The Art of Acting E-Book

David Carter

• Herausgeber: Creative Essentials
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 197

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2010

Beschreibung

The Art of Acting provides a basic introduction and general advice for people wishing to develop their skills as actors or actresses. It is aimed at both the amateur enthusiast and for those wishing to pursue their interest further and undertake professional training. Advice is given on the basic skills which every actor needs to develop, such as breathing, voice control, the use of body language, timing and handling the audience. The importance of understanding a text and the interaction of the characters within it is considered, as is the relationship between the actor/actress and director. Auxiliary activities such as actors' exercises and warm-ups are evaluated and general advice provided. Specific skills are discussed, such as the learning of lines, mime, mastering dialects and accents, period manners, and ensuring that make-up is suitable to the role. Summaries of the ideas of famous theorists, directors and actors, are included such as: Stanislawski, Lee Strasberg, Michael Chekhov and Dorothy Heathcote; Peter Brook and Peter Hall; and John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier, Simon Callow, Ian McKellen, Judi Dench, Alec Guinness, Michael Caine and Dirk Bogarde. There is also some consideration of the differences between stage and screen acting; the problems of acting in the open air and the particular demands of certain playwrights, such as Shakespeare, and Brecht.

Leseprobe

David Carter

THE ART OF ACTING

… And How to Master It

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The principal debt of gratitude owed by the author is to the numerous actors and actresses, those living and those who have long since made their final exits, and whose utterances have been scoured and analysed. I have diligently read between their lines for clues to the mystery of their art. Another major debt, as always, is owed to my ever-scrupulous editors.

CONTENTS

Title Page

Introduction

1.THE HISTORY OF ACTING STYLES AND TECHNIQUES

The Classical Period

The Middle Ages

The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries

The Eighteenth Century

The Nineteenth Century

The Twentieth Century and its Legacy

2.MASTERING THE ART

The Actor’s Experience

Realism and Truth

Preparing a Role

Instinct and intuition

Study and research

Discovering objectives

Stanislavsky and the Method

The Voice

Breathing

Vowels and consonants

Projection

Stress and Parts of Speech

Respecting Punctuation

Learning the Lines

Rehearsals

Blocking and making moves

All-round sensitivity

The role of the director

The limits of directing

Actors as directors

Good directors

Games and improvisations

The Audience

Comic Acting

Tragedy and comedy

Audience moods

Losing and regaining laughs

The role of technique

Acting for Films and Television

A different process

All in the mind

Survival tips

American and British Acting

Vanity versus realism

Expressiveness versus technique

Guts versus head

Doing Shakespeare

Following the clues

Maintaining the flow

Iambic pentameters

‘You can’t go very far wrong’

3.GOING PROFESSIONAL

To Be or Not To Be

Training

Resources

Notes

Copyright

INTRODUCTION

You cannot learn how to become an actor by reading a book. Many actors would also argue that you cannot, in any case, teach someone how to act. Yet countless books on the topic exist and hundreds of institutions offer training courses for would-be actors. This should be no surprise, for the situation is the same in the practice of all the arts, to a greater or lesser degree. One cannot become an actor without certain psychological preconditions, though these do not predetermine one to become an actor. The basic propensity has to be nurtured, and it is in this secondary process that reading and training can play a role.

It is also often said that the difference between amateur and professional actors is one of technique, though what this technique consists of is usually left vague. It will be perceived in the course of the present book that the techniques in question are, amongst other things, the nurture and use of the voice, the control of breathing, and the precise physical control of the body. Also, every professional actor has to learn how to maintain stamina through long performances and through long runs. All of these accomplishments are not, of course, out of the reach of the amateur, if they have the time to devote to acquiring them.

For amateur and would-be professional alike, the present book aims to provide a basic introduction to the kinds of attitudes, mental processes and other abilities which are necessary if one wishes to develop and mature as an actor.

The author is modest concerning his own experience and abilities: countless years as both actor and director in an amateur drama group and a lifelong enthusiasm for all-things-theatrical have lent him the courage to express his convictions. Many people, especially directors, have spoken disparagingly of the average thespian’s inability to be articulate about what they do, but the author is convinced that, if anyone can reveal the secrets of the actor’s art, it is surely those who practise it successfully and well. This book is therefore based on the opinions and feelings of many well-known actors and actresses about all the major aspects of their work. The conclusions and advice provided are therefore very much based on their reflections.

The two main sections of this book are noticeably different in character, but there is a logical connection and development between them. The first section traces the history of acting styles and techniques through the ages, with an emphasis on descriptions of what performances in past ages were like and what principles governed them. It will be demonstrated that all acting styles fall somewhere on a continuum between naturalism and artificiality, with preferences for one tendency over the other varying from age to age and culture to culture. The usefulness of this section to the modern actor is in providing some awareness of the traditions behind present vogues in acting styles. Many recognised great actors, such as Laurence Olivier, have acknowledged how they developed their own styles of acting from familiarity with the acting styles of the past. Each new generation of actors takes what it admires from great acting of yesteryear and reacts against those elements which now seem hackneyed or inappropriate. Acting, as with many processes in history, is a dialectic between extremes, with the styles of older generations always both inspiring new generations and provoking them to change. A history of this dialectic process also serves to remind every aspiring actor that in the theatre, too, there is nothing new under the sun.

Furthermore, an awareness of what styles of acting prevailed in particular periods and for certain kinds of plays is crucial when preparing to act a role in a period piece: a play written in highly stylised language will not lend itself easily to naturalistic playing.

The focus then shifts in the second section to the tasks facing every actor and the skills it is necessary to master. The general goals and ideals, realism and truth, are considered first, and the methods of preparing a role, including considerations of methods developed by the most influential theorist of acting technique, Konstantin Stanislavsky. Some consideration is then given to the technical control of the voice and the need to respect the structure of the language. Important issues relating to the process of rehearsing a play are explored, as is the actor’s relationship to the audience. Certain special concerns are then considered, such as acting for films and television, differences between national styles, and handling the language of Shakespeare’s plays.

In the third section, advice is provided for those readers who are seriously considering becoming professional actors, and the importance of good training is stressed.

The Resources section contains information on books dealing with the main aspects of acting covered in the present book, together with advice on publications which are especially useful for would-be professionals.

Those wishing to seek further advice about setting up a drama group and organising productions are recommended to read a companion volume in the Creative Essentials series by the same author and entitled Plays… And How toProduce Them.

Finally, if this book has served to help a few people discover the actor in their soul, it will have served its purpose well.

THE HISTORY OF ACTING STYLES AND TECHNIQUES

Surveying what has been written over the ages by actors, dramatists, critics and philosophers, it is clear, from the descriptions, that all acting styles fall somewhere along a continuum between what may loosely be called the Natural and the Artificial. Various other aspects of acting have been given close consideration over the years, according to the concerns of the day, such as gesture, movement, elocution, etc, but most assessments of actors’ performances usually attempt to rate them as being somewhere between convincingly realistic or natural and highly stylised and artificial. The terms ‘realistic’ and ‘natural’ do not always denote praise; nor do the terms ‘stylised’ and ‘artificial’ always denote criticism. It tends to depend on the writer’s own preferences and the tastes of the era.

In the following survey the concern has constantly been to focus on the styles of acting encouraged and the techniques employed to attain them. Accounts of actual dramatists and their works, and the modes of theatrical production, are therefore only included where of relevance to understanding the acting styles. For similar reasons, the traditions in some countries are only dealt with cursorily or not at all, relevance to the development of acting theory and styles being always the only criterion. Also, as the purpose of this book is to provide advice to would-be actors in the English-speaking world, and in what may be loosely described as the western theatrical tradition, all consideration of acting traditions in the Far and Near East, and in Africa, India and South America have been excluded, with the occasional exception of allusions by specific exponents of the theory and practice of acting.

THE CLASSICAL PERIOD

Greece

Although dramatic performances of some kind doubtless occurred in earlier ages, and most likely among the Egyptians, most accounts of the history of drama and of acting start with reference to the tragic drama of the Greeks developed from the recitation of dithyrambs and ritual choral dances in celebration of the god Dionysus, the god of wine and fertility. The very first actor whose name has come down to posterity is Thespis, who is reported to have stepped aside from the choral narration with its leader and impersonated one of the characters in the story being told. Whatever the facts of the matter, his name has been transmuted into an epithet for all those who indulge in dramatic performance: Thespians.

Interesting to note is that, from the very beginning, the art practised by Thespis had its negative critics. Thespis was also a dramatist, and when he brought one of his productions, in which he also acted, to Athens, he was condemned by the lawgiver Solon for his dangerous and deceptive impersonations. The birth of the first known acting performance therefore coincided with that of the first bad review. As was to be the case throughout the subsequent history of theatre, however, the audience knew what it liked, as did the tyrant Pisistratus, who established competitions for dramatic performances. At the first of these, Thespis was crowned the victor1. It is interesting that Solon considered acting dangerous and deceptive. As a lawgiver he was doubtless concerned that the audience might be roused by the performance in ways which could disrupt the peace. Acting was also perceived by him as creating an illusion, convincing the audience of something that was not real. From its known beginnings, therefore, realism, or the illusion of it, was considered to be an essential part of acting.

In the further development of acting in Greece, the poet, who was also usually the actor, introduced further roles, performing them all himself, but distinguishing between them by the use of masks. The poet Aeschylus introduced a second actor and thus made the distinction between poet and actor clear. Sophocles added a third actor and the tradition of employing only three actors who each impersonated several characters by the use of masks with a diminished role for the chorus became established.

The acting in this period was undoubtedly stylised and declamatory. With thousands of people gathered in vast amphitheatres, it was obviously important to enable each member of the audience to see the characters and hear the speeches clearly. Apart from the large masks, big, thick-soled boots, known as a ‘cothurnus’, were worn, to make the actor seem larger than life. The masks also enabled the actors, all men, to impersonate female roles. For performances in such conditions voice training was obviously crucial. Aristotle wrote of the importance of ‘the right management of the voice’2 for the actor, and the actor Demosthenes stressed the need to be ‘splendid in voice’3. A good grasp of rhythm and timing was necessary, as was the ability to sing. As the costumes, boots and masks were surely very heavy, gestures and movements must have been slow and demonstrative.

The acting styles within the Greek classical period undoubtedly underwent changes over time, which, in essence, prefigured the cycles of change that occurred in later periods and in other cultures. There is evidence for at least three periods in classical Greece, although the periods cannot be sharply distinguished: that of Aeschylus and Sophocles, in which the acting was very restrained and formal; the fourth century when actors such as Neoptolemus and Theodorus developed a more natural style; and, finally, the plays of Euripides, which introduced a more realistic depiction of human emotion4. There were comic actors, too, throughout these periods, who, as with comedians in all ages, developed a freer, often vulgar style.

Rome

The tragedies and comedies developed in Rome were based largely on translations of Greek plays, adapted to Roman contexts. This is true of both the works of the great Roman tragedians, such as Seneca, as well as the comic writers such as Plautus and Terence. The Romans went in for much more spectacular displays than the Greeks, with decorated scenery and also, on occasions, the inclusion of live animals. Most Roman actors had the status of slaves, managed and trained in special troupes, though especially gifted ones could manage to become very wealthy. One such was the renowned Quintus Roscius Gallus (d 62 BC), known generally as Roscius, who eventually gained his freedom and became a personal friend of the writer Cicero. Another actor in the first century, the Greek-born Aesop, was greatly admired for his fiery and emotional performances. A highly declamatory style was most popular with Roman audiences. The Romans did use masks, but it seems that they did not become popular, and the actors were appreciated for their facial expressions and gestures, which seem to have been refined to a highly stylised degree.

The Romans also developed the art of mime to a high degree. A certain Pylades wrote a treatise on mime and founded his own school to put his theories into practice, and many mimes became as famous as the well-known actors of the day.

Roman poets and orators claim to have learned much of their techniques from watching the leading actors, and it is writers such as Cicero (106–43 BC), Quintilian (circa AD 35–95) and Lucian (circa AD 120–200), who have passed on to posterity what accounts are extant of the acting styles of the period. Cicero’s De Oratore demonstrates this debt. He noted of Roscius ‘how everything is done by him unexceptionably; everything with the utmost grace; everything in such a way as is becoming…’5 He also stressed the importance of leaving some passages less clear so that others may become the clearer, a point made, in different words, by many modern actors: ‘…high excellence and merit in speaking should be attended with some portions of shade and obscurity, that the part on which a stronger light is thrown may seem to stand out, and become more prominent…’6 Lucian, while decrying the decline in acting styles, also has positive advice to give. Writing specifically of pantomime, a term said to have been introduced by Italian Greeks, and of acting in general, he called for verisimilitude: ‘…prince or tyrannicide, pauper or farmer, each must be shown with the peculiarities that belong to him.’7 He writes elsewhere of ‘…the pantomime, whose task it is to identify himself with his subject, and make himself part and parcel of the scene that he enacts.’8 He also provides a vivid and amusing account of the extremes to which overacting may lead. An actor playing the role of Ajax in a state of madness ‘so lost control of himself, that one might have been excused for thinking his madness was something more than feigned’9. It appears that the illiterate mass considered it all to be great acting, but the more intelligent part of the audience obviously felt disgust at this display, although they concealed their feelings. Lucian praises another actor, who, in a similar role, ‘played it with admirable judgement and discretion, and was complimented on his observance of decorum, and of the proper bounds of his art’10.

THE MIDDLE AGES

By the fifth and sixth centuries AD, the classical modes of performing tragedy and comedy had degenerated and been changed so much that they were no longer recognisable as such. In Europe as a whole the most popular forms of entertainment were folk dances and various demonstrations of acrobatic skills and juggling. Travelling groups of mimes and conjurors, performing occasionally comic interludes, were common. The nearest they came to acting was in the recitation of narratives about heroic deeds. There was little chance of developing a true histrionic art while the church condemned such groups as disreputable.

Ironically, it was within the church itself that performances of a vaguely theatrical nature were permitted. Simple dramatic structures were developed by the priests chanting Latin dialogue based on stories from the scriptures and these gradually became more complex liturgical dramas. Performances eventually moved from within the church to outside it, with priests being replaced by laymen. By the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries large groups of amateur actors were performing various biblical stories with all members of their communities taking part in the productions in one way or another, building scenery, making props, etc, very much as is still exemplified today in the dramatic festival at Oberammergau. The so-called morality plays became more allegorical and were influenced by the spread of humanism, with the introduction more and more of comic elements and increasingly realistic acting. These changes happened throughout Europe. In France, Spain, Italy and Germany, religious plays were eventually being performed alongside pure farces, with individual writers now becoming well known for their skills in writing comedy, such as the great Hans Sachs in Germany.

Although acting styles were undoubtedly often crude and naïve, with costumes being colourful rather than historically accurate, there were individual performers who acted sensitively and were able to move their audiences. There are documentary accounts of such performances.11

There are some writings extant from the Middle Ages which give advice on acting. One in particular recommends a measured, balanced delivery; the actor should clearly avoid excessive emotion. This advice is to be found in the introductory remarks to one of the oldest known French mystery plays, TheRepresentationofAdam, written sometime in the twelfth century. Though the dialogue was written in Norman French, the remarks, with suggestions also for costumes, scenery and gestures, were in Latin. The actor playing Adam is given the following advice: ‘Adam shall be trained well to speak at the right moment, so that he may come neither too soon nor too late. Not only he, but all shall be well practised in speaking calmly, and making gestures appropriate to the things they say…’12

THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES

By the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the groups of amateur actors had gradually been superseded by professionals, who replaced the dramas on religious themes with ones of a more secular nature.

England

The Elizabethan period

In 1545, King Henry VIII created the post of Master of the Revels, whose role was to organise the entertainment at his court. For some time, this entertainment consisted of various interludes and elaborate allegorical dramas. At the same time, the popularity of bands of strolling players was growing, groups of professional players under the protection of noblemen, performing on village greens and in the yards of inns.

In the short period of four decades, from about 1580 to 1620, two companies of actors in particular became famed for the quality of their performances: the Admiral’s Men, who were run by Philip Henshawe, with the actor Edward Alleyn playing the leading roles in the plays of Christopher Marlowe; and the Lord Chamberlain’s Company (known after the accession of James I as the King’s Majesty’s Servants), with the renowned actors William Kemp and Richard Burbage, and a certain actor and poet called William Shakespeare.

Edward Alleyn was admired especially for his mastery of action on the stage, and it seems he developed a very exaggerated style of acting. Although little is known about how Richard Burbage acted, it seems likely that he exemplified the well-balanced style advocated in Hamlet’s advice to the Players. The speech (in Act III, scene II) is too well known to quote it in full, but certain phrases could usefully be emphasised as being crucial to the attainment of a measured style: ‘Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus, but use all gently’, ‘…beget a temperance that may give it smoothness’, ‘Be not too tame neither; but let your own discretion be your tutor. Suit the action to the word, the word to the action; with this special observance, that you o’erstep not the modesty of nature…’

Burbage’s well-balanced acting was celebrated in an elegy on his death, which has been attributed to the Earl of Pembroke:

How to ye person hee did suit his face,

How did his speech become him, and his face

Suit with his speech, whilst not a word did fall

Without just weight to balance it withall13

Another writer, Richard Flecknoe, who probably never actually saw Burbage act, reported that the actor had the ability to completely immerse himself in his role, ‘so wholly transforming himself into his part, and putting off himself with his clothes, as he never (not so much as in the tiring-house) assum’d himself again until the play was done.’14

The actor and writer John Webster (d 1634) is likely to have been the author of the essay entitled ‘Character of An Excellent Actor’. For Webster, the actor should be at one with nature, and provide living personalities and not just embodiments of moral concepts, ‘for what we see him personate, we think truly done before us’ and ‘what he doth feignedly that do others essentially’.15

In general, it seems that acting in the Elizabethan period was likely to have been stylised rather than realistic in any modern sense. The actor was expected to have excellent projection and control of his voice and not overact for the sake of gaining audience approval.

The Restoration and after

During the Civil War, in 1642, London’s theatres were closed. The Puritan government kept them closed until 1660 when the restoration of the monarchy occurred with Charles II’s return to the throne. In the same year, the king granted patents to Sir William Davenant (1606–1668), a playwright, and his friend Thomas Killigrew (1612–1683) to set up two playhouses and organise two companies of actors, the Duke of York’s Company and the King’s Men. These two companies dominated the theatrical scene until 1843. Having spent the years of exile in France, the royal court had developed a taste for the French-style of theatrical performance in the classical mode. The old Elizabethan-style playhouse, open to the elements, was replaced by a proscenium-arch stage with a curtain and scenery, though an extensive apron stage was retained. Performances were dominated by the personalities of the leading actors, and the popular plays of the day were very much written to show off their talents. Some outstanding actors did, however, appear who revived interest in great drama.

From 1660 till 1710 the leading actor of his day was Thomas Betterton, who not only took the main roles in the plays of his contemporaries, Etherege, Congreve and Dryden, but also revived Shakespeare’s Hamlet. For his contemporaries, his acting style was dignified and restrained. He was admired for his ability to express feelings with passion but with a controlled use of his voice. He provided intelligent interpretations and was capable of a large variety of characterisations. During this period, too, many women came to prominence on the stage. Betterton’s own wife, Mary Saunders, became the first woman to play the main female roles in Shakespeare’s plays.

By 1680 the two companies had built new theatres, the Duke of York’s Company in Dorset Gardens, and the King’s Men in Drury Lane. In 1682 they united into one company using the Drury Lane theatre.

Italy