Theatre Development Fund – TDF: Character actors often end up with scene-stealing roles on stage. But three plum parts in one Broadway play? That's the hat trick Dylan Baker pulls off in Theresa Rebeck's Bernhardt/Hamlet, in which he portrays celebrated 19th-century theatre actor Benoît-Constant Coquelin, the Ghost in Hamlet and the title role in Cyrano de Bergerac.
8 comments:
For all we know, even actors whose on-screen performances were truly awful may have given a great performance on the set… but the editors, for reasons beyond that actor’s performance, chose to use a piece of footage that did not show the actor at his or her best. Add to writing, direction and screenplay the role of the editor as a huge factor in how we eventually see the actor on screen.
Actors seldom have a say in this after-the-fact selection of footage… which is why they enthusiastically promote their films; then, having seen the films, suddenly back off from promotion duties and later disclaim those performances as part of their resumes. It is also why many actors now produce, direct and edit their own films. Results are mixed, but at least they have some say in what footage makes it to the theaters.
That is why it is very necessary to be in consistency with others involved in a production.
This article describes a play that is about putting on another play. I do not know of many plays that are like this, except maybe Noises Off, but, as far as I can tell, this play sounds like it will be a new and interesting way of exploring and expanding theater. Unlike Noises Off, this play takes a serious and thoughtful approach to the process of putting on a show. There are definitely some more lighthearted moments, but the experience of being an actor or director that the play showcases seems incredibly honest and real. For this kind of theater, I think the credibility and candor of the show is what separates the successful from the less successful. There is such pressure for each show to be groundbreaking and revolutionary and that pressure is exhibited in this play. Even though it is specifically about theater, this pressure is universal and can be understood by anyone. I believe, though I have not read or seen it, that this play will be successful simply because it deals with such universal themes and feelings in such a deft and thoughtful way.
Normally bad acting is not awarded but rather a tabloid or ignored. In this article, it talks about how the “bad” acting or different approach to Shakespeare is being brought to light. “When I read the script I thought, oh my god, I get to play all three of these characters? For somebody who probably had ADHD but was never diagnosed, that sounded great. It really captured my imagination”, said Dylan Baker, the alleged bad actor in Hamlet. I personally found this quote funny because of its blunt honesty. When someone finds out about a role in which that entails multiple characters and personalities, I would assume they would feel overwhelmed. Baker, on the other hand, was excited to hear the news that we was going to be playing three roles and he backed it up by saying how his ADHD would come to life. He thought that the fact that he was playing three different characters captured his ADHD and made his imagination work. The director was immediately appointed to Baker because she knew he would be up for this role. I find it really fascinating that someone could be acting badly on purpose, especially when portraying Shakespeare. I think it’s a really admirable risk that seems to work and bring attention.
When you pay a good amount of money for a ticket at a nicer theater you expect to see a show of a higher caliber. This means nicer sets, better costumes, and really good actors. The fact that one of Coquelin's significant characteristics is being not the best actor strays from that expectation. Although it's pretty easy to be a mediocre actor, and hard to be a good one, it's my belief that it's even harder to badly act when all of your instincts say no. Shakespeare is very rough text to work with, to the point that in many college auditions for actors they will encourage that, in order to showcase your best abilities, if you've never done Shakespeare before, you shouldn't start then. The fact that Baker has to poorly act Shakespeare shouldn't be that hard then. However, I'm very interested in this show because it seems like Baker's Coquelin/Ghost/Cyrano character trio is actually quite interesting. He's not the main character of the play, but he provides a highly relatable person that audiences can look to. He also shows the journey and difficulties of being an actor, especially when it comes to finding the emotion in a piece or part, which he gives the example of with Hamlet.
There is a saying for creative writing, "Write what you know." I think the core idea of this statement is why I always find theatrical pieces about making theatre or films about making movies so touching. Because there is no material as core to artists as the expression of what it feels like to make their art. If you have worked in the theatre industry for several years and are an established professional, there is nothing you know better than the specific joys and irritations of our industry. I believe this intimate knowledge of this subject matter comes through in this interview as Baker discusses playing Benoît-Constant Coquelin in Bernhardt/Hamlet. Baker says, "What I love about the part is being able to connect with the guy that I see when I go into the Actors' Equity Lounge or any kind of cattle-call audition, that fellow who hasn't gotten a break and may now get it. He thinks if he can just get that call, it can change his life." As Baker says towards the end, he is still waiting for "that call" in his own professional life. Therefore, I would love the chance to see what I imagine to be a wonderful performance given how deeply he must understand the emotional core of the character.
Truthfully, this article does not sound like Shakespeare being done badly as it does Shakespeare being done differently. In my opinion, Shakespeare is always poorly done, and usually not very interesting, so it is always nice to see a different take on the Bard and his work. This also sounds like Hamlet is kind-of used as a framing device, or at least a subplot. It sounds relevant, but the main focus is about the person, not the actual play itself. Again I do not believe that this is a bad thing, or doing Shakespeare badly (or any worse than it is usually done). I think that it is very interesting that most of this article is about the actor himself, and not actually about the play. I think that it helps to provide insight into the mindset of said actor and the play itself., which is a perspective not often exposed to me, as a design and production student.
Plays within a play are always a risky move, because sometimes the choice is a bad one. For this play seems to be a good choice. I think that Shakespeare is always super rigid and there are norms that actors should follow when playing one of his characters and I love that this show seems to break those 'rules'. It reminds me of the shows at Oregon Shakespeare Festival because they are constantly reworking Shakespeare's texts to make them fit in new contexts. When I saw the Henry's there it was amazing because they are all set in this modern setting and they are so different from any other of Shakespeare's histories that I've seen. I would really like to go see this show because i think it will be hilarious and I want to see how each of their choices plays out in real life. They made a lot of interesting choices that I think will be executed really well and I am excited to see the success of this show.
I think the title of this article is rather misleading. Baker has created a character that is not the best actor by today's standards, but that is exactly what Baker has intended. The title makes it seem like Baker himself is a bad actor, but he's simply playing one, and I think that creates a larger challenge in and of itself. It reminds me of when I saw the touring production of The Play That Goes Wrong a couple of weeks ago. In that show, every actor is playing a character that is also an exceptionally bad and over the top actor. This adds to the overarching theme in the show that it is a very low budget theatre production company that somehow got its show into a professional theatre space. Throughout the show, scenic elements fall apart, actors get knocked out, and cues fail over and over. I'm interested in the emotion that Baker has invested beneath his character. It seems like there is more depth in his bad acting, since he has invested a lot of hope in his future. I wonder how much that desperation reads to the audience.
Post a Comment