My Theatre Theory

Peter Brook's book The Empty Space was very interesting to read and try to understand all the types of theatre he was describing. I did not quite understand his views about all the types of theatre but I related to “The Holy Theatre.” Brook describes “The Holy Theatre” as “the notion that the stage is a place where the invisible can appear.” I associate with this type of theatre because I believe that theatre is a magical art form in which anything is possible. I think that with theatre and especially on a live stage, that nothing is impossible to convey to the audience. Theatre is a place where the audience has to suspend their beliefs for a certain period of time anyway. I also agree with Brook and “The Holy Theatre” that theatre should explore the construction and deconstruction of language. As a society we have gotten lazy about language and create many slang forms of words to express to each other through texts; however, we never explore why we deconstruct our language and what that means to our society.

I like his idea that theatre should be stripped down to the bare minimum to only be about the relationship of the actor and the audience. I think that his ideas conflict with the new forms of media because he wanted theatre to be bare and minimalistic. The new forms of media contribute to what Brook called the “Deadly Theatre” because it destroys the relationship between the actor and the audience. I also found his idea of “Rough Theatre” to be very interesting and actually very valid. Brook describes “Rough Theatre” as “salt, sweat, noise, smell: the theatre that's not in a theatre, the theatre on carts, on wagons...” and he proceeds to describe rough theatre as theatre happening anywhere and encompassing audience involvement.

In conjunction with Peter Brook's view of theatre, my own views about what theatre offers that no other art form can offer is simple: it provides a live dialogue between the actor and audience about current societal and political issues. Other art forms only represent one side of the issue or message that it is trying to convey and does not allow for the audience or spectator to really engage in what is being portrayed, why, and their personal views and reactions to what is being presented. On the other hand, other forms of art offer a stronger message rather that theatre with its dialogue with the audience. Other forms of art offer its own interpretations of the issues of society and provide its take on how to solve the problems or what to do about them. It creates a solid and concrete look into the issue or problem and its solution. Theatre asks for the audience to come up with the solution and only provides an insight into the situation, issue, or problem.

Theatre is having a hard time surviving in the new technological age of more advanced entertainment technology. People are more interested in the movie versions and filmed acting rather than raw, live theatre. I find it very exhilarating to go see a live performance with live actors in a setting where anything can happen. Theatre is more necessary now that these new forms of technology are developing in the movie industry. The invention of CGI and animation special effects creates the live actor to be pushed into the background. It limits the possibilities of performances for the actors because they are confined to the animation and only their voice will be portrayed in the final product. CGI is a bit better than regular animation because the technology still uses the facial expressions and movements of the live actors. However, live theatre is where the dialogue of actor and spectator is more active because both are right in front of each other trying to convince the other of their own views.

Adaptations of movies, plays, and musicals are varying widely with the current wave of new technological advances and the wave of interest in musicals. Musicals are now being produced into films because there is more interest in the film industry. The producers know that more people will attend movies than plays. In addition, in terms of accessibility, more people can go to the movie theatre to see a movie that is playing everywhere rather than seeing a play that might or might not be playing in their town in the next year or so. The trend of adaptations has affected theatre in a negative way, in my opinion. More people are going to see the filmed adaptations which may or may not relate strongly to the play. Therefore, people get certain ideas of the play through watching the movie, but those ideas are wrong. For example, the Tim Burton version of Sweeney Todd has its own particular theme that is a little slice of what the musical stage version was trying to portray. Burton portrayed Sweeney Todd as an evil mastermind who wants revenge. The musical stage version is more about the character being anyone in the crowd in London at that time.

I do not think that the film adaptations are healthy for theatre; however, I feel that other play adaptations of plays will help theatre thrive. The film adaptations desecrate the theatrical aspects, themes, lighting, and sound of live theatre. It creates a spectacle to bedazzle the audience about the new products of technology. Most film adaptations do not stay true to the story, themes, and text of the original play which creates a dissolution of the original story and text. Other play adaptations will help theatre thrive because it creates the atmosphere that theatre is a living, breathing, and ongoing process that creates social change to challenge the audience to create the social change in the world.

The artistic criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of the adaptations should not be box office success, but rather the affect it has on the audience. It should overall have the same effect on the audience as the play or the original form, but perhaps raise more questions and more awareness of the social or political issue or message it is trying to convey. The adaptations should also stick to the original plot, characters, and story line in order to convey the same message. The original playwright or screenwriter wrote the material to portray a special message that should not be skewed because it is their original work. An idea to help evaluate the adaptation would be to have a viewer poll or some sort of way to check in with the audience to see if they understood the message. The most important part of evaluating the effectiveness of the adaptation is to check in with the audience and see how they have responded to what was portrayed in the film or play.

The “democratic” media such as Youtube and other websites in which people can upload videos have made adaptations very accessible to everyone. People have the freedom to adapt their favorite movie, play, or music video in order to taper it to the message that they received from the original production. The trend is a positive trend because it forces the audience to respond to the message they have received and create the ongoing dialogue between actor and audience that Peter Brook mentions. The negative points of the media is the way in which the media is used to broadcast theatre and film at no cost to other people. The writer's strike dealt with the issues of getting money for those types of broadcasting the film or play. It causes everyone that was involved in the production of the film or play to lose money because people can see the film or play at no cost which does not pay the production team or the actors. However, the use of the media to portray adaptations of everyday people's opinions of plays, movies, and music videos is the ongoing dialogue that will cause theatre and film to thrive.

My Favorite Role I Have Played

Rumors, a play by Neil Simon, is a comedy about a Charlie and Myra who are hosting their 10th anniversary party, but before the first guests arrive, Charlie shoots himself for unknown reasons and Myra is missing. As the first couple frantically tries to figure out what to do because Charlie isn’t talking and Myra is no where to be found, the next couple arrives. At first they pretend that everything is fine but then they finally tell Claire and Lenny what is going on. Then the next couple comes in and gets wrapped in this as well but no one tells them what had happened. Finally the last couple arrives and is completely oblivious to everything. The lies get worse and worse until finally the truth is revealed to everyone and cops are involved. In the end, Lenny makes up a long winded story to describe their situation to the cop, and the cop buys it and leaves them alone. As the guests head upstairs to talk to Charlie they hear a noise from the basement door. It turns out that Myra is locked in the basement as Lenny had described in his story.

I played Cookie Cusack who arrives with her husband, Ernie, third. I was an eccentric character who really loved people. My quirk in the show was that I would get random back spasms throughout the show; I hunched over and yelled weird shrieks. I would constantly lose my earrings because of my spastic motions as I get the back spasms. I really liked working on this character because she was a very comedic character but I still had to find the humanity in her. At one point, everyone is arguing, the cops are coming, and her and her husband are on the floor doing yoga. It was very interesting to me to logically connect why she was on the floor calmly when everything else is so chaotic.

The set was really realistic and neat. We had many tech people working on the set for weeks. It was so interesting to see it all come together. We knew that the set was going to be really pretty because the party hosts were a rich and prominent couple. However, I did not expect that it would be so realistic and grandiose.

The actual story line was very clever and witty, and it was very challenging to do Simon’s style because he used many quick one liners which we had to get exactly as written or it wasn’t funny. Simon wrote many lines that had very subtle humor which we, the actors, only fully understood three weeks into rehearsals. Overall, the acting was great, the set was beautiful, the directing was great, and the tech was good. It was a great show and I enjoyed being a part of it.

Le Tartuffe Film Adaptation Review

Gerard Depardieu’s adaptation of Moliere’s Tartuffe takes the play in a more overly dramatic direction rather than a comedic one. Depardieu focuses and elaborates more on the dramatic moments and almost discards the comedic moments. The style in which he directs the movie is overly dramatic instead of realistic. The acting is highly overdramatic at moments which cause the audience to not believe the characters and situations. For instance, most of Orgon’s speeches and monologues are delivered staring straight out to the audience or facing the opposite direction of the person he is supposed to be communicating with. It does not seem as though Orgon is communicating his ideas properly because he rarely looks and connects with the person he is talking to. Some of the other characters do this at various moments as well which immediately disengage the audience’s suspension of disbelief that is needed for a play to be successful. It could have been Depardieu’s intention of directing the film so overdramatically to demonstrate the idea of the French view that life was theatre. Even so, it was so exaggerated that at moments I was completely taken out of the story because the acting was so unbelievable.


The movie was artistically interesting in terms of music and set. The very long beginning credits are beautifully juxtaposed with the beautiful, instrumental music. It sets the tone for the whole movie that the movie would be ultimately happy by the ending. It also gives clues as to the social and political status of the family that would soon be introduced. It is a light, happy song with many violins and trumpets which signals that the family would be upper-class and rich. The set is extremely minimalistic which I feel is slightly contradictory to the situation. The set is Orgon’s house; it takes place in the main living room, hallways, rooms, and private rooms. The family is supposed to be rich but Depardieu did not place any pictures, paintings, or decorations on any of the walls; the walls were white and bare. The whole house is white except the stairs and doorways are black. The lack of colors and lack of decorations make the house feel barren as if the family could not afford lavish items. I found that set works because of the style in which Depardieu chose to direct the movie. In any other approach to the text, I do not think the set would have been plausible.

Depardieu’s interpretation of Moliere’s text is interesting because he takes many artistic liberties. He keeps the original text of the play, but interprets the actions that correlate with the text in a much different way than what Moliere has written. In the play on page twenty-two, there is an elaborate footnote which describes the actions that should take place between Dorine and Orgon. He is so frustrated that she keeps interrupting him when he is telling his daughter that she will marry Tartuffe that he is supposed to almost hit her. She is supposed to be making gestures behind his back to tell Mariane that she should not listen to her father and he is supposed to slowly catch her in the process. The actions would have been a very comedic moment, as the playwright intended, but instead, Depardieu directed the scene dramatically and the element of her mocking him is not seen in the movie.

Another example of Depardieu’s interesting interpretation of Moliere’s text is the scene in which Valere comes to Mariane and asks her about her planned marriage to Tartuffe. In the stage directions for that scene, it is only written that Valere and Mariane are moving around a lot to avoid confrontation. For example, it says that Valere toys with the idea of leaving and then leaves and comes back multiple times. Directing the scene that way would show how the two lovers are avoiding the confrontation of admitting what will occur in the days to come; she will be married off to Tartuffe even though they both love each other. Instead, Depardieu interprets the text with liberties and creates a huge physical and emotion fight between the two. He interprets Valere as rather violent and has him forcefully grab and hold Mariane’s wrists. Once again, the scene has a fully dramatic connotation with no elements of comedy.

The scene in which Orgon tells his daughter that he has picked Tartuffe to marry her instead of Valere was beautiful in its artistic direction. Depardieu interprets this scene in a way that the audience can emphasize with Mariane. The scene opens with beautiful opera music which sets the tone of the scene and emphasizes Orgon’s power as head of the household. Orgon is not really affected by the music but the audience can tell that he is breathing in the music. As Mariane enters the room, Orgon does not really look at her at all during the scene. He kneels down to the ground, which is supposed to symbolize how “pious” he has become, and proceeds to tell her what he has decided. She joins him kneeling on the ground and has to listen to the news. Depardieu juxtaposes the two characters to emphasize the impact of the situation; Orgon is facing out speaking to his daughter with no emotions and Mariane is emotional in her reaction and touches her father to try to plead with him about the situation. Depardieu’s directing in this scene makes the audience side with Mariane because Orgon is not being emotional about the fact that he is giving his daughter away to a man that she does not love.

There are subtle things that Depardieu adds throughout the film that help the audience understand the situations because it is a film. If the play were performed as a play, the audience sees all the characters on stage together but since it is a film, the audience cannot see the reactions of other characters in the room at the same time as other people are in a scene. The best example is when Dorine and Orgon are discussing, or rather arguing, Orgon’s hasty decision to wed his daughter to Tartuffe, whom she does not love. As the two are arguing, if it were a play, the audience would be able to look at both Mariane’s reactions and the two arguing. Instead, since the audience cannot see both at the same time in a film, Depardieu pans the camera over to Mariane to show her distress and the argument can be heard in the background. This technique is very useful in adapting a play to a film because the audience needs to see and understand Mariane’s reaction to the situation as they are arguing. She remains lifeless with no expression on her face because she is unable to fathom the situation that has been introduced to her.

Overall, I thought that Depardieu’s style of directing the play is interesting and turns the play into a heavy drama rather than a drama with comedic elements. His choices regarding music, set, costumes, and props emphasizes his dramatic direction to the play and would not have worked unless under this particular style of directing it. I imagined the play a lot differently as I was reading it because of my own interpretation of the text and stage directions. Depardieu takes many artistic liberties in order to emphasize the drama in the situation, which definitely came across to the audience. I did not necessarily agree with all of his choices that he made in directing the play for film but I did appreciate his unique way of interpreting Moliere’s text and enjoyed watching his ideas executed on screen.

Monologues I Wrote and Explored Humanity

Shelly Sunshine-prostitute
When I was a little girl, my mom always told me I could be whatever I wanted to do. What a bunch of bullshit! I never heard such fucking shit in my whole life. You know, I wanted to be a doctor...and really you know, help people. But it's not that easy. It's never that easy. People always feed you lies and shit and tell you you can be whatever your heart desires. No. You need money. You need brains. You need to have absolutely no life and pursue whatever you think you want. Well, it all changes and nothing is certain. I was a sophomore in high school and I was doing okay in school. I lost my best friend in a drunk driving accident and nothing was the same. My grades suffered and I just did not want to do anything anymore. It was the morning of my practice SAT and I realized that it is not worth it anymore. Why should I try to be something in this world when my best friend got nothing. So, I went down to a street that I knew was known for prostitutes and I just stood there. I got my first client and boy, was it a thrill. It sure beat studying and cramming for exams. From then on, I decided I don't need to sound educated and smart and I can still make a lot of money. I can make anywhere from $500 to 1,500 on ONE client. Oh, and one time I got a really rich client that gave me $3,000. I don't know how these guys get the money, but, hey, if they want it, they pay me. I get lonely sometimes because I cannot have a steady relationship before the guy finds out who I really am. I don't get it. This is my job. Just like some people go work in a fucking office. I make my money by satisfying men. I love my job. Well, I mean, I don't know what else I would do. I never graduated from high school and I refuse to go back. My job is comforting because I know people want me and need me. If I didn't have some of my regular clients, they would be divorcing their wives because they were so uptight. I think I am really doing them a favor. I loosen them up and make them happy. Guys just need some attention sometimes and I give it to them. I have some weirdo guys sometimes but I can refuse clients. Well, my boss doesn't like me to, but I sometimes don't tell him. He will never find out. It is comforting to know that there are other girls out there like me. You know, I love the movie Pretty Woman. And I keep thinking that it could happen to me. I mean, it could. It happened to Julia Roberts. I am just like her, but I just need to find the right client with enough money. I don't know about the whole falling in love thing, but I don't know I guess anything could happen if he had enough money. I actually believe that love doesn't exist. How the hell could it exist when guys just want sex. Trust me, I know this from experience. The only truth that I can believe in is the need of humans to be wanted and needed. I mean, that is what my job is really about. I don't care about the sex. I want to make those men feel like they are needed and cared for. Most of them only do it for that reason. I don't believe in anything other than that because the world is just too fucked up. Ideals don't matter in the real world. Love doesn't exist. Religion is a fucking waste of time. People just believe in that shit because they can't not believe in anything. You know what I mean. People need to believe in something or they feel lost or confused. I think that it is just bullshit. I could be a goddess for all you know! Hell, the frog on the side of the road could be the Buddha. Haha, who cares? I can't believe in anything anymore. Life is just a cycle of trying to get by and feel needed. Maybe if my best friend hadn't died my life would be different, but I don't think about these things because it doesn't matter. I am who I am and if you don't like it, you can leave. I don't need you to listen to me. I got all the things I need from my clients...at least I think I do.

Rebecca Whiter-alcoholic
You don't know what it's like to be addicted to something. You can't criticize me for what I do when you aren't in my body and my head. Sure, you can form your stereotypes about me but do you ever stop to think that MAYBE, just maybe I can't help it anymore. My husband Roger made me into an alcoholic. I don't like to use that word, but it is what I am. I drink at any moment of the day that I can get alcohol. Sometimes, when my husband leaves in the morning, I grab all the alcohol from the shelves and start drinking. Sometimes at 9am. I don't care. I need it. I need alcohol. It runs it my veins and makes me who I am. I think I can't ever stop. I mean how can you stop breathing. You can't, can you? That is how I feel every hour of every day. I get so frustrated at times that the only thing that wipes the pain away is alcohol. My parents were not alcoholics but I knew my mom would go to bars without my dad knowing it. I followed her when I was 18 and found out. She would drink and go sleep with other guys. Sometimes they were half her age. She never found out I followed her but I have known for 10 years. I don't want to tell her because I know she will deny it. I think she still goes out to the bars. She never loved my dad. I could tell she never really loved me either. I think she didn't want me. I am an only child and it was lonely growing up. My only friends that I would hang out with were those from my art class in school. No one really liked me. They thought I was fat and ugly. No one said it but I knew it. My friends started getting into smoking and drinking and I didn't think there was anything wrong with it. I got hooked on pot by age 20 and was spending all the money I got on pot. I met a guy who thought it was a disgusting habit and helped me quit. His vice, however, was not any better. He loved to drink. He loved to drink and dance. He loved to drink and party. He loved to drink. We hung out a lot and would drink almost every night. We would go to parties or just stay at home and have our own little parties. I never thought I was addicted. You don't see it that way. I thought it was a calming remedy to my everyday problems. It made me forget about my mom sleeping with guys, it made me forget that my boyfriend also cheated on me, and it made me forget all the pain in my life. I developed a strong relationship with alcohol and it became my source of comfort. It still is. When I drink, I feel nothing. I feel so happy and carefree. I love it. Life sucks and there is nothing we can do to change it. So I choose to forget it. I know I shouldn't be drinking as much as I do, but I can't stop. It is an addiction that I do not care to stop. If it helps me, why should I stop it? My boyfriend is still with me even though he verbally abuses me and cheats on me. Why do I care? He says he is sorry and I believe him. We are so close when we are drinking together. I think that is what defines our relationship and care for one another. I can't see my life without him or alcohol. I never want to stop either. What I believe to be true is love in its most basic form. I know people love me, I know they do. It's just that they may not show it as they should. I mean I still love my mom even though she is a liar. I will never not love her but I feel that love is overrated sometimes. Like with my boyfriend. He just says he loves me because he is afraid of being alone. I think beauty exists because I know people who are beautiful on the inside and outside. I am not one of them because I feel that alcohol completes me. I have friends who are perfect and do not need any outside inspiration. I believe in religion because I was raised Protestant. I don't agree with their views of alcohol though because they think alcohol clouds the mind. I think it does the opposite. I can clearly think and feel when I have my alcohol. The truth of the world is that suffering exists. We all have our ways of coping with suffering but some need more ways of coping than others. I know for me, therapy didn't work and alcohol really is the only thing that comforts me. It's like a security blanket or that same spot you always park in because you know it is safe and comforting to do the same thing over and over again.

Jane Leaberman- manipulator
I don't think about what I do anymore. It's a condition. I have to get what I want. I need to get what I want. I can find any way possible in getting what I want. I have tried to stop, but I can't and no one believes me. No one will help me. I went to a therapist, but she just told me that it is all in my head. I think I know why she said that, I wasn't truthful with her. I lied and manipulated her into thinking I was normal. I don't know why I did it. I can't even remember what I said or did, but I managed to convince her that I am normal. I really have no reason to be like this. Most people blame it on their childhood, parents, or traumatic events. None of that occurred with me. I think I just realized when I was younger that I could get what I want if I knew how to ask for it and get it. Sometimes I know exactly what I am doing and how I am getting what I want from the other people. Other times, it just happens. I don't know how to control myself. Basically what I do is manipulate people in any way I can to get whatever I need at that moment. I got money from my friends and never paid them back. I think a part of me feels guilty but another part of me thinks that they gave it to me so it is there fault.

I have actually ruined relationships and friendships because of my manipulation. I can't have any relationship without the guy breaking up with me because they say I am too controlling. That just isn't true. They don't know what they want and I know what I want. I will never compromise when I know in my heart what I want and need. It is really easy to do. I have been doing this ever since I was a kid and wanted toys, candy, dolls, etc. It's funny to think that my parents actually encouraged my behavior because they gave me what I wanted. They made me think that what I was doing was exactly right and okay to do. I never saw anything wrong with it until recently with my ex-boyfriends. They made me realize that maybe what I am doing isn't good. One of them even asked me what I would do if they were doing the same to me. That made me stop and think. But I can't stop what I am doing. Like I said it's like a condition and I can't get rid of it. I tried getting help but it didn't work. I am alone. I am afraid to talk to people because I know what I will do to them. I have lost everyone that I ever cared about. My mother refuses to talk to me because of what I did to them. My brothers and sister can't say anything nice about me. I know it even though they can't say it to my face. I am tired of this life. I am tired of trying to always get what I want. No one trusts me anymore. No one wants to spend time with me. No one cares. That is the worst feeling in the world. I feel empty. I used to be religious, Catholic actually, but I felt like a hypocrite in mass so I stopped attending. I do believe that there is a truth to Catholicism but I feel that I do not comprehend it all. I think that relationships are a pure fabrication of society. The only truth in my life is that I exist. I am living and breathing and the world spins around. I want to believe in more, I do, but I feel so empty and helpless. My experiences are true. My dead relationships are true. My feelings are true. Life is true. Death is true. Suffering is true. In my life it is really hard to decipher what is true and what isn't because I feel I just manipulate everything. I manipulate my feelings and I do not even know it. I don't know how to stop this. I try to sit down and think what is true in my life and all I can say is my experiences. Family. I miss my family with all my heart and I want to make things better with them. I really do. I believe that family is important and shapes us into the people that we are. Since I do not have my family anymore, I don't know where to turn for help. I can't see the truth in life anymore. I can't stop what I am doing. I think I want to go see a therapist again. I just don't know if I can stop manipulating people and actually get help. I say I want it now, but is that to just shut you up? Or do I really want it? I don't know. I really just don't know.

My Second Attempt at Directing at USC

The scene I chose to direct was Act Two, Scene Three from Lost in Yonkers by Neil Simon. I was attracted to this particular scene because of its weight and significance as a scene to the whole play; this one scene changes and somewhat reverses the relationship of Bella and Grandma. There are many layers to the scene to explore because of the complex relationship of mother and daughter. I found the main theme of the scene to be universal to every mother and daughter relationship: the daughter has to stand up for who she is even though the mother had a different vision of who the daughter is and will become. The predominant element in the scene is character, according to Ball's terms. The relationship of Bella and Grandma and their conflicting interests of who Bella is drives the scene. The event that changes within the scene is when Bella actually shows her mother the five thousand dollars. Grandma is skeptical of all Bella's stories and rants because she believes she is truly a child. Once Bella shows Grandma the five thousand dollars, Grandma realizes that Bella's life is real and not just a dream or made up stories. This event changes the way Grandma sees Bella.

I held auditions for casting using lacasting.com on two days. It was an interesting and eye opening experience that I think all actors should do to see what its like on the other side. I had never held any sort of auditions before so I was not as prepared as I should have been. Katy Reid helped me on the first day which was a great way to start off. It was nice to have someone to talk to about what we saw, liked, did not like, etc. Katy and I liked Jodi as Bella because she did not play “child” like most of the women, who were older, who came in on that day. It was hard to give character descriptions of Bella because no one had read the play before. Jodi seemed to understand the role and take the character in as her own and not necessarily act as a child. Even from her first audition, we could tell that she understood Bella as a woman and a child. The next day of auditions Katy could not help me, so I had to read and pay attention to the actresses. I have learned that this is not a good idea because it is hard to read and pay attention to how the actresses are handling the material. Rebecca first read for Bella because she had submitted herself for that role, but I had a strong feeling that she would make a good Grandma. I will admit that partially it was due to her look as an older woman with glasses because everyone who had come in looked like they were in their 20s, but nevertheless I wanted to see if she could understand the play and the character. I asked her to read for Grandma and her first read-through was not that great. I talked to her about the character and then it seemed as if something clicked and the second time she read was better. I knew it would be a challenge so I wanted to see how it would go. I was nervous because she is much older than me.

Our first couple of rehearsals were just read-throughs and asking questions to dive into the text deeper. I did not want to start blocking until Jodi and Rebecca fully read the play and understood the characters and situations. I asked both actresses to do research on their characters and create a backstory. Rebecca did a lot of research on German history around the 1800s to figure out what political rallies were happening in which Grandma's dad was trampled to death and her foot was broken. We talked a lot about why Grandma is so emotionally clamped and her personal views of each family member. Jodi did some research on mental, emotional, and physical abuse. She also did some research on mentally challenged illnesses and found some correlation between Bella and Lenny from Of Mice and Men. The following rehearsals were discussions over what they found and asking questions to really understand the situation and why each character believes what they believe about the nature of Bella.

The next rehearsal after the discussions and questions was a whole rehearsal devoted to verbs. Both actresses did not understand what I meant by verbs so we spent a whole rehearsal talking about them and what their verbs were for the scene. I brought Ball's book to the rehearsal to give them some ideas for verbs and also to help them understand what having a verb means. I felt that they still were not understanding so I read them a list of the many verbs he provided and told them to first write down any that they think pertain to their character. We built their verbs upon this first list.

The key verb for Bella is that she wants to convince her mother that she is a woman. We made her overall verb very broad so that her smaller verbs for her lines would all be subsets of how to convince her mother that she is a woman. Some of the smaller verbs we came up with are to earn respect, to figure out a solution, to persuade, to hurt, and to justify Bella's actions to her mother. Bella tries to make her mother understand that she knows what it is like to be a woman and she is in fact a woman. The key verb for Grandma is to manipulate Bella to stay a child. The broad verb manipulate allows for smaller verbs under the same category to be used to help her stick to her intention. Some of Grandma's smaller verbs are to preserve Bella's innocence, to belittle, to get even, to suppress until she cannot suppress her feelings anymore, to retain what is familiar to her, to crush, and to persuade Bella to stay a child. Grandma uses her tactics to make Bella realize that she is only a child and always will be a child.

The next rehearsals were dedicated to blocking, re-blocking, and exploring the verbs of the scene on their feet. We had an ongoing dialogue with the text and continued to find out more about the plot and characters as we were blocking and understanding the verbs. The most important emotional moment in the scene is when Bella reveals that she has done many things with boys in the past behind her mother's back. We kept talking about how hard it is to say these things to your mother and why Bella would finally reveal everything in order to prove she knows what these “adult” things are supposed to be. We also talked about Grandma's reaction to what is being said and concluded that Grandma does not believe a word out of Bella's mouth until Bella shows her the money. We achieved the emotional moment at the second to last rehearsal and in the performance. I had to work with the actresses a lot and ask a lot of questions to get them to understand their verbs for this emotional moment.

The scene was fairly easy to stage because the scene is more about their relationship and Bella's frustration that her mother cannot realize she is a woman. The most difficult moment to stage was actually all of Bella's attempted exits. It was hard to stage because Jodi at first did not understand fully why she would get up at the first time she gets up to leave at “I don't want to be your responsibility. Then maybe you won't be so mean to me.” After talking about her verbs she understood that it was out of frustration of not getting through to her mother that she wanted to get up to leave. We achieved this at the second blocking rehearsal. I had to keep reminding her to really get up and leave until something stops her. One rehearsal she went all the way out the door until she came back after what Grandma said.

If I were to stage the scene again, the first thing I would do is set the audience up in two rows so they are not too far out from the scene. I was in such a rush to get things organized that I did not realize that the audience did not make two rows until the scene started. I would take more time to breathe and make sure everything is how I want it before I start. I would also spend more time talking about Grandma's character and why she is so emotionally stoic until the end of the scene. I think Rebecca did a great job, but I felt that she did not fully understand the character of Grandma. I would also have asked the actresses to have their lines memorized sooner and put my foot down sooner to actually have them off book.

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. .