Musings on "type"

[madbaker]

I am trying to stretch myself a bit for this year's GSP commedia production -- having played the role multiple times, Leandro would be pretty easy for me, and I wouldn't need too much more effort to get into Arlecchino.

So I'm auditioning for Capitano. (As well as Dottore.) I'd like to play Brighella eventually, but not this year. Pantalone doesn't interest me as yet.
I hadn't thought about it much beyond "wanting to stretch". Talking Wednesday with goldenstag and aastg, they made the point that it's against type for me. That Brighella and Dottore are closer to my personality than Capitano.

I could be offended by that if I really wanted to, but it's true to the extent that they meant it. I enjoy pompously explicating (a la Dottore) and I've been known to prevaricate. Once or twice. Not to the extent of Brighella, and I'm not the schemer that he is - but yeah, I can see getting into that headspace.

Capitano, on the other hand, is a lot of things I'm not: boastful and extroverted. Cowardly. Quick to anger and just as quick to recoil in fear when challenged. Etc.

That's probably the appeal, and I guess that's why I'm interested in playing him this year. It's a challenge and I'll have to work if I get the part.

Comments

[roswtr.livejournal.com]

I like the challenge of stretching for a new role and playing against type. Mechanically, I'd like to see you as Brighella or Dottore just because you'd be in the best position to keep the story on track.

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

Right now I know the scenario better than anyone, but once everyone gets a few rehearsals under their belts I don't think the mechanics will be an issue.

[goldenstag.livejournal.com]

Gosh, I wonder why that is? (knowing the scenario better ...)

FWIW, the area I think you need to work the most for Capitano is the physicality. It's radically different from what you've done before ... That said, obviously no final decisions have been made yet.

[klwilliams.livejournal.com]

It's called "acting" for a reason. If you were just going to play yourself, why get on a stage?

[goldenstag.livejournal.com]

Well, yes and no. No individual role will ever be "identical" to an individual personality, but some are going to be closer than others, just by the nature of the beast.

Playing "to type" is not necessarily bad. There are a lot of good things about that, but the challenge isn't as great.

Playing "against type" is harder, much more of a challenge. Some people handle that challenge easier (can slip into a radically different character from their own somehow), some find it much more of a stretch and an actual challenge.

I don't have a problem with someone wanting to play "to type", if that's their comfort zone and they aren't ready to leave it. I do think, as madbaker seems to, that the real challenge is playing "against type", but some folk aren't ready for it.

Nothing wrong with either, it depends on how much of a challenge you want or need to keep it interesting.

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

The character of Leandro is not me, not by a long shot. But I've played him - and roles like him - enough that I can slip into the part physically and mentally with very little effort. It can still be fun; but it's not a challenge anymore.

It's the actor's equivalent of, I don't know, "Fair Mistlands" for Mists bards? a piece that you can perform, and try to continue to perform well; but you've done it so many times that you know it by rote. It's not as taxing as your latest piece that's a poetry style you've never tried before.