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