Earlier this evening was a rehearsal for "A Christmas Carol". We had planned to do all of act one, but we only got halfway through it. Yet that doesn't bother me, given how much we accomplished tonight.
Keep in mind that we are now rehearsing in what will be the house of a theatre we have not yet built. So in reality it is not yet even the house. It is the lobby of a former art gallery that over the coming weeks we hope to convert into a performance space. Given those limitations, going through blocking can be a stop and go process. But most theatres I have worked in require at least half of the rehearsals to take place in an area other than the stage, so I didn't have too much of a problem. As long as I know where the audience is supposed to be, I can rehearse in just about any space.
That being said, we were one man down tonight, which means things went a little bit slower still. However, i was more prepared than I might have been. I spent most of the free time I had in the last two days trying to get off book for at least the first scene, (wherein the dinner guests and Dickens explore the notion of presenting the story.) While I did have to refer to my book a few times, I found that I had it nearly cold in most sections.
I was semi-forced to get even further off book due to the nature of the blocking, which did not allow me to easily carry a script around with me. The first of these moment involved me entering while carrying a 13 year old girl on my back. I don't do this often, but the script called for her to be on my shoulder. If I had done that, her face would have been up in the lighting somewhere. So we went with the piggybacking.
The other moment involved a sequence wherein my character is mocked, has his eyes covered, is spun about to confuse him, before recovering and jumping onto an up stage platform...all with a violin and bow in his hand.
We had no instrument tonight, but all of the blocking I just described would have been dead on arrival if I had had to look at the book for every line. So I made double sure that my speech for that section was in my head. I anticipated yesterday that i would probably not be able to make much use of the book for this part, so I went over the speech a few extra times. I am glad I did.
Yet still I had to approximate the lines once or twice. I think you simply have to do that once in a while in a rehearsal. Normally you should try to say things exactly as you would in a performance. Yet, if the time comes to rehearse specific blocking which precludes holding a book, I advocate saying the gist of the lines until you are off book, so as not to slow up the blocking rehearsal. Memorization can be worked on when one is alone. Blocking requires everyone's time. Learn how to move, and then later what to say. You can always polish up what you say, when you say it. But unclear blocking often sticks out like a sore thumb.
I also came up with some good business to do when I am Bob Cratchit sitting in the tank. I think I will do some basic algebra. He was after all a clerk, and would be working with a lot of numbers for Scrooge. And for someone like me who is deplorable at math, doing intermediate algebra might be just the think to give Cratchit the look of tedious number crunching. Just a little trick I came up with.
Being the official photographer of the Full Circle Theatre Company, I also took quite a few pictures of rehearsal tonight. Of course, none of the scenes I was in. I may try to take a few pictures while my character is in a few background scenes once I am off book, I will have to think about it. But for now, it wasn't going to work.
One thing taking pictures of a show does is give you a good sense of stage composition. What is a show if not, among other things, a moving picture of sorts? I have the basics of stage placement of course, having studied it in school, but usually I do what the director says will look good. When I take pictures, I can see what works and what does not work with all the more clarity.
Saturday morning is the next rehearsal, and afterwards we are tearing down walls to begin the construction process. I have to work that evening, of course, so I will be unable to stay long, but I do want to stay long enough to help out. I truly want the place to be ready in time, at least in a rudimentary sense, because I do not really want to go back to the previous space the company used. So, I will see if I can find a sledge hammer, and do what I can do for the good of the cause.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
I Don't Have a Light
Much to my chagrin, (and to the chagrin of many other actors, with good reason), some playwrights insist on making the smoking of a cigarette integral to plot of a piece, of at least of a specific scene.
I am not a smoker, and if Broadway called and offered me a role tonight, with my name on the marquee, if only I would agree to smoke for the role, I would turn it down. And I mean it.
This of course is not an anti-smoking public service announcement. (Though, as a point of personal privilege, I will say anyone who becomes a smoker has quite a bit less intelligence than most people.) What this site is about, is acting, and the question of the actor smoking on stage is not as uncommon as you might think, when you have been in as many shows as I have.
To begin with, I know of people who have gotten roles based almost solely on their willingness to smoke a cigarette. This to me is not only unfair, but sending quite the wrong message...that trickery and props are going to be more important in a show, than the story and the performances.
As much as we actors like to make it as real as possible, being on stage is a process of illusion and creation. Our lives are not really in danger. In most cases, the people kissing on stage are not actually in love, and not many people rub elbows with royalty. I therefore must conclude that a sudden need to be 100% true to life when it comes to tobacco products is not only lazy, and uncreative, but morally questionable to an extent.
Someone who has never smoked should NEVER be asked to do so in a show. To potential risk of addiction is not worth any part, and any director unaware of this is someone I would not trust to direct me to the men's room in the lobby, let alone on stage. The same goes for a director who would choose someone based on the fact they already had an addiction.
If no other advice I have ever give on this blog up until this point has ever been followed by actors, I hope this piece will be. Do not, under any circumstances, take a smoking role if you are required to smoke for real.
Know your script. Find out if any characters you may be cast as are smokers. If so, ask the director at the audition right away if you would be called upon to really smoke. If you would be permitted to simply appear to smoke, without actually lighting the cigar or cigarette, proceed. If the director is adamant that it be real, so no thanks to that particular role.
I would also caution against herbal cigarettes. There is a common misconception that these herbal smokes are safe. They merely lack nicotine and tobacco, and hence have no potential for addiction. But inhaling any kind of smoke is a health risk. Beware of directors that are willing to make this substitution.
I was in Anything Goes a few years ago, and my character usually had a cigarette in his mouth or his hand. I never lit it. Nobody complained, that I know of. Your "smoking roles" will survive, as mine did, simply by going through the motions of lighting a cigarette, and puffing, etc. All the goodies that go along with it.
"There will not be any smoke to be seen," many will argue. My counter, as it is for many things, is that if your audience is paying close attention to how much, if any smoke is rolling out of a prop cigarette, your production is in a lot of trouble.
I am not a smoker, and if Broadway called and offered me a role tonight, with my name on the marquee, if only I would agree to smoke for the role, I would turn it down. And I mean it.
This of course is not an anti-smoking public service announcement. (Though, as a point of personal privilege, I will say anyone who becomes a smoker has quite a bit less intelligence than most people.) What this site is about, is acting, and the question of the actor smoking on stage is not as uncommon as you might think, when you have been in as many shows as I have.
To begin with, I know of people who have gotten roles based almost solely on their willingness to smoke a cigarette. This to me is not only unfair, but sending quite the wrong message...that trickery and props are going to be more important in a show, than the story and the performances.
As much as we actors like to make it as real as possible, being on stage is a process of illusion and creation. Our lives are not really in danger. In most cases, the people kissing on stage are not actually in love, and not many people rub elbows with royalty. I therefore must conclude that a sudden need to be 100% true to life when it comes to tobacco products is not only lazy, and uncreative, but morally questionable to an extent.
Someone who has never smoked should NEVER be asked to do so in a show. To potential risk of addiction is not worth any part, and any director unaware of this is someone I would not trust to direct me to the men's room in the lobby, let alone on stage. The same goes for a director who would choose someone based on the fact they already had an addiction.
If no other advice I have ever give on this blog up until this point has ever been followed by actors, I hope this piece will be. Do not, under any circumstances, take a smoking role if you are required to smoke for real.
Know your script. Find out if any characters you may be cast as are smokers. If so, ask the director at the audition right away if you would be called upon to really smoke. If you would be permitted to simply appear to smoke, without actually lighting the cigar or cigarette, proceed. If the director is adamant that it be real, so no thanks to that particular role.
I would also caution against herbal cigarettes. There is a common misconception that these herbal smokes are safe. They merely lack nicotine and tobacco, and hence have no potential for addiction. But inhaling any kind of smoke is a health risk. Beware of directors that are willing to make this substitution.
I was in Anything Goes a few years ago, and my character usually had a cigarette in his mouth or his hand. I never lit it. Nobody complained, that I know of. Your "smoking roles" will survive, as mine did, simply by going through the motions of lighting a cigarette, and puffing, etc. All the goodies that go along with it.
"There will not be any smoke to be seen," many will argue. My counter, as it is for many things, is that if your audience is paying close attention to how much, if any smoke is rolling out of a prop cigarette, your production is in a lot of trouble.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Reading
So, My Sunday/Monday evening weekly column is taking a Monday turn this week. In fact, given that I performed on Sunday, this week will be a recap as opposed to a column.
Let me say that the reading for Dinner with Friends went quite well. Very intimate setting, (it is a small theatre, maybe 75 seats total, not sure.) I think we had about 30 people there, and they were all very warm and responsive to our reading.
So warm in fact, that as I read, I found the play to be a bit lighter than I originally thought. At least the way we did it. I still would not classify it as a comedy per se, but compared to how heavy and depressing I found the piece to be after my initial readings, the presentation was far more comical than I expected it to be. (If the laughter of the audience was any indication.)
I have done readings before. But none with such a small time commitment. So I got there early yesterday, (before our practice run through) just to get a feel for the space.
It was nice to experience all of the ambiance of the theatrical experience in such a short amount of time; meeting the cast, having the initial read through, working through some blocking, hanging out in the blue lights back stage, and smelling the aroma of saw dust, paint, and other such things.
It was a bit surreal in some ways. There were moments when it felt like I had been in the show for several weeks, as opposed to 24 hours. Probably because all of the sensory stimuli I previously mentioned usually don't conspire into a pre-curtain atmosphere until near the end of a rehearsal process.
And then there is the performance itself. The speed with which one has to get comfortable with a script, to find small nuances, to come up with facial expressions and line readings, and characterizations. Though our production was very minimalist, there was still some blocking to go over. With a fair amount of leeway for impromptu blocking, the idea of throwing movements and line deliveries into an entertaining and convincing show in one day stretched acting muscles that often do not get utilized to such an extent in a straight show. At least not that early.
I don't know if the performance from a one day reading should qualify, in general, as a complete performance. I would still hope that given 6 weeks with this play,I would be more nuanced, and be able to give greater depth the character. Yet, I was pleased with how much creativity I and the rest of the cast was able to make use of under the gun. When you do things this quickly, and are not consumed with all the technical aspects of theatre, such as being off book, costumes, sets, (though we did make some use of doors that belong to the current main stage show), there is a well of rapid fire creativity that opens up to you, which I enjoyed.
All of the acting inhibitions that one may encounter as one starts to stage a show simply can't be succumbed to in a staged reading like this. It was both a little scary and thrilling to have to toss all of those comfortable buffer zones aside and get right down to it. So much so, that I pondered whether or not a straight show would benefit from requiring a cast to sort of put on a full throttled reading, complete with some rudimentary blocking, in front of a small audience, right off the bat, say in the first week. Even if things would evolve and change from there, a sort of baptism by fire would give greater, and earlier life to many casts, I do believe. Just a theory though.
As far as the people, I mentioned how relaxed and easy to work with my cast was. The same was true for all of the people I encountered at the theatre. I am sure I will be doing other things in Winchester in the future.
Let me say that the reading for Dinner with Friends went quite well. Very intimate setting, (it is a small theatre, maybe 75 seats total, not sure.) I think we had about 30 people there, and they were all very warm and responsive to our reading.
So warm in fact, that as I read, I found the play to be a bit lighter than I originally thought. At least the way we did it. I still would not classify it as a comedy per se, but compared to how heavy and depressing I found the piece to be after my initial readings, the presentation was far more comical than I expected it to be. (If the laughter of the audience was any indication.)
I have done readings before. But none with such a small time commitment. So I got there early yesterday, (before our practice run through) just to get a feel for the space.
It was nice to experience all of the ambiance of the theatrical experience in such a short amount of time; meeting the cast, having the initial read through, working through some blocking, hanging out in the blue lights back stage, and smelling the aroma of saw dust, paint, and other such things.
It was a bit surreal in some ways. There were moments when it felt like I had been in the show for several weeks, as opposed to 24 hours. Probably because all of the sensory stimuli I previously mentioned usually don't conspire into a pre-curtain atmosphere until near the end of a rehearsal process.
And then there is the performance itself. The speed with which one has to get comfortable with a script, to find small nuances, to come up with facial expressions and line readings, and characterizations. Though our production was very minimalist, there was still some blocking to go over. With a fair amount of leeway for impromptu blocking, the idea of throwing movements and line deliveries into an entertaining and convincing show in one day stretched acting muscles that often do not get utilized to such an extent in a straight show. At least not that early.
I don't know if the performance from a one day reading should qualify, in general, as a complete performance. I would still hope that given 6 weeks with this play,I would be more nuanced, and be able to give greater depth the character. Yet, I was pleased with how much creativity I and the rest of the cast was able to make use of under the gun. When you do things this quickly, and are not consumed with all the technical aspects of theatre, such as being off book, costumes, sets, (though we did make some use of doors that belong to the current main stage show), there is a well of rapid fire creativity that opens up to you, which I enjoyed.
All of the acting inhibitions that one may encounter as one starts to stage a show simply can't be succumbed to in a staged reading like this. It was both a little scary and thrilling to have to toss all of those comfortable buffer zones aside and get right down to it. So much so, that I pondered whether or not a straight show would benefit from requiring a cast to sort of put on a full throttled reading, complete with some rudimentary blocking, in front of a small audience, right off the bat, say in the first week. Even if things would evolve and change from there, a sort of baptism by fire would give greater, and earlier life to many casts, I do believe. Just a theory though.
As far as the people, I mentioned how relaxed and easy to work with my cast was. The same was true for all of the people I encountered at the theatre. I am sure I will be doing other things in Winchester in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
