horrible acting scenario - what would you do?
Wed, 8 June 2005, 01:38 pmWalter Plinge13 posts in thread
horrible acting scenario - what would you do?
Wed, 8 June 2005, 01:38 pmIn my experience as an actor, there's nothing worse than one of your castmates forgetting their lines - and I know that I'm a regular offender. It happens, and I think getting out of one of these situations is one of the skills that separates a good actor from a great one.
What do you think should be done in this situation? Two actors are on stage, someone goes blank and in the confusion a page of dialogue gets skipped. The page is important - a lot of what happens in the rest of the play relies on the dialogue that was missed.
Should the actors attempt to reintroduce the dialogue at an appropriate point down the track, potentially saving the story but running the risk of spoiling a second scene? Or should they ignore the error and concentrate on making the rest of their performance go according to script?
This situation happened to me last week, and we made a decision to reintroduce the dialogue at a particular point in the following scene. It obviously wasn't perfect, probably spoilt the flow of the second scene, and our deliveries were not as good as they ordinarily would have been, but at least the rest of the story made more sense.
Ever since then, I've been wondering whether we did the right thing or not, and I'd value some feedback about this in case it ever happens to me again. What do you think?
What do you think should be done in this situation? Two actors are on stage, someone goes blank and in the confusion a page of dialogue gets skipped. The page is important - a lot of what happens in the rest of the play relies on the dialogue that was missed.
Should the actors attempt to reintroduce the dialogue at an appropriate point down the track, potentially saving the story but running the risk of spoiling a second scene? Or should they ignore the error and concentrate on making the rest of their performance go according to script?
This situation happened to me last week, and we made a decision to reintroduce the dialogue at a particular point in the following scene. It obviously wasn't perfect, probably spoilt the flow of the second scene, and our deliveries were not as good as they ordinarily would have been, but at least the rest of the story made more sense.
Ever since then, I've been wondering whether we did the right thing or not, and I'd value some feedback about this in case it ever happens to me again. What do you think?
Re: in Prompt you
Wed, 15 June 2005, 03:18 amKerri wrote:
>
> I agree that I hate hearing lines being prompted from the
> wings. What I don't agree with is the idea that it reminds
> you of school plays. Not all school plays are really awful
> pathetic little pieces of drama done by students not wanting
> to be up on stage. The guys who haven't learnt their lines
> because they are not interested. The school is just doing a
> "little play" so that the parents can come and see little
> Johnny on stage.
>
> I am not sure when the last time that a lot of people went to
> see a school play was but I tend to think it is about time
> that some people did. My school doesn't use a prompt and we
> haven't done so for the last 20 years. I am very proud of the
> work that my students do and I know that I am certainly not
> the only drama teacher that thinks that. '
>
> Maybe it is about time that we stopped remembering back to
> what it was like 30 yrs ago and stopped running down the idea
> of the school play. It is without question , at times, better
> than some amateur theatre.
>
> Kerri
Kerri, you must admit - you are a bit exceptional! Of course there ARE an elite few like you who can create some terrific plays, and it happens to be inconsequential that they are done at school.
But the fact that you mention in your first paragraph,
> really awful
> pathetic little pieces of drama done by students not wanting
> to be up on stage. The guys who haven't learnt their lines
> because they are not interested. The school is just doing a
> "little play" so that the parents can come and see little
> Johnny on stage.
indicates that you are well aware of the cliche, and that it still has a fair basis in reality. School plays are a learning experience (frequently for the teacher as much as the students!) and therefore the aims and outcomes are quite different to what most of us would call 'good' theatre. A school play MIGHT be 'good' theatre, but that's often not of highest importance. Quality is often sacrificed for inclusion and participation; allowances are made for the kids who are only there for the ride; the needs of the performance are subjugated to the needs of school assessment criteria; and there is no such thing as sufficient time to develop and rehearse...! Problems are often left unsolved because no one has the proper skill to see them and solve them. Or they solve them in a functional, but uninspired and stereotypical way...perpetuating the 'style' that says 'school play'.
I'm not saying any of this is BAD...it is perfectly functional in a school environment. But it doesn't necessarily result in quality theatre. Or rather, the judging criteria is totally different. The audience will like it for different reasons.
The mindset we have of 'prompting' probably comes from this school environment.... the kid in prompt corner is being included, and is performing a valuable team role...rather than having any relevance to professional standards of theatre.
I remember attending a masterclass in the USA (as a just-out-of-highschool student myself) which absolutely floored me because it totally consisted of the lecturer convincing us that there were "other ways of staging theatre apart from proscenium arch!"...and he was presenting this as if it were an astonishing breakthrough. Having already explored and devised plays in the round, in traverse, in promenade, in the street, in site-specific locations...etc, I found his 'new' ideas rather tedious. At first I allowed myself to think I was culturally superior...and that the Americans were rather blinkered in their view of theatre. It's possibly the spark that convinced me I could pursue this as a career option. But even today I visit schools here that have had brand new facilities built, which virtually preclude any other form of staging but a stereotypical proscenium arch auditorium style theatre. Now of course, this doesn't necessarily mean 'bad', but I have to say it automatically makes me think the words 'school play' in a disparaging way...!
Unfortunately, out in the real world (...is that an oxymoron in a discussion about theatre?), the habits from this school style can persist. Teachers like yourself who have seen and been in a LOT of theatre bring that quality experience back to their school productions, which become decidedly more accomplished. But without that experience, it works the other way...it is the sadly lacking school experience that gets brought forward into some adult theatre efforts.
...Which is to agree with your final sentence.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/=====\----------
>
> I agree that I hate hearing lines being prompted from the
> wings. What I don't agree with is the idea that it reminds
> you of school plays. Not all school plays are really awful
> pathetic little pieces of drama done by students not wanting
> to be up on stage. The guys who haven't learnt their lines
> because they are not interested. The school is just doing a
> "little play" so that the parents can come and see little
> Johnny on stage.
>
> I am not sure when the last time that a lot of people went to
> see a school play was but I tend to think it is about time
> that some people did. My school doesn't use a prompt and we
> haven't done so for the last 20 years. I am very proud of the
> work that my students do and I know that I am certainly not
> the only drama teacher that thinks that. '
>
> Maybe it is about time that we stopped remembering back to
> what it was like 30 yrs ago and stopped running down the idea
> of the school play. It is without question , at times, better
> than some amateur theatre.
>
> Kerri
Kerri, you must admit - you are a bit exceptional! Of course there ARE an elite few like you who can create some terrific plays, and it happens to be inconsequential that they are done at school.
But the fact that you mention in your first paragraph,
> really awful
> pathetic little pieces of drama done by students not wanting
> to be up on stage. The guys who haven't learnt their lines
> because they are not interested. The school is just doing a
> "little play" so that the parents can come and see little
> Johnny on stage.
indicates that you are well aware of the cliche, and that it still has a fair basis in reality. School plays are a learning experience (frequently for the teacher as much as the students!) and therefore the aims and outcomes are quite different to what most of us would call 'good' theatre. A school play MIGHT be 'good' theatre, but that's often not of highest importance. Quality is often sacrificed for inclusion and participation; allowances are made for the kids who are only there for the ride; the needs of the performance are subjugated to the needs of school assessment criteria; and there is no such thing as sufficient time to develop and rehearse...! Problems are often left unsolved because no one has the proper skill to see them and solve them. Or they solve them in a functional, but uninspired and stereotypical way...perpetuating the 'style' that says 'school play'.
I'm not saying any of this is BAD...it is perfectly functional in a school environment. But it doesn't necessarily result in quality theatre. Or rather, the judging criteria is totally different. The audience will like it for different reasons.
The mindset we have of 'prompting' probably comes from this school environment.... the kid in prompt corner is being included, and is performing a valuable team role...rather than having any relevance to professional standards of theatre.
I remember attending a masterclass in the USA (as a just-out-of-highschool student myself) which absolutely floored me because it totally consisted of the lecturer convincing us that there were "other ways of staging theatre apart from proscenium arch!"...and he was presenting this as if it were an astonishing breakthrough. Having already explored and devised plays in the round, in traverse, in promenade, in the street, in site-specific locations...etc, I found his 'new' ideas rather tedious. At first I allowed myself to think I was culturally superior...and that the Americans were rather blinkered in their view of theatre. It's possibly the spark that convinced me I could pursue this as a career option. But even today I visit schools here that have had brand new facilities built, which virtually preclude any other form of staging but a stereotypical proscenium arch auditorium style theatre. Now of course, this doesn't necessarily mean 'bad', but I have to say it automatically makes me think the words 'school play' in a disparaging way...!
Unfortunately, out in the real world (...is that an oxymoron in a discussion about theatre?), the habits from this school style can persist. Teachers like yourself who have seen and been in a LOT of theatre bring that quality experience back to their school productions, which become decidedly more accomplished. But without that experience, it works the other way...it is the sadly lacking school experience that gets brought forward into some adult theatre efforts.
...Which is to agree with your final sentence.
Cheers,
Craig
<8>-/=====\----------
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···