Trato Directo

Chapter 4:

Practice-Based Research

This chapter examines my various approaches to improvisation through practice-based- research (PBR). I deconstruct the process of ÔdevisingÕ character, a journey that begins with casting and research strategies, culminating in the maturity of character at the point of filming. Inevitably, such an exploration will lead to questioning the ways in which the improvisation of character informs the development and structuring of narratives, thereby offering a counterpoint to the industry norm of a pre-planned character arc and ÔjourneyÕ that is mapped out through the screenplay. My intention then is to reveal the processes in which a set of Ôinner valuesÕ are defined and to question how these psychological contexts provide foci for the creation of film characters, furthermore, to evidence how improvisation has been used as a development tool for exploring the motivations of a character within a given context.

Characters are fabrications, whether made Ôon the spur of the momentÕ through a practical and physical exploration, or ÔwrittenÕ from the memories of faces and situations that are fleshed out on the page. Syd Field, scriptwriting teacher and author of Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting states Ô[c]haracter is the essential foundation of your screenplay. It is the heart and soul and nervous system of your story. Before you put a word on paper, you must know your character. KNOW YOUR CHARACTER.Õ (Field, 1984: 22)

The improvised character may be wrought out of shimmering notions and elements that are fused together in the fraction of a second. By contrast, the written character is agonised over, teased and stretched out from a range of character types and is designed to operate in a specific mode and follow an ordered trajectory.

Chapter 4: Practice Based Research Page 64

In the opening paragraphs of ÔToward a Physical CharacterizationÕ, Tortsov, the fictional director and professor of acting, makes the following declaration to his eager students:

Most frequently, especially among talented actors, the physical materialisation of a character to be created emerges of its own accord, once the right inner values have

been established. (Stanislavski, 2000: 5)

TortsovÕs statement implicitly draws our attention to a somewhat ÔhiddenÕ facet of the actorÕs condition: recognition of Ôthe selfÕ and a responsibility for developing emotional and intellectual expressions for Ôthe self of characterÕ. The complex relationship between these two distinct, yet interconnected, identities is an interesting dynamic and would, in most cases, represent a specific challenge for the actor working with improvisation; given that this mode of production lacks certainty and fixity, as the character evolves out of the filmmaking process, reacting to the changing stimuli of each scene. Of course, TortsovÕs comments suggest that it is only through establishing a set of inner values that an actor will have the fixity necessary to construct a character. TortsovÕs noteworthy remarks are particularly relevant to my investigation as they provide an essential point of reference regarding the actorÕs inherent Ôstate of mindÕ; suggesting that it is perhaps a precursor to the externalisation of character. Furthermore, they provide a springboard for a much broader dialogue about the nature of character development within the improvised film. If we accept the premise that character-based improvisation begins with lack of specific character details, foundations that a screenwriter would normally place into the script, and we acknowledge that such fixity is required to build a character, then this situation leaves one to ponder whether it is possible for

Chapter 4: Practice Based Research Page 65

improvisation to work effectively within the continuum of a filmÕs production on a moment by moment basis. At what point does a character become locked down, fixed and immovable? Irrespective of the fact that Tortsov and his budding student Kostya Nazvanov are fictional characters, the journey towards understanding inner processes of creating character is, nevertheless, adeptly played out within two of StanislavskiÕs seminal works: An Actor Prepares (Stanislavski, 1980) and Building A Character (Stanislavski, 2000). Personally, I found these texts to be a useful muse for exploring the ÔhiddenÕ craft of acting. Though they do not specifically approach improvisation techniques, the mini ÔclassroomÕ narratives that are offered up contain many scenes that evidence the spontaneous process of creativity and moments of self-discovery; acts of the creative process that the reader is encouraged to view as being ÔtypicalÕ within the rehearsal space. It is not my intention to focus on these spontaneous events, as I will defer to my own practical examples gathered from film acting, rather to use them as a point of reference in analysing the process of inner character development within the improvised film. Significantly, these texts attempt to provide a bridge to our understanding of the thought processes that underpin the creation of a role. Despite the fact that KostyaÕs acting experiences are ÔinventedÕ and overtly ÔdramatisedÕ, the dramatised accounts in which Kostya discovers and reveals aspects of Ôthe selfÕ and emerging craft skills do appear to have a credible strain of ÔtruthÕ to them. One must suppose that such insights were born out of StanislavskiÕs personal observations, as he wrestled with identifying, labelling and synthesising the distinct phases of building a character. Whilst it is unlikely that these forays into the actorÕs consciousness can stand up to rigorous empirical testing, I would argue that StanislavskiÕs texts offer a compelling articulation about the psychology of character and provide a useful paradigm and mirror against which I can test my own practical findings.

Chapter 4: Practice Based Research Page 66

Field (1984: 40), shows how easily the external facets of character can be developed by posing a series of questions to his writing students. The process happens in minutes through a ÔdryÕ and factual question and answer approach. By contrast Kostya, the fictional Stanislavskian student actor, takes an experiential approach to finding his character, spending days exploring a worn coat, borrowed from the costume department, and he only discovers his character under pressure whilst being grilled by Tortsov (Stanislavski, 2000: 17-20). Notwithstanding the context of discovery, an effective character will need to be informed through the imagination in which the actor thinks about upbringing, personal successes and failures, cultural influences, parental and peer pressures, occupation, hobbies, ambition, desires and so forth. It matters little whether character has been conceived through active rehearsal or the process of writing. It should be recognised that within the writing process, ÔimprovisedÕ choice leads the hand in certain directions and not others, as is evidenced in my writing of Birdman (2008). Of course, many practical aspects of production inform, create and further develop the sense of character. Casting might equally be considered an extension of the writing process and for a director, such as Mike Leigh, casting can be considered as the beginning of his ÔwritingÕ process. Likewise, placing characters into a specific mise-en-scene, whether on paper or in the ÔactualityÕ of a film location can be considered part of the writing process and it further defines character in relation to their environment, thereby providing a visual context for the character in action. Costume and props that are specifically linked to a character may not exist on the page, but nevertheless offer further enhancement. Ultimately, the written character has still to be played out and the improvised character must be developed externally and internally. In both cases, the verbal and non-verbal articulations of character must be re-presented and codified through a body language that is ideally character- specific.

Chapter 4: Practice Based Research Page 67

Syd FieldÕs simple paradigm (Fig. 1) demonstrates the dual facets of character. The ÔInteriorÕ - that which forms character and the ÔExteriorÕ Ð everything that depicts and reveals character.

Fig. 1 In commenting on the exterior world of character, Field goes on to say that one of the underlying principles of constructing a character is to think in terms of ÔACTION IS CHARACTER Ð what a person does is what he is, not what he saysÕ. (1984: 37). Field is of course referring to the daily routines and contexts in which a character operates as well as alluding to the bigger dynamics of character action. As the narrative develops, the character is forced to react in bolder and more substantial ways; driven by the imperatives created from the dramatic context. Field comments on how characters should be continually tested through action and reaction, as the bar is raised ever higher and the dramatic pressure piled on. In developing story material for Blood Offering and then Birdman, I found this anchoring point of view useful. Action does not always have to equate to big spectacle. In the character- driven work of smaller films, the dramatic curve of a character may result in the character undergoing a nervous and or physical breakdown, for example Scott, the driving tutor in Happy Go Lucky (2008) and likewise LilithÕs incapacity to deal with the bloody situation confronting her at the end of Blood Offering (2008).

Field asserts that the construction of character needs to be built around an understanding of a characterÕs personality, specifically: Attitude, Point of View and Need. He

Chapter 4: Practice Based Research Page 68

asks ÔWhat does your character want to achieve, or get, during the course of your screenplay?Õ (1984: 31) Essentially, these elements belong to FieldÕs ÔinteriorÕ world of character and the writer is encouraged to explore and engage with these elements when creating a biography.