Week Eight -
Week Twelve
Week Eight
'So you're
going to die'
Monday
As part of the
Scarecrow production there are a number of important things for me to do. I need
to learn my lines, the quicker the better. When each member of the ensemble is
prepared and has put in an effort to memorize lines, ‘rehearsals go easily,
quickly and according to plan’.
Being able to put down the script will allow me to use my hands fully, and my
attention can then shift to movement and eye contact. I also need to create an
understanding for myself, of the characters on stage.
It is important I
understand my role, and also the role of the other characters. I need to know
how I fit into and affect the other characters, in the play. I view the
scarecrows like that of a disease. They invade the family, slowly eating into
their emotions and thoughts. In contrast, the scarecrows offer a way for the
characters to be truthful for the first time in years. This of course creates
conflict, which would never have existed if the television hadn’t come into
the family’s lives.
Friday
Today we presented
our monologues; it was a great opportunity to see everyone’s interpretations.
My monologue was based on the idea that, ‘Antony prides himself in being a
rational general’.
This speech shows the loss of reason and power, and he simply cannot control his
own emotions. To truly gauge my success, I need to look at what did and didn’t
work in my preparation.
When I originally
learnt my lines I tried not to use emotion. From the beginning I should have
tried to interpret the speech and then conduct further research into the
meaning. There was also a need for me to appear more relaxed on stage. This was
unfortunately very difficult, as Antony needs to be strong yet rigid. I put a
lot of effort into today’s presentation, which led to the success of my
monologue. My preparation began with Lauren. In an empty squash court, we
screamed some of our lines at each other. The
monologues start at a pivotal point in our respective plays; I felt it was
important to build up this energy.
The rest of my
preparation was loosely centred on a Stanislavski approach to acting. I
concentrated on juggling, as this activity allowed me to focus. I then began to
focus on the character profile I developed for Antony. I visualised the moments
in my life when I felt betrayed and lacked the ability to reason. The last area
I focused on was the subtext of the speech and in particular, the divisions of
beats I had formalised.
The most useful
theory I used, was the development of an atmosphere. The Michael Chekhov
approach assisted me to create an atmosphere of power. This power allowed me to
present Antony as strong and insightful. Using this as my base, my stage
presence of Antony is powerful yet confused as he attempts to find reason. This
is one of Antony’s last speeches, as he is about to end his life. This is one
of the best ways I prepared for the role; to imagine I am about to talk for the
last time. Am I going to be calm or distressed?
That’s what was
great about today, different variations of the same monologue. Matthew was the
only other person to present the same speech. He did a great job, and presented
Antony in a completely different way. Matthew presented a calm yet bitter
version of Antony and still represented all aspects of the play and the
character. He showed Antony as a character drinking and morning over his loss in
battle and Cleopatra’s betrayal.
While using
different methods and approaches, the monologues were all very good. Everyone
did a great job, and it was interesting to see all the interpretations. For me,
Antony became a person controlled by love and therefore unable to successfully
battle his own war. ‘Antony was stigmatised as a great man ruined by sexual
passion’.
Does the play suggest war wins over love? Well it may seem that despite the war,
Antony and Cleopatra’s love triumphed. War did not destroy their love; it made
them closer in the end.
Week Nine
'It's been
nearly a week since we've been in like 'reality life'
Monday
The
Michael Chekhov approach to acting is currently my favoured approach. In one of
my goals, I suggested further research into this area and I would like to do
this now. Today, I feel it is appropriate to discuss these aspects as one of the
methods I use for character development in the ‘Scarecrow’ involves this
approach.
One
of the great things about this group is the ability to have fun and also work
hard. Chekhov believed that ‘humour enables us to create a distance from both
the work and ourselves and this enables us to become more objective’.
At the end of most scenes, we laugh at each other and offer congratulations for
a great performance. The main character I play is the father; the other
actors’ responses at the end of those scenes are laughter and anger.
The
father dominates this scene; discussions are only suitable if he believes they
are appropriate. His ability to control the scene is demonstrated by the amount
of fear he initiates. Any other character cannot overtake the atmosphere the
father produces. The conversation about fun and going out to the dance is
quickly squashed by his anger and dominance. This treatment of Brian, Allen and
Greta explains the way the characters are presented throughout the play.
Chekhov
believes when commencing a rehearsal, an actor needs ‘to get a sense of the
whole and then develop an awareness of how the various parts contribute to
effect of the whole’.
I need to know how of my characters each affect other roles to be able to
produce the appropriate characteristics. Not all of my approaches to this role
reflect a Chekhov method.
My
initial and current approach to the father character is a stereotypical male
role. Although the anger and dominance of this character would be a common
portrayal, Chekhov believed that an actor should normally go with their second
thoughts. This idea encourages a non-naturalistic approach and it produces a
refreshingly, stimulating performance. For my portrayal of the father, this is
only contradicted by the concept of truth.
‘Chekhov
wanted the actor to be able to feel what’s right and he calls this a sense of
truth’.
I need to feel comfortable with my role and although the characterisation is
predictable, it works for me. The character needs to dominate the scene and
control each character through emotional manipulation. This vulgar character
needs to be quickly identified by the audience and therefore a stereotypical
characteristic is most useful. ‘Emphasis should be on the character’s
feelings, not the actor’s’.
Friday
We
all received feedback from our monologues this week. It was a good opportunity
to hear different ideas as well as another view. The main suggestion was for me
to be more relaxed on stage, something I mentioned in last weeks entry. This is
quite interesting as I also received this feedback from my performance on
Wednesday at the Nexus Theatre.
I
presented my monologue as part of ‘Edible Theatre’. It was not until one
minute before I was on the stage that I realised I was going to perform. I
believe my assessed performance was better as I had time to focus and prepare
before I presented. Janet and
Matthew saw both presentations and believed my Wednesday performance was a lot
better than my assessed one. Why was this so?
It
appears that too much focus can get in the way of acting. This is the approach Bertolt
Brecht would follow. Brecht used very little actor training, as he believed
the production should focus on social status and community issues. This is not
to say an actor will have an easy time, ‘a Brechtian actor must be alert to
the social significance of every kind of human transaction’.
Actors
represent a certain status of the community when playing a role on stage. They
must be knowledgeable or willing to investigate historical situations present in
the play. A Brechtian production’s focus is on the subject of the play, rather
than the actors preforming. These actors become a vessel for communicating the
play’s message and as a result have an important role to play.
The
onus is on the actor to successfully communicate to the audience; a naturalistic
approach however, is not necessarily the key. Brecht wanted his plays to change
the world by making the audience think about their actions. The actors would
communicate with the audience regularly by describing themselves in the third
person or simply reading their stage movements verbatim. Through this
presentation, the ‘audience would understand both the story of the play and
its implications’.
The
Brechtian actor addressed their role in three stages to assist with the play’s
meaning. An actor would read through their role first, getting an understanding
of the play and how their character is part of it. Then the actor develops sympathy
for their role, creating a deeper perceptive. Finally an actor needs to view
their ‘character from the outside from the stand point of society’.
It is important to observe their character from a distance and avoid becoming
the role. Brecht thought Stanislavski’s approach was flawed, as he believed an
actor should not let the role possess them.
It
is important for a Brechtian actor to step back from their character to view the
play and their role successfully. An actor must not only discover their purpose
in the production, but also how they interact with the other characters. It is
crucial for a Brechtian actor to ‘identify the conflicts in the play’. Through this discovery,
the actor can successfully communicate themes of social status and conflict to
the audience.
In
today’s class we took part in two activities that helped to explain these
ideas. One task involved the concept of a stage conflict. The class was halved
and we imagined we were taking part in a tug-of-war challenge. This was similar
to the paired activity where we were shoulder-to-shoulder, shouting ‘yes’ or
‘no’. To successfully appear as if we were in conflict, while pulling on the
imaginary rope, the entire group would have to work together. The activity
clearly demonstrated how a conflict, like a play, is a game of to and fro
between two sides. The entire cast should realise the importance of working
together to communicate this conflict.
The
other activity was a centred on the subject of status. In pairs, we improvised
scenes demonstrating one character’s dominance over another. One task included
a master and servant roles, it placed one of us was in control and the other
eventually crawled across the floor to please their master. This theme of social
status is common in Brechtian productions.
A
Brechtian actor is only a means to communicate to the audience. This message
challenges the audience’s views and beliefs and leads them to question aspects
of their own lives. The actor can step away from a naturalistic approach and
speak directly to the audience similar to the character ‘Malcolm in the
Middle’. Malcolm speaks directly
to the camera, pleading for change (or possible sanity). By speaking to the
audience, the actor demonstrates an outward projection of their thoughts and
personal beliefs normally internalised. It is not realism; the actor simply
demonstrates their character’s view of society and the need for reform.
Week Ten
'Thought is
action in rehearsal'
Monday
Today
in rehearsal, I viewed some of the conflicts and status issues present in the
production. The television, through the help of the scarecrows, has begun to
take over this family’s life. The scarecrows demonstrate an ‘all knowing’
status to the family’s lower-middle-class life. Although the television
instigates grievances between the family members, the conflict can also be seen
as a positive influence. This allows the family to be honest to each other for
the first time in years.