Ha ha ha.  Oh my, I've left you with a bit of a wrong impression.  It's one of the reasons I hate the impersonal, two-dimensional, soundless, black-on-white asynchronous worlds of email and forums, and yet... here we are.

What is barely implied in my post, but hopefully I can clarify here, is that I was giving a list of questions that an actor MIGHT be asked to help him understand the moment better.  I surely did not mean to imply that I would give him the "third degree" and waste his, my, and the cast's time on such matters.  Sometimes all you have to do is ask the one question that leads to the "a-Ha" moment, and you're back on your way.  I suspect, jayzehr, that I'd never need to engage you similarly, but I've worked with enough actors who think "hit your mark, say your line, and exit" is the essence of good acting, and they rarely go three for three. For those, there aren't enough questions.  For most, there's no need. 

The process of delving into a script to find the truth and coming to an understanding of your character so you can deliver your lines and action honestly is what theater is about.  Otherwise, you'd just give the cast their scripts and tell them to return on show night with their lines memorized and pray they don't knock each other down.

I'll offer what I hope is a somewhat interesting (and brief) story.  On a tv show about Peter Brook and his experiences directing Shakespeare, Patrick Stewart told about how he often met with Brook to discuss his dialogue, and after each discussion on a word or phrase, Stewart would underline it in his script. By opening night, his entire part was underlined.  If Stewart (an experienced Shakespearean actor) can come into a play needing direction on his dialogue, and Brook is willing to share his time discussing it with him until understanding is reached, then the process is okay with me.


Edited by theactordavid - 1/17/11 at 3:09pm

Otherwise, you'd just give the cast their scripts and tell them to return on show night with their lines memorized and pray they don't knock each other down.

Edited by TonyDi - 1/19/11 at 7:21am

Actually, TonyDi, the name at the top is not yours but the playwright's.  That's a standard provision of a Dramatists Guild contract.

You seem to have a strong distrust for "academia," but the better academic theatre programs are by and large populated by people who actually work in the professional theatre.  For example, at Harvard we worked with quite a few professionals affiliated with the American Repertory Theatre (e.g. Bob Brustein, David Wheeler, Greg Gunter, etc).

Speaking as someone who writes for a living and has directed both amateurs and professionals, I consider a line reading a last resort.  If I'm directing, my job is to guide my collaborators, not to play puppet master.  Nor is it a waste of my time to help an actor understand the "why" of a line; it's my job.  And generally, if the actor understands the "why," the director will get the "how" he wants.  (Of course, if you've got students who are just learning English you're going to have to help them more, but they're the exception, not the rule.)  Forcing an actor to "say it this way"--one thing I've learned as a playwright is that I often can't even say it that way myself--may get the line to "sound right," but it's also likely to be all surface and ultimately feel false, since the actor is just slapping the right color paint on a foundation that's not there.

Jon

Wow, thanks for all the comments. I feel a little less concerned about giving the occasional line reading for my non-native speakers, but I am also working more with them to make sure they understand the motivation behind the line. I had a pretty funny experience. I had a student who was making a complete hash of our first scene. I asked him what his character was thinking and he said " I have no idea!" It was a great teaching opportunity for the whole cast as I explained that they should always have some idea what their character is thinking. If they don't, they need to ask. He did improve a little after that.
Anyway, I am enjoying the heated debates. Passion is what this theater thing is all about, right?

Chiming in here even a bit late, since this is an interesting topic.

As an actor, I don't really mind a director giving me a line reading, since (I hope) I'm adept enough at interpreting the nuance of language to reverse-engineer the intent behind that reading and apply it to the rest of the scene, and the character as a whole.

Now, that said, I don't expect every other actor arround in CT (and I'm currently working both sides of the fence) to be able to make that interpretive leap.  And THAT's why I don't like to give line reads as a director.  I know Tony talked about how it's faster, but in a lot of cases ... I don't think that's necessarily the case.  Because if I'm not getting the reading I want, it's because of one of two things:

1. The actor and I aren't agreeing on the interpretation of the character speaking that line; or
2. The actor and I DO agree, but they just can't do it.

In the former case (and let's hope they're all this way) starting with trying to make a comment or ask a question to bring the actor onto my page is actually very efficient in the longterm.  Because they will (let's hope!) apply that idea about the character to EVERYTHING, and we won't have to go through this in the next line, the next page, or the next act.  And, in my experience, sometimes their resistance is based on a very valid interpretation that I might like.  Sometimes I agree, usually I don't, but I like having the discussion (after rehearsal if it gets to this point).  And THAT discussion is generally a VERY good sign at the CT level that the actor is engaged and thoughtful enough to do a good job.

Now, if it's the latter case ... yes, then the reading is warranted, but this happens a lot less than I think.

Now, on to the "Who's the Boss?" bit.  If there's an argument with the director over how to do it?  Director wins.  I've been there as an actor.  And if I don't see it, I will make my case as long as it's reasonable to do so (with lengthy asides outside rehearsal time).  But there have been times when I've done that, and the director decided to stay with the option that I thought was weaker.  So, I did it.  Because, in the end, somebody's got to be the final word on that, and that's what the director is for.  And that's just the structure of theatre -- paid or not paid.  Now, you can always just decide it offends your artistic sensibility and quit ... but that may not be good for you in the long run.  I think, though, it's a better option than wilfully sabotaging the director's authority.

Oh, and I AM in the Chicago area.  It's not so bad ... I hardly get shot at all!  (The weather is horrible, though).