See also:  -[Performance Art]- (A/HH)

See also:  -[Theatre Study Stuff (lit theory, etc)

On this page:
               {Exposition}

 -[]-
 
 -[]-
 
  

Exposition


Question:  A style of acting that focuses on 
           thinking more than feeling is what 
           style of acting ? A play style in 
           which the actors address the 
           audience is what play style ? 

           The process by which the actor 
           seeks to make the role he plays 
           unique and entertaining is what ?
  
Answer:  The short answer (and again if you ask 5 different
people, you'll get 5 (at least) different answers)
(i'm not sure there is a "standard answer"),....


You might want to look up "method acting" which 
is usually attibuted to Stanislavski.


======================================
(A slightly less-short short answer ;)

 Introspective - we can literally see the actor
                 struggling with their decisions.
 The best versions of this are in Hamlet's famous
 to be or not to be solliquy - if performed correctly
 he is actually weighing the possible actions that
 he can take.

 Direct or Demonstative Action - the actor seems so 
                                 confident of their
 actions, that they (often at times) don't seem to
 be affected by the actions of the other actors.
 You see this at the end of "A Doll's House" when 
 Helmer is all ready to throw Nora out.

 Direct Exposition - the actor spells out certain
                     aspects of the play's background
 to the audeience. Whether they are talking to someone
 in the play (who mostly nods and agrees) or to the
 audience makes little difference. It is "plot exposition"
 and serves to move the plot along. This is also, to
 let us in on something devious. The best example of
 this is again from Hamlet when Polonius is trying
 to figure out if Hamlet is indeed mad. The statement
 (aside to us) "there be method to his madness" is
 direct exposition. This preceeds one of the finest
 example's of Shakespeare's command of English, when
 he tells Queen Gertrude,

      Madam, I swear I use no art at all
      That he's mad, 'tis true, 'tis true 'tis pity,
      And pity 'tis 'tis true—a foolish figure,
      But farewell it, for I will use no art.

 As regards unqiue and entertaining, that remains to
 the entire poduction, actors, scenes, setting, music,
 and the AUDIENCE's mood. When Samuel Beckett's 
 "Waiting for Godot" was first aired, critics said,
 "Two hours to say nothing." and "Two hours to say
 nothing - TWICE". When it was performed for the 
 inmates at San Quinton Prison - they GOT it. Audience
 is THE essential element to any work. 


The long answer follows
=======================

You might want to look up "method acting" which 
is usually attibuted to Stanislavski.

Actually, it depends on the part and what the actor is trying to 
send across. Some parts are considered classic (eg, Hamlet in 
the "to be or not to be" soliloquy. 

Direct exposition is where the actor talks to the audience - much 
over done (Bertold Brecht thought that such actors should be shot
- or something to that effect). Partly this is where the audience
isn't laughing at a funny part and the actor tries to sell it 
by playing to the one person who in the audience who IS laughing.

As for making a performance unique, there can be little of that. 

We have the text on the page, and then the mood that the scene
is set in. It all goes back to CONTEXT (the philosopher/writer
Umberto Eco sez, "Context is king"). Some plays are simply so
poorly written that they all but disappear. They are fine for
light theatre where the people aren't likely to have a deep
appreciation for "heavy drama". For example, you still see
performances of the "The Admirable Crichton" but far more
likely, "Peter Pan" - again what is the audeience in the 
mood for? 

Of course,
there *are* standards designed to make the audience think,
and these were refered to as "problem plays" by George Bernard
Shaw; eg, "The Doctor's Delimna", or Ibsen's "A Doll's House", etc.

Again, you have to fit the performances to the work, and
the work to the audience's expectations - never a happy
mix there. 

There are versions (very popular in the 1700's-1850's) of King
Lear where there was a happy re-union and ending. 

My favorite line about a unique or memorable performance is
by Dorthy Parker (also one of my fav short story writers,
poets, and essaysts).  She mentions seeing a performance
of one of Ibsen's plays, and says, how refreshing it had
been, "Until then, my evenings had been getting thin".

(beauty!  beauty squared!)


Not sure if that helps. But, it's all that i know,

-- Frank

(note the spelling checker has broken down on my 
system; i appologise for any "creative" spelling 
errors - or at least claim them as my own, 
copywrite, registered trademark, etc)




  

Interpretation

Before, i sort of glossed over that all we
have is the text. But, we know that the
text can have different presentations.
We take as read (and debatable/exporable)
that the Jew in Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice"
has in recent times come to show at least some
self-conscious rethinking of his role in
the events of the play. Howeveer, we can
probably be sure that Shakespear was
probably more aware and more tollerant
of the Jews (Moores, etc) in his society
and (as with all else i would argue) he
watched and leared each variant of each
"species" of human (whether they be
mortal, ghost, witch, or "... and the rest").

In keeping with modern theatre, we might extend over-all
ideals placed at the head of a performance.

For example, "sympathetic" vs "anti-thetical" where the
actor brings to the part either an agreeable or 
dis-agreeable aspect to the performance. We can see
this clearly in music, as in works such as 
"Strauss Waltzes" or other thematic music in opera.
Indeed, in opera, music often "sets the stage".

In theatre, this
must be done with sets, lighting, costume, etc, and
of course the actors' work.

Compare that form of music to "metal-head" works (Alice 
Cooper and of course much Punk Rock) comes to mind.
Different moods/expectations...

Finally, we note that in many musical works (musicals
as such) performances can be a bit more over the top.
We don't (usually) go to see a happy musical expecting
to see some one actually die in the play, now do we?

Homework: Dig up "Pygmalion" by George Bernard Shaw,
and read his comments as to the musical vesion of
"My Fair Lady".

Like much "grit" - it becomes the truth by which
reality is judged, not so much the gaity of the
happy ending. (well, me and my Eeyore-ish way)


more later.... 
 

 -[]-
 
 -[]-