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