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 15:
1.
"One way we can build a character is by identifying character elements the playwright uses in creating his people. Here's a list of character elements that are worth studying: carefree, ambitious, outgoing, enterprising, responsible, conscientious, adventurous, scholarly, reliable, practical, introspective." Describe what character elements you played as a character on stage. What was the author's purpose in creating character like this?
2.
"Acting is reacting, and shouldn't arise out of a false response." Explain what Stella Adler is talking about.
3.
"In a play you can't really work unless you develop an attitude toward your partner." Using an experience from the stage explain why that sentence is true.
4. "Resist the impulse to make the play fit you. You must fit the play." Why should you do this as an actor?
4)If you try to make the play fit you, you take the purpose out of the play. The play becomes about you and has your personality rather than what the play was intended to be about. Most actors try to relate what has happened in their life to what is happening in the play in order to find the right emotion. Stella Adler is saying that you must not use your life because it will not be the same emotion or reaction as the playwrite intended. Instead, you have to believe what is happening in the play so the emotion will come naturally. Summing that all up, the play is not about you or your life so you can't make it that way.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoy this portion of the book. I try to create my own spin on characters sometimes. I like to consider myself an artist and then an actor. However there is an intended meaning. I agree with not making the play about you, but I do enjoy fresh interpretations of characters without changing the story. Sometimes the line is blurred
DeletePersonally, and I'm sure this is a point that is argued against often, I love it when actors take a little liberty with their roles. I love when they interpret the role maybe a little differently than it has been performed in the past, or as the author intended. If you've seen a play multiple times, and you see it again with a new spin on the main character, it just gives a whole new perspective on the play. It makes it that much more interesting, and you can really see the thought that the actor put into that role.
DeleteI agree with most of what's said here wholeheartedly. I agree with Makenna completely that it takes the meaning and intent out of the play to make it about us and instead of about trying to be an agent that propels the meaning. I also agree with Evan and Kylie how it is good to add a part your own persona into the character in a way that adds depth to that character. All of the best actors and actresses always create something extra in their characters that is unique to them and is a side-effect of their interpretation and experiences, and those people who have that effect, while staying true to the writers' intentions, are the ones who are the greatest.
Delete4) Shows are a team effort. Everyone is a part in the machine and all the parts need to be functioning correctly. The play was not written about you so you can't make it about you. Plays have messages and characters transmit them. You could ruin the point of the play by making it about you.
ReplyDeleteI like that you mentioned the play has a message. Each character is made specifically to help get that message across. Tampering too much with the character could affect that message. You can't make the play fit you because it changes the purpose of hte play.
DeleteI totally agree with you. I think that one of the main issues some lead actors have is forgetting that every part of the play is just as important as their own. Even the smallest part sets the scene and adds to the big picture. They may not have as many lines or as much stage time, but without the smaller parts then the show would not be complete.
Delete2
ReplyDeleteI think that she means (I might be interpreting this incorrectly but) that, in a play, you need to honestly react the way that your character would. If their wife is cheating on them, you need to interpret whether your character would be upset, angry, hurt, etc. If there is an area where lines are muddled or forgotten and someone improvs a section, you need to discern how your character would honestly respond, and create a believable reaction. I love that quote, "Acting is reacting," because I think it's the easiest way to describe acting. YOu are always reacting or responding to something, regardless of the role.
4. When the author writes a play, they do not write their characters for a specific actor, they write their play to write a play. If an actor comes in thinking that they can fit the character to their personality, they will only end up doing the author's work injustice. In order to play a character well, the actor must completely remove themselves from their own personality. They need to replace themselves with the character, no matter how different the character may be from their actual personality.
ReplyDeleteI almost completely agree with this. I often say that to act well or to do well in a scene or as a charecter you cant act as that charecter, but you must become them. In that sence I agree with you, but I also think that it maybe good to SOMETIMES have your own personality in the charecter also. It adds to it, you make your mark as doing that charecter your way, and you make it more memorable for yourself.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete4. In plays, at least well-written ones, every single role has a specific intent within that story that drives the story a certain way. I think as characters, we are the agents that propel the story - and we have to propel it in the way that it was intended. So for someone to make a character about themself instead of making themself about the character, they are effectively reducing the ability of that character to propel the story in the manner that it was intended when it was written. It's important to resist the temptation to make the play about ourselves instead of working towards the ultimate goal of creating the story.
ReplyDelete2. Acting is reacting, I think that Stella Alder means that to act, or to be a good actor/actress, you need to not only memorize lines, and do as the author of the play may have invisioned, but you also must be able to improvise. To react, to go off of a fellow actor/actress' lines the they made up, and keep it going for them. That will either help them, help you, or make the show better, funnier, more dramatic, or whatever the aim is tward the viewers. That will make a scene/show great, besides doing the lines as written.
ReplyDeleteRyan-I agree with this. Feeding off a partner is always a good thing, and improvisation helps teach us how to react. To react instead of having a false response can be put like this:
DeleteIt shouldn't be, "pretend that this man is about to hit you in the face." It should be, "This guy is about to punch me in the face." The reactions are totally different. It's instinctive for us to react a certain way to something. As humans. And if you're playing a human, then you know how to react to someone about to punch you in the face. You move out of the way. But was it natural? That's the whole deal-eo. Acting isn't putting yourself in a scenario. Acting means you ARE IN the scenario. This is real, what are you going to do about it as this character?
4. I've been really stressing this point in a few other chapters. You can't make the play fit for you, because it is not the actor's place to do so. An actor takes what is given to him, and he adapts. That's why our minds are so fresh and full of wrinkles. It's because we should be able to take something and let it mold us. If we mold a play, that's taking the integrity of the writer. You are the character, not the other way around. You are telling the story, the story should not have an essence of you. It's difficult to explain, because you have to be in touch but not in touch enough to go around changing things. It's kind of being objective and subjective at the same time. Osubjective.
ReplyDelete3.) This was something I primarily thought of in Beauty and the Beast because of the large number of actors we had on the stage at any given time. It really reminds me that the entire play, as a general rule, cannot be made by one character or one actor. It is very much a collaborative effort of everyone on stage to create the very best illusion for the audience, and therefore, one person who isn't at the top of their game or hasn't put the proper amount of time into their character or the play in general can have a devastating effect on the rest of the group. It has to be like a well oiled machine so that on show night, the whole thing flows perfectly. So developing an attitude toward the other actors or characters helps a lot with the whole idea of "acting is reacting." You can't do your job properly unless the other actor prompts your actions and lines. The relationship between Belle and the Beast is an excellent example, because even though he's a naturally angry individual, the play would be quite a bit harder to follow if Belle wasn't continuously aggravating him. The attitude I developed towards Belle was one of complete confusion, which for semi-ignorant, harry, and emotionally fragile individuals leads primarily to explosive anger. The attitude creates the beats for the entire performance, and as the attitude towards Belle changes, it was significantly easier for me to portray that change when I knew where the Beast started.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Keenan- if one person isn't doing their best, then the person who is doing their best is dragged down because they only have their environment to react to. It was particularly difficult for me in the town scene, because while I was trying to converse and react to different situations around town, it became difficult when other people weren't as 'in the game' per-say. I mean, I had a superior view on most of the town anyways because of my aristocracy, but it was still difficult. It's sort of like hitting one of those dummies that comes right back at you when you're working with people who aren't sure of who they are. They just keep coming back with a weak response, and no matter how much you hit them, they do the same thing. Very boring.
DeleteI love how you just explained that Katie, about the dummy. I agree with both of you that acting is a group effort. Truly its the relationships in a show that make the show. Anyway, you cant be onstage and show the audience who your character is unless you have something to react to. When two people react strongly to each other it showcases the talent and the characters of both actors.
DeleteKeenan's got it right-a play is a collaborative effort, and if one actor isn't doing their best, it can bring everyone else down. If one person forgets their lines, that makes it more difficult to properly react to them. If one person hasn't taken the time to develop their character and the character's relationships with the other characters, then that makes things harder for the actors who have developed their character, because there's now less to react to. Everyone has to pull their own weight, or the whole play suffers for it.
Delete3. This applies to me when I was Bofur in "The Hobbit". I developed a very different way of reacting to my brothers than when I interacted with the other dwarves, Bilbo, or Gandalf. I gave them both a hard time, but I let Bifur on his own more often, and tried to keep him in line when he picked on Bombur. Conversely, I usually gave in when Bombur asked for my food, or just rolled my eyes when he took it without asking, but did try to watch him more than I did Bifur, since he was the weakest of the group. Anyway, if I didn't have anyone to interact with, I would have just stood there. Acting is reacting, and with nothing to react to, there would be no acting. It'd literally just be a single person standing on stage, alone. Even when actors are alone, like when giving monologues in a Shakespeare play, they're reacting to a circumstance, revelation, or inner conflict. People don't go to the theatre to see other people stand on stage for 2 hours. They go to see a story, to see conflict, and all of that is created when people react with their surroundings.
ReplyDeleteI think it should be said as well that it isn't just the actor's who react to the surroundings. What ultimately prompts each character to do what he/she does is how the surroundings change, and the surroundings can only be altered by other characters. This would be prevalent in the beginning of most plays, because the conflict hasn't arisen yet. A differentiation between conflict-mode and normalcy needs to be established before the audience can see the changing features of the play. Once that conflict has been provided, it isn't the character's who change, it is the surroundings. The situation. But, of course like Katie said, acting is reacting, and the characters will react to these new circumstances true to form. So, not that it's horribly crucial, but I think it's good to remember why acting is reacting, and it's not just due to the characters. The overall circumstance of the play and how it morphs over time is what will make the most noticeable statement.
Delete2. What Stella is trying to say is that every action is a reaction to a stimulus…it’s the effect in a cause and effect relationship. Something needs to trigger your action. In the book she uses the example of the two monkeys. Like she explains one monkey isn’t going to start fighting with the other just because. However, if one monkey steals the other’s banana, then deciding to fight is a legitimate action. She is trying to explain that there is a motive behind every action. We’ve talked about how if you’re going to walk across the stage it needs to be with purpose. I think sometimes actors feel obligated to keep moving or to keep acting in big ways when don’t even have a reason to. It makes sense to walk across the stage if you’re going to open the door or if your avoiding a confrontation with an enemy. When she says it ‘shouldn’t arise out of a false response’, that can be related back to responding appropriately. If a monkey steals my banana and I then start picking fleas off of him, it just wont make sense. I didn’t react to what he was doing; instead I did something I think a monkey might do. Yes Im acting as a monkey but it isn’t a true believable response.
ReplyDelete4. If you try to make the play fit you, you risk throwing the entire production out of balance. There are a few reasons for this. First of all, the author wrote the play with a certain idea and meaning in ming. Try to make the play all about you, and the play loses its meaning. Next of all, if you try overstepping your part to make it more important, all of the other actors suffer for it. Not only that, but the plays overall quality drops too. As actors we're given a role, and it's our job to make our character as entertaing and interesting as possible, without overstepping our boundaries. We overstep those bandaries, and the wholr play begins to suffer.
ReplyDelete