Always Off Book

Christmas Carol Reading, Part 2

2009-11-29T11:19:00.002-05:00

Well, the theatrical adventure with the quickest turnaround ever for me. (All rehearsals and both presentations within one week's time) is concluded.

I have to admit that I am somewhat disappointed in this one. The audience was only a handful for both nights combined, and we didn't really have much of a chance to give extra nuances to our voices, as I would have liked. I love the story, and was happy to be working with some of my friends again, but even I sometimes find it hard to enjoy something when nobody comes to see it.

Last night we had about 6 people that were not connected with the show itself, or family of same.

The sound effects worked better last night I can say.They were much quieter, and didn't drown out the actors. Plus there were not surprise announcements of the time in the middle of the show. So at least there was that.

As for me, I did what I had to do with the reading. I repeated the added flourish at the end with Bob Cratchit that I mentioned in my last entry, but to little or no reaction from the tiny audience.

I didn't see the scarf I had worn the previous night for Cratchit, so I went without last night. Which is just as well, as I was the only person with a costume piece the first night anyway. I felt a bit out of place using it.

Given that I work hard at establishing a reputation as a good blogger, one would think I would be able, and in fact should find a way to, write a more extensive description of both last night, and the whole experience. Sadly, however, I must confess that I can't. There really is not much more to tell about this reading.

I will say that perhaps the script as is is too verbal to be enjoyed by most modern audiences. (I saw the glazed looks of most of the small audience both nights.) I myself enjoy hearing the words of Dickens, but I think they may be too thick for a presentation like this. (By words I mean the narration.)

Or maybe it was just bad timing or some other intangible. Who can say?

Either way, it is in fact another theatrical experience under my belt, even though it was not a play.

My thoughts now bend towards "Bedford Falls", as I prepare for the "It's a Wonderful Life" radio play.

Christmas Carol Reading, Night One

2009-11-27T23:27:00.002-05:00

I wish I could report that tonight's reading of "A Christmas Carol" was well attended. Sadly, I cannot. It could have been worse and for a while during the meet and greet before hand, it looked as though it might have been much worse. (As in, no outside guests.) But a few did trickle in near the end. 15 people total, maybe, out of 70 seats. I am not sure why it was so low. Maybe it being black Friday. Perhaps tomorrow will be better attended. (If you live near Shepherdstown, West Virginia, do stop by!)

The reading itself went well. Sound effects were added today, as was live music between staves. The latter was a nice touch. The former would have been, if there had been fewer snafus.

The biggest of which was a robotic female voice which intoned, "It is not nine o'clock" in the middle of the performance. Not sure what happened. I would have preferred it not to, and it was clear the audience was amused by this. IN that case though, it is hard to blame them. I am sure it will be fixed by tomorrow.

We only rehearsed twice for this, really. We had some blocking ideas and general notes, but basically there was not much we had to be doing. Some of the things we had talked about it became clear on the evening, would not work. (Such as me moving my chair outside of the semi-circle at some point.) But what didn't happen was made up for by a few things that did, which were not planned.

When you are up there doing something like that, which doesn't have every moment drawn on a blueprint, things just sort of come to you. At least they do me. (Though I was once told I had an unusually high level of instinct when it came to moving around on stage.) Whether or not that is true, several things occurred to me tonight in regards to movements and positions as we performed that didn't occur to me before. It is rather hard to explain specifics without being visual, but overall the effect was more movement that was reading friendly, without moving into stage play territory.

I also got some laughs, which I didn't expect. Last minute I decided to pretend like Scrooge was going to hit me in the final scene, where he pretends to be angry at Cratchit. I scrunched my face up really tight, and then looked as perplexed as I could when he raised Bob's salary. I suppose people enjoyed that.

The whole process has been walking that line between a staged reading that keeps interest by having some movement and props, (though I was the only one who ended up with props...a scarf), and not trying to stage a regular play. Because it is adapted to be read, it could never work as an actual play script. And in our second/final rehearsal the other night, we struggled a bit with that. Fighting the urge to have too many crosses, or props and costumes. It's easy to slip into full play mode.

Yet we must not do so. We are not running a play with scripts in out hands. We are conducting a reading...like reading a child a bed time story. (Though we hope nobody falls asleep!) Such a presentation cannot be handled as a play.

But I think we have struck a pretty good balance overall. We do it one more time tomorrow night with, (hopefully) more people to watch it.

Check back then to see what happens.

Week O' Dickens, Day One

2009-11-24T11:28:00.005-05:00

Last night was the first get together at Full Circle for the dramatic reading of "A Christmas Carol". An interesting group of people.

About 30 different speaking parts, amongst I think 15 or so people there. (I had originally thought there were more parts than that.) Two whole families are in this play. At least I think one of them has every member in it, I am not sure. Might have to ask.

I will be reading Bob Cratchit, the Ghost of Christmas Past, and Old Joe. These roles are interesting in a number of ways. First off, in last year's full regular staging of "A Christmas Carol" (follow my adventures with that show by going to the archives of October through December 2008), I also played Cratchit and the Ghost of Christmas Past. So in a way that is familiar territory. (And there were a few moments of flashback for me, as I was saying some of the same lines among some of the same people, in the same building.)

I was not Old Joe last year, yet he is also familiar territory. In 2003, I read for Old Joe, with this same director, in a one night only performance of a reading of a Christmas Carol. A year after that, I played Old Joe in a main stage production of the musical "Scrooge". I guess there is something about me and Old Joe.

As for the reading, as I said, it went well, though I admit I was a bit low on energy last night. That is rather uncommon for me in such situations. Not a disaster, by any means. But I think I need to work a bit harder on making some of my voices different between characters. They were distinct, but they need more personality.

I also admit to tapping into what I remember doing last year with Cratchit and the Ghost. Is this wrong? I think not. If I were to be in another full fledged production playing the same character, I may give it a bit of a different read. But then again, I may not. Unless a director would have a specific problem with me reading a certain way, why not stay with what works? (More on the interesting possibilities of being the same character a second time later in the post.)

One clever adaptation that has been made to this script, is that the role of the narrator, (which was about 80% of the lines, initially) has been broken into two narrators; one serious, and one more silly. This allows the lines to be broken up a bit, and lets the narrators play off of one another. This was a good call.

There is talk of just how much extra movement and ornamentation there is to be. The gamut can be run from simple readings, ala, actors walking into the center stage with their scripts, and simply reading with feeling, to having small costume pieces, props, music and sound effects. A decision has not yet been made, but things seem to be trending towards the minimalist. Which for a show that has one two nights to rehearse is best, I do believe.

I am however in favor of one possible idea. This story is of course broken up into staves, or acts, if you will. We may be able to get a small choral group to sing harmonized a capella Christmas carols between the staves. This I think would be a nice touch, seeing as how the reading is a culmination of a holiday party fundraiser for the theatre. The evening should be an experience that includes the reading, more so than everyone coming just for the reading. But those decisions are not mine. I just need to know where to stand and when.

The plan is to meet again Wednesday evening, and run the show twice. (It took about an hour an ten minutes last night.)

Now for a bit of trivia contemplation.

Does any of this qualify for playing the same role twice? It only matters because thus far I have never done so out of all the shows I have been in. (If you don't count parodies. I don't.) I was Cratchit last year, but in a different version of the script. Just as I was Old Joe in years past, but again a much different script. So in those cases it might be the same character, but not the same role. And there is a difference.

Old Joe is where this comes into play.

About six years ago I was in a reading of a Christmas Carol, under the same director. In that reading I read Old Joe. The script we are reading this year is BASED on that script, but as I said, somewhat adapted. So it is not technically the same script, even though all of Old Joe's lines are the same.

So, is this playing the same role in the same show again? Or does the adaptation of this script make it different? I'd be curious on anyone's thoughts on this one!

2 Launches in 48 Hours, Part 2

2009-11-23T11:50:00.004-05:00

If I wasn't busy enough with the reading of "It's a Wonderful Life", I'm also involved in a dramatic reading of Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol" at the Full Circle Theater Company. The first rehearsal for that will be happening tonight.

Yes, you read correctly. Two nights. Two shows. Two theatres. Two states. Two Christmas classics. And though I am not usually in favor of being in two shows at once, there were some exceptions in this case.

To begin with, given that they were readings, and not all out plays, I figured it would be doable. Especially since anytime I can be a part of telling the story of A Christmas Carol, I seize the chance. I admit, however, that I thought rehearsals for it would start much earlier. But those things could not be controlled.

One thing that makes it somewhat easier at this point is that it was reduced from 6 readings to only two. And those two readings will take place this week. Yes, both rehearsals, and both readings all within one week. I would have liked more time and more performances, but Full Circle works that way sometimes...

At least I will not have to juggle rehearsals for both readings I am in. A Christmas Carol will be over and done with, top to bottom, before "It's a Wonderful Life" even meets up again.

I don't yet know who I will be playing in it. I do know that the same actor who beat me out for the starring role in "It's a Wonderful Life" will also have the starring role, as Scrooge, in this reading. But to be clear, there were no auditions for this one. I expressed interest in it to the director, a friend of mine, months ago, and I was in it. It has gone through many forms, and many other cast members since then, so I don't really know what to expect when I get there tonight. But one things seems certain; I will be reading a lot of parts for this one.

The entire thing is a fundraiser for the theatre. I am not a huge fan of fundraiser activities. But again, it's theatre, and it's Christmas. Plus if I get some food out of the deal in the party leading up to each reading, I can't find fault with that.

More on that this evening, or tomorrow.

2 Launches in 48 Hours, Part 1

2009-11-23T11:21:00.005-05:00

Last night was the first rehearsal for "It's a Wonderful Life", the radio play, at the Winchester Little Theater. A few people were not there, it seems, but most were.

It looks like most of the people that were cast were people that showed up for both nights of auditions. A coincidence perhaps, but I did notice it.

The cast does indeed appear to be about 16 people, as the director estimated it would be during auditions. So, when I consider that I made a cut that small out of 65 or so that auditioned, (have of which were men), I can't really complain.

Despite arriving early, (as per my custom), I was still scrambling a bit to identify which roles I would be playing exactly.

I already knew from the start I would be playing Peter Bailey, father of George. That is by far my largest role. Two scenes with him. I'll basically be reading him the way I read for George when I auditioned. A gentler noble sort of man. He will probably have the closest to my own voice.

Then there is "Welch". He slugs George at some point in the bar. (For insulting his wife over the phone.) IN fact, I made one mistake last night, in not realizing that Welch was supposed to be in the telephone scene. He is heard in a muffled tone yelling through the Bailey's telephone. It is well marked now. I won't miss it again.

I am giving Welch a very deep voice. Very throaty. He is probably the voice that is least like my own.

Looks like I will also be playing "Man", which is literally one line. He asks for spaghetti at a restaurant. I think I'll call him "Spaghetti Man". The unique thing about that is that the one line Spaghetti Man has comes only a few moments before I play the aforementioned Welch. So, as is the case for most people in the show at several points, a quick and distinct transition to another character will have to be made. I'm not too worried about it though.

Then there is the small role of Second Commercial Man, a role I was not initially supposed to have, but was given as a sort of last minute switch by the director. This is not a character in "It's a Wonderful Life". But because it is a radio play, old fashioned radio commercials from the "sponsors" of the program are part of the action. During one such break, I am the man who learns to use "Dux Toilet Cakes". If I am allowed to keep the goofy, nerdy voice I came up with for the ad, it will be a fun moment for me, and hopefully the audience. (Ironically, it is not a product for the toilet, as the later lines reveal.) Two lines for that section. But I will also be up front when the jingle is sung for that one, set to the tune of "Santa Claus if Coming to Town", if I remember correctly. I guess I will sing it as the nerdy guy.

And finally, I also play one "Ed". If you recall from the story, there is at one point a run on the banks and the Bailey Building and Loan. Ed is one of the disgruntled Bedford Fallsians that comes to get his money. That's about three lines. I'm going with a sort of raspy, maybe short of breath voice for him. (He mentions having medical bills to bay; I thought that would be a logical decision. I will find out when we get our emailed notes if that will work for the director.)

Previously, I was intended to play one of the board members of the Bailey Building and Loan, but I was removed from that in favor of Second Commercial Man. No complaints here, even though the board member had a few more lines.

As for the mechanics of everything, I didn't yet have any trouble. Bear in mind, however, that there is not yet any set. What's more, the director said that the set was not going to be anything like he initially thought it would be. (As a side note, I always did think directors should have more say over how sets look. The notion of an independent set designer that has total reign honestly makes little sense to me. But oh well.) The moral of the story is, the shape of the "radio station" will be different than expected, and there may be a sort of hallway/waiting room type of area for those not performing. Still part of the set, but it may allow for off stage time for some actors, whereas at first we were told we'd all have to be on stage for the entire show.

I'm not great at visualizing structures before they exist, so I suppose my questions will be answered.

Otherwise, it's fairly simple. Each actor is assigned one of the two microphones that will be downstage. A few lines before one goes on, one approaches their assigned microphone from one side, delivers the lines, and then leaves the mike from the opposite side, returning to back stage. (Whatever that ends up being.) The effect is a circular pattern, one way street type of deal. If everyone pays attention to where they are in the script, their shouldn't be any problems.

I do have two very large chunks of time without being on. One of them comes 15 or so minutes before the intermission, so that will be the easier of the two. I can just relax after I deliver my final lines for the first act.

The commute was about an hour, with the highway. But it would be much longer if I took the highway during the weak I am sure, so I may opt for the already longer back ways, in hope of avoiding traffic next time. If my phones navigator can find that route. (I recently had to give back the borrowed GPS unit I was using.)

Last night's was the only rehearsal before Thanksgiving, the next being on Tuesday, December 1st. I think there will be 5 or 6 altogether, with 4 performances. A busy Early December for me. But November is not left out of this equation. Continue on to read, "2 Launches in 48 Hours, Part 2" to learn more.

Oops...

2009-11-17T11:41:00.003-05:00

Last night was the first read through of "It's a Wonderful Life."

I wasn't there.

I can't tell you how angry and embarrassing I found that to be, when the director sent me a Facebook message mentioning it. I couldn't understand it. I checked my email spam folders, my voice mail, Facebook itself, several times over. I connected with him later that night, and it was determined, (after many live tests) that there is a severe server problem between his email and my own.

Even when he tried his auxiliary email address, and sent it to my work email, I got his messages, but he got nothing in return.

So very frustrating. I will now be at a disadvantage, for I will be coming in late, and I missed the all important meeting of these new people I will be working with. Their first impressions of me are hopefully not too damaged by this.

There will be, (I managed to finally learn) the first rehearsal on Sunday coming up. There will probably be about 5 rehearsals before we actually do it. So that remains to be seen.

I am trying to see if I can get a copy of the script before Sunday, so I can know what parts I will be playing. Or in the very least, get to the WLT early enough on Sunday to acclimate myself to the full script.

This is a first for me, and I admit it has thrown me quite off my game today. I don't doubt I can catch up and perform just fine. But there is so little time together for the cast that I feel very upset that I missed one of the meetings.

All I can do now of course it to make the most of the time that reminds, and make extra sure I turn in my usual caliber of performance. I will do so.

"It's a Wonderful Life" Results.

2009-11-13T23:00:00.003-05:00

I made it in. But not as the lead. I am actually playing several of the smaller roles. More on that later.

If you read my two previous posts about auditioning for this show, (first night and second night), you know that I surmised I was being considered, along with one other guy, for the lead role of George. I also speculated that it was a zero sum game. George or nothing. Obviously in that regard I was wrong, so it's gratifying to know that I earned some kind of place in a 16 member cast, out of 70 or so who tried out.

Yet for tonight, I admit to some disappointment in not getting a large role. One is not supposed to say that, but at the moment I just want to own that feeling. If for no other reason than to get passed it faster.

The fact is that I hate to lose horse races, which this was. (The director even admitted as much in his phone call to me earlier this evening, so it is no longer speculation.) If it had been an even mix of roles that I read for, I'd feel differently. Or if the horse race were not so clear to start with. But in the theatre world, as well as in many other facets of my life, I tend to lose horse races. Almost every time. The longer I am in contention for something, especially a role, the least likely I am to be successful. Just an unfortunate and mysterious aspect to my endeavors thus far. If this were not so often true I don't think I'd mind getting so close with no cigar. I'll get passed it. But this is my blog of theatre adventures, you are my loyal blog readers, and I had to at least get that out, before moving on to the actual experience of the play.

Now for the guts of the matter.

The only roles I know for sure that I have are the role of George's father, (who is in one scene I believe) and the microscopic role of Welch...a guy in a bar who delivers two lines after punching George in the face. Interesting, those two roles were in fact two of the other roles I actually read for during auditions, all be they briefly. The director actually told me on the phone that I had convinced him I "was" Welch during the reading. I admit, I was sort of thrown into Welch at the last minute that night, and kind of put together something on the fly for him. Obviously, it worked somehow.

The director also mentioned that they were still working out "some other things" that I may be doing, but he wasn't sure yet. The logistics of 65 roles take some time to sort out, after all. But it's possible I would be reading 4 or 5 small roles, depending.

An associate of mine reminded me earlier this evening that it is the small character roles that are the most fun. Sometimes that is certainly true. Hopefully all of the aspects the are unique to this production will conspire to make a memorable experience for me in the ensemble.

The first meeting of the cast has yet to be determined, but probably Tuesday or Thursday of the coming week. I will of course keep you posted, as I embark on yet another of my theatrical adventures. I look forward to seeing who else got into this play. (Though I really didn't know many of the people that tried out.)

Opting Out 2

2009-11-13T11:23:00.002-05:00

In the interest of completeness, I want to mention that the final day of the acting class I signed up for is tonight. (As far as I know, unless it has been changed again.)

I will not be attending.

I mentioned that I skipped last week's class due to not having time to prepare for the short scene, and for various other reasons. In contemplated for a time going back tonight to cap things off, but decided that not only is my schedule for tonight problematic, it would also be a bit fruitless.

Given that I have not been involved in this second scene, and that the exercises and discussions are unlikley to vary much from the first round of scenes, I don't think there would be much reason to attend. Especially considering that the last time I attended, having completed my monologue for the second time, really and truly felt like a concluding point for the class for me in my heart. It was a high note, during which I learned some things, and felt satisfied with a few things I had previously been unsatisfied with. Even before the scheduling conflict, I think I knew deep down that when I left that night I probably wouldn't be coming back.

So what have I learned from this experience? on the acting side I did learn a few tips and tricks that I think I can put to use during some future rehearsal processes. I also learned to ask for a syllabus and schedule confirmation before committed the money and time to another such class in the future.

But that goes to the heart of another thing I learned. Perhaps the biggest thing; acting classes may not be the thing for me.

I say that not because I do not feel I have learned everything I need to learn. On the contrary. I have advised readers of this blog, and of my showbizradio.net column on more than one occasion that the actor's education is never over. I stand by that.

Yet being in this class did illuminate something that I have suspected. Classes with instructors tend to teach methods. One method often at the expense of the other. And while sometimes being trained in a specific method can be very helpful to the first time actor, (as several in this class were), I think for the seasoned actor, like myself, it is more often than not going to cause friction and stress. I tend to feel that I have paid my dues already in college by being educated through formal classes, and that now in my career it is time to educate myself through experience. Through experimentation. Taking risks. Reading and writing about the craft. In general opening myself up to all of the arts, and related experiences. By doing this I can come to the truth of what I wish to do, and ignore calls to follow specific laid out plans.

Each show, character and theatre is different, and they call for different approaches. At least they do for me. And while a class may in fact exist that is more about bringing out the individual actor than it is about coaxing conformity to one perspective or another, I am thinking that it is probably not worth the investment and risk to find out in the future. Not without meeting the instructor and talking to those who have taken the class before. That probably would have been a good idea this time, but I didn't do so, and that cannot be undone.

Barring the discovery of such an instructor, I think future acting related classes I take will be focused tightly on specific aspects. Stage combat for instance. Dialect classes. Singing. By improving specific aspects of my craft, I improve my whole approach by default.

So, my approach was confirmed in the breach of the class more so than in the practice of it. But I will not say the class was a waste. Though it was through the back door in some ways, being in the class did help me focus even greater attention on the things that work for me, and the things that do not. We are also improved by such knowledge. Though the class was not what I was expecting, I do not come away empty handed.

"It's a Wonderful Audition", Part 2

2009-11-10T11:26:00.002-05:00

More like an exhausting one.

Actually I don't know if exhausting is the real word for it. And even if it were, most of that would have to do with the long commute I take to get to Winchester. But near the end I certainly was a bit fatigued. I appreciate the committee being thorough, because that is better than casting out of hand without enough information. But spending two evening in a row, three hours at a time auditioning takes its toll.

Plus there were so many people to get through. More than the previous night, and as the director told us, between 65 and 70 people altogether! Given that he wants to keep the cast down to 16, that makes for a narrow window for me. (Being an out of town sort.)

Not that I can complain about my second night from a personal angle. I tripped up in one or two places, but otherwise did well. I once again did pretty much the very best I felt I was capable of doing with the readings I was asked to give.

Which is where some of my concerns come in. The readings I was asked to give.

Both nights, 90% of what I read was for George Bailey, which is of course the protagonist of the piece. I would be happy to be George, as I feel I have a lot to offer the role. Yet I didn't request him, nor did I refuse to take any other part. As I said before, I got there two nights in a row with no expectations in my head. No preferences. I just wanted to be involved.

But when it became clear that I was reading almost exclusively for George on the first night, and especially on the second, a few things started to enter my head. The first thing was that it was shaping up like a zero sum game for me. That the appearance was the committee was trying to decide if I should be George, or not be in the show. I have no proof of this, but it is a hunch I have, based on the fact that I was asked to read George more than anything else. By a long shot.

The second thing I am thinking right now, is that it is between me and one other person, for the role of George. For this other person, whom I know, was asked to read almost exclusively for George as well. This by itself doesn't bother me, but it does once again indicate to me that the committee was basically going back and forth between this other guy and myself in regards to casting George. I say this because he and I were almost the only ones to read for the part, and because neither of us read for anythign else. This reinforces my concern that I am not being considered for any other role.

One way I could look at it is that the committee must really be working extra hard to get me in the play SOMEHOW, and they are just determining where. That if I am not cast as the George character, after all that time spent evaluating me, that I will stand a good chance at being someone else in the play. Which would not be horrible.

Yet I would be more likely to think that way if I had read for dozens of roles. Obviously not all 65 roles could be read for, but if I had been reading for say, 5 different roles throughout the night, I could see perhaps the brighter view; that they wanted me in the show somehow, but didn't know where yet. But since I read almost exclusively for one part, my initial concern is that if they decide they don't ant me in that role, they don't have enough to determine that I would be good anywhere else. So I would not make the cut.

Again, this is all circumstantial evidence. If it even passes as that. But it is backed up with ten years of accumulated theatre audition instinct. I'd be happy to be wrong about it. I just feel that I am on target with it. At least to some degree.

I won't know of course until the end of the week. They expect to call people Friday or Saturday. So I suppose you will have to tune in then to find out what happens.

In the end, though, the audition process for this show was, to me, a better experience than the last time I auditioned for one of their shows. I am thankful for that at least.

"It's a Wonderful Audition" Part 1

2009-11-09T11:28:00.003-05:00

That may be over dramatizing it just a bit. But last night I did have a good audition for "It's a Wonderful Life", a radio play being produced by the Winchester Little Theater.

Some background.

Loyal blog readers will remember my limited yet, shall we say, diverse previous experiences at the WLT. (They can be read about here, here, and here.) Reading those entries one will see that I don't head up there very often due to the commute. But as I mentioned last week here on the blog, several things convinced me to try out for this WLT production. Namely the director, the Christmas theme, and the unique chance to appear on FM radio. So, I borrowed my sister's GPS, and off I went.

I have been to the WLT enough times now to know that their audition process is a bit different from other local theatres. Everyone is present in the house of the theatre during auditions, as opposed to calling in smaller groups or individuals. They also require a two to three hour time commitment. Most other auditions locally take about an hour or so for straight shows, depending on the turn out. But I don't mind this; it is a thorough process, and though like any it can be abused by unfair practices, I rather like to the time and consideration put into the audition process at the WLT. At least on the surface.

And unlike most other places, the rest of the people trying out for a role tend to applaud the efforts of those who have completed their readings. I don't see that very often. Maybe it's the intimate quasi-black box feel of the small theatre. Who knows?

As for the audition itself, the turnout for this first day of two was strong. I think about 25 people of various ages. I really have not developed a relationship with many Winchester regulars, but I did recognize several people from previous auditions, as well as photographs on the walls of the lobby. You get the sense of who usually shows up for these things.

Not that I was totally among strangers. I have worked with the director before when we were cast mates in Romeo and Juliet this summer. Plus another friend of mine with whom I have worked in two shows, and another that I have worked with once before, and seen at I believe each of my previous WLT auditions.

All and all I felt much more comfortable last night than I did during my previous audition experience at the place. (Again, read previous entries for that story.)

"It's a Wonderful Life" is presented as a radio play. To an extent a story within a story, for each person cast will be playing an old radio actor with their own identity, who in turn will play several parts within "It's a Wonderful Life". The overall effect is to give the feeling to the audience that they are in an old time radio station watching people perform. If I get cast in this production, it will be the second year in a row that I have been in a "story within a story" for the holidays. (Last year, I appeared in a version of "A Christmas Carol" which has a similar premise.) To make it even more unique, it is to be recorded all three nights. Then the best overall recording will be selected, and played on a local FM radio station as part of their Christmas Day programming. I think that is a very neat concept, and one reason I hope to get into this show.

There are 65 speaking parts of various sizes, so obviously not all parts got read for. When it is something this big, I tend to not request a specific role. Rather, I just point out my willingness to be cast in whatever role, if any, I could be of most use. That being said, I did volunteer once to read for "Clarence" the angel, (it follows the movie pretty closely.) Turns out he only had two lines in that scene, but who knew?

I spent most of my other readings as George Bailey. Actually most of the men read a lot from the George Bailey scenes. This isn't surprising though, given that it is the larger part, and there were in fact an unusually high number of men there for a community theatre audition.

In all honesty, I feel I did well with my readings. It is of course hard to judge ones self in such things, especially when you have never worked for a specific director before and don't know what exactly they are looking for. In those cases one can only hope to come away from the audition knowing that they did everything that they wanted to do with their readings. I am happy to report that I did so. I turned in what I feel were the best possible readings that I could given the various circumstances. And in fact i don't think I would have been much better even if I had reviewed the script. I am after all familiar enough with the movie to have a sense of the story. That helped, no doubt.

There were in fact many good readings, and by no means do I have a read on whether or not I will be cast. I can say that with 65 possible roles, I would think anybody's chances of getting in were greater, but I am not sure how many people the director intends to cast. Last year in seems there were 26 actors involved, though the director indicated he wanted the cast to be smaller this year. I can just hope for the best.

Which is why I think I will return for the second night of auditions tonight. The director emphasized that this was not required, but admitted that it would be "useful" in making the final decisions. Seeing more combinations of people, and more readings from the same people make the job of the casting committee easier. This is another unique facet of the WLT. Most theatres around here don't suggest you come back, and in one case at least, they request that you not return to audition again. The impression I get is that as often as not, WLT folk return for the second night. So despite the commute, I believe I will do so. Even if I don't have a specific role in mind, the more I read, and the more people I interact with, the better chance I have of showing what I could offer any of the roles. So it stands to reason that I make it the second night. I feel very confident it will not be for naught as it was the last time I showed up for the second night at the WLT.

So please stay tuned for part 2 of this audition story. I know how folks love a cliffhanger...

SUPPLEMENTAL:

As I wait for my dinner to cook before I head over to the WLT for the second night, I thought of something else that was very much a part of my conscious mind last night, but that I forgot to mention earlier when I first wrote this entry.

The movie "It's a Wonderful Life" is iconic. If that was not enough Jimmy Stewart himself was iconic, before and after that movie. The inherent risk of being in or trying out for a production that is based on pre-existing material, especially movies, is that the actor will ape the original performances. At least in subtle ways. Probably without even being aware that he is doing it. I faced a similar danger when I was in "The Lion in Winter" a few years back. (Talk about a movie packed with icons!) Yet even then it was not quite as problematic, because the movie was actually an adaptation of a play, not vice-versa. We still had to be careful not to ape the movie, but it was rather easy to keep it in mind, because of the nature of the play itself.

In this case, the movie IS the source material. A Jimmy Stewart movie. That millions adore. I would advise anyone that ever tries out for this thing to do as I did...to make a conscious decision to NOT be Jimmy Stewart. Not even a little bit. As in any other role, it must become your own, and you mustn't simply mimic someone else. This should be obvious, but like I said it is not always a conscious aping. It is so ingrained into our zeitgeist, that movie. (Probably why the radio play script is somewhat different from the movie.)

Stewart did not simply deliver the definitive performance of George Bailey. He CREATED it. He originated it. And because it is a film, that creation is eternal. Those of us trying out for, and possibly starring in this adaptation MUST aim square for the epicenter of the heart of the story. Not get distracted by what everyone knows of the movie.

I tried not to get distracted by the idea of AVOIDING it either, but if one were to err, I think in this case it's better to err on the side of avoidance than mimicry of the source material.

As with last night, I shall endeavor to remember this in my readings tonight.

Opting Out....

2009-11-05T16:58:00.003-05:00

Loyal blog readers...

Tonight was supposed to be the next night of my acting class. But for various reasons, some of which I will expound upon herein, I will not be attending.

The gist of all the reasons is this; I have not had the time to be as prepared as I expect myself to be for this scene.

My schedule has recently changed quite a bit, (now that we are passed the date wherein the class was originally scheduled to conclude.) It has not allowed for a lot of time to study my scene, let alone the entire play. And since Chekov's "Three Sisters" is in fact a very rich, deep, and multi-layered piece, anything less than full submergence into the text before attempting the first scene would be unsatisfactory to my standards. So after consulting with my scene partner, I decided it was best for me to not attend tonight's class.

My partner in fact would have been presenting two scenes tonight at any rate, given that she has not yet finished with her first scene. So perhaps it is a weight off of her own shoulders as well. Either way, I am thinking, indeed planning to try to attend the final class next week, to both glean what I can from the other scenes, and to close things off right. I cannot assure anyone that I can make it, but I have advised the instructor of my intentions.

I could have gone anyway, and half-assed it. but I do nothing half-assed when it comes to acting. Even if it is what people accept and expect. I have a higher standard for myself.

So, for the moment, that is that.

"A Robin Redbreast in a Cage, Puts All Heaven in a Rage."

2009-11-03T12:09:00.004-05:00

I don't really understand those who feel that actors have minimal or no investment to make into a piece. Don't laugh, this view is more common to theatre these days than you may think, in all levels of performing. The notion that all emotions, motivations, character traits, quirks, back story and creativity in presentation are none of the actor's affair. A notion that reduces fine acting into nothing more than projecting one's voice, and not tripping over anything on stage.

I try to preach against theatrical monotheism here on the blog. I avoid, when I can, the notion, that any given method is wrong. Getting to the truth of a character, remaining consistent throughout a performance, and doing so with passion and energy is my acting credo. Whatever a person needs to do in order to maintain that, without denying it to someone else, is generally fine by me.

Yet once in a while, I feel an almost visceral need to reject certain notions. One of them is in fact this idea of actor slavery to text, to directors, to the whims of stage managers, and basically, just about to anything but their own creativity. The "actors as living furniture" view of live theatre, which dictates that the true nature of the experience is exclusively the director's vision, (read as "dictates" to many), and the words of the playwright. I have always found this to be particularly offensive.

In too many places the actor is considered subservient to some other person or institution. Yet that is the nature of some media. Movies. Television. A certain degree of acceptance to the idea that actors are lower on the totem pole in those two industries is inevitable if one wishes to be part of them. It has been that way for decades. Yet part of the compensation for this acceptance was the idea that live theatre remained the actor's medium. Yet in far too many circles, (amateur was well as professional) an attempt has been made to shift the theatrical tide towards less actor oriented, and more director centered, spectacle driven productions. And I say, enough is enough.

Mechanical, uninspired, and lazy is the director who insists on one unchanging vision from first rehearsal to opening night. The same goes for the playwright that leaves no room for personal interpretation of his text. And even applies to those actors who feel that they can only perform when being placed like a pawn on a chess board. None of these types breathe much life into theatre.

The stage is an actor's medium, despite a trend away from that notion in recent years. Directors who want to be tyrants should get into film. That is where directors must be given the highest amount of freedom in the creative collaboration. Writers who want to be gods ought to enter television, where their talents and positions generally reign over that of others. The peculiarities of those industries require such hierarchy. But I stand vehemently opposed to the encroachment of these philosophies and practices into live theatre. As I said, it is the actor's medium, and those involved in it, directors, playwrights (and yes, actors) should learn to accept it if they wish to create the best possible result.

This means in fact that within the teamwork and collaborative efforts of a stage production, actors ought to be the one with the greatest amount of freedom. Unlike TV and the movies, the very specific draw of live theatre is exactly that. It is live. It is visceral. If we rushed the stage from the audience, we would encounter human beings of flesh and blood. That is live theatre, and it is what people pay for. It is what people as a whole fall in love with when they come to the theatre. Directors and playwrights, stage managers and set designers who think otherwise are quite simply unwilling to relinquish power and are afraid of not having 100% control over things. Equally unwilling are they to concede the notion that people do not generally go to the theatre to see "how something was directed". We have cinemas for that. People attend theatre to see how it is acted.

Naturally, directors and playwrights are not irrelevant. A script needs to work according to certain rules, and somebody must be directing traffic. So this is not an advocacy of eliminating the director, or of ignoring/changing a script in the middle of a performance. (You can face legal issues there.) It is rather, a call for those involved in all aspects of bringing a live theatre production to life to recognize the freedom that actors deserve. And a plea to not be afraid of same. Let us do our jobs, and the magic will happen. (If the right actors are selected, which is another actual job of the director.)

Actors, don't accept a shrinking influence in your own medium. You are not in a movie. You are not in television. You are in live theatre. Don't let anyone take that away from you. And if they would, go be in another show, with people who know their place and are willing to let you do your thing, and won't silence you and your need to connect with what you are doing. Don't accept limitations on your creative power in order to maintain the false and insecure notion that any one person in theatre is sacrosanct. Truth and passions are the sacred things of theatre. The rest will follow if you possess them. If you do not, it's a crap shoot at the best.

There are directors out there who understand this. Find them, and be in every show you can with them. You will better for it, and so will theatre itself.

The Approaching Holidays

2009-10-30T11:53:00.002-04:00

I have some theatre plans, and things to ponder as well, for the upcoming Christmas Season.

To begin with, I have committed to a reading of "A Christmas Carol" at the Full Circle Theater Company. By reading of course I mean it will be more like a recital. It will be for the audience as though a story or book where being read to them, except with several people reading different parts. In fact, the script that will be used for this two weekend Christmas event is the adaptation that Charles Dickens himself drew up based on his novel.

In the wake of A Christmas Carol's wild popularity, Dickens was often called upon to read the piece to large gatherings, in both Europe and North America. To make the piece more palatable, (not to mention the evening shorter), Dickens adapted his novel to script form. It is obviously abridged, but nonetheless take about an hour to perform. At least there can be little argument that the author would be pleased with the adaptation!

I participated in a reading of this very script, under the very same director, 6 years ago, as part of a Christmas celebration. That was a one night only affair, while this will be two weekends, and will include music and other festivities. I look forward to it, despite it being a reading. This tale is this tale, and few things bring the holidays more into focus than taking part in any telling of this story. (Those who follow the blog know that just last year, I was in a full fledged production of A Christmas Carol, which was Full Circle's inaugural production in their new building.)

Yet there is more to my holiday oriented staged reading plans. Perhaps.

The Winchester Little Theater, for whom last year I appeared in a staged reading, will be holding auditions for a live radio play version of "It's a Wonderful Life."

Every year this theater puts on this Christmas reading. It is a reading, like others I have described, but with something extra. It is staged like the old classic radio plays from the golden age of radio. Complete with a sound effects guy on stage. Last year, they managed to get the thing broadcast live on real local radio, and this year will be doing so again. I am giving very serious consideration to auditioning for this experience.

I like most aspects of the Winchester Little Theater, despite being treated poorly there, one time. Yet the drive for me is an hour an ten minutes, and it is not a pleasant drive for me. After my last experience, I decided that I wouldn't make Winchester a very regular destination, but would consider it again if something about a production really spoke to me. I am a fan of the venue itself, and have been hoping for a chance to perform there again someday.

That is the case with this. I am not a huge fan of "It's a Wonderful Life", (sacrilege to some of you, I know.) But I do know the director, and am intrigued by the possibility of performing live on radio. (I have been a radio personality before and loved it.) Plus it is a reading, so fewer rehearsals are required, and hence less travel. So I do believe this would be a good time to give the WLT another chance.

If I do try out, and get in, it will go on one week after the Christmas Carol reading finishes. It would also mean that I would have to schedule rehearsals for one around the other. Normally I would not do this, but given that both are readings, I feel comfortable with the possibility. And taking part in not one, but two well known Christmas tales would make for a very festive Christmas season for me. The holidays aren't worth much if one is not around people, after all.

Keep checking back to see what I decide to do about the WLT. But at this point, believe me, I am leaning heavily towards going for it.

A Brief Voice Over Foray

2009-10-30T11:30:00.002-04:00

This is predominantly a stage oriented blog. It's true purpose though is to discuss my acting adventures, and sometimes those do not fall into the standard theatre dynamic. Yesterday I finished up once such example. I would have mentioned it here on the blog sooner, but the whole thing absorbed so little of my time, I thought it would be best to post one single entry about it.

I peruse Craigslist quite a bit. For jobs, and once in a while when I am looking to buy something on the cheap. If you are familiar with the site, you know that there are sections dedicated to "creative" and "talent". It was in one of those two sections, a few months ago, that I found an ad seeking voice over actors.

It was obvious that they were not able to pay big time Union compensation, but not being in a performance union this didn't bother me.. They sought someone to create a spoken word file for a podcast tour of Manhattan they were creating. I was interested, and contacted them. I wasn't needed at the time, and I forgot all about it.

Then about a week ago, this party contacted me, explaining that their initial talent had dropped out of the project. They wanted me after all. I agreed and the script was sent over to me, via e-mail.

It was only about 90 seconds long. A New York man from the late 19th century describing his experiences on the commuter train. Very simple, but a lot of fun. To come up with a usable character, voice, cadence, all based on a small bit of copy, and the little time I had to work with.

I asked the director if he wanted a standard thick New York accent, or no. He told me that the advantage we had was that nobody is sure when the standard New York accent that we know today came into being. It may have been present in the 1880's, but is more likely it was not. So he told me to go with something that suggested it, but not "Archie Bunker".

I had not attempted a New York accent of any class since college. And even then, I didn't end up using it much. So I read the piece out loud to myself over and over for about an hour. And to my surprise, a New York accent formed, almost naturally. One or two words like "Fourth" and "New York" itself served as anchors, as anybody knows how most New Yorkers would say such things. But those words led to an understanding of other words. And each time I would read the piece, I felt more and more familiar with the accent, even though I am no expert on that particular dialect. Yet the all the memories of the movies, shows, and people I have listened to over the years that had such an accent began to coalesce in my performance the more I read the piece out loud to myself. It was quite satisfying, and rather intriguing, to just suddenly know instinctively how a New Yorker would pronounce certain things. What cadences suddenly made sense with the sentences.

Don't get me wrong. A linguist expert, or a native New Yorker would probably be able to tell right away I was an actor. Yet I wasn't trying to faithfully replicate exactly what New York accents are today. I was trying to create a reasonable theatrical suggestion of a New Yorker, and i think I achieved that. More so than I thought I would when I started.

As mentioned, I was aided further by the mists of time which makes modern people unclear as to what exactly New Yorkers of the time period would have sounded like. The result? A passable New York accent that hopefully will entertain unknown people in the future.

The director said he was pleased with the accent I came up with. Called it a "sort of Upper crusty" New Yorker. He would know more than I. I only care that he was pleased with the work that I did. I know that I am.

The whole thing was learning experience for me, and not just in regards to accents, and how to perfect a voice over reading. I learned more about my own potential as an actor. Paying strict attention to the words, syntax, and accents of all kinds of people, especially performers, is something I have always done. Experiences like this prove that it works, and is worth it. I can always learn more, and professional training in certain accents is still something I would love to take part in. But today, my keen attention to linguistic detail shines through, and I am pleased with my efforts.

The New Look!

2009-10-29T12:40:00.003-04:00

Well, Loyal blog readers, I have done something very small and insignificant to most people, but actually rather large for me; I have trusted in the blogger system enough to upgrade my template! Behold the new Always Off Book!

I realize that those of you who know code would say there is not much of a template. Boring. No new ground being broken. Cooky cutter. But you know what? I don't care, because I am very happy not only with the new look, but also with the new functionality. I am going to be able to post pictures and video, and rearrange things much easier, (and with much more confidence) during future renovations.

Expect some smaller cosmetic changes here and there in the near future, as I play around with the template a bit to see what suits me the best. But overall, a friendly, more concise archive, customizable fonts, (which I used to have but recently lost in the old matrix), picture and video posting, and a more minimalist color scheme all are conspiring to make me a very happy blogger.

I still can't change the font size, for some reason. In my test blog I had that option on the tool bar above each post. Here I do not. But I suppose it is a small price to pay, given everything else that I have available to me.

What do you think, blog readers? Feel free to leave (nice comments). And of course check back regularly as usual, as the content itself remains as it always was...an amateur actor sharing his not so amateur thoughts on the world of acting.

Techie Explorations

2009-10-27T13:01:00.002-04:00

And no, I don't mean back stage people in black that get in your way while you try to perform. (Harmless jab, guys, don't flip out if you are on the techie side of all things theatrical.)

I am however referring to techie issues with the blog itself. As I mentioned on the blogs 4th birthday a few weeks ago, I would be slowly but surely initiated changes to the lay out and over all look of Always Off Book. It is time, and it has become, in some way, unruly for new people to navigate. (See the Archives.) Yet I fear the untimely destruction of this, my online pride and joy, that screwing around with code could cause. (I have no grasp of the concept, despite trying a few times.) I remember how dry my mouth got just cutting and pasting code when this blog was new. Simply adding dates and a links section, (as you see on the left of the home page as of now) had my scared out of my mind I was going to wreck everything.

That fear has not gone away. Nor has an understanding of code evolved within me. However, (and somehow I missed this) Blogger does offer an updated account, still for free, which allows people to make changes with a point and click interface that formerly required knowledge of code. This is very good news for me, and my desire to update the look and feel of the blog, (without altering the content.) It is in fact out of fear of losing any or all of my content, built up over 4 painstaking years of writing and acting, that made me decide to open up an anonymous new blog, under the new format/rules of Blogger, to see how easy it is to navigate, and more importantly, how difficult it is to screw everything up. If, as I play with it, I am satisfied that I can rebuilt Always Off Book with the new format, I will bite the bullet, and hit the "upgrade" button on my account...hopefully leaving room for all sorts of oohing and ahhing later next month.

But until then, I dare not experiment on the offspring. So I will keep testing it, and until I feel my feet are on the ground with it, I will keep the format here just as it is.

(Anyone who happens to come across my new anonymous and totally utilitarian blog which I created today just to test all the new features, and KNOWS they have found me, gets a free t-shirt. But no hints!)

Acting Workshop Day "6"

2009-10-23T16:18:00.002-04:00

Ok, for the purposes of clarity, we are going to call last night, day 6. And I am pretty sure according to most definitions that is what it was, though believe it or not there are multiple definitions.

Last night I delivered the monologue again. I incorporated some of the suggestions made during the previous class. I felt more at ease, because I knew more of what to expect.

Ironically, most of what I prepared for did not occur.

There were more people present this time then had been in weeks, so the group I spoke to was larger. Also, no specific instruction had been given as to how they should react. So I did my best to read the reactions on the faces of those watching me. My perception was that they were not playing characters that were as angry this time. I did sense some of them not turning, but as a whole, everyone seemed to be more open to what my character was saying, from an earlier moment in the speech, than they were on Tuesday night. (Either that, or I didn't do as good a job reading them.)

I opted to start off serious, and then soften things up by making the reading more humorous, and light. This is a combination between how I had originally prepared it on Tuesday, and they alternate way I performed it on Tuesday as a part of an excercise at the end of Tuesday. Though I never did feel totally off book for the piece, I felt much more at ease giving it this time. Part of it was because it was because I had done it several times. Part of it was because I was prepared for what (I thought) would be coming after). Either way it went very smoothly.

I was given the chance to go again if I wanted, but I didn't feel the need. I didn;t think I could improve upon it, given the mission of the assignment at that time.

I thought I would be in for another round of interview questions. But instead, he made some brief comments to the group, and asked how I made them feel as members of "the congregation". One said she felt I was being "holier than thou". (That coming from her character.) I didn't sense that when I was looking at her as I gave the speech, or else I would have changed my tactic.

And that, in the end, was the purpose of this assignment. The idea of having an objective for a scene or a moment, and doing things to attain it. To be open to the stimuli from other actors, (or in my case, the audience), and to change one's tactics to counter anything that may be an obstacle.

One thing the instructor did mention, that I may have missed before, but was glad to hear him say that night, was that objectives are far an actor, but that the character may not always be aware of the actor's objective. This was a small moment of clarity for me, because it matches more what I do when I am on stage, than what I thought he had been insisting upon before. Whereas before I thought he suggested our character know every moment what their objective is, and reflect it in every action, last night he made the distinction between the actor knowing the objective and the character knowing. I still do not 100% agree with the micro-motivations and constant objectives that the instructor advocates, but I think they fit in more with my style of acting now that the distinction has been made between actor and character. (Or, as I said, perhaps it was made before, and I missed it.)

Then I was done. I was a little surprised at how little I had to do, but he thought it was a good presentation, and there were no more question from anyone. I realized later that we were nearing the end of the class period, and that my scene maybe had been less discussed because of that. I wasn't offended by it, and I am sure that had I been struggling, the time would have been taken to help right me. But I felt, good, the instructor felt good, and the lion's share of deep discussion had already taken place on Tuesday.

I will say that my objective the second time was still the same as it was on Tuesday. Some may have changed it, and given enough time maybe I would have come to change it as well. But in the time allotted for the assignment, I still felt a strong pull towards the objective of Father Flynn trying to be closer to God in everything he did. That was, in the instructor's words, my "hot choice."

As for future meetings, there will be one on the 5th of November. (The Gunpowder Treason and Plot!) That is when my new scene partner, a friend of mine, and myself will do our first presentation of our scene from Chekov's Three Sisters. That same day, the rest of the class who has not yet gone a second time for the scenes from Doubt will do so then. So I have two weeks to get a new scene up and running with a partner. But it is a very short scene, and I know the woman well. I feel all will be well with that. Keep checking back, of course, to be sure.

The whole class, near the end, seems to have finally hit on an agreeable stability, in both scheduling and objective. This pleases me.

Acting Workshop Day...Who Knows?

2009-10-22T14:08:00.002-04:00

I am a writer, obviously, and while I enjoy doing it most of the time, once in a while things are so convoluted and complicated that expressing them in the written word becomes somewhat tedious, if not impossible. The nature of the acting class as it stands now may be one of those things. I will try to explain things, and see how it goes.

To begin with, I want to say that each of the last three meetings have consisted of at least 30 minute sessions of trying to rework the schedule to everyone's satisfaction. There have been about 8 different schedules for the future of the class, and there have been 4 in the last 5 days. Tonight we must once again meet to discuss what the future of the class will be. One major problem is that there is a stretch, passed the original ending date of the class, during which almost nobody is available. In an effort to make sure we have all 8 classes, (and a 9th bonus class in order to "make up for all the confusion"), many attempts have been made to secure proper days and times. Most recently, this included extended this class, which started September, into mid December. To put is mildly, this did not work for me, nor does it work for a few other people. So the nightmare continues, and I am not sure it can be worked out to everyone's satisfaction. I would not burden readers with talk of schedules under normal circumstances, but in this case, it is so inextricably linked with the success and feel of the class that I included this brief synopsis of the problem.

As for my actual presentation of my monologue on Tuesday, (which I will be performing again tonight, since all scenes go twice), things get complicated as well.

Ideally I would describe here the nature of the character, what I was trying to do, and what I was instructed to do, etc. But as I look back over the entries covering this class, I realize that I have not really provided a great deal of detail about the nature of my performance, because I myself have spend so little time being sure of it myself. And I do not mean how I will do it, but WHAT I would be doing. Between unruly ex-scene partners, canceled classes, other obligations, and a plethora of circumstances out of my control, I have not had much time to truly delve as deeply in as I would for a production. So I don't know if it makes sense now to try to catch all of you up, loyal blog readers, with the intricacies of the character. (Which I kept broader than usual anyway, in order to prepare for the inevitable evisceration that would receive in class.)

But I must try to describe the nature of my first real performance in the class (!) in some way. So allow me to say that I approached the monologue in a certain way. Not with the assumption that it HAD to be that way, nor with the idea that they were anything more than broad strokes. Strokes on which I would have honed in more if I were actually in a production. But one thing I didn't understand was that my fellow classmates would be pretending to be characters observing me when I gave this monologue.

This was not clear until I was actually finished my first presentation of the speech. (A sermon being given.) At no other time in the class have those of us watching been instructed to be characters that interacted with the people performing. And though I knew my situation was unique, (having no partner) I misunderstood the nature of what I was to be doing. Had I known that the rest of the class would be silently portraying other characters within the play as I spoke, I perhaps would have been more prepared for this.

And yet, I do not think I would have presented the speech much differently, even if I had known this. I just would have liked to be aware of the dynamic. I still think my interpretation of the speech, given the character and the plot of the play, was a fair one. Buy my giving of the speech became an exercise in responding to an audience, and knowing how to give and take from them, and I was not prepared for that to be the focus of what I was doing that night.

You see, I am very much in tuned to and aware of the synergy between an audience and a performer. (See this article I wrote for showbizradio.net recently.) And I am also aware that one must be ready to give and receive from other actors while on stage. But there is a distinction between the two. One generally knows who is the audience, and who is the cast mate. Yet in this case, my "audience" consisted of castmates, playing roles themselves. I took the script literally, and performed my piece as though I were speaking to the house of a theatre filled with paying customers.

What is the difference? A very significant one. At least from my perception. When addressing an audience, I am more free to interpret a speech, and present it, in the way that makes sense to me. I feel the audience should be moved by what I say, and if not I can adjust what I am doing. Adjust to cause "something". But that something is not always in my control, because the audience is not "in" the play.

Yet if I am to give a speech in character, to other people also in character, than the nature of the speech takes on a different sort of power. It may or may not be different in it's interpretation, but it will certainly be different it the subtleties of it's execution. Because when addressing other characters within the story, I have to take their story into account, whereas when address just the audience, I need only take myself, and my view of my own character into account. (At least in my school of acting that is true.)

In short, when I act, my character has specific agendas when dealing with other characters portrayed by other actors. But when it comes to the audience, my agenda is more broad. I want them to be sad, to laugh, to be uncomfortable, to applaud. The line is fine, but it is distinctive, and in class last time, that line was erased. Partly because of the nature of the instruction and how it differs from my views, and part because I misunderstood what my mission for the evening was.

This is cerebral stuff, I know. And I am paring it down without specific examples from my experience in class in order to make it as general an observation as possible. Yet despite my confusion as to my mission, and my disapproval of some of the the instructions I was given later in the class, (which I will get to), it makes for an important conversation, with myself, and with any of you. I hope that I have made the distinction clear to you. Even if you do not share it, understanding what I am saying will give you great insight into the way I approach the craft.

Now, to be a tad more specific.

Setting aside the idea that I gave the speech with the impression I was talking to an "objective" audience, I also assumed certain things about the circumstances of within the play. At this stage, (SPOILER ALERT IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN DOUBT ) Sister Aloysius have suggested that Father Flynn has done inappropriate things with a student. My speech is the Father's first sermon after her insinuations. I was approaching the speech from the perspective that the whole church was unaware of the allegations. But eventually I was told, as an exercise, to give the speech with the assumption that everyone I was talking to was not only aware of the allegations, but believed them. Obviously this required a drastic shift in the way I would present the monologue.

This threw me off a bit, and made me somewhat uncomfortable, at least at first. Not because of the interpretation, but because it was not what I had prepared myself for. If you read this blog you know that in a show I believe one must always be prepared for just about anything, so at first blush it would seem that this is hypocrisy on my part. But least in a show, there are norms that are established, and interpretations that are worked out and tried over time, so that by opening night, there is at least a working consistency within the play and the performances. It is that solid base that allows one to be prepared for unexpected shifts.

Yet with the class, it was an extreme shift not just of an expected circumstance as a performer, but a total 180 in regards to interpretation of the scene. Had this been a real scene, I would have known by then if my fellow actors were going to portray angry people, passive, people, or what have you. That night, it was all an arbitrary sort of decision.

Granted it was an exercise, and he said so. And for my part, I did it well. Not as well as I could have done it had I had some more concrete time with the character, but I did meet with success by and large. But I felt it was a long way to go to simply make a point that is honestly already clear to me. And what is that point?

That performing a role is a fluid activity which can and should be influenced, if only in subtle ways, by the actions of cast mates, the reaction of the audience, and changes that we cannot always anticipate. And that to optimize our ability to do this, we must remain open, flexible, and sensitive to the psychic and emotional energies that surround us when we perform. We must make sure we deliver those things to others, and make sure we are getting them from others ourselves.

Valid? Again, if you have read my blog over the years, you know that I fundamentally agree with this notion at the heart of acting. It is not that I find it to be an unworthy destination. (Though the degrees to which it is adopted is going to differ depending on the actor and the production. There is no one set degree at which this must work.) But as I have mentioned several times during this acting class experience, I just don't think I need to jump through the specific hoops of this class in order to understand that truth. As a result, I think sometimes I am trying to crack a specific secret code to these exercises. To try to master a secret riddle or game that once understood will allow me to complete this class successfully. But the problem is, there is no secret code. There is no great mystery that I need to be solving. I have simply found myself in an uncomfortable car, filled with strangers, traveling down a road that is bumpy, on my way to someplace I am already familiar with. I am not above learning new things. I just don't always like re-learning old things. I think that may be what this class has been in many ways to me.

I could go more into detail about the specifics of my monologue, but I won't. I could also go into the nature of the half hour hostile interview I had to go through in character, (which everyone in the class must face.) But I don't think I will get into that either. I seem to have interpreted the character, and answered the question in such a way that I am not, to the instructors satisfaction, coming to the conclusions that he thinks would be best for me to come to. I think one of the problems may be that I refuse to accept any other interpretation of the characters I play. Perhaps I don't. But that is not a rejection of someone else's interpretation. That is a rejection of the notion that it is MY interpretation. Sometimes I come at characters from a very different, unexpected angle, and more than once in my career that has confused and frustrated people, especially directors.

Yet I don't do it to be contrary. I do it to be true to an interpretation that speaks to me, obscure and off the wall as it may be. I do it because I feel it is my job, and I feel I am good at my job. (Though always hoping to improve.) I think that is what my class mates and the instructor want as well. I just think, once again, we may be dealing with square pegs.

But then again, sometimes one learns just as much from something that doesn't work, as they do from something that does. By that metric, I think, in the end, I will get something memorable out of this class.

Tonight I run my monologue again. I will be going over it shortly. More on that, of course, can be found here on the blog either tonight, or tomorrow.

Prep for Tomorrow

2009-10-20T00:23:00.003-04:00

Today I spent a great deal of time working on my monologue for the next meeting of the acting class. I feel prepared as much as I can be, given the short time, and the nature of the class.

I do feel off book for the speech, though given that I only just got off book today, I worry a little bit about being totally off book tomorrow. Though being off book so quickly is not the main concern for me right now. Most of my concerns involve the format of the class, and how my presentation will fit into same. (I have discussed those issues in the last several entries of the blog.) I have no reason to believe that it will be a disaster, I just happen to know that I sometimes am less productive when I am not permitted to go straight through something.

Yet the very fact that I have seen how it works in the class has fortified me against being taken off guard by the proceedings. I know what to expect by and large, and I prepared my monologue accordingly. Though not totally different from how I would otherwise prepare a piece, I have to say there were some significant mental differences in place as I went over it today. (And when I do so again tomorrow before class.)

Most of the difference has come in regards to depth. I have not really allowed myself to tailor my performance to the impressions of the character, and the moment, that I have in my head at this time, having read the play and the speech several times. Normally I am planting that mental seed within my mind right away, and everything I do from there on out springs forth from it. An inside-out approach. This class, it seems pretty clear to me, is based mostly on an outside-in approach, which is not my preference, as any loyal blog readers will know by now. But such is the task at hand, and I am not going to surrender in the face of the challenge.

As for more practical class issues, it looks like the Saturday meeting will not be taking place, so a make-up day, as of now, is still up in the air.

Acting Workshop Day 4...and Not.

2009-10-18T12:34:00.002-04:00

I never expected my updates on my acting class to end up being so complicated, because I never expected the class itself to be so. However...

The class is somewhat up in the air about a few things. And in fact until Friday night, the it's very continued existence was questionable. Again, I don't want this blog to be about anything but acting and my thoughts thereof when I can help it, but so much has gone on with this acting class that I feel a brief overview is due.

We were scheduled to have class this passed Thursday as well as Friday. On Thursday I arrived to be told that the instructor was stuck in very heavy traffic over an hour away. It could be quite late before he showed up.

Those of us in the class then began a discussion as to what to do. It seemed a universal sentiment of those present that the schedule and timing of the class had thus far been a total disaster. Some even spoke of asking for refunds do to the perceived lack or organization on the part of several parties.

The confusion continued in that not everyone knew we were also supposed to meet the following day. This turned out to be odd, however, because this day was agreed to weeks before, despite the fact that meeting in the theatre was impossible on that day; the theatre's next play would be opening that night. So there was confusion and irritation about the fact that this was not known. The discussion moved to how and when to next meet, and how to possibly make up for the lost evening (which Thursday was turning out to be, most doubting the teacher would arrive in time to do anything.)

After much discussion, someone's private home was secured for the next evening's session.

As for Thursday, there was little that could be done. Some wanted us to work on our scenes alone, but two of the actors opted to not come to class that night, which left their scene partners unable to present their scene, even informally. One member of the class was not in a scene, and I had just started work on my monologue that day. (More on that later.)

One of the actresses who had no scene partner read the missing parts for the one group's scene, while the other scene practiced on their own. (All this while the final dress rehearsal for the theatre's next show was taking place in the next room.)

I, along with 2 others, left early. There seemed to be little reason for me to remain there. I could have offered opinions and advice on the other scenes that were being independently practiced, I suppose, but given that I have so little grasp on the way the teacher thinks acting ought to be, I didn't think my advice or observations would contribute anything. So I abandoned the "class" and went home.

The next day, this last Friday, I had my doubts as to weather I was going to make it to class, for various reasons. I wasn't even sure if we were having the class on Friday or not, as an email had not yet been sent out to confirm same. An email did come around 1PM, just after an email from one of my classmates expressing a great deal of disappointment and frustration about the organization of the class. It was not a vicious email, and in my view many of the frustrations were understandable. (This is where to continuance of the class was called into question.)

But we all met at the agreed to private home, the teacher somehow managing to not get stuck in rush hour Friday traffic. (Miracle.) Five of the ten students in the class opted to not attend this session for various reasons. (Including some who had missed the previous night as well.)

A discussion ensured as to the future of the class. I kept a low profile for this chat. I didn't think i had anything different to offer than what had already been offered, and I was prepared to go with whatever the consensus turned out to be.

What happened was that in order to make up for Thursday, (and possibly add a bonus day in order to repay everyone for their patience) THREE sessions were scheduled for next week. One on Tuesday, one on Thursday and one (Tentatively) on Saturday. During this time our new scene assignments for our second scene will be given out.

Everybody following me so far? No? Don't feel bad, I am barely keeping up with it myself.

It all comes down to several examples of poor communication and organization on the part of multiple parties, I dare say. I don't really have much more to say about those aspects than that.

So, what about the actual acting involved in this whirligig? It follows below...

*******

As far as the acting aspects of the class, I continue to struggle with some aspects of the curriculum. For those not presenting a scene, the sessions consist mostly of watching the small fragments of scenes that the performing group gets through, before the instructor stops them and engages in what he calls "interviews". I mentioned these in previous entries. This is where the instructor addresses the actor, in character, and asks them numerous stream of consciousness questions. One question ;leading to another, with no option for the actor to take a step away and look at the material or the performance objectively.

Indeed, at one point, when an actress referred to something in her script she had not followed, the instructor replied with things like "what is this script you are speaking of? I see you talking to the couch as though there were people sitting on it...(which I happened to be at that moment.) Sometimes these question sessions to one individual character can go on for 30 minutes at a clip. All I can do is watch it happen. I cannot engage in the process.

Then the scene will continue, only to be stopped a few moments later with either some more interviewing, or some instruction as to specific moments. (The "Good or Bad" exercise, which I also mentioned before. Here.)

All told it was several hours of this. (We took a small break at the halfway mark during which the instructor talked to each of us about the progress in our own scenes.) I cannot stress enough that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with any of this. But I must stress with equal zeal that 85% of the time I get little out of proceeding in this fashion. In fact, to some cast mates I have come to be known as someone who is "learning nothing" from the class. I do not think that is entirely true, as I have picked up on some overall broad concepts that I like. But it is the execution of those concepts, and the straitjacket that is put upon me by the format of the class which bothers me. It prevents me from exploring any of those previously mentioned agreeable concepts. I don't feel I have enough freedom to explore what I am doing. I feel distracted by technique at the expense of developing character, and that is worrisome to me.

I don't think it would be of much use to talk more in depth about the specific things that were said during these sessions. It was, after all, in most ways not my session. It was the session of my fellow students who were doing there scene. And while there were theatrical concepts that were discussed during the time that would provide interesting and relevant material here, I think I will hold off until after I have presented my own scene. All of those concepts and questions and methods will be present for when I run the gauntlet myself. I will get into more of that when the time comes.

I can say that after watching a few of these sessions with my fellow students, I have a better idea of what to expect from my own. I am comforted by that. I am at least learning the nature of it.

As to my actual presentation, I have chosen not to go with the first monologue of the play, but with one of the later ones, wherein Father Flynn is delivering a sermon on gossip. I think it is more charged, and I can do more with it. I don't know how useful it will be to invest in one particular interpretation right now, as I know I will not in all likelihood be able to present the sermons in one single presentation. But I am going to try to etch out some general directions for Tuesday. (When in theory I am supposed to be able to deliver this.)

The final thing that happened during class in Friday was the assignment of our second scene. (Which seems very odd to me, as I never really actually ever worked on a first scene, given the split with my ex-scene partner, and the short time I have for this monologue.) But the good news is he allowed us to choose partners this time, and I chose to work with a theatre friend of mine that I have known for several years and am very comfortable with. I would have been alright with a new person, but given the choice I certainly prefer to work with people I know. So, it would appear, does my friend. So that is a go. We do not have the scene yet, but it looks like it will be from Chekov's Three Sisters.

So at long last that is the overdue and long update on the acting class. What an experience it has been so far.

State of Class

2009-10-13T20:38:00.004-04:00

I have not forgotten to write, blog readers. The class has been on hiatus for over a week. We will get back to it on Thursday. And when we do so, there will be a significant difference.

I will not be doing a scene with my now ex-scene partner.

I don't wish to dwell on personal issues here. It is not professional. Yet given that the turn of events is relevant to a subject of this blog, I mention at least the broad strokes here.

You may recall that I had expressed some concerns over the fact that I had not yet heard anything from my ex-partner in regards to rehearsing. Those concerns mounted, and when they were brought to said ex-partner's attention, much rudeness and name calling occurred. From that moment it became clear that myself and this individual could not possibly work together in any civilized manner. So, upon informing the leader of the class of this fact, I was told I could, instead of doing a scene, perform one of the monologues from the play that the Flynn character gives. (The play being, for those who you just tuning in, Doubt.). I accepted this fair offer, and though I have little time, I will be reviewing one of the monologues over the coming two days until class, making use of the exercises, as best I can, adapted to a single person.

I don't quit often, loyal blog readers. I am not especially proud of having to do so now. And indeed, I am very relieved I shall not have to leave the entire class. But so offensive was the way I was treated, and in such a one sided personal manner, that I would have had no choice but to do so had I been forced to continue working with the person in question. Thankfully, I have been given the chance to avoid that contingency. I still regret having to quit the scene itself, but given that I have the option to continue with the class, and that I have now given an explanation as to how/why my assignment has changed, I will dwell no more on this unpleasant personal incident.

So now, I must choose which of several sermons, (they are literally sermons, as Flynn is a priest) to use for my first assignment. One takes place before the unfolding action of the play. In fact, it opens the play. I think I find this moment most intriguing, and I will probably go with that piece. It will be a more pure examination of the character, because the status quo is still in tact.

So, more on that decision, and my process as the days/weeks go on. In a way I welcome this sudden change. Adapting the group exercises to a solo presentation will present a unique challenge.

Always Off Book Turns 4!

2009-10-07T18:36:00.002-04:00

That's right loyal blog readers. Four years ago this very evening I started this, my much beloved theatre/acting blog. It all started with this entry.

For those who have been reading since the beginning, I thank you for staying with me. It has changed a bit here and there over the years, but remains important to me, and hopefully entertaining and informative to all of you. Much thanks.

As of now, there have been 403 posts. A few hundreds comments here and there. And by far the most popular entry, in terms of comments received is one of my first ever from four years ago...A Kiss is Still a Kiss. People still leave comments on that one. How proud I am of that. Only a handful of audio posts, which I really enjoyed, but which Blogger discontinued. I have been looking for a workable substitute ever since.

Since the blog started I have been in ten productions. (Counting staged dramatic readings.) I was in Miracle on 34th Street when I launched it, and was only this summer in Romeo and Juliet. Depending on how you choose to define ensemble work, I have portrayed 15 different characters of various sizes in that time. Performed for four different companies under six different directors in six different venues during that time. I auditioned for four shows that I did not get into. (In one incident, I was initially denied a part, but offered one as a replacement for someone who had quit. I did not take it.) I went to one audition, but had to pull out before hearing anything due to a sudden scheduling change. I quit one show after a single rehearsal that I should not have agreed to be in in the first place. (I accepted the role out of peer pressure. Rare for me.) Quick estimates based on venue and averages tells me that I have performed for about 3,000 audience members in that span of time. I won't even begin to guess how many lines. The biggest role was probably Geoff from the Lion in Winter, though as I said I have not counted lines.

I wore the exact same pair of black Oxfords in EVERY single one of those productions.

Probably some other fun facts in there somewhere that I left out. If you are curious about some other trivia pertaining to my acting since the start of this blog go ahead and ask me. I will try to figure it out.

I am also looking into a few style changes here at the blog. Different colors, and a few other things. But that will take me a while, so don't hold you breath just yet. But I am hoping to make it more efficient, and possibly more eye-catching.

So much has changed in my life over that time, and so much has changed in theatre, both locally, and within my heart. But some things never change, my friends, and I want to end this anniversary post with a theatre quotation that I first encountered 6 years ago, and one that I have posted here on the blog before, in the first few weeks of its existence. Like no other quotation that I have yet come across, this one expresses my unchanged deeper sentiments about acting for the stage. Read it below. And thanks for all the readership! Here's to more years of Always Off Book.

And now the timeless quotation I mentioned.

"There is no one kind of theatre, and no one solution to all its problems. That platitude needs to be repeated. The theatre exists by compromise and feeds on contradiction. It exists to explain life and to deny it, to decorate it and to strip it bare. Man goes to the play to understand himself, God, or his neighbors, but he also goes to pass the time. He goes for uplift and amusement, a bit of fun and a moment of catharsis. The theatre is a weapon, a magic, a science; a sedative, an aphrodisiac, a communion service; a holiday and an assize, a dress rehearsal of the here and now and a dream in action. It taxes all senses, holds all worlds in one. It is the most conservative and the most ephemeral, the most opaque and the most transparent, the strongest and the weakest of arts. It is everything and nothing, all or none of these things. The theatre is what you make it..." --Richard Findlater

Acting Workshop Day 3

2009-09-29T01:21:00.003-04:00

Where to begin, loyal blog readers, where to begin?

I think the fairest place to begin is to reiterate a sentiment I have expressed previously in regards to this class; there is nothing intrinsically wrong about what we do, and I am certain it helps a great many people that are new to the craft.

That being said, however, I am sad to report that I am not getting as much as most people might, for several reasons which I will get into. But first an update...

I received the entire play on Thursday, via email. But, as the instructor explained in a separate email, I would no longer be doing a scene from Proof, but rather Doubt. Having not read either play, I didn't mind the change.

However, after three solid days of trying to reach my scene partner via email, it became clear that her and I would not be meeting a single time until class. I learned tonight that he computer died, and she had to work. My view on that, as it is in all such situations is that there are a hundred billion computers in the world, and that finding access to one to check one's email when doing a scene with someone really is not that difficult. I would have preferred this is what my scene partner had done, but she didn't and there is little use lamenting over that fact now.

As a result, we were the least prepared for the class tonight. But the class had changed to no longer require us to do the scene. It was converted to a class tutorial of sorts, wherein each group would run their scene with the methods discussed here previously. Because my scene was the least prepared, (we had not met once ever), we had to start with the basic method. The same one I hated from last week...the close reading. Wherein I must pause after each sentence, and sometimes several times during a sentence, so I can deliver the words while maintaining locked eye contact with my partner, who cannot deliver her line until she has checked the group, and established eye contact with me. Which I often forgot to supply, because I was busy looking down at my script to see what my next line was.

I despise this exercise. It breaks any semblance of rhythm I have going into a scene, and I said as much. (I rarely speak in the class, actually, but I was becoming quite frustrated with this activity.)

In short, the instructor does not want any of us to worry about doing things well, or looking for motivation, or creating a character or basically any of the things I do as an actor. He wants it to be poor right now, because all he wants us to do is practice looking into the eyes of our partner, and delivering the lines. "To make sure you hand it off, and that they receive it", as he said.

The problem is, I like to give real lines, and receive real lines, not automated regurgitation from a page, I realize that nothing is perfect the first time, but I would rather fall short while attempting to actually perform. Like Olivier, I went to go as far as I can go from the very first read through, and build on it from there. But in class, it's all about doing these small, tedious tasks for the sake of adjusting to these small tactics when we perform. Again, I am sure this is helpful to many, but to me, I think I am too set in the way I was trained to get a lot of use out of this. I NEED to give a character life, or I am just wasting time. But I was told by doing this I can give the character greater life.

The came the Q&A from the instructor. Here is where the obvious difference between his acting philosophy and my own became very apparent. He would pepper each of us with questions about the character we played,(objective, motivation, what did you have for breakfast, what is the back story). Which is fine, except we were required to answer AS the character. In other words, when asking me, "How long have you been a priest", I would have to say "I've been a priest for five years."

This was very awkward for me, because I have always made a very specific point to NOT refer to characters I play in the first person. I have always felt it is crucial to keep the separation, especially during early rehearsals. When things are still being discovered. "I think my character does this, or that", I will say when I talk with a director or a scene partner. I prefer, and find proper, that distance. Ty must be on control of the process, and Ty will talk for hours about back story, character motivation and such. But it felt very unnerving to answer those questions with "I". I disagree that such things help everyone get into character better, and in fact I have often cautioned against doing that. If it works for you, okay, I will not wrong it for someone who uses it. But I never do, and do not like being forced to do so, as though it were more appropriate.

To the instructor, it's ok to be wrong in what we do this early, and to change our minds. In this I agree with him, but to enjoy the idea of being wrong for it's own sake, I do not like. An exploration of character is great, but to give it the false conviction of "I" takes away an objective discussion. The concepts of not knowing yet, or still thinking it over are eliminated for the actor.

That brings up another aspect of approach that I fervently dislike in these classes. The idea how to know when you are motivated. For the instructor, every single motivation can be boiled down to the same three or four. Love, for instance.

"Why are you doing this? Ok, but what is the purpose of that? And if that happens what are you achieving? and why do you want to achieve that?"

Like breaking down matter into the elements, these question are designed to get an actor to acknowledge the overarching reason why his character exists. Except the problem is that we do not live life breaking things down in that fashion. There are gray areas and changing motivations, and specific circumstances that apply in their own right. To make things to broad is to remove their significance. Their power. After all, we could all say, on some reptilian level, that our motivation for being here is to be alive. To eat, sleep, take care of our bodies. Live. Yet, as the primordial desire to not allow our own death enough to build a theatrical motivation?

To me, no way, to the instructor, basically.

For one of the other scenes, having broken down one character's motivation (a nun) down to "Obtaining salvation", the instructor insisted that the actress must now use that idea in every thing she did on stage. The way she walked. The way she picked up a pen. The way she tied her shoe. Each mundane action specifically geared toward one meta-purpose...obtain salvation through Christ.

This to me is very problematic, because I simply cannot buy that a person's over all life encompassing purpose is the direct impetus for everything they do any given day, or for that matter everything they want. If my overall purpose in life is to find love, can I really conclude that the fact I had bologna tonight instead of turkey be motivated by that desire to be loved by people?? Could i truly express such a cosmically broad motivation to each and every action I take on stage? I myself could not, nor would I want to.

I embrace the FEELINGS of a character, and try to invoke them in a performance. And because people often feel things that they do not understand, there are gray areas in life. Or there are neutrality. We can be lukewarm, or confused, or uncertain. And if I find a character I am playing should feel those things, I use that and move forward. But the instructor insists that to do so is to allow a performance to fall apart because it has no backbone. The cure? Make every single moment be about the obtainment of your life's purpose. How is that communicated?

"By rehearsing over and over and over again until something looks right," we were told.

To me, this consigns success to Chance. Making a performance beholden to a roll of the dice. I think people are more creative than that. And I for one need to be, when I perform.

I felt the same constriction when he instructed one group to choose of each and every moment of a scene is "good or bad". Nothing can be neutral. A character that literally got up to answer a knock at the door was asked if hearing a knock was good or bad. She found it to be neutral, as in fact, I would have in the same situation. But she was forced to choose between one or the other, because we were told that it is only by responding to the good or bad in every moment that clear choices for an actor can be made.

Again I had to cringe at this notion. Sometimes a cigar is in fact just a cigar. To see each and everything as anything else is for me, to run the risk over thinking every line, every step, every moment of a scene or play. That has already begun to happen in this class, as I have mentioned here, and I find over thinking to be just as counterproductive sometimes as being unprepared. I need the visceral to combine with the labor. In this class, I cannot.

So, as odd as it sounds, the class today manged to be both too personal, (with the first person Q&A) and too shallow (no gray areas, everything you say eat sleep breath and do on stage is specifically so your character can attain his life's purpose) for me. I stress once more that I do not dismiss these approaches as illegitimate or wrong. But they do run counter to my training and evolution as an actor.

The part I do in fact take exception to is the notion that a performance suffers in the absence of these approaches. I have a hard time accepting that with any approach and any instructor. (Which is why I have always been a very firm advocate of a "No Method" approach to acting. See my very first month of writing this blog.) Whatever works in the situation should be used, and whatever works for a person is just great...for them. But it is unfair to conclude that the same goals of emotional connection, familiarity of character, and interaction on deep levels with cast mates cannot be obtained save for one way. I have never been, no shall I ever be, a theatrical monotheist.

We meet again in just under two weeks. (Due to 3 or 4 last minute scheduling changes for the class that had to be made.) Hopefully my partner and I will be able to meet and run through some of these exercises. (She got more out of them than I did.) In the very least I have to find a way to not find them distracting before we put on the piece. But I have a true fear that i will never be able to micromanage every last step, blink and sniffle in my scene, or any scene I shall do. I bring characters to life, and in so doing, embrace feelings an ambiguities. As dedicated as I am and have always been to my craft, I admit I don't always know why my characters blink when they do. Sometimes, they just do. So I won't be able to defend every choice I will make in this scene as I know I will be called upon to do.

Acting Workshop, Day Two

2009-09-23T02:11:00.002-04:00

The second night of the weekly workshop had it's ups and downs for me.

To begin with, due tot he unexpectedly long commute of the instructor the class did not begin until well after 8, or about 40 minutes late. The suggestion has been made to make the starting time later. I am in agreement with that solution.

As for the class itself, we each were to bring in an object of personal significance. We sat in a circle, (there are about 12 of us), as were slowly instructed to do such things as look at the object, pick it up, weigh it in our hands, feel it, smell it, even "taste it if you dare". (I didn't dare.) This process was repeated for an imaginary version of said object.

Finally we would pass the object to our left, and take the object of the person to our right. We were then instructed, just as slowly, to do the very same thing with this object. Duplicates and all. At the end of which the object was passed to the left again.

This was done for each object in our group, until we got our own object back. This part of class took just about 45 minutes. After which we shared with the group what the object was, and why it was important to us. At which point we were instructed to look at our objects once again. To examine them from all sides, to weigh them, smell them...the whole thing repeated itself all over again, taken just over an additional half an hour I would guess.

The object of the exercise was clear to me; to both pay very specific attention to the details of an object and what it invokes in our minds, and compare to same after we have the story behind said object. Infusing something with back story to give it more potency.

A legitimate goal. A legitimate method. In my view an unnecessary length of time. All told we spent just over half of the three hour allotted time on the objects. For me I was beginning to get numb with the process of examination, and though the same point could have been made by merely switching objects with one other person.

The next exercise was similar in goal, if I understood it properly. The instructor recreated, in as much detail as he could, his living room, there in the green room of the theatre. By moving furniture, and having things represent his own furnishes, as broad facsimile of his own living room came into shape. (Brought alive by his descriptions of his room.)

He then took questions about his living room, (our group providing more than he had ever been asked during the exercise.) All told this took half an hour. One of the other students then did the same thing, this time recreating her kitchen. When she was done, it was announced that the normal next step of trying to repeat, word for word and step for step the previous 15 minutes of the class would be done away with in the interest of time. The point would have been, it was explained, to use the same mental patterns we had seen in creating the rooms to do it all over again. By becoming aware of the patterns we used to watch the rooms being built, and the patterns used by the two "builders" we could recreate the previous 15 minutes of the class with a surprising amount of detail, had we attempted to do so.

I personally did not get very much from this exercise, as I found myself spending more time on figuring out what the "secret" was. It may even be an element to my way of thinking that hinders me in this class; trying to determine what the twist is on any given exercise. Be that as it may I did not personally care for that one.

Then I was called up to read a two page scene with someone I have known several years. This was a very distracting and unpleasant experience for me, because of all of the very specific rules involved; memorizing a line before looking into my partner's eyes and delivering it. Having to share one script between the two of us. (Something I always get lost in doing no matter how closely I pay attention.) The goal was to, in theory, make sure each of us was giving, truly giving, a line to the other one, and making it a part of what was going on, and a part of our motivation. I failed to do this, however because as I said, there were too many unproductive distractions for my mode of thinking and rehearsing.

I feel these tactics may be more useful to someone brand new to acting. But I have been studying the craft for ten years this very month, and some of it felt like an attempt to reinvent the wheel. I obtain those goals when I am comfortable and permitted my own methods. But making use of these methods did not, at least on the night, blend very well with my mindset. I had a similar reaction to the concept of throwing a t-shirt to my scene partner at the end of every line delivered. (Still sharing a single script mind you, making it virtually impossible to know when my next line was.)

I must stress that I find nothing intrinsically unacceptable in these methods. nor do I believe I am beyond learning, or else I would not have bothered to take this workshop. I am however suggesting that the methods, as employed on the evening, were very counter-intuitive to my previous training and practices, and as such, felt like an encumbrance to me.

Then scene assignments were made. He assigned us characters, scenes and partners. No scripts were available, so as of yet, I do not know what my scene will be, only that it will be from the play Proof. The scenes are to be emailed to us in the coming days.

This concerns me, however, because much to my shock, we are expected to be off book and ready to deliver these scenes by the very next class! (just over 5 days from now.) During which time he wants each group of scene partners to work on the methods I described above on at least five separate occasions.

I'm a very committed actor, and I work hard and what I do. But having a scene cold to off book in five days, using methods I am not familiar with, and not knowing if schedules or commutes will allow five meeting with my scene partner, (whom I have never met before this class) feel very daunting to me. The instructor says that doing it this way, (the way it is done at Yale and many professional programs as he mentioned) will make memorizing very fast and simple. I cannot of course comment on that until I actually engage in it with my scene partner.

I have yet, as I said, to receive my scene. So I have my homework cut out for me, for certain this week. Once he sends us the script via email, I must read the whole play, study my scene, make time for 5 meetings with my partner, and find a space in which to practice, (we are not allowed to use the actual theatre), and be off book by Monday. (This may be lifted if the class needs more time.) Either way, much must be done.

And you know exactly where to go to find my progress on same; right here at AOB.

Acting Workshop, Day One

2009-09-16T11:03:00.002-04:00

My apologies for writing this a few days late, friends. But I Have had many writing projects going of late, and this one got bumped a few times.

As I said in a previous post, I am currently enrolled in an 8 week adult acting intensive with Pat Diamond, director of the Yale Summer Drama Program.

I think the fairest way to go about blogging my thoughts on this is to take each session one at a time. That may seem obvious, but I mean that I don't think it would be right or practical to try to ascertain my thought son the whole program. I'd rather share what I thought of any given night.

Monday was the opener. Like many openings of anything I was not 100% at ease. I knew a few people there, thank the heavens, but most people I did not know. Some had little or no acting experience. (Which surprised me, as I thought the workshop would attracted mostly experienced actors.)

Mr. Diamond is a nice man, and clearly knows about theatre. I did like some of his philosophies about approaching a play or a character. However, very little of our first session was spent actually talking. Most of the time was spend playing games and doing exercises.

The games were designed to exercise, if you will, the various parts of the brain that also must be honed to be a successful actor. As I said, I agreed with most of what the instructor said an actor needed to be able to master. However, for my particular brain pattern, I do not think I got much from the games. I did not enjoy them after a while.

The games were in many ways a challenge. They involved staying calm, being in the moment, concentrating, memory, and doing multiple things at once.

Sound like a certain craft we all know and love?

And yet for me, such games tend to fluster me. I get tense when I play such games, and often give myself a headache. That was the case on Monday, and in one of the few comments I made to the class, (I often don't say much in such circumstances), I mentioned that I was having a problem with the activities because they lacked context in my mind.

Not that they lacked merit, but for me, I need a theatrical purpose towards which I can strive in order to bring out my skills. Juggling three mental tasks at once just for the sake of doing so, or for the sake of building mental muscle is not something on which I thrive. And my lack luster performance in the mind games proved that point. Which in turn led me to feel less connected and less involved to the group, not more so.

Confusion entertains some people. It does not entertain me, and I found myself confused by the games more often than not. I prefer discussions of character and scene. Breaking down what an individual actor should do, or is trying to do. I am a very verbal acting student in some ways. But Monday was not a very verbal evening.

Overall then, I would say Monday was a case of getting acquainted with new people, which is never easy, while compounded by being put on the spot with games of this kind, which made it even less easy.

Next week holds promise for interesting things, as we have all been asked to bring an object small enough to fit in our hands. Something that holds value to us. I already know what I am bringing. But you, as well as the class, will have to wait until next week to find out.