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 9:
1.
"Everything is based on actions. An actor develops a character from the things he does. That's why the actor must understand actions." Using your experience onstage as an example, explain what Stella Adler means.
2.
"There are strong and weak actions. To be strong, an action needs an end, an objective. . . 'I'd like to go somewhere' is weak. 'I'd like to take a walk in the park' is strong.'" Drawing from your experience on the stage explain why the second statement is a stronger action statement than the first.
3.
"To reminisce is to soliloquize, to recall the past and bring it back to life. It's different from remembering, which is automatic and associated with daily life. You remember your telephone number and your grocery store list. You remember to answer a letter. In reminiscence, a man brings back what he loves." Give an example between remembering and to reminisce.
4. "Before starting the reminiscence, walk around the stage. But don't walk anywhere without going somewhere. Don't begin without a starting image, say of an object on the stage, from the couch or the table." Finish reading the rest of the paragraph. Explain the benefit of using Stella Adler's blocking tips if you were to perform a scene where you reminisce.
5. "The objects you choose can help or hinder you. A radio, for example, something mechanical, is a mistake. Instead, turn to nature. A radio leaves you stone cold inside." Describe at least one situation where a property helped or hindered your performance.
6. "Bringing that poetic quality into it, you reminisce about your high school graduation. 'There it was that day! There was -- an auditorium!' You don't try to make it natural. So you don't try to bring it back to a natural tone of voice. 'Was there a graduation? Was there? There's the apple tree. There's the haywagon.'" Describe why reminiscing in a natural tone of voice would not work on stage (even if you were using a microphone.)
I answered a different question here off my ipod. My bad. New answer: (#5 Btw).... I keep talking about my relationship with the window in NOTLD. It was a very useful tool onstage while I was acting. However, I think I may have become very limited to that window. It held me back at times. Also, as Grandpa Joe in Willy Wonka, I felt very held back by my cane. It was an anchor on my performance and I had to scrap it last second during show night. It helped create an image but made the play as a whole very difficult with a lot of awkward movement.
ReplyDeleteChoosing a prop that helps your performance, can be very difficult for that reason. If you have not mastered how to use it, then it will only make your character harder to believe. Using a cane is perfect for an older character, if it is used to show their limitations and restraints with their impairment. Grandpa Joe has much more youth to him especially after going to the Chocolate Factory, so the cane, as you said, didn't make your performance any easier. In general, as Stella Adler says, using a prop in nature or something that is alive is a good choice because it can change as your character does. Maybe even the rising and fading sun can be used to show a character's happiness or sadness.
Delete2. "There are strong and weak actions. To be strong, an action needs an end, an objective. . . 'I'd like to go somewhere' is weak. 'I'd like to take a walk in the park' is strong.'" Drawing from your experience on the stage explain why the second statement is a stronger action statement than the first.
ReplyDeleteIn Into the Woods, every time a character exited the stage, they were going somewhere. Whether it was to look for the giant, or the prince, or a princess, or their mom, or whatever else there was, they had a purpose. The actors couldn't just walk off stage once their scene was over, they had to run further into the woods to find their goal. If the actor doesn't believe that the wings of the state are actually a giant forest, then the audience won't believe that either. we had to walk offstage and keep walking as if we never had to stop. Therefore, the second action is stronger than the first because it has a constraint. The actor isn't just walking anywhere, they are walking in the park. They have a place to walk, which means they can pretend to see trees, or people, or animals, etc.
2) The second statement is stronger because it allows the scene to continue on. From experience, when we are doing improv. games, it is so much easier to reacte to other people and to continue the action when there is more to it in the first place. "I'd like to go somewhere" puts all the pressure on one person to find somewhere to go. If the initial person says, "I'd like to take a walk in the park", I can reacte by grabbing the dog's leash or a pair of running shoes. If I am acting by myself and have to make a weak or strong action, it is going to be much more natural for me to respond to a more specific situation. It gives you room to expand, yet enough boundaries that you dont appear lost.
ReplyDeleteMakenna- I liked how you made a comparison to this quote to improvisation. Because what you said is absolutely true. The second quote brings more meaning to what is said. And especially in improv, people (including oneself) can build upon something more solid than "I want to go somewhere." And building upon that, if you know where you're going and what you're doing, that will help keep you from unneccessary pacing. If you know "I need to go from here to here" and you have a sense of direction, then the audience will be able to decipher what you're doing even if you don't have props. As Andrew said, Target Acting is what helps this. I'm so excited for Thespian Festival!
Delete1. An actor can purely say anything, and it really has no value on their character. You can make that phrase sound like whatever you want. As the saying goes: actions speak louder than words. Does the character (let's go with a male here) slouch his shoulders and shrug often when speaking with women, or does he stand tall and shake hands with confidence. It is easier to deduce character traits about a person based on what they do than how they speak.
ReplyDelete"Actions speak louder than words." I agree with this statement because it is the truth. A character is mainly based off of his or her body language throughout a play. I know that when I was in 12 Angry Jurors, I had to portray a very obnoxious advertiser. With that said, I had to develop body language or actions to show that I am a little more stuck up than the rest of the characters. I had to speak robotically and make it obvious that I was the only person I cared about. During the production I would make sure that I never slouched because my character was a proper business-like woman who was a Ms. Know it all. If I were to do anything different with the actions I chose for the character, the character would have been harder to make out.
Delete1) From Into the Woods, I had to use a lot of insane actions to develop a sense of who my character was. In the musical, Rapunzel was rather insane and a lot of her actions had to portray who the character really is. With a lot of the actions I chose to do, I was not as connected as I should have been with them. From lacking in connection with these actions, it really brought down my performance because I was confused on why I was doing something. So in reality, I was doing rather than experiencing and really feelings why I was doing certain actions.
ReplyDeleteBeing more spacific will always be stronger than not, to specify what you're doing or where you're going or who you're gonna hang out with will paint a picture in the audiences minds before a scene even takes place. It can make the viewer wonder, "how will they play off this kind of situation or action". In "Into The Woods" I had lines where I talked about how my princess was doing, and where she had run off to and why, and I told those details specifically. Which in nearly every case is better than just saying that she went that way and there's probably something wrong. Actions and specifications make it better and easier for the audience.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that specifying the situation as best as you can is a great tool. The audience is not in the world of the character and therefore needs to be included in the world of the character. That being said, the audience does need a bit of credit. Be careful that the specifics don't make the audience feel like you are believing they are too stupid to figure it out. I think that is the main struggle, toeing the fine line between specifics and letting the audience figure things out for their own.
DeleteI agree with both of you here.
DeleteI do disagree a little bit with Melanie though, where she says be careful to toe the fine line and let the audience. I think the more specific it is the better, and I talk about this in my post. The more specific it the more the audience will fill in their own blanks about that scene. Ryan wouldn't have to go on a four page monologue detailing every tiny little thing about what the princess is doing while she's away, but the more he sees every little specific thing about she's doing the more he'll naturally react and the more the audience will connect to. It won't be beating a dead horse like you're afraid of, because it'll be different for every single person in the audience. Everyone will connect with a different part of it a little differently. As an actor, we don't make the script. So we don't have to worry about going over the top with how many details we're providing them - that structure is already supplied. Our job is to make that structure as rich and filled as possible and saturated with real ideas and truth, and that's what makes a great actor. We have to be as specific as possible with our own targets in our head, even if we don't say it so explicitly. The audience will fill in the blanks in that way, and they'll do it in a more powerful way.
2. This is coming from the "Target Acting" guy at Thesp Fest again. He said that everything you say and do has a target, that you're seeing something there. The more specific, the better. It has to have shape, distance, form, and you have to see it - even if it's a metaphorical idea, and it has to remain consistent. The more specific the better, because the more you'll naturally react and respond to it. The more specific it is to you, the more specific it'll become to the audience - even if they're seeing something totally different than you. That's okay, that's not a problem - the point is that the more specific it is, the stronger it is. In All That's Known, the thing I know I need to work on the most is having specific people in mind that I'm singing at and directing my thoughts about. I kind of just had it as general, like "this phrase is about hypocrites and bible freaks." Well that's kind of an action without an end, which hypocrites? Which bible freaks? The more specific I get, the stronger it becomes, the stronger my natural reaction and natural response comes out and the more the audience can relate to it and draw from.
ReplyDelete3. The difference between remembering and reminiscing. One prime example I think is between one's lines and one's emotions when saying those lines during a performance. Like I can remember my lines from Twelve Angry Jurors and recite them, but when I think about those lines, the feeling I had when I said these lines came back to me. And old things that were locked somewhere else in my brain are released. Those feelings bring me back to last year, to how I felt about the play, certain people, and certain events. Remembering is being able to tell what the memory was, reminiscing is experiencing those memories again.
ReplyDelete3. For me, the difference between remembering and reminiscing is sort of like the difference between reporting and acting. To remember is remembering that you have a quiz on Friday, or that the scene we're working on in class is due Tuesday (a thing most drama students seem to forget). To reminisce is to immerse yourself in memories that are dear to yourself. For me, I could reminisce about my childhood in Virginia. Even remembering an event to tell a police officer is different than reminiscing. In reminiscing, you lose yourself. In remembering, you repeat, and the level of emotion isn't as high.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Katie. I think remembering is more robotic and detached from emotion. Reminiscing is kind of the opposite. It’s almost just recalling the emotions of a situation. With Katie’s example of reminiscing over her childhood in Virginia, she isn’t reminiscing going “Oh yeah, we went to the carnival. That was fun.”, she’s thinking about the big pink fluffy cotton candy that made her so happy when it melted on her tongue. It’s the emotion behind the memory that makes remembering different from reminiscing.
Delete6.)There's a couple reasons why reminiscing like you're giving a presentation in chemistry class is something never to be done on stage. The first reason is that when people enter any building with a stage in it, they enter with a certain expectation. That expectation is to be entertained, informed, or both (there could be a myriad of other reasons, but let's focus on these to simplify things, shall we?). Therefore, whether you're reminiscing with a soliloquy, presenting a scene, or even presenting something for chemistry class it should not be done on a stage if it's going to be boring. It lowers people's expectations and makes a mockery of theater because it changes what being on a stage means. It lowers its value. Moving past that, it would be difficult to soliloquize or reminisce without being passionate or interesting due simply to the fact that a reminiscence is, by definition, an account of a memorable experience. It happened to you, or it happened to your character, and while there was probably physical things about the experience that could be recalled and recited as facts, the emotions and feelings you associate with the experience are what make it worth recounting in the first place (what make it "memorable"). Therefore, a mechanical recitation of a past experience is useless, because if you're really enveloping yourself in the details of the experience, the emotions will come through your voice and movements simply because you will feel them on stage.
ReplyDeleteKeenan's got it. When you reminisce, you're recalling something memorable. When you're reminiscing, you naturally talk in a passionate and emotion filled manner, because you obviously feel strongly about whatever it is you're reminiscing about. To reminisce in a normal tone of voice would be boring. And one of the worst things you can be on stage is boring.
DeleteThis question reminds me of two points that Stella hit a lot- nature and the truth. While speaking in your normal voice may be, well, normal, I think when you reminisce you lose inhibitions and show the audience how your character would really feel about it, thus something very truthful. The movements that seem to go with reminiscing also seem very flow-y, water like, thus very natural. I think reminscing in a poetic tone is one of the most truthful things you can do onstage. I like how Keenan used the word mechanical to describe the wrong (per-say) way of reminiscing. It shows that reminiscing and mechanics are sort of foils. One is soft, inviting, reminds you of better times, and the other is cold, hard, and unfeeling.
Delete1. When acting, you show a lot about the character you're portraying through their actions. When I played Tom the Troll, I slouched a lot, hit my fellow trolls, occasionally nibbled on human body parts, and made a lot of ape like movements. This was all to show that Tom was this terrible, primitive monster. If I had moved around like, say, an old-timey English gentleman, or a graceful ballerina, it would've really missed the entire point of the character, which was to be this savage monster guy. Heck, it would've turned him into a different character altogether. Not to mention, I would've looked really silly next to the other trolls(not that we didn't already look silly).
ReplyDeleteI have a thought here that might complicate things a bit, but I'm inclined to toss it out anyway. what should we do if there's a character who's acting? For example, let's say you're a troll in a play and that troll begins to pretend it is an old-timey English gentleman, more than likely for comic relief of an unsavory situation or something of the like. How much of each character do we portray? Obviously, the troll probably isn't as good of an actor as the actual actor on stage portraying him, but in that case, do we begin to play both characters badly, or just one? I've definitely confused myself. Anyway, there is a fine line between wanting to stand out from the other characters that are similar to you on stage (which there would be more of when you're a lower-focus character) and actually maintaining the integrity of that character. I think we should strive to work together with the other actors and collaboratively make a product that the audience will enjoy, so that's why it was good that you, Kiley, and Aaren weren't constantly attempting to outdo each other with trolliness (well... not all the time at least).
Delete1. In Into the Woods, my character Lucinda goes blind towards the end due to some violent birds pecking her eyes out. After the pecking, Hailey Hodge and I wore blacked out glasses to cover our eyes and show our blindness. Let me tell you these glasses helped so much. Playing a blind person is especially difficult onstage when you need to use your eyes to move around the stage. The action I found myself focusing on was staring straight into the blacked out glasses. In doing this I was able to blind myself slightly because I could only see out of my peripherals. The other action I really tried to master was using my ears to guide me around the stage and to tell me who was speaking. When I did this, I noticed it was easier to move my head so my ears were towards the speaker rather than my eyes. This became a big part of my character. Looking back I’m not sure these were the best actions I could have done to make my character blind, but it helped me to believe that I was blind. It also helped me feel more lost and oblivious to what was happening, which was a part of my character even before she was blind.
ReplyDeleteThat's a perfect example of being in character! Literally! I would have been pretty worried about possibly falling into the pit if I were you! But anyways, your actions were definitely key to your character in the second act! I remember how you and Hailey wondered around stage and I thought it was really believable. You could have just stared blankly and let the audience find out you ere blind by your glasses, but instead you held your ear up to who was speaking and looked around like you were really lost, which was definitely much more interesting to watch.
Delete2) In this example, the second sentence is much stronger because it’s not as vague and general as the first. It tells the audience nothing about what your intentions are if all you say is “somewhere”. It’s like if you haven’t seen a friend in a long time, you wouldn’t greet them by shaking their hand. You would run up to them and give them a huge hug. The more personal and specific a line is, the more meaning it has and the more personal it becomes.This summer my character has a monologue where she explained how boring and uneventful her life is. I could have said "I feel sad because I'm bored", but instead the line was "I look out at my window at the rain and the grey and wonder if my life will ever change", which is much more enticing and specific.
ReplyDelete