Will you PLEASE be quiet??!!

Brett maaaate! Haven't heard from you for ages! Are you and Jenny back in Oz? Or if you're still in England, are you getting any theatre work? Email me some news.



Brett wrote:
>Sorry Craig, but I can't say that I agree with you there.


Well...A couple of times you actually DO seem to agree with my statements, and you disagree with what Jo said, as I did.

You agree that it is rare or impossible for 'polite' members of the audience, ushers or stage managers to quiet a noisy patron; itÂ’s up to the actor to keep control.
You advocate "Anything to avoid a greater disruption", ...as do I (although we disagree on how we define "greater disruption").
And you agree that what Geoff Kelso did was truly professional - which was the starting point of my argument with Jo.

Also, you join Jo in saying that you should not break persona and lose the audience altogether because you are "frustrated" or can't "concentrate"...and I have never disagreed with those statements. But I also don't believe "lack of concentration" was the case with Geoff Kelso; neither have my arguments supported that as any excuse to break character (which I still think you CAN do, WITHOUT losing them).


...But I get the gist of your disagreement.





I AGREE with the stuff you said about 'dealing with the problem, in character' being the best way...and nine times out of ten I do just that.
But what would you do if your character is very low status, or is simply not allowed (for plot reasons) to know something that 200 kids are trying to tell you?

Dealing with these problems in character actually DESTROYS your character.

So I'm saying that in order to keep the greater integrity of the play (which I feel is more important), leaving the character briefly, solving the problem, and then returning to it actually DOESN'T cause such a big disruption as you seem to think it does.




When you tell of picking up the kid in the crowd, you say, "The point is that it was done in a manner that was consistent with the character I was playing at the time."
I heartily agree with you; but therefore if picking him up or speaking to him was NOT consistent, then I COULDN'T do it and remain in character. But the problem would still remain, disrupting the play.

I think maybe I made my "Ranger Kev" anecdote sound worse than it was...I had introduced the play and set the scene "as myself"; I was called "Craig" several times by other actors, as well as playing many characters myself, before the scene in question. So by stopping and becoming "Craig Williams, actor", I might as well have said I became "Craig Williams, storyteller"...me as an actor was effectively just ANOTHER character, who could pull the focus back to the story without diminishing the impact of the play. It was not as out of style with the rest of the play as I may have made it sound.

The 'Ranger Kev' character was not a character who could control a hundred kids shouting, and if I HAD responded as that character, it would not have made sense. So it made perfect sense to drop the character and become another; - Craig, the storyteller (which is all an actor IS, after all.)
The shouting kids did not believe I was a ranger anymore than they believed I was the crocodile or the pigmy possum in the play; so breaking character couldn't really surprise or disappoint them. They've all played "let's pretend"; they understood the rules. (If the game stops for a second because mum calls you, it's picked up straightaway a moment later, without "breaking the illusion".)
All that the kids wanted to do was to help, by telling me something. Dropping my character allowed me to let them, without altering the play. Having given them someone else to tell, I could then pick up the Ranger character again and everyone was happy. I see this as being sensitive to my audience.

I can't even claim the credit for this technique of "crowd control". It was discussed with the director of Barking Gecko during rehearsals, as a valid way to solve a likely problem. We had frequent scenes that encouraged audience participation, but knew they were likely to backfire and stop the action, so we needed several techniques to ensure we stayed in control.




THE PARADOX OF AD-LIBS...


I agree with you, outdoor theatre is a prime situation to encounter the unexpected, and find the need to ad-lib. When I did my turn in the Shakespeare in the Park, there were different occasions every night when we could throw in a reference to either the wind or about the sudden quack of a duck, etc.

Audiences love ad-libs, because they feel "special", like they witnessed something rare that only happened then and there, that night. (This is why crafty actors sometimes try to recreate 'ad-libbed' moments night after night...it entertains the crowd immensely if they believe it really was 'off the cuff').

But what it does is remind everybody that this is a living, thinking, actor here in front of us, not JUST a character. Whether the actor breaks character or not, they are drawing attention to themselves as a skilled ACTOR.


If we think "the character would've said that anyway", then fine, the actor has covered well and completely, and we don't even comment on the incident. We think it was part of the play.
If we realise that the character usually wouldn't say this, but tonight the actor made something up in character - that's when we are impressed.

If an actor makes a bad ad-lib (inappropriate to the play or out of character), all it does is draw attention to the actor and away from the story, and distract the audience by reminding us that we are watching a play.

But the paradox is - if you make a GOOD ad-lib (a show of wit, or in character), it ALSO draws attention to the actor and away from the character and story, reminding us that we are watching a play...the difference being that we are suitably impressed by the skill of the improvising actor that we immediately forgive this transgression, and if the actor picks up where they left off, we go right back along.


If you can fit an incident into your speech without missing a beat, you're acknowledging a private joke with the audience, and they recognise and appreciate your talent as an actor and improviser.
In the end, THAT's what entertains; NOT whether or not you stay in character as per the script or the direction, but whether you handle it professionally as a skilled performer who is sensitive to the greater needs of the play and to the majority of the audience.

The illusion ISN'T isn't the most important part of the play...the PERFORMANCE is, and I believe there is a difference.
You won't spoil everyone's night by breaking the illusion, SO LONG AS you find a way to maintain the importance of the performance... and THIS is the difference we are all really talking about when we talk about "acting professionally".



Cheers,
Craig

[%sig%]