Audra McDonald's elaborate back story for Bess- Page 2

[YouAndMePal]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 5:30pm

Hey first post-but long time reader here.

I just wanted to chime in because I feel like the initial poster is asking a more formidable question that he's being given credit. As an actor I am more in McDonald's camp. I love to do as much prep work as possible. This allows me to have a relationship to the material and my performance in it that I find to be satisfying. In my mind, the artistry of the actor is held in his/her ability to be as submerged in the material and all of its possibilities as possible. Yet I don't know if I believe that such work is necessary to give an engaging performance, in fact it's gotten in my way at times. I use that sort of background work in order to be more engaged and interested in my own work, but I do not think that this work is essential to deliver a strong performance. If it is utilized in the wrong way it might prove to hurt the actor more than help him. The goal of an actor is to be present in every single moment he or she is on stage. To be referencing your homework on stage isn't going to help you. You are the character by the sheer virtue that the other actors on the stage are calling you by that name. First and foremost, your goal must be to engage with your fellow actors. I had teachers that claimed if the material is good, then each moment in the play is a play in and of itself. Many of my teachers were against the Stanislavki method. They believed acting is about being present in each of the million little moment long plays the writer gives you and trusting that if you do each thing the character does in a full and active way, you will be portraying the character effectively. To be constantly trying to keep a tab on who you are, how you got to where you are and what you are feeling once you are there are simply not things that we humans do. What we do is want things from other people and I would argue that our true identities are very much so removed from how we would describe ourselves, so why do we think that constantly trying to hold on to an idea of who we are playing is a useful thing? We are walking contradictions, never the same human from moment to moment, and yet a full human in each moment we exist.

Not discounting McDonald, she's my hero, I think that she is giving a wonderful and rich performance right now at the Richard Rodgers, but with the fear of being pooped on she seems at times to be in her own play. I personally don't care because her play is better than the play going on around her and maybe the fact that there is a separation between her and the actors around her may just have to do with the fact that she's the best actor on the stage and therefore stands out.

That being said I think that if you do your homework in service of keeping each moment on stage as active as possible, it can be effective. Just think it's important to show the other side of things. Material is often distorted by actors expanding their performance past what is on the page and therefore unintentionally leaving the present moment. As a playwright, I understand the impulse towards honoring the...well, impulse on stage and trusting that the material will be enough.

[ClapYo'Hands]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 5:43pm

Musicaldudepeter, it might be of interest to you to read this book:
Constantin Stanislavski - An Actor Prepares

[hermionejuliet]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 7:28pm

I've found this thread intriguing because I was really impressed with this interview which to me explains a performance that can't be put into words. I've seen the show more than once, and I notice new things in McDonalds performance each time. From the first performance I saw, I've been fascinated with the interest that Bess has in Clara's child. I wondered why she was drawn to him, and I was particularly interested in watching her interactions with him during the picnic while Sporting' life is singing. It was something I noticed right away, and something I continued to notice in subsequent viewings. Her explanation that she believes Bess is a mother explains these actions on the stage- which I think deepen the character and performance.

I'm not sure how this is linked to the source material, but I think it works in the context of the show which seeks to deepen the characters. And it is nothing more than implied because I wondered why she was drawn to the child and was interested in these interactions, but did not automatically assume it was because she was a mother.

I know from my very non professional theatre experience that we were asked to think about our character's past. And I would expect that in a situation like this, research, background knowledge etc is very important to the work even with the information Lori-Parks places into the book.