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.