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 8:
1. "As an actor you have to be able to take either side. If you can't take both sides, it means you can only play yourself." Why does Stella Adler think this?
2. Stella Adler stops the acting exercise and says, "You are not interested in what he's saying. You're anxious to talk. That's not discussion. Discussion comes out of what your partner says, not what you feel." Describe why a discussion "comes out of what your partner says, not what you feel."
3.
"We have a false situation -- a situation where the action starts with your talking. It has to start before you talk." Using personal experience explain why a "false situation" would begin with only talking.
4. "A character doesn't consist of how he feels but in what he does. Feeling comes from doing." Using personal experience from the stage describe what Stella Adler means by this.
If you can't act with the others on stage your performance will fall flat. In a scene with multiple actors/actresses, everyone needs to have chemistry to allow the scene to flow. Your character isn't usually psychic so you have to take your fellow thespians dialogue in as if it's new information. Your response creates believable characters, flow to the scene, and further develops depth in the illusion of theater.
ReplyDeleteI agree. There's a huge dynamic of understanding and communication that is really important to acknowledge when you're on stage with others. Sometimes I'll catch myself jumping ahead of the scene, knowing what's coming and not really let myself stay in character to react properly to certain things because I already knew about it. It's really important to keep up that illusion of theater, like Evan said, because that's all that seperates you from the audience.
Delete2. The reason discussion is fully dependent on your partner is because if you are only concerned with how you feel, then you can't absorb your partner's information. The reasoning behind this is that if you only think of yourself during a discussion, it isn't really a discussion is it? You become preoccupied in what you are thinking so you can't absorb information, and then can't help your partner grow as a character.
ReplyDeleteOkay. For example, in "Axe of Murder" my character Lucielle was extremely jumpy and did not respond well to what was happening around her. While my character was having a discussion, if I purely focused myself on the fear Lucielle was feeling, then the person I was discussing with would be at a loss, and a play with an already so-so script would be even more lacking in the dialogue aspect.
DeleteI find it much easier, and I know I'm not the only one, to act with other people. As long as they give you something to work with, it makes creating a character just easier. In Into the Woods, I liked having my daughters with me at all times, because together we developed what we thought our characters should have been. We jumped at the same noises, stuck our noses up at the same characters, and flirted with the same princes. We bounced every action and line we did off of each other, and I think it worked very well.
DeleteListening to the character that is communicating with you, is the only way a discussion can start. You can't have a discussion when you are only talking and only listening to yourself. It is a mutual interest between both characters and that's what makes it a discussion. The only way to do so is to actually understand what the character is talking about so you are able to talk to them without it becoming a debate.
Delete3. "We have a false situation -- a situation where the action starts with your talking. It has to start before you talk." Using personal experience explain why a "false situation" would begin with only talking.
ReplyDeleteI think that what she means by false situation makes sense. When I was getting taught how to do monologues, at first I didn't understand why everyone just stood there for a second, but then Carolyn went and did her Death of a Salesman monologue, and it sort of made sense. Before she even lifted her head to begin speaking, her entire presence on that stage changed, and you could see her physically become the tired woman in the piece. So, a false situation would begin with only talking because if you don't take the time to actually become the character to yourself, the audience (or even your partner) is not going to believe you for one second.
Good observation. I always repeat what I was told -- you're monologue is (usually) happening right in the middle of something -- what you say is a response. So your piece needs to have energy and a reaction.
DeleteI think that it is easy to get stuck in a false situation when you forget that youre not just "talking". In a normal situation, your words come from your reaction to what another speaker has has said or done. Like Kylie said, you have to become the character and be in the situation your character is in. This is especially important with a monologue because the audience cant see the other speaker. You have to create the whole situation with your response.
Delete1. "As an actor you have to be able to take either side. If you can't take both sides, it means you can only play yourself."
ReplyDeleteI think this ties directly into Adler's earlier point of "letting go", embracing your character's identity and not letting your own characteristics and beliefs define or limit your character. You have to be able to recognize your role, and be willing to step out of your comfort zone (cliche, I know). You have to be able to put your own reasoning on the sidelines and work with what your character's sense of moral is like. This can be difficult, especially if we disagree, but it's such a crucial part of creating a realistic character with a story and a personality for the audience.
2) A discussion "comes out of what your partner says, not what you feel" because if it came from feelings or passion, it would be an arguement. Stella Adler explains in the last few paragraphs that what we think is a discussion is really just an argument. We "discuss" based off of passion rather than logic. A discussion is more of a reasonable response because it gives viewpoints to both sides to put ideas out in the open. THe purpose is not to convince but more to give ideas. If we discussed with our feelings, the audience wouldn't have a chance to form their own opinion.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this is something that many people need to remember. Far too quickly do actors jump straight to action. This doesn't seem to work because then ideas never get to blossom. Like you said, it's important to let the audience form an opinion.
Delete1) As an actor, you must be able to put aside your own personal beliefs and be able to see from the characters point of you. In order to really become one with the character, you must be able to put aside your own opinions and really relate with how the character's beliefs are written. Being able to relate with your character or being able to understand and put aside their opposite beliefs, it creates a more genuine performance.
ReplyDeleteExpand on this. You need a minimum of four sentences.
DeleteYou need to have a good conection or understanding with all the other actors or stage. If you don't act well with the others then it wont mesh as well as it could, like having 8 solo singers in a a capela that's saposed to mesh, it just wont work. you need good chemistry with your fellow actors in order for each scene to go as smoothly as possible.
ReplyDeleteI like that analogy, and it's extra funny because I know where it comes from. But yes, I absolutely agree. If it's not a discussion and it's treated like, "here's your monologue, here's my monologue" then there's no smoothness or meshing. The scene isn't created, we just see two separate actors playing their parts independently.
Delete4. I think I learned this from the "target acting" teacher at the Thespian Festival, and it was so eye-opening. The idea is that the audience doesn't care how you feel. They just don't, it's as simple as that. The audience doesn't want to watch you go on stage and be sad. They want to see what you do that sadness, and they want to see what comes out of it. The important thing is what you do with, not whether you feel that way or not. I think it's much stronger for an actor to almost bypass their feelings and not be so concerned with, "how do I feel?" but "what am I doing?" the audience draws everything from what you do, so if you're sad, standing there at a funeral and just talking about how sad you are doesn't do anything. It's telling, not showing. But if you walk slowly and gently over to the coffin, and just lightly touch it without saying a word, then you've shown your character in a much a stronger, more sincere, and compelling way. Aim for the action and have it be natural, the feeling is a secondary result of this.
ReplyDelete2. From what I read, I do believe that Ms. Adler believes that 'to discuss' is deeper than other forms of communication because you are actually listening to the other person and responding with a passionate response. In order to discuss properly, you have to really pay attention to what the other person is saying, and that requires no interruptions and time to consider what was just presented to you verbally. You can talk all the live long day about what you feel, because it comes from you, and it doesn't require anybody else to relate it. But discussing is between two people. You have to recognize the other person's thoughts/opinions, and not ignore them in favor for your own. If you're genuinely interested and passionate about what your partner has to say, then you can turn a conversation into a discussion.
ReplyDeleteDiscussion was depicted as being a significantly more involved form of communication in the book, and like you said it does involve two people (otherwise, it's just weird). The way I started thinking about it is that conversing with someone is more of a personal and detached way of doing a discussion, because like you said, no one registers what is being communicated to them, they just focus on what they're communicating. They just think about their own opinion and how valuable it would be to the person sitting across from them, and I honestly think Stella Adler presents it as more of a passive and meaningless activity because nothing is ultimately achieved. the two participants just build on their own opinion, and they're so desperately involved in their own feelings about the subject that an actual connection is not made. In a discussion, the subject zigzags between the two individuals and instead of two people who might as well be playing different board games in separate rooms of a large house, it's more like two people playing one game of Jenga. The tower is going to fall eventually, but it could be either participant who ultimately tips it over.
Delete2.) The thing that really marks a "discussion" as different from the other examples of interaction Stella Adler brought up in the book is it's formality. It is far more civil then either fighting or arguing, but she alludes to a certain reality that a "discussion" creates that makes it so much more urgent and important than any "chitchat." Like Katie mentioned, you can only be successfully discussing something if you can build off of the ideas and opinions that the person across from you is presenting and react to them without any semblance of bias. This would be important for a couple reasons. One, we are so used to things just melting into arguments quickly because there's this odd sense of "winning" people feel when they present an excellent point, but they become progressively more argumentative when I present the opposite view and mistake it for pugnaciousness. Quite the contrary, both views must be observed in order for the best conclusion to be reached. Two,understanding this allows me to kind of bring them back to the reality of the discussion and diffuse that sense that they have to "win," because that's ultimately what creates the argument. The third point is, why is any of this important on stage? I think it is because even though we've read through the script a bazillion times, the audience, and the character, are being presented with the idea or subject for the very first time. It is by practicing this unbiased tennis match of an exercise that we can learn how to escape from temptation of presenting our own feelings and opinions and experience the idea for the very first time, and then react to it as the character would. It's kind of like how Stella Adler mentioned at the very beginning of the book about having the character, author, and actor all on the stage at once. The formality of a discussion comes from the mutual agreement of collaboratively exploring a subject, which we have to be able to do to see things from the point of view of both the audience and the character.
ReplyDelete1. When acting, you have to let go of your own morals and beliefs to better portray your character, whether they be a good guy or a bad guy, because they're often going to have different morals and beliefs than you do. I've done this sort of thing a lot over the past few years. Like the time I played Ebenezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol. Now, Scrooge is a mean, money-loving, crotchety old jerk, who hated Christmas, and, well, people in general (at the start of the play at least. He gets better). Anyone who knows me can tell you that I'm usually a pretty nice and happy person, and that I love Christmas. I'm nothing like the person Scrooge was at the start of the play, but I put aside who I was so I could better portray who Scrooge was; a big jerk. Being able to take any side when acting is all apart of being an actor.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Stuart. You could always say you're part of one side, but it's like what Stella says- acting needs to be truthful. I think her statement applies to anyone stepping into character, really. I think she mentioned before how she hated it when people said they related to Hamlet. It really goes with any character. You may be like 98% like that character in every way, but you're not going to be 100% like a character unless you're starring in a biography play about yourself. As an actor, you have to learn to change any point of view to fit that character and portray the message- even if you and your character are super similar, there's always going to be a difference.
Delete1. An actor has to be able to play many different personalities, mainly because not one character is the same. If he/she can only play one character, they’re not a true actor. When Stella Adler says an actor has to be able to take either side, she is saying that an actor has to be able to play characters of extreme differences. For example there are villains and there are heroes. Even if an actor reads the play and says “well obviously the hero is the good guy and obviously what he says and does is right”, he needs to be able to look at the villain and find his motives and realize that there’s more to him than being just the bad guy. An actor needs to be able to see both sides and connect with either character. It’s like in English or History class when we have debates and your put on the side you disagree with. You have to be open minded and look into the argument to find things that make it reasonable to you. As an actor if you’re stubborn and refuse to try and understand a character much different than your used to, your kind of out of luck.
ReplyDeleteThe hero and villain explanation is a good example of how an actor must see both sides in order to play the part to the fullest. Otherwise, the character is only defined by a false stereotype. Our characters have depths and doubts just like we do, and we need to be able to portray that. I agree that being stubborn about playing a different character you're not used to is not going to get you anywhere. Because being an actor is about facing challenges and taking on anything that the director or producers through at you. You'll never grow as an actor unless you stretch yourself to different lengths.
Delete3) When I performed the Fantastiks monologue last year, I thought that I could create my environment right when I started talking. Mainly because I didn’t know what to do with my face before I began to speak. I realize now that before I started to talk I could have sat down in a chair and started to brush my hair, and then I would start to talk. My false situation of me dreaming of a life behind the wall in my backyard would start the moment I look at myself in my imaginary mirror and reflect on the things I’m missing out on in life. I started that monologue with so much energy and effort, that I lost my subtext, and my false situation along with it. If I could do it over, I would take a moment to create my situation before I talk.
ReplyDeleteIts so much easier to start acting when you have some sort of movement before speaking. Otherwise as you explained its awkward trying to figure out what to do, and you lose energy because it doesn't feel real. As we've said various times, acting is reacting. Finding some sort of movement to do before speaking helps make your performance realistic. It also provides cues for your lines.
DeleteThis is why they give you a moment before you start performing to get into character. That way, you can envision your environment and really step into your character. You can take a few seconds to prepare mentally for what you need to do for whatever it is you're performing. You should always be sure to use those few seconds of prep time to the fullest extent, because they really help.
Delete