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