Is It the Words You Say or How You Say The Words?
Here's a bit of a conundrum that's been circulating in mind for a while: Is it the actor that makes a role or play great or is it actually the material? Is it the Musician or the music? Is it the Artist or the materials used?
Here's what lead me to this deliberation:
A while back, I attended a local Community theatre production of a play adapted from a famous novel. (without upsetting any friends by giving away the title - a clue would be - the novel was by a Southern female writer who has only ONE book to her credit published in 1960)
Anyway, the overall production was OK. I mean to say, it was a very amateur production with some mediocre performances, laughable set design, but you know, sometimes you must adjust your judgment to fit the presentation. Of course, in the case of this play, the material is the strong point, plus I am a major fan of the book and the movie so perhaps, my judgment wasn't as adjusted as it could have been.
Afterwards, word began to spread and filter from others who saw the production and the consensus was pretty much off the charts - rave reviews and positive judgments. I began to wonder if we all saw the same play? Of course, we did, perhaps my maladjustment was to blame. Maybe the patrons of this play just appreciate theatre in whatever form they can get and don't have lofty or jaded expectations. They aren't affiliated or associated with performing arts, nor do they have much experience with theatre in general. Maybe. I don't know.
So, I began to consider the material again, it's powerful stuff and I considered the performances, they were all right but.. the material - the performance - the words on the page - the words spoken on stage - Oh Wait A Minute! I get it now! Perhaps the "rave" reviews could be directly attributed to the play or more specifically: the structure, tone, and language of the script. The message of the source material is dynamic and sure, the lead actor did a decent job in his role but consider the dialogue he had to work with - that could lift almost any performance up a few notches. (I said "some", not all)
I have heard that great actors could simply read the phone book and make it sound interesting, then would it follow that a well-written role could make a mediocre actor sound brilliant? Through the ages, have there been inspiring or even award winning performances by unexceptional actors because the material lifted their perceived talent up to notable heights? Maybe.
But is this really the case? Could Don Knotts have played Hamlet? Could he as an actor captured the nuance and depth of the character just by uttering the dialogue? Could Richard Burton or Laurence Olivier have played Barney Fife and rendered the correct comic timing the role calls for? Maybe. I doubt it.
The take away is this - at times a well-written play can vault the appropriate actor, regardless of their individual talent, over the hurdle of a less than stellar production. Also, it helps to consider the material within each performance as an entity of its own. You know the saying, "a whole being the sum of all its parts" or in this case a play being the sum of all its parts. And a big part is the script.
What do you think?
Here's what lead me to this deliberation:
A while back, I attended a local Community theatre production of a play adapted from a famous novel. (without upsetting any friends by giving away the title - a clue would be - the novel was by a Southern female writer who has only ONE book to her credit published in 1960)
Anyway, the overall production was OK. I mean to say, it was a very amateur production with some mediocre performances, laughable set design, but you know, sometimes you must adjust your judgment to fit the presentation. Of course, in the case of this play, the material is the strong point, plus I am a major fan of the book and the movie so perhaps, my judgment wasn't as adjusted as it could have been.
Afterwards, word began to spread and filter from others who saw the production and the consensus was pretty much off the charts - rave reviews and positive judgments. I began to wonder if we all saw the same play? Of course, we did, perhaps my maladjustment was to blame. Maybe the patrons of this play just appreciate theatre in whatever form they can get and don't have lofty or jaded expectations. They aren't affiliated or associated with performing arts, nor do they have much experience with theatre in general. Maybe. I don't know.
So, I began to consider the material again, it's powerful stuff and I considered the performances, they were all right but.. the material - the performance - the words on the page - the words spoken on stage - Oh Wait A Minute! I get it now! Perhaps the "rave" reviews could be directly attributed to the play or more specifically: the structure, tone, and language of the script. The message of the source material is dynamic and sure, the lead actor did a decent job in his role but consider the dialogue he had to work with - that could lift almost any performance up a few notches. (I said "some", not all)
I have heard that great actors could simply read the phone book and make it sound interesting, then would it follow that a well-written role could make a mediocre actor sound brilliant? Through the ages, have there been inspiring or even award winning performances by unexceptional actors because the material lifted their perceived talent up to notable heights? Maybe.
The take away is this - at times a well-written play can vault the appropriate actor, regardless of their individual talent, over the hurdle of a less than stellar production. Also, it helps to consider the material within each performance as an entity of its own. You know the saying, "a whole being the sum of all its parts" or in this case a play being the sum of all its parts. And a big part is the script.
What do you think?
