Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin
Directing
 Community Theater Green Room Discussion Board :Producing Theater :Directing
Message Icon Topic: Spine of a play Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 3 Next >>
Author Message
Wuo duh ma
Walk-On
Walk-On


Joined: 12/10/06
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Quote Wuo duh ma Replybullet Posted: 12/15/06 at 2:38pm
I have to say that I believe the excerisize is grounded in a good intention, but it practice it fails.  You need to find your own way to bring out the motivations and the through line of a show.  I usually have one rehearsal where we do NOTHING but talk about the past history of these characters (how did they meet, why are they here, what do they do, how do they know each other.) 
 
The audience will NEVER know what's going on, but it bonds the actors to their characters and to each other.  What's great about this excercise is there is NO wrong answer.
 
Case in point:  I directed Prelude to a Kiss and we were doing the character rehrearsal.  I had double cast the preacher to Rita's uncle in the next scene.  We (read: the cast) decided that Rita uncle was Rita's mother sister's husband and they met in Vegas where he was a boxer and she was one of the card girls (Mom's sister had a period of wild times).  They met, got married, and he decided to become a minister.
 
The audience knew none of that, the actors had a great time, it really helped the show and we didn't spend time thinking about a "spine", it happened naturally.
 
My point is try to find your own voice and don't sweat it so much.
I am a leaf on the wind… watch how I soar.
IP IP Logged
POB14
Celebrity
Celebrity
Avatar

Joined: 7/01/05
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 349
Quote POB14 Replybullet Posted: 12/15/06 at 3:34pm
I would say something both witty and wise, but I can't improve on something I've said many times here:
 
I agree 100% with Tristan.
 
That is all.
POB
Old Bugger, Curmudgeon, and Antisocial B**tard
IP IP Logged
Mike Polo
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Community Theater Green Room

Joined: 2/01/04
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 286
Quote Mike Polo Replybullet Posted: 12/15/06 at 3:42pm

What POB said... especially about the something both witty and wise.

Mike Polo
Community Theater Green Room
http://www.communitytheater.org
IP IP Logged
Amos Hart
Lead
Lead


Joined: 12/15/06
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 36
Quote Amos Hart Replybullet Posted: 12/15/06 at 7:02pm
I was going to use my tedious High Diving Analogy, but let's go with Gold Prospecting.
 
If you stick your shovel into Shakespeare, Arthur Miller, Chekhov, you can keep digging for miles and still come up with gold.  There's always something more to be found.
 
I once had a director spend an evening discussing the back stories of the characters in Arsenic and Old Lace.  That evening was a waste of time.  The motivations and relationships are all right there on the surface.  There is gold to be found in Harvey and Arsenic and Old Lace, but it's a finite amount and it's all near the top.  If you keep digging past the gold trying to find more where none exists, you just wear yourself out and look silly.
 
Decide what the characters want, why they want it and go from there.  Save your shovel for a bigger mine.
 
I was going to decry the whole idea of putting big spotlights on The Theme; but after twenty years of directing community theater I just started on my first non-equity professional show, Boston Marriage and I've been spending more time than usual on approach.
 
At the readthrough, I gave the actresses references that they wouldn't possibly be able to imitate in the show (nor would I want them to), but to give them character hooks.  Aside from the obvious note that Boston Marriage is a female mirror of the males in American Buffalo (two older people planning a scam who think they're smarter than their young, dim assistant -- and they're not), I also said, "Look at Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?  Anna - you're Martha.  Claire - you're George.  Catherine - you're Honey."  Or Chicago.  Anna is Roxie, Claire is Velma, Catherine is Amos.  I struck gold when, referring to the two older women who think they're intelligent, compared to the honest, helpfully dim maid, I said, "You're two Hardys and a Laurel."  The woman playing Catherine loved that because it gives her a handle on the character without dictating line readings -- honest, lovable, simple; but really slow on the uptake.
 
Using the Virginia Woolf reference gets us away from the "They're Lesbians!!!" aspect, which doesn't really enter into it.  The focus is not on two lesbians, it's on a bad marriage which happens to be between two women.
 
So yeah, I guess I think a lot about the focus of the show, and what hooks to give actors that will help them play it; I just tend to shy away from making that process a big deal.  I decide what I want from the show and go after it.
IP IP Logged
JShieldsIowa
Star
Star
Avatar

Joined: 11/05/06
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 49
Quote JShieldsIowa Replybullet Posted: 12/20/06 at 11:51pm
This all makes me giggle a bit inside.  Recently I directed a production of Seussical the Musical.  I had a chorus member come up to me and ask me "what's my motivation, what's my backstory" during the "Anything's Possible" song.  I looked at her and said "you're a happy fish".  She looked at me a bit confused and then nodded as if I rattled off some mathematical equation that solved the mystery of life.  Then she asked me "do we know why we're going to war and whether we agree with it".  I finally had to look her squarely in the eyes and tell her "you're a cartoon person in a purple wig - just be happy when you're supposed to be happy and be sad when you're supposed to be sad".  A couple days later she came up to me and told me how deep that was and that really helped her come up with her back story and characterization for the role.  I tried very, very hard not to burst out in total laughter.  LOL
IP IP Logged
DWolfman
Celebrity
Celebrity
Avatar

Joined: 7/07/05
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 134
Quote DWolfman Replybullet Posted: 12/21/06 at 10:45am
Originally posted by JShieldsIowa

I tried very, very hard not to burst out in total laughter.  LOL
 
Originally posted by Popeye the Sailor

I yam what I yam and tha's all I am.Wink
 
Sometimes the part and/or the show speaks for itself.
 
Not to take this subject too lightly though, when I am acting I spend a lot of time in character analysis, relationship dynamics, historical and literary connections, backstory links, subtext, and even at times, the "spine" of the story and production.  I do this not only to prepare my character, but...it's a major part of what I enjoy about building a character.
 
As a director, I give the actors just enough to start the ball rolling (much as AMOS HART said, with references familiar enough to ring the bell) and primarily ask them for input as they begin to figure things out themselves (tailoring my reaction to their responses toward the path I wish them to proceed).  Too much analysis on the director's part, it seems to me, distracts the actors from doing their own job.
Even a man who is pure of heart...
IP IP Logged
Director7
Walk-On
Walk-On


Joined: 12/20/06
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Quote Director7 Replybullet Posted: 12/21/06 at 6:16pm

Different directors may use several organizing principles in their analyses: a theme, an image, a spine or something else.  Personally I find the spine to be very important and helpful; without it a production may lack focus and texture.

 
Certainly we should ask questions such as  "What is the audience to enjoy?" or "What should the reaction to this moment be?", but to stop there would be to do a disservice to the production.  A comic moment, for example, could be made comic in a multitude of ways; the spine can assist us in ruling out the least appropriate way and direct us toward the more telling choices. 
 
It is true that certain plays will be more limited in their choices for spine, but they still posess one.  (Plays are "an imitation of an action"; drama depicts a stuggle.) 
 
As far as the actors go, it may not be necessary to bore them with details of your analysis.  (Kazan, in his discussion of spine, states that he doesn't discuss this with the actors.)  All they may need is a good image or analogy (as the "Virginia Woolf"/ Laurel and Hardy one above), or just "move there": whatever works for them. The point is that analysis will help you as director develop your vision, and when an actor makes a choice that runs counter to that vision or does not support it, you are able to steer him/her back in the right direction .
 
To the poster of "Seusical" above:  I know exactly what you mean.  Many times an actor will ask a question which seems like it should be obvious to anyone who has read the play or one that seems just plain ridiculous.  I constantly have to remind myself in these cases that the actor may be at a certain point in their development, may have a certain approach to their craft or that the actor is simply dealing with one aspect of the production (their character) and may not "see the forest for the trees".  I use this as an opportunity to clarify and (hopefully) push them in the proper direction.
IP IP Logged
NagarWSF
Walk-On
Walk-On
Avatar

Joined: 1/11/07
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Quote NagarWSF Replybullet Posted: 1/18/07 at 1:29pm
I have to disagree with the advice by Falstaff29. If you ask "do I want my audience to cry, or laugh" or any of the other things this person says, then you are directing towards a manufactured emotional result. If the goal becomes "to make the audience laugh" then you are paying no attention to the circumstances of the story. Focus on the circumstances, and the rest will fall into place. The "right" emotional reaction will be there because it is truthful and reactive.
 
I think the first things you said about identifying the spine of Harvey are the exact kind of observations and conclusions you should be making. You do have to examine what every character is going through. When you do, you find commonalities. Those commonalities are the basis for your spine, or theme. To not search for those, and to disregard them, is an insult to the playwright who put them there for a reason. Any director who advises their actors not to bother with asking important character questions or devising backstories, shouldn't be directing. Those directors and actors are only concerned with the outward appearance of their characters. The character then has no inner life. The inner life of the character makes for a fuller, more honest, and better performance. I don't care what different school of acting you study, Stanislavsky, Meisner, Hagen, Strassberg, any acting teacher, book, director worth their salt will concur.
 
That said, one of the techniques I use is called from what...through what...to what. It works like this:
 
From what: When the play begins, how is the world of the play? From where is the beginning of the play coming? What happened just before the play began? Remember, every beginning of a story is just the middle or end of another story
 
Through what:What transpires during the course of the play? How is the established world changed or challenged? What events occur and what are their impact on the people in the story? (Notice I said people not characters)
 
To what: What is left at the end? How is the world of the play different? Are questions answered? Are new ones put forth? Where do the characters go from here?
 
Lastly, the other thing to identify is conflict. The heart of drama, and stories in general, is conflict. Identify these (yes there may be more than one) in terms of forces or concepts (ie., man vs. nature, passionate love vs. marriages of convenience, old age vs. youth, etc.) The identified spine and the from-thru-to will support the conflict.
 
Any director that doesn't do their homework, is a lazy director. Actors who don't do their homework are lazy as well. It doesn't matter if the audience thinks in those terms. The director and actors have to know more about the play and the characters than the audience. And believe me, the audience does perceive it on some level.
 
In reading some of the responses here, don't be swayed by the "don't make it so hard" comments. Directing is hard! No one ever said it should be easy. Even the most trvivial seeming play has a conflict. Do you need as deep and thorough an analysis of Grease as you do Death of a Salesman? Well maybe not. But you still need to flesh it out to a certain extent. Attention must be paid.  LOL Good luck!
 
 
Working Class Theatre Company
www.workingclasstheatre.org
IP IP Logged
whitebat
Celebrity
Celebrity
Avatar

Joined: 8/05/07
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 137
Quote whitebat Replybullet Posted: 12/02/07 at 11:04pm
I've spent more time in "Interactive Murder Mysteries" than other forms of theatre in recent years.  We had a very loose script, and the actors made up a lot of their characters.  Notably, I don't think our audience ever "got" the theme, although each actor made up a lot of backstory for their INDIVIDUAL character.  It would be really helpful to have a director who could communicate something about the "theme" of a play, as that would affect not only acting but sets, lighting, etc.  I think if you try to impose the theme rather than finding it in the script it can run counter to the playwright's intent. 
IP IP Logged
theactordavid
Lead
Lead


Joined: 5/29/06
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 44
Quote theactordavid Replybullet Posted: 12/03/07 at 11:51am
I think most importantly is to "discover" meaningful facets of a character and his/her back story.  Was Hamlet a bed-wetter?  Did Stanley always get a sweater for Christmas?  Was Willy a C-student? And does any of that translate to the audience?

In Mamet's book "True and False: Heresy and Common Sense for the Actor", he says:

The actor is onstage to communicate the play to the audience.  That is the beginning and the end of his and her job.  To do so the actor needs a strong voice, superb diction, a supple, well-proportioned body, and a rudimentary understanding of the play.
    The actor does not need to "become" the character.  The phrase, in fact, has no meaning.  There is  no character.  There are only lines upon a page.  They are lines of dialogue meant to be said by the actor.  When he or she says them simply, in an attempt to achieve an object more or less like that suggested by the author, the audience sees and illusion of a character upon the stage.


I believe Stanislavski said (and I paraphrase, and do not quote), what works for you is right.

Ultimately, getting the truth of the playwright's words to the audience is the goal.  Whatever techniques or skills you wish to employ in that endeavor are valid if your goal is proper, and achieved.  If neither of these apply, then you need to try something else perhaps.

Leave it to the audience to decide whether they should laugh or cry, be disgusted or amused, love or hate your character. That is their role in the play, for which they likely paid good money.

IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 3 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums version 8.05
Copyright ©2001-2006 Web Wiz Guide
buy generic cialis are in line cialis canada outcome for yourself viagra sales cost saving benefit viagra uk convert your buy phentermine online pay phentermine cod payment Lenders Everything xanax online your existing xanax overnight absolute must free incest stories online The value gay incest advance The key free dog sex pics cash flow dog sex the reduced noise free gay college guys of the period gay guys