Free Write 10/24

Last Thursday, after sitting in a dental office for over an hour getting a root canal, I attended Miami Children's Theatre's production of Fame. It was incredible!!! While watching the show, I thought about everything the actors must have done to prepare for their roles. Did they have their own 1-3 steps to analyze and correctly portray their characters? How did they know exactly how to act out their characters, while putting a little bit of themselves into it aswell? 
The role of Carmen Diaz, played by Ana Campos, was done very well. Ana played the character just how she was meant, while adding a bit of her own personality and touch in there too. The show was so well put on; the same line is still ringing through my head-- "Fame- I'm gonna live forever." I feel such a longing to be at PA, to be a part of it, to attain the Fame. 

Agreed?

Although A Practical Handbook for the Actor is one of the best, most spot-on handbooks I have ever read, the authors are very demanding and straightforward. When it comes to acting, the actor must have some room to play with their character/scene. Acting is never just black and white, there is so much more to it. 

It seems that it would be very tough to make a numbered list of how to act; even if it were possible, it mustn't be very accurate.

I do not agree with the authors' "1,2,3" steps of how to analyze a scene. They state that by following the three steps, the same way each time, they will lead to a performance that follows the playwright's intentions. However, would that not be boring for the actor? Following the same steps every time before performing a scene. A bored actor leads to a boring scene. 

One of the best parts of acting is the creativity-- the chance to make a character grow and develop because of the actor's choices-- choices that are not always the same.

Although the "1,2,3" list is a great outline for performing a scene, it would not be detrimental to a scene if it is not followed the same way each time.

10.10.10...... Do something my book recommends

1. What is the character literally doing?
2. What is the essential action of what the character is doing in this scene?
3. What is that action like to me? It's as if...


According to A Practical Handbook for the Actor, this is the key to analyzing a scene. If always employed correctly, it will lead to an excellent performance to the playwright's and the actor's liking.
As the authors recommend, I took one of the scenes I am currently working on and thoroughly analyzed it, following the guidelines they mentioned. It is an ensemble scene entitled "In Facebook Wii Trust" from the play of the same name. 

In this scene, I play the mother of 2 boys and a girl, sometime in the future, where technology has taken over, and books and other simple things have become obsolete.
I asked, what is my character literally doing? and found that "Mom" is trying to keep the family intact through texting and facebook.
As an answer to the second question, I decided that, she is literally just trying to live life as normally as possible as her eldest son is being taken to "The Facility".
Finally, responding to the final question, it's as if I've been placed in a school in a different country where I do not speak the language, and I am trying to get by, as normally as possible, without attracting too much attention to myself, while still attempting to get back home.
From throughly analyzing this scene, I feel much more in tune with the character.

Free Write- To Act or Not to Act? That is Not a Question.

"To act means to do."

         This week, A Practical Handbook for the Actor has taught me all about physical action onstage. According to the preceding quote, for acting to be successful, one must always have something specific to do, or else you stop acting.

          Actions must be: physically capable of being done, fun, specific, tested in the scene partner, have a "cap" (or end goal), and be in line with the intentions of the playwright. They should not be: errands, manipulative, or presuppose a physical or emotional state.
          I found this interesting because, before, I did not know how much specificity it took to make an action plausible and mean something. Looking back at scenes I have seen or been in, I agree that, yes, they were all very specific and very purposeful. I guess I just did not realize this before because it had always been a given.
          Also, I used to think acting was just something you did onstage-- you could just get up and pretend something and there you were, acting. However, this is not true at all. Acting is an art that takes years to master. There is so much thought and work that goes into it; it would be next to impossible to do it flawlessly your first time.
         All these years I thought it was so simple.
         Knowing that there is actually much more to it than meets the eye makes acting even more appealing to me. 

Technique is Only Part of It- Free Write

Technique is the most important tool an actor has at hand. 
After reading another chapter of "A Practical Handbook for the Actor," it has helped me to understand that, in order to fully portray a character to the best of my ability, I need to know the character, the given circumstances, and the objectives inside and out-- better than I know myself. 

"Acting is living truthfully under the imaginary circumstances of a play."

When an actor knows exactly what is going on onstage, when, and why- that is when he can truly play his part. Even though it's easy to say this, being prepared to the max for a scene, and being able to improvise in case anything goes wrong-- and do all this without hurting the scene at hand, is most definitely not easy. 
It takes quick thinking and preparedness to do all this without the audience realizing anything is wrong. However, technique does not enable a person to act, it only provides the tools that, when combined with everything else (bravery, passion, etc...), make for an incredible performance. 
Reading about this also made me realize why I fell in love with acting. It's the rush that comes from being in front of people, and portraying someone completely different; being able to change anything at the last minute, because you've become this other person. 
There's a certain adrenaline build-up when they clap for you, congratulating you on all the hard work you've put forth, and the fact that at that moment onstage, it does not matter how well you did in rehearsal, it's all about now. 

Time is Precious- Do Something the Book Suggests

One thing every actor should do to become better at his craft is to list his or her shortcomings; make a note of the things you know you were born with, and cannot change. But, honestly, who wants to be told what they're no good at? Well, after reading another chapter of A Practical Handbook For the Actor, I realized that it is a necessary action if one truly wants to improve his skills. 
If you tell yourself "this is one of my shortcomings," it will be easier to understand that, instead of focusing on something that you can't change, you could devote yourself to everything else, including your "talent".



The authors put this very nicely:

"It makes sense to devote yourself only to those things which you have the capacity to change, and refrain from wasting your time, thought and energy on these things you can never affect."

Following the suggestion coming from this handbook, I decided which of the things I will no longer worry about, for I cannot change them- I made a mental list of my "shortcomings" that I should not waste my time and energy on- from now on, I will only try to improve the things worth improving, the ones that will be better for my future.

A Vintage Original, May 1986- First Edition

          A Practical Handbook For the Actor. Boring. I've heard this before. 

      These are the thoughts I was expressing just a week ago when I picked up this book. I thought it would be the perfect choice for my drama blog project. It looked easy to read; however, I highly doubted it would help my acting skills at all- I mean, you learn by doing, right? Well, when this project was assigned, (one where the student must read a book that has to do with an interesting aspect of theatre, and blog about it), I took a glance at the simple handbook and thought, "why not?"

       I figured I better start reading some of it soon, written by Melissa Bruder, Lee Michael Cohn, Madeleine Olnek, Nathaniel Pollack, Robert Previto, and Scott Zigler, it seemed like a nice book- except for the cliché title. Be that as it may, I sat down yesterday and read the beginning, and, let me just clarify one thing, the title definitely does not do this book justice.

       I was very surprised when I saw how well written it was, and pleased when I connected with the authors, feeling as though it had been written just for me. Here is an excerpt:

       "Most acting training is based on shame and guilt. If you have studied acting, you have been asked to do exercises you didn't understand, and when you did them, ... you submitted guiltily to the criticism. You have also been asked to do exercises you did understand, but whose application to the craft of acting escaped you, and you were too ashamed to ask that their usefulness be explained.

       As you did these exercises it seemed that everyone around you understood their purpose but you- so, guiltily, you learned to pretend ...  While keeping up an outward show of perpetual study, you began to believe that no actual, practicable technique of acting existed, and this was the only possible belief supported by the evidence."

       How did they know that? 
        It's true- every word- which is why I am reading this book. There must be a technique behind being a great actor- and I am very determined to find out what it is. I've spent years taking drama classes, yet, I've never been confident in my own abilities- I've always felt like I was missing something, and, hopefully, once I am finished reading this book, all that will change.