Method acting to create characters

[jacinthee]

Is anyone using Stanislavski's method to create characters or another approach of the kind? I am considering reading "An Actor Prepares" by Mr. S. to further explore the way characters are born and interact with/off of one another.

Heck, I already get into character, talking out loud and answering myself as I work on dialogue, so I figured, what the hey.

Has anyone tried this? Comments? Any better book to recommend on the subject.

Jacinthe

[MrGazzo]

I always read the dialog in the respective voices of the characters. How else are you supposed to know if a line falls flat or not?

[Steve]

I used to act and took years of acting classes. I think it's very helpful to a writer. It teaches you to look at a scene through an actor's eyes. The book you mentioned is a good one. You also might want to check out "Respect for Acting" by Uta Hagen. Sanford Meisner was a great acting teacher with an interesting approach and I think he has wrote books too.

[CRASH]

You can learn much just by getting a group of actors together to give a reading of your script. It's best if you're just sitting back watching to fully absorb the nuances of your dialogue.

[JaneaDahl]

Steve's right about the Uta Hagen book. (Personally Stanislavsky is a little too stilted for me.) I have a degree in theatre, and have found that it helps considerably with my writing. And Crash's suggestion to have your script read is also a good one. I used to help run a screenplay reading series, and once a month we would have ten actors read a featured script by a local screenwriter. The differenced in hearing it aloud is amazing. Most of the writers videotaped the readings.

If you don't have access to a local talent agency, getting college students, or acting school students shouldn't be too hard. They usually want to network with up and coming writers.

Good luck!

Janea

[Cornell]

Hi, Jacinthee. I've participated in group readings, and they're a great idea--helps you to weed-out the stilted verbage in your script. I also agree that taking drama classes and/or reviewing acting books is a big plus in jumping into a character's demeanor.

Anyway, I'm not sure if you're asking about character or dialogue here. In my experience, dialogue can't live without character, but character can live without dialogue. There's a book--not based on acting--that's helped me get inside and understand each of my characters along the way, and it's called Dynamic Characters by Nancy Kress. She shows how to create living, breathing, colorful characters, which in turn, creates living, breathing, colorful dialogue.

[Muckraker]

I'm not sure I buy the use of talent to read your stuff as a measure of how good it will play out. A bad actor or actress can deliver even the best dialogue and make it sound like crap. And sometimes a particular person just has a really hard time delivering a particular phrase just because it doesn't sound natural to them, and you might end up changing it to suit their particular strengths, even though they are not the person who will ultimately play the part. Just food for thought...

[Strange Mind]

sit in the dark with a recorder and record the dialogue you would like to write. play it back to yourself. try not to hate your voice too much. see if the dialogue sounds okay.

helps me sometimes.

[jacinthee]

Guys, thanks for all the comments, references and suggestions! It's good to have a few tricks in store.

I sometime consider taking an acting or an improv class (especially when the new semester calendars come out), but I'm not quite what you would call typical showbiz material. The word "improv" itself is enough to make me freeze. I have a few issues to work out...

Now, once you're in character, if only someone could tell me how to get out of it (with little blue pills, perhaps?) -it's tiring to go around all day feeling heartbroken for someone who never existed... ;)

Jacinthe

[Seeker]

Hi Jacinthee

I wouldn’t be intimidated about joining an acting class. I took a few . . . even got some work performing in film out of it, though I was the absolute worst at it. IMHO, I rarely saw any real talent in the classes I took, though, they were highly regarded. At any rate, getting up and actually performing is the best teacher, I think. In fact, I intend to take up a class shortly just to brush up. Do keep in mind, however, that different schools have their focus on theatre, film or commercial work when making your choice. There’s a very real difference in approach--don’t let them tell you otherwise. And do take advantage of the free audit generally offered before you commit, do it when you are the sole auditor as opposed to some scheduled monthly cattle call when the class and instructor are performing especially for admissions, and keep your advance, financial commitment short. I don’t know. Maybe it’s because I live in LA, but some of the schools can get a little funky (religious cult recruitment, masochistic teachers and the like), you personally may or may not be able to establish the necessary chemistry with that instructor, and even the best of schools go through periods when a given class of students lacks energy. Even if you’re just going as a writer, it makes all the difference in the learning experience. I mostly got involved with schools specifically for film that utilized the natural intuitive approach--the so-called method of non-method acting with an emphasis on cold reading and taping in extreme close-up. (Most of these, though, ultimately derive from Meisner I think). For me, it gave me a better sense of subtext and non-verbal dialogue--an understanding of the adage character tension is best conveyed when the actual words spoken, often of the most mundane nature, contradict or do not in any way relate to the actual actions or emotional state of the character. Too, it gives you an insight into the type of dialogue, plots, et al., that make actors hot and wet--as opposed to some of the mumbo jumbo written in the various How to Write a Screenplay books by script readers. Books written by veteran actors are often the best source for nuts-and-bolts tips versus just theory--e.g., not falling for the misconception the lead actor requires the most dialogue--if they‘re savvy at any rate. (In the case a given actor has no or few lines, the camera will generally remain in extreme close-up on that actor, not the speaker, forcing him to convey character through non-verbal dialogue.) It also shows how we writers tend to overdo--overdo in our character backgrounds; overdo in dialogue wordiness; overdo in directions and wrylies. (Just as I’m doing in this post . . . Sorry).

Regards

[jacinthee]

Seeker, thanks for the advice. You're getting me pretty convinced. I'll just have to check out what's out there.

Neat.

Jacinthe