Write at least 1 paragraph (4 sentences or more) responding to 1
of the questions below. Then write at least 1 paragraph responding to
another student's response to 1 of the questions.
Questions from Chapter 2:
1.
"Part of your preparation must be to understand the language of the past and to make it compelling for audiences in the present." Why is this important and give a specific example of how you had to "understand the language of the past" in order to successfully portray your character.
2. "If I don't understand the chair completely, I'll be forced to fake it. That's the worst thing an actor can do." What is Stella Adler talking about and give a specific example of what your "chair" was during a performance.
3.
"If the actor sees it he can make his audience see it." Give an example of how you were able to successfully create your environment on stage.
I hate not fully understanding my "chair". I usually do a lot of research for my part, but in Noises Off I put my focuses elsewhere. It was a British farce and had a lot of references and diction I didnt fully understand. I didn't know what I was saying at times, so how could the audience? That play was already so fast-paced. I can'y pick out a specific "chair" because it's been a few years and this play had so many.
ReplyDeleteI didn't connect what a wc suite was at first. Whenever I entered it, I didn't know it was a bathroom. I felt pretty stupid. It didn't come off like i had used a restroom but rather like i had just put away luggage or taken a nap.
Delete3. I feel like when any actor gets insanely into character they start to immerse themselves in the play. For example, when I was playing Belinda in "Noises Off!", during a performance I would get very into that character and almost get lost in the world of the character. I would like to think that because I could immerse myself that the audience then became immersed. During "Noises Off!" shows, I wasn't on a set in the IRHS auditorium, I was on stage and then backstage at a real performance, where everything was going down. Creating that environment isn't always easy, but I would love to be able to do that regularly.
ReplyDeleteWhat was great about this play is that you were living what the play was, you were constantly on a set, and not a set that was supposed to be something out. I think that contributed to both casts being able to immerse themselves in their characters.
DeleteI agree with what Melanie is saying because an actor should immerse themselves into any play that they are in. It is very good thing to be able to get lost in the characters world because it makes that character so much more believable to the audience.
DeleteGood start Kiley. Any other insight or personal experience you can relate to?
Delete3)To successfully make the audience see what is going on, an actor must really get into the character they are playing. During Night of the Living Dead, playing Judy, I had to really connect with that character in order to create an image that there were actual zombies, trying to devour the flesh of the characters. The play alone is very difficult to create a non-cheesy image. In order to create a believable feel to the production, all the characters would have had to really connect with their characters. When I was on stage as Judy, I put every ounce of my emotion into her. I was able to feel like the world was actually coming to an end. Being able to create an eery feel, helped the audience see what the actors saw.
ReplyDeleteKiley:
DeleteAwesome. Pure awesome. When thinking back to Night of the Living Dead, I certainly see a challenge. The script was not very good, (in my opinion)and it may have been hard to create a realistic scene with what was given. Looking at your performance and your dedication to your character, I think you did a really good job creating the environment of the play. You and Evan actually seemed like a couple. That's really good being that you were dating someone at the time. That means that you were able create a convincing environment. Good job!
I love that you mentioned the difficulty in avoiding the potential "cheesiness" of the play. Acknowledging that, as an actress I'm sure you realized there wasn't much you could do about it outside of your role, but you stepped up and did what you could with your character to create a more realistic presentation of a cheesy horror flick. I think this is actually something a majority of the cast did really well, and goes underlooked as an important factor of a show.
DeleteCreating this character was me opening up to that characters point of view. I only imagined what she may have been going through. I was empathetic towards the character, therefore I was able to really create this character and create a believable performance. I created the relationship with the set and enviornment by really taking in what was going on. I was able to convince myself that what was going on was real. It's called "letting go". It's something every actress/actor needs to be able to do. It's all about being comfortable. Another example of how I set up my characters emotions was that backstage, I really started to get into character. Acting scared, paranoid, etc. I even had someone back stage ask me if I was okay. I was Judy during that hour of the production. Kiley took a break and Judy took over.
Delete2. I think that Stella Adler was trying to relate "the chair" that was depicted in the second chapter to scripts and stories that are foreign to an actor's/actress' current time. In order to play a role to it's highest ability, you have to do more than just understand the words that you are saying; you also have to connect, see, and relate to the words that are being said on stage. If you can't comprehend what your character is feeling at that said moment, then it's almost instinctual to pretend that you do. And although it may look like one understand's, the performance in general doesn't have that spark of life. That spark of reality.
ReplyDeleteMy example I would like to give as a "chair" would have to be my portrayal as Tom Robinson in our production of "To Kill a Mockingbird." At first, I had no clue what I was doing. All I did was pretend that I knew what this character was talking about, and trying to put myself in his scenerio. I didn't look any deeper than that. But eventually, I would be at home, thinking about my character. How African Americans were treated in that setting. The way that the word "nigger" was thrown around like any other word. At that point (which was only maybe a day or two before the showing), I didn't just put myself in that situation. I was in the situation. I meshed together my personal experiences with the experiences in that time frame. I thought about how people would put specific things on me due to my skin color. I thought about how there have been times that I have gotten in trouble for things I didn't do. I took all of these experiences and put them in the performance.
Back then, I always connected acting with being fake. Not being true. I connected acting with pure fantasy. And I still do think there is a hint of fantasy in acting, but it also is meshed with a strong sense of reality. Having that kind of mix is what makes the chair familiar. Having that mix is what makes the chair not just a chair, or the words in the script just lines; it is instead a chair that I'm sitting in for trial. It's the lines that I have to say in order to stay alive, and not found guilty.
Beautifully worded Aaren. I have had a similair experience with feeling like acting is all make believe. As an example in some of my earlier roles, I was just acting to act. I often felt lost with my character and couldn't figure out how to show the feelings I thought my character would have. You get to a point where its impossible to become your character anymore. If you don't focus on reality and what you have personally experienced, you can't exude that life, that "spark" that people have. If you can't do that, then everything really is fake.
DeleteYou made some excellent point Aaren. Another thing you should think about (which for this example I believe Stella Adler was trying to make) is what is your relationship with an item.
DeleteIn "To Kill A Mockingbird" if a friend of his was in charge of making chairs and one of his chairs was the one you were sitting on in court you would feel more comfortable. On the other hand maybe the chair was one that you would only find in a rich person's house so you felt uncomfortable sitting on it or like you are not allowed to sit on it so you shouldn't be sitting on it.
Okay. What Ii got from Stella was what your relationship was with experience, kind of to live through the experiences your character has. I personally thought the chair or item was supposed to be a surface type thing and the underlying message was in the experience. But, that's a good point Canalia.
DeleteIf her point was to be the relationship with an actual item, I would say that Tom's relationship with the chair was one based on fear, and timidness. In order to sit in that seat, you first have to plea to the Bible that you wouldn't lie. That in itself is a scary thought. Then the fact that this seat was the seat that many people have sat in while they have been examined thoroughly, and judged based on what they say or what they do. Even the mere fact that sitting in this chair is the moment to explain yourself before being judged on guilt or innocence, even death. So if anything, that relationship that chair would certainly be one of hesitation.
I think this is really great. You have to have a deeper understanding of that 'chair', whatever it is. You have to understand its existence fully. A good analogy I think would be like how you always read the full play that you do a monologue from - even if you're only doing a 30 second piece out of a 3 hour play. The point is that by having that in-depth understanding of it, you can draw from truth when you're acting instead of projecting falsehoods.
Delete3) I feel like this is some of the best advice Stella Adler has given (at least so far). If, as the actor, I dont believe what I'm doing or really "see" it, there is no way my audience is going to believe it either. One of the times I succesfully created my environment was when my character Lucinda was in the woods in Into the Woods. Yes, there were a few painted trees to make it believable, but I was forced to respond to my surrounding as if there were truly hundreds of towering trees everywhere I turned. I felt that my character as well as myself would be frightened in a dark forest such as that one, so I had to picture myself there. As Adler explains, you must go off of experience and of what you know. Otherwise it is as meaningless to the audience as it is to you.
ReplyDeleteI think that is a really great example. Set plays a huge part in envisioning what is going on with your character, and in a situation where your set is minimal it is great that you can still envision your character so well. As far as experience, that is also a great help. If you have personal experience to back your acting I think it does make it a tad easier.
DeleteAs your stepmother, I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying here. I think together we did a really good job of character and environment development. We were always interacting, especially when you and Hailey were blind, and it was so fun! You guys had to somehow portray the area around your character, but your character couldn’t actually see that area because she was blind! I think we did that through your interaction with me, who could see the trees and the giant and the nasty witch, and your interaction with the invisible trees and other such things around you.
Delete1. Having a firm understanding of outdated language use can be the most difficult barrier for me as an actor. You have to really dig deep within every word and pull out it's meaning, whether it's meant to be ironic, humorous, a play on words, etc. Enunciation (sp?) and voice inflection really take power here, and if we're unable to communicate to our audience the meaning of everything we say because of it's archaic text, our tone and inflection become one of the most important aspects of our character. I know many of you can relate to the battle of understanding that can take place in our minds when we're assigned a Shakespearean piece. But with practice and taking the time to understand the language just as we might do with a character, we can grow as an actor and better communicate to our audience.
ReplyDeleteThe piece I ended up taking to the Shakespearen competition this past year had been a favorite of mine from King Lear already, but after weeks of practice I came to find I still didn't understand some of the things my character, Cordelia, was saying. It took a lot of thought and research into the play to reach a point where I felt like my character was convincing, authentic and speaking from the heart. It's a trade I could certainly approve on, though, and there's always room for improvement in seeking more meaning behind my character's word.
Delete3. In Into the Woods, which I think was my first really difficult acting experience, I played a character that didn't really like anyone except herself, and everything around her was not up to her standards, most of the time. Even though the audience could technically see what I was seeing, I made sure they knew that the Stepmother didn't LIKE what she was seeing by portraying that through my characters actions and voice inflections. Nothing was satisfactory, and I just kept a sneer on my face almost all the time.
ReplyDeleteI beleive that Stella was meaning that the worst thing you can ever do as an actor is to fake something. Faking the chair would be obvious to the audience, and it would weaken the acting streangth of the actor. The chair must be real, if it's there or not, same with any other person, place or thing. If the actor beleives it to be there then the audience will too. It's all about image, making the audience think that they're reading the story and that they are seeing it in their head, the actors must be the "readers" imagination.
ReplyDeleteHow do you go about not faking something or make something "real"?
DeleteBy beleiving in it. If I am on stage and am talking or singing to a person in my mind, and i'm looking into a specific area, then I will beleive that they are there, and the audience may look for said person.
Delete3. I sang "Electricity" from Billy Elliot at Open Jar this summer. In the musical, at this moment Billy is talking to a judge at an audition about how dancing makes him feel and how it empowers him like electricity. When I sang it, I pretended like one of my teachers (Mrs. Heller for those who care) was right in front of me and that she just asked me how performing made me feel, and that the whole time during the song I was trying to talk to her and convince her of how I felt. It created something for the audience, even if they didn't see Mrs. Heller, they could see I was talking to someone and how natural it was for me to talk to them that way. (I wasn't 'faking' it, and 'trying to act' so to say)
ReplyDelete3) I was the aristocratic lady this spring, in Beauty in the Beast. For the opening scene, while we did have those shop corners, when I stepped out into the light, I imagined myself, the rich woman, probably the richest in the town, stepping out into provincial France, circa 1700's. When I walked, I took care to step carefully because of the mud on the streets, and took care of brushing up against certain people, because God knows how much dirt and filth they had on them. When the lights came up on the village, I imagined it as dawn, the sun coming up on all of us, and we were getting ready for the new day, just like always. I think creating this environment really helped me get into my character and let the audience experience the dinky little town Belle was from.
ReplyDeleteI know from watching that scene backstage that you were extremely proficient at getting your character's contempt for the lower classes across to the audience. It was great. However, it was also a great example of why I think it's so important for everyone to be at the top of their game and really into their character's all the time. If Katie Fapp has successfully enveloped her mind with the thoughts, experiences and emotions of the upper class rich lady, then the images she sees onstage can either reinforce that and make it even more believable or start to break the illusion. If all the actors feed off of each other in a believable manner, things will be just dandy, but they should remember that if they really want the audience to believe what they’re seeing, they should work to convince the other actors first. If that happens, the peasant convinces the rich lady he is scared, the rich lady is convinced she is powerful, and the audience is convinced of the whole scene.
Delete1.) As we all know, plays can’t always be about the time frame that we are accustomed to. Obviously, since people who would be watching the show would be living in that time period, it would simply be a reiteration of what they see in their every day lives, therefore making it visually and audibly uninteresting (to a certain extent , of course. The occasional expletive is always greatly appreciated.) That being said the importance of knowing what the hell you’re talking about is imperative, because it goads the rest of the actions and emotions along. When I performed the RSC Romeo and Juliet skit over and over this past year, I had to look up Shakespearean words and some old English words to figure out exactly how the line fit into the performance and what its function was. How was I supposed to know what “churl” meant? But by that line of thinking, how is the audience supposed to know? It produced the inflection that I used. Which made it freakin hilarious.
ReplyDeleteShakespeare is definitely a good point to talk about in this question. One of the major differences in performing Shakespeare is knowing what it means. Every year, thousands of girls enamored with the idea of the tragic love from Romeo and Juliet perform the classic balcony scene in their beginning drama class, and every year, they butcher the first line. It's not, Romeo, Romeo, where is Romeo; the line, in our terms, means, Romeo, Romeo, WHY ARE you Romeo? Wherefore does not mean where. It means why. It's things like these little language gaps that make or break Shakespeare. Anyone who sees a Shakespeare play is going to be confused as all hell in the first place, so getting the context right is imperative to the performance.
DeleteYeah, when performing Shakespeare, it's a good idea to know just what you're talking about. If you have no idea what you're talking about, things can get confusing for the audience. Remember: context is always important. Always.
DeleteI agree with all of you. I think that Othello was definitely a challenge for us because of it's language. Diving deeper into the true meaning of what you're saying (to not sound stupid) was the key. At first I only focused on the words that I said, but after the first few rehearsals I had to look up words that other characters had to say as well. Like when Iago and Cassio were basically calling me a whore over and over again before I entered. I was pretty confused at what they were saying exactly until I did some research, and that helped me with discovering the right emotion towards both of them for the next scene. The 'No Fear Shakespeare" side with the simpler text can only do so much.
Delete1. Over time, languages can change and evolve in drastic ways. Compare how different shakespearian language is to modern day english. Without some sort of reference, we would have no idea what most shakespearian phrases and sayings mean. When portraying a shakespesrian character you must have an understanding of what you are saying if you want to understand your character. If you don't understand the context of what your character is saying, you won't fully comprehend your character, and the audience will have a hard time understanding whats going on.
ReplyDeleteUse one of your performances to explain this line of thinking. I want all your responses to also reflect upon the work you have done so it is personal.
Delete3)Last summer in Legally Blonde, my character was a law student at Harvard, sitting in class among her peers on their first day back of school.However, we didn't have a full out 'classroom' set around us. Just pillars on the sides, we didn't have chairs either. Some students where on their knees and some were standing up. The professor was singing a song to spark fear into his students so they know how tough being a law student would be. So I wasn't seated in a chair, or looking at a whiteboard/chalkboard of any kind. And it really didn't feel like I was in a classroom at all.However, I couldn't rely on the set to help me envision a classroom. I imagined how I would walk in and not know anybody, how cold it might be in the room, how intimidating the teacher was, and suddenly having seats and a board in front of me wasn't necessary.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure it was difficult at first to adjust to such a minimal set in that scene, but like you said the set isn't necessary. I think audience members often think that its a set that makes a good performance, but as actors we know that isn't true. Like you described you did in Legally Blonde, its your emotions and actions that make a scene. Personally thats why I think learning to act without a set is more important than with one. If you believe it, your audience will.
Delete1. When I had finally understood the Othello script last year, I realized how little I understood before. That being said, I knew it was going to be more important that helped the audience understand as well. Of course it’s easy enough to watch the play and get the basics, but especially in Shakespeare, it’s the small details that really take it to the next level. In order for the audience to enjoy the play, I had to make sure that I was able to act out and portray all of those small details. One specific example I keep thinking of was at the beginning of the play when Desdemona, Iago, and Amelia are going back and forth in somewhat playful and sarcastic banter. At one point I say that Iago’s response was “impotent”. When I realized what it meant, which could essentially boil down to not being able to keep ‘it’ up, our conversation’s tone made a whole lot more sense. I believe in understanding even just that single word, the audience was able to better understand as well.
ReplyDelete