More Thoughts
The audition Tuesday, which sort of popped up unexpectedly through Rachel who is acting stage manager, at least for the audition process, has been on my mind more than I expected. Due to the differences I noted in myself, the enjoyment I had in working with other people including Rachel in the scene readings, the things I felt I did wrong, could have done better, wondering "Will I get cast?", etc.
Nothing unusual in all that. I was surprised to realize it has been quite a while since I auditioned. Two years, maybe a bit longer. Before I started the Meisner Progression, I had worked with Paula on several shows doing almost everything except directing and acting. In truth, I had small parts in the last two productions, and in effect did a little assistant directing simply because we worked together so much. Before all that I had learned to find enjoyment in auditions. I knew I was dreadful, so I looked on it as a chance to play, learn, and grow. Sometimes they weren't so fun, but usually I was able to let myself enjoy them on some level. Came back to that space on this audition.
It was like a job interview in many ways. When I interview for jobs I am in turn interviewing the prospective employer to see if I want to work there. Usually I come away with positives and negatives to think about. I have subtly torpedoed myself in a few interviews where I quickly came to the conclusion I didn't want the job. I hoped and attained -- I think -- a situation where they felt I'm not quite the fit they were looking for, but still very positive towards me. Partly a wish to be gracious, partly to avoid burning bridges.
In this case I was predisposed towards the director, because Rachel is working with him. A pretty good reference in my mind. I was a slightly put off by his denigration of "method" stuff in comedy. He stated characters in a comedy should be 2-dimensional. I disagree in principal with that view, both from having worked on shows and watching so many shows. (On average, I watch over 50 productions a year).
An actor doing a very good caricature can be good for a comedy, particularly the farcical shows. An actor doing an over the top character is generally much better, though the reason may not be obvious. I would guess to the average observer it appears to be a really good caricature. I don't know where the notion that a truthful character is only good for dramatic roles comes from, when in reality they also make for much funnier comedic characters. We see the same relationship at work in the other direction, where truly great comedians make outstanding dramatic performances. Living in and committing to the character adds richness and connection for the audience whether or not they are intended to be funny. I saw two or three productions of Scapin last year, and the funniest by far was at the Intiman. It wasn't because they were shallower characters without depth, quite the opposite.
I'm not worried about the outward difference in philosophy or semantics. I have been taught in so many classes, that it is the actor's responsibility to find a way to produce what the director wants - not the opposite. I don't have the knee-jerk disdain for caricature so common in theatre circles, rather it is a tool I have seen some people use to great advantage especially when it is not the final goal. It is not something I am good at, so I need to work my process in a way to get me to the desired point.
Most important to me in my evaluation was the playing and concise directing. It was totally enjoyable. I haven't worked with Next Step before, except as an usher or cashier for several productions, as they were temporarily imploding when I was interested before. The work I'd seen them do was all quite good. They are rejuvenated with a new board, and it seems like the workload is spread out better, and I am looking forward to seeing their new shows, maybe working with them on a show or two.
Nothing unusual in all that. I was surprised to realize it has been quite a while since I auditioned. Two years, maybe a bit longer. Before I started the Meisner Progression, I had worked with Paula on several shows doing almost everything except directing and acting. In truth, I had small parts in the last two productions, and in effect did a little assistant directing simply because we worked together so much. Before all that I had learned to find enjoyment in auditions. I knew I was dreadful, so I looked on it as a chance to play, learn, and grow. Sometimes they weren't so fun, but usually I was able to let myself enjoy them on some level. Came back to that space on this audition.
It was like a job interview in many ways. When I interview for jobs I am in turn interviewing the prospective employer to see if I want to work there. Usually I come away with positives and negatives to think about. I have subtly torpedoed myself in a few interviews where I quickly came to the conclusion I didn't want the job. I hoped and attained -- I think -- a situation where they felt I'm not quite the fit they were looking for, but still very positive towards me. Partly a wish to be gracious, partly to avoid burning bridges.
In this case I was predisposed towards the director, because Rachel is working with him. A pretty good reference in my mind. I was a slightly put off by his denigration of "method" stuff in comedy. He stated characters in a comedy should be 2-dimensional. I disagree in principal with that view, both from having worked on shows and watching so many shows. (On average, I watch over 50 productions a year).
An actor doing a very good caricature can be good for a comedy, particularly the farcical shows. An actor doing an over the top character is generally much better, though the reason may not be obvious. I would guess to the average observer it appears to be a really good caricature. I don't know where the notion that a truthful character is only good for dramatic roles comes from, when in reality they also make for much funnier comedic characters. We see the same relationship at work in the other direction, where truly great comedians make outstanding dramatic performances. Living in and committing to the character adds richness and connection for the audience whether or not they are intended to be funny. I saw two or three productions of Scapin last year, and the funniest by far was at the Intiman. It wasn't because they were shallower characters without depth, quite the opposite.
I'm not worried about the outward difference in philosophy or semantics. I have been taught in so many classes, that it is the actor's responsibility to find a way to produce what the director wants - not the opposite. I don't have the knee-jerk disdain for caricature so common in theatre circles, rather it is a tool I have seen some people use to great advantage especially when it is not the final goal. It is not something I am good at, so I need to work my process in a way to get me to the desired point.
Most important to me in my evaluation was the playing and concise directing. It was totally enjoyable. I haven't worked with Next Step before, except as an usher or cashier for several productions, as they were temporarily imploding when I was interested before. The work I'd seen them do was all quite good. They are rejuvenated with a new board, and it seems like the workload is spread out better, and I am looking forward to seeing their new shows, maybe working with them on a show or two.
1 Comments:
I agree with you, Scott, and not Ben on this topic -- I, too, believe comedy comes out of deeply real and motivated characters. The reason I recommended you audition is timing; it's a good way to get in the ground floor of a newly-revived Next Step, plus it's nice to have a show booked, on the heels of Meisner finishing.
Post a Comment
<< Home