An issue that consistently arises in the School of Dramatic Arts within USC is a lack of uniform style or culture. Our professors are very split between methods and styles. Honestly, I have never been able to put a name to the styles they taught, so Dyer’s chapter on stars and Gledhill’s chapter in SID were very educational. I’ve always heard names such as Stanislavsky and Strasberg thrown around, but I never knew what their styles entailed. While it is in one sense awesome to learn an array of styles from different teachers here at USC, hearing different philosophies in every class I take can be confusing. It puts the teachers up against each other as they conflict and go against what each other say. Some classes model a Stanislavsky method in which I am told to talk about my feelings for an hour, connect a past experience to the text, and somehow choke out a tear. Others model a Diderot and Coquelin method in which I am told to mimic the exact way crying looks and sounds: glottal attacks in the throat, light hiccups, and cracks in the voice.
I think both methods are valid, it really does come down to personal preference, however, I also think it depends on the show. There are going to be some roles in an actor’s career that they quite simply cannot relate their own experiences to. For example, I did a play last year in which I played a racist white woman who underwent a treatment that turned her into a black man who got shot by a cop. I have never been a black man. It was incredibly hard for me to relate to. But, through research, you can find ways to connect to roles without having a direct personal experience. As an actor, it is your job to tackle roles and characters that are unfamiliar or out of your comfort soon. That is why acting is exciting. Playing yourself is not challenging, I don’t know any actors who enjoy getting stuck in roles that don’t push them.
I enjoyed Dyer’s comparison of novels to films. He explained that in novels we are simply told what characters feels. In depth descriptions describe facial expressions and internal emotions, but on the stage or on screen, actors have to show all of that without added explanation. Often times, the text goes against what the actors say and everything must be conveyed with subtext. He then goes on to discuss how culture helps dictate our interpretation of performance. There are regional and cultural differences in symbols, intonations, and gestures. For instance, I am working on the show Cabaret right now and most of the characters are from Germany. Therefore, we are researching mannerisms that are familiar to Germans, but we are still taking into consideration that our audiences will be heavily American, therefore, we need to find a balance between authenticity and being relatable. The context of where a gesture or facial expression falls within the text is also crucial to consider. A smile can mean a million different things. It can be a genuine sign of affection, but it can also dictate a false kindness. The two smiles may look very similar but the context before and after within the text will help the audience interpret what the smile means.
King’s chapter discussed how “the stage is the actor’s medium.” This is true. The best screen actors are often first trained in theatre. . In every acting class I have taken, I was always told you learn stage acting first because it is easier to bring an actor down, then bring an actor up. But, I don’t agree that actors have a “preference for the stage.” I have many actor friends, but it is rare that I have an actor friend who wants to pursue a career in theatre. Now, I’m not sure if it’s purely because all of the money is in film, but most actors I know without a doubt prefer film. The two come with very different lifestyles and that very well may have a lot to do with it, but I also think people prefer it because it is more in tune with reality, and often times more challenging and difficult. In Dyer’s discussion of stage and screen acting, he uses a quote from Fonda explaining that screen acting is just like reality. I think it is much more difficult to tackle this form of acting because you cannot hide from the camera. You must be incredibly precise. The camera catches every little twitch. The King chapter nailed the basis of actor training on the head. We focus on “verbal, gestural, and postural behaviour.” Additionally, we ensure that the “actor must be able to be true to any conceivable character, making all actions believable and spontaneous.” Spontaneity is probably the most important thing we learn and practice: every time we do a scene, it should be like we are doing it for the first time. But, then King said that your personality should completely disappear and leave only the character, which I don’t think is true. I don’t think the Stanislavsky and Diderot methods have to be so far removed from each other. I think there should be a happy medium. Even if you cannot personally relate to the story, actors always bring a bit of themselves into a character or role; it is inescapable.
King also talked about how one of the faults in creating a character for film is that the process isn’t “linear.” I see what King means in that filming is choppy with lots of cuts and filming often happens in no particular order, but I don’t think that’s an issue. I think the actor creates the character as a whole, not by the order in which they present the scenes. The character work happens away from the camera. It is developed in research and in preparation time before it is actually time to shoot. Similarly, in plays we often hop from random scene to random scene without rehearsing in chronological order. Lastly, I found it interesting that King said that cinema takes “control away” from the actor, giving power to others such as the director and editor. This is true, but I think the same of theatre. In theatre, depending on your director, you give up your autonomy to do what the director wants. If you don’t, you could get fired, and actors are much more disposable in the theatre than in film. I think the additions of the director, cinematographer, and editor are very helpful. An actor can only do so much, but a specific camera angle can make all the difference and elevate an actor’s performance from good to outstanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment