help from fellow dramatists please (1 Viewer)

[steffo]

for my I.P. im doing a female character who is desperately seeking a guy. she has this really really sad depseration that makes her do very silly things, and get drunk, and have a lot of promiscuous sex to make herself feel like she is less lonely. whether it sound like it or not, it is a fabulous script, beautifully written, and has a relaly deep underlying sadness, even though it is quite funny.

i was wondering if anyone can think of nay movies or tv shows that contains such a character. she is beautiful, sexy, charming and has a succesful job, but NEVER has any luck in love. she is totally lonely and desperate, and is just a loser underneath her huge facade of pretending to be happy and normal.

all i could think of is the women from the hours, and they're all preoccupied with suicide, not love, and then erin brocavich, but julia roberts really gives me the craps.
i need a strong female characters, sexy, but completely lonely and desperate.

any ideas????? any help would be great. i've found my character's emotional side but am having trouble with her physicality, and her voice to some degree.

good luck with trials, kiddos.

 

[AlleyCat]

i have the PERFECT FILM FOR YOU...

SWEET CHARITY with Shirley McLaine. its a musical. its directed by bob fosse. it is SPLENDID and a lot like your character.

DEFINATELY SEE IT...

 

[fleepbasding]

At this stage I suggest you just work really hard and invent a physicality that you think reflects her inner state. Modeling a performance on a film actress can lead to too much subtlety. ie- good for the camera but not engaging onstage.

Another thing, and this is to you and everyone- go over the top! I used to think that I was playing my character in a whacky farout etc manner but then viewed a video of myself a few days ago and realised that what I thought was "big" was actually really small. My voice was all on one level and my movement was messy. Damn, it was the most useful thing I've ever done. Moral- FILM YOURSELF! Trust me, it's worth it.

 

[Gummy_bear]

i have to agree. although im not doing performance for IP. for the trials the teacher wants someone to be a filmer and film each performance, so that we can look at it and see what we each need to fix. also, our school has mirrors along one wall, so thats always good for movement etc.
yeh, over the top is good.
just remember, if your crying and a single tear runs down your cheek, a single person will notice it. if your crying a bucket of tears, a bucket of people will notice.
(i just made that up ^^) hehe.

 

[steffo]

At this stage I suggest you just work really hard and invent a physicality that you think reflects her inner state. Modeling a performance on a film actress can lead to too much subtlety. ie- good for the camera but not engaging onstage.

Another thing, and this is to you and everyone- go over the top! I used to think that I was playing my character in a whacky farout etc manner but then viewed a video of myself a few days ago and realised that what I thought was "big" was actually really small. My voice was all on one level and my movement was messy. Damn, it was the most useful thing I've ever done. Moral- FILM YOURSELF! Trust me, it's worth it.

i get what you mean about subtlety, but i've always acted on stage and find it very hard to act subtle anyway. i just need (this is guna sounds tre wanky) a phsycological inspiration for the physicality. coz this character is just overtly sexual and....im not. so yesh.
but the filming idea is really really good. i think i will definately have a go at that. just to see what works and what doesn't. you definately can't pick up all your errors whilst performing.

GOOD TIPS FELLAS!! ROCK ON!!!

 

[steffo]

i have the PERFECT FILM FOR YOU...

SWEET CHARITY with Shirley McLaine. its a musical. its directed by bob fosse. it is SPLENDID and a lot like your character.

DEFINATELY SEE IT...

thanks muchly!
i shall go and rent it out ASAP!!!

 

[AlleyCat]

i have to agree. although im not doing performance for IP. for the trials the teacher wants someone to be a filmer and film each performance, so that we can look at it and see what we each need to fix. also, our school has mirrors along one wall, so thats always good for movement etc.
yeh, over the top is good.
just remember, if your crying and a single tear runs down your cheek, a single person will notice it. if your crying a bucket of tears, a bucket of people will notice.
(i just made that up ^^) hehe.

that is stupid. subtlety is the key to an affecting performance. if you cry, its likely the audience wont.

otherwise i would cry when i watch those sooky cows on soap operas. i do, but for an entirely different reason.

yes, shirley mclaine is the key. trust me youll be thanking me soon...

 

[fleepbasding]

that is stupid. subtlety is the key to an affecting performance. if you cry, its likely the audience wont.

otherwise i would cry when i watch those sooky cows on soap operas. i do, but for an entirely different reason.

yes, shirley mclaine is the key. trust me youll be thanking me soon...

Well, if you were crying then you'd be performing in a completely different style than what my advice was aimed towards. Mine is a comedy and for it to work on the stage I have to go a bit over the top. I think that the original posters piece has an element of comedy (correct me if I'm wrong) and so therefore, it is worth exagurating things a little.

EDIT: And Gummy bear does have a a very valid point. And alley cat, there is no one style of theatre. Maybe you are more geared towards naturalism but often a more farsical approach hits the mark for HSC drama.

 

[jaihson]

I totally disagree with the "bucket load of tears" comment. A powerful performer will 'try not to cry' rather than cry. Watching a character struggle to hold back emotion on stage will move an audience alot more. If the character simply bawls, then sure it may be ok acting, but the audience wont feel they need to cry over whats happening.

And i disagree with the comment that farsical will hit the mark more than naturalism. Neither is better for HSC drama (provided you dont perform any self-devised psychodrama), you just need to pick a style to work with and do a good job of it.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

I totally disagree with the "bucket load of tears" comment. A powerful performer will 'try not to cry' rather than cry. Watching a character struggle to hold back emotion on stage will move an audience alot more. If the character simply bawls, then sure it may be ok acting, but the audience wont feel they need to cry over whats happening.

And i disagree with the comment that farsical will hit the mark more than naturalism. Neither is better for HSC drama (provided you dont perform any self-devised psychodrama), you just need to pick a style to work with and do a good job of it.

yes, i agree too that pent up, held back emotion is more likely to get an emotional response from the audience than straight out tears. however, that's not to say that crying will never get the same result...i think it depends on the script sometimes whether or not it's appropriate to cry.

 

[fleepbasding]

geez. I don't think crying was ever the real issue here. The principle of exagurating things a little holds true for the stage, even for naturalistic performance. I said often farce will get the marks, and I stand by that comment. Just think of Onstage. Naturalism is undoubtably the harder style and that's why it is often best for the inexperienced HSC student to avoid it. Now, I'm not accusing anyone of being inexperienced but most of us would be. Farce on the otherhand provides a clear (sometimes archetypal) character with plenty of opportunity to display skills in voice and movement, with a simple and engaging character journey and plot.

 

[AlleyCat]

I totally disagree with the "bucket load of tears" comment. A powerful performer will 'try not to cry' rather than cry. Watching a character struggle to hold back emotion on stage will move an audience alot more. If the character simply bawls, then sure it may be ok acting, but the audience wont feel they need to cry over whats happening.

And i disagree with the comment that farsical will hit the mark more than naturalism. Neither is better for HSC drama (provided you dont perform any self-devised psychodrama), you just need to pick a style to work with and do a good job of it.

amen to that...

 

[Gummy_bear]

geez, i meant a bucket of tears, in terms of the audience noticing it. i meant that the audience wouldnt realise that you were crying if only one tear went down your cheek. i was also tlaking in terms of a more melodramatic performance. you cant be too subtle sometimes. i mean, even proffessional actors are told to over do it a tad so that everyone will notice it.
if your on tv, they can just zoom in on the tear, if your on stage, unless someone has super zoom power abilities, they wont notice that one tear.
thats all i was saying.

 

[AlleyCat]

OI STEFFO! did you end up watching sweet charity?

its fuckin awesome, aint it???

i told you so.

 

[Skillo]

All you 05'ers are posting. As a grannie, I thought I might butt in.

EDIT: And Gummy bear does have a a very valid point. And alley cat, there is no one style of theatre. Maybe you are more geared towards naturalism but often a more farsical approach hits the mark for HSC drama.

Farsical approach hit the mark for HSC drama? No. Not neccessarily. Drama is not a subject that you can make generalisations about. Until you can get quotes from 3 markers saying that they agree with that statement...don't make it. Because people may become mislead.

you just need to pick a style to work with and do a good job of it.

Couldn't of put it better myself.

I said often farce will get the marks, and I stand by that comment. Just think of Onstage.

You seem a little deluded over what onstage is. It is not the best, it is a 'representation' or 'cross-section' of the most diverse, challenging, interesting and well-performed pieces...not neccessarily the ones that get the best marks.


I find that there is nothing worse than an overly melodramatic performance, and whoever said that professionals over do it, err, no, not always.

I think it is best we return to Steffo's original question.
Steffo, think of all the desperados in romances. Jones, bridget jones. I don't tihnk this is the best the suggestion...it's just I'm biased cause I'm a living, talking bridget myself!!

 

[fleepbasding]

I stated my opinion. I suppose I should have made myself clearer that it was merely my opinion and I'm not saying that it the truth. However, Skillo- I'll have you know that I'm not deluded. Onstage are all those things you said, but don't tell me they're not the best marks? Almost every individual at Onstage would've got 30/30... I thought that would have been obvious. Sure there are other high-scoring pieces that aren't in Onstage. I know what Onstage is so please, don't patronize me.

I suppose my main point was that a farsical approach is often beneficial for performers of our age. And most drama students are too shit to pull off a good naturalistic performance anyway. I'm not being personal about anyone on this forum, but that's just a fact of life.

Anyway, I'll admit that I'm biased towards Farce because that's some-what the style I'm performing in. I'm also thinking of the last few years of drama at my school and how most students who have attempted naturalism have a much harder time. And our school is one of the best in the state for drama, so I'm talking from a bit of experience here. We had a top of the state in 2000... and I'm top of my class (of 26) this year. My mother is also a HSC drama teacher... So I'm talking from experience.

Making the performance a little exagurated doesn't equate to "melodrama". I'm not going to abuse you Skillo, because honestly I don't know you, so please show me the same respect.

 

[Gummy_bear]

gee, maybe i shouldnt of made that tears comment. after reading all the posts, i agree with skillo, it does depend on your performance piece.
and you cant say that onstage was the best can you? two words: 'cover up'! lol.
i do agree with everyone here, you all have very valid points. lets leave it as a agreee to disagree. thanks for stepping in skillo. lol. may i ask, just out of curiosity, what style would you say your piece fell under, if any? id love to know.

 

[steffo]

OI STEFFO! did you end up watching sweet charity?

its fuckin awesome, aint it???

i told you so.

not yet. i'm about to ring the old video shop to look for it in fact. i have a day off exams tomorrow and am finished for the day now so hopefully i'll track it down and get back to u as to whether or not your 'fuckin awesome' claim is accurate....
it better be dammit.

 

[steffo]

geez. I don't think crying was ever the real issue here. The principle of exagurating things a little holds true for the stage, even for naturalistic performance. I said often farce will get the marks, and I stand by that comment. Just think of Onstage. Naturalism is undoubtably the harder style and that's why it is often best for the inexperienced HSC student to avoid it. Now, I'm not accusing anyone of being inexperienced but most of us would be. Farce on the otherhand provides a clear (sometimes archetypal) character with plenty of opportunity to display skills in voice and movement, with a simple and engaging character journey and plot.

comedy is a surprisingly difficult genre to pull off. timing and characterisation are really important and arent always succesfully done.
just becuase people laugh does not mean it's a good piece either. ie. onstage, since we keep bringing it up.

i think it's important for people who are serious about drama to challenge themselves in their IPs. just going for the safe route, the funny archetype, it's just the same old same old. just ticking the things off the list, like voice, movement, characterisation, and not thinking about your character's motivation or meaning, it's just a bit shod.

BUT there are lots and lots of subgenres of comedy that can be a lot more challening than farce or melodrama. black humour and pathos are usually more challenging.
anyway, people will do what they like, and often, people make baaaad choices for their IPs. if u knew my drama class you would know what i mean.
it's like those stupid people on australian idol, where the judges say "that's a bad song choice". u can only make do with a good script, and if it's shit, then you'll most likely be shit. writing is an integral part to succesful drama.

SPIEL OVER. thankyou for your time.

 

[fleepbasding]

I agree with most of what you say. There's nothing wrong with checking off the marking list and making sure your piece covers all the criteria... everyone should be doing that regardless of their style. "character motivation and meaning" are also on the criteria (there are 10 whole marks devoted to character and characterisation) so I'm not preaching against that. There's nothing wrong with not challenging yourself too much with the the drama IP. Naturaly it should be a challenge anyway due to the highstandard required of HSC drama but if you know your strengths then it's foolish not to capitalize on them.

Is your piece humorous Steffo, just out of curiosity?