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 20:
1.
"You must see these lines are full of strength, power and authority. The words come from God, through Shakespeare, to you." Describe a time on stage when you felt you were performing your lines with the strength, power, and authority spoken about above.
2.
"Take the text and make it yours. The actor becomes richer as he makes the author's ideas his own. You are the conductor of the orchestra, not just a player. You cannot be weak inside. The actor must sense the power, the quality, the size of thinking in the text. If it doesn't mean anything to you, instinctively, you haven't got it. Or the part." Using an
experience you had for an audition describe how you connected to the author's ideas in the script.
3.
"He must lean the ideas of the great writers, not just the lines! You are not parrots!" Explain what Stella Adler means by this.
4. "One more thing -- you no doubt think the military mind is about anger. Anger is cheap. Take the anger out. It's not a substitute for thinking, for ideas, for words. Look at history. Invariably the victorious side is the one fighting for an idea." Explain how "fighting for an idea" strengthened your character during a performance (or how it would have in a past performance where you were not fighting for an idea.)
ReplyDelete3) Adler means that you have to understand the purpose behind the lines. Memorizing words does not make you an actor--anyone can do that. Presenting the words in a meaningful way that impacts other is what makes you an actor. You have to understand why the writer wrote what he did. It is not all about the character's subtext. You also have to know the reasons for the words from the directors or the writers point of view. Knowing this, gives you the power to speak those words to the fullest.
Makenna- Yes! Exactly. Memorizing the words is only the first step into having a performance. Which is why actor's need to get on top of memorization at a quick pace so when they're performing they aren't worrying about if they're going to screw up. A performance should not revolve around the words itself, but the subtext. One should memorize to the point that the words being said are natural and you can say them in your sleep. Because then, at this point, you can really pay attention to the meaning of the words. Where they come from, what they mean, and what emotion and experience is behind that. For an example, we have to perform Sonnets every year. I've been performing the same Sonnet 70 since my freshman year. At this point, those words are drilled into my brain, there is no way I can ever forget them. So now, everytime I perform that sonnet I just polish the meaning and the emotion expressed. Good point Makenna!
Delete2. When I auditioned for the Open Jar Institute I auditioned with a part of the song "As Long As You're Mine" from Wicked. This song is pretty passionate, and I had to find some form of passion for me to draw from. The man who was judging me had me do it twice, and the second time he had me try to envision someone to sing to on the wall behind him. I feel like the second time when I really did envision someone to sing to the song held much more meaning and I think that was what really helped me get into the institute that year.
ReplyDeleteBeautiful example. I think it helps to be even more specific - to picture that person you feel passionate about doing something. It's one thing to sing at a blank slate of that person, but it's another level entirely to sing to that person you feel passionately about as you're reacting to what they're doing. In the case of As Long As You're Mine, it might make sense to see that person walking towards you in a room and ignoring all of the other girls to come to you. The more specific you can be with your target and what you're responding to, the better.
DeleteI agree with andrew, you cant just sing at the audience or at a point, you have to sing to someone. You cant pretend someone is there, you have to see someone there. A person, is there.
Delete3. This is going to start off like a rant, but there's a reason for it, so bear with me - it has meaning and there's a reason for it - it'll make my point for me.
ReplyDeleteI hate the word "subtext." I hate when people say "add more subtext here," like it's going to solve a problem. "Subtext" in itself means absolutely nothing, the word is an attempt to define the meaning and ideas behind the lines. I hate the word because you don't just "add subtext," because acting is nothing but IDEAS and MEANING, not the words you're saying! The words are fluff to convey an idea, the idea is what is tangible! It's the idea that has to be understood and aimed for at all times and that make up the structure of the scene, the words are just agents to get that idea across! The words themselves bear no meaning, we have to apply the meaning based on the ideas that inspired and created those words.
Obviously we agree at the core of this. However, I disagree that the words are just fluff. The words have a specific purpose. Once we understand the meaning of the play, we must help the audience understand by adding specific subtext to our lines and through our characterization. I do agree though that the ideas that created the lines have to be understood. Subtext is a separate theatrical tool used to promote said ideas though
Delete3) We aren't out there to regurgitate lines like a robot. Literature is an art that conveys and expresses ideas. We are the messengers of those words. By adding SUBTEXT to our lines and understanding them we can transmit this message, but first we have to understand the message on our own. We are the middle man between the author and the audience. We just need to make sure we promote and sell their product well.
ReplyDeleteI keep mentioning how things need to be "real", and subtext makes the work real in itself. Any person can read a script just flat and the audience would still see a show, but would they remember it afterwords? Probably not. Subtext is that extra layer that can really make or break a performance. In order to understand our character, we have to read between the lines in a way and find what is there, but just hiding from us.
Delete3. I think that Alder means that we have to understand the deeper meaning of the lines. We have to understand why each line was written, and what the meaning of them are. To memorize lines are one thing, but to say them with the meaning that the author wanted. Without knowledge of the meaning or purpose, you're just repeating memorized lines and acting; if you know the meaning and you become the character then you are really making the viewers believe the lines.
ReplyDeleteEvan) I like that you said language is an art form. Even though I might seem hypocritical having said that the emotion or acting is more important than the words, its nice to adress that words play a big role too. Language allows us to specify our emotions and really communicate to the audience. If words weren't so important we would be pantomiming every play.
ReplyDelete1. There is one piece and one piece only that comes to mind when I think of "lines full of strength, power, and authority." That piece is a monologue from Titus Andronicus. That's funny because it actually does come from Shakespeare. In this piece, Titus confronts Chiron and Demetrius, the men who raped and disembodied his daughter's tongue. The amount of emotion that had to be put into this piece was immense. Very powerful, and full of anger and authority. Eventually in the monologue he informs that his mother (who is "Revenge") is going to eat a pie that is made out of their flesh and blood. He is literally telling these people that he is going to kill them, make a pie out of them, and give it to their mother. That is something gruesome, and full of authority and power.
ReplyDelete4.) The group dynamic of the dwarves in "The Hobbit" this past year was something that varied pretty extensively, but I also think it was something we widely ignored due to the fact that the majority of the dwarves were practically a piece of the background (depending on the dwarf). But when I think about it, the idea of "fighting for an idea" went far beyond the assumption that all the dwarves were characteristically on the journey for the benefit of the gold at the end of the tunnel. My character comes to mind in particular when I think about this, due to the fact that he was the youngest of the dwarves and had family present in the group. They were more than just treasure hunters, they were individuals who had become accustomed to living in one place that they loved, but were violently removed from that place because of greed. Therefore, I don't think their actions can be completely attributed to greed, but rather to their desire to maintain their heritage and relationships with their family members. This manifests later in the play when the group splits, and the true motives of each individual adventurer become evident. Those that were blinded by greed remained loyal to Thorin and his obedience to the gold, while those that were present on the adventure because of a natural attachment to others of their race and family became iffed due to their friends' corruption. Taking all of this into account, the ideas they were fighting for were different, but equally as powerful. My character in particular experienced a period of progressive corruption, a fixation on money that he hadn't started the play with, and that shift in ideals strengthened the character significantly over the course of the play. At first, there was this sort of passive attitude I tried to portray, because honestly the only reason Ori is there at all is because he's trying to keep in contact with his family, but the power and strength comes with the confidence he receives from emulating Thorin's focus on the gold. Many of the other dwarves (or the actors playing those dwarves, I suppose) identified this confidence with "sassiness," something that made the few lines my character had somewhat interesting and deliberately transitory from him being "the little brother" to somewhat of an evil henchman.
ReplyDeleteI really like your thoughts on this. I also want to point out what Stella said up in the original question- "Invariably the victorious side is the one fighting for an idea." In this case, both fractions of the Hobbits were fighting for ideas, but the more noble side won, in my opinion. Thorin dies (he sort of changes his ways at the end, right before he dies, though) largely due to his stubbornness about leaving the treasure. Other dwarves die, too. I think after all is said and done, they all agree to put less emphasis on the treasure and more on rebuilding their lost home. And that really sends a message to the audience about greed and the bad things that come with it.
Delete3. People assume that drama and theatrics in general is just reciting lines in costume, but this is possibly the farthest thing from the truth. In beginning drama, sure, but acting is so much more than that. It's not just memorizing lines, it's working on technique, it making tiny things bigger, it's exerting yourself to get the message across. Parrots are generally regarded as just repeating things back to us, not really knowing what they're talking about. Actors cannot be parrots. Playwrights have given us this task, to portray an idea to an audience, to remind them of life, of death, and the struggles we encounter in between. You can't begin to start acting until you have gotten out of this 'parrot' mode. Acting is so much more than that.
ReplyDeleteWell I think, when beginning at least, it is much less an exercise of memorize and regurgitate as it is just getting comfortable in your own skin. People are consistently acting throughout their day, but doing it consciously is something people are definitely not used to in any way because it almost forces you to face yourself. It makes you question who you are and makes you realize that being someone else is almost as hard as being yourself. That's why I firmly believe that we as a social group have the highest number of craps not given over the course of our collaborative 4 years in high school, and why drama is such a magnificent outlet, especially for people our age. I think Scrivner said when I was in his class that personalities are actually someone else's reaction to you, not something that spawns from you naturally, but rather a reaction that is prompted by someone else. It's like the person you're talking to is writing the script of what you're going to do next and you're following suit. Acting is cracking that. You're doing something no one expects because you're replacing the current social framework with another one, and that foreignness makes people just say the lines without feeling, or as Katie put it colorfully, being a parrot. But once you're aware of these things and comfortable with stepping out of yourself, it opens up more possibilities than just being a better actor.
Delete3. When acting, you have to have a firm understanding of what it is you're saying, or the things you say may begin to lose their meaning, and the audience could become lost. A really good example of needing to know not just the lines but the meaning of those lines is pretty much anything by Shakespeare. If you don't speak Shakespearian lines in a way that their meaning is clear, you're going to lose the audience really fast, because Shakespeare tends to be really complex and verbose. You can't just parrot Shakespeare; you've got to know Shakespeare. And that applies to pretty much every play; not just Shakespeare. You're an actor; it's your job to understand what it is you're saying so you can accurately portray the main ideas of a play to your audience.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I think its unfortunate when people have so much trouble memorizing lines. The lines are the easy part; its the subtext or the ideas behind it that are harder to master. I think inexperienced actors spend so much time memorizing words and not understand their meaning. Its so much easier to memorize lines when they mean something to you or to your character. Its also easier to recover from a missed line when you understand the meaning behind your lines.
Delete2. I came to the Into the Woods audition highly underprepared. I didn’t think to look up the characters before call backs, so I wasn’t aware of each character’s motivation. Now, if I had done a little bit of research before I think I would have connected with the author’s ideas. With one character in particular, Rapunzel, I feel like I would have connected. She has a somewhat typical love/hate relationship with her ‘mother’, the witch. I understand that there may not be some huge powerful idea behind Rapunzel’s character, but nevertheless I think she represents an idea most people are familiar with. She loves her mother and she wants to please her mother, but at the same time she desperately wants her freedom. Her character is the epitome of the smothered child. Had I known that this was who Rapunzel was, I would have done much better at the audition.
ReplyDeleteYeah, when auditioning for a play, it's always a good idea to know all you can about the play you're auditioning for. It's good to know who the characters are, what the character's motivations are, what the ideas of the play are, and other things like that. The more you know and understand about the play, the better your audition will be. If you don't do the necessary research, you just end up looking silly, and you probably wont get a part.
Delete