New Poll - OUCH!
Sat, 31 May 2003, 07:41 pmcrgwllms29 posts in thread
New Poll - OUCH!
Sat, 31 May 2003, 07:41 pmSelf explanatory, really - who's ever hurt themselves, what was involved, & whose fault was it?
The Poll-tergeist
[%sig%]
The Poll-tergeist
[%sig%]
Re: Dropping out of danger
Sun, 15 June 2003, 05:08 amMethod Studio wrote:
>
> Just how dangerous do things have to get before an actor
> stops the show? If a preventible accident looms, is there
> anything wrong with dropping out of the play and dealing with
> it? Any thoughts people?
I reckon there's always a way of dealing with it.
We all hate to drop out of our rehearsed routine, but I think that's less because of consideration for the audience than it is because of a fear of putting ourselves in unknown territory for a few minutes, and then trying to get back on track.
If it's something that can be accomplished in character, then there's every chance that the event can be managed without the audience really being aware of it. And if the audience ARE aware but you can deal with it in character, they'll appreciate it more, even if you need to radically depart from the script or blocking.
If someone in Grant's crucifixion procession had simply said "let's go this way", or if they had stopped to negotiate getting off the stage without using the steps, the audience probably would have accepted it, without the need to explain the problem.
Stephen's situation with the boiling water was a tricky one, because to deal with the immediate problem of being scalded for real would create another problem...the business of the play probably relied on his character being scalded, and not being aware it was about to happen. If he avoided the water it may have been hard to justify the ensuing events of the script. The only thing I can think of is to somehow manage to avoid getting hit too much with the water but to pretend that it did, perhaps by making an even bigger moment of it than usual...?
If the audience can SEE the problem, it can become really distracting if you DON'T deal with it. We once dropped a glass bottle onstage, which broke. One of the actors started to carry on as if to ignore it, but another just said "hold on a second" ran into the wings to find a broom, actually came back with a towel that he used to sweep the glass away, said "sorry about that...you were saying?" and the show went on. He realised that if they hadn't dealt with it there and then, the audience would be wondering 'why not?' and all their focus would remain on the broken glass. Dealing with it naturally, everyone forgave the interruption and then forgot about it and we could move on.
One time I found myself having to hold a large bit of the set together to keep it from falling over. I could continue my scene for a short time, but eventually needed to move away. Between my lines I had caught the attention of the stage manager in the wings and indicated the problem. In a low voice, out of character, I called him over to hold it up for me; continuing the dialogue of the scene in character. Most of the audience probably didn't hear my aside, but some may have. I thought it was more appropriate to deal with that problem out of character than to have made a big deal of it in character, that way the flow of the scene was less interrupted, and people didn't seem too distracted by the crewman entering to stand and hold the set because when I could move away I carried the focus, in character, toward the other actors.
It's all about the focus of the audience, and what is best in the situation. If they are focussed on a problem and it takes higher status than the action of the play, then you can draw attention back to the character by dealing with it surreptitiously OR conspicuously, so long as it lowers the status of the problem. Staying in character is usually more important, but not always...if by dealing with it in character you give the problem higher status, you've probably made a mistake, unless it can be used for comic effect.
You don't want to draw attention to a problem and then let it take over, but announcing the problem to the audience might be the best way to acknowledge it, and diminish it's power.
In the end, people are going to accept a problem if it occurs...we all know we're just watching a play, and that accidents happen. If it's kept from us, fine. If we see an actor deal with it appropriately, more power to them, and that could even be entertaining. If it HAS to be dealt with in a way that takes over, that may be disappointing, but we're not going to lose sleep over it.
No one wants to watch you get hurt.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> Just how dangerous do things have to get before an actor
> stops the show? If a preventible accident looms, is there
> anything wrong with dropping out of the play and dealing with
> it? Any thoughts people?
I reckon there's always a way of dealing with it.
We all hate to drop out of our rehearsed routine, but I think that's less because of consideration for the audience than it is because of a fear of putting ourselves in unknown territory for a few minutes, and then trying to get back on track.
If it's something that can be accomplished in character, then there's every chance that the event can be managed without the audience really being aware of it. And if the audience ARE aware but you can deal with it in character, they'll appreciate it more, even if you need to radically depart from the script or blocking.
If someone in Grant's crucifixion procession had simply said "let's go this way", or if they had stopped to negotiate getting off the stage without using the steps, the audience probably would have accepted it, without the need to explain the problem.
Stephen's situation with the boiling water was a tricky one, because to deal with the immediate problem of being scalded for real would create another problem...the business of the play probably relied on his character being scalded, and not being aware it was about to happen. If he avoided the water it may have been hard to justify the ensuing events of the script. The only thing I can think of is to somehow manage to avoid getting hit too much with the water but to pretend that it did, perhaps by making an even bigger moment of it than usual...?
If the audience can SEE the problem, it can become really distracting if you DON'T deal with it. We once dropped a glass bottle onstage, which broke. One of the actors started to carry on as if to ignore it, but another just said "hold on a second" ran into the wings to find a broom, actually came back with a towel that he used to sweep the glass away, said "sorry about that...you were saying?" and the show went on. He realised that if they hadn't dealt with it there and then, the audience would be wondering 'why not?' and all their focus would remain on the broken glass. Dealing with it naturally, everyone forgave the interruption and then forgot about it and we could move on.
One time I found myself having to hold a large bit of the set together to keep it from falling over. I could continue my scene for a short time, but eventually needed to move away. Between my lines I had caught the attention of the stage manager in the wings and indicated the problem. In a low voice, out of character, I called him over to hold it up for me; continuing the dialogue of the scene in character. Most of the audience probably didn't hear my aside, but some may have. I thought it was more appropriate to deal with that problem out of character than to have made a big deal of it in character, that way the flow of the scene was less interrupted, and people didn't seem too distracted by the crewman entering to stand and hold the set because when I could move away I carried the focus, in character, toward the other actors.
It's all about the focus of the audience, and what is best in the situation. If they are focussed on a problem and it takes higher status than the action of the play, then you can draw attention back to the character by dealing with it surreptitiously OR conspicuously, so long as it lowers the status of the problem. Staying in character is usually more important, but not always...if by dealing with it in character you give the problem higher status, you've probably made a mistake, unless it can be used for comic effect.
You don't want to draw attention to a problem and then let it take over, but announcing the problem to the audience might be the best way to acknowledge it, and diminish it's power.
In the end, people are going to accept a problem if it occurs...we all know we're just watching a play, and that accidents happen. If it's kept from us, fine. If we see an actor deal with it appropriately, more power to them, and that could even be entertaining. If it HAS to be dealt with in a way that takes over, that may be disappointing, but we're not going to lose sleep over it.
No one wants to watch you get hurt.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···