Ok the ACCENT thread is running well and has got great suggestions...

How about one for Characterisation...

The visual and acting side of a character, not just the voice.

Again I would suggest when auditioning for a character to research the part, get a "stereotype" image in your head of that character and then look for someone on TV who is that sterotype...

For example... JUD in Oklahoma (which I am doing at the moment - not telling you where as it's against the rules...)

I've seen people play Jud as a rough gruff character with very little thought as to why the man has turned out that way. This often gives a shallow view of the man, always angry and horrible. But the West End version a saw a few years ago played him as a more "mentally" unstable person with learning difficulties (as they would say now)...

He's got questionable social skills, but it's not his fault. It's how in those days people attacked what they didn't know or understand...

So I'm playing him (as I'm young and quite slight of build so I can't be gruff and overbearing) as slightly mentally disabled... Pehaps he was bullied as a child because of his learning issues, perhaps he fell out a tree and caused a little brain damage... Who knows... But he's that way for a reason and from that reason the character is how he is... My sterotypes?

Dustin Hoffman in the RAINMAN for visual part. (Moving from foot to foot, head tilt and slight limp)
For speech it was a mix of the West End Juid (can't remember the actors name) and also the actor who played the Brother of Mary in "Something about Mary"..

Sterotype are what people go on... Select, research and develop your own for the parts... Don't think "the show".. Think of the character bofore the show, what was he/she like, and what made the person what he is now.

I am another one who does homework like George! And it's very satisfying when you put so much work in and find that your part develops fantastically as a result. But for this reason, I do find musicals very frustrating because many parts do not give you the opportunity to develop any kind of character (I agree that Jud is an exception) as the roles are so one-dimensional. And then even when you have got an established character, I have suffered at the hands of choreographers who don't really understand that character and get you doing things that are completely out of character. Many of the choreographers I have come across also object to any kind of constructive criticism so you're then stuck with something that doesn't work....until opening night when you change the lot anyway! Apologies to all the GOOD choreographers out there - and I do know the odd one!

Absolutely, you need to know exactly how and why your character acts the way he/she does.
When I?m directing I make the actors come up with a biography of their character and we spend at least one rehearsal going through them ? and yes when I?m acting I practise what I preach and do the same.
Of course, the best way to come up with different characters is to watch people in everyday life (I can?t say I?m fond of getting things off the TV ? you run the risk of portraying the TV character instead of your own).

Flange - agreed, but TV is often about stereotypes so if you're looking for a stereotypical character, there is often nowhere better than the soaps! I love your idea of the biog. and have used it myself. The hardest part I found to "get" was Olwen in "Dangerous Corner" as she was a character that Priestley didn't really delineate very well until it comes to the crunch where she confesses she's killed the guy all the characters are talking about. It's great fun when you have a character that doesn't do very much until some great bombshell later in the play but then it is very hard to play a character down knowing what you know about them. If you see what I mean...!

Oh I love people watching its one of my favourite pastimes.

They used to have a cafe at Cannon street station (not sure if it's still there) but you could sit behind the glass and the staris were the other side I used to watch people from there for ages coz they couldn't see you!

Its great. - I also find likening people/characters to animals is good fun even if you only get one little quirk from it - or find out what they definately wouldn't do which is just as important.

I don't think anyone's that good to copy someone else. You always put your "own personality" into the part in some way or an other. I try never to follow or learn from one person. 2 at least..

e.g. For Gerald in Me and My Girl, I played him VERY Larry Grayson, not Gay or camp, but just not very manly. Worked a treat. Not the voice again but the facial and arm mannerisms.

For the voice I used that old guy from the Carry On" movies... Kept saying things like "Ding Dong"... disallowed word.. I'm rubbish at names....

I agree with the two minimum...and you naturally have to put your own personality into the role...I like using other people as a 'hook' to drag out some deep-hidden side to my nature...which is why playing baddies is so much fun.

QUOTE (Maureen @ Jan 23 2003, 1:34 PM)

I do find musicals very frustrating because many parts do not give you the opportunity to develop any kind of character (I agree that Jud is an exception) as the roles are so one-dimensional

Most characters in musicals are characters within themselves and sadly Am dram doesn't do enough to "play around" with them.. It's almost written in the script they have GOT to be this type of character... But don't knock it, this is mostly why some muscials work and others don't.

Example (I got a lot of examples)..

Billy in Anything Goes... There's very little you can do with this character but play him the happy go lucky. Mid West, upbeat accent, smiles a lot... Blarg..

Bill in My and My Girl... Sadly everytime I've seen this in Amdram (3 times bythe same Bill in 3 different shows) it's the same....

I suppose girls parts are the same, but I never really have auditoned for them...

Mostly lead girls in Musicals (which Am Dram can perform) are played quite wet...

Laurie in Oklahoma...

Hope in Anything Goes....

Musicals seem to be more than anything a case of Am Dram "We did it back in 1957 this way and we're going to do it again...." Something I hate... I want to be pushed... I want to be different... But I do want to keep to the story...

Some would argue that you have to play the part or the musical that way as people expect it....

And if the paying audience expect to see a type of character then are we catering to them or do we cater for art and development.. Can we do both?

Well said, George.

I've worked with numerous directors (and on in particular) who still use the same lib marked up with all the moves they set back in 19xx

This seems to be especially true with G&S. I'm no big fan of G&S, but it seems to be split into 2 camps:

The first likes to try setting the show in a new and exciting context (Modern hi-tech Japanese Mikado, Princess Ida set in WW2, etc), which sometimes works, and is always exciting and interesting to watch.

The second might as well just show a video of the last time they did it (or in fact any other society which follows the "trad" style - you probably wouldn't notice!)

Yup sadly, G&S seems to be the worse offender in these cases...

The characters in those though are so rich to play with....

It's a shame the "purists" don't like acting... *wink*

Did you see EBOS's Pirates? Now THAT was a kick ass show.
The characterisation in that was the best I've seen for G&S
and I'm not just saying that because I was in it.

If you didn't see it, I got it on video... email me and I'll send it..

I couldn't agree more with George and Jonboy.

Isnt' it also the case that with musicals people try to copy the movie? The set, the dance routines etc? And isn't that what the paying public have come to expect and is what sells shows? I'm thinking West Side Story here. I'm sure there's a huge a case that people don't want to rock the boat - the just want "I directed a succesful production of..." on their CV's.

Now I'm not an actor (no! really I hear you cry!) but surely you don't want to play a part the same way as Fred Bloggs played it last year? And surely as a director you want to stamp your mark on a production - or am I totally off base

I know as a designer I want to do something different with a show, some thing to put my mark on it and where possible something to push the boundaries of the particular group, venue or even myself. Whether I'm designing the lighting or the staging

I agree with you Martin, once you've seen one "Fiddler on the Roof" once you've seen it a million times, even similar sets are often rented. I feel each production should be unique, but then as a writer, actor and director (not all at the same time) I don't have to actually produce shows/plays and be responsible for counting money, just spending it.

OK. I'm at rehearsal last night for The Sound of Music (I'm playing VT - Obviously they'll have to make me up older!!!) We need to set the Austrian dance, and the Director & MD are saying, "watch the video", because there's BOUND to be an avid fan in the audience who'll be looking for mistakes.

I say, if you want the film version, then why bother going to the show. Stay at home and watch the film!

(this is also a bit of an excuse because, despite 3 years of dance classes at Drama School, I still find that when I go on holiday I have to buy myself a pair of flip-flips, because I have 2 left feet!)

QUOTE (playsforplaytime @ Jan 24 2003, 12:32 AM)

once you've seen one "Fiddler on the Roof" once you've seen it a million times, even similar sets are often rented. I feel each production should be unique,

I beleive Fiddler is actually one you can't change.... It's written in the script it must be done a certain way. Even the dances are actually written out in the books.....

I for one wouldn't take on the directing of a play if it has tight restraints as George has mentioned in "Fiddler".

Hire the Vid, watch it at home!

Yeah, and that, at least means 'they' might not watch there daily fix of soaps (panaciere for the masses).

Watching a show on vid is at least a step closer to being brave and taking those first tentative steps to the theatre.

(Am I off topic now? Sorry!)

Hark! A fanfare! Back to the plot!
IMHO the two best books to read on the subject are 'About Acting' by Peter Barkworth and 'Year of the King' by Anthony Sher. Both available from Amazon last time I looked.

I find that characterisation can be very difficult if you are playing a role where you're on stage say a couple of lines go off... come back another line then off... back for a song then off etc.

I just can't build a character very well in that situation. Any tips on this would be gratefully recieved.

Good suggestions on those 2 books Flange. My copy of "Year of the King" was signed by the man himself when he visited my drama school to work with us. I, like some sad, star-struck moron asked him to sign the copy I'd been out to buy specially. Not very cool for a drams student!

I'd also recommend Michael Green's "The Art of Course Acting", which should be compulsory reading for anyone involved in theatre, professional or amateur, onstage or backstage!

"Bit parts" characterisation is a pain... Mostly chorus get these, little time is put in by most directors for these parts as there's "bigger fish to fry" else where.

What I like to see is leads or chorus with experience helping out the director here.

I joined a group at the last minute to do a show (not saying which) but the second last song involved a few men and a female singer... 2 weeks before the show it looked terrible, then men just stood there, moving when required and the female singer danced round them. Even the director was not happy...

I took the guys outside and gave them all characters to play WHILE doing the song. 1 was a virgin, an other a drunk, 1 was a cocky git and the other a womaniser...

We went back in. Did the song again and there wasn't a dry eye in the hall.

The best one was the virgin, everytime the singer got near him he'd edge away slowly, when she touched him he'd start shaking... Where as before they jsut stood there...

So it can be done. You really got to use your imagination for bit parts.
As i think I said before, don't think of your character in the show as "now" think of him as what he was before, what got him to this situation in the show.

Using Oklahoma as an example...

Once you build up that character stay with him. Say "Right I'm going to be a... " dim cowboy or a happy cowboy or a butch cowboy or a mate of "other cowboy"... then do what you feel that cowboy would do in any situation in the show.

For the girls.. There's much more fun to be had.. Shy, naughty, prude, mother, daughter, you don't need to have a character to be a character...

Pick your oneself but the MOST IMPORTANT thing is to ALWAYS BE THAT CHARACTER.... Don't walk on and then stand there...

Don't forget that when your character goes off stage they are going to do something. This is where you have to invent...and your next entrance should reflect whatever your character has been doing.
And this is especially important for your first entrance. What has your character been doing in the run up? Are they hot, tired, angry...let your imagination run riot and you can come up with all sorts of possibilities that will make your character seem more alive to the audience.

Well that's my rant of the day.

A local dance school around here always does "big" well-known musicals - Sound of Music, West Side Story, 42nd Street, Hello Dolly. And they're ALWAYS complete carbon copies of the film. No imagination, and I should imagine the director gets very little out of them - no creative input allowed! Even the costumes, make-up and gestures are identical.

But they sell, and everyone who comes out of the door says how fantastic they are. They go to the theatre once or twice a year, and expect to see what they know and already like.

Not saying it's a good thing - but it's the Real World!

Personally, as a director I send every member of my cast home after first rehearsal to make up an entire history of their character. If they're chorus they have to think up a name as well. Then they stick to it and see where we go.
I've never been criticised for my 'different' and unusual interpretations - they're known to have the 'Anne-Marie stamp' on them - and I enjoy that.

Half of the excitement is wondering what the audience will make of them on the first night! And I've never been let down yet.