![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Then, as I replayed what was actually said, I found that I could be in agreement somewhat. :)
Is performing a role in a Rocky Horror Picture Show Cast (shadow casting) acting or not?
Technically, it is. It is factually true by definitions of "acting" as it relates to performances. So the disagreement must really be one of quality, no?
What was said was "What we do is not acting." I disagreed. But, on reflection, I realized that this was exactly the point that keeps jabbing me in the ass about cast.
For some people in our cast, what they do when they play a part is acting. No, we don't actually belt out the songs or deliver the lines -- the movie sound track does that. And most of us probably aren't skilled in either. But that isn't the be all and end all of acting. I don't think it's even the most important part. Great singers and wonderful speakers don't necessarily act well.
Yes, when certain members of our cast take the stage, acting is not present. What they do is more a clowning mimicry. When other's take the the stage, however, they are acting. Amy B (every time) and Joey (usually), for instance.
What I've come to realize since last night's conversation is that my heartburn with some cast members has everything to do with whether or not they are making an effort to act in their role or whether they are just walking around the stage in rough facsimile to the screen.
I know it is the issue I have with my performances. I have little skill (yet) at really getting into my characters. (Better with Dr. Scott than with Riff.) But this is a skill I'm working on diligently. When I think a cast member has no intention of ever losing themselves in their part, I have an issue. When I'm Dr. Scott, I try to not be Lynn being Dr. Scott. I don't think "Amy is playing Frank" or "Joey is playing Orin." I tend to forget and lose myself in "Frank" or "Orin." And when that happens, I know I'm watching acting.
And it's not just the on-stage performances, either, come to think about it.
When I'm doing lights and some cast member comes up and starts shooting the shit with me, I get upset. Why? I'm concentrating on doing lights. I want the lighting to be first rate. The best job I can do. I have skill in being "a technician." So, that's my acting job for the night. :) I cannot do a good job (stay in character) if I'm involved in an unrelated side conversation. Oh, I could do an adequate job, but not a really good job.
The original point -- is what we do acting or not -- is not based on the fact that we shadow cast a movie. It is based on what the individual player brings to the part.
So, maybe for some cast members it is not acting. And the theater world may have the blanket consideration that it is not acting. But let's not paint everyone with that brush. We have some fine actors in our company -- even if we can't really sing all that well.
This would bring us to another question. Should players be striving for "acting quality" performances? Now there's a point for debate.
Is performing a role in a Rocky Horror Picture Show Cast (shadow casting) acting or not?
Technically, it is. It is factually true by definitions of "acting" as it relates to performances. So the disagreement must really be one of quality, no?
What was said was "What we do is not acting." I disagreed. But, on reflection, I realized that this was exactly the point that keeps jabbing me in the ass about cast.
For some people in our cast, what they do when they play a part is acting. No, we don't actually belt out the songs or deliver the lines -- the movie sound track does that. And most of us probably aren't skilled in either. But that isn't the be all and end all of acting. I don't think it's even the most important part. Great singers and wonderful speakers don't necessarily act well.
Yes, when certain members of our cast take the stage, acting is not present. What they do is more a clowning mimicry. When other's take the the stage, however, they are acting. Amy B (every time) and Joey (usually), for instance.
What I've come to realize since last night's conversation is that my heartburn with some cast members has everything to do with whether or not they are making an effort to act in their role or whether they are just walking around the stage in rough facsimile to the screen.
I know it is the issue I have with my performances. I have little skill (yet) at really getting into my characters. (Better with Dr. Scott than with Riff.) But this is a skill I'm working on diligently. When I think a cast member has no intention of ever losing themselves in their part, I have an issue. When I'm Dr. Scott, I try to not be Lynn being Dr. Scott. I don't think "Amy is playing Frank" or "Joey is playing Orin." I tend to forget and lose myself in "Frank" or "Orin." And when that happens, I know I'm watching acting.
And it's not just the on-stage performances, either, come to think about it.
When I'm doing lights and some cast member comes up and starts shooting the shit with me, I get upset. Why? I'm concentrating on doing lights. I want the lighting to be first rate. The best job I can do. I have skill in being "a technician." So, that's my acting job for the night. :) I cannot do a good job (stay in character) if I'm involved in an unrelated side conversation. Oh, I could do an adequate job, but not a really good job.
The original point -- is what we do acting or not -- is not based on the fact that we shadow cast a movie. It is based on what the individual player brings to the part.
So, maybe for some cast members it is not acting. And the theater world may have the blanket consideration that it is not acting. But let's not paint everyone with that brush. We have some fine actors in our company -- even if we can't really sing all that well.
This would bring us to another question. Should players be striving for "acting quality" performances? Now there's a point for debate.
no subject
However, Most people cheer on my buffonary.
So, acting - usually, no.
Performing - yes.
FUN - Hell YES!