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.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
