Just a moment ago, by total chance, I came across this article at a website called Backstage.com. It refers to a method of actor training which involves wearing a "neutrality mask".
I will not regurgitate the article here, but basically, the argument seems to be that the mask, which covers the face and predictably has no facial expression to it, helps strip away certain mannerisms and traits in a performer. Without those "stories in the body" that we all hold, the actor is forced to create a more generic, universal, and hence, more powerful story telling persona through the use of body motions and such, while donning the mask.
All I can really say about it after reading this article is, I do not know what to think. On the one hand, I can see the great benefit of stripping away excess baggage and such, in order to create a more pure presentation.
Yet on the other hand, I wonder if a method like this is required, or even useful to most people, in order to obtain that mind set.
Indeed, when I hear some of the near life changing experiences some of the students interviewed for the article share, I am somewhat at a loss. I say that because the mask itself looks not unlike the thing I bought last week for 3 dollars at the Halloween shop, according to the pictures on this website about Jacques Lecoq, the largest proponent of the technique. Given this fact, having never donned the mask in a class myself, I am tempted to see it as a tad gimmicky. Surely there are more practical ways to attain the state of calm neutrality that can be of benefit to an actor before a scene.
Once again, for emphasis, I grant that I have never been enrolled in any classes which make use of the mask and the technique. If anyone reading this has in fact made use of this technique, please share your thoughts. Perhaps I would have a better notion of it then.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
A Kiss is Still a Kiss
Only a few months ago, (May, to be precise), I performed my first on stage kiss, in the musical, Baby. I had somehow avoided being in shows that required it up until that point. (Though one show in college probably should have included a kiss, I talked my way out of that one.)
My former acting professor once said to his class something alone the lines of "99% of all stage kisses at the amateur level look horrible on stage." I can easily agree.
Yet most people who saw me on stage in May commented on how natural my kiss with my stage wife looked. "How did you keep it from being cheesy", I was asked more than once.
Two ways.
Firstly, I never let it be awkward. I never joked about it with the woman playing my opposite, and we told each other early on that we would do what we had to do, without feeling weird about it. During one early rehearsal, we just said we were going to do it, and we did so. We did not make the mistake of many people in the same position; holding off on it until the last possible rehearsal. Bad idea. This just gives the day when it must occur an ominous feeling usually reserved for an impending tax audit.
Another reason I think it looked so natural was that both me and the person playing opposite me, did not do as many do; simply touch each others lips quickly in hope of it being over soon. Many people hope this passes for a kiss. (It doesn't.) Instead, my co-star and I were aware that the part that sells the realism of a stage kiss is the moment leading up to it, as opposed to the actual "point of contact". If that 2 seconds or so before the actual kiss has feeling to it, what comes after cannot help but look natural.
So if the script calls for a kiss, start doing it very early in the rehearsal process, and do not rush the actual kiss when that part comes up. Replace that awkwardness with a depth of feeling as you approach your cast mate for the kiss, and everything else will usually fall into place.
My former acting professor once said to his class something alone the lines of "99% of all stage kisses at the amateur level look horrible on stage." I can easily agree.
Yet most people who saw me on stage in May commented on how natural my kiss with my stage wife looked. "How did you keep it from being cheesy", I was asked more than once.
Two ways.
Firstly, I never let it be awkward. I never joked about it with the woman playing my opposite, and we told each other early on that we would do what we had to do, without feeling weird about it. During one early rehearsal, we just said we were going to do it, and we did so. We did not make the mistake of many people in the same position; holding off on it until the last possible rehearsal. Bad idea. This just gives the day when it must occur an ominous feeling usually reserved for an impending tax audit.
Another reason I think it looked so natural was that both me and the person playing opposite me, did not do as many do; simply touch each others lips quickly in hope of it being over soon. Many people hope this passes for a kiss. (It doesn't.) Instead, my co-star and I were aware that the part that sells the realism of a stage kiss is the moment leading up to it, as opposed to the actual "point of contact". If that 2 seconds or so before the actual kiss has feeling to it, what comes after cannot help but look natural.
So if the script calls for a kiss, start doing it very early in the rehearsal process, and do not rush the actual kiss when that part comes up. Replace that awkwardness with a depth of feeling as you approach your cast mate for the kiss, and everything else will usually fall into place.
Friday, October 28, 2005
More on methods...
And those that teach them. Monique was kind enough to send along this link. (In her comments on my "Everywhere a method, method" post.)
It leads to a PBS page on American Masters, specifically, Meisner. From there you can find various links related to other acting masters, with concise biographies and explanations as to their methods.
Thank you, Monique.
It leads to a PBS page on American Masters, specifically, Meisner. From there you can find various links related to other acting masters, with concise biographies and explanations as to their methods.
Thank you, Monique.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Good writers write...
...great writers steal. So the adage goes. I suppose the same could be true for performers. I do not wish to steal from other actors, however.
What I do want to do is maybe rent some of the old classic court room dramas, and see if any of the actors playing lawyers have anything to offer me. (For inspiration not theft ;) ) To coin a phrase, I am thinking of looks, actions, and mannerisms that would appear "lawyerly"for the era.
Just as a reminder, I am playing Thomas Mara, an assistant New York district attorney in "Miracle on 34th Street". His job, near the middle and end of act 2, is to prove Kris Kringle is insane, as opposed to being Santa.
I already have one idea, that if a proper costume piece can be found, should work nicely. I plan to wear glasses, (with approval from the costume designer.) These make an excellent prop for a courtroom proceeding I think. Put them on to read papers, take them off to ask a question.
Those of you familiar with the story are aware, as am I, that it is not the most climactic courtroom scene in stage history. However, I always seek to be authentic. If I am not authentic to my part, my scene will ring false, small as it may be. Mara is a prosecutor from the 1940's, and that is what I want to emulate. (As much as possible at least.)
I frequently write a back story for a character to give him some depth, and I may do that for Mara. (Stay tuned for ideas I come up with on that one.) Yet right now I am not being so nuanced. I am just thinking of the much broader strokes,
I am not totally unfamiliar with "lawyerly" mannerisms. I was in mock trial club for a time back in the old high school days. Yet the more inspiration the merrier.
Dear readers, any suggestions as to good black and white courtroom flicks from which to draw "lawyerly" ideas consistent with the 1940's? Feel free to post some here.
What I do want to do is maybe rent some of the old classic court room dramas, and see if any of the actors playing lawyers have anything to offer me. (For inspiration not theft ;) ) To coin a phrase, I am thinking of looks, actions, and mannerisms that would appear "lawyerly"for the era.
Just as a reminder, I am playing Thomas Mara, an assistant New York district attorney in "Miracle on 34th Street". His job, near the middle and end of act 2, is to prove Kris Kringle is insane, as opposed to being Santa.
I already have one idea, that if a proper costume piece can be found, should work nicely. I plan to wear glasses, (with approval from the costume designer.) These make an excellent prop for a courtroom proceeding I think. Put them on to read papers, take them off to ask a question.
Those of you familiar with the story are aware, as am I, that it is not the most climactic courtroom scene in stage history. However, I always seek to be authentic. If I am not authentic to my part, my scene will ring false, small as it may be. Mara is a prosecutor from the 1940's, and that is what I want to emulate. (As much as possible at least.)
I frequently write a back story for a character to give him some depth, and I may do that for Mara. (Stay tuned for ideas I come up with on that one.) Yet right now I am not being so nuanced. I am just thinking of the much broader strokes,
I am not totally unfamiliar with "lawyerly" mannerisms. I was in mock trial club for a time back in the old high school days. Yet the more inspiration the merrier.
Dear readers, any suggestions as to good black and white courtroom flicks from which to draw "lawyerly" ideas consistent with the 1940's? Feel free to post some here.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Music to My Ears
Today was the first and, as far as I understand, only musical rehearsal for "Miracle on 34th Street". There is only one song in it. We don't sing it until the very end.
It's a decent song. A bit awkward to sing in some places. The lyrics are not especially inspiring, but it is a very nice tune.
There will be recorded accompaniment for the song. The entire cast, (except for the people in the final scene) will begin singing it from back stage, "under" the final scene. We will eventually come out onto the stage for the end of the show. Such is the plan at this point, anyway.
It was a bit of a flashback for me today. The musical "director" for this one song, (let's call him J.C.), is someone I have worked with a few times before, as a substitute. But a year ago, when I was in the musical version of Scrooge, he was the musical director for the entire show. Him being there tonight, as well as a handful of people that were also in Scrooge brought back the mostly fond memories from being in that production, which started about a year ago in the same theatre.
I taped the song today on my micro-recorder. This is standard practice for me, as I do not sight read sheet music. The thing is, J.C. had not been over the piece before, and he played it for the first time at the start of this evening's practice. Near the end of the evening, we played the CD that will be our accompaniment in the actual performance. It ended up being about 2 times slower than we had been singing it. Ooops. Adjustments were made, and all will be fine. I am usually pretty good at picking up songs like that, so long as there is no harmonizing. (A skill I have yet to master, despite being in several musicals in the last two years.)
I don't report to rehearsal again for over a week. It is a strange sensation, as I have addressed before, to be at rehearsal so infrequently. It will not be long, however, before there is a sort of whirlpool effect, and I will be going in there all the time. Until then, more time to learn lines. And of course to blog about community theatre.
It's a decent song. A bit awkward to sing in some places. The lyrics are not especially inspiring, but it is a very nice tune.
There will be recorded accompaniment for the song. The entire cast, (except for the people in the final scene) will begin singing it from back stage, "under" the final scene. We will eventually come out onto the stage for the end of the show. Such is the plan at this point, anyway.
It was a bit of a flashback for me today. The musical "director" for this one song, (let's call him J.C.), is someone I have worked with a few times before, as a substitute. But a year ago, when I was in the musical version of Scrooge, he was the musical director for the entire show. Him being there tonight, as well as a handful of people that were also in Scrooge brought back the mostly fond memories from being in that production, which started about a year ago in the same theatre.
I taped the song today on my micro-recorder. This is standard practice for me, as I do not sight read sheet music. The thing is, J.C. had not been over the piece before, and he played it for the first time at the start of this evening's practice. Near the end of the evening, we played the CD that will be our accompaniment in the actual performance. It ended up being about 2 times slower than we had been singing it. Ooops. Adjustments were made, and all will be fine. I am usually pretty good at picking up songs like that, so long as there is no harmonizing. (A skill I have yet to master, despite being in several musicals in the last two years.)
I don't report to rehearsal again for over a week. It is a strange sensation, as I have addressed before, to be at rehearsal so infrequently. It will not be long, however, before there is a sort of whirlpool effect, and I will be going in there all the time. Until then, more time to learn lines. And of course to blog about community theatre.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Heresy!!!
An interesting post on a blog I recently discovered. It is written by one Joshua James, professional playwright. It pertains to among other things, actors paraphrasing lines from a playwright's script. Though I had not planned on addressing this issue today, the post got me to thinking.
Warning: Minority Viewpoint approaching!
Please bear in mind:
1) I am responding to the ideals behind his post, more so than to the specific situations mentioned. Truth be told, if I were in his shoes, I would probably freak a bit in those situations too.
2) Compared to Mr. James, I write from the much less confining (but no less passionate) position of an amateur actor who usually performs an already established piece; written by people I will never meet. Mr. James mentions stories wherein he was working directly with actors trying to bring a brand new piece to life.
3) There are unions and contracts and copyrights and all that sort of fun thing out there that would make several of my ideals impractical in the highest echelons of the theatre world. But they are just ideals, and maybe someone shares them at heart, even if not in practice.
4) Despite my views, I take every play I am in very seriously. I come to my unpopular conclusions based on my love of theatre and acting. They are not based on wanting to stir up a hornet's nest, though I am sure many professional actors and playwrights will view me as low life theatre trash after reading this post. (Hence the title.)
That being said, behold my heresy.
Shakespeare or Sophocles have earned the right to verbatim performances of their work by centuries of staying power that no one alive today can lay claim to. (Though even those works are sometimes edited.) Even if contemporary playwrights do view their scripts to be as "sacrosanct" as those of the Bard, once their works are mainstream, some things should be considered.
Paraphrasing of lines, in the personal absence of the playwright, simply has to occur sometimes. Sometimes it's intentional. The director makes a call. An actor makes a request. Locally, such decisions are made for the betterment of the specific production, if not always for the betterment of the play itself. This is the sting I wish more playwrights were willing to withstand, once they hit big. (Though I acknowledge it to be a sting.)
As often as not, a departure from script is unintentional. In the heat of the moment, a "could" becomes a "should", and no agenda is responsible for said change.
As abhorred as the notion is to many playwrights, as an actor I have found the performance of a play often is different every night. Not a different show every night, but the same show is often different in subtle ways. A fine line perhaps, but a line nonetheless, and one I think adds to the magic of theatre.
Of course, actors, professional or not, need to make every effort to respect a script in its entirety. Whole plays, or even whole scenes should not be improvised on stage. At the same time playwrights, once their own personal influence on the performances of their works is exhausted, should be willing to trust actors to make respectable choices. Most actors I know who change a "would" or "could" here and there do not do so lightly. We are not, by and large, out to ruin a piece or screw with the cadence. But we, as actors, do have a cadence of our own we have to follow as well. 90% of the time, it matches the playwright's. The 10% however cannot be tossed aside as "bad acting".
Assuming a cue line is not altered, and the intrinsic meaning and theme of a line is not diminished, (which it clearly was in the stories mentioned by Mr. James in his post), I see nothing wrong with a simple paraphrase.
Let's face it, as a playwright, if you are a wild success, at some point your work will be performed outside of the world of professional contracts and unions. The day to day, local, small town theatres will one day take their shot at it. As unfair and grating as it must be on the nerves of a playwright, changes and edits will be made, in order to give the piece the life it needs to survive in a given venue. I for one, if I wrote a play, would make every Zen effort to accept these inevitable, but usually well intentioned changes early in the writing process. I will simply not be able to keep track of and sue every production on the road that mixes a few lines up.
And who knows? Such changes may allow for more spontaneity on the stage than I, with a computer in a dark room far away from a stage, could come up with on my own as I wrote the piece.
Just some thoughts. Feel free to quote me. Or you can simply paraphrase.
Warning: Minority Viewpoint approaching!
Please bear in mind:
1) I am responding to the ideals behind his post, more so than to the specific situations mentioned. Truth be told, if I were in his shoes, I would probably freak a bit in those situations too.
2) Compared to Mr. James, I write from the much less confining (but no less passionate) position of an amateur actor who usually performs an already established piece; written by people I will never meet. Mr. James mentions stories wherein he was working directly with actors trying to bring a brand new piece to life.
3) There are unions and contracts and copyrights and all that sort of fun thing out there that would make several of my ideals impractical in the highest echelons of the theatre world. But they are just ideals, and maybe someone shares them at heart, even if not in practice.
4) Despite my views, I take every play I am in very seriously. I come to my unpopular conclusions based on my love of theatre and acting. They are not based on wanting to stir up a hornet's nest, though I am sure many professional actors and playwrights will view me as low life theatre trash after reading this post. (Hence the title.)
That being said, behold my heresy.
Shakespeare or Sophocles have earned the right to verbatim performances of their work by centuries of staying power that no one alive today can lay claim to. (Though even those works are sometimes edited.) Even if contemporary playwrights do view their scripts to be as "sacrosanct" as those of the Bard, once their works are mainstream, some things should be considered.
Paraphrasing of lines, in the personal absence of the playwright, simply has to occur sometimes. Sometimes it's intentional. The director makes a call. An actor makes a request. Locally, such decisions are made for the betterment of the specific production, if not always for the betterment of the play itself. This is the sting I wish more playwrights were willing to withstand, once they hit big. (Though I acknowledge it to be a sting.)
As often as not, a departure from script is unintentional. In the heat of the moment, a "could" becomes a "should", and no agenda is responsible for said change.
As abhorred as the notion is to many playwrights, as an actor I have found the performance of a play often is different every night. Not a different show every night, but the same show is often different in subtle ways. A fine line perhaps, but a line nonetheless, and one I think adds to the magic of theatre.
Of course, actors, professional or not, need to make every effort to respect a script in its entirety. Whole plays, or even whole scenes should not be improvised on stage. At the same time playwrights, once their own personal influence on the performances of their works is exhausted, should be willing to trust actors to make respectable choices. Most actors I know who change a "would" or "could" here and there do not do so lightly. We are not, by and large, out to ruin a piece or screw with the cadence. But we, as actors, do have a cadence of our own we have to follow as well. 90% of the time, it matches the playwright's. The 10% however cannot be tossed aside as "bad acting".
Assuming a cue line is not altered, and the intrinsic meaning and theme of a line is not diminished, (which it clearly was in the stories mentioned by Mr. James in his post), I see nothing wrong with a simple paraphrase.
Let's face it, as a playwright, if you are a wild success, at some point your work will be performed outside of the world of professional contracts and unions. The day to day, local, small town theatres will one day take their shot at it. As unfair and grating as it must be on the nerves of a playwright, changes and edits will be made, in order to give the piece the life it needs to survive in a given venue. I for one, if I wrote a play, would make every Zen effort to accept these inevitable, but usually well intentioned changes early in the writing process. I will simply not be able to keep track of and sue every production on the road that mixes a few lines up.
And who knows? Such changes may allow for more spontaneity on the stage than I, with a computer in a dark room far away from a stage, could come up with on my own as I wrote the piece.
Just some thoughts. Feel free to quote me. Or you can simply paraphrase.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Getting Yourself Off...Book
Unless you are performing a play over the radio, or some other kind of reader's theatre piece, the most obvious required skill of the actor is memorization. Despite the title of this blog, I am of course, not always off book. So how do I get there, when faced with a new script?
There are of course as many ways to do this, as there are actors. Some will read one page or one scene over and over again, for hours at a time, until they have it down by heart. Others will have someone read the other parts with them. I personally find that, when the scene has few enough characters, tape recording myself reading the script, and all of the parts and subsequently playing it back over and over seems to be most effective.
I like this method because it is by listening to a favorite CD or watching a favorite movie many times that I come to incidentally memorize lyrics and scenes, without even intending to. Regardless of the method employed however, you must have the right attitude about memorization.
The moral of the story is to stay stress free while trying to memorize lines. Too many times, actors I know strap their own memory banks into a chair, and try to beat them into submission. While this is going on, they are worrying about how much they have to commit to memory, and wondering if they can do so fast enough. This is ineffective, as worrying about forgetting something is no way to help you remember it.
One way to stay relaxed is to be in character even as you are reviewing lines. Know how they speak, what they are thinking, and how they may approach committing something to memory. This way your mind will associate the process of memorization of the lines with your character. Often you will find that knowing how your character behaves will lead you to more quickly commit to memory what it is that he says.
Do whatever is most comfortable for you. These are just a few suggestions. But by remaining comfortable and relaxed, instead of stressed and worried, you greatly increase your chances of being prepared for that day that appears on every rehearsal calendar; "Off Book Day".
There are of course as many ways to do this, as there are actors. Some will read one page or one scene over and over again, for hours at a time, until they have it down by heart. Others will have someone read the other parts with them. I personally find that, when the scene has few enough characters, tape recording myself reading the script, and all of the parts and subsequently playing it back over and over seems to be most effective.
I like this method because it is by listening to a favorite CD or watching a favorite movie many times that I come to incidentally memorize lyrics and scenes, without even intending to. Regardless of the method employed however, you must have the right attitude about memorization.
The moral of the story is to stay stress free while trying to memorize lines. Too many times, actors I know strap their own memory banks into a chair, and try to beat them into submission. While this is going on, they are worrying about how much they have to commit to memory, and wondering if they can do so fast enough. This is ineffective, as worrying about forgetting something is no way to help you remember it.
One way to stay relaxed is to be in character even as you are reviewing lines. Know how they speak, what they are thinking, and how they may approach committing something to memory. This way your mind will associate the process of memorization of the lines with your character. Often you will find that knowing how your character behaves will lead you to more quickly commit to memory what it is that he says.
Do whatever is most comfortable for you. These are just a few suggestions. But by remaining comfortable and relaxed, instead of stressed and worried, you greatly increase your chances of being prepared for that day that appears on every rehearsal calendar; "Off Book Day".
Time on My Hands (For Now)
I was just thinking that with the exception of the first read through of "Miracle on 34th Street" a few weeks ago, I have not done anything specifically theatrical (as in actually working at the theatre) in over four weeks. (I do not include time spent going over my lines.) I have not been needed at any of the subsequent rehearsals for the show as of yet, and it had me thinking about something for a moment. Although without a calendar I can not be certain, I think the time between the first read through of this show, and the next rehearsal I will be called upon to attend will constitute the longest theatrically idle time I have experienced in about a year.
The mathematics of how much theatre I have been fortunate enough to do in the last year or so did not strike me full force until recently.
Since December of 2004, I have been in Scrooge, Ken Ludwig's Moon Over Buffalo, the musical Baby, a local original play festival, and the previously mentioned Over the River and Through the Woods. And soon, this show. All at the Old Opera House in Charles Town.
During that time, three weeks was the previously longest hiatus. (3 weeks or so between Moon Over Buffalo and Baby.) Quite a productive year or so for me.
Another thing that strikes me as I write this is that for the first time in a while, I am totally clueless as to what my next stop is. Most of the last year I had a semi-plan mapped out for what I would or would not find interesting to audition for. There were only one or two deviations from this plan. Unless something presents itself between now and the end of this current show, I will find myself both without a show, and without a plan.
But I dare not think on that right now. I am sure something will come up. It always does. For now, one play at a time is sufficient for the moment. (A good piece of advice for anyone in a similar theatre environment as myself.)
The mathematics of how much theatre I have been fortunate enough to do in the last year or so did not strike me full force until recently.
Since December of 2004, I have been in Scrooge, Ken Ludwig's Moon Over Buffalo, the musical Baby, a local original play festival, and the previously mentioned Over the River and Through the Woods. And soon, this show. All at the Old Opera House in Charles Town.
During that time, three weeks was the previously longest hiatus. (3 weeks or so between Moon Over Buffalo and Baby.) Quite a productive year or so for me.
Another thing that strikes me as I write this is that for the first time in a while, I am totally clueless as to what my next stop is. Most of the last year I had a semi-plan mapped out for what I would or would not find interesting to audition for. There were only one or two deviations from this plan. Unless something presents itself between now and the end of this current show, I will find myself both without a show, and without a plan.
But I dare not think on that right now. I am sure something will come up. It always does. For now, one play at a time is sufficient for the moment. (A good piece of advice for anyone in a similar theatre environment as myself.)
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Potpourri
Just some odds and ends things today.
As for Miracle on 34th Street, I do not yet have much to report. I have not yet been needed for a rehearsal. Nonetheless I have been working on my lines the last few days, and I am about one 4th of the way to being entirely off book. In an ideal world I may be totally off book by the time I show up for my first rehearsal. No promises though. It is merely a possibility. We shall see. (Before that impresses anyone, I have a small role this time.)
You have to love the small roles sometimes, people. While I take every single moment I am on stage very seriously, having more time back stage or off stage during a show certainly has its advantages. (Such as time to rest.)
I had little if any such advantages in my last show. (Joe DiPietro's Over the River and Through the Woods) I was on stage I would say about 85-90% of that play. I love the challenge and importance of the big roles, but I am looking forward to this smaller part this time around.
I also want to get to Goodwill to see if there are any potential costume pieces that present themselves to me for this character. (You find great stuff there for shows.) I have a few ideas already, but I need to talk to the costume designer before I share any of them on here.
In different news, I also plan to go buy a mask for Halloween today. No, I do not go trick or treating at my age. I do however have a very specific mask in mind. One that is just a very pale white face. Wearing that under a hooded sweatshirt, and walking around a town on Halloween night has its own entertainment value. (I will either do that, or just sit in front of my nieces' house as they give out candy, being perfectly still, and having people wonder if I am real.)
My theory is this; if you have one of those gruesome, 100-dollar masks on, they may be grotesque, but how scary are they? They all seem cartoonish to me. However, if you maintain a certain calmness to your movements and a certain stiffness to your posture, as you wear the simplest of masks, you present a scarier proposition. The imagination of those around you takes over.
It's all sort of like a mini-performance for me. It's the one night of the year where almost everyone is doing some kind of obvious performing. (No it's not art, it's just performing.)
But it is fun, nonetheless.
As for Miracle on 34th Street, I do not yet have much to report. I have not yet been needed for a rehearsal. Nonetheless I have been working on my lines the last few days, and I am about one 4th of the way to being entirely off book. In an ideal world I may be totally off book by the time I show up for my first rehearsal. No promises though. It is merely a possibility. We shall see. (Before that impresses anyone, I have a small role this time.)
You have to love the small roles sometimes, people. While I take every single moment I am on stage very seriously, having more time back stage or off stage during a show certainly has its advantages. (Such as time to rest.)
I had little if any such advantages in my last show. (Joe DiPietro's Over the River and Through the Woods) I was on stage I would say about 85-90% of that play. I love the challenge and importance of the big roles, but I am looking forward to this smaller part this time around.
I also want to get to Goodwill to see if there are any potential costume pieces that present themselves to me for this character. (You find great stuff there for shows.) I have a few ideas already, but I need to talk to the costume designer before I share any of them on here.
In different news, I also plan to go buy a mask for Halloween today. No, I do not go trick or treating at my age. I do however have a very specific mask in mind. One that is just a very pale white face. Wearing that under a hooded sweatshirt, and walking around a town on Halloween night has its own entertainment value. (I will either do that, or just sit in front of my nieces' house as they give out candy, being perfectly still, and having people wonder if I am real.)
My theory is this; if you have one of those gruesome, 100-dollar masks on, they may be grotesque, but how scary are they? They all seem cartoonish to me. However, if you maintain a certain calmness to your movements and a certain stiffness to your posture, as you wear the simplest of masks, you present a scarier proposition. The imagination of those around you takes over.
It's all sort of like a mini-performance for me. It's the one night of the year where almost everyone is doing some kind of obvious performing. (No it's not art, it's just performing.)
But it is fun, nonetheless.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Excellent Quotation
Several other theatre oriented blogs that I have discovered as I enter slowly into the blogosphere currently have a mini-discussion going on as to the place of theatre and its relationship to the religious. While I will not personally delve into the complexities of the subject here, seeing as how it has already been adequately explored elsewhere, I was intrigued by some of the points made. Therefore, if the topic interests you, you really should check out Theatre Ideas, and Superfluities. (There is even a comment left by yours truly in the former of the two.)
Instead of a full blown dissertation on the specific subject, I offer a quotation that a former cast mate sent out to everyone at the end of a fine production of Miller's The Crucible I was in some years ago. It sums up very well how I feel about theatre in general, and I thought it appropriate.
"There is no one kind of theatre, and no one solution to all its problems. That platitude needs to be repeated. The theatre exists by compromise and feeds on contradiction. It exists to explain life and to deny it, to decorate it and to strip it bare. Man goes to the play to understand himself, God, or his neighbors, but he also goes to pass the time. He goes for uplift and amusement, a bit of fun and a moment of catharsis. The theatre is a weapon, a magic, a science; a sedative, an aphrodisiac, a communion service; a holiday and an assize, a dress rehearsal of the here and now and a dream in action. It taxes all senses, holds all worlds in one. It is the most conservative and the most ephemeral, the most opaque and the most transparent, the strongest and the weakest of arts. It is everything and nothing, all or none of these things. The theatre is what you make it..." --Richard Findlater
Excellent sentiments indeed.
Instead of a full blown dissertation on the specific subject, I offer a quotation that a former cast mate sent out to everyone at the end of a fine production of Miller's The Crucible I was in some years ago. It sums up very well how I feel about theatre in general, and I thought it appropriate.
"There is no one kind of theatre, and no one solution to all its problems. That platitude needs to be repeated. The theatre exists by compromise and feeds on contradiction. It exists to explain life and to deny it, to decorate it and to strip it bare. Man goes to the play to understand himself, God, or his neighbors, but he also goes to pass the time. He goes for uplift and amusement, a bit of fun and a moment of catharsis. The theatre is a weapon, a magic, a science; a sedative, an aphrodisiac, a communion service; a holiday and an assize, a dress rehearsal of the here and now and a dream in action. It taxes all senses, holds all worlds in one. It is the most conservative and the most ephemeral, the most opaque and the most transparent, the strongest and the weakest of arts. It is everything and nothing, all or none of these things. The theatre is what you make it..." --Richard Findlater
Excellent sentiments indeed.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
E Pluribus Unum
It's literally, right on the money. (At least in this country.) It means, "Out of the many, one." In that context, of course, it refers to the many states joining to form one nation. I think it has significance in the acting world as well, for different reasons.
I am referring to shows where one actor plays several smaller parts, such as being part of an ensemble, or the chorus, in a musical.
I have been in a few of these. (Most recently in the stage version of Leslie Bricusse's Scrooge, wherein I played three tiny roles in addition to my main role. ) Such work is seen by some to be of lesser importance than playing one highly recognizable and important character that can be pointed to in the playbill.
I disagree.
Playing many different smaller characters is like getting two (or more) for the price of one. It allows you to try a whole army of different styles and techniques all within the realm of just one show. You do not often get that chance when you are playing a single role. Ensemble (or chorus) work is a terrific time for experimentation!
It requires more focus, better timing, and a higher degree of thinking on one's feet. Many times there is even potential for stealing a scene from a principle. The next small role that an audience just cannot get out of their mind after the show could be you!
So if you find yourself in a chorus in a musical, or something similar, consider the freedom that you actually have to really show what you are made of. Let your cast mates, director, and audience know that you are a jack-of-all-trades.
Take pride in such an assignment, and out of many roles, you can present one great performance.
E Pluribus Unum.
I am referring to shows where one actor plays several smaller parts, such as being part of an ensemble, or the chorus, in a musical.
I have been in a few of these. (Most recently in the stage version of Leslie Bricusse's Scrooge, wherein I played three tiny roles in addition to my main role. ) Such work is seen by some to be of lesser importance than playing one highly recognizable and important character that can be pointed to in the playbill.
I disagree.
Playing many different smaller characters is like getting two (or more) for the price of one. It allows you to try a whole army of different styles and techniques all within the realm of just one show. You do not often get that chance when you are playing a single role. Ensemble (or chorus) work is a terrific time for experimentation!
It requires more focus, better timing, and a higher degree of thinking on one's feet. Many times there is even potential for stealing a scene from a principle. The next small role that an audience just cannot get out of their mind after the show could be you!
So if you find yourself in a chorus in a musical, or something similar, consider the freedom that you actually have to really show what you are made of. Let your cast mates, director, and audience know that you are a jack-of-all-trades.
Take pride in such an assignment, and out of many roles, you can present one great performance.
E Pluribus Unum.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Fair is Fair
On the off chance that you may have stumbled onto this blog before you stumbled onto some other theatre/acting related blogs, (as unlikely as that probably is), I wanted to make mention of another blog I recently discovered, and whose owner was kind enough to mention my very young blog on his own well established one.
Matthew Freeman's "On Theatre and Politics" offers perspectives that are as urbane and sophisticated as my own are quaint and laid back. If after partaking in my outside of the loop, community based observations on the subjects of theatre and acting you are itching for a bonified professional's view on same, Mr. Freeman is certainly in the know. Do stop by his blog.
Matthew Freeman's "On Theatre and Politics" offers perspectives that are as urbane and sophisticated as my own are quaint and laid back. If after partaking in my outside of the loop, community based observations on the subjects of theatre and acting you are itching for a bonified professional's view on same, Mr. Freeman is certainly in the know. Do stop by his blog.
Classic Arts Showcase
Do any of you get this channel? If so, try leaving it on for an hour or so, and see what shows up.
As the website suggests, it's a 24 hour satellite feed of performing arts clips of various genres and from widely differing eras. It has been around for years, and every once in a while, I get a kick out of turning it on. You are never quite certain what you are in for.
It can be enjoyable at times, as it plays classical music performances, and clips from old, "classic films". But it can also play highly obscure, off the wall stuff as well. Snippets from documentaries on composers most of us have never heard of, wacked out animations from as long ago as 1913, silent film clips, and oddly filmed music videos set to classical pieces. Some of these videos, despite being set to the music of Beethoven and Mozart, can be just as bizarre, if not more so, than the modern pop music videos you might find on MTV. (When they actually play videos anymore.)
A game I like to play is to leave it on for a specified period of time, and then decide which clip in that period was the straight up weirdest. Once in a while, none of them are weird at all. But there is a good bet, that even the most highly cultured among you will find something that makes you say, "What am I watching??" at least once, if you leave it on for an hour or so.
Also good for insomnia sometimes, when left on TV in the middle of the night.
As the website suggests, it's a 24 hour satellite feed of performing arts clips of various genres and from widely differing eras. It has been around for years, and every once in a while, I get a kick out of turning it on. You are never quite certain what you are in for.
It can be enjoyable at times, as it plays classical music performances, and clips from old, "classic films". But it can also play highly obscure, off the wall stuff as well. Snippets from documentaries on composers most of us have never heard of, wacked out animations from as long ago as 1913, silent film clips, and oddly filmed music videos set to classical pieces. Some of these videos, despite being set to the music of Beethoven and Mozart, can be just as bizarre, if not more so, than the modern pop music videos you might find on MTV. (When they actually play videos anymore.)
A game I like to play is to leave it on for a specified period of time, and then decide which clip in that period was the straight up weirdest. Once in a while, none of them are weird at all. But there is a good bet, that even the most highly cultured among you will find something that makes you say, "What am I watching??" at least once, if you leave it on for an hour or so.
Also good for insomnia sometimes, when left on TV in the middle of the night.
Monday, October 10, 2005
My Current Play
I wanted to share some overall facts about my current production.
Currently, I am in a stage adaptation of Miracle on 34th Street. The Old Opera House Theatre Company, in Charles Town, West Virginia is presenting it. (A link to them can be found to the left, in my links section.) It is here that I have done most of my community theatre work since graduating college.
This will be my 9th appearance on this particular stage, and my 5th this year. It will be my 15th production lifetime, as an actor. (It feels like more than that.)
The role is Mr. Thomas Mara, who does not enter the action until act 2. (A first for me as an actor. I have usually entered no later than the middle of act one.) He is the assistant district attorney who represents the state of New York in a court hearing. This hearing is the climax of the play. The purpose of said hearing is to determine if one Kris Kringle, who claims to be the one and only Santa Claus, is mentally incompetent. My character attempts to prove, at least initially, that Kringle is in fact, crazy. (Popular guy at Christmas time, I am sure.)
Those of you who have seen the movie are pretty much aware of where things go from there. I myself have never seen the movie, and I plan not to do so until this production is concluded. I try never to see movie versions of plays I am in before I am done with them. (Unless I have seen it prior to auditioning for a show.) There might be an unconscious decision to mimic the one actor in the movie playing the same character I am playing on stage.
We have only had one read-through so far. Last week. I estimate there are about 30-35 people in the show. I am quite pleased that I am friends with about 2/3 of them. While not a requirement for a good show, it always makes it a bit more fun.
It should also be fun given that it is a Christmas time show. (I was in Scrooge last year, and enjoyed a sort of Christmas spirit in that production, among many friends in the cast. Oddly, I played a guy named Thomas in that Christmas show as well. Hmmm...)
This show will open on December 1st. That gives us 6 or 7 weeks. In that time, of course, much will be happening, in the show as a whole, and with me as an individual actor. I already see several different ways I could approach my small but interesting role. I look forward to experimenting with it, and sharing some of my thoughts and findings here.
Currently, I am in a stage adaptation of Miracle on 34th Street. The Old Opera House Theatre Company, in Charles Town, West Virginia is presenting it. (A link to them can be found to the left, in my links section.) It is here that I have done most of my community theatre work since graduating college.
This will be my 9th appearance on this particular stage, and my 5th this year. It will be my 15th production lifetime, as an actor. (It feels like more than that.)
The role is Mr. Thomas Mara, who does not enter the action until act 2. (A first for me as an actor. I have usually entered no later than the middle of act one.) He is the assistant district attorney who represents the state of New York in a court hearing. This hearing is the climax of the play. The purpose of said hearing is to determine if one Kris Kringle, who claims to be the one and only Santa Claus, is mentally incompetent. My character attempts to prove, at least initially, that Kringle is in fact, crazy. (Popular guy at Christmas time, I am sure.)
Those of you who have seen the movie are pretty much aware of where things go from there. I myself have never seen the movie, and I plan not to do so until this production is concluded. I try never to see movie versions of plays I am in before I am done with them. (Unless I have seen it prior to auditioning for a show.) There might be an unconscious decision to mimic the one actor in the movie playing the same character I am playing on stage.
We have only had one read-through so far. Last week. I estimate there are about 30-35 people in the show. I am quite pleased that I am friends with about 2/3 of them. While not a requirement for a good show, it always makes it a bit more fun.
It should also be fun given that it is a Christmas time show. (I was in Scrooge last year, and enjoyed a sort of Christmas spirit in that production, among many friends in the cast. Oddly, I played a guy named Thomas in that Christmas show as well. Hmmm...)
This show will open on December 1st. That gives us 6 or 7 weeks. In that time, of course, much will be happening, in the show as a whole, and with me as an individual actor. I already see several different ways I could approach my small but interesting role. I look forward to experimenting with it, and sharing some of my thoughts and findings here.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Here a method, there a method, everywhere a method method
There is always much talk about methods in acting. "Method" seems to be a sort of umbrella term referring to how to get into character, read a script, get ready for a performance, interact with other performers, and any other performance enhancing concept.
There are entire schools dedicated only to one given method in their curriculum, such as the Actor's Studio, which teaches only Stanislavski. (Whose influence is so great, his approach is often referred to simply as "The Method".) On the other side of the spectrum, there are also those who pride themselves on being very strictly "anti-method", (David Mamet, for example, who despite his acclaim and success as a writer actually possesses a questionable understanding of actors, and what they are responsible for in live theatre. But I digress.)
Which method am I a disciple of? Is it, a method? The Method? Attending services at a Methodist church? Truth be told, I am a disciple of no method, and at the same time, I cannot be counted among the ranks of the anti-method cult. Practically speaking, my method for acting is much like the "method" I would use for selecting clothing to wear or CDs to listen to; highly dependant on what the situation calls for.
There are really only two universal precepts for me.
First, I determine the truth of the character. I find out what my character wants, why he wants it, and how he would express this personally. Secondly, I use my knowledge of what my strengths and weaknesses are as an actor to determine how best to approach my portrayal. I may find, after determining these facts that a Stanislavski sort of approach would work best for my goals. For the next play (or even the next scene), I may find his approach unworkable if I adhere too strictly to it. I would therefore adapt my "method" to the situation.
By following these two strategies, I have developed a flexibility in my approaches to characters that, in some ways being a die-hard disciple of a method does not allow. This flexibility has always served me well on the stage.
There are entire schools dedicated only to one given method in their curriculum, such as the Actor's Studio, which teaches only Stanislavski. (Whose influence is so great, his approach is often referred to simply as "The Method".) On the other side of the spectrum, there are also those who pride themselves on being very strictly "anti-method", (David Mamet, for example, who despite his acclaim and success as a writer actually possesses a questionable understanding of actors, and what they are responsible for in live theatre. But I digress.)
Which method am I a disciple of? Is it, a method? The Method? Attending services at a Methodist church? Truth be told, I am a disciple of no method, and at the same time, I cannot be counted among the ranks of the anti-method cult. Practically speaking, my method for acting is much like the "method" I would use for selecting clothing to wear or CDs to listen to; highly dependant on what the situation calls for.
There are really only two universal precepts for me.
First, I determine the truth of the character. I find out what my character wants, why he wants it, and how he would express this personally. Secondly, I use my knowledge of what my strengths and weaknesses are as an actor to determine how best to approach my portrayal. I may find, after determining these facts that a Stanislavski sort of approach would work best for my goals. For the next play (or even the next scene), I may find his approach unworkable if I adhere too strictly to it. I would therefore adapt my "method" to the situation.
By following these two strategies, I have developed a flexibility in my approaches to characters that, in some ways being a die-hard disciple of a method does not allow. This flexibility has always served me well on the stage.
Friday, October 07, 2005
A Curtain Rises...
Welcome to this brand new blog. I suppose a brief introduction of me, and the blog are in order. By their introductory nature, dear readers, this initial entry or two will be longer than most of my regular entries. Please bear with my exposition. (Though if you already know me, none of the biographical stuff will be anything new to you.)
I am currently 27 years old, and I live in Frederick County, Maryland. My acting career, if you will, began in college, when I transferred to a school that required a fine arts course of some kind as part of the core curriculum. Based on my schedule that semester, (fall of 1999) I had my choice of a pottery class, or an acting class. I had no real faith in my abilities with clay, and so acting was the choice. I have been doing it ever since.
I actually ended up with a minor in theatre arts 3 years later. It was almost accidental, as it was not until my senior year that I discovered all of the classes in theatre I had elected to take were in fact leading towards a certificate.
I was in several shows during my college years, (which I will talk about at various times in the life of this acting blog.) After I graduated, I auditioned in various community theatres back home, but met with no success, (and much rudeness in some cases.)
I did eventually make the acquaintance of some other local actors at a monthly reader's theatre, sponsored by the Brunswick Community Theater. Through this group, I was made aware of a local production of Arthur Miller's The Crucible, that at that time was in need of more males to fill some roles. The production took place in nearby Charles Town, West Virginia in a place called the Old Opera House. Upon calling the director and visiting the place, I joined the cast, and thus began a very satisfying and still active relationship with this small, but classy community theatre.
I called this blog "Always Off Book", because in the rehearsal process of a play, being off book (having all your lines committed to memory) represents the most prepared state one can be in to welcome the most creativity. I pride myself on getting off book very early on in a rehearsal process. I also pride myself at being quite prepared in the theatre of life. I try to always be prepared for what comes next, and hence, I am, in a manner of speaking, "Always Off Book."
I am, at the moment happy and proud to be a member of the local amateur theatre community. I have no stories of scrapping a living out of tips and three part time jobs, while eating only crackers in a small dingy apartment in the Bronx, as I try to make it big. If that is what you desire to read, I assure you there are many blogs to that purpose that I am sure you can find if you search.
The content of this blog will mostly consist of my observations about being an actor. (I use the term "actor" and terms like "his job" to mean men and women of course.) Because I feel that being an amateur in status does not at all equate with being an amateur in talent or knowledge, I offer this blog to the world. My hope is to relate to, inform, advise, and perhaps even entertain the readers of this blog, with my tales from and about community theatre and acting in general, as well as other relevant sub-categories that I will determine. This will be done in one of two ways.
1) By regularly publishing theatre related "mini-articles", once or twice every weekend. These articles will pertain to particular acting related subjects, some specific to community theatre, some that are hopefully more universal in nature.
2) By making entries during the week of anything I may experience that day which has a particular bearing on the subject matter. This will be especially true when I am in a production, as I am now. It is during the week I will cover odds and ends things that take place during the course of rehearsals, leading up to the big night.
So whether you are theatre minded or not, feel free to link me to your sites, and to enjoy what I offer.
Stay tuned.
I am currently 27 years old, and I live in Frederick County, Maryland. My acting career, if you will, began in college, when I transferred to a school that required a fine arts course of some kind as part of the core curriculum. Based on my schedule that semester, (fall of 1999) I had my choice of a pottery class, or an acting class. I had no real faith in my abilities with clay, and so acting was the choice. I have been doing it ever since.
I actually ended up with a minor in theatre arts 3 years later. It was almost accidental, as it was not until my senior year that I discovered all of the classes in theatre I had elected to take were in fact leading towards a certificate.
I was in several shows during my college years, (which I will talk about at various times in the life of this acting blog.) After I graduated, I auditioned in various community theatres back home, but met with no success, (and much rudeness in some cases.)
I did eventually make the acquaintance of some other local actors at a monthly reader's theatre, sponsored by the Brunswick Community Theater. Through this group, I was made aware of a local production of Arthur Miller's The Crucible, that at that time was in need of more males to fill some roles. The production took place in nearby Charles Town, West Virginia in a place called the Old Opera House. Upon calling the director and visiting the place, I joined the cast, and thus began a very satisfying and still active relationship with this small, but classy community theatre.
I called this blog "Always Off Book", because in the rehearsal process of a play, being off book (having all your lines committed to memory) represents the most prepared state one can be in to welcome the most creativity. I pride myself on getting off book very early on in a rehearsal process. I also pride myself at being quite prepared in the theatre of life. I try to always be prepared for what comes next, and hence, I am, in a manner of speaking, "Always Off Book."
I am, at the moment happy and proud to be a member of the local amateur theatre community. I have no stories of scrapping a living out of tips and three part time jobs, while eating only crackers in a small dingy apartment in the Bronx, as I try to make it big. If that is what you desire to read, I assure you there are many blogs to that purpose that I am sure you can find if you search.
The content of this blog will mostly consist of my observations about being an actor. (I use the term "actor" and terms like "his job" to mean men and women of course.) Because I feel that being an amateur in status does not at all equate with being an amateur in talent or knowledge, I offer this blog to the world. My hope is to relate to, inform, advise, and perhaps even entertain the readers of this blog, with my tales from and about community theatre and acting in general, as well as other relevant sub-categories that I will determine. This will be done in one of two ways.
1) By regularly publishing theatre related "mini-articles", once or twice every weekend. These articles will pertain to particular acting related subjects, some specific to community theatre, some that are hopefully more universal in nature.
2) By making entries during the week of anything I may experience that day which has a particular bearing on the subject matter. This will be especially true when I am in a production, as I am now. It is during the week I will cover odds and ends things that take place during the course of rehearsals, leading up to the big night.
So whether you are theatre minded or not, feel free to link me to your sites, and to enjoy what I offer.
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
