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!