Audra McDonald's elaborate back story for Bess

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?

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.

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.

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'

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

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.

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.

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

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.

---

^^^ 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.

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 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.

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

---