Becoming the character..

I am 17 and recently begun a vocational course in acting, mainly because this is a career I'd seriously like to enter, thoroughly enjoying every play, musical I've ever performed in. Also having people compliment me on my work makes me feel like I've made a good career choice

This course has made me look at acting in ways that I had only touched on before in it; in particular in becoming the character. Although I'm finding this difficult, I think I'm already starting to reap the rewards in how I act.

But as I said, I do find it difficult; no matter how deeply I try to look into texts, no matter how much I think about what the character is thinking, no matter how much I try to draw from my own emotions... I don't feel that I am doing it right. However, sometimes my drama teacher has complimented on the fact that I'm starting to touch on it, but I really don't know what it is I'm doing right.

There are probably two times when I think I've become close to generating rather than demonstrating a character, and both times have left me felt mentally numb after performing. Whether this really is a side effect of "going too far", or just me thinking it is, I really don't know. However, thinking for sometime, I've been able to realise two things that might be related to getting it right:

* Being like a child - It might sound silly, but as a child I "played" in the playground by myself a lot, not so much because I was a loner, but more because I found it so fun just "playing" my own TV shows! And, when I think about it, this is probably the closest to becoming characters that I've got. Also I didn't feel restricted at all in the playground, not even slightly embarressed for playing these games alone all the time; totally different to me nowadays (rather nervous and insecure), probably because of being taught and ridiculed by society on how to "act". I'm guessing my raging childhood imagination is why I nowadays love being an actor, and I feel slightly annoyed that I have "learnt" these "bad habits" (And may I add, that imagination is totally still there, but just disconnected from myself, if that makes sense?)

* Dreaming - When you dream of course you usually act depending on what the circumstances are (e.g. evil monster, run!) so if I have the ability to dream then to some point I must have the ability to "believe" that I'm in a certain situation. Also as a side-note, in a lot of dreams at some point I realise I'm dreaming, and therefore am not afraid to do anything, or play out my own characters in these dreams (a lot like me as a kid?).

I know in my head that in some way I can use both of these to become my characters much more realistically, but I can't work out what there is I can do to take advantage of it. Also I need to somehow "unlearn" all the conformity to society so I'm not afraid to play whoever I am. So I can be a kid again!

I would really appreciate any advice anyone has; I have a huge passion for acting, and it sometimes frustrates me that I can't act as well as I know I can (I don't mean in the sense that I'm a great actor; I mean more in the sense that I know something is getting in the way from any restraints). I apologise if none of this makes sense, and again thanks!
~Gary

Sorry but do you realise that this is the 'tech talk' forum, and that posts such as the one above should be posted in the relevant category, like bulletin board or musicals? thanks

Sorry just realised that, I'll put it in another board

Ryan Alexander wrote:
>
> Sorry but do you realise that this is the 'tech talk' forum,
> and that posts such as the one above should be posted in the
> relevant category, like bulletin board or musicals? thanks



? Sorry, Ryan, but I totally disagree with you. I think Gary was quite right to post here. He's not talking about musicals, and he's not promoting a show. Neither is he reviewing, selling, or gossiping. What he's asking for to be discussed are very technical aspects of the craft of acting, and surely the most relevant place to talk about it is here in "Tech Talk".


For something to be 'Tech' doesn't mean you have to plug it in. The word 'technician' is defined as, "an expert in technique; one who is known for skill in an intellectual or artistic technique; one who's occupation requires training in a specific technical process".

The word 'technical' = "relating to, or derived from technique"; "having special skill or practical knowledge"; "being peculiar to a specific field or profession". There is common usage in regard to industrial, mechanical or scientific knowledge ('technology'), but this is not to say this forum should be limited to discussions about smoke machines and followspots.

There is technique to acting as well.


Cheers,
Craig

Hi Gary.

It sounds to me like you're on the right track. It's a difficult subject to simply discuss; the only way to give truly meaningful feedback on your acting technique is in person.

But a few things you say make sense: being able to 'be' and not simply 'demonstrate' a character is a big difference between good and mediocre acting: inhabiting a character so every move and speech is governed by what the character is thinking, and how they are reacting - rather than how the actor thinks he 'should' be portraying it.

This is possibly what your teacher is noticing, and yet it's very difficult (impossible?) to not be observing yourself at the same time, monitoring and adjusting your performance with the eye of the actor 'outside' the character, at the same time as thinking the thoughts 'inside' the character.

In fact, the moment an actor actually BELIEVES they are, say, Julius Caesar, would be the moment they ought to be carted off to the nuthouse! There will ALWAYS be the actor inside, monitoring his/her own performance, playing the moments and thoughts and actions of the character but always aware of their place in the script, the stage and the performers around them, the audience or the cameras and crew, and the discussions they had in rehearsal with the director. This is all as far from 'being' the character as you can get, and yet the object is to give everyone that authentic impression.
This is a kind of 'suspension of disbelief' similar to the one the audience must utilise to believe in a story. We all know we're all sitting in a dark theatre telling/listening to a story, but we temporarily agree to 'forget' the reality and believe as much as we can about the characters and situation. The actor performs AS IF they were that character, in that time and place, with those given circumstances.

And yet there are plenty of times when you will NOT be behaving 'as your character would' ...contrived poses or tableaux, acknowledgment of the audience, breaking into song or monologue, stylised movement or dance, portraying animals or inanimate objects, etc, etc...these are all tools or techniques that directors and writers may employ to enhance the story told to the audience, which don't necessarily help you to 'be' your character, but are powerful theatrical devices all the same. There are some circumstances where a character that is 'demonstrated' but not 'felt' IS the best choice.
It totally depends on the production.

What you are saying about a childish willingness to use your imagination, and being brave enough to not conform to expectation, are valuable tools to explore as an actor, particularly in a rehearsal or in the act of improvising to discover your character...I would only add not to be afraid of the obvious, the simple, the expected. It can have its place.

Like I said, it sounds like you are on the right track; there's no easy right or wrong answers. I'm reminded of something I read in an acting text (I'm afraid I can't remember which one), which was comparing two performances of the same text, one where the actor got so emotionally involved in the reality of their character that they were reduced to real blubbering tears, and it took some time before they could continue in the next scene; the other where the actor did not 'feel' anywhere as emotionally attached to the character, but was able to convey the ideas of the scene so well that it was the AUDIENCE who were reduced to tears.

Two opposite techniques, both worth exploring; but my feeling is that I would much prefer to have seen the second performance.


Cheers,
Craig

OK well I think we can agree that maybe another forum should be created specifically in relation to acting, for actors. Literally, your definition is right. But I think the majority of people will agree, when you talk about the technical aspects of musicals or theatre, you are most definitely talking about lighting, audio, staging, and various other backstage-type roles. After all, the people you are talking about are called actors, not technicians.

For me (and judging by other previous posts other people too) I check this forum to see comments and discussion from fellow LD's, sounds techs and the other theatre people that deal with the commonly-called technical side of theatre as opposed to acting technique. When you see it that way, tech talk seems to be the least relevant forum to post an acting technique question in. Musicals & Opera or Greenroom Gossip is probably best. If you look at it your way, then us techies really dont have a forum to post in!

Cheers

Ryan has indirectly brought up a point I have been wondering about for some time:

What on earth is the difference between the Greenroom & Billboard forums????

Have I missed a little line somewhere that says "post your comments/questions on _____ here" (or something to that effect)? Grant, O Wise One, what was your intention with these areas specifically?

I reckon that Greenroom could be a good place for Gary's question (if you want to make this a forum for people who require electricity of some form to do their job, be it sewing machine, heat gun, dimmer rack, etc).

That's what I was wondering...

Thou dankish clay-brained hugger-mugger!

Jess Limb wrote:
>
> What on earth is the difference between the Greenroom &
> Billboard forums????
>
> I reckon that Greenroom could be a good place for Gary's
> question (if you want to make this a forum for people who
> require electricity of some form to do their job, be it
> sewing machine, heat gun, dimmer rack, etc).



My understanding would be that 'Billboard' should be for advertising and promoting shows, workshops, events, etc.

But I take your and Ryan's point that 'Greenroom' should be for actor-based discussion, and 'Tech' for SM and crew initiated posts.


Maybe my problem is with the word 'gossip'. There tends to be a lot here, which is fine and dandy, and 'Greenroom Gossip' seems the obvious place for it. But when someone like Gary posts specific questions about technique, I thought he deserved to be in a forum where he would be taken and answered seriously.


Reorganizing the forums could be a simple matter of renaming the categories, if you think that's apt. Does anyone have any suggestions to make things clearer? Do we need more, or less, forums?

Cheers
Craig

[%sig%]

Ahh, yes, that does make sense. My brain tends to pack up around 10pm.

crgwllms wrote:
>
> Maybe my problem is with the word 'gossip'. There tends to be
> a lot here, which is fine and dandy, and 'Greenroom Gossip'
> seems the obvious place for it. But when someone like Gary
> posts specific questions about technique, I thought he
> deserved to be in a forum where he would be taken and
> answered seriously.

Yeah, I get the impression that there's an alliteration thing happening (BB, GG & TT). In which case, how about "greenroom gabble" or "greenroom gabest"? Just jokes.

For sure, there should be a place where these kind of questions won't get lost in random rubbish or mundane musings. I think possibly more could be useful? If it's not too much work for Grant et al.

Jess