Streaming as a way into the character

Last week's class was truly an eye-opener. Let me start by saying that it felt to me a lot like being back in grad school at first. My major was dramatic literature (a cross-department degree that I was able to craft through both the theatre and English departments) and my master's thesis., which is buried somewhere in the cobwebbed depths of the University of Florida library, was a 106 page dissertation on Samuel Beckett's Endgame - from page to stage. Basically, I did an in depth textual and subtextual analysis of the characters of Clov and Hamm, their interactions with their environment, and then I also produced the work, directing a run of it at the Acrosstown Rep that season. I bring this up because the confines of their environment were limited by Beckett's own indication - "no symbols where none intended" (which in itself is interesting because how can we be sure that the symbols were not intended) as well as the Beckett estate's tight control over the way his works are presented. I have directed for the stage many times since then, and I have done deep dives into characters both from the theatrical/performance standpoint and from the gaze of literary analysis, I teach literary analysis at several colleges as an adjunct faculty member, but until last week's class I have not done SUCH a deep dive since that performance, and I have never done one that was quite so visceral.

The examination we did of Tanya's stream brought together elements both physical and situational within the person she encountered. It was like looking into a mirror and seeing someone that you feel like you should know. From the point of view of becoming a character, how this will be useful to us in the future. If we can see the character in the mirror, see them closely, see their circumstances, their internal and external motivations, the "symbols" that appear to us when we look at them, then we will eventually be able to step into that mirror and see them as ourselves. It's almost like stepping into the looking glass, and what we will know about the character equals that which we know about ourselves.

This is why it is imperative to ask the question "what if" - "the obvious answer is only half the take" as Jon stated. This again reminded me of something I teach my literary analysis students! .(which, in turn, made me kick myself for not applying it to my work as an actor!). As an example, and one I always teach - I teach Poe's Tell-Tale Heart. The narrator is never named. The narrator is never described. Students and readers simply assume the narrator is a white man because POE was a white man. But what is the proof for that? There is none. I asl them to open themselves up to the "what ifs" - what if the narrator was female (many caretakers were) or what if the narrator were black (again not uncommon for a caregiver at the time). Or lastly a black woman? How does this change the interpretation of the tale and more to the point does it make the interpretation richer? better? SO, I need to remember to always apply this to my approach to a character. I cannot change my race or my gender, but I can look for the less obvious answers in the symbols that come to me when I stream.

All in all - GREAT stuff!

This post is why I teach! It is reaffirming on so many levels...to you, me and us! I read this several times. I am so happy that you decided to work with me. Knowing you helps me to refine the work. Thank you.