Using Subtext to Underscore a Scene

quarterSometimes the text and the subtext are in perfect alignment, and what you say should be taken at face value.  Sometimes “How are you today?” has no hidden meaning behind it.  It’s just something we say in greeting one another.

But they often aren’t aligned.  Sometimes we say one thing and mean another.  Sometimes we feel one thing but pretend we don’t.  Your job, as an actor, is to figure out when there is something hidden, as well as when there isn’t.

Who among us, in our real lives, says everything we think?  How often are we truly honest about what we feel?  And even if we are, how much of what we say is about what we feel?

Very little.  We talk for other reasons.  To gain information, to persuade, to explain, to think through, to debate, to wonder, to entertain, etc.

A single scene in a play may have multiple beats representing Small Verbs (tactics) you use to pursue the Medium Verb that covers the entire scene.  Occasionally, you’ll get more than one Medium Verb in a lengthy scene.  (Your Big Verb for the entire play will remain consistent throughout, however.)

I said that your subtext is both emotions and needs (verbs).  The needs aren’t the Small Verbs, which are simply how you go about getting what it is you want.  Needs are the bigger verbs, both the Big Verb that governs the entire play, and the Medium Verbs that govern scenes.  Added to those needs are any of the emotions that you may be feeling.  That’s your subtext.

Any time what you say and do is not perfectly matched with what you feel or what you want, you’re dealing with subtext.  If you are in touch with those hidden elements, the audience will sense them.  Your given circumstances provide the subtext at the start of the scene, but new information or events can provoke new but unspoken emotions in you that you didn’t have when the scene began, changing or adding to your subtext.

The subtext will typically cover more just the single lines I used as examples in the last post – it will cover one or more beats.

beg-dogFor instance, if I want you to do me a favor, I may not come right out and ask for it.  I need the favor, but I’m afraid it’s something you won’t want to do, and I feel badly about asking for it.  So perhaps I ask you a few questions first, because I want to figure out if it’s really going to be inconvenient for you to do the favor for me.  Perhaps it means driving out of your way, and I want to be sure you have a car in good working condition, and the time to do it in between picking up the dry cleaning and getting your hair cut.

These aren’t idle questions; they are directly related to the matter of asking you to take care of four 8-year-old girls who are having a tea party as their playdate.  How I ask the questions is going to be different than it would be if I was just curious about what you are doing on Friday.  If you start telling me you’re getting your hair and nails done because of a special event you’re going to that evening, I may start feeling guilty about the fact that I’m going to ask you to do me this favor on what is probably a full day for you.  And when you change the subject, I’m going to have to figure out a way to get back to the topic of just what your schedule looks like, so I can determine whether or not I’m going to ask you to do me the favor or find someone else to do it.

I may offer information about my own scheduling problems – the doctor appointment that suddenly became available on Friday, so I don’t have to wait until next week to find out what this strange lump in my body is.  I may share with you my worry that I have the same cancer that killed my mother.  Now I’m giving you a reason to want to help me when I finally get around to asking you the favor.

In other words, on my side of the conversation, it’s ALL about asking you a favor.  THAT’S the subtext of the whole thing.  I don’t ask the favor until the end of the second page, but those two pages are all about asking you a favor.

But again – don’t make the mistake of trying to play the emotional subtext.  Playing emotions for their own sake doesn’t work, whether you’re dealing with text or subtext.  It’s too heavy-handed and not grounded in real desire.

tea partyThis is where the verbs come into play.  They allow you to play the subtext, which includes your emotional state (an altogether different thing from the emotions that may flicker through you during the scene), with subtlety.  I’m not playing guilt, need, fear, envy.  I don’t have to figure out which line is the line to show my guilt on, which line to show my fear on.  I just understand my circumstances:  I am scared that I have a cancerous tumor, and need to visit the doctor on Friday to calm my fears.  My daughter has been planning the tea party for three weeks, and the mothers of the other girls are counting on having the afternoon free and have already made other plans that take them out of town.  You’ve got your own life and your husband is being honored by the Kiwanis Club tonight, and I feel guilty about asking for valuable time to do something that is bound to be stressful.  But I really need this favor, and I’ve asked three other people, all of whom have turned me down.  I really need my friend’s help.

If I understand my circumstances fully, then all I have to do is concentrate on playing my verb – getting you to do me this favor – and everything else, including my emotional life, is largely going to take care of itself in all the right ways.

To read What is Subtext?, go here.

Actor’s Etiquette: Read the Script

HT_BehaveIt is not sufficient to read the play once and then to work on scenes as if they are separate entities.  Everything in the play informs every other moment in the play.

This happens particularly in scene class, but I’ve seen it happen in regular rehearsals, too.  In class, I assign a scene of two to three pages.  The actor gets the script and reads it.  Now he knows the gist of what happens in the play and has a feel for who are the bad guys and who are the good guys.  He has a visceral response to what sort of person his own character is.  Fine.  That’s enough, right?  Now he’ll just work on the scene.

Sorry, but it isn’t nearly enough.

Working on a single scene requires a lot of the same investigation into the character and his background that working on the entire play demands.  You can’t understand your character in isolation.  You’ve got to know what happened in the scene before the one you’re playing before you can begin to understand how he feels in this scene.  Background information that is revealed in scenes before and after yours may help to explain something that happens in your scene.  A comment made in Act II sheds light on something he said in Act I.

As for rehearsals for a full production, it’s not enough to encounter the play when you are working on it with the rest of the cast.  It’s not enough to read it for the purpose of memorizing your lines.  Plays are littered with clues that help you to understand your character, and at some point I’ll talk a bit about how to find them and put them together.  The point is, you have to look for the clues, and you can’t do that particularly well when you are running a scene or memorizing your lines.  Yes, you’ll discover some things when you do, but it won’t be enough.

When I act, I am actively mining for information about my character throughout the rehearsal process (and throughout performances, for that matter).  By “actively mining”, I mean that I am paying close attention to everything that is said, and everything that I read, to see if I can understand it on a deeper level.  There isn’t a magic number for how often you should read a play, but I probably read the ones in which I have a large part at least 80-100 times.  You don’t have to read it that many times, but I hope it suggests that more than a half dozen times is required to really get the most out of it!

 

 

What Is Subtext?

[We interrupt your regularly scheduled programming on Creativity to bring you two posts on Subtext.]

Subtext is what your character isn’t saying.  Not in words, anyway.

ASL_SignerThe playwright provides you with dialogue.  The dialogue is the text. It’s what we are willing to have other people hear.  Sometimes we tell the truth when we talk.  Sometimes we deliberately lie (or fudge the edges). Sometimes we tell what we think is the truth even though it isn’t.  We aren’t ready to face the truth yet, and so we’re lying to ourselves as well as to everyone else.

You don’t have to “play” the text.  The words do that quite nicely without much help from you.  Playing the text is sort of like a fourth grader pointing out where the moon is when he sings about it, and holding his hand over his heart when he sings above love.  It’s unnecessary “sign language”.

What an actor brings to the play is what’s going on INSIDE the character, the stuff he doesn’t say out loud.  The playwright provides clues to that, which are often subtle.  It’s up to you to identify and highlight them for the audience, and to do so not just when those verbal clues arise in the script, but throughout the scene.

In other words, if you get an inkling halfway through a scene that your character is in love with the other person in the scene, you don’t just start giving evidence of that on the line that makes you understand that fact.  You didn’t just start to fall in love when the revealing words come out of your mouth.  You’ve been in love with the other character from the beginning of the scene, in all likelihood.  It is part of the subtext of the scene that will color everything that you say and do.

So how do we find the subtext?

Subtext is both emotions and need: the stuff you carry into the scene and what you’re trying to get out of it.  Your needs are expressed in the verbs you choose.  Your emotions, along with your general nature (your personality and history) help to determine how you go about filling your needs; that is, how you pursue your verbs.

Ask yourself why you say each of your lines.  If you don’t know the answer, read a bit more carefully.  They aren’t just words on the page; they are pieces of information that, put together, create a life. Read them to make sense of the insensible.

But don’t settle for the easy answers to the questions, answers that just rephrase the line you’re working with.

For instance, if an actor has a line that is a question – “What did you mean by that?” – and I ask why he says it, he might tell me, “Because I want to know what she means.”  Well, of course – but WHY does he want to know what she means? Will he be insulted if she means A, or hurt if she means B?  Or is he simply confused by what she’s said – does it seem to him that she is talking about something entirely different than what he thought they were talking about?  And does that worry him?

Look for what we can call the “secondary why”, which has to do with the subtext of the line, and now you are moving closer to understanding what is going on with your character.  Notice that in the examples above, what I am finding is emotional.  I’ve given you an example that is out of context intentionally, so you can see the link to the emotions: insulted, hurt, worried.

Remember, it’s okay to spot the emotion in a scene, as long as you don’t stop there.  Don’t try to play the emotion, but instead just let it inform the scene by influencing how you go about pursuing your verb.  Your emotional state is part of what is called the given circumstances of the scene.  The given circumstances are all the things that have led you to this moment in time (“given”, because the playwright has chosen them).  Understand them and play your verbs, and any new emotions that arise in the scene will take care of themselves.

headacheNow let’s put a question in context and get both the emotions and the verbs.  Let’s say you ask your “husband” in the play, “How are you today?”  Yes, you want to know how he is.  But you have a deeper reason for asking it.  He had a migraine headache last night – you’re hoping it is gone, because you hate to see him in pain.  Or you’re hoping it is gone, because you’re hosting a dinner party tonight, and if he has a headache, it will be a difficult night.

In the first case, you are feeling love and concern for his well-being.  Your verb might be “to take care of him.”  In the second case, you might be worried and just a little overwhelmed.  Your verb might be “to have a successful party.”

Or perhaps you had a fight last night, and you’re testing the waters, to find out if he’s still mad at you.  Or perhaps you want to ask him a favor, to let your parents stay with you for two weeks when they visit next month.  He’s not fond of your father, so you want to make sure he’s in a good mood when you ask him.

In the first case, you might be uncertain and hopeful, and your verb is “to reconcile with him.”  In the second case, you might be feeling anxious and needy, and your verb is “to convince him to let your parents visit.”  (Maybe I have that wrong – maybe you’re uncertain and needy, and anxious and hopeful!)

All of these possibilities are the subtext, the meaning that lies underneath the very simple words, “How are you today?” Read the script over and over again until you find the meaning that is hiding between the lines.

To read Using Subtext to Underscore a Scene, go here.  To read An Example of Why Verbs Make a Difference, go here.

What If I’m Not Creative?

hard workYou’re human.  You’re creative, by definition.

I hope the previous post goes some distance to convincing you that creativity isn’t just inspiration.  The famous Thomas Edison quote on the matter is “Genius is 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration.”  It’s not about sitting around waiting for something good to show up.  It’s intentionally working toward your goal and creating opportunities for good stuff to happen.

Creative geniuses don’t just produce works of genius at their first attempt.  Yes, apparently Edward Albee wrote Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? in one sitting, but I guarantee you the play had been in his head for quite a while before that.

But even so, that’s the exception to the rule.  For most of us, quality work is trial and error.  We’ve all seem film images of the writer tearing a piece of paper out of the typewriter and crumpling it up, tossing it on a pile of one hundred similarly treated sheets and holding his head in frustration at his inability to produce one decent paragraph.

We’ve seen images of the composer at the piano, tinkering with a melody and not finding a tune worth keeping.

We’ve seen the tormented artist, unable to capture the light with his paintbrush in the way his eye sees it.

Why the heck do we think, as actors, that we can arrive at our destination any more easily?

I said this before, but it’s worth repeating:  You just met this character.  How can you possibly know what the RIGHT choices are (or even the BEST ones) until you’ve lived with the character for at least a few weeks and have learned something about him?  Would you expect to learn everything you need to know about someone on a first date?

Of course not.

As actors, though, we rush to judgment.  We are so scared that we won’t be ready in time that we lock choices into place as quickly as possible.  In doing so, we close the door to our own creativity, to spontaneity, to surprise.  We suck the life out of the character and the play when we stick with these early and invariably obvious choices.

Yes, the author churns out more words than he keeps, but finally, there IS a moment when he types “The End”, and the paper comes out of the typewriter with a flourish.  Mozart, suddenly inspired, starts scribbling notes like a madman.  And the artist springs out of bed and takes up his palette, sure of what his painting was lacking.

It is the element of surprise that keeps our attention as theatergoers.  When we don’t know what’s going to happen next, we are on the edge of our seats.  That’s not just a function of plot twists.  When characters don’t follow the stereotype, we want to know more about them.  If they do follow the stereotype – the well-worn path – there is no need to stay awake.  We can let our attention wander without missing much.  “Wake me up when something interesting happens.”

How do we find the something interesting?

Well, it’s this thing called creativity.  And as John Cleese says, creativity is NOT a talent.  It is a way of operating . . .

To read What is Creativity?, go here.  How on Earth Can I Be Creative As an Actor?, go here.  To read John Cleese on Creativity, go here.

Actor’s Etiquette: The Actor’s Job

18th-Edition-Cover-WO-428x487It’s all on your shoulders.

The quality of your performance is determined by three things:

  • How much talent you possess (This is a fixed element.  Training can bring out hidden talent; it can’t create it.)
  • How much time you put into the work, especially outside of formal rehearsals
  • How effectively you know how to use your personal and formal rehearsal time

There is no substitute for time.  There are no real short-cuts in acting.  Yes, good technique speeds things along and allows you to accomplish more as a result, which leads to better performances.  But good acting still takes plenty of time, it’s just that now you know how to use that time to maximum effect.

Being a good actor is, as with most things, a matter of taking responsibility for your own stuff and not expecting someone to hold your hand through the process.  If you’re reading this blog, you’re either an adult or you’re going to become one.  That means determining what kind of actor you want to be and making sure that you do whatever you need to do to achieve that.

I’ve been doing this a long time.  When an actor shows up at rehearsal or to class, I can tell whether he’s done any work on the play since I last saw him.  I can tell whether it was work done earlier in the week or hastily done this afternoon.  I can tell what kind of work he’s done – whether he’s just been saying his lines or if he’s dug into the character, and if the latter, what kind of digging he’s done.

Whether I’m directing or teaching, there is a limit to what even I can do with you if you aren’t bringing something to the table.  THAT’S what you’re responsible for, as an actor.  Like me in that play I talked about in the last Etiquette post (when I was playing adjectives, by the way – that much I can recognize in hindsight!), you are only going to be as good as you can be at this particular moment, and that is PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT.  It’s where you are right now.  It’s the best you can do.

But it’s ONLY the best you can do if you are really putting in the time and effort and doing everything you know how to do at this moment.  That’s something the director simply can’t do for you.  We might be able to nudge you in the right direction now and then.  But we can’t do the work for you.

 

What the Heck Is This Play About?

[This is the first post on the subject of Script Analysis.  It’s a topic I’ll deal with in depth in a month or three, but my current students have need of this right now, so I’m tossing it into the middle of the Creativity series.]

A-Few-Good-MenAs an actor, you have to know this before you can begin to do justice to your role.

Playwrights don’t write plays because the local theater needs a script.  They write because they have something to say that sheds a tiny bit of light – no answers, necessarily, just light – on some aspect of human existence.

You need to figure out why the playwright felt driven to write this particular play.  The answer is going to directly affect the choices you make as an actor.  If you’re going to be a good storyteller – and that’s all an actor really is, a storyteller – then you’d better know what the story you’re telling is about.

The fancy English Lit term for this is “theme.”  I’ve always hated this word.  Never understood it in school, despite asking multiple teachers to explain it.  Whatever words they were using to describe it were too esoteric for me.

I began to get a handle on it during playwriting classes, and finally grasped it fully when I started to direct.  Identifying and articulating the theme and choosing a vision that honors the playwright’s reason for writing the play is the first responsibility of the director.

Why not just wait for the first rehearsal, when the director will share his understanding and vision with you?

First, because it’s lazy.  Understanding the reason for the play in your bones is going to help you produce better work than if you just sign your name to the director’s vision statement.  Yes, you need to understand and subscribe to what he tells you, but you’ll have more luck doing so if you do your own homework.

Second, because not every director is going to share his vision with you, particularly in amateur theater.  Not every amateur director realizes that having a vision and sharing it with his cast is his responsibility.  If he doesn’t, you better find the answer yourself if you hope to turn in a credible performance.

So what’s a “theme?”

It’s what the play is about, not what happens in the play.  What happens in the play is the plot:  Felix Unger gets kicked out by his wife, he moves in with his friend Oscar, they fight and drive each other nuts, but ultimately learn to get along.  (The play in question is Neil Simon’s The Odd Couple, in case you aren’t familiar with it.)

Playwrights use the plot as a means of talking about the issues that matter to them.  Underneath the plot, they are really dealing with high concepts.  Start by going after them.  You can do this by asking yourself, “What is Simon concerned with in this play?  What part of life is he examining?”

Answer:  Loneliness and friendship.  Some other examples?

     King Lear:  Greed, ego, and love.
     Romeo and Juliet:  Love and hate.
     Amadeus:  Talent, desire, envy, and grace.
     A Few Good Men:  Loyalty, honor, justice, and humanity.

You might choose different words to describe these plays, but I hope you get the idea.

If you go no further than identifying the high concepts, you’ve got something valuable to work with.  If you’re in The Odd Couple, you need to look at your role in terms of loneliness and friendship.  What are the moments when loneliness is a part of your existence?  When do you have friendship or are striving to get it?

By looking for the connections between the high concepts and the action or dialogue in the play, you can subtly “underline” them for the audience, which is good storytelling.  Pass everything that happens during the play through the filter of “loneliness” and “friendship”, and the playwright’s message should come through loud and clear.

You can’t possibly do this effectively unless you know what the play is about.

The theme is more than just the high concepts.  The playwright has an opinion about those concepts.  How you interpret the opinion is your vision.  Different people, because they have different personalities and backgrounds, may interpret the playwright’s opinion in slightly or materially different ways.  This is why vision is the director’s choice.  We all have to be on the same page, and the director is the one to choose that page.

So how you string the high concepts together matters.  For The Odd Couple, I might say, “Friendship is the only antidote to loneliness.”

For A Few Good Men, I might say, “When loyalty to corporate bodies harms an individual, it is no longer honorable.”  Or I might say, “Everyone deserves justice, irrespective of rank or prestige.”  Or, “We must never forget that the military is made up of human beings.”  In the first instance, I am emphasizing loyalty and honor.  In the second, justice and equality.  In the third, humanity and compassion.  Whichever alternative I choose determines what I want to most emphasize in my portrayal of whatever character I am playing.  Productions using different visions will, of necessity, have different feels and different impacts.

Which is why the first, most important step in Script Analysis is to know why the playwright wrote the play.  Or at least, why you think he did.

What Is Creativity?

creativityI’m going to shut up for this post.

I know.  Can I even find it possible?

I’m going to let others speak.  And then I’ll pick up the train of thought next time.

“It is a commonplace among artists that masterpieces are made in passing, not by the focused attempt to create one.  That very attempt often skewers the spontaneous internal process, the inspired hunch or ‘fine madness’, that makes great art a happy accident that seems inevitable only in retrospect.”Julia Cameron, Chicago Tribune, 1986.

“You don’t have to be a believer to recognize a moment of grace.  By grace I mean those precious, rare times when exactly what you were expecting gives way to something utterly different, when patterns of thought and behavior we have grown accustomed to and at times despaired of, suddenly cede to something new and marvelous.  It may be the moment when a warrior unexpectedly lays down his weapon, when the sternest disciplinarian breaks into a smile, when an ideologue admits error, when a criminal seeks forgiveness, or when an addict hits bottom and finally sees a future.  Grace is the proof that hope is not groundless.”Andrew Stillman, “Untier of Knots”, 12/17/13.

“I don’t just use bad writing excerpts as prompts for workshops.  I also produce a tremendous amount of bad writing myself.   In fact, if some poor graduate student were assigned to do an audit of my entire literary output over the past twenty years, this person—before killing themselves—would find that about 70 percent of what I write is dreck.

“And I know I’m not alone.  If you go visit the archives of your favorite writer, as I did with Kurt Vonnegut several years ago, you will find a treasure trove of unpublished work.  And, if you’re anything like me, you will be heartened by this discovery.  It’s a great relief to realize that all those published writers we idolize aren’t cranking out epic prose every day at the keyboard.  Sometimes, they’re stinking it up, just like we do. …..My basic theory is that most pieces of failed writing—whether stories, poems, or novels—are usually attempts to tell a story that the author simply wasn’t ready to tell yet.

“This is why so much of my bad poetry is clogged with overwrought language, because I’m stonewalling basically, trying to sound profound and beautiful rather than telling the truth. …..My own belief is that writing is too intimate and arduous an activity ever to perfect.  We need to stop viewing our task as the production of transcendent work. Instead, we should emphasize the process as a gradual reduction of our (necessary and inevitable) imperfections.

“I realize how frustrating it can feel to produce weak work.  Believe me.  But I’ve also come to accept that bad writing doesn’t just mark a creative dead end.  It’s a necessary station on the path to good writing.”Steve Almond, Blog Post on AWP Website, Feb. 2014.

“Fine writing is never one to one, never a matter of devising the exact number of events necessary to fill a story, then penciling dialogue.  Creativity is five to one, perhaps ten or twenty to one.  The craft demands the invention of far more material than you can possibly use, then the astute selection from this quantity of quality events, moments of originality that are true to character and true to world.  When actors compliment each other, for example, they often say, “I like your choices.”  They know that if a colleague has arrived at a beautiful moment, it’s because in rehearsal the actor tried it twenty different ways, then chose the one perfect moment.  The same is true for us.

“Finally, it’s important to realize that whatever inspires the writing need not stay in the writing.  A Premise is not precious.  As long as it contributes to the growth of story, keep it, but should the telling take a left turn, abandon the original inspiration to follow the evolving story.  The problem is not to start writing, but to keep writing and renewing inspiration.  We rarely know where we’re going:  writing is discovery.”Robert McKee, Story, 1997.

A few thoughts from John Cleese:

“…the most creative professionals always played with a problem for much longer before they tried to resolve it.  Because they were prepared to tolerate that slight discomfort and anxiety that we all experience when we haven’t solved a problem.”

“Now, the people I find it hardest to be creative with are the people who need, all the time, to project an image of themselves as decisive.  And they feel that, to create this image, they need to decide everything very quickly, and with a great show of confidence.  Well, this behaviour, I suggest sincerely, is the most effective way of strangling creativity at birth.”

“And if while you’re pondering, somebody accuses you of indecision, say:  ‘Look, babycakes, I don’t have to decide until Tuesday, and I’m not chickening out of my creative discomfort by taking a snap decision before then, that’s too easy.‘  So, to summarise, the third factor that facilitates creativity is time.  Giving your mind as long as possible to come up with something original.”

And I’ll leave the final words to Thomas Edison:

“Negative results are just what I want.  They’re just as valuable to me as positive results.  I can never find the thing that does the job best until I find the ones that don’t.” 

To read What If I’m Not Creative?, go here.  To read How On Earth Can I Be Creative As an Actor?, go here.  To read John Cleese on Creativity, go here.

 

So How Do You Avoid Line Readings?

garden-maze-chatsworthBeing aware of when you are using them and when the reading is showing up organically is helpful.  “Organically” is a highfalutin’ word that I hate on one level, but is the only way I presently know to describe the difference with coming at a role externally, through a line reading, versus internally, through the unprejudiced exploration of a character.  It’s a learned ability, but when you achieve it, it’s very helpful.

Questioning yourself is also useful.  At some point down the road, I’ll talk about how I vet my own performances to make sure I’m not unintentionally stuck in a line reading.  (Yes, I’ve been acting for longer than I’d like to admit, and I still need to monitor myself for this potentiality, and always will.)

But both of those alternatives are advanced stuff.  Where do you start?

For one thing, learn to memorize your lines by rote.  That is, just memorize the words themselves, without consideration for how they should be said.  (At some point, I’ll create a video which will demonstrate this process.)

But you can also avoid them by doing what I’m going to suggest is the real function of and way to handle the first half of the rehearsal period:

Trial and error.

Intentionally say the line differently each time you rehearse the scene (or at least some of the times you rehearse the scene, until you run out of alternatives).  Because you aren’t doing exactly the same thing every time, your brain has nothing yet to memorize.  (I’ve got a post coming up on your subconscious, which reiterates how frequency and repetition become reality, whether you like it or not.  Or you can check this post out, for the introduction of the concept.  Which is really very pertinent and worth reviewing.)

[Also, telling you to “intentionally say the line differently” is perhaps a little glib and apt to be misunderstood, but I don’t want to get bogged down in the details right now.  We’ll explore what “trial and error” really means at some point in the future.]

Your brain only memorizes what is repeated.  It understands frequency.  Nothing else gets through its filter from the outside world.

Your subconscious knows things you don’t realize it knows, and that can be helpful to an actor.  But that’s a different matter.  When it comes to new data – that is, new lines to memorize – your brain relies on the frequency of the input.

Of course, there is a more important reason for using trial and error, and I’ll talk about that shortly.  But this is a nice side benefit of the process!

To read Line Readings and Why They Don’t Work, go here.  To read Where Do Line Readings Come From, Anyway?, go here.

Actor’s Etiquette: The Director’s Job

etiquette word in letterpress typeI think I’ve alluded to this in some posts, but let me now be quite direct about it.

The director’s job is NOT to get you, the actor, to give a better performance.

That doesn’t mean that directors will not help you turn in a better performance.  Hopefully, every director you work with will contribute something that improves the final product, whether it be a rehearsal environment that is conducive to your best work, a well-timed question about your character, or a creative idea that you wouldn’t have thought of yourself.  All I’m saying is that it isn’t their job to do that.  And even if it were, most of them can’t.

Many years ago, when I was young and loaded with lots of natural talent and good instincts but little technical prowess, I did a professional production that had a scene in which I apparently stunk.  So badly that I was essentially “kept after school for extra help.”  The director, who was also a very fine actor, did his best with me.  We spent an hour together, with him trying to explain what he was looking for or what I was supposed to do that was going to fix this dreadful scene.

I had no idea what he was talking about, and I could see him getting more and more frustrated with my inability to give him what he wanted.  I felt terrible about my obvious inadequacy, even if I had no idea in what way I was inadequate, but had no ability to express my confusion or to interpret anything that he said in a meaningful way.

I think he eventually just accepted that I wasn’t going to be able to do it well, as I don’t remember a lot of additional work on the scene after that.

A director like me (a good, articulate actor who is also a teacher by nature) can help you deliver a better performance than you can get to on your own.  As one of my actors said, “You really teach when you direct, don’t you?”  (Although most of what I teach in rehearsals can’t be retained long-term, due to volume.)

But really, I’m the exception to the rule.  If an excellent director and actor like Lee couldn’t do anything about my sad portrayal, despite the oodles of talent that had gotten me the job in the first place, then most directors without his understanding of acting aren’t going to be able to help you, either.

So don’t expect them to work miracles.  You are the only “saint” you can depend upon for this.  That means putting in the time, both in rehearsals and out.

The Difference Between Impersonation and Acting

There is an ongoing debate among actors as to whether it is better to start with externals and move to internals, or vice versa.

It doesn’t really matter where you start, as long as you approach the internal aspect in an “organic” way.  Whatever triggers that for you is fine, if it works.

Years ago, Paul Muni and Laurence Olivier were among the best actors of their generations, and both began with externals.  “What sort of nose does my character have?”  Truthfully, they fall a bit short as actors by current standards.  Their approach seems like artifice to today’s audience.

Meryl Streep has received criticism throughout her career for paying meticulous attention to hair color, accent, etc., the implication being that it is all about externals for her.  The thing which keeps some people from feeling warm and fuzzy about her is probably more a function of the characters she has played than her approach as an actress.  In addition, Streep’s chameleon nature is under a microscope in film in a way that it wouldn’t be on stage.

You can develop an honest performance by starting with externals.  Joanne Woodward has acknowledged that she starts with what her character looks like, what sort of hat she wears.  Woodward is entirely believable in her roles and won a well-deserved Academy Award for The Three Faces of Eve, so she has used this approach to great success.

Probably more actors start with internals than externals, but there is NOTHING WRONG with feeling that you start with externals, as long as you do it properly and dig a good foundation as well. 

In fact, I think you’ll find that anyone who starts with externals and does it well is also pursuing the internals simultaneously.  He just starts paying attention to externals earlier than some other actors do.

Which brings us to the matter of impersonation, which is not the same thing as acting.

For people who make a living as an impersonator, like Frank Caliendo and Rich Little, capturing the unique identifying characteristics, tics, and vocal peculiarities of well-known personalities and casting them in a humorous light is much more important than creating a completely believable character.   They are comedians, not actors.  Believable isn’t the point for them; recognizably accurate is.

Any time you play a real, historical person on stage, particularly people we’ve seen and heard on video or film, you risk becoming an impersonator rather than an actor.  It is easy to be so concerned about being faithful to their external nature that you forget to do the extra work required to find the inner person who manifests those externals.

It’s not easy – playing real people on stage is very challenging, just as talking directly to the audience is.  Combine those two things in a one-person show, and you’ve got your work cut out for you.  Line readings become a very strong temptation in this situation.  After all, it’s unnatural to speak to people who never talk back, who don’t respond “in character”, because they aren’t characters, they are audience.

One-person shows are a peculiar combination of acting and stand-up work, especially the comic portions of the show.  Only the best actors can pull them off in a way that makes the audience entirely suspend disbelief, because “staying in the moment” during them is so damned hard.  Without that, we simply make a tacit agreement to be entertained as opposed to moved.  We accept the mimic and laugh at the humor inherent in the lines.  In other words, we laugh at the jokes, not at the character and his situation.  It’s more about entertaining than it is acting.

When you choose to play a stereotype, you risk impersonation.  All right, no one “chooses” to play a stereotype, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t something we can end up with without realizing it.  Stereotypes are always based on externals and generalized adjectives.  There is some bit of truth behind them, or they wouldn’t be stereotypes.  However, if you don’t discover what makes this individual’s stereotypical qualities unique, you won’t be an actor; you’ll be an impersonator.

I don’t think I’ve yet explained the difference between “over-actors” and “under-actors” (we all are one or the other; learning to act is about finding the balance between the two).  But I think “over-actors” are more susceptible to mimicking and the line readings that can result, because they are more concerned with “entertaining” the audience than “under-actors” are.

[I am framing this piece with Youtube video links to two of my favorite one-character plays about famous people, with actors who make it look easy:  The Belle of Amherst, with the incomparable Julie Harris, who was nominated for more Tony Awards (ten) and won more (five) than any other performer; and Mark Twain Tonight, which Hal Holbrook has been performing for 47 years.  Both actors won Tonys for their performances in the original Broadway productions (Holbrook has had three Broadway runs of the show.)  The link to Mark Twain Tonight is just a promotional piece, as the full video from the 1967 television production isn’t the best quality, but you can find it on Youtube as well.]