Tomorrow at 7:30 pm is the big show. "Big show" is entirely relative, of course, but it certainly seems to apply when you're directly involved. In the last few days I have begun to realize that it is probably the biggest part I've ever had in my dozens of plays; I've had a "lead" here and there, but never a role in which I've been onstage for an hour and a half in a play with a cast of two.
It's great fun. As I mentioned in a post a week or so ago, I could be considered to be a bit outside my comfort zone. To me, comedy acting has always seemed a pretty simple process of bringing an audience along by dropping in cultural signposts. Except in its most sophisticated form, I don't think comedy acting requires an audience to suspect their belief and "believe" in much of anything. Sure, they buy in to the theatre concept, but they're generally just happy enjoying one moment of mirth and preparing for the next. If, at the end of the night, something more powerful or transformative has occurred, so much the better. Provided the concept and writing is solid, and provided the actor has been born with a sense of comedy timing, the actual execution is relatively easy. Relatively. It still takes concentration and it still takes energy, but I'm talking relative to dramatic acting.
Of course, this is just all from my perspective, but dramatic acting requires so much of you. It was suggested last night after our dress rehearsal that I was, perhaps, a "method actor," which (to grossly oversimplify) is someone who subscribes to that philosophy of "becoming the character." I think I must be, because frankly, I don't see any other way to go about it. In fact, it seems only fair, in light of the fact that if you're acting in a dramatic role, you're more or less asking your audience to be "method." You want them to suspend belief, to believe for a few hours that you are someone other than yourself. And I think the concentration level of the audience is so much higher during a dramatic performance. They're not just watching for those signposts. They're trying to relate. Not in the overall situation facing the character(s), but in how the characters relate to what's going on around them. Not everyone can act, but everyone knows what real people act like, and they can smell someone being "out of character" from a mile away. And so, as a method actor you "become" your character. It's not just delivery of lines. It's how you hold your hands, how you breathe when frustrated, the direction your eyes wander when you're lost in thought, how tightly or loosely you clench your jaw. And it's not a simple, one-time transformation. Putting aside how you react to the world around you and all your own thoughts and concerns, you must grow; line by line and scene by scene, as your character grows. It's not a single thread, but a stem that continually branches out, with every new scene and line carrying the weight and influence of all that has come before.
Of course, in spite of this entire transformation, you need to remain somehow aware that there is an audience that needs to be able to see you, hear you, and understand your enunciation. There's no break (well, intermission, if there is one). You're "on" for an hour and a half (in tomorrow night's case). It takes an enormous amount of concentration and energy. And it takes a hell of a lot out of you. Out of me, at least. Maybe there's natural "dramatic actors" to whom this comes easily. They pain & strain over comedy and I'm fighting against the current in their world.
Anyway, that's all for now. More to report after the show, I'm sure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Break a leg - of course.
Interesting, your take that comedy is easy relative to drama. This is in direct contradiction with almost every actor I've ever seen that was asked that question. If you've ever seen Inside the Actor's Studio you will almost certainly have seen the question asked. And almost universally they say drama is easier.
It would be interesting for you to dissect some of your favorite actors relative to 'the method'. Previous to 1950 something, 'the method' didn't exist, at least in a pedagogical sense. It was the coming of Brando et al that led to the blossoming of that particular focus. It remains one of many styles of acting and one rejected by many, particularly some of the older generation who see no need to 'live' like the character. They see the actor's job as being able to switch that character on and off, rather than being them for the course of production.
And this distinction I think is critical to your understanding of 'the method'. I suspect you're not acting as Andrew Makepeace Ladd III
when your home, unless your practicing your lines. And that is the ultimate trajectory of 'the method'.
Acting! Brilliant!
Hmm. I appreciate your thoughts. Your stuff on "the method;" is this stuff you just know, or did you just Wiki?
I would suspect there's a pretty wide spectrum of "method" actors out there, from the ones who wear sword & scabbard into town on their night off from shooting Lord of the Rings, and one's who pretty much let it go when they're not on stage. I would tend to definitely skew towards the latter, though I need about a half a minute of wind-down time.
And Valerie, our company's Dramaturg, suggested in our show last spring that everyone was beginning to exhibit traits of their actual characters throughout the rehearsal process. In retrospect, though, I wonder if it wasn't just a bunch of people in a madcap comedy getting more and more stressed out as opening night approached.
As far as mine being an uncommon take, I wonder if SNL alumni and "those sorts" of actors would also claim that drama is easier. I suspect not.
I will be thinking of you and your performance for much of the day tommorrow, but my concert starts at 7:30 as well tommorrow night.
You are a man who buts his all into the things that he does and it will show as you leave it all on the stage tommorrow night.
I wish I could be there. Don't take that as an empty wish, I truly would like to see one of your performances. In time, it will happen for me.
Sumus Quid Sumus!
As always, thanks man.
Break a leg
I hope everything goes well. It will be interesting to see how you enjoyED drama after you have performed.
Go get em tiger.
No wiki-ing was done to write my response. What I know comes from watching actors talk about their work.
My understanding is that the method in it's truest sense leans towards the sword and scabbard carrying group rather than the 'let it go' group. There are other acting styles covering the 'let it go group'.
Many SNL alumni have been on Actor's Studio (Mike Meyers, Eddie Murphy among others) though I can't recall them being asked that question. The drama actors definitely lean towards saying comedy is far harder.
I've heard much of the same discussion about comedic acting. I've heard that within dramatic acting, anger is fairly easy to play. I don't know, obviously, I'm not a professional or even a dabbler. It's just interesting to hear Dan's take. It could be that, with comedy in any environment (stand-up, live television, youtube, etc) there's so much more to attempt to do, in so many venues, that to make it work at such a sheer volume is a challenge.
I just saw the road company version of "The Producers" last night, and it was almost nerve-racking, watching how somet things worked, other things didn't, even with arguably "proven" material.
That said, do, please, break a leg.
Pat: Well, duh!
Stephen: Weird! Because, for me, anger is a toughie! Again, understand that I'm putting a huge difference between "delivering a line dramatically" and "acting." Huge distinction, the former being relatively easy by nearly any measure, and the latter being something that is tougher, as I see it, to do convincingly.
"Anger" is a pretty broad brush, too. I mean, anger at what? Tonight, I play anger at a variety of ages: teens, upper 20s, and 55. Each is very, very different; and I feel very different expressing anger from those respective vantages. The sullen anger of a teen to the jaded, bitter anger of a 55 year old. Neither one is a type of anger I think I've ever personally experienced, personally. Anyway, this is getting pretty deep.
Boy, if anyone who's going to see the play tonight (Valerie, Jeff) is reading all this, they may be getting set up for a major let down. My whole intention for this post was not to position myself as some sort of theatre god and/or lobby for the title "Sir" before my name. It was just rumination before a big event in my personal life, and my only claim is that comedy comes more naturally to me.
Post a Comment