I was wondering if anyone could give some tips on how they choose the spine. It seems difficult to choose one statement which affects every character. I am directing the play Harvey and I was thinking my Spine could be "To find Acceptance", or "To build relationships"  because in my view every character seems to want to be accepted by society or by a person. I would welcome any advice or opinions. Thanks.

Don't make this harder than it already is.....

 

 

I disagree with Falstaff29.  It doesn't matter if the audience thinks in those terms or not, you and your actors should.  You all need to know more than the audience about the characters, what preceded the action of the play, what happens after the action and so on, so that you will know how to answer the questions Falstaff asks.  If the audience, say, is to be disgusted by a character's actions, what will precipitate that disgust?  Why is the character disgusting?  Does the character know he/she is disgusting? Do the other characters feel he/she is disgusting?  If you create a backstory, examine the "spine" of the play, you will understand better what you want your actors to do.  If you are the actor, you will have a better understanding of this person whose shoes you are standing in.

I will grant that there are many plays where such an examination serves no real purpose.  Maybe Harvey is one.  I played Elwood and, truth to tell, I gave a lot of thought to what had made him the way he is.  Perhaps another actor wouldn't need to do that or feel any motivation to do it.  I think it helps to decide some things for yourself, whether acting or directing.

 

I think it's important for the actors to create character bios and backstories. Not necessarily written out, but it should be thought out. I agree with Juror #3 - the actor playing Elwood needs to examine his past and why he is the way he is.

 

The audience will NEVER know what's going on, but it bonds the actors to their characters and to each other.  What's great about this excercise is there is NO wrong answer.

 

Case in point:  I directed Prelude to a Kiss and we were doing the character rehrearsal.  I had double cast the preacher to Rita's uncle in the next scene.  We (read: the cast) decided that Rita uncle was Rita's mother sister's husband and they met in Vegas where he was a boxer and she was one of the card girls (Mom's sister had a period of wild times).  They met, got married, and he decided to become a minister.

 

The audience knew none of that, the actors had a great time, it really helped the show and we didn't spend time thinking about a "spine", it happened naturally.

 

My point is try to find your own voice and don't sweat it so much.

 

I agree 100% with Tristan.

 

That is all.

 

If you stick your shovel into Shakespeare, Arthur Miller, Chekhov, you can keep digging for miles and still come up with gold.  There's always something more to be found.

 

I once had a director spend an evening discussing the back stories of the characters in Arsenic and Old Lace.  That evening was a waste of time.  The motivations and relationships are all right there on the surface.  There is gold to be found in Harvey and Arsenic and Old Lace, but it's a finite amount and it's all near the top.  If you keep digging past the gold trying to find more where none exists, you just wear yourself out and look silly.

 

Decide what the characters want, why they want it and go from there.  Save your shovel for a bigger mine.

 

I was going to decry the whole idea of putting big spotlights on The Theme; but after twenty years of directing community theater I just started on my first non-equity professional show, Boston Marriage and I've been spending more time than usual on approach.

 

At the readthrough, I gave the actresses references that they wouldn't possibly be able to imitate in the show (nor would I want them to), but to give them character hooks.  Aside from the obvious note that Boston Marriage is a female mirror of the males in American Buffalo (two older people planning a scam who think they're smarter than their young, dim assistant -- and they're not), I also said, "Look at Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?  Anna - you're Martha.  Claire - you're George.  Catherine - you're Honey."  Or Chicago.  Anna is Roxie, Claire is Velma, Catherine is Amos.  I struck gold when, referring to the two older women who think they're intelligent, compared to the honest, helpfully dim maid, I said, "You're two Hardys and a Laurel."  The woman playing Catherine loved that because it gives her a handle on the character without dictating line readings -- honest, lovable, simple; but really slow on the uptake.

 

Using the Virginia Woolf reference gets us away from the "They're Lesbians!!!" aspect, which doesn't really enter into it.  The focus is not on two lesbians, it's on a bad marriage which happens to be between two women.

 

So yeah, I guess I think a lot about the focus of the show, and what hooks to give actors that will help them play it; I just tend to shy away from making that process a big deal.  I decide what I want from the show and go after it.

 

Originally posted by Popeye the Sailor I yam what I yam and tha's all I am.

 

Sometimes the part and/or the show speaks for itself.

 

Not to take this subject too lightly though, when I am acting I spend a lot of time in character analysis, relationship dynamics, historical and literary connections, backstory links, subtext, and even at times, the "spine" of the story and production.  I do this not only to prepare my character, but...it's a major part of what I enjoy about building a character.

 

As a director, I give the actors just enough to start the ball rolling (much as AMOS HART said, with references familiar enough to ring the bell) and primarily ask them for input as they begin to figure things out themselves (tailoring my reaction to their responses toward the path I wish them to proceed).  Too much analysis on the director's part, it seems to me, distracts the actors from doing their own job.

 

Certainly we should ask questions such as  "What is the audience to enjoy?" or "What should the reaction to this moment be?", but to stop there would be to do a disservice to the production.  A comic moment, for example, could be made comic in a multitude of ways; the spine can assist us in ruling out the least appropriate way and direct us toward the more telling choices. 

 

It is true that certain plays will be more limited in their choices for spine, but they still posess one.  (Plays are "an imitation of an action"; drama depicts a stuggle.) 

 

As far as the actors go, it may not be necessary to bore them with details of your analysis.  (Kazan, in his discussion of spine, states that he doesn't discuss this with the actors.)  All they may need is a good image or analogy (as the "Virginia Woolf"/ Laurel and Hardy one above), or just "move there": whatever works for them. The point is that analysis will help you as director develop your vision, and when an actor makes a choice that runs counter to that vision or does not support it, you are able to steer him/her back in the right direction .

 

To the poster of "Seusical" above:  I know exactly what you mean.  Many times an actor will ask a question which seems like it should be obvious to anyone who has read the play or one that seems just plain ridiculous.  I constantly have to remind myself in these cases that the actor may be at a certain point in their development, may have a certain approach to their craft or that the actor is simply dealing with one aspect of the production (their character) and may not "see the forest for the trees".  I use this as an opportunity to clarify and (hopefully) push them in the proper direction.

 

I think the first things you said about identifying the spine of Harvey are the exact kind of observations and conclusions you should be making. You do have to examine what every character is going through. When you do, you find commonalities. Those commonalities are the basis for your spine, or theme. To not search for those, and to disregard them, is an insult to the playwright who put them there for a reason. Any director who advises their actors not to bother with asking important character questions or devising backstories, shouldn't be directing. Those directors and actors are only concerned with the outward appearance of their characters. The character then has no inner life. The inner life of the character makes for a fuller, more honest, and better performance. I don't care what different school of acting you study, Stanislavsky, Meisner, Hagen, Strassberg, any acting teacher, book, director worth their salt will concur.

 

That said, one of the techniques I use is called from what...through what...to what. It works like this:

 

From what: When the play begins, how is the world of the play? From where is the beginning of the play coming? What happened just before the play began? Remember, every beginning of a story is just the middle or end of another story

 

Through what:What transpires during the course of the play? How is the established world changed or challenged? What events occur and what are their impact on the people in the story? (Notice I said people not characters)

 

To what: What is left at the end? How is the world of the play different? Are questions answered? Are new ones put forth? Where do the characters go from here?

 

Lastly, the other thing to identify is conflict. The heart of drama, and stories in general, is conflict. Identify these (yes there may be more than one) in terms of forces or concepts (ie., man vs. nature, passionate love vs. marriages of convenience, old age vs. youth, etc.) The identified spine and the from-thru-to will support the conflict.

 

Any director that doesn't do their homework, is a lazy director. Actors who don't do their homework are lazy as well. It doesn't matter if the audience thinks in those terms. The director and actors have to know more about the play and the characters than the audience. And believe me, the audience does perceive it on some level.

 

In reading some of the responses here, don't be swayed by the "don't make it so hard" comments. Directing is hard! No one ever said it should be easy. Even the most trvivial seeming play has a conflict. Do you need as deep and thorough an analysis of Grease as you do Death of a Salesman? Well maybe not. But you still need to flesh it out to a certain extent. Attention must be paid.   Good luck!

 

 

 

Now, when I was taught the _Backwards and Forwards_ method by David Ball for script analysis, light bulbs went on.  Remember everything that happens in a play happened because something caused it to happen.  Work backwards in the script to discover the causes, and then you can find out why it happened.  Know the "why," the "what," and the "who," and you can help your actors become the characters.