Featured Post

Let's End the Specious Argument of Beloved Dead Masters

In particular, let's end the "argument" between Adler and Strasberg.  There is no substance to their false reasoning upon whi...

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

CHARACTER OR CARICATURE? LAURA DERN - MARRIAGE STORY

I discussed creating the character previously in a blog post titled Artistic Interpretation or Mimicry (7/2/16), and it seems to me that it's related to  creating a character about whom, because of their idiosyncrasies, we recognize as humorous, and understanding that in order to avoid the trap of indicated acting (showing the character) which leads to caricature, the actor must seriously "participate in the actions of the character," (Uta Hagen).  It's possible that Laura Dern was directed by Noah Baumbach to portray the divorce attorney in a caricatured style; if so, a serious error, in my opinion.  Consider the performances of the three actors who portrayed divorce attorneys in Marriage Story.  Caricature prevents us from finding the character funny, whereas, when the actor steps into the shoes of the character, thinks the thoughts of the character, and is deadly serious about the character's actions, that's when we find them funny.

 

 Were they thinking of Lisa Bloom?  Lisa Bloom takes herself very seriously.
  
Ray Liotta and Alan Alda performed correctly. Caricature distances us from the actions of the character, whereas idiosyncrasy of character draws us into the actions of the character.

In the scene above, if Laura Dern had portrayed her character as sincerely as Alan Alda portrayed his, the irony, the heartbreak, would have been much more profound.  I think that Noah Baumbach is an excellent screenwriter who creates the syntax of film beautifully; what he is unfamiliar with is the task of the actor, and it shows up in his films.  There are excellent performances alongside drastic errors -- I don't think it's a roll of the dice -- I think it's ignorance of technique.

Thursday, January 16, 2020

SIR LAURENCE OLIVIER ON MARLON BRANDO




I've written in various posts about talent and technique; what a pleasure to find this brief discussion about it from Olivier regarding Brando (6/25/13 post).

Sadly, this is also an example of how little exchange there was, and still is, between teachers and practitioners regarding the definition of technique. Per my 6/16/17 post on diversity, I quoted Uta Hagen's definition of technique.  Note her definition of realistic performance, and although Olivier surmised, without asking him, that Brando wouldn't have agreed that he was a technician, I'll take the liberty, from Brando's quotes, to surmise that he would definitely have agreed that he was a technician who practiced the realistic technique defined by Hagen.

Interestingly, in an anecdote regarding her experience with Olivier, Hagen said that no matter how differently she might have delivered a line to him in rehearsal, he always responded in the same way.  See the film, The Boys From Brazil.  Nevertheless, Olivier seemed definitely to play an action and identify with the images in his above recitation of the lines from Milton's Paradise Lost.

Monday, January 13, 2020

SCARLETT JOHANSSON - INNATE TALENT WITHOUT TECHNIQUE PITFALLS - MARRIAGE STORY


There are many talented actors who have studied minimally or a lot, but don't rely on technique when they perform; and there are a few who have never studied formally, but are talented enough to not make the error of indicated depiction of a character with the result of either showing us their idea of the character or reading the script's dialogue narratively rather than acting dramatically.

I've written elsewhere on my blog that talent is a variable, but that technique is not.  I don't think there's any substitute for technique regardless of the actor's innate talent, and I think Ms. Johansson has demonstrated my POV very well in several scenes in Marriage Story.  Two scenes from the film demonstrate this:  In the above scene, when her partner commented on her hair in a very intimate, personal manner, the thought that preceded her verbal response conveyed physically the irony that although they were no longer in such a relationship, he didn't seem aware of it, was dramatically conveyed and appropriately performed.  Note that her body language and words conveyed that idea.

However, in the following scene, Ms. Johansson performed her monologue narratively.  Note that every sentence of her description of her marriage seemed to be known to her in advance, and she rattled off, without hesitation, disparate events consecutively that had taken place over a period of years.  Many actors who do this will frequently shake their heads back and forth while they're speaking, which I interpret as an attempt to connect to the idea.  Note how much Ms. Johansson did that as well as physically shake herself during her monologue.  I think she was trying to connect to the images of her narrative description.  Each sentence of that well-written monologue needed a thought to precede it, a reliving of each incident - a reaching for the words to describe the images of those disparate events.  In addition, compare the relaxed voice placement in the first scene as opposed to the tension in her voice in the next scene.


In addition, in the following scene, she performed the scene correctly until her last sentence.  Both men were trying to convince her to participate in a way she no longer wanted to.  They were critical and ignored or weren't sensitive to her resentment and pain.  She needed to hurt them, insult them in return and escape. The actor needs to prepare the action/verb for each individual sentence.  To insult or even something stronger for, "I'm gonna go if you're just gonna sit around and suck each other's dicks," needed to be laser beamed at each of them.  Instead, "...suck each other's dicks" went into the air, instead of being the piercing dagger it needed to be.



An actor who understands and uses technique in rehearsal and performance knows how to avoid the pitfalls of uneven performance.