-Cassie Ching
142B Dis: 1E
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Still Confused Over Little's Question
I'm sorry but I'm still wondering about Little's question. I think that our last discussion was very helpful but I guess whether there are players playing at acting or actors acting at playing really depends on how you take it. A good point that was mentioned during the discussion, I think, was that the characters were simply taking on the stereotypical roles of "mourner" or "lover" and were thus players playing at acting. At the same time though, I personally thought that Orsino and Olivia's dialogues seemed to be "scripted" and not quite authentic and so I was wondering if, in that aspect, they could be taken as actors acting at playing too. What are your thoughts?
-Cassie Ching
142B Dis: 1E
-Cassie Ching
142B Dis: 1E
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I too am confused regarding this notion... here are a few relevant points that might help encourage further discussion or bring us closer to the clarification of this concept…
1) Robert Weimann was the literary theorist who first published work regarding this distinction between playing and acting well-known among Shakespearian critics/theorists… To the best of my knowledge, Weimann makes his argument in full proportion in his book ‘Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theater: Studies in the Social Dimension of Dramatic Form and Function…’
This Wikipedia article digs into the differences between ‘playing’ and ‘acting’ and mentions Robert Weimann as a major force in developing the concept…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentational_acting_and_Representational_acting
Here is a segment from the article (in regard to ‘playing’ or ‘presentational acting’):
“Conventionalized presentational devices include the apologetic prologue and epilogue, the induction (much used by Ben Jonson and by Shakespeare in The Taming of the Shrew), the play-within-the-play, the aside directed to the audience, and other modes of direct address. These premeditated and ‘composed’ forms of actor-audience persuasion are in effect metadramatic and metatheatrical functions, since they bring attention to bear on the fictional status of the characters, on the very theatrical transaction (in soliciting the audience’s indulgence, for instance), and so on. They appear to be cases of ‘breaking frame’, since the actor is required to step out of his role and acknowledge the presence of the public, but in practice they are licensed means of confirming the frame by pointing out the pure facticity of the representation.”
- Keir Elam,
The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama, p.90
2) Here some basics based on notes I took from lecture/discussion:
When one is acting he is performing, he is reading the script, we are aware of him as the character. When you are playing, we aren’t aware of him as the character but as the actor… Actors read scripts and players play with the audience.
Acting – Less self aware, awareness of playing roles… governed by the script, less genuine. Text based.
Playing – Stepping away from script, more awareness/interaction with the audience and what is going on outside of the stage, more genuine. Actor based.
3) Orsino/Olivia/Violet, actors acting at playing or players playing at acting?
I am still a bit confused to whether there is a concrete answer for this question or whether it is meant to be left up to interpretation… Can anyone else give their interpretations and if so, could you please back it up with references in the text? If anyone is interested I will post my interpretations as well, so we all might come closer to clarifying this perplexing concept!
Thanks!
-James Steel
-14B Dis: 1D
Sorry the wikipedia link got cut off...
here it is in case any of you tried to reach the page and received an error message...
Differences Between Playing and Acting (Presentational & Representational)
I thought the discussion of this after the lecture was really interesting, as everyone had different views and opinions of the definitions of playing and acting. I agree with the idea that an actor playing with the audience and moving away from a static script is more genuine way of performing, but I always keep thinking that my opinion would change upon watching a performance of one of the plays, just because it would draw out so many different emotions.
People in my discussion were asking about the significance of this idea in the plays, and I tried to voice my views in class, but got very tongue-tied, so I thought I'd share them here. I think that the characters that are playing, rather than acting, prove to be more credible and believable in their roles. In Twelfth Night, I thought that Feste was very believable, as on the surface he did play the fool, but showed his emotional layers in his intelligent comments and reflections on what is going on around him.
Conversely, I did think that the Duke and Olivia were acting as they were so overly exaggerated and absorbed in their own little worlds - grief and love - that they did not really interact genuinely with the other characters in the play. I lost interest quickly with these two characters, as, quite frankly, I just didn't buy it. The excessive 'drama queen' aspects of these characters didn't fit with the actual genuine characters like (in my opinion) Viola.
I did really enjoy this play though =)
I hope this made some sense!
Jessica White
Discussion 1D
Post a Comment