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 14:
1.
"The actor, however, is not only to reproduce these national and occupational traits. He must also show the differences between individuals -- how two Italian designers, for instance, behave differently toward the same attractive client." In the theatre we are frequently given characters that are thrown in for support, for example the angry white mob in "To Kill A Mockingbird," or the Munchkins from "The Wizard of Oz." What is/would be your process for creating a specific character for a non-specific role.
2.
"A human being, if you take him out of his social situation is somebody else. He doesn't know who he is, and neither will you know how to play him because you're in limbo." From your experience on stage explain how knowing (or not knowing) your character's "social situation" helped (or hurt) your character.
3.
"The strongest base for a table is three legs. If you can find three interrelated ideas in a text you have a play that's in control." List three interrelated ideas from a play you performed. Make sure that you list your character and the show.
4. "Background is created out of the five W's -- who, what, where, when, why. Answer these questions and the background falls into place. For instance, imagine a bunch of daffodils you've received from a friend. They live in a vase in your living room for five days, and then you throw them out with the trash. When you received the daffodils, they'd already lived a life of their own. They were born in a nursery in Holland and were transplanted to grow in special soil. They were sent to the flower market in Amsterdam and bought at the flower auction. They were loaded onto a plane as air freight and shipped to Kennedy Airport. From there they went first to a wholesale florist on 28th Street and then to the flower shop in the Village where your friend spotted them. You now know the what, where, when and why of the daffodil. If called upon, you could now play one of the daffodils." If you had to play the daffodil you probably wouldn't be able to express all that history, but you would be confident about who you were. How many times have we spent the time to be as specific with our character as Stella Adler has been about this simple flower? Create the who, what, where, when, and why for a character you would like to play onstage one day.
5.
"When you come in saying, 'I'm a lawyer' or 'I'm a doctor' or 'I'm a stenographer,' you're somebody that does something. You don't come in with lines. You don't come in with a scene. You come in as somebody who does something. What do you do. Think about it." From your stage experience describe the difference between a character you played who had a very specific profession and one that did not.
1) My process for creating a character in a non-specif role would probably start with my age. Lets say that I chose to be an old woman. Next I would look at how my character is supposed to react in the play. Now lets say I am an old woman in the angry mob in To Kill a Mockingbird. AFter I have established that, I would find a motive for my actions. I can't just be mad for no reason, so I would begin to create a life for myself. Where did I grow up as a child? Was I rich or poor? Did I have to work hard for my job or was it given to me? Am I married? Do I have children? Grandchildren? Then I can decide why I am apart of this mob. Without creating a life, I am just an actor in a big group of other actors and the audience isn't going to believe that performance.
ReplyDeleteGreat response. Every character needs depth because every character serves a purpose. That's why they're on stage. It sounds self explanatory but it's often forgotten. The most believable parts, no matter how small, suspend the audience's reality.
DeleteI was going to answer this prompt, but I saw that Makenna had written my thoughts almost word-for-word. I completely agree, darling stepdaughter. If every single person in that mob takes the time to think about their character, and delivers an honest and believable mob mentality, then the scene will just be so much better as a whole. IF all of the extras don't take that time, then the whole scene will just sort of be a bust, and it won't be believable at all.
DeleteAgreed with the above, great response. I think that historical richness has to be there for any character you play, it has to be saturated with background even if you never say a word. When it has the full background, it has substance, and the audience will connect with some element of that substance because it's tangible and it's there. A character with no notion of why they're there because the background doesn't exist lacks substance, and there's nothing the audience will connect to.
Delete2) In the Wizard of Oz, I played the Wizard. I had no idea what his social situation was. Every character easily got along with him and his citizens worshiped him. The lines would never insinuate that he was outside the social norm. However, his situation would suggest so. He didn't talk to people for years so he has to have some sort of social retardation. In the movie he was played off as a charismatic and kind grandfather figure. That was one interpretation. Without that reference, how would someone choose to play this character. His portrayal can really change the entire mood surrounding the scenes he's in. I chose to play him as VERY socially inept. In this role I was able to create a little wiggle room for my character's interpretation. In another role without many freedoms, I could have ruined an entire show.
ReplyDelete2
ReplyDeleteIn An Actor's Nightmare, I played Sarah Siddons, who, along with George, was an understudy for the play. However, unlike George, she knew her lines, and wasn't completely lost in the play. Since she was an understudy, I interpreted that as being desperate to do a good job, because she wouldn't get very much stage time as such. So, the one time she gets to perform the lead role, she is trying her hardest to be perfect. I made her extremely nervous, yet appearing confident when George would mess up, like she wanted the audience to see that SHE knew what she was doing, and was a good actress.
I agree with the thought process that an understudy would be desperate to be in the play, making her nervous yet confident and determined is a very good way to show this kind of character.
Delete2. Now, while this may not be considered the best example, this question jumped out at me. I'm going to use Snow White. Now, this is a character who is very...passive and very "Yes, of course big strong prince whom I just met, I'll go with you and do whatever you want". Anyone who knows me knows that I am the exact opposite of someone like this, in fact people like this annoy me to no end. Therefore, it was important for me to understand how in the social scheme of things, during this time period, she was supposed to be a perfect damsel in distress and wait for her knight in shining armor (or in this case silver band uniform) to save her and marry her. Bleh, but understanding this mental state made it much easier for me not to treat all of my 3 minutes on stage sarcastically.
ReplyDeleteI think that playing a character who is so different from who you really are is difficult to do. Most actors choose not to. However, when you do, you have to completely understand the characters situation if you want to portay them well. I liked that you adressed your differences because I'm sure admitting that your character was a bimbo helped you move past the silliness and get into character.
Delete1. Every cahracter has a purpose, with that known, we also know that every character needs depth. There is more to this character than meets the eye. With my character, i'd make known, the age, the name, where I came from, and so on. Basic history and facts about the character that helps the viewer better understand me, and therefore better understand every scene I am in, and every line I speak.
ReplyDeleteI really like this philosophy. I feel like the audience enjoys a play more when they can make a connection to the character. The more the audience can know about the character the more real they are. I constantly bring up the word "real" because a play is enjoyed most when the audience can suspend disbelief and believe in whatever it is the actors are portraying.
DeleteRyan- I like this philosophy as well. I think the more you make a character, the more the audience will appreciate that. If there's actual depth in a character, people will be able to get in touch with that character and find a sense of reality in a fantastic show. If a character is shallow and you can tell that they're just going along with what the script told them to do, then it stinks. You gotta really listen to the script. And listen to that character. Let the character tell you how he/she wants to be portrayed.
DeleteIt's late so I may be going off the deep end, but I think that makes sense in a metaphorical way.
1. My process for creating something has always been the 'why?' Why am I in this mob? Why I am cheering for the first lady of Argentina? What would I have to be doing that drives me to do what I say I'm doing in this play? I try to create a background the answers the question of 'why.' If, in my play, I'm at a rally for a political candidate, I try to create my background as something that would make my desires match up with what I was trying to do in that scene. For example, if I'm a poor shoemaker from a family of shoemakers for the past three generations but business has dried up for the working class, then naturally it would make sense for me to be going to a rally for a political candidate who promises to bring work back to the working class.
ReplyDelete1. I love this question. I have a tendency to make a HUGE character out of a tiny role. Examples include Billy Bob, Nico, Munchkin, Ozian, the Wolf, and the Zombie. Usually what I do is find something that clicks with me and my small role and emphasize it. A lot of the time it has to do with comedy. For an example, as the Munchkin in "The Wizard of Oz" I made sure to always have some sort of facial expression and have a lot of energy. This was my time to shine, so I tried to shine brightly, and that's what actors do. The more energy you have, the more people will feed off you. When the Wicked Witch came, I acted extra scared, and cowardly. With roles that are extras, some tend to not really put any effort out into it because there are 20 others that look just like you. But that's when you're supposed to make a character for yourself and shine.
ReplyDeleteAnother example is when the script doesn't tell you much about your character. That's when you go and be creative! In Twelve Angry Jurors, half of the things we did were made with our creative minds. You just have to seize oppritunity!
2.) This concept became most evident to me and most useful when I played Montano in "Othello" this past year. While a relatively small part in the play overall, his social situation creates quite a problem for Cassio when he denounces him in his drunken state. Stabbing someone important is just never good for anybody's rap sheet. Montano's social status made him relatively easy to play because of his minor role in script after we cut it up, as I could simply reduce the complexity of the character down to his main points. He was a military man and a previous member of the government of Cyprus, so his sense of justice and pride were what I really used to define him and what I fully tried to get across to the audience. I did this by being polite, standing strongly and speaking with a certain amount of disgust and disappointment about Cassio's supposed "drinking" problem. By building this enormous sense of justice up, the intervention into the fight between the "weak" Roderigo and the "bully" Cassio was a no-brainer for the audience, and it made the stab wound seem so much more painful for me playing the character because of the hurt pride. Engaging another man in battle was already a last resort, but as a military man, he would know that picking fights that put you in a state of incapacitation is an activity reserved for idiots and drunkards, and the fact that he lowered himself to Cassio's level and lost is simply unacceptable to his status and experience. All of these things I drew from "upper-class, well-respected, and military." So in this particular case, knowing his social standing was an enormous benefit.
ReplyDeleteI think this really applied to you when you were Montano. I recall, while watching the play, you had a very direct, stern look about you, and seemed all work and business. Sort of like a Stormtrooper taking orders from Darth Vader. Anyways, this really came across the audience (well, at least me). So way to use your social standings to portray your character, Keenan.
Delete2. In Othello, I was quite confused as to who Desdemona was socially. It seems like her father is a man with a bit of power, but he obviously wasn’t the King. I had Emilia as my lady so I knew I obviously wasn’t poor. I’m sure I could have figured this out fairly easily, if I had put more effort into researching who she was in a social class. Unfortunately, I didn’t. Because I didn’t know, it was hard for me to know how much respect I should have demanded from the people around me. I think it was appropriate that I was a little submissive in front of the Duke because I know Desdemona is below him. However, when I was around Iago or, let’s say, Roderigo, maybe I should have held myself higher. Knowing this would have made it much easier for me to define my character outside of being Othello’s wife. I don’t think my ignorance was noticeable to the audience, but having that knowledge would have made me feel much more comfortable with my character.
ReplyDeletePersonally,I think that when it comes to Shakespeare in particular, the audience is going to have trouble noticing things like that. Truthfully, some of the audience when we did that show probably had trouble following the story line period, so Desdemona's interactions with other characters was very low on their list of things to focus on. But that being said, adding as much depth to your character as possible is something that can be accomplished by just knowing facts about them or their classes standing in the hierarchy can make the character much more than just "Othello's wife," which is the character in it's most basic form. The other things about the character depict how the person or people of a similar situation would be affected by the events of the play and that is what will ultimately make a statement to the audience.
DeleteThe whole social ladder in Othello could get a tad confusing at times. Like, it was obvious that the Duke was the highest up on the social ladder. But, as Makenna said, Desdemona's social situation wasn't as clear. It's obvious she's pretty high up socially, but how high up she isn't exactly clear. Doing a little research on the whole hierarchy of Othello probably could've helped clear that up. Not that I think the audience would've cared all that much, but if you though it would've helped you, Makenna, you should have done the extra research.
Delete, when, why
ReplyDelete4. One role I'd love to play one day is Katerina, or Katherine, from "The Taming of the Shrew". One of the lovely things about her character is how abrupt and wild she is compared to the other female lead, her sister (arguably her foil) and in general to most women from that time period. When I was reading this play, I did spend some time thinking how she got this way. Well, the 'who' is Katerina, daughter of a Lord. She grew up in a comfortable household, and never really had to deal with worries about money. However, since she has no brothers and is the eldest child, she is the sole heir to her father's estate. As for what/where/when, Katerina is a bad-tempered woman in Italian society that looked down upon women who weren't obedient. As a result of her shrewdness, no one liked her/wanted to marry her. Even her father and sister feared her wrath. When the play begins, we can assume that she is getting on in her years, (as a 19-something-year-old-woman can be in the Italian Renaissance) and her dim marriage prospects are becoming even dimmer. But not that she cares. (Woe be to Bianca, however, who can't marry until Katherine does). As for the why? That's not stated as clearly. I like to think that its because of her lack of a mother. The Bard never did say what happened to their mother, but I like to think that Katherine was tamer before her mother died. Maybe, in her eyes, her mother's obedience to her father is the reason for her death. Katerina doesn't want to follow the same path as her mother, so she acts as wild and crazy as she can to avoid this fate. Bianca was just a baby when their mother died, so she doesn't have this influence. And because Katherine is so loud, Bianca naturally became the quiet, well-mannered one.
Those are the 5 w's I like to think of for Katherine. And while I've thought this one out, I can't say I've done this for every character I've portrayed on stage, which is a shame. It adds more depth/meaning when you do this, after doing it for Katherine.
I really like your thoughts about Kate's mother and father.
Delete2. In Othello, I played the Duke of Venice. The Duke is very high up socially, due to the fact that he's, well, a Duke, as well as the main authority in Venice. Out of all the characters in Othello, he's pretty much the highest up on the social ladder, despite only appearing for one scene. Everyone respects the Duke and bows before him, as he is very powerful, benevolent, and wise. His opinions are so well respected that people will often go to him advice, like Othello, Brabantio, and Desdemona do early in the play. He's also an important member of the military who makes major military decisions, like sending Othello, an important general, to Cyprus to help thwart a Turk attack. Knowing all of this about the Duke really helped me act accordingly.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of what you said Stuart, I think knowing your social situation helped provide you with some pretty specific actions you could perform that would represent your character. For instance, you said everyone came to the Duke for advice. This means the Duke probably would hold himself up a little higher. Depending on whether the Duke was either a little egotistical or just a wise ruler would also change how he would act. He might quite literally look down his nose on the others in the room or he would make eye contact and level himself a little more with everyone. I think, Stuart, you probably chose the ‘wise’ approach because I remember you scratching your chin and leaning down a little as you contemplated the answer. Whether or not you meant to do this it was important in establishing what kind of a duke you were.
Delete3) This summer I was in a play where my character, Barbara, was in a school lock down, trapped in a classroom with other students. My classmates and I learned that the potential gunman on campus was in our room. Already you can probably tell that the main idea of the play was gun violence in schools. That was what the main plot was set around. But behind that, each character has a different secret they're hiding and their own personal problems in life. As we investigate each other, we learn that everyone has a secret but that doesn't make them a killer, so the second main idea would be acceptance. Some of the characteristics of the characters are very stereotypical, like the dumb blonde, and strong jock. And when we all opened up to each other, the stereotypes faded away, revealing a sense of acceptance of one another. The third idea would also be the standard of teachers in high schools. During the flashback moments in the play the audience is introduced to a drunk, unhelpful, rude counselor who does not give any advice to help the students with their problems. Of course this is exaggerated, but it made me think about how there are some teachers out there that do not do their job, and as a result the student seeking for help feels even more alone. There was a reason the counselor character existed, to show how in some high schools, the reason children might be acting out in anger is because they aren't being properly helped by their teachers/counselors.
ReplyDelete