3. What are the aspects of voice production that an actor needs to keep in mind when he acts? How does voice help in characterisation? (Read up on the works of Cicely Berry and Patsy Rodenburg for reference.)
Voice production plays an important part in acting. When an actor is acting, he needs to keep in mind, the pitch, tone, inflection, pace, pause, diction, and breath control for voice production. When these are taken notice of, then can voice production be good.
Pitch is important. It is the relative tonal level, intensity and volume. Pitch allows the bringing out of the different emotions. For example, a high pitched voice with high intensity may be used for near-hysterical moments, whereas a soft, middle pitched voice is suitable for a shy character.
For tone, it helps to denote the quality of the voice, and what expression do you want to portray. Tone gives pitch quality. For example, a high pitched voice may both be angry and meek. It all depends on the tone. If an aggressive tone is used, even if the voice is high, or low, it would still be able to portray aggressiveness.
Speech needs inflection. Inflection is something like the fluctuation passage of the voice. Without inflection, speech would sound monotonous, boring and even cause irritancy. In addition, pace and pauses must be used to make speech comprehendible. For example, a speech without pauses for full-stops, commas, or a poem without suspensive pauses would make it senseless, unable to bring the meaning out to the listeners.
Diction, also known as clarity, is the enunciation of words. This is especially important in theatre work, where the audience needs to hear the speech of the actor to know what’s happening in the story on stage.
Cecily Berry believes that an actor should refrain from speaking with tension. She also mentions the importance of having resonance. Resonance is important as it helps to create a tone of voice that is projected and pleasing to hear on-stage.
These helps in characterization as it helps the actor portray the emotions and perhaps even to differentiate two characters that an actor might be playing at the same time. For example, if an actor is taking on the role of two actors, a middle-aged dame, and a man, he/she might use a lower voice for a man, and a higher pitched and faster voice for a dame to help differentiate.
2. Is voice the most important ‘tool’ for an actor? Why or why not?
This would depend a lot on the staging, the type of theatre and the script itself. If the script requires the play to be read out only, with words, voice would definitely be the most important ‘tool’ for the actor. Whereas, if the script focuses on a visual spectacle, by relying on purely movement, then voice will logically not be an important ‘tool’ for the actor.
In most plays, however, voice would prove to be important, as there is dialogue that comes together with the plot to propel play forward. Thus, voice is important as it helps the audience know what is happening, and the tone of the voice that actors use would convey the different emotions to the audience.
Voice also proves to be an important ‘tool’ for an actor if he is able to use it appropriately. Voice is able to make alive a script, through varying tones of the different aspects of voice production.
Voice is definitely one of the important ‘tool’ for an actor, but there are also other aspects like physical that holds equal importance in theatre.
Tan Li Rong
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
Use of Puppets and Multimedia
7. To what extent has modern theatre successfully incorporated puppetry and/or multimedia? Does this enhance or detract from the overall production? Use examples from local productions you have seen, if possible.
Modern theatre has, to a moderate extent, successfully incorporated puppetry and multimedia. As technology develops and people start watching movies and listening to music, and with theatre having been around so long, it is inevitable that multimedia has been made use of to make for a more interesting theatre experience. At current, I feel that sound has been very successfully incorporated, with many plays making use of music clips for scene changes and/or to set the mood, or for sound effects. This has served to enhance the production in many cases, and hardly distracts the audience from the play.
Video has also made its beginnings onto stage productions, as I have seen from the local productions Cogito by Checkpoint Theatre and A Midsummer Night’s Dream by the Singapore Repertory Theatre. In Cogito, a video of half a woman’s face represented a character in the play that existed only in virtual reality. Granted, there wasn’t much option when it came to portraying a physically nonexistent character onstage besides using a video clip; however, SRT chose only to show her eyes. Personally, I felt this detracted somewhat from the production, as due to the limited scope of the video, they felt that more eye moment was crucial to the display which on a whole I felt was entirely too abstract and didn’t quite fit with the dialogue.
In A Midsummer Night’s Dream, there were certain points in this adaptation of the play where rotating images of the character’s emotionless faces were flashed onto a screen at the front; the audience was inevitably distracted by this surreal and inexplicable display, and as this was a production on a free stage all eyes were on the screen instead of on the actors at the back. Some good use was made of the multimedia where a live video of the actors was screened from time to time that was a great aid to audience members that were too far away from the actors to catch physical details. All in all I feel that the plays I have watched that utilized video turned out to be quite a disappointment. Undoubtedly however, the inclusion of multimedia to the stage has unveiled a whole range of possibilities for theatre to explore and to evolve.
8. Construct one set design for the extract you have studied, and adapt it for two different spaces. How does your set design in each space express the overall atmosphere of this piece?
From what can be gathered from the script, the set of Ubu and the Truth Commission is fairly minimalist. Hence, I have not included any more props than what is mentioned in the script. I feel that having too many props may seem as an attempt to create a realistic scene on stage, whereas the play focuses on abstract ideas and hence should have a minimalist set design to contribute to the surrealistic mood of the play. Also, all the props should either be black or dark colours, to add to the melancholic atmosphere.
I have chosen the proscenium and thrust stages to adapt the set design to.
Thrust Stage
based on
Due to the nature of the thrust stage, the positioning of the props had to be adapted to ensure that no perspective is blocked from view. Through slight staggering of the props’ positions, the audience members on every side are able to see the other important props.
The thrust stage allows the audience to view the stage from three sides; the ‘fourth wall’ effect of the play is hence reduced and there is greater intimacy between the audience and the play. This is achieved as the set is not separated and blocked off from the audience as in the proscenium arch of a proscenium stage, and allows for a more flexible perspective of the set. There will be a soft, dark blue ambient light on the set throughout the play to add to the surreal atmosphere, and to highlight the gloomy and satirical nature of the play. Inevitably, some of this blue light will spill over into the sitting area, and as the audience finds themselves bathed in the light they will feel a greater connection and inclusion into the play and hence will be more emotionally-absorbed in the play.
Proscenium Stage
The more conventional proscenium stage is the most commonly used stage in theatre spaces. The stage is raised above the level of the first few rows of seats, aiding the visibility of the set and actors for the audience. Also, as all the seats are directly facing the stage, all audience members share the same perspective of the play and hence have the same experience, as compared to the different perspectives of the thrust stage. Furthermore, since the set is only viewable to the audience from one direction, the ‘fourth wall’ effect is very successful here as the set is separated from the audience both by levels and the proscenium arch. Hence, it is more likely for the audience members to take a more detached view of the performance, and be constantly aware that they are watching a performance.
The set has been arranged such that the most important props are brought closer to the front, and all the props have been brought forward and spread linearly to ensure that they do not block each other from view.
As the audience members are all on one side of the stage now, the actor is able to directly face the audience, as compared to thrust stage where he has to vary his attention in 3 directions. In this case, the intent of the play hence seems more directed and purposeful, which prompts the audience to look for meaning in the play.
Sources:
http://www.artec-usa.com/03_projects/performing_arts_venues/carolyn_blount_theatre/images/the_octagon_photo_01.jpg
http://www.lib.washington.edu/subject/Drama/images/proscenium.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscenium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_stage
- Hui Yi
Modern theatre has, to a moderate extent, successfully incorporated puppetry and multimedia. As technology develops and people start watching movies and listening to music, and with theatre having been around so long, it is inevitable that multimedia has been made use of to make for a more interesting theatre experience. At current, I feel that sound has been very successfully incorporated, with many plays making use of music clips for scene changes and/or to set the mood, or for sound effects. This has served to enhance the production in many cases, and hardly distracts the audience from the play.
Video has also made its beginnings onto stage productions, as I have seen from the local productions Cogito by Checkpoint Theatre and A Midsummer Night’s Dream by the Singapore Repertory Theatre. In Cogito, a video of half a woman’s face represented a character in the play that existed only in virtual reality. Granted, there wasn’t much option when it came to portraying a physically nonexistent character onstage besides using a video clip; however, SRT chose only to show her eyes. Personally, I felt this detracted somewhat from the production, as due to the limited scope of the video, they felt that more eye moment was crucial to the display which on a whole I felt was entirely too abstract and didn’t quite fit with the dialogue.
In A Midsummer Night’s Dream, there were certain points in this adaptation of the play where rotating images of the character’s emotionless faces were flashed onto a screen at the front; the audience was inevitably distracted by this surreal and inexplicable display, and as this was a production on a free stage all eyes were on the screen instead of on the actors at the back. Some good use was made of the multimedia where a live video of the actors was screened from time to time that was a great aid to audience members that were too far away from the actors to catch physical details. All in all I feel that the plays I have watched that utilized video turned out to be quite a disappointment. Undoubtedly however, the inclusion of multimedia to the stage has unveiled a whole range of possibilities for theatre to explore and to evolve.
8. Construct one set design for the extract you have studied, and adapt it for two different spaces. How does your set design in each space express the overall atmosphere of this piece?
From what can be gathered from the script, the set of Ubu and the Truth Commission is fairly minimalist. Hence, I have not included any more props than what is mentioned in the script. I feel that having too many props may seem as an attempt to create a realistic scene on stage, whereas the play focuses on abstract ideas and hence should have a minimalist set design to contribute to the surrealistic mood of the play. Also, all the props should either be black or dark colours, to add to the melancholic atmosphere.
I have chosen the proscenium and thrust stages to adapt the set design to.
Thrust Stage
based on
Due to the nature of the thrust stage, the positioning of the props had to be adapted to ensure that no perspective is blocked from view. Through slight staggering of the props’ positions, the audience members on every side are able to see the other important props.
The thrust stage allows the audience to view the stage from three sides; the ‘fourth wall’ effect of the play is hence reduced and there is greater intimacy between the audience and the play. This is achieved as the set is not separated and blocked off from the audience as in the proscenium arch of a proscenium stage, and allows for a more flexible perspective of the set. There will be a soft, dark blue ambient light on the set throughout the play to add to the surreal atmosphere, and to highlight the gloomy and satirical nature of the play. Inevitably, some of this blue light will spill over into the sitting area, and as the audience finds themselves bathed in the light they will feel a greater connection and inclusion into the play and hence will be more emotionally-absorbed in the play.
Proscenium Stage
The more conventional proscenium stage is the most commonly used stage in theatre spaces. The stage is raised above the level of the first few rows of seats, aiding the visibility of the set and actors for the audience. Also, as all the seats are directly facing the stage, all audience members share the same perspective of the play and hence have the same experience, as compared to the different perspectives of the thrust stage. Furthermore, since the set is only viewable to the audience from one direction, the ‘fourth wall’ effect is very successful here as the set is separated from the audience both by levels and the proscenium arch. Hence, it is more likely for the audience members to take a more detached view of the performance, and be constantly aware that they are watching a performance.
The set has been arranged such that the most important props are brought closer to the front, and all the props have been brought forward and spread linearly to ensure that they do not block each other from view.
As the audience members are all on one side of the stage now, the actor is able to directly face the audience, as compared to thrust stage where he has to vary his attention in 3 directions. In this case, the intent of the play hence seems more directed and purposeful, which prompts the audience to look for meaning in the play.
Sources:
http://www.artec-usa.com/03_projects/performing_arts_venues/carolyn_blount_theatre/images/the_octagon_photo_01.jpg
http://www.lib.washington.edu/subject/Drama/images/proscenium.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscenium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_stage
- Hui Yi
Harold Pinter, Betrayal
1. Apply the Stanislavskian 'magic if' to this extract. How does it help you to build the character of Emma or Jerry?
The Stanislavski's 'magic if' is something that asks actors to work from 'inside out'. It presents an actor with the given circumstances of the character he/she is in, and makes him ponder about what he would do in that given circumstance. Like the cliche that goes 'putting yourself in the others' shoes'. Through this, he also wants us to find our similar motivations to play on; the actor and the character.
This helps me to build either the character of Emma or Jerry as in giving similar motivations, it helps me to connect more with that particular character. In putting myself in the position of the character, and acting out the feelings I would have felt if I was put into the situation, it makes the character real to the actor, me. It also helps me define my actions to make it genuine and believable as I know what I want to portray, and I would through my actions, try to portray it.
For example, with Stanislavskian’s ‘magic of’, although you might have never been married, or had children like the character Emma, does, when you keep asking questions to yourself like ‘what would I be like when I’m married and stuck with kids and put into a situation with Emma?’. This would help you to find a motivation to play Emma, as well as portray her motivations.
2. Read up on the works of Vsevolod Meyerhold and his theory of 'biomechanics', and Stanislavski's main concepts. Which approach to acting do you find easier to adopt?
Where Stanislavski’s main concepts teaches us to work from ‘inside out’, Vsevolod’s ‘biomechanics’ is rather, something that works from the ‘outside in.’
The biomechanics, conceived by Vsevolod Emilevich, is simultaneously both a particular actor’s training and a way of an actor’s performance, whose purpose is to effect the main request made by Meyerhold on the stage. The actions and movement of the actor are what that is important. Thus, a strict structuring of the body is required, to give the form that Vsevolod talked about. This would come from the training of the body.
I would find Stanislavski’s concepts easier to follow. This would perhaps be so due to the time and place factor. Being brought up in Singapore, there are lesser chances of acquiring lessons that tone up the physical aspects according to Vsevolod Emilevich, that are specially for actors. This is so as Singapore’s arts scope is quite limited, itself not even having much local groups of actors. Also, Singapore is unlike places like China, where people are put to certain ‘special schools’ at young to train and give them the treatment to become world performers in sports such as gymnastic. For the time period— even though born in a more mordenised society, parents now still disapprove of their child pursuing ‘unstable jobs’ like acting, which makes it harder to let us get a real training of ‘biomechanics,’ nor allow us to spend more time on acting.
On a personal scale, I would find it much easier too to act with Stanislavski’s concepts too. It teaches us to use emotions from our past memories and experiences. This makes it easier because it is close to us, and we really do feel for it, making it a better show as the feelings displayed are authentic, and being personal, will be able to rile up that feeling in us.
It would, of course be the best to develop both our inner and outer aspects of an actor—in other words, is to say that we use both equally. Having the ‘best of both worlds’ would give you alternatives to your acting scope and broaden your limits.
Sources:
http://www.unet.com.mk/mian/english.html
Tan Li Rong
The Stanislavski's 'magic if' is something that asks actors to work from 'inside out'. It presents an actor with the given circumstances of the character he/she is in, and makes him ponder about what he would do in that given circumstance. Like the cliche that goes 'putting yourself in the others' shoes'. Through this, he also wants us to find our similar motivations to play on; the actor and the character.
This helps me to build either the character of Emma or Jerry as in giving similar motivations, it helps me to connect more with that particular character. In putting myself in the position of the character, and acting out the feelings I would have felt if I was put into the situation, it makes the character real to the actor, me. It also helps me define my actions to make it genuine and believable as I know what I want to portray, and I would through my actions, try to portray it.
For example, with Stanislavskian’s ‘magic of’, although you might have never been married, or had children like the character Emma, does, when you keep asking questions to yourself like ‘what would I be like when I’m married and stuck with kids and put into a situation with Emma?’. This would help you to find a motivation to play Emma, as well as portray her motivations.
2. Read up on the works of Vsevolod Meyerhold and his theory of 'biomechanics', and Stanislavski's main concepts. Which approach to acting do you find easier to adopt?
Where Stanislavski’s main concepts teaches us to work from ‘inside out’, Vsevolod’s ‘biomechanics’ is rather, something that works from the ‘outside in.’
The biomechanics, conceived by Vsevolod Emilevich, is simultaneously both a particular actor’s training and a way of an actor’s performance, whose purpose is to effect the main request made by Meyerhold on the stage. The actions and movement of the actor are what that is important. Thus, a strict structuring of the body is required, to give the form that Vsevolod talked about. This would come from the training of the body.
I would find Stanislavski’s concepts easier to follow. This would perhaps be so due to the time and place factor. Being brought up in Singapore, there are lesser chances of acquiring lessons that tone up the physical aspects according to Vsevolod Emilevich, that are specially for actors. This is so as Singapore’s arts scope is quite limited, itself not even having much local groups of actors. Also, Singapore is unlike places like China, where people are put to certain ‘special schools’ at young to train and give them the treatment to become world performers in sports such as gymnastic. For the time period— even though born in a more mordenised society, parents now still disapprove of their child pursuing ‘unstable jobs’ like acting, which makes it harder to let us get a real training of ‘biomechanics,’ nor allow us to spend more time on acting.
On a personal scale, I would find it much easier too to act with Stanislavski’s concepts too. It teaches us to use emotions from our past memories and experiences. This makes it easier because it is close to us, and we really do feel for it, making it a better show as the feelings displayed are authentic, and being personal, will be able to rile up that feeling in us.
It would, of course be the best to develop both our inner and outer aspects of an actor—in other words, is to say that we use both equally. Having the ‘best of both worlds’ would give you alternatives to your acting scope and broaden your limits.
Sources:
http://www.unet.com.mk/mian/english.html
Tan Li Rong
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Physicality, Awareness of Space
5. What inhibitions do you still have in using your body to express yourself? What are the strategies you can use to overcome this?
An inhibition I have is an inability to claim large empty spaces, such as those on stages. The sheer emptiness of the space intimidates me; hence I find my actions turn out restricted, small and unexpressive. Where this might come in handy should I play a meek character, this is unfortunately not applicable to a wide range of character personalities. The performance of the character comes across un-impactful and even uncertain at times. I believe the main problem lies in my confidence and in not having ‘released my inhibitions’ yet.
A solution to this problem would be to practice spatial awareness and to gradually get used to the space over time. I feel that an effective coping method is the ‘imaginary box’ that reduces the acting space from to a fraction of the stage space. With practice, and by slowly increasing the perimeter of the ‘box’, I could condition myself to the space over time, until I am comfortable with it.
In addition, I feel that where the script is lacking in stage directions, I am unable to appropriately attach actions to the dialogue that does not seem awkward, yet not doing anything may seem too inactive for the character. In a practical session with Ms Pink’s practical group once, I was required to play the role of Linda in Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller, only I was required to do it without dialogue at all. I found the role extremely awkward despite the guiding stage directions. Ms Pink enlighteningly pointed out that even the style of walking contributed to the character, and certain actions I did seemed like they were actions ‘for the sake of it’.
I think in this case I ought to have applied the Stanislavskian method of the ‘magic if’ and fully explored Linda’s motivations and feelings so that her actions would be purposeful and make sense in the play. Hence in this case practice is the key once again, and I hope to become adept at understanding the internalizing the character in short amount of time after reading the script.
6. Read up on the works of Rudolf Laban and Jacques Lecoq. To what extent do you think their works can help an actor to be more adept in the use of space and their own physicality as an actor?
Rudolf Laban was a dance artist and theorist; hence unsurprisingly much of his work has its grounds in dance. His most notable works include the Laban Movement Analysis and the Theory of Effort. However despite his strong dance background, his work is actually not only applicable to dance, but in fact proves to be of much value to theatre.
In his movement analysis, all forms of human movement are broken down into categories and subcategories: Body, Effort, Shape and Space. He points out the similarity in the physical action of reaching for a glass and punching something, where the effect and intention differs very much. Movement is reduced to a spiritual study that ties in with the Chinese art of Tai Chi, where controlled movements are also practiced. Laban preaches the importance of the close connection between movement and emotion, stating that dance moves may be most precise but lacking in emotion, making the performance stiff and insincere; likewise it is as easy to over-express the emotion and displaying an equal ineptitude at communication expression.
This is can easily be applied to theatre and is of much use to the actor and his physicality. Stage acting, like dance, requires a harmony between emotion and movement, and an imbalance would give the impression of an unconvincing performance. The Laban Movement Analysis breaks movement down into its most basic form, hence this makes it easy for the actor to distinguish the emotion of each different movement and employ the right ones. The actor would also pick up the skill of spatial awareness and allow him to utilize the stage space effectively and convincingly.
Where Laban’s works were concerned with the awareness of one’s movements, Jacques LeCoq focuses on how to make use of one’s movements on stage. LeCoq, an actor, mime and acting instructor, started a school that educates students on stage presence and the appropriate movements to utilize for each genre of theatre or scenario. A more holistic exploration of physical theatre is explored, where students are taught movements linked to animals, nature, sound and colours, and a variety of physical skills such as acrobatics and juggling. This seems to tie in with Meyerhold’s ‘biomechanics’ method. In equipping themselves with a wide range of physical abilities, the students acquire better understanding and control of their body as a tool of expression. On stage, the actor that has gone through rigorous training in physical theatre will be used to and hence more confident of his space, and his movements will be uninhibited and more expressive, accounting for the physical aspect of portraying a character. However, I feel that LeCoq’s methods do not directly integrate speech and emotion, hence the actor must further be able to ensure that both physical and verbal aspects of his performance complement each other.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Laban
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laban_Movement_Analysis
http://www.movementpsy.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Lecoq
http://www.europamagna.org/pageshtml/Pgtheatre/SCOUT/StageIUFM/jlecoqeng.htm
- Hui Yi
An inhibition I have is an inability to claim large empty spaces, such as those on stages. The sheer emptiness of the space intimidates me; hence I find my actions turn out restricted, small and unexpressive. Where this might come in handy should I play a meek character, this is unfortunately not applicable to a wide range of character personalities. The performance of the character comes across un-impactful and even uncertain at times. I believe the main problem lies in my confidence and in not having ‘released my inhibitions’ yet.
A solution to this problem would be to practice spatial awareness and to gradually get used to the space over time. I feel that an effective coping method is the ‘imaginary box’ that reduces the acting space from to a fraction of the stage space. With practice, and by slowly increasing the perimeter of the ‘box’, I could condition myself to the space over time, until I am comfortable with it.
In addition, I feel that where the script is lacking in stage directions, I am unable to appropriately attach actions to the dialogue that does not seem awkward, yet not doing anything may seem too inactive for the character. In a practical session with Ms Pink’s practical group once, I was required to play the role of Linda in Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller, only I was required to do it without dialogue at all. I found the role extremely awkward despite the guiding stage directions. Ms Pink enlighteningly pointed out that even the style of walking contributed to the character, and certain actions I did seemed like they were actions ‘for the sake of it’.
I think in this case I ought to have applied the Stanislavskian method of the ‘magic if’ and fully explored Linda’s motivations and feelings so that her actions would be purposeful and make sense in the play. Hence in this case practice is the key once again, and I hope to become adept at understanding the internalizing the character in short amount of time after reading the script.
6. Read up on the works of Rudolf Laban and Jacques Lecoq. To what extent do you think their works can help an actor to be more adept in the use of space and their own physicality as an actor?
Rudolf Laban was a dance artist and theorist; hence unsurprisingly much of his work has its grounds in dance. His most notable works include the Laban Movement Analysis and the Theory of Effort. However despite his strong dance background, his work is actually not only applicable to dance, but in fact proves to be of much value to theatre.
In his movement analysis, all forms of human movement are broken down into categories and subcategories: Body, Effort, Shape and Space. He points out the similarity in the physical action of reaching for a glass and punching something, where the effect and intention differs very much. Movement is reduced to a spiritual study that ties in with the Chinese art of Tai Chi, where controlled movements are also practiced. Laban preaches the importance of the close connection between movement and emotion, stating that dance moves may be most precise but lacking in emotion, making the performance stiff and insincere; likewise it is as easy to over-express the emotion and displaying an equal ineptitude at communication expression.
This is can easily be applied to theatre and is of much use to the actor and his physicality. Stage acting, like dance, requires a harmony between emotion and movement, and an imbalance would give the impression of an unconvincing performance. The Laban Movement Analysis breaks movement down into its most basic form, hence this makes it easy for the actor to distinguish the emotion of each different movement and employ the right ones. The actor would also pick up the skill of spatial awareness and allow him to utilize the stage space effectively and convincingly.
Where Laban’s works were concerned with the awareness of one’s movements, Jacques LeCoq focuses on how to make use of one’s movements on stage. LeCoq, an actor, mime and acting instructor, started a school that educates students on stage presence and the appropriate movements to utilize for each genre of theatre or scenario. A more holistic exploration of physical theatre is explored, where students are taught movements linked to animals, nature, sound and colours, and a variety of physical skills such as acrobatics and juggling. This seems to tie in with Meyerhold’s ‘biomechanics’ method. In equipping themselves with a wide range of physical abilities, the students acquire better understanding and control of their body as a tool of expression. On stage, the actor that has gone through rigorous training in physical theatre will be used to and hence more confident of his space, and his movements will be uninhibited and more expressive, accounting for the physical aspect of portraying a character. However, I feel that LeCoq’s methods do not directly integrate speech and emotion, hence the actor must further be able to ensure that both physical and verbal aspects of his performance complement each other.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Laban
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laban_Movement_Analysis
http://www.movementpsy.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Lecoq
http://www.europamagna.org/pageshtml/Pgtheatre/SCOUT/StageIUFM/jlecoqeng.htm
- Hui Yi
Vocal Use and Variety
3. What are the aspects of voice production that an actor needs to keep in mind when he acts? How does voice help in characterisation? (Read up on the works of Cicely Berry and Patsy Rodenburg for reference.)
The main things that an actor has to keep in mind are the awareness of his voice, his breathing, and his posture. The first step to for the actor to have an awareness of his own voice; he should listen and be aware while he speaks, to determine if his tone, pitch and volume is suitable for the role he is playing. Quoting Cicely Berry in her work Voice and the Actor, some actors “have an overbalance of head resonance”. This means that the sound they are producing is mainly placed in the head area, without reinforcement from the chest notes. In this case, the actor hears his voice in his head and it sounds fine to him, but to a listener the voice is thin and lacking in warmth, thus actor has also to collect feedback from a test audience. Being aware of his own voice is the key to an actor identifying problems with his voice production and hence taking steps to rectify them.
The correct breathing technique is crucial to better volume, which is important in acting if the audience is to hear any of the dialogue at all. Adequate breath is required to vibrate the vocal folds to produce voice, hence deep and controlled breathing contributes greatly to an actor’s voice. An actor that has mastered control over his breathing is also able to reach a wider vocal range, hence his tone is free and uninhibited.
Both Rodenburg and Berry preach the importance of posture in voice production, and agree that a large part of speech and projection problems lie in tensions in various parts of the body. An actor’s body is hence supposed to be relaxed, supported, and with a straight back so the rib cage is able to expand unconstrained. A bad posture would greatly affect the volume, pitch and resonance of the actor’s voice, as more often than not a hunched posture hindered the airways and the sloping inwards of the shoulders also served to compress the ribcage.
Voice helps characterization in portraying emotions, personality and thoughts. A change in the character’s emotion is also mainly picked up by the audience as a change in the tone of the voice. Due to the nature of the stage, the most accessible quality of the actors to the audience is his voice, and it is the voice that tells the story in most cases.
In She’s Dead by Paul Abelman, there is a complete lack of stage directions, and even character names, as they are labeled 1 and 2. However, one is able to discern several distinct sections of the script where the characters suddenly “switch personalities” and run through the same scenario. Due to the flowing nature of the script, the actor’s voice is hence crucial in projecting this distinct change to the audience. With the voice, the actor may employ different techniques such as varied intonation, speed, and even a change in accent to suggest this difference in character.
Sources:
http://www.drwag.com/963.html
http://atgbcentral.com/actorspeaks.html
http://www.amazon.com/Voice-Actor-Cicely-Berry/dp/0020415559
4. Is voice the most important ‘tool’ for an actor? Why or why not?
The voice is the most important ‘tool’ for an actor, in my opinion.
The nature of theatre is such that the ‘live’ quality means the actor’s projection of the character to the audience is hampered by distance. As such, it is more difficult for audience members that are further away to pick up details such as facial expressions of the actors. Unless these physical aspects are magnified by use of multimedia, it is sound or rather, the voice of the actor that reaches the furthest. After all, it is the voice that tells the story in the play, hence the need for a script in the first place.
As mentioned, since the voice is most accessible, it is thus the most important ‘tool’ for an actor when is comes to characterization. A key trait of plays is that they are substantiated by dialogue, it rarely seen that actors do not speak for most of the play in conventional drama. Hence, the continued dialogue is also the vehicle by which the actor is able to capture and define the character he is playing.
Granted, actors do also employ other methods to achieve this end, however they do not work independent of the other methods. All of them are employed to create a wholesome, realistic character. Other ‘tools’ that the actor may hence employ are body language, facial expression, costume and props. Where all of these play a part in creating a character on stage, I feel that a large percentage of it relies on the actor’s voice.
- Hui Yi
The main things that an actor has to keep in mind are the awareness of his voice, his breathing, and his posture. The first step to for the actor to have an awareness of his own voice; he should listen and be aware while he speaks, to determine if his tone, pitch and volume is suitable for the role he is playing. Quoting Cicely Berry in her work Voice and the Actor, some actors “have an overbalance of head resonance”. This means that the sound they are producing is mainly placed in the head area, without reinforcement from the chest notes. In this case, the actor hears his voice in his head and it sounds fine to him, but to a listener the voice is thin and lacking in warmth, thus actor has also to collect feedback from a test audience. Being aware of his own voice is the key to an actor identifying problems with his voice production and hence taking steps to rectify them.
The correct breathing technique is crucial to better volume, which is important in acting if the audience is to hear any of the dialogue at all. Adequate breath is required to vibrate the vocal folds to produce voice, hence deep and controlled breathing contributes greatly to an actor’s voice. An actor that has mastered control over his breathing is also able to reach a wider vocal range, hence his tone is free and uninhibited.
Both Rodenburg and Berry preach the importance of posture in voice production, and agree that a large part of speech and projection problems lie in tensions in various parts of the body. An actor’s body is hence supposed to be relaxed, supported, and with a straight back so the rib cage is able to expand unconstrained. A bad posture would greatly affect the volume, pitch and resonance of the actor’s voice, as more often than not a hunched posture hindered the airways and the sloping inwards of the shoulders also served to compress the ribcage.
Voice helps characterization in portraying emotions, personality and thoughts. A change in the character’s emotion is also mainly picked up by the audience as a change in the tone of the voice. Due to the nature of the stage, the most accessible quality of the actors to the audience is his voice, and it is the voice that tells the story in most cases.
In She’s Dead by Paul Abelman, there is a complete lack of stage directions, and even character names, as they are labeled 1 and 2. However, one is able to discern several distinct sections of the script where the characters suddenly “switch personalities” and run through the same scenario. Due to the flowing nature of the script, the actor’s voice is hence crucial in projecting this distinct change to the audience. With the voice, the actor may employ different techniques such as varied intonation, speed, and even a change in accent to suggest this difference in character.
Sources:
http://www.drwag.com/963.html
http://atgbcentral.com/actorspeaks.html
http://www.amazon.com/Voice-Actor-Cicely-Berry/dp/0020415559
4. Is voice the most important ‘tool’ for an actor? Why or why not?
The voice is the most important ‘tool’ for an actor, in my opinion.
The nature of theatre is such that the ‘live’ quality means the actor’s projection of the character to the audience is hampered by distance. As such, it is more difficult for audience members that are further away to pick up details such as facial expressions of the actors. Unless these physical aspects are magnified by use of multimedia, it is sound or rather, the voice of the actor that reaches the furthest. After all, it is the voice that tells the story in the play, hence the need for a script in the first place.
As mentioned, since the voice is most accessible, it is thus the most important ‘tool’ for an actor when is comes to characterization. A key trait of plays is that they are substantiated by dialogue, it rarely seen that actors do not speak for most of the play in conventional drama. Hence, the continued dialogue is also the vehicle by which the actor is able to capture and define the character he is playing.
Granted, actors do also employ other methods to achieve this end, however they do not work independent of the other methods. All of them are employed to create a wholesome, realistic character. Other ‘tools’ that the actor may hence employ are body language, facial expression, costume and props. Where all of these play a part in creating a character on stage, I feel that a large percentage of it relies on the actor’s voice.
- Hui Yi
Characterisation: Objectives
1. Apply the Stanislavskian 'magic if' to this extract. How does it help you to build the character of Emma or Jerry?
The Stanislavskian method of the ‘magic if’ encompasses the skill of the actor placing himself or herself in a situation that he or she has never experienced before. The actor has to fully believe in the given circumstances as presented in the script, and take it for the truth. In this case, by imagining a scenario not even present in the script, the actor is able to explore the full range of the character’s emotion and personality.
This would help to a larger extent the presentation of the character, as not only would it give a more convincing physical response – tone of voice, expression, body language – to events in the play, it also takes care of the subtle nuances in the character’s behaviour that is more often than not picked up by the audience.
In the case of Betrayal by Harold Pinter, the scant stage directions provide much freedom of interpretation of the characters’ motivations and behaviour. Taking on Emma’s character, her lines in the script have to be analysed and evaluated as a whole to ensure a wholesome performance where the character’s actions don’t contradict each other. Hence, by employing the Stanislavskian ‘magic if’, a real, fleshed-out Emma can be created that would project a consistent and natural performance as opposed to the actor ‘trying to be Emma’ by attaching specified actions to each block of dialogue.
I would build the character of Emma by imagining who initiated the meeting, Emma’s expectations and insecurities just before the meeting, to determine the mindset of Emma during their tête-à-tête. Having this information would provide motivation for Emma’s actions and expressions. Another area of character exploration would be imagine, WWED (what would Emma do), i.e. creating hypothetical situations for Emma and anticipating her natural reaction. This could serve as a test of sorts to ensure that I have fully defined her character such that she is able to function in any given situation, or work in reverse to help explore the character further. In Betrayal, asking “How would Emma react if Jerry asked to re-kindle the affair?” makes the actor think about Emma’s feelings towards Jerry, thus we’d know that if she liked him, she wouldn’t do things like seem aloof or uninterested during their conversation. By applying the ‘magic if’, not only do we build Emma’s character, we reduce the chances of the actor acting out of character.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislavsky_System
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:CpLyPfYOFPwJ:138.87.77.20/NewSocrates/Fine%2520Arts/Theatre/Stanislavski%2520Method%2520(Tests).doc+%22magic+if%22+stanislavki&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A5133151
2. Read up on the works of Vsevolod Meyerhold and his theory of 'biomechanics', and Stanislavski's main concepts. Which approach to acting do you find easier to adopt?
Personally, I find the Stanislavski’s methods would be easier to adopt.
Meyerhold’s ‘biomechanics’ method of actor training requires the actor to endure taxing physical training and to practice a series of exercises that develops the actor’s spatial intelligence, and is ultimately supposed to develop theatrical skills. Stanislavski’s concepts mainly stress on internalizing the character wholly to be able to project a more realistic performance.
Although we have not fully explored Meyerhold’s techniques in our practice sessions, Stanislavski’s concepts appeal more to me theoretically, and seem more practical and effective. Stanislavski works from inside out, while Meyerhold is the converse. It would also seem that Stan works from the particular to the general, while Meyerhold requires the actor to master a general range of skills to apply to the particular. Clearly, Stanislavski’s concepts require much less effort and exertion on the actor’s part, as compared to the rigorous physical exercises of biomechanics.
In my opinion, where the script is concerned, the actor’s main aim is to dramatize a character as realistically as possible. Stanislavski’s method allows the actor to achieve that in a clear-cut process, whereas I feel Meyerfold’s method expends much more time and energy, where the end result does not even apply directly to the purpose in mind. Furthermore, the actors require time to learn and master these techniques where the Stanislavski method requires much less so.
In practice, Stanislavski’s main concepts are easier to grasp and relate to for me because it is more straightforward. Imagination is used to help the actor understand some part of the character’s psyche, and in the event where his imagination fails, he is able to draw examples from real life. However, I feel that ‘biomechanics’ is more abstract and the actor is expected to draw his own links from the skills he has learnt to the stage. All in all, what value the actor is able to obtain from this method is a small fraction of the effort put in as compared to the Stanislavski method.
Sources:
http://web.syr.edu/~kjbaum/meyerholdsbiomechanics.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A5133151
- Hui Yi
The Stanislavskian method of the ‘magic if’ encompasses the skill of the actor placing himself or herself in a situation that he or she has never experienced before. The actor has to fully believe in the given circumstances as presented in the script, and take it for the truth. In this case, by imagining a scenario not even present in the script, the actor is able to explore the full range of the character’s emotion and personality.
This would help to a larger extent the presentation of the character, as not only would it give a more convincing physical response – tone of voice, expression, body language – to events in the play, it also takes care of the subtle nuances in the character’s behaviour that is more often than not picked up by the audience.
In the case of Betrayal by Harold Pinter, the scant stage directions provide much freedom of interpretation of the characters’ motivations and behaviour. Taking on Emma’s character, her lines in the script have to be analysed and evaluated as a whole to ensure a wholesome performance where the character’s actions don’t contradict each other. Hence, by employing the Stanislavskian ‘magic if’, a real, fleshed-out Emma can be created that would project a consistent and natural performance as opposed to the actor ‘trying to be Emma’ by attaching specified actions to each block of dialogue.
I would build the character of Emma by imagining who initiated the meeting, Emma’s expectations and insecurities just before the meeting, to determine the mindset of Emma during their tête-à-tête. Having this information would provide motivation for Emma’s actions and expressions. Another area of character exploration would be imagine, WWED (what would Emma do), i.e. creating hypothetical situations for Emma and anticipating her natural reaction. This could serve as a test of sorts to ensure that I have fully defined her character such that she is able to function in any given situation, or work in reverse to help explore the character further. In Betrayal, asking “How would Emma react if Jerry asked to re-kindle the affair?” makes the actor think about Emma’s feelings towards Jerry, thus we’d know that if she liked him, she wouldn’t do things like seem aloof or uninterested during their conversation. By applying the ‘magic if’, not only do we build Emma’s character, we reduce the chances of the actor acting out of character.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislavsky_System
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:CpLyPfYOFPwJ:138.87.77.20/NewSocrates/Fine%2520Arts/Theatre/Stanislavski%2520Method%2520(Tests).doc+%22magic+if%22+stanislavki&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A5133151
2. Read up on the works of Vsevolod Meyerhold and his theory of 'biomechanics', and Stanislavski's main concepts. Which approach to acting do you find easier to adopt?
Personally, I find the Stanislavski’s methods would be easier to adopt.
Meyerhold’s ‘biomechanics’ method of actor training requires the actor to endure taxing physical training and to practice a series of exercises that develops the actor’s spatial intelligence, and is ultimately supposed to develop theatrical skills. Stanislavski’s concepts mainly stress on internalizing the character wholly to be able to project a more realistic performance.
Although we have not fully explored Meyerhold’s techniques in our practice sessions, Stanislavski’s concepts appeal more to me theoretically, and seem more practical and effective. Stanislavski works from inside out, while Meyerhold is the converse. It would also seem that Stan works from the particular to the general, while Meyerhold requires the actor to master a general range of skills to apply to the particular. Clearly, Stanislavski’s concepts require much less effort and exertion on the actor’s part, as compared to the rigorous physical exercises of biomechanics.
In my opinion, where the script is concerned, the actor’s main aim is to dramatize a character as realistically as possible. Stanislavski’s method allows the actor to achieve that in a clear-cut process, whereas I feel Meyerfold’s method expends much more time and energy, where the end result does not even apply directly to the purpose in mind. Furthermore, the actors require time to learn and master these techniques where the Stanislavski method requires much less so.
In practice, Stanislavski’s main concepts are easier to grasp and relate to for me because it is more straightforward. Imagination is used to help the actor understand some part of the character’s psyche, and in the event where his imagination fails, he is able to draw examples from real life. However, I feel that ‘biomechanics’ is more abstract and the actor is expected to draw his own links from the skills he has learnt to the stage. All in all, what value the actor is able to obtain from this method is a small fraction of the effort put in as compared to the Stanislavski method.
Sources:
http://web.syr.edu/~kjbaum/meyerholdsbiomechanics.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A5133151
- Hui Yi
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Edward Albee, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?: Physicality, awareness of space
Edward Albee, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?: Physicality, awareness of space
5. What inhibitions do you still have in using your body to express yourself? What are the strategies you can use to overcome this?
One inhibition that I possess is the usage of a space well enough. Usually or all the time, I see the stage as too large an empty space which I am not comfortable with. When I am on stage (blackbox), I usually feel that I am not doing something correctly and thus have little confidence in the actions that I commit. For example, in my previous group’s production, I am working with nothing but an empty circle bound by darkness. I feel insecure that I am supposed to be around nothing. One solution to this is practice. A large reason why I feel insecure is due to poor practice that is not serious. Due to this, I feel like I am in that space for the first time when I am performing it. By having various practices on spatial awareness such as the “Cube”, where I imagine myself in a cuboidal room doing everyday activities, I can claim my own space and have more confidence in the space I work in.
Secondly, I have problems in imagining that a prop is real and is not just a prop. For example, in Moritz’s production, I felt that I was kicking a prop, not a chair. This inhibition is imagination can cause serious problems when working in production next year, as I do not have full belief that I am my character. However, this can be solved by using Stanislavski’s method, “Magic If”. I have read that actors are children and that actors should imagine their props as how a child imagines that their action figure or doll is living. By utilizing the “Magic If”, I can use various props which have no relation to my script. This will build up my imagination and I would then be able to use props as they were real objects.
6. Read up on the works of Rudolf Laban and Jacques LeCoq. To what extent do you think their works can help an actor be more adept in the use of space and their own physicality as an actor?
Rudolf Laban was a central European dance artist and theorist who published a dance notation system known as Labanotation. This notation system uses abstract symbols to define 4 important aspects of movement, the direction of the movement, part of the body doing the movement, level of the movement and the length of time it takes to do the movement. By using Labanotation, actors can document their own actions and movements on stage. This will allow actors to learn and analyze their movements in an easier manner which is effective, as it covers every movement of a person. This ‘language of movement’ enhances the ability of an actor to picture movement on-stage and thus, spatial awareness can be improved. By using the notations for floor plans, actors can basically imagine themselves moving about in a space. This will allow the planning of actions on-stage to be more flexible, as it can be done anywhere.
Jacques LeCoq was a French actor, mime and an acting instructor. His acting style was one that was aimed at a closer interaction with the audience, included an extended use of general space and a focus on the physical rather than the emotional side of the character to impact the audience. LeCoq has trained his students with emotional and physical exercises, which were clowning and acrobatics. He has also encouraged spontaneous mime. In addition, students were made to wear masks and they learned how body movements could turn facial blankness into expression. By learning how the body moves without using facial expressions, actors can fully depend on their movements and develop them.
In conclusion, I feel that both Rudolf Laban’s and Jacques LeCoq’s works can assist an actor in being more adept in physicality and spatial use as they allow actors to practice and focus on the body’s movement and actions.
Bibliography :
http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~griesbec/LABANE.HTML#Conclusion
http://www.europamagna.org/pageshtml/Pgtheatre/SCOUT/StageIUFM/jlecoqeng.htm
Isa Ong
5. What inhibitions do you still have in using your body to express yourself? What are the strategies you can use to overcome this?
One inhibition that I possess is the usage of a space well enough. Usually or all the time, I see the stage as too large an empty space which I am not comfortable with. When I am on stage (blackbox), I usually feel that I am not doing something correctly and thus have little confidence in the actions that I commit. For example, in my previous group’s production, I am working with nothing but an empty circle bound by darkness. I feel insecure that I am supposed to be around nothing. One solution to this is practice. A large reason why I feel insecure is due to poor practice that is not serious. Due to this, I feel like I am in that space for the first time when I am performing it. By having various practices on spatial awareness such as the “Cube”, where I imagine myself in a cuboidal room doing everyday activities, I can claim my own space and have more confidence in the space I work in.
Secondly, I have problems in imagining that a prop is real and is not just a prop. For example, in Moritz’s production, I felt that I was kicking a prop, not a chair. This inhibition is imagination can cause serious problems when working in production next year, as I do not have full belief that I am my character. However, this can be solved by using Stanislavski’s method, “Magic If”. I have read that actors are children and that actors should imagine their props as how a child imagines that their action figure or doll is living. By utilizing the “Magic If”, I can use various props which have no relation to my script. This will build up my imagination and I would then be able to use props as they were real objects.
6. Read up on the works of Rudolf Laban and Jacques LeCoq. To what extent do you think their works can help an actor be more adept in the use of space and their own physicality as an actor?
Rudolf Laban was a central European dance artist and theorist who published a dance notation system known as Labanotation. This notation system uses abstract symbols to define 4 important aspects of movement, the direction of the movement, part of the body doing the movement, level of the movement and the length of time it takes to do the movement. By using Labanotation, actors can document their own actions and movements on stage. This will allow actors to learn and analyze their movements in an easier manner which is effective, as it covers every movement of a person. This ‘language of movement’ enhances the ability of an actor to picture movement on-stage and thus, spatial awareness can be improved. By using the notations for floor plans, actors can basically imagine themselves moving about in a space. This will allow the planning of actions on-stage to be more flexible, as it can be done anywhere.
Jacques LeCoq was a French actor, mime and an acting instructor. His acting style was one that was aimed at a closer interaction with the audience, included an extended use of general space and a focus on the physical rather than the emotional side of the character to impact the audience. LeCoq has trained his students with emotional and physical exercises, which were clowning and acrobatics. He has also encouraged spontaneous mime. In addition, students were made to wear masks and they learned how body movements could turn facial blankness into expression. By learning how the body moves without using facial expressions, actors can fully depend on their movements and develop them.
In conclusion, I feel that both Rudolf Laban’s and Jacques LeCoq’s works can assist an actor in being more adept in physicality and spatial use as they allow actors to practice and focus on the body’s movement and actions.
Bibliography :
http://user.uni-frankfurt.de/~griesbec/LABANE.HTML#Conclusion
http://www.europamagna.org/pageshtml/Pgtheatre/SCOUT/StageIUFM/jlecoqeng.htm
Isa Ong
Paul Abelman, She’s Dead: Vocal use and variety
3. What are the aspects of voice production that an actor needs to keep in mind when he acts? How does voice help in characterisation? (Read up on the works of Cicely Berry and Patsy Rodenburg for reference.)
With reference to ‘Voice and the Actor’ by Cicely Berry:
An important aspect that an actor has to keep in mind is the size of the theatre and the emotional size of the character. By considering the acoustic properties of the theatre, an actor can gauge his volume. For example, aiming his or her voice is very important. By aiming a voice half to two-thirds of the way into the audience, sound will spring up and fill the whole area.
The physical size of the character too plays a part, as the tone and volume of a person’s voice is usually determined by the body size. By taking into considering your size and volume, an actor can fix a comfortable voice for himself and the audience.
A crucial emotion that actors should avoid within themselves is unease. Fear and nervousness is very sensitive on the voice, as it results in tension in the upper part of the body: neck and shoulders. Bad posture can also cause vocal problems. If your back is not straight, the opening of the ribs is restricted. This will liquefy the solidity of the tone.
With reference to ‘The Actor Speaks’ by Patsy Rodenburg:
Actors should remember to utilize all the parts of their body for resonance. This is important in emitting a clear, fluent and powerful tone to the audience.
Any tension in the jaw will prevent the projection of voice, as words will be stuck in the mouth. In addition, muscles of articulation cannot work clearly, causing unclear speech. More simply, if an actor’s mouth is not opened properly, speech will be muffled and will lose its comprehensibility. Similarly, with a tense tongue, words are swallowed and muffled. Slighter tension on the tongue will allow it to be controlled easier.
In conclusion, actors should be fully comfortable on stage in their costume and role, as this would prevent and tension within them.
4. Is voice the most important ‘tool’ for an actor? Why or why not?
The voice is a vital tool for actors, but, there are also many other tools and important aspects that are as vital as the voice. Another important tool will be the body, where movement and physical interaction are carried out from. The body facilitates all movement and is a crucial ‘tool’ that sends out emotions and experiences to viewers.
Certain forms of theatre do not utilize the voice, but mainly action. Genres of theatre such as silent film and mime focus on physical movement and interaction. For example, in Charlie Chaplin’s comedic films, he uses his body to showcase various actions that are humourous and funny. In addition, the capturing of sound for films was only mastered by the 1920s. These films without sound have been very well received by viewers and this shows that body can exist without voice.
However, voice is also important, as it can represent many things about a character. For example, an actor with a powerful and deep voice should be act as a sick peasant but should play as a more authoritative individual, due to his strong and commanding voice. The tone of voice of a person is usually difficult to alter, as everyone has their own specific voice box. But, the movements of people can be improved by proper training. This shows that a voice of a person is fixed and will determine his or her role in plays even without training or lessons.
Lastly, in my opinion, I feel that the possession of both a good voice and a good body for action is the most important, as in modern theatre, an individual without a good voice but with good action will not be well received as well as an individual with vice versa.
- Isa Ong
With reference to ‘Voice and the Actor’ by Cicely Berry:
An important aspect that an actor has to keep in mind is the size of the theatre and the emotional size of the character. By considering the acoustic properties of the theatre, an actor can gauge his volume. For example, aiming his or her voice is very important. By aiming a voice half to two-thirds of the way into the audience, sound will spring up and fill the whole area.
The physical size of the character too plays a part, as the tone and volume of a person’s voice is usually determined by the body size. By taking into considering your size and volume, an actor can fix a comfortable voice for himself and the audience.
A crucial emotion that actors should avoid within themselves is unease. Fear and nervousness is very sensitive on the voice, as it results in tension in the upper part of the body: neck and shoulders. Bad posture can also cause vocal problems. If your back is not straight, the opening of the ribs is restricted. This will liquefy the solidity of the tone.
With reference to ‘The Actor Speaks’ by Patsy Rodenburg:
Actors should remember to utilize all the parts of their body for resonance. This is important in emitting a clear, fluent and powerful tone to the audience.
Any tension in the jaw will prevent the projection of voice, as words will be stuck in the mouth. In addition, muscles of articulation cannot work clearly, causing unclear speech. More simply, if an actor’s mouth is not opened properly, speech will be muffled and will lose its comprehensibility. Similarly, with a tense tongue, words are swallowed and muffled. Slighter tension on the tongue will allow it to be controlled easier.
In conclusion, actors should be fully comfortable on stage in their costume and role, as this would prevent and tension within them.
4. Is voice the most important ‘tool’ for an actor? Why or why not?
The voice is a vital tool for actors, but, there are also many other tools and important aspects that are as vital as the voice. Another important tool will be the body, where movement and physical interaction are carried out from. The body facilitates all movement and is a crucial ‘tool’ that sends out emotions and experiences to viewers.
Certain forms of theatre do not utilize the voice, but mainly action. Genres of theatre such as silent film and mime focus on physical movement and interaction. For example, in Charlie Chaplin’s comedic films, he uses his body to showcase various actions that are humourous and funny. In addition, the capturing of sound for films was only mastered by the 1920s. These films without sound have been very well received by viewers and this shows that body can exist without voice.
However, voice is also important, as it can represent many things about a character. For example, an actor with a powerful and deep voice should be act as a sick peasant but should play as a more authoritative individual, due to his strong and commanding voice. The tone of voice of a person is usually difficult to alter, as everyone has their own specific voice box. But, the movements of people can be improved by proper training. This shows that a voice of a person is fixed and will determine his or her role in plays even without training or lessons.
Lastly, in my opinion, I feel that the possession of both a good voice and a good body for action is the most important, as in modern theatre, an individual without a good voice but with good action will not be well received as well as an individual with vice versa.
- Isa Ong
Harold Pinter, Betrayal - Characterisation; Objectives
1. Apply the Stanislavskian ‘magic if’ to this extract. How does it help you to build either the character of Emma or Jerry?
Stanislavski’s ‘magic if’ was a method for achieving the truthful pursuit of a character's objective. The first thing actors were required to do was to ask their characters as well as themselves many questions. One of their first questions was usually "What if I were in the same situation as my character?" The ‘magic if’ was about what would the characters do ‘if’ they were under certain circumstances.
With reference to Harold Pinter’s Betrayal, I feel that the characters Jerry and Emma can be better understood by their actors by utilizing the ‘magic if’. For example, a question that Jerry can ask himself is “What would I do if Emma had kissed me“. This would open up many new questions and can thus provide a better understanding of Jerry. By asking himself this question, Jerry can know what kind of feelings he has towards Emma as Jerry might hate or like the kiss. If we assume that Jerry would like the kiss, we can derive that Jerry still has feelings for Emma. This will have an impact on the way he acts and speaks towards Emma. For example, Jerry may change his tone of voice from a more stern and straightforward one to a more subtle, calm and even a loving tone.
With the ‘magic if’, the character’s aim becomes the actor’s aim. The actor must thus use his imagination to create events that Jerry has not experienced before. This idea of obtaining experiences for the character and knowing what the character will do even at unrelated events to the play would give the actor a greater perspective and also allow the actor to feel more related to the character. Lastly, Stanislavski has stated that “Imagination creates things that can be or can happen.” Thus, with the ‘magic if’, actors can then develop their imagination and learn to portray all emotions and themes.
Bibliography
http://www.theatrgroup.com/methodD/
http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3537.php
2. Read up on the works of Vsevolod Meyerhold and his theory of ‘biomechanics’, and Stanislavski’s main concepts. Which approach to acting do you find easier to adopt?
In my opinion, I find adopting Stanislavski’s concepts easier than Meyerhold’s ‘biomechanics’. Firstly, there are many differences between the two methods. Meyerhold’s ‘biomechanics’ can be said to be development of a character from the outside, but Stanislavski’s ideas are mostly internal development of characters. In addition, Meyerhold’s method is purely physical and works on the voice and the movement techniques of actors. Also, ‘biomechanics’ requires actors to study anatomy and physiology.
Stanislavski’s main concepts consist of many different techniques to build up a character internally. For example, the ‘magic if’ requires actors to constantly do more research into their character, as this concept consists of asking questions about your character to see what he or she will do in scenarios which are unrelated to their text. This will provide a more solid understanding of a character as actors will know every detail about them.
Meyerhold’s ‘biomechanics’ can be described as a system of movement which employed conflicts between opposing forces as a means of generating dramatic tension in the body. This method allows the mastery of the body, allowing actions to be shown more effectively and convincingly. However, I feel that Meyerhold’s method is more difficult to adopt, as it requires quick and sudden changes in emotions for its training, something which is very challenging and difficult to carry out properly. Also, this method requires a lot of physical training such as gymnastics which are very demanding. But, in my opinion, adopting both methods would be best, as it will allow both internal and external development of an actor.
I consider Stanislavski’s concepts easier to adopt, as I can practice it anywhere and at any time, unlike ‘biomechanics’, where it can only be practiced in a workplace. This allows the concept to be accessed more easily.
Isa Ong
Stanislavski’s ‘magic if’ was a method for achieving the truthful pursuit of a character's objective. The first thing actors were required to do was to ask their characters as well as themselves many questions. One of their first questions was usually "What if I were in the same situation as my character?" The ‘magic if’ was about what would the characters do ‘if’ they were under certain circumstances.
With reference to Harold Pinter’s Betrayal, I feel that the characters Jerry and Emma can be better understood by their actors by utilizing the ‘magic if’. For example, a question that Jerry can ask himself is “What would I do if Emma had kissed me“. This would open up many new questions and can thus provide a better understanding of Jerry. By asking himself this question, Jerry can know what kind of feelings he has towards Emma as Jerry might hate or like the kiss. If we assume that Jerry would like the kiss, we can derive that Jerry still has feelings for Emma. This will have an impact on the way he acts and speaks towards Emma. For example, Jerry may change his tone of voice from a more stern and straightforward one to a more subtle, calm and even a loving tone.
With the ‘magic if’, the character’s aim becomes the actor’s aim. The actor must thus use his imagination to create events that Jerry has not experienced before. This idea of obtaining experiences for the character and knowing what the character will do even at unrelated events to the play would give the actor a greater perspective and also allow the actor to feel more related to the character. Lastly, Stanislavski has stated that “Imagination creates things that can be or can happen.” Thus, with the ‘magic if’, actors can then develop their imagination and learn to portray all emotions and themes.
Bibliography
http://www.theatrgroup.com/methodD/
http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3537.php
2. Read up on the works of Vsevolod Meyerhold and his theory of ‘biomechanics’, and Stanislavski’s main concepts. Which approach to acting do you find easier to adopt?
In my opinion, I find adopting Stanislavski’s concepts easier than Meyerhold’s ‘biomechanics’. Firstly, there are many differences between the two methods. Meyerhold’s ‘biomechanics’ can be said to be development of a character from the outside, but Stanislavski’s ideas are mostly internal development of characters. In addition, Meyerhold’s method is purely physical and works on the voice and the movement techniques of actors. Also, ‘biomechanics’ requires actors to study anatomy and physiology.
Stanislavski’s main concepts consist of many different techniques to build up a character internally. For example, the ‘magic if’ requires actors to constantly do more research into their character, as this concept consists of asking questions about your character to see what he or she will do in scenarios which are unrelated to their text. This will provide a more solid understanding of a character as actors will know every detail about them.
Meyerhold’s ‘biomechanics’ can be described as a system of movement which employed conflicts between opposing forces as a means of generating dramatic tension in the body. This method allows the mastery of the body, allowing actions to be shown more effectively and convincingly. However, I feel that Meyerhold’s method is more difficult to adopt, as it requires quick and sudden changes in emotions for its training, something which is very challenging and difficult to carry out properly. Also, this method requires a lot of physical training such as gymnastics which are very demanding. But, in my opinion, adopting both methods would be best, as it will allow both internal and external development of an actor.
I consider Stanislavski’s concepts easier to adopt, as I can practice it anywhere and at any time, unlike ‘biomechanics’, where it can only be practiced in a workplace. This allows the concept to be accessed more easily.
Isa Ong
Friday, September 14, 2007
Jane Taylor, Ubu and the Truth Commission: Use of puppets and multimedia
1. To what extent has modern theatre successfully incorporated puppetry and/or multimedia? Does this enhance or detract from the overall production? Use examples from local productions you have seen, if possible.
With the advent of technology, multimedia is widely used even in modern theatre. Its purpose is to increase tension and suspense of the audience and to immerse them into the world of the stage. In my opininon, multimedia is successful to a large extent when it comes to modern theatre. The use of lights sets and enhances the mood of the play audience will be more able to sympathise with the characters' emotions through the use of coloured lights. For example, blue depicts depression and red depicts outrage. Sounds make the whole play seem realistic and it surrounds and captivates the audience so that they will actually believe that everything is really happening and it is not just a static or empty stage without any excitement or conflict, because not all kinds of conflict can be clearly portrayed solely with acting. An example of a production which uses multimedia is A Midsummer Night's Dream which uses sudden sounds to imply trouble.
Puppetry is also essential for some productions perhaps to create comedic feel and happy moods to the play. For certain kinds of actions like swordfighting, actors may not be able to convey it in a convincing manner. Therefore, the use of puppets can assist in such occasions.
Jasmen Yew Lien Tah
With the advent of technology, multimedia is widely used even in modern theatre. Its purpose is to increase tension and suspense of the audience and to immerse them into the world of the stage. In my opininon, multimedia is successful to a large extent when it comes to modern theatre. The use of lights sets and enhances the mood of the play audience will be more able to sympathise with the characters' emotions through the use of coloured lights. For example, blue depicts depression and red depicts outrage. Sounds make the whole play seem realistic and it surrounds and captivates the audience so that they will actually believe that everything is really happening and it is not just a static or empty stage without any excitement or conflict, because not all kinds of conflict can be clearly portrayed solely with acting. An example of a production which uses multimedia is A Midsummer Night's Dream which uses sudden sounds to imply trouble.
Puppetry is also essential for some productions perhaps to create comedic feel and happy moods to the play. For certain kinds of actions like swordfighting, actors may not be able to convey it in a convincing manner. Therefore, the use of puppets can assist in such occasions.
Jasmen Yew Lien Tah
1. What inhibitions do you still have in using your body to express yourself? What are the strategies you can use to overcome this?
When expressing myself, I tend to be stiff and nervous especially when it comes to exaggerated movements or actions. The paranoia of appearing stupid is an inhibition which is stiffling my freedom to move flexibly and comfortably. The thought of feeling embarrassed prevents me from fully utilising my body to exude confidence and getting my message across to the audience. I focus too much on my image and will tend to neglect the way I express myself. I constantly feel controlled by my mind to do the minimum with my body because my daily routines do not include flexing my muscles. Therefore it is a question of habit that I have to deal with.
A strategy to overcome this is to constantly practice body projection in front of a mirror to condition myself to feel comfortable and boost my self-esteem. Also I can try to do warm-ups on frequent basis to train myself to use body expressions with more ease and lesser restrictions. A deep analysis of other actors can help me gain access to various emotions and imaginations. This can mean or imply watching more stage productions and take note of how actors portray characters with the use of their body, be it aggressive tendencies or provocation. I must also have self-discipline in the use of space when acting and sensory awareness and repitition.
Jasmen Yew Lien Tah
A strategy to overcome this is to constantly practice body projection in front of a mirror to condition myself to feel comfortable and boost my self-esteem. Also I can try to do warm-ups on frequent basis to train myself to use body expressions with more ease and lesser restrictions. A deep analysis of other actors can help me gain access to various emotions and imaginations. This can mean or imply watching more stage productions and take note of how actors portray characters with the use of their body, be it aggressive tendencies or provocation. I must also have self-discipline in the use of space when acting and sensory awareness and repitition.
Jasmen Yew Lien Tah
Edward Albee, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? - Physicality, awareness of space
1. What inhibitions do you still have in using your body to express yourself? What are the strategies you can use to overcome this?
I’m inhibited in that, when acting, I am rather stiff when I have to interact physically with other actors. When I have to touch them, I hesitate before stepping into their personal space, much less touch them physically. It is an unreasonable inhibition as I do not have such problems off the stage with certain people. I still have them with most of them. It is most likely a form of stage fright. To combat this, I will work harder to slide into character and forget that I am on a stage and that people are watching, and the person I am acting with is a friend, but the character that mine is supposed to be interacting with. That way, the character is the one who initiates or receives the physical contact; my inhibitions in that area will be removed. By becoming the character whose personality is one that will not shy away from this physical contact, I will not be inhibited by this either.
A second of my inhibitions is that I am quite unable to multi-task fully. Thus, I’m only able to either say my lines or move physically, but not both at the same time. I tend to fall back to my frequent movements when I am not paying attention – particularly when speaking my lines. This detracts from my performance as the character I’m playing almost certainly do not have the same physical habits that I do, and it will cause the people who knows me to see me as ‘Justine’ and not as the character I’m playing. One of the strategies I can use to overcome this is to focus much more on my performance and to be more aware of my own body; not just when acting, but when I’m off the stage as well. By being more aware, I will know when I am reverting back to my physical habits and make a conscious habit to stop myself from doing it, thus getting rid of this inhibition.
My third inhibition is that I am unusually stiff on stage, especially my shoulders, neck and torso. While my arms and legs might move (sometimes involuntarily, as illustrated previously), I frequently neglect to express myself by moving my neck, shoulders or torso. In addition, whenever I remember, the movement looks stiff and unnatural. This is a great detriment as an actor has to be able to use his whole body instead of just his limbs. To combat this, with the script with me before any rehearsal, I will read through it closely and analyse it for when and how I will have to use these areas in order to express my characters’ emotions. Plus, I will imitate the way my character walk, stand and other such common physical actions, taking special note of when and how I use these parts of my body and improve on them.
2. Read up on the works of Rudolf Laban and Jacques LeCoq. To what extent do you think their works can help an actor be more adept in the use of space and their own physicality as an actor?
Rudolf Laban is the inventor of the Labannotation, which raises the actor’s consciousness about four things: direction of movement, part of body doing the movement, level of movement and length of movement. The Labannotation is useful to the actor in that it helps the actor to be more aware of his own body and his movement of it in comparison to the same of others. The actor will become fully conscious of how he uses his body, and as characterisation involves body language and physicality to a large extent, Labannotation will help the actor build the character better, down to his smallest, seemingly subconscious movements. The different categories of movement that Labannotation advocates teach an actor the difference between a jerky motion and a fluid one. As these categories apply throughout the body, the actor can now decide if his character’s movements will be flowing or erratic, building on his characterisation further.
Jacques LeCoq is a specialist on mime, stating that mime lets one rediscover the everyday actions that one makes – such as brushing the teeth – and be conscious of them. LeCoq’s methods help actors realize how different characters of differing personalities will do these everyday things different and move differently in the space they are given, and that it varies with their mood as well. One such example is how an impatient, worried character would walk or pace differently around the same room from a patient one. From being made aware of how one does everyday actions, actors will also be able to discover more about the character they are portraying when they act out how their characters would go through these everyday matters.
LeCoq also taught his students to be fully aware of the physical environment and to make use of it, whether when miming or when acting. This teaches actors how to maximise the use of props and space. The actor, from LeCoq’s previous teachings, learned to be conscious of his body movements, and LeCoq’s teachings now aids the actor in using his body to maximise the use of space and props in setting the stage and during the play itself. The latter is achieved by the spreading out of the actors and appropriate movement around the stage space.
~ Justine
I’m inhibited in that, when acting, I am rather stiff when I have to interact physically with other actors. When I have to touch them, I hesitate before stepping into their personal space, much less touch them physically. It is an unreasonable inhibition as I do not have such problems off the stage with certain people. I still have them with most of them. It is most likely a form of stage fright. To combat this, I will work harder to slide into character and forget that I am on a stage and that people are watching, and the person I am acting with is a friend, but the character that mine is supposed to be interacting with. That way, the character is the one who initiates or receives the physical contact; my inhibitions in that area will be removed. By becoming the character whose personality is one that will not shy away from this physical contact, I will not be inhibited by this either.
A second of my inhibitions is that I am quite unable to multi-task fully. Thus, I’m only able to either say my lines or move physically, but not both at the same time. I tend to fall back to my frequent movements when I am not paying attention – particularly when speaking my lines. This detracts from my performance as the character I’m playing almost certainly do not have the same physical habits that I do, and it will cause the people who knows me to see me as ‘Justine’ and not as the character I’m playing. One of the strategies I can use to overcome this is to focus much more on my performance and to be more aware of my own body; not just when acting, but when I’m off the stage as well. By being more aware, I will know when I am reverting back to my physical habits and make a conscious habit to stop myself from doing it, thus getting rid of this inhibition.
My third inhibition is that I am unusually stiff on stage, especially my shoulders, neck and torso. While my arms and legs might move (sometimes involuntarily, as illustrated previously), I frequently neglect to express myself by moving my neck, shoulders or torso. In addition, whenever I remember, the movement looks stiff and unnatural. This is a great detriment as an actor has to be able to use his whole body instead of just his limbs. To combat this, with the script with me before any rehearsal, I will read through it closely and analyse it for when and how I will have to use these areas in order to express my characters’ emotions. Plus, I will imitate the way my character walk, stand and other such common physical actions, taking special note of when and how I use these parts of my body and improve on them.
2. Read up on the works of Rudolf Laban and Jacques LeCoq. To what extent do you think their works can help an actor be more adept in the use of space and their own physicality as an actor?
Rudolf Laban is the inventor of the Labannotation, which raises the actor’s consciousness about four things: direction of movement, part of body doing the movement, level of movement and length of movement. The Labannotation is useful to the actor in that it helps the actor to be more aware of his own body and his movement of it in comparison to the same of others. The actor will become fully conscious of how he uses his body, and as characterisation involves body language and physicality to a large extent, Labannotation will help the actor build the character better, down to his smallest, seemingly subconscious movements. The different categories of movement that Labannotation advocates teach an actor the difference between a jerky motion and a fluid one. As these categories apply throughout the body, the actor can now decide if his character’s movements will be flowing or erratic, building on his characterisation further.
Jacques LeCoq is a specialist on mime, stating that mime lets one rediscover the everyday actions that one makes – such as brushing the teeth – and be conscious of them. LeCoq’s methods help actors realize how different characters of differing personalities will do these everyday things different and move differently in the space they are given, and that it varies with their mood as well. One such example is how an impatient, worried character would walk or pace differently around the same room from a patient one. From being made aware of how one does everyday actions, actors will also be able to discover more about the character they are portraying when they act out how their characters would go through these everyday matters.
LeCoq also taught his students to be fully aware of the physical environment and to make use of it, whether when miming or when acting. This teaches actors how to maximise the use of props and space. The actor, from LeCoq’s previous teachings, learned to be conscious of his body movements, and LeCoq’s teachings now aids the actor in using his body to maximise the use of space and props in setting the stage and during the play itself. The latter is achieved by the spreading out of the actors and appropriate movement around the stage space.
~ Justine
Paul Abelman, She's Dead - Vocal Use and Variety
1. What are the aspects of voice production that an actor needs to keep in mind when he acts? How does voice help in characterisation? (Read up on the works of Cicely Berry and Patsy Rodenburg for reference.)
Cicely Berry, in Voice and the Actor, stated that an actor must not have tension in his voice, as it can limit his emotional range and the quality of the sound he makes. The actor must relax his voice by humming or other such exercises in order to make the full use of his voice. Tension restricts emotional expression, and has a certain stiffness that will, firstly, make the actor sound unrealistic and nervous, and secondly, input a certain emotion into the character that is usually not supposed to be there. Therefore, an actor needs to keep in mind that his voice must never be tense.
Patsy Rodenburg spoke of exercises in exaggerating the voice to find out the actor’s range and the intensities of emotions that a piece of text and/or a character needs. This intensity of voice is another aspect of voice production that an actor needs to keep in mind, as the intensity of a character’s voice might change the interpretation of the text, the character or both entirely. By varying the intensity of voice, the actor will also keep the audience captivated as the variation is interesting, in addition that making the character more three-dimensional as they have different intensity of emotions – reflected in the actor’s voice – just as the people in the audience do.
Voice helps in characterisation in that a character’s emotions and mood is shown to the audience mostly through her voice, particularly to the audience in the gallery or the back rows. The voice of a character – it’s tone, pitch and volume – tells us how a character is like: a character with a soft and mousy voice is certainly different from one who is loud and authoritative. Characterisation is built upon voice as physical movements and voice might contradict each other, thus showing that the character isn’t sincere. The words in the script can mean many different things when spoken in a different tone of voice, building on the character and, particularly, the actor’s interpretation of the character and her emotions.
The voice is the main medium in which the characters’ mood, emotion and personality are expressed in theatre, and characterisation lies heavily on these things. Thus, as voice helps greatly in characterisation in that aspect.
2. Is voice the most important ‘tool’ for an actor? Why or why not?
Yes, it is. For one, the tone and pitch of an actor’s voice is what brings the play’s dialogue to life, give meaning to the words and communicate the message of what the character is trying to say to the audience. She’s Dead is an excellent instance in which the actor’s tone of voice is expected to change throughout the play, and there are many different interpretations to the text that the actor can use. It is the actor’s voice that will be able to communicate the most about the shifting characters’ motivations and emotions to the audience. Body language is sometimes too subtle for the audience to fully grasp the meaning of the play or the characters’ actions. Vocal tone and pitch can also express the relationship between the characters, such as the second scenario in She’s Dead, in which 1’s tone must be conspiratorial and friendly so as to make that exchange make any sense.
Another limitation of body language – especially the most expressive, facial expression – is that it cannot be seen from afar. However, a good actor can project his voice out so that even the audience from the very back can hear his tone and the emotions carried in it. Thus the audience will be able to understand the play in its entity, though they might not perceive the changing facial expressions or subtle body movements of the actors.
Secondly, the voice is the most important tool for an actor as, in real life, most of us communicate to each other mostly by voice. Therefore the first thing that an audience would note would be an actor’s voice. Body language is usually secondary to the dialogue and vocal tone in the audience’s mind, thus an actor should make use of this habit to express the character’s motivations and feelings. It is the first thing that the audience notices and focuses on, thus it is the most important tool an actor has.
Thirdly, a play is mostly written in a form of dialogue. A character’s reasons and emotions – what the actor is supposed to express to the audience – is expressed as dialogue in the play itself. An actor thus must put the most attention to his voice and the dialogue in order to express these emotions in the words to the audience.
Lastly, words and tone tend to have a uniform meaning that most of the audience would understand in the same way, while body language can be interpreted completely differently between the actor and the audience. The voice is thus the most important tool of the actor as it gives clarity to his performance that body language and facial expression might not bring across.
~ Justine
Cicely Berry, in Voice and the Actor, stated that an actor must not have tension in his voice, as it can limit his emotional range and the quality of the sound he makes. The actor must relax his voice by humming or other such exercises in order to make the full use of his voice. Tension restricts emotional expression, and has a certain stiffness that will, firstly, make the actor sound unrealistic and nervous, and secondly, input a certain emotion into the character that is usually not supposed to be there. Therefore, an actor needs to keep in mind that his voice must never be tense.
Patsy Rodenburg spoke of exercises in exaggerating the voice to find out the actor’s range and the intensities of emotions that a piece of text and/or a character needs. This intensity of voice is another aspect of voice production that an actor needs to keep in mind, as the intensity of a character’s voice might change the interpretation of the text, the character or both entirely. By varying the intensity of voice, the actor will also keep the audience captivated as the variation is interesting, in addition that making the character more three-dimensional as they have different intensity of emotions – reflected in the actor’s voice – just as the people in the audience do.
Voice helps in characterisation in that a character’s emotions and mood is shown to the audience mostly through her voice, particularly to the audience in the gallery or the back rows. The voice of a character – it’s tone, pitch and volume – tells us how a character is like: a character with a soft and mousy voice is certainly different from one who is loud and authoritative. Characterisation is built upon voice as physical movements and voice might contradict each other, thus showing that the character isn’t sincere. The words in the script can mean many different things when spoken in a different tone of voice, building on the character and, particularly, the actor’s interpretation of the character and her emotions.
The voice is the main medium in which the characters’ mood, emotion and personality are expressed in theatre, and characterisation lies heavily on these things. Thus, as voice helps greatly in characterisation in that aspect.
2. Is voice the most important ‘tool’ for an actor? Why or why not?
Yes, it is. For one, the tone and pitch of an actor’s voice is what brings the play’s dialogue to life, give meaning to the words and communicate the message of what the character is trying to say to the audience. She’s Dead is an excellent instance in which the actor’s tone of voice is expected to change throughout the play, and there are many different interpretations to the text that the actor can use. It is the actor’s voice that will be able to communicate the most about the shifting characters’ motivations and emotions to the audience. Body language is sometimes too subtle for the audience to fully grasp the meaning of the play or the characters’ actions. Vocal tone and pitch can also express the relationship between the characters, such as the second scenario in She’s Dead, in which 1’s tone must be conspiratorial and friendly so as to make that exchange make any sense.
Another limitation of body language – especially the most expressive, facial expression – is that it cannot be seen from afar. However, a good actor can project his voice out so that even the audience from the very back can hear his tone and the emotions carried in it. Thus the audience will be able to understand the play in its entity, though they might not perceive the changing facial expressions or subtle body movements of the actors.
Secondly, the voice is the most important tool for an actor as, in real life, most of us communicate to each other mostly by voice. Therefore the first thing that an audience would note would be an actor’s voice. Body language is usually secondary to the dialogue and vocal tone in the audience’s mind, thus an actor should make use of this habit to express the character’s motivations and feelings. It is the first thing that the audience notices and focuses on, thus it is the most important tool an actor has.
Thirdly, a play is mostly written in a form of dialogue. A character’s reasons and emotions – what the actor is supposed to express to the audience – is expressed as dialogue in the play itself. An actor thus must put the most attention to his voice and the dialogue in order to express these emotions in the words to the audience.
Lastly, words and tone tend to have a uniform meaning that most of the audience would understand in the same way, while body language can be interpreted completely differently between the actor and the audience. The voice is thus the most important tool of the actor as it gives clarity to his performance that body language and facial expression might not bring across.
~ Justine
Harold Pinter, Betrayal - Characterisation; Objectives
1. Apply the Stanislavskian ‘magic if’ to this extract. How does it help you to build either the character of Emma or Jerry?
Betrayal contains very little stage directions. There are virtually no set instructions on how Emma and Jerry would behave, or how they would sound. Stanislaviski’s ‘magic if’ works in that, by asking myself what I would do in such circumstances, I can figure out what Emma would do too. The subtle inflections of her voice, her body language, the way they actually speak to each other, and Emma’s reaction to Jerry’s words can be found if I used the method of the ‘magic if’. By asking myself what I would do and thus translating it to what Emma would do, I find something in common with the character of Emma with myself, and from that, I can expand that part in common to so that I will be able to empathise with the character more – so that I can feel what she feels, and, again asking myself the ‘magic if’, I can figure out what Emma – and thus I, as her actor – would do and how she would behave in response to Jerry’s words and actions.
The ‘magic if’ helps me, basically, to find a path in which I can enter the character’s head and help me understand her better. At the same time, I can understand her motivations and feelings. If I, in her shoes, would shifts away from Jerry at the compliment of ‘You’re looking very pretty.’ while at the same time saying that I am glad to see him, it shows me that I – and therefore she – am uncomfortable with him paying her such compliments. Then, from that, I will internalise the emotion and proceed onwards with Emma’s attitude towards Jerry in mind. The ‘magic if’ helps me build an idea of Emma and her dynamics with Jerry and her relationship with him based on my own experiences, which I can empathise with and understand better. It helps forge a bond between Emma and I in that I would be able to understand her motivations and emotions much better than if I did not use the ‘magic if’ method.
2. Read up on the works of Vsevolod Meyerhold and his theory of ‘biomechanics’, and Stanislavski’s main concepts. Which approach to acting do you find easier to adopt?
I find that while Stanislavski’s methods are useful as a first step in determining the characters’ actions, Meyerhold’s biomechanics works better for me. Stanislavski’s methods have a tendency to hinder me, as, working from inside and out, I would not be able to separate ‘myself’ and ‘my character’. The character would not be real – I would appear, quite obviously, to be an actor playing a character. I would not be able to breach the gap and become the character herself. Particularly in the case of my monologue, where the character is almost the opposite of myself, I find Meyerhold’s techniques more useful.
By determining the characters’ actions during each scene and questioning myself about the rationale of each action, I am able to determine the character’s emotions and mood. Body language helps to create a character, both to the audience and to myself. Meyerhold’s method of working outside in works well for me in this aspect: I can empathise better with the character instead of melding her into myself – she will become a separate entity, someone who is completely real and whose skin I can step into. By determining the characters s actions instinctively, I get to know her personality and motives for doing such things, therefore gaining a higher understanding of her.
In addition, it is easier for me to follow Meyerhold’s biomechanics rather than Stanislavski’s concepts as I have a tendency to be apathetic when I try to remember an event or incident. The emotions I feel during that event is very difficult to recall, and most of the time, it feels forced and untrue. It is far simpler for me to physically move through the motions that my character will do, and discover the emotions and motivations behind these actions after. I find that when I attempt to justify a certain action that my character makes to myself, I understand the character’s personality more, and she is fleshed out in my mind as a real person with real emotions and feelings, not just an extension of myself.
My youth and resultant lack of experience also hinders me when in following Stanislavski’s methods, as I do not the experience of the emotions that my character will feel. With biomechanics, there is more room for imagination to take the place of experience, and I would not have to depend so heavily on them. In addition, biomechanics are easier for me to adopt as I have read of many characters and thus learned how they react physically in certain situations. From this, I form the foundation of my characterisation and build on this layer to form a well-fleshed out, realistic character that the audience can empathise with.
~ Justine
Betrayal contains very little stage directions. There are virtually no set instructions on how Emma and Jerry would behave, or how they would sound. Stanislaviski’s ‘magic if’ works in that, by asking myself what I would do in such circumstances, I can figure out what Emma would do too. The subtle inflections of her voice, her body language, the way they actually speak to each other, and Emma’s reaction to Jerry’s words can be found if I used the method of the ‘magic if’. By asking myself what I would do and thus translating it to what Emma would do, I find something in common with the character of Emma with myself, and from that, I can expand that part in common to so that I will be able to empathise with the character more – so that I can feel what she feels, and, again asking myself the ‘magic if’, I can figure out what Emma – and thus I, as her actor – would do and how she would behave in response to Jerry’s words and actions.
The ‘magic if’ helps me, basically, to find a path in which I can enter the character’s head and help me understand her better. At the same time, I can understand her motivations and feelings. If I, in her shoes, would shifts away from Jerry at the compliment of ‘You’re looking very pretty.’ while at the same time saying that I am glad to see him, it shows me that I – and therefore she – am uncomfortable with him paying her such compliments. Then, from that, I will internalise the emotion and proceed onwards with Emma’s attitude towards Jerry in mind. The ‘magic if’ helps me build an idea of Emma and her dynamics with Jerry and her relationship with him based on my own experiences, which I can empathise with and understand better. It helps forge a bond between Emma and I in that I would be able to understand her motivations and emotions much better than if I did not use the ‘magic if’ method.
2. Read up on the works of Vsevolod Meyerhold and his theory of ‘biomechanics’, and Stanislavski’s main concepts. Which approach to acting do you find easier to adopt?
I find that while Stanislavski’s methods are useful as a first step in determining the characters’ actions, Meyerhold’s biomechanics works better for me. Stanislavski’s methods have a tendency to hinder me, as, working from inside and out, I would not be able to separate ‘myself’ and ‘my character’. The character would not be real – I would appear, quite obviously, to be an actor playing a character. I would not be able to breach the gap and become the character herself. Particularly in the case of my monologue, where the character is almost the opposite of myself, I find Meyerhold’s techniques more useful.
By determining the characters’ actions during each scene and questioning myself about the rationale of each action, I am able to determine the character’s emotions and mood. Body language helps to create a character, both to the audience and to myself. Meyerhold’s method of working outside in works well for me in this aspect: I can empathise better with the character instead of melding her into myself – she will become a separate entity, someone who is completely real and whose skin I can step into. By determining the characters s actions instinctively, I get to know her personality and motives for doing such things, therefore gaining a higher understanding of her.
In addition, it is easier for me to follow Meyerhold’s biomechanics rather than Stanislavski’s concepts as I have a tendency to be apathetic when I try to remember an event or incident. The emotions I feel during that event is very difficult to recall, and most of the time, it feels forced and untrue. It is far simpler for me to physically move through the motions that my character will do, and discover the emotions and motivations behind these actions after. I find that when I attempt to justify a certain action that my character makes to myself, I understand the character’s personality more, and she is fleshed out in my mind as a real person with real emotions and feelings, not just an extension of myself.
My youth and resultant lack of experience also hinders me when in following Stanislavski’s methods, as I do not the experience of the emotions that my character will feel. With biomechanics, there is more room for imagination to take the place of experience, and I would not have to depend so heavily on them. In addition, biomechanics are easier for me to adopt as I have read of many characters and thus learned how they react physically in certain situations. From this, I form the foundation of my characterisation and build on this layer to form a well-fleshed out, realistic character that the audience can empathise with.
~ Justine
Paul Abelman, Shes Dead: Vocal use and variety
1. What are the aspects of voice production that an actor needs to keep in mind when he acts? How does voice help in characterisation? (Read up on the works of Cicely Berry and Patsy Rodenburg for reference.)
In her book Voice and the Actor, Cicely Berry introduces four basic aspects of voice production, which she feels are essential in fulfilling. I personally agree that an actor should always keep sight of these points. These are
1) Clarity
Clarity is a given requirement in delivering your lines as it is often through what you reveal of yourself that the audience gets to know your character better. If the audience cannot even comprehend what you’re saying, then half the battle is already lost as it hampers the audience’s understanding of your character and they will also be completely clueless of the going-ons in the play.
2) Adapting your voice to the space
Again, it is very important to make sure you are able to project your voice to the entire room, right to the very last row. You may have a normal, clear speaking voice but the real challenge and a mark of a true actor is to still be able to vary between “shouting” and “whispering” on stage, and having the ability and energy to sustain it across to any audience size. A skilled actor will know how to differentiate a shout in a 1000-seater auditorium and a shout in a cozy blackbox and adjust to these circumstances accordingly. If done properly, this aids the actor in conserving energy for his role.
3) Placing and balancing your vowels and consonants, so as to add resonance
This is a very, very important point in my opinion as this could potentially make or break your character. If you are truly able to control and manipulate the words effectively, you can play up the strengths and conceal the flaws of your voice. At the same time, you are able to vary your tone, diction and pitch to layer your vocal performance with various elements to make it an interesting one. Also, with carefully timed enunciation and pronunciation of certain words, one is able to highlight and bring to the audience’s attention emphasis of certain points. This could heighten your performance immensely and keep the audience in eager anticipation or fear, depending on the mood which you wish to portray. This also helps to build up your character as it adds intensity, range and variety to the role.
4) Bringing your point across (ie. Actually conveying the meaning of the word)
Of course, this is the primary element that has to be fulfilled. Actors must be careful not to get too carried away with indulging in dramatizing the voice that one forgets to convey the message of the play! You need to be sure of what you are saying, and believe in it, then you can project it out effectively and develop your character more convincingly. If you cannot even properly articulate your words, this shows you probably don’t know your character or his motivations well enough
Cicely Berry also believed that it was very important to have greater freedom in the voice. To achieve this, the actor must be aware of the difference between one’s personal tension and the tension of the character and the situation. In Voice and the Actor, she listed some exercises for actors to do to free up the tension in various body parts. She emphasized that this was of utmost importance as “unnecessary tension is energy wasted”. Based on my own experience, I agree with this. For the role of Teck Whee that I undertook, I was playing a fatigued character who had a lot of suppressed unhappiness and fears hidden inside him. I thought that to play him convincingly, I too had to tense up my body to bring out that pressure he faced. So I often hunched over in my role and thus my shoulders and neck were not freed up. This caused my voice to have a very heavy, throaty quality that was often unclear and sometimes incomprehensible throughout the play! Therefore it is important to release oneself to any blockage to have nice voice quality.
Overall, Cicely’s main point was that using the voice is just as physical as using any other part of the body. Unless deliberate (ie. In mime), the exclusion of the voice will lead to a performance that is not as whole or convincing. The voice is after all the mental-physical tie-up, therefore it “must be free and responsive enough to reflect what you think and feel.”
Similarly, Patsy Rodenburg states that actors must think of their “voices as instruments which they must learn to play properly and pitch in different ways to accommodate to different sorts of characters and texts.” In her book, The Actor Speaks: Voice and the Performer, she teaches in detailed emphasis the anatomy of voice, outlining the chain of physical relationships between our body parts(eg. Body, breath, larynx, tongue muscles) that help us produce sound. Through her detailed analysis, she is trying to show how actors must be aware of their body, how they are able to harness “a rush of energy” as “sound rises up within us literally from ground level”.
2. Is voice the most important ‘tool’ for an actor? Why or why not?
In my opinion, I never feel that there is ever one most important tool for an actor. These tools need to be suitably used in balance to showcase a character the best way possible. However, I would agree that voice is one of two most important tools. (The other most important tool in my opinion is physical action/movements.) What is more important is not to posses a good voice, but to know how to utilize and exercise this voice. After all, being equipped with a nice voice can only guarantee a good reading. The difference is that in acting, voice has to bring the text alive!
Of course, the extent to which the importance of the voice is as an acting tool is highly dependent on the script and the range (ie. Technical difficulties of language) it demands from the actor. A good example of a play which relies heavily on voice to bring out the different, underlying tones and nuances written into the script would be the extract She’s Dead by Paul Abelman. From lines 76-104 (“Officer, I have a confession to make….Skull Lane”), a variety of meaning can be derived depending on how actors playing 1 and 2 decide to act. I remember in class, we first tried playing 1 with a satirical tone against 2 with a mechanical, business-like tone. Then we played 1 as a timid persona to contrast with 2 as someone pompous, of the higher class. Both produced vastly different effects! Although both managed to bring out the light-hearted, parody tones of the play, the 2 different ways made us discover from the play different perspectives, and brought to light different issues. All these serve to prove how voice is indeed a very powerful tool, able to elicit in an audience different reactions. Thus, voice can be used to manipulate the audience’s desired response if implemented properly by the actor.
While it is important to embrace the voice as a mighty tool in theatre, we must note that the voice is often used only as a compliment to the physicality that staging presents. In fact, there are quite a few genres of theatre that do not even rely on the voice, such as Mime and older, more traditional theatre forms, such as the Japanese Noh. These theatre forms completely eliminate voice and use stylized motions instead.
In conclusion, I feel that an actor must learn to stretch his voice, so then he can then stretch his character. It is important to embrace the voice as a mighty tool for the actor, as it is an essential communicator in the theatre, but it most definitely cannot substitute other acting tools.
- Sonia
In her book Voice and the Actor, Cicely Berry introduces four basic aspects of voice production, which she feels are essential in fulfilling. I personally agree that an actor should always keep sight of these points. These are
1) Clarity
Clarity is a given requirement in delivering your lines as it is often through what you reveal of yourself that the audience gets to know your character better. If the audience cannot even comprehend what you’re saying, then half the battle is already lost as it hampers the audience’s understanding of your character and they will also be completely clueless of the going-ons in the play.
2) Adapting your voice to the space
Again, it is very important to make sure you are able to project your voice to the entire room, right to the very last row. You may have a normal, clear speaking voice but the real challenge and a mark of a true actor is to still be able to vary between “shouting” and “whispering” on stage, and having the ability and energy to sustain it across to any audience size. A skilled actor will know how to differentiate a shout in a 1000-seater auditorium and a shout in a cozy blackbox and adjust to these circumstances accordingly. If done properly, this aids the actor in conserving energy for his role.
3) Placing and balancing your vowels and consonants, so as to add resonance
This is a very, very important point in my opinion as this could potentially make or break your character. If you are truly able to control and manipulate the words effectively, you can play up the strengths and conceal the flaws of your voice. At the same time, you are able to vary your tone, diction and pitch to layer your vocal performance with various elements to make it an interesting one. Also, with carefully timed enunciation and pronunciation of certain words, one is able to highlight and bring to the audience’s attention emphasis of certain points. This could heighten your performance immensely and keep the audience in eager anticipation or fear, depending on the mood which you wish to portray. This also helps to build up your character as it adds intensity, range and variety to the role.
4) Bringing your point across (ie. Actually conveying the meaning of the word)
Of course, this is the primary element that has to be fulfilled. Actors must be careful not to get too carried away with indulging in dramatizing the voice that one forgets to convey the message of the play! You need to be sure of what you are saying, and believe in it, then you can project it out effectively and develop your character more convincingly. If you cannot even properly articulate your words, this shows you probably don’t know your character or his motivations well enough
Cicely Berry also believed that it was very important to have greater freedom in the voice. To achieve this, the actor must be aware of the difference between one’s personal tension and the tension of the character and the situation. In Voice and the Actor, she listed some exercises for actors to do to free up the tension in various body parts. She emphasized that this was of utmost importance as “unnecessary tension is energy wasted”. Based on my own experience, I agree with this. For the role of Teck Whee that I undertook, I was playing a fatigued character who had a lot of suppressed unhappiness and fears hidden inside him. I thought that to play him convincingly, I too had to tense up my body to bring out that pressure he faced. So I often hunched over in my role and thus my shoulders and neck were not freed up. This caused my voice to have a very heavy, throaty quality that was often unclear and sometimes incomprehensible throughout the play! Therefore it is important to release oneself to any blockage to have nice voice quality.
Overall, Cicely’s main point was that using the voice is just as physical as using any other part of the body. Unless deliberate (ie. In mime), the exclusion of the voice will lead to a performance that is not as whole or convincing. The voice is after all the mental-physical tie-up, therefore it “must be free and responsive enough to reflect what you think and feel.”
Similarly, Patsy Rodenburg states that actors must think of their “voices as instruments which they must learn to play properly and pitch in different ways to accommodate to different sorts of characters and texts.” In her book, The Actor Speaks: Voice and the Performer, she teaches in detailed emphasis the anatomy of voice, outlining the chain of physical relationships between our body parts(eg. Body, breath, larynx, tongue muscles) that help us produce sound. Through her detailed analysis, she is trying to show how actors must be aware of their body, how they are able to harness “a rush of energy” as “sound rises up within us literally from ground level”.
2. Is voice the most important ‘tool’ for an actor? Why or why not?
In my opinion, I never feel that there is ever one most important tool for an actor. These tools need to be suitably used in balance to showcase a character the best way possible. However, I would agree that voice is one of two most important tools. (The other most important tool in my opinion is physical action/movements.) What is more important is not to posses a good voice, but to know how to utilize and exercise this voice. After all, being equipped with a nice voice can only guarantee a good reading. The difference is that in acting, voice has to bring the text alive!
Of course, the extent to which the importance of the voice is as an acting tool is highly dependent on the script and the range (ie. Technical difficulties of language) it demands from the actor. A good example of a play which relies heavily on voice to bring out the different, underlying tones and nuances written into the script would be the extract She’s Dead by Paul Abelman. From lines 76-104 (“Officer, I have a confession to make….Skull Lane”), a variety of meaning can be derived depending on how actors playing 1 and 2 decide to act. I remember in class, we first tried playing 1 with a satirical tone against 2 with a mechanical, business-like tone. Then we played 1 as a timid persona to contrast with 2 as someone pompous, of the higher class. Both produced vastly different effects! Although both managed to bring out the light-hearted, parody tones of the play, the 2 different ways made us discover from the play different perspectives, and brought to light different issues. All these serve to prove how voice is indeed a very powerful tool, able to elicit in an audience different reactions. Thus, voice can be used to manipulate the audience’s desired response if implemented properly by the actor.
While it is important to embrace the voice as a mighty tool in theatre, we must note that the voice is often used only as a compliment to the physicality that staging presents. In fact, there are quite a few genres of theatre that do not even rely on the voice, such as Mime and older, more traditional theatre forms, such as the Japanese Noh. These theatre forms completely eliminate voice and use stylized motions instead.
In conclusion, I feel that an actor must learn to stretch his voice, so then he can then stretch his character. It is important to embrace the voice as a mighty tool for the actor, as it is an essential communicator in the theatre, but it most definitely cannot substitute other acting tools.
- Sonia
Paul Abelman, She’s Dead: Vocal use and variety
2. Is voice the most important ‘tool’ for an actor? Why or why not?
To me, voice is critical in deciding whether or not your audience is going to be intrigued with your performance or bored for the next hour or so. Without it, an actor is as good as handicapped. However, voice is not just a physical ability. It can represent various emotions through using it in a range of tenors. For example, a harsh voice depicts anger and a whisper can mean shyness. The way one speaks can lead to evaluation of a character. A strong English accent can lead the audience to assume that this particular character is an educated person.
Voice can also be useful for comedies. The way a person sounds on stage can be lively or dull. Liveliness interests audience in wanting to find out more about the play. An overly exaggerated tone can be appropriate to imply that one is being sarcastic and that can be good for comedies, especially when audiences are able to catch the pretence. A digression of tones can further substantiate this excitement, and it can mean that the actor is having fun. It is always pleasing for the audience to see actors on stage having fun, isn't it?
A good projection of voice exudes confidence and not all emotions need to be express through facial expressions. A good voice which can sing also sets the tune and may sometimes, touch people's hearts with it. Voice clearly elucidates the professionalism in an actor.
Hence, I very much agree that voice is the most important tool for an actor.
Jasmen Yew Lien Tah
To me, voice is critical in deciding whether or not your audience is going to be intrigued with your performance or bored for the next hour or so. Without it, an actor is as good as handicapped. However, voice is not just a physical ability. It can represent various emotions through using it in a range of tenors. For example, a harsh voice depicts anger and a whisper can mean shyness. The way one speaks can lead to evaluation of a character. A strong English accent can lead the audience to assume that this particular character is an educated person.
Voice can also be useful for comedies. The way a person sounds on stage can be lively or dull. Liveliness interests audience in wanting to find out more about the play. An overly exaggerated tone can be appropriate to imply that one is being sarcastic and that can be good for comedies, especially when audiences are able to catch the pretence. A digression of tones can further substantiate this excitement, and it can mean that the actor is having fun. It is always pleasing for the audience to see actors on stage having fun, isn't it?
A good projection of voice exudes confidence and not all emotions need to be express through facial expressions. A good voice which can sing also sets the tune and may sometimes, touch people's hearts with it. Voice clearly elucidates the professionalism in an actor.
Hence, I very much agree that voice is the most important tool for an actor.
Jasmen Yew Lien Tah
Jane Taylor, Ubu and the Truth Commission - Use of puppets and multimedia
1. To what extent has modern theatre successfully incorporated puppetry and/or multimedia? Does this enhance or detract from the overall production? Use examples from local productions you have seen, if possible.
In many ways, modern theatre had incorporated multimedia into theatre successfully, particularly in modern adaptations of Greek theatre and in plays set in the far future where high technology is the norm. Modern adaptations of Greek theatre particularly benefits from the use of multimedia as it is a 'Theatre of the Mind' – something that most modern audiences will not be able to identify with and will thus find it boring. During long monologues in which a character describes what happens, images or clips of the actors acting out the scene can be flashed on the screen. Modern theatre's creed is 'show, not tell', and multimedia can aid modern adaptations of Greek drama in 'showing' very well. However, the clips themselves must be used appropriately, and it should not completely distract the audience from the actor narrating these events.
The second way in which multimedia is incorporated into modern theatre is in plays taking place in the future. Such as in Cogito, plays that have a computer or a computer-simulated character will definitely need multimedia so these characters will be shown to the audience as virtual. An actor playing such a part will most likely completely defeat the purpose of the character being in a computer or being a computer in the first place. Thus in that sense, multimedia more than enhances an overall production it is essential.
Another way in which multimedia is incorporated into modern theatre can be seen in the production of A Midsummer Night's Dream by SRT. In several points in time, the actors are filmed and, on the spot, flashed onto the large screen so that the audience who are unable to catch majority of the nuances of what is happening, especially those seated far away from where the actors currently are, can now be fully aware of the happenings in the play. However, this is also at points in time distracting as rotating images of characters are flashed onto the screen for seemingly no reason at all. In such ways, multimedia detracts from the actors' performance, as the audience are busy wondering about the images being flashed on the screen to pay them the full attention they deserve.
While multimedia is useful, the actors themselves should still be the main focal point of a play. When used appropriately and correctly, multimedia enhances a play greatly, especially in plays that take place in the future like Cogito. Multimedia should be a companion to the actual actors in order to be able to fully enhance a production; it should not be the main focus. If it is, how would one be able to differentiate between theatre and film?
2. Construct one set design for the extract you have studied, and adapt it for two different spaces. How does your set design in each space express the overall atmosphere of this piece?
I have chosen the flexible space and proscenium arch for my set design, which is shown below. (I apologize for the primitive drawings, but freehand on paper will honestly be much worse than this.)
The spotlights on, first, the puppets then Pa Ubu and Ma Ubu isolate them from the others, contributing to the overall atmosphere of isolation and uneasiness. The puppets are thrown into sharp focus by the spotlight, showing them as witnesses – outsiders – to the scene, especially in the case of the vulture-puppet. The stark spotlight shows the ‘truth’ of these puppets as witnesses, completely detached from the situation. The case of the spotlights on Pa Ubu and Ma Ubu is different: during Act One: 6, none of the lights will be on except for these two spotlights, showing the contrast of Ma Ubu’s words, Pa Ubu’s silence and the words flashing on the bright screen. This creates an overall atmosphere of uneasiness that is added on by the space between the glass booth of Pa Ubu’s shower and Ma Ubu’s armchair: they are isolated from each other with the screen in the centre, flashing words that are supposedly the ‘truth’.
I have situated the screen at the very back and centre of the stage. The light from the projector will illuminate the characters starkly, expressing an uneasiness in the atmosphere as such bright light lends to a feeling of exposure and vulnerability as nothing can be hidden. The resulting shadows create a sinister and uneasy atmosphere, as these shadows are of the puppets and are distorted by the light. The screen is placed on the centre of the stage so the audience will be fully aware of the contrast between the words on the screen and what the characters are saying – which is the truth? This uncertainty adds to the uneasiness. The screen is placed so far back in the centre so that every member of the audience will be able to see the words flashed on it clearly.
Lastly, the eye atop the camera tripod adds the most to the uneasy atmosphere. The eyes will be facing the eyes, ‘watching’ them with the camera tripod faced away, towards the screen. This arrangement creates a feeling of uneasiness as the tripod would seem to have an eye at the back of its head, watching the audience like the puppets watch the proceedings happening on stage. Just like the audience is watching – witnessing – the play, the ‘all-seeing eye’ is watching them instead. The feeling of being watched by such an eye expresses an uneasy and frightening atmosphere to the audience, who will then be able to understand the play and empathize with the characters more. The lack of privacy – on the audience’s part and on the characters’ parts – will express this uneasiness and fright that is prevalent in the play.
~ Justine
In many ways, modern theatre had incorporated multimedia into theatre successfully, particularly in modern adaptations of Greek theatre and in plays set in the far future where high technology is the norm. Modern adaptations of Greek theatre particularly benefits from the use of multimedia as it is a 'Theatre of the Mind' – something that most modern audiences will not be able to identify with and will thus find it boring. During long monologues in which a character describes what happens, images or clips of the actors acting out the scene can be flashed on the screen. Modern theatre's creed is 'show, not tell', and multimedia can aid modern adaptations of Greek drama in 'showing' very well. However, the clips themselves must be used appropriately, and it should not completely distract the audience from the actor narrating these events.
The second way in which multimedia is incorporated into modern theatre is in plays taking place in the future. Such as in Cogito, plays that have a computer or a computer-simulated character will definitely need multimedia so these characters will be shown to the audience as virtual. An actor playing such a part will most likely completely defeat the purpose of the character being in a computer or being a computer in the first place. Thus in that sense, multimedia more than enhances an overall production it is essential.
Another way in which multimedia is incorporated into modern theatre can be seen in the production of A Midsummer Night's Dream by SRT. In several points in time, the actors are filmed and, on the spot, flashed onto the large screen so that the audience who are unable to catch majority of the nuances of what is happening, especially those seated far away from where the actors currently are, can now be fully aware of the happenings in the play. However, this is also at points in time distracting as rotating images of characters are flashed onto the screen for seemingly no reason at all. In such ways, multimedia detracts from the actors' performance, as the audience are busy wondering about the images being flashed on the screen to pay them the full attention they deserve.
While multimedia is useful, the actors themselves should still be the main focal point of a play. When used appropriately and correctly, multimedia enhances a play greatly, especially in plays that take place in the future like Cogito. Multimedia should be a companion to the actual actors in order to be able to fully enhance a production; it should not be the main focus. If it is, how would one be able to differentiate between theatre and film?
2. Construct one set design for the extract you have studied, and adapt it for two different spaces. How does your set design in each space express the overall atmosphere of this piece?
I have chosen the flexible space and proscenium arch for my set design, which is shown below. (I apologize for the primitive drawings, but freehand on paper will honestly be much worse than this.)
The spotlights on, first, the puppets then Pa Ubu and Ma Ubu isolate them from the others, contributing to the overall atmosphere of isolation and uneasiness. The puppets are thrown into sharp focus by the spotlight, showing them as witnesses – outsiders – to the scene, especially in the case of the vulture-puppet. The stark spotlight shows the ‘truth’ of these puppets as witnesses, completely detached from the situation. The case of the spotlights on Pa Ubu and Ma Ubu is different: during Act One: 6, none of the lights will be on except for these two spotlights, showing the contrast of Ma Ubu’s words, Pa Ubu’s silence and the words flashing on the bright screen. This creates an overall atmosphere of uneasiness that is added on by the space between the glass booth of Pa Ubu’s shower and Ma Ubu’s armchair: they are isolated from each other with the screen in the centre, flashing words that are supposedly the ‘truth’.
I have situated the screen at the very back and centre of the stage. The light from the projector will illuminate the characters starkly, expressing an uneasiness in the atmosphere as such bright light lends to a feeling of exposure and vulnerability as nothing can be hidden. The resulting shadows create a sinister and uneasy atmosphere, as these shadows are of the puppets and are distorted by the light. The screen is placed on the centre of the stage so the audience will be fully aware of the contrast between the words on the screen and what the characters are saying – which is the truth? This uncertainty adds to the uneasiness. The screen is placed so far back in the centre so that every member of the audience will be able to see the words flashed on it clearly.
Lastly, the eye atop the camera tripod adds the most to the uneasy atmosphere. The eyes will be facing the eyes, ‘watching’ them with the camera tripod faced away, towards the screen. This arrangement creates a feeling of uneasiness as the tripod would seem to have an eye at the back of its head, watching the audience like the puppets watch the proceedings happening on stage. Just like the audience is watching – witnessing – the play, the ‘all-seeing eye’ is watching them instead. The feeling of being watched by such an eye expresses an uneasy and frightening atmosphere to the audience, who will then be able to understand the play and empathize with the characters more. The lack of privacy – on the audience’s part and on the characters’ parts – will express this uneasiness and fright that is prevalent in the play.
~ Justine
Use of Puppets and multimedia
Use of Puppets and Multimedia
1. To what extent has modern theatre succesfully incorporated puppetry and/or multimedia? Does this enhance or detract form the overall production? use exmaples form local productions you have seen, if possible.
With rapid advancements in technology i would say that modern theatre has succesfully incorporated multimedia. Indeed there has been a growing use of multimedia in modern theatre.For example in the recent SRT's production of the Midsummer Night's Dream there was a wide usage of laser lighting, video projections and many more. This helped to bring out the whole dreamy effect of the play and it captured the attention of the audience even better. It was also a way that kept the audiences going if they ever did find it a bore. However i would say that too much usage of multimedia in modern theatre would turn out to be disastrous and it may lose the effectivenss. Not at all times can multimedia be used. Sometimes it is just way better to act it out. Therefore i would say that multimedia has successfully been incorporated into modern theatre. But there is definitely a limit to how much one should use multimedia in a play.
POsted by Paveena
1. To what extent has modern theatre succesfully incorporated puppetry and/or multimedia? Does this enhance or detract form the overall production? use exmaples form local productions you have seen, if possible.
With rapid advancements in technology i would say that modern theatre has succesfully incorporated multimedia. Indeed there has been a growing use of multimedia in modern theatre.For example in the recent SRT's production of the Midsummer Night's Dream there was a wide usage of laser lighting, video projections and many more. This helped to bring out the whole dreamy effect of the play and it captured the attention of the audience even better. It was also a way that kept the audiences going if they ever did find it a bore. However i would say that too much usage of multimedia in modern theatre would turn out to be disastrous and it may lose the effectivenss. Not at all times can multimedia be used. Sometimes it is just way better to act it out. Therefore i would say that multimedia has successfully been incorporated into modern theatre. But there is definitely a limit to how much one should use multimedia in a play.
POsted by Paveena
jane Taylor, Ubu and the Truth Commission - Use of puppets and multimedia
1. To what extent has modern theatre successfully incorporated puppetry and/or multimedia? Does this enhance or detract from the overall production? Use examples from local productions you have seen, if possible.
Modern theatre has successfully incorporated multimedia through the use of videos, laser lighting, audio etc. to enhance modern plays. It has been used in production like Agamemnon by young SRT, Midsummer’s Night Dream by SRT. In a way, it does enhance the overall production because it aids the visual parts and the audience gets to see more than just actors acting.
However, multimedia may sometimes be used inappropriately, and when done so it again detracts. Like for example the video used in the Midsummer’s Night Dream production appeared to me as redundant. Firstly because it was quite horrible to watch because of it’s bad quality. To put it simply I thought the video was boring. And if it had been acted out instead, it could probably have been better. But if the multimedia used is appropriate, for example good laser lighting effects that added to the magical sort of feeling the production had, then it would of course enhance the overall production.
Also, audiences who prefer the conventional theatre acting would find this distracting. Some would believe that the acting and plot is the main focus of the play and adding unnecessary visual or sound effects might change that focus, thus making multimedia detract the overall production.
ELEANOR!
Modern theatre has successfully incorporated multimedia through the use of videos, laser lighting, audio etc. to enhance modern plays. It has been used in production like Agamemnon by young SRT, Midsummer’s Night Dream by SRT. In a way, it does enhance the overall production because it aids the visual parts and the audience gets to see more than just actors acting.
However, multimedia may sometimes be used inappropriately, and when done so it again detracts. Like for example the video used in the Midsummer’s Night Dream production appeared to me as redundant. Firstly because it was quite horrible to watch because of it’s bad quality. To put it simply I thought the video was boring. And if it had been acted out instead, it could probably have been better. But if the multimedia used is appropriate, for example good laser lighting effects that added to the magical sort of feeling the production had, then it would of course enhance the overall production.
Also, audiences who prefer the conventional theatre acting would find this distracting. Some would believe that the acting and plot is the main focus of the play and adding unnecessary visual or sound effects might change that focus, thus making multimedia detract the overall production.
ELEANOR!
Edward Albee, Who's Afraid of virginia Woolf? - Physicality, awareness of space
1. What inhibitions do you still have in using your body to express yourself? What are the strategies you can use to overcome this?
I would admit that I am rather inhibited even until today, in using my body to express myself. I think firstly, it has to do with my personality. I do believe myself to be a pretty reserved person because I was brought up that way and also because I do lack confidence. Or I try to do what I think is best, so I end up thinking too hard. Sometimes I feel that my own thoughts inhibit me. I think I try to think too much. Too much about motivations and how to express myself. Sometimes it really is hard for me, because it’s hard to get that emotion out from my memory. Either that, or I think too slowly so I end up looking like I do have inhibitions. Besides this, I have not allowed myself to fully trust my peers, but I think that is somewhat subconscious. Because you really can’t help knowing that there’s someone watching you, can you? So I am self-conscious. Which is really bad. Stage fear affects my acting as well. I think I get stage fear because of my lack in confidence and because of a new surrounding, a new atmosphere.
Still, I think this inhibition has become lesser. I do feel less self-conscious and feel more comfortable around my peers. Which does affect my level of confidence and how conscious I am of myself also. But still, I think one simple way to free myself from inhibitions would really be to free myself. I have to think about my purpose in doing all this. It’s because I want to learn. And everyone around me is just as eager and they’re my friends! So ultimately my strategy is to ease all that tension and insecurity in myself and to tell myself to be brave. Of course, practice and rehearsals would aid my level of confidence too.
2. Read up on the works of Rudolf Laban and Jacques LeCoq To what extent do you think their work can help an actor be more adept in the use of space and their own physicality as an actor?
Rudolf Laban focused on dance and physical movements. He was a dancer, a choreographer and a dance / movement theoretician and believed that dance should be extended to everyone. Learning dance for the theatre appears useful as it makes actors more aware of their body and the space. It would also teach them to have better control of their own movements and warms them up physically.
Jacques LeCoq was an actor, mime and acting instructor. His acting style was having a closer interaction with the audience, an extended use of general space and a focus on the physical rather than the emotional side of the character to impact on the audience by way of social or political comment (I don’t really get this point but it does sound important so I added it). This can help an actor learn to focus on his physical movents and actions, which is important as it allows an actor to act more realistically.
Lecoq aimed at training his actors in way that encouraged them to find ways of performance that suited them best. Through this actors can learn to be more aware of themselves. And by learning through self experiment, actors can understand their body movements and actions better, thus forming his own personality as an actor. I think it encourages actors to be creative also.
ELEANOR!
I would admit that I am rather inhibited even until today, in using my body to express myself. I think firstly, it has to do with my personality. I do believe myself to be a pretty reserved person because I was brought up that way and also because I do lack confidence. Or I try to do what I think is best, so I end up thinking too hard. Sometimes I feel that my own thoughts inhibit me. I think I try to think too much. Too much about motivations and how to express myself. Sometimes it really is hard for me, because it’s hard to get that emotion out from my memory. Either that, or I think too slowly so I end up looking like I do have inhibitions. Besides this, I have not allowed myself to fully trust my peers, but I think that is somewhat subconscious. Because you really can’t help knowing that there’s someone watching you, can you? So I am self-conscious. Which is really bad. Stage fear affects my acting as well. I think I get stage fear because of my lack in confidence and because of a new surrounding, a new atmosphere.
Still, I think this inhibition has become lesser. I do feel less self-conscious and feel more comfortable around my peers. Which does affect my level of confidence and how conscious I am of myself also. But still, I think one simple way to free myself from inhibitions would really be to free myself. I have to think about my purpose in doing all this. It’s because I want to learn. And everyone around me is just as eager and they’re my friends! So ultimately my strategy is to ease all that tension and insecurity in myself and to tell myself to be brave. Of course, practice and rehearsals would aid my level of confidence too.
2. Read up on the works of Rudolf Laban and Jacques LeCoq To what extent do you think their work can help an actor be more adept in the use of space and their own physicality as an actor?
Rudolf Laban focused on dance and physical movements. He was a dancer, a choreographer and a dance / movement theoretician and believed that dance should be extended to everyone. Learning dance for the theatre appears useful as it makes actors more aware of their body and the space. It would also teach them to have better control of their own movements and warms them up physically.
Jacques LeCoq was an actor, mime and acting instructor. His acting style was having a closer interaction with the audience, an extended use of general space and a focus on the physical rather than the emotional side of the character to impact on the audience by way of social or political comment (I don’t really get this point but it does sound important so I added it). This can help an actor learn to focus on his physical movents and actions, which is important as it allows an actor to act more realistically.
Lecoq aimed at training his actors in way that encouraged them to find ways of performance that suited them best. Through this actors can learn to be more aware of themselves. And by learning through self experiment, actors can understand their body movements and actions better, thus forming his own personality as an actor. I think it encourages actors to be creative also.
ELEANOR!
Paul Abelman, She's Dead - Vocal use and variety
1. What are the aspects of voice production that an actor needs to keep in mind when he acts? How does voice help in characterisation? (Read up on the works of Cicely Berry and Patsy Rodenburg for reference.)
For Cecily Berry, she believes that an actor should refrain from speaking with tension. She also mentions the importance of having resonance. Besides this, the other aspects of voice production that an actor needs to keep in mind would be his diction, clarity, pitch and tone.
For a good voice production, one should not speak with tension as it affects the quality of an actor’s voice, and blocks it. So the voice that comes out would sound forced or unnatural. Tension will lead to an unfocused voice lacking in natural inflections, with no variations in pressure, range or tone. This happens because actors are insecure of their voices and so get very tensed when they speak. Hence it is important to learn how to relax the vocal muscles and to believe in one’s own voice.
Resonance is also important. It allows the actors to produce different voice pitch and different sounds. To do this, it is important to maintain a good posture when projecting.
An actor must always have good diction as it affects the words that are being spoken by the actor. If diction or enunciation is bad, then the lines would definitely get affected. In acting, besides facial expression and the other physical movements, the voice is the other thing that reaches the audience. If speech were not clear, then part of the play would be missing because the audience won’t understand and so won’t get the meaning of the play. The way an actor enunciates the lines is also important because it could, to the audience, appear to be on purpose and how one pronounces things would show one’s character. So for example, if the actor has rotary pronunciations, then he could appear to be a character that is American.
Next, having good clarity is important as it determines how comprehensible the actor is. For an actor to play his character convincingly, he has to ensure that what he says can be heard and has to speak as if the lines were his own. This would allow his acting to be more realistic.
Pitch is important as well as different voice pitches can affect the audience’s understanding of the character. From a certain voice pitch, one can tell whether the character is angry, happy, sad etc. It would also help with the emotions an actor is feeling and thus the expression on his face.
The same goes for tone. Tone could affect the lines the actor says. Lines spoken in different tones, and pitches, would have different meanings.
Hence it is important for an actor to remember all these for good voice production.
Pitches, tone, diction and clarity are all affected by how good an actor’s voice quality is. And to have good voice production, one must have a good resonance and be free of tension. The pitch, tone, diction and clarity are important because it shows a character’s character as explained above. Patsy Rodenburg (The Actor Speaks: Voice and the performer) shows how exercises in exaggeration can help an actor discover his range and help in characterization. It allows him to play with the variety of intensities and this can be put to any play. This way, the actor has more freedom to shape it in such a way that would help enhance characterization.
2. Is voice the most important ‘tool’ for an actor? Why or why not?
In acting, an actor uses his voice and physical movements (facial expression, body movements etc.) to bring the story across to the audience. Both are important because it would compliment each other and together different effects can be made.
Hence to me, the voice is an important tool. But whether or not it is the most important, it would depend on what type of drama it is and what effect the actor wants to make. If it were a mime for example, the voice would then not be important at all.
However, for most plays the voice would be an important tool. It allows the audience to hear what the actors on stage are saying, hence knowing the conversation which is essential in understanding what is going on. Because language is generally an important factor in theatre and usually, the message of the play is brought across through the use of words. Voice would also allow audience to hear, hence feel the emotions. For certain things like sarcasm, suspicion, and mockery etc. to be shown, it would require the voice. For facial expression and physical movement could be inadequate.
Voice is important also, as it allows communication – not only between actors and the audience, but also among the actors themselves.
ELEANOR!
For Cecily Berry, she believes that an actor should refrain from speaking with tension. She also mentions the importance of having resonance. Besides this, the other aspects of voice production that an actor needs to keep in mind would be his diction, clarity, pitch and tone.
For a good voice production, one should not speak with tension as it affects the quality of an actor’s voice, and blocks it. So the voice that comes out would sound forced or unnatural. Tension will lead to an unfocused voice lacking in natural inflections, with no variations in pressure, range or tone. This happens because actors are insecure of their voices and so get very tensed when they speak. Hence it is important to learn how to relax the vocal muscles and to believe in one’s own voice.
Resonance is also important. It allows the actors to produce different voice pitch and different sounds. To do this, it is important to maintain a good posture when projecting.
An actor must always have good diction as it affects the words that are being spoken by the actor. If diction or enunciation is bad, then the lines would definitely get affected. In acting, besides facial expression and the other physical movements, the voice is the other thing that reaches the audience. If speech were not clear, then part of the play would be missing because the audience won’t understand and so won’t get the meaning of the play. The way an actor enunciates the lines is also important because it could, to the audience, appear to be on purpose and how one pronounces things would show one’s character. So for example, if the actor has rotary pronunciations, then he could appear to be a character that is American.
Next, having good clarity is important as it determines how comprehensible the actor is. For an actor to play his character convincingly, he has to ensure that what he says can be heard and has to speak as if the lines were his own. This would allow his acting to be more realistic.
Pitch is important as well as different voice pitches can affect the audience’s understanding of the character. From a certain voice pitch, one can tell whether the character is angry, happy, sad etc. It would also help with the emotions an actor is feeling and thus the expression on his face.
The same goes for tone. Tone could affect the lines the actor says. Lines spoken in different tones, and pitches, would have different meanings.
Hence it is important for an actor to remember all these for good voice production.
Pitches, tone, diction and clarity are all affected by how good an actor’s voice quality is. And to have good voice production, one must have a good resonance and be free of tension. The pitch, tone, diction and clarity are important because it shows a character’s character as explained above. Patsy Rodenburg (The Actor Speaks: Voice and the performer) shows how exercises in exaggeration can help an actor discover his range and help in characterization. It allows him to play with the variety of intensities and this can be put to any play. This way, the actor has more freedom to shape it in such a way that would help enhance characterization.
2. Is voice the most important ‘tool’ for an actor? Why or why not?
In acting, an actor uses his voice and physical movements (facial expression, body movements etc.) to bring the story across to the audience. Both are important because it would compliment each other and together different effects can be made.
Hence to me, the voice is an important tool. But whether or not it is the most important, it would depend on what type of drama it is and what effect the actor wants to make. If it were a mime for example, the voice would then not be important at all.
However, for most plays the voice would be an important tool. It allows the audience to hear what the actors on stage are saying, hence knowing the conversation which is essential in understanding what is going on. Because language is generally an important factor in theatre and usually, the message of the play is brought across through the use of words. Voice would also allow audience to hear, hence feel the emotions. For certain things like sarcasm, suspicion, and mockery etc. to be shown, it would require the voice. For facial expression and physical movement could be inadequate.
Voice is important also, as it allows communication – not only between actors and the audience, but also among the actors themselves.
ELEANOR!
Harold Pinter, Betrayal - Characterisation; Objectives
1. Apply the Stanislavskian ‘magic if’ to this extract. How does it help you to build either the character of Emma or Jerry?
For playing Emma, Stanislavski's ‘magic if’would help as it makes me think about how Emma would react if a certain situation happens, how she behaves etc. For example, what would Emma do or behave when she tries to tell Jerry about her breakup? Basically, it helps me think about what Emma would do; by thinking what would I do if something like that were to happen to me. It leads me to making use of my emotion memory, and I think this is rather useful. I may not have ever gone through a marriage and then a divorce and then attempt to tell an ex-lover about it, but I can imagine how it might feel. And I might feel for example, guilty or nervous.
It also brings up the character’s motivations. Which to me is important. It makes imagining what I would do as Emma more realistic as well. And I think it makes my interpretation of her emotions and actions true to the context of the play.
I guess it also helps get Emma characterized. And to me characterization is essential as well. A person who is of one character might behave one way and another person with another character, but with the same motivation, might behave another way. So Emma appears to me as flirty, she ended one affair and might be having another!, and in need of attention. But then again she loves her kids. So how I would act her out would have to be true to her character. And with the character's motivation clear and with all the ‘magic ifs’ to help, Emma's character could be played out quite nicely.
But I think using the ‘magic if’ could be somewhat hard for different actors because different actors have different experiences and different interpretations of situations. So Stanislavski's ‘magic if’ would only be helpful for actors. Directors may not find it helpful because perhaps his interpretation and the actor’s interpretations could be different.
An actor must ask himself, “How would I behave if it happened to me in real life?”
2.Read up on the works of Vsevolod Meyerhold and his theory of 'biomechanics', and Stanislavski's main concepts. Which approach to acting do you find easier to adopt?
I would say Stanislavski’s main concepts would be easier to adopt. His ‘magic if’ and characterization and motivations make characters clearer to me. It allows me to act better that way. I think the idea of how an actor has to first believe in his own actions before the audience can believe what he’s doing on stage is very true. Because believing in your actions make your acting seem much more realistic. And to believe in what I am doing, I need to know why my character is doing it. What happened before and what sort of a person my character is etc. So Stanislavski’s ‘through-line’ of action, character’s ‘superobjective’ and knowing how the character looks like, or how he walks, what his gestures are would help. All that and his ‘magic if’ would certainly be something I would use to aid my acting.
I prefer Stanislavski also because I am better at imaging, or at least find it easier than Meyerhold’s theory of ‘biomechanics’. I do find Meyerhold’s theory of ‘biomechanics’ rather helpful. It trains actors physically and trains them to have better control, strength and stamina. However, this is what I am weak at – the physical acting. So I wouldn’t use this approach, but this is something that I do need to learn and improve on.
Also, one interesting thing I read about ‘biomechanics’ is how it is a system of movement which employed conflicts between opposing forces as a means of generating dramatic tension in the body. Well, dramatic tension does sound helpful :D
ELEANOR!
For playing Emma, Stanislavski's ‘magic if’would help as it makes me think about how Emma would react if a certain situation happens, how she behaves etc. For example, what would Emma do or behave when she tries to tell Jerry about her breakup? Basically, it helps me think about what Emma would do; by thinking what would I do if something like that were to happen to me. It leads me to making use of my emotion memory, and I think this is rather useful. I may not have ever gone through a marriage and then a divorce and then attempt to tell an ex-lover about it, but I can imagine how it might feel. And I might feel for example, guilty or nervous.
It also brings up the character’s motivations. Which to me is important. It makes imagining what I would do as Emma more realistic as well. And I think it makes my interpretation of her emotions and actions true to the context of the play.
I guess it also helps get Emma characterized. And to me characterization is essential as well. A person who is of one character might behave one way and another person with another character, but with the same motivation, might behave another way. So Emma appears to me as flirty, she ended one affair and might be having another!, and in need of attention. But then again she loves her kids. So how I would act her out would have to be true to her character. And with the character's motivation clear and with all the ‘magic ifs’ to help, Emma's character could be played out quite nicely.
But I think using the ‘magic if’ could be somewhat hard for different actors because different actors have different experiences and different interpretations of situations. So Stanislavski's ‘magic if’ would only be helpful for actors. Directors may not find it helpful because perhaps his interpretation and the actor’s interpretations could be different.
An actor must ask himself, “How would I behave if it happened to me in real life?”
2.Read up on the works of Vsevolod Meyerhold and his theory of 'biomechanics', and Stanislavski's main concepts. Which approach to acting do you find easier to adopt?
I would say Stanislavski’s main concepts would be easier to adopt. His ‘magic if’ and characterization and motivations make characters clearer to me. It allows me to act better that way. I think the idea of how an actor has to first believe in his own actions before the audience can believe what he’s doing on stage is very true. Because believing in your actions make your acting seem much more realistic. And to believe in what I am doing, I need to know why my character is doing it. What happened before and what sort of a person my character is etc. So Stanislavski’s ‘through-line’ of action, character’s ‘superobjective’ and knowing how the character looks like, or how he walks, what his gestures are would help. All that and his ‘magic if’ would certainly be something I would use to aid my acting.
I prefer Stanislavski also because I am better at imaging, or at least find it easier than Meyerhold’s theory of ‘biomechanics’. I do find Meyerhold’s theory of ‘biomechanics’ rather helpful. It trains actors physically and trains them to have better control, strength and stamina. However, this is what I am weak at – the physical acting. So I wouldn’t use this approach, but this is something that I do need to learn and improve on.
Also, one interesting thing I read about ‘biomechanics’ is how it is a system of movement which employed conflicts between opposing forces as a means of generating dramatic tension in the body. Well, dramatic tension does sound helpful :D
ELEANOR!
Jane Taylor, Ubu and the Truth Commission: Use of puppets and multimedia
1. To what extent has modern theatre successfully incorporated puppetry and/or multimedia? Does this enhance or detract from the overall production? Use examples from local productions you have seen, if possible.
With new technology popping up so rapidly these days, it is no surprise that theatre is also starting to rely on them to boost a point, or merely to enhance the theatricality of it all.
For example, in the SRT’s recent production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, multimedia was used for fancy lightings and that contributed to the whole ‘dream life’ fantasy that the play was supposed to portray to the audience. It also contributed to how the SRT decided to set a Shakespearean play in a partially modern context, since lights and media is something modern while the language used was still old Shakespearean types. However, it got confusing at times because I had the impression that it was going to be very purely Shakespeare (without modern contexts) and sometimes needed some time to register how they all were related because at times, it seemed like I was watching a few different plays consecutively.
Also, in the Young SRT’s production of Agamemnon, there was a scene where war was depicted through a short video (which was a blend of war scenes from recent movies) on the background. In Greek theatre, no violence was shown on stage and it was all reported off stage by an all important messenger. In this case, the violence has been depicted on a screen instead. This is appealing to the modern audience and is also a contribution to how the Young SRT also wanted to merge old and modern styles of staging together.
In all, multimedia has most of the time been incorporated successfully into theatre and has helped productions to give even more impact to the audience. For instance, a change in the lighting used can create an entirely new situation and mood on a similar stage.
- Melissa
With new technology popping up so rapidly these days, it is no surprise that theatre is also starting to rely on them to boost a point, or merely to enhance the theatricality of it all.
For example, in the SRT’s recent production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, multimedia was used for fancy lightings and that contributed to the whole ‘dream life’ fantasy that the play was supposed to portray to the audience. It also contributed to how the SRT decided to set a Shakespearean play in a partially modern context, since lights and media is something modern while the language used was still old Shakespearean types. However, it got confusing at times because I had the impression that it was going to be very purely Shakespeare (without modern contexts) and sometimes needed some time to register how they all were related because at times, it seemed like I was watching a few different plays consecutively.
Also, in the Young SRT’s production of Agamemnon, there was a scene where war was depicted through a short video (which was a blend of war scenes from recent movies) on the background. In Greek theatre, no violence was shown on stage and it was all reported off stage by an all important messenger. In this case, the violence has been depicted on a screen instead. This is appealing to the modern audience and is also a contribution to how the Young SRT also wanted to merge old and modern styles of staging together.
In all, multimedia has most of the time been incorporated successfully into theatre and has helped productions to give even more impact to the audience. For instance, a change in the lighting used can create an entirely new situation and mood on a similar stage.
- Melissa
Harold Pinter, Betrayal: Characterisation; Objectives
1. Apply the Stanislavskian ‘magic if’ to this extract. How does it help you to build either the character of Emma or Jerry?
As Stanislavski wrote in his book An Actor Prepares, "if acts as a lever to lift us out of the world of actuality into the realm of imagination."” Stansislavski's 'magic if' helps an actor to better assume his/her role as one is able to project the character’s circumstances onto oneself, sort of “becoming” the character itself. Ironically at the same time, 'if' indicates that the actor acknowledges that the stage is separate from reality, and is able to differentiate but justify the character's motivations and his own motivations as an actor. Thus, this helps provides the actor with reason enough to effectively bring forth the emotions to portray the character, and when the actor himself believes in his own character, only then is he able to convince the audience too.
By applying Stanislavski's 'magic if' definitely helps a 17-yr old girl like me to build and take on the character of Emma. This is because I am much younger than Emma, and I neither have the experience of being married with children nor having an affair. Therefore, I am unable to use one of Stanislavski’s other methods - emotion memory; to being forth emotions that Emma would feel as I have had no previous similar experiences in my life to draw from. However, with the 'magic if'’, I can put myself in a hypothetical situation instead and ask myself “How would I react if I was in Emma's shoes?”It would be easier for me to interpret the play’s given circumstances in my own way, then portray it the way I believe I would do so as a person as it is essentially necessary for me to believe such a life might actually be a possibility to me too. The closer I am to identifying with the circumstances my character faces, the more true it will seem to me, and thus my feelings will be more genuine and develop spontaneously in me, hence enabling me to flesh out the character realistically.
Also, with the 'magic if', I can then apply myself to understanding what my character’s aims and objectives are. I can do research on Emma’s background, her past, her cultural and societal influences in her era etc., then actively apply them to myself. This would better help me understand why Emma says what she says and the tone in which she brings across in her lines, and why she intends it so, thus helping me as an actor in my own delivery. For instance, the entire conversation is carried out over drinks. I need to ask myself "If Emma is a refined and elegant character, would she drink as she speaks? When? Would she pause to deliberate? Why?" Also, Emma speaks less than Jerry, but that does not mean she is in any less control of the conversation. I need to ask myself "If Emma is steering the conversation, where is she headed to?" Or "If Emma’s intention is to hurt Jerry with this line, is this how she'd sound? Or would she do it more subtly?"”
Therefore, with the 'magic if', one is able to immerse into character more completely and imbue the role with believability and intensity for the audience to appreciate
2. Read up on the works of Vsevolod Meyerhold and his theory of ‘biomechanics’, and Stanislavski’s main concepts. Which approach to acting do you find easier to adopt?
Stanislavski's main concepts focused on realism, where the actor is required to "create reality" on the stage for the audience to watch. Stanislavski believed that the actor must not be separate from the role he undertakes. As Stanislavski said, “to know is synonymous with to feel. Therefore, the actor should research the character’s background and surroundings in such great depth and detail that he is able to step into the role at will. Also, as mentioned in the previous question, Stanislavski believed in the 'magic if', so that the actor can identify with the character’s wants and goals. Finally, Stanislavski also divided the play into 'units', then each is labeled with a verb that best describes the character's motivations, hopes and emotions in that period of time. In a sense, Stanislavski believed that developing a 'through-line of action' would help the actor in characterisation.
On the other hand, Meyerhold's methods were the complete opposite of Stanislavski. Meyerhold brought back theatre’s original theatricality. Elements of song and dance often pervaded his plays, and often the audience was made aware of the fictional basis of the stage. Meyerhold also made sure there was always a critical distance between the actor and the role he undertook, in direct contrast with Stanislavski’s concepts. Meyerhold required his actors to portray a great extent of artificiality and stylization in their roles, symbolic of a deeper meaning left for the audience to decipher. To achieve this, Meyerhold made his actors undergo intense physical training, leading to the theory of ‘biomechanics; a system of movement which employed conflicts between opposing forces as a means of generating dramatic tension in the body’. Because of the dual conflicting nature of the physical contortions the actor had to undertake in biomechanics, this also enabled the actor to have the mental capacity to easily assume the two positions of actor and character as once.
I think Stanislavski's approach is easier to adopt. Personally, in all my previous acting experiences, I usually employ Stanislavski's 'magic if' in the preliminary stages of preparing for my role to establish clearly first who my character is and what he wants in life (ie. the play). I feel this is easier to adopt as being young and inexperienced, it is sometimes hard to comprehend and bring across the character’s emotions without first putting yourself in the character’s shoes and imagining yourself as the character. Usually, I also like to mark out a 'through-line', albeit not usually of action but of thought/emotion, so that I can see when are the changes in my character’s mood and objectives and rationalize how he (or rather "I", if I imagine myself to be him) adjusts according to it. I also believe in researching and reading up on people similar to your character, and getting to know the surroundings the character faces, as I feel that you need to familiarize yourself with your character’s circumstances to better understand why he would react and do things a certain way.
However, as Stanislavski himself discovered later on, "When the actor starts to reason, the... will is weakened. Don't discuss, just do it."” I usually try to include 'physicality' training to help me get into my character too. For instance, for the character Trudy the bag lady, I had to test out a few certain walks and gaits before settling on one. In the process of discovering/developing such a trait, it actually helped me understand my character better. For every movement I made that I felt was suited for the character, I would backtrack and think “Why the perkiness? Is she genuinely bouncy or just putting up a front?
I would like to try Meyerhold's ‘biomechanics’ one day. I think, in a sense, I have already included a much milder version of this physicality in my acting approach. For instance, I do believe in freeing up the body first through warm-ups and physical exercises. I have also learnt quite a bit about spatial awareness. Perhaps if I studied more about body parts (ie. Physiology), it could help me have better control over my body.
In conclusion, I feel that in our approach to acting, it cannot be confined to the logical, coherent teachings of Stanislavski. While theoretically perfect and easier to adopt, in reality/practice it is not enough to induce in actors’ the strength to develop the character's fullness.
- Sonia
As Stanislavski wrote in his book An Actor Prepares, "if acts as a lever to lift us out of the world of actuality into the realm of imagination."” Stansislavski's 'magic if' helps an actor to better assume his/her role as one is able to project the character’s circumstances onto oneself, sort of “becoming” the character itself. Ironically at the same time, 'if' indicates that the actor acknowledges that the stage is separate from reality, and is able to differentiate but justify the character's motivations and his own motivations as an actor. Thus, this helps provides the actor with reason enough to effectively bring forth the emotions to portray the character, and when the actor himself believes in his own character, only then is he able to convince the audience too.
By applying Stanislavski's 'magic if' definitely helps a 17-yr old girl like me to build and take on the character of Emma. This is because I am much younger than Emma, and I neither have the experience of being married with children nor having an affair. Therefore, I am unable to use one of Stanislavski’s other methods - emotion memory; to being forth emotions that Emma would feel as I have had no previous similar experiences in my life to draw from. However, with the 'magic if'’, I can put myself in a hypothetical situation instead and ask myself “How would I react if I was in Emma's shoes?”It would be easier for me to interpret the play’s given circumstances in my own way, then portray it the way I believe I would do so as a person as it is essentially necessary for me to believe such a life might actually be a possibility to me too. The closer I am to identifying with the circumstances my character faces, the more true it will seem to me, and thus my feelings will be more genuine and develop spontaneously in me, hence enabling me to flesh out the character realistically.
Also, with the 'magic if', I can then apply myself to understanding what my character’s aims and objectives are. I can do research on Emma’s background, her past, her cultural and societal influences in her era etc., then actively apply them to myself. This would better help me understand why Emma says what she says and the tone in which she brings across in her lines, and why she intends it so, thus helping me as an actor in my own delivery. For instance, the entire conversation is carried out over drinks. I need to ask myself "If Emma is a refined and elegant character, would she drink as she speaks? When? Would she pause to deliberate? Why?" Also, Emma speaks less than Jerry, but that does not mean she is in any less control of the conversation. I need to ask myself "If Emma is steering the conversation, where is she headed to?" Or "If Emma’s intention is to hurt Jerry with this line, is this how she'd sound? Or would she do it more subtly?"”
Therefore, with the 'magic if', one is able to immerse into character more completely and imbue the role with believability and intensity for the audience to appreciate
2. Read up on the works of Vsevolod Meyerhold and his theory of ‘biomechanics’, and Stanislavski’s main concepts. Which approach to acting do you find easier to adopt?
Stanislavski's main concepts focused on realism, where the actor is required to "create reality" on the stage for the audience to watch. Stanislavski believed that the actor must not be separate from the role he undertakes. As Stanislavski said, “to know is synonymous with to feel. Therefore, the actor should research the character’s background and surroundings in such great depth and detail that he is able to step into the role at will. Also, as mentioned in the previous question, Stanislavski believed in the 'magic if', so that the actor can identify with the character’s wants and goals. Finally, Stanislavski also divided the play into 'units', then each is labeled with a verb that best describes the character's motivations, hopes and emotions in that period of time. In a sense, Stanislavski believed that developing a 'through-line of action' would help the actor in characterisation.
On the other hand, Meyerhold's methods were the complete opposite of Stanislavski. Meyerhold brought back theatre’s original theatricality. Elements of song and dance often pervaded his plays, and often the audience was made aware of the fictional basis of the stage. Meyerhold also made sure there was always a critical distance between the actor and the role he undertook, in direct contrast with Stanislavski’s concepts. Meyerhold required his actors to portray a great extent of artificiality and stylization in their roles, symbolic of a deeper meaning left for the audience to decipher. To achieve this, Meyerhold made his actors undergo intense physical training, leading to the theory of ‘biomechanics; a system of movement which employed conflicts between opposing forces as a means of generating dramatic tension in the body’. Because of the dual conflicting nature of the physical contortions the actor had to undertake in biomechanics, this also enabled the actor to have the mental capacity to easily assume the two positions of actor and character as once.
I think Stanislavski's approach is easier to adopt. Personally, in all my previous acting experiences, I usually employ Stanislavski's 'magic if' in the preliminary stages of preparing for my role to establish clearly first who my character is and what he wants in life (ie. the play). I feel this is easier to adopt as being young and inexperienced, it is sometimes hard to comprehend and bring across the character’s emotions without first putting yourself in the character’s shoes and imagining yourself as the character. Usually, I also like to mark out a 'through-line', albeit not usually of action but of thought/emotion, so that I can see when are the changes in my character’s mood and objectives and rationalize how he (or rather "I", if I imagine myself to be him) adjusts according to it. I also believe in researching and reading up on people similar to your character, and getting to know the surroundings the character faces, as I feel that you need to familiarize yourself with your character’s circumstances to better understand why he would react and do things a certain way.
However, as Stanislavski himself discovered later on, "When the actor starts to reason, the... will is weakened. Don't discuss, just do it."” I usually try to include 'physicality' training to help me get into my character too. For instance, for the character Trudy the bag lady, I had to test out a few certain walks and gaits before settling on one. In the process of discovering/developing such a trait, it actually helped me understand my character better. For every movement I made that I felt was suited for the character, I would backtrack and think “Why the perkiness? Is she genuinely bouncy or just putting up a front?
I would like to try Meyerhold's ‘biomechanics’ one day. I think, in a sense, I have already included a much milder version of this physicality in my acting approach. For instance, I do believe in freeing up the body first through warm-ups and physical exercises. I have also learnt quite a bit about spatial awareness. Perhaps if I studied more about body parts (ie. Physiology), it could help me have better control over my body.
In conclusion, I feel that in our approach to acting, it cannot be confined to the logical, coherent teachings of Stanislavski. While theoretically perfect and easier to adopt, in reality/practice it is not enough to induce in actors’ the strength to develop the character's fullness.
- Sonia
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)