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 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.

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.

What Questions Should I Ask About My Character?

For the blog readers, I’m skipping ahead a bit, and there are some upcoming posts that will help fill in whatever gaps may be in this post.  For my current students, however, this is a direct follow-up to something we talked about in class tonight:

woman readingYou asked, Davina, how you learn how to ask the sort of questions that I ask each of you after your presentations.  In addition to what I told you in class, there is also the matter of practicing.  I spent much of my childhood reading every play I could get my hands on, acting them out, and trying to figure out what made the characters tick.  This personal effort goes hand in hand with the exposure I suggested is the only real way to learn script analysis.  Do it enough and over time, you’ll slowly get better at it.

But there is a little more to be said.  You don’t have to ask the same kinds of questions for each character you ever play.  This is one reason why the lists of questions that you’ll typically see in script analysis textbooks isn’t particularly useful.

There is a school of thought that you ought to be able to write a comprehensive autobiography for your character. His favorite color, favorite food, number of siblings and relationships with them, what he studied in college, etc.  I know actors who do this faithfully and who seem to get something out of it.  More power to them!

For me, this is tedious work, but I have two bigger objections to it.  First, I probably don’t know the answers to many of these questions until I am deep into rehearsals, at which point writing it down doesn’t matter.  At least, it doesn’t if I correctly understand the purpose of these autobiographies as being to help me to figure out who my character is so I can play her correctly.

The second reason I object to it is that coming up with some of these answers is a waste of time.  They matter only if the answers impact the character in some way during the course of the play.  In most plays, your favorite color or food won’t make any difference.  Your relationship with your brother may only matter in some plays.  What you studied in college or which college you went to may not matter, but whether or not you went to college might.  Whether or not you graduated might.  Or might not, depending on the play.

question-mark1So I asked Anne a lot more questions about Dora’s background than I ask about many characters, because the answers all have an impact on who she is today, how she raised Alan, and how she is choosing to deal with this situation.  It’s difficult to get an accurate picture of her without it or to understand what underlies her scenes, but by answering them all, you can start to paint a clear and cohesive portrait of this woman.

For Jamile and the Dinner with Friends monologue, I focused on how Tom feels about his wife, Beth.  All of the background issues I asked Anne aren’t going to have a lot of impact on Tom’s monologue.

For all of the characters in Agnes of God, I have talked about their relationships with God, religion, and the Catholic Church.  The question of God is also critical for many of the characters in Equus.

So what questions you ask have in part to do with the nature of the play and what it is about.  When you understand that the three characters in Agnes of God are three different representations of Christianity, you start to understand what you need to do with the play.  When you understand that Dinner with Friends is about marriage and friendship, it narrows down what you need to focus on.

As you’ll see in the coming weeks, the questions that I ask about Months on End, A Lesson Before Dying, and Norma and Wanda will be different still, but will be directly related to what the plays are about and what happens to the characters.

So how do you know to ask for details about all the aspects of Dora’s family life both in childhood and in marriage, but that you don’t need to ask for them in Months on End?

This is the tricky part.  Knowing the answer is part of what acting talent is all about.  Being naturally gifted in this department is one of the reasons I had a realistic chance of making it as a professional actress, just as instinctively understanding that drawing is a function of light vs. dark, rather than distinct shapes made up of both, is part of what makes someone a talented artist.  I’ve spent considerable time puzzling over how to help you learn to do what comes so naturally to me.

Which is why I don’t think it can be taught in a formal way, but can only be internalized through repetition and experience.  We all connect the dots in different ways, and no one else can successfully identify how your brain works in this regard.  You open yourself up to the possibilities by gradually eliminating your preconceptions and learning to trust your instincts.  There are ways to actively do those two things; beyond that, you have to just keep doing the work and trust that time will take care of it.  You’re a human being, and human beings have some pretty good instincts about what it means to be human.  It’s just a matter of learning how to interpret those instincts as an actor.

I’ll have more to say about this, including some hints about what to pay attention to, when we get more deeply into script analysis.  But there is so much else to talk about before we get to that point!

Where Do Line Readings Come From, Anyway?

Good intentions, mostly.

Parrot (1)We’ve been reading fiction and/or plays for years.  We’re accustomed to hearing the dialogue in our heads.  What is simpler (and truer, we think) than to simply parrot that internal reading to an audience?

And often, it sounds pretty good.  As I say, if you’ve got good instincts, you may well hit on a very good way to say the line.  It might even be the “best” way to say the line.  (Not “right”, just “best.”)

There’s just the pesky problem that using the line reading without first discovering what is causing it generally leads to an underdeveloped character.

Sometimes line readings show up out of a desire to please the director.  We commit to them early so that the play sounds good in rehearsals.   We don’t want the director to panic, to think we don’t know what we’re doing, to not cast us again.

Sometimes they come about because we want to impress the rest of the cast, to show them that we can keep up with them.  Or because we want to help them.  The earlier we give them “good stuff”, the more they’ll like us.  Or the better their performance will be, because they’ve got something “good” to play against.

Sometimes they come about because we “act” the role as we are memorizing lines, instead of just memorizing the words without intonation.  It’s easier to memorize lines this way.  But it’s like song lyrics.  There is a musicality to intonation.  And once it’s in your head, it’s in your head.  Just think about those songs you remember from decades ago!

But sometimes they come from our lesser selves, too.  We’re terribly impressed with ourselves for knowing how to say these lines, and we want to show off.  Or we are panicked that we won’t get the play ready in time, so we try to set things in stone early, so we can really hone them.  (The fine-tuning can’t happen without the proper foundation, but we don’t realize that.)

hayesIncidentally, I’ve been guilty of all of the above at some point in my life.  Another golf analogy:  you never have to worry about playing with a really good golfer, no matter how bad you are yourself, because every good golfer has been through what you have.  And we have long memories.

Ditto with acting.  Despite the fact that I have a lot of natural talent and very good instincts, there isn’t a mistake you can make that I haven’t made myself.  That’s how I learned.

So it’s perfectly okay to make the mistake of using line readings.  As I said in class, Helen Hayes used them early in her career (and to great success, too), until a very honest, no-nonsense director called her on it in her fifth Broadway lead, which drove her to acting classes.

The important question is:  Are you willing to give it up in favor of an unknown that will serve you better?  And are you willing to trust that it will serve you better?

To read Line Readings and Why They Don’t Work, go here.  To read So How Do You Avoid Line Readings, go here.

A Character’s Interior Struggle

Equus doraAnne is working on the Dora Strang monologue from Equus, featured in a couple of earlier posts.  I’ll be referring back to it at some point for an expansion of what I’m talking about in this post; today I just want to speak personally to Anne about something we discussed last night.  I am posting it generally because I think others might get a little something out of it, too.

At one point, Anne used the word “unemotional” to describe Dora, and I suggested that in general, it’s not a useful word because it’s boring to watch, but that there is a way to use it that can be effective.  And we went on to talk about the scene in other terms.

You backed off the word, Anne, because you realized it’s an adjective.  I told you that adjectives and emotions are perfectly okay to identify – in fact, they are very good to identify for two reasons.  One is that they typically lead you to Tone, which is an important but sophisticated element we’ll talk about way down the road.  The other is that they are your first clue in script analysis, which is what we’re dealing with at the moment.  We’ve talked about finding your feelings in a scene, relating to your partner, and identifying your beats and playing your verbs.  But as you all discovered last night, your verbs are only part of the equation.  HOW you play them depends on who your character is.  Without having a clear and comprehensive understanding of your character, it is easy to go wrong.

This is one reason why playing adjectives is so dangerous.  You can completely miss out on what is really driving your character if you approach it this way.

So let’s get back to Dora and the word “unemotional”.

“Unemotional”, like all adjectives, is too general to play.  WHY someone is unemotional makes it specific, which in turn makes it interesting.

Am I unemotional because I think it is inappropriate to be emotional in certain contexts, like at work or with people I’ve just met?  Because I was taught as a child that showing emotion results in punishment in my family?  And was that punishment corporal or simply a withholding of love?

Am I unemotional because I’m afraid that people won’t like me if I show them who I really am and what I really feel?  Because I don’t like the “bad” emotions I feel, like anger and envy and so I try to pretend that they aren’t there, or at least make sure that other people don’t see them?  And maybe it’s easier to shut down all of my emotions rather than risk that my anger slip out when I’m not watching myself?

Am I unemotional with Alan because I don’t believe in coddling a child?  The real world is a cold place, better that I should teach him how to function within it!

When I answer these questions, I come up with some basic needs for my character:  a need to be the consummate professional in business and to be perceived as well-mannered by all I meet.  A need to protect myself from punishment from others or to gain their love by being the Good Little Girl.  A need to be liked.  A need to be good, to not be bad, to get into heaven.  A need to give my son the best tools I know for dealing with the world.

These needs drive HOW I do things; that is, they drive HOW I play my verbs.  The mother who doesn’t want to coddle her son is a different woman than the one who doesn’t like her own “bad” emotions.  Although human needs are rarely so simplistic, and so you might find a variety of elements behind Dora’s “unemotional” nature that come into play at different moments.

But the thing all of these alternatives have in common is the need to repress emotions.  Human beings are emotional by nature.  We are all born with them.  Someone who is “unemotional” is working hard to repress them.  And THAT’S what you play as an actor.  You don’t play “unemotional”, because it’s uninteresting to watch.  But someone repressing specific emotions when they rise up in her?  That’s a very active and compelling choice.

When your character is drunk, you don’t play “drunk”.  You play trying desperately to seem sober.

In other words, when you’re on stage, you have to show the audience the Yin and the Yang.  We don’t know what you are repressing unless you let it leak out just the tiniest bit.  In fact, we may not even know you ARE repressing it if you don’t let it leak out.  We may just think you aren’t a particularly good or interesting actor, without understanding why.

Remember, we just met this character, and we have a very limited time with her.  In a case like Dora, who is a supporting character in the play, we may only spend 15 minutes with her.  We don’t have the luxury of learning over time that she represses her emotions, or why.  You need to convey that to us quickly and comprehensively.  And you do that by showing us both the emotions and the repression of them.

This sort of inner struggle – to not love someone you think is wrong for you, to do what you know is right despite your fears, to maintain control of your anger when you have been pushed over the edge by your young child or your boss – is fascinating to watch on stage, and the basis of many moments in dramatic works.

Also, even “unemotional” people have events in their lives that are so traumatic that it creates a windstorm of emotions inside of them that even they cannot repress.  This is such a moment for Dora.  Despite protecting herself for years, she is the proverbial fat that has been flung into the fire.  It is NOT business as usual.  (Plays rarely are.)  Which makes it even more interesting to watch.  What happens to a woman who is losing the battle to hide behind her usual façade?

How Do I Know What the Right Acting Choices Are?

There are no right choices.  All right, there are.  There are right choices for this particular cast in this particular production at this particular moment in time.  But honestly, what is RIGHT for this particular cast in this particular production at this particular moment in time may change from night to night.  And that’s not only okay, that’s RIGHT.

But what IS “right” in each case is debatable.  It’s for you, if you’re in that production, to discover.  Not decide.  Discover.

Some actors get terribly worried about whether they are making the “right” choices.  As if this is the SAT exam, and there is some clear, definitive choice to be made.

amanda fourHere is a list of actresses who have played Amanda Wingfield in Tennessee Williams’ play, The Glass Menagerie:

Shirley Booth, Julie Harris, Katharine Hepburn, Judith Ivey, Cherry Jones, Jessica Lange, Maureen
Stapleton, Jessica Tandy, Laurette Taylor, Joanne Woodward

Whether you know the play or not – can you imagine all of these disparate women playing the same character in the same way?

Here’s a quote from Meryl Streep:  “Acting is not about being someone different.  It’s finding the similarity in what is apparently different, then finding myself [emphasis added] in there.”

Because YOU are unique, and you are the foundation for the character, your interpretation will be unique.  It will be “right”, whatever it is, if you are working correctly.  And that’s okay.

One doesn’t need to look any further than Shakespeare to realize how many times this has been proven.  Watch multiple versions of Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, or any of his other plays, and you’ll find a myriad of interpretations of all the main characters.  (Someday I’ll talk about “tone” and how the director’s choices affect your own.)

I recently came across a web post you can read here about The Taming of the Shrew, on how actors change the story.  (Ah!  Storytelling!  That’s a whole other can of worms I’ll open sometime!)  I’m not sure that I’d agree with her interpretation of the 1976 version, but I hope the post makes a clear argument that the videos referred to represent three very different interpretations.

You may like one better than the others, or you may like a fourth option not displayed here.  Personal taste is always at work and perfectly valid.  The point is that there are a variety of logically valid interpretations available to the artist.

I’ve seen Kevin Kline play Hamlet twice.

kline hamletThe first time was in 1986, at the Public Theater in New York City, and he was fabulous.  I thought the whole production was fabulous (the reviews agreed with me about Kline, but not about the rest of the production.)  It was a more humorous version of Hamlet than I had seen before.  Kline’s Hamlet was not the dark brooding Dane I had grown accustomed to.  I loved it.

kline hamlet 3He did the play again in 1990, also at the Public.  The reviews didn’t find much difference between the two productions, other than a stronger supporting cast the second time around.  But I remember the tone of the production being much different – more serious and stately.  But what I really noticed was the difference in Kline’s interpretation.  This Dane brooded more.  Kept his own counsel more.  Was more cynical, less humorous.

I had gone to see the second production hoping, on some level, to see a rerun of the Hamlet I had so loved four years earlier, and saw a very different one instead, despite having the same actor in the leading role.  Both productions were excellent.  Both interpretations by Kline worked.  Very well.

Both were RIGHT.

I’ll leave the last word to Kline, from an interview before a performance of the 1986 Hamlet in the Chicago Tribune.  “’There is no such thing as perfection in the theater,’ he notes, relief apparent in his voice.  ‘You will never get it right because there is no single ‘right.’  With film, there is the lingering illusion [emphasis added] that perfection is possible.’”

To read The Validity of Other Perspectives, go here.  To read About Those Stage Directions, go here.  To read The Half Dozen Rights, go here.  To read Line Readings and Why They Don’t Work, go here.

The Half Dozen Rights

OptionsI hope you’ve had a chance to contemplate my last posts, and at least agree that it is possible that you aren’t always RIGHT; at least, you aren’t always categorically RIGHT.  And that neither is the playwright.

I hope you can also see that if the character you are playing doesn’t occupy space on the same slice of the pie that you do, you might have to reach a little bit to figure out who that character really is and what choices you need to make as an actor to create him believably on stage.  That if you rush to judgment, you might make choices that aren’t the best ones you can make.

But BEST is a very different word from RIGHT.  So let’s stay with RIGHT for a moment or two longer.

I know actors who are convinced that there is a RIGHT way to play a role.  A RIGHT way to say a line.  And it is next to impossible to convince them otherwise.

Some years ago, I was acting in a play, and commented at rehearsal one day that one of the lines another actress delivered was, to my mind, one of the funniest lines in the play.  She was surprised, because she had no idea it was a funny line.  Which explained why she didn’t deliver it in a way that would get a laugh.  But that wouldn’t have mattered if she had understood the character properly.  The humor came out of who her character was, so if she’d been more in tune with her character, the line would have come out correctly and the audience would have laughed.  Automatically.

You don’t have to be a comedian to get laughs in a play.  You just have to know your character well.  (Not that it hurts to understand a little about comic delivery.  A topic for another day.)

Anyway, the actress in question finally begged me to simply tell her the RIGHT way to say the line.  I really hate giving line readings to actors (especially when I’m not the director!), but there comes a point when I will give in if they want it badly enough.  So I gave her a line reading.  She tried using it, although she never got a laugh in doing so.  She didn’t deliver it well, because she didn’t understand what was going on inside of her character.  She was giving a largely superficial performance.

Except for one performance:  One of those happy moments when she accidentally collided with her character, and there was a living, breathing person on stage in the scene that night.  And she said the laugh line perfectly; not at all the way I had suggested, but perfectly.  And the audience roared.  (Unfortunately, she didn’t notice that they laughed, so she learned nothing from the experience and couldn’t repeat it.)

But here’s the real point to the story.  I went home after the rehearsal in which I gave her the line reading.  Had I really given her the RIGHT one?  Or even the BEST one?  And so I ran through various ways of saying it, and realized that I could easily come up with six different ways of saying the line, all of which I was certain would make an audience laugh.  Each reading came from a slightly different understanding of the character at that particular moment.  Each understanding was perfectly valid and workable within the context of the play.  As a director, I wouldn’t argue with any of those six choices.

In other words, there were at least six RIGHTs in that particular situation.

Another example:  I was talking about blocking in class a few weeks ago, and in demonstrating how blocking could work in a particular scene, I realized that there were probably a half dozen ways of moving on a particular line.  Which I would choose as an actor would depend on how I chose to define the character, as well as what the other actor in the scene might do (my movement on that line was, in part, a counter to the other actor.)

As with the example of the laugh line, each of the blocking options I came up with would work.  Obviously, I’d have to make a choice at some point, but which choice I would make would depend on how I ended up interpreting the character and understanding what was going on in that scene for me.  But I could probably make any of them work, if it mattered to the scene.  In other words, if the director really needed me to finish in a particular location, I could find a way to justify that movement.

So again, there were at least six RIGHTs in that particular situation.

I can hear at least one person out there saying, “But which of the six is RIGHT for this production?  I mean, one of them is going to work better than the others, right?”

So now we’re at least moving toward “best” instead of “right”.  But there’s one more thing to say before we can fully do that . . .

To read The Validity of Other Perspectives, go here.  To read About Those Stage Directions, go here.  To read How Do I Know What the Right Acting Choices Are, go here.  To read Line Readings and Why They Don’t Work, go here.