Audra McDonald's elaborate back story for Bess

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 12:32pm

https://www.broadwayworld.com/videoplay.php?colid=373105

In the above link, McDonald discusses her preparation for the role of Bess for the current revival of Porgy and Bess. She explains the depth of research involved for her, personally, and how she basically created a back story for her character, while also watching online interviews with prostitutes and drug addicts to fully understand her character's history.

I'm wondering is this not a bit over the top? Why would she not trust the material in the script and score and work off of that, the text and music?

Do all actors on Broadway go through this extensive research/preparation for roles? Especially fictional roles...? Thoughts?

[RaisedOnMusicals]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 12:38pm

Do all actors on Broadway go through this extensive research/preparation for roles? Especially fictional roles...? Thoughts

Nope, just the good/great ones.

[Blactor]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 12:46pm

It is not over the top. It is a symbol of her exhaustive work ethic, and it's why she's one of our very best actresses. Furthermore, she probably did this preparation IN ADDITION TO analyzing/utilizing clues given by the text and score.

I doubt that all so-called Broadway actors do this kind of prep, simply because MOST actors of ANY stripe don't do this level of prep. But I DO know that ALL great actors, or at least actors that I admire, do extensive preparatory work on their roles. And that's one of the major reasons that they are great. It isn't magic. It isn't this concept of "talent" that most of us like to cling to to separate the best from the rest. It's meat and potatoes work and discipline and application of developed skill that rules the day.

Zelda Fichandler always said that "information is inspiration". The depth of research that McDonald did/does is a testament to that, as the quality of her work is consistently high.

I find it odd that in the realm of Broadway, where the so-called cream of the theatre crop reigns, the notion that an actor might actually do work is viewed as "over the top", or implicitly seen as odd.

[followspot]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 12:47pm

Not over-the-top at all. This is exactly what good actors do in developing a character during rehearsal. Not only do they create the character's entire backstory, they establish in their mind where their character has just been when they enter a scene, where they're going when they exit, etc. This is the foundation of a full characterization, no matter how small the role.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 12:48pm

I don't think she's not trusting the text, but sometimes you have to clarify points in your head that aren't exactly spelled out in the script. She wants her performance to be lived-in and honest, so she created a backstory that explains how Bess ended up where she is. I think that's incredible, and it really shows.

[timote316]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 12:50pm

Lovely interview.

Dramatic pieces only give a snapshot of a character's life. A good actor NEEDS the backstory and history and all that, otherwise everything is superficial. As an actor, you have to figure out why a character does certain things, which isn't always clearly defined in the actual text. And like Audra says in the video, the audience doesn't have to know, but the actor does.

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 12:54pm

But I think it's insulting to the playwright or the book writer or the composer that the actor would have to go further than what's on their written page for the script and score. To think of all the blood, sweat, tears, hours, days, months that were put meticulously into making those words perfect - every line was discussed over and over to make sure it was spot on perfect. And then for an actor to come in and say, 'that's all very well, but I have to go further and make up **** on my own'

[followspot]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 12:58pm

All I can say now is that you have a very fundamental misunderstanding of how theatre works.

[AC126748]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 12:58pm

Considering that nearly all of the back story McDonald "invented" comes directly from the novel on which the show is based, which was written by one of the librettists, I'm not seeing the insult here. And it's not like she showed up one day with a scar painted on her face; that's something she would have talked over with Paulus and Parks.

Updated On: 5/4/12 at 12:58 PM

[RaisedOnMusicals]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 1:03pm

Let me give you a real live example of something very recent. My daughter is an AEA stage manager who was scheduled to PSM Time Stands Still. Unfortunately, two weeks before rehearsals were to start, she was struck by a drunk driver and broke her right knee and her left ankle (she had been on a bike), and her right leg was encased in a full leg immobilizer, exactly like the lead in the play. Though she was out until previews started, and then came back, she did come in to a few of the early rehearsals, in her wheelchair, just to see how things were going. So, the first time she came in, the director asked her to sit down with himself and the entire cast and describe what her life was like under these circumstances. And they spent a full hour of rehearsal time doing it.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 1:07pm

What followspot said. You don't sound like you were "wondering", but rather looking for support of your viewpoint. Audra isn't changing the words that were composed with "blood, sweat, tears, hours, days, months" - she's just giving them life. Actors aren't automatons. Each one has their own approach to a role - and I'll let you in on a little secret. Some actors actually change their character's backstory every once in a awhile, just to keep it fresh.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 1:09pm

The actors aren't changing the text. They are just adding a layer to an individual performance interpretation. Using just the text is fine, but it allows for very little room for variance from one production to the next. Adding backstory is no different than a director applying a conceptual vision to a Shakespeare play. It's simply an approach to the material and if it does not change the text, core or theme of a character or piece, then I don't see it insulting at all. Rather, it sounds more as if the written work has been inspiring to the creatives involved in the production. Does Audra's Bess ever stray from the text or the character? Somehow, I doubt it. And characters from musicals, especially those written 50+ years ago, are often written in very broad strokes, not to mention they are usually based on previously existing text (Porgy and Bess was adapted from a play that was adapted from a novel) that has been altered for the stage. In some cases, characters are watered down and in others, they are fleshed out.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 1:09pm

As a writer myself, I'm not the least insulted when actors invent complex lives for their characters. It's a key part of interpreting the role.

I promise you that as an author, I have done the same work myself with every single character. If I'm available and the director permits, an actor may ask and I may share what I imagine to be a character's off-stage life and inner life (subtext) when on stage.

But some actors prefer to do that work on their own and/or in collaboration with their director, and why not? It doesn't matter whether they guess what I was thinking while writing; it only matters that they find an inner life that supports the actual text.

In Miss MacDonald's case, she didn't have the original authors as a resource, except for the novel (which I haven't read, so I can't speculate as to how helpful it would have been) and whatever additional writings Heyward and the Gershwins left behind.

[latitudex1]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 1:12pm

Musicaldudepeter, you seem to have the idea that this level of research takes away from the author's intent or vision. That's not what preparation is about. This level of research, analysis, prep only serves to connect the actor even more deeply and more completely with the whole work.

And as Audra explained in the interview, everything's not spelled out by the libretto. There are things that Bess would have experienced that Audra would have no idea about without the proper research. Simple stuff, like climate or decorum. And involved stuff like the way Bess was raised.

[followspot]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 1:14pm

I'm a playwright. I would only be insulted if an actor didn't put this effort in. That's their j-o-b.

That said, you don't want to see an actor dragging their character history around with them onstage. The actor's goal, once having fully explored and absorbed the character, is to then live in the moment of the play as that character.

Updated On: 5/4/12 at 01:14 PM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 1:21pm

Boy, she's got some nerve.

[E.Davis]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 1:23pm

I just finished a run of CABARET as Herr Schultz and as I am neither in my 60's or Jewish I had to do a lot of research on the time period and what the thought of Systematic Disbelief and how it affected German Jews. I read a lot of letters and books on it. You have to do this kind of research if you want to give the authors words justice and a truthful understanding.

[AC126748]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 1:27pm

Gaveston: most of Audra's invented back story (the scar, Bess having been in jail, and having worked as a prostitute) come directly from the novel. So, I don't think Heywood would disapprove were he still around. :)

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 1:31pm

^^^ No, I'm sure Heywood wouldn't mind. Thanks for the info, AC, and, yes, I AM embarrassed that I haven't read the source material for an opera I love. LOL.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 2:11pm

But...let's be clear here. Ms. McDonald is describing her process. The process that works for her, that helps her establish a strong bond to a character she hope to fully embody. Not every actor has that process. There are great, great actors who simply go with the text. They find all they need in the words of the writer. There are other actors that work primarily from instinct, and that seems to work for them just as well.

What an actor's process is doesn't really matter. What matters is the performance. In Ms. McDonald's case, she's delivering a beautifully nuanced, marvelous performance. So whatever her process is, it's working for her.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 2:12pm

If this board (and the internet at large) has taught me anything, it's that there are lot of people of there who just aren't very bright, or at the very least are wildly incapable of critical thinking.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 3:07pm

Ask any actor: researching the world of the play helps enrich the work you do. This includes research on the time period (politics, customs, popular culture, etc.), research on themes and relevant topics, research on the writer(s), research on everything that could be pertinent. That's stuff that isn't spelled out in most plays, but still affects why characters behave the way they do.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 3:16pm

Kad is right. If I included all the research I've done when I write a play, the text would be a thousand pages long and virtually unreadable (particularly in this day of short attention spans). An actor who prepares is filling in some of the info I couldn't include in the script.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 4:09pm

Not only is it not over the top but backstory is acting 101. Rather than showing a lack of trust in the material itself, dedication to research shows the utmost respect for it.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 4:23pm

Diane Paulus probably convinced her the text was too problematic to trust.