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