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 22:
1.
"When you play a character you must see what you have in common with that character, but you must never stop there." Describe why a character is incomplete when you base it only on what you can relate to.
2.
"When Marlon Brando was working on the role of Stanley Kowalski in Tennessee Williams' A Streetcar Named Desire, he used Van Gogh's painting of the boots to help him understand the character. He saw Kowalski as a peasant who'd come to the city and was broken by it." Describe a time when you used an object to help create your internal character and then describe how you physically demonstrated that internal character.
3.
"If, as actors, you've done your homework, there's no cause to be humble or apologetic in applying to agents or directors or producers. You've done the grinding work demanded by your profession, and they haven't. You'll begin to act when you can forget your technique -- when it is so securely inside you that you need not call upon it consciously." Describe a time when you were able to easily become your character on stage because of the research you did.
1) To start off describing why a character is incomplete if based only on what you can relate to, I'm going to compare two friends. When you know a friend really well, you know their hidden secrets, family problems, their favorite color, or what they like to do. You might have very similair if not the same qualities as they do. One might assume that you are "the same person". However, no matter how similair you are or how much you can relate you are still two completely different people. Different people or even strangers have shaped you friend differently than you have been shaped by others. You might be the same now, but there are things in your past that you both cannot share. This is like an actor and their character. The actor might feel that they completely connect with their character, but if they don't accept qualities the character has and they dont, their acting will suffer. You are not your character and your character is not you. Both are completely seperate beings and that must be accepted. The actor must learn these difference and portray them onstage as well. You must push forward to find these differences to show the unique individuality of your character.
ReplyDeleteMakenna- I like the analogy that you made here. It is true, that people may be similar but are still different people. That being put into an actor/character relationship was very nice. To be in actor is extactly that, to act. To portray. To manifest in a character. Characters are not the actors. Actors are the characters, because that how they have to portray themselves on stage. I was seriously nothing like some of my past characters (Juror No. 8, Wolf) but you have to be them when it comes show time. So, really good point.
Delete1. One of the most interesting things about humans is that there is only one you, and there will never be another you. The same can be said for characters. You may think that you identify greatly with a character, but in actuality there are things this character has experienced that are all their own. If an actor relies solely on what they know then they will only be hitting the tip of the iceberg. Treat the character like an individual human being that is all their own, create that character with mannerisms and ticks all their own, and then the character will be extremely relate able.
ReplyDeleteI love that you brought up character experiences. It's often forgotten that the character has a life outside the events in the script. This is a person. You have to understand that every person handles certain things differently. The iceberg isn't even being scratched by identifying similarities. It's being viewed at a distance
DeleteI like how you put that, but people can learn, and can become more like the character right? Yes there is and always will be that one character, but you can become that character, and who's to say that another person can't be that character also. Of course they wont be another you though.
Delete1. To think of only how this character relates you to and to choose to not consider the rest of their situation is, again, selfish acting. It is making the part about you, instead of molding your own experiences to fit that of the part. Even if there's part of you that's fundamentally lacking that's present in a character, you can't choose to overlook it, you have to create it - and it has to be truthful. That's our job as an actor.
ReplyDelete3) I researched Tevye more than I've researched any part in my life. For 9 months I studied Hebrew history, morals, and religion. I became him on stage. It is an odd thing to forget technique in a musical, but I was so submerged with the role that it was almost like I just felt like singing and music would just happen to start. When I ate, moved, or spoke I did so on compulsion. I didn't think. It is a lot like losing your mind because you truly believe you're a part. It is one of the greatest experiences to have. I don't realize that it's happened until after the fact. That one performance is what made me fall in love with acting forever.
ReplyDeleteI really admire how much you research your parts. It's honestly a quality that I want to attain. Also, this is exactly why most of your characters come to life on stage. Tevye especially, because that was a challenge. You were what...14? And playing a middle age man. That is an incredible leap for such a young actor and you pulled it off so amazingly.
DeleteI wish I could like comments on here because I completely agree with Melanie. That performance was amazing. I think it's incredible to be able to be so consumers in a character that it feels like you really are them. That, I think is stellas goal and every actors goal. Ultimately you work to become someone else.
Delete1. When you base a character on only what you can relate to, then you are only that much of that character. You havn't quite become who you need to be yet. You must not only act using what you relate with, but you must add their other characteristics into your life. Not only will you then become the character, but your personality will brighten and broaden also. And there's nothing wrong with that.
ReplyDelete1. if you base a character on only what you can relate to, then you're limiting youself and that character. It's a good thing to tap into some of your emotions and experiences that are similar to your character to bring out a common emotion, but the character isn't you. You are the character. The character that you play has a different backstory, experiencing different events with different people, and more often than not has a different personality than the actor. It is the actor's responsibility to make him/herself into that character, not allow the character to fit into you. Because if it's just that, then it's just you under a different name. So it is very important to have an open mind that can take in and create a character that in seperated from oneself but has inspiration from oneself. I hope that makes sense.
ReplyDelete1.) Stella Adler has a very noticeable tendency to criticize the recent ("recent" taking into account the fact theater has been a profession for 2000 years)rise in the overall size and demeanor of the American middle class. Putting aside her opinions, it was necessary for her to bring it up in her lessons simply to prove the point that we must never try to fully relate to the characters we play. I think she really is disappointed in the direction that the middle class has gone, but on top of that she harps on it so frequently to stress the incredible difference there will be between us and any character we are likely to play, simply because a situation like the one many of us are in hasn't ever existed before and therefore isn't going to relate to most or any of our characters. Furthermore, even when you do manage to connect to a character in some way, if you only focus on that small piece of the character the rest of it will be lost. The entire character must be present, because otherwise it will be primarily the actor on stage and short of his/her ability to act, he/she can't bring anything to the stage that the audience will find stimulating or particularly Earth-shattering.
ReplyDeleteI too have noticed Stella's frequent bashing of our middle class and in general American lifestyle- although she herself is American. Anyway, I agree with you that if you focus on one similar point, the rest of the character will fall away. The author wrote that character that way for a reason, and ignoring the rest of it isn't fulfilling the purpose. The middle class is sort of like that, in comparison. It finds one thing you're good at, and really only focuses on that. It tends to ignore the other parts of you, an activity, a group, etc. The middle class is boring, too. I don't think you'll ever find a successful play about a 'normal' middle class family. There's always conflict, the effort to break away or question the middle class. Look at 'Next to Normal', or even 'American Idiot'. Both focus on the middle class, but on the side effects and sort of march to our graves it has created. So, in all, I guess it's right of Stella to criticize the middle class. It's incredibly boring, the the theatre can certainly not be boring.
Delete2. I think a great example of this is from 'Beauty and the Best'; in fact it was nearly handed to me on a silver platter. In our run, I played two objects, a napkin (most of the time) and a teapot (for the matinee). When I was a napkin, I really felt fluffy and clean and fancy- as the nature of napkins dictate (and from my costume.) As I described in another post, the nature of a well-kept teapot also dictated how I acted like Mrs. Potts. Clean, orderly, and timely. Reversely, tea pots brew tea, which is some of the most comforting stuff out there. In turn, Mrs. Potts was equally comforting and helpful when Belle was feeling down. The idea of the tea pot inspired me, and I can see how it might have inspired the original animators as well.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if the silver platter thing was a pun, but if so, brilliant. Anyway, I think those are both excellent examples and actually just represent the first step in the process of using those physical objects to create your character. In your particular case, it was a simple matter of "what is this?" and "What is it like?" and you're done because that is literally your character. But in terms of Marlon Brando and his utilization of the boots, I think you would ask yourself about the boots. What're they like? What's their history? How do they make you feel? That last one would be really what creates the vibe of the character because you know you won't be playing the pair of boots, but you'll be playing a character that you want the audience to feel the same way about. You want the overall conclusion to be the same, and something physical can help with that. If you happen to be playing a teapot, it can help even more because there doesn't even need to be a transfer from "vibe of inanimate object" to "living, breathing human being." It's just sort of laid out on that silver platter.
Delete2. When I performed a monologue as Laura from The Glass Menagerie, I used her glass unicorn to create my character. She was fragile not only physically, but emotionally. Her mother was someone who talked nonstop and so I felt like it was as if Laura was a glass figurine about to crack as her mother reached an unbearable decibel. Glass is fragile, but a unicorn is the opposite. It’s a strong creature with an ivory horn as protection. Laura had to find a way to get past her weaknesses to find her strength. I believe she is continually searching for it; it’s just that she’s lost and doesn’t know how.
ReplyDeleteThat's a really good example of basing a character off of an item, Makenna. And it's an item that important to the play, too. I like that you based your character not on just one aspect of the glass unicorn, but two; the fact that its made of glass, and that its a unicorn. It makes the glass unicorn a metaphor for Laura. It's a metaphor for what Laura is, and what Laura could be. I think that's pretty cool.
Delete1. There's much more to character than what you're shown in a play. The character you're playing has lived their own life, and has had their own unique experiences. The experiences that the character has lived through are often going to be very different from what you yourself have experienced. If you base a character only on what you can relate to, you lose so much of that character. When you do that, the character becomes a reflection of the actor, instead of the actor becoming a reflection of the character. You can't do that; it's the actor's job to represent and portray a character faithfully. If you base a character only on what you can relate to, you limit your character, and you limit yourself.
ReplyDeleteFor whatever reason the example I keep thinking of in this kind of situation is one where someone close to your character dies. Most all of us have experienced a loved one dying, but everyone grieves differently. I, Makenna, might be faster to accept my friend's death due to whatever experiences I have had, but for my character this could be the first time someone close dies. My character is going to show more grief than I would. Its okay to take some of the sadness I felt when someone close died, but I cant act completely the same because simply put I am not my character.
Delete