Actual dialogue on one of my shows...

"What's my motivation?"

"Not pi**ing off the director."

In all seriousness, I think Topper nailed it pretty well... the best response to that question is to help the actor sort through what's going on and to encourage them to think.

 

I realize this is a heated topic, and so I'm going to try to be as civil in my response as possible.  My experience has been that "motivation" is just a buzz word of the acting schools that doesn't mean that much.  What's the actor ACTUALLY asking?  If there's a specific question the actor has (e.g., shouldn't I be angrier at Bob for sleeping with my wife?), then the director can deal with it.  But sometimes actors ask about motivation just because they've been taught that they should, and this leads to them wasting a director's time arguing about stuff that doesn't matter (e.g., why Mercutio is so cynical about love- was he hurt in a past relationship?  Was it with Juliet?  How old were they?).  I can fully understand the frustration that directors have when they tell actors, It doesn't matter, or, Because I said so.  And, as a director, let me say that, while ideally an actor will understand why a director tells him to stand up on a certain line, and a good director will try to see that the actor gets it, most of the time, a director that is very specific is that way because he actually has ideas of some worth, and, so, at some point, the actor just has to say to himself, "Although I may want to play this differently, the director obviously wants this, so I should trust him and make what he wants of me work."

My point was that actors sometimes look for motivation where it's irrelevant.  This may be the case because:

1. The motivation is, as Hitchcock would call it, a macguffin- something the playwright doesn't explain because he just wants a plot device without focusing on motivation.

2. The actor is looking for the motivation of something his character did in the past, which is mentioned in passing in an expository line- again, as a macguffin.  The fact is what's important, not the motivation.

3. The play is not meant to be psychologically realistic.  Psychological realism is a stylistic tool that is not intended in many works of theater.

My basic point is: go by the script.  If you're veering far from that to do table work on a motivational question, that should be a tip-off that motivation is something the playwright doesn't want you to consider.

Originally posted by falstaff29 My point was that actors sometimes look for motivation where it's irrelevant .... My basic point is: go by the script.  If you're veering far from that to do table work on a motivational question, that should be a tip-off that motivation is something the playwright doesn't want you to consider.

 

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with this attitude.

One of the first things I teach my acting students is "everything in a script is there for a REASON."  Plays (and screenplays) are constantly being rewritten from draft to draft, readings, rehearsals, previews and so on.  If something in the script has survived that process it's because it is MEANT to be there.

If it's purpose is not apparent from the text, then it is up to the actor and director to DISCOVER (or create) its purpose.  Sometimes the meaning is only relevant to one character or one situation.  Sometimes it's a secret or something completely esoteric, but it must be recognized as IMPORTANT.

If it's not important to the characters, why should it be important to an audience?  Why waste time rehearsing it if it's not important?  Why waste the time and talents of other actors, technicians and designers investing their energy into something that has no purpose or meaning? (And in the case of movie script, why the hell are we waking up an entire crew at 6:00 AM to film something that isn't important?)  And, worse yet, why are being so bold as to charge admission to watch something that ISN'T important?

I learned this lesson many years when I was acting in a play called "Social Security" -- possibly the fluffiest of fluffy situation-comedies.  The director (much to her credit) INSISTED that these cardboard cut-out characters have a LIFE and a HISTORY and MOTIVATION for EVERYTHING they do in this puffball excuse for a script. 

She ordered the entire cast to go home and write a COMPLETE biography of their characters, taking them up to the "present" where the play starts.  All of us grumbled about doing this kind of "bull-sh*t busy-work" that most of us haven't done since college and, as a result, we let our imaginations run amok, creating outrageous scenarios in protest being treated like first-year acting students.

Since there was precious little information in the text, we made up whatever we could.  One character (according to the script) was a famous artist and the actor decided this guy had been married and widowed FOUR TIMES(! -- nowhere was this even HINTED in the text).

My character (according to the script) owned an art gallery and I decided he was once a frustrated artist himself who failed miserably but remains connected to the art world because he can't let go of the past.

The next rehearsal, as we sat around the table and read our biographies to each other, we all laughed at the imaginative "crazy" choices we had made.

The director told us to treat these made-up biographies as fact -- despite their fanciful nature.  (Her argument:  it IS a comedy, after all.)

As we walked through the play again -- suddenly everyboyd noticed a difference.  Because we had created information, our lines were being delivered with a new meaning.  When the artist begins a flirtation with another character, the fact that he'd been widowed so often brought a new level of concern from the rest of us.  Whenever my character had a "throw-away" remark about art and the art world, suddenly my tragic past brought a new gravitas to the lines.

In short, scenes that we had blown through previously now crackled with life, meaning and -- dare I say it? -- MOTIVATION!

Lesson learned?  Absolutely!  Motivation is the ROOT of good acting.  Without it, characters don't exist and are merely spouting words written by someone else.  Motivation means the characters are behaving as REAL as possible -- and not just taking up space, wasting everybody's time.

Topper,

You beat me to the punch. Very well stated.

I had been noting the dichotomy between this thread and the 'changing profanity' thread. Either the scriptwriter had a reason for writing a certain character into the script, or they wouldn't put them there.

The 'what's my motivation' question (which is an umbrella term for the specific character questions that are asked) is part of a normal dialogue that should occur in every show. Whether the question is stated or not, an actor/actress should find a consistent thread between their lines, their scenes, their interactions, and the show.

I usually only ask those kind of questions when the direction I'm given does not display consistency, or fits into any possible interpretation I can find from the script, or my research. I ask those questions so I can figure out what the director was thinking for my character/scene. If the direction is still "Do it this way" without any reason, then fine, I'll do it that way. However, even if it looks good to an audience, it's a hollow performance. I act in CT to act, not to be a warm puppet.

Just so I'm clear about my philosophy regarding directors: a director has the responsibility to have vision for the show, and to be able to guide actors within that vision. If the actor doesn't agree with that vision (or direction for the show), the director has the greater say. To use that authority without explanation (especially at a CT level) is an abuse of that authority.

Discovering motivation is, in my mind, a means of respect to the director, the rest of the company, and the audience.

Regards,

-Tom