How much like 'playing with fire' was it to cast this actor in that role, given his recent tragedy? I assume this actor still wants to do this part.  Would it be so wrong to suggest he use his real feelings to develop this role?  Most actors use some part of their personal experience to portray whatever they are doing on stage.  There would be nothing wrong with him crying for real (and for his mother) at that part of the play, especially since the two experiences are so perfectly parallel.  That is, unless he can no longer control himself once the crying begins.  If that’s the case, I don’t see him ever getting through that scene successfully, out of fear of ‘losing it.’  If he can stay in control, it might even be liberating for him, and a way to honor his mother in a very public way.  HE is the one who has to decide if he is brave enough to risk doing it, though.  All you can do is be encouraging, and maybe have an understudy at the ready.  May you have great success, whatever you end up doing!  WOW!

As an actor I use my personal experiences all the time, and that could really make this scene wonderful. Even if he did "lose" it a little, that is what happens to real humans beings in that situation. As long as he can get back in control. I would encourage him to think about his mom, have a good, real, cry, and then suck it up and go on.  Gotta tell us how this works out...

Originally posted by Majicwrench I would encourage him to think about his mom, have a good, real, cry, and then suck it up and go on.

I am of the philosophy that this is a dangerous proposition.  I'm not saying it's wrong (nor am I saying it is right).  I am saying that if you "encourage" an actor to go down that path, you damn well better be prepared for the aftermath.  You have no idea where this actor is in their grieving process.  You might get great results and open up opportunities for the actor... you might also open up a big bag of emotional worms that neither you (or the actor) are able to deal with.


Edited by PaulyWally - 2/08/11 at 8:40pm

KEB54 has the right of it.  Forget trying to unlock your actor's emotions.  Way too dangerous.  Work, instead, on the technical points that will convey the emotion you need.  Silent sobs, rather than a vocal outburst, are much more effective.  The old less is more approach.  I'd head in that direction.  By remaining dispassionate about conveying the emotional effect you're after, you'll allow your actor the luxury of bringing to his performance only as much as he is able to share.

Small example:  I had a heart attack a couple of years ago.  I made it to the ER.  Heart stopped beating.  I stopped breathing.  Fell to the floor as the nurse yelled "Crash!"  White light.  Out of body experience.  (Such a cliche, but it did happen.) -- Fast forward a year.  I'm in a play ("Dead Man's Cell Phone") and I have a ten minute monologue wherein my character, speaking from the afterlife, describes the day he died of a heart attack. -- My director was kind enough to allow me to find my own level of comfort with that scene.  Knowing that I could stop whenever it became too uncomfortable for me helped me push myself farther than I otherwise might have. 

It remains one of my favorite roles - second only to Teddy in "Faith Healer."


Edited by edh915 - 2/08/11 at 10:26pm

I feel your pain. Last year we were three weeks into rehearsal for the Wizard of Oz with high school students when our Tin Man died in an accident. We postponed our dates, and did go through with the play. It was very cathartic,  but super stressful. During tech week we took a time and sat together and talked about him, and I encouraged them to cry it out, so that they would not keep bursting into tears. It actually worked, and I think they felt a lot more "in control" after they had the freedom to express. I do think that such a big loss, so short a time ago, and so pertinent to the play is tricky. On stage may be too risky a place to allow the full expression of emotion.