you can\u2019t get anywhere with your relationship WITH it.<\/p>\n

The Fight<\/strong><\/h1>\n

SOM:<\/big> I know you work a lot with students on what you call \u201cThe Fight,\u201d which deals with fight scenes. What does it mean to fight?<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> One of the things I love to work on with actors who are coming from stage to screen \u2013 although I believe it can be worked on even if you\u2019ve never worked onstage before \u2013 is how to fight. When writers write fight scenes, the fights are usually very overt, and they\u2019re very volatile, verbal, loud. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\nJM:<\/big><\/strong> What I have noticed in my life is that when I have arguments with people \u2013 I\u2019m actually afraid of fighting so I tend to do an activity while I\u2019m fighting, like washing dishes. Or, let\u2019s say, there\u2019s a couple on a couch, and she\u2019s watching TV and he\u2019s sucking on a beer and he\u2019s turning the channel and she says, \u201cHoney, can we talk about what we were talking about the other day?\u201d And he gets aloof, and she gets passive-aggressive, and it takes them a while to even get to what they want to say. This is real life, as opposed to having the conflict right there, out in the open. <\/p>\n

But so often you see fight scenes, and there\u2019s no passive aggressiveness in the characters, there\u2019s no House Of Cards<\/em> arguing, and it\u2019s boring. I mention that TV show because if you notice how Frank and Claire Underwood argue… The power struggle is so subtle<\/em> that at any given moment, one or the other is in the lead, and they keep passing each other, neck and neck to the finish line. And they are smiling at each other the entire time. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nRobin Wright and Kevin Spacey, “House of Cards”<\/i><\/p>\n

\nJM:<\/big><\/strong> People fight in so many different ways. You can fight lovingly, humorously, reluctantly. You can be in the middle of a fight and be afraid of having the fight at the same time. <\/p>\n

Younger people have an idea of what I\u2019m talking about but at this point in their lives they\u2019re less responsible for their own communications \u2013 or maybe it\u2019s that they just know their preferences less well \u2013 therefore their fight negotiating skills aren\u2019t developed yet. <\/p>\n

In general, fight scenes are often poorly written. I love Shonda Rhimes<\/strong>, but the fight scenes are always bam-bam-bam, it\u2019s the style now. I work with the students to try to combat that, to try to allow for more reality in fights.<\/p>\n

Physical Activity and Behavior<\/strong><\/h1>\n

SOM:<\/big> Physical activity has come up quite a bit in this interview, and it\u2019s not surprising, since it\u2019s such a huge part of acting. It\u2019s a great training tool \u2013 Meisner has exercises based almost solely on doing physical activities \u2013 but could you talk a little bit about physical activity and how important it is, and also how you use it with your students?<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> By definition a physical activity is a daily task that typically has a beginning, a middle and an end. A physical activity is not behavior, which I\u2019ll talk about in a second.<\/p>\n

Physical activity<\/strong> is like: washing dishes, putting makeup on, cleaning out your wallet, erasing text messages, reading, baking cookies, etc. A physical activity requires a level of concentration and focus from you. If you\u2019re going to write something, you have to really write it. You can\u2019t just write scribbles. Watch the cast of Grey\u2019s Anatomy<\/em>. They are writing real signatures, they are writing \u201c.29 calories\u201d or whatever \u2013 it\u2019s very annoying when actors fake physical activity. Physical activity helps ground an actor in the reality of the imaginary circumstances.<\/p>\n

I talked about this a little bit when I talked about the Tightrope. Physical activity 100% reduces tension. Physical activity allows the actor to focus on something other than \u201chow is the scene going right now? Am I screwing up? What\u2019s my next line?\u201d<\/p>\n

If you look at sports, athletes go through years of training and development, training, training, training, and then once they\u2019re in the game \u2013 if they think too much about the process, they will fail. So they have to train and train and train, and then NOT think. They just have to trust in all their training, and hit the ball. \u201cYou can\u2019t think and hit at the same time.\u201d Yogi Berra<\/strong> or Bucky Harris<\/strong> said that. <\/p>\n

The same is true for actors. When you think, you experience mental tension, and this is when you screw up. So if you screw up, don\u2019t say \u201cI screwed up,\u201d just keep going, and maybe start doing a physical activity. <\/p>\n

Having good concentration is a skill you must<\/em> build. You must build your concentration.<\/em> Concentration means you are focused on the moment, and you are responding to what you are getting from the other actors, and you are being impacted by what you are getting, and you are honoring the text, and justifying everything you have created. <\/p>\n

The moments when you fall out of concentration \u2013 you go up on a line, you have a moment where you\u2019re pushing, or you feel like you\u2019re indicating \u2013 a physical activity can get you back on track and allows you to focus on something other than the stress of not remembering the line. Physical activity relaxes the body. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nAl Pacino and Jonathan Pryce, “Glengarry Glen Ross” (1992)<\/i><\/p>\n

\nJM:<\/big><\/strong> You can actually see Al Pacino<\/strong> doing relaxation in the middle of scenes. He\u2019s so fluid with it, it\u2019s so much a part of his process. In Glengarry Glen Ross<\/em>, he reaches across the table for a drink, and it makes sense for the character and the moment, but I can see him addressing his tension IN an activity.<\/p>\n

The other thing physical activity does is it helps you tell the story. How<\/em> you do the activity illuminates the inner life of the character. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s also interesting when the activity gets thwarted. If I\u2019m painting my nails, and you say something and I stop what I\u2019m doing and look up \u2013 it helps the audience understand the storytelling you\u2019re looking to achieve. The stopping of the activity helps illuminate the inner life of the character and helps the audience know that what I\u2019m hearing could be important. <\/p>\n

These are very tangible things an actor can rely on when doing an activity. It also creates a sense of realism. I mean imagine what Grey\u2019s Anatomy<\/em> would look like without physical activity. All you\u2019d see would be actors pretending to be doctors just standing around talking.<\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nSandra Oh and Ellen Pompeo, “Grey’s Anatomy”<\/i><\/p>\n

SOM:<\/big> Continuing on in this vein: let\u2019s clear up any confusion around the term Behavior. What do you mean when you say \u201cbehavior\u201d and how do you help actors understand it and use it?<\/strong><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> Behavior<\/strong> is something like twiddling your hair, or wiggling a pen in your hand, or how<\/em> you do a task, let\u2019s say washing the dishes angrily, or bouncing your leg because you\u2019re nervous. This is behavior and it\u2019s not anything you can facilitate as a director, and if you try to facilitate it, you will produce some of the worst acting you have ever seen in your life. So don\u2019t do it. Ever. Don\u2019t direct behavior. Leave an actor alone.<\/p>\n

But for actors, it\u2019s very useful to know how to use behavior, how to understand behavior.<\/p>\n

If I were flirting with you actively \u2013 and consciously \u2013 it would look a certain way. But if I was flirting with you unconsciously<\/em>, if I was flirting with you and not meaning<\/em> to flirt with you, if I was attracted to you but trying not<\/em> to show it, my behavior would look different than conscious overt flirtation. <\/p>\n

Behavior is conscious and<\/em> unconscious. This is key. <\/p>\n

An example I really love of a great moment of behavior, which seems conscious and unconscious, simultaneously, but also tells the whole story of the moment and the character: In Lincoln<\/em>, Tommy Lee Jones<\/strong> has a moment at the end, where he\u2019s sitting there, and he\u2019s holding his cane with the duck bill on the end of it. The duck bill is facing away from him, and then he turns the cane around so the duck bill is now facing him. And they peacefully lock eyes. There\u2019s no means to an end in a moment of behavior like this, it\u2019s not a conscious attempt to \u201chave a moment.\u201d But it is a piece of behavior that comes out of an actor fully immersed in the character and what the character needs and wants and can\u2019t get or can get. And it\u2019s unconscious<\/em>. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\nTommy Lee Jones, “Lincoln” (2012)<\/i><\/p>\n

JM:<\/big><\/strong> We don\u2019t always know what we need in life, we don\u2019t always know why we do what we do. And neither do fictional characters. But the behavior comes out anyway.<\/p>\n

The “Jump Then Justify” exercise is great for behavior, because the students have no time to \u201cwork on\u201d behavior, or pick gestures ahead of time, or decide how the character talks and moves. They have five minutes, and the behavior that comes out when they are interviewed is totally unconscious<\/em>. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s so exciting to watch because it\u2019s exciting for them<\/em>. It\u2019s exciting for them when they watch the interview afterwards, and they see themselves behaving as this character. They get to have a whole new relationship with their acting, and more freedom and more fun around that relationship. It\u2019s why I do what I do.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jennifer McCabe has been teaching acting and directing in various capacities for almost 25 years. After getting her Master\u2019s through the MFA program at the Actors Studio, she first worked with Enact, a not-for-profit arts-in-education company which goes into at-risk … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[7,24,4,31],"tags":[1446,463,2446,2116,1473,198,542,2044,335,272,132,333,1423,1699,2671,2637],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154648"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=154648"}],"version-history":[{"count":87,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154648\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":154798,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154648\/revisions\/154798"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=154648"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=154648"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=154648"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}