David Mamet

David Mamet forms an interesting theory about theatre in his book True and False: Heresy and Common Sense for the Actor. Mamet covers a myriad of important topics, in which he considers his approach to acting different than his predecessors. He covers a lot of ground in his book, but never really dives deep into one specific aspect of acting. Instead, he chooses to discuss many broad topics to bust through actor's previous actor training. Mamet refers to Delsarte, Stanislavsky, and the Method as he discredits their theories of acting. However, through the process of examining Mamet's theories closer, it becomes apparent that Mamet is actually borrowing many of his predecessor's ideas and theories. Mamet changes some of the ideas to become his own with a hint of the previous idea, but some he leaves as is. Even though Mamet thinks he is creating a new theory about acting, he is essentially taking bits and pieces of established theories and formulating his own “unique” theory.

David Mamet is an American playwright, director, screenwriter, novelist, and theorist. He was born in Chicago in 1947. He began writing plays while attending Goddard College in Vermont and the Neighborhood Playhouse School of Theatre in New York. After college he returned to Chicago and worked many factory jobs, a real-estate agency job and as a taxi-driver. The jobs and experiences serve as background for his later plays (“David Mamet”). Mamet's first plays to be commercially produced were Sexual Perversity in Chicago and Duck Variations. In 1975 he became a nationally acclaimed playwright with American Buffalo. It received a Tony nomination; however, Speed-the-Plow won the Tony for best play.

After all his success on stage, he was given the first opportunity to write a screenplay in 1979. He worked on the screenplay for the 1981 film version of James M. Cain's novel The Postman Always Rings Twice. He then wrote The Verdict in 1982. After acclaim from these two screenplays, he returned again to the stage with his play Glengarry Glen Ross. He won a Pulitzer Prize. Mamet decided to embark on writing a novel. His first published novel was The Village and was followed by other novels, books for children, and collections of essays (Contemporary Authors Online).

Mamet delved into many different fields throughout his career. He has won many awards and has become an American icon in theatre and film. He has taught at Goddard College, the Yale Drama School, and New York University. He lectures at the Atlantic Theatre Company, of which he is a founding member. He was the first artistic director of Chicago's St. Nicholas Theatre Company. He also directed the films House of Games, Things Change, Oleanna, and The Spanish Prisoner. He has become the most famous playwright to switch to screenwriting and actually become successful at both. The entertainment industry and theatre think very highly on David Mamet because he has changed the way for writing; he has brought in colloquial and contemporary dialogue to theatre and film.

In his first chapter of his book True and False, Mamet admits that he once wanted to be an actor. His closest friends, his wife, and his extended family are all actors that he has grown up with and worked with. He writes, “I wanted to be an actor, but it seemed that my affections did not that way tend. I learned to write and direct so that I could stay in the theatre, and be with that company of people” (Mamet 3). He studied acting at various schools, which he will later discourage others to do. He first noted that the students noticed that the purpose of the instruction was to bring an immediacy to the performance, but he felt that the school did not accomplish that goal. Therefore, he made it a goal for himself as a teacher, director, and dramatist to effectively communicate his views to the actor.

It is very important to consider that although Mamet had some experience in acting during his earlier career, he is a playwright. He encourages the actors to always stick to what the author has written, which is valid because the author did write it with his/her own intention. However, Mamet believes so strongly in the author's work that he states that the actor should only read the lines that the author has provided. He believes that no other work is necessary because the author has provided all that is needed. It is evident that Mamet has a strong bias towards writers and their work. It is as though he does not trust the actors, or perhaps it is simply because he did not have enough ample training as an actor. Regardless of the reasons why, Mamet's book is lined with the ideas that the playwright is the most important person in the theatre, which skews his opinions on acting and how one should approach the art of acting.

Mamet's main theory about acting is that acting is doing the play for the audience. He states that the only job of the actor is to communicate the play to the audience. The actor needs a “strong voice, superb diction, a supple, well-proportioned body, and a rudimentary understanding of the play” (Mamet 9). He puts an emphasis on the physical characteristics of the actor in order to be able to fully and clearly speak the lines the author has provided. Mamet does not think that the actor must do anything else other than read the lines on the page. He believes that the actors should do everything they can to create an experience to please the audience.

The actor does not “become” the character according to Mamet. He believes that there is no character because there are only the lines upon a page. The actor says the lines and that is acting and putting a play together. The actor should deliver the lines simply to achieve something that the author more or less suggested. The audience then sees the illusion of a character upon the stage. He elaborates by saying that the actor does not have to do anything or feel anything in order to create the illusion of a character. He compares actors with magicians by stating that the magician creates an illusion in the mind of the audience and the actor should do the same. Later in his book, he elaborates on his idea of the actor not creating a character. He states that the character is really the actor. There is no character and there cannot be because it is always the actor that is playing the part.

Mamet states that an actor on stage involved in his or her own emotions is the most uninteresting thing in the world. He believes that emotions should not be created or manufactured; they come from the actor saying the lines of the script. He does not state that all emotion is bad for the actor, but that the emotion that is created without the script is unhealthy for the actor. Instead, he feels that if the actor says the lines on the page, the emotion might follow from the lines, if at all. He elaborates on his idea by even going as far as to say that the “very act of striving to create and emotional state in oneself takes one out of the play. It is the ultimate self-consciousness” (Mamet 11). The actor's emotions should be a by-product of the performance of the action.

He constantly refers to “The Method,” although wrongly naming Stanislavsky as its creator, as unhealthy and excessive. He believes that technique such as “The Method” creates an introversion that is not necessary to the script. It creates personal stories that Mamet argues are not in the script and are about nothing but ourselves. He also thinks that the purpose of the Method is to string emotions like pearls into a performance, which he thinks does nothing for the actor or the performance. He believe that when the students of the Method are asked to substitute their emotions or moments in the scene that they are planning the events of the play without paying attention to the play or what is happening in the play.

According to Mamet actors should not pursue formal theatre training; he believes an actor can learn more on stage than he can by studying. He believes that past vocal and physical training and script analysis will not help actors because it stresses the academic model and does not allow for interchange with the audience. Mamet states, “The audience will teach you how to act and the audience will teach you how to write and to direct” (Mamet 19). He goes on further to say that the classroom only teaches obedience, which in the theatre will get the actor nowhere. The skill of acting is a physical skill that is not the paint-by-numbers ability that some acting teachers are teaching. Instead, Mamet compares the skill of acting to the skill of sports because both are physical and the study of acting consists in “the main of getting out of one's own way, and in learning to deal with uncertainty and bring comfortable being uncomfortable” (Mamet 20).

Mamet strongly believes that actors are scared of the unexpected. He thinks that actors reveal themselves on stage when the unexpected occurs, and that formal academic education and sense memory are ways that conceal the truth of the moment on stage. Therefore, he views the Method and formal education as crutches to the development of truth because they artifically create circumstances to hide the unexpected. In a way Mamet wants the truth of the moment to be what is happening between two people on stage in a scene with no interference of emotions or planned events. He wants the actor to say the line on cue even if the actor is uncertain because the audience would have been watching the truth of the moment instead of a planned way of saying the line.

Mamet quotes Stanislavsky throughout his book, whether or not he is correct in the quotations. An important quotation that Mamet uses is that Stanislavsky said that the person one is is a thousand times more interesting than the best actor one could become. Mamet agrees with this statement to further his idea of not planning lines. He thinks that when the actor says the line the audience will see the interesting person. The audience sees true courage from the actor because the actor is called upon to speak and all he/she has is self-respect. He elaborates further by saying that when the actual courage of the actor is coupled with the lines of the playwright, the illusion of character is created.

Mamet rephrases the Method's question of “what would I do in that situation” to be “what must must I do to do what I would do in that situation” (Mamet 27). He misquotes Stanislavsky by saying he said the actor should ask “what would I do in that situation?” Mamet said the actor should disregard the idea of the situation altogether because he does not understand how we can know what we would do in those situations. Instead, the actor should take his/her feelings of the moment, such as nervousness, and apply it to the character's situation in the present moment. He asks how can the actor know what they are feeling is not what the character would feel as well. He encourages the actor to use his/her current state and apply it to the character on the stage.

Mamet has an interesting view of the rehearsal process because he states that “the only reason to rehearse is to learn to perform the play” (Mamet 52). He does not think that the actors should explore the meaning of the play because the play has no meaning other than the performance. He does not think the actors should investigate the life of the character because he thinks there is not character. In his opinion, a play can be rehearsed quickly by actors who know the lines and are prepared to find simple actions. The actors need a director to help arrange the actions into appropriate stage pictures. In the rehearsal process he thinks that only two things need to happen: the play should be blocked and the actors should become acquainted with the actions they are going to perform.

He also redefines, or thinks he redefines, what actions are; actions are an attempt to achieve a goal. It is the attempt to accomplish something so the goal must be accomplishable. He says that anything less capable of being accomplished that “'open the window'” (Mamet 73) is not an action. The action is always supposed to be simple according to Mamet. The person with an objective is alive because they are taking the attention off of themselves and putting it on the person they want to get something from. Mamet states that each character in the play wants something and it is the actor's job to “reduce that something to its lowest common denominator and then act upon it” (Mamet 74). Therefore, Mamet's definition of action should always require that actions be simple and to the point. He relates actions to punchlines in jokes because the choice of what to include in the joke always relates to the punchline. Everything the actor does should always relate to the action. He concludes his discussion of actions by telling the actors to find a fun action and to rehearse the actions to make them stronger.

The last major idea of Mamet's theory of acting is acting “as if” the actor were in certain situations. He does not think that the situations are actual personal events but that they are made up circumstances in which the actors have not been in before. The actors can act “as if” they were in the situations but not actually believing they are in the situations. He sees actors as reacting to certain situations as if they could be going through it, but the actors should not think that they are actually experiencing the situations on stage as they are happening.

Throughout his book Mamet offers many pieces of advice to actors. The most valuable piece of advice is “invent nothing, deny nothing” (Mamet 41). He repeats it and his ideas stem from the advice. Mamet's overall message of his theory of acting is that the actors should never invent or create emotions or situations that are not written in by the author. He also says that the actors should never deny how they are feeling on stage because they think their character would not be feeling the same. Instead, Mamet thinks the actors should always use how they are feeling to bring it to the character because the actor does not know how the character would really be feeling at that moment. The piece of advice serves as a summary for his theory of acting, which is why he reiterates it throughout the book.

David Mamet constantly tears apart the Method throughout his book, however, he confuses Stanislavsky with creating the Method. In actuality, Mamet's ideas of acting are actually quite similar to Stanislavsky's the System even though he would deny it. The problem with Mamet is that he did not fully care to research Stanislavsky's ideas and if he had, he would have seen how similar they are to each other. Mamet's discussion of actions is along the same lines as Stanislavsky's discussion of actions and Active Analysis. Mamet states that actions should be simple and should require a partner to get the action from. Stanislavsky's definition of action always requires that the action be directed towards the other person in the scene. Mamet agrees with the idea of Active Analysis because Mamet states that the scene comes from the bumping of two conflicting actions in the scene.

Mamet refers to Delsarte as he discusses physicality bringing on emotion. He says that Delsarte had photographs of the correct poses to portray emotions. Although Mamet does not agree with Delsarte, in theory he actually does. He claims that Delsarte was incorrectly stating how to portray emotions because Delsarte had specific poses to denote specific emotions. In contrast, Mamet wants the “poses” to be solid and emotion to follow. If one examines the purpose of Delsarte's poses, it was to easily identify the emotion to the pose for the audience's understanding. Although Mamet does not want emotions to be manufactured, he would agree in theory that poses should be solidified so emotion can come forth.

Mamet's idea of the actor not becoming a character is similar to Coquelin's first self and second self. Coquelin stated there is a first self which is the artist and the second self which is the material. The idea of first and second self seems to have deeply influenced Mamet's idea that the actor is a separate person than the character he or she plays. He does not believe that the actor becomes the character, but rather that the actor (artist) should read the lines on the page (the material) in order to create the illusion of character. Mamet never mentions Coquelin's name or the idea of first and second self, but it is evident that his idea stems from Coquelin's.

Mamet's overall message to the actor is to communicate to the audience. Diderot's paradox of the actor is almost exactly what Mamet is trying to articulate. Diderot figured out that it did not matter whether the actor felt during the performance or not; the only thing that mattered was whether the audience felt it. He came to the conclusion that the actor should not feel. Mamet seemed to have latched on to Diderot's idea because Mamet does not think the actor should necessarily feel every emotion on stage, but that the actor should at least communicate to the audience the situations, circumstances, and emotions of the play.

David Mamet creates a new theory to acting by mixing together previous theories. He adds something new in the aspect of combining bits of theories together and his theory of not needing theatre education, which is not found elsewhere previously. However, he does not really come up with “new” ideas since most are borrowed from his predecessors. Instead, he melds together what has worked for him in his past acting experience and what he thinks actors should focus on. Since he is a playwright, his bias towards playwrights is apparent as he states that the actor's job is to simply deliver the lines that the author has given to them. Mamet's theory of acting has resonated with the acting community because of his already legendary status of playwright and screenwriter but also because he combines parts of theories that “work” to create the first theory that has a little bit of everything. Therefore, most actors will read and listen to what Mamet has to say because he has picked the strongest ideas to create his theory.

Works Cited
Contemporary Authors Online, Gale, 2008. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale, 2008. <http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC
Mamet, David. True and False : Heresy and Common Sense for the Actor. New York: Pantheon, 1997. 3+.

The Incredible Shrinking Actress

As a society that believes heavily in quick-fixes, the United States has recently become obsessed with the idea of the shedding pounds as quickly as possible. Fad diets such as the South Beach Diet, Atkins Diet, Jenny Craig, and many more have influenced the women of America that beauty comes from being thin. Actresses are in the spotlight as the media constantly scrutinizes their every move. They must adhere to society's demands of beauty and take drastic measures to be role models for other women. Through the constant struggle to be thinner and thinner, an ethical problem evolves as the quest for thinness erupts into more drastic problems such as anorexia and bulimia. In the book Biting the Hand that Starves You, Borden writes, “The only 'safe houses' in a culture so infiltrated by anorexia/bulimia are the anti-anorexia/bulimia sites that we construct” (Borden 2). Attention must be paid to the epidemic that is the shrinking actress in order to save the general populous from the downward spiral. If society does not shift its ideals of beauty to incorporate women who have normal BMIs, many actresses as well as the general populous will become susceptible to eating disorders. Society must acknowledge and understand the ethical dilemma of the shrinking actress and shift its thinking towards a healthier body.

The history of the ideals of female beauty in America is important because it shows the trends of beauty follow the world of fashion. In the past, women wore clothing that concealed the lower half but would accentuate the upper body (Mazur). Women would wear corsets and bodices which caused smaller waists but bigger, fuller busts. In order to fit the clothing choices, the women had to look like the clothing. The lower portion of women at that time was hidden under large, elaborate skirts; therefore, society did not place emphasis on hips, legs, or thighs (Mazur). As fashion progressed throughout the years, clothing became more revealing which caused a shift in beauty to include waists, legs, and hips. In order for society to see the shrinking actress as an ethical problem, it is important to examine how beauty ideals were constructed in the past.

The 19th century did not have a definite ideal for beauty because it portrayed two types of women. There were two prominent images of beauty: the “steel engraving woman” and the “voluptuous woman” (Mazur). The thinner image of the steel engraving woman was being challenged by “bustier, hippier, heavy legged woman found in the lower classes, particularly among actresses and prostitutes” (Mazur). At this point in time, actresses were women from the lower classes and were heftier than the women in the higher classes. Actresses started out as larger women who were considered beautiful. In the 1880s, women were afraid of being too thin so they padded themselves to look larger. The upper class decided that the lower class' ideals for beauty should not be society's ideals and created a shift toward thinner women. The heavy-bodied voluptuous woman was still portrayed in burlesque and in photographs (see Fig. 1), but in 1913 a new image of the beautiful woman emerged. It was the first-known calendar nude, “September Morn” (see Fig. 2), that showed women the slender “steel engraving woman.”

Fig. 1. “New Orleans Prostitute” photographed by E. Bellocq, 1912. Source: Allan Mazur.

Fig. 2. “September Morn,” by Paul Chabas. Source: Allan Mazur.

In the 1920s the ideal bodies became curveless and almost boylike, and in the 1930s small waists were popular. The corsets were taken away from the fashion and the women were flattened out by the flapper dresses in the 20s. Mazur notes that “the woman's physical attractiveness was now judged by her face, exposed legs and everything else being covered and formless” (Mazur). After the 1930s, the dresses got shorter and the beauty was based on small waists. The breasts and curvaceousness were more pronounced in the nudes and pinups of the 1930s than those of the 1920s. The shift became to accentuate the legs; Betty Grable's famous photo (Fig. 3) became an iconic image for women in the 1930s. The ideal woman of the 30s were ones with a small waist, small hips, small rear and flat stomach. The new beauty trend of the 1930s was the flat stomach; models and actresses try to emulate that quality in photo shoots.

Fig. 3. Betty Grable, 1942. Source: Allan Mazur.

The shift switched in the 1960s to incorporate larger breasts in the beauty ideals of females. The emphasis on legs diminshed as the emphasis on a large bust thrived. The trend of focusing on busts was evident in erotic pinup pictures, Hollywood stars, and in Miss America Pageant Yearbook stats (Mazur). The mean bust-waist-hips measurements of Miss American contest winners in the 1920 were 32-25-35 and none have a larger bust than hips. In the 1930s, mean measurements of Miss Americas were 34-35-35 with nearly half the winners having larger bust than hips (Mazur). The Hollywood actresses that emerged during the voluptuous era were Lana Turner and buxom Jane Russell.

The 1950s was much like the 19th century because the era had both slender and voluptuous ideals of beauty. The iconic slender actresses of the era were the bustless Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn. Many aspiring actresses used them as ideals of what they should look like in order to be a successful actress. They symbolized a classy sensuality and represented the high fashion era. On the other hand, Marilyn Monroe and Sophia Loren symbolized the innate sexuality of women. There was not an ideal body type that reigned in the 1950s because both were accepted as beautiful in their own ways.

In the late 1960s there was another shift away from the large bust to the thin lower torso so people began to diet. Diet and exercise industries grew at a fast rate and promoted slender rear ends (Mazur). Women felt the need to start dieting because of the cultural pressure to conform to the new slim ideal of beauty. The era of dieting was unprecedented because of the aid of the growing media, entertainment, magazines, fashion, and retail industries. The rising incidence of anorexia nervosa and bulimia among teenagers and young women since the early 1970s has been widely noted (Mazur). Women also turn to cosmetic surgery to fit the ideal of beauty by breast enlargements, liposuction, botox, or any other means of keeping the body young and slim.

The women's liberation movement is cited as a possible factor to the shrinking woman epidemic. Although it is disputed when or how this trend started, it could be explained by the advertisements of the “emancipated woman as seen in Cosmopolitan, smoking Virginia Slims, making it on the job and with men, by having a stylishly slim figure” (Mazur). Women were urging equality but using images of thin women to show the ideal free woman. The trend continued as the women wanted to be slim and liberated. However, a new era of the 60s was beginning a new trend among the ideal liberated woman. The mid 1960s were heavily influenced by the Beatles-led British invasion of U.S. pop culture which brought on the miniskirt. The miniskirt promoted the slender hips and slim legs. The Hollywood actresses that were used as iconic ideals in the 60s were Farrah Fawcett and Cherl Tiegs.

In our society today, women are heavier than they were years ago. According to the National Health Examination and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys between 1960 and 2002, the mean weight of women in the United States has increased more than 24 pounds (Carroll). Among 12-17 year old teens the mean weight for girls increased approximately 12 pounds from 118 to 130 between the years of 1960 and 2002 (Carroll). The BMI of the girls in that age range increased by more than 4 units between 1963-5 and 1999-2002. The mean weight of the average adult woman has increased 24 pounds and the mean height only one inch. In 1999-2002 the mean weight for women was 163, height 64 inches, and BMI 25 to 28 (Carroll). The data shows that the average female teenager and adult women weigh more and have a higher BMI in 2002 than they did in 1960.

As the average weight of American women skyrockets today, the average weight of actresses plummets to a dangerous level. Michael George, a celebrity physical trainer, notes that “the average actress is about five to ten pounds thinner than she was a couple of years ago and the average size has dropped from a size four to a size two” (Goober). Danna Weiss, a celebrity stylist, describes the perception of overweight in Hollywood to be anything above a size six (Goober). It is said that “the average bust-to-waist ratio of actresses from the 1960s and 1970s was significantly smaller than that of actresses from the 1940s and 1950s” (Angood). The actresses that were popular in the 40s and 50s faded in the background as new actresses emerged that were thinner and more beautiful to the populous. However, the actresses' weight reached new lows that are similar to women who have anorexia.

In society today Keira Knightley has become the poster-child for actresses who at an unhealthy weight. In an article in People Magazine, Keira is quoted as saying that she has had “'a lot of experience with anorexia—my grandmother and great-grandmother suffered from it, and I had a lot of friends at school who suffered from it. I know it's not something to be taken lightly” (Pisa). Even though she claims she does not have anorexia, her thin frame speaks for itself (see Fig 4). Keira Knightley has been in the spotlight and has repeatedly denied any allegations of an eating disorder.
Fig. 4. Keira Knightley at the premiere of Pirates of the Caribbean, 2006. Source: People.

The media has constantly questioned her thin frame asking if its natural or if she should gain weight. She seemingly has no problem with her appearance because she said, “Hollywood is all about the way you look, and I don't think that's the healthy thing for anyone. But, if you're strong and comfortable with yourself, then you're going to be fine" (Pisa). She is a role model for younger girls who think that her body weight is acceptable. She is teaching the kids and older women that her sickly frame is what is going to keep her beautiful and a star in the media's eyes and the populous' eyes. It sends a wrong message to girls and does not acknowledge that this is a serious epidemic of the shrinking actress.

Without a closer examination of the reasons why the actresses' bodies are shrinking, it is easy to blame only the actresses; however, the problem extends much further. Actresses are scrutinized for their bodies, actions, and relationships on a daily basis by tabloids and online blogger sites such as Perez Hilton and TMZ. As a society America has become fascinated with the lives of celebrities and even made celebrity bloggers famous for reporting on the every day lives of the celebrities. America has built up high expectations of what an actress should look like and behave like. Therefore, the actresses are under constant pressure to fit the ideals that society expects of them (Goober). Society demands that the “star” is an actress who does not have excess fat on her body and looks good in a bikini. As soon as a star puts on a couple of pounds, the media goes into a frenzy calling them overweight or ugly. An example that has recently occurred is Jessica Simpson's recent weight gain. Perez Hilton and other sites ridiculed her because she looked as though she had gained weight in a photo. The constant pressure of having to be thin causes the actresses to control their weight by any means that they can in order to be in the favor of society.

The age old saying “the camera adds ten pounds” creates a paranoid atmosphere for the actresses. Christian Kaplan, vice president of feature film casting at 20th Century Fox, acknowledges the trend of younger actresses becoming famous and notes that it creates a competitive atmosphere for the older actresses to look younger (Goober). The older actresses will not be able to get the good roles if they do not look how a leading lady should look. The younger actresses are thin and have youthful looking bodies; the older actresses have to compete with them for good roles. The shrinking actresses also have to compete with each other on set. If one actress feels that she will look fat in a scene compared with another actress, she will lose weight in order to look normal. All the competition creates an unhealthy atmosphere for the actresses in which the thinnest woman gets the best parts.

The people in power of the celebrity status of the actresses create an unhealthy environment. The designers for magazine covers and photo shoots hold the power of deciding which body type is desirable; they only place the actresses whom they think look appropriate and thin as their cover girls. Celebrity stylists are demanding that the actresses fit clothing made for models, called sample sizes, for shoots (Goober). Casting directors, managers, and agents are the people who create the definition of an actress. Currently, their thoughts are the thinner the actress, the bigger roles she will get and the bigger star she will become (Goober). One TV agent in Goober's article that remains nameless says, “The truth is, we can't have someone who's not skinny playing a character who has a boyfriend” (Goober). It is that mentality from the people who have the power to hire actresses that causes the actresses to feel like they need to shrink in order to be successful.

In order to try to dig to the root of the shrinking actress epidemic, it is valuable to examine the role of media in the lives of the actresses. Media is a powerful tool for the actress because it can inflate the stardom of an actress or it can completely deflate it causing the populous to lose interest. In Goober's article, she recalls the story of Selma Blair, an American actress, as she experiences the cancelation of her show called Zoe in 2000. A writer for a magazine wrote, “'I don't know why any network would chose this pudgy girl as the lead of their show'” (Goober). Once Selma read the critique, she called her mother and cried to her saying that she “felt ugly” (Goober). How the media critiques the actresses adds to the problem. If the media is constantly calling an actress fat and making fun of her, she will undoubtedly lose weight in order to be out of the harsh criticisms. If the media was not as harsh or did not report on the weight of the actresses, the actresses would not feel the pinch to shrink.

The media has the power to influence society's expectation of beauty by selecting who they want to represent as beautiful. A former Harper Bazaar editor, Kate Betts, chose not to have Renee Zellweger on the cover because she was “too fat” (Goober). Renee Zellweger had gained thirty pounds for the role of Bridget Jones in Bridget Jones' Diary. Prior to the role, Renee Zellweger only weighed 105 pounds (Goober). Betts did apologize to Zellweger after the media blew up the story. However, the actresses are well aware that any extra pounds could cost them covers. The actresses are under pressure to be thin in order to advertise themselves on magazines; the more they advertise themselves, the more people will go see their movies.

Women in the general populous are influenced by the actresses they see on magazine covers. In a research study that was conducted to see how fashion magazines can influence women's body image, a group of 49 female undergraduates were tested; 24 of them looked at fashion magazines and 25 of them looked at news magazines (Angood). There was no significant difference in the mean height, weight, or age of the two groups of participants. After looking at the magazines, the two groups of women were given questionnaires about their body image satisfaction. The body image satisfaction of the women polled were influenced by their exposure to the thin ideal in the fashion magazines. The conclusion of the study was that the media shapes women's views of the female body (Angood). The actresses who have to be thin to get on a cover influence the general populous that being thin is the only way to be beautiful.

Actresses are trying to keep their figures thin, but they do not want the media to think that they starve themselves. The actresses create little tricks that will help them lose weight or have a sensation of being full; they don't realize that it is an eating disorder similar to anorexia. Goober's article states the many tricks that actresses perform in order to stay thin but look like they are eating. The article works in two ways: it informs the populous that actresses are indeed struggling to maintain their weight and it serves as tips for the younger populous to stay thin. Articles or stories that comment on the actresses weight are somewhat contradictory in their function because the populous who are leaning towards eating disorders can relate to the actresses and use their tricks to create their ideal body of the actress. Charisse Goodman describes the research for her 1995 book The Invisible Woman: Confronting Weight Prejudice in America:
I did my research. I watched the commercials. I studied the billboards, magazine articles and ads. I carefully noted the size of characters in dozens of movies and television shows. I cut out article after article until my apartment became a miniature paper warehouse .Time after time I typed into my computer,"Ad for Product Such-- and-Such, f eaturing thin woman only," "movie featuring thin women only," or "movie featuring fat woman as minor character/stupid/loser/sexless sidekick." . . . Message to all large women: You're not sexy. The only beautiful woman is a thin woman.” (Addison)

The message that the actresses send out is that being thin is the only way to be beautiful in our society and it does not matter how one gets to the ideal body as long as she gets there.
The pressures put upon the actresses by society cause eating disorders which often lead to death. When actress Marietta Milner died in 1929, an article in Photoplay speculated about the role her weight clause may have played: "From Vienna came the news that Marietta Milner, Hollywood film actress was dead as the result of following a starvation diet. It was said she died of tuberculosis as an aftermath of too strenuous dieting. Friends said she reduced to get under weight limit set by a film contract" (Addison). There are many actresses who have and are struggling with eating disorders; however, because our society only wants thin, their problem has not come in the spotlight. If society does not recognize the problem of the shrinking actress, many actresses will have eating disorders.

We contribute to a culture that supports eating disorders. The only way to ameliorate the problem is to draw attention to the severity of the problem and make the move to accept a healthier body. It is a small but significant step that might shift the thinking of the media and the populous. Actresses and celebrities are the role models for the ideal beauty construct and if a healthier weight is accepted in Hollywood, it will translate to the masses to create a healthier populous that does not thrive on eating disorders. A more tangible solution but one that may not be feasible, is to have the president of SAG issue a statement regarding the issue of anorexia and bulimia. In the letter he would discuss the epidemic of the shrinking actress and create a BMI regulation for actresses. He would follow in the example of Spain; Spain was the first to instate the regulation that their models must have a BMI of 18 or greater. If society shifts its thinking toward an actress with a healthy BMI and a healthy frame, then the actresses will not be in danger of resorting to eating disorders in order to please the media and the populous.


Works Cited
Addison, Heather. "Capitalizing Their Charms: Cinema Stars and Physical Culture in the 1920s." 2002. The Velvet Light Trap - A Critical Journal of Film and Television. IIPA. USC Libraries, Los Angeles. 09 Apr. 2009 .
Angood, Laurie M., et al. “The Influence of Fashion Magazines on the Body Image Satisfaction of College Women: an Exploratory Analysis.” .
Borden, Ali, David Epston, Richard Linn Maisel. Biting the Hand that Starves You. W. W. Norton & Company, 2004.
Carroll, Margaret D. et al. “Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index, United States 1960–2002.” Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics Number. 27 Oct. 2004. 09 Apr. 2009. .
Fig. 1, 2, 3. Mazur, Allan. “U.S. Trends in Feminine Beauty and Overadaptation.” The Journal of Sex Research. 22. 3 (1986): 281-303. JSTOR. USC Libraries, Los Angeles, CA. 09 April 2009. .
Fig. 4. Pisa, Katie, Stephen M. Silverman. “Keira Knightley Dismisses Weight Criticism.” PEOPLE. 2006. .
Goober, Lesley. "The incredible shrinking stars." Cosmopolitan 1 Oct. 2002: 208-211. General Interest Module. ProQuest. USC Libraries, Los Angeles, CA. 10 Apr. 2009
Mazur, Allan. “U.S. Trends in Feminine Beauty and Overadaptation.” The Journal of Sex Research. 22. 3 (1986): 281-303. JSTOR. USC Libraries, Los Angeles, CA. 09 April 2009. .
Pisa, Katie, Stephen M. Silverman. “Keira Knightley Dismisses Weight Criticism.” PEOPLE. 2006. .

Imagination: The Heart of an Actor

When I think upon my aesthetics of my craft, it is inevitably hard to mention processes that are my “own” because I employ a collaboration of theories of my predecessors. I create a smorgasbord of the items that ring a sense of truth in me and look appetizing to me. I may like to use Stanislavsky's Active Analysis in one scene but switch to Danchenko's inner monologue work in another or use many techniques within one scene. There is no constant aesthetic that I use throughout my work; however, I will use the theories that are best suited to my mood, the personality of the character, and the nature of the show. The collaboration of theories is essential to my process because they combine the aspects of utilizing the body, the voice, and the mind to create and form a character; one theory alone does not provide adequate explanation of the humanity of the character. In the play I was in last semester called H.B., which stands for the name Harry Bachenheimer, I was able to meld many theories together to create my way of tapping into the humanity of my character. In the play H.B. the collaboration of the theories of Stanislavsky, Coquelin, Strasberg, Diderot, and Archer effectively transport myself into the era using research which allows me to create a backstory with my imagination, to get to know my character's inner thoughts, and to physicalize the character by blending different parts of theories to create the humanity in the character.

The play has two acts with two different time periods and settings. The first act takes place in 1927 in Salzwedel, Germany, and the second act is set in 1994 in Los Angeles. The play follows the life of Harry as he escapes the Nazis in Germany in act one with his family and as he is an older grandfather living in America during the time of the Rwandan genocides in act two. My character is only in act two and I am Harry's daughter, Evrah. In the scene in which I was in, I am have a confrontation with my boyfriend, Nir, because he reveals that he is leaving me to go live in Israel. Since I am absolutely desperate at this point in my life and I left my husband for Nir, I don't take it well and I beg him to stay with me. As the scene escalades with my emotions flying all over the place, Nir actually leaves me. Crying, emotional, and stunned I am left with nothing. The second act's moral is that Evrah was so blinded by the devastation of her own problems that she did not care about the massive genocide happening in Rwanda.

Stanislavsky and Coqueline's theory of reading the play for information is always essential to my beginning process because I gather clues essential to creating humanity in my character. I read it at least two times before my first rehearsal with the cast and director. I look for important information about my character, her circumstances, and the world of the play. The information can come from what my character says, what other characters say, the stage directions. I make notes in the margins to assess what I am reading and what I have learned through reading the script. The technique I am first using in this process is a mixture of all types but is the closest to what Stanislavsky and Coquelin describe as reading for information. Stanislavsky taught his actors to read the scripts for important information that is needed for the scene to happen. The most important aspect for reading for information is that everything is a clue to who the character is. Coquelin stated that as an actor he read the play and then imagine the character internally. In essence his theory involves finding the clues of the text first, then diving deeper into the character's psychology which inspires me in my work.

In reading the text for H.B., I draw on Coquelin's ideas of first self (the character) and second self (the artist) which is safer to my well-being than Strasberg's approach. Coquelin believes that an actor is never fully becoming the character because the character and artist are two separate entities. I use this idea of first self and second self in my work in order to make sure that I never fully “am” the character and I don't blur the line between myself and the character. I am Evrah Bachenheimer as a character and I am Sandy as an artist; I am both at the same time and not a mixture of the two. It is very important for actors to realize that there is a distinction between the character the actor plays and the actor as a person. Strasberg is very dangerous in this regard because he wants actors to personalize their performance by dropping in their “person” into the role. These actors are classified as “Method” actors and can lead them into depression, paranoia, or any other mental illness. It is necessary to draw the line between the character and the artist.

Even though Strasberg can be detrimental to an actor's health, I carefully use his theory on emotions to enhance Evrah's humanity to further my collaboration of theories. Strasberg claimed that emotions should be personal, so he taught that substituting the actor's own personal emotional circumstances was a valid way for the actor to feel emotion in the scene. For example, in my scene I was losing the love of my life and had to be very emotional at the very end as he leaves. I used a bit of Strasberg's personal substitution because I had just broken up with my boyfriend of almost four years and was terribly upset. I used my personal story to understand what it feels like to be broken-hearted and thought of that memory as the scene progressed. It was dangerous ground to tread on because after all the rehearsals and performances, I was left emotionally drained because I had used a personal part of my life to influence my character. The emotions from the break-up were constantly being resurfaced which caused a slight depression.
After employing some aspects of the theories of Stanislavsky, Coquelin, and Strasberg, I begin doing research of the time period in order to understand the world of the play. In plays that are set in modern times, it is relatively easier to get into character and appreciate the era we live in since we are experiencing it now. However, when a play is set in the past, no matter how recent or distant, it poses a new challenge for the actor. The actor must not only find her purpose in the play but must also find her surroundings relevant to the time era. The scene in H.B. is set in 1994 in Los Angeles. I had to transport myself into 1994 by doing research. It was hard because that era is pretty close to our own, but I did some research on the music, clothing, tv shows, and movies of that time. It does not seem like a huge gap of time from then until present; however, clothing has changed the most since then. As I was looking through my findings of the research, I noticed how people liked to clash in the 90s and wear loud clothes. The younger generation of that time wore clothes that spoke loudly, but the older generation of 40 or older, wore moderately-loud clothes that were not fashionable.

Once I understand the world of the play which includes the time period, place, and present circumstances, I create a backstory or prior history by looking to the text to infer about previous relationships and circumstances. In a play, the actors are only given the text of the play, which presents the current time frame. The clues help the actor piece together the past events in her life. In H.B. my character, Evrah, did not have a prior history because she was only in the second act and was not mentioned in the first act. I first relied on clues that were given by myself and my boyfriend in the scene. Some clues I discovered were: I was previously married because of the line “I left my husband for you,” Nir and I have been dating for a while, I had a son because he was in the scene, and I knew that I am from Israel because my boyfriend wants to go back to our “home” which is why he is leaving me in the scene. All these facts came directly from the script.

I did not get many clues from the script and I had to talk to the director and the other actor to create a backstory together to fill in the gaps. My character is actually based on the writer-director's mother. He had some interesting facts and clues to give me, but he did not want to inhibit my creation of the character so he did not tell me everything. He only revealed that his mom was in the abusive relationship for six years prior to the boyfriend leaving her and she left her husband for no reason other than she thinks she loved this other man. I was left to fill in the gaps with my imagination. I decided that this scene takes place only six months into their relationship because she just recently left her husband. The other actor and I also decided that we had a secret affair while I was still married.

The backstory given above may seem arbitrary to some, but it helps an actor know the character's psychological, emotional, and past history that will affect the scene in the play according to Stanislavsky. It is almost impossible to create a scene and be fully involved in the scene if the actor does not know the present and past circumstances. The theories that are present during this “phase” of my exploration are a mish-mash of everything I have learned but I can attribute most of it to Stanislavsky. He states that the actor must know the circumstances of the scene in order to play the action and counter-action. The actor must have a vivid and excitable imagination in order to create a backstory that warrants exploration. Without imagination, a backstory can become dull and factual which will in turn create a dull and boring performance. An actor's imagination and preparing mold and sculpt the performance into something worth watching and help create a well-rounded character that breathes life.

The play was not written well which makes an actor's job harder because the humanity of the character is not written. In a badly written play there are not very many clues or insight into the character; the characters usually embody stereotypes like “the ditzy blond.” In my case my character was written as an “emotional bitch.” She has lines that were so desperately longing for the man who is treating her like garbage. She yells, begs, pleads, and cries for this man because she needs to have him in her life. It became hard for me to find the humanity in the character. I had to think of her as a real person and not label her as an “emotional bitch.”There was no humanity to her; she was written to carry the theme to the end of the play; she was the epitome of society only caring about the little problems and not about the bigger world problems such as the Rwandan genocides happening in 1994. The backstory made her come to life as a human being and not just as a caricature. I had to use my imagination to create humanity in the one-dimensional character.

I added to the smorgasbord of theories by using Vladimir Nemirovich-Dachenko and Stanislavsky's inner monologue work to gain a firmer grasp on Evrah's humanity. An inner monologue is the little voice inside the character's head that is an ongoing commentary on their thoughts and actions. Inner monologue work is extremely important and valuable to me as an actor because in reality when people speak to me I am always thinking thoughts in my head about what they are saying or thinking about something completely irrelevant. In my scene with Nir, I had to constantly use inner monologue work because I was always thinking of what I would say next or what he is saying. I actually wrote down in a monologue form what Evrah's inner monologue was throughout the scene according to what was going on in the scene. As the actor opposite of me would say his lines, I would have that constant voice in my head deciding what I am thinking and what I should say. A strong and wonderful imagination can lead the inner monologue into territory that an actor cannot get to without it. The inner monologue work reminded me that Evrah is human; she is going through emotions and thoughts as Nir is telling her that he does not care for her anymore.

I used Coquelin's theory of physical actions inspiring emotions to move into my character's body because no other theory has presented the idea of physicality. I have to explore how a forty year old in the 90s would carry herself, look like, and feel like. I used iconic pictures that I found to inspire Evrah's physical appearance. I had to make sure that I carry myself straight and with maturity, which was the hardest for me. I have played older roles in the past but never a forty year old. It sounds silly or trivial to say, but the physical aspect of the character can attribute a lot to the character much like the psychology can. I began to explore physically which meant wearing proper shoes and clothes to rehearsals. It meant I had to explore what kind of mannerisms would this character have. I explored what kind of actions would she do and what kind of actions would she not do. The way I explore this aspect is to try different things out in rehearsals and see what feels natural to the character.

Coquelin states that the physical motion should inspire emotion so I used his theory in the end of the scene. Evrah is broken hearted as Nir is leaving the house. She begs for him to stay but he will not stay with her anymore. As we were doing our rehearsals, I could not feel the emotion of her shouting “NOOOO” and wanting him to stay. Finally, I added the physical motions to my performance. I turn him around and clutch on to his clothing. It causes me to fall to the ground onto my knees and he starts to pull away. I clutch on his leg and hold on, but he breaks free. I am laying there on the ground with my face on the floor and my arm stretched out. By adding this physicality, I was able to come to the emotional state of yelling and crying for the love of my life to come back to me. It was not reached up until the point where I added the physical aspect of my performance.

The theories are like a guide map for an actor helping the actor out to understand and get to know the character. I meld the parts of theories that help me build the humanity and bring the character to life. None of the theories can stand alone because the theorists focus on one aspect of acting; they do not blend mind, body, and emotion. It is essential to collaborate the theories to create the smorgasbord that will help the actor get into the character. The bigger the imagination and the stronger the research, the more fully developed the character will be to the audience. If the actor is unaware of his/her circumstances, the audience will feel lost. The audience must go on a journey with the characters and want to explore the story alongside the actors. Blinded by the beauty of the characters, the audience should leave the theatre stunned and speechless evaluating what was brought forth for them to examine about the human condition.

Diderot claimed that there is an actor's paradox of whether or not the actor should feel emotions as they are acting. After interviewing some actors he concluded that the actor should not feel but the audience should feel emotions from the performance. Archer did not agree with Diderot's findings so he conducted his own research and decided that it doesn't matter if actor feels any emotion on stage. They are both right and wrong at the same time. It is essential for the actor to portray emotions that will inspire and excite the audience to want to go along the journey. The actor's paradox is redefined to include the validity of the actor's emotions and the audience's emotions. Theatre is about the transformative power of a story inspiring the audience to feel emotions and think about the human condition. An audience cannot be moved if the actor is not moved themselves. In H.B. the audience should walk out thinking about how society dictates that the individual's problems are more important than world problems such as wars and genocides. In all the theories I use, it is essential that the audience gets to know the meaning of the play through my fully developed character in order to walk out from the play thinking about some aspect of the human condition.

Finding the Meaning Beyond Diva

Portuguese families are loud, obnoxious, and hardheaded. Italian families are worse. I grew up in Montreal, Quebec, Canada where my Italian and Portuguese families migrated from their respective countries. Imagine a dinner where twenty of your relatives are supposed to eat and converse. Now, imagine your scenario with everyone speaking four different languages and not listening to each other. The joining of the two sides of my family is that scenario. People are talking loudly because for some reason they don't think that the person beside them can hear their voice. My uncle Tony yells, “Pourquoi devons-nous toujours venir ici? Pourquoi ne pouvons-nous pas l'avoir à ma maison la fois prochaine?” My mother responds, “Because you don't have enough space to hold everyone. At least here we have a basement.” “Quando você compra uma casa mais grande, nós iremos lá,” my grandma shouts. “Hey, hey! We have everything we need. We don't need a fancy house with a basement. We can fit everyone fine,” my uncle Tony retorts. My uncle Lidio joins in the argument, “Che cosa è il suo problema? Possiamo averli alla nostra casa.”

People are trying to convince each other whose side of the family has it worse, whose family is doing better, or anything that has to do with their part of the family. My uncle Tony tries to convince us that his daughter is doing better than the rest of the family, “Christina is competing in the figure skating championships. Her coach says she is the best skater he has ever seen.” My aunt whom we call Ta-ta-lu interjects, “Well, Vanessa [her daughter] is doing gymnastics with Mark [her son], and their trainer says they could make the Olympics.” My mother chimes in, “David is doing well in boy scouts. He almost has all of his badges. Sandy is doing ballet and swimming. She just won fourth place in a swim meet in Montreal.”

As all of the arguments are going on, four different languages are thrown all over the place to further complicate things. “Voulez-vous aller avec nous la semaine prochaine au Lac St-Jacques?” “No, Marina ha scuola italiana sabato.” “We can go on Saturday. Vanessa has gymnastics on Sunday.” “Podemos nós trazer nossas cadeiras de praia? Nós temos guarda-chuvas.” French, English, Italian, and Portuguese are being spoken even though the person they are speaking to may not even understand that particular language. Somehow everyone seems to assume that everyone knows the language they are speaking even though they are on different sides of the family. As the languages are flying across the room, the arguments over families are escalating because everyone gets frustrated that no one is understanding their thoughts. I sit quietly, smile, and nod my head and pretend to know exactly what they are saying.

After the dinner everyone would migrate to another room of the house that we invaded for some dessert, talking, and after-dinner entertainment. In the case that we had the invasion at our house, we migrated to our basement. After sitting down for about a minute, the chaos from dinner would trickle in once again in our basement. The basement had horrible acoustics because any and all sounds would reverberate off the walls to make anything seem more obnoxious than it really was. In order to counter-balance the noise erupting from our parents, my two girl cousins and I, who are a couple months apart in age, would meet together and plan to put on shows. Christina, Vanessa, and I did improv shows, lipsyncs to popular songs, dances we created to songs, or made up our own songs. I attribute my diva-ness to those dinners and parties.

On this particular evening, the mob migrated to our basement and continued to use their outdoor voices to talk indoors. My cousins and I met in a huddle to talk about our options. We had been practicing singing songs throughout the years and we decided to do a rendition of our favorite songs. I went first, of course. I began singing the Canadian National Anthem because I had just learned it in my Brownies Troop. My cousins were behind me and danced their interpretation of the song. My family started chuckling and laughing because apparently the girls behind me were trying to upstage me. I started to sing louder and tap my feet. Apparently the two behind me had the crowd eating out of their hands. I got so mad that I turned around, in the middle of the anthem, and told them to just stand there. They got mad and sat down. I continued singing until the end of the song. I could feel everyone's eyes watching me.

As soon as I had finished, applause erupted as well as an “ALESSANDRA” coming from my parents. I knew if they called me by my real name that I was in trouble. It turns out my parents did not like my diva attitude and I was forbidden to perform for the next couple of get-togethers. I was furious. How could they do that to me when everyone else loved me? My diva attitude was launched into motion at a very young age. I knew then that I had to be a performer although I was unsure of what kind of performer; I knew I belonged on stage.

I dabbled with the different types of entertainment. I went through ballet, choir, and finally theatre. I could never be “the star” in ballet and choir because I simply did not have the talent. I won most improved in choir in eighth grade (was I that horrible to begin with)? Finally, when I realized that anyone could be the star in middle school theatre, I latched on to acting like a leech to blood. I didn't really appreciate the art of theatre as much as how it made me feel. People would come to our cafetorium to see me on stage as different characters. My first role in middle school was an owner of a laundromat who has three heart attacks and dies a humorous death. It was my challenge to decide what that humorous death should look like. I clutch at my chest and make raspy noises. I try to speak but nothing will come up. I drop slowly to the floor. It was my first heart attack. I spring up and come back to life. All of a sudden I clutch my arm and breath heavily. I drop down to the floor with a thud. It was my second heart attack. My leg raises up and shakes. My arms lift up and shake. I am alive again. I reach up with one hand, try to say something to the villain, and die from my third heart attack. I should mention that the play was a melodrama. The next role was a nun in a play that my teacher wrote that went on to be published. It was the biblical story of Adam and Eve told in commedia dell'arte. My friends called me the “naughty nun” for many years after the play because I said “he should be naked” to Adam. I was recognized and praised for being on stage as a “character” actress.

It was not until high school that I really fell in love with the art of theatre. During my first day of acting class my freshman year we played a game of truth or lie. Our teacher placed various objects on the table such as kleenex boxes, candles, pens, and figurines. We were supposed to pick one object and tell a story about the object or the significance of that object. It was up to the students whether or not it was a true story or one that was completely fabricated. The other students were supposed to guess whether that story was true or a lie. I was so nervous that I felt my heart pounding in my throat. I had an idea of what I wanted to do when I saw a candle. I was so nervous that I did not volunteer to go first. I didn't want to look like a doofus in front of the new people at my high school. Luck was with me that day because we ran out of time and had to continue over to our next day of class.

I went home and practiced in front of the mirror. I could do it. I grabbed a candle that was in my room. I was so excited and proud of myself, but something was still missing. I could not get where I wanted to emotionally because there was no audience. No matter how many times I tried it in the mirror I could not make myself emotionally in the moment. Finally, it was our next class and we all had to go. I didn't go first because I wanted to see what other people would do. I went third because I thought it was the right time. I stood up, walked to the table, and picked up the candle.

My cousin Vanessa and I grew up like sisters. We shared secrets and stories and were always there for each other. Neither of us had sisters but we felt a strong connection to each other and acted as if we were sisters. We used to sit by candlelight in my room and talk almost every night. One night as I was waiting for her to come over, I got a phone call from my aunt. Her voice seemed hollow, and I knew immediately as I picked up the phone that something was wrong. My aunt told me that Vanessa had gotten in a car wreck and died. I was silent and I had to let it register in my mind. After I got off the phone, I went into my room and sat by candlelight sobbing uncontrollably. As I told this story to my class tears were streaming down my cheeks and my voice started quivering. I have never told anyone that story before.

As I finished my story, everyone in the room had a somber mood strewn across their faces. My teacher even apologized for how horrible that tragedy was. It was time for them to guess if it was true or a lie. Of course everyone guessed it was true. I smiled and said it was all made up. The look on everyone's face was astounding. Everyone was surprised and could not believe that I had just lied to them. One student applauded, stood up, and grabbed a figurine. He handed it to me and said I deserved an Oscar. It was then that I realized that acting is not about being the star but about impacting the audience. It was about communicating my story to the best of my ability that it touched their hearts. Even though this particular incidence was fabricated, I was telling a story from a character's point of view that translated and evoked emotions from the audience.


My senior year we had the wonderful opportunity to work on a play for a whole year. It started as a play at our school in our season for the year. It erupted into us submitting the play at the Texas State Thespian Festival and having it judged to hopefully go on to the International Thespian Festival. Fortunately, we had the privilege of performing mainstage at the Festival at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln at the International Thespian Festival 2006 in a theatre that had 2,200 seats.

The play, Never the Sinner, started with two other reporters and myself shouting out newspaper headlines of the era; it was the beginning of sensationalizing the news. Immediately, we are thrown into the year 1924. Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold are two teenaged boys who studied the philosopher Nietzche and took his theory of “Supermen” a little too seriously. Loeb and Leopold murder a fourteen year old boy because they thought they were superior and could get away with it; the murder is an actual event in history. Loeb and Leopold's relationship was questionable because Leopold has strong homosexual feelings toward Loeb. Their murder became the first “thrill” killing in the US and prompted a media frenzy. I was a news-hungry reporter who was catching all the information so I could feed it to the Americans. I was the only female in the play and played two other characters, Loeb's girlfriend and a psychiatrist.

As I was about to walk out on stage in front of 2,200 people, I felt the adrenaline rush in every inch of my body. The lights went black and I took my place on stage with the other reporters. I am nervous to perform and nervous what people would think of our show. I am not in Denton anymore. I am performing for 2,200 people that are from around the globe. I had the only female part in the play, but I did not feel as if I was the star. It didn't matter anymore. I wasn't trying to be the star. I wasn't trying to reach the audience like I was when we performed in Denton. It was different.

Right before the lights came up, I realized why I want to be an actress. It is not because I want to be the star or because the audience should connect with the actors, it is because the story needs to be told for a reason and the audience can make up their minds as to those reasons. The audience should be an active member of the play in which they watch, engage, form opinions, and leave the theatre with a new outlook or want to change society. In that moment, the story needed to be told to make the boys human; they are not monsters, they are scared little boys. The story of Loeb and Leopold will be told to 2,200 people and it is up to them what they think of the story or what they will do with what we present to them. All I can do is present my character and tell my part of the story in hopes that the audience will understand the playwright's message.

As I left the stage after the show, I felt proud that we told the story of Loeb and Leopold that audience did not know. I didn't talk to anyone until our director came backstage and congratulated us on a great performance. As we took our set apart and packed up, I looked out in the now empty theatre. I saw 2,200 empty seats and it was eerie because they were all full less than an hour ago. If we performed it right now, what would happen to the play? I knew it would not be the same. The art of theatre is the effect it has on the audience; the people can be transformed by the story, ideas or thoughts of the play. If there are no people, there is no meaning to theatre.

It took me a long time to realize that I am not doing theatre because I want to be the star. It is not about being the diva anymore even though my roots in theatre started in my basement shouting at my cousins. It is about inspiring the audience to think about the story and relate it in their own ways by observation or by causing change. I want to communicate my language to the audience more effectively than my family's communication skills at parties. The audience should follow and understand my language and respond to it emotionally and spiritually. Even though I find the meaning of theatre through the audience, there will always be a little spark of diva in me.

A Review of Brigadoon at USC

Brigadoon is a story about love and the hope for love. The main plot involves two men from New York present day stumbling across a city called Brigadoon that is not on any map. They discover that there is something odd about the town; it disappears every night and the next day is one hundred years later. This miracle happened because of an elder man in the town becoming worried about witches and bad things happening around Brigadoon; in order to save Brigadoon, he sacrificed himself so that Brigadoon can remain a secluded city. One of the New Yorkers, Tommy, falls in love with Fiona, a woman from Brigadoon. The main plot revolves around Tommy and Fiona's love and whether or not Tommy will stay in Brigadoon.

I think that this production worked really well for a multitude of reasons. The set, lighting, and costumes all helped tell the story effectively. However, the most important aspect to me was the ensemble's acting and creation of a community. I felt that each member of the ensemble created their own unique character to add to the story. In turn, it helped create a sense of a tight-knit community that really cares for each other. It sounds cliché but you could feel the love between all the members of the ensemble. The dances were choreographed and executed so well from all members of the ensemble. The one specific dance that stood out to me was the dance after the wedding with the swords on the floor. The whole community was cheering and clapping as some main dancers and Tommy were executing a dance in which they could not touch the swords that were shaped in a cross. The sense of community was really evident because each character interacted with each other by talking, clapping, and cheering everyone on.

The production accomplished portraying the theme of the search for love by integrating the ensemble with specific moments between characters. The scene in which Fiona and Tommy fall in love at first sight is a perfect example of the integration. The whole town is in the scene doing various things; one person is selling milk, one person is selling bread, people are talking to one another, etc. As the sense of community lingers, in the forefront Tommy is seen on the left side of the stage and Fiona is seen on the right. They catch eyes. Even though they are on opposite sides of the stage, their glance was so specific that the audience knew right away that these two would fall in love. Fiona's friend came by to talk to her and as she was speaking with her, Fiona's eyes drifted towards Tommy direction. The subtle action of a glance spoke the theme; the way she looked at him, the way he looked at her, the way she kept looking at him even when she was engaged in another conversation. Their interactions with the ensemble was treated as though it was only them two in the town.

Another specific example of when the theme worked was the ending scene in which Tommy and Jeff are searching for Brigadoon and stumble across Mr. Lundie. The way it was staged helped the scene but more specifically it was their actions and behavior. Tommy wanted to try so hard to find Brigadoon again; he was on the right side of the stage. Jeff was on the left side of the stage saying at this point that they can't find it. They are on opposite sides of the stage because they are in opposite state of minds; Jeff is not in love and doesn't believe they can find it and Tommy is so in love and wants to find Brigadoon. They hear the ensemble singing and Mr. Lundie appears. Jeff stays on his side of the stage and Tommy runs across the stage to Mr. Lundie. He enters Brigadoon while Jeff stays outside of it. There is an exchange about how Jeff won't stay but Tommy decides to stay. They exchange looks as well as goodbyes. Tommy slowly walks on top of the rock which acts as a bridge to the entrance of Brigadoon. He is going slowly but steady in order to show his readiness to enter the new life with Fiona. Jeff, on the other hand, stays in the same position and does not cross over to Brigadoon. The subtle difference between their actions indicate that Tommy is a romantic character who will do anything for love, and Jeff is one that is more cynical and won't stay because he has no reason.

The Bacchaes

My group, the Bacchaes, was a very talented and extraordinary group. We had some difficulty in deciding what to do with a production guy, a musician, animator/editor, and me, an actress. However, as we began talking we went the simple route and decided to film a scene with an actress, add a score, and have an editor. The question now became what scene should we do. Jerome seemingly out of nowhere suggested the play The Bacchae by Euripides. We later learned he is taking a Greek Mythology class and was influenced by the last scene in The Bacchae.

Jerome began our process because he adapted the play into a screenplay. Once he was finished, we were all emailed the script. He held auditions for the other actors in the scene and had them cast quickly. I began my process with portraying Agave. I read the script a year ago for a theatre history class so it was pretty fresh in my mind. However, I still needed to do more research and background info on Agave. I read some articles about the play, but since Agave really only has the ending scene, there was not much about her.

I went back to explore the text. The Greek plays are always so rich in the descriptions of characters, actions, and motivations. The messenger sets up the scene of the killing by using descriptive language and talking directly about Agave. This was my way in. I began paying attention to what the messenger says. Specifically. I imagined everything he described as I would have been doing the actions. I felt a connection with the character through the text.

The day before we were going to film, I got an ear infection. I have now learned that anything and everything will always happen, and to be prepared for it all. I caught it early, went to the doctor, and got ear drops. All I had to do was rest. Rest. The evening before shooting. The evening before I should be exploring Agave some more. I should be finishing to memorize. Instead, I slept from about 7pm to 7am because we were shooting at 8am. I felt horrible, but I knew what I had to do. I knew that I had to push through and persevere.

I have never shot a film with a full crew present. I have just recently shot 3 scenes with one director present. I never would have thought that I would get nervous. I was shaking and blanking out on lines like I have never done in my whole acting career. It was almost unbearable for me because I felt as though I was portraying myself as a typical horrible actress. Come on, Sandy, I have to push through the fear, the hurt of the ear infection, and the tiresome day ahead of me.

I knew what I had to do. Go back to the text. On the next take, I went in my corner and "got into character." That meant LISTENING to the messenger and KNOWING what I just did as Agave. I acted out the possession, eyes rolling, wild dancing, vicious killing, ripping off of the head, and so much more. I felt it. I was not a scared actress anymore. I was Agave. That take was my best take because I was fully present and not worried about what other people would think of me. I was proud of myself for pushing through.

After filming that morning, I have not seen any other part of the process. Adam added a score to the scene and Joe edited. I must say that everyone did a fantastic job with the project. I am so happy that it turned out great. From Jerome's fabulous ideas and directing, Ryan's shooting the scene, Adam's score to Joe's editing, everything was phenomenal. It was so interesting to see the final product after I only shot it and did not see anything beyond that. Our intention behind the piece was clear: to use all of our talents to create an important and emotional scene to reach the audience. I am really proud of my group and I want to thank them for taking such a great journey with me.

Artist's Statement

Acting is a craft that must be learned by experience. People often dismiss acting as a craft or an art stating simply that "anyone can do it." The craft of acting is not about who can do it; it is about the why and how. Why do we go through the emotions, events, and thoughts in our lives? How do we deal with the constant struggle of everything in our lives? Theatre asks the audience to explore the human condition and provide commentary on the human condition. A thoughtful and provoking play or film should have the audience thinking at the end of it about the important aspect of the human condition it explored or the social issue it brought up. Acting is not simply meant to entertain; it is meant to inform, educate, and change.

It may sound cliche that theatre should cause change; however, upon a closer look, it is a valid and extraordinary point. Why is a film or play "good?" It had some sort of effect on the audience (you) who watched it. It is important to go further and ask "why." It probably had to do with the plot, acting, or directing. Why are all those important? To convey the story back to the audience which it obviously did its job. There are those movies that are "good" simply because they entertain, but the ones that entertain and have a strong issue are the ones that are worth watching over and over again. Those are the ones that have an impact on the lives of others and the way that theatre/film is recognized in society.

Acting is not about showing off or being recognized as the star. It is about sharing a story and an aspect of the human condition to an audience and proposing that problem/issue to them. It is their responsibility now as spectators to do what they want with what was presented. It may just bring up an important issue to them. Or it may actually move them to tears or any other type of emotion. Theatre and film are important to everyone because it gives people a perspective on life that they may not have had otherwise. Sometimes it is more helpful and useful when others point stuff out. I know in my life there have been issues in my life that I never really thought of seriously until I saw a play/film about that specific issue. It shows us that we are all human and we are all in the same situation together. No one is alone. I love theatre's power to move people!